No. 83
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, April 15, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 15, 19()9
Election Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 3053
Niagara River diversion, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Nixon 3053
Physicians Services Incorporated, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon and
Mr. MacDonald 3053
Hall report, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 3054
Port Maitland area, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 3054
Radiation from colour television sets, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 3055
Human Tissue Act, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 3055
Metro Toronto subway extension, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 3056
Constitutional committee of officials, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 3056
Middlesex South by-election, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 3056
Streetsville area development, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 3056
Guertler report, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Haggerty 3057
Seaway opening anniversary, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Shulman 3057
Tabling answers to questions on the order paper, Mr. Robarts (see appendix) 3058
Ontario government employees' health plan, question to Mr. MacNaughton,
Mr. Shulman 3058
Ontario Hospital in Orillia, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman 3059
Transfer of prisoner, question to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Shulman 3059
Hamilton urban renewal scheme, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Deans 3060
Queen's Park Hansard offices, question to Mr. Connell, Mr. Deans 3060
Saltfleet Mountain development, question to Mr. Randall, Mr. Deans 3060
Glue sniffing, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Deans 3060
Minimum wage, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. De Monte 3061
Microbiologists, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. De Monte 3061
Algonquin Park development, questions to Mr. Auld, Mr. Stokes 3062
Lakehead City, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Knight 3062
Class A motor vehicle mechanics, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Knight 3063
Labour-Management Arbitration Commission Act, 1968, question to Mr. Bales,
Mr. Pilkey 3063
Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, question to Mr. Dymond, Mrs. M. Renwick 3064
Private investment in nursing homes, question to Mr. Dymond, Mrs. M. Renwick 3064
Doctor vacancies at mental hospitals, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mrs. M. Renwick 3065
Electro-shock treatment in mental hospitals, question to Mr. Dymond, Mrs. M. Renwick 3065
High-rise development in Scarborough, questions to Mr. Randall, Mrs. M. Renwick . 3065
one units for the elderly, questions to Mr. Randall, Mrs. M. Renwick 3065
Occupancy of OHC units, questions to Mr. Randall, Mrs. M. Renwick 3066
Ontario Northland Railway, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Ferrier 3067
Zinc and copper smelters, questions to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Ferrier 3067
Residential development in rural areas, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Pitman 3067
Ontario Housing Corporation contracts, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Bullbrook 3068
VVarrandale complex, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Dymond, Mr. Brown 3068
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3069
Recess, 6 o'clock 3097
Appendix 3097
3053
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We start off our new sittings
with our galleries full. Our guests in the
east gallery today are from Paris Central
Public School, Paris, and St. Marys High
School in St. Marys; and in the west gallery
from Bishop Strachan School in Toronto and
from Bayview Junior High School in Willow-
dale. Later, in the east gallery, we will wel-
come students from Main Street School in
Toronto.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ELECTION ACT
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend
The Election Act.
Mr. Speaker: This bill does not bear the
certificate of the legal officers that it has
properly been given notice.
Will you take it to the Clerk and see that
it has properly been given notice.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this amendment
requires that contributors to election cam-
paigns report contributions of more than $100
to the Provincial Secretary. The purpose of
tliis amendment is to inform the pubhc of the
sources of funds of the political parties in this
province.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I have several questions
for the Premier (Mr. Robarts) who is not here
as yet; meanwhile, a question for the Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management.
Will the recent agreement, signed on
March 21, authorizing a diversion of water
in the Niagara River to increase hydro pro-
duction in the United States have any effect
on Ontario Hydro's faciUties, now or in the
near future?
Tuesday, April 15, 1969
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
subject to ratification by the U.S. Senate of
a temporary change in the Niagara River
Treaty, the agreement of March 21 authorizes
a temporary flow diversion for increased
production of electricity in the generating
facilities, both of the power authority of the
state of New York and of Ontario Hydro. The
agreement will have no other effect on On-
tario Hydro facilities.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask the Minister, Mr.
Speaker, if in fact the diversion of water is
is excess of just allowing the clean up of the
edge of the American falls, as was originally
reported, and in fact is going to be a diver-
sion of water for a longer period of time?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Not as I know it, Mr.
Speaker. This additional power, of course,
will be produced by diverting the water at
the American falls, and it will be used by
both the power authority of the state of
New York and Ontario Hydro. As soon as
they have completed their insi>ection of the
American falls then the water will be allowed
to flow in its normal channel.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of tlie Minister of Health.
Are the Minister's negotiations with Physi-
cians Services Incorporated designed to trans-
fer their function to OMSIP or to maintain
their position as a non-profit carrier when
Ontario comes under the federal provisions
of Medicare?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon.
member for York South has a quite similar
question would he be prepared to put that at
the same time?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Yes,
Mr. Speaker, my question was for the last
day prior to the recess.
First, has the Minister approached Physi-
cians Services Incorporated requesting that
this body become an agent or carrier within
a proposed Medicare plan for the province
of Ontario?
3054
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Two, did the government present a pro-
posed agreement to PSI?
Three, what was PSI's reaction?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, in answer-
ing the hon. member for York South first,
because the first part of his question comes
in that order, I have approached PSI and
other carriers and have put before them a
draft proposal. I am not prepared at this
time to state what the reaction was because
those whom I met were members of the
executive board and did not have authority
to speak for the organization; but tlie board
is to meet very shortly and then I will get
their reaction.
Further than that, sir, I do not believe
that I am presently in a position to discuss in
the House, just in specifics, what we did
present to them. This will all come before
the House as soon as I have their reaction.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the Minister can give us assurance tliat this
agreement will come to the House before
elsewhere.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I believe, Mr. Speaker,
the government must take responsibility for
this; and I would give the hon. member
assurance that I shall discuss his views with
the Prime Minister before we do anytliing.
I can assure you that if the hon. member
is speaking about publicity or publication, the
House will know before anybody else wHl.
Mr. Speaker: Today, and until further
notice, it is every member for himself as you
catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
The hon. member for Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Minister of Health was on his feet.
There were some questions asked in liis
absence l)cfore we rose. I wonder if the Min-
ister could favour us with a reply to those
questions before I put the next series to him?
I might add, Mr. Speaker, looking through
the report of the debates of April 3, I do not
find them recorded in the index. So if tlie
Minister wishes, I may read them again, or
does he have them there?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I take it
the hon. member for Himiber has reference
to question 1109;
Will the numerous factual errors we have
found in the Hall report remain incorrect
in tlie public record for all time merely l^e-
cause tlic committee has now disbanded?
Will all questions arising specifically from
tlie report go unanswered by tlie Minister,
mcrcl>' l>ecause the committee has now dis-
banded?
Mr. Speaker, first of all we cannot agree with
the hon. member that there are factual errors
in the report; if he would be good enough to
gi\e us a list of those errors which he terms
factual \\e will certainly look into it.
But I would point out, sir, that this was a
report of a conunittec that had the powers of
a Royal commission, and therefore neither I
nor the department nor the government can
take responsibility for it. It was submitted to
us as their view after the studies they con-
ducted.
The next question the hon. member had
asked, 1110:
In the light of all the new medical evi-
dence which has accumulated in tlie inr
terim, does die Minister still believe that
we are dealing only with the effects of
inorganic fluorides in the Port Maitland
area?
On what medical evidence does he base
his own opinion, given on page 2859 of
Hansard, that there is no significant risk of
acute fluorosis or health hazard from
organic fluorides in die Port Maidand area?
Does the word "significant" imply "little
risk to any given individual" or is it merely
referring to statistical significance?
Mr. Speaker, to date there has been no medi-
cal evidence of human intoxication by in-
organic or organic fluorides or any other
substance in the Port Maidand area.
If the hon. member would provide this
department with the new medical evidence to
which he refers and which he states has
l>een accumulated, we will be pleased to re-
view it. Several leading medical specialists,
perhaps the best in the field in the world,
were used as consultants to the committee.
They included Dr. P. J. Lawther, Dr. A. E.
Martin and Dr. K. J. R. Wightman.
The word "significant" implies "little risk
to any individual".
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister
accept a supplementary question?
Dors the Minister read the questions diat
have been submitted and to which he is giv-
ing answers, or is it that he just reads the
answers?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I think
my answers arc indicative of the fact diat I
ha\c read the questions.
APRIL 15, 1969
3055
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order
—well, I cannot rise on a point of order, but
the fact is that we have been giving him a
list of all the errors contained in this report,
and that is what we have been putting for-
ward to him.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has asked
his questions. They have been answered in the
manner in which the Minister feels they
should be answered, and the hon. member
has not the opportunity to debate them now.
He has the opportunity to raise them either
at an appropriate time in the debates of the
House or by way of another question.
Mr. Ben: Very well. I have a series of new
questions.
Is the Minister studying the effect of the
radiation emitting from colour television sets?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, no, we are
not. We are unable to test individual tele-
vision sets on any wide scale. Preliminary
studies performed here and by the radiation
protection division of Ottawa have confirmed
that some small high-voltage tubes emit more
than standardized— but not necessarily dan-
gerous—radiation owing to manufacturing
defects. However, so far we have failed to
detect evidence of a widespread condition
that could be called a public hazard.
Since the face of the picture tube does not
transmit any appreciable amount of X-ray,
the problem will be eliminated through
proper chassis design and quality control of
rectifier and regulator tubes. The most re-
cent investigation in the United States seems
to indicate that some manufacturers base not
responded to official recommendation as well
as desired. We are in communication with
the radiation protection division. We are
advising inquirers that in case of doubt, view-
ing from a normal distance of approximately
five feet will eliminate any hazard.
Mr. Ben: Will the Minister accept a supple-
mentary question?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes.
Mr. Ben: To what degree must these sets
be present before the Minister deems them
to be a public hazard, and is not 20 per cent
a hazardous situation?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am afraid, Mr.
Speaker, the technique of that question is
beyond my capability to answer, but I can
assure the hon. member that if public hazard
should occur with the use of these appliances,
the public will be made aware of it.
Mr. Ben: May I ask just one more supple-
mentary question?
Is the Minister aware that 20 per cent of
5,000 sets tested were defective and were
emitting dangerous radiation?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I heard
that figure and I then heard it contradicted.
Mr. Ben: Another question of the hon.
Minister.
Where did he hear of the contradiction,
may I ask him that?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I heard it on the TV
programme following the one where I heard
the question.
Mr. G. Demers (Nickel Belt): The member
is a nitpicking little kid!
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Ben: Is the Minister prepared to intro-
duce an amendment to The Human Tissue
Act which will require coroners to veto body
transplants if there is reason to believe that
an inquest may be required on the body?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the
answer is no, because I do not think it is
necessary. I believe that section 8 of The
Coroners Act clearly provides that there shall
be no interference with any body coming
within the coroner's responsibility, without
his direction.
Mr. Ben: I should ask the Attorney General
what is meant by "reason to believe".
I have one more question, Mr. Speaker:
does the Attorney General— I am sorry— one
more question to ask of the Attorney General.
Mr. Speaker: That is quite correct. While
the member is on his feet he may ask all his
questions,
Mr. Ben: Does the Attorney General agree
with the Ontario supervising coroner, Dr.
H. B. Gotnam, that Ontario legislation should
not contain a legal definition of death, since
death is a medical matter, as reported in the
Toronto Star on April 9, 1969?
Perhaps as a supplementary question, you
might define what "reason to believe" is?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I would like an opportunity to
discuss this with Dr. Gotnam to see what his
opinion is, and then perhaps I can give an
answer as to whether I agree or hot.
3056
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. leader of
the Opposition would now place his question
of the Premier? Would he wish to do that?
Mr. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if the Premier can tell the House
what is the state of negotiations that ha\c
been taking place between Queen's Park
officials and representatives of Metropolitan
Toronto in connection with the possibility of
the northward extension of the Yonge Street
subway to Finch A\ enue.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): No
negotiations have taken place; it is subject to
the usual subsidy, and if Metro chooses to
go ahead with it the subsidy will be paid,
but no negotiations have been taking place.
Mr. Nixon: Then the Premier is not aware
of any particular talks invobing the go\'ern-
ment? I would like to ask the Premier who
is representing the government of Ontario at
the meetings of the continuing constitutional
committee of officials under way in Ottawa
this week, and do these officials ha\'e specific
terms of reference co\ ering their position and
statements in Ottawa?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Macdonald, who is
the Deputy Minister of The Department of
the Treasury and Economics; Mr. Stevenson;
Mr. Greathed; Mr. Dick, the Deputy Attor-
ney General; and Mr. Brannan, who is secre-
tary of the Treasury Board, are representing
the L'ovemment there. They have rather gen-
eral terms of reference but nothing specific
or written down. We have discussed in some
detail what is going to go on at that meeting,
but that is about all I can say as far as the
terms of reference are concerned.
Mr. Nixon: I am quite interested in how
this is going to work. Would we presume that
the continuing committee of officials from the
various provinces would perhaps work out
some sort of general position of agreement,
report it to their various governments, and
then at the next federal-provincial conference
involving the Premiers and Prime Ministers
an agreement, or at least a discussion on that
basis, would take place?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the con-
tinuing committee, of course, was established
in order to work out the means whereby we
could attack the problem of constitutional re-
vision and review. Their original approach
was to deal with the propositions I tabled
in the House here. They are continuing their
discussions and the procedures are really still
in a process of evolution. Since the last con-
ference there have been, I think, five minis-
terial committees set up. The hon. leader of
the Opposition will recall that the conference
itself decided to establish ministerial commit-
tees. They have been set up, and their early
meetings are now being arranged, so that we
are still in a process of establishing proce-
dures. Really, these meetings are for the pur-
pose of discussing how we are to proceed,
and what is discussed there will be brought
back to the government. Then we will set out
policies from there, but at this stage of the
game we are not following a fixed agenda
nor have we solidified the procedures that
will be followed.
Mr. Nixon: I take it, no decision has been
made as to when the next top-level confer-
ence will take place.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I have had some cor-
respondence with the Prime Minister of
Canada in this regard, but it is necessary to
find dates to suit the heads of 11 govern-
ments, and believe me it is not simple. I am
not certain yet whether final dates have been
set, but there is correspondence back and
forth with that idea in mind.
Mr. Nixon: I would like also to ask the
Premier, Mr, Speaker, the following question:
When will the Premier call a byelection in
the vacant constituency of Middlesex South?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: In due course. I cannot
call one when the House is in session, of
course— the hon. leader of the Opposition
knows that— but would welcome a contest
there at the earliest possible moment.
Mr, MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the Prime Minister, Do the gov-
ernment's plans for development in the
Golden Horseshoe envisage a further popu-
lation concentration of 200,000 in the Streets-
ville area?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr, Speaker, it is rather
difficult to answer that question. I would say
no, the government has no plans that envisage
200,000 people in the Strectsville area. On
the other hand, there are plans being devel-
oped by various people in various areas of
the province. I presume this comes from the
headlines that are in the paper, and it will
be dealt with in the normal course of events
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr,
McKcough)— when the plans are finalized
they will have to be submitted to him. But
we are not as a government involved in this
plan—
APRIL 15, 1969
3057
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
I might ask the Prime Minister this question:
The MTARTS programme presented the gov-
ernment with four alternatives and the re-
search people of that project said it is now
the government's obligation to make a deci-
sion. Is it the government's intention to let
private developers make the decisions?
Hon. Mr. Rob arts: No, of course it is not,
and we are presently considering the review
of the goals plans that were set out by the
MTART study. That is presently being ex-
amined very carefully by the government and
this will have to fit into whatever plans we
eventually arrive at. The point I make is
this, that anybody can dream up a plan for
anything in the area, but it does not neces-
sarily involve the government, and this plan
has not been submitted to the government
nor has it government approval. It will be
considered in our total approach. As I say,
we are studying the goals plans as set down
by the MTART study, so this just forms part
of the general development.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, by way of
a further supplementary question— when is
tlie government going to make a decision on
the alternatives presented by MTART, be-
cause if it does not make it soon, these
developers will be making the decision for
you— is that satisfactory?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is neither satis-
factory, nor the fact, Mr. Speaker. They can-
not go ahead with this plan without the
approval of The Department of Municipal
Affairs and I would only say that it is a very,
very complex matter.
I would hope to be able to make a state-
ment in the House in the not too distant
future concerning the whole problem of the
development of techniques for dealing with
regional development and, of course, this is
part of it. It is extremely complex and you
cannot simply take the goals and plans as set
down by MTART and in a relatively short
time, say, "all right here is the hard and fast
plan and this is what we are going to adhere
to as a policy." It requires a great deal of
study and examination and of course we are
very busy at that on a continuing basis now.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, by way of a
further supplementary question on another
important aspect of this—
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Oh, come on, the hon. member has had about
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): It is most
important.
Mr. MacDonald: Through you, Mr.
Speaker, I will inform the Minister of Reve-
nue we have had three and now we are going
to have a fourth.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: A year ago, Mr. Speaker,
on May 15, I raised with tlie Prime Minister
the question— in view of public expenditure of
money through the OWRC of $88 miUion for
tlie development of sewers and water courses
throughout that area, "has the government
taken any steps to make certain that some
portion of the inflated values of land in this
whole area are going to come back to the
public treasury," to pay for this $88 million,
in part or whole?
Mr. Speaker: Obviously the Prime Minister
has either not accepted the supplementary or
is not answering it. I would ask the member
for Welland South to place his question for
the Prime Minister now.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Speaker, a question to the Premier of Ontario:
Is the Premier now in a position to indicate
when he expects to table the Guertler Report?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, once again
this report, of course, is now in the hands of
the government. It involves many thousands
and thousands of acres and it involves, indeed,
many millions of dollars embodied in its
recommendations. Those recommendations are
now being studied. I would hope to be able
to table the report so that the people con-
cerned, particularly those in the area, may
have an opportunity of seeing what is pro-
posed. However, I really do not want to do
that until I am able to make some intelligent
comment upon the report from a government
point of view.
This means that we have to take the re-
commendations in the report and examine
them quite carefully to see what the imphca-
tions are. As soon as this is complete the re-
port will be made public.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park was on his feet a moment ago. Perhaps
he would start his questions with those of the
Prime Minister?
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My first question to the Prime Minister is:
In view of the tremendous economic progress
developed for Ontario by the St. Lawrence
3058
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Seaway how does the government intend to
commemorate the tenth anniversary of the
opening of the seaway on June 26?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, we
have spent some considerable time on this
matter. We are well aware of the importance
of the seaway and we have been co-operating
with the federal govenmient, the seaway
authority itself and with the eight states
bordering on the Great Lakes which are in-
volved in this.
I can give the member a pretty complete
rundown: On Febniary 12 I wrote to the
leader of his party and the leader of the Op-
position, outiining in general terms the ap-
proach the government would take to the
tenth anniversary of the seaway, which is
June 26. We have written to various com-
munities along tlie seaway drawing to their
attention that the tenth anniversary is this
summer. We hope to stimulate some recogni-
tion of this date in order that tlie people of
the province may fully understand what the
seaway has meant to this province, and we
are encouraging various organizations, such
as chambers of commerce and so on, to take
part in the celebration.
We propose to feature the seaway and its
advantages to Ontario on some of our promo-
tional hterature because it is a tourist attrac-
tion, among other things, so that, in the pro-
motional material we put out tliis summer,
this will be featured.
The federal government has announced
plans to hold a ceremony on June 26 at "Man
and His World" which we presume will be
operating then, adjacent to the St. Lambert
lock in Montreal. I think perhaps, everything
going well, I might attend tliat ceremony my-
self. Also on June 26 there will be ceremonies
to open a new lock in the Sault Ste. Marie
complex of locks. We will have a representa-
tive tliere.
On June 16, ten days prior to the anniver-
sary, the governors of the eight states plan
to make an aerial tour of the seaway. The
government is now attempting to arrange
some form of entertainment for these eight
governors at Upper Canada village, which—
as members are aware— was created as a
result of the seaway.
There will be a meeting here of all the
governors sometime between now and June.
We have met in various places and they will
be meeting here to finalize these plans.
Various naval vessels will sail up and down
the seaway during this time to provide some
form of colour and attraction so that we may
draw this ver\- significant event to the atten-
tion of as many people as possible.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Premier accept a
supplementary?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Oh, yes!
Mr. Shulman: Would the Premier inform
me why the plans of this government were
annoimccd in the U.S. Senate rather than in
the Ontario Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I have not the vaguest
idea what was announced in the U.S. Senate.
If the member wants an intelligent answer to
a supplementary question, he should include
it in the original question and then I might
be able to answer.
But I cannot answer that question because
I do not read the proceedings of the United
States Senate. I do know this, that what we
propose to do has been communicated to the
leader of the member's party, and to the
leader of the Opposition. There is nothing
secret in what we are doing, but it is all in
a state of formation at the moment. I prob-
ably would prefer to make an announcement
about it when the plans are complete, but I
have given the member a progress report.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a series
of questions.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question for the
Attorney General, I see it has been redirected
to the Prime Minister.
The question is: when does the Attorney
General intend to answer my question about
problems in the division court, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it so
happens I ha\e the answers which I propose
to table to questions numbered 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 34, 39, 40, 41, 44 and 46 on the
order paper, and I believe some of these
questions to which the hon. member refers
are contained in these.
[See Appendix, page 3097].
Mr. Shulman: I thank the Prime Minister.
I ha\e a question for the Provincial
Treasurer, Mr. Speaker.
Will Ontario go\ernment employees, carr>'-
ing the London Life health plan, be covered
to the extent of the new Ontario Medical
Ass( ci.ition fees?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial
Treasurer): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
APRIL 15, 1969
3059
The present plan covers 100 per cent of the
1967 OMA fee schedule and those employees
who have subscribed to the supplementary
major medical plan w^ill be able to claim the
increased cost against the coverage. Pro-
vision of 100 per cent coverage of the new
schedule of the OMA fees is dependent upon
the outcome of current fringe benefits nego-
tiations between the CSAO and the govern-
ment.
Mr. Shulman: I thank the hon. Treasurer.
A question of the Minister of Labour: Why
does Texas Gulf Sulphur pay a higher rate
to the Workmen's Compensation Board, $4
per $100 payroll, than does INCO, even
though Texas Gulf Sulphur has a lower
accident rate?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, this question will require a fair
amount of research and I would ask the hon.
member to place it on the order paper for
a written answer.
Mr. Shulman: I will ask that it be put on
the notice paper, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question of the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management: Has a "secret"
report been prepared by the Ontario Water
Resources Commission outlining plans to
provide water and sewer services to the
Langstaff area, as stated in the Toronto Star
of April 12?
If there is such a report, will the Minister
reveal its contents?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I will
take the hon. member's question as notice.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Health:
Has the RCMP carried out investigations
at the Ontario Hospital in Orillia regarding
the sale of marijuana or hashish?
Did the RCMP apprehend one Vincent S.
at the Ontario Hospital and lay charges
against him in connection with the possession
of hashish?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the
RCMP did carry out an investigation on
March 5, 1969, regarding the use of mari-
juana or hashish by several new members of
the staff at the OHS at Orillia. One member
of the staff was charged in connection with
possession of hashish. He has just now been
placed on suspended sentence as he was con-
sidered by the court to be an excellent
rehabilitation possibility.
We placed him on suspension when he was
apprehended by the RCMP. He has now
been returned to duty, since our staff also
consider him a good rehabilitation possibility.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
How widespread is the use of marijuana
or hashish among the staff of the Ontario
Hospital in Orillia?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I cannot answer that
question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Shulman: In the form of a further
supplementary, does the Minister have a copy
of the RCMP report?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister obtain
such a copy so that he will know what is
going on in his hospitals?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not really think
it is indicated, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a quesT
tion of the Minister of Correctional Services:
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): I thought the member was
going to neglect me today.
Mr. Shulman: We always finish off with
this Minister.
Why has the Minister refused to reveal to
the House the reason Stephen F. was trans-
ferred from Burwash to Millbrook?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know how the hon. member can suggest that
I refuse to answer his question. I answered
it on April 2 as indicated on page 2985 of
Hansard when I stated: "The inmate was
transferred to Millbrook for reasons of
security."
The hon. member asked me again the
next day and I told him then at page 3030
that I had answered the question the previous
day. I do not know how long you are going
to permit this to go on, Mr. Speaker, but I
am not going to have any other answer for
the hon. member than the one I have given
him.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, will the Min-
ister accept a supplementary question? Is the
Minister willing to inform me privately if
there is some reason he does not wish to
state to this House the reason this man was
transferred?
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for
Wentworth has a question of the Prime
Minister.
3060
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I asked a
question. I believe he was about to answer it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quite frankly, I have
tried this before and it has not done any
good.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth might please place his question of the
Prime Minister first.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
to the Prime Minister: when will a decision
be announced in regard to the city of Hamil-
ton's request that the Lieutenant-Govemor-
in-Council exclude the city's urban renewal
scheme from inquiry proceedings as set out
in The Expropriation Act?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It is under considera-
tion at the moment. I do not think it will
be very long, in a few days.
Mr. Deans: I wonder if I might ask a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes.
Mr. Deans: Could the Prime Minister tell
me whether all of the interested parties were
also advised of the city's application for this
exclusion and were they given the oppor-
tunity to make representation?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I really could not
answer that question. I presiune that the
city having made the application, I do not
think it is our responsibility; but I really
do not know. I do not know what procedure
has been followed in dealing with it.
I know it is presently under consideration
and we hope to have an answer in a day or
so.
The member might ask the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, he could probably answer
it.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): I did not hear the question.
Mr. Deans: I will ask the Minister another
day.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member still has
the floor.
Mr. Deans: To the Minister of Public
Works: Can the Minister advise the House
who has taken possession of room 347 on
the third floor of this building?
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Pubhc
Works): The government Whipl
Mr. Speaker: There is a point I would like
to draw to the attention of the House. This
room was reserved and supposed to be
reser\'ed for Mr. Speaker and Hansard debates
and I also am interested in how it is being
occupied otherwise. I shall take it up with
the Minister of Public Works, because that is
a Homard room.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
might-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: May I have the floor for a
minute? This happened once before when Mr.
Speaker made arrangements and I propose to
see it does not happen a second time.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The
austerity programme of the government Whip.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will con-
tinue with his questions.
Mr. Deans: To the Minister of Trade and
Development.
Have negotiations with the city of Hamil-
ton for water and sewer services for Saltfleet
Mountain development been completed?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I could hardly
hear the hon. member for the interruptions of
his own party, but I got the question so I
will be glad to answer it.
The development plan will be presented to
the Ontario Housing Corporation board of
directors on April 24. If accepted, the plans
will be presented to the municipalities in-
volved after that date.
Mr. Deans: To the Minister of Health:
Will the Minister investigate a claim by
Testor Corporation of Canada that allyliso-
thioeyanate added to common aircraft glue
effectively reduces its desirability for sniffing
purposes?
If it proves effective, will the Minister take
whatever steps are necessary to have its use
made mandatory?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, The De-
partment of Health and the Alcoholism and
Drug Addiction Research Foundation have
been in close touch with the developments in
regard to the use of additives in hobby
cements. The department has assisted in the
evaluation of such additives. The legislation
on hazardous products, presently under review
at the federal level, contains provisions for
household products including hobby glues. It
would be preferable, I beheve, that this mat-
ter he considered on a national level, and
APRIL 15, 1969
3061
we are working closely with the federal
government.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order.
My leader asked the Prime Minister a ques-
tion earlier this afternoon: "When will the
Premier call a by-election in the vacant con-
stituency in Middlesex South?"
It was the Premier's answer that, as my
leader should know, you cannot call one while
the House is in session.
Now I did not think that that answer was
correct and I have since checked, Mr. Speaker,
with the provisions of The Legislative As-
sembly Act.
Mr. MacDonald: It is tradition, not a legal
requirement.
Mr. Singer: There is a provision— no— there
is a provision in The Legislative Assembly
Act that says no writ shall be issued under
sections 18 to 24 during the session of the
Legislature.
Now sections 18 to 24 provide for vacan-
cies in the case of resignations, disqualifica-
tions or various other ways other than death
that happen to create a vacancy. Section 25
does not apply to a vacancy that results be-
cause of the death of a former member. Sec-
tion 26 and subsequent sections apply to that
case.
It would be my submission, Mr. Speaker,
on this point of order, that the information
was incorrect and that any time that a
returning officer is appointed for the riding
of Middlesex South, which can be any time
that the Lieutenant -Governor -in -Council
chooses to make that appointment, then the
writ can be issued, whether the House is in
session or not.
An hon. member: So?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
extend my thanks to the member for that
little bit of research and I will check it to
make sure it is accurate. That is no reflection
on the hon. member, I am quite certain it is
correct, but I have always been of the opinion
I stated earlier. It may very well be that we
can, but I rather doubt that we would call a
by-election while the House is in session. I
do not know whether this would be any incen-
tive to the members to make shorter speeches
in the estimates or not, but if it would en-
courage a little less verbosity then I might
say: "Well, let us get the session over and
we will see what we will do about the by-
election."
An hon. member: I do not think the Premier
is too—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth has a further question.
Mr. Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with regard
to question 1146, I would prefer to hold it
for another day. I have had a report brought
to my attention. I would like to read it be-
fore I ask the question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Dover-
COULTt.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Labour.
Does the Minister intend to prosecute those
employers who breach the minimum wage
laws and The Labour Standards Act, even
though the employers after investigation pay
the minimum wage?
In view of the statement attributed to R.
Michael Warren that the minimum wage is
not "a fair or living wage", as reported in
this morning's Toronto Daily Star, is the Min-
ister considering legislation to increase it in
order to protect non-union employees?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, in answer to
the question from the hon. member for Dover-
court: each case is determined on its merits,
based on the facts uncovered in a particular
investigation. So each would be dealt with
individually.
In reference to the second part, the efFect
of the recent changes in minimum wage is
being checked through continuing surveys,
but because there was an incerase of 30 per
cent only three and a half months ago, I
would not anticipate any increase for at least
a year.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a ques-
tion of the Minister of Health which was
placed for him before the session rose for
the recess.
Mr. De Monte: I do not have a copy of
that question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Minister has the
question; it is No. 1108, about microbiolo-
gists. Perhaps if the Minister has the answer,
he will read the question also and then we
will have it cleared.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Dovercourt asked the question:
How many microbiologists are on the payroll
of The Department of Health? What are their
3062
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
duties in Ontario and where are they em-
ployed?
The answer: (1) Fifty-nine.
(2) Forty-six are employed in Toronto
laboratory as follows: two administrative and
supervisory; nine research and diagnostic
virology; three diagnostic mycology; one diag-
nostic parasitology; four enteric bacteriology
reference work; two special vacteriology ref-
erence work; seven clinical vacteriology; two
sanitary bacteriology; three TB bacteriology;
two quality control; five diagnostic serology
and immunology; three research serology and
immunology; three microbiologists in training.
Thirteen are employed outside Toronto as
follows: one Fort William, administrative
supervisory and diagnostic; one Kenora, ad-
ministrative supervisory and diagnostic; two
Kingston, one administrative and supervisory,
one supervisory and diagnostic; two London,
one administrative and supervisory, one super-
visory and diagnostic; one North Bay, admin-
istrative, supervisory and diagnostic; one
Orillia, supervisory and diagnostic; three Ot-
tawa, one administrative and supervisory,
two supervisory and diagnostic; one Sault
Ste. Marie, administrative, supervisory and
diagnostic; one Windsor, administrative, sup-
ervisory and diagnostic.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thun-
der Bay was on his feet some little time ago,
he has a question.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I have a series of questions for the
Minister of Tourism and Information.
Why is it going to take until 1975 to com-
plete the plans for development of Algonquin
Park?
Who are the civil servants and experts ap-
pointed to the task force to research this
programme?
When will the interim revised provincial
plan be completed and who will be engaged
in its preparation?
Will the interim revised plan be submitted
to the committee of tourism and resources
during this session?
Why did the dean of the faculty of for-
estry of the University of Toronto decline to
participate in the development of the plans
for the park?
Will the Minister actively participate in
the preparation of the interim revised provin-
cial plan to ensure that the primary use of
the park as a recreation area will be para-
mount?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Speaker, all the ques-
tions except the last one, I think, should
properly be sent to the Minister of Lands and
Forests (Mr. Brunelle) who has charge of
Algonquin Park. I did not have an oppor-
tunity to get in touch with him before the
House this afternoon but perhaps he will
be able to reply tomorrow.
The other question: "Would the Minister
actixely participate in the preparation of the
plan?" The Minister of Tourism and Infor-
mation is vice-chairman of the parks integra-
tion board and no doubt would be involved
in any plan that is produced regarding parks.
Mr. Stokes: As a supplementary', has the
Minister himself, or anybody in his depart-
ment, been actively involved in the prepara-
tion of the interim plan that will govern until
the final plan has been brought in in 1975?
Hon. Mr. Auld: I do not know that I can
answer that definitely. I would simply say
this, that I have been aware of the plan that
has been being evolved by The Department
of Lands and Forests.
Mr. Stokes: As a supplementary-, will the
Minister assure the House, in the interests of
the people of Ontario, that the park will be
used primarily for recreational purposes; or
is he concerning himself about that aspect of
the operation of the park?
Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think I
answered that when I mentioned the parks
integration board's activity.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests take this question as notice
for tomorrow if I transfer it to his ofiRce.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): I will be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to
reply to it tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the
Minister of Municipal Affairs. In view of
the importance of the Minister's meeting with
the officials at the Lakehead on Thursday to
discuss the details of the bill to incorporate
the Lakehead city, is the Minister prepared
to change the place of the meeting in order
to accommodate as many people as wish to
attend?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would
just say to the hon. member that it is not
APRIL 15, 1969
3063
my intention to do so. Perhaps by way of
background, I might say that I assume the
inter-municipal committee determined where
they would hold their meetings. When I was
there the meetings in the past have been held
in the Fort William city hall, which holds, I
am told, up to 250 people. The intent of the
meeting on April 17, the draft legislation
having been gone over with the inter-
municipal committee, is now to go over the
legislation item by item with all the councils
of the four municipalities, with their officials,
and with members of the boards and com-
missions of the Lakehead who may be
affected. Press and radio media, of course,
will be there. We will go over each item,
item by item.
I am told that provision has been made to
ensure that there is proper room, I think with
tables, for all these people. If there is suffi-
cient room left over for members of the
public who would like to attend, seats will be
available for them. Whether there will be
enough or not, I do not know. This meeting
is not intended as a debate, if I can put it
that way, on second reading. It is a com-
mittee meeting, if I can in turn put it that
way, to go over the bill, item by item, and
discuss and explain each section of it to the
councils involved.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a
further question.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Transport. Does the
Minister have any reports of Class A
mechanics who have accepted a fee and
given out certificates of mechanical safety to
owners of vehicles not previously registered
in Ontario, without performing the necessar>'
mechanical checkup, as required by The
Highway Traffic Act? What is the Minister
doing to ensure that this law is being properly
enforced?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, no specific violation of the
nature mentioned by the hon. member has
come to my attention, but any report of mal-
practice of this kind reaching our department
is immediately investigated and if it is found
to have any substance, the result of the
investigation is turned over to the police. On
conviction of such an offence the mechanic's
certificate could be cancelled, and he would
be subject under section 49 of The Highway
Traffic Act to a fine of from $50 to $300.
Anyone having any suspicion of an offence of
this kind occurring should notify our depart-
ment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oshawa
was on his feet a moment ago.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, a
question of the Minister of Labour. Further
to the Minister's reply on February 12, 1969,
to my question concerning The Ontario
Labour-Management Arbitration Commission
Act, 1968: when will the Act be proclaimed?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the question, we are in the process of com-
pleting our arrangements for the personnel of
the commission, and I expect to be able to
make an announcement within the next two
to three weeks.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East was on his feet.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): A ques-
tion of the Minister of Lands and Forests.
For how many lots in Broder and Dell town-
ships does The Department of Lands and
Forests receive provincial land tax? How
much was collected in provincial land tax last
year from Broder and Dell townships?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, if I may
I would like to take this question as notice
and reply either the next day or the day
following.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has another
question of the Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management.
Mr. Martel: I am not going to present this
question, today, Mr. Speaker, after the way
in which it has been emasculated.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the
House that what happened was that the
Speaker took out a very long preamble-
stating facts which, according to our rules,
are not allowed and which I do not propose
to allow in the future— and left the question
in; the question as it is is quite understand-
able. It does not, perhaps, produce the im-
pact that the member wishes, but it is a
proper question.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, without the
preamble the question is meaningless.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will have
to rearrange his question so that he has not
facts and not allegations, but a question.
The hon. member for Riverdale was on his
feet.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Financial and Com-
mercial Affairs. Why was trading in the shares
3064
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Bramalea Consolidated Development Lim-
ited halted on the Toronto Stock Exchange
yesterday? Was it by direction of the ex-
change or by direction of the Ontario Securi-
ties Commission? What was the information,
which was not available to the public, which
led to the halt in trading?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): I will take the
question as notice.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management. Will the Minister table
die agreement between the Ontario Water
Resources Commission and Chinguacousy
township? Was the Ontario Water Resources
Commission involved in the negotiations be-
tween Bramalea Consolidated Developments
Limited, Chinguacousy township and Ontario
Housing Corporation?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I will
take the hon. member's question as notice.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a
series of questions for the Minister of Trade
and Development.
Will the Minister table the agreement be-
tween the Ontario Housing Corporation and
Bramalea Consolidated Developments Lim-
ited, with Chinguacousy township?
What was the price per acre paid by the
Ontario Housing Corporation to Bramalea
for the 263 acres?
Why was Bramalea able to sell tliese lands
to Ontario Housing Corporation at this price?
How much additional acreage does Brama-
lea own in Chinguacousy township to the
knowledge of the Minister?
Who conducted the negotiations for the
purchase of this acreage from Bramalea on
behalf of the Ontario Housing Corporation?
Was any other department or agency of
government involved in the purchase?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I got the
questions about 1 o'clock; the House opened
at 2. I am having my staff get the informa-
tion and I will get it for the hon. member.
Mr. J. Renwick: Perhaps, if it is agreeable
with the Minister, I could place a supple-
mentary question which I should have includ-
ed as part of the question, and he might con-
sider it as well.
Is it, in fact, true that the 1,039 lots south
of Highway 7 are going to be constructed by
Bramalea rather than to have the Ontario
Housing Corporation call for proposals from
a number of builders for tlie construction of
those units?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will get that too, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Timis-
kaming was on his feet.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Social and Family Services. Will the de-
partment take immediate steps to ensure that
recipients of welfare and other security allow-
ances will not be turned out of their homes on
Mastermet property at Cobalt due to their
inability to raise the $1,000 payment de-
manded by the mining company?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I shall take
the question as notice.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre has a series of questions.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Speaker, four questions of the Minister
of Healtli from April 3:
Will the Minister direct the superintendent
of Brockville Psychiatric Hospital to use regu-
lar nursing staff trained in electro shock
duty, instead of rotating staff sometimes un-
trained in electro-shock assistance, as both
the Minister and superintendent spoke at the
health committee of having regular nursing
staff in attendance when electro-shock treat-
ment was given to mental patients?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the an-
swer is no, I will not so direct the superin-
tendent, since he must take responsibility for
his own professional actions, as must every
other doctor carrying out any kind of treat-
ment. I leave tliese matters entirely to the
good judgment of the doctors in charge of
the work because they must, in the final ana-
lysis, take full responsibility for their actions.
Mrs. M. Renwick: A question of the Min-
ister of Health.
In the coming "thing" that the Minister
spoke of recently— the use of private invest-
ment in nursing liomes— does the Minister see
government subsidy, or government participa-
tion, with these private investors?
Was the government asked to participate
in these ventures or was some proposition
made to government to participate?
Is this matter under consideration?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the an-
swer is no, we do not see government con-
APRIL 15, 1969
8065
struction grants in these matters. Indeed this
was not even asked for by the proposed
builders. They seem to have no scarcity of
money and seem to be quite aware of where
they could find unlimited funds for the
construction. They only wanted to be sure that
the regulations were such that the undertak-
ing would be worth their while.
No hard or fast proposal was made to us.
They were really seeking information more
than anything else.
Mrs. M. Renwick: A question to the Min-
ister of Health.
What doctor vacancies are available on the
staffs of mental hospitals in Ontario, outside
of the three vacancies the Minister spoke of
March 26 at the Brockville Psychiatric
Hospital?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The vacancies existing
in our hospital system are as follows:
One psychiatrist; four physicians, 4a; four
physicians 4c; three physicians, 3; five phys-
icians, 4; 12 psychiatrists, group 3; and two
psychiatrists, group 2; a total of 31, Mr.
Speaker.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask a supple-
mentary question, Mr. Speaker? Would the
Minister advise me where these vacancies
are?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Si)eaker, I will
have to get that information for the hon.
member and will produce it.
Mrs. M. Renwick: A question for the same
Minister, Mr. Speaker.
Is regular staff trained in electro-shock
treatment being used in all other mental
hospitals in Ontario other than the Brockville
Psychiatric Hospital?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, those giv-
ing this treatment assure me that it is.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I have eight questions,
Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Trade and
Development from April 3:
(a) What is the delay in the release of
placements at Ontario Housing Corporation
at the McCowan and Eglinton Road high-rise
development in Scarborough?
(b) If they are released now to placements,
when was this done?
(c) On what date was the construction of
these tmits completed?
(d) How many units will be available when
the release is completed? How many are
available now?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, there is
no delay in the release of units for the place^
ment of applicants at the McCowan and
Eglinton Road development, as this building
has not yet been satisfactorily completed to
a point where the units can be made avail-
able for occupancy.
It has reached the stage of substantial
completion, and the building is now in the
process of being inspected by Ontario Hous-
ing Corporation's construction departm^ent. If
found satisfactory for takeover, it will be
available for placement within the next two
to three weeks.
This development comprises a ten-storey,
high-rise elevator building of 198 suites of
the following sizes: one BR, 55 units; two
BR, 112 units; three BR, 21 units; four BR,
10 units.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would the Minister
accept a supplementary question? A portion
of the building is completed— the construction
is completed, but the inspection is not com-
pleted—is there not a delay in that particular
process? When was construction finished?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, as I understand it,
construction has not been entirely completed,
and we will not consider it completed until
we have made inspection. I think also I can
refer to the difficulties some of the people
have had in moving in to private apartments
that have not been completed. As the mem-
ber knows there was a tenants' strike here
not too long ago. People moved in and the
services were not there, and they gave the
landlord quite a tough time.
Now we do not think we would have any
difficulty, but we want to make sure the
buildings are finished. We are moving people
in as quickly as they are finished, I can
assure you.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would the Minister
accept a supplementary then? I wonder if
you would tell me what date the portion
was completed that is now being inspected?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I cannot tell you, but
I will be glad to get the information for you.
Mrs. M. Renwick: A question of the Min-
ister of Trade and Development.
In the Ontario Housing Corporation devel-
opment scheme, is a development planned
at McGill and College for the elderly? If so,
how many imits are to be constructed and
by when?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I wonder, Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member would like to ask the
3066
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
other three questions tliat go with it, l>ecause
it is aJl related to the same thing.
Mrs. M. Renwick: A question of the
xMinister of Trade and Development.
1. Does the land for the proposed devel-
opment by Ontario Housing Corporation of
units for the elderly at McGill and College
Streets belong to the Rubin Corporation?
2. How many Ontario Housing Corporation
contracts have been let to, or are in some
way involved, with the Rubin Corporation
to date?
3. Is it the Rubin Corporation who have
the contract for the McGill and College
Street site? If not, are they involved in any
way?
Mr. Speaker: There is one more-No. 1130
—along the same line.
Mrs. M. Renwick: To the Minister of Trade
and Development.
Was the development of Ontario Housing
Corporation at McGill and College Street put
out to public tender and, if so, in what
fashion?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, all the
senior citizens' housing in the city of Toronto
is let by the Toronto Metropolitan Housing
Authority, which is the Metropolitan govern-
ment. We have nothing whatever to do with
it.
I cannot answer those questions, except to
say that all we do in this case is make a
$500 donation per suite. Who the contractor
is and the other information you asked for,
we would not have that.
In so far as these other questions are con-
cemed-you asked how many OHC contracts
Rubin has— there are 14 contracts with On-
tario Housing Corporation, and two contracts
with the Ontario Student Housing Corpora-
tion.
I think the other one is 1126— this was
with reference to the delay of completion by
construction companies of Ontario Housing
Corporation units and their release to the
public-and again I can say that to the casual
observer it may appear that a building is
ready for occupancy because the outside has
a completed look. However, there may well
be a number of uncompleted items within the
building or deficiencies that need to be cor-
rected before the building is fit for habitation.
I can assure the hon. member that any ap-
parent delays that may occur from time to
time are due to these circumstances and cer-
tainly not because of any dragging of feet
by the Ontario Housing Corporation.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, may I just draw the Minister's
attention-
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member might
ask her other two questions before he answers
them.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And not answer the
question?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, perhaps the member
would do that.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Asking question 1126,
Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Trade and
Development: What is the reason for the long
delay, often several weeks, between the com-
pletion by construction companies of Ontario
Housing Corporation imits and their release
to the public?
A question of the same Minister, Mr.
Speaker: What empty units of Ontario Hous-
ing Corporation are there in Toronto com-
pleted by the construction company but
either not yet released to Ontario Housing
Corporation placement department, or re-
leased to placement and not yet occupied
by families?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I was
under the impression those questions were
asked earlier but I will answer them.
In answer to question 1126, I say again,
to the casual observer it may appear that a
building is ready for occupany because the
outside has a completed look. However, there
may well be a number of uncompleted items
within the building or deficiencies that need
to be corrected before the building is fit for
habitation.
I want to assure the hon. member that any
apparent delays that may appear from time
to time are due to these circumstances and
certainly not because we are delaying things
at the Ontario Housing Corporation.
In answer to question 1131, there are no
new Ontario Housing imits in Metropolitan
Toronto unoccupied, which have been com-
pleted by the constniction company to a
point where they can be occupied, other than
those new units which have been committed
and allocated to families and where the fam-
ilies arc in the process of completing their
moving arrangements. The hon. member will
imderstand that there is usually some short
time lag between tlie date of completion and
date of occupation, but this is quite minimal
and usually amounts to only a few days.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would the Minister
accept a supplementary question?
APRIL 15, 1969
3067
I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if the
Minister is aware that this McCowan Road
and Eglinton development is the other half
of the development that I had the experience
of uncovering at election time? It was finished
for three weeks and not occupied, and I am
getting concerned now that the same thing
might be happening with the high-rise sec-
tion of it. They were completed except for
inspection. But then on my raising this issue
publicly, they were inspected immediately.
They were released the next day to place-
ment, and I am concerned about the same
thing happening now with the other units. I
wonder if the Minister would give it his
attention?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, all I can
say is that I will take a look at the situation
and see if there is any delay there. But I
am assured by my people there is not, and if
there are any specific cases that the member
can point out to me, I will be glad to in-
vestigate them.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Coch-
rane South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, before I ask my questions of the
Minister of Mines, I wonder if the Minister
of Energy and Resources Management has an
answer to the question of, I think it was
April 3, concerning the Ontario Northland
Railway in connection with smelting. I won-
der if he would answer that now?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, the hon,
member's question was:
Has the Ontario Northland Railway made
a study to determine the significance to the
railway if the Texas Gulf smelter is built
in Porcupine?
The answer is that general studies have been
made concerning the possibility of the smelter
being constructed in the Porcupine area, but
not detailed studies. This is not possible
until volume and products are decided.
The second part of his question:
If so, will it make any appreciable dif-
ference to the financial position of the
Ontario Northland Railway if the Texas
Gulf smelter for zinc is built in the Porcu-
pine area rather than elsewhere?
The answer: Transportation studies have indi-
cated that Ontario Northland Railway reve-
nues would equal or possibly exceed present
revenues from Texas Gulf operations.
Mr. Ferrier: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, a
question of the Minister of Mines. Has the
feasibility for the copper smelter been com-
pleted for Texas Gulf Sulphur and is the
Minister in negotiations with the company
on this smelter?
Will a decision be amiiovmced as to the
locations of both the zinc and copper smelters
at the same time or will they be made separ-
ately?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, the copper smelter feasibility
study, I am informed, has not yet been com-
pleted for the company, although it is ex-
pected before too long.
In answer to the question of whether an
announcement will be made as to location of
both the zinc and copper smelters at the same
time; my expectation would be that they
would not be made at the same time. They
are dealing with quite different economic mat-
ters and quite different government policy
matters.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough has a question.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Petea^borough): Yes. The
question, Mr. Speaker, is for the hon. Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs. Will the Minister
indicate whether he is prepared to amend
The Planning Act in such a way as to block
the separation and development of land by
means of conveyances by way of gift transfer,
thus allowing undesirable residential develop-
ment in rural areas?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the
amendments to The Planning Act will l)e
brought into the House in due course.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if the Minister would
accept a supplementary question?
Could the Minister give any advice to
municipalities as to how they can stop this
from happening in this interim period between
now and when tliis legislation comes down,
because they are attempting to do exactly
what the Minister wants them to do, to keep
their development close to urban areas and
to stop the kind of fragmentation which is
taking place.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I have no par-
ticular advice, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches-
Woodbine has a question which was not
asked. Does he wish to clear it off?
Mr. J. L. Brown (Beaches-Woodbine): No,
I would just as soon leave it for a time, thank
vou.
3068
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: All right. The hon. member
for Samia asked a question-
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): April 3, siar.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, before the recess, of the
Minister of Trade and Development. Perhaps
the Minister has the answer today.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I also
have one here from the member for Parkdale
(Mr. Trot?ter). I do not know if he asked the
question in the House or not, but I see he
was here earlier. I will be glad to answer that
one also.
In answer to the hon. member for Samia:
1. Ontario Housing Corporation has en-
tered into 34 contracts with Headway Cor-
poration Limited or associated companies-
Headway Builders (Sault) Ltd., and Headway
Builders (Ontario) Ltd.
2. All contracts were awarded on the basis
of "builder proposal" submissions, the tedi-
nique applied by the corporation almost ex-
clusively throughout Ontario. Under this
method the lowest proposed prices received
do not necessarily reflect the best value to
the corporation. All proposals are exhaustively
analyzed by the professional staff of Ontario
Housing Corporation with particular emphasis
upon design, livability, stmctural quality,
long term maintenance considerations and site
layout. All proposals are appraised having
regard to the foregoing considerations. Not-
withstanding this, all but six (6) of the con-
tracts awarded. Headway Corporation Limited,
or its associated companies, to date were, in
fact, the lowest prices received.
Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary,
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister
has any knowledge of any corporation that
comes close to 34 in dealing with the Ontario
Housing Corporation?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We have one or two
builders who have made it almost a profes-
sion to do business with the Ontario Housing
Corporation because of the fact that they can
go into many areas with these contracts,
where we have difficulty sometimes, as you
would recognize, getting a contractor in
smaller towns.
In fact it is probably just as well to read
in some of the areas this company has been
into.
At the moment they have been into Ann-
strong, Almonte, Barrie, Blind River, Brock-
ville, Calvert, Espanola, Fort Frances, Fort
William, Kenora, Leamington, Longlac,
Meaford, Midland, Mitchell, North Bay,
Neelon and Carson, Orangeville, Orillia, Owen
Sound, Penetang, Port Arthur, Peterborough,
Samia, Teck Township, Tillsonburg, Tim-
mins. Sturgeon Falls. These are areas where
we would have great difficulty in getting a
builder proposal and—
Mr. Bullbrook: They have a happy rela-
tionship with four corporations.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well I am glad to have
them because these are the kind of people
we like to have. We would like to have a
few more like them.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bullbrook: Before the orders of the
day, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not
know whether I am having hot flashes, but
it is absolutely stifling in these Chambers. I
am just wondering, as the advocate of our
amenities, if you could get some windows
open please? We will probably be here till
midnight.
Mr. Speaker: I shall ask the public works
people to speak to the member, because it
is a very difficult problem. If the windows
are open then something else does not work
and so on. So, I will try and have them
explain all this to the member and see what
we can do.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, prior to
the Easter adjoumment the hon. member for
Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Brown) asked me
who acted on behalf of the St. Faith Lodge
Board in five negotiations with The Depart-
ments of Health and Public Welfare, for the
government takeover of the Warrendale com-
plex. He asked if I was aware that at the
time the negotiations were imder way, that
this gentleman was not a boim fide member
of the board. I took this question as notice.
I have since ascertained that negotiations
between the lodge and the government in-
volved only The Department of Public Wel-
fare as it then was; The Department of
Health was not involved. As far as I can
ascertain Mr. Robert A. McNair, acted for
St. Faith's Lodge and he was, at that time,
president of the board.
In answer to the second part of the ques-
tion: No I was not aware of that. Of course,
negotiations in fact resulted from a letter sent
to The Department of Public Welfare by the
president of the board of St. Faith's Lodge,
whose actions were endorsed by the board.
APRIL 15, 1969
3069
There is a resolution upon the file which
states:
Be it resolved that in order that suit-
able arrangements be made for the con-
tinued care of the children at Warrendale,
the president of the corporation is hereby
authorized to request the Minister of
Public Welfare to immediately take steps
to assume complete control over the oper-
ations and management of Warrendale.
So, as I go back, this was the authorit>' on
which these things were done.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, following
up that question I have somewhat similar
questions that were asked:
With whom did the Minister negotiate
for the replacement of staff in the Warren-
dale complex in 1966? Is the Minister
aware that the individual involved was not
a bona fide member of the board?
My answer relating to this question is as
follows: the Minister of this department at
that time, acting on the written request of the
board of directors of St. Faith's Lodge,
assumed responsibility for all the rights and
authority possessed by that board which in-
cluded, of course, responsibilities relating to
employees. The request from the board of
directors resulted from a resolution which
was passed by the executive committee of
the board, confirmed by the full board of
directors and certified by the secretary' of
the board.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, in the
same context the hon. member for Beaches-
Woodbine asked questions of me on the same
day.
Question 1073: "Has the Elizabeth F.
Brown Memorial Camp been purchased by
The Department of Health?" The answer is
no. "If not, is the department paying for the
rental?" The answer is no. "Does the de-
partment have a contract for the use of the
camp?" Again, the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
However, the board of directors of St. Faith's
Lodge Incorporated requests that the govern-
ment of Ontario assume the responsibility for
the operation of Warrendale, including the
camp at Minden.
Question 1074, which the hon. member
also put: "On whose direction did The
Department of Health direct the occupation
of the Warrendale complex building in
Etobicoke?" The answer, the board of
directors of St. Faith's Lodge Incorporated.
"Who currently administers the programme
there?" The answer, Dr. J. D. Atcheson,
superintendent of Thistletown hospital.
"What are the costs for repair and admin-
istration of the building?" To date, $30,000
has been expended for necessary repairs. The
costs of the administration of Warrendale
are included in the appropriation for Thistle-
town hospital.
"Who bears these costs?" The province of
Ontario through The Department of Health.
"Why is the department using these facili-
ties if they are not owned or rented by the
department?" The answer: the board of
directors of St. Faith's Lodge Incorporated
requested the government so to do.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 29th order. House
in committee of supply; Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
On vote 2001.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre): Mr.
Chairman, when we recessed April 3, I was
endeavouring to point out that the board of
review is, in fact, useless under its present
regulations. One of the most hamstringing
of its regulations, is the fact that the recipient
is the person who must ask for form 6, and
the recipient does not know that there is a
form 6 available. Under the regulations,
section 15, item 5, copies of form 6 may be
obtained from the director by any applicant
or recipient on request therefore.
Now, Mr. Chairman, when the recipients
and the applicants do not know that they
have a right to appeal, and they do not know
about form 6, this in fact negates the whole
purpose of a l3oard of review. I was trying to
point out, under vote 2001-and I beUeve you
were concerned, Mr. Chairman, as to whether
the material I was using should have been
properly dealt with under vote 2002-but
I was pointing out that the material I was
dealing with had with it three letters from
the administrative offices of The Department
of Social and Family Services.
Three government letters deahng with a
flagrant case of mis-administration at the local
level, in the Windsor-Essex area; three letters
from Queen's Park trying to sort out what
had happened in this particular case, pointing
out the rights to the recipient— yet nowhere in
these letters, over a period from December
through to February, was the apphcant ad-
vised that there is a board of review, or that
there is a form 6.
3070
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The applicant does not know about the
form 6.
The Social and Family Sendees Depart-
ment knows that there is a severe problem for
the applicant because tliey did, in fact, in the
long run, put this family on mother's allow-
ance and full benefit.
Yet nowhere in their contact with the
highest echelon of the services was there any
discussion about the fact that the recipient
could have simply taken her case to a board.
And she could have done so a long time back,
Mr. Chairman, when the case was first
brought to the attention of the department
at the local level.
Now, a useless board of review is not
wliat the federal go\'eniment had in mind
when they stipulated that a board of review
must be part of accepting Canada Assistance
Plan money.
The federal government expected a tribunal,
and this particular board of review negates
any opportunity of a tribunal, by allowing a
section— section 15A, item 1— whereby the
chairman may authorize one member of a
board of review to conduct a hearing and to
report to the board. Such member has all the
powers of tlie board for the purpose of such
hearing.
Then it continues, Mr. Chairman, to say
that with the agreement of two other mem-
bers, tliis might be the result of the hearing.
But the point is, there is no tribunal when
one person sits on the board on the local
level.
A tribunal was held Wednesday and Thurs-
day of last week in Peterborough, and three
minds and three people came to that tribunal,
on the board of review. Also an observer, I
believe. But, unless there are three people
there is no tribunal, and the government is
wrong in interpreting this type of regulation
on what a board of review really is. It is cer-
tainly wrong as far as the federal government
is concerned.
The recipients arc not the only people who
do not know what a form 6 is or what a
board of review is. During the recess I dealt
with actual cases of where assistance had been
cut off or lowered. In speaking with the North
York administrative offices of welfare, I asked
that a form 6, be mailed out to a lady who
had been cut off welfare so she could appeal
it.
But no one in that office, Mr. Chainnan,
knew what a form 6 was. They brought forth
a pink form, a municipal form of application.
That prompted mc to check. On April 9 we
checked eight municipal welfare oflRces to
find out if tliey had copies of form 6, the
application for the welfare review board.
This was the response: in Oshawa, no;
Ottawa, no; Niagara Falls, no; Hamilton, no;
Cornwall, no. One office in Metropolitan To-
ronto said: "I think we have one around, but
it is not here now." Metropolitan Toronto
District D2, no; Metro Toronto District C, no.
Of eight offices contacted, seven admitted
that they have no form 6 and had never been
sent any by the provincial government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Min-
ister to comment on this particular situation.
It is bad enough that we wasted— or spent,
not wasted— something like six hours. But to
spend six hours on this board of review be-
cause the Minister or any member of the
Cabinet failed to recognize that what had to
be put in in order to accept the moneys
from Ottawa was a proper tribunal, a proper
system where ever>' recipient of welfare
would be advised that there is such a form 6
to be filled out.
In this day of civil liberties and civil rights,
it is shocking to think that anybody would
set up a board of revew like tliis in Ontario.
It is shameful to me, as a legislator for On-
tario to compare tliis with some other prov-
inces and in such an enlightened aged to
completely hamstring a person's civil rights is
unforgiveable. I think we have to understand
exactly how this government thinks the board
of review is going to work.
Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Minister
wish to respond to tliis particular question
or shall we continue with the board of
review at this time?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Is there any further dis-
cussion?
Mr. Chairman: Is there any further dis-
cussion on the board of review before the
hon. Minister replies? The hon. member for
Beaches-Woodbine.
Mr. J. L. Brown (Beaches- Woodbine): I
would like to put some questions specifically
to the Minister on the board of review. I
would assume that in the negotiations be-
tween the provincial and federal governments
over grants, there was a reason why a review
board was part of the requirement of that
financial arrangement and I wonder if the
Minister would tell the House what the pur-
pose of the review board was initially? Why
is a review board required?
APRIL 15, 1969
3071
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
Canada Assistance Plan legislation, section 6,
subsection 2, further subsection (e) says:
Will ensure the provision by law, not
later tlian one year from the effective date
of the agreement, of a procedure for
appeals from decisions of provincially-
approved agencies with respect to applica-
tions for assistance, or the granting or pro-
viding of assistance by persons directly
affected by such decisions.
I take this opportunity of saying to the hon.
member for Scarborough Centre we have
fully complied with the terms of the Act and
the agreement.
Mr. Brown: What I am trying to get at,
Mr. Chairman, is, why is there that provision?
What was the federal government intending
when it established the condition of a review
board? There must be some purpose behind
it; it was not just an idle waste of time. What
is the purpose of a review board?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think the purpose,
Mr. Chainnan, is self-evident from the read-
ing of subsection (e).
Mr. Brown: Perhaps it is. I would assume
that since the Minister himself does not care
to go into it, the purpose of the review board
was to protect the public funds that are
granted to die province from being misused,
or to protect people who are eligible for
assistance under these schemes against not
receiving proper attention by the province.
In other words, the federal government
attempted to set some standards for the
administration of diese fimds.
I then raise the question: Why is diere
such a reluctance on the part of The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services to com-
ply with this? And I come to the point
that it appears— and the more I have hstened
to die Minister and the more I have watched
this discussion in the Legislature, the stronger
I get this impression— that there is a fear
on the part of the department that there may
be a large number of unsatisfied customers
who normally would wish to have some
appeal or review. I wonder if the Minister
would estimate out of the recipients of these
programmes, the number that he thinks would
be dissatisfied and require some appeal or
review. Does he have some idea?
Somewhere along the line in the work of
his department, the staff must have sat down
and estimated roughly the kind of percentages
of recipients you would anticipate would
be wanting this kind of review. They would
constitute a variety of persons; some of them
would be realistically abused and some of
them would have other dynamics or factors
that would lead to them making these lands
of appeals. I wonder what the estimate of
the department is in this regard.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there
is no estimate. This is a completely new
field and a new undertaking; we are ventur-
ing into a whole new concept and the future
will bring forth whatever this concept is set
out to look after.
Mr. Brown: But the Minister must have
some idea— from his field work and his feed-
back and the care with which he approaches
diese problems because he is dealing with
human beings and human beings who are in
great need— of some sort of an estimate of
the kind of dissatisfaction which exists. Surely
somewhere in the department someone has
idled away a moment or two to calculate
some sort of a guesstimate on this. Is there
no estimate at all?
Mr. Chairman: I diink the hon. Minister
has answered that question.
Mr. Brown: Thank you.
If there is no estimate and tiiere is no
anticipation that there will be a certain per-
centage of customers who are unsatisfied, if
I might put it that way— people who feel
their needs and their rights have not been
justifiably dealt with by the department, and
we have evidence supplied to the Legislature
that indeed this is true in a relatively large
number of communities; I would suspect it
is true throughout the province— then I think
we have to look a little further. If the federal
government was trying to protect the tax-
payers' money in setting up a review board,
if the provincial government is lax and late
and unenthusiastic about providing this
vehicle, if it fails to inform the recipients
of service that such a vehicle exists, tiien we
must be dealing with an underlying phil-
osophy that is counter to die principles of
the review board as set down in the federal
legislation.
However much you may adhere to it within
the letter of the law, the basic philosophy
underlying your apprcaeh seems to be one
that I think has a great bearing on the
quality and level of assistance given in the
province, community by community. From
Queen's Park and from this department comes
the basic attitude towards service to these
people; it sets the stage, it creates the atmos-
phere within which staff are employed and
carry out their duties. My impression from
what I have heard here, from the response
3072
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the Minister, from what I know from first-
hand information from being in the field of
social welfare myself, is tliat there is a gen-
eral underlying attitude of, "Let us make
things tough for the people who apply. Let us
discourage them from receiving benefits under
this particular Act. Maybe if we give them a
hard time, they will go away, they will
disappear."
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, my understanding is that
major remarks of a broad general nature
would be made by appropriate speakers from
eacb party. It would seem to me that the hon.
member is now embarking on that particular
type of speech, and his remarks aire not
directed to any specific item within the
estimates, which I believe we are now dis-
cussing, Mr. Chainnan.
Mr. Chairman: With respect to the hon.
Minister, the Chairman is guided by the prac-
tice that has taken place in the committee for
several years past. To my knowledge there
Ls an absence of any rule as to what may or
may not be discussed in committee of supply,
as long as we are in the general area of the
particular item under discussion. We are deal-
ing with vote 2001, which includes the board
of review, and I find no basis for ruling tlie
remarks out of order.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): If the
Minister would answer a few questions, we
might get this issue settled.
Mr. Brown: My point in this, Mr. Chairman,
is precisely to get at the underlying philos-
ophy that permeates this department in this
area of welfare, and that imiderlies the failure
of the department to act, first of all in estab-
lishing the board of review, secondly in
making the services available to the recipients
of welfare in the province, and thitxily in
seeing to it that each person who comes with
an application, or who is now a recipient, is
made fully aware of his rights under this par-
ticular provision. Doubly so is that important
when we realize that there is this basic atti-
tude, this basic hostility to the people who
are forced by circumstances beyond their own
control to make application for assistance
under these programmes.
Obviously there is a real need. It is recog-
nized on the part of the federal government,
which attempts to supply funds to the pro-
vincial government to administer them, and
sets up provisiorLS to protect the taxpayers'
money, and the Minister of Social and Family
Services seems to make light of this kind of
provision.
We find when we look at this that social
welfare is taken back, not brought forward,
as the Minister claims. The attitudes that
permeate tlie assistance programmes of the
province are replete with concepts that are
as outdated as this Legislature.
As a social worker I find a great deal to
abhor in the attitude of the department to
the recipients of welfare. I would think that
the Minister would be the first to rise in this
Chaiuber when he hears of the cases that are
brought l)efore us, to say that he will not
tolerate this kind of condition; that obviously
there is an apparent need to review through-
out the province the structures that are now
providing assistance to people in need, and
that he will imanediately see that the review
board deals with these very serious violations
of human dignity and human right that have
been so much a part of the struggle of pro-
fessional social workers to establish standards
within the field of social service.
I think that it violates the Legislature itself.
We are asked to come to this Minister's esti-
mates to give public scrutiny to the work of
the department, to sanction what he requests.
I can tell you quite frankly, sir, that I would
be very pleased to be able to do that.
I get no particular pleasure out of decry-
ing the services in the field of social welfare.
It is not something that I particularly like
to do, but I cannot in any way feel that I
have fulfilled my obligation as a member, or
as a professional social worker, if we do not
make an issue out of the manner in which
this Minister conducts his department, and the
manner in which this Minister has dealt with
the board of review— the establishment of it,
the naming of people to it, and informing
recipients and applicants of their rights for
review in the province.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2001; the hon.
member for Peterborough was trying to get
the floor.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to say a word or two
on the board of review before this estimate
is passed.
I do appeal to the Minister to take action
now to give us some indication that every
recipient of welfare assistance and family
benefits across this province will know that
this particular road is open to them.
I say this because I think the Minister is
missing a very good bet. I suppose at this
point I am the only member of the Legisla-
ture who has had the opportunity to watch
the board of review in action. As the Minister
APRIL 15, 1969
3073
well knows, the boards of review took place
in Peterborough last week and I spent a
good part of two days sitting at the back
watching the board of review operate.
May I congratulate the Minister, or rather
may I congratulate the board of review
through him, for the way in which it dealt
with these welfare recipients. They were
treated with respect and deference; their
problems were listened to; they were allowed
to tell their story in their own way; there was
no interference, there was no prejudging.
In fact, the care with which these welfare
recipients were treated, I think, was a joy to
behold. One could only hope, one could only
wish, that every welfare recipient across this
province was treated in every ofiSce with the
same kind of respect and the same kind of
care as that with which they were treated in
that room last week in Peterborough. And
it can be done.
I would suggest to the Minister that having
a board of review take place in the various
communities across this province would be
an indication of the fact that government still
can be concerned, that there still can be
compassion; and that the most effective piece
of public relations which the Minister's de-
partment could possibly concoct would be to
provide a board of review in various parts
of this province, indicating this Minister's
concern, this department's concern, for every
single person who is receiving aid or welfare
assistance within the bounds of the legislation
for which he is responsible.
I am afraid I came away with one or two
questions and I want to place these questions
before the Minister. I think they are prob-
lems with which the Minister might very
well wrestle.
I found I was never quite sure what the
role of the board was: whether they were
there to take a very legalistic look at the
legislation and the regulations under that
legislation, and decide whether the local
authorities had carried out that legislation; or
whether they were there to dispense com-
passion.
Because in some cases, of course, the legis-
lation is at fault. There are some people that
just do not fit into the particular slot into
which it would be hoped that every recipient
of welfare assistance might be able to fit. In
many cases, local welfare officers are placed
in the very pernicious situation of having to
try and defend, you might say, the local
appropriations from the attacks of those who
see every cent which is dispensed to people
in need as a "waste of money", and on the
other hand, to carry out the letter of the law
as they read that law. So I must say I felt
a little uneasy, as I sat and watched your
board of review, as to whether they were
going to render their decision— and as the
Minister knows that is not rendered on the
spot, and wisely so— whether that decision
would be dispensed on the basis of a re-
interpretation of the law, or whether there
would be some attempt to take into the
situation the problems which these people
faced which were outside the law.
This brought up another problem which I
think the Minister is going to have to face,
and that is the problem of having someone,
perhaps some research person in the area,
attendant upon the board of review.
Now as the Minister has set out in his
legislation these board of review are in
camera and wisely so. I am sure no one
would wish to have the problems of welfare
assistance cases being paraded about in news-
papers. But I think in some cases the
alternatives for welfare assistance are based
upon what is possible in that community. In
one particular case the recipient was simply
advised to sell her home and move some-
where else where a great many problems of
second mortgages and the rents from other
people would not be a part of the problem.
However in the municipality of Peterborough
there is just no way by which this woman can
get accommodation; there is virtually no
public housing available at the present time;
there is no place for the woman to go. Unless
there was someone at that hearing— and in
this particular case not only was the welfare
officer for Peterborough there, but also the
member of city council who is the chairman
of that committee and the member of the
provincial Parliament for that area was there
as well— to provide that kind of information in
terms of that local situation, which showed a
very much narrower area of choice for that
woman as she tried to face the desperate
problem that she was faced with at that par-
ticular time, it would be very difficult for her.
Another suggestion I have for the Minister
—I hope he will make some comment on this
—is that I think the proceedings of the board
of rex'iew should be published. Now I am not
suggesting that the names of the persons
involved should be published, let us make
that very clear, I am not suggesting that the
place or the particular hearing be indicated,
but I think it would be of immense value
for the proceedings to be published, to be
sent to the various welfare offices across this
province, so that they will know the level of
3074
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
compassion that should be e\iclcnt in e\cM-\-
part of Ontario.
As I say, if the le\el of activity that took
place in Peterborough is to be carried on by
this board of re\ iew, what I am suggesting; is
a kind of a body of precedent. This might
yev}' well cause a good deal less difTiculty for
the Minister himself, as the number of boards
of re\ iew might well be cut down by the fact
that welfare officers in \arious parts of
Ontario woidd know that in a particular place
a board of review made a decision about,
let VIS say, as an example that I am sure the
Minister will find rather disconcerting, a case
existed where a young girl could not attend
school because she could not get a hearing
aid. E\entually the local service club bought
the hearing aid for the girl.
There is a fantastic gap in welfare services
when a ser\ice club has to be found and
approached and encouraged and eventually
bought the hearing aid. Strangely enough the
poor girl could not go to school without it;
she was being deprived of education. The
hearing aid was bought by tlie local service
club, and then the welfare department de-
cided that they could not afford to buy tlie
batteries for the hearing aid and this is what
the whole board of review was about— $2.50
for batteries every month and a half for a
girl with a hearing aid.
Now you see, here is the kind of a problem
that surely must exist in other parts of tlie
province, where legislation as it is being in-
terpreted in various parts of the province
does not allow that welfare officer to feel that
he can provide municipal assistance, even
though it is well supported by the province,
to that individual for that purpose.
We have a body of precedent being
created, and I think it would be well for this
department to have that kind of precedent
placed before the Minister. One of the most
advantageous things which this board of re-
view can do is to find, seek out and sort oiit,
all the gaps and all the areas where people
fall down, where this legislation simply does
not cover need, desperate need of people
across this province.
The board of review can be far more than
just a committee which is trying to adjust
certain people's problems vis-d-vis the local
welfare officer, vis-d-vis the regional officer of
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices, and it must be far more than that. It is
an opportunity to have an ongoing review of
all the indaquacies and the deficiencies of the
legislation which this department is administer-
ing. I suggest the Minister take heart and
take courage, because that is exactly what I
would hope this board would be.
But for heaven's sake, let's get off this
subject now; I think we have talked about it
for hours. Surely the Minister, surely all rea-
son would convince the Minister that the time
to do it is now. Send out some indication to
tlie 108,000 people that they have recourse.
Let us get on with it, let us begin talking
about what really is the full scale problem
which exists in this Minister's department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I
Vv'ould say that I appreciate the reasoned and
reasonable remarks of the hon. member. I
can assure him that, confronted with the aj)-
pointment of indi\iduals to an appeal board,
a board of review such as this, it did cause
me a great deal of concern. Because I was
aware of the very heavy burden that would
fall vipon these individuals in coming to grips
with very difficult problems which confront
f)eople in very difficult situations. I have only
received a very brief report on what took
place in Peterborough. I think the hon. mem-
ber has summarized it very well.
The board must, of course, be bound by
legislation and regulations, everybody is.
There is little discretion even at the ministerial
level in this field. We are bound by the terms
of our legislation, the regulations passed and
we are bound by the tenns of our agreements
with Ottawa which permit us to do and not
to do certain things. However, I am hopeful
that not only will the review board deal with
the specific issues at hand to ensure that the
legislation and regulations are being complied
with, but that they will lean backwards in
their interpretation to give the full benefit of
the doubt, if any, to the applicant. I know
that lawyers do not like obiters. When judges
give judgments tlie judges are supposed to
give judgments witli reference to the law and
the facts at issue. Often, at times, they see
fit to pass a remark which is an obiter and
very often is a gratuitous remark. Certain
obiters in the course of judicial history, brief
tliough they may have been, have had a
tremendous impact in future development.
I am accordingly hopeful of a feedback
from the board of review, and if there are
holes and if there are flaws, this feedback
will highlight them. This department and
this Legislature can then take the necessary
action to rectify the situation, if it meets with
the general policies. As to the compilation of
a body of precedent, I envisage this taking
place so that it will ensure to the benefit of
all and will ensure to the benefit of adminis-
trators who will then be able to deal with
APRIL 15, 1969
3075
the legislation across the province in some
cohesive, uniform type of way. It will also be
of benefit to applicants who may feel tliat
they are entitled to assistance, but knowing
of a similar instance where the board of re-
view has dealt with the matter, will realize
that unfortunately or otherwise, their need
cannot be met by the legislation.
I repeat that I used the word "flexible".
The hon. member for Sarnia was questioning
my use of the word "flexible". As the board
of review goes into action, we have given it
as much flexibility as possible. I have hesi-
tated to be pinned down to any particular
course of action, to make it rigid. Peterbor-
ough may well be the historic beginning of
what will take place. The board members
will discharge their duties as they see them
—we will keep a very close eye on what they
may be doing since they may in the future be
under the watchful eyes of everyone. I think
it was very generous of them, if I may say
so, to have permitted other than the appli-
cants to be present. I think it shows a meas-
ure of the confidence they had in those who
would be present to appreciate what in
camera proceedings are.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Great
generosity; he had to fight his way through
the door.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I assure the hon. mem-
ber for Peterborough that his remarks are
much to the point. They will be considered
by me, and they will form, along with some
of the other suggestions, the background on
which the course of action for the coming
year will be taken.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Just
before the Minister finishes; I wonder if he
is inferring that in the future, if we might
be having a hearing before one of these
boards, and if it should happen that an ob-
server might be present who might not be
acceptable to the board, that the board would
refuse him entry? Or are we to understand,
at this time, that in view of the Minister's
compassion and his desire not to be held
down, what he really is telling us is that
anybody and anyone can sit in on these
boards, just to see that there will be no
possibility of the board operating like a star
chamber court. I wonder if the Minister
could make it quite clear to us that these
boards of review will be open to any and all
individuals who might care to sit in so long
as they do not impede the proceedings.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
regulations call for the hearings to be in
camera.
Mr. Braithwaite: So we go right back, Mr.
Chairman, to the points that I raised when
we started this whole discussion. I have the
regulations in front of me, and the Minister
and I discoursed at length as to the mean-
ing of the various sections and subsections—
I think it was section 15 of the regulations
—meant. It was my understanding, Mr.
Chairman, that the Minister made it quite
clear to us there would be no possibility of
anyone being prevented from being at one
of these board of review hearings.
I am wondering if the Minister has changed
his tone, because I made it quite clear to him
at that time that the regulations specifically
did not set this out and would he not be
good enough to revise or consider revising
the regulations so that it would be quite
clear who could appear on behalf of or with
an applicant. I think the Minister has changed
his tune today, and perhaps he would be
good enough to clarify once and for all just
what he intends these regulations to mean.
Or is he just trying to give us some soft soap
so we will go on to some other part of these
estimates.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member is utterly confused.
Mr. Braithwaite: Oh, nice to hear.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister needs some
company.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He confuses himself.
There is a distinction between someone who
is there as a representative on behalf of an
applicant, who can appear and is entitled to
appear as I have indicated, and someone who
wants to sit in as an observer. There is a dis-
tinction, which I think even the hon. member
can grasp.
Mr. Braithwaite: Do not talk down to me
—through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister.
I do not care who you think you are. As far
as I am concerned, I am interested in any
person who is before this board of review,
and so far as I am concerned, I am not at
all certain that this Minister is interested in
the poor. He is talking nice and smoothly
now because we might just get off this board
of review. But he does not confuse me.
We want it quite clear that if there is a
board of review, any and every person of the
general public can appear— and I do not see
why not. You do not have to say because a
person is a member of Parliament, he is then
3076
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
entitled by some grace of yours to sit there.
This is public money, and it is just like a
court of law; unless there is some real defi-
nite purpose that is to be served, the Minister
should allow any person to sit in. Do not try
to confuse me with the flow of words. I know
what I am talking about.
Mr. Lewis: You run that department like
a dinosaur, and you accuse someone—
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarbor-
ough Centre was on her feet first.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to assure the Minister that the people
on this side of the House, I am sure, would
like to get off the board of review as much
as he wants. But it is impossible to get off
it now, because of the type of board of
reviews that this government has made and
the way it is going to be working. It is a
secret board of review. The only people who
know about it are people vitally concerned
with it. The recipients do not know about
it. The administrators— which is absolutely
shocking, Mr. Chairman— do not know about
it. There must be regional administrators out
tliere also.
Surely, if it is nobody else's responsibility,
it is the responsibility of the regional man to
see that the individual administrations, small
as some of them may be, at least know about
this board and have the Act in front of them.
It is not a question of getting tired of
listening to the board of review or anything
else. It is a question of very serious principles
involved that the federal government would
make an Act hke The Canada Assistance Plan
in its overall concern of the conditions of
people in our country, only to have it com-
pletely negated except for the fact that a
board was named.
For a number of months there was only
office equipment. Now there are three ix;>ople
on the board. We have had our first board
of review and yet, if we sent anybody out to
call a hundred offices or a hundred appli-
cants, nobody would know about the board
of review.
I would spare the Minister all of this if
there was some assurance that he would take
to the Cabinet his view that every person
under this board— under the administration
of his department— has a right to know about
the review board.
Now you cannot make a fool of people such
as the federal government, the people who
are deeply involved there. I am sure the Min-
ister would agree with me that the people
at the federal level expected a proper
tribunal. I would ask the Minister to state
clearly if he does not agree that Doctor
Willard, for example, who has submitted his
report now to his Cabinet.
I would like to know what is in that
report. Much of it is the same sort of problem
that we are facing here— making a sensible
standard system.
It is not going to be sensible. It is not
going to have any sort of standard if the
Minister will not take it upon himself either
to remove the cost of administration of wel-
fare from the municipalities and direct it
from here, or see that the regional men are
doing their job and see diat the municipal
offices are doing their job and doing it accord-
ing to the laws of this province.
We are not asking for anydiing that is
not legal. The laws are very carefully set
out in the original Act. And the board of
review, I guess, is the greatest disappoint-
ment to anyone concerned with social services
in Ontario.
In The Canada Assistance Plan I would
like to read from chapter 45:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada,
recognizing that the provision of adequate
assistance to and in respect of persons in
need and the prevention and removal of
the causes of poverty and dependence on
public assistance are the concern of all
Canadians, is desirous of encouraging the
further development and extension of assis-
tance in welfare service programmes
throughout Canada by sharing more fully,
with the provinces in the cost thereof.
Now, if this province had dealt with this in
an honest fashion, saying we do not really
want a board of review for welfare recipi-
ents, so we will not take the money from
The Canada Assistance Plan, then one could
respect and understand this decision, Mr.
Chairman.
But to have taken the moneys and know
that this Act actually says that no person in
need should be going without— yet we hear
the member for Peterborough talk about
$2.50 worth of batteries per month for a
child's hearing aid, in order to be educated,
having not been considered part of the wel-
fare administration.
Now looking at the child's need and look-
ing at the family trying to face bureaucracy
in this need, the family does not know about
the board of review or form six. It is only
fortuitous that the poor have organized in
Peterborough, where the family woidd not
know about it. Now that in itself is shocking
in this day and age.
APRIL 15, 1969
3077
The Canada Assistance Plan, chapter 15,
item (g) (1) says:
Person in need means:
1. A person who by reason of inabihty
to obtain employment, loss of the principal
family provider, illness, disability, age or
other cause of any kind acceptable to the
provincial authority is found to be unable
on the basis of a test, established by the
provincial authority, that takes into account
that person's budgetary requirements and
the income and resources available to him
to meet such requirements to provide ade-
quately for himself or for himself and his
dependants, or any of them.
Now the province, to live up to that section
of the federal Act, made a clause which the
recipients do not know about once again and
which, the administrator should know about.
There must be a manual in administrator
offices, Mr. Chairman, so that they administer
this Act according to the law and according
to the way it was passed and written in this
House because under The General Welfare
Assistance Act, 1967, under special assistance,
section 17, after covering aU the forms of
special assistance that are available to people
in the province— which the people do not
know about— it is left at the instigation of the
administrator to say you are allowed those
batteries under this particular item. That is
not being done, Mr. Chairman.
Under this section, costs for diets, various
drugs, dental services, odds and ends of needs
are covered right down to item 17 and item
17 says "any other special item or service
authorized by the deputy Minister".
That clause is hke a serpent in tliis Act
as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman.
That clause was simply put in here by this
government in order to meet the requirements
here of where the province must state its view
as to what it will take into account as being
need.
In this province, I think we might as well
stop kidding ourselves, Mr. Chairman— the
Minister has answered very graciously as tlie
Peterborough member spoke very graciously
about his first visit to the board of review-
somewhere along the line we either still have
hope in this government as to what it is
administrating in the way of need or we
realize that it is administrating only the
handout system and it does not want to
touch anything more.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. The matter with which the
hon. member is dealing comes under vote
2002 and not under 2001.
Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I direct your attention,
Mr. Chairman, that vote 2002 deals with pro-
vincial allowances and benefits. I would say
that 90 per cent of the hon. member's dis-
course has been in relation to that. I think
it should be held, or not repeated under vote
20O2.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we could try to
keep the debates within the vote under con-
sideration. If the hon. member has been
talking about something imder 2002, perhaps
she would return to vote 2001 and restrict it
to any items under 2001.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am
speaking about a family at the board of review
in Peterborough on Tuesday. Where does that
family fall? The family was at a board of
review on— correction, Mr, Chairman, not
Tuesday— either Wednesday or Thursday of
last week.
I am speaking about the inadequacies of
the board of review, as was required by The
Canada Assistance Plan, The Minister as-
sured Ottawa at the Ministers' conference that
we have a board of review, I am pointing out
that we have a board of review that negates
the intention of the federal Act by making it
a board of review that is not a tribunal; it
has only one person who can sit on it. It is
a board of review that— I am going to ask my
question in a moment— is costly and is dealing
witli matters such as $2.40 worth of hearing
aid batteries per month.
I am pointing out that tlie Minister is fail-
ing to communicate with his regional men
and they are failing to communicate with the
local administration. We have a need for a
board of review that is functional. I pointed
out earher that no municipal ofiBce— we
checked out eight— knew about the board of
review nor had copies of form 6. This is aU
in the administration, in my view, from this
department and through the board of review
to the local level.
I am pointing out that the Act adequately
covers the things that are—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. That was not the portion I
cbjeoted to. I listened very carefully to all
of that for the third time. It was when the
hon. member got on to a completely diflFerent
topic— not what she is now repeating— that I
objected. I have no objection to those re-
marks; those were pertinent to her attitude
towards the board of review. To save this
3078
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House time, that is not tlie portion I was
raising on a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I think the hon. meni-
])er-
Mrs. XL Rcnwick: On a point of order, may
I ask if the Minister would elarify exaetly
what he was objeeting to?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I was pointing out to
tlie hon. member and tlie others that vote
2002 refers to pro\ incial allowances and bene-
fits and municipal allowances and assistance,
and when it comes to dealing with those
aspects they should be dealt witli imder vote
2002. If there is something that is pertinent
to the board of review, it should come under
200L But the hon. member— in fact several of
the hon. members— have been nmning one
into the other. And I may suggest, Mr. Chair-
man, if it is the wish of the House that we
deal witli 2001 and 2002 simultaneously and
carry the two votes-
Mr. Lewis: We will never get to 2002
unless the Minister answers questions.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have answered every
(luestion.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister has an-
swered no question. If the Minister cannot
answer the simple question of giving iron clad
assurance of an individual intimation to each
one of the welfare recipients that he is entitled
to this board, this will go on and on and on.
Wake up to it, I say to the Minister. It is as
simple as that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
answered that question.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister has not.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have answered that
several times.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister is either
()l)tuse or boneheaded, and I do not wish to—
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Is that Par-
liamentary?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member has
wanted to pin me down to a specific; I refuse
to be pinned down to specifics.
Mr. MacDonald: There is nothing specific
about it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will take under con-
sideration all suggestions.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —A decision will be
made in what respect this notice will be
given to the applicants.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, this Min-
ister has insulted the intelligence and the in-
tegrity of this Legislature. Two years ago, we
passed $60,000 to set up a board of review,
and now he gets up and fatuously tells us he
will "take it under consideration". He sat on
tlie question of a board of review for a whole
}ear and did nothing after we had money
passed to appoint it. Wliy, we do not know.
I say to this Minister his credibility is sub-
zero, and until this Minister is willing to get
up and give us the assurance in a manner in
which members on this side of tlie House
have indicated it can be done— on a chit in
one of the letters that go out to these people,
that they have this right and that fonn 6 is
in the various welfare offices— until the Min-
ister is willing to do that, this debate will
go on and on and on. The Minister has not
yet given us that commitment, and until he
is willing to give it, he is trying to kid us, he
is trying to kid the people involved, he is
kidding the federal government. The Minister
should resign; he is a failure and he does not
know it. That is the problem.
An hon. member: He knows it.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is the hon. mem-
ber's opinion.
Mr. MacDonald: Right, it is, and it is a
growing opinion in—
Mr. Chairman: Order! I wonder if the
Chairman might make some reply to the
points of order raised.
Mr. MacDonald: Tlie Minister has not
been answered.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I say
thiij, that I have not said that any of the
metliods proposed by the hon. members will
not be done-
Mr. M-^cDonald: The Minister has not
said anything.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not said that
tliey will be done, because I refuse to be
pinned down to a procedure which may prove
not to be workable. I have not ruled any
particular suggestion out of order at all, that
it will not be considered.
APRIL 15, 1969
3079
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister is plain
bone-headed.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The Minister-
Mr. Chairman: I recognize the hon. mem-
ber for Etobicoke.
Mr. Braithvvaite: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, when we started this discussion I
suggested that if nothing else, the Minister
could use the post oiRces or the banks, just as
the government does for OMSIP, just to make
it known that this is possible.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That is
not a point of order.
Mr. Braithwaite: That is the point I am
talking about.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is not
speaking to the point of order. There have
been two or three points of order raised and
considerable discussion thereon. The com-
mittee will recall that the Chairman some
time ago suggested we should deal with the
matter of the board of review, which seems
to constitute the greater part of vote 2001.
So it is 2001 we are dealing with and we are
discussing the board of review. At one point
it was suggested that each member who had
any questions to ask or talk about should
direct them to the Minister. I remember we
went off the track on that. The Minister
started to answer the questions specifically.
V/e are back on 2001, the hon. member for
Scarborough Centre was directing questions
to the Minister regarding the board of re-
view, and I think she is quite in order to do
Mrs. M. Renwick. Mr. Chairman, I would
like, with all respect, to draw to the Minister's
attention that we are being asked to pass
$146,000 for the board of review and we
were asked in 1968-69 to pass 146,000. There
is no question, Mr. Chairman, that there
would be no board of review necessary if the
local offices were administering this Act cor-
rectly and if the Minister would take it upon
himself to make certain that the Act was
being administered locally the way it was
passed in this House.
Mr. MacDonald: But he refuses.
Mrs. M. Renwick. Secondly, there are
regional people with whom he could be deal-
ing, I would like to ask him specifically how
many regional men are out there and what
their role is right now. None of the money
that is being passed here would even be
necessary.
So now we are trying to reason why the
cost of a board of review last Wednesday and
last Thursday should be paid by taxpayers.
We must have a board, but why should we
be having a board paid by taxpayers to hear
from a family in need about $2.50 worth of
batteries for a child who is deaf, when the
Act very clearly states, "any other special
item or service authorized by the Deputy
Minister."
The deviousness of this section— now the
Minister may be gracious as can be, and say,
"well, we do not know how this happens out
at the local level." We have to know how it
happens, Mr. Chairman. This is his job, this
is our job. With all due respect we have to
know how it happens, we have to know why
we had to send three people to Peterborough
to sit in camera— which, must cost a lot of
money— to find out about a child that was
lucky enough to get a hearing aid through a
private agency. Somehow nobody could inter-
pret the Act that had been passed in Ottawa
and passed here, administered locally, to see
that the child had a $2.50 battery every
month for her hearing aid, and this is not an
isolated case, Mr. Chairman. The reason we
are putting up such a fight is that there are
hundreds and hundreds of similar such cases.
The Minister should do three things.
1. Advise the people of their rights under
the legislation, as it is now, under the board
of review. They do not know their rights in
many respects as it is anyway.
2. Make certain that the administrators
know the people's rights and start to think
in terms of their rights and start to think in
terms of prevention and rehabilitation of
people.
3. To straighten out the whole misconcep-
tion of why we have this type of thing to
tackle— why we have a problem of a $2.50
battery which has to be dealt with by three
people going down to Peterborough to hear
about it. If the Minister would assure the
members of Opposition that the families in
need— goodness knows we are not mailing to
the whole province, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We would if
it was a speech by the Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) that was mailed.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Yes, agreed. There are
only seven to eight thousand families in
Metro— we are asking that they be advised,
and I do not see any way that the Minister
can possibly not take this responsibility. A
3080
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
secret board of review is of no purpose what-
soever. It certainly negates the Canada Assist-
ance Plan. I would think Dr. Willard would
turn white if he knew what kind of board of
review we have here in Ontairo.
I would like to ask the Ministex how he
sees the board of review working; how does
he see what he has done; does the Minister
set, Mr. Chairman, what he has done to
federal-provincial relationships by making
this kind of board of review? I would imagine
that they are trying to be patient and that
they are trying to be decent, but how long
can the federal people hold back from saying
that this province is shockingly lagging in
any concept of prevention or any concept of
administering anything than the paternalistic
handout that it is administrating.
The people at the other end of this spec-
trum, Mr. Chairman, cannot fight for them-
selves in many cases and camiot speak for
themselves. The poor are in such a dis-
advantaged position that tliey are organized
in some sections of this province for the very
first time that I know of. In Scarborough they
are organized, in Peterborough tliey are
organized, the ground work certainly is there
in Kingston, it is certainly there in Brantford,
because, you see, the people cannot have any
flexibility against what is happening to them
through this kind of board of review.
If the Minister would recognize one of two
things. Is he going to sit back and let his
Cabinet sit back and watch the poor and
the unemployed organize in this province to
the point where it brings real shame to the
conditions here? Or are they going to put in
a board of review that will deal with the
problem that is there? That is what this is
going to boil down to and I must ask the
Minister's view as to why nobody in the muni-
cipal areas have form 6; also as to why the
regional administrators have not seen that the
local administrators know about the board of
review? This is a very serious thing. The
regulations were gazetted the first of Feb-
ruary. Here it is the middle of April and
nobody knows about this board even in the
area that it is administrating.
Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. Minister
like to answer the questions of this hon.
member first before we—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will answer the very
last one. It will be the intent of this depart-
ment to ensure that all of the local admin-
istrators are made aware not only of form 6,
but of the general proceedings which will be
taking place in relationship to the provision
of the board of review.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it is
simply not good enough. You know we are
just not getting any real assurance that things
are not going to go on as they have done,
shockingly, for years.
I would like to ask the Minister when were
the first form 6's printed and under whose
instigation, because the people of Peter-
borough that have organized the poor have
told me that they ask for form 6's from
Queen's Park and are told that they were not
printed until a month after the regulations
had been distributed. I would like to know
why the form 6's are not out in those oflSces
and where they are now? What programme
does the Minister have if he ignores the
people, which I think is shocking. I do not
see how the people on this side of the House
can allow it to take place. How could he
ignore letting them know about the board
of review? How does he justify the fact that
the administrators do not know?
Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Minister in-
tend to answer the questions further?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The lack of an actual
printed form, form 6, did not prevent the
holding of the hearings as was outlined by the
hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman),
and they will be produced in sufficient quan-
tity.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that on the desks
of each of the hon. members are these pam-
phlets which have been produced in the sum
total of 100,000 and there is a notice respect-
ing the board of review and the appeals
from—
Mr. Brovm: Who gets them?
Mr. Lewis: Where have these gone to?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: General distribution,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis: What does "general distribu-
tion" mean?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Exactly what it says,
"general distribution throughout the prov-
ince."
Mr. Lewis: To the members, to the
teachers, how many of these go out?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): There are
two million families in this province.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am informed that
there were 100,000 of these printed with
APRIL IS. 1989
3081
relationship to our programmes. Three of
them have a bearing on the board of review
and they will be dispersed throughout the
whole province through various forms.
Mr. Lewis: Well if I may, on a simple
question and answer basis— in an attempt to
ehcit some of this material— why cannot the
Minister assure us that he will instruct all
municipal welfare administrators throughout
the province of Ontario to have form 6 in
their offices?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no reason.
That will be done.
Mr. Lewis: When will that be done, Mr.
Chairman, has the Minister any idea? Can
we ask him a question?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Forthwith.
Mr. Lewis: Forthwith. Fine. That was
number one.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As soon as the printed
form is available in sufficient quantity.
Mr. Lewis: The printed form is not avail-
able now?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not in a very large
quantity.
Mr. Lewis: It tends to reveal the intention
of the legislation does it not? It is a matter
of no inspired prescience to understand what
the Minister intended by the board of review,
by the fact that "X" number of months after
he has the regulations printed he does not
yet have forms sufficient to provide applicants
or recipients to make appeal.
Well, Mr. Chairman, might another ques-
tion be asked? Does the Minister intend to
inform his regional welfare administrators of
the board of review function and of their
right to suggest to municipal administrators
that they should have form 6's available at
iill times?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Does the hon. member
know of any regional administrator who is
not aware?
Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. Chairman, they are
not aware in Kingston because the roll-call
of cases indicated the need for a board of
review in every instance. They are not aware
in Peterborough because a member of this
Legislature had to bring it to the House.
Tliey are not aware in Brantford because we
are having a judicial enquiry. They are not
aware in Scarborough because the members
of the housing association had to get to-
gether in order to petition the Minister. One
wonders about the quality of the regional
administrators in this province when all over
Ontario no one is aware of the fact that a
board of review is available.
The Minister asks are they aware or are
they not aware? There are very few areas
where people are aware. How can they be
aware of the board of review, Mr, Chairman,
there are no form 6's available; there is no
material distributed; and the regional wel-
fare administrators have obviously not been
instructed by the department to do the job.
That is a very simple question to answer. I
wish the Minister would reply to my ques-
tion with the forthrighitness and brevity with
which I have repHed to his.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I might ask the final
question that a sort of piece de resistance,
and it is the resistance that we are worried
about where the Minister is concerned. Why
can the Minister not give a guarantee to
this Legislature— or to phrase it differently,
will the Minister give a guarantee to this
Legislature now, that forthwith he will in-
form every apphcant and every recipient of
his right to a board of review? I am not
talking of a mechanism; I will accept his
right to dictate the mechanism. Will he
indicate that he will forthwith inform them,
and that means in writing, and in a way
which is readily discernible to the naked
eye, that they have a right to the board of
review?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have said at least a
dozen times that it will be the intent and
purpose of our procedures to make sure that
ultimately each applicant is aware of his
right to the board of review.
Mr. Deans: How is he going to be made
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have answered the
question of the hon. member. I will not
commit myself to any specific form or
mechanism, or ritual such as the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough Centre and other mem-
bers wish. I am saying this, that it is the
intent and purpose of this department to
make known, during the course of dealing
with the application at the appropriate time,
that there is a board of review procedure.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, again and
again we go round. The Minister keeps men-
tioning application, but in many cases these
people are welfare recipients who are not
receiving what they think they should receive
under the existing legislation. Obviously, it
is quite easy to give an application to a new
3082
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
recipient, and on the application you can
tell him that there is a review procedure.
But tlie point is that 108,000 people at this
present moment are in some kind of rela-
tionship with the Minister's department. We
want to know how those people have an
opportimity to know that they can come
and ask a board of review to work out what
they believe to be their need under the legis-
lation in this province. I think we are being
completely reasonable.
The workmen's compensation is completely
open. Tliere is no attempt to conceal from
people who are receiving money under The
Work-men's Compensation Act, that they have
an appeal procedure— in fact, two or three
appeal procedures. There are several other
jurisdictions, other pieces of legislation where
there is appeal procedure and where it is
completely open. And we are not asking the
Minister to go through any kind of a ritual.
Surely it is not a ritual to suggest that one
can place in an envelope a statement, along
v/ith tlie monthly cheque, or indicate throvigh
some other means of normal communication,
the simple fact that there is a board of
review. It is incomprehensible to me that we
should be carrying on tliis debate hours and
hours and hours, wasting a great deal of
time, when all we are asking for is that the
people of Ontario know what their rights
are.
Mr. J. Renwick: That is right!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I am
getting convinced tliat the hon. members, and
the hon. member with his recent remarks, do
not want to receive an answer. I have given
the answer that it is the intent and purpose
of the department to let every recipient
know-
Mr. Pitman: "Recipient" now.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Or applicant, the per-
son who is involved, the person at the otlier
end, know that there is a board of review,
and this little notice may be just the ticket
in some form of communication.
Mr. Deans: A lot of nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
statement at the bottom says: Board of
Review.
In order that applicants for, or recipients
of, family benefits allowances, general assis-
tance or vocational rehabilitation services,
may appeal a decision, a board of review is
established. A hearing may be requested by
writing to, and so on. You have the three
terms; you have applicant, you have recipient,
you have a decision. A decision is refusal, or
fixing a sum. A decision covers tlie water-
front. I would hope that something along this
line will be able to be worked out.
Mr. Lewis: What do you mean, you "hope
will be able to be worked out." You are full
of intents and purposes—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The intent and pur-
pose-
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister had the
floor. The hon. member for Scarborough
West.
Mr. Lewis: He is like Fowler's dictionan
of English usage with all these intents and
purposes and proclamations and ultimates. I
cannot understand why the Minister is re-
duced to a hope. Has he no power. Have his
Cabinet colleagues so quickened to his in-
capacit\' that he has no power to make de-
cisions for himself?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member is
quick to seize on one word. I use time and
time again, "intent and purpose," and if the
hon. member is so obtuse as to need to refer
to a dictionary I am sure there are a great
many about.
Mr. Lewis: All we ask at this point is what
his intent and purpose mean. Are we going
to inform recipients? We do not care whether
you inform them on green paper or white
paper. We do not care whether you inform
them in a proclamation or a simple letter-
Mr. MacDonald: Just so as you inform
them.
Mr. Lewis: We just want them to be in-
fonned, and informed in the next few days.
That is what we are asking of the Minister,
that all the recipients or the api^licants have
a procedure for being informed of the avail-
ability of a board of review. The Minister
need not be some modem Nero about it; his
department is in ashes anyway. He need not
sit and play with verbal fiddles while we on
this side of the House keep pushing him
about it. The simple fact is, Mr. Chaimian,
that we have asked of the Minister that
agreement and we are not going to stop until
we get that agreement. The Minister might
as well know. The Minister might also know
that we recognize diat his own party wishes
he would give that agreement, his own caucus
wishes he would give that agreement-
Mrs. M. Renwick: Surely by now.
APRIL 15, 1969
3083
Mr. Lewis: It is a very simple proposition
for the Minister to stand in his place and say:
"Not as a question of intent, or piu-pose, of
hope, or wish, or desire— I, as Minister of The
Department of Social and Family Services,
do undertake in the presence of this Legis-
lature to inform eveiy applicant for, or re-
cipient of, a family allowance benefit, or
general welfare assistance, of their right to
appeal to a board of review forthwith." That
is all you have to say; very simple. I cannot
imagine why the Minister cannot give that
guarantee to this House now, and I would
like to ask him why not.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, Han-
sard will show that what the hon. member
has stated is not what has been talked about
by the other members for at least seven hours.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is not true.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is not tlie case. I
say this, I will take that under consideration,
as I have the other suggestions made.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman-
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbur>-
East was trying to get the floor.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask this of the Minister: As I understand it,
every second month or so, in the cheques
that go out to the recipients of welfare, there
is included in that letter or with that cheque,
a little note asking the people to advise the
department of any change in their circum-
stances. If it is possible to do that every sec-
ond month, and we have 100,000 of these
little jim-dandies right now, what is wrong
with putting these 100,000 in the next set
of envelopes going out to the recipients? It
is very simple. You can do it for something
else; why can you not do it for this, unless it
is sheer obstinacy?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Downsview made this very sug-
gestion some many hours ago, and I told
him that there was a great deal of merit in
what he was suggesting and it was going to
be taken under consideration.
Mr. Pitman: Well, what are you going to
do?
Mr. Martel: Is it obstinacy or what?
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2001. The hon.
member for Scarborough Centre was on her
feet.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to speak to the Minister, through you,
about this brochure. The Minister need only
go, Mr. Chairman, to six welfare offices half-
way across this city to know tliat there is
never any large supply of welfare brochures
in those offices. Sure, if you ask for one, and
I have done it-
Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. member still on
the board of review?
Mrs. M. Renwick: The board of review is
now on a brochure, at this point.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member has a
different pamphlet in her hand. We are still
on the board of review.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I realize
it is impossible to see it from there, but the
board of review is referred to at the bottom
of both pamphlets, and a third one also. This,
Mr. Chairman, is not good enough. This
brochure, when it arrives at the home of
some of the people who are disadvantaged
in this province, is going to mean nothing,
when the reference is away down at the
back, in the least attractive spot. Why did
we not have a folder on the board of review?
Now, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member
for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has pointed
out, when the department wants to mail
something out it can do it like snapping a
finger. And it has done so, as the member
pointed out. Why would the department
decline to send out a letter to all applicants
and recipients? Why would the department
not consider that the people do not know
about the board of review and that they
should know.
The Minister might even reap an advantage,
Mr. Chairman, because in the New York area
this material gathered by boards of review is
material that is now being used by the direc-
tors to institute the new system, the guaran-
teed income. This is their material. Tliis is
their research. But, Mr. Chairman, the Min-
ister cannot possibly be exposed to the re-
search that is available tlirough the proper
board of review as long as he is keeping it a
secret board of review.
Now I am going to have to telephone
municipal offices to ask if they have this
folder. And that is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman,
Ijecause during last—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, may I
just take a moment to say that these folders
are just hot off the press.
3084
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
if the hon. Minister is on a point of order?
Mr. Chairman: Well, the hon. Minister did
not—
Mr. Lewis: A two-aixl-a-half-year-old an-
nual report?
Mr. Chairman: Order!
The hon. Minister did not rise on a point
of order. He interjected tliat the circulars
were just oflF the press.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman does not
have any eyes. The Minister was on his feet,
and I would appreciate the same courtesy ex-
tended from your chair to the other side of
the House that is extended over here when
we rise and forget to rise on a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Well I may say it will pre-
sent a ver>- great difficulty for the Chairman
when all the members of the New Democratic
Party and sometimes the Liberal Party are
up at the same time. I will do my best.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man; I really think you always do your best
in a difficult job and difficult situations. I just
wondered if you realized tliat the Minister
was on his feet when he-
Mr. Chairman: I fully realized that.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
I would like to ask the Minister when these
lirochures were printed.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001?
Mrs. M. Renwick: No, Mr. Chairman. The
Minister has referred! to the fact that his
board of review is on these folders and this is
his purpose of communication to the public.
Now I am asking: when did the board of re-
view go on these folders?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The folders were de-
livered today, I believe.
Mr. MacDonald: When did the folder go
to the press?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, then I
would like to ask when they went to press?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: March 10, I believe.
Mr. Lewis: March 10. That is a pretty
(^uick press you have.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Then, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask: was it the Minister's intent
that this would be the way in which the
recipients and applicants would learn of the
board of review— from this folder?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is one way of
many possibilities.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the Minister to list the
exact possibilities. There are recipients today,
being refused assistance who are entitled to
apply to the board of review. I maintain, Mr.
Chairman, that in the same way as I found in
dealing with the welfare office in North York,
in the recess last week, that the administra-
tors do not know about the board of review,
that the applicant does not know about it.
Yet the Minister says there are many ways.
But if you call the North York welfare
office, Mr. Chairman; if the Minister would
call that office— unless they have changed since
last Tuesday and Wednesday, there are not
any form sixes and they do not know about—
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is becom-
ing quite repetitive at the i>resent time.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr, Chair-
man. I would like to ask tlie Minister if this
is the intention of the Minister. Is this how
the people will be informed of the board of
review?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): The hon. member is nagging again.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I replied to that ques-
tioffi, Mr. Chairman. I said that is one of the
possibilities. Hansard will record suggestions
made from the other side of the House. All
of these possibilities and potentials will be
explored.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
will have to pin it down then. What recourse
do family benefit recipients or applicants
have if tliey have been refused or cut back?
What do they have, Mr. Chairman, out there
today, what is happening to those people?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They have the same
recourse as was available to the people in
Peterborough who launched their appeals
which have been determined.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, how did
the people in Peterborough laimch their ap-
peal?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They launched it by
simple letter, I believe, to the department.
They were directed to the board of appeal,
which treated those initial letters as the appli-
cations for a hearing and they were so dealt
with.
APRIL 15, 1969
3085
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister, is he oblivious or is
he ignoring tlie fact that the reason why the
only applicants to the board of review are in
Peterborough, is that the union, the unem-
ployed workers, or the organized unemployed
in Peterborough instigated this whole move-
ment to the board of review, not the appli-
cants? Rightfully so, the organizers were told
that the applicants had to apply by them-
selves, which is the way the regulations are
listed, and the applicants did in all hkelihood
eventually apply by themselves. But there
would be no applications to the board of
review if the organized imemployed in Peter-
borough had not done this. Does the Min-
ister know about that or not, I would like to
ask.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am aware of the
activities of Mr. Peters. I take this oppor-
tunity of commending Mr. Peters. I have
never met the gentleman. I only know him by
hearsay.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: What I have heard of
him is good, and he should be commended as
a citizen. I do not know his organization but
I have heard of him, and of course, I have
seen his letterhead.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, could I
ask the Minister, does he think this is fair,
that the only way recipients or applicants
are going to know of the board of review is
by organized, interested persons coming for-
ward? There are a great many of these persons
and they are coming forward, I assure the
Minister, in leaps and bounds. They are com-
ing forward in the form of social workers,
students, religious people, and organizers;
they are coming forward to organize the poor
against this type of bureaucracy. The only
hope for the people, and for the concerned
people, was the board of review, and that
has gone right down the drain until the Min-
ister assures us everyone will know about the
board of review. I would like to ask the Min-
ister, does he think this is right that the only
applications he got were from Peterborough
and from Mr. Peters' efforts in Peterborough
on behalf of the poor? Etoes he think this is
a fair way to be administering the activities of
the board of review?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would think, Mr.
Chairman, that all those interested parties
that the hon. member referred to will be
among the 100,000 who will receive these
pamphlets in due course and that they will
know the necessary action to be taken on be-
half of any recipient or applicant who is
unaware of his rights of appeal.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Is 100,000 copies enough
to cover every family in Ontario, Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would not think so,
Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And I would like to ask,
what about the families for whom none of
these were printed? Where do they fall in
this catch-as-catch-can system?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, these
pamphlets were printed as an initial step to
inform the public of Ontario— applicants, re-
cipients and general members of the public
of the social service progranmie of this prov-
ince. They are initial steps, and I can assure
the hon. member, as I assured the hon.
member for York South, this is but the be-
ginning of letting everybody concerned know
the whole social service package of this
province.
Mrs. M. Renwick: On the board of review,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask about the
40-day delay from the time that the form 6
is received until a decision will be made. It
says under 15(a), item 6:
The board of review shall reach a deci-
sion, according to the evidence, within a
period not exceeding 40 days from the date
that the notice of form 6 is received by the
chairman of the board.
Mr. Chairman, if you are a welfare apphcant
in need, 40 days is ridiculous. There simply
has to be an immediate decision made, at the
very most in the period of three days. Also,
Mr. Chairman, tliis type of regulation says
that it is to be done from the date that form
6 was received by the chairman of the board.
We find there are not any form 6's out. The
fact that there are not any form 6's out could
negate this section of the Act because how is
the chairman of the board going to receive
form 6 when there are not any out there,
Mr. Chairman? I would like to ask the Min-
ister his view on the 40 days, which seems to
me to be an unconscionably long time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would hope, Mr.
Chairman, that the board of review would
hand down the decisions as expeditiously as
the circumstances will require. But it would
appear that when you are setting up boards of
review, it is felt necessary to state a period.
As hon members of this House who are
members of the law profession are aware.
3086
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
there are occasions upon which those who sit
in jndgment on appeals where the time goes
on for a considerable period; there is really
no significance, it was a period that was set.
It is to be hoped that the board of review
will not normally take that time and will
assimie that that is their deadline. I would
hope that, in the circumstances of the cases,
they would render their decisions as soon as
reasonably possible.
Mrs. M. Renwick: But Mr. Chairman, I
would like to say to the Minister, surely in
\'our riding you must have some applicants
and recipients of welfare assistance, and if you
have an applicant, Mr. Minister, that applied
and is turned down, I would like to ask if you
are happy that he might be turned down and
not know for 40 days the decision of the
lx)ard of review?
Mr. Chairman, the Minister looks as if he
did not really understand what I was saying.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member is
assuming that the board of review will take
40 days in each instance, and I say no, I can-
not envisage that type of thing taking place.
We set a figure of days, and there it is. If it
proves that that is being abused, surely it
will be amended, because the intent and
purpose is to make the board of review work.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the Min-
ister has not answered my question. I am not
saying that every case, as the Minister said,
could take 40 days. I am concerned if there
is one case that takes longer than the re-
quired time, and of people going to this type
of administration for assistance, for food, for
shelter. To ask them to wait for a decision of
this length of time is absolutely ridiculous. I
ask the Minister again, as a legislator who has
been elected from his riding to represent all
the people in his riding, if he is satisfied when
liis recipients or applicants are turned down
and they have to wait a period that might
be up to 40 days before they know where
they stand with their application for general
welfare assistance? Is the Minister satisfied
that that happens to his own constituents?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I re-
iterate, for the fourth time, that I would
hope— in fact, I expect— the board of review,
in whom I have confidence, will render the
decisions necessary in a time that is reason-
able under the circumstances of the case at
hand.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, have the
decisions been made on the cases that ap-
peared before the board of review in Peter-
borough last Wednesday and Thursday?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not think so. I
think they are being considered at the
present time.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: I want to make one or two
comments on the way in which the board of
review is set out in these pamphlets. This is
what I would call, Mr. Minister, a form of
non-communication.
I wonder if the Minister realizes the fact
that the people who are reading these pam-
phlets, in many cases— I am sure if you did a
survey — probably have somewhere from
grade 6 to grade 8 education. The main rea-
son people are welfare recipients is because
at some point in their lives they were not
able to get sufiicient educational background
to be able to take part in the labour force of
this province.
I would suggest to him that this would be
really very good for a PhD dissertation, but
in order to communicate to people who are in
need and who are at this educational level, I
would suggest that this simply is completely
irrelevant.
As I say, if you are trying to tell the edu-
cated, the well-to-do, tlie upper middle class
what The Department of Social and Family
Services is doing in Ontario, this is very
good. But I suggest putting this into an
envelope is not going to be— I was going to
say of any use— but is of very little use to the
individual who is working at the level in
which many of these people have to try to
read and interpret.
I just read the section under the board of
review, which has already been stated, we
might say, in accessible place. It says:
In order that applicants for or recipients
of family benefits allowance, general as-
sistance or vocational rehabilitation ser-
vices, may appeal a decision . . .
A decision about what? The Minister may
say obviously this is stated in the decision in
relation to this Act, or the decision of the
welfare officer. But it does not say that.
Appeal a decision without any indication of
what tlie decision is all about, or the kind of
decision that they might refer to. It says
nothing about the fact that the individual
may have a representative with him at this
board of review.
APRIL 15, 1969
3087
A few moments ago, the Minister made a
few very kind remarks, and in reply to one
I appreciated, in fact, I am going to send the
Minister a letter and suggest that Mr. Ray
Peters might be somebody he might appoint
to the board of review. He is a person who
has been closely associated with the creation
of the board, and with the disoriented in the
Peterborough area. He might very well look
at someone like that.
We were talking about the fact that a
full spectrum of society should sit on that
board of review, and I suggest that he will
receive that letter veiy soon. The point is
that this is the kind of information that has
to be given to people if it is going to be
meaningful to them. It is not enough that
we set out the rights, but that we set out
the rights in a way in which people can
know what those rights are. I suggest to you
that putting this in an envelope and sending
it to the normal, "run-of-the-mill" welfare
recipient is not going to be a means of com-
munication between the Minister's depart-
ment and tliose people.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, a right ignored is a right denied, a right
supressed is no right at all; a right denied is
die abdication of this Minister's office and his
responsibility. He should be excoriated, and
rightfully excoriated, for the way he has
handled this whole matter from its inception.
He has dragged liis feet, he has done every-
thing in his power to frustrate and drive the
legislation into the sand. He has been obliged
to do it luider federal rules, not under his
own initiative. When the federal government
requires this, which is altogether to the
good, what does he do? He does everything
in his power to frustrate it, and at this time of
the day and night to spout platitudes. To
make grudging statements that he will move
ahead in this area is just not good enough
for this office and for his responsibility.
Before the recess, Mr. Chairman, this Min-
ister spoke of McRuer. May I say that, perus-
ing McRuer, there is precious little there
about any hearing. The matter is so ele-
mentary, so rooted in our law, so naive and
so simple a matter, namely that people would
have reviews of grievances in a democratic
country. You need not refer to McRuer, be-
cause you will not get a great deal of sup-
port there; you do not need to. And the fact
is, that having been obliged to do it and
v/hipped into the proper position, you still
drag your feet.
We want a full appointment to the board;
we want a wide appointment to the board.
We want to be assured before these estimates
are over that you will give full notice, ade-
quate notice — not a kind of suppressed,
under-the-table type of notice, the small print
type of thing, added on at the end where
you hope they would overlook it.
If you feel that the department is run so
inadequately and so poorly that you will have
an inundation of appeals, sobeit. This is a
recognition of defects and inadequacies, and
they are not going to be repaired except
through the instrumentality of this board.
So why not get on with the thing and give
us the fullest assistance and the fullest
divulgement of what your total thinking is.
Do not heap us with platitudes nor try to
beat around the bush, as you are so con-
stantly amenable to doing.
As I came home last night from our caucus
meeting, I listened to a report on the radio
about a welfare recipient. It gave a long
history of a young fellow from Saskatchewan,
as to the way in which he is treated by the
welfare offices both municipally and provinci-
ally— he is treated like, as he put it, "the
bottom of your shoe." This rectification of
the way in which human beings are dealt
witli can only, I suggest to you, be in any
way adequately recognized and reformed,
changed, but through tlie instrumentality of
this board. That will be one of its chief func-
tions.
When it heard the cases in Peterborough
die other day, it gave adequate time and
attention; it took a couple of hours to review
cases, and that is at it should be. And as
tliey become more expert, it may take a
shorter time. But at least people's human
grievances are out on tlie table, at least they
are able to make the impact, and it will
get back to you. You will either be forced to
resign on one side of the fence or totally
transform your department in favour of
hmnan beings.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on the
board of review? The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
I would like to speak further to the re-
marks of the hon. member for Lakeshore, Mr.
Chairman. Having called a welfare office in
the middle of last week, North York welfare
office, and spoke of myself as being Mrs.
Renwick— but not as a member of Parliament
—speaking on behalf of a person in need of
3088
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a form 6, I was treated the same way, the
\ery same way indeed,
I asked if I could possibly have a form 6
mailed out to a recipient, a Mrs. D. I was
told I had to wait until that lady's worker
came in an hour-and-a-half later, they hoped.
It was then very close to closing time.
It was also Friday on this particular call,
and I became concerned that I would not
talk to the worker so I said I find this imsat-
isfactory, could I ask for a supervisor to see
if I could get one mailed out today. And I
was dealt with in a fashion: "Well, that is
just too bad, you know, too bad about your
being dissatisfied, you will just have to wait
now until the person comes in because I am
not going to let you speak to the svipervisor".
So I said-
Mr. Chairman: Surely this does not come
under the board of review. It constitutes a
problem within the welfare office in North
York and should come under vote 2002.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, what I
am going to say to the Minister— perhaps I
will have to learn to say it first and then
speak after— is that this type of treatment by
certain welfare administrators should cer-
tainly also be able to come before the board
of review.
Mr. Chairman: Under vote 2002 I believe
reference could be made to it.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. The problem is, Mr, Chairman, that
people are being maltreated by individual
social workers and welfare administrators.
We have lots of evidence of it. They have no
recourse to this type of treatment. When I
identified myself then for the mailing, which
of course could not take place because they
did not have the form, the lady said to me:
"I wish you had told me who you were." I
said: "I did. I told you it was Mrs. Renwick."
Mr. Chairman: Well, once again— should
this not come under vote 2002?
Mrs. M. Renwick: I wonder, Mr. Chair-
man, if I could interest the Minister in con-
sidering broadening the board of review to
allow people to come before the board with
isolated cases of maltreatment to their dignity
and well-being by administrators— as well as
the financial aspect. What would the Minis-
ter's view be on that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think, Mr. Chairman,
the whole situation with respect to the ad-
ministration of general welfare assistance is
a subject which could be reviewed to see how
any of the shortcomings or defects might be
cured.
Those shortcomings and defects need not
necessarily be cured through the board of
re\iew. That would only mean a form in
which there would be some talk. I know of
no action which the board of review could
be charged with to remedy a situation. If
there is something faulty with the adminis-
tration of general welfare assistance, the cure,
I think, must be in some other form.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to draw to the Minister's attention that
I said earlier that from the board of review
—were it handling the bulk of the problems
of the province— could come invaluable re-
search as to where the changes have to be
made. And in the case of a well-known ad-
ministrator who is administrating unfairly—
and these men are usually quite widely
known— I feel that the Minister would have
much to gain.
I would like to know if he would agree or
disagree with me. There would be much for
him to gain in lifting up the quality of the
local administration of welfare if he knew
what persons have done so much to drag it
down. If isolated cases were coming before
the board— things which we have heard here
earlier about the worker who calls at the
door, or the administrator— then perhaps the
Minister could do much to relieve that per-
son of his post or straighten out his problem.
As it is now, I do not suppose the Minister
knows that there is a welfare worker I will
call Mr. B., in North York, who is deep in a
repudiation of his tactics, which are highl>'
questionable as far as his attitude towards
the people simply because they are poor. And
I think this attitude towards the poor is per-
haps what we have to get at with the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps his attitude
about this sort of thing happening out there
is—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. I find I seem to have to rise
so often on a point of order, may I with all
due respect ask you to direct your attention
to the listing of the votes and if the hon.
member strays from the vote, would you
please— instead of me having to rise on a
point of order— direct the hon. member's
attention to the proper place in which she
may express such opinions? This has nothing
to do with the board of review or vote 2001.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister is quite
correct and I have directed remarks along
APRIL 15. 1969
3089
those lines to the hon. member twice. I would
ask if she has anything further to say on the
board of review to proceed.
Mr. M. Renwick: Under item 15 (a), Mr.
Chairman, item No. 3 in the regulations of
the board of review:
If after receiving due notice, the appli-
cant or recipient requesting the review does
not attend the hearing, the board of review
may proceed in his absence and he shall
not be entitled to further notice of any
future proceedings by the board.
Now, I would hke to ask the Minister why
would he have put that in?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, section
15(a)3 is very explicit. If after receiving due
notice, the board of review may— it does not
say shall— the board of review may proceed in
liis absence. And I would think with the flexi-
bility I have given and the fact that the
members of the board of review are aware
of the fact that we want it to work, that all
due consideration would be given by the
board to insure that the applicant for a hear-
ing will have his case heard in due and proper
course. On the other hand it would be very
unfair to keep the board of review dangling
and keep the costs rising to where it may
bring frivolous or some such action, which
does occur at times.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
hke to ask the Minister, does he not realize
that it is this nebulous intent of what he is
administering that is causing all of the
trouble? Why would the Minister not have
said that the board of review may not pro-
ceed in his absence and then find out why
the absence occurs? If the man is hit by an
automobile or the woman is going to the
hospital with a sick child and does not get
to the board of review, she is automatically
disqualified and the review board proceeds
without her. She has no recourse to come
back and say that this is not the way it was,
it was this way.
Why would the Minister have said, "may",
why would he not have said "may not"—
"may not proceed"? The example in Peter-
borough was, that the board of review is
there for two days and if someone, for some
unforeseen death, fire, flood, anything, did
not get to a board of review he could con-
ceivably have been heard the following day,
he could conceivably be heard when the
board of review comes back. Why would he
be completely written off as if he had no
future proceedings with the board? I do not
understand unless— is this the Minister's view.
this is what I would like to know, Mr. Chair-
man, or is it the view of the Cabinet? Is it
the Minister's view that this is fair? If some-
how the Minister did not get to a board of
review himself on his own behalf, through
some misadventure, that somehow that whole
thing would proceed vidthout him?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
some trust in the board as presently consti-
tuted. The section reads, "with due notice."
I can conjure up a case in contradistinction
to the hon. member, that time and time again
the case is heard, and nobody shows up.
Would it be fair for the taxpayers of this
province to be paying money for the hearing
under those circimistances? I say the hon.
member wants to put the review board in
istraitjackets, and that I must spell out
every item, dot every "i" and cross every "t".
I am one who believes that this particular
board, dealing with the kind of cases that it
must deal with— the unfortunate in so many
instances, the kind of citizen that the hon.
member for Peterborough has pointed out —
that it will have the utmost of flexibihty to
render its decisions in order to carry out the
intent of the legislation and the appointment
that there be a review of the apphcants or
recipients as the case may be.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I cer-
tainly have to rise and object strenuously that
the Minister is suggesting that somehow I am
trying to make the board of review a strait-
jacket when this particular item 3 makes a
form of straitjacket upon a person who may
for some reason not go to the board of review.
I am trying to say to the Minister, Mr. Chair-
man, that it is as bad for him to assume that
the people who do not get to the board of
review, are absent through negligence or lack
of interest, as it is for me to purport that all
people would be away from the board of
review, on valid reasons of death, fire or
flood.
I am simply saying that there will be both,
Mr. Chairman and that the regulations of
this Act should have allowed for both types
of absence from the board of review; in all
fairness, it should have allowed for both. If
it would like to say that any future proceed-
ings would be denied to a recipient who
wilfully appointed a time on the board of
review, and neglectfully did not attend, that
in itself would be difiFerent; but even the re-
cipient would have to be advised that that is
how it is.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
Minister a further question about this section.
If for some reason someone does not get to a
3090
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
board of review, it says, "He shall not be
entitled to further notice of any future pro-
ceedings by the board." I do not understand
why tliey would assume that the person is
not entitled to be advised and even requested
to account for why he would have missed the
board of review. If he can justify to the Min-
ister's board of re\'iew a legitimate reason,
maybe even have to have it substantiated, but
at least give the person a chance to come back
to the board of review if they need to come
back.
Now I would like to ask for a breakdown
of the $146,000 for the board of review.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Sorr>', I did not hear
that last question.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask for a breakdown of exactly what
the intent of the Minister is to dispose of the
$146,000 being asked for the board of review?
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Dollar by
dollar!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: One chairman (acting)
$15,000; tliree members, $30,000; one sec-
retary, $5,500; one clerk-stenographer 3,
$4,500; one executive secretary, $14,000; one
secretary, $5,500; expenses, board members
$22,500, and staff, $15,000; purchase of equip-
ment, $900; printing and stationery, $4,000;
maintenance and rental of equipment, $100;
commimications, $1,000— am I going too fast
for the hon. member? Is she taking these
down?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am tak-
ing them down.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Personal services, $500;
other sundry administration, $500— 4:he hon.
member can write without moving her hands—
An hon. member: The Minister can talk
without moving his lips.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —medical expenses,
medical examination, $7,500; medical referee,
$15,000; certain travelling expenses for appel-
lants, $4,500; a total of $146,000.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask the
Minister if the travelling expenses are $4,500?
Did I not hear travelhng expenses earlier as
$2,500?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: What I said was travel-
ling expenses for board members, and then
certain travelling expenses for appellants.
Mr. Sopha: Can I be chairman for a while?
Can I get a word in?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, when I
have finished, I would be glad to relinquish
the floor to the hon. member for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, during this long
debate about the board of review I have
been—
Interjections by hon. members.
An hon. member: Order.
Mrs. M. Renwick: On a point of order-
Mr. Sopha: What? Will you not let anybody
else have a word?
Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member for
Scarborough Centre yield the floor to the
member for Sudbury?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: I have had an opportunity to
reflect upon my own position in respect of
this board of review, and it seems to me that
one can say rather safely that there is no
field of government operation in the whole
panorama of government in Ontario where we
are more in need of an ombudsman than in
respect of the people who come into contact
with this deparbnent. Probal)ly my own ex-
perience allows me to say safely that a mul-
tiple of two or three times as many people
come to my office— conveniently located in
downtown Sudbury, next to the liquor store-
about welfare problems, as about any other
single problem dealing with the vast com-
plex of the state.
Bearing that in mind, I want to say that,
so far as I am concerned, personally, in the
words of the book, "Put not your faith in
princes," I am unwilling to put my faith and
trust completely in the board of review. I
have had experience witli tliese boards in
other parts of the complex of government. I
have in mind my exx)erience with the net-
work of tribunals in tlie workmen's compensa-
tion board. I am not going to dwell upon that,
but having that experience, I am not willing
to substitute tlie flexibility that I can employ
as an ombudsman in respect to The Depart-
ment of Social anid Fiimily Services for a
quasi-judicial board.
If, by example, I can get on the telephone
and call Benoit Belanger and tell him in-
formally, and at some length, depending on
how much time that busy man may have, my
personal knowledge of tlie circumstances of
the applicant, then it may well be that I will
be able to bring to bear in that informal way,
information tliat could not be gleaned in the
APRIL 15, 1969
3091
more formal atmosphere of a hearing before
a board of review.
Similarly, if Mr. Belanger, being a nice
fellow— tlie Minister knows of whom I speak—
the gracious, courteous, and human fellow
that he is, he does not mind if, after he
cannot see his way clear to change the deci-
sion or oflFer the relief that I might feel in
the circumstances this apphcant is entitled to,
I go over his head, so to speak, and make
representation at Toronto— and indeed, make
the representations up to the level of the
Deputy Minister, and perhaps at each stage
bring into focus additional facts, considera-
tions and arguments on behalf of the applicant
to freshly charge the case in an attempt to
get the decision altered.
Let it be said at this point that in ten years
I have not been aware of any department of
government in Ontario where there is a
greater degree of co-operation for the private
member in courtesy and helpfulness displayed
by the civil service than in this department.
To me it is the tops.
It may well be that the arguments of the
member for Scarborough Centre are well
merited in respect of those persons who do
not seek the assistance of their paid ombuds-
man—not very well paid, I must say— but we
are there at their service, all 117 of us are
available, glad to render service, to listen to
the complaint, to hear in detail from the
person.
Mr. Lawlor: Positively reactionary!
Mr. Sopha: Well, my friend, how could
you quarrel with that, when I speak of what
our function is? Of course that is our function.
Now for those who do not have recourse
to the private member, it may well be that
this board of review is the vehicle-
Mr. Lawlor: Why do you stand up like
that and give us hieroglyphics? Why do you
do that?
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
The hon. member for Sudbury has the floor.
Mr. Sopha: I do not understand how my
friend could complain. I submit that it is a
perfectly proper posture to take that we can
achieve as much in the representations we
make informally or more, as this quasi-judicial
body about which so much has been said
this afternoon. And I insist I am not in any
way denigrating from the eflBcacy of that
board.
Mr. Lawlor: It is an incredible speech for
a man like you.
Mr. Sopha: That I support, so far as the
functions— can you understand this chattering
of monkeys that is going on next to us? Can
you understand it? I am not in conflict in
any way, I protest, with the arguments they
make. But I say out of 10 years of experi-
ence that I prefer the method I have adopted.
What is wrong with us, as the paid repre-
sentatives of the people, in making rep-
resentations in the way we do-
Mr. J. Renwick: Because we are talking
about rights.
Mr. Sopha: —and in many circumstances
with this department, let me go on to say, I
have made representations to the civfl service
that the procedures that they have adopted
do not meet the requirements of reason.
When we get to the area of adoption, for
example, I will have some additional com-
ments to make about the procedures that are
required by the straitjacket of the regula-
tions, which are unreasonable. I will not
dwell on them here, but if it is being said
on this side— I am sure it is not being said
from our members— that this board of review
should in any way make disappear the initia-
tives of the private member in arguing the
case of the applicant-
Mr. Lawlor: Nobody said that.
Mr. Sopha: Well, then, what are you quar-
relling with me for? The two are entirely
separate, and I am horrified to hear people
on the left here— not truly of the left, but
sitting geographically on the left— say that we
should substitute for those initiatives of the
private member the straitjacket of a quasi-
judicial board, and I felt those things should
be said. I do not want to appear before a
board if I can achieve the same remedy with-
out appearing. I have appeared too many
times before the appeal tribunal of the Work-
men's Compensation Board and had my hopes
and my arguments disappointed in the face
of what I thought were good arguments.
I end up by saying that what I say is in
no way in conflict with the arguments so far
as they have merit, tediously put, repetitively
put. Time and again the point was made;
we all understood that this party made its
point early on in the debate. You do not
have to say it four or five times.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Sometimes four or five
years.
Mr. Sopha: Before I sit down, there is a
matter close to my heart that I would like
to raise and I do not want to distort or put
into another channel. I would like to ask
3092
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this Minister, because I have been anxious
to ask him, how many offices he has; whether
he has one in the Macdonald complex, and
whether he also has one in this building. And
if that be the case, I should like to ask addi-
tionally if a radius was drawn from his seat
would the length of the radius to his office
in the Macdonald block be longer than the
radius to the Treasurer's office in the Frost
block? I would like to know that as a mat-
ter of geography.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First of all, Mr, Chair-
man, the Minister of Social and Family Serv-
ices has an office in the Hepburn block. The
more centralized this government becomes,
the more decentralized this particular Min-
ister has become. He occupied initially the
office presently occupied by Mr. Speaker,
which I believe is the most accessible office
of any member of the Legislature— even a
Cabinet Minister— and in the whole Common-
wealth, I believe.
However, I am presently in the Hepburn
block. That is the only office I have occupied.
About three days before the hon. member
first raised the issue, it was brought to my
attention that there was an office available in
this building. The hon. member has stated
that he can walk from my office to this place
in two minutes' time. I will pay him a
dollar-
Mr. Sopha: I think I said three minutes.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, two minutes, I will
pay him a dollar for every second he does it
under four minutes— double the time. It would
be interesting if the hon. member some day
should get a stop watch; he can start from
this entrance and go to my office. It will be
a very interesting experience, because un-
fortunately neither he nor I have wings, so
we cannot resort to a radius.
Mr. Sopha: Well, the answer is that you
have no office in this building?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not yet; I hope to get
Mr. Sopha: Why should you get one?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let me continue. The
matter of accessibility to this building— two
minutes, the hon. member said-
Mr. Lewis: If only you were as informed
about your department as you are about the
location of your office.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As a matter of fact,
this is the one instance in which the hon.
member was more informed than I was be-
cause he knew more about my office than I
did.
Mr. Braithwaite: Well then you have not
been listening to us over here.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I bespeak the atten-
tion of the hon. member that it would be very
interesting if he took Life Magazine photo-
graphs so that they could take one of those
photographic pictures, that is a hght on the
tail and pictures taken to get from here to
my office, I cannot go as the crow flies so that
the radius is of no consequence. I must take
at least one, two, three, four elevators, one
subway and one overpass, and very often, as
happens with elevators, they are at the other
end. I did it in 13 minutes today and I
walked very rapidly. The Minister of Public
Works believes it is good because it is good
for walking, I do not have to jog all the time,
but-
Mr. Lewis: We are all so pleased for you.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —but to come from my
office to this building is a bit of a chore, and
so is to try and be in two places at one time.
This happens to be that kind of a department
which requires the physical presence of the
Minister so much. I am looking forward to
the time when this office will be provided so
that I will have a desk. I will check into this
office and my staff, my secretaries, will be
able to come and bring the mail, and I will
be able to participate even more greatly in
the kind of efficient service the hon. member
has referred to.
Mr. Sopha: I do not want to prolong this,
but I am sensitive because I am a member
without an office. Could I ask you, what is
your intention in respect of the office in this
building? Are you going to hold court in it?
Are you, in the words of the Minister of
Agriculture and Food, going to grant
audiences? What is the use of this office in
this building if you have an adequately fur-
nished office over in the Hepburn block? Why
put the public to the expense of supplying
you with an additional office?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In order that I may
render to the public its just due of service
which requires my presence in and around
these buildings for 14, 15 or 16 hours a day,
and if I am to render the kind of service I
wish to do, I have to have the facilities. I
cannot be in two places at one time. I will be
able to render even more service to the
public, to the people who come to this depart-
ment for service, if I have adequate facilities
APRIL 15, 1969
3093
in this building so that I can spend the time
doing what I am paid for, and that is, dealing
with departmental and legislative business
and not walking back and forth. The tax-
payers of this province are not paying me to
walk back and forth. They are paying me to
deal with problems and tiiis is what I hope
this office will help me achieve.
Mr. Sopha: There are about 70 members
of this sovereign Legislature that have not
got oflBces. If you are not in the Ministry or
you are not a moonlighter up in the back
row up there, you have not got an oflBce.
I would like one additional piece of in-
formation so I can tell my people in Sudbury
at the next opportunity: What is going to be
the cost to the taxpayers of Ontario, what is
it going to be in dollars and cents, to provide
you with an additional ofiBce in this building?
How much? I defy you to tell me. I challenge
you to tell me. How much money is it going
to cost?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Minimal because—
Mr. Sopha: How much is minimal? Ten
dollars?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Sopha: Ten dollars?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know how-
Mr. Sopha: One thousand dollars, $5,000,
$10,000 how much?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know how
much the used furniture which the Minister
of Public Works is moving in costs.
Mr. Sopha: Can you find out? Can you
find out how much it is going to cost? Then
let me know.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would suggest that
the hon. member put a question on the order
paper to find out what the cost of all offices
for everybody is.
Mr. Sopha: There is anotlier thing. You
mention the furniture. I have not been in
your office, but I am told the furniture in
your office is especially elaborate. I am told
it is Italian Provincial or Danish 16th cen-
tury' or something, but I am told your furni-
ture is especially elaborate. Is that so?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is not so.
Mr. Sopha: I am fiu-ther told that—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let me conclude,
Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Sopha: Could I get a word in?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, I am answering a
question.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre
has risen on a point of order. Will you
please state the point of order.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. On a point of order, I do not under-
stand what is happening in the—
Mr. Chairman: That is no point of order.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask the
Chairman if he would exercise his control
when two members, the member for Sud-
bury and the hon. Minister, are both on their
feet at the same time, shouting at each other
across the floor for the second time.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sud-
bury.
Mr. Sopha: You say the furniture is not
essentially elaborate. I am told that when you
left the Provincial Secretary's office down
here on the main floor, you moved out the
furniture that was in that office, that elabor-
ate furniture, over to yours in the Hepburn
Block. Is that so?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is so, yes. Mr.
Chairman, for the hon. member's—
Mr. Sopha: Did they send for the Moun-
ties?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —for the hon. mem-
ber's information, the furniture is especially
functional. It is designed to assist me to dis-
charge my function in a greater degree, and
that furniture will follow me to every office
that I occupy.
Mr. Sopha: I would like to know, and I
intend to find out, how much it is going to
cost to give you that office. But I make this
last comment: I especially asked these ques-
tions of this Minister because he is the one
who stood in the end seat of a memorable
evening here and made the lengthy speech,
in the dying hours of the night, about, "I am
on the outside; I am on the outside; I do not
fit; I am the third element." Well, look. It
turns out that this Minister is seldom on the
outside, as we used to say in the fleet, when
something is going; he is in there hke a dirty
old shirt in the laundry.
3094
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001?
The hon. member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: To return to our bete noire,
Mr. Chairman, this review board, I noticed
that under section 15(a) subsection 4, all
hearings of the board of review shall be
held in camera. I know the Minister will no
doubt ask, "Is that not just and proper that
these persons should not be made public
figures and that they not be pilloried or
exposed to public for view?" On the other
hand, that is not the way, on the whole,
that the courts of the province are handled.
Quite the contrary, except in exceptional
circumstances.
In the legislation that is pending and going
through this House at the present time, under
other auspices, the professional engineers pro-
vide for in camera sessions too, but with
reservations. They say that the person whose
conduct is being investigated can request
otherwise, by a notice. I suggest that in this
kind of legislation the persons involved should
be given the same and ample opportunity to
do that, because there are many people who,
however aggrieved they may feel themselves,
may feel their aggravation is a small thing
over against the weal, over against that of
the many others who are in the same spot.
Far from feeling embarrassed or put out by
having their cases exposed to public pur-
view, as I suggest that they should be in
most cases, the in camera sessions should be
the exception, not the rule.
If these people should so desire and the
press and the public media and the members
of this House, or anybody from the public
who is interested in their care and in their
plight, wants to attend these sessions, and
they want it to be made tlius open, there is
no reason in the world why they may not
and should not. We want to know what goes
on in those sessions. We want to know where
the defalcations and weaknesses in your
department emerge.
When the member for Sudbury stands up,
he is running against the federal Liberals,
they have forced this legislation upon the
government— most unwillingly obviously, be-
cause it has taken you two years to do any-
thing about it. In order to get tlie grants for
your department you have acceded to it in
the most retrograde fashion imaginable. For
the member for Sudbury to stand up and put
a defence in for your department must run
contrary to the grain of his own philosophy
and his own party.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Lawlor: This Minister does not require
to be defended by you or anyone else. He is
quite capable of taking care of himself,
although there is some doubt about tliat on
this side of the House. On the other side if
his departmental estimates are the can of
worms that we are claiming that it is, then it
should not be defended by you or anyone else
in this Legislature. The only way is to lash
and lacerate, if possible, in order to bring a
cognizance, a consciousness and a recognition
of how your department is conducted in-
ternally, and we are going to drive that point
home if it takes us six weeks to do so.
The fact of the matter is that people have
been treated in the most venal fashion. They
have been scourged with scorpions in your
department. You sit there in total compla-
cence, and you get this other complacent
fellow going along with you, salving over the
running sores, saying the wounds do not
bleed.
The fact is that in this province, this de-
partment is the greatest single running sore
of them all, and it has not been made clear
to the people of this province.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This begins to sound
more like Hamlet.
Mr. Lawlor: You are very little aware of
what goes on inside and what people in wel-
fare offices have to suffer, and the shame and
the castigation, and the insult that they are
exposed to day in and day out. We will put
an end to it. And if you are so purblind,
backward and unwilling to gi\e concession
to that, to open yourself to that possibiilt}',
then the worse for you so far as we are con-
cerned, and you can sit here and listen to us
for the rest of eternity.
So I do castigate, to some extent, the hon.
member for Sudbury on his remarks on this
particular occasion. Where a Minister de-
ser\'es praise, he gets it. Where he has earned
honorifics, let us pour them on his head. But
T suggest that on this occasion, and with
respect to this board of review, and to the
conduct of this whole department, it is hardly
deserving.
Mr. Sopha: I think it ought to be said, in
all fairness, that my friend representing an
urban riding in the heart of Metropolitan
Toronto—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you going to
object to that? Do you understand it?
Mr. Sopha: His experience in respect to
dealing with bureaucracy— and I use that
term in its salutary sense— in Metropolitan
APRIL 15, 1969
3095
Toronto, might be entirely different from
what we encounter out in the province, where
we can deal with them at a much closer and
more intimate level.
I think it is quite wrong for the member
for Lakeshore, my good friend, to use his
word to excoriate me in that fashion. I am
entitled to say here— and I would be irrespon-
sible if I did not say it— that quite apart
from the political head, and I share his views
of the political head of the department, but
apart from that, in respect of the civil ser-
vice, the administration, I would be irrespon-
sible if I did not testify to the cooperation,
the courtesy, the response, the human ap-
proach that they make.
They are a hell of a lot better than the
Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario.
You cannot get anything out of the Work-
men's Compensation Board any more. Let it
be said in truth— my friend from Nickel Belt
(Mr. Demers) will support me— that when we
could write in protest to the Chairman, Mr.
Sparrow, we used to be able to get something.
His leaving was coincidental with the
establishment of this review board and appeal
tribunal. By way of contrast, any argument
you make to them, it seems, is rejected. I
appeared many times before that appeal trib-
unal when it brought its court to Sudbur>%
and I will be darned if I want a substitute
for the informal, or private argument.
For things can be said that you would not
say in public. Details can be revealed that
you would have some inhibition about dis-
playing in the public demesne. I will be
darned if I want to substitute that for a
quasi-judicial type of review. Again I em-
phasize that, in respect of those who take
their own initiative, I support wholeheartedly
what was said by my friends to the left.
But as an ombudsman, which I am, I take
a different view. And finally, to my good
friend from Lakeshore, I will join with him
and make common cause, be his ally, in
assaulting the great framework of this de-
partment.
This is terribly wrong and I sa>' as a
matter of principle that as long as we con-
tinue to treat po\'erty and those in need as
being the recepients of a benefit that we
graciously gi\e them, we will never conquer
the running cancer of the blight in our
society.
I will join with him in that. But on the
other hand I have made those arguments
from a practical point of view and I do not
retract them one bit.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, with respect
to this review board and to its validity, to its
necessity, to its overweaning necessity, I
suggest that the position of Kierkeguard be
adopted in this thing. It is not a case, you
know, of "either or". This kind of artificial
division only casts ambiguity over the whole
situation.
It is a case of "both-and" there is no rea-
son why members cannot carry out their
functions, which indeed may be stimulated
by the introduction of the board. The fact
of the matter is that the board is absolutely
crucial. No member within the range of his
capacity, with the time he has at his disposal,
with the number of people he can service in
a personal way, can in any way really do
anything but supplement in a very narrow
way for what the proper office and jurisdic-
tion of this board would be.
To present this issue as though there was
an alternative, and a categorical one at that,
is quite beside the point. That is not what
we are after. Sudbury seems to be saying so
in one breath and in another not. The fact of
the matter is that the board is absolutely
crucial if the great massive deprivation that
has been inflicted upon the welfare recipients
of this province, their needs and care, are to
be given cognizance, recognition, and to be
given a voice.
It is the problem of people in the Opposi-
tion and we in this party pride ourselves in
trying to be the voice of the voices— that is,
the pest of governments for those who are
inarticulate. Those who cannot speak for
themselves must be given these tribunals so
that their voices can be heard for the first
time in civilization, for the first time in
society.
This board is designed to do precisely that
in a whole area of human amehoration and
this Minister has done everything to frustrate
its purpose.
Mr. Sopha: I agree with that. Put me down
as saying I agree with that.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, be-
fore the clock strikes six, I just want to say a
few words on this appeal board.
I ha\-e always opposed the creation of
boards— be they appeal or otherwise. I have
always deemed it to be nothing but an ex-
cuse to obviate tlie responsibility that a
Ministry has— they pass the buck to someone
else. And mark my words, Mr. Chairman,
this day, we have very laudatory words from
the hon. member for Peterborough about the
way this review board operates.
3096
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Before the next session— or in the next
session— we are going to find the members on
the left, the hypocrites over yonder, rising
to call this appeal board to task for being
arbitrary in what it is doing and denying
justice to tlie welfare recipients. This is
going to happen within four years, Mr,
Chairman.
Then do you know what the hon. Min-
ister of the day is going to say? He is going
to say: "Well, look, we set up an independent
review board. We cannot interfere in its
administrative function because we will be
accused of prejudice or bias."
So the result is going to be that the people,
those fork-tongued individuals to our left,
those cackling geese, are trying to help, wall
in fact, be kicked in the teeth when they are
down. As the member for Sudbury said, if
these cackling geese were doing their job, as
we members are doing our job, there would
be no need for a review board. That is No. 1.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ben: The week end was very sunny
and they all got sunstroke over there, so for-
give them, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MacDonald: The member has a state
of perpetual sunstroke, that is his problem.
Mr. Ben: Secondly, Mr. Chairman, if the
members here have been unable to cope with
the quantity of tliis work— as the man I call
the unclothed Jesuit, the member for Lake-
shore (Mr. Lawlor) there, mentioned— then
it is tlie system that is wrong, if there are so
many demands for the intervention of mem-
bers of the Legislature that they cannot
handle them, then I say the whole system
ought to be scrapped and razed to the
ground.
I have to agree with the hon. member for
Sudbury, but I am not praising this depart-
ment. I am neither approbating nor re-
probating. All I am saying is that I have yet
to meet a situation where a constituent called
me with a problem which I transferred or
transmitted to this department, that I did not
receive courteous and immediate service.
Mr. Lewis: But what does that mean?
Mr. Ben: It means this. I represent
basically the same type of economic riding
as does the hon. member for Lakeshore—
similar. I agree with what the hon. member
for Sudbury states: There might be marked
differences in the type of service that a mem-
ber in a rural area, such as northern Ontario,
would have to render his constituents with
reference to welfare, as compared to what a
city member has to render. In the city, nor-
mally, we would call the Metro welfare
department, and it is only if we have a
problem with mothers' allowance or the like
that we would go directly to this particular
Minister. So I can understand that there
might be different types of problems faced
by the people up in the north.
But I have yet to be convinced that the
problems in the city of Toronto, with refer-
ence to welfare, are so gross in numbers that
the members caimot look after them. The
only conclusion I can come to is that the
people who are represented by the NDPers
have inadequate, incompetent representatives
who cannot handle it.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001. The hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
hope that Dr. Willare, the Deputy Minister
in charge of welfare at the federal level,
never has the unhappy experience of hearing
some of the contributions from some of his
members today, and I hope that the hon.
member for Etobicoke or the leader of the
Opposition will retrieve the fact that the
Liberal Party was not fighting for the proper
interpretation of the Canada Assistance Plan
in the last hour in this House.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
For the last hour? We have supported the
review board since before you were a member!
Mr. MacDonald: They defend Ottawa on
some occasions.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to compliment the Minister on his answer
to the hon. memiber for Sudbury in his first
lengthy full ansiu'er. The Minister said to the
member for Sudbury, "I will do something."
We are only asking that the Minister do some-
thing about this atrocious interpretation of
what the federal government wanted in On-
tario in the form of a board of review. I
would like to ask the Minister, when will the
other people be named to the board of re-
view? He may ha\'e answered that earlier. Sec-
ondly, where will the next board of revieav
be held, and if there is not a date, Mr.
Chairman, as to where, then there is some-
thing wrong with the whole system.
Mr. Chairman: Would the Minister care to
answer those questions?
APRIL 15, 1969
3097
Hon. Mr. Yaremko; Mr. Chairman, as I
explained at the very beginning, the neces-
sary appointments will be made as the need
arises.
Mr. Brown: The need exists.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask the Minister,
then, where will the next board of review be
held?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am not aware of the
board's agenda at the present time.
Mr. Lewis: Am I to assume, Mr. Chairman,
that on vote 2001 we would raise all matters
relative to field services, general welfare, re-
gional administrators?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, vote 2002.
Mr. Lewis: What does "training and staff
development" include in terms of the services
provided by the department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: "Training and staff
development" encompasses the whole host of
training in respect to those who are going to
enter the social service field. Staff develop-
ment is the continuing development and the
upgrading of skills and training for those
within our department. Field services, as such,
the actual delivery of services, comes under
2002.
Mr. Lewis: When you give your trainees
their intitial instruction, are they instructed
of the roles vis d vis the people they serve,
in terms of legislation? When they are meet-
ing with recipients of family benefits—be they
disabled, or on mother's allowance, or blind,
or getting other allowances— have they a right
to indicate legislative details as well as the
counselling service, or the financial service
which they may provide?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, I think this pro-
gramme—which has really been intensified in
the last year or so within the department— is
so designed to make new persons coming into
our departmental service familiar with the
whole range of both the departmental respon-
sibilities and the functioning of all the various
departments.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, there were some
thoughts on what these people might be
instructed in; and some relationship between
those thoughts and an oft-neglected subject
under this vote, the board of review, which I
thought might be made. Perhaps the Chair
could now be vacated until 8 of the clock.
Mr. Chairman: I had put tlie question. Is
vote 2001 carried?
Mr. Lewis: I am saying that there are some
things that we would like to say in this
caucus in respect of this vote.
Mr. Chairman: All right. Vote 2001 is not
carried.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of order, vote 2001 cannot be carried.
Mr. Chairman: I just stated that it was
not carried.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, sorry, Mr. Chair-
man, I beg your pardon.
Mr. Chairman: It being 6 of the clock p.m.
I do now leave the Chair. We will resume at
8 p.m.
It being 6 of the clock p.m. the House took
recess.
APPENDIX
Answers to questions were tabled as follows:
21. Mr. Shulman— Enquiry of the Ministry—
1. Did Mr. R. A. McFarland, representing
the Inspector of Legal Offices, write to Mr.
F. P. Switzer, the Bailiff of the York County
Eighth Division Court, on December 19, 1968,
inquiring why execution and committal war-
rants had not been served? 2. What was the
result of this inquiry?
Answer by the Minister of Justice and
Attorney Ceneral:
1. Yes.
2. Claim No. 2134/68: Upon an affidavit
of the bailiff that the execution was returned
nulla bona on October 11th, 1968, the clerk
of the Eighth Division Court forwarded the
transcript of judgment to the Twelfth Divi-
sion Court on March 25th, 1969.
Claim No. 5467/68: The summons was
served on January 28th, 1969.
Claim No. 9513/67: The committal warrant
was returned to the Clerk of the Court on
February 20th, 1969 with the report of the
bailiff "unable to locate defendant".
Claim No. 3918/67: It has been established
that the committal warrant expired on March
24th, 1968 and no renewal was requested by
the plaintiff.
3098
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
22. Mr. Shulman— Enquiry of tlie Ministry—
1. Did the Inspector of Legal Offices write
to Mr. E. A. Clark, the clerk of the York
County Eleventh Division Court, on Novem-
ber 15, 1968, inquiring why a claim dating
back to July 29, 1968, had not been put on
the trial list? 2. What was the result of that
inquiry?
Answer by the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General:
1. Yes.
2. The claim was set for hearing on March
14th, 1969. However, it was paid in full prior
to hearing on March 10th, 1969.
23. Mr. S/u/iman— Enquiry of die Ministry—
1. Has Mr. R. A. McFarland, representing the
Inspector of Legal Offices, investigated cer-
tain mysterious disappearances of papers and
cheques from the York County Eighth Divi-
sion Court, as detailed by that gentleman in
a letter dated January 23, 1969. 2. What was
the result of this investigation.
Answer by the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General:
1. Yes. Mr. R. A. McFarland and the audi-
tors of The Department of the Attorney
General.
2. No trace of documents and cheques was
found in the office of the Division Court
Clerk and none of the cheques involved has
been paid into the Division Court Clerk's
bank account.
24. Mr. Shulman— Enquiry of the Ministry—
1. Did Mr. R. A. McFarland, representing the
Inspector of Legal Offices, write to Bailiff F.
P. Switzer of the York County Eighth Divi-
sion Court on December 9, 1968, asking why
a judgment summons issued last summer was
not served? 2. What reply was received to
this letter?
Answer by the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General:
1. Yes.
2. The following reply was received from
Mr. L. Stocks, Assistant Bailiff: "After many
calls at all hours, the defendant was finally
served on February 10th, 1969 and he is
to appear on March 3rd, 1969 JS hearing.
Signed— L. Stocks".
25. Mr. Shulman— Enquiry of the Ministry—
What action is being taken to clear up the
backlog of cases that have piled up in the
York County Eighth Division Court as a result
of failure of the Court Clerk to place cases on
the list and/or to see that the bailiff issues
judgment sommonses?
Answer by the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General:
It has been established that there was no
backlog of cases in the York County Eighth
Division Court and no failure of the court
clerk to place cases on the list.
Bailiffs do not issue judgment sommonses.
26. Mr. Shulman— Enquiry of the Ministry—
1. Have over 50 complaints been received by
the Inspector of Legal Offices during tlie past
six months about strange occurrences in the
York County Eighth Division Court? 2. What
has been the cause of tliese problems? 3.
What is being done?
Anwser by the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General:
1. Between September 1st, 1968, and
February 28th, 1969, the office of the Inspec-
tor of Legal Offices received 25 complaints
relating to 64 specific claims and 2 complaints
of a general nature with regard to the opera-
tion of the York County Eighth Division
Court. The 25 complaints relating to the
specific claims are as follows:
—delay in serving of summonses with re-
gard to 13 claims.
—delay in serving judgment summonses with
regard to 15 claims.
—delay in conducting executions with re-
gard to 4 claims.
—delay in executing committal warrants
with regard to 32 claims.
2. In the majority of cases, a genuine diffi-
culty in locating the defendant to serve the
court paper was tlie cause of the delay.
In a number of instances, the delay was
caused by a lack of apropriate supervision of
the bailiff over his subordinates.
Some instances indicated inadequate com-
munication between the office of tlie bailiff
and the office of the court clerk.
3. Every complaint was investigated by the
office of the Inspector of Legal Offices.
A new acting clerk of the York County
Eighth Division Court was designated.
The baiUff was assisted in the proper
organization of his office.
34. Mr. Dc Monte— Enquiry of the Ministry
—1. Who are tlie nine doctors on tiie follow-
ing pressurized construction jobs? McNulty
& Sons: (a) Bayview & Bloor; (b) Green-
wood & South Danforth; (c) Woodfield &
Dundas. First Line Contracting: (d) Bathurst
& St. Clair; (e) Don Bills & York MiUs; (f)
Hillsdale Ave. & Collin Ave. Sansone Con-
struction: (g) Gerrard St. off Greenwood. Key-
stone Contracting: (h) Dundast St. West &
APRIL 15, 1969
3099
Highway 27. Robert McAlpine: (i) Mount
Pleasant & Mount Pleasant Ave. 2. When were
the jobs last inspected by Department of
Labour Safety OfBcials? 3. How many men
have had to be recompressed since the start
of each of these jobs? 4. How many men
working on these jobs have been X-rayed in
both hip and shoulder joints, out of what
total of workers, and by percentage? 5. What
has happened as a result of the affidavits
sworn by men who were not X-rayed or ex-
amined under pressure before commencing
work? 6. Does the Minister or his officials
have die power to write a "stop-work" order
on the basis of information laid by workers, to
the effect that current regulations are not
being complied with? 7. Will the Minister
immediately make a "one airlock, one atten-
dant" regulation? 8. Will the Minister imme-
diately institute the following mandatory,
minimum medical initial examination and an-
nual review examination of all men working
under air pressure: (a) Identification photo-
graph and personal data form, copy available
to examining doctor; (b) Overall physical
examination (as for insurance); (c) Balance,
agihty and co-ordination test; (d) Audio-
meter test (first of a continuing series to de-
tect incipient deafness); (e) Cardiopulmon-
ary fitness test; (f) Dorsal flexibility test; (g)
Electro-cardiogram; (h) Comprehensive X-
rays (set of 16); (i) Chamber pressure
equalization test? 9. Where are present emer-
gency recompression chambers located, and
how many are there? 10. What facilities exist
for flushing out nitrogen by oxygen inhalation
techniques, and where are they located? 11.
Is there a charge levied against contractors
for this emergency therapy? 12. Are logs kept
by airlock operators? 13. Is tliere a regula-
tion relating working air pressure to minimum
decompression time, and, if not, what are the
recommended periods for 25, 30, 35, 40 and
45 lbs? 14. What were the working air pres-
sures in the nine current jobs listed above on
February 25th, 1969? 15. What were the
average decompression times per group of
workers, on each of the nine jobs listed at
the end of the regular day shift on February
25th, 1969? 16. Failing the above informa-
tion, will the Minister furnish the data for a
given day not more than 48 hours before or
after the above datum?
Answer by the Minister of Labour:
The jobs designated (a), (b) and (c) were
carried out by S. McNally and Sons. The job
designated (f) was carried out by Scott-
Jackson.
1. (a) Dr. Kutasy, (b) Dr. Kutasy, (c) Dr.
Kutasy, (d) Dr. Birnbavmi, (e) Dr. Bim-
baum, (f) Dr. Haw, (g) Dr. Lamensa, (h)
Dr. Kutasy, (i) Dr. Haw.
2. These jobs are (or were, since several
were completed some time ago), inspected
regularly. This question was placed as a
notice in Votes and Proceedings on March
10, 1969. Therefore, the dates provided will
be those closest to March 10, 1969.
Answer:
(a) Job completed— pressure off December
12, 1968. Frequent inspection prior to this
date.
(b) Job completed except for manholes-
pressure off February 14, 1969. Frequent
inspections prior to this date.
(c) Job completed— pressure off July 9,
1968. Frequent inspections prior to this date.
(d) March 3, 1969.
(e) Job completed— pressure off September
12, 1968. Frequent inspections prior to this
date.
(f) Job completed— pressure oft' July 11,
1968. Frequent inspections prior to this date.
(g) Job completed— pressure off November
22, 1968. Frequent inspections prior to this
date,
(h) March 3, 1969.
(i) March 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1969. Pressure off
March 10, 1969.
3. None.
4. None.
5. All 6 affidavits supplied to the Depart-
ment of Labour on the television programme
"W-5" made specffic allegations that were
false.
6. Yes.
7. This is the current practice, although it
must be conceded that it can be practical
and safe for one attendant to service two air-
locks if the circumstances are right. Thus, it
does not appear reasonable to enact a rigid
prohibition against this possibility.
8. This matter is under consideration.
9. The regulations require an emergency
re-compression chamber to be provided at
every project. In addition, there is a perma-
nent facility at Toronto General Hospital. As
of March 10, 1969 the following job-site
chambers were available in Toronto: Avenue
Rd. and Dupont St.; South of St. Clair Ave.
W. near Wells Hill Rd. (Bathurst and St.
Clair); Dundas St. W. and Hwy. 27; York
Mills Rd. and Don Mills Rd. (Keystone);
Sherboume St. and Gerrard St. E.; Logan
Ave. and Langley Ave.
3100
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
10. A permanent installation is available
at Toronto General Hospital. Portable facili-
ties can be obtained by project phj sicians.
11. It is probable that there would be a
charge levied against contractors by those
providing the facilities.
12. Yes.
13. Yes. Please see Ontario Regulation
100/63, Table 1 and Sections 101 and 102.
14. (a) Job completed.
(b) Job completed.
(c) Job completed.
(d) 9 psig.
(e) Job completed.
(f) Job completed.
(g) Job completed.
(h) Three separate parts— 10 psig, 9 psig
and 12 psig.
(i) 5 psig.
15. (a) Job completed.
(b) Job completed.
(c) Job completed.
(d) 8 minutes.
(e) Job completed.
(f) Job completed.
(g) Job completed.
(h) Three parts— 6 minutes, 7 minutes and
9 minutes,
(i) 5 minutes.
16. Not applicable.
39. Mr. Ben— Enquiry of the Ministry— 1.
What is the effect of the administration of the
drug prednisone on the elimination of fluor-
ides in the urine? 2. Is one effect of the drug
to release calcium from the bones and allow
fluorides to take its place? 3. Would this
phenomenon affect the urinaiy test readings
of Mr. Ted Boorsma during his therapeutic
trial as described in paragraphs 280 and 281
of the Hall Report? 4. If this should be so,
is it possible to uphold the statement in the
final sentence of paragraph 281, that Mr. Ted
Boorsma did not ha
fli
5? 5. Since
Mr. Ted Boorsma's latest admission to the
Toronto General Hospital, has the drug ethy-
lene-diamine-tetra-acetic acid been adminis-
tered to him? 6. If so, was this done on the
instruction of Dr. Wightman? 7. Is this drug
a "chelating agent"? 8. Has any kind of chel-
ating agent been administered to Mr. Ted
Boorsma? 9. Is one effect of a chelating
agent to reduce the amount of fluoride in the
urine? 10. If so, what is the purpose of this
therapy?
Answer by the Minister of Health:
These are highly complex medical ques-
tions. Mr. Ted Boorsma was referred by his
attending physician. Dr. C. B. Greene, Dunn-
ville, to Dr. K. J. R. Wightman, Professor of
Medicine, University of Toronto, in Novem-
ber 1967. He was admitted to the Toronto
General Hospital, under Dr. Wightman, for
investigation. Dr. Wightman was assisted in
his investigation by several leading medical
specialists, including Dr. E. Yendt, now Pro-
fessor of Medicine, Queen's University. Fol-
lowing this investigation, Dr. Wightman
stated that there is no evidence of fluoride
intoxication.
As the Minister, I accept Dr. Wightman's
statement that there is no evidence of fluor-
ide intoxication.
It is noted that some of the questions in-
volve matters of medical confidence and
they should not be discussed or disclosed
without permission from Mr. Ted Boorsma
himself.
40. Mr. Ben — Enquiry of the Ministry—
With reference to paragraphs 258 and 259
of the Hall Report: 1. On July 20th, 1967,
Dr. V. Tidey of tlie Department of Health,
visited Mr. Joseph Casina Snr. and took
samples of blood and urine, wliich were later
analyzed by the Departmental laboratory.
Dr. Tidey wrote to Mr. Casina on August 2nd
that the laboratory had reported that the
samples were within normal limits. How long
did the samples stand before being subjected
to laboratory analysis for fluoride? 2. What
vv'as the actual date and time of the laboratory
test for fluoride, and the date and time of the
specimens being taken from Mr. Casina by
Dr. Tidey? 3. How were the samples trans-
ported between the two places? 4. Is the
detailed laboratory report now available for
inspection by our independent medical
experts?
Answer by the Minister of Health:
1. The analysis for fluoride was made
within approximately 24 hours.
2. The specimens were taken from Mr.
Casina by Dr. Tidey on July 20, 1967. The
analysis was made on July 21, 1967.
3. The samples were taken directly to the
Industrial Hygiene Laboratory, 360 Christie
Street, the next morning July 21, 1967 by
Dr. Tidey, personally.
4. The Department of Health would be
pleased to discuss its methods for fluoride
analysis with any other independent medical
expert.
41. Mr. Ben— Enquiry of the Ministry— 1.
Will the Minister acknowledge that, regard-
less of the eventual transfer of air pollution
to anotlicr Department that: (a) He will
continue to be answerable in respect of
human health by virtue of the Environmental
APRIL 15, 1969
3101
Health Services item in the Pubhc Healtih
i programme vote 802. (b) The present human
P health problem in the Port Maitland area
^: remains generally a matter for public con-
1 cem. (c) Medical data on human health in
this area is sparse and incomplete? 2. In
the interests of the people of the Port Mait-
land area, and in the public interest, will the
Minister now^ undertake a public programme
of blood and urinary testing for fluoride
using the very latest techniques now available
at the laboratory of Dr. K. Garber, Freie
f und Hansestadt Hamburg, Staatinstitut fur
'• Angewandt Botanik, 2000, Hamburg, 36, Bei
den Kirchofen, 14, Germany? 3. Is the Min-
ister aware that samples sent independently
for analysis to Thornton Laboratories Inc.,
1145, East Cass Street, Tampa, Florida,
33601, have resulted in analyses substantially
dijBFerent from those obtained by his own
laboratory? 4. Will the Minister engage Dr.
Rott E. Christiansen of Wisconsin Alumni
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 2037, Madi-
son, Wisconsin 53701, to undertake histo-
logical analysis of the Port Maitland vege-
tation and pathological analysis from bone
biopsies from volunteers in tbe area?
Answer by the Minister of Health:
1. (a) Yes.
(b) To date, there has been no evidence of
human intoxication by fluorides or any other
substance.
(c) There is a good deal of medical data
on human health in the Port Maitland area
compiled by the Department in the course of
its studies, e.g., study of plant workers, dental
study of school children.
2. I am not familiar witli teelmiques used
by this Institute. If they are provided, my
Department will be pleased to study tliem.
3. We have received no information of any
test done by the Thornton Laboratory In-
corporated, Tampa, Florida.
4. This does not appear indicated on the
basis of the medical evidence brought for-
ward at the Inquiry.
44. Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre)
—Enquiry of the Ministry — In light of Dr.
Miller's statement to the Standing Health
Committee that he did not always in the past,
but now does, have a stock control system of
drugs in the dispensary at the Brockville
Psychiatric Hospital, will the Minister assiure
the House that all drug dispensaries at all
Ontario Hospitals have a stock control of
drugs in its dispensary?
Answer by the Minister of Health:
Steps ha\e been taken to ensure that stock
control is an essential procedure in our phar-
macies and other stores. Dr. Miller introduced
stock control in April, 1968.
46. Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre)
—Enquiry of the Ministry— Will the Minister
take steps to make sure tliat the emergency
key to drugs in the dispensary of the Brock-
ville Psychiatric Hospital is placed with the
senior medical staff person at the Hospital
instead of the switchboard?
Answer by the Minister of Health:
No. This decision resides with the Superin-
tendent and there is no reason to question
his iudgment.
No. 84
ONTARIO
Htqi^Mmt of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, April 15, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk; Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 15, 1969
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3105
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3164
3105
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, April 15, 1969
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
{Continued)
On vote 2001:
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Wentworth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman,
prior to the supper hour we were discussing
for the third straight day the matter of the
board of review.
Until this particular moment I had not
entered the debate. I felt that everything had
been said and I had hoped that the Minister
would, in his wisdom, concede the need to
inform the recipients of welfare, the present
recipients, of their right to appeal to this
board of review; to make it abundantly clear
to them that there was such a board. And I
must confess that I am more than a little
concerned.
The Minister has indicated that everything
that has been said will be taken into con-
sideration; I am sure he recognizes by now
that we on this side of the House do not
consider that to be nearly adequate.
In fact, we happen to believe that out of
the choices that have been ojffered to the
Minister there surely must be at least one of
the methods that we have proposed that
would be acceptable to him as a way of
making sure that every welfare recipient in
this province is apprised of the fact that there
is this board of review.
Now what I would like to say to the Min-
ister, since it is a friendly discussion among
just a few of us, is that maybe at this point,
rather than get into the hassle and wrangle
that we have been in for these days, that
surely the Minister could at least say to us
now that he will, say by the end of this
month, notify all of the recipients, by some
method. One of the methods suggested per-
haps—
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): By the member for Downsview—
Mr. Deans: —perhaps using the method
suggested by the member for Downsview.
Surely he could say that to us now, since as
I say we are a small intimate group in the
House and really not hkely to carry it too
far. Does the Minister not feel that he might
be able to make that kind of commitment,
that he would do this by April 30, and then
we could carry on into the remainder of the
estimates?
Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Minister
wish to repeat his answer to that question?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Chairman, I do not
think it is necessary for me to reiterate the
answers I have given this afternoon; over and
over again. I have not ruled out any method
of communication.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I accept that
you have not ruled out any method of com-
munication. Unfortunately, you have not con-
ceded that you will accept any method
either. And of course if we allow this vote to
pass without getting such an agreement from
you, then there is no longer an opportunity
for us to make sure that something is done.
Now I am sure the Minister recognizes this,
and it is not asking much of a person of yowc
abihty to be able to recognize the need to be
sure, on this side of the House, that every
welfare recipient is going to get the kind of
notice that is necessary.
I am quite sure that the Minister, in our
position, would want the same thing; and I
am quite sure that the Minister is quite
capable of not saying: "I will do it this way;
or that way or any other way;" but that, "I
will do it."
To say I have not ruled anything out does
not satisfy, it does not even begin to satisfy,
because while you have not ruled it out
today, the very minute we pass the vote you
may just do that, rule every way out, and
then where do we turn? Where do the people
who are sitting all across this province turn,
who have had all kinds of injustices forced
upon them? How do they then get to know
of this review board, if the Minister turns
around after we have finished discussing this
3106
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
particular item and just ignores all of those
things that have been said.
Surely it is not too much to ask you to
say you will at least do it. I am not asking
how, I am no longer interested in how. I only
want to know that you are going to make the
commitment that you will undertake to in-
form everyone. Is that too diflRcult a thing?
Is that really asking you to move from your
position any great distance? Surely not!
Surely if you really intend, surely if in your
heart you believe that it is necessary to
inform the people, it is not much to ask you
to say so, here and now, that you will do it.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor ( Lakeshore ) : The federal
government should cut you off until you are
in good faith.
Mr. Deans: Now this is the situation. To
say that you may is not nearly enough. Either
you believe that you should and you are
going to, and we will question no further for
the vehicle that will be used; or else you are
going to say to us here and now that you are
not going to and let us continue with this.
Now that is all that is asked. I do not care
if it is a letter in the monthly cheque or an
independent letter or whatever method you
want to use— by telegram or personal visit
from the Minister if need be— but surely it is
not too much to ask.
If you are going to administer the depart-
ment properly, and I am sure that you try,
for goodness sake you can make this kind of
commitment in this House.
Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Minister wish
to add anything to his prior remarks on this
point?
The hon. member for Windsor-Walker-
ville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
If I may at this time ask the hon. Minister
what plans there are under research and
planning; what are the plans of the depart-
ment? What type of research? Is it some-
thing similar to the studies conducted in
Hamilton years ago? In the city of Windsor?
An attempt to rehabilitate individuals on
welfare?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, Mr. Chair-
man, this is a division that I look forward to
with great expectations. We are now com-
pleting the staffing of the department and
when that is completed all the social science
disciplines— a very good term— will be repre-
sented: economists, psychologists, sociologists
and social workers. We hope to have the
base to do research which will be on a con-
tinuing basis to provide guidelines for future
policy development. Economic and sociologi-
cal aspects of current and longer term needs
are to be evaluated; existing welfare pro-
grammes will be assessed in the light of these
requirements; in-depth studies of individual
programmes will be undertaken to see where
these may need to be modified to meet the
changing needs of the commimity they serve;
an inventory of welfare services made avail-
able by various levels of government and by
private agencies is to be compiled so that
gaps in service may be identified and policies
developed to overcome the deficiences which
may appear.
One of the first studies undertaken is an
analysis of the statistics compiled from vari-
ous programme activities in this department.
Greater advantage Ls to be taken of the data
presently available. Once the production of
this data has been refined and systematized
it can be exploited to highlight the need for
future research projects for administrative
changes and for programme changes. Since
the demand for service will outstrip the abil-
ity of the branch to provide it, priorities will
have to be established, based on the relative
urgency of the problems encountered.
Now that is research that is to be under-
taken, Mr. Chairman, within the department.
Then of course we will have, outside the
department, those things which have been
designated as demonstration projects, which
are really a lab within the field, from which
we will gain our knowledge and experience.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, some years
ago, 1963 if I am not mistaken, the Minister's
department conducted a fairly intensive study
in the city of Hamilton. They did exactly the
same thing in the city of Windsor in 1965.
What developments have there been as a
result of these two studies? If the Minister
prefers to be specific I would prefer him to
mention what changes have taken place as a
result of the Windsor study in 1965, what
substantial changes in the department's out-
look concerning public assistance.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have the 1963
study on the projects that the hon. member
has mentioned before me.
I do have before me the Hamilton Unem-
ployed Youth Project, which was sponsored
by the Hamilton Young Men's Christian Asso-
ciation. The purpose was to attempt to dis-
cover and develop effective means of assisting
chronically unemployed young men, 16 to 25
years, with poor employment records, to
achieve steady employment. It was started
APRIL 15, 1969
3107
in 1967. It is completed and we are still
awaiting the report. That report, we hope,
should demonstrate to what extent volunteer
counselling, with some psychological assess-
ment, can change the unemployment attitudes
and habits of young men.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the studies
are all well and good. The studies do not
mean a thing unless there is some result from
the studies. I would specifically like to know
from the Minister: as a result of these studies
in the city of Windsor what changes have
been implemented in the city by his depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: My understanding is
that as a result of those changes— rather a
result of that particular study— that is they
had some bearing on the rates of change in
the schedules for family benefits and general
welfare assistance.
Mr. B. Newman: I will not carry this any
further, Mr. Chairman. That is very minor.
The important thing is to come along and get
these people o£F welfare, and that was the
essential purpose for the study in the city.
However it has not achieved the objective,
because today we have more people receiving
assistance from this province than we had
back in the year when the study was con-
ducted.
Now I do not have to tell the Minster that
these pamphlets that he has put out would
be nice if they were put out in other lan-
guages. I know he will follow through; I
would appreciate him saying "yes," that these
will be issued in languages other than the
English language.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is also done in
conjunction with the programme of the Pro-
vincial Secretary, the 13-language programme.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the
Minister could give us some information on
how the announced $400 million budget cut
affected his depar-tment? I asked this specifi-
cally on the first vote rather than on the one
that may apply directly to the children's aid
societies or the homes for the aged or some
others because I feel it is of more general
importance.
The impression we get from the Treasurer's
remarks was that it was many services ad-
ministered by this Minister, the Minister of
Health and the Minister of Education that
bore the brunt of the surgery that the Treas-
ury board performed on the requirement that
had been put before it by the various Minis-
ters. I would like to know specifically the
recommendations that the Minister had put
before the Cabinet, and particularly the
Treasury Board, that have not been acceded
to.
He has indicated himself, that there was a
decrease in the support for homes for the
aged and certain other programones, but per-
haps he could enlighten the House more
specifically as to just what part of that $400
million cut he, in his department, had to bear.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that the hon. member placed the wrong inter-
pretation on the remarks of the Provincial
Treasurer. They may have put the emphasis
on the wrong place.
I may say that as I have come to know the
effects of the Treasury Board on other de-
partment submissions, that The Department
of Social and Family Services was exceedingly
well treated. I have acknowledged this to the
Treasurer. When one examines the fact that
a number of departments were— if I may use
the term— kept at the level that they had
been last year; that several departments had
been cut from last year's programmes, and
ours have gone up. I think the estimates for
this year have gone up some 16 per cent over
that of last year, which is a very significant
increase and is quite comparable to the in-
creases which took place in previous years,
I may say that to review the submissions
would be very difficult because there was a
continuous going back and forth. I may say
that as Minister I emerged from the final con-
sultation feeling— what should I use, I do
not want to have the Treasurer quote me
some time in the future at a Treasury board
meeting— but I felt that we had done well
enough to carry out in a general way our
commitments.
There is no doubt that the capital expan-
sion programme which had been growing at
a very rapid rate will not grow as rapidly.
In fact, there will be a great deal of phasing
in and phasing over a period of time.
However, even from that point of view, there
are some benefits to be gained because as
formerly, where applications for capital assist-
ance were submitted and processed almost in
a routine fashion, we are now examining very
closely the submissions; the needs in the
terms of the whole community; the area.
In the short run there are some side bene-
fits which have been gained from not having
as much of the capital moneys as was pos-
sible. TJie one aspect probably where I had
hoped something would have been done— and
the Treasurer did make reference to it— I have
3108
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
lieen hoping in the last couple of years to
increase the subsidy for maintenance for
homes for the aged from 70 to 80 per cent
to bring it in hne witli that of charitable
institutions, which is presently 80 per cent.
Unfortunately, that was not possible. But
when one considers the fact that in the last
few years we ha\e picked up percentages
from the municipalities, I think we have
done fairly well by tlie municipalities in the
field of welfare.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairmim, I find it interest-
ing that the Minister is satisfied with the re-
sults of his confrontation with the Treasury
Board.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will never be satisfied,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps tliat is so, yet his
remarks would indicate that the programmes
that he had in mind for this year have been
adequately funded. It may well be that there
are those who are concerned with children's
aid societies, and particularly the homes for
the aged— which he himself mentioned a
moment ago— avho would surely feel that the
Minister has taken a strange attitude, indeed,
if he is in fact trying to economize in the
Budget that he, as an individual Minister,
supervised.
I need only recall to his mind the circum-
stances in Niagara Falls and in Brantford
where the local community had made sub-
stantial financial commitments with the under-
standing that these would be met by the
Minister of Social and Family Services witli
similar funds, and that tlie Minister backed
down on these commitments, when really the
imderstanding was that it was the general
economy required by tlie government policy
that was the driving force behind the Min-
ister's decision to retract what was tantamoimt
to Ministerial approval to buildings that were
already under way. How can the Minister
justify his statement that he was well treated
by the Treasury Board, with the fact that at
least two municipalities are having to go
ahead entirely on their own, in this case with
expansions to homes for the aged and in other
cases with the financing of children's aid
society work, when the excuse given was that
the funds were simply not available to sup-
port it to that extent here.
Mr. Chairman, I want to relate this to the
first vote; I want to relate it to ministerial
policy and just what this Minister and this
department had to bear in the reduction of
governmental expenditure tliat had been pre-
dicted as being $400 milion more than was
actually brought down by the Treasurer. I
am asking the Minister how he justifies his
retraction of approval for the homes for the
aged and certain work for children's aid
societies with the statement that he was
adequately funded.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
differ with the hon. leader of the Opposition,
there was no retraction of any commitment. I
have sufficient funds, I believe, to meet all
commitments made as such and all approvals
given in accordance with the legislation. I
have all the moneys to fulfil all of those
things which everybody throughout the prov-
ince, including myself, would like to do this
year. But as I have said to those who come,
this department has been in business, is in
business, and will continue to be in business,
and the plans will proceed and those homes
will appear in due course.
Mr. Nixon: Those homes will appear in due
course, because they are being financial, in
toto, as I understand it, by the municipalities
concerned. Is the Minister, in his statement,
in fact saying that the municipal officials con-
cerned are in error when they state that the
Ministerial approval was available, and that
they never would have proceeded in the first
case unless with the understanding that ap-
proval had been gained.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I imply no error on the
part of the municipal officials. As I have ex-
plained earlier, in the past, in the affluent
period, applications were submitted and they
went through the procedure. I have not had
any instances brought to my attention where
some sort of non-approval was given, in diat
period of time where someone said, "No, you
do not need it." Over a period of time the
vast bulk were processed. That procedure
was going on, and there were various capital
imdertakings at various stages— from those
that were mere ideas in people's heads to
those where people w^ere poised with their
foot on tlieir shovel.
There are procedures which have to be
carried out, and I suggest that there may
have been misunderstandings on the part of
some people, but I have taken the position
that I believe that I have the sufficient funds
to carry out commitments. I do say that one
thing that has come to mind has surprised
me, and it is the fact that there are several
municipahties which do not have to borrow,
but have all of the fimds necessary. This
came as a surprise to me that we, who are
their partners atxl give them money, are
APRIL 15, 1969
3109
unable to continue at the rate that we would
like to—
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Oh,
nonsense.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I certainly hope the Min-
ister understands that no municipality that I
am aware of is prepared to go alone unless
the commitment has been made, as the Minis-
ter said, in error, perhaps based on a mis-
understanding which I am not prepared to
admit; and the hole has been dug, the foun-
dations have been laid, and the Ministerial
approval— which has been automatic, presum-
ably, in the past, particularly after the Ontario
Municipal Board had approved— was not forth-
coming, and these municipalities now find
themselves in a position where they simply
must proceed, they simply cannot leave the
excavations sitting there until the Minister
and his government return to what he would
choose to call, I presume, aflBuent times. I
think this is a considerable problem, and
while it can be discussed in detail, particu-
larly under the second vote in this regard, I
wonder if the Minister can tell us if his rec-
ommendation to the Treasury Board were
fully met, or, in fact, what part of the $400
million reduction that the Treasurer was talk-
ing about is being borne by The Department
of Social and Family Services.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps before the hon.
Minister replies, the committee would permit
the chairman to indicate to the committee
that we have a group of visitors with us in
the west gallery tonight from the Dovercourt
Progressive Conservative Association.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, we welcome
them and the hon. member for Dovercourt
welcomes them—
Mr. Lawlor: Could we not offer condol-
ences to those in the gallery.
Mr. Nixon: —but I was wondering if the
Minister might give me some specific reply
associated with the reduction in his require-
ments.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, as the
Treasurer is fully capable of explaining to
the hon. leader of the Opposition with respect
to the government in general about the pro-
cedures of the Treasury Board, each depart-
ment submits its estimates, and then the cloth
has to be cut in accordance with what the
Treasurer has available. I may say that of the
figure of $400 million, which is a very signi-
ficant sum of money, the percentage difference
between what we may have hoped for and the
ultimate received, was not really a significant
portion of $400 million. Other departments, I
believe, took a much bigger brunt.
Mr. Nixon: It appears that we are not
going to get further information other than
that the reduction for this department was
not significant, even though it was one of the
five—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not significant in rela-
tionship to $400 million.
Mr. Nixon: How significant was it?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Give us
some figures.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
leader of the Opposition can compare last
year's estimates with this year's estimates and
see the growth. Recognizing the fact that in
a period when the Treasurer has made known
to the people of the province of Ontario what
he is trying to do in relationship to the Bud-
get, the fact that we got a significant increase
speaks for itself. Those are the figures.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I think the
thing that speaks for itself is the fact that this
Minister brought forward a significant, I
would say, a brave new programme in asso-
ciation with children's aid societies, but that
he has been equipped with the funds to meet
the principles of that programme. As a mat-
ter of fact, preventive care has become a
thing of the past. We had it, perhaps, for
a few months during what the Minister him-
self has called the previous lucrative days. I
would like to bring to your attention, Mr.
Chairman, that of the $264,700 we are asked
to vote, practically half of that is met from
the federal Treasury. Really, we are talking
about a vote of something close of $130 mil-
lion of funds that are raised in the province
here, that is on the provincial tax base.
While the growth in the funds available for
this Minister has, as he said, been 16 per
cent, it does not meet the needs of the pro-
grammes that the Minister has enunciated.
I am concerned with the direction that has
come to the Minister from the Treasury
Board, perhaps from the Treasurer, perhaps
from the Premier, to cut down on those com-
munities that had expected the basic support
from this Minister, and his share of the pro-
vincial Budget subsidized to the extent of at
least 50 per cent and sometimes 80 per cent
from the federal Budget, for the expansion
of the care that we are so concerned with.
Now we can deal with it in detail. The
Minister has assured us that the reduction of
3110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
his budget was not significant and that he
has funds which will meet the programme as
he envisages the responsibility of his depart-
ment. I would say to him that he has a very
peculiar view of his responsibility, particu-
larly when we look at those two areas of
homes for the aged and the children's aid
societies, where I believe his support is in-
adequate and being reduced in its adequacy.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member has his opinions of my ade-
quacies, and I have my opinion of his
knowledge. I have explained time and time
again in this House, that so far as Ottawa is
concerned, they do not participate in capital
grants. In those homes that you have refer-
red to, there were no federal moneys as such
for capital grants.
Mr. Nixon: That is what you are asking us
to vote—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. leader of the
Opposition would have this House believe
that Ottawa pays 50 per cent and 80 per cent
of the capital costs of the homes. That is
not so.
Mr. Singer: He did not say that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, that is what I
understood him to say.
Mr. Nixon: Half the money you are ask-
ing for—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member has
been talking about capital grants. Now let us
talk about capital grants, and in respect of
capital grants where we have made pro-
visions, the federal authorities are not yet
participating the way that they should.
Mr. Nixon: Well let us get to the point.
Your grants are not adequate.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have a department
Mr. Chairman, in which the grants will never
be adequate, but they keep getting more and
more so every year. We are meeting the
demands and the needs of the people. With
relationship to the child welfare, the increase
in the last two or three years has been
significant.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Oh come
on. What is significant about it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would say that
doubling is a significant change.
Mr. Lewis: You are destroying the pre-
ventive services entirely.
Mr. Nixon: If the Minister thinks that
doubling is significant, they have not been
doubled this year, they have gone up 16 per
cent and still there are these waiting lists for
the facilities for the homes for the aged which
are grossly inadequate in many communities
and which this Minister has cut back on this
very year. Now, if this cannot be attributed
to-
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. The hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion when he commenced his remarks, in a
very general way I suggest he was in order
in speaking of vote 2001. But when he gets
into specific areas relating to homes for the
aged and child welfare I submit we deal
with those items when we come to the
appropriate vote.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I will accept
that point of order. I have raised it myself.
The reason I have raised this point on the
first vote is that there is every indication that
this department has been subjected to the
attrition of the Treasury Board.
I am delighted to know that this is not the
case, but I am appalled by the statement
made by the Minister that he has got all the
funds to fund the programmes that he feels
necessary for this coming year. I would say
that I seriously disagree with him, and that
this, in fact, is becoming a very important
issue in all communities of this province.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I really
want to have a chat with you rather than
with the Minister because that is rather futile.
We have spent almost two days trying to get
from the Minister a simple admission with
regard to the review boards; that he would
let these people know and be specific.
He will not be specific. It is a sort of cat
and mouse game and we have spent two days
wasting the greater part of them. If he would
be willing to be open and above board. Now
we are back to the same kind of a proposition.
The question put to the Minister was: By
how much were his estimates cut? I put this
question to the Provincial Treasurer and he
operates in a much diflFerent way. He said I
do not know, but I will find out and I will
let you know. I said, if I do not hear I will
put a question to you before the orders of
the day which I will do tomorrow since I had
forgotten up until now. We are entitled to
know from the Treasurer if we cannot get it
from this Minister because he just will not
APRIL 15, 1969
3111
communicate or cannot communicate. We are
entitled to know from this government where
the $400 million in cuts in estimates came
from.
This government, in its budget debate,
boasted that they had gone through blood,
sweat and tears to cut estimates down, to get
a balanced budget and they give us where
these cuts were. We have now the right to
say to the Minister, "How much did you ask
for? By how much were your estimates cut?"
He cannot just say that the cut was insignifi-
cant in terms of the overall budget and so on.
That is not what we are interested in.
How many dollars were your estimates cut
by?
You boasted about the $400 million as a
government. Now if you have got something
to hide, maybe we will go to the Provincial
Treasurer and we will find out from the Pro-
vincial Treasurer that we had a certain num-
ber of cuts made and they add up to $400
million. But we have already indicated in this
House that now the leader of the Opposition
has joined our forces, so you have got the
Opposition on this side of the House.
I assume that in every estimate throughout
this session we are going to have to seek and
question, if it takes us a half a day or a day,
to find out how much they were cut by. We
are entitled to examine the estimates very
very carefully. We are entitled to scrutinize
whether the cuts are in services to people.
Where your cuts took place there are legiti-
mate priorities. We are entitled to expose
these to the people of the province of On-
tario, and we are entitled to ask the people
of the province of Ontario, "Would you not
wish to retain taxes in a certain area instead
of cutting back on homes for the aged, pro-
grammes for emotionally disturbed children,
programmes for psychiatric hospitals, pro-
grammes for children's aid.
You have boasted about what you have
done. Now we are going to dig in to expose
what you have done. So I just put it finally,
Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister,
by how many dollars were your estimates
cut? What proportion of the $400 million
came from your department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
You have no right to know.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now, Mr.
Chairman. Another member of the govern-
ment intervenes and says we have no right
to know.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The inter-
jection by the hon. Minister of Mines was
out of order; the hon. Minister of Social and
Family Services has the floor.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, on
a point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: I was on a point of order
before you rose.
Mr. Lewis: What is wrong with the Chair-
man?
Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member for
York South has a point of order; proceed.
Mr. MacDonald: You see, Mr. Chairman,
you are right that that interjection was out
of order, but the reason why is very signifi-
cant-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: You can have your turn
in a moment. The reason why that interjec-
tion, though out of order, is extremely signi-
ficant is it is precisely the attitude that this
Minister has evidenced for three days.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: I am on a point of order
and when I am finished you can interrupt me.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: What is your point of
order?
Mr. MacDonald: I have got a point of
order and when I am finished you can inter-
rupt me. We have been trying to get from
this Minister-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order, please!
The hon. Minister asked the Chairman
what the point of order was. The hon. Min-
ister of Mines had made an interjection which
the Chairman said was out of order. The hon.
member for York South is explaining why it
is in order. The hon. member for York South
has the floor.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): I insist on a
point of order.
3112
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: I have a point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sopha: And I insist that the exact
words of the interjection go on the record.
Mr. MacDonald: They are on the record I
trust.
Mr. Sopha: He interjected by saying we
have no right to vote.
Mr. MacDonald: Right. Now, Mr. Chair-
man, I want to keep in order because we
have been asking this Minister for three days
how he is going to inform the people of
their rights with regard to review boards. He
says we will not tell you. We have no right
to know.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Now we say to him how
much were your estimates cut by? He shared
a $400 million cut. "You have no right to
know" says he. Now, are you going to tell
us?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Orderl Surely the hon.
members of this committee realize there are
people in the galleries and that we are con-
ducting a Legislature. The Chairman is doing
his best to maintain order. I ask the hon.
members to please maintain order.
Mr. Lewis: The people in the galleries
have a right to know.
Mr. Sopha: That is why we are here; we
have a right to know.
Mr. MacDonald: Wliat we have had, Mr,
Chairman, is confirmation from the Cabinet
colleagues that how this Minister is acting is
the way the Cabinet as a whole acts. We
have no right to know. Because if the Treas-
urer is going to get up and boast about $400
million cuts we have the right to know where
the cuts took place, and if you want to stay
here till the month of August or September
we are going to find out where the cuts were
made.
Mr. Lewis: And tliis department is going to
be on the griddle a whole lot longer now
vidth this kind of arrogance.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Singer: Come on CD. Tell us how
you are going to do it.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Would tlie hon.
member for Downsview please permit the
hon. Minister to have the floor. He has the
floor.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Surely the hon. Minister
has a right to reply to tlie point of order.
Mr. Singer: What? His arrogance? Is that
what he is replying to?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I have no point
of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Then tlie hon. Minister is
out of order.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, may
I not speak to the estimates?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister is out
of order at this particular time.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Why?
Mr. Chairman: A point of order had been
raised.
Mr. MacDonald: Because people ahead of
you will be put down.
Mr. Chairman: Because the hon. Minister
of Social and Family Services had the floor
at the point the order was raised.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: May I not speak
on the estimates at all, sir?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, in your turn.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right. Now we
are talking about arrogance here, sir. May I
not get a word in edgewise about it? Why
not?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister is out
of order at this time. I will recognize him in
proper course.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: May I ask you when
it would be in order for me to speak on these
estimates?
Mr. Chairman: Order please! Wlien the
first point of order was raised the hon. Min-
ister of Social and Family Services had the
floor. That hon. Minister took his seat to
hear the first point of order. Now the pomt
of order has been made to the committee
and I beheve that the order of speaking
should revert to the hon. Minister of Social
and Family Services.
APRIL 15. 1969
3113
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, the Opposition in this House does
not have to sufiFer that kind of interjection,
and that should be accepted by the Chair. It
is, I submit to you, sir, on a point of order,
no prerogative of government to assert that
the Opposition is not entitled to know how
public money is spent. That is the simple
nature of the point of order— no prerogative
at all.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, I
rise on a point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Well if you had done that
a few moments ago you might have had the
floor.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think, is is a fagade
to have people stand up to fictitious points of
order. Now come on. Be reasonable about it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: My point of order is
this, sir. As I understand the situation, claims
have been made in this House that the mem-
bers of the Legislature are entitled to know
the initial form of the estimates that may
be drawn up by a department before it gets
approved by Treasury Board, which is a sub-
committee of Cabinet, before it gets approved
by Cabinet, and before it gets approved by
the government as a whole for presentation
to this House. All I can say, sir, when I indi-
cated to you and to the House, and I do not
backtrack on it for a moment, that no one
outside of Cabinet has a right to know what
those prehminary estimates are, is simply and
solely because no one within government—
and this is a collective responsibility within
government— is responsible for tiiose estimates
imtil they are approved by government.
Now, the approval by government means
that they get inserted in the estimates for
presentation to the House and I can tell the
hon. members of this commitee, sir, through
you, if I may, that on occasion I am sure
there is some pretty senseless stupid, non-
sensical things that come from departments
to Treasury Board and to Cabinet to get
ajyproved. And certainly in no manner, shape
or form, could the government as a whole,
the Cabinet, the people who are responsible to
the people for the administration of the gov-
ernment, be responsible for some of those
items. And for persons to ask that these be
made public would not only be unfair to the
government as a whole, sir, but would cer-
tainly be a very serious breach of the oath
of secrecy that every member of the Execu-
tive Council has to make when he assumes
office.
When I say, sir, with regard to preliminary
estimates, before they are approved by gov-
ernment, before they are approved by Cabinet,
that the hon. members of this House have no
right to know about them. I reaffirm this, be-
cause that is the basis on which this is
founded and at no time has the Treasurer of
this province-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I have as bellowing
a voice as anyone else in the House, and if
you want to create the indignities that you
have shown here tonight, just continue to do
so.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Patronizing is not going to help.
Hon. A. F Lawrence: I am merely saying,
sir, that at no time am I aware that the
Treasurer of this province, in his presentation
of his Budget to this House, indicated that
there had been any amount of dollars cut off
those prehminary estimates. What he indi-
cated, sir, was that there was a certain amount
in tlie way of a total of dollars that had been
pared as far as the prehminary work by the
Treasury Board had been concerned. These
were not, sir-
Mr. Chairman: Point of order.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am speaking to a
point of order. At no time had there been any
indication that the preliminary estimates by
the departments themselves, that is the very
preliminary estimates, and I think by speaking
in this manner, sir, the Opposition show their
ignorance of the system, had been cut down
because in many ways these are not even
known by the Treasury Board themselves and
because the preliminary estimates in the first
instance come to the Minister from the de-
partmental officials, this is not known by any-
body, even, in the case of The Department of
Mines, by the Minister of Mines.
Mr. Lewis: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I am speaking specifically to misinformation.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order. The hon. mem-
ber is on his feet.
Mr. Lewis: On the point of order. I do
not think this House, having suffered the
abuse from the Minister it has already taken,
need suffer the misinformation as well. In the
Treasurer's Budget statement, if tlie Minister
3114
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
had taken the trouble to listen to it, or to read
it, on page 19 he indicates specifioally that he
has had to reduce certain amounts in the
Budget by virtue of austerity programmes.
He says, for example: "Grants for the con-
struction of hospitals reduced by $13 million,
pubhc works construction programme is cut
by $4 million, funds for acquisition and devel-
opments of parklands were cut by $2.6
million."
Overleaf on page 20, after listing all the
programmes which the government has ille-
gitimately cut, he then says: "Our rationing
measures eliminating approximately $400
million from expenditure estimates—"
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lewis: Now, Mr. Chairman, on the
point of order. We were not in any sense dis-
cussing what the Minister of Mines purported
that we were discussing. We are discussing
what we have every relevant and valid right
in this Legislatiue to discuss-4lie nature of
the cuts which the government itself has
made. Also those departments in which the
cuts took place, and the precise items of the
departmental estimates to which those cuts
apply.
It is nothing short of a totally anti-demo-
cratic attitude to suggest in this House that
we have no right to that information. This
entire government is culpable of a "guilty
man's" psychology; Mr. Chairman, we are
not prepared to accept that.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order that was
originally raised, surely we can now retutm
to the Minister of Social and Family Services
and ask him once again what his original
estimates were reduced by as they went
through the Treasury Board. The $400 mil-
lion reduction is a part of the Treasurer's
budgetary estimates, as we have said, and
we demand to know to what extent the pro-
grammes of this particular department have
been reduced because of the decision of the
government as a whole and the Treasury
Board in particular.
Mr. Singer: We had one such Minister a
while ago. He has gone now. Are you taking
over the role now?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): Is that how they run meet-
ings at the university.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: May I speak now.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Sir, I think it is a
very legitimate duty, if not the responsibility
of the Opposition parties to compare cuts for
programmes and compare estimates as pre-
sented to the House. In other words, com-
pare what we are doing this year and the
cost thereof, or rather what we plan to do
this year and the costs thereof, with the pro-
grammes and the plans approved by this
House last year, and the amounts indicated
in the budget at that time.
I say, sir, that no one outside the Execu-
ti\ e Council, or those who take the oath of
secrecy in relation to the affairs of that Execu-
tive Council, have any right to know what
goes on in that Executive Council. These are
estimates that are presented to the Treasury-
Board, which is a committee of Cabinet, and
for those matters to be dispersed we cannot
do it.
Mr. Singer: Why do you not get rid of the
Treasury? He said what he should not have
said.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sopha: I want to speak to this point
of order because this appertains to a matter
critical to the viability and strength of this
Parliament. On the one hand, it can be said
that all of us sat here and listened to the
Treasurer, strident and boastful and proud.
On budget day he told the people of Ontario,
indeed through the medium of the television
cameras, that through his efforts, those of the
government, his Cabinet colleagues, including
the Minister of Mines, a total of $400 million
had been carved or chopped, or struck, from
the estimates that had been tendered to the
Treasury Board.
Then with what I call the grossest arro-
gance and impertinence, the Minister of
Mines shouts over to us that we have no
right to know the details of that $400 million
cut. Then he gets up and he lectures us—
Mr. Singer: Told us to shut up.
Mr. Sopha: —with a long disquisition about
Cabinet solidarity and Cabinet secrecy,
totally irrelevant to the point at issue. We
would l)e remiss in our responsibility on this
side if we did not question how the sum
total of $400 million was arrived at.
Let the records show that in each depart-
ment, as the Minister has come to his place
to answer to his estimates, that Minister has
been asked what portion of the $400 million
is represented by a cut in his estimates; that
process was continued with this Minister.
APRIL 15. 1969
3115
Now, I resent very strongly indeed, and it
strikes at the viability of this as an institution,
for this impertinent Minister to sit there,
whose estimates are not before the House;
his remarks are not germane to the proceed-
ings of this House; to hurl over at us in the
evening hours such an arrogant command
that we have no right to know.
We have the right to know, and we must
demand it. We must show for what it is this
ingenuous argument put forward by the Min-
ister of Mines seeking to explain away the gaflF
that he has made.
Well, this Party, as my leader has indi-
cated, is not going to tolerate that for one
minute. I ask you to rule right now, Mr.
Chairman, on our behalf, that these are
proper quetsions to be directed to this Min-
itser, and, indeed, to each one of the Ministers
of the whole Cabinet Council as their esti-
mates come before this House. I think you
can do nothing less than that.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, may I speak to this point of order?
Mr. Chairman: Proceed.
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to say to the
Minister of Mines that he cannot have his
argument both ways. I would like to remind
him that on page 20 of his colleague's, the
Treasurer's, Budget statement, the Treasurer
said in this House:
Although our rationing measure elimi-
nated aproximately $400 million from ex-
penditure estimates to come down to our
final expenditure total of $2,996 billion,
we believe that the final expenditure pack-
age that has emerged represents a wise and
responsible allocation of our limited public
funds.
I would like to say that if the hon. Minister
of Mines' interpretation of his budget oath
is as it is, then he has said to this House,
and to the people of this province, that the
Treasurer of this province has broken his
oath. Either that, or his interpretation consti-
tutionally is arrogant and false, and simply
an attempt to tidy up his own gaff in this
chamber.
I suggest that his remarks simply confirm
Professor Fred Schindcler's analysis of this
government between the years of 1948 and
1965, that what this government has, and has
had, and has continued to have is a Cabinet
dictatorship.
Mr. Chairman: Any further comments to
the point of order?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: Are you going to make a ruling
on this, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: As soon as the committee
will give the Chairman an opportunity. It
seems to me that the suggestion that the hon.
Treasurer did indicate there were cuts in the
Budget totalling a certain number of dollars,
is an indication that there were certain cuts
in the estimates, or in the original estimates,
as compared to the estimates presented to
this House.
On previous occasions there were three
departmental estimates before the House. I
beheve on the first one, the hon. Minister in
that department said he would obtain the
information at a later date. He did not have
it available. I believe that the hon. members
of the Opposition in committee have every
right to ask any Minister to indicate what he
has cut from the Budget. Whether or not the
Minister rephes is another matter. If the
Minister can give the information, or wishes
to, I believe that is up to him. There is no
way in which the Chairman or the Opposi-
tion members can enforce a reply from the
Minister. I do believe that the hon. members
have a right to ask that question.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I know it is not
possible for either you or any member of this
House to compel an answer from any other
member, but I would put to the Minister
now the question, by what number of dol-
lars was his original requirement for the
functioning of his department for the coming
year reduced by the Treasury Board?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
whole intent and purpose of that question is,
as I would take it, to try to demonstrate to
the people of Ontario that the people's ser-
vices have been cut-
Some hon. members: Right! Right!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I direct the attention
of the hon. member for Scarborough West-
on page 20—
On the other hand, spending under The
Department of Social and Family Services
will increase by 12 per cent to a total of
$134 milhon to sustain our present income
maintenance, rehabilitation and child care
programmes.
Then if you go back to page 18, the hon.
Treasurer gave a breakdown of "Develop-
ment of Ontario's Spending and Investment
Priorities," and priority areas. He refers to
3116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
education and health and social services and
aid to local authorities, and demonstrates the
increases that have taken place. The hon.
member for Scarborough West was very care-
ful to indicate that the Treasurer prior to
the-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Prior to the statement
by the Treasurer of rationing measures which
altogether eliminated $400 million the only
reference he has to The Department of Social
and Family Services is the postponement
from 70 to 80 per cent in maintenance sub-
sidy for the homes for the aged.
Mr. Chairman, I take this position, that I
would suggest that some of the duties— not
necessarily all of the duties— of the Opposi-
tion is to examine the adequacy of this pro-
gramme, the adequacy of $267 million to
meet the needs of our people. If the hon.
member, the leader of the Opposition, ex-
pects me to give to him a reply to every
dollar figure that I have in mind, of every
programme that I believe would be good for
the people of the province-
Mr. Singer: Surely we are entitled to ex-
pect the Minister to come in and know about
his estimates.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know my estimates,
Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to talk about
tlie adequacy of $267 million, an increase
over last year in a period when the Treasurer
is attempting to balance his Budget on behalf
of the people of the province of Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the answer to
the question?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
has refused to answer the specific and
straightforward question that deals direcdy
with the responsibility that we have as mem-
bers of this Legislature. He has admitted that
the amounts that he received by the decision
of Treasury Board were not up to the
amount that he requested, he has refused to
tell us what he has requested.
Now, because of that, it is certainly in-
cumbent upon us to reduce the amount avail-
able by at least the sum that the public purse
is charged for his salary.
As he was quick to point out in the original
discussion the Minister's salary is statutory.
But because of that I find it necessary to move
the following motion: "That the amount in
item 1 of \ ote 2001 be reduced by an amount
of $12,000"
If the Minister can make that out of the
statutory commitment, then he is welcome to
do so. Surely we in this House have the right
not only to ask the question, as you pointed
out, Mr. Chairman, but to receive an answer.
Because of that, put this motion before the
committee.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, speak-
ing-
Mr. Chairman: I will read tlie motion first,
if I may. Mr. Nixon has moved that item 1
of vote 2001 be reduced by an amoimt of
$12,000.
Mr. Nixon: Now, you understarkd, this is
item 1.
Mr. Chairman: Right.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. When this motion is voted on, what
happens to vote 2001?
Mr. Chairman: If the motion does not
cany, the remainder of the vote will be open
for discussion.
Does the hon. Minister wish to comment
now on tlie motion? I l>elieve he was on his
feet.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, if the
motion were to carry, it would put me in a
very difficult position. I would be confronted
with a proposition of having to—
Mr. Singer: Resign.
Mr. Nixon: Then you would have no further
responsibility.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would have a great
deal of responsibility because there are a
great many salaries of a great many hard-
working people involved in tliat—
Mr. Singer: We are not talking about a
great many.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: -in that $1,733,000.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that I am
willing to put my hourly rate at stake at any
time.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, come now!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I put my work in the
hands of the members of this Legislature. I
am sure the vote will be defeated.
Mr. Lewis: We will put you before tiie
review board.
APRIL 15, 1969
3117
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairman, before the vote is called, would
you clarify again what the result will be if
this vote should not be passed?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You guys are full of
confidence.
Mr. Chairman: If the motion is defeated,
item 1 is carried, but the remainder of the
total vote is open for further debate.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am not at all
sure what one does in this kind of case. I
really do not think that should, by some
fortuitous chance, the Minister's colleagues
come to his defence and vote for him— which
would surprise the entire Legislature under
the circumstances— then we are still back in
a similar position of dealing with a depart-
ment where the Minister has no information
whatsover, no grasp of departmental estimates
and will not share that information with the
members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The hon. member is
not speaking directly to this motion.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. The hon. member made a
statement that I have no information. That is
utter nonsense, I have all kinds of informa-
tion.
Mr. MacDonald: It is inadequate.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: And if you want to
stay here for six months, I have enough
answers for six months too.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lewis: I am wondering, Mr. Chair-
man, whether it would not serve the House
better for these estimates to be withdrawn at
this point of time and that we move under
rule 97 that the Chairman do leave the
chair, pursuant—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Out of order.
Mr. Lewis: It is not out of order.
Mr. Chairman: There is a motion before
the committee and the Chairman is dealing
only with this motion.
Mr. Lewis: I know, but this is a motion
which takes precedence over other motions.
I am speculating, sir, pursuant to rule 97
whether we would be better to say that the
Chairman do now leave the chair, because in
terms of pursuing these estimates at all we
are met with total futility. In terms of a
vote being meaningful in the context of what
we are after, we can elicit no information on
any count. I am wondering whether the leader
of the Opposition would consider that as an
alternative.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Either the hon. mem-
ber should make his motion or shut up.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I move, sec-
onded by the member for York South, pur-
suant to rule 97, the Chairman leave the
chair for the reasons that I have indicated.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I think the reasons
are really irrelevant, as far as the chair is
concerned. I have a motion before me which
is entirely different from the motion intro-
duced by the hon. member for Scarborough
West. This rule 97 would take precedence
over the motion introduced by the hon.
leader of the Opposition. The motion by the
hon. member for Scarborough West is simply L
that the Chairman do now leave the chair and f
reix)rt.
An hon. member: Not much progress.
Mr. Chairman: Just report.
Mr. MacDonald: Your only opportvmity,
Mr. Chairman, is to report the facts— no
progress.
Mr. Chairman: That is in the event that
the motion carries.
Mr. Lewis moves that the Chairman do I
now leave the chair and report. f
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
speak to the motion, and I am not going to
comment particularly on the motives that put
it forward, other than to say that I would
say that we agree in our position that the
Minister's answers are inadequate. Surely we
would agree further that money for the
provision of welfare services to this province
is essential.
Naturally, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. mem-
ber will permit, we will support the motion
since it has taken precedence and that it
has the same effect. It is simply showing that
we on this side have no confidence in the
Minister, nor the policy of this administration i
in funding, nor of the philosophy of looking I
after the welfare of the people of this prov- '
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: It is debatable.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, why
permit the leader of the Opposition to get
into another harangue?
3118
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: This is not a motion to adjourn.
I am not sure what it accomplishes, but cer-
tainly it will have the effect of dividing the
House on this basis and this is certainly
what we seek.
Mr, Chairman: I must point out to the
hon. member—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, if I may please.
Mr. Chairman: Actually the rule simply
says that the motion is an order and that it
shall not be debatable. Now if there is a
point of order, the—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You have already
allowed one member, sir, to stand up on a
point of order.
Mr. Chairman: I was just about to rule
on it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Can we retain
saneness and reasonableness in the House
tonight? I do not know where people have
been, but I mean this dLscrimination in
reverse, this arrogance by the Opposition, by
the minority, of occasions that we have seen
amply demonstrated here tonight where they
want to cut off discussion. This last bit of
one-upmanship, sir, by the NDP group, where
in a petty-like attitude, they have to be one
up on the leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. J. L. Brown (Beaches-Woodbine): Say
it to the Young Conservatives.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: There is one other
motion that takes precedence over them all,
which is also non-debatable, and I, therefore,
would move, sir, that the original motion be
not put, and that takes precedence over the
second one, and it also is non-debatable.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, may I speak to this point of order?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Without the Prime Minister,
they are a disorganized rabble.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to speak to this pKjint of order.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member
would just wait a moment until the Chairman i
tries to figure out what is going on. Regard-
ing the Minister's motion to the Chairman,
which previous question was he referring to?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: To the original
motion, sir, by the leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Shulman: I wish to point out that a
motion cannot be moved after rising on a
point of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: You cannot move a
motion on a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: I think that the motion was
entirely out of order and we are faced with
the application of rule 97. Mr. Lewis had
moved that the Chairman now leave the
chair and report.
All those in favour of the motion will
please say "aye".
All those opposed will please say "nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
Those in favour of Mr. Lewis's motion will
please rise. Those opposed to Mr. Lewis's
motion will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 36; the "nays" 53.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.
We will revert to vote 2001.
Mr. Nixon: And the other motion is on the
floor, too.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I believe the hon.
member is quite correct. Mr. Nixon has
moved that item 1 of vote 2001 be reduced—
Interejctions by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Orderl
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, will
it be in order-
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, it would cer-
tainly be a reasonable assumption to do so,
but half the members supporting the Minister
have left the House already and we certainly
;annot accept the same vote under those
f circumstances.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Nixon has moved that
item 1 of vote 2001 be reduced by an amoimt
of $12,000.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Orderl I might say that
there had been debate on this motion before
the motion was put before the committee.
Further debate would be out of order.
Mr. Nixon has moved that item 1 of vote
2001 be reduced by an amount of $12,000.
APRIL 15, 1969
3119
Those in favour of the motion will please
say "aye"; those opposed will please say
"nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it. I declare
the motion lost and item 1 carried.
Now is there anything further on the
board of review?
Mr. Sopha: Just a moment. It is unfor-
tunate that the first citizen graces us with
his presence just so momentarily—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order.
Mr. Sopha: What is bothering you?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Will the hon. Min-
ister please state the point of order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is nothing in
this estimate which permits the hon. member
to embark upon the discourse which he has.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman has called
for further discussion on the board of review.
Is the hon. member for Sudbury on his feet
in that connection?
Mr. Sopha: I was going to make the point
that it was a pity that the first citizen gracing
us with his presence so momentarily, that we
did not draw to his attention the weight of
the argument-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: —that we made in respect of
the total cut of $400 million. I protest to you,
Mr. Chairman, that it is the responsibility of
the Prime Minister to come in here and take
charge of this revel that he leaves behind,
and to tell us as a matter of government
policy whether it is a proper line of enquiry
in respect of the cut of $400 milhon.
Now I am accusing this Minister of dis-
simulation tonight when he said—
An hon. member: Wait till we look that
one up.
Mr. Sopha: Clear dissimulation when he
said to the House, in response to a challenge
from this side, that he did not carry the
figures in his head in respect of the original
estimates with which he had approached the
Treasury Board. Of course, no one is to be
misled into thinking that when his estimates
are prepared, we preseume that the papers
relating to those preparations are thrown
away, nor do we expect that the Minister is
going to carry the figures around in his head.
After all, we have our conception of the
capacity of his cranial space and we find it
easy to constrain ourselves short of exaggera-
tion in describing its amount, the quantity.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Let us not get personal. It is unbecoming.
Mr. Sopha: He is getting personal with us.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Never. Never personal.
Mr. Sopha: He has been personal all day,
and it affects us personally.
Mr. Nixon: There goes the Minister of
Mines. We will never see him again.
Mr. Sopha: Surely, we do not have to
accept the explanation that because he is
bereft of memory of the figures, we are to
be deprived of them. It is not reasonable,
Mr. Chairman, that, as you pointed out— I
believe you referred to the Minister of Cor-
rectional Services, who undertook to obtain,
I believe it was him—
An hon. member: The Provincial Secretary.
Mr. Sopha: Pardon me, the Provincial Sec-
retary, undertook to obtain the information.
Now surely this Minister can give us that
undertaking also— that he will obtain the com-
parable information in respect of his depart-
ment and provide it to the House before his
estimates end. That I say to him, and I do
say to my friend, the Provincial Secretary,
that if I gave the impression of being per-
sonal I retract that.
I do not want to indulge in that. But I say
to him, as an hon. gentleman, that that is a
modest enough request to make and he can
tell us, contrary to the disposition that he
has shown all day in respect of other under-
takings which this side asked of him, that
at least in regard to this one, we will be
acquainted because we do want to know at
the end of the 22 or 23 departments of gov-
ernment, we want to be able to see where
the $400 million is arrived at and how it is
arrived at. How the Treasurer created that
figure.
I am sure the Treasurer, being a respon-
sible oflBcial, did not create a ball park figure.
That figure must have been used as a term of
fact that the amount was within a few dol-
lars of $400 million. Presumably the Provincial
Treasurer had totalled it up some place and
had arrived at that as a precise statement of
the trimming of the Budget.
Now we want to be able to say how much
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices contributed. Now let it be absolutely
3120
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
clear— I want to end making this point— we,
on this side of the House, say that the amount
in this department is inadequate.
There is no ambiguity about our position
at all. We say it is inadequate. We say it is
niggardly. We say that the total sum voted
does not provide proper welfare services for
the people of Ontario and in the words of
Mr. McRuer, in the recent article in "Human
Relations", the publication of The Depart-
ment of Labour, this amount "does not permit
people to live in dignity", in this province.
If they are in need, we say there is a right
for the individual, the human being, the
citizen of this province— he has an inalienable
right to be adequately provided for. And
from now on, for all time, I take my stand
with Gunnar Myrdal, the great world figure,
and it is support enough, you do not need
to go beyond him.
I notice he is coming into Ontario the
latter part of May, but I take my stand with
him when he sets it down as a fundamental
postulate of human dignity that we are
obliged to buy out poverty, that is how we
get rid of it. We buy it out. We do not per-
mit people to be poor, even if they try to be
poor.
We do not permit them to be, and he says
that is a fundamental human right. In other
words, what this great economist, this inter-
nationally famed economist is saying is that it
costs more if you allow people to be poor;
you pay more by the fact that they are poor.
Now that is where we take our position. All
right. Taking our position on that fundamental
postulate, of course we say the total amount
to this department is inadequate.
Then, to show its inadequacy, we want to
know how much this Minister felt he needed
to approach adequacy, because presumably
if he wanted more than he got, then the hon.
Minister was forced to cut his cloth into a
smaller suit than he wanted to wear, if I
am not mixing a couple of metaphors.
Then the Minister must have been disap-
pointed, and accordingly, we want to have
that information, because we are not going
to permit the Treasurer of Ontario to boast,
to show that attitude of magnanimity through-
out the province that this is a penurious
government that is trimming its sails— and
then permit his individual colleagues, who
bear the responsibility with him, to come in
here and refuse to give us the information.
This Minister, to his credit, only refused to
give it to us. He did not parade the attitude
of arrogance of the Minister who has left the
House and has gone to his home to soak his
head, I hope, in regret for the outburst for
which he was guilty this evening. He did not
put it that way. That utterance was about
the equal of Mackenzie King's famous one,
"not a five-cent piece to a Tory government".
Just about the equal of that, and we shall
not forget that; we shall not forget that
interpolation here tonight.
Surely this Minister cannot in these late
hours continue to maintain this posture with
us that he will not provide the information?
If he continues to maintain it, how can he
justify the attitude of the Provincial Secre-
tary who has undertaken to get it, albeit he
has not got it yet? It is some weeks now
since he gave that undertaking, but he is a
man of his word and presumably he will
stand up to his solemn undertaking.
As I say to leave off where I began, the
Prime Minister is entitled to come in here
and cast his vote— he did not even know, I
suggest, what he was voting for— and then
wander out without taking some charge of
his Cabinet colleagues, and in giving some
resolution to this on behalf of the whole gov-
ernment.
You can bet your boots that if the old fox
of Lindsay had been here some years ago he
would have been right in the midst of it; he
would have been up talking and motioning
the lesser prophets to sit down. The only one
he could ever get to sit down in response to
his peremptory command was the Minister
of Health, of course— and there was that
famous night when the Minister of Health
told the Premier to sit down himself.
Hon, M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, I
think the hon. member really misunderstood.
Far be it from me to presume to order my
chief, or anybody, to sit down.
Mr. Sopha: I was right here.
Mr. MacDonald: You did not presume, you
just did it.
Mr. Sopha: I was here.
Mr. Nixon: That is why you never got to
first base.
Mr. Sopha: I cannot understand why the
Premier will not do it and decide once and
for all so that we do not go through this. I
am pleading for an economy of time that
once and for all he will state the policy of
the government. In order to make it perfectly
simple, the simplest thing to do would be to
provide us with a chart showing the cuts
that were applied to each department right
APRIL 15, 1969
3121
across the board. Then we would have the
whole $400 million at once. Now—
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
What good would that do?
Mr. MacDonald: We have asked for it.
Mr. Sopha: What good does it do? Do we
have to justify to you? We do not have to
justify, nor do we have to explain to you.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We do not have to
justify the money we ask for from Treasury.
Mr. Sopha: Let us get that comment on
the record. The Minister of Correctional Serv-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We do not have to
justify the money we asked for from the
Treasury Board in the first instance. We have
to justify the money we ask for in this Legis-
lature.
Mr. Sopha: You do not have to justify it,
but you can boast about it all across the
nation.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes,
Mr. Sopha: All across the nation you can
boast about it-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: After the Prime Minister and
the Treasurer have been to Ottawa to talk to
the senior goverrmient and the rest of the
provinces about the penury, the straitened
circumstances of the government of Ontario,
they come back here and they cut the budget
by $400 million according to their own ad-
mission. According to their own words.
To get the measure of what the Minister
of Correctional Services is saying, they do not
have to itemize, or demonstrate how the $400
million cut was achieved. That is a remark-
able proposition, and I cannot recall for
many years that we have gone through such
a parade of arrogance as we have seen to-
night from the Treasury benches. Where I
must lay the blame is on the lack of direc-
tion and leadership over there. I regret that
the first citizen treats the matter so lightly;
that he comes in here very casually, casts a
vote for his side and gets out of here.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have lack of lead-
ership, and you change your leader every
two or three years.
Mr. Sopha: Now, presumably, we are
going to be left v^dth one Minister in the
category of the Provincial Secretary, who
will provide the information. The next one
is not going to and, like a tennis ball over
the net, we are going to go back and forth.
Mr. Nixon: He is looking it up in Hansard.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, my leader deftly points
out that the poor Provincial Secretary— and
I hope he will not find that word off"ensive—
is looking it up in Hansard to see where he
gave the undertaking.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He may have to make
a correction.
Mr. MacDonald: And if it is not in Han-
sard, I will go back to the original tape, and
I will find it, be assured.
Mr. Sopha: My final plea is, let us, above
all, be intelligent and rational individuals.
Let us not carry on this ying and yang, look-
ing for parliamentary advantage about it. It
is a valid, legitimate enquiry for information.
It is a responsible enquiry, so let us stop
pussyfooting around and decide the thing
once and for all. All this Minister need do
to be a big man in a big department is
stand up and say, "Look, I will get it, I will
look it up, I will have my people assemble
the figures"; or, at the very least, "Look, I
will go to the chief and I will ask him if we
should do it and we can get it resolved once
and for all."
For all I know— I do not want to prejudge
anybody-if he put it that way, "I will ask the
head man, the first citizen," maybe he can
come in here and give us a persuasive argu-
ment that it ought not to be supplied. That is
as far as I can and want to go; but I do want
to approach the thing inteUigently. I do not
want to be left in the position that it is one
party striving against the other for political
advantage. Really, we are vitally interested
in this $400 million and genuinely so. I do
not have to make my case to show— it is
so obvious that it does not need the but-
tress of argument to support that proposition.
The Provincial Secretary saw it readily
during his estimates.
Mr. Lewis: And he is still looking for it.
Mr. Sopha: He is still looking for it, in-
deed, but he is going to find it because he is
an assiduous young fellow. I do not want to
get into any rhetorical debating devices here,
but I want to leave this on a rational, argu-
mentative basis— let us do it once and for all.
I plead with this Minister to accede to the
reasonable request from this side.
3122
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: 'Hie hon. member for
Scarborough East.
Mr. T. Raid: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
the Minister about the research and evalua-
tion activity under this estimate?
The Minister has noted that there have
been many studies done by his department
in conjunction with city or municipal depart-
ments of welfare or social and family services.
One such project was entitled "Long Term
Assistance Families", a demonstration project
done in 1964 with the city of Toronto.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman. Eureka! he
has found it.
Mr. T. Reid: In the introduction the
Deputy Minister, Mr. Band, makes the fol-
lowing comment. He says this: "You wiU
come across the remark of the wife of a
relief recipient."
And that remark was this: "The worst thing
the department ever did was to give my
husband his first welfare cheque."
Mr. Band continues: "This statement pro-
vides us with a viewpoint worth reflecting
upon." And then he says: "I have com-
mented elsewhere that we should sometimes
pause in the midst of planning what we can
do for people to ask what we do to people
in granting them pubhc assistance."
I think it is about time, sir, that this Min-
ister and his department asked the question:
"What can the poor people of this province
do for us?"
What I mean by this is simply the follow-
ing, that it is sometimes a very wise thing to
include on projects of research and projects
evaluating programmes of the department
the people who are most intimately concerned
and knowledgeable about those programmes,
and that happens to be the poor people who
are receiving them.
I would suggest to the Minister whether he
intends in the year ahead when he is engaged
in the evaluation of his programmes to ensure
that the funds are well spent, that they are
doing the things that should be done to help
people to get oflF welfare, to become self-
supporting? Whether he would include on the
supervisory committee of the people doing
the research welfare recipients?
The Minister, Mr. Chairman, is no doubt
aware that this practice has become quite
common throughout certain states and in cer-
tain federal programmes in the United States.
If he really wants to find out what is wrong
with his programme, he should get the people
who are receiving them to participate in the
evaluation of those programmes.
In brief, Mr. Chairman, I would like the
Minister to let me know whether or not in
the year ahead there is any money in tliis
particular estimate on research and evaluation
programmes and programme analysis in which
the welfare recipients are co-opted on to a
supervisory team. If the Minister is not aware
of what I am talking about I would be de-
lighted to elaborate at length on it, but per-
haps he could try to answer my question.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there
is witliin the specific words that the hon.
member has used as part of the supervisory
team. I do not think there is any such
instance. However, I have already indicated
my views within the department. The point
of view of the recipient should definitely be
sought, not necessarily, as the hon. member
says, to point out what is wrong because the
programme may be all right.
It is a question of tr\ing to find out what
th{? recipient thinks of the programme, to get
his point of view. I think there is always
merit in finding out what the consiuner thinks
of the product, and that should be just as
applicable within this field as all others.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the
Minister has clarified his philosophy on tliis.
I would say that he is sadly out of date-
probably a good 10 years out of date— for
a number of reasons.
The first is that self-evaluation of one's
own programmes is useless. If you have a
programme underway, and if you have the
Deputy Minister appointing tlie people who
are to make the e\'aluation of one of his own
pet programmes, then you can l^e assured,
sir, that the results will be very wishy-washy
indeed.
It will not be a hard-headed evaluation. I
suggest that if the attitude of the Deputy
Minister, Mr. Band, about tlie participation
on getting the views of those people who are
on the receiving end of the Minister's pro-
grammes is as I have described it here, then
things are in a very sad state in the Minister's
department.
The only thing Mr. Band thinks is worth
wliile putting in this report in the preface is
that he heard somewhere from a wife of a
relief recipient that the "worst thing the
department ever did was to give my husband
his first welfare cheque".
If that is the attitude of the Deputy Min-
ister, if that is the one statement he takes
APRIL 15, 1969
3123
from the interviews with the people on wel-
fare to support his particular view of the
place of the poor and the outcast in our
society, then I suggest, sir, that this Min-
ister has a department under him which is
not concerned with helping people, but with
perpetuating its own programmes, the good
ones, and the bad ones too.
Unless the Minister has same way of get-
ting outside people to evaluate his pro-
grammes, out in the open, then he has no
way of knowing which programmes are good
and which programmes are bad. He has no
way of knowing because his Deputy Minister
appoints the people to evaluate the pet
projects of the Deputy Minister.
I would suggest to the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, that he must open his eyes, that
he must insist that the civil servants be cross-
checked so that he, as a representative of
the people, can make the policy decisions and
not the civil servants.
I suggest that one of the best ways of
getting outside evaluation is to insist that tlie
research money and the guidehnes that must
go with that research money be allowed,
partly at least, to letting the poor and the
outcast in our society— the people who are
on the receiving end of what his department
takes so long to do— in on the evaluation.
They know more about the programme than
anybody else.
I simply say that if the Minister wants
to look for examples, he can look at some
of the new initiatives taken by Mr. Robert
Andras in Ottawa, and Mr. Jean Cretien,
albeit I do not think they have gone far
enough. But they are involving the people
who are on the receiving end of their pro-
grammes in the evaluation of their pro-
grammes, not behind closed doors in some
report that trickles up and gets cancelled
out as it goes through the layers of the civil
service, but evaluation projects financed by
the government to evaluate the performance
of government departments, the performance
of government pohcies. And it is done in the
open.
I would say that if this Minister really
believes in his programmes, if he really be-
lives in his priorities, if he really believes in
the quality of the people whom he, in the
end, has hired to implement his programmes,
then he would be only too happy to have
his programmes evaluated out in the open,
and evaluated harshly by the people who
know more about his programmes than even
he does— the people who receive those pro-
grammes.
I would suggest to the Minister that some
of his money should go into this type of
research. I would hope at this time next year
the Minister will come into this House and
say, "Yes, I am so confident of my depart-
ment, so confident of the judgments I have
made in the past, that I will open my depart-
ment up to outside scrutiny, and I udll include
in the research, supervisors who participate
in that scrutiny, the poor and the outcast
who may have a chance to raise their voices
directly to the Minister instead of through
layers and layers and layers of professional
people who have too much to protect them-
selves."
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
direct a few remarks to this item 8, demon-
stration projects, and matters which ought to,
if they do not, fall within the scope of this
particular vote. We are voting $100,000, and
I would like first to refer to a programme that
was conducted in this area about four or per-
haps five years ago, maybe a little longer
than that.
There were 200 families and a multiple
family programme was conducted where they
took 100 families and continued to give them
the welfare assistance they had been receiv-
ing previously. Then they took the other 100
families and they gave them the special coun-
selling, and the special assistance required.
The results were devastating. The results
were that the 100 families who continued to
receive their normal welfare allowance really
did not achieve anything during the test
period of the programme, while the other
group, the other 100 who received the special
care, the special counselling, the special pro-
gramme, rehabilitated themselves, and the
majority became useful in society.
Now, it seems to me as I view the entire
programme of the department, that this was
never really elaborated on suJSiciently to make
it a major part of the Minister's overall pro-
gramme for welfare assistance. I happen to
believe it is very necessary that if we are
going to continue as we are with this particu-
lar Minister in the seat, that he immediately
embark upon a programme that is going to
put people back into society in some useful
form.
I am quite sure that there have been other
projects undertaken by this Minister, and I
have been looking through the 1966-67 annual
report. I cannot find anything in it in relation-
ship to demonstration projects or research
3124
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
projects, as you might call them, and it sur-
prises me.
I would have hoped that somewhere in
there, there would have been an elaboration
of the type of programmes that are presently
being undertaken in this demonstration field
in order that we might understand what kind
of research is going on within the Minister's
department. It seems quite obvious to me
that the whole answer to the rehabilitation of
the family unit lies in the special service field,
and in the educational field. There is no
purpose, as I see it, in taking a person and
handing him or her a welfare cheque and then
allowing them just to go on indefinitely in
their present condition. There is a purpose,
a reason why they are on welfare in the first
place. And these demonstrations and research
programmes that we have could quite easily
have point the way towards a much broader
concept of welfare assistance.
I happen to believe that money is much
better spent if it is spent in the education
field. Take those people who find themselves
outside the realm of society as we understand
it and who are imable to cope for themselves.
If this money was to be spent in educating
them it could bring them to a level where
they would find that their services were re-
quired.
I am curious to know from the Minister
exactly what has been undertaken in the
past two years in the field of demonstration
projects, and what ongoing and intensive pro-
gramme has evolved? What about the pro-
gramme I mentioned where the 200 families
in the multiple problem group were divided
into two and where the one showed such sig-
nificant improvement while the other showed
the inability to cope with the present system
iis it stands today?
Could the Minister answer that particular
portion and then perhaps we might go on
from there?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chainnan, I have
not got that particular report before me. I
do say this— now that the department itself
has a research and planning division, we will
be able to evaluate ourselves in a more
thorough way and more speedily and become
involved, I hope, in some of these demonstra-
tion projects. The philosophy that the hon.
member has expounded is one that I ex-
pounded right from the very beginning of
taking over this portfolio. I completely be-
lieve in that.
I do not think the answer is in the welfare
cheque, the answer is in the rehabilitation.
Within the department itself, we have em-
barked on rehabilitation both in our rehabih-
tation branch, in our family counselling serv-
ice, and, as a matter of fact, tliose of our
field workers who deal with the recipients
of family benefits are getting into the direct
field of counselling in this regard. One of the
primary purposes of county and district ad-
ministration boards is to enable the setting
up of machinery to do this rehabihtative type
of work.
I may say that this is now coming to the
fore to such a degree that, following the
federal-provincial conference of Ministers
held at the beginning of the year, one of the
task forces was set up. Its purpose is to
explore the issues involved in a develop-
mental approach to public assistance that
would give appropriate emphasis in social
assistance programmes to the rehabilitation
of those who have a potential for self-support.
Mr. Lewis: What an insult that is. How
can the Minister read that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We will make known
to others what we are undertaking and we
will in due course learn what others have in
mind. And as a result bring to bear the
experience and attitudes and approach of all
concerned in tliis field.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just
for a moment. I find great difiBculty in accept-
ing what the Minister says in this regard
because I see no tangible proof of any kind,
of tlie programme that he is talking about.
In my dealings with people, particularly in
my area, who are on the welfare roll, there
jnst is no indication of any insight by this
department into the need to rehabilitate.
Now, the Minister says it is there, and I
think he would agree with me that it is very
difficult to find out what has been going
on— since we are dealing again with a report
that is some years old. But I quite frankly
cannot see any real result from the pro-
gramme—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. I would suggest to you that
if the hon. member is going to get into the
details of attitudes and that subject, that
this might properly be left until vote 2003,
in which w(^ refer to rehabilitation and spe-
cial services.
Mr. Deans: Well, it might properly be left
to tliat if that was what I was about to talk
al>out. But it is not. What I want to discuss
is this: we are going to vote for this depart-
ment $100,000 for demonstration projects.
APRIL 15, 1969
3125
These are in eflPeot research projects, proj-
ects to understand the attitudes and be-
haviours of people and what we should be
doing in the field of rehabilitation. This is my
view of what the demonstration projects
ought to be doing.
Now, I cannot in good conscience vote
$100,000 to you based on the experience that
I have had about the lack of use to which
the results of the demonstration projects that
have been carried on in the past have been
put.
It appears to me that, after the project has
been completed, there is very little effort put
forward by this department to institute this
on a scale sufiiciently large to make any
indentation into the problem of welfare.
That after the project is completed— and I am
sure the Minister would agree if he takes a
look at the results— the results are tabulated
and show up as being favourable, as was in
the case of this particular project conducted
in 1964, 1965 and/or 1966, in that area, that
surely when we find that there are desirable
results achieved from one particular approach,
we should be moving into that on a much
larger scale.
We are just not doing it or, if we are—
and I say to the Minister if he can prove to
me that we are then this is fine — but if
we are moving into it, it is not obvious. It is
not obvious in the city of Hamilton. It is not
obvious in the city of Toronto. It is not
obvious anywhere, that the results of the
development programmes that you undertake
are being put in practice.
Could the Minister indicate to me where
there has been a change in policy since the
year 1965, for example where there has been
a massive shift from the previous practice of
handing out the cheques, to a practice or a
programme of rehabilitation on a large mean-
ingful scale? I have looked and, as I say,
since we are dealing with reports that are at
least two years old, it is very difficult to
ascertain what might have happened in the
intervening period. I cannot find it. I cannot
find it anywhere in the reports, and I cannot
find it in the practice of the department. I
cannot find it when I go to the people on
welfare in the city of Hamilton, and I cannot
find it in the reports in this building.
Now, can the Minister tell me where there
has been any appreciable shift of emphasis
from hand-outs to rehabilitation as a result
of the demonstration projects?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman,
the hon. member is asking for a direct causal
relationship. All I suggest to him is that he
compare the estimates of this department over
the last five years and he will see a shift in
emphasis.
I suggest to him that he make a comparison
in relationship to vote 2003 over the years
and he will see that in relatively recent years
these matters have come into being and, as
I have indicated in this House, they are just
a base from which our approach will con-
tinue to grow in this regard.
Mr. Deans: Well, Mr. Chairman, let me
ask the Minister more specifically, can the
Minister indicate to me what tangible re-
habilitation programme is presently being
carried on in the city of Hamilton and sur-
rounding district? Exactly what is happening
in terms of the people presently on welfare
assistance or family benefit assistance? What
change has there been in that area toward a
rehabilitation programme and away from a
general hand-out programme as a result of
the results or what came out of the develop-
ment scheme, any research done under this
particular vote?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman,
a demonstration project is not a demonstra-
tion project for the physical area in which it
is carried on. A demonstration project is a
project undertaken so that we may gain gen-
eral knowledge and experience to make it
applicable across the province. I suggest to
him that again in vote 2003 there is sufficient
there.
Mr. Deans: But there is not sufficient. I
ask the Minister seriously, what has been
done in terms of rehabilitation in the area
that I talk of, that one area? Tell me what
programmes you presently have underway
that came about as a result of research done
under the development programme?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The emphasis in that
particular area has been on the rehabilitation
of the disabled persons, and any other ex-
tensions would be through our field workers
who deal with The Family Benefits Act.
Mr. Deans: In other words, there really
has been no shift of emphasis.
Mr. Lewis: That is what your rehabilitation
branch does anyway. It has nothing to do
with your projects.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that is
the hon. member's opinion. I have a counter
opinion— there it is.
Mr. Deans: No, it is not simply an opinion.
I ar^i^•e at this conclusion from what the
3126
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister says. It is not just an opinion. I
have asked him to tell me what has hap-
pened as a result. I ask then another thing.
Show me one area outside of Metropolitan
Toronto where there has been any rehabili-
tation programme instituted as a result of
the development programme.
Mr. Lewis: As a result of Jack Amos, not
as a result of any demonstration project.
Mr. Deans: This is what we have to get to.
We are spending money on things from which
we derive no benefit.
Mr. MacDonald: Maybe this is one of the
non-sensical items that should have been cut
out.
Mr. Deans: I hate to say this, that some-
thing in the way of research should be cut
out, but as I look at this and as I hear the
Minister answer my questions, it makes it
very difficult for me in good conscience to
support $100,000 expenditure when the Min-
ister cannot stand up and tell me one place
where we have derived benefit from the
results of any demonstration programmes.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001?
The hon. member for Sudbury East was
trying to get the floor previously.
Mr. E. W. Mattel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman, today I learned of the frustration
one must have in trying to nail a butterfly
to a wall, as we try to get an answer from
the Minister that makes any sense.
I would like to pursue a couple of topics,
one the review board, but first I would like
to go to the point my colleague was just
talking about. If the Minister has a pro-
gramme for rehabilitation, it would be ad-
visable that he advise the local fathers and
municipal governments that this programme
does, in fact, exist.
I raised this matter with the local mayors
and reeves a year ago, that we would be
better off to spend some $5,000 to rehabilitate
a man rather than $3,000 a year to keep him
on welfare and they practically threw me
out of the building. The policy of the gov-
ernment certainly is not filtering back to the
local fathers, that is for certain.
Like my colleague, I would like to see
something concrete, in Sudbury, out of these
studies which have been made. But I would
like really to move on to the board of review
again, and I want to fllustrate, if I might,
why it is essential that we get an answer of
this Minister before we move.
I have a constituent who was cut off wel-
fare, a monthly guaranteed pension. She
went to her solicitor in December. The solici-
tor wrote the department in Toronto on
December 29 and he followed up with sub-
sequent letters. On about March 15 the
solicitor finally contacted me to see if I
could be of assistance because he could not
even get a reply from this department.
Now for these three months this woman
was without a cheque. A review board would
have brought the problem to light very
quickly, Mr. Chairman. Someone had
assessed the value of a chunk of land at a
very, very inflated figure, and there was no
one to check this out. There was nowhere
for her to appeal. She went to a solicitor
who in turn had to come to me, and I finally
got through to the right people and we got
the matter resolved.
We just cannot allow a woman or a family
or a disabled father to go through this three-
or four-month period without income. I think
we have to have some guarantee from this
Minister that this will not occur again. There
is only one way to assure that and that is
that the people who have had their welfare
cut off, who have had their pensions stopped,
have a forum to appeal to and that they are
aware of this forum immediately.
It is strange, Mr. Chairman, that even the
solicitors were not aware of this committee.
It is strange that this department did not even
see fit to reply to the solicitor. Now what kind
of hanky-panky is going on? What was this
woman supposed to live on for three months,
soda biscuits and water?
It would have been resolved rather quickly
if there had been a board, but it was not.
Now we have got the matter resolved. She
gets her three months cheques paid up. This
is fine, but if someone had not been there
to give this woman a handout she would have
starved.
I do not think the Minister would want
any of his family faced with this situation,
and we must have a guarantee from this
Minister that these people will know imme-
diately that they have recourse to appeal
decisions which were made by one individual
on a set of figures which made no sense.
I can present the figures to the Minister if
he wants them; these inflated figures that
were presented in the property that this
woman was supposed to have; when some-
one from the department was supposed to
consider it much more valuable than it was.
As I say, we must have an answer and
I know, as I said in my opening comments.
APRIL 15, 1969
3127
it is like nailing a butterfly to the wall trying
to get an answer. But before I go on to a
second point, I am wondering if the Minister
can give me some guarantee, how we will
prevent this from happening tomorrow or
next week?
As I said, it is quite obvious the Minister
does not care whether the people are con-
fronted with this sort of problem or not. He
is not the one who is going to go three
months without a cheque and that is fine.
But it can happen and is happening every
day to people in Ontario.
Mr. Lawlor: Tell that to the Tories out
in the corridor.
Mr. Martel: The just society.
Mr. Lawlor: —and those on vacation.
Mr. Martel: That is Trudeau, pardon me.
We have another here, and this is the province
of opportiuiity
Mr. T. Reid: A place to stand.
Mr. Martel: Yes, a place to stand. They
have each got their own cliches.
Mr. Lawlor: You cannot stand, though.
You are only going to fall.
Mr. Martel: After three months without
food you do not stand very well.
I would like to go on to the treatment of
people. Now I want to make it very clear.
I am not speaking about the regional adminis-
trator in the city of Sudbury who, by the
way, is excellent, just excellent. And I am
making reference to Mr. Bellanger, just about
one of the finest people I have had to deal
with in any civil service. However, I want
to go to the Sudbury Welfare Board, where
I have written to the doctor. Dr. Band, re-
garding this problem.
It was going to be investigated; and, from
my contacts, it has been investigated. How-
ever, I have not received a report of that
investigation — where people are "hung up"
on during telephone calls, where the adminis-
trator there refuses to talk to them. He
insults them to a point that they refuse to go
back. Let me illustrate a few cases.
There is the case of a man on compensa-
tion drawing $156. There is a wage assign-
ment, and the compensation board does not
pay if the man can go back to work. I can
assure you, this man every two weeks had
to go to the Sudbury and district welfare
oflBce and fight for a cheque, literally fight.
His rent was paid late every month because
he could not get his cheque, yet there was
a cheque coming in regularly to that office
from the workmen's compensation board.
Now why was there a need to fight? Well I
have not yet received a reply on this
investigation.
Let me draw your attention to another
case where a woman whose husband was in
jail and where her little two year old boy
was freezing in the house because the Sud-
bury and district welfare officer would not
give fuel in the month of November— because
he was under the impression there was some-
one living with her. Consequently, welfare
was eliminated.
He did not bother to enquire why the
man was there, or the fact that she was
not receiving enough on the $75 allowance
for rent to prevent her from losing the house,
and that she took in a boarder. No, he
assumed in blunt terms, she was "shacked
up." She was saving her home, but the district
man said: Either this man gets out or you
do not get any payments. Well, she kicked
him out. The man moved to an apartment in
Sudbury, but as he had no place to store his
motorcycle the bike stayed in front of the
woman's house, on the outskirts of the city
of Sudbury.
Well, we heard a caustic remark of "how
convenient" from that certain section— he did
not have a two year old son in that house
in freezing November, where the neighbour
had to go in and put a hundred gallons of
fuel in the tank.
The interesting part, Mr. Chairman, is that
I worked on this case and I suggested to
the woman— and I knew it was a bluff— that
maybe we could set up a guard to prove that
the man was no longer living there. She
agreed immediately. She had no opposition
whatsoever. I knew, of course, that the depart-
ment was not going to send a man there to
stand guard 24 hours a day. But, by this
means, I was able to go back to Sudbury and
convince the man there that she was willing
to have a guard set up. We were then able
to get assistance for this woman and for the
two year old boy in the house, freezing in
November. I can assure you that there was
not even a crumb of bread in the house.
I could go on at length, about this man in
Sudbury, Mr. Chairman. I could tell you
about the four times he cut off a woman in
Copper Cliff last year and four times I had
to get this woman back on welfare. The fourth
time, I had to come to Toronto to do it,
because she is a nevuotic old lady who does
3128
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
things that are not quite within the regula-
tions; she visits the son who is in a mental
institution—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on
point of order. Please, I direct your atten-
tion, Mr. Chairman, that vote 2002 is headed
municipal allowances and assistance. I direct
your attention to it, Mr. Chairman, and I
point out the fact that the hon. member
should be discussing this under vote 2002.
Now I suggest that either we have some
order or we should take votes 2001, 2002
together, or take all four together, and dis-
cuss it.
An hon. member: No way.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I ask your attention,
Mr. Chairman, to this.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sud-
bury was speaking in generalities, as other
members had been doing all evening. He did
get slightly off track and refer to matters,
which would perhaps more properly be dis-
cussed under vote 2002. I believe he sug-
gested, just a few moments back, that he was
going to use something as an example in
connection with the general administration,
although if it deals with municipal adminis-
tration, he should keep those details for vote
2002.
Mr. Mattel: No, that is income mainte-
nance. I am not talking about the income, Mr.
Chairman. I am talking about administration.
I am talking about attitudes. I am talking
about people who, because of some adminis-
trators—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Do I understand then,
Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member will not
be talking on attitudes when we come to
vote 2002?
Mr. Martel: No— I am talking about general
administration policy.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member has been talking about general
welfare— about municipal allowance. The ad-
ministration of municipal allowances and
assistance comes under vote 2002.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, why is it that
the hon. Minister can always find an answer
when there is not even a question?
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I am not talking
about the allowance payable. I am talking
about a man that I wrote to this department
about, asking that an investigation be con-
ducted. I was advised there would be one
and I have never received the report.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001 specifically does
deal with the departmental administration.
Mr. Martel: Right— and an investigation
from that department, or a request for an
investigation in that department, must come
under vote 2001. What I am trying to do is
to illustrate how that man treats people, and
how this department, even though we have
made a formal request, does not even
acknowledge the findings of its investigation.
Mr. Chairman: Well the hon. member,
within that context, is quite in order.
Mr. Martel: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I
was talking about a woman for whom I had
eventually to come to Toronto, to the head
office. As I said, she made a lot of mistakes.
She visited a son who is in a mental institu-
tion in Orillia. She forgot to advise the
department, and she was cut off. This went
on tliree or four times— in fact four times
to be precise. The interesting thing is that
the last time I tried to get her back on to
assistance, I got into a great clash with this
man in Sudbury. I was sitting by the tele-
phone, and the interesting thing was, Mr.
Chairman, I was writing everything down as
he spoke.
Then I phoned Toronto and I presented my
point of view, and also what he had stated.
Of course Toronto contacted this administra-
tor. And, my goodness, the whole thing was
completely different. However, when Toronto
phoned me back several days later and chal-
lenged some of the tilings I had said, I was
able to repeat them because I had them
written down.
This man must be investigated— and his
attitude must be changed. He has an attitude
that everybody on welfare is a parasite— this
is his exact attitude toward people on welfare.
This must change, Mr. Chairman. Some of
these are elderly people. In fact, I had a
case last weekend of an elderly couple who
refuse to ask for assistance, although they
are drawing a great pension of $65 a month
between the two of them.
They have a disability pension, but they
are using up every little bit they have in the
bank because they refuse to go and ask for
welfare. So, the situation in Sudbury— the
Minister knows precisely what I am talking
about— ought to be rectified, and a new atti-
tude must be put in that department in Sud-
bury, or the man must be removed, one of
the two. It can no longer go on.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East.
APRIL 15, 1969
3129
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I have a num-
ber of points I want to ask the Minister
about. Under general administration I was
wondering if one of the poHcies of the
Minister, one of the ways in which he uses
some of the fimds in this department, is to
encourage the recipients of cheques from his
department to become involved in adminis-
tration of his own programmes.
For example, suppose there are a group
of people receiving assistance of various sorts
from his department and living in Ontario
Housing projects. Would it not perhaps be a
good idea for the Minister, as part of his
administration, to have a number of the
recipients of his grants on a committee which
would investigate people abusing, or sus-
pected of abusing, the grants from his depart-
ment?
In other words, this principle of adminis-
tration, Mr. Chairman, is simply that if he
wants to get his programmes administered
effectively, he should make sure that the
people who have tlie most to lose from others
abusing that programme are involved in
investigating those abuses.
So what I would see, Mr. Chairman, in an
Ontario Housing project, where most of the
people— say 60 per cent of the people are
receiving cheques directly from the Minister,
or indirectly from his department— I would
see that in that Ontario Housing building,
there would be elected from the tenants'
association, a committee which would be
charged by the Minister to participate in the
administration of bis programme, particularly
that aspect of his programme to investigate
potential abuses.
As the member from Sudbiuy East has
pointed out, let me give you an example of
how this might work. Instead of having some
fully paid official of the city welfare depart-
ment, or perhaps directly from the Minister,
investigating whether or not the man living
in that particular house with that woman
whose husband was in jail, was a boarder
or "shacked up" with her, perhaps it would
be a good idea to have other people who
are involved in receiving welfare formed as
a committee in some democratic way. Or
perhaps appointed by the Minister to look
into that type of thing because those people
might imderstand the problems that that
woman is having.
They might not attribute motives before
the proof is in, or the evidence is in, concern-
ing why that man is living in her house.
My question, Mr. Chairman, and I have
a number of other questions that I would
like to follow up, is that I was wondering if
the Minister might not comment on this
philosophy of administration. I know it is
avant garde. It is only taking root in certain
community action programmes, say in the
city of Montreal, where it is called "animation
sociale."
I know it might be very far ahead for this
province and for this government, but I was
wondering what the Minister would say about
actually involving the recipients of welfare
payments in the actual administration of the
programmes with his department.
Earlier I was speaking about involving
them in the research and evaluation. Now I
am talking about involving the poor else-
where. It is not "poor power." It is getting
the poor participating in the administration
of the programmes. I was wondering if the
Minister has any experimental projects in
mind for the coming year on which he is
spending funds, or whether he intends to do
this in the future. At least to test it out, to
see if it works.
If it does not work and if a fair try has
been made, then he can come into this House
and say to us who criticize his department,
who criticize his personal judgements even,
and his philosophy of the poor in our society,
and our relationship to them, if he tried this
type of experiment, perhaps in a demonstra-
tion project, then he could come in and say:
"We have tried it. We have had outside
evaluation, and look, here are the results, it
does not work/'
I would be willing to bet ten to one that
a properly set up programme like this would
work. It would be much more efficient.
There would be fewer abuses because the
people involved in checking those abuses
have the most to lose. Could the Minister
comment on this philosophy of administration
of welfare to the poor?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
already explained my position. I do believe
in involving the recipient. I do believe in
contacting and getting the information from
the recipient to find out how they feel, how
the individual feels.
However, I may say with respect to the
details of what you have outlined, I would
have to take a very hard look before even
beginning to go counter to the whole con-
cept of the privacy of the recipients. You are
going to have to do a lot of persuading.
" Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
the Minister replying and making his personal
views clear. I think there is a clear distinction
between his philosophy of programmes for
3130
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the poor and the outcast in our society, and
the opposition philosophy in view of govern-
ment programmes for the poor. I appreciate
the Minister stating his value judgments so
thoroughly.
We have different value judgments on this
side of the House and that brings me to my
second point, Mr. Chairman, which is this.
The Minister has said that he seeks out the
\ iews of individuals on the receiving end of
his programmes, but I do not think he goes
nearly far enough. I do not think he really
gets involved. But that is a question of judg-
ment, I appreciate that.
I would like to suggest to the Minister,
Mr. Chairman, that if he really believed in
his programmes, if he really believed they
are being effective, he should let the people
on the receiving end of his programmes
organize, he should encourage them to get
together. This might be part of his rehabili-
tation programme.
Instead of treating people as individuals
where they are weak, he should encourage
them to come in contact with his department
in terms of groups— tenants' associations, for
example. I made this suggestion earlier in
my Throne speech, Mr. Chairman, and I will
not go into detail now, but surely if the
Minister really believes his programmes are
effective, he would set up an experimental
demonstration project in which he says to
recipients of his programmes, to those people
who are in groups, say, not in ghettos, but
where enough people live in a certain area
who are on the receiving end of his pro-
gramme, "Look, why do you people not form
an association, or perhaps a committee of a
larger ratepayers' association including people
other than welfare recipients? Why do you
people not form together in a democratic
way and in a democratic way elect an execu-
tive, and then approach my department for
a $10,000 grant a year, or a $15,000 grant a
year, to hire someone who has the profes-
sional skills that you do not have in knowing
your way around society, in knowing your
way within the welfare system"?
In other words, they would hire a social
animator. They would hire a skilled person
who knows how communities work and who
knows how government works in great detail,
who knows the voluntary sectors. And that
person would fight for them. They would hire
that person and that person would fight
against Ontario Housing, if Ontario Housing
was abusing any individual involved in that
ratepayers' association, and protect their rights
in that way.
It is almost like hiring a fighter; someone
who has the skills, who has the knowledge, to
fight for these people. But let them hire
them; do not let it be a person appointed by
Ontario Housing, say, an Ontario Housing
project which includes many people who re-
ceive the Minister's programmes.
Tliis is a concept that is coming to the fore
in Gaspe; it has come to the fore in down-
town Montreal. There are certain projects in
Toronto— Don Vale, as the Minister knows—
where this principle, to a certain extent, has
been incorporated in a different way. I would
hke to suggest to the Minister, Mr. Chairman,
or rather to ask him whether, in any of his
proposed demonstration projects, he has incor-
porated this concept of community action
programmes as part, perhaps, of a general
philosophy of rehabilitation. By that I mean
that if you want people to respect themselves,
you have to let them be able to fight back if
they think their rights are being abused. I
suggest that people on welfare have the same
rights — civil rights, legal rights — as anyone
else, but too often they are intimidated. Too
often they feel they cannot fight back because
their cheques might get cut off. What they
need is someone to fight for them.
I wonder if the Minister would comment on
this philosophy of general administration. This
philosophy is cross-checking the old abuses of
the old bureaucracy that gets slowed up so
that people can fight; so that abuses come out
in the open; so that I do not get phone calls,
or people vidll not give me their names be-
cause they are terrified I might use their
names in this House and their cheques could
get cut off.
Could tlie Minister, Mr. Chairman, com-
ment on this aspect, or this principle of
community development rehabilitation which
is very much tied up with the concept of a
pluralistic society in which the poor can par-
ticipate as a group as well as other groups.
Then I would like to move on to a specific
type of questioning.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member is really running his first con-
cept, the thread of his first concept, into his
second concept. The idea of participation
within general ratepayers' associations by
those who are recipients for puting forth their
ideas and their i>ositions, their criticisms and
evaluations, I think, is quite different from
hs earlier part. There may be some merit in
that type of thing. There is no doubt about
it that here, within the city of Toronto, the
citizens' groups are becoming more active.
APRIL 15, 1969
3131
not necessarily restricted to getting welfare
allowances or maintenance allowances, but
participation in the development of their own
particular areas. I think that this is a sign of
the times and will become increasingly so in
the immediate years ahead.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to return then to specific questioning.
It is my understanding that under the
Canada Assistance Plan there is a clause
which states that funds will be made avail-
able from the federal government to com-
munity development programmes designed to
help people in need. The interpretation
placed on that clause under The Canada
Assistance Act by The Department of Health
and Welfare in Ottawa includes people living
in pubhc housing, or any group of people
who are residents of public housing. That, of
course, includes Ontario Housing Corporation
residents in this province.
I would hke to do my questions in a series
of questions, Mr. Chairman. Could the Min-
ister state whether or not he is aware of that
clause and his understanding of the nature of
that clause?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I believe the hon.
member made reference to this in his Throne
speech debate; or was it in the Budget de-
bate that he made reference to it? I have some
recollection.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to know if the Minister could tell me his
understanding of that clause in The Canada
Assistance Act and what it entails.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that this item might properly be discussed
under vote 2002 when we come to provincial
allowances and benefits which are a portion
of the Canada Assistance Plan.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would be
quite prepared to discuss that at that time.
I hope the Minister will do research on the
Canada Assistance Plan because I am sure he
knows now where my questioning is leading.
It is simply this, sir, that to my knowledge he
has refused to process applications for those
federal funds to his department to allow rate-
payers' associations, tenants' associations, to
get those grants from the federal govern-
ment, to organize themselves to tell the Min-
ister what they think of his programmes.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2001 — the hon.
member for Wentworth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
rettun for a moment to item number 8. I
would Uke the Minister to tell me what he is
going to spend this $100,000 on. What is the
programme he has for tliis coming year and
where this money is going.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No decision has been
made yet with respect to the spending of that
$100,000.
Mr. Deans: Upon what did you base the
request? You ask us to allow you $100,000
to be spent on demonstration projects and
you have not yet decided what you want to
spend it on. How can we vote $100,000 when
you do not know what you are going to use
it for?
Mr. J. E. BuIIbrook (Samia): Can you
imagine setting out a figure of $100,000 and
having no idea what it is based on?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there is
a figure of $100,000 in the estimates. The
requests can either come to us and they are
channelled through to Ottawa or they may
go directly to Ottawa and then Ottawa refers
them to us during the course of the year.
Then the project is either approved or not
approved.
Mr. Deans: I go back to what I said before
because I find it very difficult to vote $100,000
to the Minister for the purpose of demonstra-
tion projects when I have seen no tangible
results from anything that has come out of
previous demonstration projects. I must say
quite truthfully, it is very difficult for me to
understand why the Minister cannot pre-
determine what demonstration projects he
intends to undertake for this coming year and
how he intends to spend the $100,000. I am
going to say to you, through the Chair, that
I will not vote this money unless you tell me
what you are going to spend it on.
Your cohorts in the back benches point out
it makes no dijfference whether I vote it or
not, but it makes some difference to the
people of this province.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
means colleagues.
Mr. Deans: They were cronies before; I
will change it to cohorts.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not very parliamen-
tary.
Mr. Deans: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman,
that the finest thing the Minister could do for
his department would be to get out and make
3132
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
way for somebody who does know what the
money is going to be spent on.
Mr. Singer: You are very sensitive.
Mr. Deans: Well, ^^'ould you please tell me
what you are going to spend this $100,000 on,
or withdraw it from the estimate?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I do
hope that the hon. member will vote for this
very worthwhile vote. As a matter of fact, of
all the votes, I think this is one of the most
significant ones and I want to say this to him.
The hon. member has misconceived and mis-
construed estimates if he is under the opinion
that every dollar that is voted here is com-
mitted as of this date. Every dollar is not
committed to a specific item because these
matters arise during the course of the year.
Mr. Lewis: If you mean that this is a non-
committal department you are right.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In our estimate of the
coming year to the Toronto School of Social
Work there will be the sum of $39,500-
Mr. Lewis: For what?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: $39,500 for demonstra-
tion projects, for research.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, could the Min-
ister tell me what the Toronto School of
Social Work have indicated to you they
intend to do with this sum of money?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Those projects have got
to go through Ottawa for approval before—
Mr. Lewis: What projects?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Whatever demonstra-
tion projects the Toronto School of Social
Work put forward for approval during the
course of the year.
The Carleton School of Social Work, we
estimate at $16,100. The amount of-
Mr. Lewis: What is it?
Mr. Singer: How do you hit the figure of
$16,100?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Carleton School of
Social Work project is designed to demon-
strate a new method of field practice for
students in social work. A group of first year
students at Carleton University will partici-
pate in the first year of the project. Cases will
be selected from four agencies of the city of
Ottawa and students will have the opportunity
of working with each type of case, thus
broadening their learning experience.
Field practice will be supervised by mem-
bers of the faculty at the School of Social
Work instead of by the staff of individual
agencies. The duration of the project is four
years. It started in 1968 and will continue
till 1972. There was $16,100 allocated last
year. There is the same amount of dollars in
this vote.
Mr. Deans: Can I then deal with that one
for a moment please? We are asked to vote
$16,100. Now, as I understand a demonstra-
tion project, the purpose of it is so that we
might arrive at a conclusion about something,
so that we can take out of that a decision or
the conclusion that certain things ought to be
in the field of Social and Family Services.
Now, how are we going to get anything out
of this? Are they working towards some ulti-
mate goal? What is the ultimate goal in this
particular project?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The ultimate goal is to
evaluate the learning content of field instruc-
tion, and to evaluate the performance of
project students as compared to students who
will not be within the project.
Mr. Deans: Could you continue with the
remainder of the projects that you have?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is the model
community centre for the retarded, and that
is the Ontario Association for the Mentally
Retarded in the Hamilton-Niagara district.
The Canadian Association, in co-operation
with the Ontario Association and nine local
associations, commenced this project covering
the counties of Lincoln, Welland, Haldimand
and Wentsvorth.
Mr. Deans: How much?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: $39,500.
Mr. Deans: Could the Minister indicate
exactly what that project is doing at the
moment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is to co-ordinate
the services of those in the area, and is the
focal point from which the effectiveness of
service to the mentally retarded in these four
counties will be exaluated.
Mr. Deans: Would you agree that it is
not a demonstration project? It is not actually
a project. It is simply moneys being granted
to them for the purpose of co-ordinating their
services. It Ls a subsidy.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, Mr. Chairman, it
is to demonstrate the effectiveness of what
they are doing.
APRIL 15, 1969
3133
Mr. Deans: Well, let me just say this to
you in all fairness, that in the field of
mentally retarded children, the amount that
you have allowed is pitifully little.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, this is
only for the evaluation project and the amount
is not pitifully small. The programme in
respect of the retarded in this province is one
of the best in Canada.
Mr. Deans: Fine. It is still totally in-
adequate. Now, could you tell me what this
$39,300 or $39,500 is being spent on? What
are they actually doing with the money?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not have those
details here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deans: Why? How do you judge
whether or not it is a worthy endeavour if
you do not have the data?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I said, we do not have
those details here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deans: Then how do you intend to
tell us how you should spend your money if
you do not bring the details with you? Could
you finish off the $100,000? I do not believe
that is quite the full amount.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The remainder of
$4,900 was in relation to a study we have
planned with respect to adopted children.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. May I, through you, bring to the
attention of the hon. House leader that it is
now after 11 o'clock and I would suggest
that it would be a reasonable hour in which
we might adjourn this discussion.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, we have
had a recess and I think we could sit here
for a while longer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Until we make pro-
gress.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I really do not think I
could truthfully ask the Chairman of the
House to rise and report progress. There has
not been very much progress.
Mr. Deans: Whose fault is that?
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are trying to get
some money for those who need it.
Mr. Lewis: Is the House leader advancing
the position that anything productive will
occur beyond ten after eleven?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, if this
discussion is in order, the leader of the
Opposition asked me if I was going to move
the adjournment of the House. I am not
moving the adjournment of the House yet.
That is all. Just as simple as that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I want
to make it clear that no commitments really
have been made except with respect to on-
going programmes. These are our estimates
for what we think should be and will be done
during the coming year. But there has been
no commitment in regard to all of this.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001; the hon. mem-
ber for Samia.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr, Chairman, if I might.
I had not intended to rise, but in connection
with the motion made, or at least the sug-
gestion made, by the hon. leader of the
Opposition, and the reply by the Deputy
House leader, if I could bring to your atten-
tion, sir, I believe it was two weeks ago
Thursday, on vote 2001, I discussed sub-
sequent to the hon. member for Scarborough
West, the question of the review board.
Now, the Deputy House leader says we
cannot report proigress. I am going to suggest
to you, Mr. Chairman, that the only vigour
and the only forthrightness that has been
shown by this Minister all night is on his
points of order. That is the fact of the matter.
He has been very able time and again in
getting up and telling you what the proper
order of this House is, but for seven hours—
An hon. member: Out of order!
Mr. Bullbrook: I am talking about boards
of review which come under 2001. For seven
hours members of the Opposition have re-
quested of this Minister that he give them
a simple undertaking and I am not going to
review this whole debate again. But I want
to bring this to your attention, Mr. Chair-
man.
The nub of this whole situation is this, that
this Minister gets $130 milHon from the
Dominion of Canada to assist in his pro-
grammes administered by his department.
The House of Commons in its wisdom says,
"We'll give you this money, province of
Ontario, but we restrict it. We say for you
to properly dispose of these funds and ad-
minister tliese funds certain things are neces-
sary, and one of the things that is necessary
is a board of review, properly established by
legislation and properly functioning" as that
House of Commons wished it to function.
3134
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I want dispassionately to do this. I want to
charge this Minister with one of two things;
either he has completely breached faith with
the federal government or he is afraid— to use
the vernacular— to open a can of worms.
This I think is really the nub of the situation.
He is saying to himself, "If we desseminate
infonnation about this board of review, these
welfare recipients and these applicants, being
the type of people that they are, will just
deluge us with appeals," this is what he is
afraid of. Make no mistake about it, this is
what he is afraid of. And I charge him with
having this attitude. He, as the Minister of
Social and Family Services in this province,
has this attitude. If we are here at the
eleventh hour it is becaiise of him that we
are here.
Mr. Chairman, do not tell us in the Opposi-
tion that we are going to be here until July;
all we required of this Minister was a simple
forthright answer. We did not want to know
from him, "how" and we did not want to
know "when," all we wanted him to say
was, "Yes, my colleagues in this House, I
assure you that in the future recipients or
applicants will know henceforth— as the House
of Commons wanted and as I tacitly promised
the federal government— they will know in
the future that they have a right of review."
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, we went through
the ritual of two to three days on these esti-
mates—still on the first vote, of attempting
to extract what the member for Samia so
incisively has put. We then moved to the
simple proposition of the Minister indicating
to us the nature of the cuts that had to be
made in his department. He again reneged on
the provision of any information. He was
then requested by a member of this House,
tonight, to discuss in some detail the proposi-
tion of recipients in his programme partici-
pating in those programmes, in a more direct
and active way. He refused to give us any
detail. My colleague indicated that in the
demonstration project, certain moneys were
being allocated and had been for a number
of years, the results of which are entirely
unknown and he asked the Minister for some
detail particularly in respect to a given area
and there was not a single detail forthcoming.
We now ask, given the allocation of
$100,000 which we are presently requested
to vote, for details of this, and for the other
$39,500 the Minister has no information
whatsoever, and could give us no specifics
other than a vague generality about the
project itself. There is absolutely no informa-
tion coming from this Minister at all on
anything that has so far been discussed
in these estimates. If the House leader at
this point wants to know why we have pro-
longed it so long it is because of the intense
frustration which the Opposition feels when
deahng with this department. It is intolerable
that this Minister should come to the House
in such an ill-prepared fashion and tliat we
should have no access to any of the depart-
mental information whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is relevant fox
members of this House to ask, for instance,
what the $39,500 being given to the U of T
school of social work is to be used for? What
is it to be used for that they cannot get
through the University of Toronto? What
projects are they about to do which will
illuminate further the social welfare field?
I think, Mr. Chairman, to put it in perspec-
tive—and we obviously have time, we can be
on this $100,000 item for another number of
hours and that is all right, I suspect, with the
Opposition, if need be. What we are coming
to, Mr. Chairman, is this simple proposition:
We have had over the last seven or eight
years a number of research projects under-
taken by this government and one of them has
been alluded to at some length tonight. It was
a research project relating to multi-problem
families, an analysis of those who received
counselling assistance and those who were left
on a straight financial hand-out, and the results
of that research experiment are also well
known. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it did not take
a research experiment, or it need not have
taken a research experiment, to have given us
the divine revelation that if you provide help
and counselling to people they are more likely
to enter or re-enter the work force. Tliat
money is money extravagantly wasted.
This Minister, and this department, have
for years indulged in projects which demon-
strate the obvious. Booking $100,000 a shot
to undertake experiments in this, and extra-
vaganzas in that, which provide no further
evidence in the field of social welfare than
tliat which has been known to the authorities
in the field for decades. We are not prepared
to continue voting money for projects which
serve as a sop to the professions in order to
say to them or to recipients or to those who
are engaged in the field, that we are here
experimenting, we are here endeavouring to
fathom the intricacies of social and family
services in the province, when everybody in
APRIL 15, 1969
3135
this Legislature knows the outcome of those
projects before the money is even spent.
And now in the year 1969, at approxi-
mately 10 o'clock, the Minister rises in his
seat and with some pride says that a "task
force" has been created to take a look at
certain of the priorities in the field of social
welfare and to do further projects and under-
take further demonstraitons.
Mr. Chairman, everyone in this House-
let alone the professionals in the field— know
what is required as a remedial measure for
this department. It is not merely the easy
ejection of the Minister— God knows who his
replacement would be— it would be rather
more important, Mr. Chairman, for the com-
plete overhauling of the nature of the proj-
ects and the way in which the department
approaches aU its programmes, and they have
been detailed endlessly in this Legislature.
We need no more task forces and we need
no more research experiments and we need
no more grants of $100,000 to confirm what
all of us recognize as obvious. If one wants
to talk, Mr. Chairman, about a gross abuse
of public funds, then nowhere is that abuse
more evident and more striking than in this
department. Millions of dollars, tens of mil-
lions of dollars of public money extravagantly
run down the drain by this Minister.
Because for all the cynical and perverse
Tory notions, he continues to maintain people
on income maintenance programmes when if
he provided them with some direct counsel-
ling and support they would re-enter the
work force and contribute to this economy in
terms of dollars.
The greatest failure of his department is
the fact that he has 108,000 people still,
relatively speaking, on the rolls. If there was
any substance to this department he would
have halved that by now. The income in
terms of the provincial product, Mr. Chair-
man, is virtually incalculable, it would com-
pare favourably with man hours of work lost
in terms of unemployment in the province
of Ontario. It would amoimt in the millions
of dollars, and there is nowhere more than
in this department that absurd fetish, to which
you subscribe, that the only way you deal
with people who have social problems is to
give them a few dollars and that the few
dollars should keep them at a level of sub-
sistance which is totally repressive.
Hon, Mr. Yaremko: That is the NDP
theory.
Mr. Lewis: What in God's name do you
have 108,000 people on the rolls for—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is the NDP
theory.
Mr. Lewis: —in the year 1969?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It was the NDP theory
until you started to listen to my speeches.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thxmder Bay): Why do
you engage in it then?
Mr. Lewis: Until we started to listen to
your speeches?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes. The hon. member
for Peterborough knows what I am talking
about.
Mr. MacDonald: Nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He probably had it
mimeographed.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's
speeches ante-date feudalism. There is no
point at all to that particular kind of rhetoric-
Mr. MacDonald: Santa Claus's hand out,
his own words.
Mr. Lewis: —and one knows where they
fall in terms of the century. There is no
point to that at all. The simple matter is,
that under your department, sir, the number
of people who have been receiving allow-
ances, has continued at an inordinately high
level and there has been no demonstration at
all on the part of this department, other than
certain of the welfare co-ordinators or welfare
administrators, that the Minister is serious
about counselling. No, I did not mean pre.
I mean ante-date. I wanted you to fall some-
where between the 13th and the 17th
century.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): At
about the Elizabethan Poor Law.
Mr. Lewis: The Elizabethan Poor Law,
precisely. It is exactly the Elizabethan Poor
Law, and I would have thought that it was
possible at this point in time to advance just
a little further. I must say, Mr. Chairman,
and I do not mind saying it at all, that some
very senior people in the social welfare field
in this city, some of whom receive great sums
of money from this government for a variety
of reasons, said to me privately in the very
recent past, that the views of the Minister's
predecessor were so enlightened in terms of
the Minister, that it was a qualitative differ-
ence. That the department had moved back
3136
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ten years with the tenure of this Minister in
terms of its thinking about social welfare
and social allowances. And they themsel\es
had a view which was moderately jaundiced
about the Minister's predecessor. Their views
now cannot bear description.
And I may say, Mr. Chainnan, that it is
such a self-defeating and frustrating proposi-
tion, words fail. To deal with estimate after
estimate, consecutively, item after item, with
a Minister who will provide us with no in-
fonuation whatsoever, no breakdown of
departmental expense, and none of the details
which would make this a more legitimate
debate. That is why we will be here for a
\'er>' long time, because the Minister will not,
in fact, give us those details.
I do not know how the Minister justifies
the expenditure of $100,000 without any of
it being documented sufficiently for him. I
do not know how you justify it. Do you ha\'e
no idea at all where in >'0ur department you,
as a Minister, would like to see money ex-
pended for development and research
projects? Do you have to allocate your funds
to the University of Toronto, and to Carleton
University and the association for the
mentally retarded? Is there no concept at all
in the entire apparatus of your department
about what you would want to investigate,
what you think needs research? What kind of
travesty has this department been reduced to?
What kind of travesty has the Legislature
been reduced to in the four days that this
estimate has been before the House, in the
unwillingness of the Minister to allow us to
proceed beyond vote 2001. There are end-
less items under this vote which now must
be raised, and I appeal, Mr. Chairman, that
now is not the time to raise them, although
it can be done.
Let me revert to the simple point that I
was asking at the outset. Has the Minister
any information at all about the details of
the nearly $40,000 he is giving to develop-
ment programmes by the University of
Toronto school of social work?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have not the
details.
Mr. Lewis: You have not the details. Well,
you see, Mr. Chairman, it puts the Opposition
in a really invidious position. How do we
vote for it? Nobody impugns the integrity of
the University of Toronto School of Social
Work. I suppose Professor Rose, and before
him. Professor Hendry, and all the notables
that grace that institution are honourable men
and women, and they would use the money
usefully. But in terms of priorities about what
we have to know about this department, how
can we vote $40,000 for something about
which not a single detail is available.
Mr. MacDonald: And the Minister does
not know.
Mr. Lewis: And the Minister has not the
faintest idea. The Minister's associates are
frantically gathering the information for him.
Your two deputies in front of you, thank
God, have some control over what is happen-
ing in the department, but it is not easy for
them to give you all the information you
require on the spot. Now, does the Minister
think it is responsible for us in the Opposi-
tion to vote carte blanche $40,000 without
any detail at all? Does he think that is an
appropriate filling on an opposition function?
Mr. MacDonald: Maybe the Provincial
Secretary will give the Minister overnight to
get the information.
Mr. Lewis: Well, it is a difficult prospect,
is it not? I see, that for the first time tonight
the Minister is feeling real emotion.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I just
want to say this. I am asking this House to
allocate $100,000 to be used for demonstra-
tion projects. That is my request during the
course of the year.
Mr. Lewis: You may as well ask for
$100,000 on the origins of blackberry in the
Bruce Peninsula. Well, what point is it to
vote monies about which we have no details?
Have you finally been given the details? You
have not yet been given the details. I was
hoping they might be foimd in the midst of
all those loose leaf notebooks. But I want to
revert to what I said, Mr. Chairman. The
Minister is feeling some emotion. I see his
brow is furrowed for the first time tonight,
his brow is furrowed, and his tie is not
knotted with that delicacy which was there
at eight o'clock, and I note, too, a smile for
the first time in three and a half hours—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let us not be personal.
Mr. Lewis: Even the hand is moving.
One thought that automation would not
allow himself the normal gesticulations of a
member in this Legislature, but I am glad
to see you understand the quality of Opposi-
tion concern, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is stray-
ing somewhat from the estimates.
APRIL 15, 1969
3137
Mr. Lewis: Well, I do not think it is stray-
ing Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is straying
at all.
Mr. MacDonald: We are on about the fifth
item on which we have sought information in
ten to twelve hours.
Mr. Lewis: We have had the basic answer
tonight from the Minister of Mines, who
should have lingered over his hqueur another
hour and a half and this would never have
happened. But I do not think, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, come off that.
I did not have a hqueur. If you are going to
make that type of allegation, let me make
some.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, just cut that
out. I take that very seriously.
Mr. Lewis: Well all right. If it makes you
feel any better I had some Danish Schnapps
at the Viking Restaurant.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I would make no
such allegations. I am just asking you to
withdraw.
Mr. Lewis: I certainly wiU not withdraw, it
was said in jest. What is said in jest—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, just uncurl
that jestful hp, will you?
Mr. Lewis: Many a false word is said in
jest, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001?
Mr. Lewis: You are right, Mr. Chairman.
I strayed from the estimates. I simply wanted
to aid in demonstrating, Mr. Chairman, the
finite and deliberate progress that is made at
these hours of the evening. All right, I will
certainly accede to the hon. member.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I
want to direct through you a question that
I think bears some logical relationship to our
discussion tonight. Now, as I understand the
reply that the Minister made in connection
with the expenditure of $100,000 relative to
demonstration projects, you are not in a
position to give us details, so, in eflFect, in
your reply to the hon. member for Scar-
borough West, you say I am asking this
House to vote $100,000. So, in essence, you
are saying to me: "I ask you to vote $100,000
on the basis that I know the proper appropri-
ation of these funds."
Now if the Minister would care to hsten
just for a moment because his deputies have
not been much assistance to him so far. If I
follow it logically can you not say to us, "I
ask you to vote $264,789,000 without detail"?
It seems to me it follows as the night does
the day. So why is this what I heard so many
times? Is this the true exercise in futility
right now? Now I request a reply, because
if you are correct that you will not give us
details on $100,000, that we must accept you
and your word for the expenditure of these
funds, then does it not follow that we must
accept you and your word for the expendi-
ture of $264 milhon? And are we really
wasting your time?
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 2001 agreed?
Mr. MacDonald: No, the Minister has
been asked a question.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
answered that question. I answered it before
it was asked. If the hon. member wants to
let his imagination run rampant he can do so
on his own time. I do not necessarily have to
answer his imagination.
Mr. Bullbrook: This member does not
let his imagination or reputation run rampant.
I was one of the very few in this House
tonight that did not interject and it is not
until a quarter past 11 o'clock that I first
spoke in this House. But I tell you quite
frankly, Mr. Chairman, I had great admiration
for you. It has completely dissipated tonight.
You have done nothing to gain my respect.
It is obvious you do not know your depart-
ment. You sit there stoically all night. Why
do these people— why are they so frustrated?
Because they had intelhgent questions to put
to you, and either you are too obstinate, arro-
gant, or ignorant of yoiu: department to
answer — one of those three.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to say one thing about what the House leader
said. He said that we should not leave here
because we could not report progress.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He did not say that
either.
Mr. T. Reid: Well we will look it up in
Hansard. I would just like to say this. When
I stand up in this House as elected member
for Scarborough East, I stand here in a con-
structive way. Unless I lose my temper to
too great an extent. And I try to inform the
Minister about some of the latest thinking
that is taking place in the universities in this
3138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
country and south of the border. I have only
a tenuous relationship with York University
now.
This is a type of research that I came in
contact with every day when I taught full
time with other members of the economics
department of York University. I can name
those who are engaged in fundamental re-
search about what should be done to let the
poor in our society into our society. And the
House leader tells me there is no progress.
Well OK, if that is the way things are in
this House we will go out of this House, we
will stand on the steps, we will get involved
in demonstrations.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence: It will not be the first
time.
Mr. T. Reid: But if nothing gets through to
this Minister-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I do not know
what has happened to the rabble over here.
Mr. MacDonald: Speak to your leader.
Mr. T. Reid: But I am very interested.
Mr. MacDonald: This gets more and more
laughable.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I will not
digress on this, I will say only that I got
down to Picton before they did.
The House leader stands up and says, "No
we cannot leave the House because there has
been no progress."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He did not say that.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, I wish he would with-
draw that then. I say to him, sir, that we
are wasting our time in this Legislature.
Let me turn to why I thought that perhaps
I was saying something constructive to the
Minister on some of these new ideas which
filter from the top down into his department.
He has listed some of the projects wliich
will receive money from this $100,000 esti-
mate, he has listed them— the University of
Toronto, Carleton University. He even read
out the intent of some of those research
projects.
The whole point of our remarks from this
side of the House— I am glad to see the two
Opposition parties together on this— the whole
point of our attack is to suggest to the
Minister that he is not allocating these funds
to the most useful areas of research. There
are new areas opening up which would chal-
lenge the whole concept on which his depart-
ment is based, and he has not got the guts
to allocate the money to that type of research
project. Either that or he does not know
about that type of research. What I was trying
to draw to his attention is that there are new
areas— they are called "social action projects"
or "animation sociale"— which should be re-
ceiving funds, and which are not receiving
funds.
Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. About six
weeks ago I was invited by the graduate clas^
at the University of Toronto School of Social
Work to be one of their seminar discussants.
I had the privilege of going to that class and
discussion with about 30 graduate students at
the school of social work my views about
some of the things that they should be in-
volved in. I learned a great deal from that
because I learned that they thought that most
of the curriculum that they had been receiving
at the school of social work at the U of T
at the graduate level, was really not relevant
to solving the problems of poverty in Ontario.
These students were the ones that are
involved in projects outside of the classroom.
This is the special seminar where they discuss
that t>'pe of thing, and they came to that
class and we talked these things out for three
hours. They said, "You know we really feel
it is hopeless to go down and work with
people on a case-by-case method unless some-
thing is happening in terms of what might
be called the general level." And they said,
"You know at the school of social work here
in the graduate course someone wanted to
take a course in the department of political
science on how local government works; on
how local welfare departments work; the
politics of it; how police departments work.
That student was told by the graduate school
of social work, "You cannot take that. It has
nothing to do with social work."
I suggest, sir, that if the money that is
going to the school of social work at the
University of Toronto is being allocated to
band-aid research as opposed to new areas
of research such as social action research,
then this Minister has not got a hope in heU
of really making his programmes e£Fective.
The sad fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the pro-
grammes of this government in the area of
welfare and social and family services for
26 years in tliis province, have failed.
There has been no basic redistribution of
income for 25 years in Ontario. The per-
centage of poor people in our society is
exactly the same as it was 26 years ago.
APRIL 15. 1969
3139
We seal them in, we are in a fourth genera-
tion cycle, and what this Minister has to
recognize— and if he does not we will in 1971
—is that his whole programme is out of date.
That is what the questioning on this side
of the House is all about. We want to know
what the Minister is doing with his funds.
We want to know what philosophy of society
that allocation of funds represents.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out
tvv'o types of research projects that surely this
Minister should be inivolved in, or be financ-
ing, because they have to do with the views
of some of his Cabinet colleagues. The Minis-
ter of Revenue has come out with the state-
ment that we should have a guaranteed
minimum income based on a negative income
tax— that is a type of maintenance programme.
I would ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman,
simply to say that he is taking the advice of
his Minister of Revenue, his colleague in the
Cabinet, seriously by allocating funds unider
this demonstration grant to doing a research
project or having such a research project
done, to see the feasibility of such a guaran-
teed minimum income based on negative
income tax. If he is not, then the Minister
of Revenue is just talking through his hat.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
department is doing its own studies and its
own evaluation within the department of all
these ideas that are being put forward.
Mr. T. Reid: Do I understand, Mr. Chair-
man, that the Minister's department is
engaged in this research?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, our research and
planning will be the agencies through which
we, as a department, will evaluate aU of
the ideas put forward in this field.
Mr. Lewis: Well we will ask you 30 or 40
(luestions about that.
Mr. T. Reid: I am delighted to know that,
Mr. Chairman, I hope the results vdll be
known before 1971.
Perhaps the Minister could answer another
question, Mr. Chairman. Is he financing a
research project or a demonstration project,
or is his department engaged in a specific
project to examine what happens to people
receiving grants from his department who live
in Ontario Housing projects?
This is what Mr. Band calls for in that
report of 1964. He said, surely government
should k-now what happens to the recipients
of welfare. Has the Minister followed up on
his own Deputy Minister's suggestion in this
specific context of welfare recipients living in
Ontario Housing, public housing? If not, why
not?
How does he know that the allocation of
funds to people living in public housing is
having any return whatsoever in terms of
helping these people to become self-support-
ing, and helping their children to be able to
make their way in life?
I take it, then, that the Minister is not
engaging in any research project concerning
his colleague, the Minister of Trade and
Development, who is responsible for Ontario
Housing, concerning die double impact of
Ontario Housing on recipients of Ontario
Housing in the sense and the impact of the
Minister's own programmes, a "double
whammy," if you like.
Is there no research being done in this
area? If not, how do we know that the Minis-
ter is allocating his funds in the most effi-
cient way? How can he sit on that side of
the House with the responsibilities of being
the Minister for this department and ask us,
on this side of the House, to vote for these
programmes — I will not call them pro-
grammes even— for these items listed in
the book when he is not engaging in the
basic type of research and action programmes,
demonstration programmes that will enable
us and himself to evaluate the effectiveness
of his programmes? Perhaps he should have
a reallocation of his funds in different areas?
But the Minister cannot tell us this.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If the hon. member
would sit down every time he asked a ques-
tion perhaps I might be able to answer a
few-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will not even attempt
to please the hon. member for York South. I
may say that at the present time there is no
such specific project either underway cur-
rently, or one that I can say wiU be under-
way in the very near future. I will say this,
that we are aware of the community action
within at least two of the housing projects,
and it is my intent to explore, with the Minis-
ter, how the two departments can relate their
work to each other in order to achieve people
v/ho will be self-sufficient in providing aU of
their needs, both from the point of view of
not being on our rolls and, as he is suggesting,
to bring about a situation in which they will
be self-sufficient in the provision of their own
shelter. I may say in respect of these latter
remarks I see some considerable merit in
pursuing tliis.
3140
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. Reid: In the light of the Minister
being in a much more responsive mood at the
present time, perhaps the lesson from this is
that we have to go tliree days before the
Minister comes out witli—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You should have asked
this question at the beginning of the esti-
mates and you would have got the answer.
If you had asked it three days ago at the
beginning of the vote you would have had
the answer then.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wait
for answers on this. Could I ask the Minister
a specific question? What was the result of
the $10,000 grant to the University of To-
ronto School of Social Work in 1967-68? In
other words, in the past he has made a grant
to this School of Social Work, it was $10,000.
Now he is asking us to make a grant of close
to $35,000-$40,000.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Those were for special
bursaries.
Mr. T. Reid: Are those bursaries continu-
ing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The bursaries are now
being paid under vote training and staff de-
velopment. Bursaries and costs of training
and staff development, item 10 in vote 2001.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to simply say that this Minister has not
satisfied me that he has a rational allocation
of the funds at his disposal. He really does
not know where his funds are going. This
amount to that area and that amount to
another area. And I would say, sir, that for
the Treasurer to stand up in this House and
stand in front of the television cameras, and
boast that—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is a good place
to stand, in front of them.
Mr. T. Reid: —and boast that he has cut
$400 million from expenditure estimates then
to come down and say, Mr. Chairman:
We believe that the final expenditure
package that has emerged represents a
wide responsible allocation of our limited
public funds,
is nonsense when a particular Minister can-
not tell us how and on what groimds he has
made the allocation of his funds.
How can the Treasurer stand up in this
House, speaking for all the Ministers and
pontificate and say, "We are rational alloca-
tors of scarce resources, we are wise people,
we are resE>onsible people," when we carmot
even find out how this one Minister has
decided how to allocate the total funds
available to him in his department?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have confidence in
that Minister; not necessarily in you.
Mr. T. Reid: I find this one of tlie biggest
bribes I have ever seen in tlie allocation
procedures of any budget. If a particular
Minister cannot give us a rational explanation
of how he has decided to allocate the federal
government funds that he gets and tlie funds
he gets from the taxpayers of this province
directly, then how can tlie Treasurer stand
up in this House and say, "The government
as a whole is allocating its funds in a wide
and responsible way"?
Nonsense! Unless he gets involved in re-
search projects that enable him to have some
idea of the benefits received from the
expenditures of funds in various areas of his
department, Mr. Chairman, he cannot, as a
responsible Minister, come to this House and
ask us in a serious way to approve of his
estimates.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001? The hon. mem-
ber for Wentworth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairaian, it has been
a frustrating two or three days. It is very
difficult to extract from this Minister whether
or not he has any knowledge at all. In fact, it
becomes more and more apparent as the day
has worn on that he does not know really
where the money is going.
In the case of item number 8, for example,
one cisks upon what tlie Minister has based his
request for the $100,000 and you just do not
get any answer. It seems quite obvious to
me that the Minister requires some time to
dig into this and to come up with the answer
to the questions we have asked. In hght of
that I would move that the committee rise
and report progress.
I Mr. Chairman: I believe the motion is quite
order
. Mr. Deans moves tiiat the committee rise '
iind report progress. Shall the motion carry?| ;
All those in favour of the motion wiU| '
please say "aye"; all those opposed will!\
t>lease say "nay". ^<
i In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
All those in favour of Mr. Dean's motion,
will please rise.
All those opposed to Mr. Dean's motion,
will please rise.
APRIL 15, 1969
3141
Cleric of the House: Mr. Chairman,
"ayes" are 25, the "nays" 42.
the
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.
On vote 2001:
Mr. Lawlor: While the Premier is still in
the House, I would seek—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I
think I am going to be here for some time.
Mr. Lawlor: On a point of order, I would
seek to prevail upon the hon. Premier,
through you, Mr. Chairman, not to subject
this House and the Opposition to this kind—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Oh, come on!
Mr. Lawlor: It is self-defeating, I suggest
to you—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lawlor: It is a silly game to play, and
two can play at it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on
a point of order because the Prime Minister
has not been here for most of this estimate—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I have been in touch.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, what I want to
draw to the Prime Minister's attention and
request him to examine, is that we have
gone through about 10 to 12 hours in this
estimate, we have dealt with a half a dozen
major issues and we have yet to get an
answer from the Minister.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is not true.
Mr. MacDonald: I submit to you, Mr.
Chairman, for the consideration of the Prime
Minister, that it is the Minister who is
responsible for the delay of these estimates,
not the Opposition.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 2001 carried? The
hon. member for Riverdale.
Mr. J. Ren wick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask the Minister if he would
look at the series of grants to agencies which
are listed under this vote, and if he would
deal with each one of them in the following
way: Would he tell me when his department
was last in contact with particular agencies
in a formal way to ascertain whether or not
for this year the amount of money which was
requested is the amount which the particular
agency needs—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, that was passed.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): No, item No.
1, that was all.
Mr. Chairman: We passed item 1 of vote
2001. The remainder of the vote remains
open for debate.
Mr. MacDonald: Where has the Minister
been?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. J. Renwick: What I am concerned
about is whether or not each year there is
an annual correspondence or negotiation with
the particular agency to settle the amount,
or whether the amounts are just determined
each year on the basis of the amount which
was granted in the preceding year. And I
would ask the Minister, first of all, about the
Canadian Welfare Council grant of $28,000.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I still say we are
discussing item 8.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that is
an increase of $1,000 over last year and it
is worked out with the Canadian Welfare
Council on more or less a per capita grant,
across Canada.
Mr. J. Renwick: It was worked out on a
per capita basis. Could the Minister explain
the per capita grant basis on which it was
worked out?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, the Canadian
Welfare Council turns to all of Canada for
its money, and in order to get some sort of
a distribution across Canada with those they
are going to approach, they use I think a
pretty rough yardstick on the basis of other
provincial grants. It works out to $28,000 for
Ontario, and we have made that grant.
Mr. J. Renwick: As I understand it, the
first grant to the Canadian Welfare Council
was done on a per capita basis, and that is
the same amount for the province of Ontario.
The same basis was used.
I would draw the attention of the Min-
ister to the fact that the Ontario Welfare
Council also receives $28,000.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is not computed
on the same basis. The Ontario Welfare
Council deals with Ontario alone, that is not
done on the per capita basis.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, what was
the amount of the grant to the Ontario Wel-
fare Council last year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: $27,000.
3142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. Renwick: Would the Minister deal
with the remainder of the items listed?
Hon. Mr. Yaremico: The Canadian Legion
remains the same at $4,000; the Canadian
Legion, provincial command, the poppy fund,
remains the same; the last post fund remains
the same; the Royal Canadian Humane Asso-
ciation remains the same; the Salvation Army
grant is the same; the Vanier Institute of the
Family is again $125,000. There was a com-
mitment made of $125,000 over a four-year
period and I think we are into our third year.
An hon. member: Very generous despite
contrary representations.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, that interjection is
very appropriate. It was, I beheve, four years.
Mr. MacDonald: I would not acknowledge
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Carleton University,
$5,000, the University of Toronto, $5,000.
No change in those items. And then the
largest single grant here is the Yonge Street
Mission youth centre of $58,000, which was
10 per cent capital grant to this institution
that is raising $580,000. They approached us
and we made a grant to them of 10 per cent.
I have the brochures here and would be very
pleased to send the hon. member the details
of it. It was discussed at some length prior
to the Easter recess.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
Uke to draw the attention of the House par-
ticularly to the $1,000 item for the last post
fund. During the summer recess last year, I
wrote to the last post fund in order to inquire
whether or not the $1,000 item was sufficient
for their purposes. I would Hke first of all to
comment briefly on the correspondence which
I had with the last post fund, and then to deal
with another matter related to that fund.
The secretary -treasurer for the Ontario
headquarters of the last post fund wrote to
me on August 30 to tell me that while they
had no more recent booklet than the one
which they sent to me, "that April 19, 1969
would mark the 60th anniversary of the last
post fund, and that plans are afoot to launch
a publicity campaign about that time. This
will imdoubtedly include articles in the press
reviewing the history and functions of the
organization."
He asked me to be sure and contact him if
I needed any further specific information. I
replied to him:
I acknowledge and thank you for your
letter of August 30 about the last post fund.
What prompted my inquiry was the item
in the estimates of The Department of
Social and Family Services of the govern-
ment of Ontario for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1969, showing among the mis-
cellaneous grants a grant to the last post
fund in the amount of $1,000.
I assume this is a grant dating back on
an annual basis over several years. I was
curious at the time the question was raised
as to whether or not this is, in your judg-
ment, adequate contribution by the govern-
ment of Ontario to the fund.
The secretary-treasurer wrote back to me to
say that while his connection with the fund
dated back only to April 1, 1965, that a search
of the organization's files revealed that the
province of Ontario had been good enough
to make to the last post fund, Ontario, an
annual grant of $1,000 since at least 1942,
Beyond that his file does not go.
Hon. Mr. Rob arts: Condense it, do you
have to read it all?
Mr. J. Renwick: To continue:
The $1,000 is used to assist the Ontario
Branch of the last post fund with its ad-
ministrative expenses which are not very
heavy. In addition to the $1,000, we are
entitied to a $15 grant from the munici-
pality in which an indigent veteran buried
by the fund resided for three to six months
prior to his death. These grants are re-
covered in approximately 90 per cent of
our cases.
It goes on to say.
As long as the municipal grants keep
coming in I feel that they, plus the $1,000
received from your government are ade-
quate for the Last Post Fund, Ontario, ad-
ministrative purposes.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Did he say "Yours
sincerely" or just "Yours truly"?
Mr. J. Renwick: "Thank you very much
for your interest in our behalf. Yours very
truly."
Mr. Bullbrook: Wrong again.
Mr. J. Renwick: I think it only fitting that
we should on this occasion, as it is getting
close to April 19, record in the House some
of the background about the last post fund
not only because of the interest of the topic,
but because of the 60th anniversary which is
fast approaching. I quote, and I think I will
APRIL 15, 1969
3143
at some length, because it is a very rare
occasion when one can pay tribute to a fund
which has performed a service which has not
always received the attention, or the concern
that it deserves. This article appeared in the
current issue of the Legionary which most
members of the House would know is the
oflScial publication of the Royal Canadian
Legion. It deals with the last post fund on its
60th anniversary this month. This patriotic
organization can take pride in having saved
thousands of service men from paupers'
graves.
The origin of it is really quite interesting:
The compassion felt by a Montreal
hospital employee for a derelict ex-British
soldier who was doomed to burial in
Potter's Field led to the formation of the
Last Post Fund, a unique organization
which this month marks the 60th anniver-
sary of its existence.
The Montreal man was the late Arthur
H. D. Hair. The ex-British soldier was
found by police huddled in a doorway on
St. Alexander Street in Montreal in De-
cember, 1908. The police believed at first
that he was dnmk, but on examination
found him to be in the last stages of
starvation.
In his coat pocket were a few small
crusts tied in a bandana handkerchief. In
another pocket was a discharge certificate
from the British army showing 21 years of
service with good conduct. The certificate
gave his name as James Daly.
Taken to Montreal General Hospital the
man never regained consciousness. Nothing
could be learned from him about his next
of kin or other relations or friends. If he
had a home of any sort in Montreal, there
were no clues as to where it might ha\'e
been.
The man's destitute condition had an
immediate eflFect on Hair who happened to
be on duty at the hospital when the un-
conscious ex-soldier was brought in that
December night. The thought of such a
man being neglected and abandoned in
death to a pauper's grave stirred him to
action.
He got busy at once importuning various
veterans' societies inside and outside
Montreal to try to keep such an event from
ever happening again. He gradually
gathered around him as helpers a small
group of patriotic men and women who
formed the nucleus of what has since
become the Last Post Fund Inc., an organ-
ization which operates across Canada, in
England, and in the United States.
Since its official inauguration 60 years
ago the fund has spent more than $5 mil-
lion providing a dignified burial for some
32,000 ex-service men and women who
died without the means or the relatives or
friends to look after their burial expense.
By April, 1909, Mr. Hair had enlisted
enough support for his cause to enable the
Last Port Imperial Naval & Military Con-
tingency Fund to be officially inaugurated
in the vestry of Old Trinity Church in
Vigar Square, Montreal.
At that time Canadians were indifferent
to the problem of burying indigent ex-
servicemen. They were inclined to let the
municipalities worry about them which
meant a pauper burial and confinement to
oblivion.
For the next 13 years, the fund existed
on a purely voluntary basis and met its
self-imposed obligations by means of mem-
bership fees and benefits organized in its
interest. It never went to the public in
open appeal. It was only through the tire-
less efforts of Mr. Hair, who became full-
time secretary-treasurer, and his associates,
that the organization was able to carry on.
In 1919 the federal government faced
the problem of burying many veterans and
found the Last Post Fund a source of
valuable assistance and advice on how to
perpetuate the memory of dead veterans.
In 1922, it authorized an initial grant
from which stemmed the present arrange-
ment whereby the federal government,
through annual grants from The Depart-
ment of Veterans' Affairs, supplies the
funds for the actual cost of burial and
permanent grave markers. The fund itself,
however, raises the necessary money for
the administration of its branches in each
of the 10 provinces.
The Last Post Fund is administered under
federal and provincial charter with regu-
larly appointed trustees and a board of
directors. It is a patriotic society, not a
charitable organization, and it is not affili-
ated with any other organization.
One of the important regulations is that
the fund may only handle such cases as
come directly to it at the time of death
and may not become involved if other
funeral arrangements have already been
made, or if actual burial has already taken
place.
3144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
All branches are under tlie direct super-
vision of Dominion headquarters in Mont-
real to which regular reports are made.
These burial details are transferred to the
central archives which now record more
tlian 32,790 dead who have served in units
of the navy, army, air force, nursing serv-
ices and women's auxiliaries of the armed
forces. The flags of more than 14 nations
decorate tlieir graves.
Mr. Lewis: Look at tlie Attorney General,
he is riveted to the spot.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am being regaled.
Mr. J. Renwick: To continue:
Neither race, colour or creed enter into
the question as to who shall be buried in
Last Post Fund cemeteries or plots.
In tliem may be found Protestants,
Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Confucians,
Mohammedans and atheists. The fund burial
includes a casket, embalming of the body,
a hearse, an automobile for relatives and
friends if required, the use of the imder-
taker's chapel for the funeral service, a flag
to cover the coffin, and tlie service of a
chaplain to conduct the funeral. Later, a
uniform granite marker, suitably inscribed,
is placed on the grave.
The cemetery of the Last Post Fund is
the beautiful Field of Honour located at
Pointe Claire, some 14 miles west of Mont-
real. In addition, Last Post Fund plots are
estabhshed in civilian cemeteries in every
major city in Canada. The Field of Honour
is the only cemetery devoted strictly to
veterans. It consists of 12 acres on a hill
overlooking Lake St. Louis, a wide portion
of the St. Lawrence River.
The only one of its kind in Canada, it is
not a plot or reservation within a civil
cemetery, but is incorporated under The
Quebec Provincial Cemeteries Act as a dis-
tinctly military cemetery, owned and
operated by the Quebec provincial branch
of the Last Post Fund, the parent branch
of the national organization.
The Field of Honour is devoted exclu-
sively to the burial of ex-meinbers of the
Commonwealth armed forces and those of
Commonwealth allies. P'inancial arrange-
ments may be made in advance by those
other than indigents who wish to he buried
there and many ex-servicemen do choose to
he with their comrades in this last resting
place. Also when such arrangements are
made in advance, a \eteran's widow or
cliild may also l)e buried in his grave.
In its earher years, the fund used plots
in the Mount Royal and Cote des Neiges
cemeteries, but when these became filled,
the Field of Honour was opened in 1930.
The Last Post Fund has also been keenly
interested in tlie old Papineau Avenue
militaiy cemetery in Montreal which con-
tains the remains of 1,700 Imperial soldiers
who had died during the British occupation
of Montreal between 1814 and 1869.
The Department of National Defence in
1944 sold the Papineau Avenue cemetery
to Montreal and employed the proceeds to
the preparation of a special section in the
Field of Honour. The remains and head-
stones from the old cemetery were trans-
ferred to the new location.
More than six of the 12 acres in the
P'ield of Honour are used for graves and
are beautifully laid out with lawn, trees,
shrubbery and i>ermanent roads. An
impressive stone "Gate of Remembrance"
gives entrance to this hallowed ground.
The gravestones in tlie cemetery are laid
flush with the green sod in the garden
rather than the "sepulchral" concept. The
flag flies from an 80-foot steel mast and
a Light of Remembrance bums all night.
Impressive remembrance ceremonies are
held by the Last Post Fund in Montreal
and Pointe Claire each May 24. Early in
the morning, services take place in the old
plots in the Moimt Royal and Cote des
Neiges cemeteries.
At 11.30 a.m., the Montreal Harbour
boat is placed at die disposal of the Fund
and steams out on the St. Lawrence to a
point opposite the Queen Victoria pier. At
12 noon, a beautiful wreath mounted on a
lifebuoy is launched overboard.
As it floats down the river a white dove
is released, symbolic of the departed sailor
dead.
In tlie afternoon, a ceremony of remem-
brance is held at the Field of Honour. The
speaker is always someone prominent in
Canadian affairs and his address is broad-
cast nationally by the CBC. Each grave is
decorated with small flags, and poppy
wreaths are placed at various points in the
cemetery.
Mr. Sopha: It will be national president of
the NDP next year.
Mr. J. Renwick: Wreaths of fresh flowers
are plact^d aroimd the Cross of Sacrifice by
representatives of military, naval and air
force associations.
APRIL 15, 1969
3145
In recent years, decoration day services
have been held in Jirne with the Legion
taking part. At the 1967 Decoration Day
service 15,000 poppies were dropped from
an RCAF aircraft onto the Field of Hon-
our, gathered by school cliildren and
placed on the graves. Since the Last Post
Fund was started, men who have won
every decoration within tlie gift of the
Commonwealth, including the Victoria
Cross, have been buried in the Field of
Honour and in the plots of the Fund.
Amongst the burials are veterans who
fought in the Fenian Raid of 1860 and
down through every war since then in
which any part of the British Common-
wealth took part. Privates he side by side
with men who have reached such high
ranks as brigadier-general, for no distinc-
tion of rank is made except in the inscrip-
tions on tlie markers.
There is then a reference to the armiversary
services which will be held this year to
commomerate the 60th anniversary of the
Fund. I thought, Mr. Chairman, at this par-
ticular time it was worth while to record
something of the background and history of
this particular fund, to ask the government,
whether in the light of this anniversary, they
might give some consideration to some special
commemoration on the part of the govern-
ment or some way in which a member of
the government might possibly. participate in
the ceremonies to mark an organization which
has made a contribution which, in a strange
way, no other organization could cope with.
And for that reason I took the time of the
House, even at this hour, to record tliese
remarks about that fund.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001, carried. On
vote 2002.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, vote 2001 is not
carried. There were two members rising.
It is just that we rise a little more slowly
at this time of night, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman is still quite
alert.
Mr. Lewis: Oh, well, this happens too, you
know. It all depends on what one does.
Mr. Chairman, it is very oppressive and
late, and warm, I am going to take off my
jacket, and I am telling the Chair now, so I
do not get into difficulty with it, because—
for a little while. Mr. Chairman, I would like
to move to the vote on the Vanier Institute
and ask tlie Minister what it is tliat he has
in mind for the $125,000 which he has been
spending successive years for this institute.
To tell the Legislature a little bit about what
the institute is doing, because more and more
as the institute evolves some of us have
cjualms about its activities.
Mr. E. A. Winkle (Grey South): You sup-
port your colleague on the veterans, do you?
Mr. Lewis: I support my colleague on the
veterans.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, as I
indicated to the hon. member for River-
dale, the total of four grants of $125,000
each to make a total contribution by the
Ontario government of $500,000. This grant
will add to an endownment fund for the
Vanier Institute of the Family. The fund
will be large enough to provide the institute's
annual financial requirements for their fore-
seeable future.
The Vanier Institute was launched by the
late Governor General, Georges F. Vanier,
and Mrs. Vanier, as a centennial project. It
was incorporated in 1965. The institute has
several major purposes which can be summed
up by saying it will gather information, con-
duct research and studies and offer services
all toward the general goal of strengthening
the family.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, has the Minister
taken a look at what the Vanier Institute has,
in fact, done to strengthen "the family"?
What does the Minister tliink about the
general concept of strengthening the family?
I am speaking to him quite directly in view
of the obvious family disintegrations that
are occurring. Does one perhaps think that
there are other kinds of monies which can
be spent on tracing tlie pattern of disintegra-
tion of the family as well as tracing the pat-
tern of strengthening the family, and what
exactly has the Vanier Institute done about
strengthening the family tie?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I will
be very pleased to send to the hon. member
the article from the Globe and Mail, March
22, 1969, of editorial comments on the Vanier
Institute of the Family.
Mr. Lewis: Editorial comment?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Take it all off. Just be
your usual rude self.
Mr. MacDonald: We are not interested in
Mr. Lewis: I am going to be on my feet that.
3146
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lewis: Well, what is the gist? I am
glad that the Globe and Mail is commenting
editorially on the Vanier Institute. That is a
wholesome fact for the Globe and Mail, and
shows its familiar pattern, but what is the
Vanier Institute doing with the half million
dollars which you, as a government are allo-
cating to it? I had the very, very dubious
pleasure of attending the founding convention
of the Vanier Institute in Ottawa a number of
years ago before I had any recognition of
what it was about. I have taken a slight
interest in its activities ever since then, and
I would like to know how the Minister is justi-
fying the expenditures and what the institute
is doing.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
institute has, as some of its activities, a study
of family law in Ontario and Quebec; with
particular reference to the effects of family
law on deserted wives and dependent chil-
dren. This is an area of law which has received
much criticism in the past but, comparatively,
very little study.
Mr. Lawlor: Oh, come off it— 3 great
volumes under Leal.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In co-operation with
the University of Toronto, and The Clarke
Institute of Psychiatry, an analysis of the
characteristics of the normal Canadian fam-
ily with a large sample being studied in the
East York-Leaside area of Metropolitan
Toronto. A study of what is being done
across Canada in the area of family life
education. At the moment very little is
known about what is being currently done in
this field. The institute has so far recei\'ed
replies from 17,000 groups in Canada.
In co-operation with the Economic Council
of Canada, participation in a poverty study
with emphasis upon the relationship between
the early childhood environment and the
person's capacity to make use of the educa-
tional system and eventually to become an
economically independent member of the
society.
Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. ChaiiTnan, I had
intended to make some observations which
suggested themselves to me over the last
two or three years. I did not realize that
they were so succinctly put by the Globe
and Mail. 1 am very pleased because the
editorial gives us food for thought, I would
think, for some considerable period of time.
I thank the Minister for sending it over. I
will quote some of the editorial's critique of
the Vanier Institute to the Minister in just
a moment.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. The Minister has supplied the hon.
member for Scarborough West with a copy
of the Globe and Mail editorial. I have some
remarks to make on the Vanier Institute and
I feel at a distinct disadvantage at not having
a copy.
Mr. Lewis: That is right; it is a very good
point.
Mr. T. Reid: Could the Minister provide
me with a copy?
Mr. Lewis: It is all right, Mr. Chairman, I
will read the editorial from beginning to
end and then all the members will have it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: You are not reading it?
I will be back.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Min-
ister should know that it is pretty erotic stuff
about the family, and one might want to
stay. The editorial lead is specializing in
marriage-
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, could I return
to my point of order? I appreciate the pos-
sible intent of the hon. member for Scar-
borough West in wanting to put this into
the record, but I would say that our time
could be better used if the Minister supplied
at least one Opposition member of this party
with a copy of the same editorial which
would eliminate the necessity of the hon.
member for Scarborough West reading this
thing at length into the record.
Mr. Winkler: Why do you not share it?
You are both together.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I think the Min-
ister was just acknowledging the precedence
of parties in the House. I do not think that
he was meaning to descriminate one from the
other.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not at all. I only had
one copy, you asked for information. I do not
acknowledge your precedence. For the record,
I do not acknowledge your precedence more
than any other group in this House.
Mr. Lewis: I thought I would elicit an
opinion from you as a refreshing change to
the events of the day.
Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Read it all.
Mr. Lewis: Well under the constraint and
encouragement of the Tory back bench, Mr.
Chairman, 1 will accede to that. I will read
it all. The editorial is entitled "Specializing
APRIL 15, 1969
3147
in Marrage". It surprises me that the Attor-
ney General leaves, since the Minister of
Social and Family Services indicated that the
Vanier Institute is doing such seminal work
in the field of family law. "What God hath
joined together in turmoil," is the way the
editorial begins. It becomes ludicrous there-
after. But it does say, Mr. Chairman, rather
later on and I think this is what I really
intended to get at:
But regrettably even the most charitable
assessment of the Vanier Institute must be
critical.
This is from the Globe and Mail editorial.
Its membership of about 125 is drawn
almost entirely from the middle and upper
classes of English and French Canada. Its
board is composed of persons whose aver-
age age is in the vicinity of 55 and its re-
search tended to remain in areas that
will not stir antipathy from any segment of
its membership.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister obviously
did not know any more about what is in the
editorial than the rest of his estimates.
Mr. Lewis: Now it is interesting. I must
admit, I thank the Minister, I had not known
some of these rather saUent details and I—
Mr. BuIIbrook: Which one of your deputies
gave you that? He or she has to go.
Mr. Lewis: Actually, I am pleased to say
that that is only the beginning. There is
much more that is equally illuminating. But
let us take it point by point because $125,000
is no laughing matter.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: $500,000.
Mr. Lewis: $500,000 that is right.
Mr. MacDonald: Thanks for the correction.
Mr. Lewis: What justification is there,
through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister,
for granting half a million dollars to an organ-
ization whose entire board is composed of
people drawn from the middle and upper class
strata of this society when they are supposed
to be studying the disintegration of the family,
and obviously that means, prima facie, the
disintegration of the poor, because family
disintegration is largely evidenced in the
underprivileged?
Mr. J. W. Snow (Halton East): The rich
have families too.
Mr. Lewis: Well the rich have their prob-
lems. One does not deny that, but relatively
speaking, we are discussing a phenomenon
which bedevils the lower strata. I would hke
to know, Mr. Chairman, how does the Minis-
ter justify half a million dollars to this eletist
group to study the impoverished in this
society?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I read
now from a letter from Mrs. Plumptre, the
president of the Vanier Institute, in reply to
that editorial.
Mr. Lewis: Perhaps you could give that
letter to the member for Scarborough East.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I will
not read the letter into the record but I say
this, I had sufiBcient confidence in the Vanier
Institute to warrant the initial granting of the
money. And I may say that I know of no
person within this country really who has
contributed more than Madame Vanier. She
participated in the first of the conferences
which were held in Montreal with the partici-
pation of the school of social work of the
University of Toronto. It was the first con-
ference of its kind, I may say, in which the—
Mr. Lewis: Was that in the world or just
in Canada?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, it is the first that
I have ever heard of in North America. It
was one of the things that the other member
for Scarborough is unaware of, judging by his
remarks. I may say that Madame Vanier
played a very significant role in that and I
have confidence in, as I said-
Mr. MacDonald: That is no answer to the
question.
Mr. Lewis: I want to pursue this. I am
very dubious about that letter. I suspect it
has pretty damning paragraphs. I would be
pleased to be proved wrong, but I would like
to know what Mrs. Plumptre really wrote to
the Minister. Is it a letter directed to you?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. It is a letter to
the Globe and Mail.
Mr. Lewis: Oh, to the Globe and Mail, in
answer to the editorial?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Lewis: I see. Well, perhaps you would
like to quote from those portions of it which
refute specifically the funding of an elite
group.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You say that the insti-
tute membership is drawn almost entirely
3148
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
from the middle class and upper classes of
English and French Canada. Actually, Mr.
Chairman, I do not really see anything wrong
with the middle class and the upper class.
Mr. Lewis: One ne\er knows what one
achiex'es at the witching hour.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would like to see all
of the disadvantaged, the outcast; I would
like to see them, in our very mobile society-
Mr. MacDonald: Santa Claus speaks again.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —move up into the
middle class and upper class. I wish them
well.
The rehabilitation programme of this
province will be dedicated to achieving
that.
Mr. Lewis: You are talking about the up-
wardly mobile poor, is that it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I continue:
—and that it is composed of persons
whose average age is in the \icinity of 55.
This criticism is one which has been made
by many of our members. It is valid, but
only in part. We are attempting to broaden
the base of membership, but accomplish-
ment is not as easy as the statement of the
objective.
That is something that the NDP in this prov-
ince, not ever having been called upon to
discharge or achieve anything, would not
understand. That is an interpretation of
mine, not from the letter.
Mr. Lewis: I would say that your compre-
hension of discharges is a real one, I am just
a little tired of the absence of, again, any
answers to questions. That from Mrs.
Plumptre does not answer the very inter-
esting point that is made in this editorial that
fell into my hands like some divine intra-
\ention this evening that one can now base
an attack on. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that
you cannot have $500,000 of public funds
going to middle and upper class families, or
middle and upper class personnel to study
the disintegration of a family.
The Minister perhaps does not coniprehcn 1
that. The Minister in the context of this \ otc,
Mr. Chairman, has not seen fit to allow a
recipient or an applicant to sit on this board
of review. He has not seen fit to incorporate
any of the disinherited poor in his research
programmes participating directly in those
research programmes.
He is not seeing fit to extend, as part of
any of his programme, into the areas of the
uprooted and disinherited in this society, and
yet he is willing to philander another
$500,000 of public funds to an elite group.
It must be an extraordinary elite group, 125
of the chosen sitting there at the top of the
cultural pyramid of Canada, pontificating
about the nature of the poor and of the dis-
integration of the family structure.
I am sure it is nice to have $500,000, I
can think of some welfare recipients and
applicants who would not mind a marginal
chunk of that bequest from government ex-
tended gratuitously over a four-year period.
I dare say, Mr. Chainnan, if one looked at
it, that the 125 people who are drawn from
the middle and upper class of English and
French Canada, that those who are from
French Canada are from the English elite in
Quebec. Even there I would venture the
guess the discrimination which is prevalent
in much of Quebec society is also reflected
on the institute of the family.
The reason I feel rather strongly about it
is not just a cavalier interest. It is that the
conference which I attended back in Ottawa
a number of years ago was a piece of the
most pretentious falderal I have ever had to
sit through. I cannot remember in my experi-
ence so much empty vacuous material pro-
duced in papers by quasi academics and
others to legitimize the Vanier Institute of
the Family, which has done no particular
justice to the adornments which the Minister
would wish to add to the Vanier name.
Madame Vanier has made a very significant
contribution, but throwing $500,000 to the
selected elite is hardly in the tradition of
holding the family together. It may contribute
to the financial drain which might otherwise
bring some rehabilitation to families, but it
does very little positively. I do not object to
its board being composed of members whose
average age is in the vicinity of 55, that is a
regal age, a creative and intellectually stir-
ring age in life.
It would be nice, I suppose, if a few yoimg
punks were allowed in, and I would think
that even those who suffered a sort of
quenilous senility, if they could be allowed
in on the board too, maybe would bring the
average up in the other. But I suppose an
a\crage of 55 is as good an average as one
will get from 125 from the middle and
upper classes.
But that its research has tended to remain
in areas that will not stir antipathy from any
segment of its membership, that is a real
shocker. I mean, imagine $500,000 of this
APRIL 15, 1969
;149
government to support the status quo, that
is really a departure that can barely be
tolerated in this Legislature, and I hope that
changes. However, that is just the first of
many paragraphs.
The second paragraph is an editorial which
is relevant to the session tonight. The next
comment is, "its mood"— meaning the mood
of the institute— "is best t>^pified by its past
president, Dr. Wilder Penfield, a great neuro-
surgeon". The Minister will agree? A great
neurosurgeon, probably one of the greatest,
one might say almost one of the greatest in
the world.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: A great Canadian.
Mr. Lewis: A great Canadian, right. "A
fine man," a kind of tepid adverb to throw
in, "who during his term worried tliat skirts
in Canada were drifting too high." Now, that
is obviously the thrust of the social analysis
made by the Vanier Institute.
The deterioration can be directly attributed
to tlie mini-skirt. "Last summer in a winsome
gesture of Afghanistanism, the Vanier Insti-
tute sent a man to Paris to deliver a learned
paper on the evolution of the family in
agricultural society." Now, there is something
worthy of half a million dollars. It is not
every day, Mr. Chairman, it is not just your
every-run-of-the-day during the week that
you have somebody sent to Paris to give a
paper on the evolution-
Mr. T. Reid: That is not the editorial.
Mr. Lewis: No, no, there was no sleight-of-
hand, the Minister offered this to me him-
self.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know that the hon.
member would like to have the facts correct.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Oh, do not be too sure
of that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mrs. Plumptre writes
that nobody was sent to Paris.
Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, I think they
are right, I think it was Afghanistan. I do not
think it was Paris. I think the Globe and Mail
editorial writer jumped at that point and
asumed that Paris was the capital of Afghanis-
tan when, in fact, as everyone knows, that is
not the case. But that is a question for the
Minister, not for us.
The Globe and Mail asks quite pertinently,
quite incisively, "What about Don Mills?"
meaning what about the evolution of the
family in agriculture of Don Mills. And I
want to ask the Minister, what about Don
Mills?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well done!
Mr. Lewis: Well, I would like an answer.
This is not something one throws half a mil-
lion dollars away on.
Mr. MacDonald: After all, you cannot
throw away the Minister's script.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: This is a glowing ex-
ample of constructive criticism.
Mr. Lewis: Well, is there an answer from
the Minister? About the redistribution of—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I gave the answer in
anticipation, far ahead of the member's ques-
tion. I referred him to the study made—
the Clarke Institute in the Leaside-East York
Mr. Lewis: Leaside-East York. Well, that
is really not good enough. It alienates that
area of suburbia which most agitates the
members of this Legislature, so agitates them,
in fact, that the Minister of Labour and the
Minister of Trade and Development, who
share that area, have fled the House lest the
facts that might emerge be indicated.
At present, Mr. Chairman, I know I have
your erstwhile attention, the institute has as
its major research programme, research into
other researchers and what researches tliey
have turned up. Now, I want this to register;
at present the institute has, as its major proj-
ect, a research programme into other re-
searchers and what research they have turned
up. Now there is $500,000 worth for you.
These are public funds used in the most
discriminating fashion, that is what tlie Pro-
vincial Treasurer would call economic plan-
ning and what the Minister of Social and
Family Services would term—well, I do not
know what he would term it, we have had no
terms during these estimates.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that diat kind
of revelation is of some concern. I do not
depreciate Afghanistan, heaven forbid that
anyone in this Legislature should think tliat.
Mr, Chairman: Are we still on vote 2001?
Mr. Lewis: Yes, directly. As a matter of
fact, I would have tliought, Mr. Chaimian,
that I might be wandering from the topic
but if a Minister of the Crown, in his own
estimates, gives me material to read relevant
to an item under the vote, I would not dare
to transgress his authority, so I will continue
with this editorial.
3150
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Smart Alec!
Mr. Lewis: But is this the kind of tough-
minded inquiry Canadians need into the
influences radically reshaping family life
today— the pill—
I would like to ask the Minister about tlie
pill in just a moment:
—urbanization, youth unrest and the inev-
itable relationships that grow up outside
marriage in an age of mobility? We think
not.
We think not, says the editorial. Well, what
does the Minister think? Does the Minister
tliink diat papers researching into tlie re-
search that other researchers do is an appro-
priate analysis of the disintegration of the
family, always remembering that sort of
underlying motif of half a million dollars to
this outfit, half a million dollars?
Now does not the Minister think that some
of the other topics suggested in this editorial
might be legitimate research pursuits? The
pill? Urbanization? Youth unrest? Relation-
ships that grow up outside marriage in an
age of mobility? Does the Minister think that
that would be valid?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would assume that
some of them would be, yes.
Mr. Lewis: Some of them would be. What
is tlie Vanier Institute doing about it? What
have they given to you to indicate how they
are using your $125,000?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have indicated that
for the—
Mr. Lewis: The Minister indicated that
they are endeavouring to strengthen family
hfe. Are they doing a research project on the
effect of relationships that grow up outside
marriage? Has the Minister any idea? Ob-
viously not. Or on urbanization, or on youth
unrest or on any of the others?
Well, let me move on to some of the rest
of the editorial, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chair-
man, since the Premier has l>een with us for
some minutes now, I would like to bring to
his attention the fact that it is now after
one o'clock and I wish he would tell the
House what mystical goal he has in the
recesses of his cranium that we must achieve
before he can move that the committee rise.
I think it would be worthwhile, perhaps, as
an effort to just see what the goals are so
that we can achieve them without further
punisliment.
Does the Premier wish to answer that
question? I was interested to read in tomor-
row morning's paper that he is appointing a
select coinmittee to deal with the rules. It
is interesting to read in the newspapers what
you are going to do.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I like dead debate in
dead time.
Mr. Lewis: Oh, the Premier was pretty
involved a moment ago. Well, I will not
take offence at that, Mr. Chairman, I appre-
ciate that. I know that he can rise to more
eloquent heights when the times are less
demanding.
If the Vanier Institute really wants to
contribute in a creative way to the problems
of the family, it has one avenue begging
its help, for we have in this country no
full-fledged professionally staffed school of
family life education where teachers may
be trained in this vital and demanding
discipline.
I wonder if the Minister has ever thought
about a full-fledged school of family life
education? There is a project. I am not sure
of its merit, in fact I am sure of its merit,
but I wonder if the Minister has ever thought
of advancing some funds for that.
To go on:
The need for such a school as part of &
university, or a teacher training institution,
is made more compelling by some news
from The Ontario Department of Educa-
tion. This fall, classes in family hfe educa-
tion will be available from the department
for any school in Ontario which wants to
provide them for Grades 11, 12 and 13.
They will include instruction in such
things as maturation, responsibilities in-
herent in marriage, and the importance of
assessing future marriage partners realis-
tically, not just romantically.
Ah so, to quote the Minister of Trade and
Development, but it is also in the editorial
of the Globe and Mail— ah so.
Who will teach this intelligence? In
general it will be teachers already on staff,
probably those who give gym training, but
without casting aspersions we suggest that
even the brightest physical education in-
structor who perceives that life is indeed
more than sweat and sinew simply is not
trained to teach family life courses.
APRIL 15, 1969
3151
What is required are teachers who have
made it their specialty— men and women of
sensitivity who have taken in a formal
setting the kind of courses in family life
education oflFered by growing nurribers of
United States universities.
The Vanier Institute could help to make
such an institution possible here if it would
provide some of the substantial resources
to start in. Then we will be laying the
ground work for a better understanding of
marriage in the space age and our young
people will be taught that while nothing
in life is finer than a happy home, it takes
more than romance and a ritual to achieve
Mr. MacDonald: That is a magnificent
editorial,
Mr. Lewis: It is a very good editorial, Mr,
Chairman, and I am really pleased to have
read it, I must say to the Minister. I must
also say that it reveals a great deal more
than one might wish about what the Vanier
Institute is not doing. Instead of falling for
the political plum, the easy way out of
granting large sums of money through organ-
izations which are graced by famous names,
the Minister should view pretty critically
how he speaks half a million for 125 members
of the middle and upper classes in English
and French Canada, average age of 55, no
relationship whatsoever to the people for
whom they are supposedly designing the
research programmes.
Again, Mr, Chairman, we are in the very
diflScult position in this sub-estimate of hav-
ing to vote a significant amount of money
when the Minister has refused to give us any
information, other than the reassuring homily
that recementing family life is the object of
the Vanier Institute.
It is pretty obvious, on the basis of this
Globe and Mail editorial— and it would prob-
ably be obvious on the basis of any other
materials which we sent this way— that the
Vanier Institute is not doing this at all. The
Vanier Institute is engaging in research which
at best can be described as marginal and at
worst can be described as wasteful. Having
read one of the original studies— with no dis-
respect to its author Professor Fred Elkin, am
I remembering properly?— "The Family and
something or other in the Communit>%" I
must say that as a compendium of bits and
pieces it was all right, but it served much the
same function as "The Province of Ontario,
its Social Services," put out by the Ontario
Welfare Council, and it did not cost $125,000
to finance.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the
Minister does he intend to continue these
grants, this largesse, for the Vanier Institute
beyond the four years? Has he entered into
any agreement with them, or is he tentatively
approaching any agreement with them be-
yond the present four-year period?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That commitment was
made for $125,00 a year for four years.
Mr. Lewis: There is nothing decided now?
Have you any feelings about it? Are you
getting value for your dollar? Are you look-
ing forward to entering yet another era
arm-in-arm with the Vanier Institute, walk-
ing towards the reconstructed family
together? Do you envisage God over the
horizon with the appropriate settings and
strings? Have you in fact thought that the
Vanier Institute has been sufficiently produc-
tive for you to invest further money in it?
What is your feeling at this point?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The structure of the
institute is such that it will not be necessary
to invest any more money.
Mr. Lewis: I see. The interest itself will
be sufficient to fund the projects and it will
be rotating. That may be; I am dubious. I
do not imagine it will amount to very much
money and one knows that it takes a lot of
money to keep 125 patricians happy for four
years— a great deal of money. I hope the
government will consider making yet another
magnanimous contribution.
Mr. Bullbrook: It does not take much to
keep 117 patricians?
Mr. Lewis: Well, 117 patricians; some of
us are plebeians, I might say.
Mr. Nixon: You do not include yourself in
that?
Mr. Lewis: No. I would never accept the
proposition of patrician. I had some items
on the Ontario Welfare Council but I thought
that the member for Scarborough East might
want to enter this. Perhaps he would like
this editorial?
Mr. T. Reid: No, I have read it. Mr.
Chairman, I have one very simple question.
I understand that the Minister's department
has a great deal to do with the welfare of the
Indians of Ontario. Since the grant to the
Vanier Institute from this goverrmient comes
from his department, presumably the Vanier
3152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Institute should be interested in the prob-
lems of the families of Indians. I would,
therefore, like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chair-
man, how many Indians are on that 125-
member governing council?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have the
breakdown of the membership of that insti-
tute.
Mr. T. Reid: Does this imply that the Min-
ister does not think that the problems of the
Indian family are serious problems?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think the problems
of every single family in this province are
serious ones.
Mr. T. Reid: Are the problems of a family
in Don Mills equally important to the family
problems of the Indians in this province?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001?
Mr. Brown: I would like to enquire of the
Minister— on the studies mentioned by him
that have been undertaken with the funds
contributed by this department to the Vanier
Institute, such as the family law study, is
there a report? Has this study been com-
pleted? Is there some work done to demon-
strate the usefulness of this particular study?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. No report has
been reached yet.
Mr. Brown: What about the report on the
study of the Clarke Institute?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No report of any kind
has been forthcoming yet. This is a very
recendy launched undertaking. It was incor-
porated in 1967 as a centennial project.
Mr. Brown: Up to this date, despite the
fact that you have been contributing $125,000
a year, you have no evidence that, in fact,
these studies are ongoing; that they are indeed
producing that which was set out to be pro-
duced? You are taking it for granted that
somehow, because there is a family law
study and money is being spent on it, that
this is indeed happening? You are satisfied
that that is all you need to know?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have no reason to
doubt the integrity of the people involved.
Mr. Brown: Who is involved?
Mr. Lewis: Name them.
Mr. Brown: Who is involved in the family
law study?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You are talking about
the institute itself?
Mr. Lewis: Name the institute members.
Mr. Brown: Well, who?
Mr. Lewis: Those whose integrity you do
not doubt, who are they? Name them.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The commitment was
made to the Vanier Institute in 1967 and it
was launched under the auspices of the late
Governor-General and Madame Vanier. A
commitment was made by this government at
that time for $500,000 over a period of years,
and we are going to carry out the commit-
ment.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, if I could inter-
vene by quoting the Minister's remarks in
this House on May 21, 1968, page 3157 of
Hansard, 1968. The Minister said this refer-
ring to the Vanier Institute,
The request is made, it is reviewed and then the
grant is made. I think, however, in view of the
fact that the government is getting into the pro-
vision of funds in this sector to be spent by others on
a greater scale, that this whole matter will come
under review. It would seem to me that the tax-
payers' dollar, regardless of whom it is spent by,
should be subject to the same control and same
supervision.
Yet the Minister, Mr. Chairman, has just
told us that he does not review this grant.
Mr. Lewis: That is a very, very interesting
quotation—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: These words are worth
while repeating. I still stand by them.
Mr. T. Reid: Could I ask the Minister if he
has reviewed the programme of the Vanier
Institute and on the basis of that review made
the grant of $125,000 that he is asking this
House to support?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we are
in touch with the institute and in correspon-
dence with them. We have no reason to doubt
the integrity of the people involved, that they
are not carrying out the purposes for which
the institute was set up.
Mr. Brovm: We are not questioning the
integrity of the people of the Vanier Institute.
We are questioning whether or not you are
indeed aware or concerned about the expendi-
ture of funds that are going from your depart-
ment to a specific study, as you have outlined
for us. It is not the integrity of the Vanier
Institute that we are talking about. It is your
integrity in this particular moment.
APRIL 15, 1969
3153
Mr. Lewis: What we are asking is not so
much integrity as relevance. What relevance
have these studies which the Vanier Institute
is producing, for the Minister and for his de-
partment and for society as a whole? If he
has reviewed any of the programmes, on what
has he based his critique, his review? What
is he doing, handing out a $125,000 a year—
and that is what you are doing, I mean let us
not have any flim-flam in the Legislature. We
all know what you are doing. You are writ-
ing them a cheque for $125,000 and you are
saying: Here, Vanier Institute, spend it, be-
cause I believe in your integrity.
You are not checking with them. You may
have lunch with one of the members of the
board, one of your staff may call one of their
research staif or vice versa to exchange some
information. You are just giving them $125,-
000 and you are saying: go to it. Well you
are giving $500,000 to the Vanier Institute
whose research programme is necessarily
suspect by virtue of its own propensities as a
board and membership, and you are using
$100,000 for research in your own department
about which we can elicit nothing. So, you
are already indicating to the House tonight
that you are involved in $600,000 of public
money which, to all intents and purposes, is
absolutely unaccountable.
Now again you know what kind of situation
we get into as members of the Legislature.
Why is this Minister perpetually putting us
into with this particular situation? I think it
is incumbent on you to say, what the $125,-
000 is being used for because you know your
own Cabinet colleagues would think twice
about the nature of the Vanier Institute re-
search unless they were quite pleased to give
that kind of money for the purpose of associ-
ating themselves with the great name. Maybe
they are, but when austerity is as tough as it
pretends to be, then that is a pretty irrespon-
sible piece of behaviour.
I may also say, Mr. Chairman, that it is
pretty irresponsible in the Minister's own
preoccupation, if I can put it to him that way,
that he grants $500,000 to a board which is
dominated almost exclusively by middle and
upper class English- and French-speaking
elements.
What about the third element? Putting it
to the Minister in the sense, not only is there
inherent in the board a discrimination against
the lower classes but there is inherent in the
membership based on what the Globe and
Mail editorial reveals, discrimination against
other segments of this society, segments that
are measured in other ways of a membership
of 125, how many would there be on the
board, 10, 12, 15? Do you know?
Does the Minister know how many there
are on the board of the Vanier Institute?
No, the Minister does not know. $125,000
the Minister knows well. $500,000 over four
years, he has memorized. Do you know any
of the members of the board? Can you give
the names to us in the Legislature? Do you
have it? Can you name two or three of the
senior members of the board of the Vanier
Institute? I will take my place and listen.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I can produce all of
the names for the hon member.
Mr. Lewis: You can produce them? You
are giving $500,000 in public funds and you
cannot even name a member of the board of
the institute.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mrs. Plmnptre I men-
tioned.
Mr. Lewis: Fortunately, Mrs. Plumptre
wrote to the Globe and Mail, and you had
something to hand out. I will concede Mrs.
Plumptre. Well I suppose that is a piece of
one-upmanship. I will not press you. I will
not press you to indicate to the House who
the other members are apart from Mrs.
Plumptre. But I would point out to you that
it is a closed shop. It is a pretty tight closed
shop. There are very few social agencies that
have a membership of 125, and a board of an
appreciable smaller number drawn from a
selected strata of society, and discriminating
economically and perhaps ethnically in the
process of their aotivity as well.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, I would never
have generated such feeling about the Vanier
Institute had all these facts not come to
light. But I must say, I think it is pretty
irresponsible, it may be possible that the
Minister could justify to this House what he
is spending tlie money for. It may be possible
but we wiU.! never know because like every-
thing else, he has not got the foggiest notion
of what the money is involved in.
He does not know the people to whom it
is going. He does not know the project it
is going for. He does not have any contact
with those who administer it. He has no
idea whether it has been reviewed. He does
not know whether the results are viable or
legitimate or relevant. $500,000 and the
Minister tries to sneak it through in vote 2001
at 25 after 1 in the morning, on the basis
that the members will not be informed. Well
the members are well informed. They read
the newspapers too.
3154
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I was interested
in the remarks that part of the money that
goes to the Vanier Institute is devoted to a
study on family law and research on the
problem of deserted wives.
Now it comes to my mind that the Attorney
General has told us a bit about research into
family law and the law reform commission
has embarked on a very substantial study. I
am not sure of the figure, but the figure of
$30,000 seems reasonable. I think he men-
tioned that, I could check it later. And there
is a lady named Anna Bacon Stevenson who
heads a group that is studying family law
at some substantial length. In fact at least
one large volume of—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: This is the same
group.
Mr. Singer: Well I wonder if the Minister
can tell us the relationship of the study of
the family law, whether it is being done by
the law reform commission, or by the Vanier
commission? Is there any co-ordination or are
these two separate studies?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Vanier Institute is
on a much broader basis. It covers at least
Quebec and the province of Ontario. The
Vanier Institute is a Canadian institute. It is
not limited to the provinces of Ontario and
Quebec. It is national in scope.
Mr. Singer: Well then, tlie interjection by
the Minister of Mines was incorrect again—
that it Ls all the same group. The Minister
has said it is a different group.
Hon. Mr. Lawrence: You implied that the
Attorney General had three different groups.
I was saying that the three references you
first mentioned apart from Vanier Institute
were all one, as I think you know.
Mr. Singer: No.
Mr. Sopha: They were not originally.
Mr. Singer: No, I was just asking this is
not what the Minister indicated. Now which
one of you speaks for the government? Is it
the Minister of Mines, or the Minister of
Social and Family Services? We have had two
answers in conflict. Which Minister is correct?
Perhaps the Prime Minister could intervene
and tell us which one to believe?
No, all right. I wonder if the Minister of
Social and Family Services could tell us, the
last time he discussed these problems with
tlie Attorney General who seems to have some
responsibility in this field?
An Hon. member: The Attorney General
went home in <lisgust about an hour ago.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have not as yet
been involved in those studies except on an
individual basis. But in a general study we
have not as yet l)een involved.
Mr. Singer: You have not been imolved
with what the Attorney General is doing?
Well, then, could the Minister explain to me
why, by and large, since as I understand it,
the whole question of family law is a constitu-
tional prerogative of the provinces— all except
divorce, and the federal government seems to
be looking after that— why we are spending or
allowing our money to be spent on studying
family law, say in the province of Quebec,
or even why we are spending, or allowing
our money to be spent on studying family
law, say, in the province of Quebec, or even
in the province of Manitoba, which at least
has a common law base as we do?
This is a little hard to follow, because the
family laws that we control as is our consti-
tutional right, are controlled within this
Legislature and by our own statutes. Now,
why would we be spending Ontario money to
study family law in provinces other than
Ontario.
Mr. Sopha: That is a good question.
Mr. Singer: Could the Minister answer
that?
An hon. member: There is no answer.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2001; the hon.
member for Scarborough East.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, last year the
Minister noted that: "the minute we gave a
promise of $500,000 in four equal instalments,
and so on." The question is a very simple
one. How could the Minister promise last
year to make grants of $125,000 in the next
fiscal year, which we are discussing now, and
the subsequent following two years, before
the estimates had been approved by this
Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, in
working out programmes with various agen-
cies, that often happens. It is explained to the
agency that the commitment made, is a com-
mitment by the government, but that it does
not take effect until the moneys have been
voted by the Legislature each year.
APRIL 15, 1969
3155
Mr. MacDonald: It is like the federal
grants to aid and develop competitive research
JFor the people of Ontario.
Mr. T. Reid: I understand, therefore, the
Minister's subsequent remarks on that same
page of Hansard where he said that, in
essence, that promise was a conditional prom-
ise, because unless he was satisfied that the
Vanier Institute was using its funds wisely
and the funds of this government wisely the
future grants might not be made.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the hon. member
for Scarborough West might move, and you
might second, that this amount be reduced
to a dollar and then I might not be in a posi-
tion to carry out my commitments.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: As long as that motion
carried through the House.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If it carried.
Mr. T. Reid: I conclude from the Minister's
remarks in the last half hour, Mr. Chairman,
that regardless of what the Vanier Institute
does, that this government, provided that the
Conservative Party continues to form this
government for the next three years, will con-
tinue to make grants to the Vanier Institute of
$125,000 a year regardless of their programme.
It is just going to say, "You have a great
name attached to you, and here you are, half
a million dollars, four grants of $125,000 each,
for four years, and we do not care what you
do."
Now, if that is the case, we are glad to
know it. But the Minister should not go
around saying that he is going to evaluate the
programme of the Vanier Institute to make
siu-e, what did he say, "that the taxpayer's
dollar, regardless of whom it is spent by,
should be subject to the same controls and
the same supervision as other government
programmes.
You have not reviewed the programme of
the Vanier Institute. That is what has become
so clear here this morning. You have not ex-
amined the programmes or the poUcies of the
Vanier Institute and you are just giving them
a blank cheque. I suggest, sir, Mr. Chairman,
that that type of—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: On a point of order.
Mr. T. Reid: I will just conclude my re-
marks.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: A point of order.
Mr. T. Reid: Nice to see you again.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I was told, Mr. Chair-
man, that it was put on the record that I had
gone home in disgust. I am here, Mr. Chair-
man, I stay.
Mr. Singer: He stays in disgust.
Mr. MacDonald: I apologize, I interpreted
the Attorney General's comments when he
said I cannot take any more, or I have got to
leave, or something, and I thought he was
going home in disgust, but I was wrong. I
apologize.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I could not take the
flow of what was coming from the seat behind
you.
Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact, you
missed the best part of the evening. We really
got some information from the Minister. He
gave us an editorial from the Globe which
was the best criticism of his department yet,
and we have been trying for four days to get
information from the Minister.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, in conclusion of
these remarks on the Vanier Institute, I simply
say this: That the discussion that we have
had, if one can call it a discussion; the ques-
tions that the Opposition party members have
been asking about the Vanier Institute; and
the responses of the Minister to those ques-
tions leave me with this conclusion.
The Minister is going to make this grant
of $125,000 to the Vanier Institute; he is
going to make them for the subsequent two
years regardless of what the Vanier Institute
does with that money. I, sir, as a member of
the Opposition, object to vmting blank
cheques without knowing how that money is
spent and whether the expenditure of that
money is having the desirable results in terms
of tlie Minister's policies for his own depart-
ment. I object strongly to writing blank
cheques.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2001; the hon.
member for Scarborough West.
Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a number of items,
Mr. Chairman, one on the Ontario Welfare
Council, the other on the Canada Welfare
Council, and then in terms of research and
development branch, later, I would like to
entertain the whole problem of the guaran-
teed annual income, the way in which it
affects income maintenance programmes, the
various kinds of guaranteed annual income
and what the Minister is contemplating in
that area. But before—
3156
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: A marvellous conflict of wills
here.
Mr. Lewis: Before that, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, it is twenty-
five minutes to two in the morning. This is
disgraceful.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): So it was
with the gasoline tax bill.
Mr. MacDonald: I invite anybody to read
the record and you will find it is substance
and material going on in terms of the inade-
quacies of this department.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Read about the
Last Post Fund again.
Mr. Peacock: The gasoline tax bill passed
at 1.35 a.m. in the last session.
Mr. Lewis: No, I do not have the Last
Post, I have the Ontario annual review. Mr.
Chairman, I think that the whole guaranteed
annual income thing is a pretty important
issue and in this department, probably more
important than any other in government, in
terms of what it will do to income main-
tenance programmes. I think it is worthy of
some time, and there was an earlier—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If it is worthy of some
time, then it could properly come under vote
2002.
Mr. Lewis: No, I do not want to get it
mucked into the general welfare allowances
and to mothers' allowances, etc. That is what
destroys any discussion of guaranteed annual
income. Tlie place for guaranteed annual
income is on research and planning. What
planning are you doing in that field? I would
hke to know the forms, the kinds, the alter-
natives which the Minister has contemplated
in this area? It is pretty important. One Cabi-
net Minister is already on record, I guess two
of them are on record, that this is a coming
phenomenon for the provincial Tories, and
even the federal leader of the Conservative
Party-
Mr. Sopha: Robert Stanfield is on record.
Mr. Lewis: Robert Stanfield, right.
Mr. Sopha: It was in the Prime Minister's
home town and he said-
Mr. Lewis: Right. Robert Stanfield is an
urgent devotee, almost a fanatic, of the
guaranteed annual income. If he were to
come to power tomorrow, considering the
speed at which he moves, Mr. Chairman, the
guaranteed annual income—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I think I woidd laugh
liarder if it were a little earlier.
Mr. Lewis: I would speak with more
vigour, as it were, if it were a little earlier.
Mr. Singer: I think that is u little apt.
An hon. member: Did Robert Stanfield say
diat in London?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes.
Mr. Lewis: In London, did he?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I was there on the same
platform.
Mr. Lewis: Did you share liis views?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Not exactly.
Mr. Lewis: Not exactly? Well, maybe—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is as exact a state-
ment as you will get from me.
Mr. Sopha: How many seats did he win in
London?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: None.
Mr. Sopha: You would not say it is a fertile
place for the guaranteed annual income.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We won a few.
Mr. Lewis: Is that completed now?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, you know-
Mr. Lewis: No, I am listening, I just do
not want to intrude.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I hoix' I am as enter-
taining as you are.
Mr. Lewis: You are indeed, sir. I would
not suggest otlierwise.
Mr. Sopha: You know, Dalton Camp should
be the leader of that party.
Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, I am not
really sure alwut Dalton Camp. I have often
tiiought that Da\id MacDonald, is it David
MacDonald?—
Mr. Chairman: We had better keep to
vote 2001.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask some compeUing and pertinent ques-
tions about the Ontario Welfare Council.
APRIL 15, 1969
3157
Mr. Sopha: And David Lewis should be
the leader of the other party.
Mr. Lewis: Well now, one would not wish
that on him. I would like to ask first of the
$28,000 that you-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask the Min-
ister in a very tentative way, you under-
stand—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Sit down.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Other people would like
to speak as well.
Mr. Lewis: Well, would the Premier like
to come to his feet, Mr. Chairman? Would
the first citizen like to rise and participate?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I simply said I have so
few opportunities to enter the debate here,
that when I do have an opportunity I would
like to get in, but I would be delighted to
hear the point of questions the member has
to ask about the welfare council.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: We are now getting
another example of how to waste time.
Mr. Lewis: How much of the money which
the Minister dispenses on the Ontario welfare
council goes to the Ontario Welfare Re-
porter, to the publications division?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not have a
breakdown of the grant.
Mr. Martel: You need a new record player.
Mr. Lewis: Well, I wonder, because this
journal comes to the members quite regularly
and I have always viewed it as a very suspect
kind of journal because it has nothing but
praise for the government, nothing but praise.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Would the member
send me a copy?
Mr. Lewis: No. I would not send the Min-
ister a copy lest there be material in it which
could be used in die House. But I have
always wondered what it is that draws the
Ontario welfare council so firmly into the
orbit of goverimient. What incestuous re-
lationship exists between government and the
Ontario welfare council-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lewis: You understand — most meta-
phorical of terms— to allow the Ontario wel-
fare council to hand out such perpetual
accolades to the government? But there was,
not so long ago, in the Ontario Welfare
Reporter a major article relating to the
Minister's department as a whole, to the
basic policy discussion on it, and to guaran-
teed annual income, entitled "More money
would help". It was written by Margaret
Cragg. The Minister will know Margaret
Cragg.
I want to read sections from that into the
record prior to some remarks on the guaran-
teed annual income. Margaret Cragg begins:
Wars on poverty have been declared
before, even if not waged very actively,
but in Canada and the United States at
present it seems that peaks of aflSuence
and social conscience have coincided to a
degree that will mean a serious attempt
to see that no one lives in destitution.
Opinions as to methods differ. In both
countries main lines of attack are being
directed at the roots of poverty, lack of
education, of opportunity, of good health
and decent housing. But many social
scientists, family agencies and the poor
themselves hold that what the poor chiefly
■ need is more money.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Is that the NDP theory
or is it not?
Mr. Lewis: I am capable of making the
distinction between those who are on allow-
ances and those who are also considered poor.
They incorporate a group rather larger than
100,000 in Ontario— 25 per cent of over
seven million comes to something more than
100,000.
Transferring money from those who
have it to those who need it may be done
by private charity or through taxes, the
latter in several ways; public assistance
programmes administered by welfare de-
partments; social security financed by con-
tributions from earnings; negative income
tax; guaranteed minimum income and
universal payments such as old age secur-
ity and family allowances. Public charity
has long been recognized as inadequate.
Public assistance has l)een attacked as in-
adequate and destructive of dignity. Social
security is said to leave unhelped those
who need it most. It is the in-thing to
plump for negative income tax or guaran-
teed income. To clarify our own under-
standing of what they mean, we have been
delving into some recent writings on
3158
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
negative income tax, guaranteed income
and increased family allowances with
particular reference to families.
Now, on the negative income tax, this is
what Margaret Cragg says:
Each of the proponents of the negative
income tax approach to income main-
tenance believed that his plan would be
an improvement over present machinery
for aiding the poor. It would put a mini-
mum income floor imder the poor—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, I suggest again that if the
hon. member is going to get into a whole
embarkation on the guaranteed annual in-
come, that that should properly be discussed
under vote 2002.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And, besides, it is a
long opening speech.
Mr. Lewis: Hardly, I am just quoting in
moderation from a short article.
Mr. Chairman, I made it clear that I
wanted to discuss this in the area of research
and planning, but I can do it another way.
I can do it another way which will perhaps
satisfy the Minister.
I would like to ask the Minister, under his
research and plaiming branch, what thought
has been given to a guaranteed annual in-
come. What specifically has been done by
way of any research study? Whether, if it has
been done, that study can be granted to the
Legislature, tabled in the House; and whether
the study indicated for the Minister an
avenue to implement the guaranteed annual
income which the Provincial Treasurer and
the Minister of Revenue have committed
themselves to?
Could the Minister take some time to indi-
cate his position on the guaranteed annual
income and what work is being done in the
research and planning branch?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated earlier-
Mr. Sopha: Will you wake up the Minister
of Tourism? He is cheating.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko:— in discussion earlier,
that the research and planning branch is
going to evaluate for our definite information
all of the proposals which have been made
in this field. I would not want myself to be
in the same position was as the hon. member
for Scarborough Centre, (Mrs. M. Renwick),
who must have gone home early to get
refreshed for tomorrow. She had embraced it
without examining it too closely and made a
statement in this House that she regretted
her complete embracement of it.
Mr. MacDonald: What has the Minister
embraced or examined?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We will take a position
with respect to the specific after we have
made a complete study of the matter.
Mr. Lewis: The Minister committed him-
self to a guaranteed annual income. Inciden-
tally, the member for Scarborough Centre is
not here for very good reasons. The Minister
has committed himself to the guaranteed
annual income. Surely he has explored some
of the formulae; could he share some of
that with us? What does he mean by guaran-
teed annual income? Let me ask him that.
Mr. Maitel: Somebody had better tell him.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I am
surprised that the hon. member is uninformed
about this matter. I am surprised; I am
shocked.
Mr. Mr. Lewis: I am wholly ignorant.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member has
been speaking for three or four years about a
matter of which he knows nothing. Why, I
am surprised!
Mr. Lewis: I am wholly ignorant.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am shocked. I am
startled. So httle knowledge and he has been
talking for so many years, Mr. Chairman.
There are many views. There have been
views expressed by individuals such as Dr.
Willard, the Economic Council of Canada;
there is the Friedman theory-
Mr. MacDonald: What about the views of
the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: My views will be made
when this department is charged with the
responsibility of putting into eff^ect some sort
of a plan. But I will say this to the hon.
member, that I was surprised, too, that the
AFL/CIO rejected proposals of guaranteed
income or a negative income tax. This is the
AFL/CIO of the United States of America
that I have always accepted as being in the
forefront of social reform. I can say this to
the hon. member; before I take a position
that you can pin me down on it, I will know
a lot more, based on scientific research on it.
Mr. Lewis: Through you, Mr. Chairman, if
the Minister thinks that George Meany is in
APRIL 15, 1969
3159
the forefront of social reform, then he should
think again.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He represents 14 mil-
lion members.
Mr. Lewis: So be it. Perhaps from Walter
Reuther and the United Auto Workers one
would get a statement considering the Amer-
ican labour movement, in support of the
guaranteed annual income, but from George
Meany, that is not a likely prospect so it
need cause—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is probably a
fascist, imperialist warmonger.
Mr. Lewis: He is not a warmonger. You
would not accuse him of that, but it need
cause the Minister no concern. Surely, the
Minister has given some thought to the
negative income tax, for instance. What are
his views on the negative income tax as a
methodology?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is worthwhile study-
ing.
Mr. Lewis: It is worthwhile studying. What
is it that is worthwhile studying?
An hon. member: Negative income tax.
Mr. Lewis: Can you, in view of the un-
information on this side, explain how the
negative income tax works in terms of the
guaranteed annual income? What it is that
the government is thinking of? What is it that
is worth studying about it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All aspects of it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, again
I am appalled at the lack of information on
the part of the member.
Mr. Lewis: Give it to me.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The member for Scar-
borough West knows so little about a subject
matter on which he has been talking for at
least three years, probably longer. I think it
is four years ago I heard him make the first
remarks in respect of this field. There are
various approaches and I say this, that if the
goal is to redistribute income to do away
with poverty, it has yet to be proven in a
scientific way that any adoption of the plans
as proposed by the hon. member in this
House would bring about the very purposes
which he has mouthed.
Mr. MacDonald: You are condemning
Stanfield.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am not sold, holus-
bolus 100 per cent on the facts that you
subscribe to the position, that this is the
end-all and be-all of social problems in this
field.
Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is the
Provincial Treasurer and the Minister of
Revenue who have been advocating a guar-
anteed annual income as the sort of final end
of the government white paper. They have
made it very clear that that is the direction
in which your government is heading.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not the way you put
it.
Mr. Lewis: It is perfectly legitimate for
this Minister— the most inappropriate Minister
in the Cabinet to do so— to cast aspersions on
the guaranteed annual income as a goal.
That is fine for the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I did not cast asper-
sions.
Mr. Lewis: Obviously you did. You are
not sure whether or not—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: When a group repre-
senting 14 million union members has some
doubts cast upon it, when the hon. member
for Scarborough Centre wished that she had
not embraced it as readily as she did, her
position alone would have made me stop and
look. Mr. Chairman, on a point of order
again, I say that if we are going to get into
the aspects of the guaranteed annual income,
it belongs properly under vote 2002 which
relates to maintenance programmes.
Mr. Lewis: That is just going to get us
into a hassle on vote 2002. We might just as
well finish it up here. It is not likely to be
that much longer.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Lewis: I hesitate to come to their
defence, but the AFL-CIO may have dis-
missed the negative income tax because it
was a Milton Friedman Tory idea at the
outset. And they may have dismissed the
guaranteed minimum income, not the guar-
anteed annual income, but the guaranteed
minimum income, because it did not com-
mend itself to them either. But there are
other avenues like the demogrant and others—
the Minister will be familiar with them—
which that particular body may well yet
adopt as a formula. It is not an objection to
it in principle, at least, I do not believe so.
It certainly is rather slower than one would
wish, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, that
3160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
no one suggested our plans were anything
but but fallible. Any plans that were put for-
ward on this side for the guaranteed annual
income were put forward in a tentative
fashion.
One would like to know the various
alternatives which you are studying. You
say you will not make your decision until
you have a scientific study. You have indi-
cated for the first time tonight, since this
issue was raised, that there is part of the
Treasury Board which may be resisting a
guaranteed annual income, namely, yourself.
Your colleagues, on all other occasions in
this House, have been pretty firm about it
being the eventual goal of the financial policy
in the white paper, but you have expressed
apprehension about it. Perhaps, because
Opposition speakers advanced it.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member
would keep to the vote.
Mr. Lewis: I would like to know in the
research and planning area, Mr. Chairman— it
is a perfectly legitimate question — which
kinds of avenues to the guaranteed annual
income is the Minister's personnel studying?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would assume that
they would study all kinds-
Mr. Deans: You would assume, do you not
know?
Mr. Lewis: Do you not know what they
are studying? Have they submitted any
tentative first report to you at all?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. I asked that a
complete study be made of the whole field.
Mr. Lewis: When will that study be ready,
can you tell the House?
Mr. Deans: When did it start?
Mr. Lewis: Will it be 1980? You do not
know. It may be 1980. Has it begun?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, it has. I have
(explained to the House, to the committee,
Mr. Chairman, that late last year the
personnel of the research and planning
branch were brought on staff. They have
been given assignments. They have got a
platter full. They will do their very best in
all the fields that have been assigned to them,
and their studies will be made known to the
government.
Mr. Lewis: I acknowledge that it is pretty
late and it is not the most effervescent hour
to discuss the guaranteed annual income, but
just let me say in passing, Mr. Chairman, it
is fantastic that the Minister assigns a re-
search department to study the guaranteed
annual income and all methods of achieving
it and has not obviously sat down with them
to discuss some of the different alternatives
and some of the different emphases. You are
the Minister of Social and Family Services.
You are, more than any other Minister of
the Crown, affected by the emergence of a
guaranteed annual income in this province.
In terms of research and planning it is the
highest priority you have to attend to, and
you are not willing to stand up in the Legis-
lature and share with us the various avenues
and approaches that you have instructed your
research officers to take a look at. I suspect
that the reason you are unwilling to do that
is because you have said to them, "Here
fellows, go out and prepare a study on the
guaranteed annual income and I, as Minister,
will parrot the responses when you have
given them to me."
As always, the LegisJature is the least
important of the triad. The civil service dic-
tates the policy, or corporate interest dictates
the policy, but as so often has been adverted
to in this House, the Minister and the
government receive the policy and then trot
it out on the floor of the Legislature, and
that is what you are saying to us now.
You cannot indicate to us whether the
negative income tax is something they are
studying, whether the minimum income is
something they are studying, whether the
demogrant is something they are studying,
what in your mind at the moment is the
better Hst of priorities, what you think you
might hope to come to. None of it.
You are just willing to say to us. "I have
launched a study and I, as Minister, have
not even talked to them about the natm-e of
the study and what they hope to achieve."
I just cannot comprehend the way you are
allowing this department to run amuck. It is
also running afoul of a great many shoals,
and there is no particular reason that a
department should be so man-handled. Why
cannot a department give more information
about itself and have more relevance in what
it is doing?
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2001; the hon.
member for Wentsvorth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I have been
thinking back to the discussion that I held
with the Minister yesterday in regard to the
demonstration projects, and the more I think
about the discussion that we held and the
APRIL 15. 1969
3161
debate between the member for Scarborough
West and the Minister on that very same
item, the more cx)nvinced I am that the
Minister does not have any real reason, any
real justification, for asking this House for
$100,000.
Before I deal with that, I would like to
turn for a moment to a matter which has not
yet been discussed today, and use as an
example in raising once again the matter of
the review board. This item was brought to
my attention.
Mr. Lawlor: And what is a review board?
Mr. Deans: A review board? I will explain
it to you in a moment.
Mr. Lawlor: It seems to have enormous
possibihties.
Mr. Deans: You see what has happened
here. Well, it is a matter that has not yet
been discussed.
Mr. Lawlor: We have not really gone into
the subject yet.
Mr. Deans: No. What I want to suggest
Is this. I have an incident here of a resident
of this province who has been forced by this
government to exist on his wife's old age
pension. What happened in this particular
instance was that he had been in receipt of a
welfare allowance.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. I think the matter on which
die member has embarked should be dis-
cussed under vote 2002.
Mr. Deans: No. I might point out, Mr.
Chairman, speaking to the point of order,
that what I intend to do is to indicate to
the House that had this review board been
properly publicized he would have been able
to appeal to it and thereby would not be
suffering the indignity and hardships he is
presently suffering. Takirvg that into con-
sideration, and disregarding the Minister's
point of order, I would Uke to point out
what has happened in this particular instance.
Here is an elderly couple-
Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. member refer-
ring to the review board again?
Mr. Deans: Yes, oh, yes.
Some hon. members: That has passed.
Mr. Deans: I think it is necessary. I think
that my colleague from Sudbury raises a very
interesting point that perhaps if the appeal
were made in the presence of the Prime
Minisiter, then maybe he would put some
pressure on the Minister of Social and Family
Services to go along with all reasonable
requests.
What has happened here is that this elderly
couple were in receipt of some welfare
assistance and they were cut off. When we
attempted in this caucus to enquire why they
were cut off, there was no obvious reason
other than it just was not available. The
answer that he got and that we got was that
they were just going to have to be able to
live on the wife's Canada pension plus the
supplement which is in the amount of $112
per month. What I want to say first is that
that is, even by Tory standards, surely, much
below what would be considered adequate
for two persons to exist in this province. I
think that even the Conservative members
would have to agree.
Mr. Martel: Do not count on it.
Mr. Deans: And itheir government is pre-
pared to force these kinds of conditions on
the i)eople, elderly people, of this province.
Well, that is fine. That may well be a
discussion that we will carry on with in the
next vote.
What I do want to point out is this, that
had the Minister taken the reasonable step,
at the time the review board was instituted,
of informing all welfare recipients of the
right to appeal, then. Of course, this gentle-
man would have had that right, would have
been able to appeal and, quite possibly, he
would have received a favourable hearing
and might not have been subjected to this
condition. It is just another example of what
is happening right across this province.
I suggest to the Minister, as I look back
on 8 p.m. yesterday when I first rose to
discuss this, that even if he would at this
late hour agree that he would notify all
recipients of welfare— perhaps by letter as
was suggested or perhaps by any other means,
I do not care— of the right to appeal, we can
ehminate this sort of thing from occurring.
We can do away with it entirely. Now
surely the Minister, tired though he must be,
can see this, can see the vahdity of this posi-
tion. Surely he can understand the need and
surely it is not too much to ask. If the Min-
ister intends to say, as he said before, that
everything will be taken into consideration,
that is totally inadequate. Because, taking
everything into consideration does not guaran-
tee us that anything will happen.
I would like to go again to the demonstra-
tion projects, item niunber 8. It seems to me
3162
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as I sat listening to the debate carry on last
evening and this morning, that the Minister
just does not have any knowledge of the areas
in which the $100,000 which he is requesting
is to be expended. I have made the point
before. The Minister has tried but he is just
totally inadequate as a Minister. The time is
obviously near when we must take steps to
replace him, but I want to say-
Mr. Chairman: Surely the hon. member
has mentioned all these things before and the
hon. Minister replied—
Mr. Deans: That is right. I am going to
say something new. I move that item 8 be
reduced to the sum of $1.
Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member
please provide me with a written motion?
Mr. Deans: I have done so. It is on its
way.
Mr. Chairmen: I do not have it yet.
Mr. Deans moves that item 8 of vote 2001
be reduced to the sum of $1. Those in favour
of the motion will please say "aye". Those
opposed will please say "nay". In my opinion
the "nays" have it. Call in the members. All
those in favour of Mr. Dean's motion will
please rise. All those opposed will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 24, the "nays" are 40.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost,
item 8 is carried.
Vote 2001, the hon. member for Riverdale.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have not
had an opportunity to deal with the question
of the review board.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. Renwick: I understand from my
colleagues, not having been here during the
early part of yesterday evening, that a good
portion of the matters related to the review
board have already been dealt with. I do not
intend to go into it at any length, but I think
perhaps it would be appropriate at this hour
of this morning to draw to the attention of
the ministry, and particularly to the attention
of the Prime Minister, what this has been all
about since some time before the Easter
recess.
I may say that I will perhaps ask the Attor-
ney General, a litde later on, to read into the
record the poem which he was kind enough
to inscribe, shall I say in my honour or
memory-
Mr. Chairman: Does it have to do with
vote 2001?
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes it does, Mr. Chair-
man. The issue which has provoked this very
long debate in the assembly on this first vote
is simply whether or not the government is
prepared to give a commitment of reasonable
assurance that the applicants and recipients
of entitlements under The General Welfare
Assistance Act and under The Family Bene-
fits Act will receive from the government and
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices, or through The Department of Social
and Family Services through the welfare ad-
ministrators in the municipalities throughout
the province, a notice in whatever form is
acceptable to the government, advising those
persons that in each of their individual cases
they have, should they wish to exercise it, the
right to appeal the decision of the director, or
the decision of the welfare administrator, to
the review board which was established by
legislation passed last year by amendment to
The Famly Benefits Act and to The General
Welfare Assistance Act.
My colleague, the member for Lakeshore,
made the point— I cannot use his exact words
—but that an unknown right, a right of
which a person has no knowledge, is not a
right. While it is perhaps not entirely within
the context of his remarks, there is one sen-
tence by Mr. Justice McRuer which I think is
very appropriate to the position which the
government has taken on the issue, which I
say has provoked this rather lengthy debate.
Mr. Justice McRuer says:
History is replete with pious declarations
of rights that have had little recognizable
application to a large segment of the
society to which they are supposed to
apply.
That is what the government has done, to
pass a bill which provides for a board of re-
view and they will not give the very people
who are entitled to have the benefit of that
board of review the simplest form of notice
advising them that they have those rights,
the right to appeal to a board of review.
My colleague for Scarborough West spoke
about the guaranteed annual income. In the
rhetoric of the day, you gradually lose all
meaning about what the guaranteed annual
income is about, because all political parties
have attempted to pre-empt it for their own
field. I want the Minister to understand that
I am not talking in this particular instance
about the kind of people who are of concern
to him in the sense that they may not per-
haps work, and he thinks that perhaps they
APRIL 15, 1969
3163
should work. Under The General Welfare
Assistance Act you have something verging
upon an obligation to work enforced through
that statute.
I am talking about people who have not got
the capacity or the ability in economic terms,
through disabilities which are no fault of
theirs no matter how you cut it, to earn a liv-
ing to participate in the economic life of
society. A guaranteed annual income, if it has
any meaning, means that persons are to be in
receipt of a money income sufficient to enable
them to live in dignity. Strangely enough the
article by Mr. Justice McRuer happens to be
headed "The Right to Live in Dignity".
Mr. Chairman: It has been pointed out by
the hon. Minister that this could more
properly be discussed under maintenance
under the next vote — guaranteed annual
incx)me.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the Minis-
ter may point that out. I want to complete the
reference to the board of review, that is all
I am speaking about. What this government
is doing under The Family Benefits Act, is
providing people with a pittance by which
they cannot live; they certainly cannot live
in the city of Toronto, certainly in my riding
of Riverdale.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, that matter comes quite
properly under vote 2002.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the Minis-
ter can say it comes under vote 2002; I am
talking about the board of review.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You are not talking
about the board of review.
Mr. Sopha: He certainly is.
Mr. Stokes: You mean, in your opinion, he
is not talking about the board of review.
Mr. J. Renwick: I am simply saying to the
Minister that his department is simply ad-
ministering a statute which is providing
money to people who cannot participate in
our society, and the people are not able
to live properly on the number of dollars
which they receive.
Interjections by hon, member.
Mr. J. Renwick: The member over here
obviously is not interested in the problem;
perhaps he should leave the House and come
back at some other time.
What I am saying, Mr, Chairman, is that
those persons are entitled to have even this
rudimentary form of appeal to find out
whether or not the way in which this
government administers The Family Benefits
Act is being carried out properly.
An hon. member: You have asked that 100
times.
Mr. MacDonald: We have not had one
answer yet.
Mr. J. Renwick: I want the government to
understand that the object of the exercise is
to extract from the government a reasonable
assurance, in simple language, that within
the reasonable future the government will
give notice in whatever way they see fit,
advising each recipient and each applicant
under The General Welfare Assistance Act
and under The Family Benefits Act that they
are entitled to take their case to the Board
of review. That is all we have asked. That
is all we want, I would like to suggest that
perhaps now is the time for the Minister to
give us that reasonable assurance, then we
can pass the vote, and go on to either the
next vote or go home.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Hansard will be in-
teresting reading to find out what assurances
have been requested from that side and the
great variety, I say to the hon, member
that we want to make the Act work. We
want to make the board of review work and
I do give the assurances, I have been assuring
all day that it is the intent and purpose of
the department to make sure that everybody
becomes aware of his right to the board of
review because otherwise the board of review
cannot work, I accept the fact that in order
to have the board of review operate, the
people who are entitled to make the appeal
should be aware of that, and I give that
assurance, as I have been giving it.
Interjections by hon, members.
Mr. Lewis: While there is such a large and
defensive audience, Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to share with the Minister the thought
that had that been done, had he even con-
descended to say what he has said just now
prior to Easter, then 10 to 12 hours of this
debate need never have taken place—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have been saying it
for the past 12 hours-
Mr. Lewis: Just because I repeated one
word that the hon, member used—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is exactly the
position I have taken—
Interjections by hon. members.
3164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lewis: As the Minister says, in his
own inimitable phraseology, the record will
show— Hansard will bear us out. Indeed it
will, because we have listened very carefully
to the wording. It seems a pity that one has
to take so long to wrest such a marginal con-
cession from the Minister. Now that it has
been done on this vote, then the whole vote
makes sense and one can move on perhaps
to another.
Vote 2001 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
of supply rise and report progress and ask
for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Spveaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Rei>ort agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): To-
morrow's sitting or today's sitting or what-
ever—when next we meet— I will move the
motion to go into supply and I believe there
will be an amendment moved by the leader
of the Opposition. We will vote on that at
ten to six. There will be no session tomorrow
night but I cannot guarantee the rest of the
Wednesdays.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjourmnent
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to suggest that
when the House meets again as a House that
the members, imtil there is a resolution passed,
be properly dressed in accordance with
customs and traditions of the House. Ck>m-
mittee may be different. I would suggest that
so that no further action be necessary.
The House adjourned at 2.35 o'clock a.m.
No. 85
ONTARIO
Hegiglature of (I^ntario
Bebatcg
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, April 16, 1969
speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 16, 1969
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 3167
Debate on an amendment to the motion that the House resolve itself into committee of
supply, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Pitman, Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Good, Mr. Young, Mr. Mc-
Keough, Mr. T. Reid, Mr. Martel, Mr. White, Mr. Spence, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Farquhar,
Mr. Bullbrook, Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Davis 3171
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3205
3167
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
at the outset may I raise a point of order
about these petitions?
Mr. Speaker: I would think that, in view
of the limited time which we have for im-
portant matters today, the hon. member might
wish to deal with that tomorrow.
Mr. Sopha: This is a very important mat-
ter and I promise you that I will be brief. I
would like to ask you, sir, upon what basis
these petitions to the Divine Being proceed?
Surely this is a collective exercise, out of
respect, by all of us? I would like to ascer-
tain from you upon what basis we began to
participate in this shuttling back and forth
from day to day, from the Tudor age to the
present? I though this matter had been set-
tled and these old prayers had been put aside
once and for all.
I would like to find out what the basis of
them is. Are they statutory? Are they the
result of a collective empathy of all of us?
In other words, do you have the right, as
the Speaker of the House, to determine from
day to day whether we will make this trans-
ference back to the year 1539 when Henry
VIII had these prayers written?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is becom-
mg very verbose; he promised he would not.
I would be glad to take his point under ad-
visement and discuss it with him at a later
date, either in the House or privately.
Mr. Sopha: I wish you could settle it once
and for all. I am asking you to do that.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has asked
me and I have advised him as to how I in-
tend to deal with it.
Our visitors today in the east gallery are
from St. Jerome Separate School in Downs-
view; and in the west gallery from Burlington
Central High School in Burlington.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Wednesday, April 16, 1969
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health) j^
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act ^
to amend The Medical Services Insurance
Act, 1965.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order; at the time the
bill was withdrawn, I raised the question
with you— I did not quote any authority— as ||
to whether or not, once a bill has been with- E
drawn in a sessio'n, it can rightfully be re- \
introduced in the same session. As I recall,
you undertook to ascertain whether there was
such a ruling and what the practice was and
to advise us.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have done that and I
will be glad, since I did not bring the ruling
with me today, to give it to the House to-
morrow. But there is no such precedent or
rule which prevents the introduction of this
bill at this time in the manner in which it is
produced. I will be glad to bring it tomor-
Today, there were other events occurring
before the House and there is a rather large
debate to follow, so if the hon. member will
allow me to accept it, I assure him that there
is a ruling which I can and will give.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, we are not opposed to first reading
of this bill, but precedence indicates that
amendments are possible. Therefore, I move,
seconded by Mr. Lewis, that all the words
after the first "that" to the end of the ques-
tion be deleted and the following words
substituted:
This House, recognizing the embarrass-
ment to which the government are admit-
tedly exposed in the framing and conduct
of the unilateral increase in the fee sched-
ule as set out by the Ontario Medical Asso-
ciation and owing to the absence of any
3168
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
effort on the part of the government to
roll back medical fees in a manner consis-
tent with public policy, declines to give
leave for the introduction of the bill to
amend The Medical Care Insurance Act.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me,
while you are receiving some advice— it ap-
pears that while the amendment is an inter-
esting one, it might have been worded in a
more efficacious way; if, in fact, the bill
could have been sent to committee so that
the doctors might have had an opportunity
to attempt to justify their request, it would
have been much more useful. It appears
to me that the wording of the amendment
negates the introduction of the bill and that
the recourse on this side is to vote against
first reading. Of course, if you say that it is
in order, we will support the NDP in this,
but my own feeling is that the introduction
of this bill puts it on the floor of the House.
I would prefer it if the bill would be sent to
the standing committee dealing with medical
matters so that the Ontario Medical Associa-
tion would be required to appear before a
body of this Legislature in an attempt to
justify the changes in this schedule.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may beg
your indulgence for a moment, sir.
As the seconder of the motion, we had
given some thought to this and you will
note that in "Parliamentary Procedure in On-
tario", in Lewis, rule 54 says:
When any bill shall be presented by a
member in puruance of an order of the
House the question tliat this bill be now
read a first time shall be decided without
amendment or debate.
We wish to clarify that we are not objecting
to the first time reading of the bill. What we
are objecting to is precisely what the Minister
need say before he introduces it— that leave
be given to introduce a bill. It is entirely
in order at this point in the debate to
introduce the motion which has been intro-
duced by my leader.
You will note on page 53 of Lewis, that
privilege is given to oppose at this juncture
in time, first, this particular aspect of leave
being given to introduce a bill. I would
submit to you that there are no rules or con-
straints, particularly in this Legislature, about
leave being given to introduce. So we turn
to May's "Parliamentary Practice". In the 17th
edition, at page 510, under the title "Motions
for leave to bring in a bill", the following
is said:
In moving for leave to introduce a bill
a member may explain the object of the
bill and give reasons for its introduction,
but normally this is not the proper time for
any lengthened debate upon its merits. If
the motion be opposed, or if there is a
likelihood of its being negated and no
further occasion arising for discussion, or
if there are grounds of urgency, this oppor-
tunity may be taken for a full exposition
of the character and objects of the bill—
And so on:
—obviously indicating that motion for leave
to bring a bill as distinct from first reading
of the bill is a qualitative parliamentary dis-
tinction which has been recognized by
British parliamentary practice.
On page 511, the rules then go on to say
rather interestingly that:
Amendments have been made or pro-
posed to a question for leave to bring in
a bill, either hostile to the motion or to
effect the alteration thereof.
I appreciate the words of the leader of the
Opposition. I will research, sir, all the vari-
ous precedents in this regard in order to
find a way of drafting the amendment, which
would fall fair-square on May's Parliamentary
Procedure relating to motion for leave to
bring in a bill. The Speaker will be inter-
ested to know that the precedent which
relates most directly, is a precedent of this
century, of the year 1909, in the Journals of
the House of Commons at page 115, which
reads as follows:
A motion was made and the question
being proposed that leave be given to bring
in a bill to terminate tlie establishment of
the Church of England in Wales and
Monmouthshire and to make provision in
respect of the temporalities thereof, and
for otlier purposes in connection with the
matter aforesaid.
An amendment was proposed to be
made to the question by leaving out from
the word "that" to the end of tlie question,
and adding the words, "this House recog-
nizing the embarrassment to which the
government are admittedly exposed in tlie
framing and conduct of the measure, and
owing to the absence of official informa-
tion on the questions which have been
submitted to the Royal commission on the
church in Wales, declines to give leave for
the introduction of a bill to disestablish
and disendow the church in Wales". The
APRIL 16, 1969
3169
question being put that the words proposed
to be left out stand part of the question, the
House then divided.
I could adduce precedents, Mr. Speaker,
from the years 1860, 1841, 1851, 1881, and
so on, which indicated-
Mr. Nixon: All from the House of
Commons.
Mr. Lewis: —all from the House of
Commons, yes, which indicate that the
negativing of the intention to introduce,
leave being given to introduce or the amend-
ing thereof, is entirely appropriate within
the context of British parHamentary pro-
cedure. We have chosen a wording which
directly parallels the most significant recent
precedent. The matter has also been raised
as recently as the 1950s in the British House
of Commons, debate has taken place and
the Speaker has permitted such introduction.
Having made that point of order, Mr.
Speaker, and the distinction, which I think
is important in this case— since the rules of
this House, as they stand, do not directly deal
with the distinction between leave to intro-
duce and first reading— I suggest to you, sir,
that the other precedent should prevail and
this motion is therefore in order.
Mr. Singer: May I address a remark to this
point of order? I have listened to the hon.
member for Scarborough West with some
special attention. It is interesting that he has
to go back to the year 1909 to find a prece-
dent. He glibly slid over 1950 without estab-
lishing any precedent, without quoting any
words at all. But I suggest that we only go
back to the practice in the House of Com-
mons in England when we have not got some-
thing in in our own rule book.
I draw your attention, as did the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough West, to what rule 54
said, and it says:
When any bill shall be presented by a
member in pursuance of an order of the
House, the question that this bill be now
read a first time shall be decided without
amendment or debate.
I would say, sir, that notwithstanding what the
House of Commons in Westminster might
have done in 1909, this House, for better or
worse, at some time passed rule 54, which is
binding on us, and therefore we do not have
to search back into precedent. In addition to
that, sir, I refer you to a comment of Lewis
at the bottom of page 52, wliich is prior to
the portion quoted by the member for Scar-
borough West, and while this is not a ruling.
this is a commentary by Lewis, and we have
accepted that prior to going back into what
happens in Westminster. He says, under rule
54:
A motion for first reading of a bill must
be decided by the House without amend-
ment or debate, but by common consent a
practice has developed in the case of gov-
ernment measures of allowing the Minister
introducing a bill to give a short explana-
tion of its purpose; in fact the Opposition
generally expects such explanation from
members of the government. With this ex-
ception, all debate on the principle of the
bill is deferred until the motion is made
for its second ruling.
So that, in addition to what we have in this
book, we are bound secondly— I would say in
order of precedence— by our own customs,
and if we cannot find anything in our rules,
and the commentaries on them, by our own
customs, then, as a third choice, we go back
to Westminster. I suggest to you, sir, that the
member for Scarborough West has made the
poorest choice to find a precedent.
And finally, sir, notwithstanding what some-
one may have said in 1909 in Westminster—
as I understand the common English mean-
ing of the words that the people from the
third party have moved in amendment, if in
effect this amendment is accepted^the intro-
duction of the bill is completely negatived.
So they are trying, by means of subterfuge,
to prevent the government from its right,
established in the rules, established by prece-
dent and established by custom, to introduce
a bill.
I say that the government has the absolute
right to introduce the bill and the bill has to
take its normal course. If the bill fails later,
or is amended later, that is what will happen.
For those reasons, I submit that the amend-
ment is completely out of order, and should
be so dealt with by this House.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, the last remarks from the member
for Downsview finally indicated his apprecia-
tion of the distinction that we are attempting
to make to you, and that is that we are not
discussing first reading of the bill, or raising
any points of order whatever about first read-
ing of the bill.
We are framing an amendment to a motion
moved by the hon. Minister of Health asking
for leave to introduce a bill. And that is an
entirely and distinct separate motion from the
one which you yourself would have stated
later in the procedures on first reading— that
3170
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the bill now be read a first time. The sub-
stantive portion of the motion moved by tlie
hon. Minister of Health, to which the amend-
ment by the hon. member for York South
applies, is the first portion of it, that leave
be given to introduce a bill.
As the member for Scarborough West has
pointed out there are precedents, in the jour-
nals of the House of Commons, and also in
the parliamentan,' procedure of Ontario, edited
by the Clerk of this House, in which he states
that whereas it is traditional that no debate
or vote take place on the first reading of a
bill, there is no objection to the effort to
negative the attempt by a member of the
House or Minister of the House to introduce
a bill, for the purpose of having it read the
first time.
Relying on the editorial opinion of the
Parliamentary Procedure in Ontario and the
precedents in Erskine May, and those in the
Commons Journals and Debates of the House
of Commons in London, which are made in
May, we think that the amendment moved by
the hon. member for York South is quite in
order and the remarks of both the member
for Downsview and the hon. leader of the
Opposition are those remarks which would
properly be made after you have put the
question that has been moved by the hon.
member for York South.
Mr. Lewis: One footnote point of order,
Mr. Speaker. There have been very recent
precedents, the most recent being in February,
1954, in the House of Commons, where a
similar procedure was accepted by the
Speaker. The debate at that point was
whether or not a debate could follow. We
did not use that, sir, because the wording,
to use the word of the leader of the Opposi-
tion, was rather more efficacious in the earlier
amendment than it was in this one.
Mr. Speaker: I must confess that the hon.
member for York South and the members
for Scarborough West and Windsor West
have done a very considerable amount of re-
search and I am grateful to them for the in-
formation which they have brought to Mr.
Speaker and to the House with respect to
the procedures in the United Kingdom.
I myself, of course, shall adopt the posi-
tion so well put by tlie leader of the Opposi-
tion. In this House the rule is an Ontario
rule that two motions by custom and prece-
dent have been handled together; there is no
distinction between them. The proper way to
deal with the particular motion by the Hon.
Mr. Dyinond is to vote against the motion
for first reading.
An amendment which is merely a negative
of that particular motion is in my opinion,
out of order and I would so rule that the
amendment is out of order and that the
motion as it has been presented to me, and
as I will tlien present it to tlie House, stands
for the action of tlie members in accordance
with the mles of this House, and the prece-
dents that have been established over the
years for dealing with this as a joint motion,
leave to introduce and first reading.
The motion is by Mr. Dymond, seconded
by Mr. Stewart, that leave be given to in-
troduce a bill intituled, An Act to amend The
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, and
that the same be now read for the first time.
The House divided on the motion which
was agreed on the following vote:
Ayes Nays
Allan Braithwaite
Apps Breithaupt
Auld Brown
Bales Bukator
Belanger Bullbrook
Bemier Burr
Brunelle Davison
Carmthers Deacon
Davis Deans
Demers De Monte
Dymond Edighoffer
Evans Farquhar
Gilbertson Ferrier
Gomme Gaunt
Grossman Gisborn
Guindon Good
Haskett Haggerty
Henderson Innes
Hodgson Jackson
(Victoria- Knight
Haliburton) Lawlor
Hodgson Lewis
(York North) MacDonald
Jessiman MacKenzie
Johnston Martel
( Parry Sound ) Newman
Johnston ( Windsor- Walkerville )
(St. Catharines) Nixon
Johnston Paterson
(Carleton) Peacock
Kennedy Pilkey
Kerr Pitman
Lawrence Reid
( Carleton East ) (Scarborough East)
LawTence Renwick
( St. George ) ( Rivcrdale )
MacNaughton Renwick (Mrs.)
Morin ( Scarborough Centre )
APRIL 16, 1969
3171
Ayks Nays
Morningstar Ruston
Morrow Shulman
McKeough Singer
McNeil Smith
Newman ( Nipissing )
(Ontario South) Sopha
Potter Spence
Reilly Stokes
Reuter Worton
Robarts Young-43.
Root
Rowe
Rowntree
Simonett
Smith
(SimcoeEast)
Smith
(Hamilton Mountain)
Snow
Stewart
Villeneuve
Welch
Wells
White
Whitney
Winkler
Wishart
Yakabuski
Yaremko— 56.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 56; the "nays" 43.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day. I would
advise the hon. leader of the government that
the question period has been put over by
mutual consent.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I move that you now leave the
chair and that the House do resolve itself
into committee of supply.
RE COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment,
seconded by Mr. Singer, that this House de-
plores the inadequacies of government policy
in relation to the implementation of regional,
municipal and educational government in
Ontario, its lack of local consultation, its
failure to control costs, and its removal of
local autonomy and, therefore, that the gov-
ernment does not enjoy the confidence of
this House.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nixon moves an amend-
ment, seconded by Mr. Singer, that this
House deplores the inadequacies of govern^
ment policy in relation to the implementation
of regional, municipal and educational gov-
ernment in Ontario, its lack of local consulta-
tion, its failure to control costs, and its
removal of local autonomy and, therefore,
that the government does not enjoy the con-
fidence of this House.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the government
and this Legislature faces one of the most
serious financial crises in the history of
Ontario. As a direct result of the poorly
planned imposition of county boards and the
inadequate grant system, communities across
this province face a true financial nightmare
worse than any that the Treasurer tried to
conjure up in his speeches earlier this year.
I would like to bring to your attention, sir,
in the limited time that is available to me,
some examples of the crisis in finance that
faces our local communities, particularly the
municipalities, and I have selected from a
large range of letters of information that have
come into my office, and into the research
oflBce of the leader of the Opposition, which
will indicate this to be so.
The first selection is from the town of
Stayner, in the constituency of DufFerin-
Simcoe, I beheve. It is an example of a
municipality—
An hon. member: He has got enough
troubles.
Mr. Nixon: —which has been re-assessed at
market value. Although former mill rates are
not comparable, as a result the actual levy in
dollars certainly is comparable, and this year
it is up 103 per cent.
The second example comes from the con-
stituency of Haldimand-Norfolk represented
by the hon. gentleman, the fornier Treasurer
(Mr. Allan). The township of Walpole— I
am sure he knows the area— has refused to
pay its share of the increased costs until both
the board and the province justify the in-
crease. I quote:
Walpole's share is $336,000, up $94,000
from last year. This adds $43 in taxes to
a house assessed at $3,000. Walpole Coun-
cil has passed a resolution demanding a
$40,000 reduction in its share of secondary
school expenses, and a $30,000 cutback in
elementary expenses.
In addition, they oppose the four stage form
of payment formula to the board which they
say will force them into the money market.
3172
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I have a further example, Mr. Speaker,
from the constituency of Algoma. As a
matter of fact, it is from the township of St.
Joseph. My informant has written me from
that area, and he has indicated that the mill
rate is expected to jump from 38 to 87 mills.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: He ended his letter to me as
leader of the Opposition, saying, "Can you
beat that?" and the answer is of course, yes,
quite readily. For example, in the township
of Mono a letter from the Clerk Treasurer
stated, and I quote:
If we were required to turn over such
amounts to the board on December 15, the
last legal day, 101 mills farm and resi-
dential, 106 mills commercial, compared
with 47 mills last year, we would not
even have finances left to operate the
normally necessary municipal functions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the most serious
examples has come from the constituency
represented by the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre (Mr. Evans). And the municipality
served by the Simcoe county board is up in
arms, as he well knows. There will be an
unprecedented open meeting of the board
tonight at 7.30, we are informed, at which
all townships intend to be present to pro-
test. I hope that the hon. member, who is
in the House at this time, will take the
opportunity later in this debate to express
the views of his constituents which have
been expressed in such strong ways to me
and to others concerned.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Maybe he
should go to the meeting.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): He should
go and vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. Nixon: Barrie's own increase of 12.31
mills means over $500,000 of extra revenue
collected from that city alone. Barrie says
it will not pay by instalments, but only on
the last legal day. The Simcoe board says
that this will mean that it will have to pay
interest on borrowed money to tide it over
until Barrie's cheque arrives.
Spectacular increases in the surrounding
rural areas include Bradford up 21 mills;
Innisfil up 26 mills; and I suppose West
Gwillimbury the most severe at 46.9— no,
there is one that is even worse than that,
Tosorontio with an increase of 51.6 mills
over the same position a year ago.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is incumbent
upon the members of this Legislature in the
opportunity offered this afternoon by the
amendment that I ha\'e put before the House,
sir, to express to the extent that time per-
mits the situation that is relevant in their
own cormnunity. I hope you will excuse me,
sir, if I take one moment to tell you that in
my own township of South Dumfries we face
an increase in school costs, for elementary
education alone, of 62.7 per cent. A last word
from the town of Napanee is as follows:
Regret we do not have the data yet, but
the constant erosion of municipal responsi-
bilities is of growing concern to locally
elected representatives. It is just a matter
of time before it will be necessary to phone
Toronto to get our garbage collected.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that these views
reflect not only dissatisfaction, but an ap-
proach to revolution across this province— a
feeling that this government has lost the
ability to order the affairs of Ontario; that
they are not prepared to bring in any reason-
able alternative to these increases, which are
completely unacceptable.
The Minister of Education (Mr. Davis) has
not been in the House, certainly yesterday,
and in the days immediately before Easter,
because I presume he was meeting with
delegations who visited him from all parts of
the province. I would say, Mr. Speaker, it
is essential that we make it clear that those
people who blame other boards, and other
individuals, and other policies, are simply
wrong. It is no good blaming the county
school boards which are new in their respon-
sibilities. It is impossible to blame local coun-
cils which are struggling already with an
archaic grant system administered by the Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough). It
is no good saying teachers' salaries are too
high although, goodness k-nows, direction
from the Minister of Education in the hiring
of those administrators in the last few months
has been sadly lacking.
There is no doubt that tlie total and real
responsibility lies with tlie provincial gov-
ernment and with the discredited trio made
up of the Premier (Mr. Robarts), the Minister
of Education and the Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. MacNaughton), who have racked their
brains to find a solution, and have sadly come
up with nothing.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs is lead-
ing this province into a similar difficulty.
Across the province there are many, I would
warn him, who are looking at his efforts to
impose regional government with the argu-
ment that it is going to result in a saving.
APRIL 16, 1969
3173
particularly a saving of scale. When they
compare that prediction with the same predic-
tions made by the Minister of Education—
now that we know the result— it is obvious
that these two Ministers are leading the
province into a financial catastrophe.
Mr. Speaker, it was three weeks after the
general election of 1967 when the man who
must bear the responsibility for tliis in a
speech at Gait, without informing the Minis-
ter of Education— at least that is the way it
appeared in the Minister's response — an-
nounced that Ontario was going to have
imposed upon it a county board of education
with ithe problems associated with financing
that we are now realizing.
I would draw to your attention, sir, that
he did not have the responsibility, or let us
say even the good grace and good sense, to
bring this before the electorate in the general
e'lection just a few days previously. We, as
Liberals, discussed this and we brought for-
ward the reasonable alternative which tmfor-
tunately was not accepted at that time. But
I predict to you, sir, it wiU be accepted at
the next occasion when we go to the people.
After the Preinier's ill-advised statement in
Gait, the hot potato was thrown to the Min-
ister of Education, who gathered the egg-
heads, who sit around him when he is in
conference, into the ivory tower of the Min-
istry of Education. Witliout meaningful con-
sultation with anyone else, he brought forward
Bill 44, which was debated at length in this
House and in committee.
I would recall to your mind, Mr. Speaker,
that we in the official Opposition opposed
this bill for the reason we felt that it was
ill-considered; that it was arrived at without
adequate and meaningful consultation, and
that it was not accompanied by a reform of the
grant system which would obviate the prob-
lems we face now.
I would say our position has been abun-
dantly borne out. The correctness of our situa-
tion has been verified by the situation that
we now find in the province of Ontario. The
Treasurer is anotiier one of this trio. Just a
few weeks ago, he stood in his place and
smiled into the eyes of the television camera
and boasted that he had cut $400 million
from the Budget of this province. It has been
very difficult for us to find where those cuts
actually came from.
Mr. Singer: Somebody said it was none of
our business.
Mr. Nixon: As a matter of fact, the Minis-
ter of Mines (Mr. A. F. Lawrence), who is
not here today, said it was none of our busi-
ness.
When we examine where those cuts actually
were made, we find that tlie government, a
year ago, was boasting that it was paying
close to 50 per cent of the overall cost of
education. We, on this side, were correotinig
them and saying that it was closer to 48.
But the same statistics this year indicate that
the general share of the cost of education
that is met by the province of Ontario and
from the provincial tax base has not gone
up as recommended by every reasonable
study that has been made. In fact, it has
gone down to approaching 40 per cent at a
time when this problem is reaching emergency
proportions.
I am fearful that the financial proiblems
of the school boards are only the tip of the
iceberg and an indication of what will come
to pass if the government's policy, as ex-
pressed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs,
follows in the footsteps of the actions taken by
the Minister of Educatioo.
The lack of consultation, the lack of mod-
ern usage of local talent and information is
at the root of the problems that we face at
the present time. In education, the govern-
ment has produced a massive spending ma-
chine of monstrous proportions unmatched in
Canada. We, in this House, are faced with a
budget of $3 billion and while almost half of
that is directed toward educational purposes,
an additional $600 million is raised at the
local level. Therefore, when I call it a spend-
ing machine that is precisely what it is. But
in constructing the spending machine, the
Minister of Education and his advisors and
his supporters in the Cabinet, have left out
the flexibility that must be a part of the local
autonomy which those on the government
side support— at least give lip service to— and
have done so often in the past.
They have produced a system which pays
the highest salaries at the administrative level
in North America; they have built some of
the finest and most expensive buildings that
could possibly be conceived by the architects
and builders. They have grown accustomed
to having no argument with Treasury Board
when it comes to funding those requirements
-which have given us a very flossy education
system indeed, but which has the earmarks
of some second-rate deficiencies when it comes
under close examination.
This has been transferred to the county
boards; the Minister has washed his hands of
responsibility and, in fact, he has arranged
for many of his closest advisors to be hired
3174
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
by these county boards with an increase in
their salaries averaging $10,000, Now he sits
back and says that is what they mean by
local autonomy. I call it gross irresponsibil-
ity, and the Minister and the Treasurer and
the Premier have, in fact, sloughed off this
fiscal nightmare which now rests on the shoul-
ders and backs of those at the local level who
are facing the tax increases of the rate that
I have put before you, Mr. Speaker.
I would say that the prediction made by
the Minister of Education, I believe two years
ago, that Ontario is in danger of facing bank-
ruptcy if some control over our educational
expenditure is not brought about, is about to
come true. Mr. Speaker, we have created an
education system that we are proud of, but
which is growing in its cost factor at a rate
which we cannot support under the grant
system that the generous Treasurer made
available in his vaunted Budget three weeks
ago, when he was so proud of his balance
and his cut of $400 million.
I would say if we go bankrupt we will
certainly go bankrupt in style. A good many
municipal councillors face the reality of this
nightmare that has been foisted upon them
in a way that the Treasurer never realized
was even possible.
Mr. Singer: He does not understand.
Mr. Nixon: I would say that we, on this
side, have the alternative which can solve this
problem. There is no doubt in my mind that
reasonable economies and guidelines directed
from The Department of Education are re-
quired; that the Minister's process of washing
his hands of fiscal and directive responsibility
is not working. We find that the county
boards are doing their best but they are re-
producing the bureaucracy that used to be,
let us say, concentrated around the Minister.
It is not resulting in an improvement in edu-
cation levels. It is resulting in the problem
of finance which I am bringing before you.
We are concerned with economy. The
Treasurer threatens— and his face sometimes
gets red too— a budgetary review board, still
he does nothing. The Minister is sometimes,
in a rather backhanded way, moderately criti-
cal of county boards for not showing more
restraint in moving into the areas of adminis-
tration, and particularly the salaries paid. As
a matter of fact, a good example is in the city
of London where the salaries paid the admin-
istrators of the education system are, I be-
lieve, sometimes like five times greater than
the salaries paid to the top administrators at
the city as a whole.
This is the way the system has got out of
gear. It has got out of correlation and as a
matter of fact, it is a nightmare of proportions
that even the Treasurer could not envisage.
The solution, surely, that this government
must adopt is to embark upon a phased trans-
ference of the costs of education up to 80 per
cent; this is the goal that we, as Liberals,
have accepted and which should be embarked
on now.
I see the Treasurer tucking in his shirt. He
is about to wipe his brow and he is going
to say, "If you increase that to 80 per cent
tomorrow, look what would have to be done
to the income tax, and the gas tax, and look
what would have to be done to your indemni-
ties", or whatever he would Lght on this
particular day. Of course, that is an indica-
tion of his furtlier irresponsibility.
A Royal commission, the select committee,
tlie experts in municipal affairs— they all
reconxmend the transference of a greater pro-
portion of these costs. As a matter of fact,
the Treasurer himself has accepted the goal
of 60 x>€r cent but instead of moving towards
it, he is sliding in the other direction— a
true Tory regression and one that is not
acceptable in this province.
Mr. Speaker, local assessment must not and
cannot be forced to bear these impossible
escalations in cost. The government must
amend its inadequate grant formula immedi-
ately to accomphsh this. This Ls Liberal policy
and it has been our position consistently. If
the government cannot accept this solution
and has nothing of its own to offer, then this
House must be dissolved and an election
called.
Mr. Sopha: The Treasurer is white-hpped
and trembling.
Mr. Singer: Try the election in Middlesex
South, for size, if you do not believe it.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, we in this party shall support this
rather awkwardly phrased amendment. We
recognize its intent and we shall be able to
find it in our hearts to support this inade-
quate resolution.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pitman: At the same time, Mr.
Speaker, at this particular point, we reject
completely the silly irresponsible position
taken by this party to the right. They have
tried to con this Legislature into believing
that we have some kind of a flossy education
APRIL 16, 1969
3175
system, that we have an education system
which is worthy of a province like Ontario.
This is not Alabama. This is not the Appa-
lachians. This party has tried to indicate that
it is looking after the taxpayers of Ontario.
What nonsense!
This province can bear more taxation in
certain areas as the leader of our party has
indicated in his budget speech. There are
areas where taxes can be collected. There is
an area of needed increases in social services
to people. We, in this corner, are concerned
about people, not about some ridiculous con-
cern over so-called overtaxing which this
party has become so obssessed with that they
have forgotten the people of Ontario com-
pletely.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Pitman: The member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) has called upon this Treas-
urer to initiate immediately the taxes needed
in the areas of resources industry, in the
areas of capital gains and in three or four
other areas. It is set out in the records of
this House, and we on this side have taken a
responsible position. We have suggested that
this province is capable of supporting an edu-
cation system of first class quality.
It is capable of supporting all the services
to people which are found in the Ministry
of Social and Family Services, and the
Ministry of Correctional Institutions— under
all these jurisdictions. There is no need for
these cuts. Our main contention with the
Treasurer is that these cuts were unnecessary
in human services— and that is the position
which I wish to set out immediately.
Now let me turn to the whole question of
education in this province. First, we are con-
cerned about the chaos which we find
throughout this province and, particularly, in
the rural areas. To put it in crude terms, this
year all hell has broken loose. I know the
Minister's strategy will be to say, "Now this
is a period of transition and over a period
of time tliis will all straighten out; all the
adjustments will be made and everybody will
be happy".
But I suggest to this Legislature, through
you, Mr. Speaker, that the measure of con-
fidence in the government in 1969 is not
its ability to simply keep the machine going.
The measure is its ability to watch over care-
fully needed change in this area, the degree
of competence in dealing with change has
been sadly lacking. This government has
failed; this Minister has failed; this depart-
ment has failed and colossal has been the
measure of that failure.
I do not intend to belabour the obvious—
that the county school board system was
brought in surreptitiously, a few weeks after
an election, after the whole province had
been hoodwinked, after the whole democratic
process was flagrantly denied the people of
Ontario. No choice was given.
At the time of second reading, I said that
the means of bringing this measure in would
distort the end; that this could have been
phased-in in a reasonable and sensible
fashion; that we could have dealt with ele-
mentary and then secondary levels; and that
financial elements could have been worked
in piece by piece. I suggest that now no
one can be in doubt that that is the way this
measure should have been brought in.
Can anyone who is on the education com-
mittee forget the dishevelment and disarray
in which this bill came through the education
committee, with some 30 or 40 amendments
which even The Department of Education
experts did not seem quite capable of under-
standing? Indeed, there seemed to be more
questions in the minds of the department
than there were answers for the members of
that committee, and now look at this mess.
Can anyone forget the outrage across this
entire province?
I say again, that the means have destroyed
the end. One of the five major purposes of
this legislation establishing county school
boards was that it would ensure a more
democratic process; an elected school board
would replace those which are, at present,
simply appointed. What happened in the
elections to these school boards?
In some parts of Ontario less than 11 per
cent of the people voted. They have lost
control. They have lost their sense of involve-
ment, and education is something away out
there which they can scarcely touch, so far
as effective experience is concerned. Now
the leader of the Opposition has given you
a number of examples in various townships
across the province.
I want to talk about people and ask this
Legislature how these people are going to
pay their taxes. Here is an individual, in-
come under $3,000, with dependents of wife
and two school age children. The reason he
is able to survive in Ontario is that he lives
in a rural area in a very old home with an
assessed value of $550. His 1968 taxes-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Pitman: I would say that any person
trying to live on $3,000 in this so-called
province of opportimity— the place where all
3176
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
can stand— indeed is the measure of the com-
passion of this government.
An hon. member: There is no compassion,
there is only idiocy.
Mr. Pitman: He owned his own home; the
assessed vaUie was $550; his 1968 taxes were
$33.55, less the property tax reduction; and
his prospective 1969 taxes are ten times as
much, fift>'-fifty, of which he can pay less
than half. Or take an old age pensioner
with a dependent wife who earned about
$300 in 1968. He owns an old home; assessed
value $1,400. His 1968 taxes, $85-less $28.06
reduction grant— $57 total. Prospecti\e 1969
taxes, $126 less grant.
Another one. A widow with a pension has
four dependent children. Taxes last year,
$16.17. Prospective 1969 taxes $65, of which
she can pay less than half. What are these
people going to do? How much property is
going to be in the hands of this government
under a continuation of this scheme? Now
I could have brought into this Legislature,
for the few minutes I have, Mr. Speaker, a
literally foot-high pile of newspaper clippings
describing the chaos which exists in parts of
this province, but I will read only one or two
of them from the Hamilton Spectator, Satur-
day, April 12, gives a description of the
problem of Mr. Berkley Harper:
Last year, education accounted for $449
of Mr. Harper's $731 tax bill. This year
education alone will take $824.
In Wentworth County, for example,
elementary education costs in 1968 in-
creased by 14.3 per cent, matched by a
grant's hike of 18.7 per cent. This year,
the cost jumped a further 11.85 per cent,
but grants increased only 3.97 per cent.
We are faced with virtual civil disobedience
across this province. Men and women who
supported this government— indeed, men and
women on whose backs those of you who sit
on the far side can feci they were elected—
now find themselves cautioning the residents
of their community not to pay their taxes.
Mayors say they are going to resign if they
have to collect the tax burdens which ha\ e
been assessed as a result of the actions of
this government.
Mr. R. M. Johnston: Irresponsibility^
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Yours,
not theirs.
Mr. Pitman: Listen to what one trustee
said. At least one tiustee involved with
budgeting claims the Ontario government
has been very, very lax. The whole Depart-
ment of Education needs a good shaking up.
There has been no leadership or direction in
the department at all— in a situation which is
the most confusing issue ever brought to the
education field. This trustee said that the
school organization committee had attempted
to point out the difficulties to the government
but had not been successful. "But I sat and
I thought, and I damned near cried because
I could see it happening," said one official.
Rama township has refused to collect in-
creased school taxes; there the tax increase
for a single home will be $500; $93 in every
$1,000 of assessment for school taxes. The
townships of Simcoe, Brant, Halton, Dufferin,
and Orillia have all said that they are un-
willing to collect the education taxes. That is
the measure of chaos throughout this prov-
ince. County councils have issued resolutions
telling their own townships not to collect
these taxes.
Whereas some rural taxpayers will find
it impossible to pay their taxes which have
increased up to 107 per cent over last
year, so be it resolved that this council
recommends to each member municipality
that effective for 1969 a levy be made for
educational purposes consisting of an
amount equal to the amount levied and
paid in 1968, plus ten per cent.
These recommendations were passed in
several counties. In other words, they are
telling the municipalities simply not to collect
any more taxes.
In Markham township, there was an aver-
age increase of $105 per home. We suggest,
as I said on the second reading of this bill,
that this reorganization could have been done
in a rational, sensible, effective manner, but
this government said it was acting decisively
and suggested that the Opposition was hesi-
tant and unwilling to make changes. Surely,
even the Minister will agree this legislation
was badly planned, poorly written and utterly
incapable of carrying out its purposes.
In 1969, with all the financial expertise
available, with all the floors of computers we
find at the Ontario Institute of Studies in
Education, with all the collective experience
in the creation of larger units in other juris-
dictions, surely the Minister in this depart-
ment should have been able to see what was
happening? Surely, he should not have per-
petrated this colossal fiasco on the province
of Ontario.
It is lamentable but pathetic, and com-
pletely unexplainable in any part of this
APRIL 16, 1969
3177
province. There was no involvement of
people. They had a right to take some part
in the creation of this change, but this gov-
ernment decided it was the only way.
The Prime Minister stood up in Gait and
announced in one fell swoop one night that
he was going to change the educational sys-
tem, a change greater than any that had
taken place since Egerton Ryerson. It
happened in a few months and we are facing
the result of that kind of a change. They
decided that amputation was better than the
healing hand.
In 1969, how can anyone believe that you
could create a massive educational change
without also involving oneself in financial
change accompanying that administrative
change? In the 20th century, how could a
government be so stupid— so completely irre-
levant to everything that is going on in gov-
ernment circles throughout this world— that it
could actually believe that it could make an
administrative change without bringing in the
financial means of correctng the flaws that
would be created by that change?
Absolutely incredible! It boggles tlie imagi-
nation. We, in this party, have adopted a
responsible, reasoned position that the gov-
ernment must increase its share to education
up to 80 per cent. We have indicated where
the government-
Mr. G. Ben (Hurtiber): We put it forward,
but you rejected it.
Mr. Pitman: We have indicated exactly
where the taxes can be found, and we reject
the ridiculous, irrelevant statements made by
our friends to the right who suggest that we
should cut back on education or any other
services. I want to suggest to you that when
this bill came in, I made this point.
I just want to repeat one comment that
was made during second reading.
When the people of this province see those bills
and see how outrageous it is that the cost of
education should be placed on property in 1968,
they will rise in wrath against the government which
has been so backward in continuing this kind of
financing for education services in the province.
I made that statement at the time of second
reading of this bill, and nothing could be
more true at this point in time.
But what has been the result of all this?
First, the people have lost faith in the govern-
ment of this province. They have the right
to expect some degree of competence. You
have examples of civil disobedience, refusals
to collect taxes. You have people refusing
and unable to pay their taxes. You have
mayors and reeves and councillors threatening
resignation. Is it yet apparent the horrendous
implications in this province of opportunity, in
perpetrating this kind of fiasco? You have a
revolt at the stupidity and insensitivity of a
government. The niral people of this prov-
ince, who provide so much of the political
support for those on the other side of this
aisle, are completely and utterly stunned
more than outraged. Would they see it as
equal opportunity for education? Right now,
of course all they see is that their children
ride the bus for an hour longer each day.
They cannot see any changes but they will
come. We are telling them that we certainly
hope they will come— they wdll come a lot
faster, of course, after 1971— but the point
is what they see right now is immediate
financial hell.
It is easy to say that with equahzed assess-
ment this problem was exacerbated; that
there was deficit spending, deficit financing,
going on among the boards before. It is easy
to say that the rural areas have not paid their
way, but that is the point— the foundation
plan was a subsidization of the rural society
of Ontario. The whole point is that the rural
society cannot pay for equalization of edu-
cational opportunities. It has been subsidized.
You only have to look at the statistics of the
Dominion Bureau of Statistics to see what the
incomes of rural people are across this
province. You simply cannot place the cost of
education on a rural person who has an in-
come of $3,000.
He may very well have a good deal of
land assessment but with an annual income
of $3,000 you cannot expect that rural indi-
vidual to pay for the kind of taxes which an
urban person who may have an income of
$6,000 or $7,000 a year can pay. It is not
sensible; it is not rational. One would have
thought that with the amount of contact this
government has with the rural society of
Ontario that simple fact would have got
across.
What is the second result? I am afraid,
most of all, that this has had an efi^ect on
educational change in this province. We
seemed to be on the threshold of a very real
measure of progress and change in educa-
tion, one which would have given a more
relevant educational experience for every
young person. What has happened? Wliat do
we see taking place right now? The cutting
of educational services. We see boards slash-
ing away at programmes for children; we see
special services being cut as well as the
teachers and the principals. The administra-
tors of these county boards are so obsessed
with the problem of money that the whole
3178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
question of education seems to be taking a
very real second place. The most obvious
example is the terror which you have in the
hearts of many teachers that the teacher-pupil
ratio is going to be driven up to a point
-where there will really be no contact between
teacher and pupil in the educational system
of this province. This is the worst possible
thing tliat could happen in terms of the
kind of educational recommendations which
you have in the Hall-Dennis report and
which you have from many other sources in
this province.
The third result— the one which I hope to
bring to the attention of the Treasurer and
the Minister of Municipal Affairs— is the loss
of confidence in this government's capability
for dealing with the future. At the time when
this bill was passed, and since then, I men-
tioned to the Minister of Municipal Affairs
the difficulty he is going to have with re-
gional government because of what has taken
place in this province over the creation of the
county school boards. Heaven only knows,
there is enough confusion in this area now.
People do not know whether they are talking
about regional development under the Treas-
urer or regional government under The De-
partment of Municipal Affairs. They do not
know who does what or why.
The Treasurer talks about having all kinds
of information and going ahead with regional
development. I hope he has read these vol-
umes that were produced by all the regional
councils. If he can find any pattern for the
development of this province in that group of
volumes, I defy him to do so because there
is the greatest collection of half-baked ideas
which one could possibly chum out— inade-
quate studies on the basis of inadequate grants
given by this government. Here is the Minis-
ter of Municipal Affairs racing around, plug-
ging up the dykes, trying to stop chaos
breaking out in one place or another. We
want time in the estimates of both Municipal
Affairs and the Treasurer to deal with this.
The ultimate responsibility lies with the
gentleman who has just entered this House,
the Prime Minister of this province.
What is the answer? What must the Min-
ister of Education do? He may well do what
the Minister of Municipal Affairs did— go
back to the Treasury Board, go back to the
Treasurer of this province; I would suggest,
indeed, that he put his resignation on the
line unless more money is found in this prov-
ince for education. If we have to have another
Budget in July, we are ready to stay here
and wait for that Budget. If the Treasurer of
Ontario has to raise the necessary money, he
knows where that money is, he has been told
by the leader of his party where that money
is. He can do so in a rational and responsible
way and we can have some modicum of
assurance and confidence on the part of the
people of this province that their affairs are
in sane hands.
Mr. Speaker, we have fought the battles of
this government over here, we have tramped
around the counties, tried to explain how
chaos could reign, not just with the county
school boards but with regional planning and
regional development. We have tried to set
up meetings, we have tried to be as helpful
as possible. I wonder if this government rea-
lizes that we at Queen's Park have become
synonymous with some kind of Toronto-
based madhouse inhabited with fools, knaves
and idiots.
I want to conclude my remarks by para-
phrasing a statement by the late Colin Cam-
eron in the federal House, at a moment not
unlike this when a government lay in com-
plete chaos: For heaven's sake, pull yourselves
together. We cannot afford any more of these
follies, any more of these ineptitudes, because
all the rest of us Ontarians have to cringe
along with you at the ridiculous spectacle you
are presenting to the rest of the province and
the country. Be done or be gone.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): Mr. Speaker, before I put together a
few notes to enable me to participate in this
big debate, I referred to the resolution and
subsequently to a comment of the hon.
leader of the Opposition, to which I shall
make reference. I found that again there was
a very substantial degree of inconsistency
among the recommendations that come to us
from the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
An hon. member: Loyal.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Loyal. Loyal Op-
position. Oh yes, I will say they are loyal.
With regard to the resolution itself, Mr.
Speaker, it confused me in two ways— the
reference to its failure to control costs and
its removal of local autonomy, and I shall
pursue that as I go along. I was further con-
fused, I might say, with respect to the obser-
vations of the hon. leader of the Opposition,
when I read the comments he made in his
Budget address following the presentation of
the Budget on March 4. He said this:
I for one am prepared to say that I am
glad that in the Budget the Treasurer took
the bull by the horns and at least tried to
set our financial house in order so that our
programmes were not growing so much
APRIL 16, 1969
3179
faster than tax income. I congratulate him
for this because it is quite an achievement.
Mr. Speaker, let us pursue that in the terms
of the inconsistencies that I shall come to.
Let us examine for a moment the effect of
budgetary restraint. Any major restraint pro-
gramme by Ontario will reverberate through-
out other levels of governments, agencies and
commissions which receive substantial support
from this province. The government has con-
sistently emphasized this result in its repeated
warnings and statements concerning a finan-
cial nightmare facing Ontario.
Paper B in the 1969 Budget outlined in
detail the crippling limitations on our expen-
diture flexibility, stressing that 80 per cent of
our total expenditure represents statutory
obligations and commitments to municipali-
ties, school boards and institutions, as well
as transfers to individuals. Mark that figure
well, I say to the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion and to the hon. member for Peterborough
—80 per cent of all our expenditures.
As I stated in the 1969 Budget, and am
reminding the members of the Opposition
today because they appear to have forgotten
it, significant expenditure reduction therefore
must inevitably involve restrictions in this
broader area and some sacrifice of our vital
social objectives. Our submissions to Ottawa
at federal-provincial conferences over a period
of years have repeated and repeated and re-
peated ad nauseam, Mr. Speaker, the dire
consequences of the failure to recognize the
inadequate base of the priority expenditure-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I
listened very patiently to these hon. gentle-
men; I ask them to listen to me.
Tlie government has been criticized by the
leader of the Opposition, among others, for
being too harsh in its representations on the
one hand, too timid on the other. We have
attempted all approaches— reasoning, pleading,
and forceful demanding— but all have been
in vain. The speeches undertaken by the
Prime Minister and by myself over the fall
and winter period, the Throne Speech, the
Ontario approach, the contributions to the
Throne Speech debate, as I mentioned, by
the Prime Minister and myself, all have
warned of the consequences that were bound
to result if Ontario was forced to slash back
its expenditure programme. There is nothing
new about this; it has been said time and
time again. How can there be any surprise,
any question, any indignation unless the
leader of the Opposition sees a magnificent
political ploy to use at this particular point
in time?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Hear,
hear!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Such an attitude,
Mr. Speaker, I say-
Mr. Nixon: The Treasurer is making a mess
of government and if that is a political ploy—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The hon. leader
of the Opposition has pointed his finger at
me long enough-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. members to
my left will remember that when the leader
of the Opposition was speaking, there was a
hearing accorded to him, and I would ask
that they give the same right to the hon.
speaker for the government.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, how
can there be any surprise, any question, any
indignation, that suddenly these predictions
are coming true? I suggest, to you these atti-
tudes can stem only from complete naivete
or deliberate failure to recognize the situa-
tion.
Let me comment for a moment about the
effect of tliese restraints. Overall control of
costs in such vast complex and interwoven
machinery as is represented by the complete
range of the provincial-municipal operation
is a tremendously difficult task. Let no one
think otherwise.
Mr. Martel: It is too difficult for the
Treasurer.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If it is too diffi-
cult for us, I suggest it is impossible for the
hon. member-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: —as we may well
point out as we go along.
Let me pursue this: Consistently, over many
years the provincial government has increased
its financial assistance to the municipal, edu-
cation and local authorities in recognition of
the pressures on their narrow base. Each
year's increase in local aid has seemingly
evaporated or been swallowed up by the un-
ceasing and apparently irrepressible advance
in local taxes. While I in no way want to
imply to you, Mr. Speaker, or to hon. mem-
bers, that our restraints were used deliberately
for this purpose, I do suggest to you that
our budgetary cutbacks have forced this com-
plex problem into tlie open.
3180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The real pressures at the local level have
been brought to the surface; the problems
have been exposed and are now identifiable.
The exposure will help us to deal and we
will deal effectively with them. Establishing
effective and comprehensive control over the
total provincial-municipal scene is a dehcate
responsibility, I am sure all hon. members
know that, particularly in recognition of the
desire to preserve and strengthen autonomy
at the local level, and that is where the hon.
leader of Opposition appeared to me to l^e
confused.
The alternative of complete central con-
trol is as repugnant to the government as it
is to tlie members of the Opposition; it is
destructive of our democratic approach to
government, in tlie opinion of the government.
At the same time-
Mr. Singer: As in assessment.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, as in assess-
ment.
Mr. Singer: Why is the government doing
it then?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: At the same time,
the provincial government must accept the
responsibility for the total fiscal programme
across this province and it does accept that
responsibility. The answer lies partly in effec-
tive tax reform as represented by the com-
prehensive programme I outlined in the
Legislature. It also entails, I believe, Mr.
Speaker, more effective consultation and co-
ordination not only with our municipal
partners, but— and I will come back again
and again to this— with our federal partners.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): He is
really on the ropes.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would not sug-
gest, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should
get too sanguine about that, not too sanguine.
Mr. Martel: Could you bring tax reform
after 25 years?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Let me just
pursue this a little bit fvuiiher if I may. The
parties on the opposite side, and particularly
the leader of the Opposition, I say to you,
sir, must come to recognize that it is
impossible to develop a budgetary programme
that incorporates botli restraint and expan-
sion in its total concept at one and the same
time. I say to him, Mr. Speaker, that he can-
not have it both ways; he cannot advocate
that the Ontario government provide 80 per
cent support to local education costs and
at the same time demand a reduction in
government spending. They do not add up;
this is talking out of both sides of the
mouth.
Mr. Pitman: The Treasurer is dead right.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You cannot advo-
cate that the Ontario government provide 80
per cent supp>ort to local education costs and
at the same time criticize tax increases.
Mr. Pitman: We understand that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, you
cannot laud a programme of restraint and at
the same time decry the failure to Sjpend
more funds. You cannot present the image
of a responsible Opposition and t^k out of
both sides of your mouth at the same time.
You cannot do that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I simply ask the
hon. members to envision if they can what
would happen to education costs if the
province provided 80 per cent of the funds
to local authorities as advocated by our
Liberal friends. It is not hard to conceive
what increases would result if the local
authority was required to raise only $1 for
every $5 it might spend, or $100,000 for
every $500,000 it might spend. I will not
elaborate on that; I just leave that to the
sensible imagination of the hon. leader of
the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: How many 80 per cent pro-
grammes does the government have now?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have only
enough time left to make a few short observa-
tions widi respect to the extent that educa-
tion is regarded as a priority in this prov-
ince, and I am quite confident that the hon.
Minister of Education will elaborate on that
to a considerable extent. But just over the
past five years— to deal with the past five
years alone, Mr. Speaker— with respect to the
top priority in our spending and investment
policies— which is education, of course— in
those five years our total net general expendi-
ture on education has risen from $515 million
to $1,276 million or by almost 150 per cent
Mr. Deans: Wliat is the government going
to do to meet this crisis?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: In this same
period, the total Budget has expanded from
$1.5 billion to $3 billion, or about double.
APRIL 16, 1969
3181
Mr. Pitman: Oh, that is ridiculous.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On the loans and
advances side, provincial commitments have
been even more heavily slanted in favour
of education. Since 1965-1966, or four years,
our investments in education have risen from
$89 million to $345 million, or almost quad-
rupled, while total loans and advances have
grown by only 2.5 times. Within the educa-
tion field as a whole, greatest emphasis as
far as provision of funds is concerned has
been accorded to vocational school construc-
tion. But while carrying, shall we say, almost
the entire financial burden in this rapid and
essential expansion of education at the
tertiary level, the province has also managed
to steadily increase its financial increases to
school boards, the entire cost of community
colleges-
Mr. Ben: Trying to keep up with the in-
flation.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: —almost the
entire cost of university education in this
province and at the same time increase the
secondary level.
Mr. Speaker, tiiat is not an attempt to
justify the problems that exist today, but I
want to go back to the one central dieme of
my remarks; They are now identifiable, they
are where they can be defined, in a manner
in whidi they have never been before. So that
if the budgetary restraints have given effect
to-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Is the
Minister only now finding out what the prob-
lems are?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: —to something
that is identifiable and can more properly
be dealt with, then I say the restraint exercise
has been in a measure very well warranted.
Mr. Lewis: The Minister is a Marxist in
his strategy.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Speaker, the failures of this government have
been many. Let me start by quoting from
the booklet of the Ontario Economic Council,
"Government Refonn in Ontario," and 1
quote:
Changes in the economic and social
systems do not in themselves create prob-
lems. The problem arises when the poli-
tical system fails to correspond to the
change.
Assuming this statement to be our basic
premise, it appears evident that the problems
of increased population in Ontario, increasing
urbanization reflected in urban sprawl, the
decrease in prime agricultural land, the in-
crease in environmental pollution, and the
increasing tax burden on our municipalities,
are direct reflections not of change itself but
of the failure of this government to be able
to adopt and handle this change. The lack
of confidence which has now been raised is
not against the change, for actually change
is the only true constant of reality. Instead,
the objection is against the failure of the
government to cope with what is a natural
and inevitable process.
For 25 years this government must have
been aware that many changes were going
on in our province, but instead of being
able to keep in time to the demands, they
concerned themselves only with build-
ing a larger and larger provincial bureauc-
racy. Suddenly, the pressures all around them
were too great, and someone at Queen's Park
decided that something had to be done. They
undoubtedly found themselves in the position
of the eunuch in the harem, knowing some-
thing should be done but not knowing how
to do it. As a result we now have evolved
from this two concepts of county school
boards and regional governments of which I
would like to speak briefly.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is un-
fortunate that the introduction of regional
government in Ontario is meeting with very
strong opposition in many parts across the
province. If this continues it will spell doom
to any government structural change, which
is badly needed. This opposition and poten-
tial failure will be because of the same
reasons that now plague our established
county school boards— the lack of proper
planning and the lack of consultation. The
meaningful success of the province of Ontario
depends on the work and effort of the local
municipality.
This provincial government can have all
the sophisticated theory it wants in its top
echelon, but this does not guarantee essen-
tial, successful, meaningful government on
the part of the people. No war is won in
the general's headquarters; no business is a
success in the general manager's office. Real
success and good government both require
the co-operation, involvement and the con-
fidence of all people at all levels of govern-
ment.
Lack of planning for change and lack of
consultation when change is anticipated have
been two traits of this Tory government.
3182
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Let us look at lack of planning. Mr.
Speaker, planning is an integral part of
municipal government and, consequently
must be a part of any change proposed in
its operation— it is not a luxury frill that is
attached to government, at any level. Now
while local municipalities have been engaged
in setting up sophisticated planning bodies
to deal with urgent matters in their immedi-
ate areas, the provincial government has had
little or no success with its broad regional
economic development programme.
The provincial government's half-hearted
approach and lack of leadership in this re-
gard has made the regional development
councils little more than duplication of serv-
ices already available at the local level.
Let me briefly repeat the experience in
Waterloo county where we have numerous
planning boards, regional planning boards, a
regional government study under way, and
a Waterloo South-Wellington area land use
study. With all tliis planning activity in pro-
gress, it was with great shock that the
Waterloo county area learned of the pur-
chase of 3,000 acres of land by the Ontario
Housing Corporation for the purpose of
building a new town.
Let me quote from "Community Planning
and Local Government" by Professor Ralph
Kroeger, chairman of the department of
geography and planning, University of
Waterloo:
The shocking thing about the announce-
ment was that the location of the pro-
posed new town of about 100,000 people
did not fit into any of the evolving plans
of any of the planning agencies. In fact,
none of the planning agencies or planning
staff have been consulted, nor were their
government departments, deeply involved
in planned studies in the area, ever con-
sulted.
Mr. Speaker, the results of this unilateral
action by Ontario Housing Corporation may
result in the redoing of much of the Waterloo
South- Wellington study and that has already
cost $750,000. Professor Kroeger continues:
Unco-operative planning activity is a
needless waste of both financial and leader-
ship resources. What is required is a re-
lated, province wide system of planning
agencies each planning within the frame-
work of policies established at the next
higher level.
A proxincial development plan is also
needed to provide the overall policy frame-
work within which the government depart-
ments, regional and local municipalities can
do their planning.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot improve on what Pro-
fessor Kroeger has said, and he has been say-
ing it to this government for years. The
changing times of our province demand
proper planning by all departments.
Mr. Speaker, the greatest weakness in the
way in which the government is trying to
implement regional government is that the
reviews have all been carried out, without
either an overall system of local government
or an overall system of planning and develop-
ment in mind. Coupled with this lack of
planning, has been the lack of consultation
and what awesome examples this government
has provided.
The people of Ontario have not forgotten
the actions of this government when, with a
sudden announcement by the Premier, county
school boards were l3rought into being.
Thousands of dedicated and experienced
trustees and officials were moved with little
or no warning. How much better the whole
school situation might be at the present time
if some consultation had taken place. Human
nature rebels against the unknown, and good
people deserve to be treated better than this
government did in that instance.
Consultation and better planning would
have shown the Minister of Education that
serious problems would be bound to arise in
financing. A last-minute amendment to Bill
44 did not eliminate the inequities within the
counties as is now so evident. We read daily
of school costs increases, amounts like 100
per cent in Wilmot township, 70 per cent in
New Hamburg, eight additional mills in Gait
for education, eight in Kitchener, nine and a
half mills in Waterloo and Tavistock and so
on across the province. Tavistock, I thinJc,
deserves special elaboration here.
Here is a situation which must be men-
tioned. Well do I remember the meeting of
over 500 concerned people in the arena in
Tavistock one year ago at this time. Then, the
Minister of Education, in his honeyed tones,
assured tliose present that Bill 44 would not
create hardships on any particular segment
of the county. But what has been the result
of this Bill 44? Tavistock is perhaps one of
the worst examples. Oxford county can expect
a 20-mill increase in the urban areas and a
staggering 50 to 60 mills in the rural areas,
which includes the municipality of Tavistock.
And here, Mr. Speaker, in a small com-
munity of 1,200 to 1,300, there are over 500
people on fixed old age security incomes.
APRIL 16, 1969
3183
How are they going to be expected to meet
this tremendous tax increase? I just cannot
understand how the Minister of Education
can be so unconcerned about the plight of
the people of Ontario who must face these
staggering costs increases.
Almost three weeks ago, the board of edu-
cation in my own coiuDty of Waterloo wrote
the Minister asking for a meeting to discuss
this urgent problem. As far as I now know,
he has not replied. To me, this indicates the
Minister just does not know how to cope
with this serious matter, which was of his own
making.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister fools no one
when he says that only several school boards
in the province anticipate a shortage of money
due to increased educational costs. If, as the
Minister says, this financial crisis was anti-
cipated—and tliese words have been attributed
to him— I would say that the government had
no business implementing the county boards
when it did. My opinion is that the jtimp to
county boards was done without proper con-
sultation and without proper research and,
certainly, without any real concern for those
people who are now faced with tremendous
tax increases.
Mr. Speaker, one could go on and mention
many more areas in which the government has
failed to plan properly, failed to consult with
people. As the Minister of—
Mr. Speaker: TJie hon. member will draw
his remarks shortly to a conclusion as tlie
time allotted to him has now expired.
Mr. Good: Two sentences, Mr. Speaker. As
the Ontario Municipal Association has said,
the trend has been to limit the scope and
decisions of local authorities, to acquire ap-
proval of municipal decisions and to take
from municipal councils the power to decide
issues which are primarily of local concern.
The biggest culprit, says the Ontario Municipal
Association, is The Department of Municipal
Affairs, and the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr.
Sx)eaker, this government has been very
negligent.
Its mistakes have now caught up with it.
We, in the Opposition, know that the Robarts'
govenmient is in deep trouble and the people
in Ontario know that they have been misled.
They know that they can no longer afford a
Tory government, and so I ask every clear-
thinking member in this Legislature, and this
includes the back-benchers of the Tory gov-
ernment who are carrying the ashcan for
these men down in front, to rise up and vote
in favour of this motion.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to support this motion, particularly that
part of it which says that this House deplores
the inadequacy of government policy in rela-
tion to the implementation of regional munici-
pal government in Ontario.
We have ju,st heard the member for
Waterloo North designate an area which has
been documented time after time in this
House— about the failure of planning in the
introduction of industrial goverrmient, larger
government in the county of Waterloo.
Yesterday, it was forcibly brought to the
attention of this House that there is another
area, Hastings-Quinte, where the same kind
of failure and bumbling is going on, an area
which is a designated area, where govern-
ments are supposed to assist in development.
In that area the unemployment insurance
office is being moved. Already the shovels
are in to build the new building for 300
employees. Tlhere, we have grants already
going into the industry of the hon. Minister
who handles these grants. -
Tomorrow a further announcement is being
made about a large industry coming into that
area with a whopping big grant from this
government. In other words what is being
attempted by the Minister on the one hand
is a building-up of the economic Iffe in the
economic base of the Hastings-Quinte area.
At the same time, we had brought to our
attention yesterday, a situation where Cam-
bridge Leaseholds Limited, of Windsor wants
to bring a very large shopping complex into
the municipality of Belleville. Holiday Inn
and Shell are going to combine on this opera-
tion which will bring employment and new
industry there.
The people of the city wanted this com-
plex. They felt that their convenience should
be considered in looking at it, and all that
it meant for the improvement of the indus-
trial life of Belleville. They agreed with the
Minister in the designated area in what he
is trying to do. At the same time, however,
something else was going on. At this time,
we have a study going on by the town of
Belleville. Proctor, Redfem, Bousefell, and
Bacon are now engaged in that study, looking
at the total economic problems of the area.
They are looking at a redevelopment plan for
downtown Belleville. They are updating the
transportation plans.
Not long ago, the bylaw designating rezon-
ing for the installation of this new industrial
shopping complex was brought to the Ontario
Municipal Board. At that time the Ontario
Municipal Board said, "Because the study is
3184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
now going forward, this matter is premature."
And they brought forward their decision on
March 14, 1969.
That may have been a reasonable kind of
decision under the circumstances, and I am
not going to quarrel too much with it, pro-
vided other things had not been happening
at the same time. Provided, first of all, the
other Minister had not been pushing develop-
ment in the same general area, and subsidiz-
ing that development— the same thing that
happened in Waterloo county.
The citizens immediately begin to protest
the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. They
want that convenience, they want what that
new complex will mean.
And so yesterday a large delegation of the
citizens' committee came to speak to the three
parties, and they were heard by the New
Democrats, by the Liberals, and by the Attor-
ney General (Mr. Wishart). They asked that
the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council order a
new hearing bringing in new information.
This thing was so urgent they brought with
them a petition signed by 11,000 citizens-
more citizens than the local representative got
in votes in the last election. Now this is to
be looked at. This kind of citizen participa-
tion, this kind of democratic action, cannot
be dismissed forthwith.
On the invitation of some of them I went
down to look at the land. This morning I
had a talk with the planning people, with
the Mayor of Belleville, and with other offi-
cials in that area to see for myself what is
involved. I found that something had hap-
pened there.
First of all, it is true, as the OMB said,
these studies are going on, and it might be
wise to wait a bit before a definite decision
is made; the OMB did not say, "Wait." They
dismissed the thing as premature. But the
fact emerges that it is going to take a great
deal of time. By the time this plan is
brought forward, and by the time it goes
through the process in Belleville, the public
hearing, a vote for the amount of money
needed to implement it, years will pass. Is
Belleville to stop development of one kind
while the Minister is pushing development of
another kind?
Another thing emerged, and I have in my
hand another exhibit, coming from Thurlow
township where the Ontario Municipal Board
on March 14, ten days after the decision in
Belleville, granted to Thurlow township a
rezoning to Ml land, just north of the high-
wav. find almost immediately north of the
land they had turned down for Belleville.
Again, this made some sense because it
does give some protection. It was simply a
bylaw giving stability to this situation with-
out the actual zoning. It gave stability to the
people who already built homes there, so
junky development could not occur. It desig-
nated certain Ml land, but this was the
catch— the Ml land can also have upon it
shops. I have here the designation of Ml
land in Thurlow township here, and it desig-
nates that a shopping centre can be built
there. This is the fear. The people of Belle-
ville will say: "Well, you can have the shop-
ping centre north." This looks as if Rollins
has more power than Potter as far as per-
suasion is concerned at some level.
Services are farther away in the north, than
they are to the south— much farther away. I
looked into the whole trunk system of waters
and sewers, and the area to the north can-
not be serviced quickly. But it might be
serviced on wells and on septic tanks if the
OWRC would allow it. I hope they would
not. But the fact remains that I do not be-
lieve the Ontario Municipal Board saw clearly
that this Ml designation in Turlow township
was difi^erent from the ordinary Ml designa-
tion in most municipalities in tiie province.
On that basis alone, it seems to me,
through you to the Prime Minister, Mr.
Speaker, that a re-hearing is justified. Look
at the total picture in this area, the total
picture, because the Ontario Municipal Board
unfortunately has had to act on the basis of
individual municipalities and on the action
they took in Thurlow and in Belleville. A
re-hearing is overdue, and the OMB should
be designated for that re-hearing looking at
the total picture. Perhaps one of the greatest
reasons for the confusion that is going on, is
that this government has not been willing to
face up to the whole concept of regional
government in this province.
We are dong this piecemeal, little by
little, and it seems to me that this rezoning
that was asked for makes sense in the town
of Belleville, provided it is looked at as a
regional concept. I do not think it will do
any great harm to the downtown area. If
that could be redeveloped with some imagi-
nation and the other will supplement it, it
will be a convenience to the people who
live in tlie northern section of that city.
If we think of it in terms of a regional
centre, a growth point, Trenton-Belleville
combined, growing toward each other, it is
an imaginative plan for the whole region
under new municipal regional government.
We believe that this can happen. But more
than tliat, there must be couple with this
APRIL 16, 1969
3185
concept of regional government a tax base
which is realistic. And this is where this
government is again making its mistake as it
is making a mistake in the school area.
It is making its mistake in the regional
government development because it is not
coupling tlie new region. The new regional
municipal governments need a change in the
tax base which will make them work, and
make them real.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say to this government,
go back, listen to the people of Belleville
and Quinte, understand what they are get-
ting at, see the problem, and the bungling of
the Ontario Municipal Board in this instance,
and perhaps the bungling because of a lack
of any cohesive plan for the total area.
Then see what the hon. Minister of Trade
and Development (Mr. Randall) is doing to
frustrate, or to develop as the case may be,
depending on how you look at it, the work
which is being done at another level in The
Department of Municipal Affairs. So let us
have some cohesion, let us have some unity,
and let us move forward-
Mr. Speaker: Time expired a minute ago.
Perhaps you could conclude—
Mr. Young: This government then stands
condemned again in the Quinte-Hastings
area, just as they are condemned in the
Waterloo area, and as they are condemned
in the whole school board project across this
province. So we say to them, back up and do
the thing right or get out.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I suppose that if
I sat on the other side of the House one
could understand that ingenuity must often
take precedence over consistency. I am
impressed in particular by the ingenuity of
the three motions which we have had from
the Liberal Party on the same general sub-
ject in the last three months, all presented,
I may say, by the leader of the Opposition.
They give a rather classic picture of riding
off in all directions at once.
On November 26 last, the motion of the
leader of the Opposition complained that the
government, and I quote, "has failed to
bring about meaningful reform in an ancient
and ineflBcient system of municipal govern-
ment".
Hon. A. Grossman ( Minister of Correctional
Services): Did he say that?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: He said that. Then
on March 10, the motion complained that
the government had brought about such a
reform. The motion expressed regret that the
government, and again I quote, "has seriously
disrupted the efficient operation of local gov-
ernment and has especially failed to give an
adequate voice to citizens of local municipaH-
ties and their representatives before deciding
upon far-reaching changes in municipal gov-
ernment administration".
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did he say that too?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Then today, Mr.
Speaker, my colleague, the Treasurer, has de-
tailed some of the inconsistencies in the
third motion.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it
is a little futile to try and guess what is in
the minds of the Opposition, at this moment
in time, as compared to an hour ago, or
when this motion was drawn up, or when
the previous motions were drawn up.
So Mr. Speaker, I propose to state just
where we stand on implementing the reform
of local government. On this side of the
House, we have a consistent position, it has
been spelled out and it is being adhered to.
There are two clear alternatives for the
provincial government in relation to local gov-
enment in Ontario. The first alternative would
be to do notliing, to stand by and permit
local government to disintegrate under the
pressures of rapid growth, out of date boun-
daries, mushrooming demands for services
and inadequate resources. There is no chance
that our present system of local government
could survive in its present form.
The first alternative could have variations.
It would be possible, of course, to follow the
pattern of the Liberal government in New
Brunswick and move most of the important
functions back to provincial control, to do
away with local government. I do not say
that that was inappropriate for New Bruns-
wick; it may have been the right move— but it
is one of the alternatives.
The second alternative is the one that this
government has chosen. It is tihe course of
taking action— action to make the changes
that are essential in order to re-vitalize local
government. This government refuses, Mr.
Speaker, to bury its head in the sand and
think the changes can happen without strong
and responsible action on our part. We,
therefore, have begun an overhaul of the
municipal system and structure. Two words
sum up our plans and our policies for
implementing the reform of local government,
one word is "effective", and the other is
"responsible".
3186
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We operate on the principle that a plan
should only be tried if it is likely to work.
We are not interested in nice sounding ideas
that will not work. The refomi of assessment,
for example, is the foundation for many of
the other changes which are needed for the
survival and the strength of local government.
We studied in detail the various ways that
reform in assessment could be carried out.
We found that one mediod would work and
others would be less attractive, and we
chose the method that will work. The real
interests of local government and tlie tax-
payers of Ontario are served by getting this
job done and by getting it done in the most
effective way.
The second operative word for our policy
is "responsible" and let me put it another
way. We accept the responsibilities that tlie
people of Ontario have given us and we are
not about to ev^ade them. We invite the fullest
consultation which is consistent with effective-
ness, but a decision has to be made, a whole
series of decisions, in fact, in each area. The
responsibility is the government's responsi-
bility, taking into account all the pertinent
local views and circumstances, as well as the
good of the people of Ontario as a whole.
Another element of responsibility concerns
the decision to have a Minister directly and
specifically accountable for the regional gov-
ernment programme. We discarded the idea
of a secretariat. The government prefers to
have elected persons front and centre where
they are accessible, where they can be seen,
can be questioned, criticized and so on. This
is met by the present Minister, with countless
meetings, interviews and trips. That pace will
continue and this is part of our concept of
respKjnsibility, not burying it in a secretariat.
Regional government where and when
necessary has four general aims. They are
pertinent to the motion before us and we
put them in the House on a number of
occasions. We are eager to get the maximum
interest and consultation in each area where
regional government is under study. A four-
stage process is involved and we detailed
those.
Let me repeat them: the discussion and
consultation stage; separation of specific pro-
posals; the development of the final proposal;
and finally the presentation for legislation in
the House.
Those four stages were followed in the
establishment of the Ottawa-Carleton regional
government. The same is true of the Lake-
head where the inter-municipal committee
has been an important participant. The
proposal for regional government in Peel-
Halton is in the second stage at the present
time, and the Niagara regional proposal is
in the third stage.
The role of elected representatives is of
particular importance in local consultations.
Members of the local council, as are mem-
bers of the Legislature, are the democratic
spokesmen for people in their areas and their
opinions and representations are sought and
valued. We welcome the views of labour
organizations, of business, or community
groups of various kinds, of regional develop-
ment councils, of ratepayers' associations, and
of individuals. In other words, local consulta-
tion is a basic part of the implementation
of regional government i>olicies, and it will
continue to be so.
It is part of our planning to allow time for
consultation and to avoid setting deadlines
before the factors aff^ecting those deadlines
become known. I have not, contrary to press
reports, set a deadline for Peel-Halton. I
have suggested a timetable at which certain
stages would have to be finished in order to
meet a target date that has been suggested
by local representatives. No deadlines have
been established.
One of the points tliat is subject to decision
at the local level, and on which discussions
are underway in many areas, is the role of
special purpose bodies in the local govern-
ment of the future. A multiplicity of special
purpose bodies tends to fragment local power
between elective and non-elective groups. It
is our recommendation that councils handle
as many of the responsibilities as possible.
For example, I point to the planning and
health functions in the Ottawa-Carleton legis-
lation.
Mr. Speaker, in summary, we have
embarked on a form of municipal government
tliat will do more to strengthen the local level
of government than any other single pro-
gramme since 1849. Implementation of our
policy is moving ahead in a way that is
calculated to be both effective and respon-
sible. We invite and we welcome all com-
ments, including the comments in this House,
and the comments and submissions which we
are receiving from the people in the organiza-
tions in local areas throughout the province.
We would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the assis-
tance which we seek from all quarters is
more constructive than the nit-picking, wishy-
washy motion that the leader of the Opposi-
tion has put before the House today.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to support this motion, that
APRIL 16, 1969
3187
this House deplores the inadequacy of gov-
ernment in relation to the implementation of
regional, municipal and educational govern-
ment in Ontario; its lack of local consultation;
its failure to control costs; and its removal of
local autonomy; and, therefore, that the
government does not enjoy the confidence of
this House.
I rise to speak, Mr. Speaker, on my leader's
motion of non-confidence in the Conservative
government of this province as the official
Opposition critic for education. I shall,
therefore, zero in on the utter chaos that the
Conservatives have created in education
across the province, especially their cal-
culated shifting of the burden of taxation
increases on the property owners.
I would like to remind the House, Mr.
Speaker, that over a year ago, in the Legisla-
ture's standing committee on education, my
leader and I and members of the New
Democratic Party told the Minister of Educa-
tion that his heavy-handed scheme to force
a county school board system on local com-
munities across all of Ontario, excluding
Metro Toronto, would be unjust to many
people on fixed low incomes, unless the re-
organization was wisely and carefully thought
out and implemented in close consultation
with local communities.
The Minister did not listen. As a result,
today, there are thousands of rural and small
town homeowners on fixed incomes under
$2,500 across this province who are about to
be hit unless action is taken by this govern-
ment, by a doubling of their local education
tax.
I would like to recall to the Minister of
Education's memory, Mr. Speaker, the repre-
sentations that we had from a professor at
Queen's University concerning the impact of
the county board on Frontenac county. It
was on the basis of this representation that
the Minister did make some adjustment in the
bill that was before the committee.
I say, Mr. Speaker, simply— that it was over
a year ago, I believe, that that professor from
Queen's told the Minister exactly what would
happen across this province. I am terribly
sorry the Minister's advisors and he himself
could not take the advice of this expert very
seriously.
Let us make clear, Mr. Speaker, what the
gut issue is. It is this— the gross political
manoeuvering of the Premier, the Treasurer
and the Minister of Education with the
finances of Ontario has backfired in their
faces. The people of Ontario have finally
seen through them.
Let us start with the utterly misleading
and irresponsible statement of the Treasurer
as he stood in this House in his dark suit and
TV tie and presented the balanced Ontario
Budget for 1969.
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
What about that tie? Is it to wave in front
of the TV cameras?
Mr. T. Reid: This is to wave in front of
you three jokers.
These empty, empty words he uttered will
haunt him until he is no longer the Treasurer
of this province. He said:
Altogether our rationing measures elim-
inated approximately $400 million from
expenditure estimates to come down to our
final expenditure total of $2,996 million.
We believe that the final expenditure pack-
age that has emerged represents a wise and
responsible allocation of our limited public
funds.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you got that— "eliminated
approximately $400 million from the pro-
vincial government's expenditure estimates."
I am willing to bet that $150 million or even
more was shifted directly into the worn-out
pockets of the property and homeowners of
this province.
Instead of meeting its financial commit-
ments to the new county school boards, this
provincial government shifts its financial
nightmare unilaterally to the new county
school boards, and is forcing those boards to
rape the homeowners in order to stay finan-
cially solvent.
Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, this govern-
ment is reneging on a promise to the home-
owners of Ontario. That promise was to
relieve them of the crushing burden of local
taxation on their properties by upping the
provincial financial contribution to local
education from a level, on the average, of
about $48 for every $100 spent to more than
that. Instead, this government is cutting
back— and my estimate is by approximately
15 per cent-to $42 for every $100 to be
spent on education at the local level.
I maintain that this government had, and
still has, a moral commitment to pay, at the
very minimum the same share of the cost of
education at the local level that it did last
year. Because this government did not have
the foresight to bring in proper cost control
guidelines and techniques for the county
boards, it must take the rap— not the fed-up
homeowner in this province.
3188
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Treasurer has the gall to parade in
front of the people of Ontario, puffing and
huffing, that what he, the Premier and the
Minister of Education did was wise and re-
sponsible. Tell that to the people of the
township of Rama who will have their prop-
erty taxes for education doubled, from
$88,000 to $188,000. Tell that to Conser\'a-
tive James Myers and he will reply that
"Robarts and Da\is ha\e gone off their
rockers completely".
I would like to remind this government
Mr. Speaker, of the views of its own Smith
Report of several years ago:
The shortcomings of tlie property tax
l>ecome more material the greater the reli-
ance placed upon it. By reducing the rate
of real property taxes through increased
provincial grants, tlie more vehement ob-
jections to the present system of local
government taxation would be eliminated.
The basic shortcoming of the property tax,
Mr. Speaker, is that tlie lower your family
income, the greater the percentage of your
income you pay in property tax that is
regressive.
In conclusion: It is one tiling to bring in
a re-organization of the school boards. It is
quite another thing to do so by discrimina-
tory and regressive taxation increases on
lower and average income families in this
province. Families on low and average in-
comes have hardly any discretionary income
to start with. When they have to pay out
another $200 in local taxes, they become
desperate.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, at a time when tlie
provincial government's education grants
should be moving rapidly to a point where
they meet 80 per cent of education costs to
reheve the overtaxed homeowner, the Con-
servative government here in Queen's Park
decides to push its financial nightmare on to
the local school boards and the overtaxed
backs of homeowners. This blatant political
manoeuvring, arrogance and incompetence,
is what will bring the Conservatives down
at the next provincial election.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow
up on some of the things mentioned by my
colleague from Peterborough with respect to
the arrogant manner in which this bill was
not only introduced but pushed through the
committee, where, I believe, the number of
resolutions was 46, to be precise. This shows
you the speed and the haste and the plan-
ning which went into this bill— precisely none.
We went after the question of taxation, Mr.
Speaker, at great length, and we were advised
in that committee that every type of formula
possible was worked on to ensure that there
would be no undue shift of the tax burden
in the province of Ontario. We were shown
scads of material and reference was made to
taxation, and it was guaranteed that there
was just not going to be this great shift that
we see today. Well, one year later has
proved tlie Minister and his whole depart-
ment pretty sadly lacking in judgment.
It is interesting in talking to a school offi-
cial the other night— one rather high up, too,
in the department— that he is of the opinion
that the whole purpose of Bill 44 was really
to shift the burden of tax from tlie provincial
government to tlie municipalities. That is a
sad comment. Then today we hear the
Treasurer get up and say they did not know
what was going to happen but they now
have a clear picture. Yet, as my colleague
from Peterborough says, they have a whole
floor of computers, and tliey must have been
aware that if they took off the 100 per cent
grant to non resident students at the high
school level, this was going to affect those
people in areas where they were receiving
the 100 per cent grant. They must have
known that they were going to bring in a
maximum clause of a ten per cent increase
in the amount that the government would
be willing to go beyond its present level, afid
that this would affect people, because if you
went 15 per cent tliis would have meant an
additional five per cent more to the munici-
palities.
So these are two areas where the Treasurer
really cannot say we did not know tlie ramifi-
cations, because they have computers to
find out. The statistics and the figures were
all tliere, and I am sorry, I just cannot buy
that phony hanky-panky you just handed
us this afternoon that you "now" know. You
should have known before, because what is
the sense of having all these computers and
all of the data available if you are not going
to use it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You cannot fire a
computer.
Mr. Martel: You cannot, no. You could
fire the Treasurer.
Mr. Pitman: You can programme it though.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You cannot do it
too easily, though, not for a while.
Mr. Martel: It is coming, it is coming.
Equalized assessment has been dropped in
the mimicipalitics; who is going to pick this
APRIL 16, 1969
3189
up? In one municipality I know of the
equalized assessment has dropped from 83
to 62 per cent. And there is a third area
where the residents of Ontario have been
hit, and mostly it is in these small outlying
communities, the rural areas that my col-
league from Peterborough made reference to
earlier.
For example, in Fort Frances, the mill rate
has gone up 32 mills, and on a house of $300,
with a payment last year of $300, will be
$528 this year. If you are a fat cat, as so
many people in that front bench over there
are, this is fine. But if you are an ordinary
resident of this province you are in trouble.
And what has really happened to all this
baloney that the Prime Minister was talking
about on equality of education? I can take
you into schools in Ontario, Mr. Speaker,
where they have been without supplies since
the beginning of February, and are not in a
position to buy any. And I wonder if that
is equal educational opportunity in the
province of Ontario in 1969?
I can take you to other schools and boards
who cannot hire specialists at the present
time because they do not know what is
going to come out of this financial fiasco, so
the cities are gobbling up the specialists,
left, right and centre. I wonder what is hap-
pening to the equal educational opportunity
when the outlying areas cannot hire the
specialists?
Until this nightmare is cleaned up— and
we have not heard anything of a clearance
yet from the Treasurer or the Minister of
Municipal Affairs— I wonder what will get
properly qualified specialists into those areas?
Maybe the Minister can enlighten us today,
and he cannot say it is not happening. For
example, in the city of Sudbury they have
had to ask the classroom teachers to take
over the teaching of conversational French.
We are not going to get the specialists, Mr.
Speaker. They are going to be in Toronto,
and in Windsor until this nightmare is cleaned
up, and it wants to be cleaned up in a hurry,
because in another month there is not going
to be a teacher left to hire.
So I suggest, in winding up— I want to
leave some time for my colleague from
Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes)— that we are not
getting, at the present time, equal oppor-
tunity of education in Ontario. In fact, we
are going backwards at the present time. I
hope the Minister can straighten us out.
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Mr. Speaker, I would apply the word
"blether" to this resolution, or perhaps the
phrase "Pecksnilfian cant", except that I
notice on page 474 of May that those terms
are unparliamentary. I will be dealing more
precisely in my concluding remarks with
the inconsistencies and, perhaps, immoralities
involved in the phraseology in this particular
motion, but in the meantime I would like to
lay the background, and I very much appre-
ciate the hon. member for Sudbury East
giving me five minutes of his time, so that I
can present this to you clearly.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. White: Starting with this littie
summary of the select committee report on
taxation, I draw your attention, sir, to chapter
23, reconciling structure with finance, regional
government, page 143, paragraph 2, which
reads as follows:
Three basic considerations led the Smith
committee to recommend the restructuring
of local government. The first asserted
that efficiency and the • raising of proper
tax revenues required assessment and
collection on a regional basis. The second
reason described in the section dealing
with provincial grants for municipal and
school purposes, was that equity in local
finance cannot be achieved with the exist-
ing multiplicity of municipal institutions,
and would be better achieved through
regional government.
The third reason was that municipal
capacity to develop non-property sources
of tax revenue was severely circumscribed
by a limited territorial jurisdiction.
I think I am correct in saying, Mr. Speaker,
that all members of the committee, which is,
to say, all members of the three parties, sub-
scribed to that and certain other observations
that I now want to raise.
Part of paragraph 4 reads as follows:
The concept of regional government has
become accepted in this province and this
acceptance has obviated the need for pro-
tracted studies. The accent has shifted
from acceptance of study of the question
to a positive desire for action in the near
future.
And the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, made no
demurrer to that point of view. Now, on the
next page, page 144, paragraph 6 reads in
part, as follows:
In view of these circumstances, we
endorse the Smith committee's reasoning
and the premises established..
3190
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
A. Local government is an indispensable
part of our total system of democratic gov-
ernment.
B. There is an urgent need to reform the
existing structure of local government.
And again, part of paragraph 8:
We have accepted the criteria for
regional government as established by the
Smith committee.
There were five criteria, of which I would
like to quote two. On page 45, paragraph
8, section C:
Every region should possess an adequate
tax base, such that it will have the capacity
to achieve substantial service equalization
to its own tax resources, thereby simplify-
ing the provincial task of reducing local
fiscal disparities.
And section D:
Every region should be so constituted
that it has the capacity to perform those
functions that confer regionalized benefits
with the greatest possible efficiency. Effi-
ciency being understood in terms of
economies of scale.
And I draw the leader of the Opposition's
attention to that:
Specialization of the application of
modern technology.
Mr. Speaker, just one further and very brief
quote from page 149, paragraph 17, and this
deals more particularly with the regionaliza-
tion of school board revenues and expendi-
tures, and administration. All of the members
of this committee, including the representa-
tives from the NDP, and including the repre-
sentatives from the Liberals, signed this
without demurrer.
We record only that we expect no
significant change in the province's new
structure of the elementary and secondary
school systems.
I point out to you that all members are in
substantial agreement that revenues should be
regionalized on the one hand and that the
level of service should be brought up to a
certain minimum standard in each region on
the other hand.
Mr. MacDonald: That sounds like a foun-
dation programme.
Hon. Mr. White: We are doing that, and
certain transitional difficulties are inevitable.
As I understand it, some of the increase in
tax rates in certain parts of the province
come about as a result of the equalization on
the revenue side. Let me give you an
example.
When the Ford Motor Company located its
big new plant in South wold township near
Talbotville, the mill rate was cut by 50 per
cent for the rather small number of rate-
payers in that particular township. At the
same time, the employees of the Ford Motor
Company and the children of the employees
had to be served in a variety of ways, in-
cluding education, by the city of St. Thomas,
by other parts of Elgin county, by the city
of London and by parts of Middlesex county.
So we had tliis one township enjoying a
windfall gain of assessment and tax revenues,
so to speak, while very substantial additional
expenditiures were imposed on neighbouring
municipalities. The mill rate for education, I
was told a week ago Saturday, in Southwold
township last year was six mills— that may
be for the primary grades only. It was six
mills.
That rate when Elgin county is regionalized
as it is now, is going to be ever so much
higher, no doubt. But it is not fair, I suggest
to you, even if this mill rate should turn out
to be 24 mills, it is not fair. I suggest to you
to say, "here is a 400 i>er cent increase",
because that does not tell the story at all.
Mr. Good: Just one isolated case.
Hon. Mr. White: In point of fact under
the bad old system which we all want to
change— am I correct in saying that— under the
bad old system which we all want to change,
this kind of special benefit resulting from the
disparate distribution of assessment for tax
purposes gave some number of people a very
special tax status which was not deserved and
which was not fair.
Now, those special tax status situations are
being, if not eliminated, at least minimized,
and in the process the mill rate will go up in
some parts of the province. In some of these
instances— I do not want to be all inclusive
here— but certainly in some of these instances
the increase is entirely appropriate.
Point number two, sir. Some of the in-
creases, it would seem, spring from unavoid-
able cost increases which are the by-product
of inflation. Every level of government has a
degree of responsibility in this matter as
indeed have private enterprises and perhaps
even private citizens, but the paramount
responsibility, all public finance economists
agree, is at the federal level. We have a
degree of responsibility at the provincial level
and we are attempting to satisfy that respon-
sibility in balancing our budget, in reducing
APRIL 16, 1969
3191
our own increase in expenditures to 7.5 per
cent, a fraction-
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Now that
we have a whipping boy what happens to
the-
Hon. Mr. White: Oh, just a minute now,
fair is fair. I have not said we have no
responsibihty, but it is self evident, the fed-
eral government has all the monetary power
—all of it— 100 per cent— and they have at
least half of the fiscal power— so they cer-
tainly have the primary responsibiHty. I sup-
pose if one had to apportion it one would
have to say that the federal government had
three-quarters and the provinces and the
municipalities share the other quarter. At any
rate let us not quarrel about that apportion-
ment. We have attempted to meet om- share
of the responsibility in balancing our Budget
and in keeping our expenditures down and
I think fair minded observers have con-
cluded and have stated that the Treasurer
has been eminently successful in these
endeavours.
The third element in the increase appears
to result from extraordinary transitional
expenses. Some of these might have been
avoided by the new county boards and per-
haps certain others were inevitable. At any
rate these aberrations, I think, are short Uved;
I hope they will be. If nothing else the in-
crease in the standard of living and the
increase in income levels will give an oppor-
tunity to bring certain of these very high
salaries under control while other inefiBcien-
cies can perhaps be weeded out.
Then, as I understand it, in anticipation
of regionalization some niunber of school
boards who did have surpluses, spent them
last year bringing their mill rate down some-
what last year, which really distorted the
picture, so far as this year is concerned.
Those are the four elements as I have been
able to identify them in this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Minister
would draw his remarks to a close.
Hon. Mr. White: I thought I had until
4.45.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister has until
4.41 and it is now 4.41.
Hon. Mr. White: In that event, sir, and
with very great regret let me draw my
remarks to a close by pointing out the in-
consistency, and in fact the hypocrisy, of
this particular motion which says that the
government is to be condemned for (a) its
failure to control costs, and (b) its removal
of local autonomy.
You cannot have it both ways. If you want
the Minister of Education to control these
costs directly and to centralize this responsi-
bility it is going to be at the cost of local
autonomy. We have chosen the more difficult
and wiser alternative which is to induce
efficiencies and to induce cost savings and
I would hope that every member of this
House would vote down the pecksniffian cant
which we find in this motion.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in support of this no confidence motion,
that "this House deplores the inadequacy of
this government's policy in relation to the
implementation of regional, municipal and
educational government in Ontario and its
lack of local consultation, its failure to con-
trol costs, and its removal of local autonomy,
and therefore this government does not enjoy
the confidence of this House."
Mr. Speaker, this province, as we all know,
faced one of the greatest • financial crises I
can remember since I have been a member
of this Legislature. It is in every paper that
I pick up— money crisis in county school
boards. This government has brought county
school boards into force in this province with-
out proper study, without knowing or in-
forming the people of the cost and this has
brought more unrest and dissatisfaction. Mr.
Speaker, in walking down the street it is not
uncommon to have people come up to me
and say it is time for a revolution.
These people are concerned. This govern-
ment has failed to inform them, has not given
any consideration to the taxpayer whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, when the county school boards
came into force on January 1, they started
to hire the administration officials to operate
the schools in the county, and the salaries
that were paid to these administrators were
out of all bounds with the average income
across the province of Ontario. I got the
Ontario income of 1966, Mr. Speaker, to find
that there were 707,477 people within the
$2,000 income bracket. I found 405,132 in
the $2,000 to $3,000 income bracket, and I
found 417,402 in the $4,000 to $5,000, and
Mr. Speaker, this has concerned and has
rocked the people across this province that
this government failed to inform them of the
cost of county school boards in the province
of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I had heard my colleagues
bring to the attention of the House the high
rate of increase in education costs in the
urban areas. I want to take a little difi^erent
3192
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tack here this afternoon; I want to bring to
the attention of the House how it is affecting
these rates in the fanning areas in different
parts of the province. It is a slightly different
tack from the previous speakers who have
risen to make known their views on this
amendment. I can say what I want to say
quite briefly, Mr. Speaker. The farmer expects
the same kind of return on his investment as
any other class of the community. This means
that the capital he has frozen in his farm and
in his dwelling should have approximately the
same relationship to his earnings as that en-
joyed by tlie businessman in other walks of
life.
Into today's condition a ten-to-one ratio
might not be amiss. However, it is the fortu-
nate farmer who is today getting back even
five per cent of his investment, and this is
due to the inflated value of his holding. He
has to pay through the nose for his property,
and was it supposed to help when the Fed-
eral Farm Credit Corporation loans and the
Junior Farmer Loan Boards of the province
of Ontario forced up the tax of property to
an unreal height? Because when they made
it impossible for the farmer to borrow up to
$40,000, profit takers and real estate specu-
lators forced up farm values by this amount.
Admittedly not all at once, but over approxi-
mately a five-year period.
Consequently, farms are not traded quite
as regularly at double their real value, in
terms of fair return on investment, of a ten-
to-one basis. At a time when anyone in Bay
Street can get ten per cent on his money,
the farmer is strapped earning five per cent
or less by the sweat of his brow.
Into this situation move the provincial
assessors, talking uniform assessment at mar-
ket value, as per the Smith report. All very
well for non-farm properties, but for farms,
to look at what 100 recent sales have pro-
duced is to build a whole assessment frame-
work on a fallacy. You cannot go into a
locality and do that without knowing that
the recent sales are the direct results of a
manipulation that went on before, and the
borrowing that the farmers were forced into
because the speculative market in farm prop-
erty took up the slack. Do you think that by
taking easing action on the old assessment
you are going to ease the transition to the
county school boards?
My colleagues have painted the present pic-
ture in its true colours, and I endorse all that
they have said. I am adding this final note of
warning— that when all the inflated salaries,
and the chief-to-Indian ratio, the cost of
fancy buildings and computers and that, have
been licked, I still want to 5«iy to this gov-
ernment they are not out of tlie woods yet
because this assessment manual, this now
bible we hear so much aibout, is based on
fallacy. It is built around the idea that if
you take a large enough mmiber of current
sales, somehow you will hit the fair market
value, and the truth of what properties are
worth. If Ontario was composed of wander-
ing bands of nomads, it would have been
true, but those who have a stake in this enter-
prise and in the soil do not shift around Hke
that. They stay put; their values arise out
of what they can produce from the soil of
Ontario, Their returns ought to be related to
a nearly fixed ratio to their holding, for tax
purposes.
The Smith committee was hitting on this
when it said that the local assessor who
abandoned all his experience just to follow
a set of laid-down rules abandoned his calling,
I do not know what uniform assessment
means, Mr, Speaker, but if it is tied to sales
at inflated value which bear no relationship
to actual worth as earning capacity of farm
holding, I endorse all my colleagues have
said,
I make this further point, that reform is
not a one-shot effort but involves a good
look at what an investment in farm yields in
real terms. An assessment manual had better
take that into acxiount or there will be large
crowds in front of this building in the future.
Before regional government can be placed
upon die people of this province, the people
will demand to know what it is going to cost;
that is something that has been lacking in the
county school board system. If the people
had known, tliey would not have been in
such im uproar, and maybe the county school
boards would not be here today. I am for
cxjunty school boards and I hope they will
work, but I am telHng you this, Mr. Speaker,
we must not forget the taxpayers or else a
lot of us will not l^e here after the next
provincial election,
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Tliunder Bay): Mr. Speaker,
I, too, rise to support this Liberal vote of
non-confidence. I am restricted as I have
already made a deal with the member for
Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Farquhar) to share
the remaining time, so tliat of necessity I will
have to be brief.
We are, for the very same reason, oppcscd
to the kind of fiscal policy, the kind of re-
organization, that has come aibout without
proper thinking by The Department of Edu-
cation, by The Department of Treasury in
APRIL 16, 1969
3193
their neglect. In their approach to regional
government, and regional development and
to tlie re-organization of school boards, the
people of the north, due to their inequitable
tax base, are even more disenchanted and
more alarmed and more frustrated by the
actions of this government or by the inaction
of this government, however you want to put
it.
We have a programme that was introduced
to this House a short time ago directed to tlie
Northwestern Ontario Development Coimcil,
a plan for development of northwestern On-
tario. It seems to be an excellent plan. The
government has not indicated in any way,
shape or form that they plan to implement
it, or that they will even take it under advise-
ment. As a matter of fact the Provincial
Treasurer, when asked some three weeks ago,
said that he had not had an opportunity to
read it and did not even know its contents.
If you are going to make regional develop-
ment in this province a meaningful exercise,
as so many other speakers have said here this
afternoon, you must get with it to provide
a viable tax base. Regional government, if it
is not a useful tool in regional development,
is not even worth spending any time on, then
it is not even worth talking about. And if re-
gional government is not a more useful tool
than the re-organization of district school
boards, and if we are to be left with the
same kind of chaos with regard to providing
resources for the services that are so neces-
sary all across the province and particularly
the northern half of the province, it is just a
useless exercise.
With regard to tlie increase in taxes, I am
sure most of you are aware that in northern
municipalities they will be hit even harder
than indicated in many of the smaller com-
mtmdties in the south, when you consider
Ohver and Paipoonge which have an increase
of something like 500 per cent in their school
taxes; when you consider the fact that the
whole cost of education in the Lakehead area
alone has gone up to $2.5 million, while the
actual grants from The Department of Educa-
tion have gone down. In closing, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to quote a brief article from the
Marathon Mercury, wliich states:
The provincial government, at the re-
cently concluded federal-provincial con-
ference, made a lot of noise about the
province not having dieir fair share to say
about and participation in federal matters,
particularly in the area of spending. Mr.
Robarts and Mr. MacNaughton are fine ones
to cry.
Our communities in northwestern On-
tario give their fair share of vocal contribu-
tion in provincial matters concerning muni-
cipalities. In the south where the votes are,
yes. Up here, no. As a result, this area has
not voted Conservative in a provincial elec-
tion in years. Marathon has, over the past
years, been forced into cost-sharing pro-
grammes which they could easily have done
without. As Lloyd Irwin stated last year
the imposition of divisional education in
this area is just anotlier scheme by a finan-
cially-embarrassed government in the form
of another cost-sharing programme, and he
wasn't far from wrong.
That is just another manifestation of the frus-
tration that is being experienced by the
people in the northern half of the province.
I heartily endorse this resolution.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Speaker, I am grateful to the member for
Thunder Bay for his co-operation and con-
sideration. I am also grateful to him in his
capacity as Whip, and the government Whip
for their responsible approach to the organiz-
ing of this debate; and a little bit complicated
it was, indeed.
I appreciate having even a few minutes
to offer a few additional reasons why, in my
opinion, this government does not enjoy the
confidence of this House. While there will be
a minimum of time for detailing the back-
ground of various inadequacies of the various
departments, let me suggest that this morning
a full-page item in the Globe and Mail cen-
tred around the plight of the town of Blind
River. The failure of this government, while
speeches and efforts of mine here have had
litde effect, is certainly the main topic of
conversation in that unfortunate town. Let
me suggest that the mayor of that town at
this point bitterly resents the fact that pro-
posals and projects, in most cases extremely
practical, that he has begged for have been
continually turned down since it became ap-
parent a year ago that nothing but govern-
ment action could sustain that town.
Further, in that same area, and in direct
criticism of The Department of Municipal
Affairs, the Minister who has been so ex-
tremely obsessed with regional government
arrangements, replied to me in answer to a
question that he agreed that much had to be
done in the way of planning in the unor-
ganized areas in Algoma, even suggesting on
July 16, 1968, that the sum of $20,000 was
available to set up an organized planning
structure.
3194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, while, during the year since
that time, much has been said and done to
promote certain areas of the proxince region-
ally, to the best of my knowledge nothing has
been done to take care of, or to organize,
areas such as this that have no government
at all. The whole area of grant structures,
both from tlie standpoint of education and
maintenance of senior citizen accommodation
on the north shore and on Manitouhn and in
many parts of northern Ontario, has caused
great concern, and I think the best way to
illustrate this concern would be to read a
report by the mayor of Massey to the citizens
of that town. He says:
The new Espanola super-board of edu-
cation has presented the town of Massey
with a projected mill rate for public school
purposes for 1969.
This is an open letter to the citizens.
As you can readily notice, compared with
1968 figures for public school purposes,
the mill rate is out of all proportion and
the town council intends to fight the ac-
ceptance with all the powers available to it.
The separate school rate has not as yet
been presented and according to indica-
tions from the board it will no doubt be
just as bad.
This increase would amount to an ap-
proximate 250 per cent school tax increase.
Mr. Singer: The Minister of Revenue would
say it serves them right.
Mr. Farquhar: Still quoting:
On an average home, if the town were
able to keep its general mill rate at the
same level as last year, taxes would in-
crease, to an average taxpayer, by $90 to
$100. Commercial property taxes would
almost double. The mill rate for high
school purposes, which is an addition this
year, will be chargeable to both public
and separate school supporters.
At present it would appear that an in-
terim tax bill will be sent out to cover
municipal expenses and when the school
issue is settled an additional bill will be
sent to you.
I, as mayor, do not feel that this rate
can even be considered to be accepted. If
we are forced to accept it, I intend to re-
sign as mayor rather than present a tax
bill such as those rates would involve to
the citizens of Massey.
The figures just stated are supported by
statistical data comparing 1968 with 1969
levies. Comparable percentage of increases
have been developed in the Manitouhn Is-
land, but in that area there is an additional
factor. Over a period of the last year, rep-
resentations have been made to the Minister
of Social and Family Services (Mr. Yaremko)
by elected officials on Manitouhn desperately
seeking a change in tlie grant structure for
purposes of the maintenance of the senior
citizen's home on Manitoulin.
On these occasions, figures have been
presented which showed that while the
average percentage of levy across Ontario for
the support of senior citizens' homes runs to
one or two per cent at the most of the total
tax available. On Manitoulin, the percentage
of the tax bill runs to about 15 per cent of
the total taxes available for maintenance.
On several occasions, the Minister has
seemed to recognize this outlandish com-
parison and has made statements to the effect
that something must be done, but so far has
not seen fit to take any action in this regard.
Now on top of this, there is a 200 to 250
per cent increase in school costs. It is beyond
understanding, Mr. Speaker, this utter lack of
recognition for an area whose assessment base
is shrinking, with population deteriorating
every year. Not only does the population
deteriorate, but the youthful portion of that
population is the portion that is leaving those
areas for greener fields.
It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that another
reeve in that area said to me that the signifi-
cance of this non-confidence motion is not
that it is being debated here today, but that
at least, in northern Ontario, he is surprised
that there is any confidence left in this gov-
ernment whatsoever.
And, of course, I must add that I am in full
support of the motion and I think every mem-
ber, searching his conscience and remember-
ing some of these facts, must surely support
it.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Mr. Speaker,
as one sits here during the course of the
debate, being ready to wind up on behalf of
his party, one hopes that he has prepared
some thoughts. But as one sits here, there are
many new thoughts generated, and as I sat
in this House last night there were many new
thoughts generated to me. Because, when
you read this motion, that this House deplores
the inadequacy of the government, really
what you could say, what you could finish it
with is "that this House deplores the inade-
quacies of this government's Ministers."
APRIL 16, 1969
3195
Because we saw yesterday about as inept
a performance by a Cabinet Minister as is
possible to see in any Parliament in this Com-
monwealth. I am sure of it. And today we
saw three Ministers get up and read their
speeches here. Now, let me apologize first to
the Minister of Revenue, I want to apologize
to him because I had interrupted and ac-
cused these Ministers of having their speeches
written for them. He obviously wrote that. It
was so bad nobody could write that speech
but him.
This is really what we are talking about,
this is the essence of what is going on in this
House. It is the inadequacies of the Min-
isters, and it is really a telling point in the
favour of this government that it began with
the Provincial Treasurer, because money is
the problem. Make no bones about it, money
is the problem. And money is the problem
that is going to send him back to that little
store in Exeter. You have to give this Treas-
urer credit for one thing, he did say something
that I thought was tremendously germane.
He said the problems are identifiable in a
manner never seen before. And is he right!
Are the problems ever identifiable, the prob-
lems of the Tory Party? You know there is a
death wish in those people, Mr. Speaker.
Do you know why they have been in power
for 25 years? It is because of their rural
backbenchers. Make no bones about that.
That is why they are there, really. I see it
in my area.
My hon. colleague, the member for Lamb-
ton (Mr. Henderson), was the warden for
Lambton county and before that he was the
reeve of the township of Ennisldllen, I believe,
and happily so. A good warden and a good
reeve, and now he is a good backbencher.
But if it was not for people such as my
colleague, the member for Lambton, you
would not be Treasurer of this province for
ten minutes. You really have a death wish,
because when you can permit the perpetration
of frauds like Bill 44, that has to be about as
ill-conceived an action as we had last year.
I thought the tax shelter programme was,
but really, when you see the impact of it
now, on the people of Ontario, this outstrips
the tax shelter programme. It makes the Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs look like a choir
boy witli a soprano voice. There is no doubt
about it.
I talk to you about a death wish because
you are really affecting the rural people. I am
not going to read you some of tliese figures
that I have here because they have been
read to you before. You are aware of them
from your area. You know exactly what is
happening in this province. There is a resur-
gence against you by the rural people in
this province and you know what you are
going to do-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, they think
they fool us. They think that they come be-
fore us with legislation of this nature well
planned. But the fact of the matter is, as
Smith suggested, that we should enlarge
somewhere, at least, on tlie secondary school
level, our boards of education; and concur-
rent with that, elevation of the grant struc-
ture to at least 60 per cent. But did we do
that?
No, there is a little seed in Smith. Was
there any possibility of any pretesting of this
plan? Certainly there was. Was there any
pretesting of this plan? Certainly there was
not. And why was there none? Because of
the absolute inefficiency of this government.
A situation exists right -now in Ontario,
and I invite the hon. Minister of Education,
in his prepared reply, to speak to this point.
I want him to speak to section 85 ( 1 ) of this
statute, chapter 122, the 1968 statutes be-
cause it reads, and I want to read it to you,
if I might:
Every divisional board in each year
shall prepare and adopt estimates of all
sums required during the year for public
school purposes and for secondary school
purposes respectively and such estimates—
I will leave out the intermediate sections,
—and shall submit to the council of
each municipality in the school division on
or before the 1st day of March in each
year a statement, indicating the amount of
the estimates for public school purposes
and for secondary school purposes to be
raised by each municipality and a requisi-
tion of the amount of tlie estimates for
public school purposes, etc.
That is the way it reads. I have attempted
investigation and I have a sheet of rephes.
I have not found one area school board
where this section has been complied with.
The Minister nods that I am incorrect.
Perhaps there is; I hope he brings it to our
attention. But the point I make is this— I
talk about ill-conceived. You have never even
looked at the results of this legislation before-
hand. How could they possibly submit their
estimates to the municipality when you have
not given them the grant structure by
March 1?
3196
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
My city of Samia tliat I represent in tliis
Legislature, yesterday got its capital budget
—and it will be another two weeks before
they get their current budget. Do you know
what it is going to cost my municipality in
interest because they cannot collect their
taxes? $90,000. That is what it is going to
cost tliem.
\Ir. Ben: Waste, waste, that is the Tory
slogim.
Mr. Bullbrook: And the Minister of Educa-
tion sits there. What has happened in this
province is tliat the left hand does not know
what the right hand is doing. There is no
doubt about it.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point something
out to you. The city of Samia, and I hesitate
to be unduly parochial but I want to say
this, has been relatively progressive as far
as its educational function is concerned. We
began last year tlie fifth high school that is
required in our area, and so we look forward
to five 3'ears of low capital requirements;
$2,557,000 had been budgeted for the fiscal
years 1967-1972. Let me tell you what the
Lambton county board of education capital
requirements are for the years 1969 to 1972—
$19,825,600. The city of Samia's share is up
from $1,326,000, from $2,500,000 to $8,300,-
000. Do you know what the board of educa-
tion said to them— "we do not know why."
That is what they said to them. They honestly
and forthrightly said to the municipal coun-
cil, "we do not know why." You feel sorry
about tlie city; I want to feel sorry for tlie
people who reside in my hon. colleague from
Lambton's riding. I want to feel sony for
them.
Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Are you
worried about them?
Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, I am worried about
them and you should be worried about them.
You should be worried about diem. This is
the problem; he does not worry about them
and let the record show tliat he does not
worry about them. Let tlie record show he
does not worry about the village of Oil
Springs and the township of Enniskillen. Let
the record show that.
Interiections by hon. members.
Mr. Bullbrook: If I might say this to you,
Mr. Speaker, our anticipated capital require-
ments in the city of Sarnia for tlie next five
years amounted to $16 mUlion. With the
elevation of this Budget, this requirement
from the county board of education has gone
to $25 million. We have been told by the
Ontario Municipal Board and the Treasurer
that the maximum lending capability that we
have is $21 million. Mr. Treasurer, through
you, Mr. Speaker, this is really the essence
of it. The federal government is to blame
really. We have been telling them for
years we need more money; we need more
money really. But does this give you
licence to go out and spend what you do
not have? Does this give you licence to
put communities and property owners into
bankruptcy? It certainly does not.
If the Treasurer was really a man of his
word as far as the people of Ontario are
concerned, let me say what he would tell
the Minister ef Education— "Until we can
adequately and properly persuade the federal
government to assist us, there will be no
county boards of education until you can
prove to me what it is going to cost the tax-
payers." Do not come before this House with
these circuitous platitudes again, I interjected
before. I have heard that speech three times.
If he was preparing a speech today all he
had to do was say, "Get me something out of
those three prior speeches I made," because
I have heard it three times, blaming the
federal government for everything. Let him
blame the federal government.
I digress for a moment but I want to tell
you something. I sat in this House this after-
noon and I watched him, the Minister with-
out Portfolio (Mr. Wells), being handed a
newspaper by his executive assistant. Then I
watched his executive assistant sit over there
for hours, literally hours and I want to tell
you what it costs the government of this
province to bear the burden of that man.
You know that if you capitalize the cost of
the Minister without Portfolio, who does
nothing and his assistant who writes his ad-
libs for him, it is $1,837,493 over 25 years.
If they are in power for another 25 years,
that is what it is going to cost the people of
this province to have him. Now the Treas-
urer should think about that.
If you really are concerned wdth the wel-
fare of the taxpayers of this province that is
where to express your concern. Now let me
say in closing, if I might-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Bullbrook: I am going to close. It is
obvious to me, as an inexperienced member
of this House, that somewhere, something is
festering over there on your back benches.
They are worried, but I want to say this in
APRIL 16, 1969
3197
closing, if I might, Mr. Speaker, that the
trouble with these debates— and I have said
it before— is that they are a foregone conclu-
sion. We recognize the situation. We are not
stupid. This motion will be lost, but I say
this to you without any fear of contradiction
by the people of the province of Ontario, that
if we had every elector of the province of
Ontario here today to vote on this motion,
this government would go down to the most
resounding defeat ever envisaged.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the de-
clining years-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: I wonder, Mr. Speaker,
if it is possible for you to end the debate
there?
In the declining years of the Roman em-
pire one of the greatest penalties that could
be imposed upon the bureaucrats and the
hierarchy that ruled the empire was that
they should be chosen to go out and head
one of the municipalities or the provinces,
because such a storm of protest had broken
out among the people with regard to taxes
that they fled rather than be sent out to head
one of the municipalities. The interesting
thing is in the declining years of the Robarts
empire precisely the same kind of thing is
happening in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, we have had something of a
spectacle here this afternoon. We have lis-
tened to three Cabinet Ministers get up and,
led by the Provincial Treasurer, say in effect
that admittedly there is a problem; he did
not use the word chaos, but that is the most
appropriate word to describe it— there is
chaos. But he then rationalized it; it serves
the purpose, it delineates the programme. If
you can get any more proof of the insensi-
tivity of this government that you have to
get a revolt and a protest which is verging
on civil disobedience, particularly among the
Tory supporters out in the rural areas, before
the Provincial Treasurer says that the prob-
lems are delineating and— now we are making
progress.
What has been proven this afternoon is the
obligation of this government, and the obli-
gation of this government is to resign— get
out, because you are failing. You are failing
to meet the needs of the people and you ha^•e
come up with no solutions to a problem
which is evident to everybody who glances
across the length and breadth of the province
of Ontario at this moment.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Where did you
get that?
Mr. MacDonald: You had your say. We in
the New Democratic Party are going to sup-
port this Liberal amendment, this supply
motion. We are going to support it because
it is a mechanism to assist you to resign so
that the people can get a decent government
by forcing you to go back to the people of
the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the three
areas that have been encompassed in this
resolution— county boards of education, re-
gional government and regional development.
In dealing with the question of county school
boards, I am not going to indulge in the
cheap politics of saying that now we ha\'e
developed a flossy educational system. Cer-
tainly there are some things in our educa-
tional system that represent extravagances
that we have to eliminate, but to dismiss the
whole of the educational system as being
flossy is to ignore the reality of the problem
and to present no real solution to it.
I am also, Mr. Speaker, not going to sug-
gest that diis province is banknipt. This prov-
ince is not bankrupt; this province is one of
the richest provinces in this country. The
proposition is that we have to administer the
wealth and the available resources of this
province to meet the needs of the people.
Those who say it is bankrupt are themselves
bankrupt of ideas and that includes the gov-
ernment.
Let us get down to the fundamental prob-
lem, to the fundamental mechanism that has
created the problem, Mr. Speaker. Tax re-
fonn must accommodate any effort to create
a new administrative framework. Anybody
who knows anything about it has said this for
years. They did not have to be experts.
People who were practising as elected rep-
resentatives across the province knew that if
you were going to come up with a new ad-
ministrative framework, whether it be county
boards or whether it be regional government,
that it must be accompanied by tax reform.
This government is paying the price for pro-
crastination in tax reform. We have not got
the prospect of it for another couple of years.
As the hon. member who has just taken
his seat has said, basically the problem is
money; we need more money directed to the
spots where you have this pressure at the
present time. The money is available if it is
raised equitably out of the great and the
growing wealth of the province of Ontario.
Do not go around moaning and groaning and
saying that there is no money. There is money
3198
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
if you will raise it equitably. Not from the
person who cannot bear some of the burden,
but from the person who can bear it because
he has the capacity to pay.
I repudiate what is essentially the Liberal
position; namely, that there should be no cut,
but there should be no tax increases. Indeed,
the Provincial Treasurer was correct when he
chastised the leader of the Opposition and
said that during the Budget Debate he had
congratulated the Provincial Treasurer for
having come up with a responsible approach.
It was not a responsible approach, Mr.
Speaker; it was an irresponsible approach. It
was cutting back on long-standing and long-
neglected needs of the people of the province
of Ontario and making excuses in keeping
with the outdated mythology of the Tories
and the Liberals, who are more Tory than
the Tories in this particular field; that is why
they supported you.
What we have said and what I repeat,
even though these are repetitions because
it is basic to the resolution that we are consid-
ering that you need not have cut back in the
services of the people. You could have taken
a look at expenditures such as, for example,
the $500,000 that are being handed out by
the hon. Minister of Trade and Development
to companies that do not need $500,000 to
start new industry. He is willing to dip into
the provincial treasury to meet the needs of
Undustrial friends, but he will not dip into
the provincial treasur>^ to meet the desperate
needs of human beings.
You are willing to continue, while you are
cutting out grants to meet the needs of
people, to hand out $2 million to these play-
boys on the race tracks in horse breeding.
Last night, we examined for a moment what
was being done with the $125,000 that is
given to the Vanier institute over a four-
year period— $500,0(X) and we were not criti-
cizing it. The irony of it was we were quot-
ing an editorial that the Minister sent over
to us, an editorial from the Globe and Mail
which pointed out that we are not getting
value for our money. But the Provincial
Treasurer, the Treasury Board, even worse
the Minister himself, did not know what was
'going on in the Vanier institute. What are
you doing about money handed out to an
elite group, presumably doing a job, when
you are cutting back for people?
Now the Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment was off on another one of his escapades
—$13 million. Is it $13 million? It could be
$30 or $40 or $50 million— for a showpiece
down on the waterfront. Some day, when
this government has met the desperate needs
of people, $13 or $14 million down on the
waterfront will be a legitimate expenditure,
but where are your priorities now? In other
words, Mr. Speaker, you need not have cost
cuts.
Again I am not going into the detail of it,
bcause I did it in my budget speech. I pointed
it out to you on corporation taxes; I pointed
it out to you on capital gains tax, which you
now, at least, pay lip service to; I pointed it
out on income tax, at least above the $6,000
level which you have decried as having es-
caped the burden put on by the federal
government at Ottawa; I pointed it out to
you on water resources taxes. There is money
available if this government had the integrity
—and I use this word— to raise the money
where it is, in order to meet the needs of
the people all across the province of Ontario.
If you had done it then you would not have
had the crisis at the county level.
Let me turn briefly to regional government.
This government has no overall pattern for
regional government. I read a comment of
the Minister of Municipal Affairs at a seminar
at Quetico. He said what we have got to do is
plug the gap here and plug the gap there, but
let us avoid coming up with gaps in our map
when we are finished. When are we going to
get an over-all plan for regional govermnent?
We have had proposals from the Smith com-
mittee; we have had proposals from other
areas. When are we going to get it so that
there will be some guidance to the people
who now say regional government is going to
hit them? How, what, when, where?
Once again, it is a case of a not-now-and-
sometime-later to start doing a httle bit of
planning. At a time when you are moving
towards the stage of establishing administra-
tive units that are viable so that you can
return some of the autonomy to the munici-
palities, this government is manifesting more
and more of its basic, patrician bureaucratic
kind of approach to the local municipalities.
The Provincial Txeasurer starts to threaten
that now that they have grown up and can
do an administrative job, he is going to have
a budget here which is goirug to be looking
over their shovdders in terms of day-to-day
expenditures, in tlie same way as the OMB
looks over shoulders in the instance of capital
expenditure.
What kind of local autonomy is that? What
encouragement is there for groups of people
to build a viable administrative unit when it
it going to have to submit to the kind of
APRIL 16, 1969
3199
"big daddy" paternalism that we have had
from Queen's Park and grows worse each day?
When the government moved in in such
rush into county council boards — county
school boards— a year or so ago, we said to
them, "Is this the pattern for regional gov-
ernment?" "No," the Prime Minister said, "the
counties are not necessarily the pattern for
regional government in the province of On-
tario."
What is going to be the pattern? After you
have got your pattern of regional government,
then what are you going to do to try to
ehminate some of the chaos and the new set
of overlappings and confusion, because of the
confusion between the county boards and a
regional government boundary? Surely some
kind of a systematic planned approach, work-
ing it out with the people, giving them an
overall blueprint and then discussing it in
local areas for the necessary revisons, that
would be the kind of approach that would
have made it possible to avoid the creation
of the chaos that at some time in the future
we are going to have to take another look at.
The Minister of Revenue gets up and talks
about eHminating the economic disparities
within the regional areas. Good. If we get a
regional government, then we will get some
balance in the use of industrial assessment.
It is a very good idea and you will have
equity. Then he starts talking in terms of a
certain level of services, but you are not
going to be able to achieve an equity or an
equal kind of level of services across the
province of Ontario, along with that equalized
assessment and equalized sharing of the bur-
den, unless you have a foundation programme
which will pump money in out of the Provin-
cial Treasury to be able to equalize the
inequities between the various regional gov-
ernments.
This government has no suggestion for a
foundation programme. In the so-called White
committee, my colleagues from the New
Democratic Party who were on that com-
mittee pressed for the acceptance, at least of
the principle, of a foundation programme in
municipal finances. We got some acceptance
of the principle, but it has got lost in the
whole reassessment of the picture and its
presentation here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say something
about regional economic development, but
there will be plenty of time when we get
back to the Treasurer's estimates, so I guess
I can leave it and proceed to my concluding
remarks.
The most deplorable thing about this
debate is, I repeat, that we have listened to
three Cabinet Ministers and they have
rationalized the chaos that has been created.
They have tried to make excuses for the pro-
test, but they have come up with no solutions.
The situation is not going to work itself out;
the problem is not going to go away. What
we have had up until now is a bankruptcy
of ideas with which to cope with this kind
of a problem. I have a suggestion, Mr.
Speaker. This government, particularly the
Minister of Education, has got to go back to
the Provincial Treasurer, take a solid look at
his budget once again, appropriate moneys
and make them available for pumping into
the county school boards to ease the kind of
crisis which has now descended upon them.
There is no getting away from it.
Now there are a number of solutions that
would be bandages on the illness, almost
poultices. I was interested in reading some
of the newspaper comments across the prov-
ince of Ontario. The Hamilton Spectator,
quoting of local educators," said they could
not really re-work the grant structure by
throwing out the adjusted mill rate, for
elementary schools, and have costs distributed
on the provincial equalized assessment figure
for both elementary and secondary purposes.
Another suggestion is that other choices would
be to spread the tax load over two years and
permit use of the 1968 surpluses now instead
of next year.
I would add a third one, for those who are
really caught in an impossible position,
namely the senior citizens, the people who are
on fixed income, to whom we have granted
some exemptions from education costs on the
basis of their not being able to pay them and
putting a lien on their property. Here is a
means by which you could take a position to
meet these crushing increases in costs— not
with a lien, I insist. The government should
pick up the cost. All of these suggestions are
going to cost money, and you have got to go
back to the Provincial Treasurer to get that
money. Perhaps the best paUiative of all, but
it is just a palliative, is the proposition that
you should extend additional grants to ease
this crushing burden. There should be a level
of say 10 or 15 per cent increase in this
year's taxes that should be fixed. This has
emerged from a number of municipalities,
and having fixed it, then anything beyond
that level created this year, should be picked
up by this government.
Mr. Speaker, I say as I sit down, all of
these are only palHatives; all of these wiU
3200
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
just ease the burden so that the ipeople who
are numbed by what has hit them, over two
or three years will think that that numbed
condition is a normal condition. Unfortunately
it is under this Tory government, and that is
what they have got to face up to.
The real solution to it is that we should
raise the money from where that money is.
We should move immediately to the pro-
vision that 80 per cent of the cost of educa-
tion can be raised.
We are not taking a new responsible posi-
tion of saying that there should be no cuts
but no tax increases. We say you should raise
that money from where the money can be
raised because the people have the capacity
to pay, and in doing so you not only raise
more revenue, but you will introduce equity
into our tax budget. But I have no con-
fidence that tliis government is going to do
that kind of thing. They have postponed tax
for another two years, they are talking of
another increase to education grants of 60
per cent starting in 1970/71 and to be com-
pleted in 1973/74.
Here is a procrastination once again. There-
fore, Mr, Speaker, we will support this
amendment and defeat this government, be-
cause if they are not defeated they should
have enough common sense to face the
realities and resign and let the people elect
those who will do a job on their behalf.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in endeav-
ouring to add something constructive to the
debate here this afternoon, I shall make one
or two preliminary observations en route,
relative to some of the remarks made by those
members opposite. Some of their contribu-
tions, Mr, Speaker, I think one could fairly
state were helpful, some of them were not,
which I think is relatively typical of the
observations coming from tlie members oppo-
site, and this, too, is to be anticipated,
I must say that in listening to the member
for Sarnia, one cannot help but observe that
he is perhaps taking on the capacity of the
member for Downsview in the way he gazes
vip in to the press gallery to see whether
or not they recognize that he is making this
eloquent speech without the benefits of a
prepared address. Having been a colleague
of that gentleman some years ago in the
academic environment, I really have great
respect for his talents, and I only regret that
he x>erhaps denigrated from what is other-
wise, I think, a reasoned dissertation to
suggest in a very picayune manner as he
did to the Minister without Portfolio. This to
me, Mr. Speaker, was entirely irr'^levant and
unnecessary in this i>articular event.
Interjections by hon. members,
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, Mr. Speaker,
that the member for Sarnia probably agrees
with me. I will get around to section 85(1)
because I know the legalistic approach the
member wishes to take to all problems, and,
with great respect, they do not always present
solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to state
that I listened very patiently this afternoon
to most of the observations made by the
members opposite, and while I know it is not
easy for them to extend the same courtesy,
perhaps I can make some constructive con-
tribution if I have fewer interuptions.
I think, Mr. Speaker, tlie main purpose of
the resolution, apart from being somewhat
intellectually, fragmented, nonetheless reflects
itself in the concern that we all feel— and let
us be very frank about it— with respect to the
very real change that is taking place in edu-
cational administration in this province.
Mr. Speaker, some two years ago when the
concept of the county board was first con-
sidered—it really was not two years ago, it
goes back some 30 or 40 years. I can show
you the documents relating to educational
history in this province. The member for
Peterborough has seen them, and others.
The concept of county school boards really
emerged well prior to the present Minister
of Education,
I observed to one of my colleagues on
that occasion, "If we are going to do this,
if our desire is really to improve the educa-
tional programme for the young people in
this province, then we shall do it". I also
observed that I fully anticipated that they
would be two very difficult years for the Min-
ister, his department, and for his colleagues
in tlie government.
I said that, Mr. Speaker, a year ago, in the
debate on Bill 44. I did not make any pre-
dictions as to the ease with which this would
be accomphshed. I indicated, I think very
clearly, Mr. Speaker, tliat it would require
all the creative efforts of all those involved
to make the county board system work, and
work effectively.
I indicated, Mr. Speaker, on that occasion,
tliat these gentlemen who snipport this gov-
ernment, our back benchers, were under the
same pressure, had the same concerns that
were being expressed by the members oppo-
site, but that tliey had the intestinal fortitude
APRIL 16, 1969
3201
to move along with it because they knew
that what was happening was right.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to
accept tlie description of some members
opposite, even from the member for Peter-
borough, as to the question of chaos within
the county board structure. Certainly there
are problems, and I am not attempting to
minimize them, and I will not attempt to
minimize them in the few minutes here this
afternoon.
But I would say to the hon. member for
Peterborough, who has taken in my view, and
perhaps some of my colleagues will be a little
bit critical of my saying this, that I think he
has, in many respects in the field of education,
taken a relatively enlightened and constructive
point of view. I think he has, and I say that
with some genuine feeling of respect. He has
worked very closely with the county boards,
as I am sure the other members opposite have
done. I am sure they have sat down, that they
have discussed tliese problems. They are fully
aware of them, although when I listened to
some of the remarks this afternoon I ques-
tion this. I say to tlie hon. member for Peter-
borough: "Is his county board in fact in
chaos?" I say, with respect, it is not. They
have prepared and presented, and he himself
has said this to me, a very weU prepared
plan, a very well prepared budget. This is one
of the cotuity boards in this province, and I
think the member for Peterborough must say
tliat this has, in fact, happened.
I tliink, Mr. Speaker, that one can exag-
gerate these situations. One can look upon
press reports that may or may not be factu-
ally correct, and from that indicate that the
problem is somewhat more significant than
in fact it is.
I hstened to the member for Waterloo. I
forget whether it is Waterloo North, South,
East, or West, but it is not relevant at this
particular moment. I Hstened to the member
for Waterloo, who spent most of his address
in the planning purposes and with a rather,
perhaps, questionable suggestion that I was
not interested in the problems of the county
boards. I should tell him, so that he will not
be offended or upset, that I have planned to
meet with the Waterloo county board at 10
o'clock on, I believe, April 23 or 25, and
that I will be delighted to do so, just as I
have with several other boards in tlie past
number of days. Ask some of your colleagues
the extent the oflBcials, myself, and others here
in the government, have gone to make them-
selves available for the trustees who are going
through this rather traumatic experience at
the present time.
The leader of the Opposition in his, once
again, very colourful way, really was more
aggressive and enthusiastic, but iperhaps did
not contain any more relevant material than
on other occasions.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Noise can make up for any
real content—
Hon. Mr. Davis: But a very nice guy, a
very nice guy.
Mr. Sopha: What are you, a drama critic in
the Telegram?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, because if I were—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The hon. member would
not rate very high if he were.
Hon. Mr. Davis: My colleague, the Minis-
ter of Agriculture, says the member for Sud-
bury would not rate very high. For the first
time I disagree with my colleague, the Min-
ister of Agriculture; I think the member for
Sudbury would rate very highly.
I was very interested in the mass generaliza-
tion mentioned by the leader of the Oppo-
sition. His references to guidelines, his
references to salaries being paid administrative
personnel, that they were $10,000 over and
above what they had been receiving.
Mr. Sopha: Fourteen to 24.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is just
not factually the case. He made the reference.
Well now you want the facts. I am trying to
give them to you but you do not want to
respond. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the
Opposition further suggested that these were
the highest in the continent. Of course, tliis
is utterly and completely ridiculous as well.
If he wants to visit some of the otlier juris-
dictions, do some research, tabulation of other
administrative salaries, I would suggest he do
so. And I think he would come back with a
somewhat slightly different impression.
I can only gather from tlie suggestions made
by the leader of the Opposition, that he is
trying to say to me, to the members of this
House, that we want these boards to have
their autonomy, we want them to become
viable educational administrative units. But
at the same time, we want you, Mr. Minister,
to say what John Jones is going to get, not
just from the top because you cannot estab-
lish guidelines from the top. Surely the mem-
ber for Scarborough East must recognize it
3202
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
without establishing guidehnes. When you
say guidehnes, you must mean specific salaries
throughout the piece. And if the leader of
the Opposition is trying to say to me, which
I think he must be, that we should establish
salaries for the complete teaching profession,
and the academic profession, which of course
must go through into the university com-
munity college field, then why does he not
say so?
Mr. Nixon: Because it was not my inten-
tion.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: We wiU have you here
for another six or seven minutes. Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. members opposite will be moder-
ately patient I will get around to some other
observations. The leader of the Opposition
was making a great point about the question
of administration. I can only say that from
the information we have received, and it is
not totally complete, in most county areas the
cost of administration is either comparable
to, or in some cases less, than the total cost
of administration encompassing the same area
a year ago. I suggest to the member for
Samia if he wishes to look at the problems
in the Lambton county board, that he check
very carefully, because I understand he re-
ceived a specific release from the board, indi-
cating that their total administrative costs
this year would be $40,000 less than in 1968.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bullbrook: Why do you not tell the
whole truth? The Minister spoke carelessly.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon.
members will give the Minister an oppor-
tunity to complete his remarks.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, may I say
this, on behalf of the member for Samia.
I can tell from the smile that came forward
that he had forgotten about it. He intended
to mention it, but we all make these mis-
takes.
Now, let us, Mr. Speaker, deal with some
of the observations-
Mr. Bullbrook: Do you know the difference
between capital and current?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I not only
know the difference between capital and
current, for the last two weeks I have been
assimilating so much statistical and factual
information that—
Mr. T. Raid: Do you know what obsoles-
cence means?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I not
only know what it means-
Mr. T. Reid: You should know.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I predict, Mr. Speaker,
that tlie hon. member for Scarborough East
may become one of the early examples of
political obsolescence in this House.
Just a little aside, Mr. Speaker. I under-
stand I have until ten to six, I have five
minutes. Just a Httle bit of an aside, Mr.
Speaker, because I just wanted to tell the
leader of the Opposition that the member
for Scarborough East, a very aggressive
young man, a great athlete of his day, pre-
dicted—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Obsolescence.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I could not help but
be impressed the day we had those young
people from the University of Toronto here.
The member for Scarborough East, in order
to keep physically fit, was marching over with
them. I must say that when I was on the
front steps of this building— it was related
to cost, educational expenditure; I think it
is relevant to tliis debate— after the member
for York South leaned over and whispered
certain instructions to the then president of
tlie SAC at the University of Toronto, and I
saw almost the total NDP caucus there, I said
to myself, this is the first tin>e that a Tory
has been asked to address an NDP con-
vention.
An hon. member: He is not here any more.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I apologize for that.
Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the question
of costs. As I said at the outset, we recog-
nized that this was going to be a very diffi-
cult period. It is most important and I say
this, Mr. Speaker— there is nothing facetious
or humorous about it. With the commence-
ment of the county board system, it is
absolutely essential diat we start from a
base that is rational and realistic.
It is important in the year 1969, with the
escalation that is taking place with respect to
educational investment. I use the word "in-
vestment", I say, to the leader of the Opposi-
tion because I believe it very sincerely. It is
not just educational costs, it is educational
investment. I am prejudiced and I think quite
frankly it is the most important investment
that we as legislators can make.
I also think it is very important, Mr.
Speaker, that we recognize that with the
APRIL 16, 1969
3203
commencement of the new approach, the new
administrative structure, that it starts from a
realistic and rational base. Many of the press
reports, and the member for Scarborough
East referred to certain proposed— we say
proposed because they have not been finalized
—mill situations.
It should be made very clear that many of
the boards are still in the process of not only
understanding the grant regulations but
applying them to their own specific situa-
tions. It is a very tough period for them; they
have not completed their work. The boards
have been working constantly in the past
seven or eight weeks to come up with realistic
approaches to a very difficult situation. I told
the hon. members of this House as much
on other occasions in these past few weeks
since the grant regulations have been avail-
able to the boards, and I make no bones
about it, they are tough.
They establish, as the leader of the Oppo-
sition seems to want us to do, a maximum of
one-ten and a minimum of one-four. We
know that there will be certain inequalities
and problems that will have to be resolved,
but unlike some of the suggestions opposite—
I know we live in the day of instant coffee
and that we live in the day of instant-
this and instant-that— the assessment of the
analysis of what is taking place must be an
orderly and intelligent approach.
We have been in the process for the past
two weeks of analyzing the material made
available to us from the county boards them-
selves. We have had countless meetings
attempting to help them and they in turn
help us to clearly delineate what the prob-
lems are. We know some of them relate to
total cost but I think in fairness, Mr.
Speaker, our analysis at the moment indicates
that it is the question of the distribution of
costs within certain county areas that is more
significant than perhaps the total sums.
I think the members should know that from
the material we have received to date, the
cost increase varies from one county to an-
other from around an eight or nine per cent
increase to perhaps a 15 or 16 per cent in-
crease and one must recognize that the total
increase in education in the past five years
in this province has been at about the rate
of ten per cent per annum, with or without
county boards.
So the county boards themselves per se
have not at this point led to any significant
increases in total educational costs, but we
recognize, as we anticipated at the outset,
that there would be some problems with
distribution, the interpretation of the alloca-
tion of resources, and we are in the process
of making a very careful and a very thorough
analysis.
I hope to be in a position to make some
report and recommendations to the members
of this Legislature in the fairly near future.
But I say to the members opposite, they are
members of little faith, they are men of little
faith.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would urge upon him
to suggest to his followers, and perhaps the
member for York South could suggest to his
members as well that the resolution that has
been proposed here at the Legislature today
is without foundation. It does not bear a
relationship to the facts. I hope they will
join us in supporting the government of this
province which has been providing the very
enlightened leadership that we need in this
day of change that is taking place.
Mr. T. Reid: No wonder they want to
dump their leader.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must say
to the member for Samia, I do regret that
my speech is not prepared because I know
he would want to read it afterwards.
Mr. BuUbrook: What about section 85?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr, Speaker, if you will
allow me an extra 35 seconds, I will say to
the hon. member for Samia that we recognize,
as we did at the time of the legislation, if
he will recall-
Mr. Bullbrook: It is illegal.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. If he will
recall the discussions at the education com-
mittee, we stated that in the long term ob-
jective our desire was to have the budgets of
the municipalities by March 1, if at all pos-
sible. I also stated, and I think the hon.
member will remember this, we anticipated
in the first year of the operation of the
scheme, that it would be practically impos-
sible for a number of them to do this. We
recognized it at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, once again I urge upon the
members opposite to join with us in the sup-
port of the very great leadership we are
receiving from the government of this
province.
Mr. Speaker: Hon, Mr. Robarts has moved
that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and
the House resolve itself into the committee of
supply.
3204
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In the amendment, Mr. Nixon has moved,
seconded by Mr. Singer:
that this House deplores the inadequacy of
government policy in relation to the im-
plementation of regional, municipal and
educational government in Ontario; its
lack of local consultation, its failure to
control costs and its removal of local
autonomy and therefore, that this govern-
ment does not enjoy the confidence of this
House.
The vote is on the amendment moved by
Mr. Nixon to the supply motion moved by
Mr. Robarts.
The House divided on the motion by Mr.
Nixon which was negated by the following
vote:
Ayes
Ben
Braithwaite
Breithaupt
Brown
Bukator
Bullbrook
Burr
Davison
Deacon
Deans
De Monte
Edighoffer
Farquhar
Ferrier
Gaunt
Gisbom
Good
Haggerty
Innes
Jackson
Knight
Lawlor
Lewis
MacDonald
MacKenzie
M artel
Newman
(Windsor-
Walkerville)
Nixon
Paterson
Peacock
Pilkey
Pitman
Reid
(Scarborough East)
Renwick
(Riverdale)
Renwick (Mrs.)
(Scarborough
Centre)
Nays
Allan
Apps
Auld
Belanger
Bemier
Brunelle
Carruthers
Carton
Davis
Demers
Downer
Dymond
Evans
Gilbertson
Gomme
Grossman
Guindon
Haskett
Henderson
Hodgson
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Hodgson
(York North)
Jessiman
Johnston
(Parry Sound)
Johnston
(St. Catharines)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Kerr
Lawrence
(Carleton East)
Lawrence
(St. George)
MacNaughton
Meen
Morin
Momingstar
Morrow
Ayes
Nays
Ruston
McKeough
Singer
McNeil
Smith
Newman
(Nipissing)
(Ontario South)
Sopha
Potter
Spence
Price
Stokes
Randall
Trotter
Reilly
Worton
Renter
Young— 44.
Robarts
Rollins
Root
Rowe
Rowntree
Simonett
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
'
(Hamilton Mountain)
Snow
Stewart
Villeneuve
Welch
Wells
White
Whitney
Winkler
Wishart
Yakabuski
Yaremko-61.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 44, and the "nays" are 61.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment
lost.
The vote will now be on the main motion.
Is is the pleasure of the House that the
same vote be recorded?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I think the cus-
tom is, when the main motion is put, that it
is done under normal circumstances and there
is no comment or division on it at all.
I would prefer, if you would permit me,
sir, that it be recorded in that way.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and that the House
resohe itself into the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the committee of supply rise and report
progress.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
APRIL 16, 1969
3205
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will continue the esti-
mates of The Department of Social and
Family Services.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Are you not going to have the constitutional
debate?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I was not aware that it
had been arranged for tomorrow. If it has
been arranged with the Whips, it is perfectly
all right with me.
Mr. Nixon: Might I just mention, Mr.
Speaker, that the Premier announced the
date, I think, three weeks ago, that the con-
stitutional debate would continue tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it
slipped my mind. But if that is what is ar-
ranged by the Whips, tomorrow we will pro-
,ceed with what is referred to as the first
order, the constitutional debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.06 o'clock, p.m.
No. 86
ONTARIO
Hcgisilature of (l^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, April 17, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 17, 1969
Surveyors Act, 1968-1969, bill intituled, Mr. Brunelle, first reading 3209
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 3209
Legal Aid Act, 1966, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart first reading 3209
Regulations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 3209
Sheriffs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 3209
Surrogate Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 3210
Trustee Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 3210
Single procedure for the judicial review of the exercise or the failure to exercise a
statutory power, bill to provide for, Mr. Wishart, first reading 3210
Procedures governing the exercise of statutory power granted to tribunals by the
Legislature wherein the rights, duties or privileges of persons are to be decided
at or following a hearing, bill to provide, Mr. Wishart, first reading 3211
Law Enforcement Compensation Act, 1967, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading ... 3211
District Welfare Administration Boards Act, 1962-1963, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko,
first reading 3211
Homemakers and Nurses Services Act, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, first reading 3211
Day Nurseries Act, 1966, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, first reading 3212
Police Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 3212
Securities commission study, statement by Mr. Rowntree 3213
Halting of trading in shares of Bramalea, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. J. Renwick . 3213
Ontario Municipal Board rulings, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon 3213
General farm organization vote, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Nixon 3214
Peterborough "Examiner" strike, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. J. Renwick 3215
Canada Assistance Plan, question to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. J. Renwick 3215
Algonquin Park development, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. J. Renwick 3215
Insurance on Douglas Point power plant, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Burr 3216
Compensation for crime victims, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Ben and Mr. Davison 3216
Federal funds for park and recreation development, questions to Mr. Simonett,
Mr. Paterson 3217
Drainage of surface water, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Deans 3218
Hazardous toys, questions to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Deans 3218
Fog condition on Highway 17, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Martel 3219
Price of fertilizer, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Spence 3220
Provincial and county roads, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Innes and Mr. Ruston 3220
Feasibility study for OWRC, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Shulman 3221
OWRC negotiations and agreement, question to Mr. Simonett, Mr. J. Renwick 3222
Workmen's compensation pensions, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. Ferrier 3222
Pension commission, questions to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Shulman 3222
Skiing development on Killamey mountain, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Shulman 3222
Elevator licences, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. Shulman 3223
Broder and Dill townships, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Martel 3223
Juvem'le detention homes, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mrs. M. Renwick 3224
Resumption of the debate on the constitution, Mr. Wishart, Mr. Pilkey, Mr. J. Renwick,
Mr. Sopha 3224
Recess, 6 o'clock 3245
3209
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, April 17, 1969
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today in the galleries we
have as our guests students from St. Bene-
dict's Separate School, Rexdale, in the east
gallery; and in both galleries students from
MiU Street Centennial Senior Public School,
Leamington.
Later this afternoon, in the west gallery,
we will have members of the Russian com-
munity in Toronto who are hosting a group
of Doukhobor friends from Saskatchewan.
Then for the evening session we will have
students from Riverdale Collegiate Institute,
Toronto, and the 14th Scout Troop, Scar-
borough West,
I am sure the members welcome those
students who are here now.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE SURVEYORS ACT, 1968-1969
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves first reading of bill intituled.
The Surveyors Act, 1968-1969.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, this bill
revises and updates The Surveyors Act which
was last revised in 1931. Most of the changes
in principle are designed to implement the
recommendations of the report of the Royal
commission enquiry into civil rights.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to Amend The Division Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this Act
amends The Division Courts Act in two main
particulars; it removes jury trials from division
court cases and it removes the provision in
the Act which permits the committing to
jail of a person who is unable to pay a judg-
ment. It removes the power to commit to jail
a person who is unable to pay a judgment.
THE LEGAL AID ACT, 1966
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to Amend The Legal
Aid Act, 1966.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of these amendments is to improve
the administration of the legal aid pro-
gramme.
THE REGULATIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to Amend The Regu-
lations Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This bill, Mr. Speaker,
implements certain recommendations made
by the hon. Mr. McRuer and sets up a com-
mittee to review the regulations, a committee
which will act through each legislative ses-
sion and review the regulations.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : A committee of the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: A committee of the
Legislature!
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Are the
regulations in force when the committee ap-
proves of them?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: They will be in force
from the time they are passed. I do not think
there will be any change in that, not as far
as this legislation is concerned.
THE SHERIFFS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to Amend The Sheriffs
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading the bill.
3210
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This is a very small
amendment. We are permitting the sheriff
to destroy records after a certain period of
time.
THE SURROGATE COURTS AGT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to Amend The Surrogate
Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this is a
single amendment. Presently tlie Act requires
the registrar to prepare papers for probate
or administration and succession duty pur-
poses where the estate does not exceed in
value $400 and that figure has stood for some
years.
The amendment would increase the amount
of such estate to $1,000 and the registrar
then would be required to prepare the papers
in such estate.
THE TRUSTEE ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Trustee
Act.
Mr. Speaker: I regret that this bill cannot
be accepted. SufiBcient notice has not been
given.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: One day's notice was
given. I agree it was not two, but I do not
think anyone would object to such.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Minister wishes
to ask the unanimous consent of the House I
will be glad to put it on that basis.
Does the House give its consent to the
introduction of this bill?
Hon. members: Agreed.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This bill has two amend-
ments, one amendment deletes the require-
ment for Supreme Court approval for the
investment of trust money in certain classes
of securities. These securities are spelled out
in very specific order, such as debentures of
corporations, municipal bonds, government
bonds where they are guaranteed, certain
equity stocks where there has been a record
of dividend payments over the years— these
are permitted but now require the approval
of the Supreme Court. This section would
delete the requirement for approval of the
Supreme Court.
The other amendment increases the amount
of trust money that may be invested in first
mortgages from two-thirds to three-quarters
of value where all the proceedings have been
taken for evaluation. That is not a trust com-
pany situation, but a trustee of estates. It
may be a trust company or an individual.
THE STATUTORY POWERS JUDICIAL
REVIEW ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to provide a single pro-
cedure for the judicial review of exercise or
the failure to exercise a statutory power.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It is a rather long title,
Mr. Speaker. In short, I refer to it as The
Statutory Powers Judicial Review Act.
I might say the bill is designed to imple-
ment again certain recommendations of the
hon. Mr. McRuer, to provide a simplified, in-
expensive, clear procedure for remedy where
statutory powers have been exercised, rather
than as now exists such remedies as manda-
mus, prohibition, certiorari, injunction, dec-
laratory judgment, habeas corpus. This bill,
if it became law, would provide a single,
simple procedure by way of remedy.
And I might say, Mr. Speaker, it is my in-
tention in introducing this bill to give it only
at this session first reading, to allow it to
remain before the House and to enable the
persons or corporations, bar associations and
others who might be interested in how it
would operate, to examine it, to discuss it, to
offer their suggestions and their criticisms. So
it is intended only to be offered and given
first reading so that it may be studied, and
it is that that I do today.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I sug-
gest the Attorney General stop bringing in
these reform amendments or his Cabinet will
turn him out as being a Liberal.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, is there any pro-
cedure available to address a question to a
Minister introducing a bill?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. On second
reading the hon. member will have oppor-
tunity for that.
Mr. Nixon: But not to question.
Mr. Speaker: Well the questions can be
included in the member's remarks on debates
and normally they are answered by the Min-
ister in his reply.
APRIL 17, 1969
3211
Mr. Singer: It is not going to get a second
reading until next year.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral wish to speak?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I was going to say, Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will have a year or
thereabouts to frame his questions. I would
hope in addition to questions, he may have
some suggestions.
THE STATUTORY POWER
PROCEDURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to provide procedures
governing the exercise of statutory powers
granted to tribunals by the Legislature
wherein the rights, duties or privileges of
persons are to be decided at or following
a hearing.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the short
title that I would offer for this bill is The
Statutory Power Procedure Act, and while it
sounds somewhat similar to the bill I just
introduced a moment ago, the two are not
related. I should like to just read very briefly
from notes that I have prepared in connection
with this bill.
The bill implements certain of the recom-
mendations of the McRuer report. It is
designed to bring about a maximum degree
of uniformity in the practices and procedures
applicable to hearings that tribunals, as
defined in section 1, are required to hold
under their respective Acts. The bill sets out
certain rules of a general nature that apply
to all tribunals in all cases. The bill then
establishes a special rules committee along
the lines of a rules committee that has func-
tioned for many years under The Judicature
Act. The bill authorizes the committee, sub-
ject to the approval of the Lieutenant-
Govemor-in-Council, to make additional rules
of practice and procedure. These may be
made applicable to any one or more tribunals
or to any class thereof.
Just briefly, therefore, this is implementing
the strong recommendations of the hon. Mr.
McRuer that there be a statutory powers
procedures Act which would govern all
tribunals.
And again, Mr. Speaker, it is my inten-
tion only to give this bill first reading at this
time and to allow it to remain without mov-
ing for second reading at this session, so
that it may be studied, considered and
critical comment and suggestion put forward.
Mr. Singer: This does not do that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: These are all the pro-
cedures carried on by tribunals presently,
under our various statutes.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Ml*. Wishart: Tribunals.
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMPENSATION ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to Amend The Law
Enforcement Compensation Act, 1967.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this bill
extends the circumstances for compensation
payable from those set out in the present
Act and carries out an undertaking which
we gave that the present bill was the first step
in moving forward in this field.
THE DISTRICT WELFARE
ADMINISTRATION BOARDS ACT,
1962-1963
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services) moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to Amend The District
Welfare Administration Boards Act, 1962-
1963.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, basically
the bill pertains to permitting a city in a
district to be a municipality for which the
Act apphes and relevant provisions related
thereto; also, provisions relating to the financ-
ing of a municipality's share during a transi-
tional period of the first four years that a
city participates in the board.
THE HOMEMAKERS AND NURSES
SERVICES ACT
Hon. Mr. Yaremko moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Home-
makers and Nurses Services Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, where
municipalities form part of a county unit for
the purpose of administering assistance under
the General Welfare Assistance Act, the bill
provides that homemakers and nurses surv-
ices will be provided by the county unit and
not by the individual municipalities.
3212
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The amendments will also permit Indian
bands to provide, with the approval of the
Minister, homemaker and nurses services ;
under the Act and that such bands will /
be eligible for provincial subsidy in the samel
manner as municipalities.
THE DAY NURSERIES ACT, 1966
Hon. Mr. Yaremko moves first reading of"
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Day
Nurseries Act, 1966.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, certain
sections remove the necessity of Indian bands
being approved under The General Welfare
Assistance Act in order to qualify for grants
in respect of a day nursery established for
them.
The sections added, provide for the estab-
lishment of a new review board to hear
appeals from the decision of the director;
relating to the issuance of a license. Prac-
tice and procedure before the board of
appeal are outlined. Other sections that
formerly existed are repealed and the section
relating to the provincial supervisor's ability
to enter and inspect day nurseries is extended
to premises where he has reason to believe a
day nursery is being operated.
THE POLICE ACT
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Police Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this bill is to prevent the use of Mace in this
province.
Mr. Speaker: Before we embark on this
afternoon's proceedings, I would like to give
a ruling that I forgot yesterday and the hon.
member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) raised
the matter again yesterday.
On Thursday, April 3, the member for
Downsview suggested that there might be
precedent for the proposition that a bill,
having been withdrawn, could not be re-
introduced at the same session. A very care-
ful examination of the authorities and pre-
cedents fails to disclose even a suggestion
of such a proposition. On the contrary, the
authorities are unanimous that a bill may be
withdrawn at any stage with the consent of
the House and reintroduced in similar or
different form and that this holds true even
if the principle of the bill has been dealt
with at the second reading stage. This con-
clusion was reaffinned by Mr. Speaker in
Parliament on Thursday, March 31, 1921,
after a review of the precedents.
The case before us, of course, is much
simpler, in that the bill has not yet been
given any consideration by the House.
— Testerday7 "the hon. member for Sudbury
(Mr. Sopha), perhaps a voice crying in the
wilderness but nevertheless one of the 117
members of this House, raised a question
with respect to what he referred to as
"petitions", which I prefer to refer to as
"prayers". I thought that it might be well
for me to explain to the members the situa-
tion with respect to the opening prayers,
which are being used at Mr. Speaker's dis-
cretion at the present time, for the opening
of our House.
The present prayers were adopted at the
time of Confederation by the House and
therefore, when they are changed, as I
believe that there is a desire on the part of
the members to do so, they will be changed
I hope by the unanimous approval of the
House.
Your House committee, which assists Mr.
Speaker in matters such as this, has been
very busy reviewing the suggested opening
prayers. They have four that have been
presented and have been gone over by the
committee. Certain amendments have been
made and three of those four I have used on
a day-to-day basis, as well as each one of
them for a week at a time.
In between, I have used the old prayers,
because I wish to tell the members that
there are a great many members who still
like the old prayers and have told me so.
We have one further prayer, which has
been submitted to me by the House com-
mittee; I would propose that I use it next
week. Then, the following week, perhaps I
might have the goodwill of the House to
read in succession, on five successive days,
the five prayers— the old prayers and the
new ones. Perhaps then we might get the
sense of the House, the opinion of the
members, as to whether we should change
our opening prayers, and if so, which of
those available are suitable.
Now I may say that your House com- I
mittee has gone over the prayers in use in
various Parliaments of the Commonwealth,
a collection of prayers which, by the way,
was very kindly made available to me by the
APRIL 17, 1969
3213
hon. member for Carleton East. They have
gone over the prayers that have been sub-
mitted to Mr. Speaker, at his request, by the
leaders of the various rehgious faiths in our
province; they also have some of their own.
Therefore, I think that when we do make
the decision, we will have given all an
L opportunity to participate in providing the
I legislators of the province of Ontario, in this
\ Assembly gathered, with suitable and proper
opening prayers that will express the view
we wish and offend the susceptibilities of
I none.
I trust this explanation will satisfy the
hon. member who, as I say, for some time
has been a voice crying— not quite in the
wilderness.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): After having
heard all that, let me say to you, with the
greatest respect, it is not the way to do it.
Mr. Ben: You might give consideration to
rephrasing a prayer asking that our prayers
be answered.
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately for the hon.
member for Sudbury, at the present time
Mr. Speaker is doing it and not the hon.
member for Sudbury.
I
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, before
the Easter recess I made reference to a
study by the securities commission with
respect to conglomerates and associated
matters. Further to an undertaking I gave
at that time to supply some further details
of the study, I wish to report that I have
discussed with the chairman of the seciurities
commission the desirability of that study,
which would deal with present legislation
and regulations which relate to consolidations,
amalgamations, mergers, reorganizations and
takeovers.
This will, of course, lead to a consideration
of the problems raised by conglomerates
and also deal with private placements and
exempt purchasers.
Accordingly, I have expressed the wish that
the commission proceed with a study of this
nature, in the course of which a review
might be made of the situation existing in
comparable jurisdictions in Canada and the
United States.
This would entail revievmig such matters
which have come before the commission in-
volving, as some have, the purchase of shares
of a company for cash, and others where the
consideration involved the exchange of securi-
ties.
I would expect tliat the study would
review the possibility that transactions of this
nature could lead to undesirable debt struc-
ture, and also that such transactions could
provide an opportunity for market manipula-
tions, whether or not an acqmsition were
successful.
It is my desire, Mr. Speaker, that the
matter might be concluded not later than the
end of this year.
Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday a
question was asked of me by the member for
Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick) with respect to
the halting of trading in the shares of
Bramalea.
I am informed that trading was halted to
permit adequate dissemination of the an-
nouncement made shortly before the opening
of trading concerning the acquisition by the
OHC of 263 acres from Bramalea Consoli-
dated Developments and the plans of the
OHC for developing that land.
Trading was halted by the Toronto Stock
Exchange and not at the direction of the On-
tario Securities Commission.
Part 3 of the question has been answered
in the first part.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Attorney General.
In addition to the delegation from Belle-
ville received by the Attorney General yester-
day protesting the Ontario Municipal Board
ruling preventing construction of a $3-million
shopping centre in that city, can the Attorney
General inform the House if a formal appeal
has been received, which will lead to a
review of the decision by the executive
council?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a
formal appeal was filed with the Clerk of the
Legislature just a few days ago.
Mr. Nixon: I was interested in the pro-
cediure that was followed by the delegation.
Normally I would expect that the petition
for appeal would be received by the Pro-
vincial Secretary (Mr. Welch). Is it customary
for the Attorney General to act in that
capacity?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I rather expected I
might get a supplementary question, Mr.
Speaker. No, I was asked.
Mr. Nixon: What does the Minister mean
by tliat?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, I anticipated it; I
simply say I anticipated it.
3214
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I was asked if I would receive this petition.
I pointed out to those who were bringing
it before they came that I had no authority
to accept. They said, "We would Hke you to
receive it and see that it gets to Cabinet".
I said in those circumstances I would take
it simply in my hand and transfer it to the
proper person to whom it should be delivered
and I shall make no comment. I would think
it would be the secretary of the Cabinet.
Mr. Nixon: I hope the Minister is expect-
ing another supplementary—
Is there a detailed procedure set out in
law for the review of old Ontario Municipal
Board decisions by tlie Cabinet regarding time
limits and proceedings which are well known
to those who might be in the position of
having to avail themselves of it?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
answer in detail. I can answer this: there is
a procedure for appeal to the Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council from a decision of the
Ontario Municipal Board. There are no set
rules of procedure, but I believe that what
happens is that the parties are not heard.
The material is reviewed like a court of
appeal in a sense, although the Cabinet
does not constitute itself a court in the sense
that it hears parties or hears persons.
Mr. Nixon: Since appeals to the Executive
Council are permitted by tlie statute, would
tlie procedure be covered possibly by the
bill the Minister introduced today. The Statu-
tory Powers Procedures Act?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It is possible that this
may be covered by that bill.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Agriculture and Food,
which— as he no doubt knows— results from
a visit by the executive of the Ontario
Farmers' Union who had some complaints
that they put before us.
1. Where are funds being secured for the
purpose of promoting the general farm
organization vote?
2. Are any funds for this purpose being
made available either as grants or loans by
marketing boards of otiier public agencies?
3. If so, could the Minister advise this
House of details of such grants or loans?
Does the Minister condone public agencies
assisting in the promotion of the general farm
organization with public moneys?
4. When will the Minister announce ar-
rangements and details of this vote?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the
question: first of all, I do not know where
the funds are coming from to finance the gen-
eral farm organization vote committee. I read
this morning in the Globe and Mail that
they had collected several thousand dollars,
most of which apparenUy had come from
commodity boards.
I have heard of numerous personal dona-
tions to the fund from individuals, and so I
really cannot answer the question other than
that.
In regard to the second question, as I said,
we have not been ofiicially advised as to
where their- money is coming from. The OFU
made reference to it, as you have indicated
already. It is the prerogative and the respon-
sibility of each commodity board to determine
how its funds are used, and each commodity
board in turn is responsible to its producer
members for the proper use of the funds.
In reply to your fourth question, I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of the
details of the vote are contingent on the legis-
lation which were requested to introduce at
this session of the Legislature.
Mr. Nixon: I do not feel that the Minister
has adequately answered all of the four-part
question.
Would he not consider the marketing board
funds as public funds? Or does he consider
those private funds which can be allocated
by the board?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Under the terms of The
Farm Products Marketing Act and the regu-
lations of The Farm Products Marketing Act,
the dispersal of the funds is the responsibility
of the individual commodity board.
There is also a regulation in that group of
regulations which provides that the individual
commodity board must be responsible to its
producer members for accounting for the dis-
persal of the funds that have been collected
by that commodity board. It does not have
to be referred to die Farm Products Market-
ing Board.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister
will answer a further supplementary ques-
tion? Would he undertake to discover to what
extent the vote is being supported by funds
from marketing boards and from agencies,
which at least disperse funds that are semi-
public in this regard?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, with great
respect, I do not think that is really any of
our business. It is money that is being raised
APRIL 17, 1969
3215
by the farmers themselves through their vari-
ous checkoflFs on commodities and it is being
turned over to their respective elected com-
modity boards.
If they decide to make an advance in
credit, or a loan, or an outright grant, then
I think that is their business. There have
been many times in this House, within the
memory of all of us, when the leader of the
Opposition has roundly criticized me and
members of this government for interfering
in the affairs of commodity boards. Yet here
he is today suggesting that we do just that.
I do not tfiink it is quite consistent.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps the consistency that the
Minister is objecting to is the lack of it that
he sees in his own policy. I well remember
the time when he moved right in on one of
those boards and seized all their books. He
had some interest in it on that occasion, and
frankly I think he should examine this mat-
ter more fully.
Mr. Speaker: Orderl
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Does the member con-
sider it wrong for the commodity boards to
make a grant towards this general farm-
Mr. Speaker: Order! This question period
is not a period for debate. If the hon. leader
of the Opposition wishes to ask a supplemen-
tary question and the Minister wishes to
answer it, that is all right. Otherwise we
must move on.
Mr. Singer: He might give him an audience
if he asked him the right way.
Mr. Speaker: Does the deputy leader of
the New Democratic Party wish to ask those
questions placed by the member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald)?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
the questions were of the Prime Minister. As
he is not in the House-
Mr. Speaker: There is one of the Minister
of Labour also.
Mr. J. Renwick: Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.
The question of the Minister of Labour
is: has the newspaper guild indicated its
desire to bargain with the Peterborough
Examiner by submitting a sharply modified
set of demands?
Has the Peterborough Examiner refused to
bargain in spite of the willingness shown by
the newspaper guild?
What action does the Minister intend to
take?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the question, I under-
stand that letters have been exchanged by
the parties with respect to that situation.
The department is not aware of the details
of their respective latest positions. It seems
to me, and also to my officials, that it is
wise for the parties to be allowed to pursue
their present course of direct contact.
Mr. J. Renwick: If the Minister will permit
a supplementary question, I ask the Minister
whether, in fact, his department has been
provided with copies of the correspondence
to which he referred which was exchanged
between the parties?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Not to my understanding.
I have not been provided with that.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, there is a
question for the Provincial Treasurer, which
I am placing in the name of the leader of
this party.
Will the Provincial Treasurer provide the
Legislature with a departmental breakdown
of the $400-million cut in this year's esti-
mates?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial
Treasurer): Mr. Speaker, I will take the
question as notice until such time as I
can consider the preparation and presentation
to the House of an appropriate statement on
the matter.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, a question
in the name of the leader of this party, the
member for York South, of the Minister of
Social and Family Services: On what date
did Ontario officially enter into the Canada
Assistance Plan?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: March 28, 1967.
Mr. J. Renwick: And a series of questions
on behalf of the leader of this party of the
Minister of Lands and Forests.
1. Why will it take until 1975 to complete
plans for the development of Algonquin Park?
2. Who are the civil servants and experts
appointed to the task force to research this
programme?
3. When will the interim revised provin-
cial plan be completed and who will be
engaged in its preparation?
4. Will the interim revised plan be sub-
mitted to the standing committee on tourism
and resources during this session?
3216
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
5. Why did the dean of the faculty of
forestry decline to participate in the develop-
ment of the plan for the park?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the questions:
1. It will require a further five years to
assess the effects of the policy set out in
the interim plan in relation to its various
uses during that period.
It was mentioned at the end of the report
■Cvhen it was first submitted in November, that
it would take up to 1975 for the final plan.
2. Those appointed to the task force are
as follows: T. W. Hueston, chaimian, regional
forester and superintendent, Algonquin Pro-
vincial Park; J. D. Hughes, supervisor of
management and planning unit, timber
branch; J. R. Oatway, acting district forester,
Pembroke district; E. J. E. Dreyer, research
administrator, research branch; L. M. Affleck,
supervisor, fire control unit, forest protection
branch; E. F. Anderson, planning analyst,
Department of Lands and Forests; H. G.
Gumming, big game biologist, fish and wild-
life branch; J. D. Tayler, supervisor of inter-
pretative programmes, parks branch; T. E.
Lee, recreation planner, parks branch; J. W.
Keenan, supervisor, recreation land use plan-
ning, parks branch, and D. Brown, research
branch. Department of Tourism and Informa-
tion.
3. The completion of the interim plan is
expected to be some time in November 1969.
Those engaged in its preparation will be the
persons mentioned in answer 2. Also, out-
side help and consultants will be used.
4. It is not expected that the interim re-
\ised plan will be available during the
present session.
5. Dr. J. W. B. Sisam, dean of the faculty
of forestry. University of Toronto, has not
declined to participate. Dean Sisam is the
chainnan of my advisory committee, and it
lias looked over this plan; he and the other
members of the committee ha\'e submitted
\ery \aluable recommendations to us.
Mr. J. Renwick: If the Minister would
permit, two supplemental questions in view
of the scries of questions asked. The first one
is: the report of the speech of the Minister
would have indicated that persons outside
the government service would have been
appointed to the task force. I ask the Min-
ister whether or not he has given considera-
tion to the appointment of odier persons to
that committee.
The second question: I take the answer to
part 4 about the question of the reference of
the plan to the standing committee on tour-
ism and resources to be a non-answer. I
would like an assurance from the Minister—
if tliis plan is completed by November— that
die government between now and then wiU
give some assurance that there will be some
body of this Legislature concerned in the
review and development of the plan before
it is finally announced?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in rqply to
the two questions:
1. As I have mentioned, we liave appointed
tliis task force and it has the authority to
hire outside consultants as required.
2. As far as referring it to die committee
on tourism and resources this committee
would be pleased to meet with this standing
committee at any time to outline to the com-
mittee just how we are proceeding.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand-
wich Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside); Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Energy and Resources Management:
Who carries the third-party risk insurance
on the Douglas Point power plant near Tiver-
ton?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management ) : Mr. Speaker,
the answer is the Atomic Energy of Ganada
Limited.
Mr. Burr: A supplementary question: Was
any private carrier invited to carry the
insurance?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I doubt
if any private carrier was invited. I doubt if
there is a private canier that would want to
take that type of insurance— or I understand
that that is the case. That is why it is carried
by the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Humber.
Mr. Ben: I was wondering if the Attorney
General would accept a supplementary ques-
tion to question 1195? Perhaps I should read
the question.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps if the hon. member
would read the question. It is a bit outdated
after die introduction of the bill today.
Mr. Ben: I had asked questions of the
Attorney General today as follows:
On what date will the Attorney General in-
troduce legislation to compensate victims of
violent crimes? Will die compensation cover
APRIL 17, 1969
3217
personal as well as property damage? WiU
the legislation be retroactive?
Now I ask, will the Attorney General
accept a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I will, Mr. Speaker, but
I anticipate the question is going to lead to
a discussion of the bill which would be really
a discussion on first reading. However, I will
accept the question.
Mr. Ben: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actu-
ally, not having seen the biU until it was
handed to me by the deputy leader, I could
not at that time ask for an explanation of
something that was unclear.
The question is this: Is it the intention of
the Minister to compensate tliose people who
are not injured or killed in any act or occur-
ence resulting directly from an offence; those
who were not injured or killed in lawfully
arresting or attempting to arrest an offender;
or who were not killed or injured preventing
or attempting to prevent a commission of a
crime but were killed or injured in an at-
tempt to apprehend and hold a person for the
police who they thought may have been
guilty of a commission of an offence?
I Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, Mr. Speaker, as
I anticipated, we are into a discussion of
what the language of the bill means. But, I
think I would answer this way: that as the
bill is written, I believe the language would
be wide enough to encompass that sort of
J, situation.
Mr. Ben: That is what the Minister said
last time.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Bearing in mind that
the decision as to whether a case is entitled
to compensation rests with the board of com-
pensation set up under the Act.
Mr. Ben: Will the Attorney General make
it clear when the bill comes up for second
reading?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am sure there will be
full debate on the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for
Hamilton Centre will place his question,
y; which is similar.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the same type.
Would it be possible for Dr. Lindzon to re-
ceive compensation on a retroactive basis
under the new bill?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, as the bill
is written, it is not retroactive, but I am never
obdurate in considering suggestions for
amendment. I think I can say that to the
House.
Mr. Ben: Thank you, but the bill still does
not protect the person.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): I have
a question of the Minister of Energy and
Resoiu-ces Management:
1. Can the Minister verify that the federal
government has ordered Metropolitan To-
ronto Conservation Authority to repay moneys
expended on original land acquisitions ad-
jacent to flood control dams or proposed flood
control dams?
2. If so, has this same federal policy been
applied in other X)arts of Ontario?
3. Was the department notified in the fall
of 1968 of the change in federal policy re-
garding the use of federal funds for park or
recreation development adjacent to flood con-
trol dams?
4. Is it still a policy of the department to
subsidize park and recreation development in
these areas in the amount of 37.5 per cent of
the capital cost?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Sfieaker, to the
best of my knowledge, the federal govern-
ment has not ordered the MTRCA to repay
moneys expended on original land acquisition
adjacent to flood control dams or proposed
flood control dams.
Agreements with the federal government
were signed in 1961 and numerous land pur-
chases have been made in the interval. On
October 26, 1966, I received a letter from
the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
stating that the federal government is not
prepared to contribute 37.5 per cent of the
cost of land above the elevation of the top
of the dam. These lands are for the most
part single holdings which included the flood
area and the remainder of the owners' prop-
erty.
The unstated policy with regard to land
acquisition ever since the Shand Dam was
built in 1942, has been to acquire these addi-
tional lands in which the federal government
has shared. Mr. Pepin's letter came as a com-
plete surprise to both the Ontario govern-
ment and the authorities concerned. In the
interval there have been discussions at the
civil service level with the MTRCA and The
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources,
with the object of trying to resolve these diflB-
culties. To date they have not been resolved.
In the meantime, claims for federal grants
have remained impaid since one year ago.
3218
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And to the second part of your question.
Yes, the only other case in Ontario affected
by this federal policy is that of the Upper
Thames River Conservation Authority. In this
case the federal government officials have
indicated their intention to recommend to
their Minister that he claim the repayment
of grants previously made for the lands now
develoi^ed for recreation. These include the
Wildwood, Gordon Pittock, and Mitchell
dams and reservoirs and the adjoining con-
servation land.
And tlie third part: no, the department vinas
notified in the fall of 1966.
And the fourth part of your question: the
answer is yes. It is still the policy of the
department to subsidize park and recreation
development in these areas in the amount of
37.5 per cent of the capital cost.
Mr. Paterson: Might I pose a supplementary
question? Does the Minister have any figures
at present that could relate the dollar value
of these unpaid claims that the federal gov-
ernment has not seen fit to honour?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am sorry, I do not
have the figures with me but I could get them
for the hon. member.
Mr. Paterson: I would appreciate the dol-
lar value of this.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister of High-
ways, from Tuesday of this week. Does the
Minister agree with the statement attributed
to A. B. Mcllmoyle, QC, of the legal branch
of The Department of Highways, at the good
roads convention, February 25? The statement
was:
He who collects waters in artificial chan-
nels loses the rights he enjoyed in respect
to uncollected surface water— the act of
collecting renders him liable to avoid the
discharge of the collected water upon the
lands of another ... he must take the
water to a sufficient outlet.
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr Speaker, I have no reason to disagree
with the general principle of the law— with
respect to the drainage of surface water— ex-
tracted from the paper Mr. Mcllmoyle gave at
the Good Roads Convention, and I am sure
his legal colleagues in the House would have
no quarrel with the general principle as stated
in its context. I am sure the hon. member
will agree with me that the important thing
is to apply the proper principle or principles
to the correct set of facts.
I am sure the hon. member will also agree
that situations regarding drainage are fre-
quently quite complex, and that it is most
difficult to generalize. The paper presented
at the good roads convention was of necessity
a cursor}' look at the topic of drainage and
was presented as an introduction to the topic
and obviously could not be specific with
respect to individual cases.
Mr. -Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
might ask a supplementary question. In the
light of his general agreement with this state-
ment, would the Minister take yet another
look at the difficulties confronting the resi-
dents of the Ancaster-Perth park area, with
this statement in mind?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: We will, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs. Is the Minister aware that Ontario
stores are selling cardboard baby rattles
which are easily taken apart and which, when
taken apart, contain seven sharp prongs in-
side? Will the Minister put an immediate stop
to the sale of these rattles? I hold one here,
Mr. Speaker, and I will be happy to send it
to the Minister so he can take a very close
look at it.
Hon. Mr. Rovratree: Mr. Speaker, from the
description given by the hon. member, it
appears that the rattle in question could come
under the heading of being a hazardous item.
As it happens, only last week at the min-
isterial conference on consumer affairs in
Ottawa, the federal Department of Consumer
Affairs acknowledged jurisdiction in this area
and outlined provisions of The Hazardous
Products Act, which is now before Parliament
and is expected to become law very shortly.
If the hon. member for Wentworth will
make available to me the information with
respect to the item to which he has referred,
and also with information with respect to
those distributing and selling it, then I will
see that it is forwarded to the appropriate
authorities. I would add, however, that I
feel there is a high degree of responsibility
on the part of the parent when it comes to
making available articles of the type described
to children of tender years.
Mr. Deans: By way of a supplementary
question, surely the Minister in charge of
commercial affairs and consumer affairs rec-
ognizes a great deal of responsibility on the
Crown to make sure that these things are
APRIL 17, 1969
3219
not available, and I have given him a proof
of the need for such action.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It is a joint responsi-
bility.
Mr. Deans: The parent has no way of stop-
ping the sale if he is not aware of the haz-
ardous nature-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member is
now entering into debate. May I ask the hon.
member if he wishes to place a question of
the Attorney General which he withheld on
April 15?
Mr. Deans: No, thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, I may at some future date, but you
can withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: It will be marked withdrawn
then. The hon. member for Sudbury East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Speaker, before I ask the question— I ad-
dressed a note to the Minister of Energy and
Resources Management with respect to the
three questions which I was going to ask on
Tuesday and which were omitted. The Min-
isted consented to answer the three questions
on the bottom portion of the page, along
with the others that I am going to ask. I
just thought I would advise you, Mr. Speaker.
Was it concluded by the committee com-
prised of representatives of OWRC, The
Departments of Highways and Health, the
International Nickel Company of Canada,
the town of Copper Cliff and the Sudbury
and district pollution control committee, that
hot water discharged from operations at the
International Nickel Company contributed to
the dense fog condition that occurred along
Highway 17 near Copper Cliff Creek?
Did INCO discharge hot water into Cop-
per Cliff Creek at approximately 11 p.m. on
April 2, 1969?
Did fog engulf the area along Highway 17
and the creek?
Can the Minister advise the House when
INCO will be forced to commence action
which will control the effluent being emitted
from its plant?
Can the Minister indicate why INCO was
permitted to discharge hot water into Cop-
per Cliff Creek?
What assurance can we have from the
Minister that this practice will be discon-
tinued permanently?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I think I
will answer the last three parts of the ques-
tion as it was put today.
A programme designed to treat the indus-
trial waste water discharged from the Inter-
national Nickel Company's mines and surface
plants has been developed and is being acted
on by the company. The cooling water dis-
charged to Copper Cliff Creek by the Inter-
national Nickel Company has not been, and
is not considered, a water quality impairment
problem.
Since the temperature of the waste water
discharged to Copper Cliff Creek could have
an effect on the formation of fog conditions
in the area, the company has agreed to divert
these flows away from the creek by various
methods. Work on these diversions is under
way and the status of the project vnll be re-
viewed from time to time by staff of the
commission.
I would think that would answer the first
part of the question. As to the second and
third parts, I would have to get some infor-
mation from Sudbury before I could answer
those questions.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a question of
the Minister of Highways:
1. Does the Minister intend to allocate
funds this year to commence construction of
Highway 535 between Noelville and St.
Charles and Highway 64 between Noelville
and Lavigne?
2. Is the Minister aware that parents from
Warren and Hagar refuse to send their chil-
dren to the high school in Noelville, even
though the Noelville High School is the
appropriate school for these students to
attend, because the highways to Noelville
are so bad?
3. Is tlie Minister aware that his govern-
ment has been promising construction of these
roads for over 15 years?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, as this
question refers to the condition of the high-
ways, I have today asked my district to give
me a report, so I will have to take the ques-
tion as notice.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brant-
ford.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Justice. Further to my question of March
28 and the Minister's reply-Hansard, page
2836— has the Minister had an opportimity
to check the facts regarding Mr. Joseph
Viner who was refused the option to make
an aifirmation instead of an oath when
appearing in court?
3220
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The second part, if the Minister discovered
that Mr. Viner was unjustly dealt with, will
he instruct Judge Hirtie to re-open Mr.
Viner's case so that he may have a coiut
hearing in the proper manner?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am still
invetigating the facts and I will see if any
injustice was done.
I tliink I did answer that there is no ques-
tion about the right to affirm in giving
evidence in court, but I have instituted an
inquiry. I have got some of the information.
I am not satisfied yet that I have gat it all.
I still have to look into it.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, a
question of the Minister of Agriculture and
Food. Could the Minister inform the House
if the price of fertilizer has increased in the
province of Ontario during tlie last ten days?
If so, why has there been an increase?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
believe that it is fair to say that on or
about April 1 there was an increase in the
price of fertilizers. I think it is normal that
there is usually a seasonal increase in prices
at that time because if there were not,
everybody would leave the purchasing of
fertilizer right to the last minute.
There are certain discounts that are avail-
able through the— particularly in January,
February, March. April the price usually
stabilizes at the seasonal increase. I think
this is normal, and I am sure my hon. friend
understands what we are talking about there.
But, I have been disturbed, quite frankly,
this week to learn that there was a pro-
posed further increase in prices. We got on
the phone yesterday and checked around in
various areas of the province to see whether
actually this was a fact or not, and we have
not any definite information on this as yet.
It certainly was suggested, but I believe
that most of the dealers are resisting any
further increase in price. We have not
heard anything from the farmers themselves,
so I rather suspect that the price has not
increased as was suggested.
I think it is most unfortunate if such an
increase does take place. I feel that it is
quite unwarranted at this time of the year to
have a further increase on what we normally
consider to be a seasonal increase in prices.
I would hope, and I am sure my hon.
friend shares this concern, as do all the rural
members of this House, that no such increase
will in fact take place.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Timis-
kaming.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Mr.
Speaker, I have a series of five questions
for the Minister of Highways. First, is it
correct that the patrol crew is to be moved
from Kenabeek? Second, why is this move
necessary? Third, will the displaced em-
ployees be offered jobs with the department
in another area? Fourtli, why is the depart-
ment making this move at a time when the
roads in the Kenabeek area are in a deplor-
able condition? Fiftli, will this move not make
it more difficult for the department to ade-
quately service the roads in the Kenabeek
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent. area?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, as in the
last question, it refers to conditions of the
road and again I have asked for a report.
I will have the answer shortly.
I have, sir, the answers to questions 1106
and 1118, which were asked before. Would
you Hke me to give the answers now?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, both members are present.
Hon, Mr. Gomme: This is in reply to
question 1106 asked by die member for
Oxford (Mr. Innes).
Roads serving inter-regional traffic with
little or no land access requirements prop-
erly have provincial highway status. When
local land access is a significant consideration
but wider movements within an area must
be accommodated, a road would meet county
road criteria. A road serving predominantly
local land access demands would properly
be vested in a local municipality.
When a provincial highway section is
superseded or bypassed by a superior type
facility, it would almost certainly cease to
he required for provincial purposes. It is
usual to transfer such sections to the county
or to the local municipality according to its
residual function. Many sections have lost,
are losing or will lose their status this way
as our orderly expansion of provincial high-
ways system develops.
Transfers made effective, or to become
effective in 1969, currently total 91 miles to
county organizations and 45 miles to local
municipalities. Many sections of the road in
this latter category appear to meet the count>'
roads criteria and may be expected to be
absorbed into county systems upon comple-
tion of the county needs studies presently
under way. It should be recognized that this
is an exceptional year. Our current transfer
activities are dealing with problems left over
from many previous years.
APRIL 17, 1969
3221
The second part: An existing minor road
would seldom develop a provincial function
to warrant assumption by the department.
The occasion might arise from a major de-
velopment into which a minor road can be
fitted. The opening of a major new road to
which a minor road connects might generate
traffic of provincial pattern on a minor road,
warranting its assumption. During the past
fiscal year the department took over 14 miles
of road from junior jurisdictions.
The third part: For the immediate year
1969, there would be no adjustment made
to the financial arrangement between the
department and a county, because roads have
been taken over by that county. However,
the needs of the highway so transferred
would be measured during the county needs
study and would have a bearing on the
financial arrangements between the depart-
ment and the counties during the 1970-74
county roads programme period.
In answer to question 1118; 91 miles will
be transferred to the counties of Kent and
Essex, seven miles to various local municipali-
ties. All such transfers will be effective July
1, 1969. In answer to the second part; no,
a statement to that effect was made at that
time by Mr. H. W. Adcock, assistant deputy
minister, engineering.
It must be recognized that structural and
geometric standards vary according to the
functions of roads. It would be extravagant,
to the point of absurdity, to build standards
suited to high volumes of arterial traffic into
roads carrying moderate volumes of local
traffic. "First-class standards" must, there-
fore, be given a relative interpretation. Rela-
tive to their function, all roads are to
be transferred in acceptable, structural and
geometric condition. In point of fact, none
of the roads in question has served a pro-
vincial function in recent years. All should
have been placed under municipal juris-
diction, county or local, long ago.
The municipalities are in a better position
to assess the local needs served by these roads
and to give suitable priority to future
remedial work on the basis of such needs.
Existing legislation governing subsidies for
remedial construction and maintenance pro-
vides adequately for the responsibilities
placed upon each municipal authority.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): In all fair-
ness how can you turn roads over to counties
when they have their budgets already set up
and turn them over as of July 1 with still
six months to go? They do not have the
proper equipment to handle these, they do
not have the manpower, they do not have
the trucks, the graders, and everything to
handle these; I just cannot see how the
Minister can do this.
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, the muni-
cipalities were informed this was going to
take place, and of course we are going to
pay our share of the subsidy on the expense
they have.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy
and Resources Management has answers to
questions. One of the members asking the
questions is present, but the member for
Riverdale is not present. Perhaps the Minis-
ter would give these answers, since the hon.
member is returning to his seat.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I have
an answer for the hon. member for High
Park.
A feasibility study was undertaken for the
Ontario Water Resources Commission out-
lining the servicing scheme for the York
central area north of Metropolitan Toronto,
which included the Langstaff area.
The contents of the report have not been
released because of the many other aspects
related to the development of this area which
are yet to be resolved. A summary of this
report has been given to the heads of the
municipalities involved.
Mr. Shulman: In light of the problems that
have been so prominent in Toronto in recent
days as to whether or not to sell the Lang-
staff farm, could the Minister not supply the
complete report to the Toronto city council
so that even at this late date they could
make a more sensible decision?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
understand that some of the official report
has been given to the heads of the muni-
cipalities-
Mr. Shulman: The complete report?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We do not want to
give out anything further right now because
negotiations are going on and they do not
want this report made public beyond the
municipalities and OWRC.
Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister aware of
the difficulties the city of Toronto is in at
the present time because they do not have
that report?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, I am not.
322:
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister has an-
other answer?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have an answer to
a question from the hon. member for Rixer-
dale in two parts.
The first part: there is no separate agree-
ment between the Ontario Water Resources
Commission and the township of Chingua-
cousy. The only agreement is the South Peel
agreement which inxolved the signing of a
single agreement for water and one for
sewage between the OWRC and the mvmi-
cipalities of Mississauga, Port Credit, Streets-
\ ille, Rrampton and the township of Chingua-
cousy.
To the second part: the Ontario Water
Resovirces Commission was not involved in
any direct negotiations between Bramalea
Consolidated Developments Limited, the
township of Chinguacousy and the Ontario
Housing Corporation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Coch-
rane South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I have
a (luestion for the Minister of Labour.
Does the Minister intend to introduce
legislation tliis session to raise the amount of
workmen's compensation disabiUty pensions
that were established some years ago so that
tliey will be brought in line with the present
value of the dollar and the level of present-
day wages in the industry in which the work-
man was injured?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the matter
is under review.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the Provincial Treasurer.
May members of this House examine
specific pension plans on request that have
been registered with the Pension Commission
of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, the
Pension Commission takes the position, which
I support, that such plans are confidential to
the employer and employee involved. It is
a i^rivate document in other words between
two parties.
However, there is a requirement under the
legislation that any employee may require his
employer to provide him with a written ex-
planation of the terms and conditions of the
plan along with an explanation of the rights
and duties of the employer and the employee
with reference to the benefits available. So
I would think that, in those circumstances,
Mr. Speaker, the employee is well protected.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, will the Min-
ister accept a supplementary question?
Can the Minister suggest an alternative pro-
cedure, because there are certain cases where
the employees for one reason or another, are
afraid to ask for this and have come to
their representative asking that he get it.
And as the Minister well knows, such infor-
ination has not been available.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, Mr. Speaker,
as I pointed out this is a matter of a confi-
dential nature between two parties and I
think any departure from the policy that
presently exists would destroy the very con-
fidential nature and character of the relation-
ship.
If any employee, or member of a pension
plan, has any difficulty obtaining information
about his plan from the employer, I suggest
that he address himself to the pension com-
mission, which will take steps to see that his
rights under the agreement are made available
to him.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
have a question for the Minister of Lands
and Forests.
Can the Minister advise what was the out-
come of the study carried out by his prede-
cessor of the Killarney mountain as a pros-
pective ski area? And has the Minister given
consideration to the five suggestions made in
the Metro Sports Record of April 5, 1969,
which would assist in building up skiing
facilities in the province?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the hon. member for High Park:
1. On the basis the report of tlie consult-
ants Marshall, Macklin and Monaghan, de-
velopment of a prospective ski area on Kil-
larney mountain was not considered feasible,
2. The department has not had an oppor-
tunity yet to consider the editorial on public
skiing in Ontario in the Metro Sports Record
of Toronto, April 5, 1969, I have just read it
over and there are very good recommenda-
tions and I can assure the hon. member that
they will be revicwcxl by my department as
well as other departments concerned, such as
The Dei:)artment of Tourism and Information,
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister inform us
—after he has had an opportunity to consider
them— what his decision is to be as to these
various recommendations?
APRIL 17, 1969
3223
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question for the
Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.
1. How often must elevator licenses be
I renewed?
2. When a licence is seven months out of
date, as for example the Guild Inn in Scar-
borough, does this indicate that there may
have been a slipup in inspection?
3. What dangers are involved?
4. Is the fact that the elevator licence in
this building has expired of any significance?
I 5. Does the Minister recommend that the
members use the stairs until the elevators
here are inspected?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
tlie question from the hon. member for High
Park:
1. Annually.
2. Our record indicates that the elevators
at the Guild Inn were inspected in September
1968, and were safety-tested on January 15,
1969. Perhaps the new licence may not have
been posted at the Inn. This matter was
checked by telephone today, but I have not
had a further report.
3. This is not applicable in the light of the
previous answer.
4. The answer is no. The expiry date for
all government elevators is March 31, 1969.
They are currently being inspected. A lic-
ence will be issued as soon as they are all
done.
5. No.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Lands
And Forests has the answer to a question
asked by the member for Sudbury East.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this
question was asked on Monday— question No.
1167.
1. The Department of Lands and Forests
has 1,981 lots on its tax roll in Broder and
Dill township.
2. The amount of 1968 tax billed is
$63,260.50.
Mr. Martel: Is it not a fact that the pro-
vincial government is paying for fire pro-
tection for little Queen's Park in Broder and
Dill township? If this is the case, why is there
such a reluctance on the government's part to
provide funds for the citizens of Broder and
Dill township to purchase fire protection
from the same source as the government is
purchasing it from?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The hon. member
knows the answer. He has discussed this mat-
ter with myself and the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and we are considering it.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands):
Mr. Speaker, when I arrived at my desk this
afternoon I found on it a httle green pamph-
let titled "School of Social Work at McMaster
University". I imagine that other members
of the Legislature have also seen it.
It goes on to explain in the pamphlet that
McMaster University is establishing a degree
course in social work education. I was par-
ticularly interested because, on going over
the recommendations of our youth report, I
see in recommendation 190, a sufficient niun-
ber of universities throughout the province
being encouraged to provide undergraduate
degree courses in social work and psychology
so that the expected manpower requirements
for these special services will be adequately
filled.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order-
Mr. Apps: Well just-
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker was about to
enquire the same from the hon. member.
Mr. Apps: My real purpose in getting up
was to say there are many illustrious gradu-
ates from McMaster University who are mem-
bers of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to extend my congratulations
to the university for establishing this course
and to say to the Minister of Social and
Family Services-
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Apps: —that it would be—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, tiie hon. member
will please take his seat when Mr. Speaker
takes the floor and asks for order.
If the hon. member has something that is
a point of order, or a point of great interest
to the people of his riding and he feels the
members should know about it— or a point of
personal privilege— he is entitled to hearing.
If he has not, then this is not the proper
place for it.
He has the debate on the Budget when he
can discuss this. Therefore, if he has any of
those points, I will be glad to have him take
the floor. If not, then he is out of order.
Mr. Apps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This
certainly is of importance to the members of
3224
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
my riding, just as it is to the members of
every riding in this Legislature. I fail-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member is
out of order.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
might on a point of privilege before the
orders of the day, exprei>s my appreciation to
Mr. Speaker and to the Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Connell) for their prompt hand-
ling of my question Tuesday.
It is a clear indication that the rules of
this House in regard to accommodation are
not going to be broken even by the chief
government Whip.
Mr. Speaker: I must confess that I had
some sympathy for what the hon. member
was just trying to say, and by die time I got
to my feet to declare him out of order, he
had ceased.
The hon. Attorney General has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question, No. 1098, which was submitted on
April 2 by the hon. member for Scarborough
Centre (Mrs. M. Renwick). I would like to
answer it today.
The question was:
How many children are there, at the
present time, in juvenile detention homes
and how many in each age group?
The second part:
How many juvenile detention homes are
there in Ontario and where are they?
My answer, Mr. Speaker, to the first part of
the question: My officials advise me that it
is not possible at this time to provide the
number of children presently located in juve-
nile detention homes throughout the province.
Of course, the same applies to the age groups.
However, Mr. Speaker, this information
will be available when the probation services
issues 1969 statistics, later on this year. For
the information of hon. members I can say
that in 1968 there were 2,669 boys and 1,155
girls held in detention homes throughout the
province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a total of 23
detention homes in Ontario with seven regu-
lar homes being located as follows: the
county of Algoma, a home in the city of
Sault Ste. Marie; county of Carleton, a home
in Ottawa; the county of Lincoln, a home in
St. Catharines; county of Middlesex, a home
in London; county of Welland, a home in
Welland; for the county of Wentworth, a
home in Hamilton; the county of York, a
detention home in Toronto.
Then there are private homes: county of
Peel, one in the city of Rrampton; county of
Haldimand, one in the town of Canfield; for
Muskoka, in Bracebridge; Prince Edward
county, in Picton; for Stormont, Dundas and
Glengarry, in Martintown; for Nipissing, in
the city of North Bay; and for Simcoe, in
the town of Barrie.
There is space provided in two county
homes for the aged, one for Hastings county
and one for Victoria and Haliburton. There
is accommodation in the district court house
in Thunder Fay and there is space in the
town hall in Parry Sound for the purpose of
children's detention.
There is also a facility used in the chil-
dren's aid shelters in Timmins, in Oshawa
and Ontario county.
Under extreme circumstances, officials have
prepared adequate space in the provincial jail
in Wellington county. The same is carried
out when necessary in the district jail in
Sudbury— that is, with segregation.
I should also mention that nine other areas
use the facilities outside their counties. These
are: the city of Windsor, counties of Essex,
Kent, Oxford, Lambton, Halton, Norfolk,
Huron and Elgin. All of these use the facili-
ties in the city of London.
Mr. Speaker, all of the locations stated are
approved and utilized as detention homes.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The first order; resum-
ing consideration of the propositions of the
government of Ontario submitted to the con-
tinuing committee of officials on the Constitu-
tion, as of December 1968, sessional paper
No. 83.
CONSTITUTION DEBATE
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I made some remarks on this
matter on March 5 in this Legislature and
at that time, I had indicated particularly
what the position of the province of Ontario
was in the matter of an entrenched bill of
rights. I told what our position had been
when this matter first was broached and men-
tioned the study which had been done and
how we had approached it at the recent
Dominion-provincial conference in Ottawa.
I was able to indicate in those few re-
marks, which I submitted at that time, that
the position of the Prime Minister of Canada,
the Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was very
much in line with the attitude which we
APRIL 17, 1969
3225
took to the entrenchment of rights in our
constitution.
Now, I should like to, very briefly, con-
clude my remarks by stating what position
we took on behalf of the province of Ontario
at the recent conference. I would, therefore,
ask permission to read just a few of the
statements which were said in that conference.
We said at that time:
There are certain classical civil liberties,
fundamental to democratic government.
They include freedom of conscience and
religion, freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly and association, freedom of the
press and the right to vote. The federal
government's booklet of last February—
That is February 1968.
—the Canadian Charter of Human Rights
refers to these as political rights. They are
basic to our kind of society. They create
the atmosphere in which all our institutions
of society and government function freely.
As these freedoms are the cornerstone of
our democratic system of government, there
is in my opinion a strong case for their
ultimate entrenchment in our Constitution.
The freedoms which I have just mentioned
are fundamental in another sense in that their
protection is guaranteed without complex
legislation.
I went on to say, in that conference, Mr.
Speaker, that it should be borne in mind that
in any society— particularly in our free society
—there are certain minimum constraints on
the exercise of even these personal freedoms.
They establish limits, that is, constraints on
our actions consistent with respect to the
freedom of others.
They include, for example, the protection
of the individual from defamation, libel and
slander. In granting freedom of speech, you
must have a certain constraint even though
you may entrench that as a right fundamental
to your Constitution.
And in any realistic discussion, therefore,
of fundamental freedoms, the constraints
must always be assumed. So I was at pains
to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if we en-
trenched these political rights, it will be
important to indicate perhaps in the pre-
amble to a constitution which we might write,
that these constraints should be observed by
the courts in their interpretation of that part
of the Constitution. We went on to say in
that conference that there were other types
of rights besides the political rights, which
I would prefer to call individual rights. And
today these are very prominent.
I think today in our society they have
taken on a new dimension from that in which
they were formerly held. We talk today about
the rights of the consumer, the rights of the
tenant, the right to old age security, to a
minimum standard of living, to an education
—to name just a few.
I think we must distinguish here that you
cannot entrench all of these, what I would
call individual rights, as fundamental rights.
You cannot entrench them and I distinguish
them from fundamental rights in a Constitu-
tion.
I think for the effective realization of
those rights you must have legislation, which
is best enacted, perhaps, at a provincial level.
The fundamental rights which I described
before, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion, really need little legislation for their
enforcement. But, these other rights are of a
different nature and perhaps we should con-
sider that they are best effected, best main-
tained, best provided in the level of our
provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, in discussing whether we should
add a bill of rights to our constitution I
think it is important to ask ourselves: What
is our goal? How best can we obtain the
rights for our citizens? I think the answer
must be that we want to provide the most
effective protection for the rights of all Cana-
dians, which are fundamental to our well-
being.
I was also at pains to point out that there
were other rights distinguishable perhaps
from both those former kinds: the rights
which I would call legal rights. The problem
relating to these is different again. Some of
these relate to criminal proceedings, and
they are covered by the Criminal Code of
Canada. They are already a part of our
statutory law.
Then there are others relating to civil
rights, which are governed and regulated by
provincial legislation. Many of these are con-
tract rights, but there are many legal rights
distinct from the fundamental rights which
I have described, distinct from the individual
rights, which are legal rights provided in
statutes already. We have followed them for
many years and with which we are familiar.
Some of the civil rights in that field are
provided by provincial legislation. Others,
such as those which protect us in criminal
proceedings and against the force field of
criminal law are provided by federal legis-
lation. Therefore, I would simply say, in
concluding my remarks with respect to a bill
of rights, that we must bear in mind the
distinction between these various kinds of
3226
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
rights and always keep before us, I think,
how best we can achieve the goal of pro-
viding the respect for these rights for our
citizens.
In the conference of February this year,
we spent much time in discussing the matter
of rights. We discussed jurisdictions, but we
did not, I think, come to grips— perhaps there
was not time to come to very serious grips—
with the division of powers, which is one of
the primar>' subjects which we must discuss
if we are to consider an effective, workable
Constitution. And I have tliought that perhaps
it is not really so necessary to make a new
division of powers, although I think it is
certainly an area where this should be dealt
with, studied, and our Constitution brought
into line with our society today.
But perhaps a resi>eot for the division of
powers which already exists in our constitu-
tion—I think, if that were observed, if there
were consultations, if there was considera-
tion, if there could be agreement reached as
to where the limits of provincial jurisdiction
and federal jurisdiction begin and end, and
then if there was respect on the part of both
provincial and federal governments— perhaps
I should say particularly on the part of the
federal government— a respect for observance
of those respective areas of jurisdiction, then
I think a great deal of our trouble would be
solved.
This leads me to say that whether we live
with the present Constitution or as we amend
it— as I am sure we shall— there must be the
desire to observe the fields of division of
powers, divisions of jurisdiction as they are
laid down. There must be the widest con-
sultation and discussion between govern-
ments, federal and provincial. There must
still be left— and I feel there will always
be— a very wide field for agreement, discus-
sion and understanding between the govern-
ments of where their areas begin and end,
and a great deal of co-operation in sharing
some of the fields.
No matter what kind of a constitution we
may finally arrive at this will always be
necessary, and it seems to me unfortunate
that we have not had in the past— and I think
this has been more apparent in recent years—
this consultation. We have not had this dis-
cussion, we have not had for some time in
the past the extent of agreement that we
should have had. But I hasten to add that of
the very recent years this has become more
and more effective. More and more agreement
is being reached, more and more consultation
is taking place, and more and more under-
standing, I believe, is being achieved.
I think it is unfortunate tliat there should
have grown up— and I feel tliat this has been
the case— a feeling that there was a rivalry
between the federal government in this coun-
try, the central government which we all
support, and the provincial governments, that
their aims and objectives were not the same.
Whereas, tmly and surely, and simply it
could have been observed that the aims of
the several parts of Canada, the provinces,
were tlie same as those of the central gov-
ernment, the Parliament of Canada.
They all should have realized, I think, that
we were seeking to achieve the same end
and objective. But there seems to have been,
and unfortunately it seems to have been so,
a feehng of rivalry that Ottawa was set
apart and its objective, its aims were different
from the provinces. But then, perhaps, I
suppose that this was natural when it be-
came a matter of sharing a tax field or
carrying on a programme, who was to get
the credit, who was to get the money to do
it.
But if we are to achieve a working con-
stitution which will work perhaps better than
the one we have now, we will have to, as I
say, observe and respect the fields which are
allotted to the provinces and I think we
must get away from any feelings that tliere is
a rivalry in the entering into of these obliga-
tions, these powers, these responsibilities.
I would say no more than this, that it is
essential when the areas of responsibility and
jurisdiction are settled and determined that
the means to carry out the responsibihty— that
is, in other words, the tax sources be allo-
cated—that those fields be observed and not
invaded by one government to the detriment
of the functioning of tlie other.
That seems to have been one of our great
difficulties, but again I am quick to say that
I believe that difficulty, has been recognized
and there has been indicated a desire on the
part of all governments to remove that diffi-
culty by agreement, and if the field cannot
be clearly and distinctly divided, then to
share it on some reasonable and proper
basis. I think much progress has been made
toward achieving this result.
Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in 1967—1 be-
lieve in May 1967— on this matter, there was
some misunderstanding I think when I
attempted to delineate what I felt was the
responsibihty and the power of the se\eral
governments of Canada, the federal govern-
ment and the governments of the pro\ inces.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): The Attorney
General is going to backfill now, is he?
APRIL 17, 1969
3227
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, no backing and
filling.
Mr. Sopha: I ha\'e the remarks right here.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And so do I have them
here.
Mr. Sopha: I did not misunderstand them
at all.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The hon. member is
always so certain of his understanding, but
it is not always so clear to others that he has
understood.
However, Mr. Speaker, in order that there
may be no misunderstanding, even in the
hon. member's mind, might I cite to him and
put on the record the remarks of Viscount
Haldane in the case which came before the
Privy Council, then our highest court, and
perhaps then the highest court in the Com-
monwealth, in the case The Initiatixe and
Referendum Act, an appeal from the court
of appeal of Manitoba, which was decided
in July 1919, and is cited in 1919 "Appeal
Cases, the Law Reports," at page 935.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): The member for Sudbury should
not be a Calvin Coolidge, he should speak
up.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That court, sir, was
composed of Viscount Haldane, Lord Buck-
master, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shaw of Dun-
fermline and Lord Scott Dickson.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are any of those
QCs?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The words which he
pronounced at that time were accepted at
that time and have been accepted ever since.
I should like to put them on the record. 1
think it is well to refer to them because they
do delineate, they do define, they do set
forth in very clear and distinct language the
powers of the federal government and of
the provincial governments, in other words,
the scheme of Confederation in 1867. And
I read from page 942 of that report. This is
the judgment of Viscount Haldane delivered
for the Privy Council:
The scheme of the Act passed in 1867
was not to weld the provinces into one,
nor to subordinate provincial governments
to a central authority, but to establish a
central government in which these prov-
inces should be represented, entrusted
with the exclusive authority only in afl^airs
in which they had a common interest.
Subject to this, each province was to
retain its independence and autonomy and
to be directly under the Crown as its head.
Within these limits of area and subjects,
its local legislature so long as the Imperial
Parliament did not repeal its own Act
conferring this status was to be supreme
and had such powers as the Imperial
Parliament possessed in the plenitude of
its own freedom before it handed them
over to the Dominion and the pro\inces in
accordance with the scheme of distribu-
tion which it enacted in 1867.
I put that on the record, Mr. Speaker, in
order that there may be a clear understand-
ing of how the Act of 1867 delineated and
fixed the division of powers.
Mr. Sopha: I thought the Attorney General
was going to recant. He has disappointed
me,
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, I know I dis-
appointed the member,
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
The Attorney General has restated his old
position,
Mr. Sopha: The old position! No trip to
Canossa by him,
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am sorry, of course,
to disappoint the hon. member.
Mr, Speaker, having dealt particularly, as
I wish to do, with the matter of rights, the
matter of their entrenchment, and the matter
of those which should be reserved, I would
say that the Dominion-provincial conferences,
which have had a fairly auspicious beginning,
are continuing.
I think it will take a great deal of time
to achieve the objectives which lie before us.
I am sure the hon, members are aware that
further conferences are going forward with
the Premiers of the provinces, with the high
officials of the departments of various prov-
inces and with Ottawa, Progress is being
made, but we need not expect to achieve
overnight the very difficult objectives for
which we are striving.
I would just point out in closing that there
is not only the matter of perhaps writing a
new division of powers, new areas of juris-
diction—there is also the matter of determin-
ing how we may amend the constitution.
Having agreed, perhaps, that it should be
amended in certain particulars, how do we
achieve that amendment?
At present, it is necessary to appeal to the
Parliament at Westminster to amend its Act,
3228
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the British North America Act. And even
though we might agree that a certain field of
jurisdiction which is now federal should be
transferred to a province or vice versa, we
still have to find a formula by which we
can make the amendment.
So there are two tasks before us, and this
latter one makes it very difiBcult to find
agreement among ten pro\'inces and a Domi-
nion, an 11th government, that a certain
formula will be applied so that we may bring
to Canada the right to amend our constitu-
tion, which we presently do not have.
It is going to be a difficult and long-stand-
ing effort to achieve that amending formula.
We thought we had reached it in 1964 when
the hon. Guy Favreau presided over our
deliberations of the Attorneys General. But
even then— although we came so close— we
failed. And perhaps the obstacles which con-
front us today are just as great, if not even
greater than they were then.
But I have every confidence, sir, that we
will be able to achieve these two results— a
change in our responsibilities and in our juris-
dictions, and we will also be able to achieve
—which I think is a most desirable thing— a
formula to amend our Constitution so we
have it in our own country as our own.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I am very happy to be able to participate and
make a few remarks in this Constitutional
debate.
We now find Canada well into the second
century of nationhood. Yet we, as Canadians,
are faced with many umresolved problems.
There is a keen desire by the people of this
country to become masters in their own house
and to control their own economic destiny.
We continue to advocate full employment,
increased production and an equitable distri-
bution of the nation's wealth.
Yet, on the other hand, government seems
to be insensitive to finding solutions to the
human and material needs of people. The
gap between people and between regions of
this country continues to widen in terms of
an equitable disparity of economic oppor-
tunity which will eventually destroy the very
fabric of national unity.
Wc, as a nation, should be assuming the
full responsibility and exercising our preroga-
tive in developing a genuinely independent
foreign policy. We can, and must, continue
our friendly relationship with the United
States.
But Canada independently can play a very
unique role in world affairs. An independent
Canada could emerge as a strong, effective
voice in the United Nations, as one of the
most respected middle powers in the world.
As a peace-loving nation, we could very
dramatically point out the folly in the con-
tinued arms race and the unnecessary spread
of nuclear weapons.
While Canada can play a very important
role in international affairs, we must mobilize
the full human and material resources of this
country to resolve the many problems on the
domestic front. ■
\\^hile the two levels of government discuss
the various ramifications of a constitution, it
is important that within the framework of
the constitution there be embodied an eco-
nomic Bill of Rights. Surely, as the Fathers
of Confederation discussed the uniting of this
country into a viable nation, one of its com-
mitments was the assurance that we could
create decent lives for all of our people.
Yet, 102 years later we find thousands of
people denied the decency, the security and
the dignity essential to provide a meaningful
standard of living.
The report of the Economic Council of
Canada, issued in September, 1968, disclosed
in the survey period used, that there were
4.2 million non-farm and 550,000 farm Cana-
dians living— or rather, existing— on an annual
income ranging from $4,000 to below $1,500.
For some 25 per cent of the population of
Canada, such incomes mean poverty and im-
bearable deprivation.
As for the minimum wage laws, here in
wealthy Ontario a worker would receive less
than $3,000 per year. The uncontradicted
facts are that 190,000 workers in Ontario re-
ceived a wage increase when the minimum
wage was increased from $1 to $1.30 per
hour. On this income, the lot of the worker
is reduced to absolute and dismal poverty.
Tens of thousands of workers in Ontario, in
the service and manufacturing industries, and
in many other regions of Canada work, and
work hard, at occupations which pay only the
miserable minimum wage.
And I might just digress for a moment,
Mr. Speaker, just to illustrate what this
poverty means here in Metro. And, I suspect
very strongly, it is prevalent in Ontario and
Canada. If I could just quote for a moment
an article that appeared in the Toronto
Daily Star recently. It says:
The odds are more than three in ten,
that if you live in Metro you are a poverty
statistic living on less than $3,000 a year.
For Mr. and Mrs. George B. and their two
APRIL 17, 1969
3229
children, poverty is a daily diet of stew
they call ten and one. Ten pieces of potato
running after a small piece of hamburger.
"We eat an awful lot of ten and one,"
says Mrs. B. with a shrug, talking about
how she stretches her husband's $245-a-
month salary to keep the family alive. "A
ten and one with margarine will fill you
up, you do not need dessert," said the
portly woman in the kitchen of a Regent
Park South apartment.
Dessert is one of the luxuries this family
cannot afford. They never go to movies,
they do not drink any alcoholic beverages,
and George limits himself to two tins of
roll-your-own tobacco a month. They saved
a dollar a week for a year to buy a second-
hand television set for $50 to brighten up
their humdrum lives.
I do not need to go on and read the rest of
the article. I think that illustrates very for-
cibly what is happening here in the province
of Ontario in the Dominion of Canada. There
are many workers who must out of necessity,
work at a second job in order to provide a
minimum standard of Hving for themselves
and their family. Many work 16 hours a day
to reach an income of five or six thousand
dollars a year.
What about the aged, who should be
assured a life of comfort, security and dig-
nity? Many face the hopeless prospect of
trying to live on a Httle more than $100 a
month. What answers have we for the un-
happy thousands who are the recipients of
unemployment insurance, or living on public
welfare pittances?
A gap between promises and performances
grows at a time when the economic means to
keep the promises have become more abun-
dant. There is a growing awareness among
the people of the contradictions of a country
richly endowed with scientific and technical
knowledge as well as natural resources, yet
plagued with widespread poverty.
People in this province and this nation
are getting fed up with the never ending
struggle trying to keep ahead of the finance
company, the chain store cash register, the
mortgage lender and the continued rise in
the cost of living. Even the relatively high-
priced worker finds the present situation
intolerable.
An economic bill of rights would provide
the means through which the people existing
on poverty or marginal income could effec-
tively express their needs. We truly need a
vehicle to fight exploitation and poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, just for a moment,
to indicate what I think should be established
in the Constitutional rights for all Cana-
dians:
1. A useful job, if they are able and will-
ing to work, with the provincial and federal
government acting as the employer in the last
resort.
2. A wage sufficient to support themselves
and their families, in decency and dignity, in
accordance wdth the standards prevailing at
the time.
3. A guaranteed annual income sufficient to
provide adequate living standards, if they
are unable to work, either through the nega-
tive income tax programme, or some other
appropriate means beyond the obsolete and
degrading welfare system, currently in effect
which destroys the integrity of the family
and offends every concept of human dignity.
4. Access to high-quality, comprehensive
medical care for all Canadians by the estab-
lishment of a universal medicare programme.
5. A good house in a good neighbourhood
in a wholesome community, providing a
total living environment worthy of free
people.
6. An adequate educational opportunity for
every Canadian child and youth to facihtate
his maximum growth and development, in-
cluding university education.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time to give ex-
pression, equally clear and equally enforce-
able, to the economic rights that I believe
are explicit in the six points I have just out-
lined. If we, as a nation, fail to respond to
the compelling needs of people in a planned,
orderly and efficient manner then we can
very well be faced with militant demonstra-
tions by those people suffering deprivation
and poverty, that would make some of the
demonstrations south of the border appear
like a ladies' tea party.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member care
to speak?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I
enter this debate having selected one specific
area of great concern in the province for dis-
cussion. It is a matter which we have dealt
with on all sides of the House on a number
of occasions and it is a matter paramount
to the life of this province.
I searched to find a common starting point,
from the viewpoint of the government and
from my viewpoint, at which I could enter
upon this question and I found it in the state-
ment made by the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Bales) speaking for the Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) on December 10 of last year on the
3230
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
20tli anniversary of the UN Declaration of
Human Rights. And I accept the quotation
which he gave from a statement made by
Mr. Justice McRuer on the manner in which
we, in Ontario specifically and in Canada in
general, have dealt under the Constitution
with the original inhabitants of the province
of Ontario.
Questions of die treatment of the Indian
are a matter of shame to all of us. I want
very much in tliis debate to avoid castigating
ourselves about what has happened in the
past or has failed to happen in the past,
and to clear up certain misconceptions which
I believe exist, which prevent the government
of this province taking the kind of steps
which it can take in order to enable the
Indian people and the Eskimo people to par-
ticipate fully, should they wish to do so, in
all aspects of life in the province of Ontario.
The Minister of Labour made this state-
ment on December 10 last:
I am sure all hon. members will agree that the
most grievously disadvantaged groups in Canada are
our native Indians and Eskimos. Indeed, there is
widespread recognition that their condition is one of
the darkest blots on our daily life. The hon. Mr.
McRuer spoke of this in the course of the address
to which I referred at the outset of these remarks.
This is the portion, Mr. Speaker, of the
Minister of Labour with which I agree, but I
am going to add one paragraph at the begin-
ning and die end in order to complete the
whole of the statement which was made by
Mr. Justice McRuer on that occasion.
Mr. Justice McRuer said:
We must examine the social structure
that is the product of our social conscious-
ness, and see how far injustice to in-
dividuals or groups of individuals is not
only tolerated, but encouraged because of
certain advantages that will accrue to
different segments of our society.
For 100 years we denied the native
people of this country a right to express
themselves in the government of the coun-
try. Solemn treaties were entered into
with them and if not broken by us with
impimity, they were certainly circumvented
by the payment of a few beads, hoes and
the odd plough. Millions of acres of pro-
ductive land were bought for such trifles.
We did not massacre these native peoples
as was done in some other countries but
we have undoubtedly starved thousands
of them to death. If all men are bom equal
in this country, we well know that they
do not stay equal long after they are bom.
We worry a great deal about bills of rights
for those who enjoy the profits of the
conquest of this continent, but not much
about a bill of rights for our native
peoples. Certainly our Indian population
does not feel that they have had a remedy
for acts done by governments which violate
the fimdamental rights granted to them by
the constitution or by law.
We owe a great debt to our native
citizens that must be discharged without
delay. The time for talk has run out; the
time for action has come; but not for
colonial action— it mucli be a partnership
development.
It was the middle paragraph of that portion
of those remarks that the Minister of Labour
quoted on December 10 on the 20th anniver-
sary of the United Nations' Declaration of
Human Rights.
We have had misconceptions in the prov-
ince about the position of the Indian under
the constitution. Custom and force of tradition
have led to a bar— from the viewpoint of this
government— to the taking of any kind of
effective action. In order to deal with all
aspects of this problem, and to be fair to the
government in one area where they have been
making some reasonable progress, I must
refer to some of the statements which have
been made by members of the government
which reflect these misconceptions.
All of us, Mr. Speaker, will recall that on
the trip home from the members' tour of
northwestern Ontario the Prime Minister had
a press conference on tlie train. We, of course,
were not present at the press conference but
we had the benefit of the press reports about
it. On September 14 he is reported to have
said that he wants his government to assume
full responsibility for the Indians in die prov-
ince from the federal government, if Ottawa
will transfer the necessary funds and the
Indians agree.
There were a number of statements follow-
ing on from that which would indicate that
the government of this province wishes to
assume its full responsibility. But, there was
inherent in the remarks of tlie Prime Minister,
a sensation that some kind of constitutional
change is required in order to permit this
government to assume their responsibility
for the care of the native peoples in this
province.
Of course, when I saw the propositions of
the government of the province of Ontario
for the constitutional conference, which was
held earlier this year, I assumed that I would
have found in tliose propositions some refer-
ence to bring about the desire expressed by
APRIL 17, 1969
3231
die Prime Minister. I assumed that the
responsilDihty for the Indian peoples would
be a matter of discussion when the constitu-
tion of the country was under consideration
to find out what constitutional changes are
required, if any; to ascertain the position and
status of the Indian communities and the
Eskimo communities in Canada; and to de-
cide whether or not in any revision which
may take place in the constitution, any
change should be made with respect to the
position of the Indians and of the Eskimos
in our society.
So far as I could see in all the documents
setting out the proposition in detail for tlie
constitutional changes which this government
was prepared to discuss, there is no reference
whatsoever either to the Indian peoples or
to the Eskimo peoples. Why this is so is a
matter which I think the government must
respond to in the course of this debate. I
understand that the Provincial Secretary (Mr.
Welch) will conclude the debate for the gov-
ernment. I would expressly ask that he reply
to that part of my remarks— at least which
deal with this question— as to why the gov-
ernment did not choose to include— in its
propositions for the constitutional conference
and discussion and the continuing discussions
on the constitution— any reference to the posi-
tion of the Indian community and of the
Eskimo community in Canada and particu-
larly, in this province.
We find also the Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond)— subject to any change which has
taken place since last fall— is labouring under
the same kind of constitutional misapprehen-
sion, which is reflected, I believe, in tlie
Prime Minister's remarks that Indians on the
reserves in this province can only receive
OMSIP coverage— if tliey cannot afford to pay
the premiums themselves— provided the fed-
eral government agrees that Ontario should
do so and provides the funds for it.
This is one of the misconceptions that I
would like to clear up entirely in this debate.
There is no difference in the constitutional
position in the province of Ontario based on
the question of whether or not an Indian
resides on a reservation or does not reside
on a reservation. It is this particular miscon-
ception which has led to many of the areas
of failure by either government to deal ade-
quately with the Indian population.
I need only refer to the Globe and Mail
article of October 3, 1968, where the present
Minister of Health and Welfare in Ottawa
again raised the question, with this govern-
ment, about the coverage of Indians on the
reserve under the OMSIP scheme. The hon.
Minister of Health, in this Legislature, had
specifically stated that:
OMSIP is available to all residents of Ontario. It
is available to people of Indian extraction or Indian
blood living off the reservations exactly the same as
to any resident.
He then goes on:
For Indians on the reservation the federal govern-
ment has traditionally claimed this as their respon-
sibility and we look to the federal government to
provide the financing so that Indians, living on
reservations, can have the same privilege in this
respect as any citizen of Ontario.
Because of the present dialogue between the two
levels of government, we in Ontario have made it
clear to all Indians that OMSIP is readily avail-
able to them.
We have served notice on the federal government
that they will be held responsible for the financing
of it.
In further supplemental question, the leader
of the Opposition asked the Minister of
Health:
Is it true then to say that no Indians on a reserve
at the present time are covered with the OMSIP
programme?
The Minister of Health replied:
No, I do not believe it would be true to say that
because I believe some Indians have applied for
OMSIP on their own as they have been applying
for other medical services insurance. I do not think
it is widely spread but on certain reservations the
Indians do have it.
Well that was a statement by the Minister
of Health in this Legislature on November
27, 1968, and I know of no substantial change
in the position of the government.
What the Minister of Health was saying
is parallel to what the Prime Minister had
been saying, that there is inherent, in all our
thinking about the Indians that in some way
or other the responsibility of this government
and responsibility of the federal government,
depends on the question of whether or not
the Indian is or is not on the reservation. I
believe that is a completely fallacious basis
for any distinction which can be made, under
our constitution about the legislative authority
to deal with Indians.
I will come to the specifics of that par-
ticular problem in a few minutes.
I want to pay tribute to the government in
one area and that is, that there has been very
substantial progress in the ability of Indian
children to become pupils in the public school
systems of the province of Ontario. There is
no question that there are now a substantial
number of Indian children, greatly increased
over a few years ago, who are within the
public school system. I refer, in this connec-
tion, to an editorial in the Globe and Mail of
3232
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
March 5, 1968, which has this particular sta-
tistical information:
Statistics show that Indians in Ontario
are being integrated into the provincial
school system and the rate of integration is
encouraging. In 1957 17 per cent of 8,274
Indian students were enrolled in the pro-
vincial system. In 1967 the figure had in-
creased to 49 per cent of the province's
14,535 Indian students.
Now in that particular area there has been
some reasonable progress in the availability
of our school system to the Indian population.
It is not, for one moment, to deny that there
are still very serious problems about the edu-
cational openness of our system for the mem-
bers of that community and for the Eskimo
community. For example, the limited study
which was made for the provincial commit-
tee on the aims and objectives of education
in Ontario showed that the support for inte-
gration into the public school system was
less than enthusiastic. While integration was
accepted in principle, for it is considered to
be far superior to the old residential Indian
schools, one hears too many complaints about
discrimination and too many complaints about
the methods used to secure agreement among
Indian parents.
Well, that is a topic all of its own, but the
problem again is involved in the whole ques-
tion of the responsibility under the consti-
tution for Indians as such, so far as the
legislative authority of this province is con-
cerned. It is my contention that in the spe-
cific absence of legislation of the Parliament
of Canada, about the education of Indians,
the responsibility for that education, whether
it require preferential care and treatment
within that system or whether the present
system is adequate, is a responsibility of this
government and of this Legislature having
the legislative authority to do so.
Again, in The Department of Social and
Family Services, we see the same kind of
misconception of the responsibility of the pro-
vincial Legislature in the field dealing with
Indians.
There was an announcement just a few
days ago by the director of the branch, that
is. The Department of Family and Social
Services, Indian development branch. He said
a $1 -million community development pro-
gramme fund, largely unused since it was
established two years ago, may be used for
housing loans for Indians.
The amount has been included in the de-
partment's estimates since 1967, but Mr. J. M.
Dufour, the director, said:
Because of complications with the fed-
eral government over responsibility for
Indian aflFairs little of it has been used.
Last year $171,000 of the fund was spent
for several programmes including a housing
study in Moosonee and construction of a
saw mill and community hall in two other
northern communities.
That leads directly to the public accounts for
the year ending March 31, 1968, which are,
of course, the latest public accounts which
are available to us. And we find that of the
$1,269,000 which was voted by this Legis-
lature for the Indian development branch of
The Department of Social and Family Services
—by the principal branch of department of
government responsible for Indian aflFairs in
this province— $236,436.92 was spent, leaving
an unexpended amount of $1,032,563.08.
Now, I assume from the statement of Mr.
Dufour, to which I just referred, that the
public accounts of the year which ended on
March 31, 1969, will disclose substantially
the same state of affairs so far as the expen-
diture, whatever the hangup, by this govern-
ment, of the ridiculously limited number of
dollars which we vote for the Indian develop-
ment branch of The Department of Social and
Family Services.
Of course, when we come to that par-
ticular item in the estimates which are now
presently before the House we will have an
opportunity to express in more detail our
concern about that aspect of the government's
attitude towards this question.
There is some indication, Mr. Speaker,
that the government, through the Ontario
Housing Corporation, is beginning to face up
to the housing question of the Indian com-
munity in a very marginal sense. I know
that there has been a group which visited
Moosonee to try and devise a method by
which adequate housing can be provided for
the Indian community in that area. But it is,
if anything, marginal, and it does not really
impinge on the constitutional question to
which I have referred.
I have used those examples of these par-
ticular departments of government because
they are the ones principally concerned with
the question of the Indian community and
the Eskimo commimity in Ontario. I use it to
illustrate the pervasiveness throughout this
government— based, I believe, on certain his-
torical inaccm-acies of interpretation under our
constitution and as a matter of history which
has provided the hang-up which prevents the
APRIL 17, 1969
3233
government from taking hold of the question
of the "poverty" of the Indian community—
the cultural disadvantage within our society
of tlie Indian community and of the Eskimo
community.
That is giving the government credit for
having the wall to do something about it.
Had I found in the propositions for discussion
at tlie constitutional conference any refer-
ence to the Indian, I would have been per-
haps prepared to say that crediting that will
to the goverrmient was something more than
a mere wish on my part. I have a deep in-
stinctive feeling that the government in sub-
stance is not concerned about the problem,
that they are prepared to continue to use this
false constitutional hangup as a reason why
they will not deal adequately in this Legisla-
ture with the disadvantages of the Indian
and Eskimo communities.
Mr. Speaker, we must now start back
at the substance of what we are talking about.
I want to use one further quotation of the
Prime Minister of Canada in response to a
question in the House of Commons not so
long ago, to focus attention on the leisurely
way in which we kid ourselves that we are
in fact coming to grips with the problem of
the Indian community in Canada and in the
province of Ontario.
1^ You find throughout all references of gov-
ernment to this question of the Indian that,
yes, in the long run something is going to
happen which is going to be of immeasur-
able benefit to the Indian. You have this
kind of statement, and again I use it only
as an example, not in any way for the specific
point which was under discussion.
Mr. Robert Simpson, the member for
Churchill, questioned the Prime Minister and
there was some little bit of a hassle about
exactly his right to question him, but it went
on. Mr. Speaker, this is Mr. Simpson, the
member for Churchill, in the federal House
of Commons, on November 5, 1968, in
Hansard at page 2426:
Mr. Speaker, might I rephrase the ques-
tion: Was the Minister of National Health
and Welfare stating government pohcy
when, as recorded in the Toronto Globe
and Mail, he announced to the provincial
finance Ministers that the government in-
tends to turn over the Indian health serv-
ices to the provinces?
Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again
I would have to see exacdy what he said.
There is a long-term intention on the
part of the government, and this is to be
debated I suppose as part of our Indian
policy, to arrive eventually at a situation
where Indians will be treated like other
Canadian citizens of the particular prov-
ince in which they happen to be. It may
have been something along this line to
which the Minister was referring.
And that, Mr. Speaker, characterizes the
traditional approach of the traditional politi-
cal parties in Canada to tlie whole question.
They state their concern, they are prepared
to speak in relatively moral terms about their
responsibility but when faced with the prob-
lem of in fact doing something about it, they
take refuge in the complexity of the problem
and the long-term nature of the solutions
which must be found after protracted study
if anything is to be accomplished in this area.
I want to say that I again, referring to the
Minister of Labour, took some hope out of
the fact tliat in his statement on December
10 in this Legislature he referred to the time
having passed. He referred to the hope that
we are not going to become bogged down
in sterile philosophical debate over such
constitutional abstractions as the surrender
of sovereignty.
But what the Minister of Labour was say-
ing—and before proceeding to try and dispel
or to correct the misapprehensions about the
constitutional position, this where I take issue
with the government because the Minister of
Labour, in Hne with the illustrations which I
have used, then had this to say:
It should be pointed out, of course, that
under our constitution the welfare of our
Indians is the chief responsibility of the
federal government. So far as I know, no
provincial government has placed any ob-
stacle—or indeed could place any obstacle
—in the path of having these injustices
removed.
On the contrary, on our part the gov-
ernment of Ontario stands ready today to
co-operate wholeheartedly with the federal
government in launclung a massive attack
on this problem.
Tjhere is no doubt in my mind that other
provinces are equally prepared to play
their part. No constitutional amendment is
necessary for that purpose, there is no
need for any surrender of sovereignty.
But then he says-
All that is required is for the federal
government to exercise its sovereignty.
I am simply saying that there are vast areas
in which the responsibility for the Indian
commimity and the Eskimo community re-
sides in this Legislature, and it is just not
3234
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
adecimite as a statement of gcwernment
policy for the Minister of Labour to say: "We
are all perfectly happy to have the federal
government go ahead in this field if they
will just get about doing it." It shows in my
mind again a reflection in the statement by
the Minister of Labour of a misapprehension
of the position under the constitution of the
Indian conmiimit>\
To go back, if I may, then, to try and illus-
trate what I am saying about the analysis of
the constitutional provisions dealing with the
Indian community in Canada, I think I have
to refer to something called freedom and
what we are really engaged in attempting to
accomplish so far as all the people in Canada
are concerned, but in this particular instance
as far the Indian community and tlie Eskimo
commimity are concerned. The best state-
ment that I could find goes something as
follows:
Freedom, which goes hand in hand with
the equally unknown yet incontestible
nature of things, cannot be alienated but
only humiliated. As for the more strictly
political freedom, the freedom of the indi-
vidual, first of all Is a trap and a decep-
tion if the society in which man lives is
not free, that is, if there does not exist for
everyone a free space in which each person
can give proof of his value or simply mani-
fest his true nature.
The existence of such a space certainly
does not depend only on the laws nor even
on that which the ancient Athenians called
with a word that remains hard to translate,
isonomia.
Long before it is enforced by the law,
freedom is guaranteed by the feeling that
in a given society there has been formed
that tie between the individual and the
world and that consciousness of human
destiny that is the dignity characteristic of
man, which is the most profound and in-
destructible of facts against which no
tyranny can prevail.
I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that
Long before it is enforced by the law,
freedom is guaranteed by the feeling that in
a given society there has been fonncd that
tie between the individual and the world
and that consciousness of human destiny
that is the dignity characteristic of man,
which is the most profound and inde-
structible of facts.
Now it is only if we accept that kind of
statement of the problem with which this
government is faced in the area of its respon-
sibility for the Indian community, that we can
possibly, in due course, frame the kind of
laws, the kind of policies and the kind of
attitudes which will enable us to get about
immediately in dealing with this difficult,
shameful question in Canada.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the House will
bear with me to record three or four basic
statements in 'documents related to this con-
stitutional question about the position of the
Indian.
I refer first of all to a quoted extract from
article 40 of the articles of capitulations
signed by General Amherst as commander-
in-chief of His Britannic Majesty's troops
and forces in North America and the Mar-
quis de Vaudreuil, governor and lieutenant-
general for the King of France in Canada,
which provided:
The savages or Indian allies of His Most
Christian Majesty, shall be maintained in
the lands they inhabit, if they choose to
remain. They shall not be molested on any
pretence whatsoever for having carried
arms and served His Most Christian
Majesty.
It goes on:
Tliey shall have, as well as the French,
liberty of religion and they shall keep their
missionaries.
Following tlie Treaty of Paris in 1763, Mr.
Speaker, the Royal proclamation of October
7, 1763— which still appears in the revised
statutes of Canada— gave the Indians certain
rights that have ever since been judicially
recognized even though in many instances
aborted. The recital to the proclamation reads
in part as follows:
And whereas it is just and reasonable
and essential to our interest and the
security of our colonies that the several
nations or tribes of Indians vdth whom we
are connected and who live under our pro-
tection shall not be molested or disturbed
in the possession of such parts of our
dominions and territories as not having
been ceded to or purchased by us, are
reserved to them or any of them as their
hunting grounds.
Tliere are, of course, further parts of that
particular Royal proclamation, but that is the
first legal document about the position of the
Indian community in law in Canada from the
time of the conquest. And where is it now in
the constitution of Canada?
There was a select committee of this Legis-
lature which dealt with the civil liberties and
APRIL 17, 1969
3235
rights of Indians in Ontario. W. A. Good-
fellow was the chairman and the report is in
the library of the Legislature.
It was appointed on April 2, 1953, and it
reported on March 19, 1954. It drew speci-
fic attention to the constitutional provisions
which are of concern specifically to me today
in this debate. It refers to section 91 of The
British North America Act and while it
quoted it more extendedly than I will, it goes
on to say:
It is hereby declared, notwithstanding
anything in this Act, the exclusive legisla-
tive authority of the Parliament of Canada
extends to all matters coming within the
classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated.
That is to say, subsection 24: Indians and
lands reserved for Indians.
Then it goes on to quote, and I again quote,
from section 87 of the Indian Act, being
chapter 29 of the Statutes of Canada 1951.
It states as follows:
Subject to the terms of any treaty and
any other Act of the Parliament of Canada
and all laws of general application from
time to time in force in the province are
applicable to and in respect of Indians in
the province except to the extent that such
laws are inconsistent with this Act-
that is the Indian Act,
—or any other order, rule, regulation or by-
law made thereunder and except to the
extent that such laws make provision for
any matter for which provision is made by
or under this Act.
It is therefore readily seen, Mr. Speaker,
without being unduly technical and legal
about it, that »:o the extent that there are laws
of general application— with all the refine-
ments that the legal mind can dream up
about that phrase— laws which are not incon-
sistent with the Indian Act of the Parliament
of Canada— and provided that the Indian Act
does not make provision otherwise— are mat-
ters which can be dealt with by the Legis-
lature of this province insofar as the Indian
people are concerned.
I want, Mr. Speaker, to deal in some de-
tail, with the specifics of those constiutional
provisions and not just leave them hanging
in the air after having quoted them.
The first matter that I would like to draw
attention to is that heading of section 91,
heading 24 which provides that the exclusive
legislative authority of the Parliament of
Canada extend to Indians and lands reserved
for Indians. It does not refer at all imder any
circumstances to Indians on lands reserved
for Indians. There are two separate and dis-
tinct subject matters included in that par-
ticular heading; the question of Indians and
the questions of lands reserved for Indians.
Now I do not intend to deal at any length
with the question of lands reserved for In-
dians. Suffice it to say that we are speaking
about the legislative authority of the Parlia-
ment of Canada not to own the Indian lands
but to simply legislate about them. That is,
with respect to their control and manage-
ment.
Therefore, I am going to set that aside be-
cause most of the legal cases which have gone
to the Privy Council or to other courts in
Canada in the early years of the countr>',
dealt with the question of lands reserved for
Indians. In the legal sense, it is pretty clear
what those words mean.
I will, however, make this point. The term
"lands reserved for Indians" is not synony-
mous with the Indian reservations. It has a
much broader connotation than that.
It is a matter which will be of great con-
cern to this province as it enters into the
various disputes which are now beginning
to be asserted by the Indian community about
the lands reserved for Indians, the relation-
ship of the proprietary interest of the prov-
ince of Ontario, the rights of the Indian
peoples to exercise certain rights over those
lands, and the relationship with the federal
government in so far as any purported sur-
render of those rights may take place.
That again is the kind of misapprehension
which is abroad that somehow or other the
words "land reserved for Indians" meant the
Indian reservations. The reservations, known
as those little marks on the map, would indi-
cate that all the useless land in Ontario with
some exceptions, left for the Indians to live
on. One need only look at the Cape Croker
reservation to see the type of land that we
have in our munificence, left to the Indian
people as a reservation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, again I emphasize
the point that the power of the Parliament of
Canada is the power to legislate in respect
of Indians. To the extent that the Parliament
of Canada has not legislated with respect to
Indians, the province of Ontario, as a consti-
tutional matter and irrespective of the pro-
vision of section 87 of The Indian Act to
which I have just referred, can make appli-
cable to the Indians all the laws of the prov-
ince of Ontario— not just the prohibitive laws
or the regulatory laws; but all the laws which
are designed to improve the inherent quality
3236
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and nature of the world in which we Hve; the
laws relating to education; the laws relating
to social and family services; the laws relating
to housing; the laws relating to the operation
of our courts and our system of administration
of justice.
All of these matters— unless it can be speci-
fically shown that they are dealt with under
the federal Indian Act— are within the auth-
ority of this Legislature.
Let me make one other distinction. The
word "Indian" in The British North America
Act has been decided by the Privy Council
to mean and include the Eskimo people. As
far as I know, The Indian Act does not, by
definition, cover Eskimos.
I want again to make that distinction per-
fectly clear: The Indian Act of Canada,
passed under the authority of The British
North America Act, deals with the Indian
people, specifically does not deal with the
Eskimo people, and yet the word "Indian"
has, under our constitution, under heading
94, been interpreted to include the Eskimo
people.
Another distinction I would make— which
again goes to this question of the misap-
prehension of what we are talking about— is
that an Indian who is under The Indian Act
may become enfranchised and cease to be an
Indian under The Indian Act.
There is a procedure for the enfranchise-
ment of an Indian under The Indian Act by
which he ceases to be subject to The Indian
Act, but that does not mean that he ceases
to be an Indian within the meaning of The
British North America Act. That is a distinc-
tion which I think is of significance.
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to reduce to
certain stated definite propositions— and I pay
tribute to the author Mr. Kenneth Lysyk, of
an article published in the Canadian Bar
Review, part of the centennial issue, 1967
called "The Unique Constitutional Position
of the Canadian Indian."
Mr. Lysyk is a lawyer practising in British
Columbia, but he has at least endeavoured in
clear terms, to place before the lawyers of
this country what we are talking about when
we speak about Indians. I therefore put these
propositions, Mr. Speaker, in the hope and
anticipation that they will lead— either today
or on another occasion— to a further debate
on the constitutional position of the Indian
in the province of Ontario and the respon-
sibility of this Assembly.
The first propjosition that I want to make
concerns the Parliament of Canada. I will
deal first with the Parliament of Canada, then
with the legislative competence of the legis-
lative assembly of the province of Ontario.
The first proposition is that Parliament can
extend effectively to Indians any legislation
which the Pariiament of Canada is competent
to enact for. non-Indians. I think that is a
pretty trite statement of law, but the Parlia-
ment of Canada can legislate on matters of
which it is competent for Indians as well as
it can for non-Indians.
There is some discussion in the article to
which I referred— as to whether or not an
international treaty would take precedence
over an Act of the Parliament of Canada, and
the one which is in question now at the
border in Ontario about Indians coming across
without being subjected to custom duties,
which relates to the Jay Treaty back in—
perhaps the member for Sudbury can tell me—
Mr. Sopha: 18541
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, quite a long time ago.
This provided for free crossing of the border
by Indians without being subjected to custom
duties. But the Parliament of Canada has
legislated otherwise and the courts have held
that they are not bound by that international
treaty— probably for very good legal reason,
but certainly in breach of a treaty which
Canada, in my judgment, should honour.
There was some question, strangely enough
—and this was an eye-opener to me— as to
whether or not the Parhament of Canada in
the areas in which it was competent to legis-
late could override the Indian Treaties—
that is, treaties which have been entered into
from time to time by the Indians in Canada
with any level of government about their
lands.
I would have assumed somehow or other
that those treaties had a certain paramouncy
over what the Parliament of Canada could
legislate, but I find that tlie legal cases do
not support it. The fact of the matter is that
the Parliament of Canada can abrogate the
treaty rights of all the Indians in Canada
if it chooses to exercise that authority.
Again, if I may refer briefly to a man who
undoubtedly is going to have a position of
eminence-^has a position of eminence— in the
province of Ontario, Mr. Justice McRuer. In
court in Ontario, he endeavoured to uphold
the simple proposition that that Royal
declaration in 1763 had some paramouncy.
But he was reversed by the Supreme Court
of Canada. This is a matter of grave con-
APRIL 17, 1969
3237
cem to me in the brief study which I have
made of this question. In fact, the Parhament
of Canada— in those matters which are within
its legislative competence— can, if it wants,
abrogate every single Indian treaty in this
country. The only hopeful sign about that is
the other side of the coin. The Parliament
of Canada can ameliorate the injustices which
have been done to the Indian people in the
terms under which those treaties were origin-
ally negotiated. That is the hopeful side of
that particular coin.
The second proposition that I would like
to oonmient upon is this: Can the Parliament
of Canada legislate for Indians about matters
which would otherwise not come within its
legislative competence? In other words, in
substance— not exclusively but in substance—
oan the Parliament of Canada legislate con-
cerning Indians about matters which fall
within the jurisdiction of this Assembly be-
cause of the provisions of heading 24 of The
British North America Act?
I say this with the same diffidence that the
author to whom I referred stated it; the legal
cases are of no assistance in this regard.
There are no legal cases which answer what
appears for most lawyers to be a simple pro-
position; that is, whether the Parliament of
Canada can legislate effectively for Indians
concerning matters which otherwise lie out-
side its legislative competence and therefore
could not otherwise be vahdly enacted.
And the conclusion of the learned author
is:
The ambit of federal authority to legis-
late positively for Indians while un-
doubtedly comprehending as a minimum
the power of defining Indian status is of
uncertain extent.
So there is that area of uncertainty which
certainly leaves a considerable area of
flexibility for the Legislature of this province
to deal with Indian matters pending the
enactment and clarification of the land of
laws which would exclude the competence of
this Legislature to pass those laws.
I turn now to the question of the com-
petence of this assembly under The British
North America Act to deal with the Indian
community in the province. And I state
sometimes as a question and sometimes as an
assertive proposition the following proposi-
tions:
Firstly, does federal competence, diat is,
the competence under heading 24 of section
91 preclude the provincial Legislature from
dealing with the Indians as Indians? The
answer, I think, is clearly "no". Because head-
ing 24 provides for the legislative competence
of the Parliament of Canada, it does not
therefore necessarily follow that it precludes
this Legislature from dealing with Indians
within the province of Ontario.
Secondly, do provincial laws of general
application apply to Indians? One would like
to say yes from the point of view of clarity
so far as our position is concerned, but I
think one cannot go that far. I think that
all one can say is: "not necessarily so". It
is certainly a very relevant matter in any
consideration of the constitutional question
to say: Yes, on balance, all laws of general
application passed by this Legislature, apply
to the Indian community in the province of
Ontario. Again, this is so provided the Par-
liament of Canada has not acted within its
legislative competence.
And the third proposition: Is the Legisla-
ture of Ontario able to pass laws related to
Indians?
I refer again in this regard to the section
87 of The Indian Act which is a bootstrap
section. I quote it again in order that the
context of my remarks will be clear:
Subject to the terms of any treaty and
any other Act of the Parliament of Canada
all laws of general application from time to
time in force in the province are applic-
able to and in respect of Indians in the
province except to the extent that such
laws are inconsistent with tiiis Act; and
except to the extent that such laws make
provision for any matter for which provi-
sion is made by or under tliis Act.
In summary I am going to use tlie exact
words of the learned author to whom I am
indebted for my knowledge of this particular
problem in his summary. I am going to quote
five summary statements which he has made.
Federal legislative competence with re-
spect to Indians is unfettered by treaties,
either Indian treaties or international
treaties or by the Royal proclamation of
1763.
Secondly:
In positive terms, and putting to one
side federal laws relating to Indian lands,
there is a dearth of authority on the ques-
tion of the extent to which Parliament may
legislate for Indians in areas in which it
woiJd not be open to legislate for non-
Indians. It is competent to Parliament to
define the status of Indians, how far it
may go in determining the consequences
3238
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of that status is a question which has yet
to attract thorough-going judicial analysis.
Thirdly:
Provincial legislation may not of course
relate to Indian lands and section 87 of
The Indian Act does not touch upon the
distribution of legislative authority in this
respect.
Fourthly:
Provincial laws of general application
will extend to Indians whether on or oflE
reserve. It has been suggested that the
Constitution permits this result without the
assistance of section 87 of The Indian Act.
Fifthly:
Section 87 of Tlie Indian Act will pre-
clude applicability to Indians of provincial
laws which conflict with Indian treaties
or with Acts of Parliament other than The
Indian Act or which are either inconsist-
ent with The Indian Act or which make
provision for any matter for which provi-
sion is made by or under The Indian Act.
If I may, in parenthesis, simply say the
Indian treaties— so far as the application of
provincial laws are concerned— may well and
often be a good defence against further en-
croachment by the white man on the rem-
nants of the rights the Indian coinmunity has
in Canada.
And in summary, the learned author
says: "Where Parliament has not legislated
and putting aside matters relating to Indian
lands, the provinces have a relatively free
hand in legislating for the well-being of
the Indian and this is so with respect to
reserve Indians, no less than for those
who have moved off tlie reserve into the
mainstream of non-Indian society. The
area of cx)nstitutiorLal flexibility is in fact
very great, accepting that constitutional
responsibility for Indians is the correlative
of legislative authority, there is little justi-
fication for the reluctance not infrequently
expressed by provincial government to
undertake tiie same responsibility for
ameliorating the condition of Indians and
Indian settlements that these governments
would assume for non Indians and non-
Indian communities.
Mr. Speaker, in substance that is what I
wanted to say in this debate. I wanted to
say that, so far as the Constitution of this
country is concerned, there is a wide area
which deserves immediate clarification by
this government within which, in all aspects
of the governmental activities of this prov-
ince, they can move clearly the better to deal
with and to provide for the Indian conrmiun-
ity and Eskimo community, so that we may
have that kind of freedom for the Indian and
the Eskimo that we pride ourselves in our
more pious moments that we extend under
our Constitution to people.
I submit what I have said with all its
missing links for the urgent consideration of
the government and for its reply at some
subsequent time, because we have got to
remove this sense of disadvantage, this his-
toric deprivation which we have imposed
upon the Indian community in the province
of Ontario.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
if you happen to be invited down to the
Empire Club, and you met Ted Jolliffe,
whom I am told is the president— if you can
believe it of that august organization— and
who used to be quite a figure here; and if
he were to ask you— "How's the Constitution
up in that Legislature? Is it a very important
issue with the members of the Legislature?"
—you would have to tell him that, in truth,
the Constitution of Canada does not cut much
shakes with the membership of this assembly.
There are other subjects of interest that get
the troops out and into their seats much
more readily than a discussion of the fabric,
the warp and woof of the life of Canada as
a nation. You tell Ted Jolliffe that there is
nothing like the television cameras to get a
full house. You tell him the question period,
dismal affair as it is in this House, gets out
a bigger crowd. But the Constitution of
Canada— as I look across, especially at the
Treasury benches— does not.
Indeed, at one time this afternooon there
was not a single member of the Executive
Council of Ontario in his seat. Now I am not
one who complains to try to attract a crowd.
I have been favoured with an audience here
over the years, and I am not one of those
who say members have to be in their seats.
That is a mythology imposed upon us largely
by the daily press, largely by the Toronto
press. It is possible to be a good member
and be away from the House a good deal. It
is possible to be a bad member and be in
the House a good deal.
But this debate— that began back on Feb-
ruary 27 with the Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts)— has dragged on in fits and starts,
sporadically, from time to time. Now it
reaches its penultimate stages. And I ob-
serve that the basic fact of life in the poli-
tical sense in Canada— its Constitution— does
not provoke much interest in the members of
this assembly.
APRIL 17, 1969
3239
It all began, of course, back on February
27. As I say, the Prime Minister spoke to
the order and, at that time, rather than ad-
dress himself to the Constitution of Canada
and its reform, he devoted most of his time
to the national Medicare scheme and On-
tario's attitude toward it. To the Prime
Minister of Ontario— and the evidence is over-
whelming—to the first citizen of Ontario the
burden of the problem of the inter-relation-
ship of the provincial and federal govern-
ments revolves around money.
One need only remind oneself that on the
second day of the Ottawa conference, sup-
posedly devoted to the question of the dis-
tribution of legislative power, the cameras
were given over to the provincial heads of
state— all ten of them, whom, the Winnipeg
Free Press, in a very apt phrase I have
always delighted in, called "the warlords."
It seemed all they wanted to talk about
was money. Not one of them, in the interests
of the application of uniform standards and
social welfare, ever offered to give over any
powers or responsibilities to the federal gov-
ernment in order to reduce the strain on the
provincial treasuries. Now that ought to be
underlined! When they are talking money,
not one of them— as far as I can see— ever
talks about cutting the suit to fit the cloth
available. They never talk in terms of re-
ducing the strain on their treasuries.
Not one of them, so far as I can see— and
I have watched the whole conference on
television— ever acknowledged that provincial
responsibilities over 102 years have expanded
beyond anything ever imagined by the
Fathers of Confederation.
The Fathers, of course, never dreamed in
their wildest flights of fancy the problems
that would be faced by the Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Gomme). They did not even have
the automobile, never dreamed of the hun-
dreds of millions of dollars a year the Minis-
ter of Highways has to find for capital and
maintenance expenditure as a result of the
tyranny of the automobile.
Provincial responsibilities have altered in
such a way that, as I say, the framers of that
document could not possibly have imagined
—in a rural economy where every man either
looked after himself, or economic distress was
tended to by the good neighbourliness of
the people on the next farm— that 102 years
later we would all become our brother's
keepers. We are all our brother's keepers.
They never visualized the hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars a year that the Minister of
Social and Family Services (Mr. Yaremko)
has to raise to meet his responsibilities. I did
not notice an acknowledgement from one of
the provincial Premiers that there might pos-
sibly be a lessening of the strain on the
provincial exchequers by inviting the federal
government to assume more responsibility.
I have always believed— and have never
been challenged on the validity of the propo-
sition—that we in Ontario are the greatest
centralists in the whole nation. The people
of no other province are more centralist in
their attitudes and conceptions of the role of
the federal government than we in Ontario.
We have no fear of the federal govern-
ment, of its intrusion. We have anxiety that
it will be a super Colossus of state mechanism
that will deprive us of peculiar provincial
rights. In that sense, we can say without
being strident about it, that people in Ontario
are nationalist minded. We have that con-
ception in our history that we had a good
deal to do with the founding of this country.
The initiative came from politicians in this
province, and indeed in this city. And that
has ordered our attitude toward the federal
government during the 102 years of our ex-
perience.
Now on February 27, the Prime Minister
used this forum to continue to complain
about his monetary problems. These all but
vanished a few days later when the Treasurer
(Mr. MacNaughton) introduced his Budget
and took Ontario into the path of fiscal
separatism.
I will just touch on that for a moment.
Here was the Premier of Ontario down in
Ottawa telling the federal government it is
distorting the constitution of this country by
intrusions into the field of social welfare and
health, and making an assault on provincial
autonomy— then a few weeks later the Pro-
vincial Treasurer was standing in this House
telling the federal government the taxation
reforms Ontario is going to introduce.
Well, one is as coercive as the other, I
protest to you. It is all part of the same piece
of cloth. You cannot complain about federal
intrusion from one side of your mouth, and
from the other start telling the federal gov-
ernment the methods it should use in raising
taxation.
That is precisely what the hon. Treasurer
was doing in this House when he introduced
that Budget.
One must be careful in talking about such
an important and fundamental part of the hfe
of our nation. One has to use a favourite
phrase of mine— measure his words carefully.
3240
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And I make it clear that I do not for a
moment denigrate the importance of the
financial relations between the federal gov-
ernment and the provinces.
But, as was said a long time ago, "man
does not Bve by bread alone"; and the finan-
cial relations ought not to be allowed to
occupy centre stage so that everything else
in the constitutional scene is blurred and
kept out of focus.
Xhere are two important principles govern-
ing the national life of Canada which must
be kept in the forefront of any contemplation
concerning what kind of country we want
Canada to be. After all, is that not the high
task upon which we are embarked in rewrit-
ing our Constitution? In reorganizing the
framework of relations between the several
governments in this country, are we not
determining what kind of Canada we want
our country to be?
Those principles, I submit to you, are
firstly, that social services for the amehora-
tion of the welfare of the Canadian people—
and particularly its economically deprived
citizens— ought to be as uniform as possible
across the country to Canadians in all parts
of Canada. They are entitled to expect that
they will, as far as it is possible, be treated
equally in the type of social service they
might expect in the modem welfare state
which all politicians are committed to provide
them. That is the first principle.
The second principle is that regional eco-
nomic disparity in this country ought to be
greatly lessened. I cannot hope that in this
century at least that regional economic dis-
parity will disappear, so that all parts of the
country become as viable as Ontario and to
a lesser extent in our sister province to the
east. We do not want to lessen the strength,
viability and the quality of life that we in
Ontario are able to provide to our people, but
I do say, sir, as a second principle, that, if
Canada means anything as a nation we must
work toward a state of affairs where the eco-
nomic disparity between the various parts of
the country must be made as minimal as men
of goodwill, understanding, intelligence, and
courage, can make it.
Now, in the hght of those two principles,
I submit to you, sir, that the federal govern-
ment is the best organ to achieve effective
results in both those areas. For the moment
Quebec is turned inward upon itself, obsessed
with the crucial necessity of preserving the
French-Canadian identity. Ontario by con-
trast should and must adopt a broad and
sweeping perspective of the nation as a
whole. And we in Ontario, I suggest, should
dedicate ourselves to the high purpose of
evening out the economic rewards to the
people in all parts of Canada.
And, as I say, to do this we do not have
to— and we must not— lessen one iota the
quality of the services we supply to the
people of Ontario. But on the other hand, I
protest that it is crucial to our existence that
we eliminate gross differences in economic
activity of this nation. For a nation, like a
human, that has high pressure at the centre
and weakness at the extremities, is likely to
suffer some form of vascular or paralytic
accident.
Before I go too far in developing this line
of thought— and I am going to return to it—
I want to pause and make some more specific
comments on the structure of this debate and
the role that grave constitutional problems
play in the political life of this province. I
immediately rebuke the assertion of the mem-
ber for York South (Mr. MacDonald) when
he referred to the fact that attention to con-
stitutional problems does not built houses.
Of course it does not. That is a remark
that is worthy of a Philistine. You could in
the same way say the same thing about any
activity. They cannot go to the Pablo Casals
concert because it does not build houses. "I
will not bother to pick up the indemnity
cheque because it does not build houses."
Well, we do not build houses, that is for
sure. One thing we do not do is build houses.
A nation girded itself for total war effort a
generation ago— and indeed twice in this cen-
tury—finds itself helpless to solve the housing
crisis.
And I say by way of interpolation that if
something needs to be said in the light of
the constitution about building houses, that
the nation, the province, the combined forces
of the state will never build houses, never
provide decent accommodation for people to
live in dignity so long as the building of
houses is left to the extent that it is in the
realm of private profit-making activity.
It will never solve its housing crisis as long
as the great mass of the population tolerates
the impudence of the few who sequester to
themselves pieces of the finite earth surface.
I emphasize the words "finite earth surface"
—it is all we have got until we start to go
out beyond. As long as we tolerate the impu-
dence of that group, who sequester it to
themselves and ransom the rest of the popu-
lation in the purchase price of land. These
entrepreneurs that we tolerate are the mod-
em highwaymen, and apparently this govern-
APRIL 17, 1969
3241
ment, as well as the Ottawa government, in-
tends to suffer them.
Well, we will talk about housing another
time, but also, perhaps, an intelligent revision
of the constitution might show us the way
to solving our housing crisis.
Now my reply in that regard to the mem-
ber for York South and the Prime Minister,
who nodded sagely to him— 1 am a great
Prime Minister watcher, he nodded sagely
to him when he made the remark as if only
the two of them were here, the nice charming
way that the first citizen leans back in the
chair— I say to both of them, that we have
to keep things in perspective.
Watching the course of the debate you
would have to say that the central problem
of sitting down to rewrite the document or
reorganize— I dislike that phrase, rewrite the
document. Maybe we do not have to do that
—but the reorganization of it in the light of
100 years of experience with it is one of the
central and crucial issues in the next several
years ahead of us.
And whether we like it or not, we as
elected politicians share a common responsi-
bility for these vital matters. Probably the
retson for the ennui which afflicts this debate
arises from the unwarranted separation of
the Legislature from involvement in the
policy, if it can be called that, of constitu-
tional development.
Private members of the Legislature are
entitled to ask— and maybe somebody, in the
absence of the first citizen, will tell him that
I asked— private members of the Legislature
are entitled to ask what role they are ex-
pected to play in this area. It is clear to me
that so far as the Price Minister is concerned,
the private member is the last man on the
totem pole.
Quebec, of course, has shown the way with
its constiutional committee of the Legislature
and that committee met a good many times
and produced a very valuable report, which
I notice in Quebec is consistently referred to.
In Ontario does anyone suggest, is there
anyone abroad who is suggesting, that in the
ranks valuable contributions to Constitu-
tional development could not be made by the
hon. members for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor),
Carleton East (Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence),
York-Forest Hill (Mr. Dunlop), Sarnia (Mr.
Bullbrook), Parkdale (Mr. Trotter), River-
dale (Mr. Renwick), and York South? I
have no v^dsh to separate the major from
the minor, but I mention a few whom I
know to have a deep concern about this
matter.
An hon. member: Is that so?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, indeed. I have reflected
on this matter— but it is no better elsewhere,
I noted and it is proper we should zero in on
these things, to give ourselves the total pic-
ture. I noticed that while the Ottawa con-
ference was taking place tlie Parliament of
Canada was meeting as if its deUberations
were of no concern whatever. And at least
once the sound of the division bells of the
Parhament of Canada interrupted the de-
liberations of the conference. So that the
helpful CBC commentators might enlighten us
on what these bells were and what was going
on, I think the Prime Minister of Canada
made some reference to them.
But one would have thought that the con-
ference, being of the high importance it was,
that the Parliament of Canada might have
adjourned its sittings to permit as many
people to observe— I do not know how many
they could get in that room, I have never
been in that room in my life—but at least, the
the rest of us, they could have vratched this
conference on television.
This Legislature sir, when this debate is
over, will have discussed the Constitution of
Canada and its provinces twice in five years.
In the meantime the fabric of the political
life of the nation has been in the hands of
the academics and the bureaucrats, just
where the Prime Minister of Ontario has
placed it. That is where he put it and that is
where he is content that it remain, in the
hands of the academics and the bureaucrats.
I know little about the bureaucrats but I
must say, the product of the academics is not
up to much. I do not have Eugene Forsey at
my bedside table to afford me that soporific
effect that his writings usually inculcate in
me. I do not find it very diSicult to con-
strain my enthusiasm for what the great mon-
archist writes. He said one time that creep-
ing republicanism was coming into this coun-
try so rapidly tliat he was going to go down
to the office of the High Commissioner of the
United Kingdom and seek refuge. I wish he
would.
Well I say emphatically that this ought to
be a matter of top priority with legislators
and the Prime Minister ought to create the
machinery which will enable legislators to
show their concern for this vital area of our
national life.
On all sides of the House are serious
minded people whose opinions ought to be
canvassed. The Prime Minister has not done
this. He preferred, a long time ago, early in
3242
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
his regime, to appoint a committee of people
from outside tlie Legislature.
Now I say— somebody interrupted me and
I want to say as modestly as I can— that I
have spent many hours in reflection on the
Constitutional problems of tliis nation. I
know that others have. I know tlie member
for York South has reflected deeply. His
contributions over the years in debate, have
contained many, many worthwhile and valu-
able observations and I give liim every credit
for his participation.
What a contrast with a situation of 105
years ago. It took three years at that time-
three years of debate and discussion to arrive
at a consensus. As I stand here today, 105
years later I wonder if we have tliree years.
I wonder do we have three years in which
to do it or is tiiere a possibility of intruding
into the area of probability that the country
may not last tlie three years before we get
it done.
The Legislature of the province of Canada
—I say we talked, and I want to draw the
contrasts here, we vidll have discussed the
Constitution twice in five years. The Legis-
lature of tlie province of Canada— I had
better be careful— the Legislature of the
province of Canada debated the 72 resolu-
tions from February 3 to March 14, 1865.
That is a month and two weeks, about six
weeks, and at the end of the debate they
had come to a decision, the first Premier of
Ontario voting against Confederation. But
they came to a decision in six weeks. That
is where the matter was ultimately settled.
It started in Charlottetown, moved to Que-
bec and ultimately settled in the Legislature
of the province of Canada— in six weeks.
Well that is how it all began, Mr. Speaker;
that is how this country began, when the last
of the three votes were taken in this Legis-
lature March 14, 1865. Then they went to
London to get the bill passed and Canada
was launched.
In the light of that liistory I do not see
how the Prime Minister of Ontario can hesi-
tate to set up a continuing committee on the
Constitution, where opinions from all sections
of hfe in this province could be canvassed
by the legislators.
In a very real sense the politicians have a
vested interest in the Constitution. If we
have the will and the way, we can make a
positive contribution to Constitutional de-
velopment. In contrast to Macdonald and
Brown, Calt and Cartier, who were deahng
with the unknown, we have 100 years of ex-
perience with the document, wdth the de-
velopment and with the growth of this prov-
ince and this nation.
They stood in the shadow of the frontier;
we are the managers of a highly developed
economy. We have enough creative minds to
do it in the Legislature, and I protest that
it is not the preserve of the bureaucrats. Am
I unkind to say that you cannot help but
observe that the bureaucrats will not even
grace the Legislature with their presence
during the debate of the Constitution; they
would not even bother to walk across the
courtyard from their ofiices where they are
ensconsed to hear what might be said in this
Legislature?
Mr. J. Renwick: The Prime Minister had
forgotten the debate.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, my friend from Riverdale
says the Prime Minister holds the Constitu-
tion so much in the forefront of his mind,
that he had forgotten the debate was going
to take place.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where is the leader
of the NDP?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: I put it to you as a funda-
mental principle, sir, that the Constitution
must always be subject to political control.
We can have it no other way. It must be
responsive to the democratic process. Now
I leave that, but I really hope that those
words— as I leave that train of thought— that
they will bear some fruit somewhere before it
is too late.
Now I have been speaking about creativity.
I must pause and pay some attention to the
exposure of negativism. I want to make a few
comments on the address delivered by the
Minister of Social and Family Services (Mr.
Yaremko) on the first night of this debate.
In my view that speech, made in the late
hours of the evening of February 27, cannot
pass unnoticed. It must be answered. The
record must be set straight. The other side
of the coin must be put in the journals of
this House. For in my view that speech was
at once one of the most confused and divisive
speeches I have listened to since becoming a
member of this assembly.
In fairness to the Minister let us concede
that he put forward a new concept of Con-
federation, a Heinz pickles concept, that is
Confederation is made up of 57 varieties,
except that he reduced them to 47.
Now first of all, let me remind him, if he
reads these words, and let me remind him in
APRIL 17, 1969
3243
the House, that he was quite inaccurate in
his description of the terms of reference of
the B and B commission. And I hesitate to
think that in reading only part of the terms
of reference that is, I assume he did not
intend to mislead the House; but the point
is, had he read all the terms of reference—
they are not lengthy— he could not then have
made a speech such as he did. Because the
terms of reference would have denied him
the basis upon which he founded his sub-
sequent remarks.
Now let me read the terms of reference of
the B and B commission, because that was
the springboard of his address. The commis-
sion was empowered to:
Inquire into and report upon the existing
state of bilingualism and biculturalism in
- Canada and to recommend what steps
should be taken to develop the Canadian
Confederation. On the basis of an equal
partnership between the two founding
races.
And there he stopped; and you will remember
he flew oflF, as he does, in all directions and
he said: "Where does the third Canada count?
Where do I count; the third element?"
But having read on— these words are a
continuation, and I checked his speech today.
I noticed he stopped. He should have read
this, and I quote:
Taking into account the contribution
made by other ethnic groups to the cultural
enrichment of Canada and the measures
that should be taken to safeguard that con-
tribution.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of that clear
statement of acknoiw'ledgement that Canada
has been enriched by many cultures and by
many people from many lands— some came
early and some came late, it does not matter
when you arrived. I noticed our old colleague
got himself in hot water down in Ottawa the
other day— and we know what a decent fellow
he is, Ross Whicher, who used to be here—
he got himself into trouble when he said in
the House of Commons that it is a little bit
better if you have been here for a little bit
longer, though I am sure that must have been
a slip of the tongue. But the whole point is
that the multi-cultural diversity in Canada
takes no notice of origin or time of arrival.
In view of that, how in logic can the Min-
ister of Social and Family Services stand up
and say that the terms of reference are de-
meaning to him and to anyone else who hap-
pens to be neither French nor English? In
what sense do they make him a second-class
citizen? I was particularly struck by the fact
tlhat when he made the suggestion the
strongest dissent came from the very Minis-
ter whose backgrounds are neither French
nor English.
It is my impression that my colleagues, the
member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), the
member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Bukator),
the member for Dovercourt (Mr. De Monte),
the member for Humber (Mr. Ben), like the
member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) and
the member for Scarborough West (Mr.
Lewis), the member for High Park (Mr. Shul-
man); and I doubt not the member for Ren-
frew South (Mr. Yakabuski), have no desire to
be identified or tagged or labelled as "third
elements". These men are all Canadians.
They do not represent any "third element";
they represent the people who sent them here.
Their presence in this assembly testifies to
the contribution they have made and are
making to the public life of this province.
The Minister himself did not come to this
Hou^, I hope, as a representative of an
ethnic group or ethnic groups. Indeed, if I
am not mistaken his constituency in 1951 had
a distinct Anglo-Saxon majority; and I should
not be at all surprised if he got more votes
from that group than he received from ethnic
groups though I have no exact information
on that score.
In a word, Mr. Speaker, I think the Min-
ister has no grounds for complaining that he
has been treated as a second class citizen or
kept outside the mainstream of our society.
As the former Minister of Citizenship he
might have had something to say about those
50,000 first citizens of Ontario, of whom the
member for Riverdale has spoken so well
today. Many of them live in squalor and
degradation on Indian reservations in this
province. These people, I say, are citizens
minus when they are supposed to be citizens
plus, they are denied the rights and services
made available to all other citizens.
But to return to the "third element" con-
cept: does the Minister of Social and Family
Services really beheve that Nathan Cohen,
the distinguished drama critic, wants to be
identified in that way? Does he think that
Frank Mahovlich— can you hear it: there goes
the "third element" behind the net, he has
the puck; tlie "third element" is at centre
ice, he is over the blue line; the "third ele-
ment" shoots, he scores!
What nonsense!
Frank Mahovlich of Schumacher, Ontario,
looks upon himself as being as Canadian as
3244
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
anyone else in this countty. What about
Alexander Brott, the conductor; or Abe
Bayersky, the artist; or David Lewis, David
Croll, John Diefenbaker? Does this Minister
think that they want to be set aside from
their fellow Canadians by some special badge
of identification? The suggestion is—
An hon. member: What about George Arm-
strong?
Mr. Sopha: Well George Armstrong is, of
course, one of Canada's first citizens, from
Garson, Ontario.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): We will
have to have a "fourth element" then!
Mr. Sopha: Yes.
The suggestion in my view is simply
grotesque.
What, then, was the purpose of the speech
so early in this debate? It is my impression
that it was intended to confuse the issue, to
obscure the fact that basically and historically
Canada is made up of two societies, one
English and the other French. That is the
fact of Canadian life; that is the heart of the
matter.
In proof of that, let me call as my first
witness the distinguished Canadian who heads
the government of this province, a man held
in high esteem in every part of Canada.
Speaking in a debate in this House, on May
18, 1967, he had this to say, and I quote
from the first citizen of Ontario:
In our country, approximately one third of our
people speak French, centred primarily in the prov-
ince of Quebec. It has been asserted that only in
Quebec can the French Canadian be himself. I
would suggest that this is an aspect of the whole
Canadian dilemma which requires our immediate,
and very steadfast, concern.
I have stated before, and I should like to state
again, that I am committed to the proposition that
cultural equality is the basis upon which Canada is
formed. This country is a bi-national state, founded
in 1867 by the Fathers of Confederation, who clearly
recognized that this was not to be a purely English-
speaking country.
There are some that argue that Canada, being in
North America where the dominant language is Eng-
lish, should aim to inhibit the use of French and
become more and more English in all ways. There
are others that seek to create a French-speaking
ghetto beyond which no French could be used.
Neither of these suggestions seems to me worthy
of becoming in any sense the policy of this country.
What we must seek to ensure is that wherever
possible, French can be used in all federal govern-
ment departments and agencies. In all provinces
where there are appreciable groups of French-speak-
ing Canadians, provision must be made to permit
their children to be educated in their own language.
This government is addressing itself to this problem
—the whole question of bilingual education in On-
tario—and we want Franco-Ontarians to feel that
they can be themselves here, and that this is their
province as well as anyone else's.
And we must, I think aU English Canadians must,
ask ourselves if over the years we have been quite
as fair and as just to our French-speaking minority
in Quebec province. I do not wish to paint any
sombre picture of the past, but I would like to
point out that we can do many things to remedy
this situation today.
Now, sir, just in case the Prime Minister
did not make himself clear in English, I want
to read a part of that in French:
Dans notre pays, environ un tiers de la popula-
tion parle frangais et se trouve principalement dans
la province de Qu6bec. On a declare que ce n'est
que dans Quebec que le canadien frangais peut etre
lui-meme. Je propose que cet aspect du dilemme
canadien regoive notre attention immediate et sou-
tenue.
J'ai d6ja declare, et j'aimerais le r^it^rer, que je
me suis engag^ h soutenir la proposition qui recon-
nait r^gahte culturelle comme la base sur laquelle
est fondee le Canada. Ce pays est un ^tat bi-
national—
Je dis au Ministre des Terres et Forets-
je regrete— "Ce pays est un etat bi-national."
C'est le Premier Ministre de la province
d'Ontario qui parle ici.
Ce pays est un ^tat bi-national, fond^ en 1867
par les P^res de la Confederation qui reconnurent
sans ambiguite qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un pays stricte-
ment anglophone.
He made himself absolutely clear in both
French and English, that we believe that
Canada is a bi-national state. And just in
case it bothers the Prime Minister to have
these words recalled in 1969, I want to put
him in good solid company, and I call as my
second witness no less a person than Her
Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
Harken to these moving words! They were
spoken in French but I give hon. members
the English translation. This was Her Majesty
speaking to the legislative assembly of Que-
bec on October 10, 1964:
Whatever the future, we must prepare
for it today. Among compatriots we must
explain our point of view without passion,
always respecting the opinion of others.
The problems of today will founder in dis-
order if we do not know how to righten
them with fraternity.
Let the dialogue continue and it will
tend to unify all men of good will. True
patriotism does not exclude an understand-
ing of the patriotism of others. Confeder-
ation was foimded by two races, and I
think it appropriate to speak in the lan-
guage of Cartier and Macdonald:
This country is the meeting place of two
great civilizations, each contributing its
own genius and quality.
APRIL 17, 1969
3245
These qualities are not contradictory but
complementary to one another. The full
energy and progress of a nation can be
realized only by continued co-operation in
all sections of the community. We are
proud of the irreplaceable role and special
destiny of French Canada. For 400 years
it has maintained its strength and vigour.
And whenever you sing "O Canada," you
are reminded that you come from a proud
race.
It is to this pride, to this nobility of
heart that I speak while recalling that the
Fathers of Confederation aspired to a great
future. Their work is worth pursuing,
thereby the hearts which so nourished such
an enterprise will not have beaten in vain.
In serving the true interests of Quebec,
you will serve those of Canada, in the
same way as the true interests of Canada
are to serve those of the entire world.
I just have time to call my third witness—
these are witnesses of the character, the his-
torical antecedence of this nation.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps if the hon. member
would, it would be better to call a third
witness after the adjournment, because there
are only two minutes left.
The House took recess at 6.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 87
ONTARIO
%tqi&Mme of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, April 17, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk:, Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 17, 1969
Conclusion of the debate on the constitution, Mr. Sopha, Mr. Welch 3249
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3272
3249
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, April 17, 1969
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
CONSTITUTION DEBATE
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps before the hon. mem-
ber continues with his third witness, the
members would hke me to introduce our
guests this evening, because we have some
special and important guests this evening.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): They are all
important.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is exactly what I
said. We have, as I mentioned this afternoon,
the 14th Scout Troop from Scarborough West,
and students from Riverdale Collegiate In-
stitute in the east gallery; we have the history
club of Riverdale Collegiate, who are part of
that group of students; and then in Mr.
Speaker's gallery we have the executive
oflBcers of the Highland Creek Chapter,
Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, and
I am sure we are glad to see those ladies up
there. I thank the hon. member for Sudbury
for allowing me that courtesy.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I convey my
gratitude to you for your allusion to my plan
of presentation and it indicates to me that
you have been attending upon my remarks
very closely.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): So have we all.
Mr. Sopha: I observe that whereas we did
not add anything to our numbers this evening,
I look around at the faces of those present
and I see that we did not lose any that we
had before.
Mr. Nixon: There sits the Minister of
Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart).
Mr. V. M. Singer ( Downsview ) : In solitary
splendour.
Mr. Sopha: Before calhng my third pres-
tigious witness I wanted to go back a bit
and to say very briefly to any that we may
have added, that before the dinner hour I
was making the point that 100 years ago the
writing of the Constitution of Canada was an
exercise in politics, and 100 years later it
has entirely been given over to the aca-
demician, the bureaucrat and the technocrat;
and the legislator, in this as in so many other
areas, the elected politician, has become in
effect part of the fagade of life.
Do you recall, sir— if you will permit me to
allude to the fact very briefly, though it has
no immediate relevance— when the Prime
Minister of Canada decided to examine the
foreign policy of this country the first people
he called in were the academicians and he
gave that task over to them. It seems to me
that in the second half of the 19th century
the only academician of prominence who was
on the landscape was Goldwyn Smith. And
he had the unrivalled distinction, expatriot
of Oxford that he was, displaced person come
to seek his fame and fortune in the colony,
that he led the crusade in this city from his
household which is situate where the Art
Gallery of Ontario is now. He was in the van-
guard of those that wanted to annex Canada
to the United States. But as I say, that has
been completely changed now. The politician
who occupied the stage in the 19th century
has been pushed into the background and
the academicians and the bureaucrats have
taken over.
And I was saying that it must be a matter
of chagrin, it indeed must be a matter of
some irritation to people like the hon. mem-
ber for Carleton East (Mr. A. B. R. Law-
rence) and the member for Armourdale (Mr.
Carton) on that side, as well as the dis-
tinguished leader of this party and many
others in the House, that their opinions in
constitutional matters do not count for very
much. I am protesting and would hope that
my words are carried to the Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts), that this is a matter of high
principle; and when all is said and done the
Constitution of this country must become the
sole responsibility of the elected representa-
tives.
Now the other area of my speech I had
reached was the one in which I was making
the point by calling two very distinguished
people in support of the proposition that
Canada is fundamentally a nation composed
of two cultures, two societies, and to use the
3250
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Conservative phrase is a country of two
nations. I had read from the remarks of the
Prime Minister of this province, uttered in
tliis place, on May 18, 1967, w^hich included
this sentence:
I have stated before and I should like to state
again that I am committed to the proposition tliat
cultural equality is the basis upon which Canada is
formed. This country is a bi-national state.
I had referred to the remarkable speech
made by Her Majesty in the Legislature of
Quebec on October 10, 1964, when she said
this:
We are proud of the irreplacable role
and special destiny of French Canada, For
400 years it has maintained its strength
and vigour.
And before calling as a witness that man that
the Laird of Lindsay used to refer to as the
"granddaddy" of them all, let me remind my
listeners that the history of Canada, as is
often thought in its English-speaking section,
did not start 100 years ago, did not start
with the launching of tliis nation by The
British North America Act, July 1, 1867; it
started, if you want to pick a date in time,
in the year 1608 when the great Champlain
took the first steps to found the historic city
on the banks of tlie St. Lawrence at Quebec.
The history of this country is 400 years old,
and it is appropriate to say in reference to
the remarks of the member for Riverdale ( Mr.
J. Renwick) this afternoon, that the same
considerations which led His Royal Majesty,
Gfjorge III, to make concessions to the
Indians— that is to say, out of gratitude for
either their active assistance to the English
cause in defeating the French, or at least
their neutrahty which was just as welcome as
the levying of arms— the same considerations
which led him, in 1763, to issue the Royal
Proclamation, led the English conquerors to
make very important concessions to the
French Canadian residents of Quebec. The
most important of these, of course, was the
activity of the American Revolutionaries to
tlie south, and the Act of 1774, which was
reaffirmed under The Quebec Act of 1791,
is testimony to the fact that the English con-
querors decided, as a matter of high policy,
not to treat the French residents as a con-
(incred people, ]:)ut on the contrary, to accept
them as equal partners in the founding of a
colony on the north half of the North
American continent.
Then they showed the shrewdness, the
wisdom of that decision at two cnicial times
—one in 1776 and the years immediately fol-
lowing, and again in 1812 when French
Canada in fact saved the north half of the
continent for tlie Empire, which would not
have happened without the active assistance
of French Canadians, The remarkable thing,
so soon after they, were defeated themselves
on the September afternoon in 1759, is that
in a short space of time they should decide
that their destiny was better protected with
the British than it was in joining forces willi
the American revolutionaries. But as I say,
it is evidence to the shrewdness of the
British masters who came to exercise their
suzerainty over the north half of the con-
tinent.
But we must never forget that that is a
fundamental fact of life of this country, tliat
Canada and all it has been since that time
is the meeting ground of two histories, two
cultures, two languages, two peoples. It is a
crossroads, and in a word, at once its greatest
charm and its greatest strength.
My third witness is the man who really
understood the French Canadians, the chief
architect of Confederation. In the year 1856
—note the year, 1856— Macdonald was in his
41st year, and this is what he said:
The truth is that you British Canadians
never can forget that you were once
supreme, that Jean Ba;ptiste was your
hewer of wood and drawer of water. You
struggle not for equahty, but ascendancy.
Treat them, the French, as a nation-
Note that; let me interpolate, note what he
calls them:
Treat them as a nation and they will
act as a free people do, generously; call
them a faction and they become factious.
Macdonald on many occasions referred to
the French Canadians as a nation. There-
fore it wiis a matter of great regret to me
personally that the Conservative Party— which
had raised its colours, outlined its principles
at Montmorency, and accepted the duahty of
cultural communities in this country— in tlie
subsequent months, backtracked. The Con-
servative Party got into a tortuous state of
confusion, and in that election at the end of
it you could not ascertain what the Conserva-
tive Party believed, as they made haste under
the onslaught of Jean Baptiste from Prince
All^ert to retreat from their previous posi-
tion, which recognized the bi-national char-
acter of Canada.
The Conservative Party certainly lacked
historians, or a historical sense as they sat,
thousands of them at Maple Leaf Gardens,
and listened to Diefenbaker as he took the
stage that evening, and was carried into three
million homes in this country in an attempt
to tell us that the experiment of 1841 was a
APRIL 17, 1969
3251
two-nation concept. But he said and he said
it time and time again that night at Maple
Leaf Gardens. He said, "We tried that in
1841, and look what we got." The truth was
of course, that John Diefenbaker was stating
the exact opposite of reality. The experiment
of 1841, the Act of union, was not a two-
nation concept at all, it was a one-nation
experiment.
The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor)
earlier in this debate read into the records
the words of the Lord Durham, which led to
that experiment. He read them how Durham
came here and discovered two peoples war-
ring in the bosom of a single state, which
is a fine flourish of very literary writing, and
advocated blatently and brazenly in his report
that the most Christian, the most charitable
thing the English people could do in this
country toward the French Canadians— whom
he called a people without culture, without
a history, without a literature, poor, rude,
rough— was to Anglicize them. That is the
word used — Anglicize them — eliminate their
language, get everybody speaking English.
That is one thing about English-speaking
people; they have no difficulty, we have no
difficulty in feeling that we are s-uperior, and
we uplift people by making them like us,
making them in our image. That is the white
man's burden of the 19th century; we lift
them, we improve them, we make them like
us.
So the experiment was tried. We united
the two provinces. Ontario was the first
separatist province in this country— oh yes,
it was the first separatist province; it broke
away in 1791, you will remember, when the
first Loyalists arrived.
I take issue with the Prime Minister. He
said that the greatest single factor that led to
Confederation was the existence of those
northern armies victorious after the civil war.
It was one factor, but it was not the only
one and it was not tlie most important one.
The most important one, I protest, was tliat
tiiat experiment of the union of the two
provinces turned out to be a colossal failure;
government broke down, government was
paralyzed. Betwen 1859 and 1863 they had
four governments in three years or five
governments in four years, something of that
order. With George BrowTi declaiming in
Toronto the principle of representation by
population, government had ceased to fiuic-
tion. The French Canadians, tenaciously pro-
testing their right to preserve their culture,
refused to accede to the principle of equal
representation, the double majority device.
and so on. The French Canadian demon-
strated he did not vrant to be assimilated.
So the experiment by 1857 was recognized
to be a colossal failure and that is about the
year, it might be that year or the year be-
fore, that Confederation was first advocated
seriously. By whom? By Alexander TUley
Gait, who was the first one, about 1857. It
is only a question of time until that mistake
of 1841 had to be remedied.
What is tlie point of this historical survey?
The point is to show beyond any peradven-
ture tliat if this country is to exist, we have
to recognize that is made up of two great
cultures, French and English, v^dth the added
advantage, the incomparable asset, the in-
valuable fact that thousands of people have
come here from many other lands to join us.
But the Conservative Party got trapped by
Mr. Trudeau in that campaign and they
backtracked and appeared to accept the
proposition that I can never accept. With
all due respect to the distinguished Prime
Minister of Canada, he cannot say and con-
vince me that if he discovers 40 Bohemians
in Kamsack, Saskatchewan, that they are
entitled to the same quantity and quality of
treatment as five million people occupying
one province, five million people who are
the founding peoples of this nation, and who
are entitled as a matter of right-let me be
understood— to every assistance and sympathy
to preserve their heritage, their culture and
their language. That is a fact of life. I believe
it is, on that score.
Some years ago, my friend, the present
Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Welch), de-
hvered a very inspiring address in this House
in the course of which he included some
words from the eloquent lips of the great
D'Arcy McGee. I consider tliem to be so
relevant to this debate that I should Hke to
repeat them on this occasion. Himself an
Irish immigrant, albeit ordered to be trans-
ported out of Ireland, he still remembered
the destructive effects of prejudice in liis
former homeland, and called upon his new
countrymen to "rise above all low Hmita-
tions and narrow circumscriptions." Let those
across the way note those words. "Rise above
all low limitations and narrow circumscrip-
tions." And then McGee went on to say:
We now live in a land of rehgious and
civil liberty. All we have to do is, each
for himself, to keep down dissensions which
can only widen, impoverish and keep back
our country; each for himself to do all
he can to increase its wealth, its strength
and its reputation; each for himself to
3252
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
welcome every talent, to hail every inven-
tion, to cherish every gem of art to foster
every gleam of authorship, to honour
every acquirement, and every natural gift;
to lift ourselves to the level of our desti-
nies; to cultivate that true spirit which
embraces all creeds and all races, in order
to make our province, so rich in kno\vn
and unknown resources, a great new
nation.
Are not these beautiful words, Mr. Speaker,
and I ask you to contrast that lofty concep-
tion of Canada with the narrow and di\ isive
point of view put forward here by the self-
appointed champion of the "third element",
the Minister of Social and Family Services
(Mr. Yaremko). I think it is perfectly proper
to ad\ ert to the fact that early in his remarks
he leaned over in almost a fawning way to-
wards the first citizen, and said, "I shall
treasure the invitation the Prime Minister
tendered to me to come to the conference",
as if he had got in his possession a singularly
valuable piece of Canadiana that will be a
great state paper, that will be exhibited in
the Yaremko museum, situated on the comer
of College and Spadina at some future time.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): That is my riding. Stay out of my
riding.
Mr. Sopha: That is in the riding of the
Minister of Correctional Services. But that is
the way he put it, as if the Prime Minister of
Ontario tendered him a written ornate invi-
tation, perhaps something of the order of
that, which cost about $9 a copy I suppose.
Well, the Prime Minister of Ontario did not
think to tell the press that he was part of
the delegation to Ottawa, because the min-
istry of the delegation consisted of the hon.
Prime Minister, the hon. Treasurer (Mr. Mac-
Naughton), the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Da\'is, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr.
Wishart), and the hon. Minister without Port-
folio (Mr. Guindon), and no mention of the
Minister of Social and Family Services. I
think the truth is, and I wish he was here,
that it was not intended that he be part of
the delegation at all, that he barged in, unin-
vited. He barged in and they had to scurry
around to get him an invitation to get into,
what is it called, the railway room?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The Con-
federation room.
Mr. Sopha: The Confederation room. They
had to get him a pass to get in. They tell me
he brought a photographer, and at the re-
cess he slid up beside Pierre Elliott Tnuleau
and the fellow was making like Arthur Rank.
They tell me it was a sight to behold. E very-
time they had a recess he would sneak up
beside Walter Weir," or Joey Smallwood, and
pop would go the camera. I think that is
pretty close to what occurred.
Mr. Speaker, having called those three
very distinguished Canadians as witnesses—
and since the existence of two distinct socie-
ties in our Confederation is so clearly ac-
knowledged by the Queen and her first
Minister, and in history 113 years ago by
the giant of Canadians— I hope I have con^
tributed in some small way to put to rest
the-
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): What about the 40 bohem-
ians?
Mr. Sopha: —put to rest this notion. And
in my view, I am going to call-
Mr. Singer: Commune with Hepburn again?
Get some more ideas?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sopha: This is a ver>' serious matter.
I am going to call a fourth witness in the
person of Jean-Jacques Bertrand. In my view,
the nationalism which Mr. Bertrand expressed
at the Ottawa conference is as valid as the
Czech nationalism expressed in Prague, and
the Slovak nationalism expressed in Bratislava
manifesting itself in the defiance of the
Soviet Union. Let me quote the words of Mr.
Bertrand:
If there is a crisis in Canada, it is not
because our coimtiy is made up of indi-
viduals who speak different languages, it
is because Canada is the home of two
communities, two people, two individuals
who speak different languages. It is be-
cause Canada is the home of two communi-
ties, two peoples, two nations, between
which relations need to be hannonized.
A French Canadian is not the same as an
English Canadian simply because he speaks
differently. He speaks differently because
he is different.
Then later on he had this to say:
The important thing for French Cana-
dians from Quebec is not to he allowed,
as individuals, to speak their mother
tongue, even in areas of the country where
there is little chance of being understood.
What they want is the opportunity to live
together in French, to work in French, to
build a society in their image and to be
APRIL 17, 1969
3253
able to organize their community life so
that it will reflect their culture.
We would, therefore, be merely scratch-
ing the surface if we were to equate Can^
ada's constitutional problem with a ques-
tion of personal or linguistic rights.
What we are seeking is a constitutional
system most likely to reconcile the free
growth of Canada's two cultural communi-
ties with the requirements of economic
security, and since it is mostly in Quebec
that one of these two communities can
ensure control over its destiny, the prob-
lem may be scummed up by asking: "What
must be done to have a strong Quebec
within Canada?"
Above all, it has become essential to
give French Canada, of which Quebec is
the mainstay, a deep conviction that it can
find in the Canadian Confederation all the
required elements for its ovvti development.
We must recognize that for some time,
this feeling of confidence has become in-
creasingly subject to question, and that
doubts have crept into the minds of many
Quebeckers. The questioning and uncer-
tainty cannot last forever. Choices will in-
evitably have to be made.
It strikes me that the most confident delega-
tion—I say I watched the thing for three
days— at the whole conference was the dele-
gation from Quebec. They had no uneasiness
whatsoever, and I intended to say later, what
I say now about the everest of stupidity of
which the CBC is capable. Really, they can
reach dizzy heights.
Cardinal goes over to speak to Mr. Bert-
rand and immediately the commentator comes
on and says: "Oh, oh, there is Mr. Cardinal
speaking to Mr. Bertrand," as if that was a
big deal. Mickey MacDonald could go in
and speak to Robarts and that would not
cause any flurry at all. But the fact tliat a
Minister of Education, one of the senior
members of the delegation, goes over to speak
to Mr. Bertrand, you would think all the
mailboxes in Quebec are going to be passing
Mars in no time at all.
In the psalm of peace, early in the con-
ference, at the first recess after there had
been some discussion of the agenda, one of
these fellows with the weird looking head
sets and portable cameras rushes up to
Robarts and he says: "If there is going to be
a fight over the agenda, which side are you
going to be on?" You see, nothing like
making peace.
He thought Robarts was dumb enough to
go for that, but our man said: "(a) There is
not going to be a fight over the agenda, and
(b) I do not think I will be on anybody's
side but Canada's." In other words, let us
be calm about this.
But in a very real way I am coming to
believe that the television cameras do not
report the news, they make it. They make
it, and when all else is quiet there is nothing
like stirring up a little bit of news.
Well, I have read extensively into the
record and I am proud to do so, the remarks
made by Mr. Bertrand at the conference. I
say to you, sir, that is the heart of the
matter.
Does it mean giving Quebec an exalted
position? Does it mean giving Quebec special
privileges at the expense of tlie rest of Can-
ada? Nothing of the sort. It only gives them
the right to be French, to speak French, to
Hve in French, to build a French society
within Confederation, whose strength and
riches which are many, will be shared with
other Canadians.
A French society which will guarantee in
law the inalienable rights of the English and
other minorities, and here let me stress that
the province of Quebec, French Canada, has
an unequalled record in such matters. The
Jews of Canada regard as their very Magna
Carta, the Quebec Statute of 1832, which
extended to them the rights and privileges
enjoyed by all other citizens. It is worth
noting that it was only 30 years later that
the mother of Parliaments at Westminster
extended full citizenship to those of the
Jewish faith.
We have not done that for the 50,000
descendants of those to whom this great
land once belonged and here I put on record
the words used by the Prime Minister of
Ontario on November 5, 1965, when he paid
tribute to our sister province. It ought to
impress the other side, these remarkable
words by tlie head of the government of
Ontario.
Mr. Robarts said on that occasion in the
province of Quebec, and I quote:
I am pleased to say, in the presence of
tlie Prime Minister of Quebec, tliat his
province over the years continued to
demonstrate an awareness of tlie special
problems of minority in a multi-cultural
society. We, in tlie rest of Canada, should
never forget that the English speaking
minority in Quebec is afforded full rights,
not only in terms of human and civil rights,
but also in terms of language.
3254
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In the light of that recognition by the Prime
Minister of Ontario, it made all the more
shameful the intervention in this House of
the two from the back row— the member for
Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer) and the mem-
ber for Carleton (Mr. W. E. Johnston)— when
we sought to catch up in Ontario to what
had been a fact of life in Quebec for many
decades. I am sure that when the Prime
Minister spoke those words he was mindful of
the infamous regulation 17, which has hap-
pily been buried by the march of progress.
Mr. Speaker, despite our disagreements
with him on other questions, let me say gen-
uinely and sincerely to you, that it is my
view that no political leader of our time has
done more to build strong bonds of friendship
between English and French Canada than the
present Prime Minister of Ontario. And I
doubt if any English-Canadian political leader
stands higher in the esteem of the people of
French Canada than does the Prime Minister
of Ontario. That is why I am so perplexed
that so little attention is given to the role of
Quebec in our Legislature.
That is the rosy side, and thank God we
are led by a man who has always refused to
join the wolf pack. I was grateful to him at
the time of the national spasm of hysteria
that hit this country, when General De Gaulle
uttered that phrase from the balcony in Que-
bec. The hysteria was not new. We had seen
that hysteria before. We had seen it in this
country, and our ancestors had seen it when
the trap was sprung on that November in
1885 in Regina. We had seen the same type
of thing rip this country apart into two
divided camps for 75 years.
Thank heavens, in respect of that half-
breed leader, they have done two things. The
Prime Minister of Canada went out to unveil
a statue to him, which I am told is about
300 feet away from where the scaffold was.
And secondly, the government of Manitoba
has announced more or less as a matter of
official declaration that the coming of Con-
federation to Manitoba was a direct result
of the activities of Louis Riel. Now, could a
man want more from posterity than that?
These things are not new and I think it
serves the purpose— I hope it does— to take
some notice of the negative, shrill hysteria
that does exist in this country.
I want to read you the other side of the
coin, right in this city. They tell me CFRB—
Ontario's family station— has the largest listen-
ing audience of any of the radio stations in
Ontario. Well they have a fellow up there
by the name of Bill McVean, and on January
13, 1969, on an Ontario family station this is
what Mr. McVean had to say:
We were sitting around talking about
the French fact— this is one of the latest
Canadian cliches replacing charisma— and I
was wondering out loud why nobody now-
adays ever stops to consider the English
fact, or it that not respectable, being a
majority and all.
The English fact is that this is an
English-speaking continent. Its policies and
its business are conducted in this language.
Sad, perhaps, but a fact.
It is a fact that originally the French in
Canada were given remarkably generous
terms of surrender by the English. French
was to be used in federal documents and
debates and that is all, no more. There was
no talk of bilingualism or biculturalism.
Sad, but a fact.
Anything beyond this the French Cana-
dian has acquired through the love, respect
and generosity of the English Canadian.
That is a fact.
Now let me interpolate. If you did not have
a strong stomach, would that not make you
vomit to listen to that kind of stuff? He goes
on:
English Canadians are accused of trying
to stamp out French culture. No such
thing. To begin with this continent, legally,
does not have any French culture to
stamp out. Secondly, the English Canadian
has a warm spot of pride in a dual set of
founders. The last thing an English Cana-
dian wants to see is French culture dis-
appear. That is why he gets so angry
when he sees the French destroying it.
Quebec is trying to force the French lan-
guage into business and politics in an
English-speaking environment. It will not
fit because of the English fact.
Separatism is something most English-
speaking Canadians fight against because
they realize that a French ghetto in the
midst of an English world would live less
than two generations and then would dis-
appear forever. The French fact would
cease to exist, overwhelmed and snowed
under by the English fact, and if Quebec
persists in its course of isolationism, I am
afraid that even the WASPs will not be
able to keep French culture alive.
Of course, all that echoes George Drew, a
generation ago. He believed that French
Canadians should be recognized as a con-
quered people. One could answer this drivel
if it were not so contemptuous of five mil-
lion of our fellow citizens. To McVean they
APRIL 17, 1969
3255
are a conquered people; they were never
that. Were the British, I ask you, Mr. Speaker,
a conquered race after Dunkirk? French
Canada not only survived the Plains of
Abraham, but flourished, and now in the
whole of Canada those who call French their
mother tongue are 6.5 million strong.
I advert to that to say that is the kind of
thing that makes separatists. If it were trans-
lated into French, if it were distributed to
the youth of French Canada, that they have
to be beholden, as McVean says, to the
generosity of their English-speaking compa-
triots, the young people of French Canada
would conclude in great numbers that they
had better go it alone. As the hon. member
for Lakeshore said in the debate, the fact is
we cannot afiFord to let them go it alone
because if they leave the rest of us are fin-
ished; we are done. That is a fact of life.
Once French Canada separates from the rest
of Confederation, you will find the western
provinces flying off and discovering their
nexus with the Pacific states. You wfll find
the Atlantic provinces recognizing their sphere
of interest with the New England states, and
you will have Ontario, and perhaps Mani-
toba and Saskatchewan, left. This country
is finished if we do not keep Quebec in
Confederation.
How do my good friends— I wish they were
here— the Minister of Lands and Forests ( Mr.
Brunelle) and the Minister without Portfolio,
who represents Stormont, react to that kind
of drivel? Ontario's family station, it calls
itself.
It is all right, Mr. Speaker, is it not, that a
citizen of Ontario, a member elected three
times, in some way lectures his fellow citizens
of this province? I think that is a fair exer-
cise. I want to say a few words about the
reaction in Ontario and other English-speak-
ing provinces to Mr. Cardinal's visit to Paris,
I would first of all like to remind you that
these visits to France and to the Franco-
phone countries of Africa were not inau-
gurated by the present government of Que-
bec, either that under Daniel Johnson or the
one led by Jean Jacques Bertrand. Those
visits were inaugurated after 1960 by the
government of Jean Le Sage. Why is there so
much distress over the reception given to
this able young statesman? After all, Mr.
Cardinal is the Vice-Premier and Minister of
Education, and he is the president of the
National Council of Ministers of Education.
Instead of feeling angry over the fact
that he is greeted with due ceremonial, we
should be proud of the honour accorded to
him. What is the fundamental difference, I
ask you, in the dignified welcome of the
Minister of Education of Quebec in Paris,
and a hypothetical red carpet welcome of
Ontario's Minister of Education in Australia?
Indeed, if Bill Davis junketed to the Leeward
Island, which just about equalled Gabon in
importance, and they put on the dog a bit to
welcome him, probably only Mrs. Davis
would know that he was out of the country.
But if Jean-Guy Cardinal goes abroad, an
army of newsmen follow him and the Eng-
hsh-language press whips itself into a frenzy
of shrill hysteria. It becomes a great affront
that he is asked to put up at the presidential
palace. Where do they expect him to stay?
At the YMCA?
Here is one Canadian who is not at all
bothered by the development of cultural ties
between Quebec and Francophone countries
anywhere in the world. I am deeply disap-
pointed in the Toronto Daily Star and the
unreasonable posture it adopted in recent
months about this type of thing. I am de-
pressed that, figuratively speaking, the old
lady of Melinda St. has moved to 80 King
St. West. In fact, the Toronto Daily Star in
recent months in its front page handhng of
these visits and these conferences reminds
one of the Orange Sentinel of half a century
ago. There have been too many narrow-
minded and essentially Waspish views and
news stories and editorials to be mistaken
about the editorial policy which beats the
drums of division in carping and tendentious
criticism of Quebec.
At the time of the Niger conference, a
headline was "Niger angry at attempt to
belittle Canada". You read the story under
it and you do not find one item of substance
to support that headline. It quotes a source
and it never says who the source is; but there
is no quotation from any responsible person
in the republic of Niger that they are angry
at the attempts to belittle Canada.
Then, "Separatist wins major post at Niger
meeting," referring to the fact that Jean
Marc Leger, a political writer on the Mont-
real newspaper, Le Devoir, had been elected
provisional elective secretary of that new
Francophone organization. I read the story,
and I saw in it that Gerard Pelletier who
was with the Canadian delegation, was
quoted in the continuation of the story inside,
as saying this:
Pelletier, who once worked with Leger
on Le Devoir and knows him well, went
on "If you ask my personal opinion, know-
ing Mr. Leger's professional conscience, I
believe he will behave like an international
3256
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
civil servant in keeping with international
law. Personally I am not worried."
I followed that up by calhng Mr. Pelletier, to
ask him about the justification of that head-
line in the front page of the Toronto Daily
Star, and he said,
Well, I say nothing more than I said at
the conference at the time. We were not
at all disturbed by it, the fact that Leger
had been elected to that responsible posi-
tion. I know him well, and I have known
him for a good many years.
I have noticed recently that the Toronto
Daily Star is complaining, and I must say
was manifesting great pique, that the same
Gerard Pelletier was welcomed effusively by
the French government in Paris. One got the
impression that the Star would have pre-
ferred it if they had ignored him. They had
an editorial saying that General De Gaulle
had the red carpet out for the Secretary of
State, but he was not genuine about it; he
was only playing games with us.
The whole point, Mr. Speaker, in referring
to these things is a plea for moderation in
the campaign of heat and vitiiol, the leaven
of malice, that we have knov^m at times in
our history to have broken out sporadically.
It is too near to us to allow ourselves to be
irrational about trivia. Like all the minds of
the celebrated Rossillon affair— do you remem-
ber that one? Do you remember the news
stories in the English-language press, on
radio and TV about the notorious French
agent bent on the destruction of the very
unity of Canada.
He was from France, and he went to see
a few French Canadians in Manitoba. But
if the Minister of Tourism and Information
(Mr. Auld) invited the Duke of Norfolk to
address the United Empire Loyalist Society
in Brockville that would not cause a flurry
at all. Personally, I would be offended, but
it would be all right to bring some British
Royalty over here and revise the old colonial
spirit. Well Rossillon visited a few French
Canadians in Manitoba and all the press and
t]\(; TV got terribly upset about it, as they
made us aware of this nefarious and sinister
activities.
Well, the first Minister of France came to
our country very shortly afterwards— I think
it was less than a month— on a very sad
occasion, and the Prime Minister of Canada
met with him for an hour or more at the
Citadel. And when they came out, I remem-
ber—fresh in our minds this dark D'Artagnon
of a figure talking to French Canadians in
Manitoba, Rossillon, a name of vitriol on
our lips— when he came out from meeting the
Prime Minister of France, the newsmen
rushed up to liim and said: "Mr. Trudeau,
did you tell him about Rossillon?" And Mr.
Trudeau gave them that charming gallic
shrug and he .said: "I never thought to
mention it".
Mr. Trudeau might have said— because he
is given to this kind of quip— "Who is
Rossillon?" But he said: "I never thought to
mention it." I only see the CBC; maybe
CFTO is just as guilty, I do not know, but
I only see the CBC; we are a captive audi-
ence. The CBC whipped this up in the way
they did in respect of De Gaulle before his
N'isit. For three weeks before he arrived they
beat the drums, telling us that De Gaulle
was going to do something here and to be
ready for him. Commentator after commen-
tator on the national news told us to beware
of De Gaulle. They predicted that De Gaulle
would use his Canadian visit to denounce the
United States. That is what they said would
be the bone of contention — "he will use
Canada as a platform to attack the United
States." They were caught flat-footed by his
"Vive Quebec libre" from the balcony in
Montreal.
All right, I have employed not-so-gentle
irony to make the point. I have spoken in the
last two or three years in various parts of
Ontario, and I have employed the theme of
reason, sympathy, understanding and a Cana-
dian method tliat has served us so success-
fully of the desire, the willingness to com-
promise.
I remember talking to the good burghers
of Cobourg area— now there is a great place
to put across this message, because it is one
of the oldest c-ommunities in Ontario. It was
the earliest community settled by the Loyal-
ists and the Loyalist tradition is still a strong
and viable part of the life of Cobourg. I
remember telling them that the French Cana-
dian has many hurts, he has got many
woimds. And what he says, "je me souviens"
—he has much to remember. He suffered
many indignities at the hands of his English
compatriots.
The only attitude for us in Ontario that is
worthy of us Ls moderation, compassion, the
willingness to assist the French Canadian to
preserve his heritage, his culture, his history,
liis language. The Toronto Daily Star is
too good a paper to keep this up, and I wish
it would cut it out. The Telegram does not
escape cither. The most moderate of them all
witli die editorial policy is the Globe and
Moil. The Globe ami Mail makes its argu-
ments but it never goes overboard into the
APRIL 17, 1969
3257
hysterical, the unfair. It makes very reasoned
arguments and does not play up these stories
on the front page.
Remember the Toronto Telegram— I wish
the Minister of Trade and Development had
not left, because he could bear me out on
tliis— sent a reporter down to Quebec who
discovered that business is leaving Quebec,
fleeing, getting out of the province. And he
quoted an official of the Minister's depart-
ment to have said: "We get deluged with
enquiries from Quebec about relocation of
Quebec business in Ontario." You get the
impression that there is a great exodus out
of the province of Quebec.
Well, sir, they came around and investi-
gated who the official was in the Minister's
department. In Time magazine, I recall, it
was exposed— the fallacy of the Telegram
story. It reported that tlie contrary was the
case. The department said that somebody
had asked about enquiries from Quebec, and
the department told him that the fewest
enquiries they got were from that province.
And the additional information was that more
businesses were located in Quebec than ever
before in its history.
I do not know why our press does that
sort of thing. That is the one that ought
not to escape— tile ones that ought not to
escape— in this constitutional business. And
I turn to the conference itself on the grand
old CBC. I agree with EHefenbaker when he
says, "It ouglit to be the last conference on
television." I personally hope that there is
not another one. I was one of those who
asked these politicians to get into the public
arena— to hold their conferences in public—
and I hope they will continue to do that.
But I hope I never have to suflFer another
one on television, if it is like the last one.
T^e CBC started it off, as I say, as treat-
ing it as if it were a spectacular. But it was
well weakened by the second day. Now, on
the first day I notice they had Depoe com-
mentating. And I say this about Depoe— he
has a very fine and well developed knowledge
of the history of this country. But there was
something wrong with his voice and he dis-
appeared. He was on early in the morning
the first day and we did not see him again.
But, as I say, they started it off as if it
were a spectacular equal to tlie "Carol Bur-
nett Show" or "Bonanza", and had an army
of their photographers. But by the second day
their will had weakened and they joined tlie
conference either an hour or an hour and a
half late. They got 475 phone calls. I was
very impressed and encouraged by the num-
ber of people who were showing chagrin that
they were not carrying the conference.
Now, here is what they have said: "I sat
in my living room, did not go down to the
office, and I was amazed, it was supposed to
come on at ten o'clock. I wanted to see if
the Attorney General got up and was there,
you know." At ten o'clock it did not come on
and the announcer says: "Before we go to
the floor I should say we had some phone
calls this morning from people asking why
we did not carry the conference Hve from
the opening. The explanation is quite simple.
The subject was to be "Fundamental Rights",
Yesterday for more than an hour this was
thrashed out and there didn't seem to be
much disagreement at all on the objective of
safeguarding human rights, and what was
going to develop would be a legal argument
on technicalities and legalities and whether
these rights should be entrenched in the Con-
stitution. So we took the decision to toss over
the resumed debate on that subject and
picked up the next subject which is 'Eco-
nomic Disparity.' "
Really, then, it was a contest. The pro-
gramme they had on was instead of "The
Friendly Giant" and it was a contest between
pleasing my four-year-old daughter or myself
and she won out with the CBC. She watches
TV every morning, so when they pre-empted
the conference for "Friendly Giant" it would
have been quite improper for me to point
out that I pay the taxes in the household
that go to underwrite the CBC, because she
has her rights too, though I might have
argued with her that she can watch "The
Friendly Giant" any morning, but she cannot
see that funny man from Newfoundland any
old day of the week. What I do object to is
the impertinence of the CBC in the passage
that I have read, and the announcer's explana-
tion that they were in a better position than
the rest of us to judge what shall be our bill
of fare.
A word ought to be said, and really I am
getting out on a limb, about the level of
commentary by those who carried out that
chore for the CBC. As I say, Depoe disap-
peared, and they had the team of Collister,
Lynch and Cook, and really, to watch them
and to listen to them, you had to have a
very pronounced masochistic trait. These fel-
lows are no equal to Sevareid, Cronkite or
the quahty of commentary that American
networks are able to provide. I wanted to
mention that not only did we have the com-
mentary along the way but in the evenings
3258
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
they played back exceipts from the confer-
ence in the day, and the same team of Lynch,
Cook and Colhster made a comment upon
the events.
The CBC kindly furnished me with a tran-
script. I do not like to make these general
statements without supporting them with
some evidence, and I wrote to the CBC
and got one of the transcripts. I want to offer
that as evidence, because I am saying tliat
if we invest $175 milHon to $190 million in
this corporation, we are entitled to something
more than we get. Here is a typical exchange;
I am going to read part it. It refers to a part
where Mr. Bertrand had just engaged in that
sharp exchange with Mr. Trudeau, and they
come on:
Collister: What was Quebec trying to
do in that exchange?
You get that— what was Quebec trying to do?
In other words this is like between periods of
an NHL hockey broadcast where you are
recapping the play and you are explaining
the various moves that are made by Forbes
Kennedy and Phil Esposito. Well, Lynch says
this:
Well, I think the Quebeckers themselves
were saying that after that exchange, which
I think was the most exciting one of the
conference and the one that will be most
discussed, Bertrand ©merged more strongly
than ever in this position as Premier of
Quebec, and they were even saying there
will now be no leadership convention in
the Union Nationale; that Bertrand, by
suddenly being as nationalistic as he was
in that exchange and in his subsequent
statements after the conference to report-
ers, that he solidified himself for the
nationalist wing of the party. And that was
what he was really trying to do. In other
words, you remember an exchange like
that between Daniel Johnson and Pierre
Trudeau last year, that propelled Pierre
Tnideau to the Prime Ministership of Can-
ada. This exchange, they are saying, will
propel or entrench Bertrand as Premier of
Quebec.
To which I say, you sure have to be grateful
to Lynch, you have to be grateful to him.
How simple he makes things. He says in that
commentary that because Pierre Elliott Tru-
deau rapped the knuckles of Daniel Johnson
in public at last year's conference, therefore
Pierre Elliott Trudeau became Prime Minister
of Canada. Now, is that not neat? As easy as
that. And he is saying now that because Mr.
Bertrand jumped on Mr. Trudeau in a
nationalistic way, now he will be entrenched
in the leadership of the Union Nationale
party in QuebQc. At that point Cook comes
on, and says:
Well, I certainly would agree with that,
Charles.
That is one thing about these guys, they
never disagree with each other. He says:
Well, I certainly would agree with that,
Charles. It seemed to me that one of the
interesting aspects of it was that Mr.
Dozois proposed a resolution regarding
federal spending which was very similar
to the proposition put forward by the
Premier of Manitoba on the first morning,
and accepted by the Premier of Alberta.
The Quebec delegation said ver>' little,
and so at the very end of the conference
the Quebec delegation had to make its
point, it had to weigh in before the elec-
tors of the province of Quebec, and as
Charles said, no doubt Mr. Bertrand
strengthened his position in the party. Mr.
Trudeau would prefer to see Mr. Bertrand
Premier of Quebec if the alternative were
Jean-Guy Cardinal.
This is a historian speaking, this man is a
Canadian historian, and he does not give you
a perspective of history. He and Lynch in
his opinion are there to explain to the listen-
ers the significance of every move, and note
this, Mr. Speaker, every move made by the
people of Quebec at the conference has to
be seen from the point of view of its narrow
and immediate political advantage. Well, a
little later on. Lynch has this to say; and
remember, we are talking about that ex-
change involving the foreign policy that took
place between Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Tru-
deau. Collister asks:
What is Mr. Bertrand's position in the
part>'?
Lynch: Well, he is known as a moderate
on a lot of matters, including extreme
Queliec nationalism, whether he remains
one or not after the conference. He was
roaring so hard after that scene that we
say he was speaking so vehemently and in
French and he wouldn't speak in English.
The English-speaking reporters were say-
ing they had never seen him like this. He
would reply to all English questions in
French and his replies were very Cardinal-
ish or nationalistic in tone. All of a sudden
he took that switch.
Now note that. What a put-on, I say to you,
coining a new word, Cardinalish. In other
words, the viewer is expected to buy that
kind of drivel, that the position of Jean-Guy
APRIL 17, 1969
3259
Cardinal must lend itself to a distortion of
his name by the addition of a sufiBx, so that
we can identify the stereotype of an extreme
nationalist in French Canada. That starts an
interesting trend, to put on the suffix "ish."
We can start that around here. Randallish
would become one who exists on a diet other
than independence. Whitish would be one
who disturbs when all else is tranquil, and
so on.
But really, the point is that we, as viewers
of this corporation, are entitled to expect
more in the way of commentary than that
superficial response that we get. What I do
say about these people— Lynch, CoUister and
Cook— is that they do not interpret at all,
they react. They react to the day's headlines
and are merely parroting the English lan-
guage press. There ought to be some recogni-
tion, I would think, by the CBC in its
reporting that these problems did not arise
the day before yesterday. They have been
with us for a long time. They have broken
out sporadically in our history, and I am
depressed in tiie belief that they will be
around for a while yet.
The force is loose in Quebec. The changes
that have taken place since 1960, the emer-
gence of a leader with charisma in the
person of Rene Levesque, all these give us
pause for anxious concern about the future
of Confederation.
We cannot be as sanguine as the editorialist
in the Globe and Mail on December 21, 1962,
who urged patience because the new leaders
of Quebec had discovered that "English is
the language of commerce and is as essential
to Quebec as to the rest of us." He proph-
esized at that time that the use of English
would spread throughout Quebec and French
Canadians would retain their culture as the
Welsh and Scots have done. He said that,
"in this way, national unity will be
achieved."
Well, the facts of life are different. The
phrase coined by Jean Lesage that has be-
come the rallying cry of Quebec, "Maitre
chez nous" means nothing less than that our
French-Canadian compatriots intend to be
masters of their own economic destiny within
their own province. I say and say again, and
I will continue to say as long as I am in
public life— because the stakes are so high, the
goal is so worth it, that we in Enghsh Canada
ought to respond with sympathy and modera-
tion and without the carping criticism that
has beset us too frequently in the past.
Finally, a word about the treaty-making
power. This too, must be kept in perspective.
I can understand the desire of Quebec to
make pacts in cultural matters with Franco-
phone nations.
Mr. Trudeau himself has said that in the
field of education the province is at stake.
Let us remember, and let me remind the
Attorney General, that it was the provinces
themselves that confined the treaty-making
power of the federal government. It was no
other province, than the province of Ontario,
good old Ontario, after the federal govern-
ment went to the meeting of the International
Labour Organization in Geneva and entered
into the pacts governing the international
labour conventions that were made, that the
federal government came back and R. B.
Bennett passed some legislation to implement
those solemn covenances arrived at in Geneva.
It was no other province than Ontario that
mounted the assault on the right to do it and
indeed, the case went to the Privy Council
and another group of that noble body, to
which the Attorney General referred today,
held that the federal government could not
implement by legislation, any matter that was
in the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
That is Attorney General of Canada against
Attorney General of Ontario, 1937 appeal
cases.
So these things have to be kept in per-
spective and we must recognize that cultural
ties with other Frencli-speaking nations are
part of the legitimate aspirations of French
Canadians. We must recognize that Quebec
is not like any other province and the use
of any stratagems to blur that fact, must
inevitably end in failure and they must in-
evitably, I say with sadness, end up in the
break-up of this country.
Once again I say that the member for
Lakeshore is dead right when he says if
Quebec leaves, the country is finished. And
Canada is worth preserving. It is worth its
continuation in the brotherhood of nations.
The price to the human race would be too
high in the disintegration of Canada, because
if you like, among the hiunan family we have
a mission. I hope we have a mission and I am
not speaking in terms of manifest destiny
which has never been part of our cultural
configuration.
We have a mission which is at least two-
fold. The one to interpret the desires of the
small and middle powers, to be their spokes-
man—the one hand. That is to say, to be a
voice of the country that seeks nothing from
anyone else, has no desire for aggrandise-
ment, that is one side. The other side is to
share, with deprived people in every part of
3260
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the planet, part of that aflBuence of which we
have so much. Now there is a two-fold mis-
sion in the future years of this century and
beyond it.
And finally, sir, I am going to turn to the
propositions— and I apologize to my good
friend, the Provincial Secretary, for delaying
him— tendered by tlie government of Ontario
and in a w©rd, and I have used some strong
words tonight, I say to you, sir, it is a dismal
docimient. It is a depressing document to put
in our hands.
However, I must say, it is a collector's item.
They did not labour these around you. You
had to really know somebody to get a copy
of these propositions. I think they might have
been a bit embarrassed about them.
Bill Kinmond gave me these and he abjured
me to bring them back to him for the file,
for his cabinet and you know there is no
more obliging a fellow in the world than
Bill Kinmond. Well, I have written in it quite
a bit. I hoi>e he will accept them back, in that
state. On page 2, the Prime Minister, who
introduces these documents has this to say:
The propositions included in this pub-
hcation are therefore not to be considered
as final, complete or binding.
Now there is notliing like nailing yourself
dovra. There is nothing like allowing yourself
a way out. Then, on the next page, he has
this to say:
The goveniment of Ontario has sub-
mitted propositions in all the major cate-
gories although it had tended to concentrate
on several of them. Partially, this was a
problem of categorization. What one gov-
ernment has labelled an objective of Con-
federation, another has called the basic
principle. In some categories, the proposi-
tions submitted by other governments were
acceptable and there seems to be no point
in repetition.
Well, one would ask specifically, what? This
is too vague and general to be helpful in any
way. On the third page, he has this to say:
Similarly, only one proposition has been
submitted in the category, the distribution
of legislative powers. This should not be
interpreted as a lack of interest in this
subject. The contrary is, in fact, the ciise,
as the government considers this subject to
be the heart of constitutional review.
To which I say, amen, hosanna, let the Lord
be praised.
Mr. Singer: And hear, hear.
Mr. Sopha: And hear, hear; yes, indeed.
But the next question is, why not do some-
thing about it? You never hear the hon. Prime
Minister inchoate any area that he thinks
there ought to be any change in the distribu-
tion of legislative power. Sure, he will go
and speak, amid coffee and petit-fours, to
the national association of manufacturers he
will say, "I believe in a strong central gov-
ernment." His Attorney General does not, but
we will get to that later. But you never hear
the Prime Minister indicate in any specific
area what powers he would be willing to
accede to the federal government to make
it strong.
Then, sir, the document turns to the 40
proposals. I hope they will never become
famous, or find themselves the 40 proposi-
tions as a term of art in our history classes
in our schools in the future. I wanted to say
also, I dwell upon the first citizen. I have a
note here to say something that ought to be
said, that quite apart from the Prime Minis-
ter in his speech-making activity about the
Gonstitution, it can safely be said that he is
the only member of the Executive Council that
does so. You never hear any other member
of the Cabinet of Ontario, anywhere in this
province, or this country, ever uttering a
word about the Gonstitution, or about On-
tario's position in resi)eot of it.
But, as I say, other than watching, if you
are a Prime Minister watcher, and keeping
an eye on what the Prime Minister says, the
only way of knowing what the position of the
government of Ontario is in this truncated
version the 40 proposals made on behalf of
the government by the bureaucrats and
technocrats.
Then proposal number three. I am going to
advert to a couple of them. Proposal number
three speaks in this way:
Consideration should be given to a pre-
amble to the written Gonstitution of Can-
ada. The preamble should set out the aims
of the Canadian people and the reasons
for preserving a federal union.
Well, now, that is very interesting. But one
might seek some enlightenment on what are
the aims of the Canadian people. One might
look to the government of Ontario to give us
^ome assistance; to put in written fonn its
views of what the aims of this country and
the reason for the preservation of its union
might be. But other than making the fatuous
statement, we are left at a loss to imderstand
just where the government of Ontario stands.
APRIL 17, 1969
3261
Then, you will notice in the format, that
number four occupies the whole of the left-
hand page, a tremendous waste of paper.
Number four says this:
The alleviation of regional economic
disparities is a goal of Canadian federation,
and should be recognized as such in the
written Canadian constitution.
Well, one agrees. I have addressed quite a
few words to the existence of regional eco-
nomic disparities. But one would hope that
the government of Ontario would tell us in
some way what it proposes: What the ten
sovereign provinces and the federal govern-
ment acting in common cause directed to
high purpose is willing to do towards the
elimination of the disparities that do exist.
And one is reminded of that assault, of which
I did not approve for a moment, by Mr.
Smallwood upon the Premier of Ontario at
the conference.
The fifth proposition, sir, says that Canada
should continue to have a federal system of
government. Then it goes on to say:
Particularly since the "quiet revolution"
commenced in Quebec, problems arising
from our cultural diversity, especially be-
tween French- and English-speaking Can-
ada, have become increasingly critical.
Furthermore, Quebec is not the only prov-
ince that wishes to preserve its individu-
ality.
That is a very teasing phrase. If it means
that Ontario wants to preserve its individu-
ality, one would expect to find out from the
documents, or in some place, in what way
Ontario protests that it has individuality.
And, secondly, what steps it would like to
take to preserve it.
But, as I say, sir, in respect of all of this,
we are left in suspended animation within
the careful framework of the first citizen in
the opening pages in which he says: "These
are not to be taken as the final or binding
positions of the government of Ontario."
The complaint can be made in respect of
the fatuous statements that I have read.
Indeed, Ontario cannot be bound by them,
because there is nothing to bind.
"Canada should continue to have a federal
system of government." Well, who is saying
otherM'ise? Is there anyone at that conference
who was saying otherwise?
I am going to turn, sir, to the one that
represents the heart of the matter, and that
is the one dealing with the distribution of
•powers. That is the 34th proposal. When I
came to that the flyleaf said: "Section 8, the
distribution of legislative power." I thought,
well, now we are getting dovm to something,
because when all else is said and done— and
you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, with
your schooling in constitutional law— this is
the guts of the matter. That is what the
constitutional problem is about in this coun-
try.
Well, I turn the page to see what position
the Ontario government is to take, and in
the page and a half that they devote to the
distribution of powers all they talk about is
money. It is the only thing that is mentioned.
And, of course, the distribution of legislative
power has been the principal issue that has
plagued this country since Oliver Mowat
made his initial assault on the federal gov-
ernment in the late seventies.
Mowat, who ruled this province for 24
years, thought of Ontario as an independent
nation. Because of his personal experience,
his personal antipathy towards John A. Mac-
donald, he was going to make the most of
his opportunity, this leader of this province,
to put the federal government in its place.
He had a mission in life to increase the
hegemony of the component parts of the
Confederation. And, for the rest of my re-
marks, which I hope will not be too lengthy,
Mr. Speaker, I am going to dwell on this
issue.
It is absolutely clear that the Prime Min-
ister of Ontario is for the status quo, and this
in the face of the history of The British North
America Act and the dislocations this country
has encountered arising from the imbalance
of the judicial interpretation of sections 91
and 92.
It is the worst form of delusion, I say to
you, to believe that the present prosperity
under which we labour is a God-given right
and represents the eternal order of things.
Dare we forget— I know people like
the Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) vdll
not forget it— the distress, the indignity, the
inhumanity of the 1930s which led to the
resolution put forward in the House of Com-
mons at Ottawa by the great J. S. Woods-
worth, which in turn led to the formation of
the Rowell-Sirois commission.
Now, I would like my remarks to contain
that resolution of January 28, 1935, when
this nation had reached the very bottom of
despair and was unable to cope. Canada,
as a nation, was unable to cope any longer
with the great problems of economic dislo-
cation as well as the vagaries of weather that
had afflicted large areas of this country. This
resolution of J. S. Woodsworth was adopted
3262
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
by unanimous vote of the House of Com-
mons and its relevance will be readily seen.
It said this:
In the opinion of this House, a special
committee should be set up to study and
report on the best method by which The
British North America Act may be amended,
so that while safeguarding the existing
rights of racial and religious minorities
and legitimate provincial claims to auton-
omy, the Dominion government may be
given adequate power to deal effectively
with urgent economic problems which are
essentially national in scope.
I say to those in the position of the Attorney
General, who promote the concept of provin-
cial autonomy, that we must not forget that
this country in this century, within the minds
of many who are living and sitting listening
to me tonight, reached a stage in its national
life where its central government power was
to intervene to come to the rescue of many
tens of thousands of Canadians as a result of
the imbalance of power that had stemmed
from judicial interpretation of The British
North America Act at Westminster— 3,000
miles away.
It is to right that imbalance that I believe
that we ought to be directing our efforts.
I am not going to pause, as I intended to
do, to contest with the Attorney General's
adherence to the compact theory. I am will-
ing to accede, sir, that the compact theory of
Confederation— that is to say that the federal
government is the creation of the provinces
—is at least a debatable point. But it does
not accord with my view of what Canada
ought to be and indeed must become if we
are going to promote effective government of
this nation as a whole.
I was going to read into the record excerpts
of the Rowell-Sirois commission report. I am
not going to do that but I merely say— it is
a funny thing about Lynch and Collister and
Cook— that throughout the whole commentary
on the CBC's coverage of the constitutional
conference, not one of the commentators re-
vealed the fact that a Royal commission under
two very distinguished Canadians had gone
from one end of this country to the other
to examine into its constitutional problems;
had heard evidence in every province; had
taken submissions from every government—
except some of the governments were not
too hospitable to them upon their arrival in
the capital— but we will not dwell upon that;
we will forget about that.
Mr. Nixon: That was Hepburn.
Mr. Singer: That is where you interject.
That is where you should have been last
night.
Mr. Sopha: But the whole point was that
in the volume which they published, the
conclusions they came to in 1939 are just as
valid 30 years later as they were at that time.
I complain that in our approach to this prob-
lem it is as if everything were invented the
day before yesterday; that there is a putting
aside, in an obscurantism that envelops the
facts of life, these problems that have been
around for a long time and have been writ-
ten about, have been analyzed. The source
material is available.
I part company with the first citizen, and
indeed with the member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald), when we begin to talk about a
strong central government. I am willing to
name some fields of jurisdiction that, I say,
in respect of a lessening of provincial power
in those fields, would promote the creation of
a strong central authority. That, the first
citizen is unwilling to do. I have always
named some of the fields— and I started ten
years ago in this House to name them— that
I think the provinces ought to begin to get
out of. Labour regulation— industry is now
national; unions are organized on a national
and international basis.
Would it not be more efficacious for the
federal government to have the responsibility
for labour relations from one part of the
country to the other? It would prevent the
emergence of peculiar labour laws, affecting
large numbers of our workers in individual
provinces.
Who would quarrel that the regulations of
the securities industry ought not to be a
matter of exclusive federal concern? How
about the regulation of the insurance indus-
try, the banks, the near-banks, and the trust
companies? If you accede to the proposition
that the federal government ought to have
control over the monetary policy of this
nation, and it influences that monetary policy
through the central bank and its exclusive
jurisdiction over the chartered banks, then
who can quarrel with the extension that it
also ought to have complete flexibility over
all credit-creating institutions?
What about the field of marketing? Is it
not a bit silly that in respect of a govern-
ment—I say to the Minister of Trade and
Development— that has the responsibility of
selling our wheat by the hundreds of millions
of bushels abroad to very good customers,
that marketing should be in the jurisdiction
of the province if the product is not going
APRIL 17, 1969
3263
beyond provincial boundaries? Would it not
be the better part of rationality if one author-
ity had that responsibility, instead of picking
up an apple from the bushel and saying it
depends upon whether this apple is goiug to
be eaten in Ontario, or it is going to be
shipped to Holland in order to determine
which jurisdiction has authority to inspect it?
I see that the Minister of Agriculture and
Food is in the House. I put that proposition
to him. I believe in a strong central govern-
ment and that these are some of the areas in
which it must be strong.
I turn to another important area and that
is the field of social welfare and health legis-
lation. I say the Prime Minister is perfectly
right when he complains about the federal
government exercising initiative in the field
so as to impair the financial autonomy of the
province. No one could quarrel with that
propostion for a moment, but the Prime Min-
ister is wrong when he puts that proposition
upon a piimacle so that he does not permit
any qualitative change or consideration of it
at all.
Whereas the provinces have exclusive juris-
diction in the field of social welfare and
health in respect of their services to the
people, surely, at the same time, there is a
consideration of national importance that
standards should be uniform; that Canadians
in every part of the country should have
available to them equal standards of service.
It is asking too much of politicians, I add, to
expect the federal politicians, who have to
get elected and have to see to their re-
election, to restrain themselves from doing
something that will create an empathy be-
tween themselves and the people who elect
them. It is asking too much of pohticial life,
I fear, in this Confederation to leave to the
provinces all the vote-gathering attractive
programmes and leave to the federal govern-
ment all those grand deals and national
matters.
I am not going to dwell upon that. But I
do say, in protest to the Prime Minister, that
there is a principle of uniformity recognized
a generation ago by the Rowell-Sirois com-
mission. They advocated to the government
to which they reported that there ought to
be national standards of health and welfare
legislation.
The other thing is in respect of the distribu-
tion of power; I do not care what you call
it. You call it co-operative federahsm or
participatory federalism— that is the one the
first citizen of Ontario coined in Ottawa. No
matter what name you call it, as long as
there is a recognition that after 100 years of
experience we must, as rational, intelligent
people in this country, be able to meet some-
where at the common table and decide among
ourselves, in a co-operative way, the method
by which we are going to deliver service to
our people, the people we severally represent
in the Hght of the problems, the frustrations
and the anxieties that beset them. There is
really the heart of the matter.
In two areas, I said this afternoon, there
is no province in the country more centralist
than Ontario. That is to say, there is no prov-
ince with less fear of the federal government.
There are two areas in which the very power-
ful taxing mechanism of the federal govern-
ment has got to be brought to bear if we are
to make a success of politics in this country.
Those two areas are the field of education
and the quality of urban Ufe.
We know the cost of education. In respect
of the creation of great megalopohtan areas
in this country, if it is to be our fate that 75
or 80 per cent of our people are going to live
in urban areas then the federal government
has got to begin to assume some resix)nsibility
for the quahty of that life, and the provision
of the services that have to be provided to
the people who are going to hve in those
cities.
I am one that is more than a Httle dis-
turbed by the policy of this government. It
is very germane to refer to policy of this
government that in Ontario they are going to
create one gigantic city. It is going to run
from Fort Erie to Oshawa and north to
Barrie. So far as I can determine, this gov-
ernment is content that everybody in Ontario
is going to hve in it, everybody is going to
live in that megalopohs that they are going
to create.
Well, the fundamental contradiction of the
position of the Prime Minister is that it is
logically impossible for him to adopt a posi-
tion as he appears to do that on the one hand
the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in
the fields of health and welfare, and on the
one hand look to the federal government to
provide him with the necessary revenues to
finance provincial programmes in these fields.
It is asking too much of federal pohtiicans to
say that they must pay, but they must not
intrude. That is the position that the Prime
Minister and the hon. Treasurer took at the
Ottawa conference.
I beheve that there is a case to be made,
on the other hand, for more correlation be-
tween the powerful federal tax authority on
the one hand and federal responsibihty in the
3264
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
area of social welfare on the other hand.
There is probably no federal system anywhere
else in the world where the powers of the
individual unit in the field of regulation of
business and commerce is so extensive. Cen-
tral authority is so truncated as it is in
Canada. The provinces are the masters in
insurance regulation, in securities, in manu-
facturing and retail, the marketing of natural
products, and towering above all else, in
jurisdiction over natural resources.
I am reminded in that connection of the
phrase of Professor Frank Scott, who is a
very thoughtful analyst in this area, when
he said many years ago that provincial
autonomy means national inactivity; the more
you have of the one, the more you have of
the other.
As Professor Laskin has said: "To talk this
way about a strong central government and
to mean it and to be willing to say—" I have
said for ten years in respect of these four
fields to which I advert tonight, and nobody
has ever accused me of treason. I can recall
when I stood up in the back row and advo-
cated that labour legislation and marketing
be given to the federal government, and the
regulation of insurance companies of securi-
You look back, I was saying that in 1960.
Professor Laskin has said: "To talk this
way will not be to give comfort to two
groups, the separatists or the champions of a
limping federalism," of which the Attorney
General— and I do not want to be unfair to
him— appears to be one. But maybe if you
are Attorney General— and I never aspire to
that lofty i>osition— and you go to these con-
ferences, you have to be a states-rightist.
Now, it might just be that you have to
adopt that role. In any event he protests. I
thought during his speech this afternoon that
he was playing a different tune at the begin-
ning of it than he was in 1967. That when
all was said and done he did not recamp, he
did not make the trip to Kenora like the holy
Roman Emperor did in front of Pope Gregory
and wanted to .stick by his guns.
As long as he talks that way— and you know
the way he talks about it, some of the phrase-
ology- that he used in respect of it; the federal
goxernment, he says, is the creation of the
provinces, and so on; then you have the
spectacle of the Prime Minister of Ontario
saying he believes in a strong central govern-
ment and the Attorney General of Ontario
talking in terms that fit Maurice Duplessis in
1940, the great champion of the compact
theory of Confederation, and to some extent,
his willing ally, Mitchell Hepburn in Ontario.
As I say, we have 100 years of experience.
We will not reach our objective with a
repetitive dissertation by the Prime Minister
of Ontario on Medicare. The imbalance in the
distribution of powers is the very basis of
the well-founded complaint of the western
Premier, that the wealth they generate finds
its way into central Canada. That is what they
said at the conference. They said, whatever
we create in the way of wealth in the west,
because of the tariff policies and so on, finds
its way into the coffers of the owners of the
great industrial complex in central Canada.
As I say, if the nation is to continue to be
gorged at the centre and left weak and
anaemic at the extremities, it is in grave dan-
ger of not surviving for long. The intelligent
and provident development of this country, I
maintain, is inextricably linked up to a resus-
citation or a revival of the iiational policy.
I firmly believe that much of our present-
day frustration stems from the absence of a
national policy. An intelligent national policy
is a fundamental part of the life of this
nation. It means nothing more or less than
taking stock of what we have and deciding,
in a collective way, what we are going to do
with it.
What is the alternative? Well, the alterna-
tive is that we move from one brand of
cK)loniaIism to another, and it saddens me to
say in the .spirit of self-flagellation, that ap-
parently we are the greatest colonial people
that has ever been seen through the history
of the world. We were moved out of one
colonial area under the suzerainty of the
British raj, and we show every proclivity
of moving into another atmosphere of colo-
nialism where we are imder the hegemony
of the American eagle.
On that note I am going to end. Any
criticism that I had of the Toronto Daily Star
earlier is vitiated out of gratitude to this
editorial which I feel should be in the jour-
nals of this HoiLse. I am going to read this
editorial into the record. The Toronto Daily
Star published on Tuesday, April 15, a couple
of days ago, and I invite my listeners to
barken to it, if they would give me their
indulgence, because they are meaningful
words.
I will try to read it without making any
interpolation. Especially do I direct it to the
Minister of Trade and Development who
made that unfortunate statement that you
cannot eat independence. Here is the answer
of the Toronto Daily Star to him:
There is no honour in a gentle death.
Man should not die gently, wrote Dylan
APRIL 17, 1969
3265
Thomas. He should rage, rage against the
dying of the light.
Countries can die too, gently or with
rage. Canada is taking the quiet route.
A finance Minister is drummed out of
Ottawa for advocating fiscal policies that
are just a little too Canadian. A monu-
mental reappraisal of our tax structure
gathers dust in Ottawa because we cannot
aflFord to be too Canadian in that area
either. A tas>k force blueprint for gaining
some small measure of additional control
over our economy is filed away because—
well, just because.
We elect a Prime Minister who sets his
lance against the dragon of Quebec nation-
alism while shrugging ofiF the larger,
himgrier dragon that whips its tail to tlie
south of us. One dragon threatens to lose
us a province; the other, a nation.
The death rattle grows louder. We lay
plans to extricate ourselves from military
entanglements in Europe. For what pur-
pose? Not to carve out a distinctive Cana-
dian role in world aflFairs, as so many had
hoped. The troops are being brought home,
it appears, to man the northern outposts
of Fortress America; to scan the skies for
missiles that might be heading for Chicago
or Cleveland.
The late U.S. secretary of state, John
Foster Dulles, inadvertently warned us of
our fate several years ago when he said
nations are no longer conquered by armies,
but by dollars. George Ball, the former
U.S. ambassador to the UN, proposed our
epitaph when he predicted that simple
economics would inevitably dictate the ulti-
mate corporate merger— between Canada
and the United States.
But must we die so gently? Or should
we begin to rage, rage against the dying
of the light? And, in raging, it is possible
that we might ignite some last spark of
will that could grow into a flame of self-
preservation.
Surely we have something to live for,
something worth preserving in this country
of ours. Professor Dennis Duffy talks about
some of those things in an article which
appears below. But the will to live is not
enough by itself; if a patient has pneu-
monia or cancer, something must be done
about that too.
Some of the economic remedies are gath-
ering dust in filing cabinets in Ottawa. We
must maintain and strengthen our system
of cultural antibodies— our press, our maga-
zines, our tele\ision, our theatre. We must
also identify the grasping filaments that—
reach northward to turn our labour unions,
our social clubs and our board rooms into
vehicles for the aspirations and ideologies
of others.
We must reserve some of our rage for
those who are willing to let Canada die
for private gain— businessmen who do not
recognize the word sovereignty because
there is no provision for it on the balance
sheet; politicians who equate heavy inflows
of foreign money with "good times" and
who are wflling to let future generations
pick up the pieces.
Rage can be legitimate and healthy. It
could also be the salvation of a worthwhile
country. We have been dying too gently.
There is only one history of Canada; various
streams in it, but it is one river of history.
It is history of the people of Canada in
response to their environment, and their reac-
tion to various pressures, external influences
and events.
First and last, I say to you, sir, we are a
northern people. We are a people of the
frontier; it is there, we still have a frontier.
We and the Soviet Union are the only two
highly industrialized nations in the world
which still have a frontier. And out there on
the frontier, which is in the consciousness of
all of us, fundamentally there is the land that
is Canada; it is out there, stretching away in
broad expanse.
We have a great love for the land in this
country. It is part of us. Therefore, I say to
you, Mr. Speaker, the task of the politicians
is clear. It is to maintain in vigour and unity
a northern nation, a body of people who in-
herit the vast wealth of the north half of
the North American continent; who use that
wealth for the welfare of our own people
and for the alleviation of human suffering
throughout the world.
Those are the terms of our destiny, and
if we have not a destiny we cannot truly be
called a nation. A nation, said Underbill
many times, is a body of people who have
done great things together in the past and
will do great things together in the future.
Then the constitution in those times, our con-
stitution under which we govern ourselves,
becomes a mere framework upon which to
build our nation. This is what the people
we serve require, what they expect. Its intel-
ligent resolution should be nothing less than
v/hat the people who elect us deserve.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I deem it a privilege to partici-
pate in this very important debate, and to be
3266
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the concluding speaker. Important, I am sure,
because all of us as members of the Legis-
lature realize that, as we have been reminded
so eloquently tonight, on an occasion such
as this we are really discussing nothing less
than the future of our country. In doing this,
we should endeavour to keep political par-
tisanship to a minimum, and, of course, it
will be my purpose in the contribution that
I will make tonight to follow that particular
advice.
I am sure all of us are very proud that we
do have a sense of history, even as a young
nation; that we fully realize that this country
of ours, Canada, was fashioned by the exer-
tions of men of differing political views. We,
on this side of the House, will, really, never
then permit political partisanship to obscure
the great contributions to Canada of men
like Brown and Laurier and Mowat, together
with those of great Conservatives like Mac-
donald, and Cartier and Tupper. That is why
we follow the policy, I hope obvious to all
members of this House, of keeping their
example constantly before the people of this
country. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is at just
such a time as this in our history that we
should be giving the most careful thought to
the decisions of a century ago and to the
course of our future development as a nation
among the family of nations.
We have all listened with a great deal of
interest to all members of the House who
have made a contribution in the discussion
of this particular matter. I do not wish to
comment unduly on the other speakers but
I would like to single out my friend who has
just completed his contribution, the hon.
member for Sudbur>'.
As I often do, I found myself in some
measure of agreement with many of the
things which he had to say. But even when
I am in sharp disagreement with the mem-
ber for Sudbury, I recognize in him one of
our ablest debaters, a keen and perceptive
student of the history of his country. We
have seen ample evidence of that during the
course of his contribution to this debate to-
day. I recognize him, above all, as one who
is sometimes capable of taking an indepen-
dent and objective position on many public
questions. Even though we are often at the
receiving end of some of his barlis, we do
admire his wit and acknowledge his wisdom.
As we all know, he is capable on occasion
of hunting down, Mr. Speaker, even members
of his own party and, no doubt, he will go
down in the history books as the one who
wrote fini^ to the political career of what has
now become the name of the Earl of 0\a]-
tine.
In m\' view, we all owe a great deal of
gratitude to the Prime Minister of this prov-
ince—to whom the member for Sudbury and
others have paid tribute— and, indeed, his
predecessors, for the part they have played
in upholding the principles of Confederation
and in fostering a truly national outlook. As
the Prime Minister of Ontario has said on
many occasions, Mr. Speaker, "I am a Cana-
dian, I am a federalist, and an Ontarian in
that order." And I may add that no political
leader of this century has given more con-
vincing proof of his devotion to this country
of Canada, to federalism and to the province
he now leads, than the present Prime Min-
ister of Ontario, the hon. John Robarts.
Mr. E. W. Mattel (Sudbury): That is par-
tisanship.
Hon. Mr. Welch: No, it is not partisan at
all. Everyone— even the member for Sudbur>
—acknowledges that.
Mr. Nixon: It sounds better when it comes
from him.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, it comes from me
with no less sincerity.
Mr. Nixon: I have no doubt.
Hon, Mr. Welch: Now, Mr. Speaker, just
what is our concept of federalism? Briefly it
is this: It proceeds from the assumption that
the future strength of Canada and the welfare
of the Canadian people will depend upon
the measure of co-ordination and continuing
co-operation which can be established be-
tween all governments in Canada and all the
agencies of those governments.
While acknowledging that each provincial
government owes its primary responsibility
to the people of its own province— and I hope
we understand that— we fully recognize the
dependence of the people of every province
on the strength and on the vigour of the
whole nation for their continuing welfare and
prosperity. We are also convinced, Mr.
Speaker, that the strength of the national
structure very largely depends upon the
strength, the independence and the self-
reliance with which each provincial goxern-
ment is able to undertake its allotted tasks.
These are principles which we believe
should be acceptable in every part of Canada
since they give no special advantage to one
province over another. I feel confident that
mv friends, the leader of the Opposition and
APRIL 17,
3267
the member for York South, will fully concur
with the concept of Canadian federalism—
and I pause to remind them that it is almost
word for word what was stated in the Ontario
brief to the Dominion-provincial conference
over 24 years ago.
In the years between, the Frost and the
Robarts governments have consistently and
strictly adhered to those views. Differences
of opinion there have been, of course, but
under these two leaders there has always
been the most scrupulous regard to these
principles which I have just underlined.
The question that really stands before all
of us in Canada today is this: Has the federal
system served us well for the past centur>' or
should we now abandon it in favour of a
unitary system of government? Mr. Speaker,
I think it is possible to answer that today in
the same way that Macdonald, Brown, Cartier
and Mowat answered it over 100 years ago.
Then, you see, it was a question of fashion-
ing a new nation. Today it is a question of
saving the nation that they helped to fashion.
In the year 1969, in my opinion, to abandon
federalism is to abandon Canada. By no
other system is it really possible to hold this
country together.
I go further and I say that in my humble
view if you were to ask the people of Que-
bec to choose between federalism or central-
ism or separatism, the verdict would be
overwhelmingly for federalism. We received
new assurances of that at the opening of the
current session of the Quebec Legislature.
But we have learned from history that in the
affairs of men nothing really remains the
same yesterday, today and forever. The world
of 1969 is obviously a totally different world
from that of 1867 and the Canada of today
is a totally different Canada from that of
1867.
It is for that very reason that constitutional
questions are now pretty high on this nation's
agenda. In the light of new problems and
new opportunities, we are really compelled
to re-examine, as my friend, the member for
Sudbury, has pointed out several times during
the course of his remarks, the experience of
our first century, and while we should hold
to that which is good, we must be prepared
to remove all obstacles which stand in the
way of our future progress. While we should
honour tlie past I hope that we would all
agree tiiat it is not possible to permit our-
selves to be chained to the past.
Now, there are many people who become
quite excited and, I am afraid, sometimes
fearful at the mere mention of constitutional
change. I suppose really that there were very
few men in history more knowledgeable on
constitutions than the great Thomas Jeffer-
son, tlie author of the American Declaration
of Independence. In a letter to a contem-
porary just over a century and a half ago,
Jefferson had this to say:
Some men look at constitutions with
sanctimonius reverence and deem them like
the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to
be touched. They ascribe to men of the
preceding age a wisdom more than
human, and suppose that what they did to
be beyond amendment . . .
I am certainly not an advocate for too
frequent and untried changes in laws and
constitutions, but I also know that laws
and constitutions must go hand in hand
with the progress of the human mind . . .
As new discoveries are made, new truths
disclosed and manner and opinions change
with the change of circumstances, constitu-
tions must advance also and keep pace with
the times.
We miglit as well require a man to wear
still the coat which fitted him as a boy as
society to remain ever under the regimen
of their ancestors.
It is noteworthy that those words, written
as they were in 1816, should be echoed in
October of 1964 in the legislative Chamber
of Quebec by our own Queen Elizabeth II,
when she said:
A dynamic state should not fear to
re-assess its political philosophy. That an
agreement worked out 100 years ago does
not necessarily meet the needs of the
present day should not be surprising.
And it remained for the quiet-spoken and
distinguished Premier of Nova Scotia, the
Hon. G. F. Smith, to state the case even more
succinctly at the Confederation of Tomorrow
Conference when he said:
The future of Canada is more important
than The BNA Act.
Mr. Speaker, in our view there is no peril in
approaching the question of a revised or even
a new constitution. The Fathers of Con-
federation, with no experience to guide tliem,
did not shrink from the task and they pro-
duced a new constitution in the space of a
very few years. As Jefferson said of the
Declaration of Independence, it was a case
of "responding to the common sense of the
matter and harmonizing the sentiments of the
day."
The founding fatliers, courageous men that
they were, assumed tlieir obligations as the
3268
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
"agents of the present" and richly earned the
tribute that "they builded better than they
knew."
Now, Mr. Speaker, witli a century of
experience to guide us and a century of
achievement on which to build, we in our
day are called upon to be the "agents of the
present"— to frame a new constitution which
will be a reflection of the reality of our
day which will acknowledge the rich con-
tribution of the two founding peoples and
of the many people from many lands who
helixxl to build our country, and which will
express the new confidence that all Canadians
feel regarding the future of this nation.
We should, it seems to me, recognize that
the constitution-making of the 1860s has some
relevance for our day. As the Prime Minister
pointed out on the iSOtli anniversary of
George Brown, the founding fathers were
faced with the stark fact that the political
situation of that period had become intoler-
able, the old order and the old constitution
had failed and was really beyond any patch-
ing up. To make matters worse there were
ominous words and rumblings from across
the border— there was really no time to lose.
Lesser men I suggest, Mr. Speaker, would
have retreated in panic and capitulated to the
growing chaos, but these patriot statesmen
rose to the occasion and transformed those
tensions into a creative political force and
made problem-solving a constructive material
experience lifting the Canadian society of
the 1860s to new heights of achievement.
In our day, we have come to recognize tlie
need for making the solving of our problems
a "constructive national experience." That is
why our own Prime Minister and the former
and present Prime Ministers of Canada are
to be commended for enabling the people of
Canada to "sit in" at the Toronto and Ottawa
conferences, thus making them aware of their
roles in the national building process.
I have often asked myself, Mr. Speaker, if
our present difficulties are really due to inade-
(juacies in The BNA Act or, rather, are they
the result of our departure from its principles?
By that I mean, have we forgotten that Con-
federation was created by the provinces, that
it was to be a partnership with clearly defined
responsibilities? It is not so very long ago that
the present-
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Not
created by-
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Ontario
did not exist in 1864.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I said the provinces.
Mr. Pitman: There were other provinces.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It is not so very long ago
that the present Prime Minister of Canada
was warning against the danger of interven-
tion or interference by the federal govern-
ment in provincial affairs. To use his words:
The federal system does not give any
government the right to meddle in the
affairs of others. In matters of education the
Canadian state is the provincial state, and
none other.
Well, Mr. Speaker, where are you going to
draw the line? If this is true of education, is
it not equally true about health, welfare and
about other areas which are assigned to the
provinces under The British North America
Act?
Some weeks ago, I am sure we all read
a press item in which it was suggested that
the Prime Minister of Canada was going to
bypass the provincial governments and appeal
directly to the people of Canada in certain
matters. Now let there be no misunderstand-
ing in this particular matter. The Prime Min-
ister of Canada is the Prime Minister of all
Canadians. We all expect him to address
Canadians on all matters that concern their
welfare, but let us not forget the fact that
we are a federal state in which clear areas of
responsibility are assigned to the provinces. It
is accepted constitutional practice for the two
levels of government to show respect for each
other's jurisdiction.
Therefore, one can only feel alarmed when
he hears the Prime Minister of Canada tell
a national TV audience that in his view the
federal government has become more relevant
to the people of a certain province than the
provincial one. I hasten to add that it was
not the government of Ontario that was being
referred to, but who is to say that our turn
might not come a litde later? This is a pretty
dangerous practice, in my view, which ought
to be avoided by any wise federal leader.
Earlier this session, a statement was read
in the House with the vital question of human
rights as its emphasis, in which the Prime
Minister of Ontario warned against the danger
of dividing the provinces on an issue in which
there really is no fundamental differences as
to aim and purpose.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. member
for Scarborough East persists in sitting in
another seat and interrupting the debate,
some action will have to be taken.
APRIL 17, 1969
3269
Hon. Mr. Welch: He really has no right to
interject, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: He has no right to interject
from there and he will either return to his
own seat or conduct himself properly—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is an unofiBcial
interjection.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the Parkdale seat
should silence him.
Mr. Singer: Censure.
Hon. Mr. Welch: He called for censure, is
that the word?
An hon. member: Resign.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister called for concrete action now to
relieve the distress of our Indian and Eskimo
people and I was very happy that the mem-
ber for Riverdale placed this great emphasis
during his contribution in the discussion of
this order. In the words of the Prime Minister:
The road to effective and far-reaching
action in the correction of social injustices
is now wide open. There are no constitu-
tional barriers whatsoever. No provincial
government has placed any obstacle or
indeed could place any obstacle in the path
of having these injustices removed. The
government of Ontario stands ready today
to co-operate wholeheartedly with the
federal government in launching a massive
attack on this serious problem.
And he added, Mr. Speaker:
There is no doubt in my mind that other
provinces are equally prepared to play their
part— there is no need to get bogged down
in sterile debate over such constitutional
abstractions as the surrender of sovereignty.
The provinces and the federal government
should exercise the sovereignty they now
have on behalf of the disadvantaged in our
society.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we all
agree that that makes good sense to the
people of Ontario and to the people of
Canada. Our own Minister of Justice made
it pretty clear at the February conference
that Ontario is quite prepared to have cer-
tain political rights entrenched in the consti-
tution. But, a number of provinces, and I
underline that particular fact, a number of
provinces have declared that they do not
want to give the question of an entrenched
bill of rights precedence over what they re-
gard as far more important ones such as fiscal
policy and the distribution of powers, regional
economic disparity, tax sharing and other
matters. And, as the Prime Minister pointed
out, these are pretty important, are they not?
They are pretty vital matters which do affect
human rights in their own way as well.
It should be remembered that 20 years
have passed since the United Nations General
Assembly adopted the universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the parliaments of
some 40 or 50 countries have since ratified
that declaration. But I also remind myself
and members of this House, that on this very
night in 1969— notwithstanding 20 years of
that declaration— two-thirds of the people of
the world are still going to bed hungry every
night. So you need more than language in
some declaration to accomplish some practical
results.
There are many constitutions, Mr. Speaker,
and I remind ourselves of this, many consti-
tutions which contain what might be called
a bill of rights. The current issue of Human
Relations to which reference was made
earlier today, certainly brings this matter out,
I think, in the hon. Mr. McRuer's article on
dignity. If I am not mistaken that is the
case in another country of young Mr. Lit-
vinov, but it did not save him from being
sentenced to Siberia for exercising the most
elementary human right— the right to speak
his mind.
Now you may say that was the USSR.
Very well, let us come closer to home. One
hundred and eighty years, Mr. Speaker, have
passed since the adoption of the American
constitution which also contains a Bill of
Rights but it is not long ago that the late
Dr. Martin Luther King, the spokesman for
20 million black people, cried out in that
same United States these words:
A piece of freedom is not enough for us
as human beings, nor for the nation of
which we are a part. We have been given
pieces but, unlike bread, a slice of which
does diminish hunger, a piece of liberty no
longer suffices. Freedom is like life. You
cannot be given life in instalments. You
cannot be given breath but not a body,
nor a heart but no blood vessels. Freedom
is one thing— you have it all, or you are
not free.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how
long it will take for all of us in this country
to refashion our constitution, but I do point
out that we can achieve much for the benefit
of all of our people if, in the meantime, we
adhere to the principles and to the spirit
and indeed exercise the powers contained in
the one we have.
3270
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Certainly, the first step that must be taken,
and I hope that there would be agreement
in this, is the amending or refashioning
process to repatriate the present constitution
so that it is vested in our control as Cana-
dians. We thought we had that matter-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Welch: —Well let us give credit
where it is due, as you say. That is fine, it
just shows that we think alike on that par-
ticular point, that is wonderful.
We thought we had repatriation of the
present constitution settled, of course, five
years ago by the Fu]ton-Fa\reau fomiula
which, as you will recall, was endorsed by
this assembly. Now it looks as though we
shall have to start all over again.
As I said at the outset that is what the men
of 1864 had to do. They began with nothing
—we begin with a century of experience and
\ast achievement, as the member for Sudbur>'
said. So let the creative minds in our society
get to work at once and have a proposal for
repatriation to put forward in time for the
next constitutional conference. I guess that
is in June; I read something about June as a
date.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Do not
do it.
Hon. Mr. Welch: That should be number
one. Let item number two be a reaffirmation
of the principles of federalism. Let the fed-
eral government from here on treat the pro-
\'incial governments as partners in the national
enterprise and not as branch plants of the
federal government or as colonial outposts.
Let them consult and not impose.
Let item number three be what our own
Prime Minister has described as a massive
programme for action now, to bring justice
and equality of opportunity to our greatly
distressed native peoples.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the last constitu-
tional conference in Ottawa, despite some
difference of opinion, did create a feeling of
greater confidence among the people of Can-
ada. It helped to put an end to what some-
one called the mood of unccrtaint>'.
Such moods are really nothing new in our
history. It was prevalent in the 1890s follow-
ing the death of Macdonald. Even the great
Laurier for a time despaired of Canada's
future and yet even at that time, there was
an imderl>'ing optimism that we could over-
come our difficulties within a few years.
Laurier was saying that the 20th contur>-
belonged to Canada.
I l^egan these remarks, Mr. Speaker, by
saying that it was a healthy exercise to really
examine our history. I believe it was my
colleague, the Minister of Education, who
paraphrased Socrates by saying "An examined
history is really not worth having.
With that thought in mind, I want to con-
clude my remarks on this particular subject
by placing on the record, some paragraphs
from a really moving address delivered by
the Prime Minister of Ontario to the annual
meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Asso-
ciation in June, 1965.
Mr. Singer: It is really moving.
Hon. Mr. Welch: In my view, the Prime
Minister of Ontario is number one right here
in this province and throughout this country
—the great statesman who has been on the
scene to help keep this countr>' together. He
is number one; let there be no question about
that here.
Mr. Pitman: He was doing that a couple of
years ago.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It might well set the
tone for our actions in the days ahead.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. Minister of Correc-
tional Services said he was the only one.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Keep to building those homes.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Meanwhile, back to the
Canadian Manufacturers' Association, if I
may quote:
Confederation was more than a political
decision. It was an act of courage that de-
fied geography. It defied economics; defied
tradition and, one can almost say, defied
common sense, but it worked. Confeder-
ation was successful because it captured
the imagination of the people of that day.
It worked because it created a political
entity which fired the creative talents of
the people of Canada, and it gave Cana-
dians a collectixe image of themsehes.
I am still quoting:
Confederation was more than a legal
dooiment—
you see, hon. leader of the Opposition:
—dividing jurisdictions between provin-
cial and federal governments. Confeder-
ation was the realization of men's ambition
and desire to create a nation out of half a
continent, to secure those fundamental
APRIL 17, 1969
3271
rights and privileges that had been won
after centuries of struggle, and to achieve
a political union that would allow two
great peoples to develop and to prosper
harmoniously.
In the years since Confederation, we
have forged a great nation. We have seen
our population grow to over 20 million.
We have developed a strong, strong,
vibrant and viable economy. We have only
just tapped the untold riches of our land.
We have prospered materially and we
prospered culturally. We have lived in
peace among ourselves, and in two great
wars we have successfully defended this
country of ours.
Then he goes on to say this, and I think this
is pretty significant for us in this whole con-
sideration:
We have to rekindle this spirit of faith
in our national destiny. We have to make
the same type of bold, sweeping, imagi-
native political decisions as the Fathers of
Confederation did. We must build on the
finn foundation which—
Mr. Singer: I thought that was what the
Prime Minister said?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I am still quoting the
Prime Minister.
Mr. Singer: I thought you might have been.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Quoting:
We must build on the firm foundation
which we have inherited from our fathers.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Social and Family Services— something bold
and imaginative.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Quoting:
We must develop a new sense of per-
sonal dedication—
I am sure the member for Scarborough Centre
would agree with that.
Mr. Pitman: Good description of last
October- November.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Quoting:
—a sense of personal dedication and par-
ticipation in the future of our country.
Mr. Pitman: Good description of last fall.
Hon. Mr. Welch: And then he asks:
Is this beyond the abihty of owe j>olitical
parties and our political leaders? Are we
so wedded to the pursuit of political or
geographic or regional advantage that we
cannot co-operate to preserve our nation
and to building for the future?
I believe that the preservation and the
development of Canada must be put
beyond party, beyond faction, beyond
selfish interest. New decisions must be
made, new arrangements must be worked
out, technical and administrative problems
must be solved. And this must be done
through the wholehearted co-operation
of all Canadians of all political views and
of all languages and racial origins.
Says the Prime Minister with great optimism:
We can meet the challenge of the pre-
servation and strengthening of Confedera-
tion if we affirm our faith in ourselves as
a nation, in national independence, in
national unity and in national develop-
ment. These are the essential ingredients of
our survival as a nation. These are really
tlie three principles to which Canadians of
every province, of every region and of
every political persuasion must re-dedicate
themselves.
Without this commitment on the part of
the individual Canadian for his country—
I think we have to get this attitude
straightened out as we approach-
Mr. Singer: Did he say that?
Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I am sorry, I forget
—that is in parenthesis.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Do you mind repeating
that?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I will do that.
Thank you.
Without this commitment on the part
of the individual Canadian for his country
and to the principles and ideals for which
it stands, without pride in its traditions
and accomplishments, the task ahead be-
comes more arduous, if not quite im-
possible. But, if we can mobilize the talents
and abilities of our people and direct their
energy to the task of nation-building
Canada can emerge as a symbol of man's
creative spirit in a world too often
dominated by despair.
That is the end of the quotation. Perhaps we
might conclude our discussion of this and
the future development of our nation on that
tone. I am sure we would all dedicate our-
selves to those principles.
Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this would appear
to complete the debate on this matter, I
would like to move the discharge of the first
order from the order paper, if that is in order.
3272
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: It would be my opinion that
such a motion is not required; that the debate
having been completed, it would be auto-
matically discharged. But I also have no
objection to placing the motion moved by
Mr. Welch that this order be discharged.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before
moving the adjournment of the House, to-
morrow it is planned to have some Budget
Debate and then there is the private mem-
bers' hour.
Mr. Singer: Budget Debate?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I think the Whips
have worked out some Budget speakers for
tomorrow. There is some indication of a lack
of communication somewhere?
Mr. Singer: You could always read another
speech by the Prime Minister.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Any one of them would
be quite worthv^hile at any time.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.35 o'clock, p.m.
No. 88
ONTARIO
Hegiglature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, April 18, 1969
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, April 18, 1969
Commission to evaluate government programmes, bill to establish, Mr. Shulman,
first reading 3275
Carillon Park in Hawkesbury area, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Nixon 3275
Gas concentrations in Inco operations, questions to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Martel 3275
EMO ambulance service, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 3276
Cooks working in northern Hydro camps, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Stokes 3276
Zinc smelter location, question to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Ferrier 3276
Cost of inquiry into pollution at Port Maitland, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr, Burr 3277
Assessment at Ajax, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Good 3277
Colour TV sets, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. Makarchuk 3278
Snowmobile mechanics, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. Martel 3278
Third party insurance risk for nuclear power stations, questions to Mr. Simonett,
Mr. Burr 3279
Shortage of Ontario Hospital professional staff, questions to Mr. Dymond,
Mrs. M. Renwick 3279
Tabling reports, Mr. Dymond 3279
Resumption of the debate on the Budget, Mr. Burr 3280
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Burr, agreed to 3288
On notice of motion No. 4, Mr. De Monte, Mr. Howe, Mr. Pilkey, Mr. Ben,
Mr. Garruthers 3288
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3299
3275
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, April 18, 1969
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This morning in the east gal-
lery we have as our guests students from the
United Mennonite Educational Institute in
Leamington; and in the west gallery students
from Our Lady of Peace Separate School in
Islington and the Smith Public School in
Grimsby.
Later we shall have students with us from
Prince Edward Public School in Windsor.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
COMMISSION TO EVALUATE
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled: An Act to establish
a commission to evaluate government pro-
grammes.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill is self-
explanatory. It allows the ruling party to
appoint a majority of members on the com-
mission and allows the other two parties to
appoint a minority of the members who would
evaluate the goverrmient programmes and
make suggestions as to priorities.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Lands and Forests. Why has work
been discontinued on the preparation of Caril-
lon Park in the Hawkesbury area? When was
the park originally scheduled for completion
and what is the new completion date?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
leader of the Opposition: we are using the
funds available this year to improve our ex-
isting parks and therefore, we do not plan to
open any new parks.
Last year we were criticized that we had
increased our fees and that in some of the
parks, the services were not up to standard.
That is why this year we will have more
electrical outlets, more paving of certain
roads in the parks and more comfort stations
which will considerably improve our parks
this year.
With reference to Carillon Park; we had
planned originally to have limited use of this
park for this summer, 1969. However, in view
of our policy to improve our existing parks,
we hope to have Carillon Park opened up
next year.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
might ask the Minister what investment we
already have in the park facilities there that
will not be used this summer because you are
not prepared to open?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, is the hon.
member referring to Carillon? This summer
in Carillon Park we will just have a caretaker
or two looking after it to make sure our
physical facilities are not being damaged. But
there will be no attendants and no services
provided.
Mr. Nixon: Will it be available to the pub-
lic at all?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well we will not pre-
vent people from going into it, but there
will be no facilities open.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Mines:
1. Why did the Minister's department de-
cline the offer of the United Steel workers of
America to purchase and make available to
the department in Sudbury a $10,000 auto-
matically operated monitor to detect accurate
reading of gas concentrations for use in the
Inco operations?
2. Would this monitor not provide the
accurate figures needed to determine
whether the men at Inco are working in areas
where the threshhold limits are exceeded
frequently?
3276
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE -
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, the very generous offer by the
United Steelworkers of America to purchase
and to make available to us an automatically
operated monitor has certainly not been
declined. We have been very intensively
studying the various types of monitors in use
in the United States and Canada as to their
practicabilit}', and also I may say we have
really come up with some conclusions that
there are none available in the North Ameri-
can continent that would really furnish us
with the type of monitor that we want, but
now that we have come to these conclusions
ourselves, and certain si^ecific infonnation is
available to us now, I have requested the
United Steelworkers to submit descriptive
material concerning the monitor that they
have in mind.
This has just gone out. As a matter of
fact I think I signed the letter to them
yesterday so the letter either went out
yesterday or is going out today in answer
to a furtlier communication which was
received in my office just yesterday.
I do not contem,plate the question again
being asked in the House relating to a letter
received from them. It is hoped that a
suitable monitor will give an indication of the
concentration of sulphur-dioxide in tlie work-
ing areas of the plant. In any event this is
our purpose.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
H umber.
Mr. G. Ben (Ilumber): I have a question
for the hon. Minister of Health who has come
into the House. As a matter of fact I have
two, one carried over from yesterday. I will
put that one first, with your permission. Mr.
Speaker.
In view of the controversy caused by Metro
Toronto Emergency Measures Organization
ambulance service drivers who refuse to
transport bodies considered to be without
life as reported in the Toronto Daily Star
on April 9, 1969, will the Minister pass
regulations compelling ambulance drivers to
transport bodies, dead or alive, to hospital?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the legislation relative to
ambulance services is currently under review
and will be brought before the House.
It is the view of our department that an
ambulance should transport a body unless it
has been certified dead by a physician. In
light of this, I think it will be made perfectly
clear in the regulations. Just what wording
the regulation will follow I am not, at the
present time, prepared to say, but we will
make it clear that this is our belief.
Mr. Ben: Tliank you very much. I appreci-
ate the Minister's assurances on this matter.
The next question, Mr. Speaker, is, in
view of die report from Washington referred
to yesterday in both the Toronto Daily Star
and Toronto Telegram which warns of the
dangers of radiation from colour television
sets, will the Minister assure that the Cana-
dian Standards Association, which act as
agent for Ontario Hydro, will set up a
standard of radiation which would be safe to
all viewers at all distances, and enforce
these standards with stiff fines again manu-
facturers which distribute television sets
below the prescribed standards?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, may I
be permitted to take this question as notice?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement.
What is tlie amount deducted for meals
only from die weekly wages of cooks working
in Hydro camps in Northern Ontario?
Hon, J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
I am advised by the Hydro that nothing
is deducted. Camp cooks have free room and
board.
Mr. Stokes: If I might ask a supple-
mentary—is the Minister aware that camp
cooks are being paid less than the minimum
wage across the province?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do not think that is
supplementary to the question.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It is
pretty pertinent tliough!
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Coch-
rane South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Conchranc South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Mines.
When will the next meeting between the
government and Texas Gulf Sulphur take
place to discuss the location of the zinc
smelter?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, what
tlie member Is really asking for is another
APRIL 18, 1969
3277
progress report, I presume, and I am happy
to give it.
There have been a number of meetings
over the last two weeks with various officials
of Texas Gulf in my office. As a result of
that, Texas Gulf has now indicated in writ-
ing to us certain objects, certain desires that
may be fulfilled if the government can, in
turn, indicate certain commitments. This letter
has been received and I am in the process of
drafting a fairly full reply to them which,
unfortunately, due to my absence from the
city for the beginning of next week in any
event, I guess will not really get out of here
until about Thursday or so. But it will be
an answer to the Texas Gulf officials on
certain requests they have made to us.
Mr. MacDonald: Commitments from the
Minister before any commitments from them?
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister is
answering a question of the member for
Cochrane South.
The hon. member for Wentworth,
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the Minister of Health.
Does the government support the position
of the Ontario Hospital Services Commission
that wage increases in hospitals must not ex-
ceed 6.5 per cent and may reach that level
only in extreme cases?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take that question as notice.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand-
wich-Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health
from yesterday:
What was the total cost of the inquiry into
pollution in the Port Maitland area?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The cost, Mr. Sjveaker,
was $76,000.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question: did any of this money go in the
form of compensation to the people in the
area?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No. Mr. Speaker, that
is quite separate and distinct.
Mr. Burr: If it is quite separate, was any
money spent on compensation to the people
in the area?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I will have to take that
as a separate question, Mr. Speaker, I will
have to take it as notice.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Waterloo North wish to place a question of
the Minister of Municipal Affairs from the
other day?
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo Nordi): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have a copy with me, it
is on its way up from my office.
Mr. Speaker: I will send my copy to the
hon. member.
Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To
the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in three
parts:
Is the Minister aware that the re-assessment
completed in 1968 in the town of Ajax has
resulted in an unreasonable shift of the
assessment from commercial to residential
property?
In view of tlie shifting of 25 per cent addi-
tional assessment to residential property, what
steps is the Minister prepared to take to
retmn the proper share of assessment to in^
dustry?
How soon will the Minister reply to the
letter of March 28 from the mayor in order
to set a date for a meeting to discuss the
problem with officials of the town of Ajax?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am, of course,
aware of the complaints by the town of Ajax
with respect to the tax shift from commercial
and industrial property to residental prop-
erty which occurred as a result of the
re-assessment conducted by the assessment de-
partment of the county of Ontario in 1968 for
taxation in 1969, in particular in the town of
Ajax.
In reply to the second part of the question,
I have a brief report which I have received
from our assessment branch. Prior to re-assess-
ment, the commercial and industrial proper-
ties carried 47.486 per cent of the total
assessment. The residential class of properties
carried 52.504 per cent. There was $9 mil-
lion-odd commercial, industrial assessment as
against $10.2 million of residential assessment.
The latest revised assessment roll of the
town of Ajax as a result of the re-assessment
project indicates that the commercial, indus-
trial properties carry 34.802 per cent of the
assessment and residential property carries
65.198 per cent. Total commercial-industrial
assessment is $27.5 million, the total residen-
tial assessment is $51.6 million.
Prior to re-assessment, it was the practice
of the assessment department of the town of
Ajax to assess industrial property at one-third
3278
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of value, or as close to this as possible. The
assessment department attempted to assess
residential property at one-third of value and
then allowe<:I a 10 per cent reduction. It was
also their practice, generally speaking, not
to include the value of plumbing, garages and
recreation rooms in the residential valuation.
The Ontario coimty assessment department
did, however, attempt to rectify this last
inequitable characteristic of the town's assess-
ment practices prior to the re-assessment.
Suffice to say, on revaluation the residential
property was assessed at market value, in-
cluding recreation rooms, plumbing and
garages, and there was no ten per cent re-
duction. I might also point out that during
re-assessment a new subdivision known as
Clover Ridge was opened up. There are 525
lots in this subdivision, and the new assess-
ment includes the valuation of these lots,
plus the valuation of 327 homes that are now
completed and occupied, or ready for occu-
pation.
These 327 homes have sold or are selling
at prices ranging from $24,000 to $27,000.
Since there was no comparable increase in
the amount of property used for commercial
and industrial purposes, the new subdivision
had the effect of increasing the ratio of resi-
dential property as against commercial-
industrial.
I have just received this report from the
assessment branch of the department setting
out these figures, and I am now in a position
to reply to the mayor's letter of March 28
and I will expect to do so in the next few
days.
Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, by way of supple-
mentary, the Minister gave me infomiation
which I had prior to tliis. But do you feel
this shift is worthy of your attention that
something be done to relieve this tremendous
shift from commercial to residential? This is
what I would like to know.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I assume that the
town of Ajax, inasmuch as they did not appeal
the assessment, felt that the assessment figures
as arrived at were equitable, both for indi-
vidual property holders and for the total
class. Aside from the new subdivision, I think
that what must be pointed out is that there
were inequities in the system of assessment
before, and presumably, since there was no
appeal, the town recognized that there were
these inequities which are now being ad-
justed.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour is
now in his seat. Perhaps the memloer for
Brantford would place his questions.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): I ha\e a
question of the Minister of Labour.
In view of reports carried in the April 17
Toronto Daily Star indicating that colour TV
sets may emanate harmful radiation, if not
properly adjusted, will the Minister take the
necessary action to ensure that TV tech-
nicians working on colour sets are qualified
and have available proper equipment for
measuring the high voltages?
The second part: Has the department in-
vestigated the possibility of TV repair tech-
nicians and possible TV factory workers re-
ceiving harmful dosages of radiation?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, within the last two years we have
launched an apprenticeship training pro-
gramme for radio and TV technicians. The
programme recognizes and stresses specifically
the hazards of high voltages in television sets
and instructs technicians in how to cope with
this matter safely. In reference to the second
part of the question, that would be dealt
with, subsequently, I suggest, by the Hon.
Minister of Health.
Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, by way of
a supplementary question, the first part of
that question is concerned with the radia-
tions which are induced by the high voltages.
I realize that the technicians are aware of
the dangers of high xoltages, but what I am
concerned about is the fact that if the tech-
nicians did not have the proper equipment
to measure the high voltages, there is a possi-
bility that sets may emanate radiation.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I made it
clear, at least I hope I did, that the course
instructs the technicians as to how to cope
with this matter safely, and they are given
training in that.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of
Labour.
With the increasing use of snowmobiles,
does the Minister intend to bring forward
regulations under The Apprenticeship and
Tradesman's Qualification Act, 1964, setting
out qualifications for snowmobile mechanics?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the question, I am advised that this mattei
was considered by the labour-management
APRIL 18, 1969
3279
provincial advisory committee for motive
power trades. The committee concluded that
the regulations under the Act were not re-
quired at this time but the matter has con-
tinued to be under review.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Sandwich-Riverside have a question?
Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment, number 1212.
Why did the Minister indicate yesterday
that private insurance companies are reluctant
to issue third party risk insurance for nuclear
power stations?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, this came
about by way of a supplementary question
yesterday: "Was any private carrier invited
to carry the insurance on Douglas Point?" I
said at that time, "I doubt if any private
carrier was invited." I am not sure of that
because that has nothing to do with Ontario
Hydro or the provincial government. It is
owned by Atomic Energy of Canada. Maybe
that was a misstatement.
Then, I went on to say, "I doubt if there
is a private carrier that would want that
type of insurance." I would say that that
is a misstatement too, because I think any
insurance company, provided it could get its
rate, would be interested in any insurance.
But I am told by those in the know that there
are no nuclear plants insured with insur-
ance companies. They are either carried by
the government or the utility that owns the
plant.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementar>'
question, is it possible that this reluctance
comes from the fact that there are radio-
active emissions from the plants?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Burr: That is quite impossible?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, the hon. member for
Scarborough Centre asked for additional in-
formation which I did not have for her when
she asked the question. I am now in a posi-
tion to tell you, sir, and through you the
hon. member, where there exists shortage of
professional staff; in Hamilton there are five;
at Kingston two; Toronto, four; North Bay,
two; Penetang, two; Woodstock, three; Lake-
shore, three; Brockville, three; Thistletown,
three; St. Thomas, two; London, one; Owen
Sound, one.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, be-
fore the orders of the day, I would like to
table the annual report of the Ontario Mental
Health Foundation for 1967-68, the annual
report for the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry
for 12 months ending December 31, 1968.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the Min-
ister would accept a supplementary question
to his additional information?
I would like to ask the Minister of Health
if the students graduating from the commun-
ity colleges will be usefully employed in the
Ontario Hospitals as assistants to help make
up for some of the vacancies left by the
doctors. Not to replace the doctors, naturally,
Mr. Speaker, but will these students be going
into some of these hospitals that must be very
short staffed?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I believe
that some arrangements have been under way
for some little while between the community
colleges and students involved and The De-
partment of Civil Service to establish the
classification for these new workers, and to
see where they can fit into the situation.
We have been very interested in this and
we are trying to do all we can to arrive at
a satisfactory understanding whereby we can
use their services.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, would the
Minister accept a short supplementary? The
classification is not set at this time?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is the latest word
I have, but I must admit that that was be-
fore we rose for the Easter recess.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order regarding the Minister of Health tab-
bling the two reports. I listened to the titles
quite carefully and neither one of them is
the same as the title of the folder that has
been put on our desks. Does this folder pur-
port to be the annual report of OMSIP, by
any chance?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Speaker. It is
not really a report, it is a nmdown on the
highlights, as it says; an information piece.
It was submitted— as I understood— for the
hon. member for York South who, some time
ago, asked if we would be issuing an annual
report. The annual report for OMSIP will
be included in the annual report of the
department. These are some interesting high-
lights which I felt would be some value to
the members for their own private use.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order—
3280
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Speaker, this
is a report.
Mr. Nixon: It also says it is growing into
a mighty tree.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The Min-
ister did not even say what kind of tree.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: First order, resuming
the adjourned debate on the amendment, to
the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
chair and the House resolve itself into the
committee on wavs and means.
BUDGET DEBATE
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order before the
hon. member begins. You may be aware that
when this order was adjourned on the last
occasion, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce
(Mr. Sargent) was holding forth. As I under-
stand it, we had no notice that this order
was going to be called before last night at
the adjournment. I would draw your atten-
tion that the hon. gentleman had not com-
pleted his remarks. Perhaps there would be
.an occasion when the order is called again
when he might have that opportunity.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary): I
do not wish to get into a debate on the mat-
ter, but I do take exception to the point
made by the hon. leader of the Opposition
that there was no notice of this order being
called today. I personally talked to his Whip
at noon yesterday to discuss with him the
order of business today and, last night, when
the leader of the Opposition expressed some
surprise that this order was going to be
called, I reminded him of that fact.
We have no objection, of course, to the
hon. member for Grey-Bruce completing his
remarks, but I do want the record made clear
as far as communications between ourselves
and his Whip, and in fact all Whips, indicat-
ing what the order of business would be for
this morning.
Mr. Nixon: Further to that, Mr. Speaker, I
am glad to hear that the House leader did
speak directly to the hon. member for
Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Farquhar), because
the Whip of the government party did not.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South):
Well Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we
knew on Wednesday, not just yesterday noon,
that there was going to be a Budget Debate
this morning.
Mr. Nixon: It certainly was not conveyed
to us.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Just the
Opposition knew.
Mr. MacDonald: The second point I want
to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is
tliat I have no objection to providing an
opportunity for this member to complete his
speech at a later date, but tliere have been
earlier occasions when similar circumstances
have arisen, and that privilege has not been
extended. I note the change, I shall remem-
ber it.
Mr, Speaker: Now that we have the prob-
lem resolved, I hope to everyone's satisfac-
tion, certainly to Mr. Speaker's, I would
suggest that the hon. member for Sandwich-
Riverside embark on his Budget Debate
speech.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on
artificial kidney machines or hemo-dialysis.
Very briefly, the artificial kidney machine
treats those who are suffering from a kidney
disease. The patient's blood is pumped
through a series of tubes, coils and filters,
and during the process, which uses about 200
quarts of water during each dialysis, the ma-
chine takes over the kidneys' normal and
vital function of removing from the blood,
wastes and impurities that would otherwise
accumulate and cause death.
These are removed by osmosis and, at the
same time, vital chemicals normally added to
the blood by healthy kidneys, pass from the
solution in the machine into the blood. The
purified blood is then returned to tlie body.
Sometimes a few treatments are sufficient, as
in cases of acute infection.
But where irreparable kidney damage has
been suffered, twice weekly treatments last-
ing from six to 13 hours each are required,
depending upon the individual patient and
the individual machine.
The treatment is painless and patients may
lead a nearly-normal life. A Seattle man, who
was the first patient to take long-term treat-
ment, is still regularly employed as a mecha-
nic nine years later. He had received vein
and artery transplants at the University of
Washington. This treatment is expensive, cost-
ing between $10,000 and $20,000 per patient
per year, in United States hospitals. As a re-
sult, only about 1,700 Americans are at
present receiving this treatment, while it is
estimated that 8,000 persons in the United
APRIL 18, 1969
3281
States will die this year for lack of such
treatment.
One somewhat hopeful development is that
of the home unit. Al>out 200 of the 1,700
Americans receiving hemo dialysis do so at
home. The savings are substantial.
For example, the first year the bill for
home dialysis or hemo-dialysis is usually
$10,000. This includes the $3,000 or $4,000
required to acquire the machine, and the fees
for training a member of the family to oper-
ate it. Thereafter, it costs from $3,000 to
$5,000 a year to maintain the machine and
to buy the various components and chemicals
that must be changed after every use.
Unfortunately some homes and some hos-
pitals have only fluoridated water at their dis-
posal, and this has presented a very serious
problem.
In the Archives of Internal Medicine of
February, 1965, there is a report of the
absorption of fluoride by a patient, a nurse,
with a chronic renal insufficiency, who under-
went dialysis repeatedly witii fluoridated
water in an artificial kidney unit in Rochester,
New York.
X-ray observations revealed that there was:
Excess bone breakdown and an elevated
concentration of fluoride in the bone,
5500 parts per million. Only i>art of this
concentration, can be accounted for by the
amount absorbed during dialysis. This
suggests she was ingesting and retaining
more fluoride than usual for some time.
The question of increased retention of
fluoride in patients with kidney disease has
not been resolved.
The report comments that although further
experimental work— and I underline exx)eri-
mental work— with fluoride would seem justi-
fied. Now I quote:
It would seem prudent to use non fluori-
dated dialysate baths for long term hemo-
dialysis.
As this study was made in co-operation with,
and under the spvonsorship of the United
States Public Health Service, one would
assume that all those working with artificial
kidney machines would have been cautioned
by the USPHS. This, Mr. Speaker, did not
happen.
The United States Public Health Service
lias been minimizing the toxicity of fluorides
for many years and has remained silent. It
felt no responsibility.
Three years later. Dr. Taves of Rochester
again gave a warning, this time much louder,
but still, the pubhc health service remained
silent. In November, 1968, a different doctor
gave sohd proof at a meeting in Washington,
DC, that fluoridated water should not be used
in an artificial kidney, but the United States
Public Health Service still remained silent.
It was not until late January, 1969, Mr,
Speaker, about ten weeks ago, that this sub-
ject found its way into the news media
because of a paper presented in Vancouver
before the Royal Canadian College of Physi-
cians and Surgeons. Even then, the matter
was given rather casual treatment by the
press.
For example, the Windsor Star headline
was: "Fluoridated Water 'bugs' kidney
machine", which was not very informative
for those who merely scan tbe headlines.
Indeed, those who read the text found few
details.
On March 1, however, a lengthy detailed
account of this whole matter was printed in
Saturday Review, an American magazine; and
on March 10, the Saturday Review article
was printed in the United States Congressional
Record.
I wish to put on record a few paragraphs
from this very long article, after first explain-
ing that the scene now goes back to the
spring of 1968, a year ago, in Philadelphia at
a meeting of the American Society for
Artificial Internal Organs, at which was
present Dr. Taves, one of the four University
of Rochester authors of the February 1965
article in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The Saturday Review says:
Among the scientists who attended the
Philadelphia meeting at which Taves spoke
was a young Canadian, Dr. Gerald Posen.
Dr. Posen had studied at Johns Hopkins
at Baltimore, and had gone from there to
Montreal to join the staff of the Montreal
General Hospital. There he did clinical
research with artificial kidneys.
It was commonplace for patients, aided
by artificial kidneys, to be attacked by
blood and bone discomforts, but these
problems were just as commonly dissipated
by supplementing the patient's supply of
calcium, phosphorus, and Vitamin D.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand there has
been a correction in the word "phosphorus".
It should be "phosphorus binding gel". The
article continues:
The experience at Montreal encouraged
Dr. Posen to take on a bigger assignment
and he went to the Ottjawa General
3282
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hospital in Canada's capital city to take
charge of that institution's artificial unit.
There he encountered much more severe
manifestations of the same types of bone
problems he had found and successfully
combated in Montreal.
This is where the article becomes interesting.
But he discovered to his dismay that the
treatments he had used in Montreal would
not work in Ottawa. No matter what
massive therapeutic dosages he prescribed,
the bone deformation in his artificial
kidney patients grew worse instead of
better.
Posen went to the meeting of the
American Society for Artificial Internal
Organs in Philadelphia to learn something
helpful in alleviating the suffering of the
people in his charge. By chance he sat
beside Taves at a dinner party and he told
Taves his troubles. Taves asked him
whether the possibility of fluoride involve-
ment had been considered. Posen said it
had not. Taves asked whetlier the pubhc
drinking water in Montreal was fluoridated.
Posen said it was not. Was the public
drinking water of Ottawa fluoridated?
Posen did not know. The question agitated
him so much that he walked to the nearest
telephone and called Ottawa. Was Ottawa's
public drinking water fluoridated? Yes, it
had been since November 1965.
To make a long story short, Mr. Speaker, Dr.
Posen checked most carefully the effect of
the fluoridated water and found that it was,
indeed, the factor that caused the difference
between the success with artificial kidney
machines in Montreal and his failure in
Ottawa.
How much damage was done to the bodies
of these patients who were using the artificial
kidney units in Ottawa? Let the Saturday
Review tell us.
In opening his remarks to the Royal
Canadian College of Physicians and Sur-
geons, Posen mentioned 16 cases in which
artificial kidneys were used at Ottawa
General Hospital since 1964. Later, in a
long distance telephone conversation with
Saturday Review's science editor, he dis-
cussed 14 of these patients who had "mini-
mal or no detectable bone disease" at the
time treatment with artificial kidneys began.
Four of the 14 died before Posen could
learn very much about them.
The concentration of fluoride in the
blood of all the remaining ten patients rose
to levels comparable to the levels that
cause fluoride-induced bone diseases in ex-
perimental animals. Alkaline phosphatase,
an enzyme that circulates in the blood in
amounts proportional to dissolution of bone
in the body, also rose steadily in volume in
all ten patients. By the end of a year of
dialysis with fluoridated water, the ten
patients had all developed bone disease.
Nine of the ten complained of pain in their
bones. Six were attacked by arthralgias—
arthritic-like pains in the joints. Three
developed calcific bursitis, a condition in
which mineral crystals imbed in the shoul-
der muscles and saw at them from witliin.
The muscles of five of the ten patients be-
came weakened, and in three cases symp-
toms of irritation of the surface of nerves
appeared.
X-rays, meanwhile, showed knobby
growth on some bones, oversize crystals of
mineral inside other bones and disapi>ear-
ance of minerals from areas beneath the
surfaces of still other bones. Progressive
x-ray pictures revealed that as the period
of dialysis with fluoridated water length-
ened, dissolution of bone in all ten patients
accelerated. In nine of the ten, the mineral
substance of some bones became so de-
pleted that the bones broke spontaneously.
For example, ribs cracked under the pres-
sure of breathing.
I am going to read those last two sentences
again, Mr. Speaker.
In nine of the ten, the mineral substance
of some bones became so depleted that
the bones broke spontaneously. For ex-
ample, ribs cracked under the pressure of
breathing.
In this article there is a great deal of other
information and it is of great interest and
importance. However, I have quoted sufficient
to show that this is beyond doubt a matter of
life and death for those whose continued
existence depends on artificial kidney ma-
chines. And yet it took Dr. Posen, who was
one of the persons in Canada most interested
in this subject, three years— three unnecessary
years— to discover, and even then by chance,
that it was the fluoridated water that was
causing bone disease and perhaps other side
effects, when used in artificial kidney units.
In November, 1968, Dr. Posen spread the
word to many United States hospitals through
the meeting of the American Society of Neph-
rology, in Washington, D.C. After he had
given his paper he was approached by "scores
of kidney specialists", to quote the Saturday
Review, all of them wanting to know where
APRIL 18, 1969
3283
their hospitals could buy dependable filters
to remove fluoride from their artificial kidney
washing machines. And yet, Saturday Review
says:
If any account of Dr. Posen's report ever
has been published in a newspaper or
magazine or on a radio or TV broadcast,
Saturday Review's science editor is not
aware of it.
There was still no public knowledge of this
in Canada until late January, 1969, when the
Canadian newspapers finally mentioned it.
And about March 10, approximately five
weeks ago, the United States Public Health
Service finally sent out a warning.
Now, what was our Minister of Health (Mr,
Dymond) doing all this time? On Monday,
March 17, I asked him in the House whether
he had alerted the hospitals in Ontario to
this danger, which had been reported to the
press at the end of January. To this he
replied:
I have not drawn this to the attention of the
hospitals because this grew out of a paper delivered
by a member of a hospital staff, and scientific papers
are usually available to hospitals as readily as they
are to The Department of Health. Indeed we get
our information of this kind from the scientists who
are out in the field, and therefore the hospitals have
access to the same information.
Four days later, Mr. Speaker, I asked Him
whether he could now assure the House that
all kidney machine operators had been alerted
to the danger. His reply:
I answered this question for the hon. member a
few days ago.
In other words, no, he still had not bothered.
On the previous day, March 20, in the
Windsor Star there was a big illustrated
article extolling the fine work done by the
four artificial kidney machines in Grace
Hospital, and appealing for public funds to
help buy three pieces of equipment: 1. A
device to remove fluoride from Windsor's
fluoridated water; 2. A fifth artificial kidney
machine; 3. A special platform scale.
When I asked the Minister on Monday,
March 17, whether he was aware that "this
warning was made in February, 1965, in the
Archives of Internal Medicine in a study by
University of Rochester scientists under a
grant from the United States Public Health
Service"; he replied that he was. Unfor-
tunately, I did not ask him how long he
had been aware of it.
It is generally agreed or assumed that the
Minister of Health for Ontario is ultimately
responsible for looking after all matters relat-
ing to the health of the people of Ontario.
Yet, in this matter, he has shown what one
Windsor citizen, an engineer, who spoke to
me— referred to as a callous indifference.
According to the Minister there are 14
hospitals in Ontario using artificial kidneys.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, after the report appeared
in February, 1965, our Minister of Health
should have sent a note to each of these 14
hospitals saying: "Have you see the disturb-
ing article in last month's issue of the Archives
of Internal Medicine? If you are using fluori-
dated water in your kidney units have you
had a similar experience? Let me know your
findings.
This would have cost 70 cents in postage,
but at least it would have alerted Dr. Posen
in Ottawa or his predecessor, if Dr. Posen
had not yet arrived from Montreal. The
success that Doctor Posen had in Montreal
would have been duplicated in Ottawa. It
is quite possible— even likely— that some or
all of the five deaths at Ottawa General
Hospital would not have occurred. Certainly
the ten patients who developed bone disease,
as horribly described in Saturday Review—
and probably at the Royal Canadian College
of Physicians and Surgeons meeting in Van-
couver—would have been spared this ghastly
experience.
Now we do not know when the Minister
became aware of this danger, reported in
Februaiy, 1965. But if he knew, he should
have alerted our hospitals and if he did not
know, why did he not? His answer that
"scientific papers are usually available to hos-
pitals as readily as they are to The Depart-
ment of Health" seems to be the height of
irresponsibility, a callous disregard for the
well-being of the people of Ontario.
What is happening to those home unit
users in Ontario? The Minister cannot ex-
pect them to read scientific journals. He
cannot expect them to afford the deionizing
equipment. I have heard of five home unit
users in Ontario. Perhaps there are more.
On March 21, when I asked the Minister
how many there were, he said that to his
knowledge there was only one. Is his knowl-
edge any greater now? Is his concern any
greater now?
Recently the Minister said: "I have been
in this House too long to be embarrassed".
Now this, Mr. Speaker, is a statement that
we can accept in whole and in part. "In part"
referring to the part of the statement which
would end with the words "too long"—
namely, "I have been in this House too
long". With that, most of us in the Opposi-
tion are forced to agree.
3284
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We need a Minister of Health who is con-
cerned about the health of the people of
Ontario, a Minister who is embarrassed when
he makes a mistake. And we need a go\ern-
ment that is concerned. But this go\'em-
ment, like the Minister, has been here too
long to be embarrassed.
During the CBC hearings, about a month
ago, inquiring into the "Air of Death" TV
documentaiy, the history of this particular
programme was revealed. A pollution con-
ference had been held in Montreal late in
October 1966 sponsored by the resources
Ministers of the various provinces. As the
experts in various fields of pollution shared
their knowledge, it became apparent that
pollution has become man's number one
problem threatening not only his health but
indeed his very survival.
The feeling was repeatedly expressed, in
the informal conversations during coffee
breaks at the conference, that the public at
large was unaware of the seriousness of this
problem. CBC representatives at the con-
ferences were impressed with their obliga-
tion to inform the public. Consequently, the
CBC began work on three documentary
films, one on air pollution, one on soil pollu-
tion and one of water pollution.
The "Air of Death" documentary, which
took almost a year of research and prepara-
tion, was the first of the three to be pre-
sented. Late in October 1967, the pro-
gramme was aired and immediately had a
great impact on the public and on the gov-
ernments of this country.
The Ontario government almost immediat-
ely set up a committee to investigate pollu-
tion in the Port Maitiand area. The committee
found that air pollution certainly existed there
and that it harmed almost everything in sight
except human beings. Only the naive ex-
pected any other finding from this committee.
But there was one surprise. Instead of join-
ing in the almost unanimous public praise of
the CBC for rendering a public service, the
Hall committee made a vicious attack on the
CBC.
In retrospect of course, Mr. Speaker, we
realize that this was a diversionary tactic
aimed at taking the heat off both the Ontario
government and the Electric Reduction Com-
pany. The attack on the CBC was also an
attack on Dr. George Waldbott, one of the
few independent scientists able and willing
and courageous enough to expose and oppose
air pollution. Among his many duties Dr.
Waldbott is chairman of the air pollution
committee of the Michigan Allergy Society.
If any one person precipitated the investi-
gation of air pollution by ERGO, it was Dr.
Waldbott. Because he is world famous in
the field of allergy it was difficult to discredit
him. However, the Hall committee made the
attempt in Appendix XIV on page 347 of its
report, where we are told that Dr. Waldbott's
brief— which he was discouraged from pre-
senting to the committee itself— had been
submitted to Dr. Edmund Martin, the com-
mittee's consultant, in London, England.
Now the committee did not choose to
print Dr. Waldbott's brief, some of which I
read into the records of this Legislature some
time I believe in May last year. Nor did it
see fit to print Dr. Martin's critique of Dr.
Waldbott's brief, in which he had given his
reasons for diagnosing ten of the Port Malt-
land people as definitely, and seven as prob-
ably, afflicted with fluorosis.
On December 13, 1968, I wrote to the
Minister of Health asking for a copy of Dr.
Martin's critique. I have not yet had a reply
from the Minister. However, I have here a
copy of Dr. Martin's critique and I can see
why the Hall committee did not publish it
in their report.
Dr. Martin first attacks the International
Society for Fluoride Research, of which Dr.
Waldbott is secretary. He says:
I know little of it, but I think it is
getting a footing mainly in European
countries where experience is principally
of cases of industrial poisoning and exces-
sive doses.
Now, for the information of Dr. Martin, I
have examined the first 20 papers presented
to and discussed by this international society
and only two of the 20 were concerned with
acute fluorosis and none with industrial flu-
orosis. So Dr. Martin's thought about the
interests of this international society for
fluoride research are very wide of the mark,
proving merely, as he himself says, that "he
knows little of it".
Dr. Martin then says that Dr. Waldbott's
claim to have reported the first fatality from
anapliylaxis due to penicillin is incorrect.
Dr. Martin gives the credit to another doctor
who reported a case earlier under the title,
"Fatal delayed anaphylactic shock after peni-
cillin". Dr. Waldbott's rebuttal is that Dr.
Martin fails to distinguish between serum
sickness and anaphylaxis.
Thirdly, Dr. Martin questions Dr. Wald-
bott's claim to a first report in 1953 of a
"smoker's respiratory syndrome" concluding
with the statement "probably other phys-
icians would not regard Waldbott's syndrome
APRIL 18, 1969
3285
as being any different from cases of sensi-
tivity to other foreign substances." Neverthe-
less, in 1954 an editorial in The Journal of
the American Medical Association in discuss-
ing smoking and lung cancer, commented as
follows:
Somewhat aldn to this, but still a sepa-
rate clinical entity, is smoker's respiratory
syndrome as described by Dr. Waldbott.
Dr. Martin's fourth attempt to belittle Dr.
Waldbott's scientific standing is even weaker.
It is short enough to quote in its entirety:
I know nothing of Waldbott's Broncho-
scopic lavage. It sounds a drastic method
of treatment which might precipitate death
rather than save hfe! The opinion of some
other allergist on this would be interesting.
Well, if this were a procedure, Mr. Speaker,
that Dr. Waldbott had discovered only last
year, Dr. Martin might be excused for liis
ignorance of it, but Dr. Waldbott reported
this in August, 1949, almost 20 years ago,
after it had been used in 127 cases. By 1965,
Dr. Waldbott was able to report that more
than 1500 patients with allergic asthma had
been so treated. Dr. Martin's criticism of Dr.
Waldbott as an allergist is worth about the
same as mine would be of Dr. Shulman's as
a financier, he is just out of his depth.
Nothing daunted, however, Dr. Martin
plunges on like Don Quixote. His fifth charge
at Dr. Waldbott is a claim that:
From his writings one gets the impres-
sion that he has had little training in re-
search methods such as one gets by doing
post-graduate work in a university or re-
search institution.
Actually, Dr. Waldbott has repeatedly served
on teaching faculties of post-graduate courses,
at the University of Michigan, medical school,
at Wayne State medical school, at the Ameri-
can Academy of Allergy and the American
College of Allergists.
Dr. Martin, in a sixth effort, says in his
critique of Dr. Waldbott:
It would be strange if, with all the labora-
tory facilities in the United States and
Canada, hospitals and physicians lack faci-
hties to carry out reliable fluoride analysis
as alleged by Waldbott.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, five letters from
various United States laboratories saying that
they have no facilities for fluoride analysis.
Most of these had been recommended to
physicians who were searching for those
facilities. Dr. Martin asks later— this is No. 7:
Did Mr. Wamick's blood really contain
0.7 ppm? I can find no allusion to this in
Dr. Tidey's evidence.
This raises an interesting point, Mr. Speaker.
Did Dr. Tidey present this information to the
Hall committee? If not, why not? If he did,
why was no reference made to tliis in the
report? I have this report here, a photostatic
copy of it. It exists, but Dr. Martin was
unav/are of it.
Dr. Martin next refers to:
A preceding paragraph where Dr. Wald-
bott has been showing that the fluoride
content of bones in cases of crippHng flu-
orosis, varies from 0.5 to 7000 parts per
million.
Now by this time Dr. Martin must have been
getting tired and must have been unable to
read straight, because Dr. Waldbott said in
his brief— and anyone who wishes can read it
for himself:
Fluoride analyses of blood are equally as
unreliable in pinpointing damage by fluor-
ide. Dr. Tidey reported on fluoride values
in four members of the Wamick family.
All were taken in February at a time when
there was much less exposure to fluoride
than during midsummer. Nevertheless, Mr.
Wamick's blood, even then, contained 0.7
parts per million, an unusually high value.
In five out of 16 cases of advanced crippling
fluorosis in India, values ranged from 0.5
to 0.8 parts per million.
Now that, Mr. Speaker, you will note, deals
entirely with blood.
Similiarly, the fluoride content of bones
gives no information concerning the fluor-
ide concentration in any other tissues and
certainly none about damage to internal
organs. The thesis that there cannot be
skeletal fluorosis unless bones contain 7,000
parts per million of fluoride is no longer
tenable in the light of recent observations.
Soriano, Singh, and Pinet reported crippling
fluorosis in individuals whose bone fluoride
ranged from 600 to 1,800 parts per million.
Incidentally, bone biopsy on Joe Casina
showed 641.3 parts per milhon and 864.1
parts per milhon. But of course Joe Casina
has not fluorosis, you know.
This error of Dr. Martin's does not give us
the impression that he himself is much of a
scientist when he misimderstands a plain, un-
ambiguous, obvious reference to 0.5 parts
per million in blood as referring somehow or
other to 0.5 parts per milhon in bone. This
error is absolutely inexcusable. It indicates
3286
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
almost the same degree of incomprehension as
that shown by the Hall committee members
when they misunderstood the man in the
CBC's "Air of Death" programme, who said:
"They"— meaning the doctors— "cut a hole in
your throat". This had to do, of course, with
the effects of air pollution. Despite the fact
that the man in the TV programme was
shown lying in what appeared to be a hos-
pital bed or operating table and had a tube
sticking out of his throat, the Hall committee
criticized the CBC, page 329, for allegedly
having the man say: "They"— meaning air
pollution. How "they" could refer to air pol-
lution, which is singular, is a difficulty they
did not try to solve. "They"— air pollution—
"cut a hole in your throat".
This is a misinterpretation which very few
high school students would have made. How
tlie Hall committee made it is simply incom-
prehensible, yet it happened.
It is difficult to say which is the more in-
credible error; Dr. Martin's "0.5 parts per
million" blunder or the Hall committee's
"hole in the throat" gaff. Of course, Mr.
Speaker, the Hall committee could have
spotted Dr. Martin's reading error as easily as
you or I, but the Hall committee preferred
to "reject many of the statements made by
Dr. Waldb'ott in his brief." They preferred to
accept testimony such as that offered by Dr.
Martin.
There are further criticisms by Dr. Martin
in his critique and further rebuttals by Dr.
VValdbott, Ijut I have given you at least
eight— enough to show that the Hall commit-
tee had good reason not to include Dr.
Martin's so-called "critique" in its report. It
would not have discredited Dr. Waldbott, it
would have discredited their own consultant,
Dr. Martin.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on December 17 I
spoke in this House on the report of the
committee which was asked to investigate
the damage done to crops, animals and
humans by air pollution in the vicinity of the
fertilizer plant operated by the Eelctric Re-
duction Company. It is now commonly called
ERCO and it lies near the village of Strom -
ness, which is near Port Maitland, which is
near Dunnville.
At that time I announced my intention,
first to prove tliat humans in the area were
suffering from fluorosis, as admittedly were
the crops and livestock, and secondly, to show
why the committee did not come to this
conclusion.
As far as I am aware no one denied that I
succeeded in botli efforts. However, because
the pollution of the area still continues, and
because the people are still suffering, not only
physically but financially, I intend to give
some furtlier evidence to support my conten-
tion.
Let us start with a brief resume of the
situation: On October 22, 1967, the CBC
presented a TV programme entitled, "Air of
Death" which ranged widely over the North
American continent and brought home, to
the people of Ontario at least, the seriousness
of air pollution by telling about the situation
around the ERCO plant. The Ontario govern-
ment set up a committee to investigate.
In December, 1968, the committee report-
ed in effect: Yes, the vegetation is harmed;
yes, the livestock is harmed; yes, the paint
on houses and cars is harmed; yes the win-
dows are harmed— tlie glass windows; in
fact almost everything in the neighbourhood
has been harmed except the human beings.
Nine of the residents had been put on
what amounted almost to a trial. Four of
these had been hospitalized in Toronto Gen-
eral Hospital and three of the four had com-
pletely baffled the physicians. No one could
diagnose their ailment except to say that
whatever mysterious element had changed
their environment, it certainly was not the
fluoride emission from ERCO. That was one
thing they were sure about.
How did the Hall committee reach tliis
amazing conclusion? The Hall committee
mentions on page 58 of its report that during
the November and December 1968 investiga-
tion of the health of the people near Port
Maitland by The Ontario Department of
Health, certain criteria were used for the
diagnosis of fluorosis, and one of these
criteria was "Appropriate Symptoms and
Findings". The Hall committee adds that:
These criteria were selected after an
exhaustive study had been made of tlie
scientific literature relevant to human
fluorosis.
It would be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to learn
what these appropriate symptoms discovered
by The Department of Health were. It would
also be interesting to find out why tlie Hall
commission virtually ignored the existence
of these appropriate symptoras, whatever
they were, after taking the trouble to men-
tion them. Perhaps some day the Minister
will enlighten us. Why did the Hall com-
mittee then reject the criteria which The
Ontario Department of Health had selected,
in the words of the Hall committee itself,
"after exhaustive study had been made of the
APRIL 18, 1969
3287
scientific literature relevant to human
fluorosis"?
I personally doubt whether The Ontario
Department of Health had made "an exhaus-
tive study", but the Hall committee raises
no doubts about The Department of Health's
exhaustive study. Yet I think that the depart-
ment may have discovered several symptoms
of human fluorosis in its study, whereas the
Hall committee ignores completely The De-
partment of Health's findings. What were
the symptoms? The report does not tell us
how many The Ontario Department of Hsalth
found. What did the Hall committee think of
these "appropriate symptoms"? The Hall
committee was made aware of them, as we
are informed in section 190 of the report,
but the report itself ignores them.
The Hall committee accepted the other
three of the four criteria selected by The
Ontario Department of Health, namely (a)
lengthy exposure, (b) urine analysis, (c)
bone X-rays. But instead of the "appropriate
symptoms" which The Department of Health
had found in its exhaustive study, the Hall
committee substitvited two criteria of its
own, namely, severe mottling or staining of
the permanent teeth and high fluoride con-
centration in the dry bone ash.
The first of these two was a very safe
criterion because mottling occurs only in the
formative stages of children's teeth and after
many years the mottled teeth may become
stained. Because the intense pollution began
less than three years previously, the Hall
committee was safe in establishing this as
a criterion. The inclusion of the analysis of
bone ash was risky, almost an instance, Mr.
Speaker, of brinkmanship, because there are
known standards of normalcy and it would
have been very awkward, had a bone biopsy
been made and a high fluoride concentration
found.
But the Hall committee did not "indulge
in" bone biopsies, to use its own peculiar
phrase, because it had established a criterion
of criteria, namely: "In order to diagnose
adequately chronic fluorosis in humans, it is
necessary that more than one"— I repeat-
more than one of the following conditions be
present."
It tlien lists the five criteria I have just
indicated, three being almost identical with
three of The Department of Health's criteria,
with motthng and bone content being sub-
stituted for the appropriate symptoms of
The Department of Health. The Hall com-
mittee then concludes that:
A history of lengthy exposure to rela-
tively high concentrations of fluoride in
the air, food and/or water, is not proven.
It does this without tabling any results of
water sampling by the OWRC which actually
did show higli fluoride concentration in the
drinking water. It does this without tabl-
ing any results of food analysis, and these
have been made by others ill able to afford
the expense, and the tests do show prohibi-
tive amounts of fluoride. It actually admits
tliat the air did contain "above acceptable
levels" on several occasions but because "such
samples contained quantities of particulate
matter" and because "of such particulate only
tiiose of size less than seven millimicrons
can be absorbed into the lung, such occur-
rences could not lead to human fluorosis."
Having thus convinced itself that there
was no undue exposure to fluoride in air,
food and/or water, the Hall committee
knocked down the three straw men it had
set up, namely: mottling and staining of
teeth, most unlikely in such a short time, in
fact impossible in such a short time; bone
changes discernible by x-ray, which is virtu-
ally impossible in such a short time; and
urine analysis, which gives no indication
of how much fluoride is being stored in the
bones or the tissues of the body.
This left only the problem of fluoride
concentration in the bone. How could the
hazard of making this test be avoided? Verj'
simply. Having stated that there must be
more than one of the five conditions or
criteria described, it is obvious that even if
bone biopsies proved the bones of the ERCO
neighbours to be chock full of fluoride, this
would fulfil only one of the five conditions
and would not be adequate to justify the
diagnosis of fluorosis. Hence, the Hall com-
mittee concluded on page 113 of the report,
and I quote:
(d) that there was no reason to indulge
in bone biopsy in order to determine the
fluoride concentration in the bone ash in
view of (a), (b), (c) and (e).
A most ingenious method of avoiding an
embarrassing test.
A bone biopsy has been done on at least
one of the ERCO neighbours, Mr. Joe Casina,
and the test showed 641.3 parts per million,
and 864.1 parts per million. In cases of
crippling fluorosis it has been found that
bone can contain as little as 600 parts per
million. The Hall committee would have
been hard put to explain away Mr. Casina's
bone biopsy.
3288
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
To sum up: the Hall committee merely
explained that x-ray tests had shown no evi-
dence of fluorosis and urine tests could shed
no light on this aspect either, therefore, there
was no fluorosis. By reading the report we
were able to learn that none of the experts
called in to testify before the committee had
ever seen, or at least, had ever recognized, a
case of fluorosis, altliough one expert indi-
cated that if he saw one he could diagnose
it as easily as he could leprosy. The expert
spoke knowingly on the subject of fluorosis,
referring to the great Danish expert, Roholm,
but they ignored the list of general symptoms
of fluorosis that he had given back in 1937.
As I pointed out, one of the victims, Mr.
VVarnick, had ten of these symptoms of
fluorosis, yet the experts talked only about
the negative findings of x-ray and urine
tests. I wonder if any of Mr. Warnick's
symptoms are on The Department of Health
list of appropriate symptoms.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member
would find a convenient time now, or in the
near future, to break his remarks and adjourn
the debate.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
debate be adjourned.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
4, by Mr. De Monte.
Resolution: That in the opinion of this
House employees have the right to be
actively included in any plaiming for
change arising from automation or indus-
trial rationalization, the effect of which
would be to make substantive changes in
their working conditions or cause redun-
dancies.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. mem-
ber for York Centre (Mr. Deacxjn) resolution
No. 4 standing in my name on the order
paper.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Dovercourt,
seconded by the member for York Centre
moves resolution No. 4 standing in his name
on the order paper.
Mr. De Monte: Mr, Speaker, as I rise to
debate this resolution I am reminded that
the current issue involving some 102 em-
ployeees of the Canadian Westinghouse Co.
at the Etobicoke shop is a timely reminder
that in industrial relations, as in all else,
the price of fair dealing is eternal vigilance.
Let me tell that story for the record. On
Monday, February 10, at four in the after-
noon, the company told the union representa-
tives, and shortly thereafter the affected
workers, that, starting almost immediately,
they would be phasing out certain manu-
facturing operations at the Etobicoke plant,
with the phase-out to be completed by July,
1969.
The affected employees have up to 20-odd
years of service with Westinghouse. The
phase-out is to be made, not because the
company is ceasing production of certain
lines, but because it is deemed more economi-
cal to transfer production to two other com-
pany plants outside Metro. At the same time,
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has
got into the act by negotiating with Westing-
house for a forgivable loan in respect of
one of these out-of-town plants, at Lawrence-
ville.
The affected workers, members of the
United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, naturally felt exi>osed
and unprotected at this sudden and un-
expected turn of events. They regarded tlie
decision by Westinghouse as an arbitrary one
which, for a small overhead saving to the
company, would disrupt the lives of many
workers who had served it long and faith-
fully.
The union said on their behalf:
It is high time that government enforce
some social responsibflity of these corpora-
tions through appropriate legislation against
"runaway shops". In our opinion, Westing-
house should be obliged to continue this
production and employment in its present
location as a responsibility to those who
have given their years to contributing to
the company's growth and profits.
But what did the company say? The com-
pany was silent and refused even to talk to
the union representatives about the move. So
the union representatives came up here to
the Legislature, and the Legislature per-
formed one of its more useful democratic
functions when, in turn, the government, the
Opposition, and the New Democratic Party
offices were opened to these representatives
and the story was told. As a result of this
visit, a Mr. Peebles, in the office of the Min-
ister of Trade and Development (Mr. Ran-
dall) was put to work on the case, and the
APRIL 18, 1969
3289
door was pried open, at least to the extent
that the parties are now talking as they should
have been in the first instance.
Of course, the issue is far from a satisfac-
tory solution. The company wants to pay only
half a week's severance pay to the laid-off
employees for each year up to 20 years of
service, so that perhaps the top severance pay
would amount to $1,500, which is barely
enough to catch one's breath these days, and
which the union has termed unacceptable.
The other argument being advanced is: why
cannot the vacant capacity in Etobicoke be
used for new production, rather than trans-
ferring work, even through an indirect shuflBe,
to Lawrenceville.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): They want
to cash in on that one.
Mr. De Monte: The Minister of Trade and
Development has pointed out that there will
be no direct transfer of work, but the feeling
persists that in fact the province's holding
out a forgivable loan to a rich company like
Westinghouse in order to encourage it to set
up production outside of Toronto, is, in effect,
encouragement of the runaway shop concept
which is anathema to organized labour be-
cause of its social consequences which run
very, very deep.
'Mr. Lawlor: Besides, playing you for taxes.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): And,
incidentally, which concept is totally ex-
cluded.
Mr. De Monte: Yes, I know. Well, the
runaway shop is only one aspect of the
changing labour situation that has been cata-
logued in the Woods report. To Professor
Woods and his colleagues, the answer would
appear to lie in the restructuring of the
Canada Labour Relations Board, which he
would rename the Canadian Industrial Rela-
tions Board, into a non-representative body
that would stand quite apart from the labour-
management field, and look at all these de-
velopments from the wider viewpoint of social
change.
I expect that this concept will be fiercely
debated at the federal level, particularly if
it results in fragmenting the bargaining units,
as labour commentators suggest it might, or
compelling them to coalesce into one unit per
industry, with one joint certificate. It is
difficult to conceive what effect this would
have on the railway non-operating unions, for
example.
However, some leadership is obviously
needed since labour unions have themselves
been insensitive to the slow advance of that
special form of automation we call cyberna-
tion—the merging of automated mechanical
processes under computer control. In the case
of the railway non-ops, the advent of auto-
mated and cybernated hump-yards has left
them with a desire to consolidate their splin-
tered forces, but the practical difficulties have
been so insurmountable that only one merger
has so far been consummated, and only one
other has been seriously promoted. The meld-
ing power of the new Canadian Industrial
Relations Board would likely forge a new
kind of powerful bargaining agent, and old
faces on the labour scene would drop out
from view, to be replaced with a new gen-
eration of labour leaders. This is the predic-
tion of most labour writers. It would certainly
be as traumatic as the birth of tlie county
school boards that we have been discussing
in this House earlier this week.
When all the dust is settled, what are we
likely to find? What will the new scene be
like? Presumably the new federal board will
begin to make the same kind of impact on
the labour front as the new Canadian Radio-
Television Commission is currently making in
the field of communications. It will be objec-
tive to the point of being aloof, and it will
be able to compel management as much by
moral persuasion as by other means to em-
bark on policies that are in the best interests
of Canadian society.
Since most people, including legislators, are
vague on what the nature of the problem is,
I am glad of this opportunity to place on
record some quotations to which we can sub-
sequently refer, if not this morning, then as
we come to the estimates of The Department
of Labour. Indeed, I would say that the
purpose of this resolution was not so much
as to exhaust the subject as to lay down cer-
tain principles and establish in the proceed-
ings of this Legislature references upon which
we can later build.
Since the private members' hour can never
come to a vote, I regard this function of the
hour as most important. Just as I had the
honour to catalogue what I hope will be
regarded as the definitive reference to Cais-
son's disease earlier this session, so today my
purpose is to lay down quotations on which
the Opposition can build throughout the
session.
The first such quotation I wish to record
is by Dr. John T. Deutsch, former chairman
3290
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the Economic Council of Canada, speak-
ing in the proceedings of the National Con-
ference on Labour-Management Relations in
Ottawa on November 9, 1964. He said:
We are confronted with the problem of
how to deal with displacement and disloca-
tion with the need for retraining, with the
development of new skills, with the
survival of an enteiprise and the invest-
ment of new capital, with material and
human losses, and with the question of
how to distribute new benefits between
wages, social welfare and leisure.
These are complex and rapidly chang-
ing issues which cannot be tackled success-
fully unless, first, there is mutual concern
and mutual recognition of the legitimate
role of each party. Second, there is real-
ization that neither the responsibility for,
nor the cost of adjustment, can be imposed
solely upon one of the parties, or let fall
upon the weak.
Third, there is a comprehension of the
need for objective analysis for information
for prior study, for consultation, and for-
ward planning, and for a readiness to deal
with reality.
Well, this makes clear, Mr. Speaker, that
technological changes are an economic and
human problem of vast proportions. But what
should beneficiaries like ourselves— those of
us who can enjoy the fruits of automation-
be doing for those whom this kind of pro-
gress hurts. The question is well posed by
the authors, Somers, Cushman and Weinberg,
in the book "Adjusting to Technological
Change" published by Harper and Row, New
York, 1963, and here is what they said:
The differentiation between beneficiar>'
and sufferers from technological change
presents us with a moral as well as an
economic problem. Society as a whole, by
and large, is a beneficiary. It is morally
acceptable for most of us to enjoy the
benefits of new technologies without
utilizing every possible means of mini-
mizing the losses and assisting the re-
adjustment of those who are not bene-
ficiaries but sufferers? Society has a moral
obligation to accept the cost of necessar\'
programmes to this end as a charge against
the benefits of technological advance.
Put in the context of the Westinghouse situa-
tion, if Westinghouse finds it is more efficient
to move its operation, what moral obligations
does this firm have to those who are rendered
jobless and forced to move from familiar
surroundings? What obligation does society
as a whole have to relocate or retrain the
people who have been displaced?
Mr. Lawlor: It is the moral obligation of
that government to do something about it.
Mr. Do Monte: In its observations in
chapter 8, the Freedman Report, the report
of the industrial enquiry commission on
Canadian National Railway run-throughs, de-
bunks the economists' distinction between the
role of government and the blame to be
attached to "progress" in the general sense.
So far as the displaced worker is con-
cerned, the report points out, the stark and
immediate fact is that he is jobless. So when
economists take the broad view and say it is
not technology, but lack of government plan-
ning that creates unemployment, they are
splitting hairs insofar as the individual and
his difficulties are concerned. In the end
there is only the individual who suffers.
Mr. Lawlor: What of the man let out after
29 years?
Mr. De Monte: The report also speaks of
silent fixing, the attrition that comes as old
employees retire or die off and are not re-
placed. Now railroads have been particularly
prone to this reduction in labour intake.
Between 1952 and 1959, the railway work
force declined 19 per cent, and it has de-
clined even further since that date. The
effect of technological change must neces-
sarily be to reduce the labour content of
any given process. As Walter Reuther said
and pointed out to Ford: "Machines cannot
buy cars". When the CNR trains started to
run through Nakina and Wainwright instead
of stopping, 147 people directly lost their
jobs, but the social effect extended to even
wider circles beyond those immediately
affected and produced a ghost-town syn-
drome.
In this context, the role of both the federal
and the provincial government is twofold.
Employment policies must increase the total
demand for labour for an economic develop-
ment. Manpower policy must facilitate re-
training and make it possible for men to take
the training and to relocate without undue
hardship once they are retrained.
If we are to have a flexible and mobile
work force in Ontario, we have to think of
people first, rather than looking at the prob-
lem in tenns of statistics. We have to ensure
that individual workers are adequately pro-
tected economically against taking a beating
from change, just because they happen to be
on the firing line.
APRIL 18, 1969
3291
The Westinghouse case brings everything
into focus and makes it topical because the
Manpower Consultative Service was set up
to encourage and assist management and
unions to use the techniques of joint con-
sultation and objective research to prevent
unnecessary technological unemployment.
The federal government assistance is avail-
able to the extent of one-half the cost in-
curred in such research and in the develop-
ment of programmes of adjustment.
Yet Westinghouse will not pay its 50 per
cent in the case of the Etobicoke workers,
and it seems to me that it is encumbent upon
the provincial Department of Labour to start
to put the pressure on Westinghouse to accept
its moral responsibilities in this situation, par-
ticularly if a forgiveable loan is being held
out to the firm, however remotely the carrot
and the stick are linked.
At the moment we have a carrot and no
stick, and, from all accotmts, a very obstinate
mule. I think we have to insist that, as a
condition of the granting of the forgivable
loan to Westinghouse, that it subscribe to
the manpower consultative service— pay its 50
per cent— and this without prejudice to efforts
now being made to use vacant capacity in
Etobicoke to produce new lines for the firm.
The Freedman report speaks of industry
and labour moving confidently forward in
oo-operative efforts to meet the problem, but
the reality seems to be very different.
The time has long passed when the entre-
preneur could treat aU factors of production
—land, labour and capital— merely as com-
modities to be purchased on the market;
when he could juggle their ratio to his best
possible advantage and profit, without regard
to the social consequences of his actions.
Labour cannot just be "let go" any more
without all kinds of repercussions occurring,
and it follows that the release of labour into
the market must be subject to the control of
society, at least to the extent that the goals
of society and those of unrestricted enterprise
are incompatible. That is the human message
of the technological revolution.
With that, of course, goes the responsi-
bihty of labour not to adopt a "Luddite" ap-
proach, obstructing and destroying innovation,
if not physically, then procedurally. Tech-
nology can help us all, and the worker is not
excluded from the general gain. When the
nation is hurt by opposition to technological
advances, the workers are hurting themselves
too.
As long as we get moral fair dealing, we
are off to a new start. But moral fair dealing
with displaced individuals ought certainly to
involve severance pay at least to the model
standards laid down in The CP-CN Railway
Act, or, more recently, the POP programme,
associated with the auto pact, whereby
workers displaced as a result of the operation
of the auto pact are subsidized for a year in
addition to their unemployment benefit.
It seems inconceivable to me that Westing-
house would be so far from these standards
as to cause discussion of the Etobicoke situa-
tion in thLs Legislature, and one is tempted to
ask: Do they really think they can get away
with it and still collect a forgivable loan
from the province?
There is also the question of Westing-
house's social obligations to the community
of Etobicoke, and while it can be argued that
a Metropolitan community is less homo-
geneous than a rural railway shop, the prin-
ciple is still not invalidated completely.
We have had other instances, including I
understand, some in Middlesex county, where
a stronger degree of community dislocation
was in prospect.
They are all matters of degree, but this
factor is never, never entirely absent. There
is always a grocer, a barber, a drugstore
keeper, a ladies' beauty parlor operator, laim-
dromat owner, a hotel keei>er, a variety and
hardware store, a butcher, a baker and a
candlestick maker, who stand to lose when-
ever an industrial enterprise departs from a
community.
So the lines in the marriage service about
not entering into the state of wedlock lightly
also apply to the company move.
Many members, I am sure, will be familiar
with Donald H. Michael's pamphlet, "The
Silent Conquest", dealing with cybernation.
This little booklet was written for the Centre
for Democratic Institutions and has sold over
a million copies since its first edition in 1962.
Michael takes the process of automation to
its ultimate, and shows how not only blue
collar workers will be affected, but also the
white collar workers, clerks first and then the
managerial staff.
Since he wrote that prophetic treatise, the
advent of technology has speeded up the pro-
cess even more than he imagined. First, we
have the transitor, then the integrated circuit
and then large scale integration. Now I under-
stand the latest development is what is called
the thick-film hybrid circuit— and the problem
there is not that it will put television sets in
a wrist-watch but that it will be able to
oversee the automated reproduction of its
3292
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
own kind. In fact, we are now coming to the
true robot.
At the same time we are receiving reports
that biological functions and organic cells are
being used as part of circuits. We have the
arm that a man can cause to move by "think-
ing" or willing it to move, and sending a
minute electrical impulse to his nerve ends—
which the sensitive amplifiers which are part
of the arm's electronics— detect. This signal
they amplify a million times and cause the
"prosethetic device" to move at its owner's
will, just as though it were his own arm.
On the other hand, we have actual living
cells being incorporated into computer cir-
cuits as "memories" and "gating devices", so
the distinction between living matter and
an electronic circuit is being eroded away.
Yet our thinking is still mechanical and water-
tight, and we have no legal mechanism to
deal with all the new situations that will
arise.
The definition of death and the problem
associated with The Human Tissues Act
could very quickly merge with the problems
and the legalities associated with automation,
as automation becomes cybernation, com-
puter-controlled automatic processes in action,
perhaps involving human functions as part of
the chain.
To dramatize this, what if the entire anti-
ballistic missile system is computerized except
for the moral decision to push the button?
Yet in a less dramatic way, in oil refineries
and continuous process operations, we may
begin to impose intolerable strains on human
judgment— if one man can see his error ampli-
fied a million times. The strain of knowing
you cannot afford to make even one mistake
may place a whole new dimension on respon-
sibility.
Yet it is coming. In U.S. News and World
Report a businessman was quoted as saying:
"It is no longer a question of do you auto-
mate, but how much and how soon in fight
of the probable actions of your competitors."
Here in Canada we do not even have the
delaying grace that comes from new tech-
niques having to be devised and developed
over a period of years. They exist now and
they need only be imported. So the cultural
shock of Canadians is much worse and the
prospects might Ix? much more frightening
than even our neighbours in the south have
experienced. We may get it all at once.
I will be finished in one moment, Mr.
Speaker. I just have a short paragraph.
There is another aspect to all this. Reduc-
ing the number of living people in an opera-
tion cuts out much of the headaches for
management's industrial relations operation.
Machines do not talk back, so we have the
responsibility not to allow this easy way out
if it is against the longer-term interest of
society as a whole. Now that it is possible
to view production as one integrated opera-
tion rather than as a series of individual
processes following each other, our thinking
has to change too.
We have to ask ourselves where we are
going. We have to seriously question whether
the classic Westinghouse Etobicoke situation
—involving as it does, management, labour,
the provincial government with its forgivable
loan and the federal government vdth its
spumed consultative service— is it not the
starting point, the first clear-cut instance of
our having to move in for larger social pur-
poses. Can we leave these four elements of
society alone to come up with an agreed
solution and expect us to abide by it? Or is
the Westinghouse case just number one of
the new age— the example that gives con-
crete meaning to this resolution, which I
now move— that, in the opinion of this House,
employees have the right to be actively in-
cluded in any planning for change arising
from automation or industrial rationaliza-
tion, the effect of which would be to make
substantial changes in their working condi-
tions or cause redundancies.
Mr. R. D. Rowe (Northumberland): I
have pleasure in rising to support in prin-
ciple tlie hon. member's resolution, as enun-
ciated by him and which he has very well
documented. I think this to be a reasonable
concept of both what is right and what is
responsible and is, to my knowledge, prac-
tised in a great many cases right now; in-
deed, I would hope it will come about in
the majority of cases where technological
change takes place.
It should be noted, I think, that techno-
logical change results from the application
of scientific and engineering knowledge and
techniques to the processes of production,
distribution and other economic activities.
This is usually evident by a change in the
material, equipment, methods, organization
or product: and results in a substantial change
in both the quantity and the quality of
labour required in the process.
One form of such change— automation— is
the replacement by machines of mental proc-
esses engaged in monitoring and controlling
work. A more familiar form is mechanization
in which machines replace human physical
effort. I think we will all agree that Ontario
APRIL 18, 1969
3293
must maintain a high and constant rate of
economic growth if its citizens are to have
a rising standard of Hving and if its products
are to be competitive on both domestic and
foreign markets. Among the factors which
the Economic Council of Canada enumerated
recendy as being most important in improving
the productivity of the Canadian economy
are (a) improved human knowledge and skills
and (b) swifter and more effective techno-
logical change.
Because of this need to search continually
for new and better ways of using our re-
sources, technological change must be con-
sidered as necessary. Such change, however,
often results in both worker displacement and
skill shortages. This, of course, occurs be-
cause new technology may make existing jobs
and skills redundant, or change working con-
ditions, job content, and even work locations.
On the other hand, workers with certain skills
will find expanding opportunities; and new
jobs and occupations will develop that em-
ployers may find it diflficult to fill.
There is wide agreement and substantial
evidence that displacement resulting from
change will not become unemployment if it
is accompanied by a rapid rate of growth.
This suggests, therefore, that one solution lies
not in slowing up the process of change but
in providing alternative job opportunities.
Ontario seems to be a case in point. In spite
of changing technology, the province's rapid
rate of growth has kept unemployment down
to approximately 2.5 per cent of the labour
force over the recent period— and this, I
think, is an enviable record.
Of course, it must be admitted that rapid
economic growth cannot provide the com-
plete answer to the manpower and employ-
ment problems arising from technological
change. It is necessary, in addition, that the
work force be prepared for the job opportu-
nities which will be available. This can be
accomplished through broad gauge basic edu-
cation and training programmes that will
make it possible for workers to adapt readily
to different job requirements.
For those already in the labour force, well-
timed retraining and skill upgrading will, in
many cases, both prevent unemployment as
well as labour shortages. This, of course,
needs to be supplemented by counselling
services because it is diflBcult for each indi-
vidual to obtain knowledge about the kind
of adjustment which he should make.
One basic requirement, in my opinion—
and in line with today's resolution— is that
adequate notice of any change in technology,
which will alter the manpower requirements,
be given employees who will be affected.
This allows them time to prepare for what-
ever action they may have to take through
training, finding a new job or other measures
and can substantially reduce the degree of
dislocation they experience.
In this connection, wherever possible— and
it may be possible in the majority of cases,
if not all— employees should have the right,
as the resolution says, to be "actively in-
cluded in any planning for change arising
from automation or industrial rationalization".
Recendy, agreements arrived at by collective
bargaining in the pulp and paper, oil refin-
ing and tobacco industries, and undoubtedly
others, have included clauses relating to such
notice and discussion.
Worker participation in such planning or
collective bargaining can make a real contri-
bution by influencing the manner in which
technological change is introduced and conse-
quently any resulting dislocation. To accom-
plish this without too much conflict, when
change becomes necessary for an industry to
improve its efiiciency in order to survive, it
seems logical that the union involved should
not automatically take a position of unquali-
fied opposition. Similarly, management must
not stand on narrowly defined rights and
refuse to share in the cost burdens that tech-
nological change sometimes imposes on em-
ployees. In other words, both unions and
management must take an enlightened ap-
proach to these matters.
Collective bargaining can influence the way
available work is shared among employees
when a change is introduced. This can be
done, for instance, by broadening of seniority
units and attempting to increase the number
of job opportunities by such means as reduc-
ing the normal work year over a short period.
Both parties can also co-operate in the re-
training and upgrading process. Bargaining
can also be, and has been, useful in easing
dislocation problems by arranging financial
support through supplemental unemployment
benefits, severance pay and moving allow-
ances and by devising ways of assisting em-
ployees to find new jobs.
Practically all of these measures have been
used in our own province or are provided
for in union contracts. To quite some extent
they need to be tailor-made to individual
situations; but this close co-operation between
management and labour plays an important
role in freeing companies to make desirable
technological advances and at the same time
alleviating employee fear of them. For these
reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lend
support to the hon. member's resolution.
3294
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I am very happy to endorse this resolution
and I am very happy to see that the Con-
servatives and Liberals have finally adopted
tlie position of the New Democratic Party.
Last year— on April 8 when this was
debated in this House — the Conservative
l*art>-, represented by the member for Hamil-
ton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith), made the
following statement:
And how can we endorse this resokition wlien we
are still awaiting the reports from Rand and the
Woods commission?
And the member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha)
made the following statement, he said that:
Modem industry offers a great range of oppor-
tunity for various skills and aptitudes, so I think
my friend from Oshawa is mistaken, if I judge him
correctly, that he looked upon automation as being
something of an enemy.
Though 1 am not prepared to say— since I said I
am musing out loud and giving voice to my thoughts
-I am not prepared to say that the unions should
not have the opportunity on behalf of those whom
they represent to bargain for their future and what
will happen to them as a result of the introduction
of far-reaching technological change. But I would
be very slow to adopt the principle that any minor
change in a process ought to give rise to the right.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect very strongly that
the member for Sudbury was playing the
numbers game there. I suggest to tliis House
that whether it is one job involved or
whether it is 100 or 1,000 jobs involved, those
workers ought to have a right to have their
jobs protected and their living standards
protected.
I also want to say that I support the
contention of the member for Dovercourt
(Mr. De Monte) in regard to the Westing-
house situation. We have the Kelvinator situa-
ticm in London; in 1966 there were 3,000
workers displaced in Oshawa by unilateral
decision by management, and at tliat time,
an absence of any show of concern by
government. And all of tliis was accom-
plished, Mr. Speaker, in the name of indus-
trial rationalization.
I want for a moment to quote the phil-
osophy of Professor Freedman in tenns of
automation. He said that:
An obhgation rests upon the company
to take reasonable steps towards minimiz-
ing the adverse effect which change may
have upon its employees. That obligation
has its roots in the principle that when a
technological change is introduce, the
cost of reasonable proposals to protect
employees from its adverse consequences
is a proper charge against benefits and
savings.
He went on to say:
A technological advance, whose benefits
accrue to the employer but whose burden
falls on the employee, is unacceptable in
a society which is concerned about human
welfare.
As a result of the Freedman report, Mr.
Mackasey, the Minister of Labour, in the
federal Parliament, said on November 21 last
year:
The estimates of the labour department
will be before the House at the end of
the question period, but I might reassure
the hon. gentleman that any doubts I had
on the philosophy of the Freedman com-
mission report are dissipated by the action
of tlie Ford Co. and I will strongly recom-
mend to my colleagues some legal action
along the line of the Freedman report.
He went on to say:
I did appreciate the endorsation this
afternoon of the philosophy contained in
the Freedman report. I suspect this is the
first time a Conservative member of Parlia-
ment has ever endorsed the philosophy of
the Freedman report. I think this is a sign
of progress on their part. I would like to
attribute that progress to the hon. gentle-
man, the very genial labour critic from
Central Nova, when I take this concept to
the Cabinet and bring it back to the House
of Commons in bill form. In view of the
fact that the New Democratic Party sup-
ports the idea and the oflBcial labour critic
of the Conser\'ative party is wedded to the
philosophy in the Freedman report, the
bill should have speedy passage.
Nevertheless Freedman did lay down the
concept of dealing with technological changes
of workers and their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Dovercourt
said he hoped that labour would never adopt
a Luddite approach. Let me say that labour,
in my opinion, has never adopted a Luddite
approach and I want to quote from the col-
lective bargaining agreement with General
Motors Corp. This agreement is applicable to
many industries in this pro\'ince. It goes on
to say:
The improvement factor provided herein
recognizes a continuing improvement in
the standard of living of employees de-
pends on technological progress— better
tools, methods, processes and equipment,
and a co-operative attitude on the part of
all parties in such progress. It further re-
cognizes the principle that to produce more
APRIL 18, 1969
3295
with the same amount of human effort is a
sound economic and social objective.
This ilhistrates that labour has never adopted
a Luddite approach to technological change
in industry.
What we are really saying here today is
that there should be legislation enacted by
the federal and provincial Legislatures pre-
suming labour's right to bargain and, if neces-
sary, to strike over issues arising out of
technological changes introduced by manage-
ment during the lifetime of an agreement.
I was very happy to see that the Woods
commission departed from Rand in that re-
gard and the Woods commission did propose
a legal requirement that employers give six
months' notice of technological or other
changes causing serious job displacement, and
combined with this the right of the union
to bargain for the right to strike on a job
displacement issue during the term of a
contract. That is the key— that the unions
must have the right to bargain during the
term of a contract because if they are not
given that right, then this whole question has
no real meaning. We must have legislation
that gives those workers that kind of pro-
tection.
To give you an illustration of what is
happening in industry in terms of techno-
logical change I want to point out that in the
year 1947— and I use American figures be-
cause I have not the Canadian figures— the
Ford Motor Co. produced 4.8 million cars
and trucks with 626,000 production workers—
that is in 1947. In 1966 they produced 10.4
million cars and trucks— more than double—
with 671,000 production workers. In other
words an increase of 45,000 production
workers producing approximately 5.5 million
more automobiles in that industry. This
illustrates the kind of technological change
that is happening in industry.
We all live in a period of very revolu-
tionary, dynamic, social and economic
change. We live in a revolutionary age, but I
think the most important single factor con-
tributing to this radical change is the scien-
tific and technological change that is happen-
ing in our industry.
Now I want to just make a very brief
observation— I just have a couple of minutes
—again, why government and the trade
unionists and the general public ought to be
participating in any changes as regard indus-
tr>'.
The federal government provides a pro-
gramme for advancement of industrial tech-
nology and they budgeted in this year $11
million that will be available to industry.
They also have a programme called "General
Incentives" for research and development.
They will be providing in that area, $34
million for research and development. In
addition to that the federal government pro-
vides many incentives to government in terms
of their income tax for research and develop-
ment.
Now the point that I am trying to make,
Mr. Speaker, is this: Because of the public
expenditures in research and development in
this province, the corporations should not be
allowed to make unilateral decisions in re-
gard to the workers, in view of the fact of
the millions and millions of dollars that have
been expended from the public purse. Surely
the workers and the public, through the gov-
ernment, ought to have a say in what man-
agement is going to do in terms of their
production, their processes and any other
changes that they may initiate.
I want to conclude by saying that this
party supports the resolution and we support
the proposition that labour ought to have
a right to bargain during the Hfetime of the
agreement and we also think that manage-
ment should meet its social responsibility
to displaced workers and disrupted com-
munities. That is another thing, Mr. Speaker,
the disrupted community as a result of tech-
nological change. I think that management
has to change their antiquated attitude on
the so called, "residual theory of manage-
ment rights." They ought to co-operate with
government and labour in programmes de-
signed to make possible adjustments to change
with little or no hardship on employees and
the community.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to support the resolution of the hon.
member for Dovercourt (Mr. De Monte), I
want to first congratulate him, and also the
hon. member for Nortliumberland (Mr.
Rowe) and the hon. member for Oshawa
(Mr. Pilkey); although I do regret that the
hon. member for Oshawa had to start off his
address by taking a swing at the hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury, because I think that sub-
sequently he contradicted himself in attack-
ing the statement that he cited of the hon.
member for Sudbury because—
Mr. Lawlor: Come on! The hon. member
for Humber contradicts himself two or three
times a week.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): I have done
no wrong herel
3296
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, the words of Walter
P. Reuther, who is the president of the
union of which tlie hon. nriieinber for Oshawa
is an honourary member-
Mr. Sopha: Well he is a high oflBcial.
Mr. Ben: A high official! At one time he
made the statement in asking Ford— I think
I should explain that Reuther was saying that
when he first started working for the Ford
Motor Company in 1927 it took three and
one half weeks to machine a model T engine
block, and that there were thosuands of
people employed through the process. In
1950 the Ford people took Reuther to see
their new fully automated engine line at a
new plant at the city airi>ort in Cleveland,
and tiiis plant was machining V8 engine
l>locks. It brought a rough casting from the
casting plant and went through the line un-
touched by human hands and came out fully
completed in 14 and six-tenths minutes.
The people who were showing him the
line asked, "Does it not worry you that you
arc going to lose all the union dues from the
people that this machine is replacing?" He
replied, "No, that does not worry me at all;
what worries me is how Ford is going to
manage to sell automobiles to these
machines."
The hon. member for Oshawa had up-to-
date figures, but in the same speech that
Reuther made this little anecdote that I have
just recited, he also pointed out that from
1953 to 1962, production in manufacturing
rose 23 per cent with 12 per cent fewer
manufacturing workers. In the automobile
industry he pointed out that in 1947 the basic
automobile industry production of passenger
cars and trucks— had 626,400 workers who
produced 4,793,000 cars and trucks, and in
1962-558,600 workers turned out 8,187,000
cars and trucks. In other words he said
67,800 fewer workers made 3,394,000 more
cars and trucks.
Evidendy Ford had found out how to sell
automobiles to machines.
I make this point because Reuther was an
example of enlightened union leadership. He
was, you might say, a follower of people like
Harry Bridges, who organized the west coast
unions there and permitted tlie introduction
of the pallettes system and had the shippers
there make provision for the people who
woidd be laid off through automation. Harry
Bridges, in turn, followed John Lewis, who
was for many, many years the president of
the miners union in the United States and who
also foresaw the introduction of automation
and that provision had to be made well be-
fore the difficulties arose.
We have a situation here in Canada— I did
not catch all tlie figures of the hon. member
for Oshawa on automobile production, but
suffice to say that even with automation in
1962 in Canada, we had 108,100 automobile
workers; 1963 123,000; 1964, 141,000; 1965,
163,000; and 1966, 173,900.
Even though we are getting machines, we
are still creating employment because meth-
ods are being found within labour and
management sit-downs to keep people em-
ployed. The point I wanted to stress, Mr.
Speaker, is that too many companies overlook
that the general public has a stake in their
enterprises. It goes back to Confederation
itself, and the building of what is now the
Canadian Pacific Railway, when John A. Mae-
donald gave to Canadian Pacific 25 miUion
acres of land as a subsidy to push this railroad
through.
Therefore, every citizen of this coiuitry has
a stake in tliat railroad and in the Canadian
National Railways. You could go beyond that,
for generations, decades and years, the people
in Canada had to pay higher prices for their
industrial products because they were sub-
sidizing Canadian industry so that it could
get on its feet and compete world-wide.
So, whether you have shares in a company
or not, you are still a shareholder because
at one time you or your ancestors contributed
to the well-ljeing of that company to enable
it to get on its feet. There is not a major
company in this country that has not received
those benefits.
We still recognize this in many of the Acts
that are passed by the federal-provincial gov-
ernments. We have the federal assistance to
manufacturing programme for the advance-
ment of technology, called PIAT, introduced in
1965, where the government stimulates indus-
trial growth by the application of science and
technology to the development of new and
improved products and processes.
The last figure I have, was that over $35
million was invested in 109 government-
assisted projects. These companies are getting
the benefits of my money, your money, and
the people's money. They owe it to the com^
munity to see that the community is not rent
asunder or turned topsy-turvy because they
take it ui>on themselves to unilaterally move
or discontinue one particular line.
There is The Industrial Research and De-
velopment Incentive Act which was enacted
in March, 1967, and is administered by The
APRIL 18, 1969
3297
Department of Industry. It provides for tax
grants in place of former tax allowances for
research and development, so again the tax-
payer of Canada rates a stake in that com-
pany. They ought to have a say in how it
is administered when it comes to disrupting
communities.
There are many more. There is the area
development programme which sponsors eco-
nomic development in designated areas char-
acterized by high chronic unemployment. It
works in about the same way as the equaliza-
tion of industrial opportunity programme of
this province.
There is shipbuilding and construction as-
sistance. They have defense production devel-
opment assistance and, of course, the most
recent one, the one that the hon. member for
Oshawa would be most familiar with, would
be the Canada-United States agreement on
automotive products signed by then Prime
Minister Lester Pearson and the then Presi-
dent of the United States, Lyndon B. John-
son, on January 16, 1965. Because they
appreciated that there was going to be dis-
ruption by the introduction of this Act, they
did introduce a programme which tried to
take into consideration what the after-effects
of this would be. They brought in a general
assistance programme which helped to alle-
viate the suffering that came because of the
change in a technique involving automobile
parts production.
An hon. member: None of this can be done
unless there are higher-priced cars every
year.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I hate to digress
because I only have one minute.
The point I am trying to make, Mr.
Speaker, is that it is time that industry ap-
preciated that every citizen has a share in
those undertakings and that the citizens
should be consulted when major moves, such
as the nature of Westinghouse's, are made.
As the hon. member for Dovercourt pointed
out, it is not just a question of a certain
number of people being laid off. In fact,
about four people are maintained by each
one employed in the provision of services.
Therefore, it is not just 102 people that have
been displaced, but approximately 500. It is
time that something was done to instill in
these people a sense of responsibility. The
Freedman report went a long way towards
it and I think that there should be some
other action taken. For that reason, we sup-
port the resolution of the hon. member for
Dovercourt.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker,
the resolution introduced by the hon. mem-
ber for Dovercourt brings to the attention of
this House, and indeed to the public at large,
a problem which although not new has taken
on added significance in recent years due to
the accelerated pace of automation. I am
pleased to join with the other members in
supporting the principle of the resolution.
This accelerated pace of technological change
in Ontario requires adjustments in the struc-
ture of our society, both in the social and
economic fields; adjustments, some of which
can be realized through the action of govern-
ment while others must be assumed by and
become the responsibility of labour, manage-
ment and other institutions.
The Ontario government, through the ac-
tivities of the select committee on manpower
training, and by programmes of economic
development, by labour legislation, and man-
power training has taken important steps to
deal with the problem of automation. The
present industrial incentive programme spon-
sored by The Department of Trade and
Development is part of this programme.
Through the financial incentives provided
through the programme, industry has been
decentralized, making it possible to absorb a
great deal of the surplus labour resulting from
the great technological changes that are tak-
ing place in the field of agriculture.
The social revolution of our period, how-
ever, requires that a greater degree of co-
operation between management and labour
must exist in the days ahead if the hardships
and injustices created by unemployment are
to be avoided, and the benefits and improved
standard of living resulting from technological
change are to be enjoyed by society as a
whole.
Since labour and management generally
agree, I believe, on the necessity for auto-
mation, it would seem reasonable to assume
that diey would co-operate fully in facilitat-
ing its introduction.
Traditionally, unions have concerned them-
selves with union recognition and security:
Later the emphasis was placed on wages
and fringe benefits. Today in the face of
accelerated automation, union attention is
directed more to job security and rightly so.
I believe it is fair to say that labour and
management could agree on the goals of
sharing the gains of automation providing
greater job and income security, and these
goals are possible if each side recognizes fully
the rights of the other.
3298
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Tlie rights of employees to be included in
any planning for change arising from auto-
mation must be considered with respect to the
responsibility involved, and should not con-
flict widi the basic rights of either manage-
ment or labour.
Management has an obligation, Mr.
Speaker, I believe:
L To insist on technological progress in-
cluding automation.
2. To retain— tlie right to preplan the
technical as well as the human side of auto-
mation.
3. To assist employees displaced by auto-
mation before they are displaced.
4. To educate employees in the benefits of
automation, and help them recognize the
opportunities it creates.
The degree of planning participation is
dependent on a nimiber of circumstances over
which industry may have little or no control
in a large number of instances.
The development of the synthetic fibre in-
dustry, for example, has had an adverse effect
on the cotton and woollen industries. Here
it is technological change operating through
the market place, that is the important factor.
A little over a year ago. Crane Canada Ltd.,
a long-established industry in the town of
Port Hoi>e, closed down its operation because
of what was considered similar circumstances.
This industry manufactured cast bath tubs,
basins, and so on, products for which the
market has decreased materially. The decision
to finalize this operation resulted in consider-
able hardship, particularly to a large number
of senior employees. A year previous to this
action, the employees of the industry went
on a strike that lasted for several weeks.
Whether the strike had any bearing on the
decision to close down operations is a matter
for conjecture, but it would be reasonable to
assume that had there been full co-operation
between management and union involving a
degree of planning, perhaps the resulting im-
employment, and financial hardship to both
the employees and the community could have
been avoided.
This industry is relocated in the town of
Trenton and has been assisted through for-
givable loan grants by this government. Mr.
Speaker, I am not convinced that that grant
was justified in those circumstances.
To some, automation is something that
increases unemployment; to others it means
increased productivity; but to all, it is agreed
that automation is essential to the attainment
of our economic goals and to the maintenance
of our competitive industrial position.
Management must reserve the right to
operate an industry and to plan its future
development and growth. It must reserve the
right to automate production when such
action is to the benefit of the industry and
the shareholders. In other words, manage-
ment has the responsibility to enhance the
efficiency of the enterprise. It is certainly not
in the interests of the employees to have an
inefficient enterprise that represents both
insecure employment and insecure investment.
In assuring an efficient enterprise through
technological change, management has a
responsibility to safeguard to as great a degree
as possible the interests of its employees. A
programme to ensure the rights and interests
of the employees requires mutual planning
to a degree and could, I suggest, provide
for the following:
1. Advance notice to and consultation with
employees when major changes are to be
planned.
2. The right of an employee to be trans-
ferred to another job within the plant or to
another plant with compensation for expenses
incurred.
3. Training for new jobs with no expense to
the worker.
4. Preservation of income where downgrad-
ing may occur by change of jobs resulting
from automation.
5. Provision where possible for early retire-
ment with an adequate pension.
6. General wage increases where financial
gains have been the result of automation.
7. The continuance of insurance coverage
and other fringe benefits during periods of
layoffs resulting from the use of automated
equipment.
8. Adjustment of job classification and rates
of pay whenever automation has increased
skill requirements.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it hardly needs
to be said that the establishment of a mature
and constructive labour-management relation-
ship is essential if change is to be made in
both an efficient and a conscientious manner.
There is a great deal of room for greater
labour-management co-operation before either
will be in any danger of abdicating its
responsibilities. Both must adopt a sense
of common purpose based upon the truth
that mutual interests, not divergent views,
are the relevant criteria for the conduct of
the relationship. On management's part, this
APRIL 18, 1969
3299
requires a reasonable consistent approach to
industrial relations rather than an irrational,
vacillating one. Acceptance of the union, and
not least, assertion of its determination to
plan, organize, direct and control, that is to
manage the enterprise.
Labour, on the other hand, is faced with a
difficult task of determining where the true
interests of its members lie. Will it, in the
name of job security, so obstruct the intro-
duction of automation as to defeat its pur-
poses or will its conception of what truly
constitutes job security be directed to a posi-
tive and constructive course? I am sure that
Canadian labour will demonstrate its initiative
and courage in responding to the challenges
of automation. The result can only mean
more employment opportunities and a raising
of our living standards.
Mr. Speaker: This concludes the private
members' hour.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will return to
estimates; and of course we are in session
during Monday evening as well.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Before the motion for adjournment, I
know the Minister and the other members
will join with me in offering our congratula-
tions and felicitations to my coUeage, the
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha), on the
occasion of his birthday.
Hon. Mr.
the House.
Welch moves adjournment of
Motion agreed to; the House adjourned at
1 o'clock, p.m.
No, 89
ONTARIO
Hesisilature of (I^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, April 21, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, April 21, 1969
Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 3305
Middlesex by-election, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 3305
Registered and graduate nurses, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon 3305
Belleville council appeal re OMB decision, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 3305
Ontario Union of Indians brief, question to Mr. Yaremko, Mr. MacDonald 3306
Canada Assistance Plan, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Braithwaite 3306
Juvenile detention homes and training schools, question to Mr. Robarts,
Mrs. M. Renwick 3306
Canada Assistance Plan, question to Mr. Yaremko, Mrs. M. Renwick 3306
Peterborough board of review, questions to Mr. Yaremko, Mrs. M. Renwick 3306
Cooks in northern Hydro camps, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Stokes 3307
Wage increases in hospitals, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Deans 3307
Road services at Kennabeek, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Jackson 3307
Highways 64 and 535, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Martel 3308
Compensation for crop damage, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Burr 3308
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3308
Workmen's Compensation Act, bill to amend, on second reading, Mr. Jackson,
Mr. Henderson, Mr. Ben, Mr. Ferrier, Mr. De Monte, Mr. Pilkey " 3332
Recess, 6 o'clock 3341
3303
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, April 21, 1969
The House met today at 2 o'clock p.m.
Prayers.
^ Mr. Speaker: Our guests tliis afternoon in
the east gallery are students from Dufferin
Heights Junior High School in Downsview;
and in the east and the west galleries, stu-
dents from Lord Roberts Public School in
Scarborough. Later this afternoon we will
have students from Algonquin High School
in South River in the west gallery.
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like
to introduce a counterpart of my own from
the province of Quebec, the Minister of Pub-
lic Works, the Hon. Armand Russell. He is
here today in company with his Deputy and
the Deputy Attorney General of Quebec.
They are looking over our new complex
buildings and also visiting the new courthouse
on University Avenue.
We are always pleased to have our Quebec
friends here. He tells me that he is very
pleased with our new set of buildings; he
wants to learn about the mistakes— of course
there is the odd one— they do not want to
repeat them.
I would say that the Hon. Armand Russell,
although he is my counterpart in Quebec, lias
a couple of things going for him that I have
not. He is completely bilingual, of course,
and in Quebec he is Chairman of the Treas-
ury Board on most days.
I thought you would like to meet him and
I would ask him to stand: The Hon. Armand
Russell, the Minister of Public Works of the
province of Quebec.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, may I rise on
a question of personal privilege.
Last Saturday afternoon the member for
High Park (Mr. Shulman) and myself at-
tempted to visit the home for retarded chil-
dren at Palmerston, Ontario, at which place
and time we were refused admission. Mr.
Speaker, I think at this stage in our proceed-
ings. we had better try to bring to a head
precisely what our rights and privileges as
members of this House are. I am going to
refer to you today, Mr. Speaker, the whole
question. After all, in matters of this kind,
where great sums of public money are being
expended on public institutions, it is a primary
interest of this House; and when members
of the House are willing to put themselves
out sufficiently of their time to visit these
institutions in the best of faith, there is no
reason why we should be stopped at the door
after having made a long tyip.
Not only that— not only the matter of pub-
lic funds being expended— but for the care
and protection, if you will, of the inmates of
these various institutions. We have not been
refused, although under some threat from the
hon. Minister of Correctional Services; we
have been, so far as we can determine from
the matron in charge, refused by the hon.
Minister of Health.
I do place this matter before you in the
best of good faith, Mr. Speaker, and would
ask that in the next day or two you take this
under surveillance and give it your considered
judgment and bring back to the House a
report, once and for all, as to where we stand
with respect to these visitations. If we have to
give notice, Mr. Speaker, prior to attending
upon these institutions then the whole pur-
pose, I think you will well realize, is under-
mined.
There is no point in going, and certainly,
I am not going, when they have everything
nicely laid out for the delectation of people
like myself. It is only under actual conditions
I am interested. And who else can do this
task, in the absence of an ombudsman in the
province? Nobody else is in a position so to
do. It is our bounden duty and responsibility
Within the terms of our oath, that we give
surveillance to the affairs of this province;
and to have a Minister obstructing us in this
duty and respoiisibility seems to me highly
detrimental of the best interests of the
province.
Mr. Speaker: The matter which the hon.
member for Lakeshore has raised is not a
new one with respect to similar matters in
the past, and I think that his suggestion is
sound. I will be glad to discuss it with the
3304
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Prime Minister (Mr, Robarts) because I be-
lieve that is where the matter should rest. I
will bring a report back to the House after
I have had the opportunity of doing so. In
the interim, the hon. member and I may wish
to discuss the matter, which I hope I have
the authority of the House to do. But in any
event I will report back to the House.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter and
it seems to me it would be an appropriate
occasion for the Minister of Health to give
reasons for this occurrence in public and be-
fore the other members of the House, rather
than in a private investigation. Would the
Minister of Health be prepared to speak to
the point raised by the hon. member for
Lakeshore?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have
heard of this particular instance; but I have
pointed out to you, sir, and to this House,
that we are not trying to obstruct anyone in
their seeking to look after what they inter-
pret to be their bounden duty to the public.
We simply point out to you, sir, and to tlie
hon. members, that our job is to carry out
programmes in the interests of the patients
who are our charges. We cannot do this in
orderly fashion if the whole routine of the
organization is upset from time to time.
We have specifically stated that it is very
simple, Mr. Speaker. All other members—
except a few from that particular group of
the House— have made it a practice to con-
tact the superintendent of the institution and
ask when they can come.
They can visit any particular patient at
any time during visiting hours as any mem-
ber of the public is permitted to do. But if
they want to make a tour of the hospital or
of the institution in question, they can do
so by making prior arrangements with the
superintendent.
I would hope that the hon. member does
not think that he is considered of such great
importance that the superintendent would
cause a tremendous upheaval in tlie whole
institution just to have it in ship-shape order
for him.
Mr. Speaker, he can see the institution as
it is at any time by letting the superintendent
know. But if it is his practice, as it has been
in the past, to land on an institution at 5
o'clock in the afternoon, usually on Saturday
or Sunday, he can hardly expect the whole
organization to be there to meet him with red
carpet.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
Minister has underlined the nature and pro-
portions of the problem-
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): As one of
the offenders, I presume, in the Minister's
view, I must point out to you, sir, tliat the
facts as he is presenting them are not correct.
There has bsen no disruption— certainly from
the members from this party— of any institu-
tion. And I think, I hope you will agree with
me, sir, tliat if we give advance notice to the
superintendent or to the Minister— as various
superintendents have requested— before mak-
ing such a visit, it is extremely unlikely that
we will be able to see the organization as it
is under normal circumstances. Rather—
Mr, Speaker: This matter is now becoming
a debate and this is not the proper place
for it.
The hon. member for Lakeshore has placed
it before me and the hon. member for High
Park has added his views.
The hon. member for High Park should
resume his seat when Mr. Speaker is on his
feet.
The hon. Minister, at the request of the
leader of the Opposition, with which I
agreed, has expressed his views of it. This is
not the place or the time to debate it further.
I am well aware of the situation, I am well
aware of the views expressed by the member
for High Park, I will, as I said originally,
discuss the matter with the Prime Minister
and any other persons involved and report to
the House,
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is out of
order. There is no place for further debate.
If he wishes to rise on a point of privilege
himself, he may do so, but he is out of order
as far as the present discussion is concerned.
Mr. Shulman: Then I rise on a point of
personal privilege, if that is the way I must
do it. I also have been denied entry to two
institutions in this province. And I wish to
say categorically at this time that at no time
have I or to my knowledge any other mem-
ber of this House from any party, caused any
disruption in any institution.
In fact, the tours that have been made
have been made on off-hours when the pro^
grammes were not taking place and the super-
intendent has never been bothered. We have
gone about with the nurse who was available
or a clerk or an orderly, and there has been
no disruption of the routine whatsoever. This
is an absolute falsehood.
APRIL 21, 1969
3305
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborougli West): The
superintendents were amicable iintil the Min-
ister moved in.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
Mr. Shulman moves first reading of bill
intituled An Act to amend The Highway
Traffic Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the
bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill makes
it an ofiFence for a dealer of used motor
vehicles to sell a motor vehicle knowing the
odometer has been altered.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Premier.
Can he now advise the House whether or
not it is within his power to issue the writ
for a by-election in Middlesex South while
the Legislature is in session?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Downsview
(Mr. Singer) brought this to my attention.
If a member has died while the House is in
session, then a writ can be issued and
directed to the returning officer, if there is a
returning officer. At the moment there is no
returning officer in the riding of Middlesex
South. I only repeat what I said when this
question was raised the other day; there will
be no desire on my part or the part of the
government to delay this by-election.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Premier could
tell the House when he might appoint a
returning officer in that constituency?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Traditionally, we have
not called by-elections while the House is in
session. It seems to me we are liable to be
here for another few weeks, so I think we
probably have time to deal with this matter.
Mr. Nixon: To the Minister of Health, Mr.
Speaker:
Is the Minister of Health planning to meet
with the registered and graduate nurses of
the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital to negoti-
ate further increases in salaries?
Second, and it is associated with this, is
the decision of Riverdale Hospital to lay off
30 nurses because of budget cutbacks directly
related to a decision taken by the Ontario
Hospital Services Commission?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to tlie first part of the hon. leader's question,
I point out that salary negotiations between
my staff and all pubhc service staflF and gov-
ernment are a matter for negotiation with The
Department of Civil Service.
The second question: This report is in
error and I believe was corrected by the
medical superintendent of Riverdale. The
lay off of nurses there was simply because
of the fact the hospital was over-staffed.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask a supplementary
question?
The Minister, in answering my first ques-
tion, said that he does not deal in these
matters and yet surely the general pohcy,
particularly having to do with those associ-
ated with medical services, must at least come
under the Minister's direction to some ex-
tent. Is he aware of widespread discontent
with tlie budgetary decisions of the Ontario
Hospital Services Commission which is re-
flecting itself in communications, statements
and letters from nurses and others associated
with the provision of these services? They
seem to be directed at the Minister of Health
more than any one else. Is he aware of this
feeling of discontent and does he intend to
do anything to alleviate it?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am aware, Mr.
Speaker, that there have been complaints and
criticisms of our budget. The commission
laid down certain guidelines to hospital
boards, and quite a number of the boards
have been able to set up satisfactory budgets
within those guidelines. I think, and in this
view I am supported by the Commission's
belief, that all boards can meet the needs of
their particular hospitals and stay within the
guidelines as laid out. The 6.5 per cent salary
increase and a total of 8.5 per cent increase
in the operating costs of the hospitals is not
an unreahstic one; and I repeat, many hospi-
tals have found it possible to put into effect
some additional efficiencies and economies
here and there where it is not going to hurt
patient care; they have been able to stay
within the framework proposed.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of tlie Prime Minister. When will
the Cabinet deal witli the appeal to the
Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council by the Belle-
ville council in respect to the 0MB decision
dated March 14, 1969?
33C6
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, that will
be dealt witli in the normal course of events.
It was received relatively recently; I had the
dates here the other day, perhaps I do not
have it now. I cannot tell the hon. member
specifically when it will be dealt with, but
there is a routine for deahng with these
appeals and it is following that routine.
It is a matter of some complexity. It will
have to be gone into with some care, there-
fore I am not in a position to give the
member a specific date as to when it will be
dealt with, but I see no reason why it should
be unduly delayed. It is being treated in the
normal fashion.
Mr. MacDonald: My second question, Mr.
Speaker, is to the Minister of Social and
Family Services. When is the government
going to respond to the brief of the Ontario
Union of Indians requestiong financial assist-
ance to underwrite field officers for a one-
year period?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I believe that
the brief that the hon. member is referring
to was the brief to the federal government
which was—
Mr. MacDonald: It was a brief to the hon.
Minister, about three weeks ago, with re-
gard to field officers to seek out information
on various aspects of conditions that Indians
face. The Ontario Union of Indians presented
it ■
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The original brief
which I saw was the brief to the. federal
government. At the time I asked for further
information, and then the union brought for-
ward additional material. I am still seeking
clarification and the proposal has been con-
sidered, but I am still seeking clarification
and the response will come out in the very
near future, I hope.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobi-
coke.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, I have questions of the Premier,
Will the Premier table the Canada Assist-
ance Plan between the federal government
and the government of Ontario?
And the second question: when does thn
government intend to start to advise all re-
cipients and applicants that they have the
right of appeal beyond local decisions under
the plan?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I will be
happy to table tliat agreement, I have it right
here. I will table it now so that the hon.
members can look at it.
The agreement itself is relatively brief,
the rest are schedules to the agreement. The
Department of Social and Family Services is
presently preparing a notification, such as
the member mentioned in die second half of
the question, which will be sent to all pro-
vincial recipients.
Mr. Braithwaite: A supplementary, Mr.
Speaker: would the Premier be able to give
us some idea as to how long it will take?
Would it be a month or two months?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It is being done right
now. The format is being drawn up and it
will be sent out. I presume it will be done
in the next two or three days.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre:
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre): A
question to the Prime Minister: what would
be the saving to the province if juvenile
detention homes and training schools were
transferred to The Department of Social and
Family Services and thus qualify for cost
sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am afraid I could not
answer that question. There are a whole host
of matters that would have to be investi-
gated. Some work is being done on it, but
it is impossible for me to say what the saving
would be or to give a figure that would be
at all meaningful.
However, I suppose in due course we will
get some figure to see what might be saved.
But it is going to require a great deal of
detailed study before we would have that
figure or before we could decide whether
we wish to do this.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you.
A question of the Minister of Social and
Family Services: in the last fiscal year how
much money did the department receive
imder the Canada Assistance Plan?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The last fiscal year for
which figures are completed is 1967-68; the
figure is $106,149,853.82.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And a question of the
same Minister, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Social and Family Services:
What costs were entailed for the board of
review hearings held in Peterborough eariier
this month?
How many days and for what hours were
the hearings held?
APRIL 21, 1969
3307
How many cases were reviewed?
Have decisions regarding these cases been
made? If not, when can they be expected?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The answer to No. 1
is $774.04. The answer to No. 2 is two days.
The hours were: on April 9, 10 a.m. to
12.15 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., actual
hearing time; April 10, 9.30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
and 1.30 p.m. to 4.10 p.m. actual hearing
time. I understand the members of the board
also spent several hours each day reviewing
the results of the hearings. I am informed it
was until 11.30 p.m. the first day.
The answer to 3 is four.
The answer to No. 4 is yes; and notice of
decision is going out this week.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment.
Is the Minister aware that some cooks em-
ployed in Hydro camps in northern Ontario
receive less than the minimum wage as set
out in The Employment Standards Act of
1968?
Will the Minister take immediate steps to
have those wages increased and arrange for
a recovery of back wages for those periods
during which employees were paid below
the minimum wage?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is no, I am not aware that there
are cooks being paid less than the minimum
wage— nor are Hydro. Nevertheless, they are
enquiring in all their camps as to the cooks;
and if this is the case it will not be neces-
sary for me to take any immediate steps
because it will be corrected by them.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, the hon. member for
Wentworth (Mr. Deans) asked a question on
Friday— 1211— does the government support
the position of OHSC that wage increases in
hospitals must not exceed 6.5 per cent and
may reach that level only in extreme cases?
The commission, in an endeavour to main-
tain a reasonable increase in the costs of
operating the hospital insurance programme
for 1969, has indicated to hospitals that
efforts should be made to keep the basic
increases in salaries and wages to approxi-
mately 6.5 per cent. It was recognized that
this increase would be over and above aimi-
versary increases which would represent an
additional upward adjustment averaging two
per cent.
While it is necessary for the commission to
give guidelines for fiscal planning, it is rec-
ognized that collective bargaining and agree-
ments arising therefrom are the responsibility
of the boards of governors of the individual
hospitals, and it is anticipated that they will
continue to work out the most equitable
arrangement they can with their employees.
It naturally follows, Mr. Speaker, that the
government does support the commission in
its method of operating the programme.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
may I enquire of the Minister how the gov-
ernment rationalizes that position with the
position it took in regard to the doctors'
increases?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I might
point out that the doctors' increases are 9.7
per cent over a period of 2 years.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, if I might just
enquire, the Minister is aware, of course, that
the employees in the hospitals are at the
lowest end of the health care services?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member asks ques-
tions and does not state facts. Now is he
making a question of that?
Mr. Deans: I am asking if the Minister is
aware.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of High-
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a ques-
tion—No. 1198— asked me by the hon. mem-
ber for Timiskaming (Mr. Jackson).
1. The patrol crew is to be moved from
Kennabeek.
2. As hon. members know The Department
of Highways has been making an intensive
evaluation of all maintenance operations with
a view to providing the travelling public with
the most efficient operation consistent with
established levels of service. This review
includes studies of current work methods,
materials and staffing arrangements.
3. All regular staff employees at Kennabeek
will be offered jobs with the department.
4. The move has not yet been carried out
and in any event, would not result in any
substantial difference to the established level
of service.
5. The roads in Kennabeek area will be
adequately serviced from the patrol yards at
3308
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Elk Lake, Englehart and the Tri-Town yards.
Kennabeek is 19 miles from the Elk Lake
yard, which is not considered excessive to
provide an adequate level of service.
I have the answer to No. 1199 asked by
the hon.—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps, before the hon.
Minister goes on with that answer he might
at least receive a supplementary question.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Will the
Minister accept a supplementary question?
Well, first of all, what about the irregular
staff— that is, the part-time staff— will they be
offered work or will they just be laid off?
Second, the Minister says that they will
ha\e adequate service on the roads there.
Are they going to upgrade the service? Are
they going to change the present situation?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, the tA'pe
of staff that the hon. member speaks about
would normally be laid off in the spring of
the year, so I cannot answer what would be
done with them in the fall.
We are quite sure that we can gi\e proper
ser\ice from these other yards.
I have the answer to No. 1199 asked by
the hon. member for Sudbury East (Mr.
Martel).
One, we do not propose to carry out any
capital construction on Highways 64 and 535
during the current fiscal year.
I may say, however, that since 1960, we
have done a considerable amount of work
on both roads and further works are now
being engineered.
Highway 64 is being reconstnicted between
Highway 69 and Noelville, a distance of 14
miles. Sections totalling 13 miles have been
rebuilt between Noelville and Verner. We
have, therefore, rebuilt more than one-half
of the 48-mile road between Highway 69 and
Highway 17 in the past eight years.
Also, in 1960 we had rebuilt sections of
Highway 535 totalling more than 10 miles
between Noelville and St. Charles. About
seven miles of that road remains to be built.
I am aware that children are transported to
schools at Noelville from points north via
Highway 535, just as I know that the roads
need fiirther improvement to provide a first-
class ride for school buses and other
vehicular traffic.
As I have already noted. The Department
of Highways have rebuilt a considerable
percentage of the roads in question during the
past eight years. The remaining sections will
be taken care of as our current five-year pro-
gramme is implemented.
Pre-contract engineering is continuing on
the various projects.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Speaker, could I ask the Minister one ques-
tion?
What was the starting date of this last five-
year programme that he mentioned, so that
we can have some indication, not specifically,
but some time limit as to when we can expect
these roads to be improved?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: We are talking about
the five-year programme from now on, five
years, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, the hon. member for
Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) asked a sup-
plementary question on Thursday regarding
the amount of compensation paid in respect
of damage to— or alleged damage to— crops,
etc. in the Haldimand county area.
As of September 25, 1968, the arbitration
award total for the crop year 1967 was
$72,833.35.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 42nd order.
House in committee of supply; Mr. A. E.
Reuter in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
On vote 2002.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be as
well, before we get into this vote, if you
were to have some consensus arrived at as
to whether you will follow the nine items
listed first or the other divisions that follow
beginning on page 153?
Mr. Chairman: I would like to say that
the estimates are in a transitional stage of
a different method of presentation over pre-
vious years.
I think in some cases it is almost impos-
sible to deal with them item by item. For
example, in vote 2001 the members will note
there are about 12 different programmes by
activities. It would almost have been im-
possible to deal with each of those pro-
grammes in order. By the same token, the
total salaries under item 1 are spread over
APRIL 21, 1969
3309
each of those programmes. So certain diflB-
culty was encountered.
In vote 2002 I note that there are three
programme divisions here— three breakdowns
—and perhaps we could deal with vote 2002
under the programmes of activity as set forth
on page 153 and 154. This might facilitate
some orderly discussion as far as this par-
ticular vote is concerned.
Mr. Nixon: Agreed!
Mr. Chairman: It seems to me we are
going to have to deal with each departmen-
tal estimate and each vote as we come to
it, and decide which is the most efficient
way of dealing generally with the total vote.
If this is agreeable to the committee, we
will proceed with vote 2002 then on a basis
of the programmes as set forth in the esti-
mate book.
Mr. Nixon: You mean beginning with pro-
vincial allowances and benefits?
Mr. Chairman: Right!
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Before
this, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether
homemakers and nurses services fall within
this vote or in some subsequent vote?
Mr. Chairman: I believe that the second
item of vote 2002, municipal allowances and
assistance, mentions the subsidies on home-
makers and nurses services.
Mr. Lewis: The other thing, Mr. Chair-
man, was a subject such as the field worker
services in the province which would cut
across these votes. Where would the Min-
ister most appropriately like them discussed?
Mr. Chairman: I would expect provincial
allowances.
Mr. Lewis: Provincial allowances?
Mr. Chairman: Provincial allowances!
If that is all agreeable to the committee
then we will proced with vote 2002, pro-
vincial allowances and benefits. The hon.
leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, there are a
number of things associated with the first
section of this vote that I want to raise and
to ask the Minister specifically some ques-
tions. Perhaps if I might ask him one or
two to begin with, it would help me to
proceed with the information that I am
interested in.
First, does the Minister have a formal
procedure for auditing the payments from
provincial allowances and benefits, when the
funds are paid to those in receipt of the
allowances? He has a staff which goes out
around the province in connection with the
municipal welfare offices which advise the
Minister as to the extension of these allow-
ances.
I wonder how expensive this sort of an
audit, this sort of an information section,
would be? The group that has this respon-
sibility has to have a good deal of profes-
sional background but I am particularly
concerned with the Minister's efforts to
increase their numbers.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Chairman, in vote 2001
there was a programme activity relating to
audit services within the department and the
provincial payments are audited by the pro-
vincial auditor.
Mr. Nixon: I am thinking particularly of
the expanding need for those working for
the Minister and for his advisors who, when
they go about the province, have to deal with
those in need of these welfare programmes.
It seems to me that while those who are
presently employed by the department are
very able— any that I have had to deal with
as the individual member for Brant have
been very effective and co-operative— there
seems to be a considerable delay unless we
get a special expediting order from the
Minister's office himself in dealing with some
of these particular investigations.
Now some of the community colleges have
introduced programmes whereby those stu-
dents, perhaps at the Grade 12 level or
even lower level of education, have had an
opportunity to take instruction on a fairly
new basis, without the professional back-
ground that is surely necessary for super-
visory control and supervisory responsibility.
But I got the feeling that the Minister is
very unsure of himself in moving into this
field, in actually getting people with a stan-
dard of education perhaps less professional
than he would like.
In my view we could make good use of
these young students. Some of them, I sup-
pose, have one of the serious drawbacks that
tliey might, if this were to be carried to
extreme, be in a position of dealing with
individual citizens while tliey themselves
would be perhaps too yoimg; some of them
younger than 18, many of them younger
than 20.
But is there a programme to involve these
graduates of community college courses in
the regular work of the department?
3310
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, again,
this item could have properly been discussed
in a great deal of detail in vote 2001 which
had as an activity programme, training and
staff development. As I indicated, it is that
programme activity which now encompasses
all that we are doing by way of in-service
and extra service, training, preparation and
upgrading. The department has, in the past
year, initiated very extensive programmes in
this regard.
With regard to the students, our work with
the various universities to which we make
grants has enabled participation of this kind
of thing that the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion has referred to. Indeed, I think at least
one, if not two, of the demonstration projects
are geared along these lines where one group
is taking strictly tlie academic courses and
another group is participating in the field
service work. We will then be in a position
to evaluate after some i>eriod of time tlie
maturity of these two groups.
Now, there is much be be done in that
regard but in respect to our own in-service
programme which is an indication of the
thing that we are doing, I have before me
the training schedule which took place in
February and was repeated on March 10. I
would just like to read the schedule. They
are the kind oF things we were accustomed
to when we went to school. This was phase
one, and there is an introduction of family
benefits, family benefits regulation forms,
field observations, weekly reports and expense
accounts, human needs in social services,
departmental and regional structures and field
services. And then we have films, "The Eye
of the Beholder," and discussions on films.
Items such as clients' dependency and dis-
ability, discussion of cases, assignment, use
of community resources, legal aid assess-
ment, interviewing techniques and personnel
policies. We are trying in these courses to
cover the whole approach to the activities of
the department.
I may say that it has taken me over two
years to become aware of all the intricacies
of this very complex programme that we have
in the department. I am confident myself
that everybody needs to know all aspects of
tlie department's programme in order to be
able to have the kind of delivery of service
we want.
Mr. Nixon: In this particular section of the
vote, there is $4.7 million for salaries. I would
presume that would pay for the services of
the people who might be hired with the kind
of background that I am talking about. I
wonder if the Minister can tell me what
plans he has to acquire the services of gradu-
ates from the community colleges in courses
that would normally lead to work in his
department, or parallel fields. Those young
people who are taking tlie two-year courses
in social work.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: With respect to the
students, the department initiated, under the
advice of the training advisory committee,
programmes with both the graduate of
schools of social work, the undergraduate
programme and training within the colleges
of applied arts and technology.
We started a number of courses across the
board and the programme has been, to my
mind, especially successful in those pro-
grammes where we anticipated the need at
the end and then programmes were designed
to meet that need. That has not been done
in all cases and each agency, both at the
municipal level and the charitable institutions,
set their own standards for the type of per-
sonnel they wish to take on stafi^. There is a
tendency to insist on the top degree courses
but we are in the process now of working
out a scheme across the province in which
those who have been trained at all levels
will be able to participate at their level
within the delivery of services.
Mr. Nixon: Will the Minister assure the
House that at least a portion of the graduates
in the community college programme will be
taken on by the provincial government and
mt left to compete for the fewer jobs at the
other levels?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As we ask other agen-
cies, the municipalities and private institu-
tions, to take this on, I think we will also be
setting the pace in tiying to bring within our
sersaces this type of personnel. Now whether
they will fit, whether the training they obtain
at various levels will fit them for our work,
for the kind of work that we are encounter-
ing, remains to be seen.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, one of the most
serious complaints of the policy on the intro-
duction of the community colleges was in
fact something that might be borne out by
what the Minister has just said; that the
training perhaps may not fit for modern re-
quirements, particularly as he sees it in his
department; that in some cases it will, but it
may not.
Now there has always been the fear that
those people who would enter any particular
programme at the community college level,
might find themselves facing a dead end
situation where they are taking training pre-
APRIL 21, 1969
3311
paring them for nothing. I think there is a
heavy responsibility with the department and
the advisors in the department that this is not
the case.
In fact, these young people who decide to
prepare themselves for something less than
the full professional level for work in social
sersdce, would do so with a clear understand-
ing that in the field where there is such a
great and growing need for committed per-
sonnel that they are undertaking a training
which will, in fact, lead them into a full
career in this connection. I trust the Minister
can give us that assurance.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, we are very much
aware of this problem, which of course our
own action has brought into being as we
have attempted to supply workers in the
social work field. They, of course, cover a
broad spectrum, and I think it is really
necessary that there be a clear understanding
by the student of the level of training, to
be able to have him correlate the level of
training that he is receiving and seeking to
the kind of employment he will obtain.
In the field of social work, the lines are
blurred across the whole field of work. I
think that young people who graduate from
the colleges could not expect, for example, to
participate in the work that somebody with
his master's degree has to have in order to
obtain the employment within the social work
field.
We are going to explore this further with
The Department of University Aff^airs to see
that that does not happen within that level.
Mr. Nixon: I know there are a number of
questions to be asked and I have several
specific ones that might fit into the discussion
later, but there is always the explanation— I
feel it has been required for too long from
this Minister— as to why the funds under this
particular vote have to be divided into the
categories that we still see there.
I know that the Minister has explained on
many previous occasions why it is necessary
that we in Ontario still have a categorized
approach to pensions and assistance, and still
we feel that with the advent of The Canada
Assistance Act and its acceptance across the
nation, and certainly by the government of
Ontario, that this basis and this separation
that we still see in the vote that is before us
should be something that we would look
forward to eliminating.
Perhaps the Minister might have some-
thing to say about why it is still necessary to
vote the funds in this particular way.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This, Mr. Chairman, is
actually what is taking place at a very rapid
rate. For example, the assistance in accord-
ance with The Old Age Assistance Act is
now at $20,000, and that has been reduced
by $1,294,000. That group of recipients has
been transferred to old age security and has
almost been completely eliminated.
The blind persons' allowances is reduced
this year by $141,000, which indicates a
reduction in that category and then there is
almost the same amount for disabled per-
sons reduced by $820,000 to $955,000. So
those two groups have been, in terms of dol-
lars in any event, almost sliced in half within
the course of one year and they will be
phased out over a period of time.
Mr. Nixon: What time is that, could you
tell us?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The old age assistance
is really finished now. The other two will
take an indefinite period because, of course,
some of the blind and the disabled are very
young and will continue to receive this assist-
ance so long as they qualify. What we have
attempted to do in maintaining this is to
make sure we are not in the position of taking
away anything from anybody by a trans-
ferrence.
Mr. Nixon: Would it be possible to re-
assess the situation with regard to the indi-
viduals concerned with these decreasing
amounts, and re-establish their payments on
a broader basis associated with their needs
rather than their specific disabilities?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do that in order to
be able to— if I may use the term— upgrade
them. But we hesitate to do anything that by
a transference will take away from them.
One of the great tasks is to make regulations
flexible. The regulations are still there and
if you automatically transfer somebody then
the regulation that he comes under reduces
the amount of assistance available. That is
our concern, that this transference does not
do that.
Mr. Nixon: Well, the regulations are under
your direct control and are not dictated by
the government at Ottawa, is that not so?
You can make them as flexible as you choose?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The categorical ones
used to be. The categorical ones were a
joint federal-provincial working out of regu-
lations. I think we submitted them and they
had to approve them. I am advised it was
federal regulations.
5312
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Under The Family Benefits Act they are
our own regulations. Of course when we pass
a regulation they are regulations which are
applicable across the province to everybody.
Mr. Nixon: This makes it hard for me to
understand why you feel that the inflexibility
in your own regidations would not permit
you to transfer people from a categorical
pension to one over which you have complete
control. Surely it would be to the advantage
of those concerned if the need were the basic
assessment rather than just the disability.
Mind you, I am well aware of both sides
of that particular argument.
Now I want to make an argument which
perhaps is associated with flexi])ility in the
assessment of need, but might be construed
as an argument for categories. I have had
some experience recently, and the Minister is
aware of this, with people who have become
blind under very tragic circumstances. Their
needs have not been assessed by the depart-
ment as those requiring any public assistance.
The result has been that in these particular
cases these has been tremendous family hard-
ship associated with the numl>ers of dollars
available for canying on a proper life and
rearing a family. It has been my feeling for
a long time that blindness Is one special kind
of disability, and while I hate to talk about
a category, I feel that the department does
not assess this disability in terms of its need
in a way that is progressive or really is de-
signed to allow these people to continue their
hves with some semblance of dignity.
I have brought to the Minister's attention
these cases where the wife concem-ed has
l>een able, in fact, has l)een forced to go out
from the family and get some kind of mini-
mal employment. The fact that she is able to
do this is reason for the government, and for
this department, not to assess their need high
enough to give them sufficient payments, in
my view, to make it a reasonable situation.
I think that if a person Ix^comes com-
pletely blind there should be a consideration
of the whole family; the need for the mother
to maintain a position as the homemalcer, and
for the father to maintain some dignity asso-
ciated witli this. There surely is a good
reason for the government, in the flexibility
and the regulations which it has under the
agreement with the government of Canada,
to take a much broader view of what con-
stitutes need under diese circumstances.
I am not calling for the continuance of a
categorical pension, but simply for the recog-
nition of the social needs associated with a
problem of this type.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say that I am
not unsympathetic to the problem. I am very
sympathetic, and in the case of the blind and
the disabled, at the time The Family Benefits
Act was passed, we did make some additional
allowance by way of a transportation allow-
ance which other recipients do not receive.
I am aware of the fact that in conjunction
with our nursery regulations we were able to
work out more generous, if I may use that
phrase, regulations which were applicable.
Although I cannot make any commitment, I
think that the proi:)osition that the leader of
die Opposition has put forward has a lot of
sympathy on all sides of the House.
Mr. Nixon: It has a lot of sympathy, and
I know it has been raised in the past. I think
Mr. Bryden, the former member for Wood-
bine, raised this, four or five years ago. It
seems to me that the Minister's predecessor's
reaction was somewhat similar.
I want to take this just one step further.
In assessing the need under these circum-
stances, is it customary for the investigator to
indicate that the wife could very well go out
on a daily basis and work, since the husband
is blind and could do the baby-sitting?
Tliis seems to be such a peculiar way to
approach it. In some of these case's that I am
concerned with— and I suppose they tend to
group around Brantford, where the School for
the Blind is— this seems to be one of the
attitudes that is expressed by the representa-
tives of tlie department that I find uncon-
scionable.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would not like to
think tliat this kind of explicit language or
direction is being used. It may be that, not
being able to bring the person within that
grouping where they might be entitled to
sufficient assistance, some sort of a sug-
gestion on this line may have been made. I
do not know. But that is not our policy to
tell wives to go out and work in order that
their husbands not be in receipt of allow-
ances.
Of course, if the wife does go out, it is
abundantly clear that her income is taken
into consideration in the determination. I
recall dealing with those cases that the lion,
member mentioned. But I don't recall
whether the assets available to the families
were part of the problem there.
Mr. Nixon: Finishing up the part of what
I want to find out from the vote, Mr. Ghair-
APRIL 21, 1969
3313
man, the other point, is that when those in
receipt of assistance do attempt to improve
their situation with some part-time employ-
ment, if this is possible through one member
of the family, the reduction in the payment
is associated with how much they bring in
and it attempts to kill off any jfeelings of
initiative there might be.
I know that the Minister has taken a few
tentative steps to change that, that the
amount of payment in most of these circum-
stances is not reduced by exactly the same
amount as that which is brought in from
some outside source. But it is still a problem.
The approach to welfare assistance this gov-
ernment puts forward, does tend to remove
the initiative from those who deserve some
assistance.
Perhaps the confidence that they can fall
hack on a minimum standard— and certainly it
is a low minimum— ^is removed when they are
thrust into the community and do some small
bit for themselves. But the initiative is
removed when the payment from the gov-
ernment is reduced by — perhaps not an
identical amount — but an amount that is
associated with what they can do for them-
selves.
Is the Minister satisfied that the present
system is adequate in this regard? Or is he
still looking for a better solution to this par-
ticular problem?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, tlie present situa-
tion is clear— the recipient is entitled to the
first $24, plus $12 for each additional
dependent. And 75 per cent of any sum over
that is shown as income and debited against
his allowance. Those provisions, which are
the most generous in Canada— and probably
in most jurisdictions on the continent— still
do not satisfy me personally, because I am
committed to the belief of incentive and the
initiative of assisting those who can be
independent to do so. In the long run, it is
better for the receipient himself, and the tax-
payer too.
It is a two-fold benefit. It is tied in with
such matters as subsidization of income. The
other side of the coin is that somebody gets
a job. Then where does the transition come—
from being a recipient of a maintenance
allowance, but earning additional income, or
being one who is earning insufficient income
which is being supplemented?
This is something we are going to talk
about and hear about in greater context in the
years ahead. This may be tied in with a
guaranteed annual income, or various aspects
of it, I do not know. It is definitely tied in.
for example, to the work of the Minister of
Labovir (Mr. Bales) in the minimum wage
field. It is tied in with what the Minister
of Trade and Development (Mr. Randall) is
trjdng to do— creating jobs in areas and indus-
try in certain marginal areas. Where industry
would have a very low break-even point.
I assure tlie hon. leader of the Opposition
it is a very complex problem. But if our
future accent is going to be— as I want it—
on rehabilitation, this incentive and initiative
is the very guts of the matter.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, the point I wanted to raise flows
rather directly from what we have just been
discussing. To my mind, one of the most
disturbing features of our current way of
handling benefits is the incredible bureau-
cratic red tape that can emerge in so many
cases. Periodically — well that is the wrong
phrase— quite persistently, cases come to my
attention, and I know they come to all mem-
bers'.
I want to bring one case to the Minister's
attention. I use the detail of it to illustrate
the problem, because it seems to me that
there is a solution which is obvious even in
his handhng of this case. I wonder whether
in future instances some of the complexities
and pettinesses of bm^eaucratic red tape can-
not be eliminated altogether?
Last September, I received a letter from a
nurse in the city of Toronto— the Minister
smiles, perhaps he is familiar with this case—
who had been registered with the Elite
Nurses Registry.
This registry had received a call from a
doctor seeking a nurse for one of his patients,
and the nurse had responded. Unfortunately,
she discovered only later that the patient
was a Family Benefit Act recipient, and no
one had taken the trouble to check with the
department to find out whether they were
prepared to pay for private nursing.
Of course, the nurse did not know that this
patient was a benefit recipient. It was really
none of her business. She had been called
by a doctor— or the registry had been called
by a doctor— and she went in response.
She worked for two and a half days during
August and she tried to collect the $42.50
which was her pay for the services rendered.
The patient could not pay it out of the bene-
fits, and the family benefits assistance refused
to pay because the service had not been
authorized. There was our nice little impasse.
3314
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On September 11, this nurse wrote to me
and told me that she had visited the sixth
floor of the Hepburn building and was seen
by someone who had told her that a Mr.
Bassage knew about her case and would be
in touch with her. He finally called her and
suggested that she should get in touch with
"welfare".
This she did and was advised that they do
not pay nurses' fees. She phoned Mr. Bassage
again— who by this time had contacted the
doctor— and was told that the doctor had
been advised that requests for nurses must
be in writing and since he had not done so
in this case the nurse was out of luck. Thus,
we ha\e stage 2 in the impasse.
This nurse happens to be 61 years of age,
is living on social security benefits from
Britain, which are less and less value be-
cause of devaluation. She is semi-retired and
does nursing to supplement her rather in-
adequate income, and the $42.50 was of
considerable consequence to her.
So she wrote to the Minister on September
15. Five weeks later the Minister replied,
October 22, and I quote from his reply:
OflBcials of my department have re-
viewed this matter. This appears to be a
legal problem existing between a creditor
and a recipient of family benefits. To the
best of my knowledge, there is nothing in
our legislation that will permit my depart-
ment to pay this account.
There was a magnificently bureaucratic reply
to the problem. It was a "legal" problem and
to the best of his knowledge nobody knew
the solution to it.
On December 13, howexer, the nurse was
visited by someone from the department.
Apparently the mills of the gods were grind-
ing despite the Minister's inability to deal
with it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, I assure the hon.
member not "despite" but "because of" the
Minister. When I signed that letter, I was
just as aware of its contents as the hon.
member was.
Mr. MacDonald: I would say to the Min-
ister then he should not present himself
almost as a caricature of the bureaucrat by
saying that this is a legal problem and my
department is a bit "buffaloed" about how
we can solve it. If he was going to persist
and solve it, at least give the woman some
hope in saying that he was persisting.
However, let me go on with the story; it
has rather amusing overtones. On December
13, she was visited by someone from the
department whase parting shot was, "You
may or may not be paid". Two weeks after
that visit, she had a phone call asking her
whether she would accept payment at two
month intervals. This complex problem, yon
know, demanded a ver>' delicate solution-
payment on two month intervals.
The woman wrote and said that she was
so pleased to think that she was getting
something that she told them they could take
a year. And the next day she got two cheques,
one made out for November 29, which in-
cidentally was two weeks before this visit,
for $20; and the other one for November 30
for $20, and her comment in the letter to us
at our office was, "How dotty can you get?"
This was $40, minus the $2.50, because the
full bill was $42.50. However, said she, "I
am happy the whole thing is behind me",
and she was going to forget it.
However, I was rather intrigued at this
point as to how the bureaucracy was oper-
ating, so I wrote again to the Minister on
December 17 and asked him why his depart-
ment felt obliged to pay only $40 for $42.50
of services. Five weeks later— the Minister
seems always to reply at five-week intervals
it is rather persistent throughout this story-
on January 23, I had a reply from the Min-
ister who apparently was as puzzled as I was.
His officials were checking with the Toronto
welfare department because his departinent
could not locate any record of the two
payments of $20; neither could the Metro
Toronto welfare department, and he would
appreciate it if we could supply him with a
bit more information.
I wrote to him and I quoted whole para-
graphs from the nurse's letter to me to assist
him in trying to sort this out. On February
13, I received a final letter from the nurse
which read: "Well, as Alice in Wonderland
said: 'Curiouser and curiouser'." After she
had received tliese two cheques she got a
letter advising her tliat Scarborough would
pay her. Now this really puzzled her since her
patient lived in the Broadview and Carlaw
area and therefore came under tlie east end
office. But on February 13 she received an
additional cheque for $2.50 and she went
on to give us the details with regard to the
signing officers and the bank it was made
out on. So she wrote finis to tlie whole thing
and was quite happy.
On March 4 a letter from the Minister
advised us that the payments to the nurse
were made— and, Mr. Chairman, I draw this
to your attention— "in accordance with the
supplementar\' aid programme under The
APRIL 21, 1969
3315
General Welfare Assistance Act by Metropoli-
tan Toronto." And that she had been paid
the remainder of $2.50.
Now, I repeat, Mr. Chairman, I suspect
that you personally have had this kind of
thing to deal with on occasion. I have met
many members in the House who have
admitted this. If the Minister is correct in his
earlier statement on family benefits allow-
I ances— and I trust it is the same with The
General Welfare Assistance Act— that the
regulations come under the Minister, they can
therefore be made as flexible as the Minister
k; wants. That is point one.
Secondly, if there is what is known as a
supplementary aid programme— and I would
he rather curious if the Minister would ex-
plain exactly what that is— but if there is a
supplementary aid programme which is a
means by which you can supplement a regu-
lar benefit when this kind of situation comes
up, why in heaven's name, either in this in-
stance if the Minister knew it, or in future
instances, can you not immediately cut
through all the red tape? Why not say if it
is only $40 and the person has provided a
service, that there has been a misunderstand-
ing along the way, the correct authorization
was not given, but dip into this supplemen-
tary aid and not go through this tedious,
costly, frustrating procedure which ultimately
may result in satisfaction and sometimes does
not even do that.
It is a double-barrelled question: If the
regulations are under the Minister and are
flexible, and if you have this supplementary
aid, then, you can dip into, why cannot it be
used to deal with these anomalies that may
rise in the best of administrative procedures?
Ours is not the best and therefore they arise
quite frequently.
Hod. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
supplementary allowance, that $20 which is
payable, is available to the municipalities to
pay. They can pay up to $20 of the supple-
mentary aid and then we, in turn, subsidize
that to a tune of 80 per cent. The munici-
pality pays it and we subsidize it to 80 per
cent. I think that $20 can be the amount
which can be exercised with good judgment
and flexibility by the municipal administrator
to look after this kind of case.
I may say to the hon. member that when
I saw that last letter and glanced through
the old correspondence, I could get up and
make exactly the same speech. I do not dis-
agree with a word he says.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if I may
make a final comment. I am a bit appalled
that the supplementary payment is this $20,
which requires the municipal welfare officer
to make the decision and make the payment
and then claim from the government an 80
per cent share. It was my hope that this was
a sort of little nestegg the Minister might
have to avoid all the grief in coping with the
bureaucratic red tape when you get hung up
on legal points. I now understand where the
$20 cheques came from.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have no such nestegg.
Mr. MacDonald: I now understand where
the $20 cheques came from. But the remain-
ing $2.50— and I will just satisfy my curiosity
—where did that come from?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The same source. It
can be any amount up to $20.
Mr. MacDonald: Finel The Minister is
really on his toes today.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville ) :
Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday, April 9, the
member for Essex South (Mr. Paterson), the
member for Essex-Kent ( Mr. Ruston ) , and
the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr.
Burr), and myself met with a group of ladies
in Sandwich West township to discuss prob-
lems that they have had with the social and
family services. One of the prime problems
is the lack of communication and the lack of
information concerning programmes available
and assistance made available to them. The
ladies made mention that some of them
would have liked to have taken retraining
but they are always a httle bit afraid that if
they go into a retraining or re-education
programme, their benefits are going to be
reduced to the point where it is of no finan-
cial advantage or they could not make ends
meet.
I think that it is incumbent upon the
fieldworker in the area to keep in close con-
tact with the individuals receiving these
various benefits, to keep informing them all
the time. There seems to be no communica-
tion. They have no idea as to their rights
under social and family services or rights
that they could enjoy from this department.
For example, they had no idea of home-
maker services and some of the mothers here
could possibly have gone out to work, pro-
vided the homemaker services were available
to them. They made a specific complaint that
3316
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on March 31, the heat allowance was cut
down automatically, regardless of the type
of weather after that. They found it most
diflScult to understand the reasoning behind
all of this.
They likewise made mention that Hydro
and gas rates have increased, yet their al-
lowances did not increase in the same pro-
portion and they found difficulty making ends
meet. They had to depend on charity when
it comes to eyeglasses for a youngster. One
of the comments made by the ladies really
struck me as being most unusual— and this
was from a fieldworker interviewing the lady
and making the comment, "how much money
have you in your purse today?"
This certainly, Mr. Chairman, is unbecom-
ing to a fieldworker under any circumstance
to practically want to pry into the lady's
purse to find out if she happens to have
10, 12 or 15 cents left over from a mother's
allowance or any other type of benefit that
she received from the department.
There should be some type of pamphlet
available for this type of individual, or for
these individuals, so that they could be made
aware of programmes and assistance. For
example, they had no idea that legal aid
would have been available to them.
These are just a few of the examples that
I am citing. They cited a lot more. They
made mention that there were no transpor-
tation allowances if they come from the
suburbs, in relation to an individual living
in the city. Transportation, with them living
in the suburb means the use of a taxi,
because it is the only way they could pos-
sibly get into the city to do anything that
they may have to do.
One of the other comments made was that
they would have liked to have taken on
university students as boarders for the short
period of time, but there was the fear in
their minds that as soon as they take them
on, that their benefits would decrease.
Mind you, Mr. Chairman, the Minister
made mention of the benefits that they were
still entitled to, and that is the first $24
that they would earn. They could keep this
plus the $12 for each additional child that
they did have.
But this is not known to them, and be-
cause of the lack of communication, they
find themselves not being able eventually to
get back into the world of work. They figure
they have to stay on one of these categori-
cal programmes until the time their children
have grown up.
One of the other points I would like to
bring up at this time, Mr. Chairman, is that
several years ago I made mention where two
members of a family were on an assistance
programme and when one of the two died
their income was immediately cut in two. I
mentioned that possibly there would be some
type of a staging programme rather than
cut off the income from the deceased indi-
vidual. Why not cut it oflF on a staged pro-
gramme? Instead of cutting it off at $75 the
first month cut it off to $60 the second
month, possibly to $45 the third, $30 the
fourth, $15 and then, over some specific
period of time eliminate the complete bene-
fit that the couple obtained, rather than cut
both of them off or cut one of them off
immediately.
In other words, having received $150 a
month, on the day after the individual was
deceased, the benefits dropped to $75. This
made a real hardship to the family. There
were enough difficulties trying to get by on
the $150 a month for the two people, and
having it cut down to the $75 made it
extremely embarrassing.
Could the Minister reply on some of the
various suggestions and questions that I
have made in my comments?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, the signi-
ficant portion about the initiative, in the
sense of the remarks that I gave to the hon.
leader of the Opposition in general apply;
and in particular I think more often to
mothers. My own experience has been that
that is where the drive to go to work is
probably more prevalent among the recipi-
ents than in any other particular group.
I would like to think that our field work-
ers do counsel the recipients, and that there
is a communication. Perhaps the communi-
cation is not as constant as it should be
because the recipients of one of our pro-
grammes are generally considered to be long-
term cases and they are taken on and it is
accepted that they will be around in the
usual course for a while.
But as our emphasis is placed more and
more on counselling and rehabilitation, I
would have thought that those remarks that
you are referring to— some of them— would
be out of order. The caseworker is working
with a recipient, first of all to make known
the full range of our programmes, most of
which are geared to the rehabilitation pro-
gramme; and secondly to actively participate
in the rehabilitation programme under the
individual circumstances as they might apply.
APRIL 21, 1969
3317
As to the rates of allowance, of course,
those are matters of general policy and will
be under review, and all those aspects
touched upon by the hon. member will be
a matter of consideration at that time.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. It really did strike all four of us who
were present at the meeting very strangely
when we had heard this comment made:
"How much money have you in your purse
today?"
Now, this is going way too far, Mr. Chair-
man—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I ask, were any
of our workers invited to the meeting? Were
they present?
Mr. B. Newman: I cannot answer that for
the Minister, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: How many ladies were
present?
Mr. B. Newman: Oh, about 18, I think.
There were four members from the Essex
county there and it was a very useful meet-
ing because we were interested in being of
assistance to them, and they were interested
in relaying their problems and difficulties to
us.
They had no idea of the appeal board that
we had discussed at some length over the
last three or four days, and we made sure
that they knew of this procedure that they
could follow.
May I ask the Minister at this time, Mr.
Chairman, in arranging the allowances, is the
increase in hydro and gas rates taken into
consideration at all? The community has
raised the hydro rates recently. Your rates
have not increased proportionately.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, our rates were
established as a flat rate. They have not been
increased.
Mr. B. Newman: May I suggest then to the
Minister that any time the utility rates in-
crease, that a proportionate increase be made
in benefits to the individuals because they
have to pay that. It simply means they are
depriving themselves of something when their
allowances are not increased as a result of
utiUty increases.
May I ask the Minister what does the
mother do for eyeglasses for a youngster
when she is on motliers' allowance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That can be dealt with
through supplementary aid through the muni-
cipality.
Mr. B. Newman: Then they would apply
to the local municipal welfare officer and
obtain that special assistance? Well, why
would that not come directly imder your pro-
gramme, Mr. Chairman? Why should it have
to go through two different programmes? Why
could not one field worker who is there know
that this is needed and simply take care of
the difficulty right then and there by com-
municating with the welfare officer if that
is what is required?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is a good point.
Tjhere are other aspects in this. Twenty dol-
lars are available. As I indicated earlier to the
leader of the NDP, it is the supplementary
aid which covers a very wide spectrum of
need which is available, and it may be that
in a reconsideration of our own programme
we can shift this in order to avoid the type of
thing that the hon. member has spoken of.
Mr. B. Newman: This mother complained
quite vigorously about this and mentioned
the fact that she had to go to the Lions Club
in town. Certainly it is not right that she
would have to go to a service organization
to obtain glasses for a youngster when it
should have been available as one of the
requisites from social benefits.
As I mentioned earlier the information ob-
tained by the recipient of assistance from the
government is not sufficient. The field worker
does not give them enough information. This
is one of the big complaints that the ladies
made to us at this meeting. I know the Min-
ister has these pamphlets now that are avail-
able and could be passed on to the people
receiWng tliese benefits, and I will take> full
advantage of that in passing it on to those
who are in my own constituency.
We were meeting at this time, Mr. Chair-
man, with individuals from the county rather
than from the municipality of the city of
Windsor.
May I ask of the Minister at this time if
there is transportation allowance in the wel-
fare area benefit programmes here?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Transportation allow-
ance is only available, as 1 indicated ear'Her,
to those who are disabled or bhnd. They
get an additional $10 a month.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, do you
not think there should be some transportation
allowance to just the general individual re-
ceiving social benefits from your department?
How do they get into the downtown area?
How do they get to school if necessary?
3318
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yareinko: In our pie-added bud-
get there is an item A\dth relationship to per-
sonal requirements as part of the pre-added
budget and, cf course, it is up to the indi-
vidual to manage his own money to do what-
e\er he wishes to do. Tliere may be people,
and I know tl^em, who would never want to
go— if I may use the exprassion-^to downtown
Windsor or downtown Toronto. They may
wish to do something eke and they have this
personal requirement.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I could not
agree more with you that there are some
people, but there are a lot of people— and I
can mention a specific category of indi\ icluals
in my own community— that is, the senior
citizens. They have the advantage of the
senior citizens centre in the downtown area.
I receive letter after letter from them
stating that they would like to join a choral
group of their senior citizens, and other
miscellaneous groups; visit the centre two
days a week, but it means 25 cents trans-
portation charge each way, or 30 cents. That
is $L20 a week and, Mr. Chairman, to these
people on these various assistance pro-
grammes, $1.20 for the course of a week, or
$5 a month is an awful lot of money. There
should be some type of assistance for trans-
portation—maybe it should be a pass from
your department gixen to senior citizens for
their transportation. Maybe there should be
some negotiation between your department
and the transportation commission where
tickets could be provided. But, there should
be some type of transportation allowance
a\ailab]e to the senior citizens. After all,
their days are numbered—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. B. Newman: I think their remaining
days on the face of God's earth should at
least be spent in some t>'pe of dignity and
they should be given the opportunity of these
few pleasures. They are not asking for much
when they ask bus fare allowances or a
subsidy. If The Deparhnent of Social and
Family Services provided the municipality
with some type of subsidy to allow senior
citizens to use the transportation system, even
if it is only on the off-hour period, rather
than the rush period, it would be a
tr(^mendous help to them. They would be
able to live these— at least enjoy what is
left of life in some type of dignity and with
maybe a little bit of pleasine. May I ask
the Minister if there are any rent subsidies
available to senior citizens receiving old age
security? In my own community rents have
skyrocketed to the point where 50 per cent
of the income of a lot of senior citizens goes
solely to accommodation and at $109 a
month— with a couple $218 a month— paying
$109 a month rental alone makes it most,
most difficult. Are there rent subsidies avail-
able at all to senior citizens?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is that $20
supplementary assistance allowance which is
also available for that kind of a supplement
for old age security.
Mr. B. Newman: Only a $20 a month
subsidy, is that right, Mr. Chairman? Now
supposing the individual cannot get by on
the $20— it is not sufficient— will the depart-
ment come along and increase that amount?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have no provision.
Mr. B. Newman: In other words that senior
citizen at roughly— I will use $220 a month—
a couple paying $100 or $125 a month are
in a most, most difficult position because all
they can get now from your department is
an additional $20 a month. Am I right?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is $20 per month
per person, that is $40 from the municipality
which we, of course, subsidize to that extent.
Mr. B. Newman: All right, well that is a
little better than I had originally thought. I
thought it was only $20 a month per family
or per unit, now it is $40. That does make
it a little easier, Mr. Chairman. Whether
that is sufficient for them I cannot reply. I
doubt it is in all cases because I can cite an
example of a mother with three children who
Uved in the one home originally at $80 per
month. Rents were increased to $105, then
to $125 and as of the 1st of March they went
up to $160 a month— a mother on mothers*
allowance with three children. There was
some individual gouging her to the extent of
$160 a month. I think her total allowance
was $260. Now in that case there would be
more allowances would there not? Your
department would assume the complete
r(\sponsibiiity of rental. Am I right, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Our rates are $75 un-
heated and $85 heated, with an additional
rate of $5 per person beyond two persons
raising that maximum.
Mr. B. Newman: $85 a month plus the $5
]ier person in there— let us say approximately
$100 a month. Now that mother pays $160
a month rental. Find another accommoda-
tion for her in the communitv at a better
APRIL 21, 1969
3319
rental and she would be more than pleased to
take it, Mr. Chairman. But, if she cannot
find it she must come along and pay the $160
a month and deprive herself and her chil-
dren of what little sustenance the $100 that
remains can provide them. Surely the com-
plete cost of rental, in cases like this, should
be absorbed by your department.
There should not be a limit. I can under-
stand a limit, if rentals were readily avail-
able, but when they are not available at all,
Mr. Chairman, the individual has to take
what they can find in the community. It is
not fair at all, in fact, it is unjust to require
a mother with three children to attempt to
live on approximately $100 a month, even
though she gets a scant $260 a month. I
would suggest to you, that you seriously
consider absorbing the complete cost of the
rent for anyone receiving any type of assist-
ance from your department. It makes it prac-
tically impossible for them to live. Would
the Minister consider such a thing, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think one of the
answers, Mr. Chairman, also lies in the work
that the h.m. Minister for Trade and Develop-
ment will be doincr in providing subsidized
accommodation. There is more than one
answer to this when there is the kind of
accommodation that he is providing for some
people. But, of course, there is much to be
done yet in providing the kind of accommo-
dation which will inure both to the benefit
of the taxpayer and the recipient.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chaimian, that is
absolutely true, he is attempting to do it,
but he has not done it. He has built homes
by headline, but we do not have the accom-
modations. We in the city of Windsor are
very fortunate because we probably have had
a fairly goodly share of homes built in
Ontario, but then again, when you limit the
recipients, the number of one parent families
in these homes to 20 per cent of the homes
available, what do you do when you haxe
25 to 30 per cent of the people wishing to
find accommodation?
There are always a certain number who
cannot get accommodation. And as I said,
earlier, if housing was readily available in the
community, there would be no problem at
all. But because of the acute shortage of
housing, why punish the vddow with three
children? Certainly your department should
absorb the complete cost of rental in an
instance like this— and there are a lot of
cases like tliis in the community, Mr. Chair-
man.
I hope and pray that you come along and
absorb it, because there is no reason why
any individual should pay more than 25 per
cent of their income for housing. Anything
over 25 per cent on any individual in any
type of an aid programme should be absorbed
by some department of government— and in
thLs instance it should be absorbed by your
department. Anyone paying more than 25
per cent of their total allowance for rental
is paying beyond their means for accommoda-
tion.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairm'an, if I might just go back to this
question of the transportation allowance. The
Minister has said that there is a sum of some-
tliing like $20 available which the recipient
can use to get downtown and get transporta-
tion when they want it. I would like to
raise some problems that we have in the
northwest part of Metro, that is in Rexdale,
which are quite similar to problems raised by
die hon. member fox Windsor- Walkerville.
On Kipling Avenue, in the vicinity of
Albion Road— which is quite some distance
from tlie centre and older part of Toronto—
we have the Robert J. Smith home for the
aged. It is in a very nice building and which
is very well run. We also have tlie Kipling
home for the aged. One of tlie problems that
is brought to me, quite often, Mr. Chairman,
is the fact that we have old age pensioners
living in these homes who have difificulty in
getting down to the centre of the city.
They have a great deal of difficulty in
affording to go and visit their sons and
daughters and relatives on weekends. My
attention was drawn to an article in the Star
last week. It was datehned Metro and is on
one of the front pages. It was talking about
Metro being asked to buy rides for pensioners.
The article, says, Mr. Chairman:
The Toronto Transit Commission could
reduce fares for old age pensioners with-
out losing money if Metro bought large
quantities of tickets for them, a TTC com-
missioner siaid yesterday. Douglas Hamilton
said: "For example, for every $75,000
worth of tickets Metro bought, they could
actually receive about $100,000 worth in
regular tickets."
Metro could then resell the tickets to the
pensioners at any price it wished, or give
them away, Hamilton says. Metro has pro-
posed discussions with the TTC with the
possibility of reduced fares for pensioners
during off hours.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Min-
ister if it is possible for some sort of grant
3320
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to be made so tliat these old age pensioners
who hve in the Kiphng and Robert J. Smith
homes for the aged, and also in other parts of
Rexdale, in far parts of Metro and in all
cities in Ontario— if some grant could not be
made in the larger centres where tliere is
public transportation, so that they could buy
tickets and resell tliem to old age pensioners.
Then you would not have the problem of an
old age pensioner, particularly a female one,
having to prove her age. And you would not
have any of the difficulties that are raised
when this question comes up.
I remember when I was young they used
to have a little mark on the pole as you
stepped in. If > ou were under that, you got
in for a children's fee. That is one way of
differentiating a child from an older person.
However when you start to ask the age of an
old age pensioner, and various things like
that, there are many difficulties.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, would the Min-
ister consider some sort of grants to the
larger municipalities where tliere is this
public transportation, so that these centres
could buy tickets and either give them or
resell them at a reduced rate, to pensioners?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we are
already in touch with Metro Toronto with
regards to this type of programme. It started
out when the hon. member for Windsor-
Walkerville was talking in terms of the whole
spectrum of recipients. That is a major prob-
lem now. We have delineated, with relation-
ship to senior citizens, tliose living in homes
for the aged and comparable places, and
those living in the community.
There are many aspects of it. I do not want
to anticipate a discussion, but we will get
a lot more emphasis on people living within
tlie community as opposed to living within
tlie homes for the aged. That is still another
aspect of tlie transportation problem which,
I assure the hon. member, will receive con-
sideration.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, does the
Minister mean to say that somebody in his
department is participating in these discus-
sions that are going on now between the
ITC and Metro?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are in participation
in discussions with the welfare administrator
of Metro.
Mr. Braithwaite: Therefore, tliere is some
possibility that old age pensioners might get
some relief with reference to transportation,
particularly in Metro?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are exploring the
matter, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Braithwaite: Is the Minister prepared
to say that there is some possibility of these
explorations bearing fruit?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It would be premature
to say at this point, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Braithwaite: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. Now I would hke to turn to another
point that was raised by the member for
Windsor-Walkerville— or perhaps it was by
the hon. leader of our party. This question of
what instructions are given to caseworkers
and field workers when they go out on a
particular case.
I am sure the Minister is familiar with
this case— I am not going to go into detail
here. But I do have a case in my owti riding
—and I am sure this is something that occurs
in many ridings. The applicant is told that
there must be someone in the family who
could look after young children while they
go out to work.
In this particular case we have an immar-
ried mother, Mr. Chairman, who made
application for mother's allowance. A Mrs.
Nicholson was her case worker— I am sure the
Minister will recall the case. When Mrs.
Nicholson first came to see this young lady
everydiing looked fine. The baby, by the way,
was very sickly. It had to go into the Sick
Children's Hospital for more than one opera-
tion and the girl was told that she would
receive motlier's allowance.
She did not hear anything for some months.
On the second visit she spoke to this Mrs.
Nicholson who, meanwhile, had gone back
to headquarters. Apparently the attitude of
Mrs. Nicholson had changed after she dis-
cussed this case with her superior because,
I will quote from tlie letter I have from the
young lady in question, Mr. Chairman:
The interview was completed so I waited
until mid-Januaiy 1969. When I had heard
nothing I gave Mrs. Nicholson a call. She
was completely different towards me at this
time. She said I should work; that my sis-
ter could baby-sit for me. My sister is only
nine years old and certainly not capable of
such responsibility.
She also said: "What is the matter with
your mother? She could baby-sit for you."
As I had already told her at the time of
the interview my mother and father have
been very good to me, but my mother
made it very clear right from the day I
told her I planned on keeping my child,
APRIL 21, 1969
3321
that she was not going to baby-sit for me
as she had had her day bringing up chil-
dren. The conversation ended and I was
no further ahead.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the very point
that was brought up earlier, as I said. First
of all, we find a social worker who tries to
do her best and promises what the law
allows. She goes and she gets instructions
from her superiors and she comes back and
she says no: "Somebody in your household
has to look after your child and you go out
to work, sick child or not."
What I would like to ask the Minister is
whether there are any instructions given by
senior officials in his department to case
workers and field workers in this regard? Are
they instructed to tell various social workers
that they must tell the recipient to get some-
one in their family to look after their chil-
dren so that they must go out to work? This
child had just been bom a few months, and
was sickly. Mr. Chairman, this is why it is
a very important matter.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
problem must be one of communications
liecause the social worker was within the
ambit of her employment when she goes to
one of these persons that they counsel, and
that they explore the avenues.
In trying to find out the best way of
ad^'ising the young mother, maybe a very
natural question before the suggestion is
made for seeking employment is to enquire
whether there is axailable this type of thing.
It would be a very natural thing to enquire
whether there is a mother available; whether
there is a sister a\ailable; what facilities are
available to look after the child.
If there are no facilities available for the
child, then it may be that quite properly the
social worker would dien not have made
a suggestion of gainful employment which
would put the yoimg mother in a far better
position perhaps than relying for income on
The Family Benefits Act.
I do not think that there are any hard
and fast rules. It may be that the young
mother misinterpreted, but you can see that
in trying to give advice to a person, one must
of necessity, check back on information upon
which a decision as to ad\ice could be made.
Mr. Braithwaite: This is quite true, Mr.
Chairman, except that as I mentioned, we
were not talking about the first interview.
We were talking about the second interview.
The information with reference to the views
the girl's mother had been given to the social
worker during the first visit.
I might say I had a meeting just before
Christmas with a group of workers from the
St. Vincent de Paul Society in Rexdale, and
they brought out the very same thing to
me. They gave me many, many cases. I
am not going to go into all of them here,
but they did point out this very same thing.
There is a breakdown in communications.
What I am particularly concerned about, Mr.
Chairman, is whether the Minister specifically
can tell us that there are no such instruc-
tions—no such general instructions— made by
the higher levels, within his department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know. Perhaps
the hon. member could delineate what in-
structions he is talking about, the specific
type. I may say that if you have any of the
cases, be they one, be they many, I would
be pleased to know the details of them so
that we can use them, not only to solve the
particular problem, but if it cannot be solved
to learn from it as we learned a great deal
from the one specific instance that the
member for York South brought forward
earlier. I would be pleased to deal with
them. But if he would delineate the instruc-
tions-
Mr. Braithwaite: Well-
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member did
not say what took place in the first interview.
Mr. Braithwaite: Then I will read the letter,
Mr. Chairman. I was not going to go into
all the cases. I thought what I was talking
about was quite clear, namely, the fact that
whenever we have an individual applying
for help— I should not say whenever, but
quite often— there is some such attempt by
the department, or by the worker for the
department, which may or may not be in
accordance with the wishes of that particu-
lar social worker.
The point is that the person who is the
recipient is told that someone in his or her
family can look after their dependants so
that that person can go out to work.
I am not against an individual who is a
recipient going out to work if it is possible.
The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is
that here we have a young lady, only a
teenager in this particular case, who had
pressure being put on her to go out to work
when she made it quite clear that the baby
was sick. The baby had two or three opera-
tions.
3322
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am going to read the whole letter, Mr.
Chairman:
The interview was completed, so I
waited until Wednesday, January, 1969,
when I had heard nothing, I gave Mrs.
Nicholson a call. She was completely dif-
ferent towards me—
We are speaking now, Mr. Chairman, about
the second page— we do have the first page.
I am sorry, I have it all here. I will start
from the first. This is a letter addressed to
me, Mr. Chairman:
I am writing this letter in need of your
help. On March 8, 1968, I had a daughter
Kim out of wedlock. I went back to work
at the end of April taking my baby to a
babysitter.
On May 13 I rushed her to the hospital
and it was found that she was born with
a double urinary system. May 30 she had
her first operation at Sick Children's Hos-
pital done by Dr. "X". When she was
released from hospital I left my job to
care for her myself. My family doctor ad-
vised me to go to welfare department to
apply for mother's allowance.
I went July 11, 1968 and spoke with
Miss Bennett there and was told my ap-
plication would be sent right in. By August
I was in need of financial help and re-
ceived my first welfare cheque August 16,
1968. In September my application for
mother's allowance came to my home ad-
dress in error so I forwarded it on to the
proper address.
My daughter was in hospital again for
the second operation in October when
Mrs. Nicholson from mother's allowance
came to interview me, at which time she
said: "It should be no problem putting this
through for you, you should be receiving
your cheque by the end of December or
first of January."
Also, at this time, she told me to take
full advantage of my drug card for wel-
fare as it was more difficult when I got
it on mother's allowance. She told me not
to pay my Ontario hospital premiums any
more as they would take care of it for me.
As of February 28, 1969, my Ontario
hospital has run out. I have tried to keep
it up, but as she said not to worry, I
didn't. From past experience with my
baby's hospitalization, I know it costs close
to $65 a day to have her at Sick Children's
Hospital. It frightens me to think of it,
as she could have another operation as it
hasn't all been completed as yet.
The interview was completed so I
waited until mid-January 1969. When I
heard nothing I gave Mrs. Nicholson a
call. She was completely different towards
me at this time.
This is the second interview, Mr. Chairman.
She said I could work— that my sister
could baby-sit for me. My sister is only
nine years old and certainly not capable
of such responsibility.
She also said: "What is the matter with
your mother? She could baby-sit for you."
As I had already told her at the time of
the interview my mother and father have
been very good to me, but my mother
made it very clear right from the day I
told her I planned to keep my child that
she was not going to baby-sit for me as
she had had her days bringing up chil-
dren. The conversation ended and I was
no further ahead.
On February 17, 1969, Mrs. Nicholson
called me. She had received a letter and
wanted to know what my plans were as
far as going back to work. I told her
things were indefinite. She said I would
hear one way or the other within two
weeks. Again at this time she asked:
"What is the matter with your mother,
why can't she look after your baby?"
After waiting for two weeks and receiv-
ing nothing, I proceeded to call her again
on March 3, 1969. She seemed surprised
tint I should be calling. She had not heard
anything so there was no reason I should
hear anything from her. She told me of all
the other people that were worse off than
myself, saying I should see them, people
with grade two education. She said she has
two chi'dren and she works five days a
week and takes them to a babysitter. I
asked if her children were healthy, he
answer was, "Yes, I try to kcxjp my children
healthy." I believe there is a personality
clash between Mrs. Nicholson and myself
but do not know what to do about it. She
also said what was my mother's attitude?
"Does she feel because she pays taxes that
you should be accepted for mother's
allowance?" I got in touch with the federal
memlier of Parliament after my last con-
versation with Mrs. Nicholson and he felt
that you would be the person who could
help mc. I sincerely hope that you will
contact me if you can help.
That is when I wrote to the Minister, Mr.
Chairman. From the letter it is quite clear
that the department, through the worker,
has been telling this young lady with a sick
APRIL 21, 1969
3323
baby— a very sick baby— that she must get
somebody to babysit, somebody to look after
the dependant while she goes out to work.
All I am trying to find out, Mr. Chairman,
is are there specific instructions given by
this department to case-workers to find out
from different recipients, no matter what the
case mtay be, "Do you have someone to look
after your children so you can go out to
work?"
As I said, I am not at all in favour of
people sitting at home if they do not have
to, but in tliis particular case— and I am sure
there are many other cases like this— it seems
rather strange that die social worker should
turn against the recipient because the worker
has gone back to headquarters and received
different instructions. This is the sort of
thing that I am bringing before the Minister.
I would like to hear his comment.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not think that any
member would try to coerce or compel a
recipient or bring out circumstances th?:t
would make them go to work. I can envisage
where a counsellor might be asking questions
to find out all the background in order to
be able to give advice under the circum-
stances.
You see, at one end you have comp'aints
that social workers are saying to people, "Stay
at home, you will be better off on welfare
than working". I try to ch?ck out all those
instances. Then you have the other extreme
where it is alleged that somebody is b?ing
forced to work under those circumstances,
with a sick baby. Under those circumstances
I cannot conceive of tlie situation. I would
be very happy to review the file. But no such
instructions of the kind I understand the
hon. member to indicate are given to our
social workers to take that kind of an atti-
tude.
Mr. Braithwaite: I am indeed glad to hear
that, Mr. Chairman. I might say that this
young lady did receive mother's allowance
in due course.
One thing that comes to my mind before
I proceed, Mr. Chairman, could the Minister
tell me is there much difference in the allow-
ance this young lady or anybody would get
under the mother's allowance as opposed to
straight welfare?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have brought the
general welfare assistance p-etty well in line
with our family benefits. There is flexibility
at the municipal level within the question
of utihties to bring theirs up to our level.
For all practical purposes, this is our intent,
to bring all of die programmes into line so
that under one set of circumstances a person
would get the same benefits whether they be
under one programme, under the municipal
programme or under the provincial pro-
gramme.
Mr. Braithwaite: I asked that, Mr. Chair-
man, because it took this young lady about
eight months, something Hke that, to get
benefits under The Family Benefits Act. I
am wondering is there any retroactive clause,
or provision if there is a difference. She
seems to feel there was a difference. She
called me the other day and wanted to know
whether there would be any possibility of
getting some or any money. I do not know.
I am just asking tlie Minister; is there any
provision for retroactive payments? There is
a big difference in her case.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not think there
would be v.here tlie recipient was receiving
municipal assistance. That programme would
continue until the time we took over and
then there would be a switch to our pro-
gramme. If all members will bear in mind
this very simple yardstick tliat the general
welfare assistance is really more or less
applicable to short-term cases. I know eight
months may not be a short tenn, but they are
usually people who are coming on and going
off municipal rolls. Under The Family Bene-
fits Act, once they come on, there is a likeli-
hocd tliat they are to be considered as those
who will be on for an appreciable period of
time until we are able to bring about a
change of circumstances which will enable
them to get off everybody's rolls.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister if there is any pro-
vision in this particular vote for money in
connection with old age homes. As I said,
we have the Robert J. Smith home for the
aged, we have Scarlett Woods residences for
the aged. We have several in my particular
riding. I am sure there are old age homes
in all of the ridings. In many of these, we
find the pensioners living sometimes a single
person in a room; sometimes a counle. What
they are particularly concerned about, Mr.
Chairman, is that they might get sick, at
night. This has been brought to my atten-
tion, quite often.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I just make a
SLiggestion? May we leave that until we come
to the activity, residential care and services?
Mr. Braithwaite: All I want to ask, Mr.
Chairman, is this— is there any provision for
3324
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
irioney to pay for a full-time doctor, par-
ticularly in the evenings, or a nurse to be
available in any home in the evenings? This is
all I want to know. Are there any moneys
available in this grant for that sort of thing?
This is to pay the salary of a full-time
doctor or a full-time nurse in off-hours at tlie
Robert J. Smith and other homes for the
aged.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Every home for the
aged has a continuous medical facility avail-
able to them on a 24-hour basis. It is avail-
able at all times.
Mr. Braithwaite: It is available but is tliere
any provision for these people, particularly a
nurse, to live in at night-time? Medical help
is available but quite often it is by phone.
These medical people do not live in. That is
the point I am asking about. It miglit cost a
little more, but could there not be provision,
particularly in the Robert J. Smith home in
Rexdale for a resident doctor and nurse 24
hours?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In homes for the aged
diere is a nursing staff continuously on duty
right within tlie home. They may or may not
live in but tiiey are available there continu-
ously and one can walk into a home for the
aged and see the type of nursing service
available. Now if you are talking about medi-
cal ser\dces, that is doctors, I do not know
of any specific resident doctors as such, but
each home for the aged is required to pro-
vide medical assistance. The doctor who is
retained by the home for the aged is to
render whatever service is called for or else
the home for the aged has at its disposal
the opportunity of switching doctors to get
one who will render the kind of service
which is necessaiy for the servicing of the
home.
Mr. Braithwaite: I am certainly glad to
hear that, Mr. Chairman, because as I said
diis has been brought to my attention. I am
speaking about tlie evening and early morning
hours. This is a fear that the old people
liave — that something might happen — that
they woidd not be able to get medical help
or a nurse at night or in the early morning
hours.
Now I have one last thing I wanted to
talk about, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the Min-
ister might tell me if this is the proper time
to bring it up. He talked about the services
and the counselling available from his people
to recipients of welfare. In particular, I want
to bring up at this time, Mr. Chairman, the
fact that in the Thistletown housing project
in Rexdale— in my particular riding— we do
have an experiment. This experiment is caus-
ing quite a lot of upset and dissension in
the neighbourhood. I want to read, Mr.
Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Does this come under pro-
vincial allowances under this particular pro-
gramme? We are dealing with the provincial
allowances and benefits.
Mr. Braithwaite: This is what I wanted to
ask tlie Minister— if this is the time for it.
It is to do with the counselling provided by
his i>eople. If it is not the right vote, tell me.
Mr. Chairman: Well I think it probably
should have come under vote 2001.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, it would come
under vote 2003— family service counselling.
Mr. Braithwaite: All right, that is fine.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Provincial allowance and
benefits— the member for Sudbury East was
trying to get the floor.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman, before I proceed I would ask the
Minister; when was the last time the vari-
ous allowances and benefits to recipients
were reviewed and an increase made? Am
I right in assuming that it has been two
years since the levels have been raised?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Back in April of 1967.
Mr. Martel: Well, Mr. Chairman, through
you to the Minister, I listened the other
night when the Minister advised us that he
had sufficient funds for his programmes. I
really cannot buy that. I do not think any-
one in this House including the Minister can
either, because if we have not had a raise
in two years and if the cost of living index
has gone up six or seven points, and if
rents have increased the way they have in
the past two years, how can the Minister
honestly say he has enough money to nm
his department when the people with the
increased cost of living, the increased rental,
just do not have enough? Does the Minister
really— I would like to put it to him— does
the Minister agree that the people are re-
ceiving a sufficient amount of money today
to live properly?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I am
aware of the fact that the cost of living
index has risen and this is a factor which
should be taken into consideration in rela-
tionship to our review of the regulations set-
ting out the various kind of allowances.
APRIL 21, 1969
3325
Mr. Martel: I am glad to hear the Minister
make this statement but these people are
hungry today, Mr. Chairman. These people
are using much of their income to pay rent,
money that is supposed to be allocated for
food is being used to pay the rent and
there is not enough. I would like to cite a
case of a family of eight children. The
father suffered a stroke and will never work
again. These children in the past few years
have got a little older and the cost of living
has gone up. The amount of food that these
people require is much greater and they are
expected to live on the same amount today
that they were living on two years ago with
the increased cost of living. 1 ask the Min-
ister how can we expect these people to live
today, or how can we expect them to live
with the tremendous rent increases last year
and the budget staying the same? There has
to be an immediate change, Mr. Chairman,
and therefore, I cannot agree with what you
said the other night, that you had an ade-
quate amount of money for your department,
because you do not.
The only reason you have it is that these
people are starving, or they are going with-
out new clothes, or they are going to the
Salvation Army, that is where I had to send
this woman and her family to. I had to
send her to the Catholic Women's League
in Sudbury because they do not have enough
money, Mr. Chairman. This situation has got
to change and it has got to change now. I
would like the Minister's reaction— some kind
of indication— as to when we can expect a
complete review and when we can expect a
raise in the amount that the recipients are
receiving at the present time to meet the
cost of living today.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have told the hon.
member that the matter is under review.
Mr. Martel: They cannot eat review, Mr.
Chairman. Unfortunately they cannot eat
that. I have heard more about reviews in
the last—
An hon. member: Not many calories in
that review.
Mr. Martel: Yes, as my colleague says,
there are not very many calories in that
review. This is not sufficient, Mr. Chairman.
These people are hungry; they are using
their food allowance for rent. How can the
Minister sit there and say it is going to be
reviewed, it is under consideration, and all
this nonsense, when the Minister has not
got enough money and is not asking the
Treasury Board for more money until next
year?
This is why, of course, the Minister did
not want to advise the House that his de-
partment took a slashing in the $400 million
that was cut according to the Treasurer (Mr.
MacNaughton). It is easy to have enough
if you leave the people on the same amount
year after year regardless of what is going
on. If we go back two years, we are in dire
trouble as these people are, but it is all
under review and it is nice to know. I am
sure it is going to be very comforting to the
people to know that it is under review. It is
a very comforting factor to those people
who keep tightening up the belt one more
notch, Mr, Chairman, as they try to cut
off the pangs of hunger.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have indicated, of
course, Mr. Chairman, time and time again,
that there is available at the municipal level
this $20 supplement. If, in the meantime,
the circumstances of the family have changed
to that degree they turn to the municipality
for the supplement and we will then in turn
subsidize— this province will subsidize to the
amount of 80 per cent, but, apart from that
being presently available— and available for
the past period— we are cognizant of the fact
that there is an increase in the cost of living
and that these allowances should come under
review. I think it is meet and proper that
it be done.
Mr. Martel: Then I must agree with the
two members that spoke ahead of me— they
do not know, they do no know it is avail-
able, and I am not sure then, that all of
your staff is aware that this additional assis-
tance is available.
I would like to ask the Minister if there is
a maximum allowable, regardless of the
number of children in a family. In other
words, is there some cut-off point that if
you have X number of children, let us say
beyond eight, that you still receive the same
amount as though you only had eight chil-
dren?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The maximum is $300
plus $10 for every beneficiary over four.
Mr. Martel: One last point which relates
to something the Minister said earlier about
the number of people who are going to get
into government housing. Is it a fact that
there is a rule of thumb which says that 10
per cent is the cut-off point for recipients
who will be allowed into government hous-
ing? Did I make myself clear?
3326
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know of no such rule
or regulation. That would have to be an-
swered by the Minister of Trade and Devel-
opment.
I think there is, or has gone into practice
the fact that you do not group everybody in
the same category together. You try to get
the beneficiaries of various benefit allowances
into the community as a whole, the philos-
ophy is changing.
Rather than having everybody living in
one area and tlie various problems highUghted
that arise out of those circumstances, to have
them taken into the community as a whole.
I think that the efforts of the hon. Minis-
ter of Trade and Development in this regard
are directed to getting everybody into the
metropolitan area as a whole, so that they
become part of the community. I think myself
that there is a very healthy attitude to this.
Whetlier this has brought in some rule of
thumb such as that, I do not know.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wind-
sor-Walkerville is trying to get the floor.
Mr. B. Newman: Earlier in the debates I
had made mention of transportation allowances
to general recipients, and I likewise made
mention of allowances to senior citizens. Now,
the Minister commented that in the city of
Toronto they were discussing Vv'ith the TTC
some type of scheme that may, well, will
you clarify exactly what—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have been in com-
munication with the Metro welfare oiBce.
Mr. B. Newman: May I suggest to tlie
Minister then that he likewise be in commtmi-
cation then, with the welfare offices in other
municipalities throughout the length and
breadth of Ontario, so that tliey, likewise,
may benefit by anything that may finally be
aiTivcd at in the city of Toronto, because the
transportation needs of the senior citizens are
tlie same in practically all of die metro areas,
throughout the length and breadth of Ontario.
I know in my own community, tlie senior
citizens have been pressing for years now for
transportation allowances, or reduced fares,
or some method by which they could use the
local transportation system. To date, tliey have
not been successful. I have made a series of
suggestions concerning this. That was, sub-
sidies by your department, the consideration
of the use of school buses that were not being
used at certain hours of the day that could,
facilitate the transportation of senior citizens.
But we have got to come along, Mr. Chair-
man, and provide some type of assistance to
senior citizens in this respect, in addition to
taking care of our other citizens.
This time, I am specifically mentioning the
senior citizen aspect of it. I hope the Minister
will consider my suggestion that welfare
officers in centres other than Toronto also
will make contacts in an attempt to obtain
some transportation relief for tlie senior
citizen.
One of the comments that I seem to hear
throughout the discussion this afternoon is the
lack of communication between the field
worker and the recipient of some type of
benefits from this department. I doubt if any-
one in my community knows this $20 that
would be available to the person receiving
social and family services benefits.
I think the field worker should make it
specifically known to individuals— just as he
v/oiild make known to them an appeal board
—that there is this $20 that is available per
adult, this extra $20 from the municipality.
Many indi\'iduals on social and family serv-
ices benefits would take advtmtage of this
if this were known to them.
May I ask tlie Minister at this point, why
is there a three-month waiting period before
an individual can receive mother's allowance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Generally, there is no
such period. There is in certain specific
situations.
Mr. B. Newman: This was one of the pointe
that was brought out at a meeting we had
with the ladies receiving benefits. And why
the three-month waiting period for anyone
applying for mother's allovv'anc^— they seemed
to think it was general. I am glad to hear the
Minister assaire us diat it is net, and I would
hope there would be no waiting period
whatsoever. Need should be the prime judge
as to whether the individual should be receiv-
ing moitlicr's allowance, or any type of social
and family service benefits.
Will the Minister clarify this now that he
has consulted with his staff?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I said, there arc
certain specific situations. I think in the
qucstim of deserti jn there is a three-month
waiting period before the mother will be
taken on family benefits. But of course she
has available to her, in the interval, the
application of General Welfare Assistance.
We ha\'e to have some period of time in
which to determine whether this is an out
and out desertion or what the circumstances
are. I think that is the reasoning behind that.
APRIL 21, 1969
3327
Then the question of the unmarried mother
with a three-month baby. There is a period
of time in which the decision would be made
with respect to what will occur in that par-
ticular family— whether the child will stay
with the mother, or whether the child will
not stay with the mother. The Family Bene-
fits Act will depend on the results of those
circumstances.
Mr, B. Newman: I am right, then, in stating
that there is no three-month waiting period,
that you attempt to expedite the individual
cases as quickly as possible, under the cir-
cumstances?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Other than in these
specific situations that I have outlined.
Mr. B. Newman: I am glad to hear that.
Mr. Chairman, if I may ask of the Minister,
why are the heat allowances cut off on
March 31?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, the heat
allowances are not cut off at the end of
March. We have built in to the programme
an allowance for heat. We estimate the
amount of money for heat, and then that
amount is sent out over a period of seven
months in order to have the amounts spread
over an equal time. The recipient is advised.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
What happens when you are cold in the
eighth month? Last May was cold!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The recipient is ad-
vised and I have a copy of the letter which
is sent out. They say, and this is a sample
letter which I asked for:
In view of your budgetary requirements,
we are permitted to provide you with a
monthly allowance of $290.30 effective
November 1, 1968. This amount includes
a fuel allowance of $20.30 which you will
receive during the winter months, Septem-
ber to March inclusive.
Mr. B. Newman: Well it is cut off, Mr.
Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, it is not cut oft.
I have asked that this letter be reconsidered
in the light of saying:
In view of your budgetary requirements
we are permitted to provide you with a
monthly allowance of $270, effective
November 1, 1968. This amount will be
increased from the months of September
to March by an allowance of $20.30 for
fuel.
I am assured by the feed-back of the social
workers that the kind of letter that is sent
out is more readily understood by more of
the recipients than the kind of a letter that
I have suggested. So until I am convinced
otherwise, this is the letter which goes out
to the recipients, where they know that there
is an allowance of seven times $20.30, which
will be paid to them during those months,
and they must budget accordingly.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chainnan, this is
just the point I am tr>ang to make. You tell
them that from September to March they are
going to get $20 a month heat allowance.
The Minister does not turn the heat off in
his home on March 31.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not turn it on
in September, either.
Mr. B. Newman: So the Minister is not
Ivcing realistic at all.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member is
suggesting that perhaps what we should do is
instead of making $20.30 payable over seven
months, we should reduce the amount, say,
to $15 and pay it over eight months, or reduce
it further and—
Mr. B. Newman: I am not suggesting it at
all. I am suggesting that you pick up the fuel
bill. If they have a sick member in the fam-
ily and have to have to keep the home at a
few degrees higher than you and I would
normally keep it, you are penalizing them.
You are likewise coming along and, as of
March 31, you are cutting them right off,
according to your letter.
This is one of the complaints, as I had said
earlier, these ladies make mention of. If you
are wrong, let us straighten that out with
them and let it be knov^m by the individual
receiving social and family services benefits
that they are not going to be cut off on
March 31.
Yon will say that you do not want to cut
it off, but you only provdde them with funds
to accommodate them to that period of time,
and that seven months at $20 a month, $140
they are pretty lucky. Mr, Cliairman, the
hon. Minister is lucky if he can heat a home
for $140 a month. You have to be hving in
a one-room home, probably wiith six inches
of insulation on all six sides, to be able to
heat it for $140 a month at the price of fuel
today.
So, Mr. Chairman, the Minister's $140 is
not reahstic at all.
3328
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say, just for the
hen. member's information, that if there is
a sick i>erson in tlie home there is a provision
that tlie fuel allowance may be increased by
20 per cent. We do have that flexibiUty and
the amount-
Mr. B. Newman: Is that 20 per cent for
the whole period or is it for tlie month?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: For the whole period,
up to 20 per cent for the whole period. The
amounts are not as tlie hon. member ciilcu-
lated, ])ut they are $203 in southern Ontario
and $275 in northern Ontario. The payments
in northern Ontario are spread over from
Auj^ust to April; they are spread over nine
nioudis. It is just a question of, administra-
tively, to take a figure for fuel allowance and
then distributing it over an equal period of
time. Now I may say that to send a fuel
allowance, say, in July or in a 12-month
period would not be feasible because it is
human nature; you get the money, you arc
going to spend it. I tiiink that all of us are
subject to that kind of situation.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, when I
made mention of $140, I was using your
figures because you said $20 a month for
seven months,
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This was an example.
You use a six-room home, I take it, as an
example.
Mr. B. Newman: I am not using—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The amounts are not
rigid. They are flexible depending upon the
size of the accommodation and the kind of
accommodation.
Mr. B. Newman: I was not using any six-
room home or any size of a home. I was
simply using the fact that you made men-
tion of seven months at $20 a month, so I
said $140, which is completely unrealistic.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In this—
Mr. B. Nevmian: Your new figures, Mr.
Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In this specific instance-
Mr. B. Newman: New figures, Mr, Chair-
man, that you made mention of later on
are a little more realistic. I do not know how
realistic they are in all instances ]jecaus{>,
generally, the individual receiving social and
family service benefits docs not have the
type of accommodation that you and I have.
It is not as well insulated; their home may
be smaller than yours and mine, but their
fuel bills could be in a lot of instances higher
than yours and mine.
Mr. Chairman: Has the hon. Minister any
furdier cxjmments to the hon. member for
Windsor-Walkerville ?
Ihe hon. member for Ottawa Centre has
been trying to get the floor,
Mr. H. MacKenzie (Ottawa Centre): Mr.
Chairman, I have recently had a letter from
a constituent of mine who complains that
she is doing some part-time work. Because of
this, she is losing her allowances from the
department and she seems to think unjustly
so. She said some things about the depart-
ment's field workers which are hardly com-
plimentary but I think I will take that tip
widi die department first and check it out.
As a matter of interest I worked out just
what the situation would be if a person did
work part-time. I assumed that, in this case,
the allowance would be $300 a month nor-
mtdly; it would be a mother with three chil-
dren, which is the case I speak of. If she
earns $100 a month, she is allowed to earn,
according to the Minister's figures $60 a
month, wliich means that she is earning $40
over the allowance and we will reduce that
$40 by 75 per cent, which is $30. The next
thing we have to look to is the cost of earn-
ing this $100 a month on part-time work.
I have assumed that her transportation would
be $10 a mondi; I believe it is realistic. I
am assuming that her clothes and noon-hour
help for her children would amount to $20
a month, which I think is realistic when you
think of the clothes that a woman has to
wear to work as compared to what she can
wear around the hoiise. A total cost of $30
a month to earn this $100 a month.
If we go back to her allowance of $300 a
month, we deduct the 75 per cent of the $40
over her allowance, we arrive at $270; less
her expenses of earning $100 at $30, making
•'^240, plus her net earnings of $70, we find
that she has for her own use, $310 a month.
Now she started off with an allowance of
$300 a month. She ends up, after she gets
through all this, having $310 a month. This
is for part-time working to the tune of $100
a month.
If you take the same basis and assume a
mother witli three children is working full-
time and earning $200 a month, go through
your $60 and 75 per cent reduction; assuming
die same cost— transportation, $10 a month
and clothes and noon-hour help to look after
die children, that sort of diing, $20 a month.
APRIL 21, 1969
3329
for a total of $30. I will go back again and
start at her allowance of $300 a month less
the 75 per cent amounting to $105. Working
this through, you find out that she is going
to have available $335 a montli. Now $335 a
month for working full-time— she had given
up her home, given up looking after her
children except in the evenings, whereas her
allowance originally was $300 a month.
Mr. ChaiiTOan, I ask the Minister if he
thinks this is a proper assistance programme
when a motiier has two choices— not work
and draw an allowance of $300 a month or
work full-time and draw $335 a month? I
am inclined to think that it is a complete
destruction of incentive and I would hope
that the Minister would give us some assur-
ance that he is going to pursue this a little
further and try to devise incentive pro-
grammes for these people.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I want
to suggest to the hon. member for Ot-
tawa Centre that he enlist support from
the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs.
Pritchard) with whom I have had discussion
in the last couple of years about the fact
that, with the working mother above all, the
income tax provisions should have some
understanding for the fact that a mother, in
order to earn income, must make certain
expenditures, just as a businessman going to
earn a profit has to incur certain expenses.
To receive an income, in this one particular
instance of tlie working mother, is where the
incentive should come. The incentive — we
cannot build those kind of incentives into our
programme—
An hon. member: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Because the income
tax is a general programme and I think it
should be made available in this instance to
everybody. If the woman wishes to work
and incurs certain expenditures, transporta-
tion or related, it may be even in some cases
that a specific type of clothing could be a
special kind of exemption. I think that in
the long nm this is where the solution lies.
Mr. MacKenzie: Mr. Chairman, I think the—
Hon, Mr. Yaremko: Of course, this mother,
when she is on our welfare programme, would
pay no income tax if she goes out and earns
income then she is subject to the payment of
income tax. I think that this combination is
completely wrong.
Mr. MacKenzie: Mr. Chairmjm, I think the
Minister has stated this point well. I think it
is a very sound point of view. I hardly think.
though, Mr. Chairman, that the part-time
worker, the mother earning $100 a month, is
going to pay income tax, so the income tax
department cannot affect this category that
I speak of. I spoke of a mother earning $100
a month; her allowance is maybe $300 a
month and she ends up with $310 a month.
It is conceivable, Mr. Chairman, that if the
field workers would look a little more closely
at the net earnings of these people rather
than their gross earnings, I am just wonder-
ing if perhaps the Minister can find some
area in there where he can alleviate the situ-
ation just a little bit?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I misunderstood the
hon. member. I was thinking of the terms of
rehabilitation where you get to a situation
where a person becomes completely self-sup-
porting by working. When you touch upon
the area you have, we are right back to the
incentives and initiative that was discussed
by the leader of the Opposition and myself.
Supplementing incomes; this is a much more
complex area. I think in the total structure of
things, to enable the women to become com-
pletely self-supporting the income tax pro-
visions will be a very important factor in that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, I explained to the
hon. member that when it comes to supple-
menting, he is quite correct. I was thinking
of an instance where it is a choice of being
on welfare or getting a total income.
Mr. MacKenzie: I suppose, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have already ex-
plained to the leader of the Opposition and
the member for Windsor- Walkerville what we
were doing.
Mr. MacKenzie: I suppose, Mr. Chairman,
the point I am trying to zero in on is the
case of a mother with three children who
works part-time and earns $100 a month and
still ends up on the end of the month with
only $10 more than she would normally get
under allowances.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am sorry, the figures
which the hon. member was using were
directed to my attention. Of the $100 addi-
tional income earned under those circum-
stances, I am advised that $70 would be
exempt.
Mr. MacKenzie: That is quite correct, sir,
and these are the figures I used— the $70. As
you work through it— and I would be happy
to work the mathematics through with the
3330
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister— a mother earnin*? $100 a month
will come out with $10 more at the end of
the month, after you deduct these expenses.
There does not seem to be much incentive
there.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sand-
wich-Riverside has been trving to speak,
Mr. F. A. Burr ( Sandwich-Riverside ) : Mr.
Chairman, to follow up this point about the
working mother. At this meeting to which the
member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B.
Newman) referred, there was one widow-
present who had never applied for any assis-
tance. She had brought up her children, six,
1 belie\e it was, without any help. They are
by now teen-agers and she has expressed
doubts whether she has done the right thing.
I wonder whether the Minister has any
policy? Is the widowed mother's place in the
hime and should she, as a dut>', refuse em-
ployment? Or should she, despite the fact
that one parent has already been lost to the
family, deprive the children of a good part of
the other parent's time, in order to retain
some contact with society— or, to put it
another wa>', in order to retain a certain
amount of her dignit>'. Has the department
any philosophy on this matter?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, the philosophy is
that each case has to be examined and the
best practical solution for that individual
situation be reached. The theory the member
has propounded has been propounded by
former members of his party. It is a barefoot
theory which, of course, I never subscribe to
at any time myself.
It depends upon the individual circum-
stances, what is best for the family unit when
you have a situation of the mother with the
sick child which was referred to by one of
the hon. members. It is what is best for the
family unit— and I invariably take the position
myself, it is what is best for the children.
Mr. Burr: Returning to this matter of the
three-month delay, which many people as-
sume exists. I should like to outline briefly
a case and then ask some questions relevant
to it.
About April 1 last year, a lady whom we
shall call Mrs. Smith lost her husband
through an accident. By the time she re-
covered from the shock, she applied in June
for help on the mother's allowance. She was
told at that time it would be September 1 be-
fore any help would come through.
This was three months, June, July, August.
There is the three-month theory cropping up
again. And all these ladies at the meeting we
held were under the impression that there
was a three-month period. Mrs. Smith's hus-
band was killed in an accident. There is no
question of desertion, no problems of any
kind that would require a delay.
It was not until March 20 or thereabouts
that this lady got in touch with me when
she was down to her last $7. Although she
had some money coming from the Canada
Pension widow's allowance, it was not due
until the end of the month, so she had $7
to carry her through the remaining ten days
of March.
I got in touch with this department imme-
diately and perhaps the same day or the day
after they called back and said that this pen-
sion would begin as of March 1 and that a
cheque would go out. This meant that Mr.
Smith was killed at the beginning of April,
1968, and the family benefit began on March
1, 1969, almost 11 months.
When I told the Social and Family Services
worker a few of the details and hardships,
such as the number of her children, the $4 a
week bus fare for some of the children to go
to school, the $100 mortgage and several
other details that I do not wish to mention
because they might give away the identity
of Mrs. Smith, the department reconsidered
and after about a week, I believe, called me
to say that the benefit would be retrocative to
December 1.
December, January, February, that was a
three-month extension. It was explained to
me, as I understood it, that this was the maxi-
mum amount of retroactivity permissible by
the law or the regulations.
So we now have Mrs. Smith receiving the
family benefit starting almost eight months
after her husband's death. And the only ex-
cuse I have been able to get so far from the
department is that some paper or other had
not been completed. Now, Mrs. Smith was
visited and telephoned on about five different
occasions after her application and each time
she thought that the matter was settled and
that she would be receiving her cheque.
There was one other suggested reason, that
Mrs. Smith had some money left over after
the funeral from a small insurance policy. But
without reviewing her financial affairs, I can
assure you that the debts that she had to
incur far exceeded any residue from this
small insurance policy that was left after the
funeral.
Now, one of my points is, Mr. Chairman,
why could not an apphcant for family bene-
APRIL 21, 1969
3331
fits or mother's allowance, whatever it should
be called, receive a certain payment, perhaps
two-thirds or three-quarters or maybe the
amount that she would get under some wel-
fare payment, within the month of her
application? Adjustments be made retroactive
to the time of the application when it was
finally processed and approved. Why could
that not be done?
The hardships endured by Mrs. Smith in
providing food and shelter for her family
have certainly made me aware of this short-
coming of the procedure. I wish I could give
you the various unhappy details of what this
family went through in those eight months.
This was a lady who did not want to have
anything to do with welfare. She had her
pride, she had her dignity, and she held out
as long as she possibly could until she was
down to $7 with ten days to go. My one
question is, why could this payment not be
made temporary and adjustments made later;
and secondly, why cannot it be made re-
troactive, if not to the time of the death of
the husband, at least to the time of her
application?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, in
respect of the first question, of course there
is always the problem of assuring that there
will be eligibility under the programme. We
are always confronted with that aspect. The
only alternative would be to grant to every-
body who applies, and when somebody turns
out not to be ehgible to charge that as an
administrative item. I do not know what
would be involved in terms of dollars and
cents in this regard.
With respect to the retroactivity under the
circumstances, I would really appreciate it if
the hon. member would give me the specific
case later on, privately. I will check into it.
Again I would say, we would use the case,
not at this stage to try and cure anything,
but to see what we can learn from it in
order to apply our learning to other cases
which may be arising in the future.
Mr. Burr: Thank you. I think I have a few
points left over from this meeting that the
member for Windsor-Walkerville referred to.
He covered most of the diflBculties.
One aspect, however, had to do with
inspectors or field workers. I think the ladies
called them inspectors because there was a
certain amount of, not hostility, but a certain
amount of annoyance at some of the activi-
ties of what I will call the inspectors. The
fact that they would come in and open the
refrigerator; ask how much was in the purse;
and want to see the bank book gave the
ladies the impression that some of the in-
spectors got a kick out of investigating, out
of their position of—
An hon. member: Powerl
Mr. Burr: Power, I suppose is the word,
thank you for the suggestion. They gave vari-
ous examples. One man made a special rural
trip just to ask one widow whether she had
got her basic shelter rebate, a matter that he
could have checked out either by phone or
by letter. It would have taken a couple of
days but he made this—
An hon. member: He made some mileage
out of it.
Mr. Burr: —this hour's trip or this two
hours' trip. My cynical friend here suggests
that he may get some mileage for doing so.
I was aware of that possibility, too, and I
think the widow was aware of the possibility.
Another one had a call, a man came back
to enquire about a $1 item that he had for-
gotten to ask about previously.
Why must the inspectors keep checking on
the bank accounts? Is not the cost that is
involved in this constant checking more than
overbalanced by the futility of it? Suppose
a widow did receive a windfall and became
ineligible, could there not be an annual ap-
plication form that had to be filled out that
would permit any of these windfalls to come
to light? It seems to me that the cost of this
constant supervision far outweighs any slight
saving in overpayment. Perhaps the Minister
would comment on that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko. The hon. member calls
them inspectors. I think we should call them
counsellors, because that is what I think they
should be. They have to, of course, elicit in-
formation, first of all, to determine eligibility.
One of the terms of the Canada Assistance
Plan is that we do become aware of their
assets, and I am very fully aware of the very
painful situation which arises where some-
body does obtain additional income, does not
disclose it in due course, and subsequently
that fact emerges. Then a very painful situ-
ation for both parties emerges as we attempt
to make the reductions, or repayment, in
order to carry out the regulations.
As I say, my attitude is whether they all
are or not, it is a matter in the whole field
of everybody trying to do their best job, but
I prefer them to be counsellors, trying to
carry out their job with the greatest of under-
standing and sympathy for the circumstances
3332
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in which the particular person who is turning
for help finds himself.
Mr. Burr: This is exactly what some of th(>
iadies were asking for. They would appreci-
ate more counselling and less of this super-
\ ision. They felt also, I think— I am njt sure
whether the member for Windsor-Walkerville
went into this— that they would appreciate
some little handbook that would gi\e them
a clear picture of what they were entitled to
do, what emergency measures are open to
them.
If this information about what I shall call
windfalls, if the procedure to be followed in
the e\ent of some windfall were in this little
manual, then the danger, if it is a danger, of
some oxerpayment that has to be painfully
recovered later would be, if not obviated, at
least greatly reduced.
In the matter of emergency, I am not quite
sure whether I caught the explanation of the
Minister. What happens to a recipient of a
mother's allowance when some emergency
such as plumbing, or sewers, or leaking roof
—something that costs $100 or $200— some-
thing of this kind, happens? How is that
dealt with? Is that dealt with through the
welfare or through the mother allowance
branch?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It comes under the
shelter allowance provisions. Into the shelter
allowance are built all of these requirements.
Shelter not only covers rent, it covers mort-
gage, both the principal and interest pay-
ments, and repairs, and kindred items.
Mr. Burr: Well, then, it would be covered
l^y your field worker or your inspector. Does
the dental allowance extend to children oxer
16, if they are still at school?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, it does.
Mr. Burr: Well, there were some other
details, but I shall ask just one more ques-
tion on this. One of the widows complained
that her husband was dying of an injury
which might be compensated for later by
the Workmen's Compensation Board, and
she vvantetl to have a lawyer to work on this
case. But legal aid was refused, presumably
because she had S250 cash in the bank.
Now $250 cash in the bajik of a woman
whose husband is dying is nothing. Was legal
aid refused because a lawyer was not neces-
sary for a Workmen's Compensation Board
case, or what would be the explanation there?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs ) : Mr. Chairman, in
view of the hour and the private member's
hour coming, I move tlie committee rise and
report.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that tlie com-
mittee of supply rise imd reix)rt progress and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chaimian: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming) moves .sec-
ond reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend
The Workmen's Compensation Act.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I hope you for-
give me and if I go through this debate, I
heat up a little bit and my temper seems to
be getting the best of me. It is something I
feel very serious about, something that has
bothered me, and it has bothered members of
my party, and I am quite sure the Opposition
party for quite a while. I have serious reser-
vations about the Tory party.
Mr. Speaker, The Workmen's Compensa-
tion Act was supposed to be model legisla-
tion. My idea of a model legislation was to
be ideal legislation. However, maybe at one
time it was model legislation but over the
last years it has become an extremely poor
example of even poor legislation.
Even when Mr. McGillivray wrote his
report, he did not use our legislation and
upgrade it. He used legislation of other prov-
inces as an example to compare our legisla-
tion and tried to work out a system that
would l>e the same across the provinces. What
he failed to take into consideration, Mr.
Speaker, was the fact that most of the other
provinces model their legislation on the basis
of Ontario legislation. So they take out a
few things; now we go back and we take
out a few more. Ontario, instead of pro-
gressing is regressing and going backwards
into the 18th century, fartlier than they
have before.
Under The Workmen's Compensation Act,
the worker gives up his right to sue. Under
civil law and the right to sue, he would have
some chance of receiving a reasonable income
imder temporary, partial disability. However,
under The Workmen's Compensation Act,
APRIL 21, 1969
3333
the situation arises where he can be cut to
50 per cent or 25 per cent of his income— or
should I say 25 per cent of 75 per cent of
his income— so that he receives an income
that is totally insufficient to meet his needs.
Mr. Speaker temporary, partial disability
can be of many different types. It can be a
broken finger it can be strains, sprains, many
different tilings. But the most common— and
the one I think we run into most in our work
here— is spinal injuries. The most serious
thing is spinal injuries. Next are bad frac-
tures—broken legs, broken arms that refuse
to heal.
Mr. Speaker, this type of injury is most
common— not amongst the higher learned
person who sits behind a desk or who carries
out a very, very simple task. It is most preva-
lent amongst miners who work hard under-
ground. It is most prevalent amongst con-
struction workers and amongst bush workers
who have a high heavy work content.
These i>eople, Mr. Speaker, have low edu-
cation levels. Most of them have, at the very
rrtost, Grade 8. I would venture to say that
many of the miners do not have grade eight
l)eoause they were immigrants. Tliey came
to tliis country witli low education from the
old country and they find themselves going
into the mines without an education level tliat
is sufficient— and in many cases, without the
ability to speak Enghsh to a sufficient level.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to
read an article here. It is by Dr. A. W.
White and his qualifications are quite im-
pressive-MB, BSc, FRCS (Canada) FRCS
(Edinburgh). He says:
Low back pain caused by or precipitated
by industrial accidents, often minor and not
otherwise noticed, accounts annually for
about 12,000 claims accepted by the Work-
men's Compensation Board, Ontario.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it says "accepted by the
workmen's compensation board" and I think
most of the Opposition agree that there are
many, many that are not accepted by the
workmen's compensation board. He goes on
to say:
Only about 10 per cent are disabled
longer than six weeks, but in these the
disability is likely to be very prolonged,
and in spite of treatment by orthodox
methods during this time and often for
a much longer time, a disabling degree of
pain tends to continue, with Httle or no
improvement.
Mr. Speaker, the workmen's compensation
hoard does not accept pain as a compensable
injury. They claim that they are only re-
sponsible for that part of the injury that
actually has physically disabled or physically
incapacitated workers.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, and the
contention of Dr. White, that a degree of
pain can be disabling— that it can be of such
intensity that a man is physically incapable
of working.
I would like to go on, Mr. Speaker, and
just read parts of a letter I have here. It is a
letter from a lawyer to the compensation
board and it says:
Mr. B. advises us that his employer was
unable to provide him with suitable work,
and that medical reports purport to show
that he is no longer totally disabled. Mr.
B. assures us, however, that he has not
yet recovered from his injuries.
Considering the type of work for which
Mr. B. is qualified, the writer suggests
that he is totally disabled. Due to his
qualifications, Mr. B. has been unable to
find himself a secondary type of employ-
ment. Your assistance in this respect would
be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Speaker, that letter was written on
October 2, 1967. That man today is still
not working. His doctor claims that, be-
cause of lack of sleep due to pain, because
of the actual pain which prevents him from
sitting more than 15 or 20 minutes, which
prevents him from standing in one spot for
more than 15 or 20 minutes— because of that
pain he is totally disabled.
However, the compensation board claims
he is 25 per cent disabled and they pay on
that level. The man, receives $78 a month.
He has three children to support. Now, Mr.
Speaker, the level of income for that man
is a starvation level. He has one choice and
one choice only— to go on public welfare.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the
workmen's compensation board is obliged to
supply to him 100 per cent total compensa-
tion payments until he is ready to go back
to work. As Dr. White says: "A disabling
degree of pain tends to continue, with little
or no improvement."
Mr. Speaker, that degree of pain can be
so intense that a man is physically incapable
of doing any type of work. However, that
is not the contention of the workmen's com-
pensation board. I have here a letter from
the workmen's compensation board concern-
ing the same case:
According to medical evidence, Mr. B.
is still disabled because of the injuries
3334
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
resulting from the accident, but he is able
to perfonn modified work.
It may be that his employer has no
suitable work for him and he is unable to
find suitable work on his own. This, of
course, would be an employment problem
over which we have no jurisdiction.
This might be true, Mr. Speaker— that they
are not responsible for supplying a man with
a job. But prior to his accident this man
was working every day. It is beyond my
grasp how the compensation board can ac-
cept 25 per cent responsibility when this
man worked every day without missing a
day's work up until the day of the accident.
From that day on he has not worked one
day.
To go on, Mr. Speaker, with another let-
ter on the same case:
Mr. B. is only partially disabled be-
cause of his accident and there is no
reason why he cannot perform modified
work.
Well, anyone who is familiar with the em-
ployment situation in the province of Ontario
and in the Dominion of Canada must realize
that there just are not jobs available in modi-
fied work fields for a man who has no edu-
cation above Grade 8 at the very most. For
a man who has never done anything but
heavy manual labour, there just are no job
opportunities.
In another letter, Mr. Speaker, from the
board to the same gentleman, it says he was
discharged on that day with the suggestion
that he receive a brace and physiotherapy.
While he was in the hospital he did receive
full compensation benefits. However, upon
review of reports following discharge, pay-
ments again revert to that of temporary
partial 50 per cent disability. He has been
cut to 50 per cent since then. Mr. Speaker,
how can a man be in the hospital and, on
the day of his discharge, he is cut to 50 per
cent; he is ready to go back to work. I just
cannot comprehend it.
From the report of the board in 1967,
4,490 were admitted to the rehabilitation
centre on the basis of temporary partial dis-
ability; 2,582 were discharged as available
for work, but what is lacking in the report
is how many were able to find work. I
think that if I were to gather up all of the
compensation cases from this group in this
House tonight, I would find that less than
20 per cent of them found work, because we
have the cases from the other 80 per cent
that were unable to find work of a modified
nature.
The report goes on to say that 676 were
referred for field service. I have had a lot
to do with the field service. The rehabilita-
tion officer calls a man in; he talks to him
for a little while; suggests that he go out
and register with Canada Manpower; says
that he should get out and look for work.
That is the end of the rehabilitation and the
field sei-vice. He is told that he has to work;
he goes to the welfare officer, the welfare
officer says well, if you are getting work-
men's compensation, we cannot help you.
When he does get help, he has to sign
over his compensation payments for several
months, that if he does receive anything
extra he has to pay it back.
I suggest that it is not a case of whether a
man is physically fit to perform modified
work. It is a case that because of his accident,
and directly because of his accident, he is
physically incapable of doing the job that he
was on. Because of his low level of education
and his physical condition, he is physicalh
incapable of performing any job and his com-
pensation benefits should be maintained at
the 100 per cent level, until at least work is
found for that man. I could go farther than
that, Mr. Speaker; I could say until work is
found, imtil suitable work is found for that
man and until he actually goes back to work
and is able to earn a reasonable living allow-
ance.
Should he not be able to earn that reason-
able li\ ing allowance, the compensation board
should make it up. It is in the Act that they
supposedly do, and I can show you from m>'
own records that they do not in many cases.
Before his accident he was earning a living
and providing for himself. After his acci-
dent, he is getting 25 per cent depending on
public welfare to make up the difference.
This brings in something else; that for allow-
ing this, by allowing public welfare to pick
up the bill for the compensation board, we
are sliifting the burden from the companies
that should be paying the cost to the public
jiinse, an area which should not support the
cost of compensation.
I stood in this House about two weeks ago
and spoke on a resolution from the Liberal
Party. I was against it because I said that the
company should not pay the public's bills.
But here is a situation where general welfare
picks up the bill for the workmen's compen-
sation board and I say to you that it has done
so for far, far too long and should be changed.
It is all too easy for an employer, who does
not want a man and does not want to subsi-
dize his wages by putting him on light work
and keeping his wages coming, to say there
APRIL 21, 1969
3335
is no work available and throw it back to the
compensation board. It is all too easy for the
compensation board to say *it is not our
responsibility; we are only responsible for the
amount of physical incapacity the man has';
and throw it off on the public purse so that
you and I pick up the bills rather than the
corporations who are directly responsible for
compensating that man for his injuries re-
ceived.
Mr. Speaker, in winding up, I can only say
that a serious injustice is being done to the
man on compensatian and a serious injustice
is being done to the general public by mak-
ing us pick up the bills. I say that it is time
that the Acts were changed so that the com-
panies would be responsible for providing for
that man until he is rehabilitated and able to
go back to work and earn a decent living so
that he can provide for his family as any
working man wants to do.
Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Mr.
Speaker, once again the hon. members from
the side opposite have taken up the torch
and risen to the aid of just about everything.
They sing a sad song, a tired song, a song
built by the NDP, moulded by them to fur-
ther pull the wool over the eyes of the honest
people of this province.
I am sure that the people of this province
are getting as tired as I am of hearing that
sad old song, a sickening ditty. Here we have
in front of us the answers to all the ills, the
righting of all the evils; self-appointed experts
in all the fields who, by virtue of the fact
that they are NDP, see more, know more, and
do more than any other people on this earth.
This demand as is being called for in Bill 51,
is not new. It is in fact older than the hills
and I wonder if not much older than the
NDP.
The demand for this type of compensation
for temporary partial disability and for tem-
porary total disability has been before every
commissioner— not only in this province but
in the whole of Canada— every commissioner,
Mr. Speaker, who has ever had to consider
workmen's compensation legislation.
As a result of studies into the area, many
reports have been made and each report has
contained a lengthy review of the principle
which all agree precludes awarding full com-
pensation throughout to the temporarily par-
tially disabled workers.
The very same issue was again studied by
the Hon. Mr. Justice McGillivray who pub-
lished his report of the Royal commission in
the matter of Workmen's Compensation Act
in 1967, and who, after intensive research
and study, had to come to the conclusion that
in view of the facts before him, he was not
prepared to make any recommendation for
any change in section 41 of The Workmen's
Compensation Act.
Yet the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr.
Jackson) wants us to believe that he is more
capable and as a result of his research we
should jump at the chance to change this
Act which has been functioning extremely
well all this time.
To this I can only say, that will be the
dark day.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, many,
though not all, injured workmen are compen-
sated for some time following an accident
upon a total disability basis. When at a later
date the attending physician or other medical
authority certifies the workman as partially
recovered and fit to do light work, it is the
general practice of the board to reduce full
compensation payments by about 50 per cent.
In a certain number of cases compensation
payments may be reduced by 25 per cent.
The 50 per cent figure is adopted and con-
tinued in most cases to avoid the necessity
of varying the award from time to time
according to whether the disability was, let
us say, 60 per cent, or 70 per cent, or 10
per cent.
This practice is considered to be a rough
compliance with the terms of the section
which restricts compensation to 75 per cent
of the difference between what a man was
earning and what he earns or is physically
capable of earning.
Now, Mr. Speaker, tliis provision has been
cause for some concern. And I do not argue
that it has not been. There are instances
where men are not or were not able to find
partial employment and, as a consequence,
miist seek help under the unemployment in-
surance scheme or, in some cases, from local
soiu-ces.
In some industries, particularly the larger
ones where there is a large variety of jobs,
it is possible to put the men in the category
I have mentioned to work. However, we do
find tliat if a man is re-employed with no
wage loss, and the employer indicates a loss
in the value of services, temporary partial
disability payments based on value of seorv-
ices are paid to the employer.
So we must assume that there is at least
an incentive for industry to rehire these
unfortimate people.
3336
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Still, I do not doubt, Mr. Speaker, that
there are some unable to find the work neces-
sary to supplement the compensation pay-
ments.
To reach some answers, however, all one
has to do is to go back to the principle of
the existing Act. And that principle is that
ever\' workman must receive, at tlie expense
of the employer, compensation for the degree
of disability suffered.
However, bear in mind the warning given
by Mr. Justice McGillivray:
The concept cannot be stretched to re-
quire an employer to insure that every
injured employee will find re-employment.
And that is exactly what the hon. member
for Timiskaming would have us do— go con-
trary to all beliefs and principles. I wonder
if he possibly has some personal friend in
mind.
No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot and will not
support this bill. I want a clear conscience—
I want to be able to sleep tonight. And I am
sure that no member of my government would
consider supporting such an abortive motion.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Timis-
kaming has a point of order.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I feel that
every man in the province of Ontario is my
I>ersonal friend.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has no
point of order. The hon. member for Lambton
will continue.
Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Is it in
order that the hon. member get up and cast
motives and suggest that what the hon. mem-
ber for Timiskaming has said is to the
benefit of personal friends?
Mr. Speaker: I do not take that meaning
[out of that. I think that the hon. member
has stated as he read that the hon. member
may be acting for a personal friend, and if
that is so, that is his right and privilege and
certainly not imputing any motive.
I would hope that every member of this
House woidd act for their constituents, their
personal friends, and for the people of
Ontario in the best possible manner, and that
would be my view of what the hon. member
for Timiskaming has said and my view of
what the hon. member for Lambton has
said.
Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can only state that the hon. member did not
mention any particular names; which is the
reason why I brought it to light.
I must repeat myself, Mr. Speaker: I cannot
and will not support this bill. I want a clear
conscience. I want to sleep tonight, and I am
sure that no member of my government
would tx)nsider supporting such an abortive
motion.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, this is
starting to degenerate into sort of a comedy
act. I was struck by the sort of silly remark
by— if the hon. member will forgive and
listen to what I have to say— the hon. mem-
ber for Scvirborough West (Mr. Lewis) when
he asked the last speaker, the hon. member
for Lambton: "What are you talking about?"
I believe that if the hon. member for
Lambton knew what he was talking about
he would have told you. And furthermore, I
think that a good number of members in this
House have completely misunderstood the
motives of the hon. member for Lambton
in rising.
They take the attitude that perhaps he is
just against the little man. I assure you,
Mr. Speaker, it is not so. He has been moved
by the hon. gentleman who comes here from
Vancouver sometimes, and felt that if he
put on tliis performanc'c it might quahfy him
with the Canada Council for a grant as the
"legislative fool".
Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the hon.
member for Timiskaming, the only regret
that this speaker would have is that perhaps
the proposed amendment did not go quite
far enough.
There are a lot of people in this House
who still look upon The Workmen's Com-
pensation Act as a form of welfare. There
are a lot of them, and I regret that perhaps
this attitude prevails in some of the remarks
made by the member for Timiskaming,
that it is the company that pay for this.
It may be the company that handles the
cash in passing it to the workmen's compensa-
tion board, but I suggest it is the workmen
who earn tlie money to enable the company
to pass it to the workmen's compensation
board. In essence, what the workman is doing
is buying disability insiu-ance, and if he is
disabled all he is asking is that his insurers
give him the credits that he has accumulated
towards his disability.
He is not asking for charity, nor does he
receive charity when he receives workmen's
compensation, except in the minds of this
government. So Mr. Speaker, we have to
APRIL 21, 1969
3337
look at it in its true light— that tlie workman
is entitled to be compensated for his dis-
ability.
Wlien I said that this proposed amendment
does not go far enough, it is because it
talks about temporary total disability and
temporary partial disability. Too often, Mr.
Speaker, what is temporary total disability
or temporary partial disability, or permanent
partial disability in some people is permanent
total disability in others.
I Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): The hon.
member has hit the nail right on the head!
Mr. Ben: I think that the hon. member for
Timiskamdng sort of mentioned that in one
sense. For example, Mr. Speaker, if you take
a labourer who works with a pick and a
shovel, all he has to offer to his employer in
some circumstances is a willingness, a strong
back and a good eye to dig a straight trench.
When he loses an arm, or gets a back in-
jury, he is not temporarily disabled, he not
just partially disabled, he is permanently dis-
abled because there is nothing that he can do
without that missing limb or with that defec-
tive back.
It is silly, in fact it is stupid, for the work-
men's compensation board to say to that
man: "Look, we are giving you permanent
partial disability of $5 or something, now
you go get yourself a light job." What kind
of a light job? And where is he going to get
this light job?
That man is completely unemployable due
to a permanent disability, a permanent total
disability or total permanent disability. Some-
thing must be done about these people, and
the only way you can do it is to give tliem
a complete and comprehensive retraining.
At one time, if a person they call a blue-
coUared worker, was injured and was parti-
ally permanently disabled, there usually was
some type of a job in a similar trade where
he could get some employment. But now,
aside from certain types of work— I have men-
tioned one of them— the people who we refer
to as blue-collar (a) are not wearing blue
collars any more, they are wearing white
shirts. It is the professional class who are
wearing tlie blue collars, and, (b) they are
highly skilled in their particular calling, skill
they acquire either through training, or
through a long period on the job at that
particular task, or a combination of both.
So that if a person in that category is
disabled, Mr. Speaker, he must first after
he gets over his temporary total disability
and falls into the class called temporary
partial disability, he must first start training
for another calling and since his disability is
due to his employment, as the hon. member
for Timiskaming and this party wish to
bring about, he should be receiving total dis-
abihty allowances until such time as he is
completely trained.
But even then, Mr. Speaker, he has still
got a disability to tlie degree that, even if he
goes to work, he will not receive tlie same
remuneration, even with his partial disability,
at his new job that he may have been re-
ceiving at his old, because at his old he had
more skill which he acquired through experi-
ence that he has not yet acquired in his new
job.
So there should still be some allowance
until such time as he has obtained the same
income level at his new job which with his
disability pa>inents would give him the same
total income as he had under his old fob.
I did not, when I started, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member started at
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Ben: Thank you. So, Mr. Speaker, I
reiterate, that we in this party support this
amendment. We would like to see it go
furtlier but as was mentioned when the hon.
member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Bukator),
had a resolution, with this government you
are lucky if you get anything. Therefore, if
you have half a loaf tlirown to you, take it
and give blessing to the Almighty that you
are getting something from them.
We feel it is about time that cognizance
was given to the fact that it is the worker
who pays for the workmen's compensation
and not the company. I do wish that the
hon. leader of the New Democratic Party
would stop saying that it is the company
that pays for these things. The workmen
pay for them and they are entitled to get
compensation for their premiums.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. mem-
ber for Timiskaming for introducing this bill
which, if acted upon, will clear up an obvious
case of injustice and mistreatment of injured
workmen in this province.
Every weekend I have about a dozen com-
pensation complaints brought to me for repre-
sentation. A great many of these are puzzled
and angry workmen whose compensation
benefits have been reduced by 50 per cent
and sometimes further reduced to 25 per cent.
Their compensation has been cut in half be-
cause they have begun to recover to the
3338
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
extent that the compenstion board has judged
them to be fit for hght work.
They protest vigorously at the kind of treat-
ment they are getting from the board and it
is not unusual for a host of epithets to be
used by them to designate the compensation
board. The truth of the matter is that the
lx>ard people are acting in accordance with
The Workmen's Compensation Act passed
by this Legislature. They are perfectly within
their rights in acting as they do.
The guilty party that should be receiving
the bnmt of the aggjrieved workmen's attack
and epithets is this Conservative government
that has been sitting in the seats of the
mighty in this province for more than 25
years. They are the guilty ones. Responsibility
lies in tlieir hands. And we have heard their
antediluvian attitude expressed today by the
hon. member for Lambton.
It is a shocking, deplorable, degrading
practice to cut the injured workman's com-
pensation benefits back to 50 per cent and
tell him he is available for light work when
no such work is available for him. So many
cf these men have injured backs and still
have sufficient pain and disability to make
anything but the lightest work impossible.
Many of them have little education as my
colleague has pointed out, and have earned a
good and honourable living by the labour
of their hands and the sweat of their brow.
They have known nothing but hard labour
all their lives and are not trained for light,
highly-skilled work. Then they are injured
on the job and so when they are cut back
in their benefit tliey go back to the employer
who politely or otherwise tells them that
they have no light duty work available and
to come back when they are able to go back
to their old job.
This is the way it is in the mining and
lumbering industries of the north, in which
there are no light duty jobs. His benefits,
when totalled, are only 75 per cent of his total
income; and now he must get by on 50 per
cent or sometimes even 25 per cent of this
75 per cent compensation.
What is he to do? He still has his commit-
ments to his family to meet. If he is like
most citizens of this province, he has pay-
ments to one kind of an institution or another.
He is staggered by his responsibilities which
before he regularly met, but now he cannot
discharge.
Is he to lose all he has worked so hard
to achieve on top of the personal pain,
suff^ering and anxiety that he has undergone
and is undergoing from his injury? And now
he has this financial burden to crush him. It
is like kicking a man when he is down. It
is inhuman and unjust treatment. Oh, it is not
all that bad, you may say. He can always go
and draw unemployment insurance benefits
or, if he is not eligible for these, he can go
to the welfare office. What is wrong with
this?
I will tell you what is wrong with it. The
public purse is forced to carry a load that is
not rightly theirs to carry. The workman re-
ceives a legitimate injury in his employment
and he is still disabled to the degree that he
camiot go back to do his work and nothing
else is readily or reasonably available to him.
So the industry is quite skilfully passing
the buck to the public domain, rather than
acceptinig the responsibility that rightfully
and morally belongs to it, to look after the
injured workmen until suitable work is reason-
ably available.
Another thing wrong with the practice of
forcing injured workmen to go on general
welfare assistance is that it tends to demoral-
ize many who have prided themselves on
their ability to meet their responsibilities in
times past. Now, because of a genuine injury
which is improving, they have to go to the
welfare, however inadequate it may be, to
feed and clotlie their children.
Many people will use up all their savings
and struggle to the last degree against such
a fate, but because of this cutback in benefits,
which lasts for a period of time, they are
forced to succumb and accept welfare— a
fate they had hoi>ed forever to avoid.
This kind of mistreating and demeaning
treatment of injured workmen who have their
benefits cut back to 50 per cent without work
being reasonably available is an offence to my
Christian conscience, however, undeveloped
it may be.
Yet this practice is fostered and tolerated
by the industries and Conservative govern-
ment of this province. Industry reneges
and avoids her legitimate and full responsi-
bihty to the injured by section 41 of The
Workmen's Compensation Aci: because the
Conservative government permits and encour-
ages her to do so by upholding and keeping
this statute on the law books of this province.
A government should encourage and force
industry and big business to meet their legiti-
mate responsibilities— not help them to escape
them.
It is an interesting, yet disturbing phenom-
enon to note time and again how this Tory
government protects the rich, the mighty, the
APRIL 21, 1969
3339
powerful at the expense of the poor, the
maimed, the downtrodden. They protect the
big fellow when he is kicking the httle fellow
in the teeth.
We are seeing it in the social and family
services. In this debate we are observing it
in just one aspect of The Workmen's Com-
pensation Act. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,
that other sections of this same Compensa-
tion Act— such as the low amount of partial
disability pensions which were set up some
years ago— are just as discriminatory and
unjust as section 41.
We pretend to be a Christian culture.
We, in this Legislature, bow our heads in
prayers every day and ask God's help and
then we sit back in a kind of pious, self-
righteous, self-satisfaction and mouth words
like, "Province of Opportunity" and "A Place
to Stand and A Place to Grow." At the same
time, as glaring abuses of the people are
perpetrated under the laws of this province
such as Section 41 of the Compensation Act.
"Jesus said, inasmuch as we have done it
unto one of the least of these my brethren,
ye have done it unto me".
Mr. Speaker, my conscience is greatly dis-
turbed by The Workmen's Compensation Act
in section 41 as it is now written. An obvious
injustice that causes untold and unjustified
hardship to many injured citizens of this
province, can be rectified by adopting the
amendment as set out by my colleague from
Timiskaming. I call upon you all to support
this bill and see that the injured workman
gets one hundred per cent benefits, until he
is reasonably able to go back and earn his
livelihood.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to support this amendment
I am struck by the fact that the problem here
is not a matter that the board is not doing
anything about it is a matter of law. It is
the amendment to The Workmen's Compensa-
tion Act that is required to allow the board
to be able to give the proper and adequate
compensation that is necessary for a work-
man who is injured to hve in decency.
When we look at McGillivray report at
page 13, it goes into the question of section
41 and completely rejects the concept that
the workman should obtain compensation
until he finds work or partial compensation
until he finds work.
As the section stands now, a workman who
earns $100 a week is cut down to $37.50
a week if his compensation is cut by 50 per
cent. That is 50 per cent of 75 per cent of
$100. If it is cut any lower, Mr. Speaker, a
workman is in the position where he cannot
possibly get sufficient funds in order to main-
tain himself and his family.
Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, the New
York Legislature empowered Mr. Joseph
Callahan to look into the workmen's com-
pensation laws of the state of New York and
this is what he said about the workmen's
compensation:
I use the province of Ontario because
Ontario has received wide acclaim for the
progressive nature of its workmen's com-
pensation system.
This Was in 1957. However, McGillivray, in
his investigations in 1966, went to other
jurisdictions to study our compensation laws,
and in effect went to jurisdictions whose laws
were not as good as ours in order to compare
our laws.
Now when you consider section 41 he said:
The concept cannot be stretched to re-
quire an employer to ensure that every
injured employee will find re-emp!o>Tnent.
But he lost the concept right there. It was
not a question that the workman was looking
for work, it was a question that the workmen
be paid proper compensation until he finds
vvork, and therein hes the crux of the whole
matter, Mr. Speaker. All this amendment re-
quires, or insists upon, is that if you are going
to cut a man's j>ermanent disability to a
partial disabihty, because you say he has
the possibility of finding work, you should
wait until he finds work to cut the disability,
that is only logical.
Why throw a man on to the streets with
$37.50 in support of his wife and children.
This is injustice, it is injustice, and you
know, when we consider these laws in this
Legislature, we should consider the justice
of the matter. It is justice according to the
law hnt sometimes it should be the law
according to justice.
Mr. MacDonald: Any relation between
law and justice is purely coincidental.
Mr. De Monte: Right. What we are doing
— Vv'hat my friend is doing— in moving this
amendment, is merely saying, "let the man
find work," the ascertain what he can earn
in that light work, and then you calculate his
pension. You put the horse before the cart,
not the cart before the horse.
I have had many of these cases, Mr.
Speaker, many of them, and I think they are
the most difficult cases for a member of this
House to handle. A man comes in and he
says, "They are paying me $20 a week and
3340
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
every time I sit down or bend down my
back hurts, and you call the workmen's com-
pensation and they do try, Mr. Speaker.
It is the law that is wrong, not the board.
They say: "I am sorry Mr. De Monte that is
the law. Some doctor said he was fit for
work." I say to them: "Good heavens, the
man cannot even sit in a chair." He says:
"Well that is too bad."
The doctor says he can go to work, and
the board invariably follows the doctor's re-
port; which it must.
The whole crux of the argument is that if
we were to allow him to find work and then
ascertain his loss of wages because of the
diiference, then we could properly ascertain
what that workman should be paid.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to mention the reactionary response from the
member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) and
I would submit with respect that this is the
response of this Conservative government to
a very crucial social issue. What I would like
to say is while that is what the government
thinks about men who are maimed in con-
structing our great industrial enterprise, then
that government does not deserve to sit where
it is. The member for Lambton was inarti-
culate, unknowledgeable, and reactionary,
Mr. Speaker.
There is one other thing, Mr. Speaker,
that the section as it now stands causes, that
is further appeals in that legalistic tribunal
system they have on this board. A poor man
says: "I am only making $37.50 a week," and
he comes to me and he asks what are my
rights. I say: "Well, I guess you have to
appeal to the appeals tribunal, and if you
lose there you go further up, and if you lose
there you go further up until you reach the
full board."
There is one other concept that we might
remember. How about the men who do win
their appeal? How about the 70 per cent
that are found on appeal to have a legitimate
c'aim and their pension has been cut? What
do they do in the six or eight montlis' inter-
val between the time that their pension is
cut, even on a partial basis, to the time that
they win their appeal? What do these men
do?
Do we send them over to the unemploy-
ment insurance? Do we send them over to
the welfare department? Where do we send
them? And in most cases both of them say:
"We cannot handle this, because you are on
workmen's compensation." And some of them
say: "All right, we will pay you welfare, but
as soon as you get your compensation you
pay us back." It is a degrading experience
for a workman to go through, Mr. Speaker.
There is only one thing I might mention
before closing. Who defines what is light
work? Does the doctor define it? Do you
tell a labourer that lifting a brick instead of
a block is light work? Do you tell a ditch-
digger that instead of digging a ditch he
digs a garden and that is light work?
Where do you draw the line, Mr. Speaker,
or where do the medical authorities draw
the line? Where does the Act draw the line?
I know why the workmen's compensation
board draws the line because it is required
to draw the line by law.
Let us start thinking in terms of human
values, Mr. Speaker, and not in terms of
dollar values. When we do that we will
amend this Act the way it should be
amended.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I want to, first of all, make a comment on
the remarks from the member for Lambton.
I suspect very much that he went out to
make a press release on that speech that he
just made and I hope that it gets pretty wide
coverage in this province, because I want to
suggest that he just blasted another hole in
the sinking Tory ship with that speech.
It was a typical Tory speech, anyway,
where he wanted to maintain the status quo.
He said that this compensation has been
operating well in this province for a great
number of years and we ought not to change
it. This is t>'pical of the Tories. They want
to maintain the status quo at all times. Do
not change anything, even though it is neces-
sary in terms of human values.
I want to say. also, that our friend from
Lambton said that this bill that was pre-
sented by my colleague was pulling the wool
over the eyes of the public and he said this
was typical New Democratic Party propa-
ganda. I want to say that the government
stands guilty in this regard because of their
lack of participation in this debate. I think
that they should have been putting forward
tjieir position in terms of finding an alter-
native to this sorrowful need that is prevalent
in this province. At least they could have
done that but obviously they did not partici-
pate to that extent.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkvicw): They could have
done with some better speech writers too.
Mr. Pilkey: The whole philosophy, as I
understand compensation, was to comi>ensia.te
a worker for loss of earnings. That is what
it was all about, but somehow this concept
APRIL 21, 1969
3341
or philosophy got changed around, and I do
not know where. It got changed around so
that the worker got compensated on the basis
of the degree of disabiUty. This is wrong.
The workman should be compensated on the
basis of the loss of the earnings if he is
injured. The degree of disability is not rele-
vant in that kind of a situation.
I know that a number of workers have
ben classified as temporary disability cases
and their pension is reduced to 50 per cent
and in many cases, 25 per cent. They then
become eligible for light work. They go to
the company and they say, *T am available
now for light work; I cannot work on the job
that I had formerly but I am now available
for light work."
The company, in most cases, say they have
not got a light job for you, and you will
have to go home until you are 100 per cent
capable of coming back and performing your
normal operation. Then, they find themselves
in a very precarious position. The worker
could find himself getting a 25 per cent tem-
porary partial disability award for months.
He depletes his savings; any that he might
have accumulated goes by the board and
then he is a welfare case.
I want to make another observation— the
member for Lambton said that he could go
down and get a UIC benefit. Let me tell you
that many of these workers would not qualify
for an unemployment insurance benefit be-
cause they are not available for work, and
the only place that they can really go to is
to general welfare.
Mr, MacDonald: That statement was based
on profound ignorance of the facts.
Mr. Pilkey: And so we find that a worker
who was maintaining a decent standard of
Jiving is reduced to a welfare level. I think
that this House understands because of the
many cases my colleagues have raised as to
what people have to live on on general wel-
fare. Nevertheless, here is a worker who was
maintaining a decent standard of living be-
cause of his employment, who finds himself
being subsidized through general welfare.
I want to say to this House that this propo-
sition is degrading the dignity of the man
and it is an injustice that should not be toler-
ated by the government. We have just got to
find the vehicle and the avenues that help
these people to maintain the same standard
of li\'ing that they had previous to the injury.
It is not just good enough to say that the
employers in this province should not be
saddled with this cost. What we need to do
is have a compassionate government that is
going to sit down and find a solution to this
basic need of people who are injured on the
job. I urge this government to sit down and
attempt to find that solution.
My colleague has brought forward a propo-
sition that should be entertained and should
be implemented by this government if they
are going to do the job that is necessary. I
want to conclude by saying that this crying
need has been going on for a great number
of years. I do not think it is good enough
for this government to say that the work-
men's compensation plan that they have in
the province of Ontario is one of the best in
the country and therefore it does not need
any changes. Tliis is an obvious place where
there is a need for change, and the time is
Mr. Speaker: The private members' hour
is now concluded.
It being 6.00 of the clock p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 90
ONTARIO
ILtqi&Mmt of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, April 21, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, April 21, 1969
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3345
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3374
3345
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, April 21, 1969
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
( Continued )
On vote 2002.
Mr. Chairman: Provincial allowances and
benefits; the hon. member for Sandwich-
Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Chairman, before the recess I had just asked
the Minister a question which may have been
out of his field. I do not Vnow whether he
had any answer that he wished to give me.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): I just caught the tail end
of the question when we recessed at 5 o'clock.
Mr. Burr: I think it was a httle outside the
Minister's field so I shall skip that one; but
the husband of the lady in question had been
injured and eventually died. Because there
might be an award under the workmen's
compensation board her application for
widow's or mother's allowance was refused.
Now why could an advance not be paid in a
case of this kind, with the understanding that
if there was an award to be made a claim
against the award would be perfectly in
order instead of having the woman wait
months for her application to be considered?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually the idea has
basic merits and I think a good many things
can be done by agreement. Of course the
catch is when one of the parties to an agree-
ment falls down. Supposing eligibility does
not come about and then payment has been
made and the question comes up of repay-
ment? Now I know there are exceptional
cases, but they are very diflBcult to fit into the
rules.
But I think that basically there is some
merit for this flexibility. How we achieve it
will be a difficult problem.
Mr. Burr: Well I take it that the Minister
will work on the problem.
Now I would like to refer back to the
case of Mrs. Smith.
I told you that she applied in June and
was told that it would be September 1 before
any cheque could be expected. There again
was the three-month period. I have checked
on that and my facts were were not quite
correct. She applied at the end of April, but
nobody went to see her until June and they
then wrote out the application, in June. So
according to the letter of the law her applica-
tion went in in June; that was the written
application as filled out, but she had actually
got in touch with the department at the end
of April.
So here we have a lady whose husband
died at the beginning of April, she made
application at the end of April and, as I told
you before, it was almost the end of March
of the foUowing vear before the award was
made. Now is this idea of a three-month
period— we have learned there is nothing in
the Act that says this— is it just that it takes
so long to process these appUcations that
three months becomes more or less accepted
as the shortest time in which it can be done?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually three months
is not the average time, it is less than that.
There is no such rule in the instance the
member gives and the time should have been
shorter than that.
However, as I say, in dealing with many
thousands of applications there will be these
individual cases. I have tried to see whether
we can adopt some system where there is an
objective judgment, the administrative end has
not been carried out by the department as
quickly as it could have been— sometimes
there is a change of social worker or some
other type of thing where the applicant is
really in the clear— that we should lean back-
wards to see that we meet the requirements
of the applicant just as if everything had
been carried out one, two, three— in a ver>'
expeditious order.
I guess we are always learning, as we did
from the example that the leader of the
NDP gave this afternoon of what can occur
in this business of administration of indi-
vidual cases.
3346
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Burr: The idea of some land of a
handbook or manual has been mentioned by
one or two speakers. Has the Minister indi-
cated any consideration for that, Mr. Chair-
man?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is a manual for
our field workers under The Family Bene-
fits Act.
Mr. Burr: That is for the field workers, but
is there any manual to which the recipients
have any access?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, there is none. The
present manual is a very large compendium.
But I think there is merit in this approach
and we will explore it. Just as we have these
general pamphlets we will develop, in simple
language, a pamphlet for each individual
programme, which might be given to the
applicant or recipient relating to the specific
programme, with all related items of service
tied in on the basic item.
For example I have this pamphlet "Social
Services' in Ontario," which covers the whole
spectrum of service. We might develop one
relating to circunlstances of the lady you
mentioned, indicating what type of social
service would be available in the broad
package deal for those who fall within that
class.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr. Chair-
man, earlier in the session I mentioned a
new scheme that has been developed in some
states in the United States whereby the wel-
fare recipients set their own level of require-
ments. In other words, they fill out a form
specifying their needs— their rent, their food,
their clothing and so on— they hand this in
and they are paid accordingly. Apparently it
is working out, despite the great apprehen-
sions that this may bring on a considerable
amount of abuse; which really is not so.
I understand that about every tenth form
or application is checked— the same as an
individual's income tax is checked, the wel-
fare recipients work on the same basis.
I was wondering if the Minister or his de-
partment is contemplating using this method,
or perhaps even experimenting with it, to
see if it might not be a more useful method
of administering welfare. It would certainly
cut out a great deal of expense in terms
of administration; in terms of inspectors or
your field workers and so on, and other
people involved who have to go around
and administer this welfare.
Also in tenns of the individual who is
seeking welfare and their self respect; he or
she will not have to go through the indignity
of having to more or less undergo treatment
at the hands of, not necessarily the best
field workers or the best welfare oflBcials.
This type of thing can be eliminated.
I was just wondering if the Minister or
his department is looking into this matter
now.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, we will follow
that experiment. It is going on, I believe, in
New Jersey.
Any progranrune of this kind, any approach
of this kind, of course, would have to be
developed at the national level, because so
long as the Canada Assistance Plan is in
force and we have this partnership, anything
along this line would have to be developed
At the national level. One of the federal-
provincial task forces \yill be checking into
this.
We have had some shght exi)erience in
this field. With our old age recipients we
have, in regard to apphcations for medical
and hospital assistance, been sending out a
form which they complete and we issue that
additional assistance based on their applica-
tion. So we have made an initial start in this
field.
. One of the things that I am very interested
in too is an examination of our figures just to
see how much the administration costs are.
What proportion they are in relationship to
tlie actual dollars placed ii> the hands of the
recipients? I think that would be a very inter-
esting figure to know.
Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, just to
follow tliat up, your department is spending
I see about $244 million, I believe—
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): $264
million!
Mr. Makarchuk: Right, $264 milhon; and
the figures you gave us a while ago indicated
tliat there were about 110,000 people on
welfare in th6 province of Ontario, so just a
matter of rough division would indicate tliat
if you gave each and every one of them
$2,000 you could save yourself about $64
million, and I am sure take care of the wel-
fare problem very fast.
The other point I want to bring up, Mr.
Chairman, is that this afternoon the Minister
was talking about the $20 supplement that
is available to people who are receiving
mothers' allowance. Just this evening I got
a very urgent call from a woman who has
just arrived out of hospital and who has no
food at home. She has three children. She
went to get her $20 supplement and she was
APRIL 21, 1969
3347
told by the welfare administrator in this case
that she is not entitled to this $20 supple-
ment because she is on mothers* allowance.
I just wonder if there could be some clarifi-
cation?
1 will send the name and address of this
woman over to your people and I hope that
possibly by tomorrow she will be able to get
her supplement, as you say they are entitled
to it.
Mr. Lewis: The letter should begin. The
member for Brantford has shown a Idndly
interest in your well being!
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Nipissing.
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman,
just on the point tiie member for Brantford
raised in regard to the $20 supplement that
the Minister says will cover extra cost of rent
—I think he said dentures, drugs, there are
a lot of things contained in that. Each muni-
cipality has a difFerent method of administer-
ing this programme and as a result the per-
son may live in one municipality and qualify
for assistance, if a married couple is in-
volved, of up to $40.00 a month. They may
live in an adjoining municipality and under
the same circumstances qualify for no assist-
ance at all. I think you are aware of the inci-
dence of disparities between communities
which administer this programme. I would
suggest to you that perhaps it should be
taken over by the province and administered
in the same maimer right across the province.
I would ask you then, what type of control
do you have on the administration of this
programme and do you review periodically
the methods of administration used by the
individual municipalities?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, this is
one of those grey areas. We could very easily
discuss this under municipal allowances and
assistances because this is, in a way, a muni-
cipal allowance and we will have quite a
thorough discussion on that particular item
when we come to it.
I think one of the great challenges will be
to get a comprehensive and a simplified,
equitable system right across the province in
all municipalities with regard to these addi-
tional benefits, which are payable at the
municipal level but which is picked up by
an 80 per cent subsidization, generally at the
provincial level.
When there is a greater understanding at
the municipal level that they are administer-
ing these particular items but not really pick-
ing up the tab for them, we will probably
get a more uniform, and I am hopeful at the
same time a more equitable, handling of this
particular assistance.
Mr. R. S. Smith: I would like to ask the
Minister: They have been administering these
for years at municipal levels, for the past few
years anyway, and there are still major dis-
crepancies between municipalities; I would
like to ask him what is being done to alleviate
the problem and to provide equal benefits
for all the people across the province regard-
less of which municipality you live in? If you
pay 80 per cent of the cost you certainly have
a responsibility to see that it is administered
properly?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We had better leave
this for the next programme under this par-
ticular vote; it is a municipal matter and we
are dealing with provincial allowances at the
present time.
Mr. R. S. Smith: You are following them
1, 2, 3, 4?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are following the
three programmes of activity at the top of
page 153, provincial allowances and benefits;
when we deal with that we will move on to
the municipal allowances.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, I have a question
in this area: What type of agreement does
the department have with the Ontario Hous-
ing Corporation in regard to rents that are
paid by recipients of social and family bene-
fits?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We pay the maximtmi
allowance.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Would you pay the maxi-
mum allowance to the recipient? And what
does he pay to Ontario Housing Corporation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That amount!
Mr. R. S. Smith: You said this afternoon
that the maximum was $85 if the unit is
heated, is that correct?
So this is the maximum amount that any
family on family benefits is paying to Ontario
Housing Corporation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, those are the fig-
ures. I am advised that those are the figures.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Those are the figures
payable to Ontario Housing Corporation on
behalf of welfare recipients.
3348
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. R. S. Smith: The $85 a month is the I think this is a fundamental thing.
maximum.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is $85 per heated,
$75 unheated.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, the Ontario Housing
Corporation in North Bay is charging some
people wh3 are under your programmes in
excess of $120 per month. I have drawTi this
to the attention of the Ontario Housing Cor-
poration and to some people within your
department. This has been going on since
last September and there has been nothing
done since then.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I wish you had com-
municated with me and I would have been
aware of the fact. I will check into that
matter.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chainnan, with re-
gard to family benefits, a married couple is
allowed to have $1,500 in assets. As I under-
stand it if they prepaid their funeral expenses,
this was then deducted from the amount of
assets which they had. I noticed of late that
the prepaid funeral expenses are now in-
cluded within their assets and can preclude
them from receiving benefits. Is this a change
in the regulations or the policy?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is considered part
of tlie assets of a family.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Well it did not used
to be.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is our present
policy. When this change came about, if
there is a change, I cannot say.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Well there must have
been a change within the last year, because
a year ago I had some people come to me
and it was arranged through the social and
family services office that if they prepaid their
funeral expenses then they would be eligible
for an allowance. Now there must have been
a change within the last few months.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This again is where I
will have to ask for the specific instances,
and then we can check them out.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Well I have a specific
instance right here; and I cannot imderstand,
it must be a change in the policy or in the
regulations. It has been done the otlier way
all along, and I tliink your people would
be able to tell you, and then this one here
brings it to date, they have changed the
method by which they assess a i)erson's
assets.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will check into that,
but so far as the information I have is con-
cerned, this is the policy and has been the
policy. Now if there was some exception that
occmred, it niiay have been just an inadver-
tent exception, it might have been an error
on the part of someone.
But if we had a policy of prepayment of
this type of thing we could have assets pre-
paid in niany ways and it is a determination
of what assets are under the circumstances.
Mr. R. S. Smith: This was that the only
way that they could get rid of this extra
money without going out and spending it on
a holiday or something like that— to go and
prepay their fimeral expenses. I had at least
three people who did this and then qualified
because they had put their money into a pre-
paid funeral. I think that if you ask the
funeral directors across the province they
will tell you that they do this regularly for
these older people so tliat they can quahfy.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Tliunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Chairman, speaking of specific instances I
think this is the proper vote to which I
should speak on legal aid.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In some respects; legal
aid is a matter in which we have an over-
lapping jurisdiction between the Attorney
GeneraJ and this department.
Mr. Stokes: Precisely.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Perhaps you might
relate tlie facts and then we can see what
vote it applies to.
Mr. Stokes: This is the case of a yoimg
married woman with three children. The
husband deserts; the woman asks the assist-
ance of the courts in order to locate the
husband so that he can live up to his obliga-
tions to the wife and family. The courts are
not able to locate the deserting husband. The
woman goes to family court asks for assist-
ance—some kind of allowance to look after
the children and herself and ends up in
frustration and the court tells her that they
will not give lier any assistance. She is not
entitled to it; that it is the responsibility of
the husband, who she cannot find and they
will not help her to find.
As a result she became so frustrated she
said: "Well I cannot look after them myself
and if you will not help me look after them*
APRIL 21, 1969
3349
there is nothing left". She walked out of the
courtroom and left the children there. She
was subsequently charged with neglect or
desertion or some such charge and was con-
victed. She was sent to Mercer Reformatory
for three months as a result of this con-
viction, and spent three months there.
Eventually she went back and rejoined her
family and took employment. She was able to
get employment that netted her something
like $1,200 a year. By this time they did see
fit to give her some subsistance for looking
after the children and she made further
efforts to locate the husband so that he
could look after her responsibilities. She asked
the assistance of the court again to assist
her in this, but all to no avail. She struck up
a relationship with another young man who
assisted her to pay off some of the bills
that had occurred in the interim, and started
contributing towards the upkeep of the
family.
She applied, or I applied on her behalf,
for legal aid assistance, so that she could
get a divorce from her deserting husband.
I apphed directly to your department and to
the director of legal aid for the district of
Thunder Bay. The director of legal aid said
that it was the responsibility of The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services to make
a recommendation based on the income of the
wife. I gathered all this infonrkation for them.
It was subsequently sent to your department
to make a recommendation, and in due
course, along came the reply, "This woman is
not entitled to legal aid because of the level
of income that she enjoyed during the previ-
ous calendar year", and it was something like
$1,200, as a waitress.
I contacted the director of the legal aid
division of your department again, and he
thought we had a pretty good case and that
there should not be too much trouble in
getting some sort of assistance in this par-
ticular case. I contacted the director for legal
aid for Thunder Bay again, and asked if he
had got a further recommendation from the
director of that branch in your department
and he said that this was being awaited and
in due course a decision would be made.
I received a letter about two weeks ago say-
ing that the case had been reviewed and in
their opinion she still would not qualify for
legal aid, and it was the responsibihty of the
other partner of what turned out to be a
common law arrangement to assist her in
getting the necessary divorce.
I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, from
the Minister, if, in fact, your department
makes the recommendation to the director
of legal aid, why do you not give some
indication either to the person involved or to
the person who makes ajyplicatiooi on their
behalf, of the criteria you use. Certainly I
would not think that an income of $1,200
a year would keep the family to-gether plus
the necessary resources to go out and hire
a lawyer to get a divorce from a deserting
husband.
By any standard you would want to use,
could you, in all sincerity say that that level
of income would be sufficient to get the
necessary counsel for a divorce. I would like
some indication from the Minister, what is
the criteria for recommending legal aid to
the director. Certainly, if it is not any more
liberal than that, I would think it is just an
exercise in futility for any of these people to
make application for such assistance.
I think if you ask some of your staff, they
will remember this case well, and I would
like an indication from the Minister that cases
like this will get the attention that they
merit under such circumstances, because, if
you are going to make this programme mean-
ingful, and if you are going to rehabilitate
and assist these famihes to get back on their
feet when they are the victims of deserting
fathers. Certainly it is incumbent upon the
Minister and his department to see that the
kind of programme is set up that is going to
contribute materially towards the rehabilita-
tion of such families. And I would like the
Minister to give me that assurance, that,
either he has such a programme, or he will
institute one.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Again I would appre-
ciate from the hon. member the name of the
Mr. Stokes: I have already acquainted your
department with the facts.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If it is in the depart-
ment, I am asking the hon, member to send
me a note reminding me of the specifics, so
I may check that through because my own
opinion is that the facts as the member has
outlined, and the type of divorce proceedings
that might be instituted, are those which are
directed towards rehabilitation and setting up
a new family unit. I myself would be in-
chned to lean backwards in order to bring
that rehabihtation about in order that the
family unit be re-established and started
from scratch. Because the family and society
both have a lot to gain with this type of
thing, instead of permitting the situation as
in the past. But I would like to check that
one out again.
3350
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Park-
dale.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
this past year I have looked in vain for a
change in policy of the government in its
giving of allowances to disabled persons. I
have often said that the policy of the pro-
vincial government when it comes particularly
to helping disabled persons, is to encourage
them to live in sin. I know I have used this
example before, but the Minister has asked
some of the men>bers when they have been
speaking about particular pohcies, to give an
example. And this one I give to the Minister.
I know this is one of several, and the situa-
tion is this: if a man is disabled, completely
disabled, and he is single he will receive an
allowance from tlie government, I believe
about $75 per month.
If that man is fortunate enough, in this
case where his girl friend married him— this
man I have in mind had a very serious acci-
dent, he was completely disabled, received
an allowance, but his girl friend married liim.
Because she had a job and she made a very
small amount of money, he was automatically
cut off from receiving any allowance from
this govemment.
Now, if tliat man and woman had just
lived together under common-law, he would
have received tlie grant. But once they mar-
ried the gi-ant was cut off. I have looked in
vain for any change in poHcy. I would like
to continue on this matter, Mr. Chairman—
but could the Minister tell me is this basically
still the policy?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we still
take into consideration the income of the
family. The family benefits programme is
Ixised on need and related, not to the needs
of individuals, but to the needs of the family.
In conjunction with that, of course, the family
income is taken into consideration; and this
was really the great step forward in the in-
stitution of die family benefits programme,
because, by and large, the treatment of
fiunilies as units and the needs of famihes as
units ensured die benefit of a very substantial
numl>er of people.
But what the hon. member is leading up to
is a reversion to the universal type of pen-
sion or maintenance available to everybody,
regardless of income. I me^n, you either have
one or the other.
Mr. Trotter: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman, what
has happened is entirely the opposite as far
as the family benefit. Again I emphasize,
under such a case they could live common-
law, disregarding any morals or anything
else, and can get grants from the government.
There is no family benefit about it.
On two or three occasions, in the hope that
the policy had been changed, I have brought
this matter up with members of the stafi" of
the department. But these are the regulations,
and this is the situation, and you can quote
family benefits until you are blue in the face;
but in essence you are discouraging the family
imit in the province, particularly in the case
of a disabled person.
Now, you might to some extent blame the
federal govemment. I have been told that
the federal govemment lays down the guide-
lines in these cases. Well, if this is so, the
federal government is wrong, and there is
certainly no harm in the provincial govem-
ment stepping in to help these disabled
people where, and if necessary. There is no
doubt that under the old age assistance you
have started to save a lot of money.
Because of the federal govemment stepping
in on old age securit)^ thousands of cases that
the provincial govemment once had to pay
for are now covered by federal legislation.
So certainly there is a tremendous amount of
money in this field available if you had the
will to use it.
And while the Minister was mentioning
family benefits, Mr. Chairman, it is rather
hard to understand the policy of the govem-
ment when you look back at the public ac-
counts ending March, 1968, and we bear in
mind that this House voted for the assistance,
in accordance with The Family Benefits Act,
over $88 million— and over $9 million was
unspent. Now, I am not asking this govem-
ment to go out on a spending spree, but
certainly I know enough of this province,
and the needs of the lower income groups,
that that $9 million could l)e well spent.
Whether you are treating disabled persons
under disabled allowances, or under family
benefits, as the Minister now suggests, I
would certainly like to know why a disabled
man gets married— marries a girl who is
making approximately, I think a take-home
pay of $33 a week— is cut off. It is certainK'
hard to understand.
The Minister, I am afraid, is blind to the
needs of this province, and its general policy
is callous. In essence, you encourage people
to live in sin.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
I just want to support the member for Park-
dale. I have personal knowledge of cases
APRIL 21, 1969
3351
such as that, and I, too, have waited, as the
member for Parkdale has, for an answer.
I cannot understand myself, the particular
case I have in mind. The lady, who was
working, was earning a reasonable income,
but at a minimal level. She took care of a
man who was totally disabled and they de-
cided to get married— and got married. Un-
wittingly, they found their income was im-
mediately very substantially cut do^\'n. It
worked a very real hardship on the persons
concerned, let alone the point the member
for Parkdale raised.
Mr. Trotter: I was wondering, Mr. Chair-
man—I hate to see this problem go un-
answered year after year. Has the Minister
given any consideration to changing this
ridiculous policy of the government? I know
his predecessor liked to blame the federal
government.
Well, I do not care if it is the federal gov-
ernment's fault or this Minister's fault. It is
certainly the fault of government, and a great
many individuals are suffering. It is important
to the individual. It is not going to mean a
tremendous amount to the budget. It would
easily be buried in that $9 million plus that
was voted for under family benefits— and
has not been spent.
Has the Minister any intention of giving
this policy any serious consideration as to
where some improvement can be made?
Hon. Mr. Yarerako: Of course, you cannot
just treat this one type of situation. It is part
and parcel of the basis of the whole pro-
gramme. The Family Benefits Act is based on
need and you take the budgetary require-
ments of the family unit and consider the
income, then you bring to bear the assistance
in that role.
It is exactly the same situation if there is
a couple very happily married, either one
year or 20 years, and then the husband be-
comes disabled within the meaning of the
definition as used now.
If the wdfe is working and earning an in-
come, that income is taken into consideration
in relation to establishing the needs of the
family unit. So that in your view if you had
a situation where you had a disability, and
then a marriage, it would be treated differ-
ently from the situation where you have a
marriage, and then a disability.
And then, if you treat that differently you
get into the question of other types of situa-
tions where other needs have to be met. The
answer will lie in a reassessment, in due
course, of the estabhshment of what income
is the proper one to be taken into account in
assessing tlie needs of the family unit.
Mr. Trotter: Well, nothing has been done.
Mr. Chairman. The hon. Minister is just un-
loading conversation because he is simply
not coming to grips with the problem. I think
this government, particularly this department,
stands indicted.
The fact is that you are simply not coming
to grips with needs of this type of individual.
Now we could go into other cases, and I am
not going to recite a great number of
cases that I know of and all members know
of. But it is really an indication of your gen-
eral policy, and you are just letting it drift.
I think tlie Minister should show some
leadership in this particular situation. I am
one of those people that would much rather
see tlie leadership in such matters as this
come from the province and not have every-
thing centred in Ottawa. But the difficulty is,
when you get down to policies such as we
have before us, that any benefits that have
been forthcoming have really been inspired
from Ottawa. Whether it has been a Liberal
or a Conservative government in Ottawa, the
leadership has come from there— and it is a
fruitless situation for this Minister. I know
your predecessor was laying the blame on
Ottawa for certain policies in welfare. Yet
you go to conferences in Ottawa and say
that this province does not have enough say
in this field of government into which the
federal government is enroaching.
But the Minister must certainly anticipate
that any inspiration of any improvements are
going to have to come from Ottawa because
it is certainly not coming from the province
of Ontario and particularly from this Con-
servative administration. I can only asume,
Mr. Chairman, from what I have heard the
Minister say, that he intends to do the same
as they did last year and the year before in
this matter of disabled allowances. That is,
to do absolutely nothing.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
provincial allowances. The hon. member for
Etobicoke.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairman, during the opening speech I
made when these estimates were started on
April 1, I made reference to the former
critic of this party, Mr. Horace Racine, and
the fact that for two years running he had
asked the Minister about what he referred
to as "success insurance". What he was re-
ferring to, Mr. Chairman, was the plan that
is in use in some states south of here, where
3352
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the hard-core of the unemployed are taken
on by industry. Industry is given some in-
centives to hire these people and to train
them, because any losses are guaranteed by
the government.
The Minister has not spoken about this.
In the U.S. at the very moment— in many of
the northern cities— we find many people
who, because of the lack of education and
for many other reasons, are considered to be
hard-core unemployed. Horace Racine, as I
mentioned, and I, have asked about this.
I would like to know if the Minister has
any moneys available, or if he has considered
setting aside any money in order that we
might, here in this province, do something
about breaking the vicious circle of genera-
tions of welfare recipients.
We find that many of these people, be-
cause they cannot get a job, stay on welfare.
It becomes a way of life for them and their
children and their grandchildren. I know
that the Minister considers his department
to be forward looking, even though most of
us do not agree. However, I would like to
know if the Minister has given any regard
to this. Has he set any moneys aside for
this type of plan? I know that he would
have to get together with the hon. Minister
of Trade and Development and others, but
I do feel that this is something that could
be done. Besides the perennial question of
the guaranteed income that we raise, I think
this is one way he could do something about
reducing the number of hard-core unem-
ployed people who stay on welfare through-
out their life. Industry will not hire them
and nothing is being done to make it easier
for industries to hire these people.
If it can be done and is being done in
the U.S.A. with cases which I am certain
are nmch more difficult than the Minister has
here in Ontario— and if it is succeeding, as
I understand it is— then I do not know why
the Minister himself cannot try something
like this. I would like to hear the Minister's
view on this plan.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have several things
that are going on. We have, within our
rehabilitative services programme, quite an
excellent programme relating to those who
are physically handicapped. With some of
them we have done a tremendous amount in
this field in the last two years in particular.
We use sheltered workshops and grants
made available both directly to the work-
shops and assistance to those who are assist-
ing in the programmes. Again, we will be
entering into a joint effort with the federal
government in those activities which are
called "Work Activity Programmes" to try to
develop some sort of scheme whereby incen-
tives and initiative will be instituted to get
people back to work.
This is a problem which many munici-
palities have felt very keenly at the local
level. They have brought forward these
propositions to somehow try to get the able
bodied— employable in some way— to provide
for themselves in an independent way. I was
very interested in seeing a programme,
which I have checked into, called the JOBS
programme.
The initials, JOBS, stands for something
in the federal U.S. economic opportunity
programmes, I believe. I saw a two-page
advertisement of this programme in the
United States and I will be checking that
out. Rehabilitation is a key factor, one
which I find that the public at large is very
much in support of. We intend to pursue
this to the utmost degree.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to point out, first of all, that I am not
talking about jobs such as road building. I
am talking about jobs in industry.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am not talking about
jobs. The jobs programme is JOBS— I forget
what the initials stand for— but they are
related to getting people back to work. I
may say that I have had the impression,
and it has been verified, that the success of
that particular programme has yet to be
evaluated.
I thought for a minute, a week or so ago,
that some of the western provinces were
adopting this. I asked about it, and was
advised that they had not. They were doing
what we were; that was to check on some
sort of evaluation of the success of that
programme.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, if I might
just add a few words to what the Minister
has said. I think that if he would check on
some of the comments that have been made
during these debates in the last few years,
he will see that we, on this side, have put
forward quite a few ideas. If they had been
followed up two or three years ago, we
would now have some research figures.
I do feel that this is one area that, inas-
much as we are talking about so many mil-
lions of dollars spent by this department, the
Minister would have been the first to pick
up any idea that could help break this
vicious circle that we have, the cycle of the
APRIL 2X, 1969
3353
hard core unemployed, would be welcome.
I say, I am glad to see that he is interested
in JOBS.
However, as I mentioned, the hon. mem-
ber from Ottawa East, Horace Racine,
brought this to the Minister's attention more
than once. We have never heard the Min-
ister speak about it before tonight. It is a
shame. The only point I would like to ask
the Minister now, Mr. Chairman, is: does he
feel that these discussions he is having with
the federal government will soon bear fruit?
I do not know why this government can-
not take some initiative on its own. It should
start some projects even if they are only
pilot projects to see just what can be done
with the hard core unemployed. I do not
think the government should seek refuge be-
hind the federal government every time
something is brought up that is difiFerent and
new.
We have the Minister of Trade and In-
dustry, who is always talking about Ontario,
the Province of Opportunity. I think in a
way, he is right. If this is so, and if Ontario
is a leader, we should take the initiative to
see what can be done with this type of
project. I do hope that the Minister can tell
us how soon he expects things to start hap-
pening.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, all our
programmes are ongoing, we are always seek-
ing new ways of doing things. I may say that
by and large our arrangements in this par-
ticular field with Ottawa have been very
beneficial and very fruitful to both sides.
Our relationship in developing new pro-
grammes is an excellent one, and there are
ten provinces.
Each province contributes its experience
and its problems to the heap and then out
of that are evolved excellent programmes.
That was the very initiation of the Canada
Assistance Plan in which the leadership pro-
vided by the former Minister, and the depart-
ment as a whole in the discussions, brought
this to fruition. This work activity programme
is just an ongoing aspect of this. We are in
partnership, and so long as we are in partner-
ship, wherever it is felt that there is mutual
advantage— and I think there is in this de-
velopment—we will pursue those lines.
Mr. Braithwaite: The Minister is telling
us, then, that we do not have to worry about
any feet being dragged. As far as this type
of work programme is concerned, the Min-
ister is 100 per cent behind it, is this correct?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The first speech I
ever made was completely based on preven-
tion and rehabilitation. It was the very first
one I made, and I was convinced of that
before I came into the department, I was
convinced then, and I am still convinced
now, that the emphasis, the continuing em-
phasis, the solution to the problem, is in
rehabilitation and prevention.
I may say that I am reminded of the "j-o-b"
programme that I referred to. They are the
initials of "Just One Break." I recall vividly
that so often the difference between being
independent and self-reliant and not, is Just
One Break, We are going to fiarure some way
and means that we will be able to provide
that "Just One Break" through our own
auspices.
Mr. Braithwaite: Well, mi^^ht I suggest,
Mr. Chairman, to the Minister that if he looks
into this question of the negative income tax
he might be able to give the poor of this
province just one break. As for his comments
on prevention and so on, that he referred to
in his first speech, I wonder what has hap-
pened. Is the Minister telling us that he has
such a high powered, high level of admin-
istrators that he is unable to get them to
do what he has in mind? Or just what is the
problem?
If this is what the Minister came into this
Ministry with, I should have thought that
by this time, he would have done more with
reference to prevention. I thought perhaps
we might have had more done in that area,
but if this is what the Minister tells us, he
still has not told me when we can expect
some sort of programme like "J-O-B -S" right
here in Ontario. He has not been specific.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I know that in
the estimate, where assistance in accordance
with the Old Age Assistance Act, we are
voting on $20,000. In the year ending March
of 1968 for old age assistance, this govern-
ment spent approximately $2,250,000— a tre-
mendous change. Is this difference accredited
entirely to the Old Age Security Fund that
the federal government has?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is the transference
—last of the transference from the Old Age
Assistance to Old Age Security.
Mr. Trotter: Here is a situation where, be-
cause of a change in the federal policy, it
has meant a tremendous saving to the pro-
vincial government, and it is regrettable that
it is not more evident that these provincial
funds that are available are not used for
3354
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
family and social work. I know that the costs
go up each year, but at the same time— and
again I can use as an example the need for
assistance for people who are disabled or
who are blind— the welfare payments or the
subsistance payment— and that is all they are,
subsistance payments to the blind— are far
too low.
Surely some of this saving, instead of this
lieing thrown back into the consolidated
revenue fund, could easily have l^en used
for various items under this vote. I must say
to the Minister, that his Treasury Board, the
rreasur>' Board of this government certainly
takes very little interest in the people in the
lower income groups of this province. I think
that the Minister should be urged to more
forcibly express the needs of these people.
When you see an item where the Provincial
Treasury saves money, as a result of what it
spent federally, and see again another item
where again for the year ending 1968 we
\'ote for over $88 million for the family bene-
(Ttts and find over $9 million imspent, the
department certainly is not taking advantage
of the opportunities that it has, despite the
fact that funds are actually \'Oted by this
House.
Mr. Chairman: The hon, member for
High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I notice there
is $955,000 voted here in accordance with
the Disabled Persons Allowance Act. We
have for some years been pressing, of course,
that disabled persons in chronic hospitals re-
ceive an allowance. The Minister has now
agreed that this should be so, but this figure
obviously is not going to be sufficient. What
does the Minister intend to do to get the extra
money that will be necessary in accordance
with his statement of last month that these
people are now to receive an allowance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The money will be
there.
Mr. Shulman: You mean that there is suffi-
cient money in that figure?
An hon. member: He said there would be
no allowance.
Mr. Shulman: Well, he has changed his
mind.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are talking about
the $15 comfort allowance. Let me say that
is not just for disabled persons, they are an
important factor in the field, i)ut it permits
payment to individuals in need in chronic
•hospitals.
Mr. Shulman: The question is that this is
something that has been announced since
these figures were brought down. Will extra
money be voted over and above what was
originally set aside?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That was appro\ed by
the Treasury and, if there are not sufficient
funds within the total vote, the Treasury,
having made that approval, will make those
funds available.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South):
Mr. Chainnan, some eleven months
ago I had discussed the problem with
the Minister in this House pertaining to per-
sons who receive welfare while awaiting
settlement from the Ontario Motor Vehicle
Accident Claim Fund. I passed on a letter to
the Minister at that time from a family in
Stevensville, Ontario. He was going to look
into the matter, but today I have not heard
anything on this letter, or anything pertaining
to this family. This family finally went to the
courts and had a settlement made. I think
they received somewhere around $17,000 in
settlement. By the time they paid the lawyer—
and I am just quoting this off the cuff just
now— but I believe the letter said somewhere
around $3,500 or $4,000 for the solicitor's
fee. Then they had to turn around and pay
the county welfare administrator for about
two and a half years of welfare benefits; they
had to pay Ontario Hospital Ser\'ices Com-
mission; they had to mortgage their home,
put a second mortgage on their home; I think
he ended up with about $2,500 in his pocket.
There were other expenses incurred due to
the accident and he ended up with serious
back trouble— he had an operation on his
back which left him disabled. Today this man
is perhaps walking the streets looking for a
job with litde hope of obtaining any employ-
ment that would bring his salary up to any-
where near what it was before the accident.
Today I have another letter here which I
would like to read into the record. I do not
like to read too many letters but this is one
in particular. This is addressed to me and
►says:
Dear Sir:
Two years ago, Novemlxjr 6, 1966, we
were invoKed in an automobile accident
with an uninsured motorist.
Through no fault of my own my wife
and I were injured severely. Since that
time I have not been able to work, have
had many operations, including two bone
grafts. At the time of the accident I was an
average working man and the father of 6
APRIL 21, 1969
3355
children trying to buy a home. However,
since the accident I have been forced onto
welfare, lost my home, and am living in a
rented and a dumpy shack.
My children have gone through 2 years
of hell having a shortage of food and wear-
ing other people's hand-me-down clothes,
shoes, and have never been to a dentist
the entire time.
I could go on all day, but what good
would it do? What I cannot understand is
our Ontario government allowing this to
go on. Why should my family have to live
like this because they allow people to drive
without insurance.
I have applied for fathers' allowance
and have been turned down because I
am not disabled for life. What do I have
to do, get killed? I have a broken back,
arm, sternum, ribs, chipped ankle bone,
and a cartilage removed from my knee.
I have lost my job, and will be a long
time getting any strength in my arm after
the cast is removed and the pin taken out.
I think this particular chap I am talking
about was in the hospital here some time in
the early part of the year for another reset
in his arm— apparently it had not healed
properly.
Welfare gives us enough money to
exist, and I am not allowed to try to keep
myself at odd jobs as welfare only takes
away anything I make. For two years now
I have been after Manpower to send me
to school so that I could find suitable work
when I am able to but to no avail. It is
too bad I am not an immigrant.
I am informed that I must pay back
welfare for all the moneys received;
OMSIP, Ontario Hospital also wanted
their money back. The truck I was in was
paid for, and with a maximum of $35,000,
what is left for me? I paid these premiums
all my life, and now they want me to pay
again. When you are dealing with a
government, the average working man has
no chance.
Sincerely
Perhaps Hansard can have the name of the
person who wrote me the letter, but this is
from Port Colbome, Ontario.
Last year at that time the Minister, in
his reply to the first case I mentioned, re-
ferring to whether that person should pay
back to the welfare administrators of the
country, said.
There is nothing in the legislation that
requires a municipality to do this. This
is very often based on an arrangement
which has been made between the muni-
cipality and the person at the time and
this is followed up on that, but as I said
to the hon. member for Sudbury, this is
a matter into which I will check com-
pletely—this type of assignment recovery
as well as other recoveries which I have
become aware of.
Now, this is almost a year, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to know what action the Minis-
ter has taken up to this date. Do people have
to pay back welfare in such a claim as this?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There was an hon.
member over here on my right earlier this
afternoon who was putting forward this as
a proposition that might be adopted in order
to gain flexibility— it has also been advanced
by other quarters— and I indicated to him
that there is no legal way; it is up to the
local administrator if he wants to enter into
an arrangement. The other party enters into
an arrangement in order to be assisted over
a period of time, and the understanding is
that, when the recipient is able to, he will
then repay the moneys. I may say there is
no legal obligation under that arrangement;
I do not think that any court of law would
enforce that arrangement. However, when
there is good faith on the part of both par-
ties, very often we get the kind of flexibility
we cannot obtain otherwise.
Mr. Haggerty: Yes, perhaps we should go
back to the compensation that the member
for Niagara Falls was mentioning a week
or so ago. Perhaps we would not be
running into this problem. But I do
want to ask the Minister again: it might be
well that the municipalities request their
20 per cent, but is this the policy of your
department and of the federal department to
request the other 80 per cent?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If there is a recovery,
if there is a return, all parties get a propor-
tion of the return back.
Mr. Haggerty: Again, Mr. Chairman, would
you say this was justice? In these two par-
ticular cases, would you say this was justice?
Mr. Chairman: Shall provincial allowances
carry?
Mr. Haggerty: I would still like to pursue
this matter a little bit. Perhaps the Irish is
coming out in me, but I still would like to
have an answer on this. Perhaps a letter could
go out to the two different parties involved
in this matter and perhaps reinstate their
3356
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
last year's costs, which they paid to the
county, which should be reimbursed on this
matter.
In his letter, he mentioned about rehabili-
tation. Last year— I think it was some time
in May— the Minister made an announcement
that there was close to eight hundred and
some thousand dollars set aside for rehabili-
tation programmes in the province of On-
tario. The member for Etobicoke had men-
tioned this particular matter, and perhaps I
should come back and follow up on what he
mentioned. I had referred to the ghettos in
many municipalities in this province, where
people have been on welfare for years and
years, and it seems to run into a trend in
the family. Yet I find, from sitting on local
welfare committees, that there is a lack of
family counselling in this province. We have
county administrators, we have staff there,
we have regional administrators in St. Cath-
arines—and I find overlapping of services,
with no family counselling whatsoever; all
that the staff is interested in is a number, a
statistic— that is all they are concerned about.
When one reads the report in the paper
from the county of Well and and sees the
alarming increase of unemployed in the
county, one can read into this that there are
so many persons who have returned to their
wives and so many have received other assist-
ance, but when you look at this problem
there is no counselling whatsoever. When
you look at the children's aid society in the
county of Wei land— I am just talking about
the county of Welland; perhaps it is not so
in other counties throughout the province—
I again find overlapping of services and very
little counselling. Yet, when you read his
report and read about the increase of mar-
ried mothers, the increase of children who
are put into our homes in Welland county,
yon sit back and wonder and say, "What
programme have we in the province of
Ontario? What are we doing for these
people?"
I know the Minister's department is busy,
and he has not the time to check on the
administrators within the counties or per-
haps to get detailed reports in addition to
the statistics. What is lacking in the county
of Welland is a marriage counsellor.
The Minister says perhaps I am off my beat
in this, but I believe we are dealing with the
right item.
Now I would like to ask the Minister,
what programme has he actually for re-
habilitation in this province? What has he
got to get these persons back to employment,
get them so that they become self-employed,
that they are no longer on the welfare rolls?
We have Canada Manpower; it does its share.
But what is this department doing, with all
its staff throughout the province?
I can remember a case last year— I think
the hon. Provincial Secretary has been noti-
fied of tliis case— and I was astonished at the
methods in this particular case. The problems
these people have to go through were appar-
ent when one walked into the house. The
plaster is broken, the walls are practically
cooning down, the windows are broken, there
is no water supply and the children had been
out of school for three months last winter.
And yet we have a county health unit, we
have a truant officer in our area, and no-
body gave two hoots for them.
Wlien I was called into this home by a
neighbour of mine, we walked into the home
and looked it over. You would wonder and
say, "Well, just how do we treat our people
on welfare?"
We opened the fridge. I believe there was
about a half a quart of milk and about a
half a loaf of bread for the mother and three
children. The father was up north trying to
look for a job and apparently he had received
a job, OT taken a job painting a bridge. But
the family had no food, not a bit of money
in the house to buy anything.
So I said to myself: "What am I going to
do?" I went back home— it was a Friday night
—I could not get hold of the county welfare
administrator so I called in a friend that
worked through the county board of health.
She was a nurse and I met her at this place
at 11 a.m. Saturday.
She examined these children and foimd
that they needed their tonsils and adenoids
removed. They could not hear. The mother
needed treatment for cancer and I can re-
member the nurse asking tliem: "What type
of food do you want?" And she said: "May
I look at your stove?" Do you know what
they had to cook on? One of tliese little out-
door camping stoves, the one that you pump
up with gas. This is what they had to cook
with, in a house.
She said: "What type of groceries would
you want?" The only thing they could use,
perhaps, was hotdogs or wieners and she
said to the children: "Is there anything else
that you would like to have?" The little
daughter said: "My mother needs powder."
Mr. Chairman: I think you are getting into
municipal welfare.
APRIL 21, 1969
3357
Mr. Haggerty: We are talking aibout wel-
fare.
Mr. Chairman: You are getting into munici-
pal aflFairs.
Mr. Haggerty: The daughter said: "My
mother needs powder," and the nurse said,
"Yes, she does.'* Of course, she recognized
the problem right here. She questioned a
little bit further and she had to be in Hamil-
ton, I think it was, for further treatments at
the cancer clinic there.
But these are some of the problems that
go on. These welfare administrators or social
workers that we have employed know all
about this, but they do not give a damn.
Somebody had mentioned the old age pen-
sion. In my riding, many of my problems are
dealing with persons on welfare— and they
need assistance. I find out in my area that
an American can receive the old age pension
in Canada just like that. All they have to show
is proof that they have been a resident in
Canada for 10 years. Do you know all the
proof they have to show? They show that
they paid taxes for 10 years in Canada on
their cottage and they can receive old age
security i)€nsion, here in Canada. It is that
easy.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member
is out of order. We are dealing with the
provincial allowances and benefits.
Mr. Haggerty: Do we not contribute in
pur provincial programmes to income tax?
Mr. Chairman: I do not see that taxes paid
has got anything to do with this.
Mr. Haggerty: Pardon? Do we not deal
with provincial income tax here in this prov-
ince? A portion of this goes to Old Age
Security pension?
Mr. Chairman: You have gone so far afield
it is difficult to follow what you are talking
about.
Mr. Haggerty: But I do raise this point
to the Minister and to a number of Ministers
over there. It is this easy for our American
friends to come over to get old age pensions.
One of the problems that we have in this
province of Ontario is that we cannot even
look after our own people. In other words,
our people in Ontario are second-class citi-
zens. I think it is time that the Minister, in
all sincerity, take a close look at this and
get down to brass tacks. Let us get down to
a good programme of counselling oiu welfare
recipients in this province.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman, I would like to ask the
Minister why there is a 60 per cent increase
in the cost of OMSIP this year, under this
vote, from $15,800,000 up to $24,600,000?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The details of that
will be obtained from the Minister of Health.
Mr. Shulman: Oh no, it is in your esti-
mates.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are, in a way, the
financial agents for The Department of Health
in this regard.
Mr. Shulman: Well, perhaps as the finan-
cial agent who is asking for $24 milHon you
might be willing to explain what you are
going to do with the money and why. That
is all I am asking you. You cannot pass the
buck that easily. We will get to the health
Minister's estimates and he will say: Not in
my estimates, go ask the Minister of Social
and Family Services.
Mr. Lewis: The first specific question, and
you collapse.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This case belongs to
The Department of Health. We are the
channel through which the financing is
arranged.
Mr. Shulman: Well, are we going to have
the assurance of the Minister of Health, who
is sitting beside you, that when we come to
his estimate we will be able to discuss this?
It certainly is not under his estimate, it is
under your estimate.
An hon. member: What does he say to
that? We want to hear from the Minister of
Health.
Mr. Shulman: Inasmuch as the Minister of
Health has not come to the help of the Min-
ister of Social and Family Services, I am
afraid we are going to have to press you a
little further. There is no other spot in the
estimates where this can be discussed, so we
are going to discuss it now. If you do not
have the answers, we will let you lean across
to the Minister, who is sitting beside you, and
ask him. Perhaps he will whisper in your
ear and you will answer for us. Why do you
have a 60 per cent increase in this particular
amount of money?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We were requested by
the Minister of Health to provide this amount
of money and we, as The Department of
3358
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Health's financial agents in respect of this
item, have provided the moneys.
Mr. Shulman: Would you not think that
the Minister would ask: "Why do you want
$9 million more?" Am I to understand the
Minister correctly? If he has answered me
correctly, I will press him no further because
I would be quite satisfied with his answer.
You were requested to give this extra $9
million, and without asking why, you said
you would give it. If that is correct, I will
question no further on it, I promise.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is right.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, on what
conceivable basis does the Minister of Social
and Family Services trust the information
for the Minister of Health. That is basically
what one would want to know. Why do you
doit?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am advised by the
Minister off the record here that it is based
on increased utilization.
Mr. Chairman: That will come under the
estimates of The Department of Health.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, if the
Minister can secure this amount of money for
the Minister of Health so easily, why is it
that the children's aid societies— particularly
in Metropohtan Toronto— are never given
carte blanche like this when they ask for a
certain amount of money. It just seems strange
that the Minister of Social and Family Ser-
vices would do this for another Minister
when he will not do it for societies and
other groups that are helping the Minister
to administer his own department. It seems
very strange.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I can assure the hon.
member that the Minister of Health does not
have carte blanche.
Mr. Braithwaite: By saying it is based on
increased utilization, what does that mean?
Gobbledygook!
Mr. Chairman: Provincial allowances; the
hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to let the
Minister off the hook quite as easily as it
would seem that he is getting. Looking at
this item for the OMSIP premiimis of a $9
million or 55.2 per cent increase— which the
Minister, as my colleagues have said, is
handed with not so mudi as a question as to
why tliere is such an increase— I wonder if it
could be, Mr. Chairman, that 50 per cent of
tliis money will be recoverable of course,
from the federal government. But I think the
Minister has to tell us, is this an exi>ansion, is
it more services, and what portion of this is
fee increase?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Tliese figures are the
actual anticipated costs which will be in-
curred in respect of these recipients. This is
an estimated figure, and as the Minister of
Health has pointed out, it is based on greater
utilization. I am advised that last month
it was just under $1.9 milhon actual cost.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, tliese are
premiums then?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actual costs.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if I could continue with
this p>oint for a moment? Is there any portion
of the increase budgeted as a contingency
for an increase in doctors' fees? The Minister
said this figure represents the actual total
costs that he will remit to OMSIP in pay-
ment of doctors' services for recipients.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: These figures are not
made in relationship to that at all, they are
based on last year's experience.
Mr. Peacock: The actual 1968-69 cost of
providing medical services to recipients?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As projected for the
forthcoming year.
Mr. Peacock: Does that projection contain
no contingency whatever for increases in fees
for medical services that went into effect
April 1 and which the Minister of Healtli
has—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is correct.
Mr. Peacock: What does the Minister
intend to do, Mr, Chairman, with this par-
ticular estimate in light of the April 1 in-
crease of almost ten per cent by the doctors?
Does he intend to amend it? Does he intend
to come back with supplementary estimates?
Does he have an amendment now before
him to put to this item that we can deal
with this moment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not have an
item before us in this regard. Towards the
end of the year it will be seen whether these
APRIL 21, 1969
3359
funds are sufficient; if not, there will have
to be an approach made to Treasury with
respect to them.
Mr. Peacock: And that will be accom-
plished by a Treasury Board order?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would think so.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, one more
question: What is the increase in enrolment,
or the increase in utilization as a result
of an increase in enrolment, accounted for
in tills total of $24.6 million? Does the Min-
ister have the approximate increase in
utilization costs?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Minister of Health
will have those figures.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
said that his department arrived at the in-
crease for 1969-70 on the basis of actual
experience of 1968-69 projected into the
coming year.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Department of
Health's recommendation to us, the request
for us to budget, was based on last year's
experience and projected into the forthcoming
year. We are the financial agent of The
Department of Health in this regard.
Mr. Peacock: I understand that, Mr. Chair-
man, but there are two factors. One is the
probable increase in enrolment of recipients
in the Minister's programmes of assistance;
the other is a possible, or shall we say, prob-
able increase in utilization of services, both
of which would be factors in increasing the
total that the Minister would have to pro-
vide at tlie instigation of the Minister of
Health. If the Minister of Health has deter-
mined the increase in utilization, surely it is
the other factor that must be determined by
the the Minister of Social and Family Services
—the probable increase in enrolment of
recipients.
Mr. Chairman: Was the hon. member
directing a question or making a statement?
Mr. Peacock: I was asking a question.
Mr. Chairman: I understood it was a ques-
tion. Does the hon. Minister have any an-
swers to that particular question?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have those
figures before me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, would it then
not be more appropriate that this entire
amount appear in the estimates of the Minister
of Health where we could discuss the extent
of utilization of medical services by recipients
of the Minister's benefit programmes? That
is one of the most important elements of the
support for recipients in the province — the
extent to which they are beneficiaries of the
medical services paid for by this vote. These
are figvires that we want to know.
We want to know whether the recipients
of the benefit programmes administered by
The Department of Social and Family Ser-
vices compared to the rest of the population.
Is that utilization less than the rest of the
population? Is it less than it ought to be? Is
the utilization by the recipients of these bene-
fit programmes greater than the rest of the
population, and, if so, why? Is their general
state of health reflected in greater utilization
of medical services? We must be able to dis-
cuss these matters, Mr. Chairman, and that is
why if this Minister, bringing in this estimate,
cannot answer these points, it should properly
appear in the estimates of the Minister of
Health.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I refer to the Minister
of Health in this regard.
Mr. Peacock: Shall we take it up with the
Minister of Health then?
flon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chainnan, I cannot answer in detail the
question the hon. member has asked. We
provide OMSIP coverage for welfare recipi-
ents, and for those in receipt of other social
assistance programmes, or in receipt of sup-
port under other social assistance pro-
grammes, not by way of insuring them and
charging The Department of Social and
Family Services a premium, but rather by
recovering from this department the actual
costs of the service. Had I known that this
was to come up tonight I might have had
more definitive information in response to it.
But the department is billed for those ser-
vices, and apparently, according to Treasury
procedures, must ask this Legislature for the
moneys to pay these bills.
The item in the hon. Minister's estimates
is, as he has already stated, based on experi-
ence during the past year and projected, again
governed by the experience we have had in
the utilization factors by those recipients. I
think I can say at this juncture— although I
cannot back it up at the present time but I
will be prepared to do it when my own esti-
mates are before the House— that the utiliza-
tion by these groups is, as one can under-
stand, usually higher than by certain other
groups. Many of these groups are in this
position because of age and infirmity, and
3360
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
naturally they are higher cost groups, but the
increase is based on the utilization experience
with these people o\'er the past year.
I really cannot discuss the increased num-
bers enrolled because I really do not know,
but I will be prepared to have all this infor-
mation when my own estimates come up,
provided the Chair permits me to discuss it
at that time.
Mr. Peacock: Can the Minister of Health,
Mr. Chairman, determine the increase in en-
rolment for The Department of Social and
Family Services?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I really cannot, but
I will have those figures.
Mr. Peacock: Does the Minister of Health's
department calculate the prospective increase
in enrolment?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, I presume we
would. Again, it will be an estimate based on
what our experience has been since CM SIP
started.
Mr. Peacock: Well, now I just have one
other point, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of
Health said that the actual cost was paid;
by that I assume he speaks of 100 per cent
of the doctor's fee for the particular medical
service that was provided.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, no.
Mr. Peacock: The same 90 per cent that
QMS IP pays under its standard conitract?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, whereas, if we
were on a premium system, if the hon. Min-
ister were paying a premium for his clients,
we would not likely get this amount of
money. The insurance programme would have
to bear the cost, but because these are totally
or partially subsidized, then we bill the
hon. Minister for the actual cost, which is
paid on the same basis as all others, 90 per
cent of the OMA schedule of fees.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, one more
point. Has the Minister of Health indicated
to the Minister of Social and Family Services
what additional amounts he will probably
need in the light of the almost 10 per cent
increase in the OMA schedule of fees.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Chairman, I
have not because when we submitted this
bill, or this estimated bill to the hon. Minis-
ter of Social and Family Services, we did
not know that the fee schedule was going to
go up. We did not know that we were going
to propose an amendment to the Act raising
the fee schedule. As the Minister r>oints out,
if we have not got enough money, then we
will have to find ways of getting it.
Mr. Peacock: Ninety per cent of the cost
of the service will continue to be paid for
the recipient of the provincial programmes-
just as though the Act tliat the Minister of
Healtli has before the Legislature, amending
the OMSIP Act, applied to these recipients.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Oh yes, it will.
Mr. Peacock: The same 90 per cent of the
cost of medical services that was paid prior
to April 1, 1969, will continue to be paid.
The 90 per cent will continue to be paid on
the new fee schedule after April 1.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The fees for these
recipients are paid on exactly the same basis
as the claims for anyone else under the
OMSIP programme.
Mr. Chairman: Any further questioning
that is necessary in tliis respect would prob-
ably come under The Department of Health.
The hon. membex for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, might I
ask two or three question, before you defer
this under The Department of Health?
Mr. Chairman: Properly, any further dis-
cussion on this, as has been explained by
both Ministers, should come under The De-
partment of Health.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know whether it is appropriate, but I cer-
tainly would like to challenge the fact that
this money should not be discussed here and
now.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister has
clearly indicated that he does not have the
details. The hon. Minister of Health has
clearly indicated to the committee that he
will have more details when the estimates
come under his department.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Might I ask two or three
questions, for our own clarification then, of
what we are going to get the answer on.
Mr. Chairman: The questions may be
directed to die hon. Minister of Health, when
his estimates come up.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The question I have,
Mr. Chairman, is really a question of the
Minister of Social and Family Services. It
is his system of operation that causes this
APRIL 21, 1969
3361
vote to appear, and I want to clarify in my
own mind— and I am sure the minds of other
members— exactly how this system is work-
I ing. It is obviously not a premiimi system,
Mr. Chairman, and I would like to know why
it is not a premium system, which would
cost the department less. If it is not a pre-
I mium system, then what system are we
operating?
Do the recipients under this Act carry a
regular OMSIP card, which is my understand-
ing? If they are carrying a regular OMSIP
card why would that not be provided by the
one department— The Department of Social
and Family Services— paying the premiimi to
the other department, and the body OMSIP
bearing the cost, not the beneficent Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services?
So, I have a question of the Minister. The
recipients under this are covered by OMSIP
if they are family benefit recipients— and I
believe the Minister will verify that they are
not covered— that way if they are general
welfare assistance recipients, I would like to
know do they carry regular cards, the way
everyone else does under OMSIP?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The general welfare
cases are covered in exactly the same way.
We came to the conclusion that paying this
way was the best way for us to finance this
operation, and it is part of the operation.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, when a
recipient under The Family Benefits Act goes
to a doctor and needs to use OMSIP, how
does that recipient identify the fact that she
is able to use OMSIP?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, may I
answer that question, please. Every person
covered by OMSIP, no matter whether they
are paying a premium or whether they are
partially subsidized, carries exactly the same
kind of a certificate. No doubt, the hon. mem-
bers will recall, sir, that when OMSIP was
brought in there was quite a discussion about
this. There were those who wanted us to
identify those who were in receipt of social
assistance, and this we steadfastly have re-
fused to do. Everybody carries exactly the
same type of certificate. Nobody knows.
•
Mr. J. Renwick: You cannot leave that one
hanging. We fought for that principle.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: My friend, I thought of
this long before you were ever heard of.
This is a very firmly rooted principle in my
philosophy.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, far before you
were bom, my friend. Well, I am not quite
that old, but pretty nearly. This quite apart,
Mr. Chairman, none of us knows whether an
OMSIP card carrier is paying full premium,
is partially subsidized, or totally subsidized.
In many oases the subscribers are identified
by their sin-number, although we found that
this was not feasible. Now we have estab-
lished a new type of numbering but this
will come up later on. However, there is no
way of identifying the subsidized person.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Did the Minister say
that all persons under vote 2002 carry OMSIP
cards, if they are persons in need, including
those under General welfare assistance?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, that is what I said.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Then could either of
the Ministers state why we are not only
paying premiums on those cards rather than
charging up this department with a 55 per
cent increase in costs?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Here again, this is a
joint programme under the Canada Assist-
ance plan. This is part of the Canada Assist-
ance plan. We make a recovery from Ottawa
as to our actual costs in this field.
Mr. Lewis: Oh, now it comes out.
Mrs. M. Renwick: So, Mr. Chairman,
really here—
Mr. Lewis: We have to recover it.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Windsor Walkerville was on his feet.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, I was just going to make the
point that was brought up here. In fact this
24 million dollars— 50 per cent of this— will be
refunded by the federal authorities. In other
words, you benefit to the extent of 12 million
dollars in this fashion. Were it to work the
other way, where you simply had the welfare
recipient pay an OMSIP fee, or you pay an
OMSIP fee for the welfare recipient, you
would not receive any benefit from the
federal authorities at all on this. Were it
Medicare you would have the welfare
recipient pay — oh, you pay an OMSIP
premium for the welfare recipient, so you
would not receive any benefit from the fed-
eral authorities at all on this.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We could have chosen
other procediu-es. We chose the actual cost.
3362
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. B. Newman: This one made this vote
to your benefit to the extent of $12 million
in this way, whereas the other way it would
have been a total cost because you are not in
the federal Medicare scheme. What you are
doing is really taking the federal authorities
to the extent of $12 million, am I correct
or incorrect there?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is a social service
being rendered to persons in need.
Mr. B. Newman: Right. Supposing you
had simply done as has been suggested, paid
the premiums to OMSIP. The premiums to
OMSIP would not have been a $24 million
item, they would Lave been substantially
lower— I would assume it would be substanti-
ally lower. Then what would you have recov-
ered from the federal authorities?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Fifty per cent of what-
ever we spent in that way.
Mr. B. Newman: Fifty per cent of the
premiums?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. B. Newman: Which would have been
sttbstantiially lower than the $24 million in
this case.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not necessarily.
Mr. B. Newman: You are taking the
scheme that is to your financial advantage-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. B. Newman: —when you had the alter-
native to go right into Medicare and get the
$150 million instead.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): That is a red herring.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We will not do any
better with that than we are doing now.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, we would do
better, because we would have better medical
services.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It would take an
aavfid lot.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, thank
you for bearing with my questions, and I
hope you will recognize their validity.
I would like to ask that the Minister advise
the members of the assembly tomorrow the
exact number of persons that are covered
under this funding. Obviously, once more,
they have circumnavigated the need of a
medical health scheme, ignoring the national
health scheme by putting it into a different
department in order to coUect the fund, and
thiat shocking movement has made them have
to account for it. I tliink we have to know
how many people are covered, whether this
55 per cent increase is more services, more
people, or whatever it is. We have got to
know, and I think we have got to know under
this vote, and under this estimate.
Mr. Lewis: Why does the Minister not
tell us about the PS I decision which will be
public tomorrow?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I tliink all of these
items can be discussed in detail by the Min-
ister of Health, who will come with all the
figures and the facts as requested by the
hon. member.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, one thing I would asso-
ciate with this particular vote, and which the
hon. Minister perhaps can discuss tonight,
is the number of Indians in the province who
are in receipt of benefits from the medical
ser\dces vote of $24.6 million. There is a
considerable degree of confusion in this prov-
ince as to who is eligible, and certainly those
Indians who are in receipt of welfare—
whether or not they have an OMSIP card-
do have at least part of their medical expenses
paid as ordinary welfare recipients. It is my
understanding that the welfare available to
Indians, whether or not tliey are on reserves,
is administered by the provincial autliorities.
This would surely indicate that some of the
Indians, at least, would be in receipt of
medical benefits from this vote. I wonder if
the Minister can give us any further informa-
tion as to die numbers in receipt?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Minister of
Health, I believe, is getting those figures with
respect to this particular aspect.
Mr. Nixon: Well, if we are going to dis-
cuss the provincial services available for
Indians, one of the most important is certainly
health services, and this is a matter that
could be discussed, I suppose, in the third
vote, where the committee that the Minister
chairs, with all responsible Cabinet Ministers
involved, would be able to give us the in-
formation there. Would that be all right?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, general dis-
cussions did take place last year during the
course of the Indian development branch,
which is one specific branch, but I think for
the sake of expediting the business of the
APRIL 21, 1969
3363
House, the discussion ranged pretty far and
wide at that time.
Mr. Nixon: I think the Minister will agree
that one of the most seriously confused areas
of our responsibilities to the Indians of the
province is in the provision of medical ser-
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of what?
Mr. Nixon: Well, the Minister of Social
and Family Services is supposed to be the
resident expert over there in this matter, and
I would hope somewhere in his vote we can
sort out the conflictinjc responsibilities for the
provision of these health services.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
under provincial allowances?
The hon. member for Windsor West.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
ask a few questions about the increase in the
amoimt of assistance in accordance with The
Family Benefits Act to $103.7 million for
69-70, and perhaps the Minister has answered
some questions specifically about the size of
the increase. I think I am correct in saying
that it is up from $89 million last year, an
increase of $14.7 million. Could the Minister
say again, in answer to a similar question I
asked him under the discussion of the in-
crease in medical services costs, how much
of the $14.7-miUion increase for assistance
under The Family Benefits Act will go to
increased enrolment? Is all of that increase
to cover the allowances to additional re-
cipients in the coming year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, by and large it is
to do with the estimated increase in the
number who would be on family benefits.
Mr. Peacock: By and large? Virtually all
of this? Well it takes me back, Mr. Chair-
man. The Minister's answer takes me back to
the questions of the hon. member for Sud-
bury East as to whether the Minister had
not given any consideration at all to an
adjustment of the benefits which are now
paid to recipients. These benefits, I under-
stand, are still exactly at the same levels as
they were when first introduced under the
Act in April, 1967. Am I correct in stating
that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Peacock: Well, Mr. Chairman, just a
short time ago I took a look at some of the
statistics pubhshed by the Dominion Bureau
of Statistics in Ottawa— the consumer price
index to be exact— and I wanted to see what
had happened to the purchasing power of the
benefits that the Minister is now paying to
his clients in this province, under The Family
Benefits Act and under the other forms of
income maintenance that he is providing. It
is rather interesting to see what has happened
in that almost exactly two-year period of time
since the present benefit levels were estab-
lished.
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics' con-
sumer price index is broken down in two
ways. One, by the component— food, clothing,
housing, recreation, transportation, health,
costs and so on. This comprises the basket
of goods that DBS prices each month to
establish the change in prices that a par-
ticular type of family is purchasing each
month. And it is not at all a family com-
parable to the one that is likely to be in
receipt of benefits from the Minister's depart-
ment. It is a far more affluent family that
is being looked at by the consumer price
index, the cost of living index. The second
way in which the total consumer price index
is broken down is by regional cities, the
most important one in this province being
the city of Toronto, the metropolitan dis-
trict of Toronto to be exact.
I wanted to see what had happened to
the consumer price index, to the cost of
living, in the period of time since April
1967, when the Minister first established the
present benefit levels, and how those changes
in the cost of living have afFected the pur-
chasing power of his clients.
It is a bit of a shock, Mr. Chairman, to
find the extent to which the purchasing
power of persons completely dependent on
this assistance has been eroded in this two-
year period. Let us start with food. In terms
of $100 of benefits being paid to a family in
April 1967, they can now purchase $93.80
each month. They have lost $6.20 each
month in purchasing power on that particu-
lar component— the food component— of the
index. In terms of housing and shelter costs,
that family's purchasing power is down by
$8.12 since April 1967. They can buy $8.12
less value in shelter today than they could
two years ago.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And they have to buy
that out of their pre-added budget.
Mr. Peacock: In terms of clothing, they
are able to buy only $94.70, or $5.30 less
clothing for every $100 they spend on cloth-
ing in April 1967.
3364
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Throughout the province the total pur-
chasing power of a recipient of the Minister
has been reduced by $7.15. A family that is
in receipt of a benefit allowance of $100 has
$7.15 less in purchasing power with which
to provide its basic maintenance. And let
me emphasize, Mr. Chairman, the consumer
price index is measuring the change in costs
of a far, far more affluent family than the
recipient we are talking about here tonight.
We must remember that the recipients'
pre-added budget is heavily weighted for
basic needs such as clothing, food and shel-
ter in a far greater proportion than the
weight or proportion given to these same
basic needs in the budget of the family
whose purchases are being measured for
price changes by the Dominion Bureau of
Statistics, cost of living index. The weight of
this erosion of purchasing power that I am
talking about falls far more heavily than
these figures can possibly indicate on the
families in receipt of provincial assistance.
In the city of Toronto, where a large num-
ber of the families are located, the price
changes have been particularly steep. The
purchasing power is down by almost as much
as the total for all of the components of the
consumer price index.
Well, what conclusion do we come to
about the Minister's forethoughts for the
well-being of his clients, for the growing
inability of his clients to maintain themselves
at the level or standard of living he decided
they needed and ought to have in April 1967?
He has given none whatever, made no allow-
ance whatever, thought of no adjustments
that should be undertaken that these fami-
lies may keep pace with the cost of living
in their purchases of these three basic com-
ponents that go into their budget; and for
which there has been such sharp price in-
creases in this past two-year period.
The Minister has budgeted $103.7 million,
and that represents an increase that is barely
sufficient, he says, to take care of increases
in enrolment. There apparently is not a
penny in it to take account of the increases
in the cost of living that has put these people
almost $8.00 behind the standard of living
they enjoyed in April of 1967. Not a penny
in it!
Now, if the Minister were to budget for a
total payout to his recipients that would en-
able them to catch up at this point with
their April 1967 standard of living, he would
have to come before us with a request for
another $7.9 million. And he has not done
it; just another $7.9 million to bring them
up to where they were in April 1967, as of
this point in time.
Without any regard whatsoever, Mr. Chair-
man, to additional consideration for the ap-
proximate 108,000 families that are in receipt
of his benefits, there has been a general
increase in the standard of living of those
who are able to work for a living in this
society.
We have been enjoying increasing stan-
dards of living, increasing benefits from the
ability of our economy to produce more and
more, increasing benefits in terms of comfort,
better nutrition, second cars, in boats at the
cottage, in cottages themselves, in more ap-
pliances, in larger homes— all for those of us
who are in the affluent main stream of our
society.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): You are
not talking about the members in this House,
are you?
Mr. Peacock: No, I am not. But the Min-
ister has not thought any more about the
extent to which those persons who are not
able to participate in the economy of our
province might be moved along a little closer
to a fuller participation in the new levels of
abundance that we do produce, and the new
standards of living that those of us who do
go out to work and produce wealth in the
economy achieve each year. He has made
no adjustment either for the erosion of bene-
fits because of the increases in the cost of
living, and he has made no adjustment to
increase the income of his recipients to take
into account the fact that most of us in this
society are living a little better each year
than we lived the year before.
I suggest to the Minister that he has an
obligation to come before us with an addi-
tional expenditure of at least $7.9 million,
which I estimate is the amount beyond the
$103.7 million that he has requested that
would be needed to bring his chents up to
an April, 1967, standard of living.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West.
Mr. Lewis: I assume the Minister has some
answers to what has been put to him.
Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Minister
have some answers?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have indicated to the
House earlier, prior to the extended remarks
of the hon. member, that this was a matter
which had given me a good deal of concern,
and that the whole matter—
APRIL 21, 1969
3365
Mr. E. W. Mattel (Sudbury East): Not
enough concern though—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —of the two aspects
that the hon. member set forth so well, were
under review by the department.
Mr. Lewis: What do you mean under re-
view by the department? Perhaps I could ask
a few simple questions?
What distinguishes the Minister's recipients
from other mortals in this society? Can he
tell us that? I will take my seat and wait to
hear. What is it that distinguishes this class
of people from all other people in society who
are subject to increases in the cost of living?
There must be some supernatural quality to
these 108,000 beneficiaries. Are we on this
side of the House to assume that, Mr. Chair-
man?
All right— I accept the enigmatic loquacious-
ness. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why it is that
the increase which has been demarcated by
my colleague from Windsor West is not in-
cluded in this estimate? How is it that these
people in the Minister's mind should not be
subject to the same privileges as others? Why
is it only under review? Why is the $7.9
million not a part of the present estimates?
Did he ask for it, and the Treasury Board
turned him down? Perhaps I could ask him
that. Has the request been made, and were
you not able to receive it because of the
austerity programme of the government?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member knows that the answer to that
will be given in the details of any discussions
by the Treasury Board and which will be
given by the Treasurer in due course.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I note that
there was a very substantial increase in
salaries over the same period. If memory
serves me, salaries went from $1.3 milHon to
$4.7 million. I am working from memory for
last year's estimates— am I right in that? From
$1.3 milhon to $4.7 milhon? Sorry, $1.5 mil-
lion to $4.7 million. You were able to find
$3.2 million for salaries, but not $8 million for
food, clothing and shelter. I want to under-
stand the priorities in the Minister's depart-
ment. Why did you opt for one and not the
other?
You were of course— it is pointed out to
me-also able to find $9 milhon for the doc-
tors but unable to find $8 million which
would benefit some 50,000 people under the
Family Benefits Act. Why did the Minister
choose that particular course of priorities?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Salaries, of course,
are those negotiated on a government-wide
basis, and has to do with relationship to the
classification, and the standards set out by
the civil service association— and we provide
those funds.
Mr. Lewis: I see. So if you expect in-
creased utilization in OMSIP, and you have
a unilateral request for fees from the doctors,
you provide them as a matter of course. And
if people who are sufficiently weU off to be
part of the organized working class, re nego-
tiate their salaries at an increased level for
purchasing power purposes, then you provide
tiiat as a matter of course.
But the people for whom you, as Minister,
are responsible, you negotiate nothing, ab-
solutely nothing. You have no interest what-
soever in your own recipients. If you are
ordered by the Minister of Health to provide
a certain sum of money you jump. You pro-
vide him an extra $9 million. If a group of
civil servants negotiates an increase in
salaries you immediately incorporate it in
your estimates. But when people need an-
other $8 million to provide the essentials of
food, clothing and shelter in order to bridge
the gap in purchasing powers between April,
1967 and April, 1969, you do absolutely
nothing.
Who do you pretend to represent, Mr.
Chairman, through you to the Minister?
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
Who do you represent?
Mr. Lewis: Who fights for these people,
if not the Minister? How can the Minister
possibly come before the House and ask for
approval of his estimates— just to go back to
indicate yet another of the incongruities in
what this Minister is putting before the Legis-
lature? To re-emphasize what my colleague
from Windsor Wesit has said— he comes be-
fore the Legislature in April, 1967, and says:
Tlhis is what I require on the basis of the
minimum needs of social welfare recipients,
those under The Family Benefits Act and
I set up an elaborate prograinme of regula-
tions as Minister with the most picayune
and complex set of criteria on which to base
a pre-added budget, which incidentally, Mr.
Chairman, is an entirely inflexible set of
criteria.
Those statutes do not change over the
course of two years, not by one jot, so that
the same table of moneys recipients are en-
titled to has not altered in the two-year
3366
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
period, but the costs have jumped by $8
million.
Why should the Minister vent his particular
antagonisms to the i>oor in society in this
fashion? Why should he be allowed, of all
people on the Treasury Board, as the Minister
of the Crown supposedly responsible for
classes of people with particular needs, to
discriminate against them so frivolously? It
may be that six cents on the dollar for food,
or seven cents on the dollar for shelter, or
eight cents on the dollar for clothing, can
be absorbed by members of the Legislature
or for the organized working class. But his
own beneficiaries, how does he tliink they
can absorb it? What other sources of income
have they? If it was a minimum in April,
1967, why is it now adequate in May, 1969,
when the difference is $8 million.
Mr. Chairman, we come back to the reality
that when the Treasurer made his budget
cuts for the sake of austerity, it was diis
Minister who was slashed. It was tliese pro-
grammes which were tnmcated; people-
oriented i>rogrammes and services to people
were cut by the Treasurer. No other areas,
neither highways nor the inanimate areas.
Why does tlie Minister allow it? Why does
tlie Minister allow himself to be the carpet
on which his Cabinet colleagues walk, when
they want to make Treasury Board cuts?
Well, I would like to take it easy. We are
all taking it fairly easy, Mr. Chairman. There
is no gainsaying the fact tliat members of
the Legislature can cope with the difference
in the cost of living.
The Minister, I am sure, can cope with tlie
clumges in the cost of living. But his own
beneficraries, his own recipients on Tjhe
Family Benefits Acts cannot. What in God's
name is wrong with the Treasury Board?
Have they no recognition that every other
area in society is capable of organizing its
own life in such a way that it might gain
some increase? The trade unions negotiate
contracts, civil servants ask government for
more money, corporations increase prices and
doctors set unilateral fee increases. A great
many people have the capacity in society to
allow or to negotiate increases in funds for
themselves— except the people whom you
.ser\'e. You serve them by clobbering them.
That is your concept of the Minister of Social
and Family Services: to clobber the poor.
I do not know how many homes the Minis-
ter has visited, where the $8 million has had
some appreciable effect on the collective
spectnim. We can come to some of those pre-
added budgets while they are right imder this
vote, tliis section, Mr. Chainnan. Suppose
one had two adult persons with two children
between the ages of 10 and 15 years on
$150 a month. Does the Minister realize what
seven per cent of that means in terms of total
income at that level?
Mr. Whitney: Some of them would do
quite a job.
Mr. Lewis: I do not vuiderstand how the
Minister feels he can get away with it. The
one department in government which should
be going to bat for this particular group of
people is the one department of government
which reneges on its responsibility. There is
absolutely no tie to the cost of living index
whatsoever.
I do not know what the Minister means
when he says he is concerned and I do not
know what he means when he says he has
it under review. We know, only on the basis
of tlie calculations of the member for Windsor
West, that he is $8 million short in this esti-
mate for 50,000 people— $8 million.
What does that work out to on a per
capita basis? Maybe one of my colleagues
can sort out what $8 million across 50,000
people is. About $600 a year. Is there an
actuar)^ who will check that? I am assuming
that what is said is correct. The alert and
entliusiastic member for Prince Edward-
Lennox will confirm for me whether the $8
million spread over 50,000 recipients is $600
a year. But suppose it is $600—
Interjection by an hon. irjember.
Mr. Chainnan: Order. The hon. member
for Scarborough West has the floor.
Mr. Whitney: On a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member has a
point of ordea".
An hon. member: The hon. member will
yield the floor.
Mr. Lewis: No, I will not. I will not, by
God, I will not.
Mr. Whitney: While he is speaking a great
deal of trvith— and I am not denying that— the
fact remains that in some places people
from rural areas are the people that go to the
top. They are the top people, because they
have to struggle and do something. The hon.
member is totally wrong who suggested that
everything be given to everybody. His
remarks should be taken in the tone in which
they were given, because we respect it. Those
who do the thing come from the rural areas,
APRIL 21, 1969
3367
and my friend does not recognize the fact
that around home in these rural areas, the
people have to do a few chores and a little
work.
The hon. member is wrong in his sug-
gestion that more and more should be done in
public welfare. The truth is that our young
people now do not have to have the rehef;
they do not have to have welfare. We are
not getting the same continuous public wel-
fare people from one place to another, but
we are getting a response that we never had
before. If that response is the thing that our
friends over there want to encourage, we
want to encourage it over on this side also.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I hardly think the
hon. member has a point of order. The hon.
member for Scarborough West has the floor.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): What happened
to the workers in Picton?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Whitney: Mr. Chairman, I would say
that nothing happened to the workers in
Picton until the member went down there
and destroyed them. They had a good thing
going, but when you people went down there
you destroyed them.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Anything
further on provincial allowances? The hon.
member for Scarborough West.
Mr. Lewis: There is a good deal more on
the family allowances branch. I do not expect
the Conservative position to be articulated
quite so forcefully and lucidly at any other
time, Mr. Chairman, but I will certainly
accept the revelation of that intrusion.
I think we wanted to reinforce, sir, the
simple fact that what the Minister of Social
and Family Services has succeeded in doing is
severing from his own budget the equivalent
of $160 a year for people on social and
family benefits, at least in the category indi-
cated—that being the breakdown of the $8
milhon spread over 50,000 recipients. I can-
not imagine another Minister of the Crown
so wilHng to indulge in the compHcity of
cutting his own budget. This Minister, more
than any other, is prepared to hack away at
the requirements of his own recipients under
his own legislation to satisfy the demands of
a Treasury Board whose priorities are always
in areas diflFerent from those of services to
people. That he should do it so willingly,
that he should allow himself to be such a
doormat for the Treasury Board, is insuflFer-
able in the context of this estimate. He has
gone down a total of $8 million in a matter
of 23 months— something which is avoided by
every other segment of society. I daresay,
except for the identifiable poor, there is not
another segment of society which has so
Httle control of negotiation in terms of its
own income levels and in the context of the
cost of living. And without so much as a
blandishment-
Mr. Whitney: There are no poor in Ontario.
Mr. Lewis: —without so much as a twinge
of conscience or a moment's regret, the Min-
ister has engaged in this hatcheting of recipi-
ents' allowances. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it
reveals a great deal about the psychology and
the attitude of this particular government de-
partment—a veiy great deal. As this estimate
emerges, indeed as this particular programme
develops in discussion, Mr. Chairman, it will
be revealed rather more fully just how much
the Minister of Social and Family Services is
prepared to undervalue his own department
in order to play the patsy for the Treasury
Board. Yet he is the person who is in the line
of direct service to people. I can now under-
stand perhaps why the Minister was chosen
for this portfolio. I suppose no other Cabinet
member would have been such a willing ploy.
Mr. Martel: He had better resign.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lake-
shore was really on his feet first, unless he
wishes to yield the floor.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Give way to the lady.
There is no chivalry in the NDP.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, what has been said here just now is not
'the end of this matter, it is really only the
beginning. It is not just a case of the depart-
ment not keeping pace and tying its payments
to the cost of living index— keeping the recipi-
ents, however deplorable their conditions is,
in some relative balance to what was actually
intended at the inception of the grants two
years ago. It is not just that. It is that the
Minister seems to me to be returning sub-
stantial sums of money to various sources. In
any event, he is not expending the moneys
that he has available to accomplish this objec-
tive.
Let us look at the 1968 public accounts. I
will come back to the family benefits branch,
3368
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chainnan, to test the validity of this
proposition. Let us look at the overall figure.
He appropriated $207.5 million, and actually
•expended $103 million, or a little bit more
than that on the other page. I would certainly
like an explanation of this curious situation
from what appears on the books, the last
books that we have before us, but he re-
turned $115 million as unexpended; over 50
per cent of the moneys appropriated were
never utilized, $115 million. If that same
line of reasoning is taken over against the
family benefits branch, where the total ap-
propriation was $106 million, $54 million ap-
pears to have been expended and $57 million,
more than was expended again, was unex-
pended?
In other words, it is not that he has to
plead poverty, even in the role of tr>'ing to
alleviate poverty himself. It is not that he is
$8 million short in providing absolutely mini-
mal basic payments to people. He has not the
invention or the imagination, apparently, to
use the moneys well that are at his disposal—
$57 million two years ago unspent with re-
spect to this particular department.
Does that condition persist in your depart-
ment? Is that the way you handle the moneys
that come to you, when people are crying in
need? Vast sums of money are completely
dormant, lying fallow? Do you know how to
take proper cognizance? If money is going
to be wasted, of course, you return it, but
the fact of the matter is that it is obviously
not wasted; on the contrar>', the need is cry-
ing out to high heaven for vengeance. How
(does this department run if you return 50
per cent of the moneys that come through
your hands? Would you please give us the
picture on that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member is
utterly confused. The figures that he has
been talking about have to do with the fed-
eral refunds. That is the way that money
appears unexpended; that money we have
shown was the 50 per cent portion picked up
by the federal department.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that
about 50 per cent of these estimates comes
in from the federal department, but even on
that basis the 50 per cent is not utilized; it is
returned. Or some portion of that 50 per cent
is not utilized— I would say 50 per cent of
the 50 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The figures are shown
in the public accounts.
Mrs. M. Renwick: What about the last
figure?
Mr. Shulman: What about the unexpended
amounts?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The unexpended
amounts are not the amounts referred to by
the hon. member.
Mr. Shulman: Certainly they are.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He was talking in
terms of $57 million.
Mr. Shulman: It was $115 million unex-
pended showing up in there.
Why are you not expending all these funds?
Mr. Lewis: It may be just a printing error.
Mr. Lawlor: I admit, Mr. Chairman, it is
quite unbelievable, but I do not accept that
kind of an explanation. Would you just
kindly indicate to us, when we get the head-
ing "unexpended", precisely what it means?
Where does this money you have allocated
them, voted them, made Treasury Board
orders on, go to? They end up not within
the expenditure column, as it is set out, but
remain completely unexpended.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I direct
the hon. member's attention to the fact that
there is a diff^erence between the $10 mil-
lion and the $47 million to make up the
$57 million. The $47 million is what was
reimbursed to us by the federal government
under the terms of our agreement. We spend
the money, the federal government reim-
burses us. The money was spent before we
are entitled to a reimbursement. We must
spend the money.
Mr. Shulman: What is unexpended then?
Mr. Lawlor: Even accepting that, Mr.
Chairman, the difference between $57 mil-
lion unexpended, under that particular item
alone, and the $47 million that came in
from the federal government to you, still
represents $10 million. How do you explain
that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, of course— now
the member is no longer confused. He now
understands. He was talking in terms of
$57 million under unexpended, and it is not
that figure at all. It is $10 million, and the
bulk of that amount was— we had antici-
pated a much larger number of cases under
The Family Benefits Act than had actually
occurred during that particular period of
time.
Mr. Lewis: Why do you not bring up the
cost of living?
APRIL 21. 1969
3369
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the pre-
vious discussions by the member for Scar-
borough West and the member for Windsor
West lead me right back to my original ques-
tions to the Minister in the lead oflF on
April 1.
But before going to those original ques-
tions, which should help develop some of
the answers that have been asked here, and
by the hon. member for Lakeshore, I would
like to submit, Mr. Chairman, that the real
reason why this money was not used is that
it is against the Tory philosophy to use
money to help people any more than you
have to.
The proof of this, Mr. Chairman, is very
clearly understood. The federal government
saw fit to add a small cost of living incre-
ment to the old age pension recently— I be-
lieve in the latter months of 1968-of $2.10
to an individual. And hon. Minister— if he
would answer in the affirmative or the nega-
tive—is it correct that this government took
that increment, that cost of living bonus and
then deducted it from any person in a fam-
ily who was under assistance from this gov-
ernment? He took that from his assistance,
that $2.10, given by the federal government,
until it was amended, Mr. Chairman, on
February 7.
I would not be proud to be the Minister
of Social and Family Services and to have
to admit that it was only amended on Feb-
ruary 7, after the member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald), the leader of this party,
put out a press release that this government
had, in fact, taken that $2 cost of living
increase from a recipient, while the letter
from The Department of Social and Family
Services reduced the income of the other
half of the family.
This was a family, Mr. Chairman, where
one member is in receipt of the old age
pension and the other member is in receipt
of some form of assistance from The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services. Now
rightfully, Mr. Chairman, that was amended
February 7; but I would like to ask the
Minister, how could anyone, how could any
member of his Cabinet, or any member of
his staff, see fit to have deducted from this
government's assistance, the $2.10 which was
a cost of living increment from Ottawa,
from the federal government? How could
they justify it, even up until February 7?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, all I
can say is that is the unfortunate thing that
happens with these inexorable regulations.
All I can say is that as soon as I learned
of the efFects those regulations were changed.
Mr. Lewis: They are your regulatjons.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would be tempted to
say exactly what the member for Scarborough
West said, that they are the Minister's regu-
lations. But why would that alone not have
implemented this departmient to jxit forth a
cost of living inorement to the benefits from
this government? Was there any discussion
at all, was there any concern at all that per-
haps we, too, in Ontario, should have added
a cost of living increase to our allowances?
Mr. Martel: It is under consideration for
1970.
Mrs. M. Renwick: My question, Mr. Chair-
man, is: Was there any consideration given to
the fact that perhaps we, in Ontario, should
be adding a cost of living increment to our
allowances the same way as the federal gov-
ernment saw fit to do with old age pension
recipients?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have indicated now,
for the fourth time, that that has been of
concern to me.
Mr. Lewis: Why did you indicate that you
were vsatisfied with the money you received
from the Treasury Board?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry, I am not finished. This is the first time
I have sjwken today and I will not take the
floor too long at this hour of the night, but
I do have other things to say on the subject.
I would hke to i>oint out to the Chairman
that the moneys that are forthcoming now
were to have been used in a different Way to
what they are being used by the hon. Minis-
ter in this department. I mean the assistance
that is coming forward from the federal gov-
ernment. I believe it is correct to say that
there was a retroactivity in the 1967/68
figures of almost $7 million, that was picked
up, Mr. Chairman, simply by this government
having made what the press have now termed
very properly— I call it a secret board of re-
view—and the press called it— on Saturday
in the Globe and Mail— a paper board of
review.
By putting through a second reading and
a third reading, and an assent within three
days-on March 26, 27 and 28— this govern-
ment has made a board of review which
allowed it for three days of a paper board of
3370
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
review, to pick up a retroactivity of $7 mil-
lion from the federal government. Then, we
see the same paper board of review operating
for a year in which this government picked
up $106 million, I believe— certainly over
$100 milHon— and can get down here and get
the budget report out and get the answer
to today's question.
Mr. Chairman, to have this kind of fund-
ing and to have cxjmpletely ignored the fine
details of assistance to persons, in need is un-
believable. I do not want to talk about the
Canada Assistance Plan any longer than I
have to, Mr. Chairman, but until we manage
somehow to get across to the Minister that
this plan is being abused at the present time
by this government because it has failed to
expand in the directions that the plan in-
tended, we will have to keep speaking
about it.
We now see over $100 million and noth-
ing in the way of noticeable expansion in
Ontario to justify it. In the Canada Gazette
outhning the details of the Canada Assistance
Plan, the Gazette volume 101, dated Feb-
ruary 8, 1967, the following from item (b),
section 4:
Matters prescribed for the purposes of
particular provision of the Act— item (b):
The following are prescribed as special
needs of any kind. Any item necessary for
the safety, well-being or rehabilitation of
a person in need including (a) essential
household equipment and furnishings, (b)
essential repairs and alterations to prop-
erty and (c) items necessary for handi-
capped persons—
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have nothing in our
Act whatsoever to use as a guideline at the
municipal level that recipients should be
under rehabilitation and should have equip-
ment or furnishings, if the intent and spirit
of this Act had been carried out.
There should be no person in need, Mr.
Chairman, and we should not have to have
the member for Scarborough West, the mem-
ber for Windsor West and myself fighting for
a change in the amount of assistance under
the budget.
This plan went as far as to say that under
item 2 of the Act, the prescribed item in-
cidental to carrying on a trade or other
employment and other prescribed special
needs of any kind is one of the items along
with food, shelter, clotliing, fuel, utilities,
household supphes and personal require-
ments, which is as far as the province of On-
tario is willing to go. In other words, this
plan allows for a form of partial assistance.
It allows for a form of assistance to people
being employed. It allows, under item 3, care
in a home for special care. Under item 4,
travel and transportation, and so on. I think,
Mr. Chairman, what has to be recognized is
that this government has not seen fit, be-
cause of its philosophy, to adopt the Canada
Assistance Plan yet because it wants the
moneys that are involved with it. It seems
quite happy to hmp along as it is and hold
out that we are far ahead of other provinces
in welfare.
Now, reading from the Labour Gazette,
February 1969, I would like to point out just
a few instances of where other provinces
have embraced the Canada Assistance Plan
and they have not embraced it in the same
fashion as Ontario. They have embraced it
more in the spirit and intent of the plan.
In Prince Edward Island there is one act
to cover all persons needing assistance at no
financial cost to the municipahties. And the
deed of this act became effective on October
26, 1966; that was the date the Act was pro-
claimed in force. There was no shilly-shally-
ing, no nmning it through at the last minute
in order to qualify. I think that we have to
say that the cost of assistance is too heavy for
the municipalities, and this government
should look at taking a stand in that direc-
tion.
In the province of Nova Scotia, they passed
an Act on August 1, 1966, and they made, in
their appeal board, a tribunal which was the
original intent of the federal government in
a board of rcNJew.
In New Bnmswick, and I quote from the
Labour Gazette, February 1969:
A recipient who is dissatisfied with the
decision or treatment received at a district
office may request that his case be reviewed
by the director of social welfare and make
a further appeal to the appeals commission,
a three-member appeal body.
Now in this province, Mr. Chairman, the gov-
errmient, The Depaitment of Social and
Family Services has not seen fit to allow re-
cipients to come to a review board alxnil
treatment receix ed at the district office.
Hon. Mr. Yarcmko: Is there a comment
made in there about the Ontario lx)ard of
review?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I will
look and see. There certainly is. There is
naturally a covering for Ontario. What would
the Minister like to know?
APRIL 21, 1969
3371
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, would you like
to refresh my memory on what is written? I
have not got that copy in front of me.
Mr. Lewis: Maybe you would like to send
another editorial across.
. Mrs. M. Renwick: I am trying to spot the
board of review, Mr. Chairman.
In Manitoba, the municipalities are re-
quired to meet certain criteria before the
province will share in assistance costs.
If we had some assurance from the Minister
that he would make certain that the munici-
palities had to meet some form of criteria
other than having what we have in the muni-
cipalities, that too would have been a great
deal of assistance.
Then we come to Alberta.
In Alberta, The Preventative Social Ser-
vices Act, assented to on April 7, 1966, is
designed to develop community awareness
and resources and strengthen and preserve
individual initiative and to forestall, as far
as possible, the breakdown of the family.
In force, Mr. Chairman, from July 1, 1966.
This is much more in keeping with the spirit
and intent of the Canada Assistance Plan.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Again, I ask the hon.
member, is there no comment made about
the province of Ontario in there?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask if the Minister is on a point of order?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister asked
the hon. member if there was comment, in
the article from which she is reading, per-
taining to the Ontario board of review.
Mr. Lewis: You are practising for the
switchabout in roles, which is imminent.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. members read
so well about other jurisdictions, I was just
curious about ours.
Mr. Lewis: I thought maybe you were
thinking of the time in 1971 when you would
})€ in Opposition on this side of the House.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Perhaps, after the hon.
member is through, she might read about all
the other provinces and then send it over to
me and I may locate the comments about the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can get back
to provincial allowances, pertaining to the
province of Ontario, vote 2002?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, I would like to
say I cannot spot the board of review in
this and, if the Minister would seriously
like to look at it, certainly he may. I cer-
tainly noted the changes that he had made.
Now, under the leadofF, I asked the Min-
ister what were the amounts requested by
the Minister's department in submitting his
requirements to the Treasury Board.
hon. member
to the hon.
Mr. Chairman: Did the
direct a specific question
Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: My attention was
diverted for a moment.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member
for Scarborough Centre would repeat the
question?
Mrs. M. Renwick: The question, Mr.
Chairman, is what were the amounts re-
quested by the Minister for his department
in submitting his requirements to the Treas-
ury Board?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think, Mr. Chainnan,
this matter has been dealt with very fully.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, this matter was dealt
with at considerable length while we were
dealing with vote 2001.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I just hoped Mr. Chair-
man, that perhaps the Minister might have
a figure that he would be glad to provide
the members of the House that he had
actually wanted more than he received.
What cutbacks were made by the Minis-
ter on the amounts to meet the Treasury
Board's decision?
Mr. Chairman: Well, again this matter
has been discussed at considerable length
in the previous vote. We are dealing just
now with the programme covering provin-
cial allowances.
Mrs. M. Renwick: All right, Mr. Chair-
man. Vote 3, under provincial allowances,
would the Minister-
Mr. Chairman: No, we are not dealing
with it by votes or items, we are dealing
with it by programmes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Sorry, Mr. Chairman,
question three of the Minister. Would the
Minister comment as to whether he would
3372
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have expanded services in his department?
Does he wish to expand services?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, when
I see that we went up from $106 million
shown in the Public Accounts, which the
hon. members have before them, to the
figure of $267 million, that is the kind of
rate of growth that I like.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister exactly where he
sees that rate of growth as having taken
place— in what departments, in what areas?
Mr. Lewis: You have not even kept up
with the cost of living and you are talking
about rate of growth.
Hon, Mr. Yaremko: From $106 million to
$267 million?
Mr. Lewis: That is just the provincial
contribution. Lump in the federal money.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Back in 1966-
Mr. Lewis: Oh— it has gone up, what,—
a few million dollars over last estimates?
Mr. Chairman: Provincial allowances and
benefits?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister if he would go to
some items in the estimates, starting with
salaries. How many people are employed
under the $8,054,000 in 1968-69, and how
many people now under the $8,889,100 for
the 1969-70 estimates?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I ask the hon.
member where she is directing her attention?
Mrs. M. Renwick: The very first item, Mr.
Chairman, salaries-$4,731,000. Then salaries
down below-$260,000. If you want to deal
with just the one, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask then how many people are cov-
ered under the salaries of the $4,731,000 in
comparison to the numbers of people who
are covered in the $1,524,000 figure in
1968-69?
Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to get at is
this: Is this increase in salaries for the same
staff, or is it an increase in staff? So, I have
to ask how many people are employed under
each year.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have brought to-
gether, within the one vote, family benefits,
which is $1,524,000; the field services,
$2,460,000; and the legal aid assessment of
$442,000 for a total of $4,426,000 for last
year. This year that is a figure of $4,731,000.
It is an increase in the last year. Those are
the figures I have, from 301 to 310.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Has the staff increased
from 301 to 310?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In the past year.
Mr. Chairman: Provincial allowances and
benefits?
Mrs. Renwick: I have a further question,
Mr. Chairman. Under dental services, an
item of $1,284,000: I would like to ask to
what dentists were those amounts payable.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That figure is paid to
the dental association which, in turn, under
the terms of our agreement with them, pays
out to dentists across the province.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister if he could supply
me at a later time, during the estimates, a
list of dentists who received this money.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Our agreement with
the dental association is by way of a pre-
mium agreement We pay $1.10 per reci-
pient on our rolls and then that amount of
money is used to pay the individual dentists
who render the services to the recipients.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Then, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the Minister's explanation of how
it is funded and I am interested in knowing
who receives this money. I wonder if he
could possibly see that we are supplied with
this information?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Our agreement is with
the dental association, not with the individ-
ual dentists.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not
like to push the Minister like this but I think
it is very important that we have some idea
where this money is going. Regarding dental
care for recipients in New Brunswick, the
Opposition asked for a breakdown of how
much was paid to each dentist providing
ser\'ice to welfare recipients in 1968, and
the figures created a scandal. Some dentists
got more than $60,000 a year.
I would like to ask the Minister to give
•us a breakdown as to what dentists bene-
fitted from treating welfare recipients.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In that province, the
province pays directly to the dentists. We do
not. We have an agreement with the Ontario
Dental Association to provide the dental care
and they in turn deal with the profession.
APRIL 21, 1969
3373
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): If
you asked the dental association would they
give it to you?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know; it has
not occurred to me to ask.
Mr. MacDonald: It is public money.
Mr. B. Newman: They must submit bills.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, thy must submit
bills, they must have a record.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Under maintenance,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a
breakdown! by branch.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Family Benefits
Branch has a maintenance of $133,000; the
field services of $180,000; and the legal aid
of $60,800.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would the Minister re-
peat the last figure, please?
Hon. Mr. Yprem^^o: Legal aid $60,800.
The two significant factors are in the family
benefits and the field services.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Under item 2002(4)
under the assistance for the medical assistance
we discussed earlier, I would like to ask the
Minister if that is where we find medical
assistance for Ontario Hospital Services
premiums and care— or one or the other? I
believe the welfare recipients do not have
an OHSC card, so there it would be hospital
costs. I believe the family benefits people
do receive a card and there it might be
premiums, I do not kmw. I would like to
ask where we find the OHSC figures.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do mt have any
expenditure, that is, directly between the
OHSC and the recipients— that does not
come within this programme.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Under the dental costs,
Mr. Chairman, there is a 49 per cent in-
crease. I wonder if the Minister would com-
ment on that 49.7 per cent increase, from
$858,000 in 1969-70 to $1,284,000 in this
estimate.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The agreement was re-
negotiated from 90 cents to $1.10. That
takes up some of it and the balance is due
to an increase in numbers.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would that be serving
a broader spectrum then, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The $858,000 would
have been provision for how many people in
comparison to the $1,284,000?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Last year's figures were
based on 220,000 people. :
Mrs. M. Renwick: And this year, Mr. Chair-
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There would be about
a 15 per cent increase in numbers.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister— going back to the
leadoff tonight by the leader of the Opposi-
tion—if the courses under the community
colleges for social workers were planned in
conjunction wdth his department in any way
or with the school of social work in any way?
How were the courses planned?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Ryerson was, but not
the others.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Surely, Mr. Chairman,
the Minister could see the value in planning
these programmes with the existing world
that the students are going to have to enterw
I would point out to the members and cer-
tainly not to the Minister, I presume he would
know, that in the field of day nurseries that
the students of day nursery work, I believe
their course was worked out— and worked out
quite well— with the Toronto Nursery School
Association. Would the Minister have any
comment from his department as to whether
perhaps he could have been useful in these
courses the way the Toronto Nursery School
Association has been useful to the day nursery
students? We should not have the sort of
shocking article which I read in the leadofF
of March 21 of a job vacuum for social serv^-
ice aids.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We participated in the
working out of that particular programme
and, as I stated earlier, to the leader of the
Opposition, this whole matter will be taken
up with The Department of University Affairs
in order to see that correlated programmes
are being worked out. There will be an inter-
departmental committee consultation in order
to assure that the best possible utilization and
the best possible training is made in anticipa-
tion of the best possible use of the training
given.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask the
Minister a further question or two—
3374
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the member would
allow me to make the motion that the com-
mittee rise and report progress.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves that the committee
of supply rise and report progress and ask
for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed;
chair.
Mr. Speaker in the
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
we will continue with estimates.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.05 o'clock, p.m.
No. 91
ONTARIO
Hcgtjslature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, April 22, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 22, 1969
Presenting reports, Mr. Welch 3377
Fifth report, standing legal and municipal committee, Mr. Demers 3377
Facilities for children suflFering from mental or emotional disturbance, bill respecting,
Mr. Dymond, first reading 3377
Air Pollution Control Act, 1967, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 3378
Physicians' Services Incorporated, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon and
Mr. MacDonald 3378
Bringing industry from Quebec to Ontario, question to Mr. Randall, Mr, Nixon 3378
Summer student employment, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. B. Newman 3379
Basic shelter exemption, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. J. R. Smith 3379
OHC and Montreal Trust Company, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Peacock 3380
Volunteer first aid in emergency situations, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Ben 3380
Polyphosphate in detergents, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Martel 3381
Improvement district of Marathon, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Nixon 3381
Committee for selection of natural areas, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Good 3382
Cooks in northern Hydro camps, questions to Mr. Bales and Mr. Simonett, Mr. Stokes 3382
Reynolds Extrusion Company Ltd., questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Pilkey 3382
Surveyed lots in McKeown township, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Ferrier 3383
Gillies Lake in Timmins, question to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Ferrier 3383
Ministry of public safety, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. De Monte 3383
$400 million cut in this year's estimates, questions to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. MacDonald
and Mr. J. Renwick 3383
OHC and Bramalea Consolidated Developments Ltd., questions to Mr. Randall,
Mr. J. Renwick 3386
OHC high-rise rental housing, question to Mr. Randall, Mrs. M. Renwick 3387
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3387
Recess, 6 o'clock 3419
3377
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, April 22, 1969
The House met at 2.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today in the east gallery we
have as our guests, students from Downsview
Secondary School in Downsview; in the west
gallery from Bayview Junior High School in
Willowdale and Olivet Day School in Isling-
ton, and Young Progressive Conservative
members from the Lambton and Samia
areas; and in both galleries from BeUe River
District High School. Later this afternoon
we will have guests from Main Street School
in Toronto, and in the evening, in the west
gaillery, constituents from Scarborough North
riding and Beta Sigma Pi in Islington.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this would be an appro-
priate time for me to bring to your attention,
sir, that sitting to your left, under the press
gallery, is the leader of the Liberal Party in
British Columbia, Dr. Pat McGeer. I hope,
sir, that you will join with me and the other
members in extending him a welcome to the
Legislature of the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: His Honour, the Lieutenant-
Governor, has advised me today that on
April 18 last he despatched the following
message to England:
On behalf of the people of the province
of Ontario may I express to Your Majesty
our sincere good wishes and congratulations
on the occasion of Your Majesty's birthday.
This happy occasion afiFords a welcome
opportunity to express our devotion and
loyalty to the Crown, so graciously exempli-
fied by Your Majesty.
W. Ross Macdonald,
Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.
Today he received the following reply from
Windsor Castle which he asked that I com-
municate to the members. It is addressed to:
The Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario,
Toronto.
I thank you and the people of the prov-
ince of Ontario most sincerely for your
kind congratulations on my birthday.
Signed,
Elizabeth R.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following reports:
First, the 48th annual report of the Public
Service Superannuation Board for the year
ended March 31, 1968.
Secondly, the annual report of The Depart-
ment of Transport for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1968.
Thirdly, the annual report of the Ontario
Highway Transport Board for the year end-
ing December 31, 1968.
Mr. R. G. Hodgson in the absence of
Mr. Demers, from the standing legal and
municipal committee, presented the com-
mittee's fifth report which was read as follows
and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill 92, An Act to amend The Insurance
Act.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN WITH
MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL
DISTURBANCE
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
respecting facilities for children suffering from
mental or emotional distiurbance.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the biU.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the bill
authorizes the establishment by The Depart-
ment of Health of facilities for children suf-
fering from mental or emotional disturbances
or disorders, and provides for the licensing,
regulation and control of other such facilities.
It also makes provision for provincial grants
to children's mental health centres.
3378
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,
1967
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves first reading of
hill intituled, An Act to amend The Air
Pollution Control Act, 1967.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the
])ill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, these
amendments provide for the facilitation of
the transfer of administration of this Act.
An amendment makes it an offence to ob-
struct a provincial officer making an inspec-
tion. A further amendment makes it an
offence to depart from the specifications
approved by the Minister and provides that
if construction does not proceed within one
year, the approval expires. And the regula-
tions are authorized to provide for prior
approval of proposed devices to control pol-
lution from motor vehicles.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, can the Minister explain why he,
rather than his colleague, the Minister of
Energy and Resources Management, has in-
troduced that legislation?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I think it is embodied
in the first amendment: the facility for trans-
fer of the administration of the Act. It
brings all the amendments in at the same
time.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to acquaint the members with
the fact that Mr. Speaker has decided to go
back to the former custom in this House,
and the custom in most Parliaments where
divisions are taken on the ringing of a bell.
When a division is taken in this House now,
the doors to the lobbies will be closed when
the bell ceases ringing and they will not
be opened until the Clerk has announced the
result of the vote.
I trust the members, and the Whips par-
ticularly, will be guided accordingly.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Health:
Can the Minister give the House further
information on his negotiations with Phys-
icians' Services Incorporated, which, accord-
ing to the Globe and Mail, has resulted in
Physicians' Services Incorporated rejecting
the government proposal that they be a car-
rier under provincial medicare?
And second, will the Minister table the
correspondence with Physicians' Ser\ices In-
corporated (m this matter?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South has a similar question.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I
have a two-part question related to the same
topic:
Pursuant to my question submitted on
April 3, and replied to on April 15, will the
Minister indicate to the Legislature details
of his carrier proposal to PSI which, accord-
ing to this morning's press, has been turned
down?
Secondly, what has been the response of
the private insurance companies to the gov-
ernment's offer to include them as a carrier
in a medicare plan on a non-profit basis?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I have
no further information to give concerning
our negotiations. I would suggest that the
report in the Globe ami Mail of this morning
is a little premature. This is the view, ap-
parently, of the executive of the PSI and
not of the house of delegates, and only the
house of delegates makes the final decision.
When that final decision is received, I will
be advised of it.
There has been no correspondence be-
tween PSI and myself. Everything has been
carried on verbally in meetings and by the
telephone. I have no fiuther word from the
private insurance carriers yet. I have been
assured that I shall have their decision be-
fore the end of this month.
Mr. MacDonald: By way of a supple-
mentary question, would the Minister indi-
cate whether he is having meetings with
PSI today?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not having meet-
ings today, no. There is a meeting tenta-
tively arranged for Friday morning, but none
imtil that time— and that is only tentative.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the Op-
position has a question of the Minister of
Trade and Development?
Mr. Nixon: No, I do not have it with me
but, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, the
question I had asked the Minister two or
three days ago was about the CBC report
that his comments had been questioned in
the Legislature of the province of Quebec
with regard to his programme to bring in-
dustry from Quebec to Ontario by empha-
sizing problems that that province has faced
recently.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I think there is
some misunderstanding about my name being
APRIL 22, 1969
3379
used in the province of Quebec. It was
Henry Bourassa in the Liberal Party who
made a statement, but he did not mention
any names. However, I would hke to make it
very clear-
Mr. Nixon: He mentioned the name of The
Department of Trade and Development.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, he did not mention
my name.
Mr. Nixon: The Minister is associated with
that department, I beheve.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, it could be but I
think he was off base. Like Mr. Trudeau said,
he was off his rocker.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr, Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member's question, so we get it
in the record and get it very clear, my De-
partment of T,rade and Development does not
in any way hinder the economic development
of any other province in the Dominion of
Canada. On the contrary we attempt to assist
other provinces by inviting them to partici-
pate in industrial development programmes.
For example, Manitoba, Alberta, Quebec,
British Columbia and Nova Scotia and Sas-
katchewan delegates attended, on a special
invitation by the Deputy Minister, our Manu-
facturing Opportunity Show held at the
Queen Elizabeth Building in the Exhibition
grounds on February 18, 19 and 20, 1969.
The Quebec delegates have attended our
industrial commissioners seminar for the past
two years. It is our opinion that attracting
industry from one province to another is
similar to transferring money from one pocket
to another, nothing is gained.
My industrial development officers do not
sohcit industrial development from Quebec
and are only x)ermitted to go into any other
province on a written invitation. In fact, per-
mission to travel into the province must be
approved by myself or my Deputy Minister;
and I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I have had
an invitation from Mr. Paul Ouimet, who was
appointed head of the 50-man delegation in
Quebec by the Prime Minister, to go there
on May 11, sit down with them for a couple
of days, and see if we can work together in
the initerests of Canada.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Agriculture and
Food, a four-part question:
1. Is the government aware that Interna-
tional Harvester has made a short term offer.
until May 31, for tractors on terms as favour-
able as imports from Britain— obviously for
the purpose of wrecking the import pro-
gramme—and then reverting to normal high
prices in Canada after June 1?
2. Since the price differential between Bri-
tain and Canada is in the range of $1,000
instead of the $791 in the ads as stated by
the interim report of the Royal commission,
what explanation is there for this factual dis-
crepancy?
3. Does the Minister not anticipate diffi-
culties between dealers and farmers when,
on this short term sale, dealers will be en-
couraged to provide no warranty, whereas all
normal sales include a warranty?
4. What action does the government intend
to take concerning this short term, cut-throat
competition, designed to protect the high
prices of farm machinery in Canada?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): I will take the question as
notice, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the hon.
Premier.
Will the Premier direct some of his sum-
mer employment advertising to female stu-
dents, in view of the fact that all of the
present advertising is directed to male
students?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, our programme basically is designed
to be directed at the employer, not the em-
ployee. As the programme develops I think
you will find that there will be some balance
in the references made to those we want to
be employed.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): I
have a question for the Minister of Trade
and Development. Why have the tenants of
the Macassa Park senior citizens apartments
on Hamilton Mountain not received their 1968
shelter exemption cheques? The second ques-
tion is: when will more home lots be offered
for sale on Hamilton Mountain?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, answering
the first question, tlie tenants of Macassa
Park senior citizens project receive a rental
credit, and this will be reflected in their rental
statement which they receive on May 1, 1969.
I would, however, point out to the hon.
member that this is not their 1968 shelter
exemption cheque, but a rental credit author-
ized by Order-in-Council dated January 2,
1969. Under the terms of The Residential
3380
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Property Tax Reduction Act, 1968, only cer-
tain public housing tenants would have been
eligible for a tax exemption refund.
To be more explicit, I would like to quote
section 81 of the Act:
Where, in any year, a tenant of a public
housing agency as defined in part 6 of The
National Housing Act, 1954, Canada, occu-
pies a residential property and pays an
amount that is not less than a sum deter-
mined in accordance with a regulation
made under this Act, having regard to the
rental of similarly privately-owned residen-
tial property in the area, the agency shall
determine the amount of reduction that
would have been made by a municipality,
under section 2, if the residential property
had been assessed and taxed in the usual
way, and shall allow such amounts as the
reduction in the rent in accordance with
section 4, and may apply to the department
for a reimbursement of the amoimt of such
reduction, and tlie Treasurer of Ontario
shall pay for such agencies a total of such
amounts.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member
that in order that all tenants of the Ontario
Housing Corporation should benefit, the gov-
ernment of Ontario decided to grant them a
rental credit in an equal amount to the tax
reduction provided under The Residential
Property Tax Reduction Act of 1968. I am
sure the hon. member will understand the
very substantial task that faced the Ontario
Housing Corporation in arranging for these
credits. At the present time the corporation
has some 22,000 family and senior citizen
units under management across Ontario, in
addition to which it was necessary for credit
to be calculated for tliose tenants who had
only occupied their dwelhng for a part of the
year. This included those who had vacated
their dwelling before the year end, and those
who newly occupied a dwelling part way
through the year. I am advised, however, that
all rental credits will have been put into
effect by May 1, 1969.
Answering the second question, Mr.
Speaker, approximately 120 lots will be made
available at the end of May or early June.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, I have questions of the Minister of
Trade and Development. What is the effec-
tive date of the agreement between the On-
tario Housing Corporation and \he Montreal
Trust Company in respect of the Flemingdon
Park and the Tandridge public housing
projects? Is tlie Montreal Trust Company the
successor to OHC in respect to the collective
agreement between the corporation and local
767, CUPE?
If not, are the termination of employment
of OHC staff and vacant possession of their
apartments at the above projects terms or
conditions in the agreement?
If so, what alternative employment and
accommodation or equivalent compensation,
does OHC propose to offer the employees
so affected?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the first question, May 1, 1969. The
second question, no.
The tliird question deals with two pro-
jects, one called Tandridge and the other
Flemingdon Park. I might also say that one
of the caretakers being moved had requested
anotlier job, which we gave him, as an
ordinary caretaker non-resident. The second
caretaker in Tandridge had reached the age
of 69 and came before the board for review
as to his employment, and his contract was
not renewed. On the two in Flemingdon
Park, one became the resident caretaker at
our Don Mount project, and the second
gentleman became a resident caretaker at
the Donald V. Summerville Apartments. All
have been given the option, if they had
small families, of staying where they are
until the school year ends.
Mr. Peacock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
Will the Minister accept a supplementary?
Do I take it then that the bargaining unit in
which these two groups of employees are now
represented, will be wiped out as of May 1,
and will these employees who continue at
work remain under the provisions of a col-
lective agreement between Ontario Housing
Corporation and the Canadian Union of
Public Employees?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We have no intentions
whatsoever of wiping out Local 767, CUPE.
We will carry on as we have done before.
We are in negotiations with them right now.
We have no intention of changing that agree-
ment.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. the Attorney
General.
When will Ontario follow the initiative
taken by the government of Alberta and in-
troduce legislation protecting doctors, nurses
and private citizens who volunteer assistance
of first aid in emergency situations from
subsequent legal action?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, The hon. member's question is
APRIL 22, 1969
3381
a matter of policy. I do not feel at the
moment we are going to proceed in that
direction. Certainly, I have had no direction
from my colleagues. I do not see the need of
such legislation at this time.
Mr. Ben: That is not being reformative!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well just because
anotlier province enacts legislation of that
nature is not enough. One has to find some
logical reason for it, and there does not
appear to be any.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of
Energy and Resources Management.
Is the polyphosphate in detergents a great
contributing factor to the pollution of water?
If so, will the Minister's department and
this government strive to have a ban placed
on the use of polyphosphates in the manu-
facture of detergents?
Hon. J. R. Simoriett: Mr. Speaker, the
polyphosphate content of detergents is a
contributing factor to the pollution of water.
The Ontario Water Resources Commission pro-
gramme is designed to control pollution from
any source. This includes phosphates from
detergents, sanitary wastes and other sources.
There is an intensi\'e research programme at
the present time to find a suitable substitute
for polyphosphates used in detergents.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs is now with us. Has the
Minister received a petition from citizens of
the Marathon area requesting the department
take steps to set up an elected council? Is
the Minister prepared to take the action re-
quested by the petition?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the
leader of the Opposition who is now with us,
I will just say that there-
Mr. Nixon: What does that mean?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The record speaks
both ways!
Mr. Nixon: In my case it is true, the Minis-
ter has just arrived!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In answer to the
question, I have not received a petition from
anyone in the improvement district of Mara-
thon. I have had correspondence and I think
there were questions earlier in February. As
I recall, I have had correspondence with two
or three of the leading proponents of change
in the municipal status. I have indicated to
them by correspondence that submissions
under subsections 3 or 6 of section 10 of The
Municipal Act must go to the Ontario Muni-
cipal Board for determination rather than to
the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
I was told, as of this morning, that the
Ontario Municipal Board has not as yet re-
ceived any petitions. No doubt they will be
receiving them. The jurisdiction in this case
is with the board and not with the depart-
ment or the Minister of Municipal Affairs,
subject only to the provisions which we en-
voked under section 25(a) of The Municipal
Act which said that we wanted to have a look
at these things before they were proceeded
with by the board and comment on them.
I can see no reason why, in this particular
instance, we would not say that the board
should proceed with the hearing and the de-
termination.
Mr. Nixon: As I understand it then, the
decision is with the Ontario Municipal Board
but the Minister reserves the right to give
them some advice.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the leader of
the Opposition-
Mr. Nixon: Which is sort of a switch, is it
not?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I think the leader
of the Opposition would be aware that in
the design for development phase II speech,
we said that we wanted to be informed.
These things have gone on, really without our
knowing of them, without the department
expressing a viewpoint one way or another.
In terms of areas which were under study or
about to be studied, there were cases where
amalgamations or annexations would not
make sense. So, we have asked the board if
they would forward all tliese requests for
amalgamations, annexations, erections, which
this is, from an improvement district into a
town or township to us and we would then
suggest to the board whether or not they
should proceed. I see no reason why this one
should not proceed.
Mr. Nixon: Is there a formula associated
with this change or is it just a matter of
judgment when the immediate circumstances
are put forward? Is there a formula asso-
ciated with population or changing assess-
ment?
3382
OxNTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. But I think the
board would look at the improvement district,
as we do, and welcome their incorporation
as a town or township, I am not sure which
it is to be. One thing the board would look
at is the financial liability and, secondly, I
think the degree of interest shown by the
local people, or the lack of it.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests: Is it present policy not to issue
the numbered back patch with the summer
licence? If so, why?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member, I would say that this matter is
under active review and I hope to have
information in the near future.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Waterloo North.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Lands and Forests:
What are the terms of reference of the
new committee which the Minister has estab-
lished to advise the government on the
selection of natural areas for study and enjoy-
ment of all citizens?
What salaries or expenses will the mem-
bers of the committee receive? How often
will the committee meet?
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests prepared to answer the question
placed to him by the member for Waterloo
North?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The answer to the first
part of the question, Mr. Speaker: The terms
of reference of the new committee will be
twofold. One: to recommend broad fields of
interest and study which would be repre-
sented in a system of nature reserves and,
two, to recommend specific areas to be
reserved or acquired as nature reserves.
Members of the group who are not civil
servants each receive $40 per day plus actual
travel expenses.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that most of the
members of this committee are university
professors who are specialists in the field of
botany, zoology, soil findings and so forth.
They are highly dedicated to working to
improve the province in this field of nature
reserves.
The committee will meet not less than
once, and not more than four times each
year,
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Min-
ister of Labour:
Will the Minister instruct the labour stand-
ards branch to investigate wages paid to
cooks in Hydro camps in northern Ontario
to ensure that cooks are paid at least the
minimum wage and, where wages are or
have been below the minimum, ensure that
arrears are paid to all those entitled to them?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the question, I will have
this matter looked into. It would be helpful
if the hon. member would care to pinpoint
some cases that he may know about, so as to
assist the employment standards branch in-
vestigation.
Mr. Stokes: I would be happy to.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Perhaps I could give
the hon. member an answer to a question he
asked regarding the same matter yesterday.
The rate negotiated between the Ontario
Hydro and the Hotel and Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders International Union
for the lowest level of third cook is $64.15
per week, increased to $71.93 after six
months, plus the value of free board— which
for tax purposes is valued at $17 per week
for a 44-hour week. On an hourly basis, this
would be $1.46 per hour in wages plus the
value of board. Ontario Hydro's imderstand-
ing is that in this industry the existing mini-
mum wage is $1.15 per hour going up to
$1.30 per hour.
Mr. Stokes: Did the Minister say the
minimum wage is $1.15, not $1.30?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I said that Ontario
Hydro's understanding and my understanding
is that in this industry the existing minimum
wage is $1.15 per hour, going up to $1.30
per hour.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): A question of
the hon. Minister of Trade and Development.
Is the Minister aware that Reynolds Extru-
sion Company Limited, Oshawa, is moving to
a new location at Richmond Hill?
Did the government provide or is the
government considering providing an EIO
loan to the company?
APRIL 22, 1969
3383
Will the Minister intervene, thus guarantee-
ing the employees in Oshawa adequate pro-
tection from loss of jobs?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the To-
ronto plant of Reynolds Extrusion Company
Limited is due to move to a new location
at Richmond Hill at the end of August, 1969.
Some parts of the facilities at the company's
Oshawa plant will supplement the new plant.
The Ontario Development Corporation is
not considering providing an EIO loan to
Reynolds Extrusion Company Limited of
Oshawa to move to a new location at Rich-
mond Hill. Richmond Hill is not on the list
of municipalities approved for assistance
under the EIO programme.
The officials of my department have been
in contact with the Canada Manpower Centre
in Toronto and will be informed of the plans
of the Manpower Centre in this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Coch-
rane South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Lands and Forests:
When will the 30 surveyed lots in Mc-
Keown township on the west shore of
Kenogamissi Lake approximately two miles
south of the Cache be made available for
public sale?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the hon. member that
public sale will be available in the area in
question in the very near future.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane
South has another question.
Mr. Ferrier: A question of the Minister of
Energy and Resources Management:
Has the government decided who is re-
sponsible for pumping Gillies Lake in
Timmins during high water peaks so that
flooding of adjacent roads and homes is
avoided?
If so, who is responsible?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, no, the
government has not been asked to decide as
far as I am aware. I am familiar with this
problem and I have indicated to the muni-
cipal council of the town of Timmins that
the only action I can take to assist them in
this matter would be in conjunction with the
Mattagami Valley Conservation Authority.
So far, the town of Timmins has preferred
to deal with the matter directly rather than
by referring it to the conservation authority,
and, consequently, I have taken no action in
this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Dover-
court.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question of the hon. Prime Minis-
ter: Is the Premier prepared to accept the
request of George Plummer, chairman of
Dunlop Canada for the establishment of a
ministry of public safety with sole respon-
sibility for exacting and enforcing safety laws
and orders that he advocated at the annual
meeting of the Industrial Accident Prevention
Association yesterday?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have not
read this news report; I assume it came out
in the morning paper. At the moment we
have no plans for the establishment of a
ministry of public safety, but I will take a
look at the news report and see what Mr.
Plummer was recommending.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): I have a
question of the hon. Attorney General.
Is the Attorney General making any recom-
mendations through the fire marshal's office
to prevent the hazards of living in 15- to 25-
storey buildings without adequate facilities
to rescue residents in case of fire?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would
take that question as notice and give an
answer very shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Treasurer.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Treasiurer): Mr.
Speaker, I have a reply to a question of the
hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald), placed by the hon. member for
Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick) a few days ago.
The question:
Will the Provincial Treasurer provide the
Legislature with the departmental break-
down of the $400 million cut in this year's
estimates?
I would like to provide a brief background on
the budgetary process in response to this
question. Some of it has been outlined before
to the hon. members but I believe it will be
helpful to review the procedure as a result
of the Opposition's request for more specific
information on Budget considerations.
The overall financial framework for 1969-
70 was considered last fall by the Cabinet
committee on policy development in the light
of a variety of considerations including
economic conditions, taxation levels, capital
3384
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
market prospects and other salient factors.
After studying the alternatives, the Cabinet
committee agreed upon the global limits of
expenditures along with expenditure priori-
ties, making as broad a provision as possible
for essential services to our people.
Accordingly, the Cabinet committee recom-
mended to the Executive Council a limit of
$3 billion for net general expenditure for the
current fiscal year. This target figure was
approved by the Executive Council and re-
ferred to Treasury Board, its finance and
administrative committee, for implementation
during the review of departmental estimates.
My six colleagues and myself on Treasury
Board complied with this instruction and, as
the hon. members know, recommended a
Budget with a net general expenditure of
$2,996 million.
As Treasurer, I then considered the appro-
priate re\enue sources for a balanced Budget,
which encompassed a xariety of vital con-
siderations. Economic conditions dictated a
need to cool off the inflationary pressures.
The high cost of borrowing in the capital
market removed any temptation to increase
the public debt as an alternative to cither
tax increases or expenditure cutbacks. From
a longer- range view, we had to establish a
solid financial base from which to launch a
tax reform programme.
Perhaps as important as any consideration
was Ontario's responsibility to co-operate with
the national restraint policy advocated by the
Economic Council of Canada and supported
by the federal government and a number of
provincial jurisdictions. This province, dom-
inant as it is and blessed with a strong
economy and low unemployment, was in a
most favourable position to respond to the
app<Ml for restraint and to absorb the con-
sequences of it. Some of our sister provinces,
who are not as fortunate, might have suffered
if Ontario had decided to squeeze the already
tight capital markets or imposed inflationary
increases in the principal tax fields. The
response of Ontario was critical to the success
of a national restraint programme and this
aovemment demonstrated its willingness to
make an important contribution to the eco-
nomic health of the nation.
This restraint policy, however, involved
sacrifices in a variety of programmes provided
by this government. I felt it was appropriate
to indicate to the Legislature and to the
people of this province the manner and extent
to which budgetary reductions were imple-
mented to produce a balanced Budget. On
pages 18 to 20 of my Budget statement, I
outlined the effect on oxir priority expenditure
areas and provided a number of examples to
show where restraints were apphed, where
expenditures were frozen at last year's level,
and where reductions were made. I also listed
a number of programme improvemervts that
had to be postponed.
In the govemmejit's view, these illustra-
tions were necessary to indicate that the
Cabinet, its committee on pohcy develop-
ment and its Treasury Board were conscious
of the consequences of its financial x>olicy and
to forewarn the people of the province of the
implications and sacrifices involved.
This background is important to the answer
I now wish to provide to the request of the
leader of the New Democratic Party for a
detailed breakdown by departments of the
$400 million cut from this year's estimates.
The provision of such infomiation, I suggest,
would be both imprudent and improper.
The bare figures themselves could be quite
misleading, and certainly they would not be
meaningful, without a more comprehensive
explanation of the specific areas in which re-
duction were achieved. This further informa-
tion would reveal, or suggest, a variety of
new policies and developments being con-
sidered by the government, the programme
improvements we hope to incorporate when
fimds are available, administrative and opera-
tional changes under consideration, and a host
of other intentions. The government can
neither give nor imply commitments to these
considerations. Indeed, our intentions may
change substantially during tlie course of the
major management and operational review—
our productivity improvement project— now
being implemented, and otlier on-going
evaluations of govcnmient programmes in
response to changing conditions.
There is also the obvious danger of expos-
ing plans to interests who may take advantage
of the information and undertake actions
detrimental to the public good. The disclos-
ures might raise false hopes and expectations
among our people. The ramifications could be
widespread.
This question, in essence, imposes on pm-
dent and traditional parliamentary practice
since it takes the Opposition parties into the
Cabinet chamber, into the meetings of the
Cabinet committee on policy development,
into the deliberations of Treasury board and
into the offices of each of the Ministers of
the government.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that tlie
question requests statements of government
policy and information that constitute a
APRIL 22, 1969
3385
breach of Cabinet secrecy. The parliamentary
rulings against the provision of such informa-
tion are numerous and definitive, as you are
well av^^are, Mr. Speaker.
Sir Erskine May, an eminent authority often
cited in this Legislature, states clearly that
one t>'pe of question consistently ruled in-
admissible is one seeking information about
matters that are in their nature secret, such
as decisions or proceedings of the Cabinet or
Cabinet oommittees.
"Lewis' Parliamentary Procedure", page 45,
states that a Minister may refuse to answer
a question asking an expression of opinion
upon public policy. He also states that a Min-
ister may refuse to answer a question on the
grounds of public interest and a question so
refused cannot again be placed on the order
paper.
The precedents of this Legislature go even
further. In 1912, Mr. Speaker gave a rule
indicating that certain questions:
. . . involved matters of inference and
opinion and lead up to or profess to lead
up to and deal with a question of policy
of the government which the Minister is
asked to announce, discuss, and declare.
Any one of these reasons would be suffi-
cient to condemn the inquiry.
I also refer to a resolution passed by this
House on April 17, 1912 which reads:
RESOLVED,
That imder the rules and procedure of
this House, questions put to memibers must
not put forward any debatable facts, nor
any matter that will involve opinion, argu-
ment or influence, nor can any fact be
stated, nor any opinion or intention as to
matters of policy; nor should any question
be put upon a matter which is not within
the recognition of this House.
I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, that the
information requested is privileged, and to
accept, for the many reasons I have cited, my
reluctance to provide it.
In making these observations, I submit that
it is the prerogative and responsibihty of the
Opposition to examine the spending estimates
of the government as they are presented to
the Legislature. Indeed, it is their role to
present alternatives that they believe might
be more acceptable to the people of tliis
province. In that role, they have a much
wider scope for debate than has the govern-
ment. Obviously, there are many more alter-
natives than there are courses of action.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is
not the government's obligation to assist the
Opposition by disclosing the alternatives that
we considered. Indeed, it has been my ex-
perience over a number of years that the
members opposite are quite capable of con-
ducting a close examination of the estimates
and presenting alternatives to them in a
manner befitting their responsibility to the
people of this province.
I respectfully suggest that the Opposition
parties do not require any further informa-
tion, beyond the full disclosures in the Bud-
get and the estimates, to perform their duties
in this House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the Provincial Treasurer for his
second statement on the Budget. I only
wish we had had the television cameras for
this presentation too.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a ques-
tion and draw some things to your attention.
The first thing is that obviously the state-
ment of the Provincial Treasurer is in line
with the comment of the Minister of Mines
that we have "no right to know". If it is
imprudent for us to know, why was it— I ask
the Provincial Treasurer— prudent for the
Minister to boast about the $400 million in
cuts? That was a question, Mr. Speaker. If
it is imprudent for us to know, why was it
prudent for the Provincial Treasurer to ]>oast
about the cuts?
An hon. member: He carmot answer; that
would be a breach of Cabinet secrecy.
Mr. Speaker: It is obvious that the Pro-
vincial Treasurer does not desire to answer
the questions.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): That is typical.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously,
we have no right to know and there is not
much point in proceeding with the Provincial
Treasurer, so I would like to put a question
to you, sir.
We have had a non-answer, as far as the
question I put to him, but mostly we have
had a usurpation of your rights with regard
to what can be stated in this House. I draw
to your attention that when we asked this
question, the chairman of the committee
quite rightly said it was a legitimate ques-
tion. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to
examine the fact that we have already had
a ruling in the House, from the Deputy
Speaker and chairman of the committee, that
this is a legitimate question. The Provincial
Treasurer has usurped the rights of the
3386
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Speaker and the chairman and said that, in
efiFect, this is not a legitimate question. Could
we have your version of it?
Mr. Speaker: With respect to the first
matter mentioned by the hon. member for
York South, I recall, I think yesterday or
very recently in the House, having some ver>'
learned guidance from members of his group
on the rules of the House. They were ex-
pounding at great length and quoting authori-
ties, and I was pleased to have the advice,
and I am likewise pleased to have the assis-
tance of the Provincial Treasurer. I would
think it is a good thing that the members en
both sides of the House go to the rules and
the reference books. Certainly it will never
be a usurpation of Mr. Speaker's preroga-
tives as far as bringing these matters to the
attention of the House is concerned.
Mr. Speaker will most definitely deal with
them when he has to, and I now propose to
say that I have allowed the question. I felt
that the question was in order, as the Deputy
Speaker had allowed it previously as com-
mittee chairman. I also say that, in my
opinion, in accordance with the precedents
and rules which are inherent as well as con-
tained in the rule books and in reference
books, the Minister has a right to answer it
as he had. I think he has made a case that
it is a matter which is not subject to answer,
and therefore, as far as I am concerned, the
question was asked quite properly. The ques-
tion has been answered— or "non-answered",
as the hon. member for York South says—
and again, in my opinion, in accordance with
rules and precedents of this and all other
Parliaments.
Now I would be pleased if there are any
further submissions that the hon. members
would wish to check and let me have to
consider the matter further, but that is the
situation as I see it at this moment. The hon.
member for York South wishes the floor.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would
just like to draw to your attention that this
leaves the Opposition with no alternative
but to take the time to dig the information
out, department by department.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Trade
and Development advises me that he has
questions from two members in the New
Democratic Party, and I presume these were
questions taken as notice because the ques-
tions I have have all been asked. Could the
hon. Minister give me the numbers of the
questions so that I can check them?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The first question is
No. 1157 from the hon. member for River-
dale.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, that has been asked;
and question No. 982.
Hon. Mr. Randall: And No. 982, that is
right.
Mr. Speaker: These are questions which
have been asked and taken as notice.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my ques-
tion was placed exacdy a week ago today.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister states he is
now in a position to answer.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, answering
question No. 982: Under the terms of the
agreement between Bramalea Consolidated
Developments Limited and Ontario Housing
Corporation, Bramalea has an option to con-
struct 50 per cent of the 1,039 units soutli of
Highway 7. Under the terms of the agree-
ment, Bramalea is required to conform to
all of the conditions applicable to any other
builder constructing dwellings on the balance
of tlie land.
The other question, Mr. Speaker, was one
of several parts.
I am pleased to table the agreement be-
tween Ontario Housing Corporation and
Bramalea Consolidated Developments Lim-
ited. However, OHC is not a party to any
agreement between Bramalea Consolidated
Developments Ltd. and the township of Chin-
guacousy, therefore I am unable to comply
with the request that this agreement be
tabled also.
The purchase price to OHC was not based
upon a cost per acre, but upon a cost per
dwelling unit. As the hon. member will ap-
preciate, land purchased on an acreage basis
is normally in a raw state; that is it has not
been subdivided or serviced. It is therefore
incumbent upon the purchaser to carry out
all of the necessary planning and negotia-
tions wliich are required, preparatory to tlie
registration of the plan of subdivision. As a
result, the ultimate land use may range from
single family lots at approximately 4 or 5 lots
to the acre to medium density or high den-
sit)'. The ultimate value of the land depends
to a very large extent upon the density per-
mitted. Also, the design and installation of
services is a furtiier charge against the lands.
The hon. memlier will also appreciate that '
in the process of subdivision, the areas set
aside for roads, parks, schools and other
uses have the efiFect of substantially reducing
APRIL 22, 1969
3387
the lands which can be used for the actual
development of residential dwellings. The
land at Bramalea is being purchased by OHC,
fully zoned, subdivided and serviced and is
exclusive of lands for roads, schools, parks
and other municipal uses.
In addition, with the exception of build-
ing permit fees and other minor fees such
as water meter charges connected with the
construction of the dwelhng, all imposts and
other charges have been met by Bramalea
Consolidated Developments Ltd.
I regret I am unable to advise the hon.
member why Bramalea was able to sell the
lands to OHC at this price. I can only say
that this was the price at which they were
originally offered by Bramalea Consolidated
Developments Ltd. in their Itetter dated
July 7, 1967.
I am advised that in addition to the acre-
age being purchased by OHC, Bramalea Con-
solidated Developments Ltd. owns a further
3,700 acres of undeveloped land in the town-
ship of Chinguacousy.
Negotiations for the purchase of this land
from Bramalea were conducted by staff of
OHC. More specifically, I understand discus-
sions concerning the general layout of the
proposed development were conducted by
Mr. G. W. Murchison, the then director of
land development for the corporation, and
Mr. J. F. Metcalfe, manager of lands. Mr. H.
W. Suters, managing director of the corix)ra-
tion, Mr. A. A. Hermant, senior legal coun-
sel and corporate secretary, Mr. P. E. H.
Brady, deputy managing director (develop-
ment), and Mr. P. R. Goyette, who succeeded
Mr. Brady upon his resignation in October
of last year, were also involved from time
to time.
I am also advised that during the course of
the negotiations concerning the purchase and
development of these lands there was involve-
ment by The Department of Municipal Affairs,
The Department of Education and the On-
tario Water Resources Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question here from
the hon. member for Scarborough Centre
(Mrs. M. Renwick). It was a supplementary
question she asked the other day, and I
promised to answer it as soon as I got the
information. It is as follows:
1. No part of the building is completed
to the satisfaction of the construction engi-
neering branch of Ontario Housing Corpora-
tion. For the information of the hon. member,
there are a substantial number of deficiencies
on all floors of this building which have to
be cleared up by the contractor. In addition.
a crack in the structure of tlie building has
been found. This is now being investigated
by an independent structural engineer re-
tained by OHC, and until his report has
been received the building will not be taken
over by the corix)ration. Thus, in answer to
the member's question: "When was construc-
tion finished?", I can only reply that at this
time construction is not finished.
2. On January 30, 1969, a complete in-
spection of the building was carried out by
OHC and at that time it was estimated the
building was 92 per cent complete in terms
of construction. At February 28, 1969, the
percentage completion was estimated at 95
per cent. On March 10, 1969, a further
inspection was carried out and deficiencies
listed included plaster cracks, sanding of
floors, painting, and so on. Further inspections
were carried out through March and early
April which resulted in a considerable num-
ber of deficiencdes being reported to the
contractor. Until these deficiencies have been
rectified the building is not considered to be
in a condition in which families can be placed
in occupancy.
3. I can assure the hon. member that
OHC is equally anxious to take this building
over. However, the building will not be taken
over and occupied until it is satisfactorily
completed.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 42nd order, House
in committee of supply; Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
On vote 2002:
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Chairman, during the
course of yesterday's proceedings the hon.
member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith), I
believe it was, asked a question respecting
the matter of pre-paid funerals and I gave
him a reply. I just want to put on the
record the complete answer, so that there
may be no misunderstanding.
Beneficiaries under the family benefits pro-
gramme can be divided into two broad areas:
the recipients of allowances and old age
security pensioners, who have qualified for
premium free medical and hospital coverage.
With regard to the first group, the policy
before the introduction of The Family Bene-
fits Act, and the policy after the introduction
3388
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of The Family Benefits Act, continues to be
the same. That is, pre-paid funerals are to
l>e considered as assets.
With regard to the second group, effective
April 1, 1967, pre-paid funerals were con-
sidered to be assets as this group was moved
into the same needs tests as the recipients
of allowances.
Prior to April 1, 1967, a set of rules was
used in determining eligibility for premium
free medical and hospital benefits. The rules
excluded, at that time, from assets, pre-paid
funerals.
When the question was raised in the House
yesterday I assumed that the policy referred
to was the one relative to detei-mining allow-
ances. Thus, the answer tliat there had been
no change in policy was correct. If the ques-
tion referred to premium free medical and
hospital benefits pro\aded to old age security
pensioners, then the answer is tliat there has
l>een a change in policy, effective April 1,
1967, with respect to this specific item.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2002; provincial
allowances imd benefits. The hon. member
for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, before commenting on the
lack of use by the province of Ontario of
the possibilities under the Canada Assistance
Plan, I would like to read from the report
of the Canadian committee on the Inter-
national Council on Social Welfare for the
14th International Conference, May, 1968,
under item four on page 31, item 110, it
reads:
Physical and Mental Health: Article 25
of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states that everyone has the right
to a standard of living adequate for the
health and wellbeing of himself.
Article 25(1):
It would be useless to insist (m the
importance of health in the life of the
individual and the family, this importance
is imiversally recognized.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that in the field
of health the need is universally recognized
;;nfl the pre\ entative health measures are to
he commended in Ontario, to a great degree.
But the recognition of the fact that an
adequate amount of nutritional food is neces-
sary in order to maintain a decent standard
of adequate health has not Ix^en yet recog-
nized in the pro\ ince of Ontario.
Because the goxernmcnt has failed to do
so, Mr. Chainnan, other people are having to
press and fight for something which should
ha\e been a natural undertaking providing
this goxemment was going to accept the $6
million from the federal government retro-
active to 1966, from 1967, the $106 million
from 1967-68, and now, the estimated $131
million for those persons in need in Ontario.
It was a very simple proposition, Mr. Chair-
man, that was put forward by the federal
government. The following objecti\'e of the
Canada Assistance Plan, was stated by the
government of Canada, outlined in a policy
statement on the plan put out in 1966, from
the Canadian Welfare Council. Item 1 is
\ery simple, Mr. Chairman:
To meet the need whenever it exists,
regardless of cause; two, to provide a
framework for a new co-ordinated approach
to public assistance by the federal and pro-
vincial governments in place of the present
patchwork of measures. Under the plan
each province may, if it wishes, establish
a comprehensive, general assistance pro-
gramme which, while recognizing varying
requirements of different groups, would
meet those requirements with one legisla-
tive and administrative framework.
It goes on, Mr. Chainuan, to say that:
However, at the discretion of the prov-
ince, they may continue the old age assist-
ance, the blind person's and disabled
person's allowances in separate programmes
with no change in the present cost sharing
provisions rather than merge them with
the new general assistance programme.
I ha\ e two things to say on that paragraph,
Mr. Chainnan.
One, that one of the first steps that will
have to be taken by this government in order
to improve the situation as it is, is to put all
of its assistance under one Act. As it is,
Mr. Chainnan, there are 27 categories and
seven different kinds of aid. It is indeed
exactly what is termed here, a "patchwork of
measures".
In Ontario, the cost and administration
must be taken over by the province for all
welfare assistance from the municipalities'
shoulders. We have seen much of the faidt
of the administration and we know that the
only way that this system is going to work is
to have it administrated, paid for and serviced
from here under one type of assistance for
any person in need.
We need one Act where the people can be
covered according to their needs. Their needs
will vary, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister
made a facetious remark in the last estimates:
APRIL 22, 1969
3389
Wei], what do you want us to do, lump a
thalidomide baby in with a widowed person,
or some such thing? This is not what we are
talking about.
We are talking about the fact that philo-
sophically, this government has never, at any
time, taken the approach that is outlined in
the Canada Assistance Plan. On the other
hand, it is taking the money. Philosophically
it is going to be very difficult for the men in
this Cabinet to face the fact that they must
meet need wherever it exists and that there
is no ceiling on the type of need, providing
it is shown to be a basic need. The federal
Liberal Party is to be criticized severely for
allowing a province like Ontario, at its
discretion, to put this under one Act. By
allowing any such thing, it simply is not
going to get done unless it is made manda-
tory to get the money.
So, when government is not doing it, Mr.
Chairman, people outside of the government
are having to take on the huge burden of
tiying to update welfare legislation in Ontario.
In the Ontario Welfare Reporter, summer
1968, I read:
From their position on the front line of
welfare assistance programme the members
of the Ontario Welfare Officers Association,
welfare assistance programme, the members
report on the virtues and shortcomings of
legislation. Sometimes concensus is ex-
pressed in resolutions and they feel that
passed resolutions on prov incial sharing of
drug costs and abolition of residents re-
quirements and chargebacks have borne
fruit. The association also maintains the
liaison committee which meets with the
Deputy Minister. Two matters understood
to be under discussion at present are the
new definition under general welfare assist-
ance of a single person, which is cutting
off some young people from assistance, and
the question of whether special assistance
should not be available in low income
hardship cases even when the breadwinner
is fully employed.
Well, that is the other section of the Canada
Assistance Plan, Mr. Chairman. This gov-
ernment has just simply put its head in the
sand and pretended it does not exist.
The regulations to the Canada Assistance
Plan, were gazetted very clearly February 8,
1967. I listed in the last session, last even-
ing, Mr. Chairman, the first three items of
special needs of any kind regarding furnish-
ings, repairs to property and needs for handi-
capped persons. But then, even it goes on to
state that:
Any of the following items, where they
are necessary for the safety, well being or
rehabilitation of a person in need: special
food or clothing, telephone, or rehabilita-
tion allowances and housekeeping allow-
ances.
I read last night, Mr. Chairman, about assis-
tance to persons who are working but who
cannot, perhaps, provide for something essen-
tial in their work, something that is of neces-
sity for them to continue to work. And the
Act was even careful enough to outline
examples: mandatory licences, visa permits,
special clothing, and tools or other equip-
ment essential to obtain or continue in em-
ployment.
I urge this government, Mr. Chairman, and
beg them, to look at the people who can
continue employment or can be employed
while they are still in receipt of a benefit.
Surely it is far better to have people able
to be employed at the same time than to
have the system we have now where they
can only receive a benefit if they are abso-
lutely destitute and if they are absolutely
unemployed except in the case under The
Family Benefits Act for the mother's allow-
ance.
While the people march on outside of this
chamber trying to update the system, we go
into the Ontario Welfare Reporter, now in
winter 1968, and all the power lies here,
Mr. Chairman. We do not have to go
through months and years of this sort of
eflFort by private individuals and private
agencies: the power and the responsibility is
right in this room. From the Welfare Reporter
of 1968 we read:
Implications of the Canada Assistance
Plan are the first concern of the special
policy committee, and Mr. Winslow Ben-
son presented a project proposal which his
committee felt was manageable, but at the
same time focusses on a central issue of
the Canada Assistance Plan. The commit-
tee will explore the potential of the Can-
ada Assistance Plan in respect to social
services. Because the committee's concern
has been especially with the preventative
aspect of the service, the enquiry should
focus on persons of marginal poverty. The
plan provides for federal contributions to
the cost of welfare services to the province
and to municipalities, not only to the per-
sons in need but to persons who are likely
to become persons in need.
3390
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, when the government of On-
tario fails even to take cognizance of the full
implication of the federal Act, then the pri-
vate volunteer groups have to begin. Mr.
Benson is a retired gentieman; he has already
worked very hard, probably all of his life.
Now we are asking people like this to dig
in and try to show where Ontario could be
improved in the adoption of the Canada
Assistance Plan. They had their first meeting
last Tuesday, I believe, a week ago today,
Mr. Chairman, and the conclusions of that
meeting were:
Some of the obvious points which we
learned from our Peterborough meeting
were as follows:
1. It was a very good idea to have a
preliminary meeting with some of the key
people in the community to enlist their
co-operation, obtain a list of suggested
delegates, and so on.
2. It was important to emphasize that
the meeting was of the Ontario Welfare
Council. The anxiety of the various agen-
cies that they would be blamed for a part
or a whole of the conference or its conse-
quences was alleviated in this way.
3. Invitations did not emphasize suffi-
ciently that this was not a public meeting.
Due to this we had to ask a reporter from
the Peterborough Examiner to leave when
he turned up.
4. It was surprising to learn that there
had not been such a meeting in Peter-
borough, and that many of the people who
were engaged in social work, welfare or
health activities in the community had not
formerly discussed community problems. It
was especially interesting to note that
there was no co-operation between the
public and private sector, and our meet-
ing stimulated the possibility of such co-
operation.
The time was fortuitous. The chairman
of the welfare committee of the city coun-
cil, Mr. Ip, had been recently elected. He
is a young engineer with General Electric
and a progressive and enthusiastic person.
He was replacing a very conservative and
inflexible man and it is hopeful that the
previous non-supportive attitude of the city
council to the welfare administrator is
going to change. There was some sug-
gestion that the Ontario Welfare Council
will be further consulted about the co-
operation of agencies in Peterborough.
Mr. Chairman, there is something rather
pathetic about private individuals having to
get together in this fashion and work through
a meeting to come to just that simple con-
clusion. The government, in my view, is as
determined to be as conservative and inflex-
ible as the gentleman that they refer to here,
and they do not realize they are working
their hearts and souls out there to try to find
the answers to some of the problems. The
group fails to realize that the inflexibility is
right here. No matter how much we bring
forth, I doubt very much that in our life-
time very much will be changed until we
change the government.
If you look at the facts that they have
stated, that the public and private sectors
have no co-operation, we have asked for the
government to take the responsibility in this
matter. I asked last year, I asked this year,
and I suppose, Mr. Chairman, we will be
asking next year. So we go into the spring
of 1969, and the Ontario Welfare Reporter
said that, well finally some people are get-
ting down to at least some more gut issues.
Four resolutions were received from
members, and will be presented to the
annual meeting of the Ontario Welfare
Council, Thursday, May 15.
1. Subject— Appeal procedures under
The Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes
Act. Submitted by the Family Service
Association of Metropolitan Toronto.
Whereas The Ontario Homes for the
Aged and Rest Homes Act, 1966, does not
provide for appeal, and the Family Serv-
ice Association of Metropolitan Toronto—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, may I make a suggestion, that
that particular resolution could properly be
read when we come to residential care and
services for adults, which is the third activity.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I
speak before you make a decision on this
ruling. I have looked over my material today
and last night, and most of it is overlapping
as far as family benefits and as far as general
welfare and assistance goes, and I do not
think we can deal with the f)oints separately,
except where we are able. It is ridiculous for
me to take an article on the whole welfare
situation and say that this will appear under
homes for thc^ aged, and something else will
appear imder sometlu'ng else, and so on. The
vote is a very large vote that covers every-
thing, and I would ask the chairman if he
would consider if I might read from anything
that covers vote 2002.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, may I
just say that the member is going to read
four resolutions. I suggest it would be a very
APRIL 22, 1969
3391
simple thing for her to look at those resolu-
tions and say, "Resolution number one comes
properly under residential care and services
for adults; resolution two comes under"— I
do not know the order of those four resolu-
tions—"municipal allowances and the third
comes under provincial allowances." I say to
the hon. member, she should have all the
opportunity for reading every rasolution in
the world that she has garnered; all I suggest
to her is that in the conduct of orderly busi-
ness of a Parliament, there is a right time and
place for her to do so.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, the items are not itemized
under the vote, and I am not speaking about
resolutions. I am not speaking about the
resolution of the homes for the aged. I am
speaking about this government's failure to
make one Act and a simple procedure which
would clear out a good amount of what I am
talking about.
Mr. Chairman: I vi^uld say to the hon.
member that we are dealing with vote 2002
under programmes of activity. I put this be-
fore the committee at the beginning of the
consideration of vote 2002, and it was agreed
by the committee, and properly so, I believe,
that we would deal most efficiently with the
estimates by sticking to the programmes of
activity. At the present time we are deaHng
with provincial allowances; the next section
deals \vith municipal allowances, and the last
one is residential care and serxice for adults.
If we are going to maintain any form of
orderly discussion in debate, we must stick
to either items in the vote, or to the pro-
grammes of activity.
I i>ointed out, I beheve yesterday, that the
items in the vote were not always the best
way, in view of the fact that the presentation
of tlie estimates this year is in a stage of
transition for a new method of presentation,
so I think we have no alternative but to stick
to the programmes of activity. I believe, if
the hon. member does have any references
to the other programmes, she can perhaps set
them aside and refer to them when we deal
with municipal allowances, and similarly with
residential care. So, we will deal right now
with provincial allowances and benefits.
Mrs. M. Renwdck: Mr. Chairman, of the
four resolutions, one comes under item 3 of
vote 2002, one comes under general welfare
assistance, and the last two are under family
benefits. I will read the last two.
Subject — Financial aid to independent
family service agencies, submitted by Mr.
Stephen Jackson, Peterborou^.
Whereas the aim of the family service
movement in this province is to carry out
activities designed to protect and strengthen
family life and enhance the social function
of family members; and whereas many
family agencies in this province are experi-
encing difficulty in providing adequate
service, due to inadequate financial sup-
port, as the cost of appropriate services to
famihes outstrips increases in voluntary
donations; and whereas provision has been
made within the Canada Assistance Plan
whereby independent family agencies may
receive aid provided enabling legislation
is implemented at a provincial level; be it
resolved that the board of directors of the
Ontario Welfare Council recommend that
the provincial government of Ontario pass
legislation allowing federal moneys to be
utilized in strengthening individual and
family functioning by supporting the work
of the independent family service agencies
of this province.
No more need be said, Mr. Chairman. This
is exactly what has to be done.
Subject— Recipients of disabled persons'
allowance in extended care hospitals, sub-
mitted by Mrs.—
Mr. Chairman: That would come under the
third programme, under this vote.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
That is one group of individuals who are
trying to fill up some of the stopgaps. Then
we have from the Association of Mayors and
Reeves on the matter of municipal welfare
services, a submission to tiie Minister on
March 3, stating that the municipalities-
Mr. Chairman: That would come under the
next programme under this vote.
Mrs. M. Renwick: You are right, Mr. Chair-
man, and I apologize.
Then we will go, sir, down to the fact that
while the private volunteer agencies and their
personnel in this province are trying to fill in
where government has failed, we have— at the
Provincial Conference for Women on April
16— the Prime Minister telling tlie women
that growth and affluence are the only two
problems in Ontario. Yet while he was talking
that way of growth and affluence, then on the
other hand, the Prime Minister has Mr.
3392
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Munro, National Minister of Health and Wel-
fare in Ottawa, studying provincial demands
for welfare funds.
Mr. Chairman, where does legal aid fall
in this vote?
Mr. Chairman: Did the hon. member direct
a question to the Chairman?
Mrs. M. Rcnvvick: I did, Mr. ChauTnan. I
v/as asking under which of these three sec-
tions of vote 2002 falls legal aid?
Mr. Chairman: Legal aid? I think die hon.
Minister covered tlic matter of legal aid
fairly well last night.
lion. Mr. Yaremko: That is in tliis vote,
Mr. Chairman, under provincial allowances
and benefits. The family benefits section con-
tains the salaries for the legal aid assessment
portion, because the legal aid is divided
between The Department of the Attorney
General and this department.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman,
what I am saying is that while tlie Prime
Minister is saying we have only two problems
in Ontario— growth and affluence— at the same
time we are asking the federal government
to contribute towards training social workers
in undergraduate courses. And we are also
asking— not under this estimate, Mr. Chair-
man—for support from them for half of the
cort of legal aid.
Then we get out to the private agencies,
which are trying so hard to do the sort of
job that this government should be doing,
and we find a whole ramification in the
Toronto Globe and Mail, September 13, 1968.
Mr. Chairman, I do not see how I can
possibly break this sort of information into
various votes, so I would ask you to liave
patience while I read this article, because
the whole article applies to this vote.
Mr. Chairman: May I say to the hon.
member tliat it is not a matter of the Chair-
man having patience, we must deal with
tliese votes in an orderly fashion.
If it is anything under provincial allow-
ances and benefits, the hon. member would
be quite in order to make reference thereto
under tliis particular programme. Tlie third
vote — 2003 — refers to certain grants to
agonti(\s, but I see nothing under this pro-
gramme having to do with other agencies,
Mrs. M. RenwJck: In the article I want to
read, Mr. Chainnan, we will be covering
the fact tliat private agencies are having a
very difficult time because of the increase
in costs. \Vhat I am trying to bring into this
Canada Assistance Plan is the need for this
government to expand so that the private
agencies will not be under this burden. Might
I read what problems the United Appeal is
Iiaving financially, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: I am sorr>', I did not hear
what the member just said.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask you,
sir, if I might read an article stating what
difficulties the United Appeal is having and
what difficulties the various agencies sup-
ported by the United Appeal are having
under this vote.
Mr. Chairman: I do not see any relevance
to this particular programme. Perhaps the
hon. member could just skip those parts tliat
do not relate to provincial allowances.
Mrs. M. Renwick: It is just a case, Mr.
Chairman, of having to edit it so carefully,
paragraph after paragraph, that I will be
going back and forth, back and forth. I will
take a look at it, Mr. Chairman, and see
what can be done with it.
I will read an article on social services from
the Toronto Globe and Mail, September 20,
1968. This is a letter written by social workers
from the family counselhng service in Peter-
borough, and I will quote part, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member
repeat tlie title of this particular article. I
still do not think it falls under the provincial
allowances programme. Would it not prop-
erly be rehabilitation, family counselling and
aid to services for adults.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Fragmented aid is what
I am talking about, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Well, we are dealing with
provincial allowances and benefits.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is solely what you
would like to deal with, all right.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the
hon. member that it is not the Chairman's
like or dislike, it is what tlie committee must
deal with.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman,
it is not working very well for me and, I
knew it would not work well when you first
proposed it— but I do not know how to fight
it; I simply say it is not working well.
Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member
have a suggestion for another method of
dealing with them?
APRIL 22, 1969
3393
Mrs. M. Renwick: I wondered ever since I
saw the setup of the new structure, Mr.
Chairman, how on earth you could deal
with it.
Mr. Chairman: We have dealt with vote
2001 at great length on generalities. Vote
2002 is fairly specific, and surely we can
stick to provincial allowances and benefits
and move on to municipal allowances and
then to the residential care. I do not see
what the difficulty would be.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The
generalities were on one side of the House
only.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I just do not want to
find, Mr. Chairman, that when I reread some
of this that I have then missed my oppor-
tunity to speak up.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I must say that in the
opinion of the Chair this is tlie problem that
the hon. member is encountering, but as a
committee we must deal orderly with these
and we are now dealing with provincial
h allowances by agreement of the committee.
I Mrs. M. Renwick: All right, Mr. Chairman.
I I will start in then on The Family Benefits
Act with regard to mothers' allowances, and
I start by asking the Minister why on earth
it takes three months— I am told by some
applicants it takes six months— to process an
application for mother's allowance? Do we
need more people? Can we not have a system
where it can be processed more quickly?
Then I would like to ask the Minister a
couple of other questions on the same subject.
Mr. Chairman: I believe the hon. member
directed a question specifically to the hon.
Minister.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
outstanding cases are 1,460 in motiiers*
allowances, the number that we process is
about 700, and the average time is two
montlis— four months short of the six months
the hon. member referred to.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I wonder, Mr. Chairman,
if the Minister would repeat tliat answer.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In mothers' allowances,
outstanding cases are roughly 1,400; the
number we process comes to about 700 a
month, and the average time is approximately
two months.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Two months? Is the
Minister aware that out in the municipal
ofiices, and in the east end office in particular
at Queen and Cox-well, the understanding is
that it takes three months? I have nev^er
talked to an applicant who did not say that
they were told by the interviewer it would
take three montlis. I have been told by Mrs.
Sotnick it takes about three months. People
are now being told it takes six months. I
have never had a person put on mother's
allowance in a shorter period than three
months, and I would like to ask the Minister
if the 1,460 are in abeyance now?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, 1,460 that are in
the process of being dealt with.
Mrs. M. Renwick: In the process of being
dealt with! Well then, Mr. Chairman, I
would hke to ask the Minister if he would
see that we get the information as to how
old those applications are. Whether tliey are
two months old, three months old, or more
than three months. I think it is very import-
ant that we get that information, because
as the system is working now— as I see it—
the department is negating the whole purpose
of The Family Benefiits Act, of allowing the
mothers to keep a small amount of money.
Their liquid assets are being used up, and
the Minister must know this, Mr. Chairman.
If there is any delay at all and the family is
down to its last moneys, those moneys have
to be used up before thev can get general
welfare assistance. I would ask the Minister
if he could foresee a system whereby a
mother's allowance applicant might apply
to this branch and not have to use up her
assets and then go to general welfare
assistance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would hope, Mr.
Chairman, that we would continuously strive
to reduce the amount of time, between the
time the applicant comes to our attention
directly or indirectly and the actual granting
of the allowance. I think that is the proper
goal.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Then could I ask the
Minister if the only dependent father legisla-
tion is under this Act? I received an amend-
ment to dependent father legislation which
referred to The General Welfare Assistance
Act.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It comes under The
General Welfare Assistance Act and some
day I hope we will get it out of that particu-
lar Act unless we are prevented from doing
so. However, it could be properly debated
at this point because it is a provincially ad-
ministered programme.
5394
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mrs. M. Renwick: The dependent father
legislation is a proxincially administered pro-
gramme?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Is it not under The
Family Benefits Act at all?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is nnder The General
Welfare Assistance Act— our sharing agree-
ment with Ottawa is under The General Wel-
fare Assistance Act.
I am ad\ ised that the new applications will
be imder The Family Benefits Act, but there
are still some 78 outstanding cases under that
particular portion of The General Welfare
Assistance Act under which this programme
was administered earlier. But it is a pro-
xincially administered programme,
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, last year
the Minister answered my question as to
whether the people, under the Blind Persons
Allowance Act and the disabled persons, were
l)eing left under the old programme becaxise
they would receive less if they were trans-
ferred and the Minister answered, "yes". I
believe the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Nixon) was asking about the cases that are
still left under the old Act. My understand-
ing from the Minister was quite clear, that
it was because they would in fact lose a
little if they were transferred. Now, what is
going to happen financially to the dependent
father? Would he not be better off— as I am
sure he would be, Mr. Chairman— under The
I'amily Benefits Act, and why cannot we get
the dependent father out of The General
Welfare Assistance Act into the FBA?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The transference would
luring about a lesser payment. Those 78 de-
pendent fathers are better ofi^ under the old
legislation than they woidd be under the
new Act. They are very similar to the blind
and disabled with some minor variations.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chainnan, I am
loathe to get down to discussing such a small
item with the Minister again, but I am go-
ing to hope it will be particularly short, on
the subject of the heat allowance. Earlier a
member tried to pin the Minister down, into
facing up to the fact that the heat allowance
is based on a monthly basis, is it not? When
they figure the heat allowance, the adminis-
trators figure what the requirement will be
for a month?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is based on the
season l)ut then it is calculated on a monthly
basis over seven months in southern Ontario
and nine months in northern Ontario.
Mrs. M. Renwick: It is based on the season
then, Mr. Chainnan. I spent a great deal of
time tr>'ing to find out from the Minister last
year whether it was based on the season or
based on the month. Now, if it is based on
the season, what period of time does the
government feel is the heat season?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The heat season is the
amount of heat that is necessary during the
course of the whole year. We calculate how
much the heating requirements are for the
year, then it is paid out to the recipient in
southern Ontario in seven equal instalments
and northern Ontario in nine equal instal-
ments. We could \'ery easily dixide it by 12,
we could reduce it to six, but the total figure
for the heating is calculated on an annual
basis.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it is based
on the size of the dwelling; it is based on,
hopefully, whether the dwelling is subject
to drafts and so on, but I am trying to find
out what else it is based on. I do not think
for a moment that the department could
possibly be saying we are basing this on so
many dollars of heat for twelve months. So,
I think someone in the department has to say
for how many months they are basing the
heat. You have to have a period when you
are not providing heat for people, that is
certain, in July, and in August, but last May
when the temperature did not rise above 60
there should have been a heat allowance.
As the Minister has explained, it is made on
on an annual basis but is he then basing it
on twelve months of the year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is calculated on what
heat se\en tons of coal will produce for a
six-room home. Perhaps the simplest way
would 1)0— there was a statement prepared
for me and I will read the statement and gi\e
the member the details.
Under family benefits, fuel is included in
the determination of budgetary requirements.
The amount is calculated using the following:
the number of rooms in the home, the tons
of coal required to heat the home and the
price of coal in the area to a maximum of $32
per ton. In the regulations which are before
the hon. member they are set out in a table,
a six-room home would require seven tons
in southern Ontario and nine tons in northern
Ontario. Amounts are included in the monthly
allowances from September to March in
APRIL 22, 1969
3395
southern Ontario and August to April in
northern Ontario.
It so happens we choose the months in
which heat is ordinarily required for the dis-
tribution of our cheques. We could very
easily send out a cheque for seven tons of
fuel in the month of July and say, here is
your fuel allowance for the whole year. Wis-
dom, caution and prudence, however, dictate
that this might lead to difficulties so we send
out the cheques during the seven months in
southern Ontario and nine months in north-
ern Ontario. The rates may be increased by an
amoimt up to 20 per cent where a beneficiary
is ill, a house contains more than six rooms,
or a house is of faulty construction.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, when a
recipient makes application to the adminis-
trator or through your department, you are
sending out a cheque, and you apportion so
much for shelter, so much for food, clothing,
personal needs. Why would you apportion
the heait allowance for seven months, if it is
a 12-month allowance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Because we believe
that this is the best way to send out the
fuel allowance.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well with the medical
officer of health regulations for the city of
Toronto being of a greater period than the
provincial government's system of payment,
would the Minister consider setting up say
even an eight-month payment of heat allow-
ance in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no problem in
that. One could choose seven months, eight
months, nine months. I have taken the matter
up with my people, the number of months is
not the significant thing. The idea is to place
money into the hands of the recipients so that
they will be aware of the fact that that
money is available for fuel. As I said yester-
day, we are all subject to a certain human
weakness. If we get a $60 cheque sometime
—all at one time— there is a tendency to spend
it and hope that something may crop up six
months later. It is just that— in fact I see no
reason why we should not amend it. Whether
the figure is eight months or nine months is
of no consequence.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Essex
South was up—
Mrs. M. Renwick: I had not finished speak-
ing.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the hon.
member that she has been speaking ever
since we went into committee. This is her
privilege, but there are many other members
who wish to speak.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Very well, Mr. Chair-
man, I would hke to draw to you attention
that last night I let all the members speak in
this House, and spoke for the first time at a
quarter after ten, out of courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the
Minister's assurance that he will take an in-
terest in an amendment to The Heat Act,
inasmuch as under the seven-month basis last
year there were many families who had used
up their heat allowance by the end of March,
yet in April and May, we have very cold
months. I think that the government should
take a reahstic view of the fact that the
weather cannot be apportioned to seven
months of the year, that the weather may in
fact be weather needing heat eight months or
nine months. Perhaps the discretion has to be
decided by the Minister, but let us change
the Act.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
Associate Deputy Minister advises me that
procedures have been initiated for the change
in the regulations and that will be taking
place.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, I think the hon. member has
missed the whole point of this. It is not the
allocation or the periods of the month that
are the factors; I think it is the criteria of
using coal as the basis for the department's
calculation. Most of the homes, certainly in
my riding, are heated with either oil or gas,
which I believe are more expensive fuels than
coal and there—
An hon. member: This Act was drawn up
in the coal age.
Mr. Paterson: That is the whole point.
There are various quahties of coal. Could
this not be computed on a more modern type
of fuel for the modem home and the age
in which we are dweUing? This would make
a difference and probably would put more
dollars into the homes of the recipients.
An hon. member: Sure it would.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am advised that there
would be very little difference, but I think
this is a matter which might be taken under
review. I do not know how old the regula-
tions are with respect to coal. I am advised
that at the time they were put into effect,
attention was given to otlier heating agents.
3396
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but there is no reason why we could not take
this under review and just double-check it.
Mrs. M. Rcnwick: Mr, Chairman, I would
like to add my remarks to those of the mem-
ber for Essex South, tliat the dependant
father regulations, which are dated back to
1963, refer to coke and I do not even know
if we still have coke in our society. I certainly
know we have c^al but—
Mr. Chairman: The lien, n^ember for
Hastings.
Mr. C. T. Rollins (Hastings): Further to
this, and to the Minister, when we are dis-
cussing heat allowance I would like to ask,
through you, sir, for individuals who have
homes, is heat allowance considered for an
individual in one home or is there a possi-
bility of making amendments in this regard?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think the hon. mem-
l>er is referring to the fact tliat where there
are two persons in a iniit and we grant fuel
allowance, if one of the parties dies, the regu-
lations bring about that no fuel allowance is
calculated. This is something I wall check
into for the hon. member and see what can
l)e done.
Mr. Rollins: That is quite right. Through
you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, this has
been an item tliat I have been most con-
cerned about. I feel it is most unfair where
a situation such as this arises that they should
be deprived of heat assistance. I beheve more
than ever where their independence is to be
protected that this should be considered, and
I would hope that this would be considered in
some amendments.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
While we are carrying on with the fuel
allowance, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to
the Minister that he not use a seven-month
period but use a longer period even in south-
western Ontario, because the heating season
does not end in our area on March 31; it
extends much beyond that, and may I also—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In the Banana belt?
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, there are
days when it almost hits zero—
An hon. member: There goes the tourist
trade.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. B. Newman: It is much too cold for
them. May I suggest to tiie hon. Minister
that he have an accompanying letter two
mondis prior to the time that the fuel allow-
ance is to be cut o£F, to warn the individuals
that tlieir fuel allowance will expire with the
cheque two months from tlien, and as a re-
sult of that, they may attempt to conserve a
bit of heat. We should not be worried about
the conservation of heat, Mr. Chairman; we
should be worried about the individual, and
if it is necessary to heat a httle extra and a
little longer, I tliink your department should
see to it that this is covered by some type of
an additional assistance.
It is all well and good to say tliat there are
funds provided through the local welfare
officer, but, Mr. Chairman, those funds are
being held fairly tight by the local welfare
officer and it is most difficult for individuals
to obtain this additional assistance. Then
again, they look upon your programme dif-
ferently from that of the local welfare. The
local office's programme is looked upon as
being assistance. There is a certain amount
of i^ride involved, and the loss of tliat pride
when you have to go to the municipality and
ask for additional assistance. The individual
that is suffering-
Mrs. M. Renwick: On a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Point of order?
Mrs. M. Renwick: My point of order, Mr.
Chairman, is this; that you chose to dissect
my comments into Family Benefits Act com-
ments and general welfare assistance com-
ments. With all due respect for the member
for Windsor-Walkerville. And I do not like to
interrupt him. If he will continue his remarks
and not say welfare and municipahty, and
just talk about heat under family benefits,
he may continue under your ruling, and he
may not—
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member may
continue under anything under provincial
allowances. The hon. member for Windsor-
Walkerville has tlie floor.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Speaking about the
municipalities-
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I am re-
ferring solely to the provincial allowance
programmes.
An hon. member: Everybody is out of step
but our Margaret.
Mr. B. Newman: I would prefer that the
individual get enough fuel allowance under
APRIL 22, 1969
3397
this programme rather than use municipal
allowances and assistance in the next vote
to get that additional aid for fuel. May I ask
the Minister if his budget this year has,
under dental services, an allocation to the
Civitan Club in the city of Windsor? It is
an organization that provides dental services
to youngsters on welfare.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, there is a special
grant.
Mr. B. Newman: No special grant at all.
Have you ever been approached for a grant
by the association?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not to my knowledge,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. B. Newman: If you were approached,
would you consider it favourably?
Mr. Chairman: Well, I think that grants
to agencies do not come under this particular
programme.
Mr. B. Newman: No, I am referring to
dental services, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Well, the hon. Minister ex-
plained the complete matter of dental services
last night and there is no such branch in it.
Mr. B. Newman: They provide a dental
service and I thought that possibly they
could submit a bill to the Minister for den-
tal services and in that fashion be assisted
to expand their programme. They could
greatly expand the programme if they had
the funds available. It is a very, very worth-
while programme in the community and I
think it is unique. I am subject to correction
but it is the type of programme that should
be given all consideration by this department.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Peterborough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, while we are on this fuel allow-
ance, I want to suggest to the Minister that
determining the cost of fuel, I think, is one
of the major problems particularly because
it exists in various parts of this province.
As the Minister knows, there was a dem-
onstration before his offices in Peterborough
on February 13. One of the reasons for this
demonstration was that The Family Benefits
Act does not give a suflBcient amount of
allowance for coal. For example: it says the
cost is to be based on the cost of coal
locally, but they only allow $29 per ton,
while the cost at a well-known dealer in
Peterborough is $35.25 per ton if cash is
paid at the time of delivery.
The Minister said, I think, in his own
statement that $32 was the maximum which
could be given. But, what is the recipient
supposed to do if the cost of coal locally is
more than $32— and certainly more than the
$29?
Now, this cost may increase. Very often
some of the Minister's recipients are indi-
\dduals who are in small apartments. They
had to buy their coal in very small lots. It
increased to $11.65 for a quarter of a ton,
which is really $46.60 a ton; but the coal
allowance is still only $29.
I would suggest to the Minister that this
area of fuel allowance is one of major con-
cern among the recipients as his own col-
league and members of the Opposition have
indicated. I think that a full review of de-
termining the cost of fuel, as well as the
question of how many months the heat al-
lowance should be apportioned, is certainly
in order in view of the comments that have
been made here this afternoon.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
just been advised, while the hon. member
was speaking, that we have just concluded
that review which indicates the range of coal
prices referred to by the hon. member. Evi-
dently $35 is the present top price and it
can go as low as $30. But that is—
Mr. Pitman: Well, I am very pleased to
hear that.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Essex South.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask one question of the Minister. It is a
point I am not quite clear on and it arose
during the discussion I had arranged with
a number of widows and ladies under The
Family Benefits Act.
Several of my colleagues were in atten-
dance and have already spoken to it on
numerous points. I might state to the Min-
ister that I have mailed him a letter, a full
report on this particular meeting— detail by
detail— in order not to take up the time of
the House on these various points. Suppose,
however, a mother with children who, when
they came to the age to leave the home, is
still 50 to 55; does she automatically qualify
for a widow's allowance or must she wait
imtil 60 years as is laid out in the folders?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: She does not qualify
until she is 60 years of age.
Mr. Paterson: Therefore, once her family
has left the home, and if this is a terminal
3398
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
thing, then she must go on the public or
municipal welfare which is the next vote.
This to me is a very serious problem and
this was stressed by a number of these
people. If they could somehow obtain some
training— whether it is through the federal
plan or not— and still be retained on The
Family Benefits Act, and give themselves a
chance to be trained as stenographers or
filing clerks, they certainly would not have
this worry on their mind during this several
year period before they will obtain the age
of 60.
They are afraid of this dead end street,
we will call it. What are they going to do?
They have had no training, and the hon.
Minister and his department should make
some leeway, or some arrangements, so that
these widows in particular, with children in
school, could obtain training to get off the
welfare rolls— which they all wish to do.
I am sure all of us in the House wish
these people to be retrained, take their place
in industry and get off the welfare rolls.
They would appreciate this new outlook and
refreshment in their own lives and it would
certainly uncomplicate them during the period
of time until they reach this age of 60.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would say that the
general idea put forward by the hon. mem-
ber has merit. One of the additional things
we will have to do is marshal all of the
community resources— our facilities, the local
facilities, manpower and retraining schemes—
to see whether we can get these women back
into the stream of things for it could be up
to 10 years.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chair-
man, on the same issue: If a person is on this
allowance with a family, and she decides to
go out and take a training course, she would
be paid maybe $75 a week by Canada Man-
power under a training scheme. She then,
of course, would not be obtaining benefits as
she was making $75 a week. But, then,
when she graduates and goes out to work,
the rate of pay is less than what she is mak-
ing. Maybe she has to go out for probably
$50 or $55 a week.
I think this is where your department falls
down; you should keep constant contact with
this lady so that when she does go out to
work and only makes $50 or $55 until she
has experience to get up into the higher
categories, you should see that assistance is
given to her until she then brings herself
up into a higher category. This category
might be $80, $90 or $100 a week.
This was one thing, too, tliat we noticed
in this meeting. There was a lack of con-
stant communication there to keep these
people so that they would bring themselves
up into a higher category of wage scale.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2002? The mem-
ber for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwiek: Mr. Cliairman, I would
like to talk to tlie Minister about the allow-
ances for shelter as would my colleague from
Peterborougli. I would like to ask the Min-
ister how he can possibly justify paying to
the Ontario Housing Corporation the maxi-
mum benefit allowed under his Act when a
family earning the same amount of money
that this family is receiving in benefits would
pay approximately half that much in rent
to the Ontario Housing Corporation under
the rent geared-to-income scheme.
The portion of income from the bene-
ficiaries under the Minister's Act that is going
out for shelter is extremely high. In many
cases it is close to 50 per cent of the family
allowance of all needs going out on shelter.
I realize this is the beneficent department
again making sure that Tlie Department of
Trade and Development does not go short,
but the public is beginning to ask why.
Tliey are asking why a family benefits
allowance person pays approximately $100-
a-month rent when their neighbour, who earns
the same amount of money in earned in-
come, pays about $51. I tliink the Minister
does owe an explanation to the members and
to the general public.
Hon, Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we have
an administrative situation here with respect
to the recipient since the shelter costs are
paid for him. So long as it is under the
maximum, it really does not affect him at
all. From the recipient's point of view,
whether we pay $60, $70 or $80 does not
make any difference to him because it does
not come out of his pocket at all.
When a recipient moves into public hous-
ing, his rent on the geared-to-income scale
would usually be less than the maximum we
can provide and usually less than we are
providing. If his rent is reduced, then his
allowance must be similarly reduced. As a
result of reduced income, the housing
authority, using the geared-to-income scale,
will reduce the rent. In order to avoid this
chain reaction of changes in allowance and
rent, arrangements have been made with
public housing authorities to waive the
geared-to-inoome scale when they are tenants
as recipients of family benefits. In such cases.
APRIL 22, 1969
3399
the authority charges a maximum, which we
can include for shelter; in this way recipients
are assured the maximum allowance and
administrative problems are eliminated. This
practice also works to advantage when the
recipient decides to seek other accommoda-
tion, since he knows and is already receiving
the maximum possible assistance.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. Pitman: A question on this, Mr. Chair-
man, because I think tliis Minister is involved.
I realize that public housing comes under
the Minister of Trade and Development, and
that the Ontario Housing Corporation is not
under tliis \'ote or anything of this sort, but
the point is that I have found that welfare
and family benefits recipients have a very
great deal of difficulty in getting into public
housing. In fact, I have discovered in the
area I come from, that there is a real reluct-
ance to allow these people into public hous-
ing. There have even been statements made
that there can be no more than ten to 15
per cent of those either receiving family bene-
fits or welfare in public housing.
Can the Minister indicate whether any
eflForts have been made on the part of his
department to see that these people are given
an opportunity, to see they are given prefer-
ence and given a priority, as the hon. member
suggests, in getting into public housing, which
is subsidized by the Ontario Housing Cor-
poration and the Ontario government as well?
I say this because I suggest to the Minister
that most of the problems that people face
in welfare centre around housing. And I am
wondering to what extent his department
recognizes the very real problems that the
people who are receiving help from his
department have in this matter?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I explained yester-
day quite thoroughly, Mr. Chairman, there is
a new philosophy evolving. At one time the
programmes were such that you built an
accommodation and you filled it up— either
two, three or 20 floors— with recipients of
welfare. Experience has proven that this is
not good, so now I think there is a yard-
stick. Whether the ten per cent yardstick is
that inflexible, I do not know. But I think
that the hon. Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment, in administering his programme, is try-
ing—certainly I know this for a fact in Metro-
politan Toronto— to distribute those who are
recipients throughout the whole community.
They are in the east end and the west end
and in the north; in fact we have reached the
point— certainly with the accommodation pro-
vided within the last half a dozen years— that
the average citizen does not know where the
recipients are.
Mr. Pitman: If it is available, fine; but what
if it is not available?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, it is just a ques-
tion of this: the Minister, as he is building his
housing units, is making housing available
across the spectrumr-and as he provides more
housing, then more from the broad spectrum
are put in there. And every time he builds
1,000 units, there will be those who can well
afi^ord to pay the rent, those just acquiring
housing, those who have to be subsidized, and
those whose shelter has to be provided. But
I can assure the hon. member that the hon.
Minister and I have had discussions about this
problem; he is fully aware of it, and he is so
enthusiastic that one of his goals is that I
not just rehabilitate them off the rolls, but
that the rehabilitation goes to the degree
that they buy their own condominiums or
their own apartments, no matter how small
the down payment is.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask the Minister how
much he would allow for a cord of wood
towards the fuel allowance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: A recipient is allowed
to buy any fuel he wishes. He gets the dollars
and then he goes out and buys whatever fuel
he wishes; he can buy coal, he can buy a
cord of wood— and a cord of wood for $16
goes an awfully long way, I guess. Perhaps
a cord of wood up in the member's area costs
$6; I do not know.
Mr. Stokes: Well, the whole thing is that
in many of the remote areas you have re-
cipients of welfare who do not have the
capacity to go out and cut their own wood
and have to purchase it. And in a good
many cases, it has to be hauled in by a trailer
on a skidoo for the simple reason there is no
other means of motive power. You might
have to go only three of four miles for the
wood, but it involves a long drawn-out pro-
cess in transporting it to the person in need.
So in a good many cases it might represent
$30 a cord.
I can tell the Minister of a specific instance
involving an elderly couple in Gull Bay,
where the wife is blind and the husband is
incapacitated, due to a heart condition, and
they have to hire local people to go out and
get the wood. Now, due to a forest fire, they
have to go five miles to get the wood, and
3400
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the only means of getting it in is to haul it in
with a skidoo. It happens to be at Gull Bay,
on the west side of Lake Nipigon. Ob\iously,
the $6 figure that the Minister envisages
would not come close to getting a cord of
wood in.
I am just wondering, does the department
make allowances for cases like this?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, this standard is
tlie one. I am really surprised, up at Finch
and Balhurst I think you ha\e to give an
ann and a leg for a cord of wood, it is so
expensive— but I never thought that this
would be the case up in northern Ontario. I
will check into this. This comes as a surprise
to me. I have often wondered why people
do not pick up one of those old Quebec
heaters and use fuel, if they ha\e the proper
accommodation.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chainnan, there are two tag ends from the
debate as it concluded— or as it was proceed-
ing at the adjournment hour last night— that
I would like to come back to briefly.
A question was raised with the Minister
with regard to the $1,284 million which is
paid in dental services, and he pointed out
that this is handled through the dental asso-
ciation and therefore he has no specific
information with regard to it. I interjected
at one point that it seemed to me it was a
fair proposition that we should ask for some
information with regard to this; the Minister
may not have it at the present time, but
surely he has the right to secure the infor-
mation.
Whether or not the information is obtained
in terms of every dentist who received tlie
amoxmt is one way. But a second approach
that I put to the Minister— and which I tliink
would satisfy our immediate search for infor-
mation—and tiiat is a breakdown as to the
amounts that are paid. As was pointed out by
tlie hon. member for Scarborough Centre, in
some other provinces this luis become a
matter of some scimdal where it was dis-
covered that at least one dentist in the
province was receiving as much as $60,000 a
year, in good part through payments of this
nature.
Would it be possible for the Minister to
get a breakdown of, say, the number of
dentists receiving in excess of $20,000, and,
successively, $15,000, $10,000 and perhaps
each thousand down to zero?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will take it up with
the dental association with whom we have
the agreement and see what can be done.
Mr. MacDonald: Public moneys are in-
N'olved, and therefore I think we are entitled
to the information.
The other question I wanted to come back
to briefly is the argument that was going on
with regard to the Minister's failure to put
up the necessary fight for revenues to be able
to keep family benefit payments up with the
cost of living. At one stage my colleague
from Lakeshore was engaged in a discussion
with the Minister in which the Minister first
said that he was confused, then admitted that
he had things straight. As I interpreted the
discussion at that point, when things were
straightened out, there was $10 million— not
$57 milhon as was mentioned earlier— of un-
expected appropriations. This is a year ago.
My question to the Minister is, how much
unexpended appropriation was there at the
end of the fiscal year just concluded?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not have that
figure yet, but the figure that the hon. mem-
ber referred to— the one we were discussing
—was for the year in which we were to bring
into effect family benefits. We had estimated
the number of persons we would be bring-
ing on at those rates in 1967, and it turned
out that there was that much money not
disbursed.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, do I take it tliat tlie
Minister is not in a position at the moment
to give us information as to what unexpected
appropriations there were, not only in this
branch but in other branches?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The books are not
closed yet.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I presume that we
will have to come back to this next year. But
we will have to come back to it in the con-
text of the debate we had last night, because
the Minister was willing, presumably, when
the estimates were first drawn up, or since,
to adjust his budget to coi>e with $9 million
extra to doctors, because of their unilateral
increase in fees.
There has been some increase, about a ten
per cent increase, in the payments to civil
servants, and nobody is objecting to that. But
there has been no increase in appropriation to
meet the eight or ten per cent increase in the
cost of living over the last two years.
The Minister's position, I suggest, is com-
pletely indefensible. If, at the end of this
fiscal year just concluded, there are any un-
APRIL 22. 1969
3401
expended revenues, I would be curious to
know what happens to those revenues and
why it is not within the power of the Min-
ister immediately to aot, instead of review,
increases in family benefits to keep up with
the cost of living.
We have been told by the Minister half a
dozen times throughout this protracted de-
bate, that this is being reviewed. Now, if you
have any unexpended revenue, I suggest the
time for review has ceased— that these people
who have no bargaining power are entitled,
in effect, to a cost of living allowance to
keep up with the costs instead of having the
family benefits frozen at a level of some two
years ago.
Unfortimately, Mr. Chairman, I am not in
a i)osition to pursue the argument, although
I think it is a pertinent and very necessary
point of pursuit, because the Minister caimot
give us any information.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2002: the hon.
member for Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I
can pursue this whole matter of housing for
a few moments— and I think this is where the
I real crunch takes place. Now, I was interested
^' in the Minister's comments that he and the
lli^ Minister of Trade and Development are car-
i^* rying on conversations, and you are trying to
I do the best you can to adopt a more modem
" approach to housing welfare recipients. I
think this is a good idea— that they not be
concentrated. But I think the main point
is that imtil you have sufficient public hous-
ing to provide for the entire speotrmn, it is
these people who really feel the crunch. I
suggest to the Minister that most of the prob-
lems that these people face revolve around
housing. I want to bring to the Minister's
attention a few Hnes from a piece of original
research that was done in the area which I
represent.
It was done by a couple of students who
took a look at the hving and housing condi-
tions of tlie very low income bracket— and a
great many of these are family benefit recipi-
ents. It is rather interesting to see to what
extent tlie problems faced by these people
revolve round the problem of housing.
For example, the average length of time
which any family had been in its present
residence— this among the fifty lower income
famihes and, as I say, a good many of them
are the Minister's charges— was only one
and a half years. Almost one half of the
families had been in their present residence
less than one year.
In other words, it is a continuous scurrying
around trying to find lower cost housing-
trying to find lower cost housing which is
liveable. In this continuous mobihty, these
people lose contact with all services* agencies.
They lose contact with their friends. They
lose contact with any kind of neighbourhood
continuity, and all of these things, I think,
are detrimental to the development of any
programme of rehabihtation which can
possibly take place under this Minister's de-
partment.
It was interesting, for example, to note the
high rate of mobility was further revealed
by the fact that almost 45 per cent of the
total groups had moved five or more times
in the past eight years. Now, this—
Mr. Paterson: That costs money.
Mr. Pitman: Yes, this is quite true. The
hon. member says this costs money, this cuts
into their cost. But the effect it has upon
the children, I think, is perhaps the most
detrimental of all, because they are moving
and being shunted from one school to
anotlier.
There you have the problem that we talked
about so much, the welfare syndrome, going
from generation to generation. And tliere
is an example, I think, of what we should
be more concerned about— looking at the real
cost of residence. I suggest to the Minister
that the allowances made by his department,
of housing benefits, are simply irrelevant to
the cost of housing, at least in the community
that I have been associated with.
What are some of the other problems they
found? This comes back to fuel. These two
young people went around, and tliey visited
these homes, these fifty of what they con-
sidered tlie lowest incomes homes, most of
them recipients of family benefits and wel-
fare, and they found that they could not
carry on an interview witliout their coats on.
They report: "Many of the residences we
found to be just plain cold. Despite the fact
tliat we kept our coats on during the inter-
views we could still sense dampness and the
lack of v/armth. Five families were still using
wood to heat, in most cases, in combination
witli other type of heating."
They looked at tlie plumbing. Now one
of the problems which I think recipients
have is that of keeping their pride in tlie
community. And one of the basic elements of
pride is being able to keep oneself clean.
Yet tliey found, for example, in many cases,
that six famihes had no bathtub or showers.
3402
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In another case, tliere were 15 people using
one three-piece bathroom. The lack of privacy
came up again and again. The crowded con-
ditions. The seven largest famiUes, totalUng
57 indixdduals, were living in a total of 46
rooms.
Then we come to tlie cost of residence.
They took a sample, and, as I say, there were
50 families. Eight families were paying $100
or more rent per month. If utilities were
added to rent, 16 families were each spending
$120 or more on shelter costs.
It is difficult to grasjo the meaning of these
figures unless they are compared to previous
statistics, which were not readily available at
the time of the study. However, if we con-
sider the percentage of income that was
spent on shelter, the significance of the
amount of rent being paid becomes more
obvious. Eleven of 44 families, that is 35 per
cent, were spending 60 per cent or more of
their incomes on rent, utilities and instalments.
If we were to take, as a working definition
of poverty, expenses of 60 per cent or more
on rent, utilities and instahnents, then there
were 12 that could be classed as com-
plete poverty cases. There was one case
paying 75 per cent of total income on rent
alone.
Now, this is why I suggest to the Minister
diat a complete review is necessary. Obvi-
ously as the Minister has indicated, the fuel
allowance has been reduced. But I think
an even more in depth review of the cost
of housing is desperately needed.
As far as income is concerned, five wel-
fare families of four persons were all above
the survey figure of $210 a month, ranging
from $211 to $252. Four of the five families
were spending more tlian 48 per cent of their
income on residence costs. These are family
benefit recipients.
Now that is the kind of a situation which
you find— and again and again I hear the
word coming out, from those who are social
workers with the Minister's department, that
they simply cannot provide the amount of
money which is necessary for the recipient to
spend on rent, and provide himself with any-
thing tliat could be called a decent level of
housing.
I do not think the community which I
represent is an unrepresentative community.
Surely the Minister must realize this. To say
that the Minister is working with The De-
partment of Trade and Development is all
very well. But I think that a piece of research
like tlus is very valuable. Certainly, when it
comes to indicating the amount of money
which these people have to spend on rent,
which of course cuts away from what they
have to spend on clothing, food and the
other necessities of life.
I think that a major dirust in this depart-
ment should be in tlie area of housing. In
fact, I heard one family counselHng officer
say to me once: "You know, nearly every
problem that I face is somehow related to
housing. Maybe it is that the husband is
drinking, and maybe the husband leaves
home, or maybe the children are having
difficulties and are having problems with
the law. But, somehow or other, I eventually
trace this back to housing."
That is why I say to the Minister, that
providing a higher level of income and there-
fore, a higlier level of housing for recipients,
would be the first major step that he could
develop towards the rehabilitation process in
his department.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if I may
just add a footnote to what the hon. member
for Peterborough has said.
When a spokesman for the city of Ottawa
came before the standing committee on pri-
vate bills, when their bill was before us
involving the rent review board, the deputy
mayor, if I recall correctly, stated that the
day before, he had had 50 welfare cases
selected at random to examine what propor-
tion of their revenues was being used for
housing purposes.
His report was that they ranged from 35
to over 80 per cent, and the average was
over 50 per cent. Now quite apart from
rent review boards, this information in the
city of Ottawa certainly confirms what my
colleague has said exists in the city of Peter-
borough.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
provincial allowances? The hon. member for
Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to follow up on the comments of the
member for Peterborough, and the member
for York South.
I do not think for a moment, Mr. Chair-
man, that it is any secret in the files of The
Department of Social and Family Services
that, on these budgets and with this limited
allowance for shelter, the families are in fact
having to reach into that portion of their
allowance— the pre-added budget, the por-
tion for their food, clothing and personal
need— very often to pay for an amount over
the allowance for shelter, and I would like
to ask the Minister to provide us with that
APRIL 22, 1969
3403
information. How many people, according to
the Minister's files, are having to pay addi-
tional moneys than the allowance pays for
shelter? I think this must have been under
some form of review when the tax rebate
money was going to go to those persons and
only to those persons.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I think
that kind of information would be a tremen-
dous problem to get. I think we are going
to have to wait until we really have a com-
plete data processing system set up where
we push a button and the answers come up
with that kind of detail. Actually, the point
can be made without that kind of informa-
tion, and the hon. member for Peterborough
has made it.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I realize
the point can be made, but what I am out
to do is to get the legislation changed be-
cause it is a most unfair portion of the Act.
Provided the family is not in any extremely
luxurious type of accommodation, if the gov-
ernment would provide shelter costs for the
going rate of rent it would be a major step
forward for these families. One hundred
dollars for rent is approximately what the
government allowances come out at— say $85
to $100 or $105-1 do not think that there
is any possible way of getting adequate, clean
family accommodation now, in the city of
Toronto, for $100 a month. I think, Mr.
Chairman, that this is a reality that has to
l)e faced.
I think it is most unfair to make an arbi-
trary ceiling on a shelter allowance when it
is fluctuating as it is in Metropolitan Toronto,
as an example; obviously, it is as bad in
Peterborough, from the report that the mem-
ber for Peterborough was using. These people
have no alternative but to take the money
out of their other allowance— which is bud-
geted, I presume, very finely, for the amount
for food and the amount for clothing and
the amount for personal care. It does not
allow the recipient to take $20 or $30 out
of it for rent without severe hardship, really
severe hardship, to say nothing of $25 or $30
for rent.
I would ask the Minister, was there any
sort of work started in the department when
the tax rebate was going to go only to those
persons who paid more than the shelter allow-
ance? Surely there must ha\ e been some work
started to know which of the recipients paid
more than the shelter allowance. Was there
any work begun in that direction, Mr. Chair-
man, with concern for the tax rebate?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The two were unre-
lated.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The tax rebate, Mr.
Chairman, was going to be allowed— a portion
of it was going to be allowed— for the recipi-
ent provided the recipient paid more than
the shelter allowance.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We had just begun to
review the cases. It was going to take almost
a year before we would have been in a posi-
tion to have checked out all the incomes that
would have been affected by that amount of
money.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, obviously
one can only hope to interest the Minister
personally in some of these things. I would
ask, would the Minister seriously consider
spot-checking cases and see what proportion
are paying more than the rental allowance,
realizing that the only money they have in
the world is their pre-added budget money,
which is very finely woven, and as the mem-
bers have pointed out, has not been updated
since 1967?
I would ask the Minister, when the families
reach into those pre-added budgets, to take
money from it, to pay for shelter, or for any-
thing else, what moneys are they taking;
what portion of that budget is allotted for
food; what portion is allotted for clothing,
and what portion is allotted for personal
need?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, as the hon.
member knows, these amounts \ar>'. For a
single person it is $62; for a married couple
with one child, $124, and for a mother, father
and six children, $314.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chaimian, that is
not really what I asked the Minister, and I
would repeat it in case I was the least bit
vague. I have a chart, too, Mr. Chairman,
that shows me what the families receive. I
believe the Minister referred to $124 as an
example for two adults and one child— $124
a month for food, clothing and personal care,
and in this case, family benefits, utilities and
household supplies.
I have, by a process of deduction, Mr.
Chainnan, realized that the only difference
between this pre-added budget and the gen-
eral welfare assistance pre-added budget is
that in this one there is included a detennined
maximum amount for housekeeping supplies
of $7 and utilities money allowed according
3404
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the size of the family. The maximum allow-
ance for utilities is $12, the maximum allow-
ance for household supplies is $7, and they
\ ar\ according to the size of family.
What I would like to know is, out of this
p re-added budget, how many dollars are set
out for food?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The regulations do not
liaN e that breakdown.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I realize
the regulations do not have it, but the Min-
ister realizes that I have been trying to get
this information for over a year and I would
ask him why on earth can we not have this
information? Why could we not know, when
the Minister is allotting i^ublic funds to
families for food, clothing and personal care,
how many dollars are for food? Why c;;uld
we not find that out? It is shocking. Whv
not?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I told the hon. mem-
ber, the regulations do not carry that break-
down.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, then how does
a case worker in a community allot a certain
amount to each family, if he or she does not
know what it is possible to allot for housing?
I talked to case workers in the Minister's
department and they seem to be able to tell
me approximately what they are allowed to
give to a family for housing. They do not
know what the regulations are; they certainly
do not know any more about the regulations
than the Minister does—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is not what the
other hon. member is talking about.
Mr. Pitman:
ing about.
think it is what she is talk-
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, just to
clarify. With every family benefits allowance
there is a maximum for shelter, and there is
a pre-added budget. In that pre-added budget
a portion is for food, a i^ortion is for cloth-
ing, a portion is for personal care, a portion
is for household supplies and a porti;m is for
u.tilities. I can see no concei\aV)le reason why
we cannot, as legislators in the government
of Ontario, find out what porti(^n of that
budget is for what.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We allot a sum of
money to cover three aspects. It is up to the
individual recipient to then determine the
N'arious proportions he or she ma\' wish to
spend.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would just like to say
to the Minister that this is not the point. The
recipient mav choose to do anything she
wishes with this money, but the point is that
as legislators we have to know whether the
Minister is providing too much money for
food, which I doubt very much, and whether
he is providing too little for food. We cannot
find out this simple fact, and it is a ridiculous
situation, Mr. Chairman. I want to know
how miich food the families are being allot-
ted under this budget.
It is not a very difiBcult question. Some-
where, the government had to decide this
figure. It had to obtain information from some
source and decide how many dollars it was
going to allocate for food, how many for
clothing and how many for personal care.
I am asking again, how many dollars is pro-
vided for food, how many for clothing or
even if we know the clothing and personal
care dollars, Mr. Chairman. It may very well
be a fixed amount or at least with maxi-
mums and basic fixed amount like the house-
hold supplies and utilities, but we have got
to know how much of this budget is for food.
Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. Chairman, if my col-
league will permit, as I am sure she wiU, I
would like to ask tlie Minister the very
simple question. On the basis of the figure,
which he chose himself to intrude into the
debate, the amount which is available for
two adult persons with two children under
the age of nine, namely, $142 a month under
The Fam.ily Benefits Act, and I have the
regulations in front of me as well, how did the
Minister arrive at the figure of $142?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have tliose
calculations before me. They were done and
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. mem-
bers have ample scope to approve, disapprove,
criticize a figure, in the example the hon.
member has stated, $142 for those total needs.
The hon. member can say that this is too
much or this is too little and whether there
is an allocation to one or the other is of no
significance. The significant factor is whether
the amount provided for all is the suitable
figure and the members have ample scope for
examination and criticism of that kind; either
those figures are sufficient to cover those or
insufficient to cover those.
Mr. Lewis: Well, we can come to tlie
matter of whether they are sufficient or in-
sufficient in a moment. I do not think that
anyone can pretend, on the basis of any of
the studies that are available, and I suspect
my colleague for Scarborough Centre will
APRIL 22, 1969
3405
introduce some of them for the Minister this
afternoon, but regardless of the parallels, it is
not difficult to show the insuflBciency. What
we are trying to demonstrate, Mr. Chairman,
is the very unusual dilemma, the absolutely
insoluble dilemma in which you place the
person who is receiving a social allowance.
It has been demonstrated here quite effec-
tively, that in the case of fuel and in the
case of shelter for a great many of these
recipients, the amounts which they are re-
quired to pay exceed the amounts which the
government is prepared to extend.
Therefore, the additional amounts come
from this pre-added budget. The pre-added
budget is a categorical sum. It has no
flexibility in it except by way of maximum;
that is, its only flexibility is an outer limit
and that is no flexibihty at all.
What we, in the Opposition are therefore
asking the Minister is, when a family has to
extract an extra $30 a month from tibe $142
about which the Minister and I are talking,
from what portion does the Minister expect
the family to take it? From the food? Is that
what the Minister is advocating to the House:
that the money should come from the food
allowance or perhaps, from the clothing al-
lowance or perhaps from the personal re-
quirements? You see it is impossible for us
to know where the Minister wants the
recipient to pare his living condition, unless
we know the constituent parts of the total
amount which has been arrived at.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all understand
why the Minister will not give us the break-
down. The Minister will not give us the
breakdown because the amount of money that
is allocated for food in that pre-added budget
would probably be below the nutritional re-
quirement for anyone in this society. Of that,
there is little doubt. If the Minister was sure
about the way in which the pre-added bud-
gets were arrived at, he would have those
figures at his fingertips, and there would be
no reason in the world why he should not
give them to the Legislature.
If you can give us specifics on rent and
fuel, why can you not give us specifics on
food, clothing and personal requirements?
You cannot give us specifics on food because
it is too low. It is so low that the embarrass-
ment to government could not be tolerated.
It becomes much lower still, Mr. Chairman,
when one takes into mind that that particular
allowance for food is severely eaten into—
forgive me for the reference, by the fact
that the famihes are so often required to pay
more for fuel or rent than they are allocated.
So we have this complete straitjacket
dilemma for people on provincial subsidies.
It is rather interesting, Mr, Chairman, if I
can advert to it in the context of this pro-
gramme that we are now discussing, how
the case builds.
First, you have the interesting fact elicited
by my colleague from Sudbury East (Mr.
Martel), that there has been no reappraisal
of the amounts since April of 1967 and that—
when followed tiirough by my colleague from
Windsor West (Mr. Peacock) demonstrates
that the Minister is $8 million short to keep
people up to the standard of living two
years later; an average of $160 per family
per year. Do you realize that the $160 per
family per year exceeds a full month's in-
come for a family of four in tliis pre-added
budget? You have not upgraded at all.
That is the first basic fact which emerges.
Then it emerges during the course of the
afternoon that the fuel allowances are based
on false premises and require an extended
outlay by the recipient. Then it is further
established that the rental allowances fre-
quently require from recipients, money in
excess of what they are given. So they have
to eat into this very fragile and perilous, but
absolutely inflexible pro-added budget.
When we ask the Minister what are the
components of that budget so we can see
what it is he would extract in order to pro-
vide more moneys elsewhere, we find that
he cannot give us the breakdo\\'n. He does
not know how the pre-added budgets were
arrived at. They were pulled from the air.
Some professionals got together in April of
1967—1 do not use it in a denigrating fashion
—I am sure that is what happened, and de-
cided this will be the level. No reference to
the household guide for budgets put out by
the Metropolitan Social Planning Council; no
reference to any of the nutritional require-
ments of these various families and their
children two years later, none of that— just
an arbitrary figure thrown out on the table
and the Minister says to us: "find out
whether it is enough."
How can it conceivably be enough if it
is eroded by an absence of funds for heat
and for rent? How can it conceivably be
enough if it is eroded by a two year gap in
the cost of living which the Minister has
not seen fit to supplement? What is the Min-
ister asking about sufficiency? He knows him-
self that it is insufficient; he knows himself
that his Treasury Board turned him down
and he has the effrontery to begin his esti-
mates by saying: "I have enough to maintain
programmes at their present level."
3406
OxNTARIO LEGISLATURE
That is not a Minister of Social and Fam-
ily Services; he is not declaring war on
recipients, he is supposed to be helping re-
cipients. That brings us right back to the
crux, Mr, Chairman.
We have a pre-added budget about which
we know absolutely nothing— except that it
is inadequate.
We can get none of the details from the
Minister. I ask the Minister the simple ques-
tion: If he were the male head of a four-
member family with two children under the
age of nine, and he did not have enough
money from government for rent— suppose he
was $15 short per month, and suppose he
was $2 short per month for fuel— and he
found himself having to provide the $17
that was the shortfall out of the $142 a
month he receives from the pre-added bud-
get, what would he take it from?
Let him tell the House so that the recipi-
ents across Ontario will know, what would
he take the $17 from? From food? From
clothing? Or from household expenses? Gen-
eral personal expenses? Where would the
Minister in that instance make the cut? Can
he tell us where he would make the cut?
Well, he cannot, can he?
None of us can, because it is too damned
humiliating to talk about. But, it is the
position that is faced by welfare recipients
in this province, all 50,000 of them, day
after day. You put them in this absolutely
intractable position by refusing to take a
look at what your pre-added budgets are
composed of and upgrading them. You have
not got a single answer.
The Minister will not give us the food
(•()mp(ment because the protein level would
not be cquixalent to people in sul^isistance
]e\el societies. It is a ridiculous proposition
that th(> Minister is asking us to approve this
afternoon.
Mr. Chairman: Pro\ incial allowances; the
hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman: the other
portion of this budget problem is this: Would
the Minister elaborate on how he has based
th(> figures when he has the maximum $300
per month allowance and he allows $10 per
month for each additional beneficiary which,
of course, is a child. I would like to ask the
Minister how he has worked out a budget of
being able to feed, clothe and provide per-
soTKil care for a child on $10 a month?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: All I know, Mr. Chair-
man, is that it has been done.
Mrs. M. Renwick: What is the source, Mr.
Chairman, of the Minister's information?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: A very personal one.
I was a meml^er of a family of 11 children.
Mrs. M. Renwick: In what year, Mr. Chair-
Mr. Stokes: Was the Minister on welfare?
Mr. Lewis: It means nothing; when did
you grow up?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, ob\ iously
the Minister does not wish to answer that.
It is ludicrous that the Minister would say
that. Certainly, the government could have
provided for a child on $10 a month a num-
ber of years ago, but it cannot now. There
is no attempt, Mr. Chairman, on the part of
the government to be realistic about these
budgets— $10 a month for an additional bene-
ficiary is an absolute farce. This government
is taking over $100 million from the federal
go\ ernment to fight a war on poverty, refuses
to recognize that there is poverty and has the
Prime Minister saying our only problem is
growth and affluence.
Somebody in that Cabinet has to say: "Let
us get a realistic view at what we are doing
for the small minority of people, of persons
in need in our province." It is that simple,
Mr. Chairman. A $300 maximum— except for
$10 per month per child— and no one can
tell us how that $10 a month amount was
arrived at.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister
to know on very firm record that I am per-
fectly serious in wanting to find out how
many beneficiaries do, in fact, have to pay
more rent than the government allowance
provides for. They are going to be astronomi-
cal in number unless the people are housed
by the Ontario Housing Corporation. And I
would like to ask the Minister: does he have
any firm or casual agreement with the Min-
ister of Trade and Development (Mr. Ran-
dall) to call upon him for housing for the
recipients of family benefits?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I indicated, Mr. Chair-
man, that the hon. Minister is trying to pro-
vide housing across the board. In that spec-
trum of housing, there are to be accommo-
dated all the segments of our society that
need and seek housing.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I realize
what the Minister of Trade and Development
is trying to do and when we come to his esti-
mates we will discuss them fully. But, I am
asking what is our Minister of Social and
APRIL 22, 1969
3407
Family Services trying to do in the way of
providing housing? Where recipients under
his Act cannot find housing on the approxi-
mately $100 a month that his Act covers,
has he made any sort of effort or initiative?
As Minister of that department, I certainly
would be trying to get an allocation of hous-
ing for the people under family benefits who
have so difficult a time living on these pre-
added budgets and cannot afford to eat into
their food allotment to provide housing. The
two ways out, Mr. Chairman: Low-dividend
housing units that were financed under the
federal scheme several years back— of which
there are very few— and Ontario Housing
Corporation. Is the Minister fighting for
housing allotments for his department?
Mr. Chairman: The Minister apparently
has answered the question to the extent that
he intends to.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to challenge
the Minister on his statement that it would
appear quite all right with him that The
Department of Social and Family Services
pay to the Ontario Housing Corporation—
when it does house families of a recipient—
the full amount it is allowed under the Min-
ister of Social and Family Services' Act for
rent?
I do not understand the beneficence on
the part of the Minister of Social and Family
Services to the Minister of Trade and Devel-
opment in this regard.
It would be very difficult, Mr. Chairman,
for a recipient to get more money from The
Department of Social and Family Services
than some amount he was and is required to
pay for an Ontario Housing unit. The Min-
ister will say, "Well, it is not out of his
pocket, it is out of our pocket." Mr. Chair-
man, it is out of the public purse to the
Ontario Housing Corporation, a corporation
that, perhaps if it were struggling along, one
might be even sympathetic towards. But it
is a corporation that managed to operate on
two consecutive years for approximately half
a million dollars, which in terms of public
housing for the thousands of units that he is
operating, is peanuts. The Minister does not
need from The Department of Social and
Family Services the full allotment for shelter
under this Act, and should not be taking it.
Then he could leave more money for the
Minister of Social and Family Services to
broaden the programmes that he is adminis-
tering to the persons in need.
The Ontario Housing Corporation is not
in need, is what I am trying to say. And if
the Minister would pay to the Ontario Hous-
ing Corporation only what the corporation
would be collecting if the unit were occu-
pied by a wage-earning family instead of hav-
ing a nice flat rate of about $100 a month,
then the Minister would have enough money
left over to provide a more flexible allow-
ance of shelter to those families that are
having to pay over the $100 a month— the
poor families mider the Minister's Act that
are having to pay $20 or $25 a month out of
their food allowance to make up shelter under
private auspices and are going through
severe hardship. They need the money that is
going now in excess of what would be paid
from a private individual earning $200 a
mondi to the Ontario Housing Corporation.
This is a very serious flaw in the whole
structure of housing and budgeting in the
Minister's department, and I would ask the
Minister if he recognizes fully what I am
saying? There are many families under this
department that are paying more than the
approximately $100 a month and having to
eke it out of their food budget.
The families that are in Ontario Housing,
if they were working and earning a couple of
hundred dollars a month, would pay $51 a
month rent. The Minister could be taking at
least that money from those families and
putting it into his housing money and pro-
viding a higher budget. I would ask the Min-
ister if he is interested at all in giving the
Ontario Housing Corporation just the same
amount of money that they would be collect-
ing if his families were earning their benefits
rather tlian them being paid by government,
or was this a mutual agreement? Does the
Minister of Social and Family Services agree
that it is fine to hand over to The Depart-
ment of Trade and Development about $100
a month for these units instead of what it
could be hanchng on a rent geared-to-income
basis?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
explained several times that, in case the hon.
member is not familiar with it, the Ontario
Housing Corporation is a publicly owned and
operated corporation for the taxpayers of the
province of Ontario. It is not a profit-making
organization-
Mrs. M. Renwick: It is doing pretty well,
Mr. Chairman, it is doing all right.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —that shifts any profits
outside of the province to anybody else. It is
an arm of this government. That is one arm
of the government; I am another arm of the
government, iind we are convinced that the
3408
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
administrative procedures are the right and
proper ones to be followed.
Mr. Chairman: The
Windsor West.
hon. member for
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): I think
most members ore aware of what the Min-
ister has just said. What we are not aware of
is tlie iurangement between the department
and the Ontario Housing Corporation, under
which the Ontario Housing Corporation will
set the rents of tenants w^ho are recipients of
the l:)enefits of this programme to the maxi-
mum shelter allowance that will be made
aAailable by the Minister to tlie recipient. In
a number of instances I am aware of, in the
cit> of Windsor, probably as a result of the
inti-oduction of the family benefits scheme in
April 1967, families who were tenants of
the Ontario Housing Corporation had their
rents raised to either the $85 maximum or
some amount of shelter allowance beyond
that, in accordance with the size of the
family, in a series of steps by the local hous-
ing authority. The families then had to turn
back to the department and ask for adjust-
ments in their allowance for shelter in order
to coxer the increased rent that had been
assessed against them by the housing corpora-
tion.
I ha\e discoissed this with several members
of the Minister's staff, and that apparently is
the arrangement between the deparbnent and
the Ontario Housing Corporation. Let me tell
the Minister something about the Ontario
Housing Corporation, Mr. Chairman, in
(exchange. The corporation, in the administra-
tion of its rent geared-to-income units— which
are occupied by many recipients of the Min-
ister's department, in fact— definitely prefers
to place recipients of these programmes in
the rent geared-to-income units rather than
in tlie full recoven.' units, because they can
get more rent from them in the rent geared-
to-income—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Would the hon. mem-
i>er explain to me how the recipient suffers
by this administrative procedure?
Mr. Peacock: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This very
(piestion has been raised with me by a num-
ber of people with whom I have discussed
it. "How does the recipient suffer in that his
rent may be raised to the maximimi shelter
allowance the department will make available
to him? It is not coming out of his pocket,
so why should he worry?" Well, the x>oint is
tliiit families whose rents are at this maximum
allowable under their familv benefits formula,
are paying rents that are higher than those
paid by families whose head is at work.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: And often paying less
than otlier people in exactly the same kind
of accommodation.
Mr. Peacock: And they are paying less than
families who arc headed by workers in auto
plants, sure they are—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: For exactly the same
kind of accommodation.
Mr. Peacock: But they are paying maybe
$10 or $15 or $20 a month less, not tlie
amount that they should be paying, accord-
ing to the Ontario Housing Corporation's rent-
gea red-to-income scale. The point is tiiat if
this department were paying to its recipients
an amount required of the recipient as rent
under die Ontario Housing Corporation's rent-
-geared-to-income scale, the family's rent
would be a lot less than it is at the moment.
The family would be no better off or no
worse except in respect to that family's rela-
tionship to the other families in the project,
or the community; except in that respect, Mr.
Chairman. They woidd be treated in exactly
the same way as any other family under the
rent-geared-to-income programme. Their rent
would be assessed at the level of income they
are receiving, as recipients of this department.
And at the moment that is not the case, be-
cause the rent-geared-to-income scales of the
Ontario Housing Corporation range from ap-
proximately $38 a month for a fully serviced
unit— or, I beliexe, about 16 per c^nt of the
total family income up to 30 per cent of
family income when the family's income
reaches $561 a month.
\^''hat happens is that a family whicli is
in receipt of $150 or $175 a month from the
Minister under the family benefits programme
is not paying the rent that would be assessed
under the rent-geared-to-income scale for that
level of income, but may well be paying a
rent that is more in line with a family whose
head is eaming over $100 a week, and whose
rent is about $120 or $133 a month for a
comparable unit. So you do have recipients
whose rent is higlier than the rent for tenants
who are at work eaming an income, and they
want to know why. For many families this
represents an injustice. Because they are dis-
abled, because they are infirm, or because
they are unable to participate in the laboiu* |
market and must rely on the Minister's bene- '
fits, why should they have to pay more in
rent— e\ en though it is in many instances fully
accounted for by the shelter allowance? j
APRIL 22, 1969
3409
But in many instances, as the member for
Peterborough and the member for Scar-
borough Centre pointed out, it is not fully
covered by the shelter allowance, and they
have to pick up an extra $5 or $10 or $15 a
month out of some other element of their
l)enefits to cover their shelter cost. This is
true of many tenants of Ontario Housing
Corporation who are recipients of the family
l>enefits programme. They must dig another
$5 or $10 a month somewhere out of their
benefits in order to meet their rent. Mr.
Chairman, as this Minister has affirmed re-
peatedly in the discussion of these estimates,
it is for this reason that he can allow rents
to be charged against these families' benefits,
l)ecause a portion of tliat payout by his de-
partment is recoverable from the federal Can-
ada Assistance Progranmie. So he will load
every penny he can into the recipients' bene-
fits, whether it is required for this particular
service or not, in order to get that money
from the federal government, and raise the
apparent volume of service that he is provid-
ing to his recipients.
In effect, it is completely inflated in this
particular area by his department's agreement
with the Ontario Housing Corporation to pay
die maximum shelter allowance to recipients
who are tenants of Ontario Housing Corpora-
tion. In turn tlie housing corporation can
extract that maximum shelter allowance, or
the $5 or $10 add-on in excess of the maxi-
mum, from the recipient who is a tenant. It
h a perversion, Mr. Chairman, for so many
of the Minister's recipients, many of them
burdened with severe emotional problems.
This is a needless irritant to them, and an
incomprehensible injustice that they should
be paying rents in excess of what families
who are able to fend for dien^elves are pay-
ing, and rents that are in excess of tlie maxi-
mum shelter allowance that they receive as
recipients.
I would suggest to him that he work out
with the Minister of Trade and Development
an agreement whereby these recipients will
pay rents, where they are tenants of Ontario
Housing Corporation, that are in line with
the rent-geared-to-income scale, rents that
are in the range of $38 a month if the family
income from the department's family benefits
programme is $200 a month or less— which
I think is the actual relationship between rent
and income— or whatever is called for by that
sliding scale under the rent-geared-to-income
scale.
It means, Mr. Chairman, that in some in-
stances, I have foimd a family in receipt of
benefits can be paying lliree times as much
in rent under the family benefits programme,
than if the head of the family were drawing
unemployment insurance benefits for the same
amount of income. There is a difference, of
course. The person in receipt of unemploy-
ment insurance would not also be in receipt
of the fully assisted medical care and other
health coverages that the recipient under the
family benefits progranmie is covered for.
However, that is the only distinction between
them.
The rent for a recipient under the family
benefits programme in an Ontario Housing
Corporation unit can be three times as much
as for a family whose head is drawing the
same level of income from The Unemploy-
ment Insurance Act, and that is wrong, Mr.
Chairman. There should be a consistent
application of the rent-geared-to-income scale
to every family, whether it is a recipient
under The Family Benefits Act or works to
earn income for itself. I would think that the
Minister should advert to that, and place his
tenants, his recipients, in the same position as
any other tenant vis-d-vis their rent to On-
tario Housing Corporation.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Chainnan, to revert to the matter of Mrs.
Smith, who I mentioned last night, who took
11 months to get her application approved.
Under The Family Benefits Act, when an
application is finally approved, what regula-
tion states how far this may be made retro-
active?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Regulation 11, sub-
section 2, says:
Subject to subsection 3, where eligibility
is determined after the last day of the
month in which the application is received
by the director, and delay in making the
payment is caused by circumstances wholly
beyond the control of the appHcant, the
director may direct that payment shall
commence on an earlier date to be set by
him, but that that date shall not be before
die date on which the director receives the
apphcation, or more than four months
before the date on which he determines the
eligibihty, whichever is the later.
Mr. Burr: Does this apply to all circum-
stances?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It applies to The
Family Benefits Act.
Mr. Burr: Does it apply equally to cases
of desertion as well as to cases of death?
3410
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: All applications under
The Family Benefits Act.
Mr. Burr: In the case under discussion, I
understand that a mislaid document was one
of tlie reasons for the prolonged delay. The
document had been given in by the applicant
and had been mislaid, and tliis caused the
prolonged application. In a case Hke that
where tlie mislaid paper causes the delay, it
seems very unjust that the applicant should
be out the money. Are there no exceptions to
this rule of the four-month maximum? You
have an either/or, but it is not an either/or;
>'ou put in that qualifying clause, "whichever
is tlie later." Is there no exception to that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually I think the
circumstances that you have explained prob-
ably brought the apphcation wathin tlie defi-
nition that they were circumstances wholly
beyond the control of the applicant, and
therefore permitted a director to take the
retroactivity to four months. That is a per-
missive retroactivity; it is not applicable in
all cases. Whether that is sufficient or not,
of course, is matter to be delineated—
Mr. Burr: Thank you.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairman, on that very point, yesterday I
brought to the Minister's attention the prob-
lem of the young unmarried mother. I asked
whether there was a retroactive provision. I
understood the Minister to say that it was
not possible for there to be any retroactive
payment. I pointed out that the young lady
was sometiiing like eight months on welfare,
and there was quite a difference in money
paid, between what she would get imder
The Family Benefits Act and under welfare.
I understood the Minister to say there was
no retroactive provision.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The section is geared
to two things; the date of the application, and
circumstances wholly beyond tlie control of
the apphcant.
Mr. Braithwaite: Would the Minister say
that this might be a proper case for this
young lady to make an appeal before the
review board?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If it is patent; if on
the face of the things the date of the applica-
tion is something that can be established,
and if she cannot bring herself within the
meaning of the section, there would be no
lK)int to api^ealing.
Mr. Braithwaite: You mean it would be
taken for granted?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, no. She would not
be eligible. One can take the application and
find the date of it and determine that it
would not come within the meaning of sec-
tion 11(3), then there would not be this
permissibility for retroactivity.
Mr. Braithwaite: Suppose we took that
from the other point of view, Mr. Chairman.
I do belie\e the case that I was referring to
yesterday does come within tlie four months
we are talking about. What would die Min-
ister say here?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I think
the obvious thing is for the hon. member to
supply me with tliis. Will you give me this?
Mr. Braithwaite: I gave it to you. I read
the whole letter into the record yesterda>'.
Mr. Chairman, we spent some time on this.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am sorry; I assumed
that the name Smith was a name that you
were using just like John Doe. If you give
us the name and address of the specific in-
dividual, then we will check into that case.
Mr. Braithwaite: All right. I might say
that first of all it is not my practice to read
names into the record. I did not use any
name, but I did mention to the Minister that
I had sent him a photostat of this letter some
months ago. You have it on file, but in any
event, I will send the infonnation into your
department, sir, and perhaps you might see
what can be done.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I
can turn to another area that rather bothers
me. In reading the Minister's report for 1967,
on page 91, about processing applications for
blind persons' allowances, I noticed that there
were sometiiing like 235 applications, and I
found that 29 per cent— almost 30 per cent-
were ineligible. I have received some indica-
tion from persons in my own area that an
individual who received a blind pension, or
blind persons* allowance in Quebec, was
denied one in Ontario. I am wondering
whether some of the criteria for some of the
blind persons and the disabled are rather
high, or rather unrealistic. For example, when
I turn over to page 94, I notice there are
some 6,169 disabled persons' allowances ap-
plications processed, and fully 40 per cent of
these are ruled ineligible.
I am wondering whether there is sufficient
help being given to these people in making
their applications. Usually these applications
are made, I imagine, in co-operation with an
individual in one of the oflBces that the Min-
ister has in the province, or are the criteria
APRIL 22, 1969
3411
unusually high? Surely people are being sup-
ported somehow, they are being supported
somehow. They are being shipped over to
general welfare assistance. I wonder if the
Minister would like to comment on what I
think is an unusually high niunber of those
who are being ruled ineligible for both bhnd
and disabled persons' allowances.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If the hon. member
would turn to page 93, the reasons for
ineligibility are spelled out. "Unable to meet
blindness tests," 44, which means that they
were not bhnd within the definition.
Mr. Pitman: I am wondering if the defini-
tion is reahstic.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: At that time there
were no difiFerences between Quebec and
Ontario. The definition was a federal one
applicable right across Canada.
Mr. Pitman: Is this true about disabled
persons as well, because I noticed, as I say,
an even higher percentage inehgible there.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, if I might
raise a diflFerent area of discussion, I believe
this was touched on briefly yesterday, that
of some sort of travel allowance for those
persons on The Family Benefits Act. I point
this out specifically for those people in the
rural areas of our province. I just wonder
what criteria the department bases its
thoughts on in relation to the diflBculties of
transportation of people under this Act.
Certainly I have a number of cases in my
own riding who are several miles from the
nearest grocery store, or church, or school.
They possibly could be widows who have
been left cars, but do not have the finances
available to pay the $35 or $27.50 for a
Ucence plate, let alone buy the gasoline and
pay the maintenance costs for same. Thus
they are unable to participate in the normal
family activities of church, and school and
family shopping. I wonder if the hon. Min-
ister takes this into consideration, or would
consider an expenditure for those people in
the rural areas who are deprived of trans-
portation that is readily available elsewhere,
such as in the cities of Toronto or Windsor,
through bus or subway. Is any consideration
given to this and the deprivation that they
must suffer imder?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: A broad definition of
personal requirements is the only thing that
is available. I may say that apart from the
fuel allowances, any allowances we make are
apphcable right across the province of On-
tario, and we do not distinguish between
urban and rural provisions. Indeed, it might
sometimes be more difficult within the city of
Toronto to go ten blocks than to go ten miles
in the country. The blind and the disabled,
as I pointed out, do get that allowance.
Mr. Paterson: I know that since my term in
this House began, the Minister has allowed
recipients of benefits to retain an automobile,
where previous to that, in many cases they
were forced to dispose of these. But to my
knowledge there has been no definite amount
set aside for the maintenance and the use of
these vehicles, and this is most serious out in
the rural areas. If the Minister were stuck
seven miles from the nearest facilities, with
no car and a young family, and had to rely
on friends and relatives to drive you to
church and shop for your groceries, I think
he would take another look at this particular
matter.
An hon. member: They should call on the
member.
Mr. Paterson: They do.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr. Chair-
man, may I ask the Minister if he would
explain to me tlie criteria, the reasoning or
the formula used that would provide that a
recipient of welfare would receive full
hospital coverage under the Ontario Hospital
Services Commission?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If he is eligible for
family benefits under The Family Benefits
Act then he is covered. That is the broad
defimition. To become eUgible, they are
entitled to certain assets in the case of single
persons, married persons, and old age security
recipients.
Mr. Gisbom: The specific case I would like
to relate is of a person who, I believe, has
joint benefits from social and family benefits,
plus some benefits from veterans' affairs. She
also receives a supplement from the general
welfare assistance from the city of Hamilton,
yet she has been refused full coverage under
the Ontario Hospital Services Commission.
She has to pay her $13 a month, or the $39
for each three months premium, out of her
assistance money.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That recipient is not a
family benefits recipient, she must be on gen-
eral welfare assistance.
Mr. Gisbom: The only thing I am not sure
of is whether she is receiving social and
family benefits. I know she is receiving a
3412
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I>ension from veterans' affairs, as per the
letter I received from your depvartment. She
also receives a supplement from the general
welfare assistance in the city of Hamilton.
What I cannot understand is vv^hy her apphca-
tion for coverage under the Ontario Hospital
Services Commission is denied.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Does she receive an
allowance from the province?
Mr. Gisbom: That I am not sure of.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is the key i>oint.
If she is a recipient she would be covered,
but if she is not a recipient and she is not
covered by our programme, it would have to
come under municipal assistance. I suggest to
the hon. member if he sends me the case I
will be very glad to double-check it and have
a more clear explanation given to him.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
I can touch on something which was dealt
with yesterday but which I think demands a
httle more clarification. Could the Minister
indicate what the case load is for those who
are working in tiie offices of the The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services through-
out the province?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: What particular phase
{^f the case load was the hon. member inter-
ested in?
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, what I am
really trying to get at is, I would like to
know how many recipients the average worker
in the social and family services offices in
Ontario would be likely to have. I think this
is at least some incHcation as to how efficient
the services of tlie department are, simply
because a case worker cannot have an over-
load without the value and the level of work
going dowTi. We have been talking a great
deal during this debate about rehabilitation,
and one of the most effective ways of rehabili-
tating recipients is the opportunity to consult
with them, to give tliem advice, to help them
in many different facets of their lives.
I think that the number of cases that a
vv^orker has is a measure of the degree to
which that worker will be able to perform
that task. If the worker is doing nothing more
than counting pennies and working out
Inidgets and redefining budgets and carrying
out the most straight-forward day-by-day kind
of administrative duties, then I suggest that
the office of the Minister is not carrying out
its proper function. Indeed, I would even
go further than this and say that if tliere
have been cuts made in the department's
budget, this may very well be the area that
is being affected— services directly to people
and the kind of services which the people
most need— that is, consultative services.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Ohainnan, I do not
know whether you can draw conclusions from
generalizations. The field worker n*ay be
responsible either for a generalized case load
composed of all kinds of cases, or for one
which is composed entirely of families in
which there are dependent children. The
generalized case load is about 300 at any
given time during the year. Of that 300,
about 15 to 20 per cent— that would be from
45 to 60— are of the kind that need constant
attention. The balance are, for the most part,
able to get on on their own.
For tlie specialized case loads, each field
worker is responsible for about 150 to 170
families who are receiving family benefits.
These are mainly in vuban areas where there
are a sufficient number of family cases to
make the more specialized approach possible.
Here too, a goodly portion are unable to
look after their own affairs but we are able
to give better attention to the more numerous
and complex problems which arise in the
family setting.
Mr. Pitman: Well, that is a start, Mr.
Chairman. I wonder if we could look at
this a little more closely. You say that 15
to 20 per cent are people who need constant
attention. The assumption there is that the
other 80 per cent need no attention at all,
and I suggest that that is probably a very
great exaggeration because in most cases
those who are recipients need constant at-
tention. I would say almost 100 per cent
need some attention. Indeed, this is the
problem. The problems of these people are
festering without any help from the Minis-
ter's department. He is not giving any
counselling services.
What I would like to know is, what would
the Minister regard as an optimum number
of cases that a case worker could deal with
and provide the kind of services which he
has talked about in relation to preventive
services, to rehabilitation services, to these
kinds of concepts? What would he regard as
an optimum number of cases that a worker
could handle?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, there is no
hard and fast rule. I am no expert in the
field, but a case worker could have a dozen
cases that could keep her busy all the time.
There may be another social worker who
may have a broad spectrum of cases that do
not need attention. Most family benefits
APRIL 22, 1969
3413
cases are long-term cases where the rehabili-
tation aspect that we have been talking
about is not as applicable as those in the
general welfare assistance. They do need
counselling and assistance— if they are dis-
abled or elderly, assistance peculiar to their
own disability is needed but not within the
field of rehalDilitation that the hon. member
and I were discussing earlier. That comes
within, I would think, the general welfare
assistance cases.
Mr. Pitman: Well, I think we are using
the word rehabilitation perhaps a little dif-
ferently.
I wonder if I could ask this question. Has
there been any hold on the acquisition of
personnel in this particular area of the
Minister's work? Have the number of cases
gone up for case workers who are working
in the social and family services branch
offices, and here in Toronto under his depart-
ment?
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Who cares?
Mr. Pitman: We do care over here. We do
care.
Mr. Sargent: You are just talking for the
sake of talking—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, the general
case load has been dropping considerably
from-I will use the last year-1963-64. In
1964, the average monthly case load per
field worker was 426; in 1965, 421; in
1966, 417; and in 1967, there was quite a
drop to 372, and in 1968, to 333; and now
I am using the figure of 300. So you can
see that there has been a decided reduction
in the number of case loads.
Mr. Pitman: In other words, the drop has
gone on for the last four or five years, com-
ing down from 400-odd to 300-odd—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As a matter of fact
in February 1969, it was 290.
Mr. Pitman: If this is an indication of
reality out in the province, I must say that
I am pleased to hear that.
We also got into this question of the
graduates of colleges of applied arts and
technology last night. I do not want to
repeat either the comments or the questions
that were asked by the leader of the Oppo-
sition. I do not want to make any comment
on it, but rather ask a question or two.
How many case workers do you suspect
will be hired by your department from the
graduates of the colleges of applied arts and
technology?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have not that
breakdown as yet, Mr. Chairman. I expect
there may be a breakdown in many direc-
tions, but in the coming year I hope to have
an analysis made of our department in this
regard in order to keep an eye on what is
going on within this field. That includes my
department, and other agencies— the munici-
palities, and the social welfare agencies.
Mr. Pitman: Has there been any effort on
the part of the social and family services to
find roles for those who are coming out of
the colleges of applied arts and technology?
It seems to me, and I am not going to re-
peat what has been said before, that, when
these courses were set up in these colleges
of applied arts and technology, the whole
idea was that there was a serious need, in
the Minister's deparbnent, for trained people
to carry out this kind of work.
I think the Minister realizes a very small
percentage of those who have had formal
training in the social service field after two
years would be able to play a certain role.
What role would the Minister say these
people were capable of within his depart-
ment?
I was appalled to realize that there has
not been more liaison between The Depart-
ment of Education and the Minister's de-
partment and the other departments involved
in the setting up of the colleges of applied
arts and technology and the setting up of
these courses. I was utterly appalled tliat
this was not planned out to begin with. Now
that these students are emerging, I think it
is encumbent upon the Minister to do some-
thing about this problem, and indeed, to
help those agencies he supports.
I can assure the Minister that there are
literally hundreds of young people emerging
from these courses expecting to play a role,
and if they are not given the opportunity to
play this role, it will be a very serious thing
in the future for this province— that these
young people have been misled in this way
by the educational authorities and by, in-
deed, the Minister's department itself.
Could the Minister indicate whether he has
made any efforts to see that there is a place
for these young people coming out of the
colleges of applied arts and technology? And
what role would they play in his department,
and at what level would graduates from these
courses be able to operate?
)414
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is a joint effort
between our department and The Depart-
ment of Education— and I tliink Health is
involved. I do not know whether Correctional
Institutions is involved to carry out the type
of thing that the hon. member is referring to.
Mr. Pitman: Well, it would not affect this
year's class.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I cannot give a defini-
ti\e answer to that.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on pro-
vincial allowances?
The hon, member for Scarborough Centre
was on her feet before the hon. member for
Riverdale.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I will concede to tlie
hon. member for Riverdale, Mr. Cliairman.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for River-
dale on provincial allowances.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
there are four or five matters that I would
hke to cover as briefly as I can with the
Minister.
The first one relates to this particular vote
—that even though there is no specified nmn-
ber of dollars, that part of the cost of legal
aid is borne for the province. I would like
to ask the Minister to what extent the item
for salaries imder this vote includes an
amount which could, under an accounting
principle, be distributed to the legal aid plan
in order to give a clear indication of tlie total
cost of that plan?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The total amount for
the assessment branch is $564,000, proposed
for the coming year.
Mr. J. Renwick: Could the Minister give
me the amount for the year ending 1968,
in order that I can have the information to
go with the report of the legal aid plan for
the year 1968?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have any
figure for the year ending 1968, but for the
year ending 1969 it was $442,000. The budget
appropriation for last year was $442,000.
Mr. J. Renwick: Is that the actual amount
which was expended to cover—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not have the
figures yet:
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, not neces-
sarily during the estimates, but at some point,
w^ould the Minister get me the actual figure
of the cost to his department of providing the
services of the welfare officers that make the
assessments under the legal aid plan for the
year 1968?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: For the year ending
1968, yes.
Mr. J. Renwick: For the year ending March
31, 1968.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We can get an esti-
mated figure; it will not be as accurate as in
the future, but we will get it. That is the first
full year, is it not?
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, this is the first annual
report, for the year ending March 31, 1968.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We could get an esti-
mated figure; I think that is what the hon.
memiber is interested in, a round figure for
the amount.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, round but—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This year's estimated
expenditures are $564,600, and I think the
hon. member will be interested in knowing
whether it is $300,000 or $400,000 or $350,-
000, without getting into the hundreds. I
think tliat would be sufficient, would it not?
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes. When we come to
tlie Attorney General's estimates, we would
like to be able to intelhgently discuss total
costs of the legal aid plan to the province of
Ontario. One aspect of that cost is the burden
lx>me by this department in providing the
services of the welfare officers who make the
various assessments. If at tlie same time the
Minister could give me the figure for March
31, 1969, if that is available by that time, I
would appreciate it.
The next item deals also with this question
of legal aid. I notice in the report of the
advisory committee that the greater part of it
is devoted to concern about whether or not
the persons who have the benefit of the
services under the plan, are bearing as much
of the cost as can properly be allocated to
them. There is a reference in the report of
the advisory committee on legal aid, again
for the year ended March 31, 1968, stating
that:
The advisory committee recommends that
a study be conducted by the welfare officers
of The Department of Public Welfare—
I assume they mean Tlie Department of Social
and Family Services.
—designated by the Minister imder the
statute in conjunction with the law society,
APRIL 22, 1969
3415
to disoem the basis of the judgment of
welfare officers in determining whether or
not an appHoant can pay no part, some part
or the whole of the cost of the legal aid
which he applies for, and the sum, if any,
he is able to contribute for the cost thereof,
by re-examining the cases dealt with during
the first year of the operation of the plan
and to date, to determine to what degree
the uniformity has been achieved in the
apphcation of the criteria which formed
the basis of the judgment referred to, and
poficies that may have developed in assess-
ing the criteria. In our view, this study
should be a continuous one and use
should be made of the data processing
equipment for continued comparison by
case and by area.
This is a reflection of the concern of the
advisory committee that some 86 per cent of
the cost of the fund of the legal aid costs was
attributable to those persons who were found
unable to make any contribution, and only
14 per cent was provided to those persons
who were able to make some contribution.
I would like to ask the Minister whether
that study has been conducted, what the
results of it are, who is conducting the study,
and what discussions have taken place be-
tween the officers of his department and the
law society to provide the information which
is requested by this advisory committee.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think that study is
still continuing.
Mr. J. Ren wick: I suppose I will ha\e to
leave the substance of it until the Attorney
General's (Mr. Wishart's), estimates. The
fact of the matter is the Attorney General, in
introducing the amendments to the legal aid
bill, certainly gave the impression in his
comments to the press that he was introduc-
ing some new criteria, in the bill to amend
The Legal Aid Act, in order to carry out the
recommendations .
What he referred to, Mr. Chairman, I
think, as tightening up on the legal aid
system. I am very anxious to know whether
or not the amendments which are proposed
are as a result of studies in which this de-
partment has been engaged, or whether those
studies have been completed, so that when we
deal with the bill on second reading we will
have that kind of information available to us.
My question therefore is simply this: Is
the study under way; what are the results of
the study; and will it be made available to
the Legislature for discussion of that bill, so
thai: when we come to the Attorney General's
estimates and to the second reading of the
legal aid amendment bill, we can comment
intelligently about it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that
study, as I say, is under way. That particular
phase of the study is still under way. I can
give no answer as to when it will be com-
pleted or what its results will be. I think the
Attorney General, on second reading, will
indicate perhaps what the phraseology, or the
expression "tightening up" meant at that
time.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, would the
Minister tell me how many persons in his
department are engaged in this work in con-
nection with the legal aid plan? Are they en-
gaged full-time in work for the legal aid
plan, or are they only partially engaged, and
if so, how many?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are 79 persons,
but to say whether it is full-time or part-time
is a difficult matter. There are the equivalent
of 79 persons engaged in the assessment
branch.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I can well
understand that some of them may only be
engaged part-time. In the metropolitan area,
for example. I suppose it is the county of
York under the area director. Are there any
persons— and if so, who are they— engaged
full-time in making the assessments for the
large number of applications which come
from the metropolitan area? From the county
of York, as I understand it, there were some
20,000 out of about 55,000 applications for
legal aid certificates during that first year of
operation.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Thr complement for
that is 17.
Mr. J. Renwick: Seventeen. And would
they be full-time employees of the legal aid?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: My understanding is
that they would be full-time employees.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to
deal with a fundamental point which has
come out on the question of the inadequacies
of the allowances provided for people in the
province under the provincial assistance plan.
Let me deal with it very briefly. What we
are talking about is a scant $130 million
allocated lay this government out of a total
budget of $3 billion for the purpose of pro-
viding the kind of allowances which are re-
quired. It is quite obvious that the depart-
ment itself has no real assessment of the
3416
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
extent of the need in the province, but we
have a pretty accurate indication of the
number of individuals in this province who
require assistance, from the report of the
activities of the Ontario Medical Services
Insurance Plan. That plan shows that there
are in excess of one million persons in the
province who either have no taxable income,
or have taxable income, in the case of a
single man, of under $500; or in the case of
a married couple, $1,000; or in the case of
a family, $1,300.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
figures that the hon. member is reading have
nothing to do with provincial allowances and
benefits.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am
simply pointing out that in the absence of
a study by the Minister's department of the
extent of the degree of poverty in this prov-
ince, and not relying on the Canada Council
for its generalized view of the extent of
poverty, this government has shown that
there are one million people in the province
who require the kind of assistance which
the OMSIP plan provides. That is all. I am
using it simply as an indication of the paltr\'
way in which this government has allocated
funds, and I happen to think— and I think
the members on this side of the House, cer-
tainly of this party, share the view— that it
makes an absolute travesty and a mockery
of the opening statement of the Treasurer's
Budget, that the Ontario of the 1970s stands
before us in a splendid array of opportunity
and challenge. I say to the Minister: If this
province cannot allocate more than $130
million out of a total Budget of $3 billion,
then it is time for this government to re-
assess the priorities which the Treasurer (Mr.
MacNaughton) denies to us.
He states in the course of his Budget, Mr.
Chairman, about these provincial allowances,
that there is a substantial increase. I simply
draw to the attention of the Minister that the
so-called increase is perfectly illusionary in
terms of the overall Budget of the province.
I direct the attention of the Minister to
table C-4 of the Budget. You find chart C-4
which shows that from 1960 or 1961 when
social and family services occupied about six
per cent or better of the total Budget, there
has been an absolute decline in the number
of dollars provided. In 1970, to the best of
my estimation, it is something in the neigh-
bourhood of four per cent. I am sure the
Minister can make the calculation better
than I can.
But, this is during a time when the mem-
ber for Windsor West and the member for
Sudbury East and the illustrations given by
the members for Scarborough Centre and for
Peterborough, have shown the extent of the
change of living costs in the last two years.
Not only that, the member from Windsor
West has also pointed out that the absolute
gap between those persons in this society
who are able to cope— and those who are not
able to cope— is a constantly widening one.
I refer you in the Metropolitan Toronto
area to a man who is respected for his
knowledge and concern in this field, Mr.
Wilson Head. He is reported in the press
in the last few days as saying that there is
an almost inescapable inability on the part
of those in authority in this province to rec-
ognize that that gap is becoming greater and
greater. The only way in which it can be
made up is by this Minister and this govern-
ment. We have not got any assurance or
any indication that there is any sense of
profound concern in the government about
it. My point, Mr. Chairman, is very, very
simple.
Until this ministry' recognizes that that
gap between those in this province who have
and those who have not is becoming, in
absolute terms, wider and wider, we are not
going to be able to communicate in any
reasonable way on the whole question of pre-
added budget; that is, what the rent allow-
ance should be, what the shelter allowance
should be, what the clothing allowance
should be and what the food allowance
should be.
We cannot, Mr. Chairman, get across to
this Minister that no matter what standard
of living you adopt, you cannot live on the
number of dollars that this Minister is .illo-
cating for people in this society. It is uot
possilDle, and I am talking to members of
this Legislature, including myself, who think
nothing of walking out on occasion and
having a dinner which costs $8, $10, $12 or
$15 for two people. You are talking about
people in this society who do not have the
ntnubcr of dollars for a whole month that
we in this Legislature, on occasion, spend
in one evening— cither on a government ban-
quet or on our own personal living standard.
This government has got to understand
that we in this party, and I am quite certain
in the Liberal Party, think that the pro-
vision of $130 million by this government is
a paltry sum. It gives the lie to all the
grandiose remarks that the Treasurer and
APRIL 22, 1969
3417
other Ministers are so proud of making about
this province of opportunity and challenge.
Mr. Chairman: Provincial allowances— the
hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I have some remarks on
the budgeting also, Mr. Chairman, but at
this hour I think I will deal with it after the
dinner recess.
I would like to speak about the mothers'
allowances. I would hke to ask the Minister,
too, if he could comment on the case of the
infant Carol Ann Young, who suffocated. Her
mother's allowance application was filed with
the department September 27 or 28, and
when the infant died in December, the
mother and child were still on welfare. When
they paid over their welfare allowance on
rent, tliey ended up with $1 and something
a day for the two of them to live on. I wonder
what the delay was, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, I do not have all of the many tens of
thousands of files before me. I will get that
information for tlie hon. member.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I did not
expect that the Minister would have the tens
of thousands of files before him, but were I
the Minister and had I been castigated in
the editorial columns of the Globe and Mail
for the sort of procedures that allows this
sort of thing to happen, I certainly would
have had a file on Carol Young.
Then I will go to something that the
Minister must be familiar with, because there
are three letters from his department. Mr.
Chairman, on April 1 you interrupted my
reading of these letters, because they did not
apply at that particular time.
I am referring to the case of Mrs. Bednarik
in Essex, where finally, after much frustra-
tion and much fighting on behalf of her
family, she was put on The Family Benefits
Act on total allowance. I would like to read,
Mr. Chairman, a letter dated February 21,
1969, to Mrs. Darlene Bednarik, 162 Her
Avenue, Essex, Ontario, saying:
Dear Mrs. Bednarik:
The Rt. Hon. Pierre E. Trudeau, Prime
Minister of Canada, as well as Mr. Eugene
Whalen, MP, Essex, has been most con-
cerned in your worries. I was pleased to
hear from our branch that a family bene-
fits allowance at the maximum rate has
been made available from February 1. In
addition you have also been provided with
free dental care, hospital insurance and
medical coverage under OMSIP. I might
add that we are always pleased to be of
service, and if we may be of additional
aid at some future date, you have only to
let us know, and every consideration will
be given. It was a kindly action on the
part of the Prime Minister and Mr. Whalen,
and I will let them know of this result.
With best wishes.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) James S. Band,
Deputy Minister.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if that letter does not
tell anything, it certainly tells that a great
number of people had to be involved before
this lady was put on the maximum rate on
the family benefits allowance. The Minister
has said today it would take about two
months for an application to be completed,
and I ask him— and I would hke him to know
that I ask in all seriousness— for an assess-
ment of the 1,400 cases that are in abeyance,
as to how many are applications dating back
further than the two-month period, because
as you know it is wrong that these ladies
have to be referred to general welfare
assistance and lose whatever liquid assets,
small as they may be, that they may have
had.
The rigmarole that Mrs. Bednarik had to
go through before she got her full family
benefits is something that should be of con-
cern to the Minister, that he is administering
a programme in which people have to go
through this kind of detail before receiving
his benefits. There is no fast way of being
put on mother's allowance— and there has to
be a fast way.
The Minister has assuaged the fact that,
well, the ladies can go to general welfare
assistance. I say there is something wrong-
either we have to have one Act and one
system, or at least for the mother's allowance
we have to get them to where they can come
to the department and not have to go to
general welfare assistance.
On December 23, 1968, from The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services, a letter
went to the same Mrs. Bednarik saying:
Mr. Eugene Whalen, MP Essex has per-
sonally written advising of your difficulties.
Our senior representative will be calling
on you, Mrs. Bednarik and you may be
sure every possible consideration would be
given in the needs of yourself and your
3418
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
family. When thanking Mr. Whalen for
his concern, I will also promise to keep
him infonned. With best wishes for the
holiday season.
Yours sincerely,
James S. Band.
The lady had, at this point, enclosed a clip-
ping about a sit-in she had done at the wel-
fare office. There is no mention of her prob-
lem, even though they are now documented
for public information. So the lady, in frus-
tration wrote on January 28, 1969, a letter to
Dr. Band sa>ing:
First may I say thanks a lot for nothing.
I hope you will carefully read—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Her letter was not as
nice as his.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I think all we are trying
to say over here to the Minister is that these
nice letters are a little nauseating when you
are dealing with the facts of the pre-added
budgets, and the facts of the red tape in-
volved with the applicants. They are abso-
lutely pouring more insult on top of the situ-
ation in many, many cases.
To read a letter like the last one that shows
what this lady has gone through shows no
reality on the part of the government or the
head of the government departments. The
reality is simply escaping the government and
the Minister completely, because the lady
had written with a serious problem.
Her letter was not nice, and it does not get
any nicer as it goes on, Mr. Chairman, but
I think it is important that the Minister
realizes that this is a frustration that women
go through trying to get on mothers' allow-
ance. He does not have a fast system; he lets
them go to welfare assistance, so she wrote:
Dear Mr. Band:
First may I say thanks a lot for nothing.
I hope you will carefully read the enclosed
newspaper clipping and the letter from my
mortgage company. As you can see by the
newspaper article, by last Saturday my
situation had progressed to a desperate
point. After weeks of waiting on Smith's
office, your office and representatives, two
MPs and my lawyer, I seem to be getting
nowhere fast, except I was sure I would
soon be losing my home.
I surely did find out that there is a lot
of truth to the saying about the power and
freedom of the press. With them behind
me, I had my mortgage and drug money
from Smith within an hour, whereas for
weeks before that I used every ounce of
decency and pull I could get to try and
accomplish these two things, and believe
me, Mr. Band, I got damned tired of crawl-
ing and decided it was about time I got up
and walked.
I would give anything to talk to Trudeau
and ask him where in hell is this just
society we supposed to be living in. It
certainly cannot be in Canada. Surely not
in Ontario when we have men like Murray
Smith at the head of government agencies.
I know Murray Smith does not have an
easy job, and believe me I would not want
his job, but there must be a person some-
where—
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of order. The rules are pretty
explicit about repetition, and I have been
following the hon. member word for word on
page 3049, April 3, 1969. While the point
that she makes is important, surely it does
not ha\ e to be given twice within a period of
two weeks in the House.
Mr. Chairman: I might say that I was try-
ing to relate back in my mind the previous
occasion on which the hon. member had been
speaking. I do recall certain letters and it
was running through my mind that it might
possibly be repetitious, but I was not certain.
Mr. Singer: Well, it is there, sir, on page
3049.
Mr. Chairman: However, if it does appear
in Hansard, as the hon. member for Downs-
view has pointed out, I would think that the
hon. member for Scarborough Centre should
not repeat the entire process again.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think
I have just got down to about where you
interrupted me on April 1, but I would like
to find my Hansard here to prove it. Do you
want me to look for my Hansard? I am sure
you interrupted me in this letter; it gets a
little hot for everybody, you know. This lady
is saying: What the hell. She is not very
happy, everybody gets a little edgy and this
letter gets interrupted every time I try to
read it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It was not the first
reading of the letter that was interrupted, it
was the second reading of the letter that was
interrupted.
APRIL 22, 1969
3419
Mrs. M. Renwick: You know what has
happened? In this session people are paying
attention to the welfare problem. What the
Minister is a little confused with is the resiune
which the office of family services requested
this lady make for its files. I read it, and I
believe that is what the Minister is perhaps
confused with. Perhaps if the member for
Downsview would flip the pages over he
might find that letter was never ended.
Mr. Chairman: Well, in any event, there
does seem to be some degree of repetition
in connection with what the hon. member is
presenting.
Mr. Singer: It is there word for word.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Do you not want to
hear about Mr. Tnideau, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: In any event, it being 6.00
o'clock, I do now leave the Chair and we will
resume at 8.00 p.m.
It being 6.00 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 92
ONTARIO
Ht^isUtmt of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, April 22, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliamervt Bldgs., Tororvto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 22, 1969
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3423
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3452
3423
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, April 22, 1969
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
On vote 2002:
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Sir, the hon, member for Downsview (Mr.
Singer) was correct inasmuch as he said I was
repeating the part of the letter which I had
read on April 3, but the letter was not fin-
ished on April 3. The point where the mem-
ber interrupted to draw this to your attention
is exactly where I finished on April 3, so if
I may, I will pick up where I left off before
the dinner recess— and finish the letter.
Mrs. Bednarik writes:
I know I am so tired of hearing from
government officials and professional people
-that Smith is bigoted and tolerant of the
beliefs and practices of others and oppres-
sive and prejudiced and the God of wel-
fare; and believe me, Mr. Band, I have
heard them all.
I know I am fortunate because I have
had the ability and the guts to stand up
to Smith's whole system and ask a few
questions and demand some answers-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Who is Smith?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Smith is the welfare
administrator.
I knew I had nothing to fear —
Excuse me, I will interrupt myself, Mr.
Chairman, or stop for a moment. I am trying
to point out that for a mother's allowance
applicant to have to go through this sort of
thing before she can be put on the mother's
allowance recipient Hst is ridiculous.
Now in deahng with Mr. Smith for general
welfare assistance in the interim period until
her family benefits were allotted to her, she
says she had been able to stand up to Mr.
Smith's system and ask a few questions:
I knew I had nothing to fear and that
I had some dam good backing, but what
about those countless other people who
have been mistreated by Smith and his
workers; and what about the innocent chil-
dren in circumstances like these. If a
woman had four or five children and was
threatened by Smith to be cut off welfare
hke I was, then his office must be con-
trolhng an awful lot of people.
It is a very sick set-up when we are
forced to go to the length we did for the
amount of money that was involved.
You call this a democratic set-up? To
have to exploit myself, my family and my
two children like this? My five-year-old son
missed school that morning; my four-year-
old daughter was just getting over the
chickenpox; and believe me, Mr. Band,
this was not the easy way out, but it
was the right way and it took a lot of guts.
This morning, one of the local radio sta-
tions interviewed me over the air and they
read some parts of the enclosed newspaper
clipping; and also I read a few parts of
the first page of my letter to you over the
air. I did not have the rest typed or they
would have gotten some of it too. T|hey
want me to keep them posted on this entire
situation, so does the Windsor Star.
The taxpayers certainly have a right to
know what happens to some of their
money. After going through ihis mess I
would give anything to know how many
more cases there are like this one, and
some would most likely be much worse.
Maybe if a few people before me would
have taken the measures I did our social
services in Essex coimty would be much
better run.
I also think I had better check back on
the court records. After all this I find it
hard to believe that my husband was
charged with desertion and not me.
I would like to stop there, Mr. Chairman, to
say that there can be no application for family
benefits until a coxirt order has been issued
to show that the wife has made a show cause
attempt to locate the husband for support.
That also, in itself, is quite a delay. I would
think an unnecessary one, too, Mr. Chairman,
because surely the department would investi-
gate whether the husband should be support-
ing the family— which it eventually does in
3424
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
any event— to get the family ofiF the roll of
those in receipt of a benefit.
Mrs, Bednarik continues:
I have kept myself a decent, respectable
person and mother; my children are clean
and healthy, and I have them in figure
skating, hockey and Sunday School; and I
have been going to the family service
bureau for counselling to try to make a
better Hfe for myself and my children.
Then I was cut down $16 a montii in
December and refused the $11.36 for drugs.
I knew I could not care for my children
properly and that they would suffer need-
lessly. When I questioned this I was
not only refused the money, I was asked
by Gerry Billings to sign a form stating
that I keep receipts for every dollar I
spend. I had already signed many of their
forms.
I was questioned by them on what I did
with their money, even though they knew
the children were healthy and clean and
being cared for; and the household bills
were being paid by me and the house was
being kept up. I was questioned why I was
going to the family service bureau; and
where did I get the money to go; and
told not go there,
I was questioned about the hockey
equipment for my five-year-old son and
how they were in figure skating. I was told
last week by Billings that I should be pay-
ing my 1969 house taxes, which are over
$200, out of my $30-a-vveek welfare money.
Never once, Mr. Band, was I encouraged
by these oppressive people, or told that
what I was doing was right for the chil-
dren, or how they were helped by these
activities.
I was told by Billings on December 31
that their office was going to send in an
unfavourable report to the Deputy Min-
ister, Mr. Band. I told Murray Smith that
if they had taken half the interest in my
husband that they did in me that they
might have gotten some money out of him.
Last week I gave Billings my husband's
social security number, which is 418141412,
and told him I felt he might be in Winni-
peg, Manitoba. I gave him a couple of
addresses. I am beginning to think he
filed them in the wastebasket.
Monday my lawyer, Barry Rubin, told
me that ASCO Finance had located him in
Winnipeg, and at that time they did not
oven have his social security niunber.
I also received an $11 cheque today,
Wednesday, January 29, from Mr. Smith's
office. I am not sure what it is for, it looks
like someone has a very guilty conscience
or that maybe it is to try to keep my
mouth shut. It was only mailed out after
my article and clippings in the Windsor
Star.
I know I told Mr. Smith I wanted the
$11 raise I am supjwsed to be getting from
the month of December and January. That
money was only taken from me out of
prejudice and is certainly coming to me and
my kids,
I might also say, Mr. Band, that there
is nothing in this letter that will be news to
Mr. Smith. We were big enough people
to say what is in this letter to his face and
there was more than what is in this letter
that we said to his face. All we ever wanted
was to be treated like first rate citizens
instead of garbage.
All I can add is that if there is any land
of board of directors meeting at the county
offices over this mess I would certainly
request that I be given a chance to have
my say. I have had enough lies between
and by Smith and Bilhngs on my case and
at my expense. I know a few of these men
who are on this board and believe me they
would be horrified at just a few things I
could tell them.
I am only out for what is right and
decent and I certainly have nothing to hide.
I have been honest from the start and I
would not be afraid to meet or speak with
anybody on this case.
Lastly, Mr. Band, I beseech you for an
explanation and an apology from The
Department of Social and Family Services
of Ontario.
Yours truly,
Darlene Bednarik.
Now I think I read the letter where the
maximum rate was given, Mr. Chairman; but
there is one interim letter, and it is from
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices, Parliament Buildings, February 21, 1969,
referring to 545629N, Mrs. Darlene Bednarik.
Dear Mrs. Bednarik:
This is further to our letter of February
10, 1969 to you. We understand that Mr.
Bednarik was ordered by the family court
to make the mortgage payments on your
home and that he has not done so.
Your rate of allowance has been recalcu-
lated to include mortgage payments and
APRIL 22, 1969
3425
your shelter expenses. According to infor-
mation received with your apphcation, the
shelter expenses total $98.85 monthly; the
maximum amount that we may include in
your allowance calculations for shelter
expenses $80 monthly.
Your allowance was increased February
1, 1969, to $218. This raise includes $29
fuel allowance. As Mr. Bednarik is not
making payments as provided in the court
order we ask you that you visit the family
court with a view to taking show cause
action against him.
Kindly keep your field worker advised as
to the date set for the court hearing and
the result of the hearing. May we draw
your attention to the insert card which is
enclosed for your convenience.
Yours very truly,
L. M. MacKenzie.
For Director, Family Benefits Branch.
Mrs. Bednarik made a note on here saying
my $29 fuel allowance has been cut off as of
March 1.
Mr. Chairman, mothers* allowance is cer-
tainly a programme on which mothers should
not have to go through that kind of hassle in
order to finally get put on; and when they
do, we have talked about the budgets that
are inadequate. That point was made very
well this afternoon. I would like to read the
letter of a lady who cannot Hve on these
budgets as they are and then briefly take a
look at the guides for family budgeting from
the social planning council.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, this is how I got
around to asking the Minister for a break-
down on the pre-added budget. Last year I
tried to compare the pre-added budget of
the Minister's department with the 1967-68
social planning council periodical on guides
for family budgeting, prepared for the use
of social and health agencies in Metropolitan
Toronto. I was unable to do so because of
the fact the Minister will not disclose how to
break down one of his pre-added budgets.
From a constituent of my riding, I would
like to read a letter that was handed to me
in the early part of this year:
Dear Mrs. Renwick:
I would like to write concerning my
mother's allowance. I have been on it
since 1967, in May. My daughter was 16
and my son six at that time. I was receiv-
ing $202.
This lady, Mr. Chairman, is probably includ-
ing her rent allowance in her figures. To
continue:
I moved into a three-bedroom apartment
with my children, the rent was $85 per
month. I was in the apartment September
to April. In trying to defrost the fridge,
I got it defrosted and there was a hole in
it. I still do not know how it got there.
I paid for repairs. It cost $70 and was
deducted $5 each month. My daughter
moved away in July 1968, and I still paid
$85 rent.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to pause there
to say that, needless to say to have an apart-
ment at $85 rent this lady was a tenant of
the Ontario Housing Corporation.
February, 1969, my little boy and I
moved into a two bedroom apartment. We
still pay $80, starting last month.
I am allowed to earn $8 a week, $36 a
month, which by the time I have paid for
carfare and lunch I have no money left
for anything else. I cannot leave my son
alone, he is only eight years of age.
No one seems to want to hire a person
who is on mother's allowance. My son
and I live, at the moment, on less than $1
a day for food. I am interested in what
is meant by the Canada food law, why it
is so important in the province.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the
Minister that the day of being able to pro-
vide for a family on $1 a day for food is
gone. A dollar-a-day-per-person, Mr. Chair-
man, is what the workers state is a possible,
probable allotment, of the allowance; and it
is ridiculous.
I asked mother's allowance for more
money, or help. My field worker looked
in my fridge, saw it empty, that was the
middle of January, and she said she would
see what she could do. She phoned in
the afternoon and said, that if I was help-
ing with cubs, that they could help me.
I do not blame the field worker. I asked
my church where my contact is. They sent
someone to see me. They sent some gro-
ceries but said they could not make a
practice of it. If I needed anything for
my son, if I needed anything, to tell my
Akela.
That is a term in the cub pack, Mr, Chair-
man.
They suggested for me to go to work.
I said I have a degenerated spine. They
said to baby sit. I tried that in the past
but could not do it. First time I asked
for help from the church, I was asked by
the St. Vincent de Paul, if I was a mother
that had a son in university. I said no.
3426
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and the St. Vincent de Paul man replied
"Well, we cannot help you." How can my
eight year old son grow so that maybe he
can some day go to university.
A Protestant reverend came to my door
and offered help. He sent $8 worth of
groceries and an $8 voucher. My daugh-
ter and son had to stay home two days
in every two weeks until we received our
cheques because of lack of food. The man
in the school had my daughter dust and
clean the waiting room and office to pay
for her tickets. My daughter, or I did not
mind the idea of work but it was the em-
barrassment amongst the other girls, and
she thought they looked down on her.
That year she had to repeat Grade 10.
I have three grown up children, a son
married with two children, one son under
security, my daughter is employed but
does not make enough to help out.
Mr. Chairman, I should say here that the
tickets are probably car tickets for the child
who went to the McNeil School. To continue:
I buy meat three or four times a month,
two boxes of Kleenex, four rolls of toilet
tissue. If people visit I sometimes have to
tell them I am out because of no more. I
drink a great deal of tea in the last week
of the month. My son goes without milk
three or four days at a time. I do not
smoke, do not have my hair done, now I
have to have nylons for my club meeting
on Friday night.
I launder twice a month, the bedding
etc., my personal and son's clothing I hand
wash. I dry wash in the apartment. I try
to see my son gets a coke or a chocolate
bar, or ice cream cone if possible, cookies
once a month, haircuts every three months.
This last Christmas for mother's allow-
ance we did not get our cheques for
Christmas. No hamper, no help from Sal-
vation Army. I went downtown for money
for food at the Salvation Army, they gave
me $5. I paid one dollar for bus fare out
of the $5.
And, Mr. Chairman, I pause to say that the
other point was raised by another member
that transportation is sometimes twice as ex-
pensive, depending what area of the city in
which you live. To continue:
I borrowed money for a few things to eat
at Christmas and when I received my
cheque, I had to pay it back, so I had no
money for January. A friend at Christmas
bought a turkey, otherwise we did not have
anything for Christmas. The field worker
that came after Christmas holidays said
she was new, and did not know anything
about the matter of not getting the cheque
for Christmas, and was sorry she could not
do anything about it, but I did phone a
week before Christmas and asked if we
would be getting it and they answered no.
Why is it that the people on mother's
allowance, and in low rental are not sup-
posed to pay according to their income?
And, Mr. Chairman, I beheve the writer of
the letter means why is she not supposed to
pay the rent according to income.
One woman I know has one son, three
bedrooms, and an income of approximately
$300 a month; she is allowed to have a
son and wife and baby hve with her, she
works and pays low rental of $55 a month.
Mr. Chairman, this is what we were trying
to explain to the Minister, and he thinks it
does not matter because it does not come out
of the recipient's pocket; but this does matter
to a recipient, that somehow she is part and
parcel of paying $80 or $90—
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): I thought that Mrs.
Bednarik owned her own home— the writer
of the letter— or is this a different case?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman,
this is a case of a constituent, I beheve I
prefaced it that way.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am sorry, I did not
hear that part.
Mrs. M. Renwick: To continue, Mr. Chair-
man:
I am not allowed to keep anyone with
me in order to help out in my situation
for dressing my son or to help me in eat-
ing or Uving better. I take hver shots, I
have to pay for them— $21 which I owe.
And that is $21 a month, Mr. Chairman.
It is in the collector's hands, because I
have not been able to pay it and OMSIP
does not pay for that. A person cannot
keep the home as clean and presentable as
it should be because of the lack of funds.
Do low rentals go according to wages?
One of St. Vincent de Paul men asked
me how come I was baby sitting niggers'
children; my landlady was Jamaican. She
did not mind me hving in her house, but
white people won't give a woman, without
a husband in residence a place to live. I
was told last month by one of the St.
Vincent de Paul men: why didn't I go
APRIL 22, 1969
3427
back to where I came from. Nova Scotia.
I said my parents were too old, and I
could not support myself and the little
fellow down there, because jobs are not
available.
I was bom in Nova Scotia, lived there
eighteen years, went west for seventeen
years, had five children and had to leave on
account of husband behaviour. I was told
to come closer to some relatives. I came
to Toronto, I was told that they would
figure out what part of the country I
could become a citizen because they could
not figure out if I was a citizen of the
west coast or of the east part of Canada.
I keep asking myself what and who am I
and where do I belong. The people who
come from foreign countries get help and
live very well; also work besides their
welfare money allowance.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. Minis-
ter and I would ask the Treasurer and the
Prime Minister to go to any fifty homes they
would like to take at random, pick on the
mother's allowance or a general welfare sys-
tem case, and see some of the hardships that
these families are going through, because if
they do not have parents who can assist them
or have some way of being able to manage
some additional assistance which the depart-
ment knows nothing about, they are simply
keeping the flesh on the bones and not a
great deal more.
If you take the social planning council
budget, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the
family the Minister spoke of earher as an
example, and the one I spoke of, the family
under family benefits received $142 a month
for food, clothing and personal care, for two
adult persons and two children up to nine
years of age. And taking the social planning
budget and taking only mid-activity for the
father and the mother, their budget came to
$105.57 for the month for food. And for
clothing, Mr. Chairman, taking one of the
boys, whose clothing cost a little more, $7.43,
and the girl, whose clothing is $7.36, taking
the clothing of a housewife and for the
father, there were only two categories, Mr.
Chairman, either employed or elderly and
retired.
So I took the housewife's same allotment,
presuming we would like the husband to be
dressed to go out and find some form of
employment, even if it is partial imder family
benefits, but even taking the small allotment
there would be only $3 difference. Taking the
retired elderly man's allotment for clothing
of $7 a month instead of the housewife's of
$10.69: $33.15 for clothing.
Household operation was very close to the
Minister's own assessment, $7.51; utilities, I
took the Minister's figure of $11 and that
figure was very close also under the social
planning coimcil. But when you add this up,
Mr. Chairman — even taking the minimum
amount — it comes to $170. Allowing the
husband the same amount to dress as a
housewife, it allowed $173.33, which would
be $33.33 over the Minister's budget. And
the Minister's budget does not allow anything
for purchases in the home of blankets or
sheets, anything of this kind. The social plan-
ning council allowed $7.41 for that purpose.
We cannot minimize the importance of this.
I spoke at a public meeting recently where
a gentleman came out of the audience and
spoke about his daughter who is living on
welfare, and he said to me, "Do you know
that they don't allow any money for a blan-
ket or a sheet?" You know, Mr. Chairman, we
have to work these things right into the
budget, we cannot have them under special
grants and so on.
For housing, Mr. Chairman, under the
same social planning budget, I had great
dilficulty getting a housing figure. I spoke to
the people shortly after they released this a
year ago and they finally checked newspaper
ads and the following table gives a range for
Toronto and the five boroughs. There were
too few three bedrooms at that time avail-
able, Mr. Chairman, for statistical analysis.
However, on two bedrooms the "low" in the
city of Toronto was $151 and the "high"
$195. Where does the Minister's allotment of
$100 a month go in that sort of situation? In
the boroughs the low for a two-bedroom
was $145 and the high was $158.
Recently, Mr. Chairman, I had the experi-
ence of trying to relocate a family in Scar-
borough, a one-parent family with one child,
who had a two-bedroom apartment that had
gone up to $158 and she could not find an
apartment to go to from that price except by
going upwards. And all around Scarborou^
the prices went upwards to $170 or $180 a
month. I cannot say strongly enough that the
Minister has to have a more flexible base for
shelter allowance. I think you cannot ask
people to take it out of their food allowance.
The guides for family budgeting were done
with reference to adequate standards of liv-
ing, specific categories of expenditure. The
level of Hving that is reflected in the content
and the cost of each of the categories in-
cluded is above the subsistent survival level
3428
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
so as to be consistent with the maintenance
of good health and a sense of self-respect,
yet considerably below any level of living
that could be called luxurious.
As regards the food allowances, Mr. Chair-
man, adjustments should be made if the
family cooking facilities were limited or
the refrigeration were limited; the percentages
had to be increased.
The Minister may say: Oh we know, we
can get them a stove, we can get them a
fridge; but the people are not getting them,
Mr. Chairman. I have talked to mother's
allowance recipients on several occasions
who have been cooking on inadequate cook-
ing facihties and have no refrigerator.
I asked the Minister earlier about Carol
Anne Young, and much to my shock he did
not know tiiat there was an application in
to family benefits—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I v^as
prepared to discuss that case under the last
vote.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Under the last vote Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Vote 2004.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I am not discussing tlie
details of the case, Mr. Chairman. I am simply
discussing the fact that the welfare office at
Coxwell and Queen applied for this 18-year-
old mother and her infant to be put on
family benefits allowance September 27, or
28, as soon as they possibly could from that
office; incidentally, Mr. Chairman, and when
the infant died in December, the mother and
the infant were still on general welfare
assistance.
The mother is no longer in receipt of bene-
fits at all. The infant is dead and I am
anxious to know what happened in that par-
ticular case from the time the Coxwell and
Queen office filed an application to the family
benefits branch to have the mother of Carol
Anne Young put on family benefits.
I have followed the case tlirough, as I said
on another occasion, Mr. Chairman, to the
time when the infant was buried, to see
exactly what happens to an unmarried person
who is properly qualifying for mother's allow-
ance and in this case limped along using
something like $25 of her food money to
make up her rent, and then had the unfor-
tunate experience of having a suffocated
infant to bury in the month of December,
before either one of them were on family
benefits.
Now could the Minister explain this to me.
This lady does not have any bank accounts
to check; she is a daughter of a large family
that lived in an OHC housing development
in Alexander Park. There could not be much
of a background that required checking.
There were no insurance moneys. There was
apparently a decision, which the Catholic
Children's Aid decided, that there was not
enough evidence to pursue the proposed
father parent of the child for any sort of
support and I would like to know what the
Minister's role was in this.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has indicated
he will be quite prepared to discuss this
under the last vote; child care.
Mrs. M. Renwick: All right, Mr. Chair-
man; but you know it is an application for
family benefits.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
under provincial allowances and benefits?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, if I
may just take a moment, without detracting
from any of the cases that the hon. members
have read, to also read a few letters.
Mr. Nixon: This has gone on long enough.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, no. I think it is
only fair and proper to the taxpayers of this
province that we take a moment or two, I
assiu-e the hon. leader of the Opposition-
Mr. Nixon: Oh, we are thinking of them—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This letter is to our
Mr. Groom:
My children, "blank" and "blank" join
me in thanking you for your untiring in-
terest and endeavours on our behalf to
have our monthly cheque from the family
benefits increased, thus easing our finan-
cial burden considerably and renewing our
faith in the goodness of mankind. We do
appreciate all the extra time and care you
gave so freely and relentlessly to have this
amendment passed.
And I skip paragraphs to conclude:
This increase in allowance means a great
deal to all of us as my daughter, *'blank",
will be able to continue her education and j
will in time be outfitted to take over the i
care of my son "blank", when I have passed
on.
From all of us again, Mr. Groom, our I
sincere thanks for your achievement on j
our behalf. i
APRIL 22, 1969
3429
Another letter:
Dear Mr. Yaremko:
I received a letter from The Department
of Social and Family Services with the
announcement that the cheque I received
in December is my last from the social and
family department because I will be eligible
for an old age security pension from
January 1969.
I just want you to know how grateful I
am for your support and understanding
from 1964 up till now and what a tre-
mendous help you was to me.
Thank you again, with all my heart and
may God bless you all.
Also this letter:
Dear Mr. Yaremko:
I must write to thank you and to let
you know the gratitude I have had, the
help given by the Ontario government to
me and my children for many years. It has
enabled me to stay in my home with
my children during the years they needed
me. I have taken a position recently and
I am now able to look after my responsi-
bility. My sincere hope is that my family
will be better citizens for having lived in a
province that has provided such great help
when it was needed.
I could go on, Mr. Chaiiman, but I think that
will be sujBBcient.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairman, are those unsolicited commercials?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are unsolicited.
Mr. Braithwaite: Could I ask this, Mr.
Chairman? Could the Minister tell us if those
are all from this year? Could the Minister
tell us how many letters he receives from the
various members of this House and from
recipients— welfare recipients in a year? Just
roughly?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Thousands, thousands.
Mr. Braithwaite: And do you mean to tell
us these three or four letters that you have
read are representative?
I want to say this, Mr. Chairman. I know
I speak for every member of this House
when I say that we might, everyone of us,
have 50 letters in a month. We might do 50
things for constituents in a week. If we get
one letter of thank you in a month, it is a big
thing. I suppose the Minister has looked and
looked and looked and out of all of his files
he has pulled out three. He says, I am going
to read these tonight just to show them that
we are good guys. I do not think so.
Mr. Chaimmn: Allowances and benefits?
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, of
the Minister, how much money is being given
to Laughlin Lodge in this year's estimates?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That comes under the
third activity, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with vote
2002 on programmes.
Mr. Ben: Yes, I thought it would come
under grants to residential care and service
for adults.
Mr. Chairman: We are only at the provin-
cial allowances section. We have been dis-
cussing the provincial allowances and bene-
fits.
Mr. Ben: How about an allowance for the
members here for nourishment, to try to sus-
tain them while this is going on?
Mr. Chairman: Well, perhaps the hon.
member would bring that up as a motion at
an appropriate time.
Anything further under provincial allow-
ances and benefits? Does the hon. member
for Scarborough Centre have something
further?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Just one point, Mr.
Chairman. Talking about the family, Mr.
Chairman, a family of four receives $142 a
month under family benefits. We take off the
$18 for utilities and household cleaning sup-
plies, and the family has $124 a month for
food, and something has to come off that for
clothing. So supposing we just take $4 off for
clothing, a dollar each, it leaves them with
$120 a month-four dollars a day. And I
would ask the Minister if he would impress
on the Treasurer, and impress on the Prime
Minister, that every time they have a lunch
that is four or five dollars a plate for this
government, or they personally have a lunch
at the Westbury, as so many of us do on
occasion, that is four dollars or five dollars a
plate, that we are asking a whole family to
live on that much money a day. It just is not
realistic and maybe that momento might
bring some realism into it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nia-
gara Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, I have here a few letters and it appears
to be the custom in this House to read letters.
I would like very much to read just one, to
strengthen my argument on behalf of some
of my constituents. This letter was dated
3430
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
December 12. This man knew me quite well,
he wrote:
Dear George,
Thank you for your letter of December
4, 1968, concerning a certain lady in my
constituency. I would advise you she has
received her allowance retroactive to Sep-
tember 1, 1968.
I know you will be pleased to hear that
she had her heart operation in Toronto
General Hospital and is coming along very-
well at the present time.
Your kindness and assistance in this
matter has certainly been appreciated by
all concerned.
What I am trying to say to the members of
this House is that there are two sides to every
coin. I have had the greatest of co-operation
from Jim Band; I am sorry he is not here
tonight, apparently he is not feeling too well.
We do a lot for our people as members of
the Legislature; I think this is our job. There
have been many cases that I have not been
quite as successful as I was in this particular
instance. But we have had good co-operation
through the Minister's St. Catharines office
with Mr. Alpiari. He immediately looks into
the problems that I bring before him and in
many instances this man has done what ought
to be done.
I do not say that this government is pro-
viding sufficient money for the people who
are receiving welfare, because of this rent
problem. And I could speak to you for hours
about these cases because I, too, look into
them personally and talk to the people con-
cerned.
I say to the Minister through you, Mr.
Chairman, that many cases should be re-
viewed and updated. More money should
come to these people because they certainly
cannot maintain themselves properly. I for
one would like very much, as I have done
in the past, to review some of these cases with
the department heads rather than take up
the time of tlie House. I realize that this is
tlie only place some of us can air our likes
and dislikes about this problem, but I say to
you again, that many people have been
treated well.
I have often wondered what happened to
the old-fashioned reliable people of days
gone by, where they provided pretty well
for themselves, even though they had cook-
stoves that they had to heat up with wood,
and had to carry water from the old Lyon's
creek or wherever it might be. This type of
individual apparently is not in the picture
any more. It seems for several generations,
family after family of the same group are on
welfare because this is the only way of life
they are acquainted with. And I think this
government comes short of the mark.
I think these people's pride and their
dignity ought to be maintained or bolstered
by this department or some part of this gov-
ernment so as to assist them to provide for
themselves. In the meantime, there are cases
where there is not sufficient money to main-
tain them. I think as members we are obli-
gated to the people in our particular con-
stituencies to do a job. The only reason that
I read this one letter was because I have
many others where the government has pro-
vided some help. But I agree with what has
been said here for the last two or three weeks,
I agree.
Mr. Ben: It only seems that long.
Mr. Bukator: It is going to go on a little
longer apparently, and I am quite content
to stay here all year round if need be. But
I wanted to present the other side of the
picture that the Minister has not been too
able to present for himself. Maybe it is be-
cause he is a modest man; maybe it is because
he does not want to boast. He has done some
good.
In my opinion, he has not done quite
enough for the people that this day have to
maintain themselves on a very limited amount
of revenue, and I would like to add what
little I can to this debate. I do hoi)e tliat the
Minister can upgrade and can find a few
dollars that is required to assist in the many
cases that have been reviewed here these
last few days. I do not want to take up too
much time of the House, but I do say to the
Minister, through you, Mr. Chainnan, that his
department is falling short of the mark when
it comes to providing the necessary money to
maintain these people.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Chairman, I want to take a moment to rein-
force what was said this afternoon and early
this evening because it is often very difficult
to have the comparisons on which to base
judgment.
This afternoon on the front page of the
Toronto Daily Star— I suppose it was in the
headlines of the Star and it was used widely
by the other papers and by CP— was the
story from the economic council of Canada
indicating the poverty levels which they felt
aflFected one out of four across the country
and which were barely tolerable in terms of
human living conditions.
APRIL 22. 1969
3431
The Minister probably saw the front page
of the Toronto Daily Star; he probably
realizes that the poverty levels which were
set out in that economic council report were
described in language which was largely un-
flattering. I do not have the text in front of
me, but if my memory serves me well, the
Economic Council of Canada indicated that
the levels which they established should not
be considered what one might call generous
levels. And now, providentially, I have the
page and the economic council says: "It
could perhaps be agreed that they do not err
heavily on the side of generosity." I think
that is a fairly appropriate comment.
Mr. Chairman, the Economic Council of
Canada in its report published today indi-
cated in dollar terms, that a family of four
would require $4,200 j>er year at a poverty
level; $4,200 per year. In the context of The
Family Benefits Act let us see what the
Minister provides for a family of four. He
provides $142 a month, which by my cal-
culation wotrks out to some $1,704 a year. He
provides $95 for rent in addition to that,
which brings us to a total of $2,424, and
averaging $30 a month for fuel ipor seven
months of the year, it brings us to a total
of $2,634.
Mr. Chaiirman, I know my colleague, the
member for Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick) was
exercised this afternoon because of his in-
tense frustration in trying to bridge the com-
mimication gap with the Minister; but surely
we now have a measure of the shortfall in
the Minister's grants.
He gives a family of foiu*, for food, cloth-
ing, shelter, utiHties, personal allowances,
heat and all the other constituent parts, a
total of $2,634 a year; and the Economic
Covmcil of Canada says that $4,200 a year is
a poverty line allocation for such a family.
And the difference is quickly discernible— it
is $1,566 a year.
How a Minister of Social and Family Serv-
ices can come and say ithat "I have an ade-
quate budget" or that "I will read letters into
the record extolhng what we have done,"
when he is giving people $1,566 below the
poverty line on which to live— according to
the most appropriate documentation one has
at ithis moment.
It is something that is diflBoult to appre-
ciate, and perhaps tlie Minister can begin
to imderstand why the members on this side
feel as strongly as they do. You cannot fall
that short in terms of the gap and pretend
to have an income which is in any sense
viable.
Now, it may be that I have made mistakes
in my calculation; I did it rapidly, but the
shortfall is pretty evident. It is somewhere
in excess of $1,000 and I just put it to the
Minister that it is very, very difficult for us
to have a useful debate in this Legislature
when we are talking about a shortfall of
$1,000 a year for a family of four, yet he
is arguing that this is a viable social allow-
ance. He knows it is not. His Treasury board
colleagues know it is not, but very little is
done to correct it.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have a
question of the Minister, to follow up on this
debate on the budget.
In the social planning council booklet,
which of course is for 1967-68— it is outdated
now— they suggest sample menus for the
seven days of Hving on this budget. Has
the Minister any such information to offer the
recipients of his benefits as to how they
might plan menus, living on the dollar bud-
get that they are now living under?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have a nutritionist
on staff but we have not reached the stage
of doing that type of thing directly through
our department. I would imagine that the
homemakers, and nurses would assist, in their
family counselling, as I outlined in my open-
ing remarks, with all these aspects, family
budgeting and kindred items.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, of course, Mr.
Chairman, I cannot discuss homemakers be-
cause that comes under the next section. 1
would like to ask the Minister, finally, how
many one-parent famihes are there in Ontario,
and how many of those one-parent families
are women?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We would not have
those statistics.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Under the amoimts of
The Family Benefits Act, do you then have
the number of people in receipt of assistance
under the family benefits board— not the dis-
abled, the aged, and so on?
You do not have the one-parent families
at all, of either father or mother?
Mr. Chairman, the Big Brother movement,
in their request for $30,000, used to refer to
110,000 one-parent families in Ontario, and
90,000 of those being women, and I guess I
am trying to verify those figures.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The most recent figures
I have in front of me are in the annual report
that you have, and I tiiink the details are
3432
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
given in pages 108 and 109— the mothers'
allowances and the dependent fathers, which
of course, are also one-parent families.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, there would l:>e some dependent fathers
under the general welfare assistance; the
Minister named 78 today in addition.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, there would be.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, about three years
ugo-I think it was, about 1966-when I had
the pleasure if I may put it so, to be the
Liberal critic of The Department of Reform
Institutions, as it was then called. I man-
aged to come by a menu, a two-week menu
that was drawn up by that illustrious depart-
ment. It was a dollar a day menu, which
was supposed to enable a person on his
release to live for a dollar a day.
When it first came into my hands and I
started to read it, I thought it was a new
copy of Joe Miller's joke book; but I found
out that it was factual, that indeed this two-
week menu was drawn up so that the re-
cipient, if he followed those instructions,
could live for two weeks on the $20 that
was given to him when he left the institu-
tion, and be able to have lodging as well.
As I stated, Mr. Chairman, that was about
four years ago, and I dare say, if my memory
serves me correcdy, the menu was drawn up
some five years ago. And I recall how you
had to save, what do you call it, the "stock"
from having boiled bologna. You had to
save everything. You were supposed to make
yourself a sandwich, a bologna sandwich, to
take with you, while you were seeking
employment.
Mr. Braithwaite: That is a lot of baloney.
Mr. Ben: It is a lot of baloney, but I am
telling you what the menu was about.
Now, I cannot imagine how anybody could
do it, even somebody coming out from one
of our correctional service institutions— and of
course, everybody knows that anybody who
comes out of one of those institutions is
overfed and quite obese so he can live on
accumulated fat, or so we are led to believe.
Well, one has to really stretch the imagina-
tion to try to figure how anybody, in this
day and age, can live on $1 a day. I remem-
ber almost ten years ago, closer I imagine to
eight years, the staff writer for the Telegram,
showed how one could live on $1.33 a day.
But I would like to know how anybody can
live, in this day and age, on $1 a day.
An hon. member: By \'isiting your in-laws.
Mr. Ben: What if you have no in-laws?
Would the Minister please try to enlighten
us on that?
Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, I want to go on to a new subject; I
trust it is the proper place. I want to dis-
cuss legal aid. Is this the proper area?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Just the assessment.
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, and prior to doing so,
very briefly, I might even have a kind word
to say about the Minister imder this heading.
To go back to—
An hon. member: Wait, he said he might
have.
Mr. Lawlor: Do not be premature. Hold
your fire.
Last evening we had some discussion of
unexpended moneys and at that time the
Minister pointed out that moneys allocated
wdth respect to the federal government, or
moneys coming in from that source, is cov-
ered under tliat head. Nevertheless it was
pointed out in a contrary direction— and I
spent a little time overnight looking at it, Mr.
Chairman-there is in excess of $20,500,000
in that particular year that was unexpended
and available to the Minister of this depart-
ment.
I will not bother, Mr. Chairman, running
through the list of the various headings in
which these non-expenditures arise but out
of a total expenditure of $103 million for
that year, about 20 per cent, namely again
the sum of $20,500,000, was not utilized by
this Minister. Now I hope that as these votes
develop, and in the past year as things have
come to pass, that this does not happen in
this department in the face of the need that
has been demonstrated hour after hour and
day after day in this House of recent times.
In the instance of some departments, and
even many departments, it is a highly praise-
worthy thing, Mr. Chairman, that the depart-
ment would have a sense of economy, a
sense of holding back, and a sense of slash-
ing and cutting a budget. And I think largely
of Highways and even Public Works in this
regard, where your patronage dividends are
being given out. But in the case of people
in need there is no defensible position for
not utilizing the budget to the full, particu-
larly when you expect individuals to live on
$1 a day. It is simply inexcusable. If it
occurs again I think that ructions will occur
APRIL 22, 1969
3433
in this House, or I trust they will, from any-
one concerned about the welfare of people
who cannot, for very legitimate reasons, help
themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I now want to turn to the
administrative role of this department on legal
aid and I will make mention of the Law
Society Gazette on a number of occasions.
The one I wish to mention first is re-
ported in September of 1967 at page 35,
discussing the operations of the plan and
this Minister's role therein. "The first and
most obvious problem"— this was in 1967 now
—"was to work out a more practical liaison
arrangement with The Department of Wel-
fare in view of the steadily mounting backlog
of financial reports which had mounted well
into four figures by the end of April."
In other words at the inception of the
plan, and about the first months afterwards,
this department was not geared to handle
the applications and they rose as they put it
well into four figures by the end of April that
year. "With the co-operation"— and here is
where perhaps a little accolade may be visited
upon the Minister's head— "With the co-
operation of senior ofiBcials of the department
one of the investigators who had been work-
ing out of our oflBce from the beginning, was
given increased responsibihty to co-ordinate
at the area office, the w^rk of a large number
of interviewing and field oflBcers who, com-
mencing May 1, began to rejx)rt back to
him through the area director and," it goes
on, "two departmental appraisers were ap-
pointed"—and this begins to iron itself out
somewhat.
As a matter of fact, in the report of the
Law Society of Upper Canada to this House
—to the Attorney General and through him
to this House— the aimual report of the year
1968 the latest report, reads as follows:
The tremendous demand for legal aid
first created problems arising from delays
in obtaining welfare reports, especially in
Metropohtan Toronto where almost 50 per
cent of legal aid applications are pro-
cessed. The problems were especially acute
in criminal matters. Legal aid, if it is to be
eflPective, must be granted speedily, other-
wise the matter will frequently have been
disposed of before the welfare report can
be obtained and the certificate issued. This
delay led to the granting of more pro-
visional certificates than the plan originally
contemplated. The problem has since been
virtually resolved due to the concentrated
efforts of The Department of Social and
Family Services.
And under that head I think you deserve a
commendation; where commendation is due,
Mr. Minister, you get commendation. Where
we hit the hard knocks, there you must
straighten yourself out.
One of the questions I have to ask, if the
hon. Minister would make note of it, is just
how is that done? How were they able to
solve the difficulties in this regard? What
additions to staff was necessary? And how was
the increase of staff placed? I mean, where is
it located and what is it designed to do?
I am particularly interested under this head
with your relation with duty counsel and how
they operate and what the co-operation be-
tween you is— the very problem mentioned
here. Duty Counsel are those lawyers who
appear on the spot in court in order to advise
people and usually to send them off to the
legal aid department. But sometimes they
handle the cases on the spot, with respect to
things hke pleas of guilty, or in certain cir-
cum-^tances even speaking to the judge about
dismissals or the possibihty thereof.
In the report of the law society they in-
dicate that 86 per cent of legal ?id recipients
are unable to pay a dime towards their legal
costs, and this has aroused some consterna-
tion because the plan as originally envisaged
was not a straight welfare plan, I thifik the
Minister will agree, it was based upon need
and not upon means.
Nevertheless people coming into your of-
fices and under your investigators, who are
capable of paying, are expected to pay
over periods of time, by instalment payments
or whatever way is feasible to repay the plan
for the services rendered under the plan. A
very small portion have done so, and arising
out of this I would like to know from the
Minister whether he has any responsibihty—
I do not think he has, but it is not clear from
the report— whether he has any responsibihty
for the collection of accounts that are over-
due and owing as a result of the reports of
officers as to the people's inabihty to pay.
That is my second question.
The 1968 report makes mention at page
13 of the issue at present under discussion.
It was also agreed that no person would
be refused legal aid because his or her
income exceeded an arbitrary level. Under
the new plan a needs test would replace
tile old means test. It was further agreed
that the programme committee would not
draft regulations regarding financial eligi-
bility. Financial eligibility would be deter-
mined in accordance with the standards
434
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
established by Tlie Department of Social
and Family Services.
And now I am coming to those standards.
There has been a greait deal of difficulty, I
think the Minisiter will agree, as to the setting
of those standards, and perhaps even some
turmoil, or controversy, within the law society
itself as to what criteria ought to be used
in setting these standards for individuals.
For instance there was a debate, which is
outlined in part in the annual report, among
members of the law society as to whether an
individual should be assessed on his own
merits exclusively, or whether his whole
family unit ought to be taken into considera-
tion as to his ability to pay.
Being lawyers, and having that particular
twist in personality, they all came down
four-square on the whole family unit being
considered— and perhaps there is some justi-
fication to it on the whole. I think not, but
one of the criteria that was used was— what
would have happened if there were no legal
aid phn? WoiJd the family jump in to assist
the person, either in criminal or in civil Hti-
gation? If so the amount of that contribution,
or the whole contribution, would be a matter
for your surveillance and determination as to
whether he was eligible or not.
What I want to know from the Minister is:
what thought has been given in his depart-
ment as to this aspect of criteria; whetiber or
not they are mulling over the possibility of
introducing this wider category. And if they
were doing so then I would suggest that
some very acute discriminations would be
necessary, because there are some circum-
stances in which a wife is far more wealthy
than the husband, and the husband, the
scamp, is in criminal trouble again. He has
been into the wrong bank, and used a bad
cheque, and in tliese circumstances, ought liis
wife's fortune to be taken into consideration
in reaching a determination as to whether he
is eligible or not, and if he is eligible, how
much ought he to repay. In other words,
ought the wife to be penalized for the defal-
cations of the husband.
These are circumstances, though I think
it is an extreme case, in which you might very
vv^ell take this into some degree of cognizance.
On the other hand, within family units, you
have families who, were legal aid not in
existence, might very well have pooled their
resources and beggared themselves in order
to provide criminal counsel for some wayfar-
ing son.
For your department to range out into
this wide area, to determine the total posi-
tion of the family, seems to me to be pushing
it pretty hard, Mr. Cliairman. In other words,
your interviewers are not just to interview a
person seeking your assistance, they are going
to interview whole family units to determine
the question. That is what seems to be the
weight in tlie discussion to which I am refer-
ring—and about which the hon. Minister is no
doubt fully aware— when Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr.
Arnup, and others held a colloquy over this
issue, and came to these determinations; Mr.
Bowlby too.
The problems of administration, the prob-
lems of investigation, I suggest, are onerous.
In the cases like the first case I mentioned,
or in the case where the family is known
for its wealth and where they very weU might
come to the assistance, this matter would be
taken into cognizance. But some, or even
great discrimination is going to have to be
used in this area of criteria as to how you
are going to determine this particular kind
of eligibility.
I would like to hear tlie Minister's remarks
if he cares to comment on them in this regard
because this is in the books. It is being looked
into at the present time and imless a good
deal of thought goes into it, families— not
just individuals— are going to be penalized.
Even in the case of a son of a wealthy
father, the old man just might be the last
one in the world that wants to pay. He has
disowTied the feUow quite a while ago and
simply because of his position— because he
happens to have some money— ought this to
be taken into cognizance. I would not think
he would get legal aid if the father, on the
other hand, was sympathetic to him, or at
least sufficiently open to want to give him
some protection. In other words, he would
not appear at your offices at all.
All these seem to me to be very difficult
social problems to be tliought about and
while the cost of legal aid is exceeding its
first estimates, I think we will agree that
against what legal aid is presently costing in
Great Britain, per capita of population, we
seem to be doing fairly well.
We will discus it more fully in the Attor-
ney General's estimates as to what the actual
figures are. The Minister's is only a very small
role, I think he will agree, in the whole
determination.
In the most recent issue of the Law Society
Gazette, the March issue of this year which
just came out, they are discussing again the
APRIL 22, 1969
3435
probleom of caiteria under the chairmanship
of Mr. T. P. Gallon, QC, pointing out that
20 to 25 per cent of all the legal aid certifi-
cates issued are related to divorce, and 20
per cent to other matrimonial actions. So
there is a very wide field in w^hich this kind
of action is taken. On page 16 they come
back to the problem, they say:
In January of 1969, a special meeting
was held with the Deputy Attorney General
and senior oflScials of The Department of
Social and Family Services to discuss in
detail, the procedure, philosophy and
criteria which that department had been
using to determine financial eligibility of
legal aid applicants. The departmental
officials stated they appreciated the Law
Society's concern and agreed to re-define
such factors as disposable income, liquid
assets and real property as tliey relate to
financial need for legal assistance.
First of all, I would ask the hon. Minister,
Mr. Ghairman, to outline briefly what the
present factors, considerations, and criteria,
are wdth respect to granting people legal aid
and to what extent have they been able to
rethink their position. Secondly, as to whether
he thinks his position, up to this time, has
been somewhat indefinite or indeterminate
and has led to inefiiciency and led to people
getting legal aid who are not really deserv-
ing of it— which is the claim— or if they are
deserving of it, are not deserving of it to the
extent of the benefit being conferred upon
them. In other words, their repayment to the
cause is very small.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Most of the
winners are the lawyers in that legal aid
deal.
Mr. Lawlor: Well, I do not know. You
cannot escape the rascals no matter what you
do Eddie, so you may as well bow your head
against the storm. You are the first one to
run to them when you are in difficulties.
In any event, just what new criteria are
envisaged in this regard, if anything definite
has been yet obtained, particularly with
respect to the disposable income and liquid
assets. For instance, if a man owns a motor
vehicle at the present time, is he obliged to
pledge it any way in order to raise the funds?
If he owns a home is it necessary in his own
right exclusively, is he under obligation to
place it under mortgage? Just how are you
handling legal aid applicants?
I think the amount of their earning capacity
is extremely low— it is at $1,200, I believe,
that they become eligible— where they get
total assistance. But I could be vvrrong on
that. I would ask the Minister to straighten
me out.
I am terribly humble tonight. I do not
know why. The day has brought about its
afilietions.
In any event, the particular area I would
like to bring to the surface and have it knovvm
to members of this House and in Hansard is
how that is being handled.
There is another matter I would like to
bring to the Minister's attention, about item
number 4. It is in the first annual report of
the advisory committee, this is a separate
document, what I call the red report of 1968.
At page 7 it makes mention of a study being
conducted.
First of all it was recommended that a
study be conducted by the welfare officers
of The Department of Public Welfare
designated by the Minister of Public
Welfare under the statutes in conjunction
with the law society, to discern the basis
of the judgment of welfare officers in
determining whether or not an applicant
can pay no part, some part, or the whole
of the cost of legal aid which he applies
for, and the sum of any that he is able to
contribute towards the cost thereof, by re-
examining the cases dealt with during the
first year of the operation of the plan, and
to date and to determine to what degree
uniformity has been achieved in the appli-
cation of the criteria which form the basis
of the judgment referred to, and the
policies that may have developed in assess-
ing this criteria.
In our view this study should be a con-
tinuous one and use should be made of the
data processing equipment for continued
comparison by case and area.
I would like to ask the hon. Minister how
that study is coming along? When is it
expected to be completed? If there is any
knowledge at his disposal immediately? If you
have reached some partial determination,
some conclusions, kindly tell us what they
may be, and if not, then how long, oh Lord,
will it be?
The last item that I want to bring to the
Minister's attention in the conduct of the
plan from his point of view is the business
of the haison with duty counsel.
Under the earlier report it reads as follows,
at page 35, this is 1967, of the Gazette:
In the same connection, arrangements
were made in the case of applications
received by mail from lawyers offices for a
clerk in the welfare group to contact the
lawyer and fix an appointment time for
3436
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
liis client to attend at the area office for the
purpose of an interview to determine the
financial situation. In times gone by, we
developed other means of working closely
with The Department of Welfare. We
would, for example, go out to meet the
applicant as a team at the family court.
Is this a common thing? Do you do this? Do
you do it not only in the city of Toronto, but
in other metropolitan areas, and do you work
as a team to any extent up in tlie more rural
areas of the province?
I understand that in the metropolitan
areas, certainly in Toronto, you have your
legal aid people immediately in the area
offices. I would hke to know the number
that you have presently in the Toronto office,
and what they do there, and what function
they are really carrying out in these offices.
But apart from tliat, this business of a
team going to the family court in the special
facilities available at a certain room at the
Old City Hall, and while I do not suppose
you have got too much to do with the actual
renting of space, you may have noticed that
in this plan at its inception, 2,500 square
feet of space was made available at the Old
City Hall but was not accepted by the legal
aid people. Perhaps it is more the Attorney
General's problem. You can tell me that.
I wonder about the legitimacy as this was
virtually free rental accommodation as against
having to hire facilities on University Avenue
or on Richmond Street as is presently done.
But passing that over, they go out to meet
the applicants as a team in the special facili-
ties available in room so and so so at the
Old City Hall, the jail, the Mercer, Mimico
Reformatories and the Ontario Hospital on
Queen Street. To continue:
Thus the early problem that we had to
deal with in losing contact with an appli-
cant between his initial interview by duty
council, the financial investigation and the
eventual matching of the two reports in
the issue of the certificate has been partly
overcome.
It cannot be said, however, that all such
problems have disappeared, because we
have had to deal with a new situation aris-
ing daily, as for instance when the same
applicant somehow manages to institute
two or even three, and in one case, more
files by repeated application in the bullpen,
the jail and the area office.
Unless the welfare interview can be co-
ordinated with duty council work, the de-
partment is likely to encounter difficulty in
locating the individuals for the purpose of
checking out the financial situation. Some-
times certfficates are sent to a lawyer giving
the name of the applicant who has chosen
him, and because he moved or the address
proves unreliable the lawyer cannot find
the individual involved.
Well, I think the hon. Minister well under-
stands the various kinds of problems that I
have brought to his attention this evening.
The final matter that I would like to dis-
cuss just briefly is what kind of instructions
are the interviewers given? Do they know
in advance what the type of case of the
individual coming before them is? Do they
know what the probable cost of, say, in the
case of civil litigation, what the probable
total cost of that litigation is likely to be?
Have they got a schedule?
I believe that the law society, through cer-
tain of its officers, has drawn up a schedule
for criminal cases, and I believe that the fee
schedule on the tariff on civil matters is still
under discussion. Have you a determinate
tariff^? Do your people know? Not having
been trained in law and therefore completely
in the dark as to what the machinations of
legal costs may be, are they exposed to the
knowledge? Are they given any idea in ad-
vance as to what a particular case is likely
to cost, and who gives that information?
Does it come from the area director or from
one of his assistants from the legal side of
the fence? And what is your liaison within
the office with the legal fraternity— are there
roundtable discussions and daily meetings to
exchange and co-ordinate information?
There is a certain tendency to selfishness
if you are living in Metropolitan Toronto.
Always having lived there one becomes, per-
haps, a little obtuse with respect to the out-
lying areas and how these things are handled.
I would ask you to give some adversion to
that too. Up in Penetanguishene, for instance,
just how is the matter handled as to how the
legal people and your people reach determin-
ation? For the nonce, I believe that covers
the ground pretty well.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member has
veiy fully and very capably outlined the work
of our branch in the ambit of legal aid. He
used the expression "commendation where
commendation is due," and I agree with that
expression. I should like to make mention of
the fact that Mr. Borczak, who is the associate
deputy Minister, has played a very significant
role right from the very beginning. This goes
back prior to the inception of the legal aid
plan, and he has continued to this day to play
APRIL 22, 1969
3437
a significant role, although we now have a
director of the legal aid assessment branch.
Our contacts are primarily with the area
directors. It is the area director that we deal
with back and forth, and he is our liaison, so
the exchange of information is at that level.
We do not participate in any collections; that
is not within the scope of our responsibility.
With respect to the criteria, that matter
continues to be under discussion and review
at this time. Actually there are two series of
discussions going on; I think there is a series
of discussions going on between the legal aid
director and the legal aid assessment director
at his level to deal with those matters which
fall within the ambit of his responsibihty.
Mr. Borczak continues to play a role with
senior officials in The Department of the
Attorney General, in the broadest sphere, and
this will continue for the next little while, to
deal vvdth some of the matters that both the
law society and the advisory committee have
brought forward.
I do not have the criteria before me, but
I do have a breakdown which is of interest.
This was a breakdown of a certain 72 per
cent figure that we had. It was the opinion
that the whole of the cost of legal aid could
not be paid in these cases. I will not go in to
all of the details, but with respect to real
property, there was 9.5 per cent on real
property under $10,000 used as a residence,
and 2.4 over that figure, and 88.1 on no
interest in real property. Then with respect
to income, 90 per cent had a gross monthly
income under $500, and then a significant
portion— eight per cent— had an income be-
tween $500 and $650, and a very small
number was over that amount.
I do not think the difficulty is wdth the
broad range of this type of applicant. It is
difficult to estabhsh criteria which wdll en-
able this particular social service, as it is
still envisaged at the present time, to be
brought to those who actually have a need
for it. As to the tariffs, both the criminal and
civil tarifiFs are set out in the regulations
book.
I do not know, but I think that covers
most of the salient points that the hon. mem-
ber asked. As to the nature of the trial, we
do not participate in getting any of the details
of that. With respect to the probable costs,
the area director guestimates some figure
and lets us know that this is the range of
probable cost. That information is made
known to us.
Staff procedure is very flexible within the
Metropolitan area, where there are 17 full-
time staff. They, of course, carry out their
duties in order to be able to achieve the
most within a working day. If they achieve
more by going out, they will do that. Other-
wise they go back and forth in whatever the
most feasible way is. That may not be as
possible out in the outlying areas where some
of the staff are on a part-time basis.
With respect to how this backlog— if I may
use that term— was dealt with, it really, if I
may use the expression, entailed a heroic
attempt on the part of certain members of
the staff. We embarked on legal aid, and we
were involved in legal aid assessment at the
same time that we were involved in the
tremendous change-over of our categorical
maintenance roles to the family benefits,
which involved the changing of tens of
thousands of cases. This was a mammoth job
in its own right, and involved a great many
nights and weekends of work. Then we had
thrust into this, this additional aid, and I
may say that the members of the department
who were involved carried on nobly. They
were faced sometimes with the problem of
whether they were going to deal with family
benefit applications or with legal aid applica-
tions, and I think it must have tried their
patience and abiUty in order to be able to
cope wih that particular period of time
which, of course, even though it is less than
two years ago now, is ancient history. But I
took tlie opportunity a year ago of com-
mending the staff, and I repeat the com-
mendation because they did carry out their
duties over and beyond the call of duty, I
think.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
know again, touching criteria; have you a
scale and what is the ceihng and what is the
floor for an individual coming in and asking
for legal aid? He is making, say, $3,200 a
year and he has a case that involves an ex-
penditure in legal costs of $800 guestimated.
He is expected to repay at least the whole or
some portion of that. How do you determine
that; how is it worked out by your people?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is very flexible. We
consider a great many items as disposable
assets. A car is considered as a disposable
asset, but that does not mean that a man has
to sell it or dispose of it. However, it is con-
sidered as a disposable asset.
If I may just outline the type of thing. We
take under consideration the income of the
apphcant and the dependents, the living ex-
penses of that particular family and the dis-
3438
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
posable income, of course, is the difference.
Then we take the Hquid assets— hfe insurance,
real property, other real properties, motor
vehicles, and then change is expected in the
near future. In the initial stages, of course, it
was a very flexible type of thing.
Mr. Lawlor: If I were making $7,500 a
year and was launched on a legal action of
some kind— some civil action, let us say, in
which the costs were going to be atrocious
as usual— and if I came before one of your
officers, I suspect I would be swiftly jettisoned
from the oflBce. You say, "Well, you do not
qualify for this sort of diing at all, you are
one of the aflfluent middle class," On the
other hand, if someone is making $800 a year,
I would think they probably would qualify
without having to repay anything to you at
all. Somewhere in between the $3,200 situa-
tion, a single man, let us say— I feel it is
always a fallacy in using this particular kind
of individual case because it pinpoints the
reply to a great extent.
What I am after here is to see what con-
siderations go into making a decision about,
first of all, whether they have to pay back
anything at all; secondly, and this intrigues
me even more, just when they say, "Well,
you are going to have to pay back 50 per
cent of this on the basis of what your financial
situation is." How does an oificer of your
department have that authority; I mean, how
does he gain that? He must have some rules
of thumb. I heard the hon. Minister say that
he did not have the criteria immediately. If
that is the case, I would just as soon leave
the matter over and have him supply it to
me. There is always another year. I do not
suppose any great harm is going to be in-
flicted in this sphere of time. On the other
hand, if tlie Minister has a fair knowledge of
how individual cases are handled within tlie
ranges that I have tried to indicate, I would
like a clearer answer.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I indicated the large
majority— this 72 per cent. Within the 72 per
cent were 1.9 per cent of the cases that did
have a gross monthly income of over $650
a month which works out to, as it happens,
just about the figiure the hon. member used.
But two per cent of this 72 per cent of the
cases, that is, 10 per cent of the apphcations—
we made a sampling of 10 per cent of the
applications of this 72 per cent— came within
that category.
We examine the assets or income of an ap-
phcant. It is the area director who exercises
the discretion. We supply the information, the
area director exercises the discretion. We do
not exercise the discretion.
Mr. Lawlor: You have not got final dis-
cretion in the matter? However, I guess what
you say would carry a good deal of weight.
If one of your ofiBcers says this person can
very well afford to look after himself, there
is no reason why we should be involved, then
that would be the end of the matter. By the
way, is the appeal there?
Is there appeal from the Minister's deci-
sion within the legal aid set-up, where he
can go to the area committee about being
rejected on the sole groimd, not of the legiti-
macy of his case under law, but as to his
financial situation? Or would this also be a
case of resorting to the review board that
was previously mentioned?
Leaving that question to be answered, I
hope, in a moment, I think the hon Minister
will agree that if somebody is making $8,000
a year he would hardly be a beneficiary of
your assistance. If that simple, somewhat
categorical, fact can be confirmed, then I
would shade down and say, where does it
begin? Therefore, to say that it is highly
flexible is hardly an answer. While there is
an area of flexibility, I daresay, it has some
kind of ceiling under which your people are
operating and I would hke to know what that
ceiling is.
You say 72 per cent of the people cannot
pay it all. That leaves 28 per cent who can
and, by the way, who do not. But then it is
all graduated, I think the Minister will agree;
some people can pay one-third, some people
can pay 5/16ths. I do not know how it is
graduated and I would like to learn how it
is graduated.
At this stage, I am not pressing the Min-
ister with respect to the precise criteria which
goes into the graduation. But if somebody is
said to be earning $5,722 and he is, somehow,
eligible for the plan and he has a case that
is going to involve a certain sum of money,
how much is that individual expected to pay
back to the plan? How is that arrived at?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
appeal proceedings are in, I beheve, section
14, subsections 2, 3 and 4, and the regula-
tions relating to it are regulations 107 and
108. It goes from the area director to the
area committee; from the area committee to
the director of legal aid. You get that chain.
Mr. Lawlor: For the purposes of financial
decision?
APRIL 22, 1969
3439
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: For the purposes of
whether a certificate of eligibility will be
issued.
Mr. Lawlor: How about the second part?
I am still pressing, Mr. Chairman, on the
business of how you arrive at the repayment
situation that the people are expected to
make to the plan, in order that it will not
be a means test. I mean, there are $1 million
outstanding under this plan at the present
time and owing to it, about $943,000, as I
recall. That has been determined by some
rule of thumb. I wonder what it is.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is a formula
which has been explained to me; you take
the disposable income, and multiply it by 18.
That is the maximum contribution that he
could make with respect to the costs. But the
area director makes the final decision. I think,
since we have moved into the area dealing
with the area director, the matter should be
taken up with the Attorney General.
Mr. Lawlor: I am not going to press much
further on the matter, Mr. Chairman, I think
the Minister will be relieved to learn. It is
just that the Einsteinian possibilities of the
theory of relativity have suddenly been
visited upon me. I mean, is that the maxi-
mum that would be expected? I suppose,
then, it is. Again after this graduation, it
would be 16 times 11, times what not, de-
pending upon the income potential of the
individual. Is not work relative to the in-
come; does this factor of 18 alter it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. It is related to
what we call disposable income.
Mr. Lawlor: So the one factor, utilized
over disposable income, is 18 always? The
only variable in the formula is the disposable
income; the 18 remains. Where did it come
from?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The judgment that was
exercised was that no person should be ex-
pected to pay something which would be
taking more than a year and a half to pay.
Eighteen months.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
under provincial allowances and benefits?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister a couple of questions
on this item before it is closed. Under dental
services— payments on behalf of certain bene-
ficiaries. Who are the certain beneficiaries
who are entitled to that type of dental
service?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: These are all family
situations where there are children, which
stands to include both the adults and the
children.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Does the Minister have
a figure of how many people that covers?
I believe he mentioned earlier that the pre-
mium system was the system used and that
it had gone from 90 cents to $1.10. I might
have roughly calculated even by 90 cents,
but I would be interested in knowing how
many people that covered.
Mr. Chairman, if it is simply that figure
divided by $1.10 I can determine that all
right. Is that how simple it is?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is the figure.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is the figure. Then
last year, Mr. Chairman, when the figure was
858,000, was this simply an increased num-
ber of beneficiaries, plus the 20 cent increase?
Under the allowance in accordance with
The Old Age Assistance Act and under the
phasing out where the simi of $20,000 is
estimated in 1969-1970— whereas last year I
believe the estimate was $1,314,000—1 won-
der if the Minister would tell me if there
was some of last year's estimate that was
unexpended?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have not sorted
out those figures as yet, so we do not have
them.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I will start at the be-
ginning, Mr. Chairman, in case I am con-
fused. I sometimes get that way when I am
trying to work from this year's and last year's
public accounts, because the public accounts
have listed this, I believe old age assistance,
all in one place. I cannot locate it under
public accounts so I am asking the Minister
the difference between the figure under this
year's assistance, in accordance with The
Old Age Assistance Act, and last year's
figure? Is the reduction phasing out, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, the reduction is
just phasing out; I think we have just com-
pletely phased out.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Were there some un-
expended moneys then in that vote from last
year, that is what I am trying to find?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You will find in the
public accounts that there was an unexpected
figure of $475,000.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Is that on page T6,
Mr. Chairman?
J440
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have the page
number.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I wonder, Mr. Chairman,
if we could interest the Minister in the fact
that perhaps something could be done by the
province of Ontario in the way of a supple-
ment to the old age pensioners who are hav-
ing such a difficult time to live on the federal
pension? I realize that they can get some
health benefits through the health scheme,
but we heard earlier in the debate pitiful
requests for lower TTC rates and so on.
Until we embrace a firm form of guaranteed
income for these people, I would ask the
Minister that instead of all of us coming
along and asking for lower TTC rates, for
some drug costs, and for some form of assist-
ance and that since his own responsibility for
the old people is getting to be pretty small
with the $20,000 figure estimated for next
year— and I suppose it will disappear alto-
gether—I wonder if the Minister has con-
sidered or would consider some form of
assistance from this province for the old
people, even if it were to offer some sort of
grant to the TTC if they are going to for-
ever stand off and say that somehow they can-
not allow some form of reduced tariff for old
age pensioners. Does the Minister think it is
possible that something might be done for
the old people?
I have a letter, and I will not belabour
the House with tlie whole letter because the
first part refers to the TTC, but it is an
example, Mr. Chairman, that I guess I hear
20 times a week. It is more pitiful somehow
from these old people than from the younger
ones where there may still be hope that their
life situation might change through employ-
ment, through marriage, through retraining.
But the old age pensioner writes, and the
old age pensioner is confused in this case,
and rightfully so, because she is writing to
a government, when at the door she has a
student from a imiversity, and the student at
tlie door is asking the old age pensioner what
tliey need and what they want and how they
can best get some assistance.
So the lady writes that she has suggested
to a person who is taking a social course for
the university that what they need and want
need not cost the government so much, and
if this programme is being phased out, Mr.
Chairman, certainly it does not have to cost
this government so much now.
The lady refers to the wish to travel on the
TTC in the off hours and to use the tickets
accordingly because she says that she cannot
possibly buy the tickets at the price they
are. She says four times a month to church
and it is gone.
I tliink if the Minister would consider some
way to assist these people he could make it
something that would be moveable, that
could cover prescriptions, or could cover
some form of special need for an old age
pensioner, something in the way of a federal
supplement once their fixed situation is deter-
mined, something on a fixed basis.
I do not like to think that the only way
diese pensioners could get prescriptions would
be to go to general welfare assistance to have
their prescriptions covered.
A lady writes: "Last year I went to a
doctor, got a couple of prescriptions, but
never got them filled, the price was prohibi-
tive." This would be a beginning anyway,
she said, for health.
The question the college student asked
her was: "Are you satisfied in your own
home?" Answer: "Certainly, if I can man-
age." "Would you sooner be where you can
be looked after, have all the things pro-
vided like activities, games, bowling, shuffle-
board, and so on?" Answer: "No, not until I
cannot do it for myself," "What do you Uke
best to do in your own home?" "I can't do an
awful lot. I had a stroke three years ago and
I am just beginning to be able to handle my
own work, make meals and try to get laundry
to the laundromat and keep the house clean. I
am unable to do what I would like to do.
I cannot get out because I cannot walk well
and cannot afford bus fare."
Interjections by hon. members.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I know it
is not proper to si>eak to interjections, but I
think that is what we are trying to say. There
is something wrong with our system, and I
hope the people who have the power to
move it will move it. The lady writes that
taxes, phone, Hydro, insurance, fuel—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
the matter with which the hon. member has
been dealing does not fall within the ambit
of provincial allowances and benefits.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would it come under
general welfare assistance, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: I was having difficulty in
knowing just what the hon. member was
speaking about. I do not believe it comes
under provincial allowances.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, I was trying to
promote a provincial allowance, a dignified
APRIL 22, 1969
3441
permanent allowance, instead of sending old
age pensioners to welfare, Mr. Chairman.
Could I ask two questions about the Act,
Mr. Chairman? Maybe three or four.
Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. member
indicate the Act she has reference to?
Mrs. M. Renwick: I just started, Mr. Chair-
man, I said under The Family Benefits Act.
I am sorry I coughed in the middle. Under
The Family Benefits Act, Mr. Chairman, is
there any form of special assistance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Is there any drug pro-
vision made under The Family Benefits Act?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No.
Mrs. M. Renwick: So a family benefits re-
cipient to receive some assistance with drugs
has to go to the welfare office?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Are the recipients aware
that this is how they can get drugs, because
every week I am dealing with families under
this Act who are in need of drug assistance
and do not know that they could get it by
going to the general welfare office. Is the
Minister finding that his workers are telling
them that this could be done?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Under the eligibility, is
there some explanation, Mr. Chairman, why
under the category of a mother with a de-
pendent child who would be eligible for
assistance, she is ehgible if her husband has
deserted her for three months or more, but
under a dependent father with a dependent
child, he is eligible if his wife has deserted
him, no time hmit?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is the case.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Is there an explanation?
Why would we say that a mother and child
can only come under this Act when her hus-
band has deserted her for three months or
more, and yet we say a dependent father with
a child could come under this Act if his wife
has deserted him with no time limit? Discrim-
ination! Is there any reason? No reason?
Well, the same thing follows true, Mr.
Chairman, and I would just like to draw it
to the attention of the Minister that the
mother with a dependent child falls under
The Family Benefits Act if her husband is
imprisoned in a penal institution and at the
date of application has a term of imprison-
ment remaining to be served of six months or
more, but a father under this Act, whose
wife is imprisoned in a penal institution, does
not have a six months' time limit.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The significant differ-
ence is that the father has to be disabled in
order to qualify. That is the distinction. The
mother can be perfectly well, but the father
in order to be a dependent father has to be
disabled, and that is the distinction.
Mrs. M. Renwick: So, therefore, without
the mother in the home, he immediately be-
comes in need. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
under the provincial allowances and benefits?
The second programme under vote 2002 is
municipal allowances and assistance, carried?
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre
under municipal allowances and assistance.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Some questions of the
Minister. In Mr. Ingit's department on George
Street, how many people are working and
what are they doing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That information does
not come within the ambit of this vote, Mr.
Chairman. That is purely at the municipal
level.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman,
could I ask how many people you have work-
ing in the job of rehabilitating people at that
address? I understand it is three professional
and three others, but that information of mine
is six months old. Surely, the Minister is
aware of what people are hired to assist
people to find jobs in Toronto.
Mr. Chairman: The matter of finding jobs
does not seem to come properly under muni-
cipal allowances and assistance.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, I believe, Mr.
Chairman, that Metro welfare received 50
per cent financial support from the province
for any expansion of services which I under-
stand were these counsellors. I wonder if the
Minister would comment on that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am sorry, my atten-
tion was diverted for a minute, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, I was asking, Mr.
Chairman, if the counsellors on George Street
who attempt to rehabilitate people in receipt
of general welfare allowance—
3442
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Rehabilitation comes under
vote 2003. We are dealing with municipal
allowances and assistance.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member's remarks in this case would be quite
appropriate. The rehabilitation referred to in
vote 2003 is at the provincial level.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister com-
ments that the hon. member for Scarborough
Centre can talk about rehabihtation under
municipal allowances and assistance.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Rehabilitation at the
municipal level.
Mr. Chairman: Right. The hon. member
for Scarborough Centre may talk about re-
habihtation at the municipal level.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, first of all, how many people are doing
this sort of rehabihtation at the municipal
level? Are they all in Toronto? Are they the
three men and their three assistants on
George Street?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we do
not have the details of the staflBng at indi-
vidual municipalities throughout the province.
Although I may say that this is a figure
which, once we get our statistical set-up,
should prove of assistance to us.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would the Minister have
information as to how many homemakers are
being used by Metropolitan Toronto for re-
habihtation in the home?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Again, the answer is
similar to the previous one; that information
is at the local level. We participate; they
submit their accounts and we participate in
the financing of whatever they do within a
particular field.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Wentworth was on his feet.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman,
I would Hke to ask the Minister, in relation
to a question that was asked of him on
February 26, by the member for Brantford
(Mr. Makarchuk). He asked at that time, I
will read from Hansard so that we know
exactly what we are talking about:
Does the Minister intend to approve, under sec-
tion 5 ( 1 ) of The General Welfare Assistance Act,
the appointment of former Victoria County warden,
Everett Cameron, as social investigator for the
county?
And it goes on to say:
bearing in mind references that this particular per-
son made to welfare recipients, naming them a*:
bums and leeches on society.
At that time, the Minister answered that
he was, and I quote:
I am, however, looking into the situation and if
it has any validity I will consult with county
authorities on the matter.
I would be most interested in knowing
from the Minister exactly what the outcome
of his enquiry was; whether or not he has
been able to ascertain if there was any
validity and what the outcome was at that
time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we
were in contact with the senior welfare ad-
ministrator of the county of Victoria welfare
unit. We could not find any evidence that
Mr. Cameron had referred to welfare recip-
ients in the terms stated in the newspaper
article or in any terms that were ofiFensive.
Mr. Cameron is serving as a subordinate
member of the welfare staflF of the county of
Victoria.
Mr. Deans: Just so that I am perfectly
clear on this. In other words, the story in the
Telegram must have ben erroneous and he
did not, in eflFect, make those statements that
are attributed to him in this particular story
of February 22? Would this be true? Would
this be what you have said at this time?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think we had to
accept these details as hearsay evidence.
Mr. Deans: It surprises me, really, because
it is not often— and I do concede that oc-
casionally—the press misrepresents things un-
intentionally. But it is not often they mis-
represent them to such an extent as this that
they quote someone as having stated they
referred to persons as "bums and leedies on
society" without some foundation.
It strikes me— when you conducted the
investigation was there any indication of
what, in fact, was said at tliat time, rather
than what was reported as having been said?
The reason I ask, and I make ithis point for
the Minister, is that it seems to me that if
a person were to feel this way, if he felt that
this was, in effexst, the proper way to describe
persons on welfare, then he would not be
a very suitable person to have working on
liehalf of the^e people and attempting to
rehabihtate them.
I think the Minister would agree with me
on that and it bothers me. I find myself
disturbed by the thought that a person who
APRIL 22, 1969
3443
would make this kind of a reference would
be in a position of dealing with the very
people whom he obviously disliked and had
very little use for. I am just curious now.
I would like to be assured by the Minister
that this story is absolutely false, and that
this person did not say anything even re-
motely like what was reported in the Tele-
gram of February 22.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I think
I have given an answer that should be accept-
able here. So far as we are concerned, this
is the information that has come to us, I do
not know of any of the details of anything
that Mr. Cameron is reputed to have said. I
am advised that anything that he may have
said was mild. We have contacted the senior
administrator, who is aiware of these allega-
tions and the public interest in the matter,
and I think it would be a matter for him to
keep an eye on and exercise his own judg-
ment with respect thereto.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to go back to this question
of the availability of prescribed medication
and drugs to recipients of the social and
family benefits. Is it correct that when the
municipality allows it, the same cost formula
is used— 80 per cent paid by the province and
20 per cent by the mmiicipahty?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Special assistance is
50 per cent.
Mr. Gisbom: I take it that the municipahty
would have to pay 50 per cent of the cost of
drugs given to those recipients?
The first thing I would like to say is I
think it should be made known to all of the
recipients that they are entitled to prescribed
drugs and medication through that avenue.
Many are not aware of it and complain of
spending a portion of their benefits for pre-
scribed drugs and medication.
I think they should be notified in a regular
fashion, similar to the kind of a programme
we have been talking about for the last few
days, concerning the review board. They
should be well aware of their rights. I think
there should be a more regularized pro-
gramme. First, I think this government should
pay the whole cost of that land of special
assistance to take away the reticence of the
mimicipalities in their purveying of prescribed
drugs.
I have had stories told to me that the bene-
ficiaries are given a prescription to get so
many pills and it is marked on their envelope.
They are short-changed in a sense; there are
ten pills short in their packages and that sort
of thing. I do not want to make any accusa-
tions but I think there should be better
control over this kind of thing. It should be
more regularized. I think the best start would
be for this department to take over the fuU
cost and to have their own representatives in
the clinic seeing to it that the people are
getting proper medication, and controUing
the whole thing. If we are going to say they
are allowed that kind of assistance, because
when we give them money from social and
family benefits, it is done on a set basis and
we do not expect they have to spend this for
such a high-cost commodity as prescribed
drugs.
I would ask the Minister to comment on
this and to give some consideration to this
problem.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First, Mr. Chairman,
the adoption of a plan of that kind would
involve government pohcy.
Mr. Gisbom: I am well aware of that,
Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of that, and
the Minister helps to make policies, I am
sure. What does he think about the system
of purveying of prescribed dmgs to recipi-
ents? He says they are entitled to them. I
say that not all of them know they are
entitled to them. Many people who are re-
ceiving benefit through this department are
spending some portion of it for prescribed
dmgs and medication. First, I think they all
should have specific knowledge that they are
entitled to them, and again I say there should
be more control by this department and I
think the department should take over 100
per cent of the costs.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Huron-Bruce.
Mr. M. Gaimt (Huron-Bmce): Mr. Chair-
man, I will try and elicit some information
from the Minister in connection with the
municipal welfare oflScers. We have been
discussuig from time to time during these
estimates some of the activities of these
municipal welfare oflBcers. The fact that they
spend 80 per cent of the department's money
indicates that they do have a fairly onerous
responsibility in this regard. I am just won-
dering if, in fact, this department prescribes
any particular criteria as to the appointment
of these people. Do you have any say at all
as to who is appointed at the local level?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In the county and
district welfare administration boards, we do
3444
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have representation on the selection board,
but not in the municipahties generally.
Mr. Gaunt: So that if an area were to go
to a county system of welfare, you would
have representation on the board? Otherwise,
you have no control or no say over who is
appointed? Is that so?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is correct.
Mr. Gaunt: Well then, Mr. Chairman, if
I may pursue this, I understand that the de-
partment is very interested in, and indeed
promotes, the adoption of the county welfare
system. I am not exactly clear as to the basis
upon which it does this. Is this through an
attractive grant system? Do you give a more
attractive grant system where a particular
county enters into an agreement to look
after welfare on a county basis, rather than
on the basis of a municipality?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually the advan-
tages, by way of a carrot— if I may use that
expression— are not very great. However, we
have been spreading the gospel of the bene-
fits and the advantages of a county system.
We have proven and persuaded people that
this is the best method of delivery of serv-
ices; it provides for a more equitable dis-
tribution within the county and you do
not have the variation from municipality to
municipality. Also, the larger unit enables
the setting up of a stafi^ which will not only
send out cheques but will be able to cope
with counselling, rehabilitation, prevention,
and the whole range of services that are
available in order to assist people to help
themselves. This is the basic reason why
we have been promoting this. It takes no
efFort, really, to sit down and write out
a cheque— anybody can do that— but that
achieves no purpose, as we have seen by
some of the stories we have recounted. But
the setting up of a county unit has those
advantages, which a considerable number of
counties have accepted, and the units are
working exceedingly well.
Mr. Gaunt: So, hopefully, all of the coun-
ties across the province of Ontario will
eventually adopt the county system. If they
do so, then it would also be presumed that
many of the abuses and attitudes which pre-
vail at the local level, insofar as the munici-
pal welfare officers are concerned, would
disappear, hopefully at least.
I leave that point, Mr. Chairman, I want
to pursue another point for a moment, if I
may, and it is in relation to the amount or
the ceiling paid by this department insofar
as the care of people in nursing homes is
concerned— that is to say, people who can-
not afford to pay their own way. I under-
stand that this department shares the cost
of that on an 80/20 basis. I believe the rate
is $9.50 per day. How is the rate estab-
lished?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that
rate was established in conjunction with The
Department of Health. There was a study
made of the matter and the conclusion was
that the $8.50 should be raised to $9.50.
We participated in discussions that led up
to that sum being fixed, and that is the
figure we use for the purposes of our subsidy
of 80 per cent.
Mr. Gaunt: I am interested in how this
department and The Department of Health
arrived at that particular rate of $9.50. I
know, for instance, that a study was done by
the nursing home association. That study
was conducted, I believe, by Woods Gordon
in 1967, and it indicated a per day, or overall
per day cost of $10.58. That was in 1967,
and this is 1969. The level of care has risen,
hence the cost has risen, and I would be
very interested to know the factors that went
in to make up that rate of $9.50. Frankly,
I do not think it is very realistic, and I
cannot understand for the life of me why that
type of rate was established. I think what
the department has done is effectively pass
on any added expense or cost to the muni-
cipality, because you will only share the cost
on the basis of the $9.50 per day rate. If, in
fact, the nursing home rate happens to be
$11, then of course the municipality has to
bear that extra cost.
I know the department also had a study
done regarding cost. I am not exactly clear
on what the rate per day was established at
from that study, but in any case I suggest to
you that the $9.50 per day rate is not suffi-
cient. I would hope that there would be
some other basis other than an ad hoc basis
upon which this particular rate could be
established. For instance, I am thinking in
terms of perhaps establishing the rate on the
basis of a percentage of the hospital care
cost in a particular area. In this way you do
not do it year by year; it is done auto-
matically, there is no negotiation, it is a fairly
automatic thing.
I think that if that percentage were estab-
lished, it would be a constant relationship
and tliere would not be this need for constant
negotiation between your department and The
Department of Health, and between the nurs-
ing home association and both departments.
APRIL 22, 1969
3445
It seems to me that that would be a much
fairer way to do it and would be much more
satisfactory, certainly from their standpoint as
well as from your standpoint. Would the Min-
ister like to comment on that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, I was listen-
ing to the member with a great deal of
interest. I think this is a matter which can be
discussed in more detail with the Minister of
Health. The whole concept of nursing homes
rates and related matters.
We were in touch with the Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond) continuously through
the studies, and we adopted the figure that
was arrived at by the Minister of Health.
I think that this discussion can be more prop-
erly and more profitably and in more detail
discussed with him at the time. I am sure
he will be prepared to do so.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, at the outset I would like to ask
the Minister if I am correct in assuming that
today the municipahty is responsible for the
welfare, regardless of whether the individual
has moved into the municipality very
recently? That is correct is it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, as long as he
moves in, there are no residency require-
ments now.
Mr. B. Newman: Then I want to follow
through with this, Mr, Chairman, because
my own community, having been fortimate
enough to have the auto trade pact cause an
increase in employment, has suffered as a
result of this clause, or the clause in The
Welfare Act. Individuals from the length and
breadth of Ontario have moved into the area
seeking employment. Quite often many of
these individuals had been on some type of
assistance progranmie in another municipality.
Coming into the city of Windsor, they
were immediately eligible for welfare assist-
ance. We do not deny that they should get
that assistance. However, this has thrown an
added burden on to the community and I will
illustrate.
In only one month, the month of October,
in 1968, the increase over the prior year was
from $83,336 to $129,932. So you can see
that there was an increase of approximately
$46,000. to the community. Now multiplying
that by the 12 months of the year you can see
the added burden that was put on to a com-
munity.
As a result of this added burden, Mr.
Chairman, the community naturally will have
to curtail other types of projects that they
may have contemplated. From this I would
conclude, Mr. Chairman, that the fact that
you only provide 80 per cent, and require
the municipality to pick up 20 per cent is not
fair at all.
These new people have come into the com-
munity from other areas in the province and
I think that up until the time they establish
one year's residence in that community you
should be picking up that burden. If you do
not want to pick up that added burden on
the community, then you should consider
taking over the complete cost of welfare on
the municipal level.
The municipalities can no longer stand the
burdens of welfare, because just as you have
changed the Act to allow an individual to
move anywhere in the province, you are say-
ing tliat welfare is no longer a municipal re-
sponsibility, but a provincial responsibihty. If
it is a provincial responsibility, then it is
incumbent upon you to absorb the complete
cost of welfare.
Is the department contemplating absorbing
the complete cost?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member
would know, having been in this House over
a considerable period of time and being inter-
ested at the local level, that if there were
some Solomon with a proper data processing
machine he would find the province is pick-
ing up by and large— if I may use the figure
as a yardstick— 80 per cent on its direct sub-
sidy of programmes.
But we have what are known as uncondi-
tional grants which The Department of
Municipal Affairs hands out with its right
hand, and I am convinced in my own mind
that if there were some Solomon to finahze
the figures of 15 years ago and the figures of
today, that he would find two things:
1. That the package of social services avail-
able to the residents of the province of On-
tario has increased considerably, and if he
could trace the tax dollar which goes to pay
that welfare cost he would find. I am sure,
that 100 per cent is paid by the taxpayers'
dollar from the provincial base.
Mr. Nixon: How can you trace how uncon-
ditional grants are spent that way?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am just saying that
it would be an interesting exercise some day
to do this. At one time, the unconditional
grants were not unconditional, they were
3446
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
earmarked for health and welfare and similar
sendees, I know that in respect of one muni-
cipality not too far from Toronto, I was very
interested in seeing the slice of that pie that
is used by treasurers to show money coming
and money going out. The slice of the muni-
cipal welfare was just barely big enough to
get on that map.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, let us
assume that what you say is correct, but when
there is an added burden in the community
as the result of the fact that the individual
no longer has to live in the community for
one year, then your department should be
picking up that added burden.
The unconditional grant will only take
care of these other miscellaneous increases
and programmes. In the city of Windsor in
1968, approximately 200 families applied for
assistance. Previously this assistance would
have been charged back to another munici-
pality—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Which we have elim-
inated.
Mr. B. Newman: —and this is extremely
substantial in terms of dollars and cents.
Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the cost for rentals,
because of the acute housing shortage, has
gone up sky high in the municipality. This
has placed an added burden. Sure, 80 per
cent is paid by your department, but 20 per
cent still is the responsibility of the munici-
pality, and that is much too high and maybe,
in some cases, more than they can actually
absorb.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask
the Minister, the 20 per cent that the muni-
cipality is responsible for, it is only dispersed
under the guidelines set down by his depart-
ment. I think that is a matter of fact, is it
not right?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The whole is dispersed
in accordance with the regulations under The
General Welfare Assistance Act, and then
the municipality pays the whole thing and we
r( imburse it to the 80 per cent.
Mr. Sargent: So in effect then, it is an ac-
cepted theory by all of the people in govern-
ment today that there is no relation to the
tax on real estate for the cost of welfare. The
Minister knows in his heart that 100 per cent
of the cost should be paid for by the province.
But in this way you are charging the muni-
cipalities 20 per cent of the cost of welfare,
regardless of these unconditional grants. That
is another side of the coin.
You are asking municipalities, Mr. Chair-
man, through you to the Minister, to pay 20
per cent of tliis bill of $50 million. You are
paying possibly $10 million out under guide-
lines set out by you over which the munici-
palities have no control. So, they are taking
your guidelines to disperse their money.
I think somewhere along the line you
should tell the House when you are going to
take over 100 per cent of the cost of welfare,
because you are directing how it shall be
spent. Why should you not pay all the costs?
You call the shots now, so why should you
not pay for it? In our city, my welfare
administrix cannot dispense $1 unless it goes
along with your plan. But you are taking
credit for this giveaway and you axe taxing
us 20 cents on the tax dollar for this disi)ersal.
To my mind, I think your department does
an overall good job from what I have seen
of it, but I think somewhere along the line
that you will have to—
Mrs. M. Renwick: Flattery will not get it
for you, Eddie.
Mr. Sargent: I think we have to be realistic.
I have been in this business a long time. I
think they have a lot of problems over diere
and that they cope very well. But I want to
say that I do not think there is any just
charge against real estate for 20 per cent of
the tax dollar.
In another area, if you are going to lay the
guidehnes down then you should pay for the
salaries of the administrative people who do
this job. You are taking over assessment, you
are paying all of our assessment people, so
why do you not go the whole route and
pay for the cost of the administrators of
welfare?
I would like to ask the Minister point
blank if there is not logic in what I say.
When are you going to take over the costs,
as my colleague says?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say that that is
not presently under consideration.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nia-
gara Falls.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Ser\ices): Where are we, on vote 4, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Bukator: He just wants his name on
the record. He came in for the first time
APRIL 22, 1969
8447
today, so he wants to be recognized, I guess.
The man is here. I forget what position he
holds. He finally made it at half past ten.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. member
want to compare his record with mine?
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, my office in
Niagara Falls is just on the other comer to
the welfare office. If they do not get satis-
faction there they walk into my office imme-
diately. They spot my car and see me there
and they say, "TJie welfare department did
not give me what I think I am entitled to."
So I give them this routine, and give the
government, here, more credit than they
deserve.
I want to put the record straight: I usually
say, "Go down just one block to the city hall
and talk with the mayor; tell him your prob-
lem. All they pay of the welfare that they
give you from the city level is 20 per cent;
the rest is paid by the province. If I can help
you persuade the man on the other comer
to give you the welfare that you are entitled
to, or you feel that you need, or the mayor
can, my job has been done because I am your
provincial memiber. I do not get involved in
this department imless it is an extreme case
and I think I can do something about it.*'
Having put the record straight, when that
80 per cent is paid by this province, or the
whole dollar is paid by the city and you re-
imburse the 80 per cent, it costs the city 20
per cent. How much of that dollar do you
actually get from the federal government?
An hon. member: That is a good question.
Mr. Bukator: Fifty per cent of the 80, or
50 per cent of the amount that it cost you?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Fifty cenuts of the
dollar.
Mr. Sargent: So you are cheating 30 per
cent then?
Mr. Bukator: Let us not confuse the issue.
If you pay 50 cents of the dollar, then all
it costs the city is ten per cent?
An hon. member: Twenty.
Mr. Bukator: All right, then the city pays
20 per cent, the province pays 30 per cent
aaad 40 per cent comes from the federal gov-
ernment. Then, this is the point I am trying
to make: Does the federal government make
a larger contribution than the provincial
government?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Fifty per cent is larger
than the other two portions, yes.
Mr. Bukator: This, I hope, is in the records
because I want to give the federal people a
break in this House for a change. They con-
tribute towards welfare more than the prov-
ince of Ontario does?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In this particular situa-
tion.
Mr. Bukator: This is the situation I speak
of; there will be others who will talk about
it before the night is out. Anyhow, the prov-
ince of Ontario does not make this contribu-
tion, although I have been telling my
constituents that they pay the 80 per cent.
They do, but they collect from Ottawa and
they collect a greater portion than they pay.
I think Judy LaMarsh had something to do
with it, since when you mention her name
in this House somebody tells you that she
has not been doing the job that she ought to
since she has been picking on people.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: She did, and she
acknowledged the contribution made by the
province of Ontario in working out the
scheme.
Mr. Bukator: It is as an exceptionally
decent sort of a person that I remember Judy
LaMarsh. She did a good job for her con-
stituents.
To add just a little bit more coal to the
fire, I understand that there is a federal gov-
ernment bill— they are just having a little
conference there, Mr. Chairman, we will get
back to the Minister in a moment; I wll get
my information another time, more of it— but
did not the federal government pass a statute,
a law saying that you no longer have to pass
a means test to get welfare. It is a needs
test; if you need the money to keep you
going tlien the federal government will make
its contribution, if the local government sees
fit to allow that amount of money to be
paid to that family. Maybe we have a solution
to the problem that we have been talking
about here in the last couple of days. If your
investigators— is that what you call them, or
inspectors, or what are they?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Field workers.
Mr. Bukator: If your field workers feel
after they investigate that this money is
needed, you naturally make the contribution
and Ottawa pays 50 per cent of the shot.
Do I have that in sequence now?
3448
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, we have
regulations which set up the criteria under
which the field worker operates.
Mr. Bukator: Yes, I know that because
when I look for more they say, "Well, my
hands are tied. You legislators have not given
us enough authority or enough money." Any-
how, I have put the records straight, I hope,
in my own mind, and I hope many others
have picked this up. The federal government
does make a good contribution towards
assisting in welfare cases and in the operation
of welfare.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This goes back to
1959, I believe, when the unemployment
assistance agreement was worked out.
Mr. Bukator: I believe that was the year
I was elected. I must have had something
to do with it.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 2002 carried?
Mr. Nixon: No, there is another section on it.
Mr. Chairman: Is municipal allowance
carried?
Mrs. M. Renwick: No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to talk to the Minister about the condi-
tions throughout the province's welfare ad-
ministration at the local level. I would like
to look at the area of Victoria county. I
quote from an article in the Peterborough
Examiner on June 13, 1968:
"Those men who failed to show up for
work should be tlirown in jail and we will
keep their dependants," urged former
county warden Kamick. Already recipients
in Lindsay are required to report twice a
week to the welfare office and give a
detailed statement of their job-seeking
efforts.
I presume this is tlie warden about when
the hon. member for Wentworth was asking
the Minister, the warden who is reputed to
have been hired in a meeting closed to the
press. I would like to show, as a contrast to
how the provincial general welfare assistance
Act is being administered in Peterborough,
how it is being administered in Toronto. Then
I would like to ask the Minister to comment
on the difference. From the Telegram in
Toronto, March 8, 1968, an article entitled
"Welfare: Meb-o Cases Jump 2,500".
The committee questioned Mr. Ander-
son on how he checks that welfare recipi-
ents classified as employable are trying to
get work. He said he hasn't had the staff
in the past to do as much checking as he
feels is necessary but he is hiring more.
I would like to ask the Minister, how can
we have a public announcement in Peter-
borough about throwing men in jail if they
do not take the welfare work, and yet have
this other example in Toronto where Mr.
Anderson says he has not had the staff in the
past to do much checking.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not understand
the hon. member's line of reasoning.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, surely
the General Welfare Assistance Act, being a
law and being a right, should not be dis-
pensed in one area of the province in a
different fashion from how it is in another
area. It is the Minister's responsibihty, surely,
to make certain that it is being dispensed in
a proper way.
We spent a long time during the last esti-
mates talking about the unemployed employ-
ables. The Minister intimated during those
estimates that there was not much concern
or much being done now to drive employ-
ables into work. Yet here we have in Peter-
borough a welfare administrator saying that
the recipients are required to rei)ort twice
a week to the welfare office and give a
detailed statement of their job-seeking efforts.
They are required to be at the office at nine
in the morning and if they are late they lose
a day's pay— I presume that means a day's
allowance— if they should fail to show up
for work, if they had a work project, they
should go to jail.
Yet in the Metro area of Toronto, we have
3,565 people classified as able to work and
this administrator does not do any checking
on them. I do not understand the difference
because this is an Act and a law under gen-
eral welfare assistance. If the Minister can
explain any difference, I would be interested
in knowing it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
Act is explicit in that a person in need
means a person who, by reason of inability
to obtain regular employment, is unable to
provide adequately for himself, and so on.
One of the duties incumbent upon a welfare
administrator, the local administrator, is to
satisfy himself that there is an inability to
find employment; that a person is in need
because of inability to find employment.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in the
last estimates the Minister intimated that
APRIL 22, 1969
3449
that part of the Act was not being carried
out. I said, "Well, if it is not being carried
out, let us delete it." We find it is being
carried out with a vengeance in one area
and it is not being carried out in Toronto
because of a lack of staflF.
I am concerned that the Minister is not
concerned that The General Welfare As-
sistance Act is not administered the same
way throughout the whole of the province,
being an Ontario statute. With all due
respect, I am surprised to see the Minister
have to rise and read that section of the Act.
Even after just one year I am getting to
know the sections by heart, and that one is
a particularly grievous one.
From the Peterborough Examiner, June 15
—reduced payments are proposed:
County council decided to register a
strong protest with The Ontario Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services over
mandatory welfare payments. One reeve
asserted tfiat if this were not eflFective, he
would reduce his undefeated motion to
pay recipients two-thirds of the rate set
down by the province. Other reeves sug-
gested trying to raise low-area wages.
Mr. Chairman, part of the problem of that
type of statement coming out of an area is
that the municipalities cannot afford it— and
we will go into that in some detail later.
From the Peterborough Examiner, October
9, 1968:
County council endorsed a motion to
take action to rectify the apparent inequi-
ties between low wages and welfare pay-
ments in the area. They heard that welfare
costs that July totalled $27,859 compared
. to 417,629 from July, 1967.
I think that must be an error. It should prob-
ably be $17,000. Mr. Chairman, I will check
that. I think the dollar sign is a "4".
The welfare advisory committee was
criticized for not discussing the matter with
provincial officials as directed by council.
The welfare advisory committee, Mr. Chair-
man, are not talking to the Minister and the
Minister is obviously not talking to the ad-
ministrators.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is not so, Mr.
Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: If it is no so, Mr. Chair-
man, could I ask, with all due respect, if the
Minister has discussed the strong protest to
the Ontario government over mandatory wel-
fare payments from Victoria county. Has that
discussion taken place?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Just as recentiy as
yesterday. What is today, Tuesday or Wed-
nesday?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Tuesday.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Tuesday. As recently
as 36 hours ago.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is most encourag-
ing to me, Mr. Chairman, because when I
see this provincial scene of general welfare
administration, I wonder why it is not all
under one Act, where it can be directed
properly from this level.
From the Lindsay Post,, November 23:
More investigation needed. Members of
county council came in for a share of the
blame for high welfare costs. Some reeves
maintained it was their duty to assist the
welfare administrator. Council moved to
hire an additional field worker to concen-
trate in the north end of the county where
administrator Robert Martin claimed, "We
do not have the help for in-depth investiga-
tion of every case."
From the Lindsay Post, November 27, and I
have marked this one "attitudes":
County council moved to send a delega-
tion to talk to the Premier about their feel-
ings on welfare.
"These people who are receiving more
from welfare than they can earn at a local
job are being deprived of the opportunity
to contribute to society," said Reeve Childs.
The motion passed, despite the statement
by the administrator that only 18 or 19
employable heads of families were on wel-
fare out of 400 or 500 on the rolls.
So the mandatory nature of the payments
again came under criticism.
I can see, Mr. Chairman, why the Minister
might very well have been talking to them
recently.
From the Lindsay Post coming up as
recently as January 28, 1969, "A brief to gov-
ernment":
A special committee of county councils
prepared a brief to be submitted to the
Ontario government in somewhat more
sophisticated form than the general level
of debate within the council over the
past few months.
The brief called for:
1. Raising the minimum wage to $1.50
an hoiu".
2. To encourage recipients to work— a
small percentage of temporary money
3450
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
earned not to be deducted from welfare
benefits.
3. Permitting the municipality to bill a
recipient for welfare benefits once he is
re-established in an adequate paying job.
4. More courses for rehabilitation of un-
employed persons.
Might I ask, Mr. Chairman, if that brief has
been received?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Thirty-six hours ago.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you. The next
item, Mr. Chairman, on Reeve Everett
Cameron, has been dealt with at an earUer
time.
So then we will move along in the prov-
ince, Mr. Chairman, because that way we
will get some idea whether it is working in
some parts of the province and not working
in others.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mrs. M. Renwick: In Cornwall, use by the
municipahty—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, could I
please ask for order in the House?
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you. Use by
municipalities of their discretionary powers
to determine when a welfare applicant has
made a reasonable effort to secure employ-
ment. These areas, Mr. Chairman, cover
Cornwall, Welland county, Victoria county,
Hamilton, and Hastings county.
1. The case of the city of Cornwall. Corn-
wall Standard Freeholder, May 28, 1968:
Spurred on by welfare administrator
Francis Flannigan, and welfare chairman
Norman Barrow, city council last night de-
clared war on single men who are able but
unwilling to work, and men who refuse to
support their families.
Motions to amend The General Welfare
Assistance Act will be presented to the June
annual meeting of the Welfare Officers'
Association of Ontario.
Alderman Barrow recommended that all
single men be refused welfare assistance
until such time as they have proof of em-
ployment, and then assistance would be
granted only until that person receives his
first pay.
And so the war begins, Mr. Chairman, on
the single unemployed.
Cornwall Standard Freeholder, January
9, 1969:
Welfare administrator Francis Flannigan
denied reports that her department ha-
rassed welfare recipients through compel-
ling them to report on certain days of the
week. She said, "This is wrong. The city
has had 235 employable males on welfare
benefits since last April. It was decided to
channel some into the labour force by
having them report daily and advise them
of jobs as they became available".
The number of days recipients report
has since been reduced to three times a
week. Since the programme has been in
progress, the number of imemployed has
been drastically reduced. The figure in the
month of November, 1968, was down to 95
re-employable males.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the
Minister that if we are going to have this
type of activity on the municipal scene, then
we have to have it clearly outlined by law in
the Act as to how many times these people
are to report for work, and to whom they are
to report.
To continue:
In response to a question in the Legisla-
lature from Donald MacDonald, leader of
the NDP, Mr. Yaremko replied that the
Cornwall programme was developed to
assist recipients in achieving independence.
Mr. MacDonald agreed that it is desirable
to find employment for recipients, but by
the same token he did not agree that a
recipient is a second class citizen or a
parasite, or that he should be harassed into
taking employment where his wages are
only to going to give him a substandard
living, where there are no means available
to subsidize his income.
That is the point, Mr. Chairman, that the
Minister has to make under the provisions of
the Act— that you cannot force people into
taking any job— and if we are going to have
this system which he has allowed under his
General Welfare Assistance Act, in spite of
the fact that the Canada Assistance Plan does
not designate that sort of activity, then it is
up to the Minister to outline exactly what
steps the municipalities may or may not take.
From the Globe ir Mail, January 24, 1969,
the comments of two Cornwall welfare recip-
ients :
It costs me $4 every two weeks to get
across town every day to that welfare oflBce.
I would not mind doing this if it would get
me a job, but so far there has not been any.
APRIL 22, 1969
3451
After a while you feel as if you are no
good. First you feel that they think you are
no good, then you start getting that feeling
yourself.
So, Mr. Chairman, as I say to the Minister,
if we are going to have it mandatory that
some people are going to consider what
employment, then we have to consider what
it is costing them to get there, especially in
the case of an area where it was cut down to
just three times a week. That is shocking.
From a Cornwall welfare recipient:
It has more or less made you feel like
a second class citizen; as if some of your
rights were being taken away from you.
Let us put it this way, it is not only a hard-
ship, it is an embarrassment.
The Toronto attitudes are different and this
is what I would like to point out to the hon.
Minister. In both Toronto and Cornwall, em-
ployable recipients must report at least twice
monthly to local Canada Manpower centres,
but in Toronto they have to visit the welfare
office twice a month at the most, according to
Raymond Tomlinson, director of welfare
administration.
There are still people who think you should
treat them as nasty as possible and they will
stay away from you out of sheer fright, but
we do not operate that way. We believe in
giving them what courtesy we can and I
would say, Mr. Chairman, the onus is on the
Minister to see that the Act is administered
in that fashion throughout the province. In
Welland county, the attitude toward recip-
ients :
People on welfare and able to work
should be employed by government as
labourers, instead of sitting around with
their feet in the air and having their bills
paid for them.
So suggested Fort Erie Reeve, Clare Berger,
at Welland County Council during discussions
on a report which showed there were 256
employable men on the county welfare roles
in April, 1968.
However, social service administrator, D. C.
Gordon, pointed out that the majority of
people on welfare have trouble getting work
because they are unskilled, yet they have so
little education they cannot even receive job
training.
So there, Mr. Chairman, council wrote to
The Ontario Department of Social and Family
Services asking for comment on their work-
for-welfare proposal, and the reply stated that
the department was now discussing the pos-
sibility of such proposals, but at present time
such an arrangement is not possible.
So to go back to the two points of view
that we see between the Fort Erie reeve and
the social welfare administrator. Obviously
the administrator is more modem and more
up to date in his view on social assistance,
and the reeve is probably plagued, Mr. Chair-
man, by watching the dollars. So I would like
to ask the Minister that in this reply stating
that the department is now discussing the
possibility of such a proposal, is the province
considering work for welfare?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the mat-
ter which was referred to in the correspon-
dence relates to that programme which is
called "Work Activity Programmes under the
Canada Assistance Plan". These are things
which will be worked out with the federal
autliorities, and they are based not merely on
the idea of finding employment for people,
but to create, to deal with the persons, and
to re-instill, or instill, the inclination and
desire to work in those people who, by reason
of circumstances have lost that initiative or
that desire to work. One of the main projects
is how you get that person motivated to go
back to work, and that is the type of pro-
gramme referred to.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to read into the record the work activity
projects from the Canada Assistance Plan. It
is a brief paragraph, section 14.
An hon. member: Is that necessary?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, I read it in last
year and nothing happened. Maybe if I read
it in again this year something will happen.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, work
activity projects were very carefully outlined
in the Canada Assistance Plan and section 14,
item ( a ) :
In this part, work activity project means
a project the purpose of wliich is to pre-
pare for entry or return to employment,
persons in need or likely to become persons
in need who, because of environmental
personal or family reasons, have unusual
difficulty in obtaining or holding employ-
ment, or in improving through participation
in technical or vocational training pro-
grammes or rehabilitation programmes their
ability to obtain and hold employment.
That does not mean putting people into a
plan that is already in existence, such as the
3452
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
federal retraining programme. This means the
provincial government, w^hich is receiving
millions of dollars under the Canada Assist-
ance Plan, has, as its responsibility, a system
of rehabihtating persons, and not only those,
but the persons Likely to become dei)endent.
To v^'ind up this, Mr. Chairman, the city of
Hamilton, is a little more sophisticated-
Mr. Chairman: This is repetition now. The
hon. member has related to the committee,
the situation in several difFerent municipahties.
Now there must be some limit to the number
of municipahties in which she is going to
recite the circumstances that exist.
I feel, as Chairman, that I have been very,
very lenient in permiting all hon. members to
pursue their debates in this manner. However,
it does seem to me that the hon. member for
Scarborough Centre is becoming repetitious
in repeating all of this information about so
many different municipalities.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think
the important thing we have to understand,
Mr. Chairman, is whether this is a local ad-
ministrative problem or a problem of a poor
county. We have to imderstand whether it is
a system that is prevalent throughout the
province. I did not take, by any means, the
number that are available. I took Cornwall-
yes, there were three in Cornwall— and sec-
ondly Welland. I cancelled one in Victoria
county titled "Worker Jailed", because it had
been dealt with. The city of Hamilton, Mr.
Chairman, and Belleville will v^dnd up my
remarks and I would ask your indulgence—
Not my remarks, Mr. Chairman, but my re-
marks on this particular problem.
An hon. member: Oh, you had us hopeful!
Mrs. M. Renwick: The item on the city of
Hamilton, 120 special cases— 120 special—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You're nagging again,
Margaretl
Mr. Chairman: Well if the hon. member is
going repeat similar circumstances in another
municipality, it is repetition and rule 17, I
beUeve, relates to the matter of repetition.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well all right, Mr. Chair-
man. Fortunately for me this is not repetition
in any sense because this is now dealing with
the fact that some municipahties have what
are called "special cases".
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Fortunately for you,
but what about the rest of us?
Mr. Lewis: Why do you not repeat what
you said last night?
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Chairman, this might be a good point at
which to move that we rise and report.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves that the committee
of supply rise and report progress and ask for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks for
leave to sit again.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will go to tlie
order paper to consider legislation that is
ready.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the House leader would advise us
of what legislation is ready?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Anything that is on the
order paper.
Mr. J. Renwick: Anything on the order
paper?
D. C. MacDonald (York South): Well,
we, for example, have some guidance
Mr
could
as to whether or not we are proceeding with
the cats and dogs since the Minister indicated
to us tliat he would not proceed until he had
received representations from the Humane
Society?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I doubt if we will readi
that particular legislation.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): What
about The Professional Engineers Act, are we
likely to reach that tomorrow?
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjourmnent of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:05 o'clock, p.m.
No. 93
ONTARIO
Hegislature of (I^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT -DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, April 23, 1969
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 23, 1969
Ontario liquor laws and regulations, statement by Mr. Welch 3455
Federal-provincial conference in June, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon and
Mr. MacDonald 3457
Bell Telephone rate increases, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon 3459
OHSC and wage increases, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon 3459
Master-Met Cobalt Mines Ltd., question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Farquhar 3460
DDT concentrations in Lake Michigan, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Paterson 3460
Output at Douglas Point, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Ben 3461
Sales tax regulations on restaurant food purchases, questions to Mr. White, Mr. Ben and
Mr. Jackson 3461
Sulphur dioxide emissions at Copper ClifiF, question to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Martel . 3462
Hydro and telephone rates at Lakehead city, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Knight 3464
Northeastern psychiatric hospital, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ferrier 3464
Cooks in northern Hydro camps, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Stokes 3464
Master-Met Cobalt Mines Ltd., questions to Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Jackson 3465
Drunkenness in a public place, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Lawlor 3465
Justices of the peace, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Bullbrook 3466
Mr. Joseph Viner, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Makarchuk 3467
Inquests into infants' deaths, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mrs. M. Renwick 3469
Inquest into death of Mr. William Smith, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 3471
Heat provision in OHC units, question to Mr. Randall, Mrs. M. Renwick 3471
City of the Lakehead, bill respecting, Mr. McKeough, on second reading 3471
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Knight, agreed to 3500
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3500
3455
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, April 23, 1969
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Our guests this afternoon in
the Speaker's gallery are members of the
Peace Bridge Area Women's Liberal Asso-
ciation in Fort Erie; and in the east gallery
students from Maiden Public School in
Amherstburg and members of the Current
Affairs Club, Hill Park Secondary School in
Hamilton. In the west gallery are students
from Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School in
London and Fairbank Senior Public School
in Toronto.
Later this afternoon, in the east gallery,
we will have students from Walkerton
District Secondary School in Walkerton and
from Vincent Massey Secondary School in
Windsor.
Petitions.
I
;r^ Presenting reports.
I ; Motions.
I . Introduction of bills.
The hon. Minister of Mines.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to point out
to you, sir, and to the House, a fact I am
sure you know, that today is St. George's
Day.
On St. George's Day, sir, I think it is
traditional that we salute Englishmen and the
people who have come from England. After
all, sir, in this House and in this country—
for that matter, throughout the English
speaking world— the Englishman has been
traditionally looked upon as the advocate of
all that is fair and equitable and all that
which stands for justice.
I wonder if I may ask the members of the
House who would like I am sure, with one
or two exceptions perhaps, to join with me in
a salute to the Englishmen today.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the
comments made by the Minister of Mines.
He comes from the constituency of St.
George, and I happen to live in the village
of St. George. The only thing I have to
mention is that Englishmen and those of
English descent have now joined the main-
stream, I suppose, of the population mix in
this country, except for this interesting fact:
While it is no longer possible for individuals
in politics or in the community to express or
even hold any views that would tend to be
prejudicial against any particular group, the
only one that is now permissible is an atti-
tude, openly stated, against Englishmen and
so this is the progress that we have made
over the years.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, lest silence would be interpreted as
being opposed to all Englishmen on St.
George's Day I hasten to add my words to
those of the hon. Minister of Mines and the
leader of the Opposition.
Perhaps this is a point in which I might
confess, in spite of the name Donald Cam-
eron MacDonald, I am more English than
Scottish. My mother was bom in England
and I have to go back three generations for
Scottish birth.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Provincial Secretary
has a statement.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the spirit of
St. George's Day; I would like to advise the
House of a few matters. Indeed, as a result
of the Cabinet conmiittee review of On-
tario's liquor laws and regulations, the gov-
ernment has authorized the chairman of the
Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, His Honour
Judge W. T. Robb, to announce the follow-
ing changes, which will become effective on
Monday, May 12.
Mr. Nixon: If they are bad ones, the Pro-
vincial Secretary should armounce them him-
self.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker— this will be
a matter of value judgment as to whether
they are good or bad. In fact, I would be
interested in having that on the record.
5456
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1. The 11.30 p.m. Saturday night closing
hour will be extended to 1.00 a.m. on Sun-
day. Such extended hours will apply to all
licensed facilities.
2. The hours of sale and service of liquor
in all licensed premises will be uniform,
namely, 12.00 noon to 1.00 a.m. Monday to
Saturday.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Is
that daylight saving?
Hon. Mr. Welch: The time recognized by
the municipality.
Mr. B. Newman: What if a municipality
recognizes both?
Hon. Mr. Welch: It cannot, officially.
3. The hours of sale on Sunday of liquor
with meals will be extended so that sale
and service will be during a continuous period
from 12.00 noon to 10.00 p.m.
4. The sale and service of liquor with meals
which prevailed on Christmas Day, 1968, will
be applicable in future to Good Friday. The
hours of sale on both Ghristmas Day and
Good Friday will be treated as Sunday sale,
12.00 noon to 10.00 p.m. and under the same
circumstances as Sunday.
5. Special occasion permits will be issued
for the sale of liquor with or without meals
on Sunday for international, national and pro-
vincial conventions between the hours of
12.00 noon and 10.00 p.m. Special occasion
permits may also be issued on Sunday to
other than the aforesaid international, national
or provincial conventions provided tliat they
meet the Sunday regulations with respect to
meals.
And No. 6, with the upcoming summer sea-
son, the board will now proceed to give
consideration to the licensing of patios. Also,
Mr. Speaker, I should mention that in the
near future necessary changes will be made
to provide for unrestricted seating of male
and female patrons in beverage rooms and
public houses on application to the board.
Mr. Speaker, this is an ongoing review
under continuous study, and I want to under-
line tliat. Many matters are yet to be con-
sidered and reported upon, including the
requests which are contained in the brief of
the Royal Canadian Legion. The whole matter
of licensed designations and, indeed, the many
other matters which have been brought to
our attention by interested individuals, associ-
ations and groups throughout the province in
response to the invitation by the government
to the people of Ontario to share with us,
their views on this whole matter of our social
customs and individual behaviour in this
subject.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): A question
of the Minister pertaining to this. Gould the
Minister advise me whether it is acceptable
at this time to apply for a permit for a
Liberal rally on a Sunday afternoon, through
you, would that be acceptable?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that if it is, was—
what is the name of that group again you
wanted to— was that a small "1" or a big "L"?
If it meets the qualifications of a federal
or provincial convention I am sure it would
qualify from what I have said; otherwise, it
would have to serve a banquet as part of its
meeting.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): How do you hold a convention in
a telephone booth?
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Call it a
Tory convention.
Mr. E. Sai-gent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
would the Minister on a matter of clarifica-
tion, advise what consideration was given to
the repeal of the local option in tourist resort
areas, like the great Bruce Peninsula and
Owen Sound— what consideration?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I might
say, because of that very objective question
which has come from the member opposite,
that the whole question of local option and
the matters relating thereto— particularly those
he mentioned — are still included on the
agenda of things yet to be considered and
finalized.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I beg leave from the House to
withdraw resolution No. 17 standing in my
name. I would ask the unanimous consent
of the House to allow me to withdraw this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member the
inianimous consent of the House to with-
drawal of this resolution standing in his
name?
Unanimous consent agreed.
Mr. Speaker: I would like also, before the
orders of the day, to draw the attention of
the members to the memo from Mr. Speaker's
office on your desk with respect to the visit
to the McLaughlin Planetarium a week from
APRIL 23, 1969
3457
tomorrow evening, Thursday May 1. This is
a courtesy extended to us by the board of
directors and director of the museum and
planetarium. I am sure that most members
will wish to avail themselves of it, and I
have arranged with the party leaders that we
may rise that evening from six until 8.30,
w'hich I am assured by Doctor Swann is
sufficient time to allow us to carry out the
programme which you will find in tihe memo.
I would, however, ask that you let me know
by the end of this week if you anticipate
being there because it is necessary to have the
numbers for obvious purposes over at the
museum.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question for the
Premier.
Will Opposition representatives be invited
as observers to the federal-provincial con-
ference to be held in Ottawa in June?
Second, has the Premier been approached
by representatives of any organization of
municipal officials requesting representation at
the federal-provincial conference on matters
pertaining to local jurisdiction?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): If the
hon. member for York South could submit
his question I will deal with them at once.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, a simple question.
Is it the government's intention to include
Opposition leaders in the Ontario delegation
to the June Constitutional Conference?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I might
say in answer to the first question posed by
the leader of the Opposition and the question
posed by tlie member for York South that I,
too, read the press reports this morning con-
cerning the attitude taken by the Prime Min-
ister of Canada to this particular constitu-
tional conference. It does seem to me that
in reading those news reports there probably
is likely to be some debate prior to the hold-
ing of this conference on just what form it is
to take.
I think hon. members are aware of the fact
that it has been suggested that this confer-
ence not be open to television, and I do not
know whether this includes the press or not.
So I do not find myself in the x>osition this
afternoon where I can give a definitive
answer, a yes or no answer. It seems to me
that we are evolving this method of holding
conferences. There have been changes made.
As members recall, we opened up the Con-
federation of Tomorrow Conference to tele-
vision. We thought it was a good thing to
do and I still feel that way. The last two
conferences in Ottawa have been held open
to the press and I felt that it was the proper
thing to do.
On the other hand, there has been the sug-
gestion made that this conference to take
place in June is a somewhat different type
of conference, and I would want to see what
are the attitudes of some of the other govern-
ment leaders.
If you recall, at the last conference in
Februar>', you came in as observers and not
as members of the delegation. Now the
Prime Minister of Canada has said, if this
news report is correct, that he does not pro-
pose to invite any members of the Opposition
as observers from either the House of Com-
mons or from any of the provinces as
observers.
This would mean then, I suppose, at least
one interpretation could be, that if anyone
from the Opposition were to attend it would
have liim as part of the official delegation
from Ontario. This would, in my opinion,
pose certain difficulties, but I make these
comments because I repeat that I feel we are
evolving a form of consultation here, and I
think it is going to take some discussion
among the provinces.
I would hke to know what the attitude of
some of tlie other provinces is to the com-
ments made by the Prime Minister of Can-
ada. Certainly it is my own opinion that the
greater participation there is in some of these
discussions, the more valuable the discus-
sions can be.
On the other hand it might be a little
difficult if we faced a position where mem-
bers of the Opposition were to take part in
all the preliminary discussions of this gov-
ei-nment as part of the delegation tliat is
going to the conference. I can see some real
difficulties arising in a situation such as that.
So let me just simply say that I would be
happy to take this matter up with Mr.
Trudeau, and I hope that I will have the
benefit of the opinions of some of the leaders
of the other provincial governments. We are
only one of 11 participants in these confer-
ences.
As a matter of general interest and general
approach, I do not move from the position
that we liave taken consistently. One of my
objections, of course, to having these meetings
in private is that they are really not in pri-
vate at all. It just happens to be who a re-
porter happens to talk to, and when he
happens to leave the conference to make his
comments, and it seems to me that everyone
might be l^etter served if the press heard
3458
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
what was said themselves and made their
own comments instead of getting it second
hand.
On tlie other hand I think it must be
ol)vious to anyone who is aware of what
\\ e are tr>'ing to do that diere will have to be,
at some stage of the game, in some form,
some discussions that probably will not be
open to the press, television, radio, and neces-
sarily to tlie Opposition parties. So against
that background I am going to proceed to
discuss die whole procedure of this confer-
ence v/ith those other leaders of government
who will participate.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I might com-
ment on what the Premier has just said.
It was not my interpretation of the state-
ment of the Prime Minister of Canada that
lie was not going to invite obsen^ers himself.
I think he made it plain that he was not
going to involve t)ie Opposition parties of
Parliament in tlie federal delegation, but the
responsibility was for the provincial Premier
to make their own decisions. I would agree
with the Premier that when he states certain
objections to including myself and the mem-
l:)er for—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. leader would
recognize that this is not a debate; that if
he wishes to ask a question he is entitled to
do so.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps I could preface this
with some sort of an interrogative phrase,
such as: Would the Premier not agree that
there arc certain difficulties in including
people from this side in the official delega-
tion? For one thing I would not want to be
included in the official delegation, because
it is my responsibility when called upon to
do so to disagree with the stand officially
taken by Ontario. Nevertlieless I am sure that
Mr. Speaker would—
Interjections by hon, members.
Mr. Nixon: Surely this is a matter of suffi-
cient importance so that we can have an
exchange of views in this question period.
Would the Premier not agree, Mr. Speaker,
that it is necessary for members on this side
to be aware of stands taken by the govern-
ment in these important discussions? I would
certainly hope that he would give serious
consideration to asking representatives of the
Opposition parties to attend as observers,
with the understanding that we have a respon-
sibility similar to his in these matters.
Mr. MacDonald: Before the Prime Minis-
ter replies, may I just make this brief com-
ment. As I understand what the leader of
the Opposition has said, I would agree, but
I think it is possible to make a distinction
between being an official member of the dele-
gation and l)eing an observer within the
delegation. The leader of the Opposition and
I could go out for tea when the government
lias its secret meetings to decide on their
strategy, and what it is going to present.
Mr. Nixon: No, we can go out for tea and—
Mr. MacDonald: But in terms of the con-
ference itself, which I think is the important
fomm, we would be observers, but I suppose
within the context that the Premier finds him-
self, we would be part of the Ontario dele-
gation,
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, at the risk
of offending the rules of the House I think
this matter is important enough that it war-
rants an exchange of opinions such as we are
having here. I just note, and as I say I am
taking this purely from the press, that it does
say, "Mr. Trudeau indicated that there would
be no bar to individual provinces bringinig
members of tlieir Opposition as part of their
delegation." At the last conference there was
a section in the conference room set aside for
observers and there were observers there from
a host of areas. I do not know at this stage
of the game whether there is going to be
any such physical accommodation.
Mr. Nixon: Sure, there will be.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, all right, the
leader of the Opposition speaks with sudi
great authority, he probably has great in-
fluence with Mr. Trudeau.
Mr. Nixon: No, no; we will find a place.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, that is not my point.
I make the point very clear, I do not have
the conduct of this conference. It is not the
responsibihty of Ontario, we did not call the
conference. I can say wliat my opinion might
be and I can put opinions, but inevitably I
will have to agree with either the govern-
ment of Canada and the Prime Minister of
Canada, the man who called the conference,
or with some agreement that may be reached
by all diose participating. j
I can tell you quite frankly I woidd have j
no objection whatsoever to inviting you to j
attend as observers; on the other hand, that '^
does not mean that I do not recognize that I
some of these conferences are going to have
to be held in private. But if the Prime Min-
ister of Canada agrees with me and, let us
APRIL 23, 1969
8459
say, six of the other Premiers of Canada do
not agree with me, it may be a Httle difficult
for me to impose my will on such a power-
ful group of men.
So you see, I really have not the full
decision myself. But I tiiink my own position
in this matter has been made very clear both,
by word and by deed, over the period of the
last few years.
One other question, Mr. Speaker, that I
did not answer is whether I have been ap-
proached by representatives of any other
organization. No, I have not. But I know that
the Canadian Federation of Mayors and
Reeves did, I believe, make some such repre-
sentation to the government of Canada, to
Mr. Trudeau, when they presented their
annual brief. Then there is some discussion
in this news report about that which obviously
raises some constitutional difficulty. So I
think we will probably have to have an ex-
change of correspondence in order to straight-
en this out.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of the Attorney General:
Does the Attorney General intend to inter-
vene in the Bell Telephone rate increase
application due to be heard May 20 in
Ottawa?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, we filed notice of intention of
intervention some time ago and we are pre-
paring our case to that end.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Attorney Gen-
eral can inform the House if the government
of the province is going to assist the munici-
pal leaders in the intervention that they are
preparing as well? I think in the past the
government did assist them in the preparation
of their position.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: In a previous applica-
tion where the company was seeking not an
increase in rates, but an increase of return
on capital investment, we assisted mimici-
pahties by financial assistance to their coim-
sel and dieir expense. In this case, we are
proceeding separately as a province to present
the case on behalf of the pubHc.
Mr. MacDonald: The first time since 1926.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And the municipalities
are proceeding, I assume, on a somewhat
parallel course.
Mr. Nixon: If I could ask the Attorney
General, are the terms of reference in the
preparation for the intervention to blanket
opnosition to the position put forward by the
Bell?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would not say it is
expressed in those terms at the moment.
Mr. Nixon: Well, what are you going to do
down there?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, if I must reveal
our case, which I am quite prepared to do as
far as I can at this moment, we are asking
for complete disclosure of returns of the
nature of the industry, a segregation of the
different types of industry that is carried on
by this company, which is not only con-
cerned with communication, but is also a
manufacturer of various things. Then we will
be able to assess the validity, the logic, the
reason behind its application for an increase
in rates.
So before we know whether we should
entirely oppose it, we want to know whether
their application is justffied, and in order to
know how far it may be justffied we must
have a great deal of information. That we
are seeking. But our position is to protect
the public in this whole matter.
Mr. Nixon: Where is the preparation
carried out, in the department or has the
Minister retained outside advice for this?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: We have retained out-
side assistance.
Mr. Nixon: Could the Minister tell us who
it was?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Perhaps I can get it for
the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader has a further
question of the Minister of Health if he
wishes to place it.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of
the board of arbitration decision at Peel
Memorial Hospital in Brampton to recom-
mend wage increases beyond the maximum
eight per cent allowed by Ontario Hospital
Services Commission guidelines, what action
will the Minister take to see that new pay
rates do not have to be met entirely from
local funds?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the
Minister has no authority in this matter at
all. That this is the responsibility of the
hospital services commission under the terms
of its legislation.
However, senior representatives of the
commission will discuss with hospital officials
3460
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the cost of implementing the arbitration
award, and review with them the extent to
which funds can be provided from approved
budget for 1969 by means of impro\'ed tech-
niques, better methods and other manage-
ment practices. When the internal savings
ha\e been jointly evaluated, then it may be
necessary to review and revise the total
budget.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask the Minister if it
is possible under these circumstances for the
OHSC to depart from the guidelines if local
conditions seem to warrant it?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It could be, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question which flows rather naturally from
what the Minister has just been discussing—
to the same Minister. It is in four parts:
1. Does the OHSC set ceilings on hospital
costs by categories such as wages, food, etc?
2. Is it accurate that a hospital must get
permission from the OHSC to switch funds
from one category to another?
3. Was the Toronto General Hospital re-
cently exempted from these procedures and
given blanket authority to spend its budget
as it sees fit?
4. How many other hospitals have asked
for such authority?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, may I
take this question as notice? I was out of
my office when it came in and I have not
been able to get the information. I will have
it tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma-
Manitoulin.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the hon.
Premier.
Is the government prepared to provide
$15,000 to 200 Cobalt residents who are fight-
ing to save their homes which are located on
a five-acre property belonging to Master Met-
Cobalt Mines Ltd.?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am not
in a position to answer the question as
phrased. I can only tell the hon. member
that there is a meeting taking place now, or
just recently concluded, with a group from
Cobalt plus senior people from The Depart-
ment of Municipal Afi^airs, and they are go-
ing into the problem. I have no personal
knowledge of the problem that he mentions,
but it is being dealt with at the moment in
The Department of Municipal AflFairs. No
doubt an answer will be forthcoming in due
course.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex
South.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Premier of
Ontario.
Was Ontario invited to attend a meeting
of the governors of five mid-west states to
discuss the health hazard brought about by
DDT and insecticide concentrations in Lake
Michigan?
Has an assessment been made by Ontario
authorities of such concentrations in oiir Great
Lakes water system?
Has Ontario been asked to participate in a
monitoring programme to test the Great Lakes
and their tributaries for pesticide concentra-
tions in the water?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, one year
ago at a governors' meeting a committee of
experts was established to report on pesticide
problems in Lake Michigan. A representative
of the OWRC served on that committee of
experts to provide what expert information
he had and could contribute. Information that
he was able to give to this committee was
part of the presentation made by the com-
mittee to the second governors' conference
held in February, 1969, so that is our involve-
ment with the governors' coirferenoe.
In answer to the second question, there is
a co-operative monitoring programme at pres-
ent under way in Ontario among the OWRC,
The Department of Lands and Forests, and
The Department of Agriculture and Food.
To date, some 50 lakes and rivers have been
examined and this monitoring programme is
on a continuous basis.
In answer to the third question, yes, we
have undertaken investigation of a monitor-
ing programme to test the Great Lakes and
tributaries. T;his is being done as part of our
contribution to the studies of pollution in
Lakes Ontario and Erie, and those studies are
under the jurisdiction of the International
loint Commission which is carrying out a
broad study of pollution in these international
waterways. The information that we have
been able to gather through that monitoring
programme forms part of the report which is
being submitted, probably today, by a board
of technical advisors to the International Joint
Commission which is meeting in Washington.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, as a supple-
mentary question, might I ask the Premier,
APRIL 23, 1969
S461
of the 50 lakes that were studied, has it
come to the attention of the government that
any one or more than one these lakes might
have had a higher than normal concentration
of DDT?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Si)€aker, I do not
know that I could answer that without going
into a full study of what they have fovmd.
There is no doubt about it that the presence
of DDT in some of our lakes is a matter of
real concern. I would not attempt to say that
it was not, and that is why these programmes
are being carried out. It has not been brought
to my attention that we have yet discovered
levels that would cause us greater than,
should I say, general concern. The general
concern is probably that we cannot continue
doing what we have been doing for these
many years, but on the other hand, I am
not aware of any specific case where there is
cause for alarm.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
ber.
Mr. G. Ben (Huanber): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question of the hon. Minister of Energy
and Resources Management.
How many kilowatts have been produced
at Douglas Point?
What was its peak and what was the
longest continuous period of operation to
date?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
Douglas Point has produced approximately
951 milMon kilowat hours to date. Its peak
output has been 222 megawatts gross. Its
longest single period of continuous operation
to date has been 21 days.
Mr. Ben: May I ask a supplementary ques-
tion of the Minister? When did it first come
into operation? When was it scheduled to
come into operation?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry
I do not have that information in the Hoiise.
If you would like to call Hydro, I am sure
they would give you the information you are
requesting.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of
the hon. Minister of Revenue.
Does the Minister believe that racial dis-
crimination is being practised when take-out
orders of fried chicken are exempted from
the new 10 per cent sales tax, while take-
out orders of pizza and egg foo yong are not
exempted from the same tax?
Secondly, why is chicken chow mien not
exempted since it contains chicken?
Mr. Speaker: Tjhe hon. member for Timis-
kaming has a similar question.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Why are
take-out chickens exempt from the sales tax
placed on all other restaurant food purchases
of over $2.50, whether eaten on the premises
or taken out?
Mr. Speaker, why is the Minister "chicken"
about chicken?
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it might be reason-
able to try to deal with the question of the
hon. member for Timiskaming first.
We do charge the tax if chicken is sent
with gravy and/or cole slaw and/or potatoes.
We deem it to be a meal in those circum-
stances and, therefore, taxable. I would
remind the House that the select committee
said that they could see no diEerence from a
tax point of view between meals eaten on
the premises of the vendor and meals taken
out and eaten elsewhere.
So this was an attempt to meet that par-
ticular recommendation and, in fact, we
have the support of the industry generally
speaking, because the onus has been on the
vendor to prove that the meals were taken
off his premises. This was very difficult for
him to do on occasion. Therefore, he was
left bearing some or all of the costs.
Generally speaking, the application was, I
think, recommended and well accepted.
There are a small number of instances
where this is somewhat troublesome, and
now, dealing specifically with take-out chicken
as I mentioned, if it is chicken and some-
thing else it is classified as a meal and be-
comes taxable. If it is a large mound of
chicken and nothing but chicken, it is con-
sidered bulk food as if one had bought the
chicken in a supermarket.
This is the interpretation that has been
placed on this—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. White: —placed on this in every
other jurisdiction in North America so far
as we have determined, and it seems to be a
rather reasonable application of the tax.
I think that this is not a form of racial
discrimination. I myself had take-out Chinese
food last Saturday night with some friends of
mine in my ovvm home. I think there is no
strong positive correlation between one's
racial background and the type of food that
3462
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
one consumes, and so my answer to the
first part of the question from the hon.
member for Humber is no.
Why is chicken chow mien not exempted?
Well, it would be if it were sold as a bulk
food in a supermarket or some such place,
but if it constitutes one of the several ele-
ments in a take-out order it is deemed a
meal and is taxable for the reasons I gave
earlier.
Mr. Ben: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, would
the Minister accept a supplementary ques-
tion?
As I said before, I think he is taking
orders from Colonel Sanders, but does the
Minister know anyone who has had egg foo
yong with gravy and cole slaw?
Hon. Mr. White: No, I do not.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, does the Min-
ister not feel that it is ridiculous to tax food
stuflF in any form?
Hon. Mr. White: We are not taxing foods
as you know. The select committee certainly
did not recommend that meals be exempted.
The Treasurer's (Mr. MacNaughton) objec-
tive was to exempt necessary meals, if I may
express it in those words, and to tax the
more expensive luxurious meals. I infer from
certain remarks from the hon. member for
Scarborough Centre (Mrs. M. Renwick) yes-
terday that she thinks it is entirely appro-
priate that these relatively luxurious meals
should be taxable. I do not know if there
is a little division in your caucus on that or
not.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, does the Minis-
ter believe that the $2.50 meal is luxurious?
Hon. Mr. White: Well, where I come from
you can buy a very good meal for $2.50
and that is exempt. As a matter of fact, I
was in a local emporium a week ago Satur-
day and I had a very decent full course
meal for $1.25.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for
Sudbury East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of
Energy and Resources Management.
Because the construction of a new stack
by INCO at Copper ClifiF will not reduce
the amount of emission of sulphur dioxide
in the air, and because INCO announced its
intention recently to increase its production
by 30 per cent, will this not increase the
amount of SO2 being discharged into the
atmosphere?
Did the Minister of Health issue a certifi-
cate of approval to INCO, as referred to in
secion 7 of The Air Pollution Control Act,
of 1967?
Is this not a licence granted to INCO to
continue its policy of pollution?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I think
that question should be directed to the Min-
ister of Health as he is still administering
that Act.
Mr. Martel: Will Mr. Speaker redirect it
tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East has several questions. Is it agree-
able to the hon. member for Sudbury East
and the Minister of Health that this be trans-
ferred as a question for tomorrow? The hon.
member will continue.
Mr. Martel: Question of the Minister of
Mines:
Has The Department of Mines ordered a
monitor for sulphur dioxide for the Copper
Cliff Smelter? If so, how many sample points
can be connected to the analyzer and what
did this machine cost the department?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, Mr. Speaker,
the House may not appreciate that on my
assumption of this ofiBce I attempted to find
out various levels of concentration of sulphur
dioxide in the Copper Cliff smelter. Quite
frankly, sir, I was appalled to find that there
was no constant monitor of sulphur dioxide
levels in the Copper Cliff smelter itself and,
therefore, it seemed to me that both man-
agement and labour, under these circiun-
stances, and certainly the government, was
at a distinct handicap.
From that time, I have placed a great deal
of my own time and those of my o£Bcials
over the last year in going about attempting
to find if such a monitor was available. I
should relate to you, sir, that each research
lab that we have gone to has indicated to us
that certainly there should be such a monitor
in existence.
Unfortunately, they have not particularly
heard of one. I have gone around to most of
the equipment and instrument makers in
North America, all of whom say that such a
machine should not be hard to locate. The
only trouble is that they do not sell one.
With that in mind, and in view of the
matter, we have also retained the Ontario
Research Foundation for advice and we have
. APRIL 23, 1969
3463
been getting the same line of argument from
them. We have finally indicated to an in-
strument maker just exactly what we want.
We want a portable monitor. We want a
constant monitor. We want to be able to
have control of it ourselves, and move it
around ourselves. We have now ordered a
portable SO2 analyzer recorder, but I am not
quite sure in my own mind if it is exactly
what we want. I do not know if it will meet
some of the requirements of what the union
desires either, but we have ordered it at a
cost of $3,212.
The difficulty with it is that only one
sample can be taken at a time. But it is port-
able, and we want to see how it works out
before we start attempting to lay down our
rules and our regulations in respect of the
use of it. We are looking at this quite frankly,
and I think the US Bureau of Mines will
be watching our experiments quite closely,
too, to see if it really does fill all the require-
ments for everybody concerned.
We have ordered it; we have not yet
received it. The difficulty is that only one
sample can be taken at a time, but being
portable the monitor can be moved from
place to place as required. We have not yet
received delivery of it.
Mr. Martel: Well, a supplementary ques-
tion, then, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister,
again going back to Friday's question, be
wilhng to accept the offer by United Steel to
purchase a couple of these monitors to assist
his staff. They could be located under juris-
diction of The Department of Mines, since
it has exclusive rights to handle this, and
two or three of them could be located
throughout the plant, rather than just the
one.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: As the hon. mem-
ber knows, I have asked the union to furnish
me with the particulars of the type of monitor
they have in mind. So far, I have not had a
reply, but then they have only had my letter
for a few days. As soon as I find out what
the union has in mind I would be glad to
discuss this with them.
Mr. Martel: Question of the Minister of
Mines:
Can the Minister assure the workers at
Inco and Falconbridge that they will not be
penahzed by the employer if, for reasons
of health, they refuse to work in gas con-
centrations which go beyond the safety level
of five parts per million of sulphur dioxide,
and remain off work until the gas concentra-
tions are reduced to the threshold limit?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I had
no notice of this particular question. I am sure
that it was received in my office at a late
hour, but I was not able to be there. If the
hon. member will permit me to answer it
without consulting my advisors, may I merely
say that I feel the concept of our safety
legislation is exactly this— we have safety and
health legislation for the workers, for both
Inco and Falconbridge.
Therefore, if one of our engineers finds a
situation, whether it be SO2 or anything
else, that at his discretion he feels warrants
the closing of the plant, or feels some
immediate substitution of procedures, or
methods or rectification is warranted, he is
at liberty at that point— and as a matter of
fact it is his responsibility— to see that those
changes are immediately made. If there is a
stoppage of work because of our engineer's
report, then this is certainly a matter that
should be dealt with as far as negotiation
between management and labour is concerned
themselves, and something that I do not feel
that The Department of Mines should be
injected into as far as those circumstances
are concerned.
Mr. Martel: A supplementary question,
then. Is the Minister aware of the fact that
the men are regularly confronted with the
problem of an excess of concentrations of
gas of 50 to 200 parts per milHon, and it is
a grey area in that they do not know how
to react to the problem? Would the Minister,
then, undertake to advise them of their legal
rights to leave the job and not be jeopardized
by having their jobs taken away from them?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I can merely reiter-
ate, Mr. Speaker, that if levels of that con-
centration of that particular gas were found
by our engineer— and so far they have not, as
the hon. member knows— but if they were
found at those concentrations, and as a con-
stant concentration, if I make myself clear, in
the working area, then it would be the duty
or our engineers to close the place up and
send them all home, or else require manage-
ment to inmiediately rectify the situation.
So far om: engineers have not found those
circmnstances to be present, so it is a hypo-
thetical question.
Mr. Martel: I do not want to pursue it,
but did I understand the Minister correctly
when he said that gas concentrations of 50
to 200 parts per million were not found in
either the Copper Cliff smelter or the Falcon-
bridge smelter?
3464
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Let me clarify my
statement: I said that constant concentrations
wliioh would endanger the health of the
workers in the working areas have not been
yet found by our engineers, and if were
found, management would certainly be
required to rectify the situation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, thank you. I have a question for
the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Is the Minister prepared to include an
amendment to Bill 118, which would equalize
Hydro and telephone rates in the Lakehead
city as of January 1, 1970?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the rates to be
charged for Hydro and telephone are matters
to be settled by the Hydro Electric Power
Commission of the Lakehead and by the city
council respecti\ ely, and it would be neither
necessary nor desirable in our opinion to
include a rate structure in the bill itself. I am
given to understand that the oflBcials of the
utilities and of the city are both studying the
effects and are receiving a report from
Ontario Hydro as to the implementation of
equalization changes and charges.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Cochrane South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Health.
How many patients are at present unler
acti\e care at the Northeastern Psychiatric
Hospital? What is the maximum capacity' of
this hospital, and when will this hospital be
able to operate at full capacity? How many
\ acancies exist on the medical staff, and when
<l()es the Minister expect these vacancies to be
filled?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, there are
60 in-patients at present under active care at
Northeastern Psychiatric Hospital. I do not
have the numbers for the out-patient or day
care case-load. The maximum bed capacity
is 250. It is not known when the hospital
will be able to operate at full capacity, but a
goodly portion of the building is at present
being used for other purposes. One vacancy
exists on the medical staff and we are in
negotiation with a prospective candidate to
fill this position.
Mr. Ferrier: I wonder if the Minister would
accept a supplementary- question. Is the Min-
ister satisfied that the province is getting a
sufficient return by way of services from this
$5.5 million complex?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, I think we are,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment.
In view of the Minister's statement yester-
day that cooks employed in Hydro constnic-
tion camps are paid under the minimum wage
law, as it refers to the hotel, motel, tourist
resort, restaurant and tavern industry^ would
the Minister indicate in which category he
places Hydro construction camps under
section 1(e) of the regulations made under
The Employment Standards Act, 1968, par-
ticularly since he states earlier that these
cooks do not pay for their meals. If I might
add further; 1(e) states that hotel, motel,
tourist resort, restaurant and tavern industry
means-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The rules regarding
questions in this House state that they are not
to include any statement of fact, and the hon.
member is now attempting to do that. I
think the Minister is quite capable of finding
the necessary reference.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I did not
state yesterday that cooks employed in Hydro
construction camps are paid under the mini-
mum wage law as it refers to the hotel, motel,
tourist resort, restaurant and tavern industry.
I stated yesterday, and I will read my answer
again:
The rate negotiated between the Ontario
Hydro and the Hotel and Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders International Union
for the lowest level of third cook is $64.15
per week, increasing to $71.93 after six
months, plus the value of free board, which
for tax purposes is valued at $17 per week
for a 44-hour week.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that $64.15 for a 44-
hour week works out to $1.46 an hour, which
is over the minimum wage.
Mr. Stokes: As a supplementary, Mr.
Speaker, the Minister said earlier that they
were not being deducted for the value of
food and lodgings in the earlier part of our—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No. I said plus.
APRIL 23, 1969
3465
Mr. Stokes: No, but the Minister said it
was not being deducted, so it was not a part
of the hourly wage.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It is not.
Mr. Stokes: I have cheque stubs that show
they make $1.20 an hour, so how does the
Minister explain that?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I said
that we were paying them $1.45 an hour at
the lowest rate, plus they get free board and
room. If the member knows a case of some-
one who is a "cookee" or third grade cook
with Ontario Hydro and is getting less than
that. Hydro would like to know about it and
so would I,
Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister assure me
that if I provide him with the proof that
they are being paid $1.20 an hour he will
take action?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There is no need for
me to take action. This is a rate negotiated
by the union representing these people. If
you can provide me proof that somebody is
getting less I would like to know about it
and so would Hydro.
Mr. Stokes: Well, with what they are being
paid, and what the Minister says they are
obligated to pay them, there is no relevance
at ail, so I will furnish him with that proof.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is now
getting quite out of order. The hon. member
for Timiskaming.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day I would like to rise on a
point of order.
On April 15 I placed a question with the
Minister of Social and Family Services con-
cerning the Master-Met Mining Company
and several welfare recipients who will be
evicted as of today, providing they are un-
able to raise the $1,000.
The Minister took it as notice. It is some
time since the question was put to—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not rais-
ing a point of order at all.
Mr. Jackson: Well, Mr. Speaker, my point
is this. Is there not something that you can
do to ensure that questions are answered
while they are still pertinent to the situation
that exists?
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing that Mr.
Speaker can do other than as he has in the
past to direct these questions be answered.
The answering of questions Ues under the
rules I think quite properly and fairly, with
the Minister to whom they are directed.
Mr. Jackson: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the
Minister is now in the House, is he prepared
to answer the question today?
On April 15, Mr. Speaker, I placed a
question with the Minister of Social and
Family Services concerning the Master-Met
mining property and the eviction notices have
been issued to several of the residents.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services ) : Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member and I have been in the House simul-
taneously on a number of days.
Of the approximately 50 homes in the
Master-Met property, three are currently
occupied by recipients of family benefits and
general assistance. There are, in addition,
several recipients of old age security.
I am informed— and this is as of April 18
—that the town of Cobalt is most concerned
to arrive at a solution, and to this end has
been working closely with a committee of
the residents of this property and The De-
partment of Municipal Affairs. These meet-
ings are continuing and The Department of
Social and Family Services will be involved
in the discussion of any aspect of the matter
which relates to the interest and circum-
stances of recipients of assistance.
Mr. Jackson: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Today is the day of eviction. A notice has
been issued to that eflFect. Are they to be
evicted, or has the department made other
arrangements?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not been ad-
vised of any actual evictions. As I say, I had
the answer here as of April 18. That is the
information I have as of April 18, but I
imagine my people would have kept me
advised.
Mr. Jackson: A further question, Mr.
Speaker. Will the Minister look into the
situation as of today?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, my people will be
keeping me informed.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Minister
might, outside of the House, conununicate
with the member with respect to this matter?
The hon. member for Lakeshore?
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): A question
for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General.
3466
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Will the Minister give consideration to
changing the law so tliat drunkenness in a
pubhc place is no longer an offence?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the Alco-
holism and Drug Addiction Research Founda-
tion has been studying the matter of the
chronic drunk situation with respect to per-
sons addicted to drunkenness for some time,
and I am awaiting tlie report upon which I
would then act. I have sought to have the
report hastened. We should have it soon I
trust.
I might say in answer to the question I
am not entirely satisfied with the present
treatment which we afford to persons suffer-
ing from drunkenness, and particularly the
chronic drunk who returns to court. But I
should like to await the study which is being
done by the alcoholism research foundation,
and I think we should have that soon.
I might say, too, I am not altogether satis-
fied that the action taken by some of the
western provinces, of which I am aware, in
giving the policeman the sole judgment as to
when a person is drunk and to pick such
person up, how long he may keep such
person and then let him loose.
I am not sure that placing the matter out-
side the law to tliat extent will prove alto-
gether satisfactor>'. I think it is certainly open
to some abuse. I think it is open to an in-
effective method of treatment to say to your
police people: "You may judge when this
person is drunk; you may take him in; you
may keep him until you feel he is dried out,
safe to return, or he is over his spell."
I am not sure about tlie rights of the
person who is being picked up, apparently
for his protection. Perhaps they are being
trespassed upon. I think there is certainly
an opportimity for abuse, and I think there
is opportunity for neglect.
I say I am not satisfied, I am not happy,
with our procedure, but we are having a study
done and I would like to wait until I get it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
you might be able to clarify a point, or if
not you, through to the Prime Minister.
My colleague this afternoon asked a ques-
tion, with regard to air pollution, that w^as
directed to the Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management who said that his falls
under the jurisdiction of the Minister of
Health.
I assume that technically that switch in
jurisdiction does not take place until the
bill that is now on the order paper is passed.
But may we have some clarification? With
which Minister will air pollution be handled
in this year's estimates? Or is that likely to
switch depending upon when the estimates
are called and the bill is passed?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it will be
in the estimates of the Minister of Health as
they presently stand. Once the biU becomes
law transferring it in the estimates, the money
voted on the one estimate will be transferred
for expenditure to the other department. At
the present rate of progress I would hate to
make any estimate as to when we would com-
plete tlie estimates of the Minister of Health,
or even reach them.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I have
two or three questions which I took as notice,
some of them running back a few days. I
should Hke to answer if it is in order.
I have one from the hon. member for
Samia (Mr. Bullbrook) which he asked on
April 2. The question is: In view of the in-
creasing responsibility of justices of the peace
as a result of proposed current and past legis-
lation, would the Attorney General advise as
follows:
1. Wliat criteria has his department estab-
lished in evaluating the qualifications of per-
sons appointed to such office?
2. Is there any programme of continuing
education and training afforded to justices of
the peace?
3. What type of examination or review as
to competency is conducted by the depart-
ment?
Mr. Speaker, the answer to question 1
is that the requests are received in my depart-
ment for ai>pointment for justices of the
peace, either as a replacement or additional
appointments to service the needs of the pub-
lic. They are received from the police, some-
times from the Crown Attorneys and from
other interested parties.
We then attempt to establish the need for
the additional appointment and for the serv-
ice, and when the need has been estabhshed
the name or names of those recommended are
checked in the local area. They are then re-
feree!, in accordance with the provisions of
section 2 of the Justices of the Peace Act,
which in RSO 1960, chapter 20; they refer to
the local county or district court judge who
examines the applicant and if he finds him
qualified for the position he issues a certificate
to that effect.
To the second part of the question, is
there a programme of continuing education
and training, the answer is yes. A manual for
APRIL 23, 1969
3467
the justices of the peace was prepared by the
senior Crown Attorney in 1968, and it was
something I had been seeking some time prior
to that date. We had the manual prepared in
1968. It was distributed to all justices of the
peace. I am going to make a copy of that, Mr.
Speaker, available to the hon. member.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Is it avail-
able to me too?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: There is a manual and
the forms which accompany it. If I might
have it delivered to the hon. member for
Samia.
Mr. Singer: Does the hon. Minister know
if they read it?
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): That is the
next part.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Oh, I think so. Copies
of that manual are distributed to all justices
of the peace, also copies of the Canadian
Criminal Code have recently been distributed
to the ofiBces of the Crown Attorneys in the
various counties, and in the districts, to all
justices of the peace. Meetings have been
held by the Crown Attorneys at the instiga-
tion of the senior Crown Attorney. It is in-
tended that such meetings will be held at
regular intervals in the future.
I would add that it must be remembered
that the duties of the justice of the peace are
carried on within the framework of the ad-
ministration of justice and are therefore sub-
ject to the scrutiny and review, not only of
the other Crown officers but also of the
judiciary.
I think I may say generally we have done
a good deal to train, to educate, to assist and
to keep up to the mark the Crown Attorneys
and the justices of the peace which we
appoint.
Mr. Bullbrook: If the Attorney General
would permit by way of supplementary, Mr.
Sx>eaker, the third part of the question I felt
to be the focal point. I must say most respect-
fully that I think the answer falls down there.
Is there no system of continuing review by
your department as to the adequacy of the
talent and knowledge of these justices of the
peace? Must we rely purely upon local Crown
Attorneys and so on?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Not just on local Crown
Attorneys— although the Crown Attorneys, do
not forget, are members of the department
and they are part of the administration of
justice. We do review aU matters with them.
They do report. They do inform us and, as
I say, the judiciary itself lets us know from
time to time the qualification or the ability,
the capability of our justices of the peace. We
have a pretty capable and pretty thorough-
going knowledge of the situation with respect
to these gentlemen. Those who are not of
higher capability are not assigned the higher
duties that some of them carry on.
Mr. Singer: Are the transcripts in the Tele-
gram about a justice of the peace being
unaware of a witness' right to affirm, rather
than swear, correct?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: An unofficial question.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have a question on
that. Mr. Speaker, a question was asked on
March 28 by the hon. member for Brant-
ford (Mr. Makarchuk), question number 1044.
The question was:
Is the Minister aware that Mr. Joseph
Viner of 14 Major Street, Toronto 4, ap-
peared before Judge R. K. Hirtie in court
"K", old city hall on March 24, on a
traffic offence and was refused by the
judge to make an affirmation instead of an
oath" and consequently lost his case be-
cause he was unable to plead?
That is not a factual statement. The ques-
tion is wrong in that respect. However, I
will read the second part as it was given:
Is it not mandatory for judges acting in
Ontario courts to accept an affirmation
when the person to be sworn in, refuses to
take an oath under section 18 of The
Evidence Act?
The third part of the question is:
If so, will the Minister instruct Judge
Hirtie to reopen Mr. Viner's case so that
he may have a court hearing in the proper
manner?
I should like to answer, Mr. Speaker. I did
answer part of this question at the time it
was asked.
The answer was that I took notice of the
question on March 28 and my advisors have
looked into the matter and I have read the
transcript of the proceedings.
Mr. Viner refused to be sworn on the
Christian Bible, that is the first one. Section
18(1) of The Evidence Act of Ontario states
the grounds upon which a person may make
an affirmation rather than take an oath; but
it must be noted that there are specffic
grounds which permit this alternative. After
considerable discussion with the court and
after a Hebrew Bible had been produced
3468
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for the witness he still insisted that he would
swear on his honour.
Mr. Singer: Because he said he did not
believe according to the story in the Telegram,
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Ho said he would swear
on his honour. The justice of the peace asked
him the specific question, "why will you not
be sworn?" Mr. Viner replied, "I don't have
to give you a reason" and, he would not give
a reason.
Mr. Singer: He did at one stage in the
transcript say he did not believe in the Bible.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have read the tran-
script, I have in here in front of me. His
answer was, "I don't have to give you a
reason. Listen, I am not a liar, I am talking
on my honour."
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Read his
explanation.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is the transcript I
was quoting from and it was in this context,
Mr. Speaker, that we find the facts. Had
Mr. Viner given his reasons and provided an
answer to the question, quite properly put
by the justice of the peace, then the matter
would have been resolved. It is not manda-
tory for a judge to accept an affirmation
unless it falls vdthin the circumstances of
The Evidence Act under the section I quoted.
The justice of the peace attempted to get
the reasons but these were refused. I do
not intend to take any further action in the
matter which, in my view, is the situation
created by the attitude of the defendant as
it is disclosed by the transcript.
I would note further, Mr. Speaker— as I
read the transcript— that Mr. Viner did ex-
amine his witnesses and did present the evi-
dence of his witnesses, but he refused to
give any reason why he would not either
swear or affirm. He did not, therefore, come
within the section of The Evidence Act.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, there was an article— I do not have it
in front of me— but I think it was in yester-
day's Telegram which purported to quote
extracts from that transcript At least one
sentence in the extract that was in the paper,
quoted Viner as saying, *T do not believe
and that is why I am not going to swear on
the Bible." Now further than that he did—
there were parts that read the way the Attor-
ney General said they did.
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member disput-
ing the statement by the hon. Attorney
General?
Mr. Singer: Yes, I am sir. Yes I am sir.
That is my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Attorney-
Order!
Mr. Singer: —and I say the Attorney Gen-
eral should quote all pertinent parts of the
transcript.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the member's
point of order, first?
Mr. Singer: My point of order is that the
Attorney General has not completely quoted
from the transcript. He selected a section
which gives a wrong impression of what
happened in that case.
Mr. Speaker: Actually the point of order
then is that the hon. member is alleging that
the Minister is misleading the House. It is
not a point of order that he has not read
correctiy from the transcript. Perhaps the hon.
the Attorney General would wish to speak to
the point of order which I believe is one
that he has been misleading the House.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
do not quite get the hon. member's objection
if that is what it is. I have the transcript
here. I have no objection to reading it all
if the House permits, if the rules permit. It
is not very long.
The clerk of the court said: "Take the
Bible in your right hand, sir."
Mr. Viner said: "I don't want to swear
on the Bible, I will take it on my honour."
The court: "Why, why won't you swear
on the Bible?"
Answer: "Because I don't believe in it."
Mr. Singer: There.
An hon. member: That is the one.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am not hiding that.
He said that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The lion, member will
let the Attorney General continue.
Hon. Mr. Wishart:
The court said: "What is your religiou.s
faith?"
Mr. Viner said: "Hebrew."
Court: "You can be sworn on the Books
of the Old Testament, can you not, the
Books of Moses?"
Mr. Viner said: "Do I have to swear
on the Bible?"
The court: "On the Books of Moses, that
is the Old Testament."
APRIL 23. 1969
3469
Mr. Viner: "I know it is the Old Testa-
ment, I don't believe in it."
The court: "You don't believe in the
Books of Moses, is that right?"
Then the transcript says his answer was in-
discernible and the court's reply was indis-
cernible and the matter went on:
Tlie court: "Do you believe in the teach-
ings of the Books of Moses?"
Mr, Viner said: "I do not believe in the
Bible."
Mr. Singer: There it is three times.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Now:
Mr. Viner said: "Yes, I will swear on my
honour."
The court said: "The court will not
accept that. You do not believe in the
Books of Moses, is that correct?"
Mr. Viner: "I don't believe in the Bible."
The Court: "I am not asking you to be
sworn on the Bible, I am asking you to
be sworn on the Books of Moses."
Mr. Viner: "No sir, I am not going to
take the oath on the Bible, I will take it
on my honour."
Then a Hebrew Bible was produced, but he
refused to take the oath and he refused then
to give any reason why he would not swear.
It says:
The Court: "Why will you not be
sworn?"
Mr. Viner: "I don't have to give you a
reason."
Mr. Singer: He has given it four times.
Mr. Bullbrook: The justice should have
given him a reason-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, The Evidence Act
says-
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member wishes
the floor of the House he will rise on a point
of order.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: He says, "I don't have
to give you a reason," and he repeats that.
Tlie court says, "Yes, you do," and he says,
"No, I don't have to give a reason and I
won't give a reason." And that was it.
Now then, he must state, according to The
Evidence Act, that on grounds of conscience
he will aflBrm, but he would not give any
reason that he did not believe in the Bible.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, am I entitled
to ask a question of the Attorney General?
Mr. Speaker: Not imless the hon. member
has a point of order.
Mr. Bullbrook: I can raise no point of
order that I see available to me, sir.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brant-
ford has the opportunity of asking a sup-
plementary question.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Would not
the MinLs.ter of Justice agree that this is sort
of a grey area, that there is a reasonable area
of doubt as to what Mr. Viner was saying
and what the judge thought he was saying,
and that under those circumstances the Min-
ister should try to reopen this case and have
it tried properly?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Having examined the
case, and having read the transcript, I do not
think that I would feel there was any mis-
carriage of justice which would justify the
reopening of the case. I do think that per-
haps the justice of the peace might have
gone a little further than he did, and said,
"There is a right for you to affirm, but you
must give a reason why you do not wish to
be sworn."
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): He gave
the reason.
Mr. Singer: The Minister should have that
in the first place.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Perhaps, but I think
there was no miscarriage of justice here.
Mr. Speaker, I also had a question asked
on March 26 by the hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre, and I should like to answer
it today. The question was:
Would the Minister advise the House
of the findings and recommendations of the
coroner's jury in each of the three follow-
ing inquests into infants' deaths in To-
ronto: (a) Carol Ann Young, (b) Patrick
Carr, and (c) the Ambing infant bom of
two mental defectives?
And then the question continued:
In the Ambing infant case was testimony
received that conception probably took
place at the Toronto Psychiatric Hospital
at 999 Queen Street West?
Mr. Speaker, I took notice of that question
which was number 1026 and I would now
like to reply.
The answer to the (a) part of the question
—Carol Ann Young, aged five months— is that
3470
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the jury found from the evidence submitted
that Carol Ann Young came to her death from
accidental asphyxiation, at 1316 Queen Street
East, in Toronto. The recommendations of
the jury were as follows:
We, the jury, protest the obvious lack of
complete communication and action, par-
ticularly in areas where the needs seem-
ingly fall outside the main jurisdiction of
the welfare agencies. We consider this
death unnecessary.
We urge that the administrative head of
the welfare agencies be instructed to
recommend and take whatever steps are
necessary to improve the communication
and resultant actions of the agencies to
achieve results more in keeping with the
true needs of the individual.
That was the full recommendation by the
jury.
The (b) part of the question was with
respect to Patrick John Carr, aged 20 months.
Mr. Speaker, the jury found from the
evidence submitted, as follows:
That Patrick John Carr came to his
death as a result of the misuse of restrain-
ing harness (to prevent him from falling
from bed), which became entangled around
his neck, causing strangulation at 800A
Bloor Street West, at about 12.13 p.m. on
January 5, 1969.
Although there was misuse of the
harness, and temporary lack of supervision
on the part of the parents, we find that
there was no deliberate intent on their
part.
We, the jury, recommend greater stress
and control be exercised over the sale and
advertising of baby restraining harness of
the various types currently available, to
ensure their proper application.
The third part of the question was relating
to William Frederick Ambing, aged fi\e
months, and the jury in that case found, as
follows:
We the jury find from evidence sub-
mitted that William Ambing, also known as
William Frederick Torrie, came to his
death by asphyxia, due to regurgitation in
his crib, sometime after 4 a.m. and before
7.30 p.m., on December 10, 1968, at 61
Springhurst A\'enue, Toronto, Ontario.
Even considering the mental condition
of the parents, there was a basic neglect on
the part of the mother, Miss Patricia Ball,
which we feel could have been a con-
tributing factor to this child's death. We
recommend that she have further psy-
chiatric treatment.
Another contributing factor could ha\e
been the lack of communication on the part
of all agencies involved in not recognizing
the situation and not taking positive action,
with the exception of the public health
nurses, who we feel are to be commended
for their sincere interest and actions to the
full extent of their authority.
We would like to recommend that a
newborn child of the mother, with the
past history of mental illness, should auto-
matically be considered for protective care
or supervision by the children's aid until
the parents have proven their ability to
properly care for the child. A hospital
where the child will be delivered will
automatically alert the children's aid based
on the mother's past medical record. In
such cases there should be an immediate,
written cross-reference between the chil-
dren's aid and (1) the public health nurses,
(2) the welfare department, and (3) the
Ontario Hospital or origin of mental treat-
ment.
It is our recommendation that the chil-
dren's aid society jointly establish a central
communication file system in all welfare
services, so that there will be no delay in
ascertaining the needs and history of the
recipients. We recommend that Ontario
Hospital re-examine its present policy of
internal supervision, in an endeavour to
prevent a situation such as this arising
again.
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last part of
the question, "Was testimony received that
conception (probably) took place at Toronto
Psychiatric Hospital?" I can answer that in
the course of the inquest it was not definitely
determined where the child was conceixed.
The purpose of the inquest was to establish
when, where, how and by what means the
deceased child came to its death, not to
establish where the child was conceived.
Mr. Speaker, there was one further ques-
tion that was asked by the hon. member for
High Park (Mr. Shulman), on April 2, at
which time I took notice.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could ascertain
if the leader of that party would wish this
answer given. The member for High Park
is not here; there is an answer to a question,
please.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Perhaps I could help,
Mr. Speaker. The answer was simply as to
whether an inquest was being held.
APRIL 23, 1969
3471
Mr. MacDonald: Could we put this on
the record, and if there is a supplementary
the hon. member could ask it later?
Mr. Speaker: I would not allow it to be
done on that basis. A supplementary ques-
tion, so far as I am concerned, can only be
asked when the answer is given, and that is
why I am trying to protect the members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, call it a
supplementary or what you will. Another
question will be asked if need be.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The question was:
Is an inquest going to be held into tlie
death of Mr. WiUiam Smith of Oakville,
whose car collided last week with a tanker
on the Queen Elizabeth Way? And second,
will the Minister direct the coroner's ofiBce
to hold an inquest without delay, as has
been requested in an editorial in the Oak-
ville Record of April 1?
I took notice of that question, Mr. Speaker,
and my officials made a thorough investiga-
tion into the matter. As a result of that inves-
tigation, an inquest commenced, as of this
date, in the municipal town hall of Oakville.
Hon. S. J. Randall ( Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I have the
answers to two lengthy questions, 983 and
982. I will file them with the Clerk.
Mr. Speaker: In order that there may be no
misunderstanding in connection with a memo
from the Speaker concerning the visit to the
planetariimi, the invitation is for the members
of the assembly and staff-and that is mem-
bers of the assembly staff, not members of
the staff of members, whether they be Min-
isters or leaders.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min-
ister of Trade and Development, question
No. 1266.
For what months is heat provided to ten-
ants in Ontario Housing Corporation units?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Where heat is provided
by Ontario Housing Corp)oration in those
buildings which have central heating systems,
adequate temperatures, in accordance with
municipal bylaws, are maintained during the
periods January to June, and September to
December, inclusive, in each year. In the
case of those units with individual furnaces,
where the rental rate is inclusive of heat,
the tenant controls this himself.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
CITY OF LAKEHEAD
Hon. W. D. McKeough ( Minister of Mimi-
ciapl Affairs) moves second reading of Bill
118, An Act respecting the city of the Lake-
head.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to oppose this Legislature's
giving approval in principle to this Bill 118,
which incorporates the city of the Lakehead,
because it does not include provision for the
citizens of Fort William, Port Arthur,
Neebing and Mclntyre to express their opin-
ion on the matter in a plebiscite or referen-
dum, after they have repeatedly, in numerous
ways, specifically requested that right.
Mr. Speaker, I find myself here today as
one of two members from the Lakehead.
Our people are 900 miles away, but they are
very concerned about this bill. I would say
with a reasonable amount of authority that
at least 78 per cent of Lakehead people want
to be able to vote on this matter in a
plebiscite before it is passed by this House.
These wishes of my people have been put to
the hon. Minister and the government in a
variety of ways, and yet the same answer
keeps reverberating back: No, no, no.
Perhaps it is because the government
looks upon my people as so many facts and
figures. The fact that the hon. Premier (Mr.
Robarts) is leaving the House at this moment
as I prepare to present the voice of the people
to this Legislature perhaps is confirmation of
our suspicion that they simply do not have
time down here in Toronto to think about
people's feelings.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would not like the
members of this Legislature of the people in
southern Ontario, who have given this Con-
servative government a mandate to rule, to
think that I am just a voice from the north
trying to stir up trouble down here, and the
government is trying to maintain order in the
province and move ahead with what they
believe are progressive programmes.
Mr. Speaker, I was at tlie Lakehead not
more than two days ago and it was rather
sad to speak to people in many places and
to hear them say: "Keep up the fight Ron,
you are oru* last hope; we must have the
right to vote on this matter. Do not let the
government take this right out of our hands".
How can a member who feels the responsi-
bility of his office turn a deaf ear to that
kind of a plea? Mr. Speaker, there are many
other pleas of this nature upon which I have
affidavits which I feel should be presented to
this Legislature.
3472
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I do not think this bill should receive
approval in principle until it includes meas-
ures to allow the people to vote on the
matter. Before thLs legislation moves any fur-
ther, I plan to make it my business to make
sure that this House knows just how many
people there are at the Lakehoad who are
requesting this vote.
I plead with this Minaster, with this Pre-
mier, with this government and the people of
Ontario who gave this Rol)arts government
the mandate to rule, not to perpetrate this
highest of insults upon the Lakehead people;
not to force your wishes, your principles, your
designs upon this beautiful people up there.
Up until now the Lakehead, the north, has
held a special significance to our people;
people over the years who have had the
courage, the backbone, and the sense of ad-
venture, to travel into the northern part of
this province, and to find something very spe-
cial there, and to stay there and to develop
that area when others did not have the back-
bone and the courage to go north.
This is the kind of people that you are
telling now— even though you ask, you may
not decide your own affairs. Yet this is a
people which has always really decided their
own affairs, and this is the greatest insult you
can perpetrate upon them.
The issue at the Lakehead today is no
longer one of amalgamation— will we merge
—but one of democracy. It has become a ques-
tion now of who decides whether the Lake-
head municipalities of Fort William, Port
Arthur, Neebing and Mclntyre should be
merged into one city. Who decides it? Does
this government decide it, or do die people
there decide it?
Has it never occurred to this government,
to this Minister, has it ever occurred to them
that the Lakehead people have always felt
that this would be their decision? Does it
not occur to this government that they may
])e removing tliis mandate from the people
and assuming more responsibility than they
should assiune?
I accept the fact that this government does
liave this authority. I accept the fact tluat
having been elected by the people that there
are certain things the government has author-
ity to do. But when a government has indi-
cated the intention to do something like in
tlie case of BUI 118— to merge these four
municipahties— and there has been such an
outcry from tlie Lakehead people saying let
us do it, please give us the voice in this
matter, how can a government turn around
and say no, we take that responsibility from
you.
Has it ever occurred to anyone here, Mr.
Speaker, that perhaps the Lakehead people
want to accept that challenge? Perhaps they
do not want to lean on somebody else to fight
tlieir battles for them or to decide these mat-
matters for them? If I know the Lakehead
people like I think I know the Lakehead
people, then they maintain the right to decide
this matter themselves.
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the
reason that this has been taken out of the
hands of the people at the Lakehead by the
government is that the government is afraid
that the Lakehead jieople will vote it down.
This is where I disagree with anyone who
feels that the Lakehead people would not
pass this. We have affidavits to prove that
they would.
I can recall back in 1963 conducting a radio
programme. During tlie course of a full day
we took phone calls on nothiiDg but "are you
in favour of amalgamation or not?"— 700
phone calls, and at the end of the day, 78
per cent of the people were in favour of
amalgamation.
At the beginning of this year, in January,
Professor Ron Taylor of Lakehead University
announced the results of a survey which he
Ixad conducted with some of his students. He
told the Lakehead people that he had ana-
lyzed, or had surveyed 1,000 homes in the
Lakehead, let us say 1,000 taxpayers, a good
broad cross-section of the Lakehead.
T^en he gathered in the material and put
it through a computer in order to analyze
it and break it down and he announced his
findings. Mr. Taylor said that of the 1,000
persons surveyed, 79 per cent were in favour
of amalgamation. So how can anybody say
we are afraid the Lakehead people might
not approve this?
Of those 1,000 surveyed, 78 per cent felt
tlxat tliere should he a vote on the matter.
In other words, the people should retain their
own self-determination, He said the main
reason given by most of these people— 90 per
cent of these people— was that they felt that
this legislation was being jammed down their
throats, and I think that supports my argu-
ment that the Lakehead people are big
enovigh, are intelligent enough, to do tliis
matter on their own.
They do not want it to go down in history
for all posterity, for their children and their
children's children, to think that Lakeheaders
who live in this day and age, 1969, did not
APRIL 23. 1969
3473
have the courage to take this step and their
own, in the interests of their children, be-
cause they could not part with the pa,st, or
they could not accept change, or they could
not face the future.
The responsible adults at the Lakehead
today would like to assume this job them-
selves, and they need no one down here to
come to the Lakehead and take the job away
from them.
Mr. Speaker, I would like this House to
give very serious consideration to this plea
from the Lakehead. In the course of the
next little while I hope to be able to present
sufficient affidavits to convince this House
that there is no question of a doubt that the
Lakehead people want this right. Many
demand this right. This government is, in
effect, enforcing and coercing the Lakehead
into something which they would like to do
on their own.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a wheelbarrow
full of affidavits, as I said. I have a petition
bearing the signatures of 6,292 Lakeheaders
who do not say they oppose amalgamation,
but simply say whether for or against the
incorporation of this new Lakehead city, we
demand our democratic right to vote on it
in a plebescite. 6,292 names. Consider, Mr.
Speaker, these petitioners, those Lakehead
freedom fighters had the backbone, the
initiative and the courage to get out to plan,
to draw up, and then to circulate a petition.
We are not allowed to place that petition
in supermarkets, department stores, the Lake-
head labour centre, and other such places
where people gather. You will realize what
interference there has been with democratic
process, because those people who are push-
ing amalgamation so quickly, what are they
afraid of? Are they afraid to know what the
Lakehead people really want? Are they afraid
to allow those people to register their feel-
ings and their names?
Why would not, Inter-City Shopping Plaza,
for example, allow this petition to just
simply sit there for people to sign or not
sign? This petition is a way of giving the
Lakehead people a change to express their
opinion through this petition. But these
people were hampered in their efforts to
circulate a simple petition.
One of the groups of Lakeheaders who so
strongly worked— not necessarily against amal-
gamation, although to be fair I will say they
did in some ways work against amalgamation,
but they primarily worked toward getting to
the Lakehead people the right to make this
decision— was the Fort William taxpayers
association. It was later called just the tax-
payers association to permit membership by
anyone across the Lakehead who would like
to join it. An as-sociation which started out
with a few men, then a hundred, and at this
point 700 hard-working busy bees. It is
those busy bees who went out and gathered
most of these signatures that we have on this
huge petition that I have here in the House
today with me, and which I hope to be able
to table later.
The president of that association is Mr.
Arthur Fish, and I would just like to give
the House some idea of the thinking of Mr.
Fish and the Fort William taxpayers associa-
tion. It reads, this address which he gave to
the Fort William city council on Tuesday
evening, February 11, 1969:
Mr. Acting Mayor Neilin and council
members, ladies and gentlemen, I am
speaking tonight on behalf of Fort William
taxpayers association on the urgent matter
of a plebescite for the citizens of our city
on amalgamation. Before I go on, Mr.
Mayor, the Fort William taxpayers associa-
tion would like to make one point very
clear to some who may not take us too
seriously. We are not a fly-by-night out-
fit, and will not be dictated to by self-
appointed representatives of the people,
who in our opinion try and set policy in
favour of the minority group which they
truly represent, the minority group.
The greatest issue at stake right now is
not amalgamation, but the right of the
citizens to decide their own future by a
vote. If any i)erson can argue this principle
without being biased they do not fully
understand our democratic system. Some
people who claim that the average person
would not have the intelligence to treat the
issue of amalgamation wisely are the same
people— whether they know it or not— who
are moving us in the direction of a com-
plete bureaucratic government, and in this
type of government our vote would be-
come useless.
The proposed amalgamation of this area
is the first big example of bureaucracy the
people of Fort William have had to face.
We cannot let this happen.
Wlio are we in this House, Mr. Speaker, to
question the credibility of these people? Who
are we to say that their interests are not as
sincere as are ours when we deliberate the
province's business?
We cannot quesftion it. I know the execu-
tives of this association. While not being a
3474
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
member myself, I naturally became ac-
quainted with them inasmuch as they found
my views were somewhat similar to theirs.
These men have worked hour after hour
after hour. They have put up funds. They
have gone out of their way. They have done
cverytliing they could possibly think of. They
sent letters to every member of the House,
as far as I know. They have sent second
letters. They have gone to every public meet-
ing to express their views. They have done
everything in their power, not to disrupt the
business of the province, but to communicate
to this government the feeling, not only their
feeling, but the feeling of so many people at
the Lakehead.
As I said before, in this survey by a neutral
person. Professor Taylor of Lakehead Uni-
versity, 78 per cent of the people wanted
a vote on this matter. So that this little
group which was out working was actually
working on behalf of 78 per cent. As I recall.
Professor Taylor also said that with 78 per
cent of the people asking for this vote,
actually if this were expanded to the whole
Lakehead, it would hold just about 90 per
cent accuracy.
Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the hard
work that this group has done and I received
a letter just today from one of the group,
the secretary, Mr. Vic Grainger, and Mr.
Grainger, who is well known as an old rail-
roader, an old conductor, a man who gets
involved in issues, who is not afraid to take
a stand on just about anything.
Well, he was the sort of the backbone of
tliis group. He kept them going, and when
it became discouraged, when they heard the
4000th no from the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough), Mr. Grainger
still said: "Let's keep going. Let's fight this
thing to the end."
And here is the letter I received from him
today after all the petitions were in, after the
bill was here, after I had made by last visit
to the Lakehead before this bill was coming
up:
Dear Ron:
Sorry we did not have time for a visit
as I had a lot to talk about. Art Fish was
the one who suggested a meeting with you,
but he had to work overtime and was
unable to get over. Ernie Tremblay had
many questions to ask you, but the pres-
sure was too mucli for him and he is afraid
of another heart attack. He has carried
a very heavy load for the taxpayers and I
advised him to look after himself for a
change. Many times I have had to just
get away from it all myself for a few days
as I was exhausted from the pressure.
I don't think you realize just what is
happening at the Lakehead, so I thought
I had better let you know.
Then he goes on to talk about CNR. Because
of unification going on at the Lakehead,
certain people are losing jobs and so forth.
He also goes on to say:
I know many pensioners who have been
able to get by on their small pensions,
who say they will not pay any more taxes
as they have readied the limit and in three
years the city can have their homes and
they will go to the old folks home. Many
people I know have bought property out-
side the city limits and will build out
tliere. Many more like myself plan on leav-
ing the Lakehead as it doesn't mean any-
thing to us.
Having a government force amalgama-
tion on us without a vote is just too much,
and I and many more don't want any part
of it. I know many more who will retire
in two or three years and they plan on
selling out and moving out. The Patterson
elevator has been leased to Richardsons and
no doubt some staJBF will be laid off.
I have lived here for over 67 years and
of course it is with some regret that I leave,
but I have lots of friends in the east and
relatives too. The politicians had better
look around this country and see what
is happening. Taxes are too high and our
governments at all levels have lost their
sense of values. The people are rebelling
and if the government don't start to listen
there will be more violence and probably
bloodshed.
This is a so-called supercity. I am afraid
it is getting away to a bad start and it
could be in real trouble in a few years
time. By 1971.
He goes on in his letter, Mr. Speaker, of
course, to lambaste this government. And he
ends up by saying:
We have a dictatorship in Toronto and
this could and be the turning point.
Sincere regards,
Mr. Victor Grainger.
He is the kind of fighter who did not hesitate
to allow me to use his name and his letter
in tliis particular fight.
Going back to the Fort William taxpayers
group, Mr. Speaker, the members of this
House may recall receiving this particular
letter, which is signed again by Mr. Arthur
APRIL 23, 1969
3475
Fish, the president. I will just take one quote
out of that second letter. Mr. Fish says:
It has also been said that all labour
unions which represent the majority of the
people are for amalgamation without a
plesbiscite. This is not correct. In fact, we
are advised that this matter has never been
mentioned to the union members, and they
have just published through the paper and
radio that they demand a plebiscite and,
in addition, would Like information about
what this amalgamation is all about.
I bring that matter up at this time, Mr.
Speaker, because as I recall, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, when explaining to one
meeting at the Lakehead why the govern-
ment had to decide, and when he decided
that the government should go ahead without
a plebiscite, it was at a time when he was
talking to members of the Lakehead labour
council I believe at Inter-City.
The Lakehead labour council way back
when Mr. Eric Hardy, the commissioner,
first began his review to prepare the Lake-
head local govenmient study, the Lakehead
labour council took a stand immediately at
that time that they were opposed to a re-
ferendum and, of course, this was their
privilege at the time.
However, Mr. Speaker, as these things have
been brought to light in the course of the
last few months, other labour unions have
come out and annoimced: "No, we just
simply do not agree with this stand. We feel
tliat the people should have a choice in this
matter."
I can quote you a story from one of our
local newspapers of recent date and I will
in the course of this argumentation. Mr.
Speaker, I think it should be made absolutely
clear, and I am leading up to this point, to
have labour at the Lakehead spHt, you see,
because there has not been a vote. You have
one powerful voice for labour, the Lakehead
Idbour council— I know the party to the left
will be interested in this— saying "no vote",
but then you have another labour group, the
Port council which represents, I am told
some 5,000 workers at the Lakehead, saying,
"yes, there should be a vote;" and a very
powerful union at the Great Lakes paper mill,
numbering over 1000 members, have come
out very firmly with a resolution and a story
in the local press stating that they feel the
people should have a vote.
As we go through these aflBdavits, Mr.
Speaker, the House will see that the Lake-
head people, rather than being united in this
battle, are being divided. I can show you all
kinds of reports through the press and through
editorials as to how one council is going one
way and another council is going the other
way.
There are charges of conniving from
persons on the city of Fort William council
toward the mayor and the councillors on the
Port Arthur city council.
Simply by slapping this all together and
saying, "There you are, you have a city,
follow Bill 118", that is not going to solve
it because the Lakehead people are people
who think too strongly, they feel too deeply
about life.
Of course, they want to hand on a great
heritage to their children and those who will
come after them, but they do not want it to
be some creature that has been forced upon
them, something that was not of their making,
but of Toronto's making.
Mr. Speaker, the group I was referring to
a few moments ago, the Fort William tax-
payers association, very recently sent a resolu-
tion to this government which I believe was
addressed to the hon. Premier. It was sort
of their last guns firing off in the hopelessness
that the Minister's latest statements had made.
Hopelessness sort of clings in the air up there
at the Lakehead right now, hopelessness as
to whether people will able to determine this
matter themselves, and this is this resolution.
Whereas the Ontario government through
The Department of Municipal Affairs, with-
out allowing a plebiscite, is forcing the
amalgamation of municipalities in areas
which cannot afford this form of adminis-
tration and.
Whereas the equalization of taxes
brought on by the amalgamations will
create discrimination on taxpayers in those
poorer pockets of the communities, caus-
ing further hardships to those already in
distress, and.
Whereas the Ontario government through
The Department of Education by amal-
gamating school boards and by unrealistic
programmes has allowed the costs of edu-
cation to escalate beyond the ability to pay
of the great majority of taxpayers and.
Whereas government spending generally
has raised taxes and created a provincial
debt which can no longer be accepted with
confidence by the voters of this province;
Therefore be it resolved, that the Ontario
government resign and state its case before
the people for their ratification before any
further action is taken in presently advo-
cated government programmes.
3476
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
That is the height of frustration that this
particular group was forced to by this gov-
ernment. I wonder if the hon. Minister has
ever sat down with these people in one of
their meeting halls and listened to what they
had to say. I wonder whether he would be
able to continue to exude that air of con-
fidence, that arrogance that he shows so
often.
I do not think so, Mr. Speaker, because I
have sat down with them whenexer I have
had the time up there and I have come away
with a very saddened heart. I just cannot
understand, Mr. Speaker, why those people
cannot have a vote on this matter. I will
never understand it.
I wonder if the hon. Minister and the
Premier and the government members on the
other side are aware that the federal member
for Fort William, Mr. Hubert Badanai, has
come out publicly stating that a vote in this
matter is the people's right. I do not think
i should have to tell the members of this
House, Mr. Speaker, just what a wonderful
man he is, or of the many years he has served
as mayor of the city of Fort William and the
many years he has served in Ottawa on behalf
of his people.
Let me tell you what Mr. Badanai's state-
ment was in regard to this, and I should point
out that Mr. Badanai is of an ethnic origin
which is highly representative of a good
number of Lakehead people.
Mr. Badanai says in reply to an editorial
in Friday's issue of the Daily Times Journal
headed "Calling all Members" requesting a
statement from local federal members.
My stand on the question of a plebiscite,
whether the people of Fort William should
have a voice in determining whether or
not they should amalgamate, I say most
emphatically that this democratic right
should not be denied to the citizens of
Fort William.
And Mr. Badanai's statement goes on.
A few years ago, the voters of Fort
William expressed their disapproval of
amalgamation in a plebiscite. Is there an
elected representative here in Ottawa? I
feel my responsibility is to protect their
right to vote on this question. I am amazed
at the unseemingly attitude bordering on
arrogance of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs in refusing such a legitimate re-
quest which in this day and age should not
be questioned.
The real issue, as I see it, is not whether
amalgamation is good, bad or indifferent.
but rather whether the democratic rights
of the people are to be preserved or care-
lessly trampled,
Mr. Badanai's statement concludes:
I express the sincere hope that Premier
Robarts, who has been silent in this issue,
will use his common sense and power, and
without delay intervene to give the people
of Fort William the chance of registering
their wishes at the polls.
That is the position of Mr. Hubert Badanai,
the federal member of Fort William on this
matter.
To divert from the ratepayers association,
I have given you the views of labour at the
Lakehead, at least part of the labour group
at the Lakehead. I have spoken to you about
this hard-working group of busy bees num-
bering some 700, the Lakehead taxpayers
association. I should, I think at this point,
bring to the attention of the House the feel-
ings of the council of Neebing.
The council of Neebing and the people of
Neebing voted over 90 per cent against
amalgamation in the first place and then
over 90 per cent— and I am talking about
voting for a plebiscite— in favour of this mat-
ter being submitted to a plebiscite prior to
being acted upon by the government.
At one point we get a headline in the Fort
William Dailtj Times Journal, "Neebing Coun-
cil to go to Court".
That is the height of frustration in that
community.
I read the story as written by Cory O'Kelly
and Ad. Taylor of the Daily Times Journal
of Fort William:
Neebing councillors, fuming over an
early election called for oflRcials of the
new amalgamated city government, said
today they would seek determination of
the matter at high court. Reeve T. Tron-
sen of Neebing township said today he has
not changed his views on amalgamation,
and he and his council are working now
to obtain legal advice with respect to tak-
ing the matter to a higher court. "I have
attended every meeting but the one held
in February, and nothing has been proven
beneficial to us by the Hon. Darcy Mc- i
Keough or his committee," Mr. Tronsen
stated.
I presume by that, Mr, Speaker, that he
means nothing beneficial to the township of
Neebing. And, of course, Neebing is one of
the municipalities in this province which is
in that very favoured position of having a
tax, a mill rate which is reasonable, to say
APRIL 23, 1969
3477
the least. They are in a very comfortable
position, so it is obvious that they would be
opposed to the fact they are going to be lost,
swallowed up, by the big city.
I do not necessarily support their stand
that they should not join the city. I feel
they should join the city, but I feel that they
should have a right to the full measure of
the democratic process to fight, and they can-
not have that right when the government
steps in and decides the issue.
I do not have to tell this House that there
has been friendly competition between Port
Arthur and Fort William for many, many
years, and that the cities in many matters
have voted in opposite ways, but I have
always felt that it was friendly competition
but, Mr. Speaker, I would never have imag-
ined in a million years that anybody from
down here would go up there and take the
matter of solving that issue out of the hands
of the people. This is unbelievable. You
have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the
Lakehead cities. Port Arthur and Fort Wil-
liam, have fielded many a champion team,
and many great stars, including hockey stars
in the NHL. They are a sports-minded city-
minor league, baseball, hockey, you name it.
This is a sporting city, so we are producing
sports-minded citizens.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): No fair play
over there!
Mr. Knight: You know as well as I do,
Mr. Speaker, what happens whenever the
referee steps in to award a game to one side
or the other, and both sides have not had a
complete and fair hearing. Naturally, those
on the Fort William-Neebing side at the
Lakehead feel that they have not had a fair
chance in this friendly battie, which has
gone on for years. As far as I can see, Mr.
Speaker, the government feels that it is going
to take over this battle. It is going to settle
it once and for all. It is going to go in on
the side of Port Arthur and Mclntyre. I
wonder what would have happened if Eric
Hardy had advised no merger. What if he
had suggested things remain as they are?
How would those in the riding I represent
on the Port Arthur side, and I feel I can
speak for them, because I was elected by
them to speak for them—
The Port Arthur people would be very
very disappointed, believe you me, as would
I, because I have been fighting for amal-
gamation for nine years. It goes back to
December, 1959, when I first went to the
Lakehead from Ottawa, and the hon. member
for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) can back
me up on that. I have always been a very
loud advocate of amalgamation. But, I have
always respected those people who were so
hospitable to my wife and me and our chil-
dren to such an extent. I would never think
of imposing it upon them, never in a million
years.
This has got to be their decision. That is
the way the ball game goes, it has got to be,
in any group of people working together.
Take a share corporation. After the board of
directors has decided on a course of action,
say a merger, or something, it always goes
back to the shareholders for a vote. Any
union negotiating team, before saying, "We
have reached a decision on this matter and
we can speak for tlie men," goes back to the
men and lets the men speak for themselves.
They take a vote. This is the way of the
democratic society, or what are we hanging
those flags up there for?
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Too
simple.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I cannot under-
stand this government; I just do not know
what they are trying to do. Sure they have
got the mandate from the people and they
have the right, but the people are saying,
"Let us do it." Why do you keep saying "no"?
I cannot understand it. Mr. Speaker, if you
go down through the ages, you will find that
every governmental regime that has gone
down, in most cases has gone down because
it has abused the mandate given to it by tlie
people. And this is where this government is
headed.
Don't you ever think for one minute that
the people of southern Ontario are not aware
of it. Mr, Speaker, I was getting my hair
cut in Trenton the other day— and I just bring
this in to give an example— by a barber
v/hom I have never seen before in my life,
and I do not know his political background.
I said, "I am from the Lakehead," and he
said, "Oh yes, that is where they are rolling
out the barbed wire in the street to try and
stop Queen's Park from forcing them into a
merger." It is a long way, about 1,000 miles,
from Trenton all the way up to the Lakehead,
but the word is around about what you are
doing to my people. You are forcing them
into this thing.
Mr. Speaker, this is going to sound corny
and hammy, believe me. But I sat at my type-
writer last night reviewing all these facts,
and trying to find a way to convince this gov-
ernment to be men; to say, "All right, Lake-
head, we have faith in you. We believe in
you. We think that you people are intelligent
3478
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
enough to do this yourself. You can have the
plebiscite. Now go on out there and show
them. Show the rest of this country that you
can resolve this matter yourselves."
Mr. Speaker, I thought about individual
cases of people who came up to me, and
said, "You know, Ron, you are our last hope,
get up there and fight." That was last week-
end—clerks in the hotel, in the restaurant.
Believe me, that is sort of a Conservative
type of hotel up there, Mr. Speaker, the
Prince Arthur. I think it is. But, you know,
people came up to me and said, "Fight man,
you are the last hope we have." So I am
down here fighting, Mr. Speaker.
Someone told me, "It is no use, Ron, when
this government makes up its mind on some-
thing, you cannot change it." And I said,
"Well, I have got to try. I have got to at
least convey to this House, to this govern-
ment, to this Minister, all of the stories, all
of the Lakehead voices, to the best of my
ability, as they have been conveyed to me.
I have to make these legislators understand
that my i>eople want to vote on it."
It is not comphcated; they want to vote.
What do they want to vote on? The 36
recommendations in the Hardy report, or all
of the sections in this bill? No. All they want
to do is to say, "Yes, we shall get together.
Wc shall be one city." Mr. Speaker, I can
guarantee to this House that it is going to
pass. Even though the Minister has bungled
it. Oh, he has been crude.
Mr. Sargent: That is nothing new.
Mr. Knight: I do not blame the Minister
too much. He is a young, vigorous Minister,
Mr. Speaker. He has shown an awful lot of
courage. An awful lot of people give him
credit for his courage, because he came into
something he did not know. He did not know
what he was going to find up there, because
remember, the Lakehead people are tiie kind
of people who a few years ago stood on the
tracks during a railway strike in this country
and blocked a train— union men who felt that
their rights were being violated, and they
got right out there and tried to stop that
train. That is the kind of people they are,
the kind of people who will block trains
going from west to east, and hold up the
whole country's economy if they have to, if
they feel that their rights are being violated.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, in this case the
Lakehead people have shown quite a bit of
self control, and I admire them a great deal
for the self control that they have shown in
the face of some of the statements which
have come out from the Minister, or even
from the commissioner who conducted the
study, Mr. Eric Hardy— things like, "Well,
the people or conmion man can never under-
stand what is going on there." Did anybody
stop to think that maybe we should educate
them, maybe we should do our best to try
and make them understand? In any election,
or in the one when this government received
its mandate, October 17, 1967, do you think
everybody who voted knew everything there
was to know about every candidate, or knew
all the issues, or everything? No, but they
were able to gather—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): Is that how you got elected?
Mr. Knight: The Minister is asking why I
was elected? Mr. Speaker, simply because I
took the time to get to the people, and let
them know me as I am. It is the key to any
successful election.
Mr. Sargent: It could happen to the Min-
ister too.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate
to say this— it is in the streets, it is in the
bar rooms, it is in the coffee shops— this
Conservative government is committing politi-
cal suicide at the Lakehead. I say this with
all due respect, because I sat with the hon.
member for Fort William, but you do not
know what you are doing to him. I say this
because he cannot say it for himself. He has
had it. And this too, is an echo of Lakehead
opinion.
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask the
hon. member a question?
Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. member may
only rise on a point of order. If the hon.
member for Port Arthm* will take a question,
tlien the hon. member may ask one. The hon.
member for Fort William has the floor.
Mr. Jessiman: From Christmas up to now,
I cannot recall the member for Port Arthur
being at the Lakehead other than this week-
end, and I was not in conversation with hiim
during that time. He is just saying that he
was in conversation with me.
Mr. Knight: Obviously the member for Fort
William is trying to put me on the spot, and
I am not concerned about me, really, or him.
I am concerned about the Lakehead people
and that their opinion be conveyed to this
House. I could not care less what the hon.
member does with his spare time and whether
he comes to the Lakehead or does not. What
I care about is whether this House is going
APRIL 23, 1969
3479
to get approval in principle today or not, or
tomorrow or the day after, or the day after
that, because that is what 78 per cent of the
Lakehead people care about.
Mr. Speaker, I would have been very happy
5 to entertain a debate with the hon. member
for Fort William on the matter in hand, as to
whether the Lakehead people should have
this vote or not. I will do anything, really, to
get this to the Lakehead people, because it
means so much to them. Mr. Speaker, I was
starting to talk about the Neebing council and
I think at this point I have conveyed their
feelings pretty well.
There were a few more things. Here is an
article in the Port Arthur News Chronicle,
dated February 20, 1969, headlined, "Article
Sets Up Laskin as a Dictator— Signed Tron-
sen." Laskin, of course, is his worship the
mayor of Port Arthur, and Tronsen is his
worship, I suppose, reeve of Neebing. Do
you see what has happened here? This type
of thing is on the front page of the paper-
one of these municipal leaders drawing
charges like this against the other. If the
government had said from the outset, "If
the Lakehead people want to vote on this
matter we will let the people decade it," you
would not have things like this going on. I
will read the article for you, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Imagine what would
happen if you had a plebiscite.
Mr. Knight: At least it would be the
democratic way, would it not?
You see, Mr. Speaker, it is easy for me here
to stand and speak on behalf of the Lake-
head people because I am willing to submit
my whole career to them for approval once
every four years and I have faith in that vote.
I cannot understand why you cannot have
faith in their good opinion.
Mr. Speaker, I was about to read this
article in the Port Arthur News Chronicle and
I will read just a portion of it to give you
an idea of the trouble and the confusion that
is going on up there as a result of the
manner in which the Minister has handled
the bill.
Neebing Reeve Tom Tronson today ac-
cused Mayor Saul Laskin of Port Arthur of
setting himself up as the little dictator of
the north.
Mr. Tronson's statement came on the
heels of an article appearing in the March
issue of Macleans Magazine. A section of
the article is titled "Saul Lasldn's Lake-
head, First of Mid-Canada's Big Cities."
Tronson's statement reads: "This heading
in a news story in Macleans Magazine
clearly and truly brings to light the true
facts involved in the proposed amalgama-
tion issue. Saul Laskin, the mayor of Port
Arthur, has set himself up as the Httle
dictator of the north absolutely ignoring
the wishes of the majority of the people.
"Why did Macleans editors interview
only one elected official and absolutely
ignore Fort William, Neebing and Shuniah?
When did this interview take place and
why so much hush-hush?"
It goes on and on with similar accusations,
Mr. Speaker and you can see the kind of
trouble that has been nurtured by this govern-
ment in its bureaucratic, dictatorial and arro-
grant manner of doing business.
The article goes on—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: With all the barbed
wire "and bloodshed" you are scaring me.
Mr. Knight: The Minister should be, be-
lieve me. Mr. Speaker, really I think the hon.
Minister should go to the Lakehead and talk
to the people if he wants to be scared. He
will get a far diflFerent opinion. Until he has
talked to them and discussed this matter with
them I do not see where he has anything to
say in the House regarding this matter.
Mr. Speaker, this matter is so important to
me that the members on the opposite side can
say whatever they like. I shall go on talking
until I have conveyed the complete, the full
and the whole battery of information and
affidavits that I have from the Lakehead
people. This, to me, is a scared charge. It
has all been given to me to present to this
House. They cannot do it themselves, they are
nine hundred miles away. I will do it for
them.
Reeve Tronson—
We are referring to Reeve Tronson in this
article, the News Chronicle again the Reeve
of Neebing:
—attacked the Port Arthur mayor in rela-
tion to a quote contained in the magazine
article in which Mayor Laskin outlined
his reasons for opposition to a plebiscite
on amalgamation. "What good is a ple-
biscite when the young people whose
future is being decided would not have
a vote? Why should older people adjudi-
cate their future?" the Hill city Mayor is
quoted as saying.
3480
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Reeve Tronson is quoted as saying:
In other words, Mayor Lasldn is saying
anyone ov6r 21 years of age is not intelli-
gent enough to decide any issues.
I think diat is just about the attitude of tliis
government, that no one at the Lakehead
is really intelligent enough to decide this
matter tliemselves except for a chosen few,
a small clique, the business element and
some of the elected officials, they are reliable.
Their opinion, their feeUng, this is reliable
but die rest is not.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from
another article which appeared up there. I
like to quote from these articles Mr. Speaker,
because then people cannot say this is just
the word of the hon. member for Port
Ardiur. This is public information that has
been printed and read. By conveying to you
what has been written in the newspapers
I am giving you the same impressions of
these thing-; that the people at the Lakehead
have, who have had to rely pretty much on
the news media to know what has been going
on in this entire issue.
This one is headlined "Mickey Blasts Com-
mittee" and it says:
The inter-municipal committee which
met yesterday at Fort William City Hall,
in the opinion of tlie Fort William Alder-
man, Mickey Hennessey is, "nothing but
a show piece.
"This committee has no authority", the
stormy alderman charged today. "We can-
not legislate. We can only make sugges-
tions. The Minister and the government
will legislate. They will do what they want.
We cannot make resolutions and we have
nothing in writing. All we can do is sug-
gest and if the government decides black
is white, that is the way it will 1x3", Mr.
Hennessey concluded.
Well, this gives you an idea of what one of
the members of inter-municipal committee
felt. Alderman Mickey Hennessey of Fort
William, felt that the committee was really
just a sort of a front piece for The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs, its experts and its
bureaucrats, who prettv well had this whole
thing planned, I think in advance, Mr.
Speaker.
I think perhaps that at this point, the
Minister and the department and the govern-
ment are somewhat afraid of this Lakehead
opinion as it now stands.
I think that this is the reason why this is
rushed so quickly. The election following the
passing of this bill was to be held in the
Minister's first statement, on September 15,
1969. A short time ago the Minister de-
cided that he would move it up three months
to June 23 and I say, why the rush, Mr.
Speaker? Why does the Minister not give
the people a little more time to absorb this
thing?
Mr. Speaker, you know money is usually
at the root of all evil and is at the root of
a lot of the trouble that is going on at the
Lakehead. I suspect that one of the reasons
the provincial government wants to force
these four municipalities into one unit as
quickly as possible, is that they think they
will save money, not for the people who live
up there, but for the government. I get
some feeling that perhaps, through the grant
system or something, they wiU find a way
of not putting so much money into the Lake-
head area on a per capita basis.
As for tlie Lakehead people themselves,
this is what they are worried about. The
average man up there is at a point now, of
pa>ang taxes and trying to cope with high
costs, Mr. Speaker where he does not know
whether— you know, he just does not know
where to turn. You heard the letter that I
quoted earlier from Mr. Vic Grainger in
which he indicated some Lakeheaders will be
leaving there and old pensioners will not be
able to keep up their homes and so on.
Tliat is especially true up in that northern
area where we pay higher costs and for a
number of items hke gasoline and other con-
sumer products and so on that have got to be
brought a long way and we have higher
transportation costs.
Well the Lakehead people are worried
about costs. So, of course, when Eric Hardy,
the commissioner, came to make his report he
was queried on how much is it going to cost
us. Is it going to cost us more to run the
Lakehead this way or is it going to cost us
less to stay the way we are? Mr. Hardy could
not tell them. Later on when Mr. Hardy re-
leased his report— Mr. Hardy was not there
to release it himself, so the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs and one of his attendants,
Mr. Pearson I believe it was, released the
report at the big meeting at the Lakehead
University on March 11, 1968.
Well, of course, the matter of costs was
the thing that a lot of those attending looked
up very quickly in this report which I hold
in my hand now. Mr. Hardy, I think sums it
up in item 153 on page 47 in which he says:
In short, the financial consequences of a
merger are corrrplex and far reaching and
incapable of precise measurement.
APRIL 23, 1969
3481
Even the great Mr. Hardy could not really
give any good idea, although he said in a
\ery general way, "we do not think that it is
going to go up."
Further on he says:
From all that has been said it should be
plain that the predictions of the financial
consequences of boundary changes are not
easy. It may not be entirely accurate and
cannot readily be related to the new finan-
cial circumstances that in fact emerge after
the boundary changes have taken place.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what Mr. Hardy
said. A little bit later on someone asked the
Minister of Municipal Affairs, while he was
at the Lakehead about this matter— I think
it was February 21. I have a report of that
meeting in the Times Journal of February 21.
—The Minister was asked— I am quoting from
the article now:
The Minister was asked once whether
his department had any idea of what amal-
gamation will cost (and he is quoted.)
"Sure it will cost, but no one knows how
much until the first tax bill goes out in
1970 through to 1975. How can this be
determined when we do not know what
salaries will be set up by the new council
for staff or when we do not know how
many fire trucks they might have to buy?"
I thought that was a good answer from the
Minister, Mr. Speaker. He does not know,
nobody knows, none of us know. Now can
you see why the Lakehead people want to
decide this matter themselves? They do not
kn:)w what they are going into and the cost
factor is one of the most important things.
But you know, Mr. Speaker, it is not the
most important. For the Lakehead people
there is nothing more important than their
children and the future of the Lakehead—
and I say' this in all sincerity— Lakehead
people have sacrificed an awful lot in llie
interest of their children, their children's edu-
cation, that they will grow up like proper
citizens, happy and so forth. But, if somebody
is going to take a gamble on behalf of those
children with the Lakehead taxpayers' money,
then it should be the Lakehead taxpayers
and not this government.
That is the land of argument you get from
.a man on the street up there at the Lake-
head. We do not mind approaching a preci-
pice and having to decide whether we are
going to jump down there or not, even when
we do not know what we are jumping into,
but we do not like the idea of l^eing pushed
into it.
If we are going to jump, we are going to
jump together and because most of us want
to do it. Coercion, that is what they rebel
against, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a very
good argument at this time. Nobody can tell
them what it is going to cost. What kind of
reports are they getting? They are getting
very strange reports from various municipali-
ties who are now feeling the effects and the
crunch of the new county school board sys-
tem. For example, the municipality of Oliver,
Oliver Township, where I have been told on
the week end that their education costs, they
expect, will go up 500 per cent over last
year. When Lakehead people hear this kind
of thing they say: "Wow, that is what unifi-
cation in education is doing to us, what in
the world will unification at the municipal
level or full unification, produce?" And it is a
legitimate question.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (Yorth South): Is
the meml:)er in favour of amalgamation?
Mr. Knight: I am completely in favour of
amalgamation and I always have been, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the member is pre-
senting all the arguments against it.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the
hon. leader to the left has brought up the
question. I have gone on record for many
years favouring amalgamation and I still do.
I have already said that 70 per cent of the
Lakehead people do, but the qualification is
the way, who decides it? I have said that
Lakehead people do not know-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Knight: I will tell the member what I
mean if he will listen. It is strange, Mr.
Speaker, that the leader to the left here is
all of a sudden speaking because he has been
quiet for a year and a half on this issue. All
of a sudden he shows up at the Lakehead and
all of a sudden he is interested, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MacDonald: I was up there last week.
Mr. Knight: I have a little story to tell,
Mr. Speaker, in relation to that matter. I
would like to relate a few incidents that have
occurred, but I am interested right now in
convincing the government on the other
side to give our people a vote on this matter.
I was talking about costs, Mr. Speaker. We
all make cost gambles in our personal life,
but we like to reserve the right to decide on
that gamble ourselves. These Lakehead
people, who I say 78 per cent of them are in
3482
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
favour of amalgamation, they do not know
what the cost is going to be. They know it
might be terribly exorbitant, but they are
still willing to go ahead if they can make the
decision and not have to forfeit the right,
forfeit the responsibihty to this government.
It makes sense to me, Mr. Speaker, I do not
know if it makes sense to anybody else.
Many people today, Mr. Speaker, hke to
find the easy way out. They are burdened
with all kinds of problems and responsibihties
in the fast-moving, fast-changing world, and
so are the Lakehead people. But the Lake-
head people still have not lost that yen to do
things right. If they are going to fix a door
then fix it right; if tiiey are going to go hunt-
ing, they want to know how to hunt; they
want to know what the laws are, they want
to do it right.
In other words, they are people who still
like to walk in this fast-moving society and
hold their head up high and feel independent,
feel responsible. That is the attitude of the
majority of the Lakehead people. That is
why they resent this government walking in.
How many times have the people of the
Lakehead asked for a vote on this matter?
Do you know how happy this government
would have made the people of the Lake-
head if they had said yes? They would have
been dancing in the streets; the sun would
have shone in; democracy would have been
bom again. The Minister shakes his head, he
still does not understand.
Mr. MacDonald: Hallelujah!
Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, I mean
what I am saying, I mean every word of it.
It will be too late once the bill has been
passed to look back. Sure, we will go back
to the Lakehead and say, "All right, come on
Lakehead, look up and smile." I have said it
lots of times before and I am willing to say
it again. We will go back and pick up the
pieces because I believe in unity, I believe
in our j)eople working together.
Fort WiUiam and Port Arthur are not
opponents, they are communities hving side
by side. Their competition is in Winnipeg and
Toronto and other such communities, it is not
there at the Lakehead. But if once and for
all this wedding is going to happen, let the
bells ring for something.
I do not see how the wedding bells can
ring up there when the government has
dared to come in. I can remember the days
when the advocates of amalgamation told the
opponents of amalgamation, "You had better
get moving because that government in To-
ronto is going to come up here and force it
right in on you." It is happening.
I would never have beUeved it in a mil-
hon years. If I go back to those days, Mr.
Speaker, when I used to write editorials and
run these hot line radio programmes, I was
all in favour of amalgamation and I tried to
do my bit to educate the people, to make
them understand why, I would never have
imagined that I was helping, in those days,
to ready this way of doing things, this wrong
way.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned a
little bit earUer that the township of Neebing
council was all set to go to the supreme court.
If I did not, I mention it now. They were
going to see if they could not stop this gov-
ernment somehow and protect their rights.
Well, a httle while ago a story appeared on
the front page of the local paper, the Fort
William Times Journal, that says:
Neebing to Drop the Plan
The Neebing council could defer a pro-
posed plan to appeal to the supreme court
against this amalgamation of Fort William
and Port Arthur without a plebiscite.
Reeve Tom Tronson said earlier this
month that his municipahty would seek
determination from the high court as to
whether or not his municipahty could be
forced into the merger without a vote of
its residents.
Acting through Liberal MP Hubert
Badanai of Fort WiUiam, the municipality
approached the Solicitor-General, George
Mcilwraith, and asked for suggestions on
the move.
At Neebing council's regular meeting on
Thursday, council was informed that the
Solicitor-General was quoted as saying,
"The ballot box is your only weapon" so
they dropped the plan. They have chosen
an alternative, the ballot box, so stand by
for tlie people in Neebing.
Mr. Speaker, I remember going up to the
Lakehead one day in February for a specific
reason-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Knight: I think the hon. member who
is laughing in the comer is from Fort Wil-
liam, Mr. Speaker, and would have more
cause to laugh if he could get up and say
what his people really want him to say here.
Mr. Speaker, a meeting was held by the
Minister with the so-called intention of in-
forming the Lakehead people of the first draft
APRIL 23, 1969
3483
of the legislation for this very bill, Bill 118,
which was to be introduced at the time. The
people, of course, came in large numbers
because they wanted to answer the Minister's
questions.
At that time they were not given the op-
portunity, although I understand that after
the hall was empty the Minister came out of
a side room and oflFered to answer their
questions. Unfortunately they had already
gone home, but on that occasion somebody
came up with a float.
Just to show you how deep feelings can
run in this kind of an issue at the local level,
they had a float with a sign and written on
it, "Lest we forget, RIP, Neebing— bom 1881,
assassinated 1969".
I do not think that that suggests that the
Minister has found a way to deal with the
people in the township of Neebing. He has
found no way whatsoever of convincing them
that this amalgamation will in the long run
be to their advantage. The Minister has failed
to do that, and I think that was part of his
responsibility as a responsible Minister. If he
was not going to give the people a chance to
fight it in a democratic way in a vote then
he should have at least bent over backwards
to make them understand and convince them,
and this bill should not go through until he
has, or until somebody has.
This is no way to go into a brand new
city. You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I do
not think the government realizes the im-
portance of the Lakehead cities. I do not
think they see the fantastic strategic location
of this city. Is anybody here aware that the
cities I represent, Mr. Speaker, are at the hub
of an area of some 670,000 square miles. I am
taking in a little bit of northeastern Ontario
at the same time. Texas is only 664,000 square
miles, but that area, when you consider the
pre-Cambrian shield— the Mines Minister ( Mr.
A. F. Lawrence) can back me up on this— the
tremendous ore values that lie there.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that someday
this Lakehead is going to be a great husthng,
bustling city, there is no question about it.
But you cannot build what it is going to be
on legislation. You have to build it on people,
in their feehngs, on their pride, on their
history, on their background. The day that
this bill passes without a vote, Mr. Speaker,
will be a sorry day. It will be a black mark
on the whole history of the Lakehead.
All you have to do is to read a bit of the
history of those people, the kind of people
who went through there and the courage
that they had. It is nostalgic, it is fantastic.
I know that there are legislators in this
country today who say forget about the past.
How can we forget about the past? Today is
tomorrow's past, and what we are doing
today will be the past 100 years from now.
I certainly hope that our followers, our
ancestors, our children, will not have reason
to regret the actions in this House. The
people must be given a right to express their
feehng on this matter on a democratic vote.
The people of the Lakehead, as I men-
tioned before, have very strong feelings, and
one of the examples of this strong feeling
came around February 14, during the course
of the Neebing Winter Carnival, in which
one of the floats appeared with a group of
models or dummies, as it were, launching in
eflBgy the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
to the moon.
An hon. member: He did not get very far-
Mr. Knight: That does not impress the hon.
member. Well, we will try something else.
These pleas have continued ever since the
Hardy report was released, Mr. Speaker, for
the people to have a vote on this matter. We
get to February 21, 1969, a great big head-
line in the Fort William Times Journal, "Mc-
Keough rejects demands for a vote, stands
firm on merger." This article says in part:
Mr. McKeough said work is continuing
at a steady pace. I do not think the Min-
ister has ever had time to stop and really
take a good look at this whole business of
holding a referendum and holding a plebi-
scite on this matter. I do not think he has.
I think he has thought about it, discussed
it probably with the Premier in Cabinet,
and they reached a bang bang decision,
"Got to move ahead on this thing, don't
let these people block us on this, got to
get it going and here we go."
Steady progress, so steady in fact, Mr.
Speaker, that because the elections for the
mayor and the council are already announced
for June 23, that is why the Minister has got
to rush and get this through the House, so
he can get everything ready to keep that
deadline.
Yet some time back when, just shortly after
I giiested the Minister's first visit or so, after
Mr. Hardy's report was released at the Lake-
head, he was asked whether he had a sort
of a time table, a schedule to be followed
before implementation of this. He said, "We
do not follow timetables for people participa-
tion." We have got to play this by ear, you
know; we have got to go along as we are
3484
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ready; we must not rush this thing. Was the
work of the intermunicipal committee, which
Alderman Hennessy has lambasted so strcmgly,
was it so effective, Mr. Speaker, that they
could move the election three months?
Mr. Speaker, I do not buy that; I think
there must have been other reasons.
There is another article, Mr. Speaker, which
is entitled "McKeough confident Neebing to
go along". He was confident some months
ago that Neebing would go along. It has
never gone along, because after that they
went on to say they were going to go to the
supreme court; it was after that that they
launched the hon. Minister in effig>' to the
moon. They did not make it to the moon,
but they were well intentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that I go to
another voice of the Lakehead; I am thinking
now of the editorial voice of the Lakehead.
You know, Eric Hardy did not like these
newspapers too much, because I can recall
reading the review that he really lambasted
them. He lampooned them as a couple of
media that did everything in their power to
keep these cities from amalgamating and he
was right, they did.
I can remember days when I had to fight
with them. I was so discouraged at these two
newspapers at one time, Mr. Speaker, that I
went on television. I said that I am so con-
\ inced about amalgamation, I think we should
put it all together tomorrow and call it Port
Arthur. The only reason I was doing that at
the time, Mr. Speaker, was to get people
interested in the issue.
Of course, what I was saying was non-
sense, but it caused the newspapers to start
saying, "Wait a minute, we do not have to
amalgamate these cities. All we have to do is
start working in greater harmony." I accom-
plished my puri^ose anyway; but now, of
course, these newspapers and myself are
aligned to some extent in our thinking on
the matter of a plebiscite. Tlie Port Arthur
News Chronicle is not so much as die Fort
Williiun Daily Times Journal, as some of
these editorials wdll show. The Port Arthur
News Chronicle seems to have that feeling of
resign ;ition, "what can you do". Better get on
with the job now, the government's doing it
anyway" and so (m. I do not admire that
position at all.
The Fort William Daily Times Journal, on
the other hand, has got more fight, more get
up and go. To convey this to you, and to
<'ndorse some of what I have been telling the
House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to read an editorial from the Fort William
Daily Times Journal, February 21, 1969. This
one is by the publisher of that paper who, I
understand, for some time has been noted as
a staunch supporter of the government side
of this House. First, the title is "Calling all
members". This man writes well; this is a
good editorial. You will notice that it is pro-
fessionally done.
Now that the combined eftorts of a large
representation of labour, half of council.
See, he is itemizing. He has already summed
up the opposition to this bill, so listen to this,
it is very important.
Now that the combined efTotrs of a large
representation of labour, half of council,
friendly Neebing.
It used to be friendly anyway—
Thousands of private citizens and this
newspaper, plus the timely appearance of
an idiot article in Maclean's Magazine, has
created a new opportimity for democratic
expression. This is the time that we should
be hearing from our politicians. Whether
they are for or against amalgamation does
not matter; what does matter is whether
they are ready to stand up and be coimted
as representati\'es of the people who voted
them into office.
Now what the editorial goes on to say is not
really in the interest of the hon. member for
Fort William, so I do not plan to go into that.
However, further down the publisher of the
Fort WilHam Daily Times Journal concludes
his editorial by saying, and he is obviously
pleading to the member and to the elected
people:
How about helping the rest of us re-
establish the principle of municipal self-
determination? As for our mayors and
reeves, tlie writing is on the wall. So unless
those with a real feeUng for their conv-
munities follow through now with a loud
voice in favour of restraint and re-establish-
ment of perspective in tiie matter of muni-
cipal futures, we might just as well fold
up our tents and steal away into the
night.
riiixt editorial, Mr. Speaker, was addressed
obviously to the people of the Lakehead,
and more particularly to the people of Fort
William, "we might just as well fold up our
tents and steal away."
I have heard him speak, and I have seen
him write other editorials in which he has
spoken so proudly of that area and the
history of his family. Having a name like
Macgillivray, one would understand the tre-
APRIL 23, 1969
3485
mendous background that this man's family
has in connection with the Lakehead. He is
the man who had the coat of arms for the
City of Fort William executed, and I hap-
pened to be tlie acting mayor for the City
of Fort William on the day that he presented
that coat of arms oflBcially to the city. I re-
call his pride and when I think of him I
tliink of him sending out an SOS to save
democracy at the Lakehead.
I say to myself, a man like that has got
to be saying "my goodness, what has hap-
pened to this place? What kind of a govern-
ment would do such a thing?" I mentioned
the Port Arthur News Chronicle. This is a
very important matter Mr. Speaker, I do not
know who has sent this up to me but appar-
ently perhaps this should be sent down to
Mr. Speaker.
This is an editorial in the Port Arthur
News Chronicle, the counterpart of tlie Fort
William Daily Times Journal, which, as you
will see, does not entirely support the stand
I am expressing today, but in many ways
does.
This is no time for the Lakehead to pout
and pine for the good old days. Those
days have drifted rapidly into obscurity
during the past year, and a visit Monday
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs Darcy
McKeough virtually closed the door on yes-
terday. Government has issued its decree,
amalgamation is a reality, a must. There
have been those of us who disagreed with
the government's approach, thought to
secure greater participation on the part of
the people. The result was not exactly what
we wanted. The Lakehead must look
towards tonK>rrow. It must gear into the
future without leaning on the past for any-
thing more than selected guidelines to be
drawn from the depths of exx>erience for
the same time, for the struggle to get
citizens to participate in public afFairs can
never end. It is essential that individuals
take a hand in the shapirug of a commu-
nity's orderly progress. Their voices must
reverberate with consistency. Their tones
must echo with a clarity of an Alpine
yodeler. Just around the comer lie impor-
tant decisions.
And so on and so on, and the editorial wraps
up:
The Lakehead cannot aflFord a disinter-
ested citizenry during an hour when all
minds need to be sharpened to the task of
creating, remodelling and stabilizing.
There is the voice crying in the wilderness,
Mr. Speaker. It is, because the main issue is
no longer amalgamation. He is telling a whole
group of people, a whole community of
people who are worried about their demo-
cratic rights, "concern yourself with amalga-
mation," when it is this very aanalgamation
that the people feel has caused a violation of
their democratic rights, and the loss of their
democratic rights. Naturally, the people are
not going to walk around smiling, "We've got
a city," and so on; when all the time there
is something rubbing them inside saying, "We
should have made this decision; this was taken
out of our hands. It didn't have to be taken
out of our hands, we could have settled it.
Why didn't Toronto have faith in us? Why
didn't they flatter our intelligence? Why did
the Minister come up here like a general
saying, 'It shall be, you will not vote'?"
You do not have to treat people that way,
Mr. Speaker. And you know something? I
think the people of southern Ontario, people
in all the other municipalities in this prov-
ince, are going to be able to identify them-
selves with this feehng of the people at the
Lakehead. You do yourself no service by
dictating legislation into being like tliis; by
dictating the Lakehead city into being.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, would the Speaker and the member
permit me to announce that—
Mr. Speaker: Order! TJie hon. member has
no point of order and he has interrupted a
speech by a member of his party. I have
already announced the presence of the people
to whom he was referring earlier today, if
the hon. member had been listening.
Mr. Knight: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We are trying to back up an argument on
behalf of the Lakehead people. We are trying
to convince the Minister of Municipal AflFairs
—and he is listening very well and I will be
happy to tell the Lakehead people that he
did listen very well, because then when he
makes his decision he cannot say that he was
not well informed. I have a lot of affidavits. I
want to make sure that while I have him
cornered in his seat over there, all of these
messages get through to him. I think I owe
this to the people I represent; that is my
responsibility.
I was quoting editorials and I think edi-
torials are important because in many ways
they reflect the feelings of the community,
the feeling of the people. Having written
thousands in my time for broadcast purposes
rather than journal, I think I would put an
3486
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
awful lot of importance on these because
the editorial writer usually tries to reflect his
community.
He goes out in his community and hears
all kinds of things and he assimilates this
with his own background, his own experi-
ence and wisdom. Then he throws it back
out to the people to see what they say. If
these editorials were not right, there would
be a tremendous outcry from the people;
there usually is. Now, this editorial was pub-
lished Friday, February 14, in the Fort Wil-
liam Daily Times Journal; it is entitled
"Council action is questionable". We are
getting around to the other argvunent that the
Minister sometimes uses, Mr. Speaker, that
why did the councils at the Lakehead not
ask for this vote? If the people want the vote,
why did not the municipal representatives
ask for it?
The Port Arthur city council took a deci-
sion, I think, long before the Hardy report
came out. It is interesting to note that in the
last four years at least, the same people have
sat on that council; the same 10 councillors.
They all went back in the last election, and
they sit for a two-year term, as did the mayor.
The positions they had earlier was they
were not very hkely to change and tliey did
not change. For some reason tliey refused
to go along or, at least, they just simply took
the other opinion. That is their privilege.
They took the other opinion that the people
should not have a vote. I think the people
will have the reaction on election day.
Now, getting back to this editorial, which
is entitled:
Council Action is Questionable
By virtue of a tie vote. Fort William city
council has refused to accede to a demand
for a plebiscite on the question of amal-
gamation. In other words, half of the
representatives elected by the people are
preventing these same people from a demo-
cratic declaration of their desire, or lack
of desire, to lose their cori>orate entity.
WTiat can their motivation be?
First of all they say we can't do any-
thing, it is too late, and we agree that it
probably is. But too late only because
the same aldermen, in inviting take-over
by the province, surrendered voluntarily
the right of the members of their com-
munity to determine their corporate future.
Secondly, they say a plebiscite would
cost $15,000 to $20,000, too expensive. Of
whose money are these aldermen suddenly
])ecoming so protective? Why, the money
of these same citizens who elected them,
and from whose ranks the demands are
now being made for a plebiscite.
Other reasons for this aldermanic omni-
science included a point by one that
amalgamation will bring new industry.
From another came the statement, "Sure,
amalgamation will increase taxes, but even
if we do not amalgamate you can be sure
you will be liit anyway with an eight to ten
mill increase about the same as you would
expect by amalgamating. In the first in-
stance,"
This editorial continues:
The alderman overlooks the fact that by
amalgamation we only draw a bigger cor-
porate boundary on the map. Can this be
considered an incentive?
Moreover, six months of strikes here last
year, coupled with transportation costs, has
surely frightened away any near future
potential industrial prospects.
As to the statement about taxes, the
alderman poses a case that sofar as taxes
are concerned, either the status quo or
amalgamation will bring the same result.
Is this an argument on which to base
resistance to a plebiscite? We don't think
so.
And the editorial continues:
How come we are now being saved from
ourselves after having been sold down the
river with no recourse to an alternative two
years ago?
After studying tlie situation, we wonder
whether certain outside influences have not
persuaded the anti-plebiscite group to the
adoption of present attitudes. It is con-
ceivable, for example, that close associa-
tion with the Lakehead chamber of com-
merce has had its undue influence, for
it is common knowledge that once merged
the chamber had to live or die by its
incomprehensive slogan "One voice instead
of two".
We do consider the chamber to be an
outside influence. Although it can be a
power for good, it can also be a power for
mischief if it is to have in future an imdue
influence on our mayor and council, the
elected representatives of the people.
And the editorial concludes with this para-
graph:
It is suggested therefore, that those who
oppose the plebiscite, whether it be from
fear of the province or from the fear of the
electorate, be alerted to the fact that the
APRIL 23. 1969
3487
people whom they are denying the right of
community expression,, are those same
people who seduced originally from the
glib promise of a comprehensive regional
government, and then coerced prematurely
into an amalgamated municipaUty, will be
the same people who will select the muni-
cipal representatives for the new so-called
super-council. Fences rushed in rnidue
haste are difBcult to mend, and the mood
of a people aroused is a difficult force
with which to contend in the future.
And, Mr. Speaker, those sentiments I certainly
very strongly concur in.
It is hard to understand why the Minister
can move so quickly on this legislation when
he knows how unhappy so many people at
the Lakehead are because of his proposed
legislation, this bill that we are discussing.
Bill 118.
As a matter of fact, I have another edi-
torial here in the local newspaper, the Daily
Times Journal, that asks exacdy that question.
"Why the hurry with an election?"
The local taxpayers association hasn't
made too much headway with its cam-
paign for a plebiscite on the amalgamation
issue, but there is little doubt that Hon.
Darcy McKeough and local proponents of
the merger, know it exists. Mr. McKeough's
flying trip to the city Saturday to give a
blessing to a June 23 election, which he
had previously ordered for September, sug-
gests he is anxious to have a fait accompli
before the dissidents can interfere further
with his plans. There seems to be an un-
seemly hurry all of a sudden to get the
merger battened down.
And then the following editorial pertains to
the same matter, Mr. Speaker, and it is en-
titled "He said that", and I think it indicates
that perhaps the hon. Minister in the matter
of Bill 118 is even moving too quickly for
some of his underlings, some of the bureau-
crats who advise him within his own depart-
ment. Listen to this editorial:
We hope that when Municipal Affairs
Minister Darcy McKeough got back to his
office Monday someone showed him the
news item out of Essex, Ontario, where one
of his men made an observation Saturday
which does not seem to jibe with Mr. Mc-
Keough's dogmatic pronouncements. Glen
Morris of London, who supervises munici-
palities in nine counties including Essex for
Mr. McKeough's department, was quoted
in a Canadian Press story as saying,
"Amalgamation of municipalities should be
voluntary, not forced by The Department
of Municipal Affairs."
He said further that consolidation should
only occur when residents favour it. Maybe
Essex and its environs has not yet invited
The Municipal Affairs Department to pre-
pare an Eric Hardy type report.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much
doubt you have to shed on a procedure of
the government here, to make them change
their mind. An honourable person, honour-
able governments, serving the people with
honour and a sense of responsibility, should
be wilHng to change its mind. The hon. Min-
ister is not going to lose friends or go into dis-
favour, he is going to be admired if he has
the courage to accede to this request of the
Lakehead people to vote on this matter.
Well, here is another editorial, Mr. Speaker
and this one is the voice of die people of
the Lakehead and they are 900 miles away
so I feel I have got to convey this entire
message here before the very important bill
goes through, because I would not want it
to be passed without this House having all
the information that I can get my hands on.
I want to make sure that they know in
as much depth as possible the feeling of my
people— our people. They are your people
too. This one here is in the Port Arthur News
Chronicle, we are back over to the hill city
now of Tuesday, April 1, 1969 and it is en-
titled:
Erosion of Local Threat is a Threat
TO THE Lakehead
Whatever happened to decentralization?
Not too many years ago it was the fashion
among politicians and a great many other
groups to attack our ills by suggesting de-
centralization. Industry instead of being
jammed up in only a few parts of the
country would be decentralized and forced
to spread out to various locations across
the nation. Even government, centered in
capitals long distances away from areas
that it governs was to be decentralized."
Remember, when northwestern Ontario was
promised its own mini-Cabinet and so on.
Well, apparently the pendulum has
taken a wide swing, for there are growing
indications on every side today that more
and more power is being centralized in
Toronto, and what the dwellers in the
outback think is being listened to less and
less. If the government thinks that some-
thing is good for us then that is the way
it is going to be, whether we like it or not.
3488
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And this is the same message, Mr. Speaker,
that I am trying to convey. The voice of the
northwest, the Lakehead 78 per cent are not
being listened too. The people want a vote
on tliis matter and in this case, the Port
Arthur News Chronicle agrees with me, so
I agree with it.
It goes on to say certain things about the
hon. member for Fort William, and here
again I will refrain from bringing that matter
up. But the editorial concludes:
It is imix)rtant that we keep all lines
of communications opened to the provin-
cial government, but this does not mean
that we sit complacently by awaiting
orders from that source. There will be more
respect coming if we fully understand our
peculiar requirements and state them
clearly.
That is what I am trying to do here today,
Mr. Speaker, is state very clearly my feelings
on Bill 118, the feelings of many of the
people that I represent.
Mr. Speaker, I tliink that letters are a very
good source of public opinion, a very good
v/ay to find out about public opinion, because
anyone who feels strongly enough alx)ut
something to write a letter usually feels it
very deeply. Here is a letter I received from
a Lakeheader. He says:
It is a shotgun wedding, you will hear
some yell;
From such a union spring trouble to quell.
Yet others see amalgamation
As the answer to future salvation.
Of the Hardy report we should waive
pros and cons;
Thinking Canadians know it wrong to be
told, "You will."
Is this hypocrisy
To Canadian freedom and democracy?
Here is another letter from a citizen, Mr.
Speaker. I will not use their names; it is
just voices, voices from the Lakehead.
The local authorities see fit to allow us
a vote on daylight saving time. Therefore,
I cannot see why we are not allowed to
vote on an important issue such as amal-
gamation.
I presume the Minister, when he speiiks, will
have answers to all these queries.
Here is another one, Mr. Speaker. It says.
Dear Mr. Knight:
Sorry you are battling . . . and so on
and so on . . . all alone. It is cut and dried
now. However, you can be sure many will
fight to defeat the Robarts government at
tlie next election . . . and so on and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I said it before: The govern-
ment is committing poHtical suicide up there.
The person who writes this letter is just an
average Lakeheader with no great penman-
ship or anything else; he just put a feehng
down on paper, his reaction to how amalga-
mation is coming about. It is a genuine reac-
tion. He has no axe to grind except the fact
of not liaving the right to vote on the matter.
Tliere is nothing forced here. It is just a
person's feeling. I have someone who feels
he is being robbed of the right to decide
his own destiny. Here is another letter:
Please find enclosed one signed petition.
However as we have a home in Port
Arthur and another in Mclntyre, which
would involve more interest in amalgamation,
vv'e feel that we are in the dark as to what
position amalgamation is going to leave us.
That is January 15, 1969, and beheve you
me, the people who signed that and who
have written that echo the feehngs of
a lot of Lakehead people. They just do
not knov>' where amalgamation is taking them.
So far, those who have been pushing amalga-
mation without a vote have failed to educate
them and failed to inform diem, and tliey arc
saying, "It is alright, someday you will know
what it was all about; after you start paying
the bills you will know. Right now, we have
a dream, we have a plan, good system for
government right across the province and you
are a very important part of it. So you know,
you will catch up eventually."
Here is another letter, Mr. Speaker, from
a Lakeheader:
Ron, at the rate we are going with
amalgamation appointments and commit-
tees we will soon not have enough pro-
ducers to keep tlie non-produders. With each
new setup it takes more and costs more
than a little improvement in the old setup.
But as long as we have a quarter of the
population who do not produce to look
after the rest, we will be on a par with
the Communist parties. I hope we get a
vote on this amalgamation and I will get
my franchise back and boy, will I use it.
Real good of the government to say, "We
make the setup; now you have the privilege
of electing people to run it."
Here is a letter, Mr. Speaker, that has quite a
bit of meaning. In this case it is from an-
other member of the government party, and
a \'ery staunch supporter over the years, but
the manner in which the Minister and gov-
ernment are handling tliis particular legisla-
tion has prompted her over to our side.
APRIL 23, 1969
3489
I have a note here which says, "Keep it
short, stupid." Well, Mr. Speaker, I have
been waiting for a long time—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That must be from
one of his own members.
Mr. Knight: No, definitely not.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I am
being heard and I am ruflBing feathers and this
is part of what I intend to do. If the govern-
ment is allowed to force this legislation
through, then surely I, as an elected represen-
tative of 55,000 of the people involved, have
tlie right to stand here and speak on their
behalf. Mr. Speaker, that little note means
nothing because this matter of amalgamation
has produced threats to my family and my
family has not said, "Shut up" or "keep
it short, stupid."
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of Lakehead
people. I said they have controlled their
deepest and strongest emotions. But I will
not si>eak for the future. To prove that they
do feel strongly, I would like to go back-
just before I read this letter from a Con-
servative in Port Arthur— to a front-page story
in the 'News Chronicle of not too long ago
and it is entitled, "No Violence, Says Mayor":
Fort William Mayor Ernest Reed denied
radio reports today that threats of violence
against him made him change his stand on
an amalgamation plebiscite. Mr. Reed said
there had never been any threats made
against him and he had altered his stand
on the plebiscite over the past month "be-
cause I feel it my duty." Any talk of
violence, he said, was foolish and would
not accomplish anything.
Mayor Reed said he was determined to
do everything he could to see a plebiscite
on the matter. "If provincial authorities
were getting the same messages I am, they
would say the same thing," he said. The
mayor pointed out he was in a good posi-
tion to get the feedback of public opinion,
both the pros and the cons, "something The
Municipal Affairs Department is not in a
position to do." He said if a plebiscite was
not offered to the people of the Lakehead
and area it would be a tragic mistake.
Here is the case of the mayor of the city of
Fort Wilham, Mr. Speaker, who has changed
his position. Earher he said: "I endorse the
Hardy report. Let us get on with it." But
when the pubhc started to say, "Wait a
minute, Your Worship, you have made a
mistake. Listen to our side of this thing," the
mayor— who is a very good-willed type of
person; I have known him for many years-
turned around and said, "My goodness, I
cannot shut off the voice of my people." So
he decided to go in favour of a vote on this
matter.
If we add the name of Mayor Reed of Fort
William to the name of Reeve Tom Tronsen
in Neebing to the name of Fort William MP
Hubert Badanai to the name of MPP Ron
Knight in Port Arthur to the name of at least
six aldermen on the Fort William city coun-
cil, I think we will find just how split, even
in their elective representation, the Lakehead
people are on the matter of going ahead with
th legislation in this way. That in itself, Mr.
Speaker, should be enough reason to say,
"All right, we have bungled it the dictatorial
way; let us go back to the good old-fashioned
democratic way of deciding this whole issue.
Let the people decide it."
Mr. Speaker, I brought up the matter of
violence just a moment ago. I mentioned that
my family had been threatened. Fortunately
there was no follow-through, thank God for
that. The very fact that reporters were asking
the mayor about violence suggests that there
has been some word or some notice, and so
on. I am sure that his worship gave the
answer that he did because he does not want
to promote violence and neither do I. But I
only bring this up, Mr. Speaker, to show how
strong feelings are about this matter.
Here is a letter from a lady who is a very
strong supporter of my predecessor as the
Port Arthur member, whom I respect very
much. This lady has witten a letter here to
the moderator of the telephone programme on
the local radio station, and she has sent me a
copy, and has given me permission to make
use of it.
Dear Mr. MacDonald:
In respect to amalgamation one very
important fact seems to be overlooked by
aU your callers.
In the first place tlie people of the Port
Arthur riding did not have enough con-
fidence in their decision-making abilities
to return the Conservative member to that
Legislature. Instead, they felt that the
present member would better serve our
area and speak for the people of the Lake-
head area.
To me, this is exacdy what he is doing,
and as I have had a long conversation with
him, I am convinced that he is very sincere
in his endeavours. Also, I know that he is
acting on information that he has gleaned
in many talks with his constituents, and is
3490
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
acting on their behalf when he insists on
a plebiscite for amalgamation.
I would also hke to bring to your atten-
tion that the people of MacGregor town-
ship in particular—
And she goes into another aspect of this
whole thing. The Minister has conceded to a
request from the taxpayers of MacGregor
township to leave out that portion which was
proposed by Mr. Eric Hardy in his report to
be included in the new city. The Minister has
listened to the ratepayers there, he has
acceded to their request, and he has left it
out. I thought that was great and so do they.
As I go further down in the letter:
When we chose to live in a rural muni-
cipality we did so after serious considera-
tion, and the weighing of advantages and
disadvantages. We chose our property care-
fully as we wished to live out in the coun-
try. Our property was located eight miles
from the city, and this seemed far enough
away to escape the city way of life. We
wanted our children to have the feeling
of space and freedom tliat country living
offered.
In a way, the lady in this letter, Mr. Speaker,
is echoing the feelings of people out in Neeb-
Ing township who have been fighting so
strongly against this. I have heard some of
them say, in fact, these very same argu-
ments. A httle bit further on in the letter,
this lady says:
I would repeat that we did not ratify the
Conservative government in the last elec-
tion. Also I did not ever hear the Con-
servative candidate bring the issue of
amalgamation into the election campaign
and ask tlie people's support for them on
this issue. To be fair, it was also not an
issue raised by the Opposition parties, but
only because at tiiat time I believe it was
not thought enough to be an issue.
I would appreciate your bringing my
views—
And so on. So there is a lady, Mr. Speaker,
who was with the government party at one
time, and may still be, because, after all the
war still is not over.
This battle is not over, and I am still kind
of confident that the hon. Minister over there
will be inclined to change his mind, as will
the Premier and the Cabinet, and include a
clause in this bill which makes it subject to
ratification by a plebiscite of the Lakehead
people. I still believe that this is going to
happen.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr.
Speaker, of course has an awful lot to say
in this matter. He is the member of his
government who has been chosen to carry
the cudgel, you might say, on this matter.
Perhaps it would be better to say, carry the
responsibility for seeing to it that whatever
new local Lakehead government takes effect,
takes effect in the proper way.
Mr. Speaker, I would hke to ask the hon.
Minister a question similar to the one which
was asked by my colleague, the hon. member
for Welland South, on February 18 in the
House. It pertained to the Chatham area,
the Minister's own constituency.
I will not repeat the exact question, but it
reflected the idea, what would you do in
your own riding, you know. Where is
Chatham in this regional government at this
point? Any regional government for Chatham?
Well I would like to add that I thought it
was an excellent question. For the hon. Min-
ister to really do justice to the people of the
Lakehead, he has got to treat this issue of the
incorporation of the new Lakehead city just
as he would if he were incorporating a new
city in Chatham. And I wonder if 78 per cent
of the people of Chatham were saying, "Look
Mr. Minister, we want to decide, we want to
vote on tliis matter." You know, like maybe
his relatives, his—
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would point out to
the hon. members from the official Opposi-
tion who are not occupying their own seats,
that tliey are voiceless in this House. If they
persist in interfering with the debate I shall
have to take some steps to have the matter
attended to.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying
to place the hon. Minister for Municipal
Affairs in my position. 1 was trying to help
him examine his conscience, as it were, his
political conscience. What would he do?
What would his decision be? Would it still
be whether you vote for me or not next time
out, I think this is right, as one of your elected
representatives and this must happen this
way.
If that is the extent of the Minister's
sincerity and determination in this matter,
if he were, in effect, willing to put at the
next election his political career on the hne on
the basis of this, then I would say, OK, this
is a Minister who is honourable.
I would put my own political career on the
line, I think, on this issue, because I know the
mental crvielty, that the people that I repre-
sent have been subjected to because of the
APRIL 23, 1969
3491
manner in which this new city is coming
about. The emotions range from a variety
of feehngs. There are people at the Lake-
head today, Mr. Speaker, when you refer to
the matter of the new Lakehead city who
just throw their hands up and they say,
"Well, what can you do? The government is
going to do whatever it wants to do. They
have taken this entire matter out of our
hands, there is nothing we can do."
Then there are others, Mr. Speaker, who
get just fighting mad, and they say, "What
is this, Czechoslovakia or somewhere, where
a government can step in and determine our
future here? Do we have no say, no hearing
down there in Toronto? Is there anything we
can do?"
And, Mr. Speaker, others are just plain
hurt. There are people from 47 ethnic back-
grounds who now call the Lakehead their
home, and I have heard some of them, and
this is something that really hurts.
Some of them say, "I have lived in coun-
tries where governments did this. Just simply
usurped die local autonomy, did not heed
the local opinion and walked in and estab-
lished programmes that the local people did
not want, and this is what has caused revo-
lutions, this is what has caused bloodshedl
This, Mr. Speaker, at least is what causes
the erosion of democracy. And you know, Mr.
Speaker, if you look up the definition of
democracy in Webster— and I had to do that
because I am talking about democracy— it
says, "Government by the people" and it
means, just for the common people.
An hon. member: Did members know that!
Mr. Knight: I think the fact that we are
in this House today, everyone of us is here
because of the principle of democracy, be-
cause the people put us here. I think this
very chamber has a fantastic past, steeped
in democracy, and I think that these cham-
bers echoed long into the night on many
occasions on arguments in favour of democ-
racy.
This government has a chance to apply
this very principle, Mr. Speaker, for this im-
portant legislation that the House is being
asked to bring in for the incorporation of
a Lakehead city.
If the Lakehead people had not cried out,
if I did not have a petition with 6,292 names,
if I did not have editorials, news stories,
letters, letters to the editor; if I did not have
comments of my people, verbal comments
albeit to convey to this House, then the hon.
Minister could say, "Fine, I am on the right
track; we are taking the responsibility, we
are doing it and the people are going along
with it."
That is what we hoped would happen, Mr.
Speaker. I think he hoped that anyway. He
should have hoped it, because that would
have saved him an awful lot of trouble. I
am sure his mail has been pretty thick and
heavy on this issue.
But if he knew the Lakehead people like
some of us know them, Mr. Speaker, he
would never have started on this course. He
would never even have taken the advice of
Eric Hardy— and do not think for one minute
that I do not respect Eric Hardy, because I
sat in on many of his meetings when he
was trying to assess Lakehead opinion, listen-
ing to briefs, and you know this is a very
intelligent fellow.
He sized up the local situation very quickly,
but he missed the boat when he thought that
he could advise the government not to submit
at least the principle, at least the idea, of
amalgamation to the people.
He certainly missed the boat on tliat one,
Mr. Speaker, and unfortvmately the Minister
picked up this mistake as soon as he became
involved in this matter and has carried it
forward. We have tried to warn him. I myself
warned him the night the Hardy report was
released, Mr. Speaker. Others asked questions
from the floor, "Will we not have a vote,
March 11, 1968?" That is just a little over
a year and a month ago, and even at that
time he immediately said I am inclined to
go along with Mr. Hardy. I am inchned to
turn this down.
Even in this House, Mr. Speaker, when I
have asked the question which was by way
of asking the Minister, "Would he reconsider
this?" But no, no, no. Never maybe. With
never you might have something. But nothing,
just a wall of opposition to the whole idea of
any kind of a vote.
How has the Minister made up his mind
so early in the game, Mr. Speaker? How has
he been imflinching? I think he has the
responsibility to justify that stand to this
Legislature because there are many who do
not understand it. They can only take it one
way— dictator— no other way. There are people
up at the Lakehead who believe this; they
have no pohtical axe to grind. These are
people in all three parties, Mr. Speaker, who
say, how can he do it? How can he get
away with it? In some place we have gone
wrong; where did we lose our rights? How
can a government come up here from Toronto
and just end the whole thing this way and
3492
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
force us mto a certain position? We cannot
see how this is the proper inrterpreitation of
democracy in this country.
There is another story I would hke to read
you, Mr. Speaker, which is a record really, of
what has happened in this issue. This Is a
story entitled "Knight gets 'no' on vote." I
do not know whether the members of this
House will remember tlie day that this hap-
penetl but here is how it was reported to the
people up at the Lakehead:
Municipal Ajffairs Minister Darcy Mc-
Keough gave a brief "no" in the Legislature
Thursday when asked if he would recon-
sider a plebiscite on the amalgamation of
the Lakehead cities. Ron Knight asked a
question which started a five-minute
squabble over whether or not a large part
of it was in order. Knight asked if the
Minaster would reconsider in view of the
following recent developments.
When he started to list the develop-
ments, the Speaker, Fred Cass, ruled the
remainder of the question out of order.
The argument that ensued involved Liberal
Leader Robert Nixon, who backed Knight,
and ultimately Premier John Robarts, who
said the rules would have to be followed
if the question period was not to get wholly
out of hand.
Speaker Cass apologized to Knight at one
point for suggesting that the question was
not being asked so much for information as
for publicity value. TJie developments
which Knight started to list and which
caused the arguments were—
And on and on and on, Mr. Speaker; I am
sure you remember the long list. What was
significant to me in that whole encounter
was how the Premier who, until then to my
knowledge had not involved himself in this
issue in any way, shape or fonn, was sud-
denly so determined that the member for
Port Arthur was not going to ask any more
of the items in that question. For the first
time we find the Premier of the province
really, in effect, siding with the Minister of
Municipal AiBFairs. Until that point he had
been hiding behind the Minister, I think,
Mr. Speaker.
YoTi know what I mean, l^lame Darcy';
one man is to blame for this. Mr. Speaker, I
think that is a misconception, too. I mean, if
the Minister of Municipal Aff^airs can do this,
if he can propose this legislation without
giving the people a vote at a time when the
Premier— and I am sure other members of
the Cabinet over there have received letters
and requests and, of course, after this debate,
have been informed by myself as to the
people's desires; it is more than a desire-
it is a need for this democratic vote. Then,
Mr. Speaker, this entire government has got
to be condemned for its undemocratic ways.
Let the people of southern Ontario, Mr.
Speaker, through you, follow the course of
events at the Canadian Lakehead very closely
because if it can happen to my people, if it
can happen up at the Lakehead, it can hap-
pen to them. This government is on the
move. Where it is going, I do not know if
it knows, but I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it
is trampling over people just like it is an
army. It is trampling right over them, it
does not matter what the people think, we
have got a dream and it is going ahead! It
does not matter what people do; it does not
matter what they say, the people are not
going to maintain self-determination in this
province. The only time that they are going
to have it is once every four years at election
time. Then the people will know that from
here on in, whenever they are electing a
Conservative government, Mr. Speaker, that
is it. They have sold their souls, because this
government can do anything it likes. It sets
up a programme and in its wisdom and deep
foresight and insight, it feels that this must
be done; it does not matter what the people
say.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see it that way my-
self. I think there is such a thing as account-
ability and I think it should come more often
than once every four years. I think that this
government— the government of any province,
any country, any municipality— should be
continually assessing what it is doing up
against the background of public opinion.
That brings me around to another editorial,
if I can find it here. This one, however, does
not come from the Lakehead papers and is
much more recent. I tliink here in the To-
ronto Telegram we have a writer, Eric Dowd,
Telegram, Queen's Park Bureau; perhaps he
is here. He is not allowed to speak, but I
am and I am also allowed to bring reports.
Mr. Speaker, if tlie members of this House
have read this article, it is in the April 22—
tliat is, yesterday— Toronto Telegram and it
is entitled, "The Robarts government vs.
public opinion". In many ways this article
compliments the government, but in another
way it warns this government that something
has happened. It is the same old party; you
know what I mean— it has the same old
government of 26 years that always stack
pretty close to public opinion, and that is
what struck me. Let me read some of thi«,
APRIL 23, 1969
3493
Mr. Speaker, and I will get my point across
here:
Ontario's Progressive Conservative gov-
ernment is often accused of consensus poli-
tics—taking the course that oflFends least
and waiting patiently where necessary for
public opinion to come round in its
favour.
Certainly one of the factors that has
helped the Conservatives to stay in power
for 26 years is tlie sensitive finger they
usually have on the public pulse. Ironically,
the government now is in its deepest
trouble in years because it is pushing ahead
with programmes despite hostile pubhc
opinion.
Mr. Speaker, tliis is very strange. I wiU spare
the House tlie balance of Mr, Dowd's article.
I have said the part that makes my point and
it is that this government is warned by a very
astute newspaper journahst here as well as
by myself at this time. Political suicide at
the Lakehead; that is it— maybe the whole
northwest.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I might just
for a moment, I have more voices at the Lake-
head that should be heard from. The one I
am thinking of right at the moment, Mr.
S,peaker, is the Canadian Lakehead port coun-
cil. I referred to it earlier and I found the
affidavit that nails home my argument in that
regard.
The indication by the Minister in a speech
at the Lakehead was that he had made his
decision on no vote because he had been
talking to the labouring people. Listen to
this article:
Canadian Lakehead port council, repre-
senting some 4,000 to 5,000 waterfront
union workers, has voted support of inter-
national brotherhood of pulp, sulphite and
paper mill workers, local 39, on the prin-
ciple of a plebiscite for amalgamation of
the Lakehead area.
Council president Harvey McKinnon
gave details of the resolution—
That the Canadian Lakehead port coun-
cil supports local 39 on the principle of a
plebiscite on amalgamation but if the
situation does not change, we must see
that the most capable people are elected
to the new council.
Unions represented by the council in-
clude steamship clerks, with a membership
of 1,300; Teamsters Local 990, all truck
drivers, SIU of Canada, Barbers' Union,
Canadian Marine Officers' Union and Local
39.
There is a group that can speak, indeed, veiy
very loudly on behalf of labour at the Lake-
head, you must admit. There was another
issue that developed at the Lakehead that I
cannot understand. Perhaps the leader of the
party to the left will explain it to the House
some day; perhaps during the course of this
debate. One of the members of the Fort
William Ratepayers' Association, Mr. Speaker,
was a gentleman by the name of Al Nelson.
Mr. Nelson was the president of the Port
Arthur New Democratic Party riding associ-
ation. When the Fort William Ratepayers'
Association was first fonned to create a group
of citizens to convey opinions, primarily in
opposition to the Minister and those of us
here in the House, Mr. Nelson was one of
the first men to get on there. I have an awful
lot of respect for Al Nelson, Mr. Speaker,
because he is a Lakeheader who is not afraid
to speak out; he is not afraid to fight.
The story on the front page of the News
Chronicle caught me completely by surprise
because I was not expecting it. I now read it:
NDP PREsroENT Quits Association
Port Arthur NDP riding association presi-
dent Al Nelson has resigned his post over
what he terms lack of support from NDP
leader Donald MacDonald for a plebiscite
on the Lakehead's amalgamation.
In an interview in Port Arthur last night,
Mr. Nelson says he resigned earlier this
week after speaking with Mr. MacDonald
and provincial MPPS and requesting sup-
port from them in the Ontario House.
They are already committed to the
regional government proposal and they feel
amalgamation is related to this, he said.
He said he had gone to Queen's Park to
request provincial NDP members to request
a plebiscite for Lakehead residents in the
Legislature.
"I don't think that amalgamation and
the regional government concept are neces-
sarily related," said Mr. Nelson.
He said he would run again for president
this spring, but only after he got a vote of
confidence from the membership of the
party in Port Arthur, Mr. Nelson has been
president of the Port Arthur body for the
past two years.
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to get support on
my argumentation today on behalf of the
Lakehead people for a vote, not only from
the members of my own party, but certainly
the members of the New Democratic Party,
because their very name includes the word
"democratic". If the party to the left is going
3494
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to maintain this position by opposing the
vote for my people, at this time when so
many of the very Lakehead people involved
are great supporters of this party-
Mr. MacDonald: What about Saul Laskin?
Mr. Knight: I am talking about many hun-
dreds, perhaps thousands of people that I
hope you will be speaking for; I hope you
will be speaking their feelings, because this
story here would indicate to me, Mr. Speaker,
that the partv' to the left is not going to
support a request for a vote on this matter.
I say at this point that I am simply trying to
urge them to change their tune.
I said before that I respected Mr. Nelson.
The way the leader of the party to the left
has reacted to the president of an association
up at the Lakehead parallels very well the
reaction of this Minister and this government
to all of the Lakehead. In other words they
are saying, "What do they know? We know
better down here in Toronto. We are running
a city here in Metro of 2.5 million; what do
the people up north know about anything?
Nothing."
This whole issue, Mr. Speaker, of Toronto
stepping into the Lakehead and trying to
nm their affairs in this manner is just typical
of the attitude of the government down here
in Toronto— for quite a few years at least;
at least the last 26.
The Lakiehead people's pleas are not
heard. The idea with the Lakehead people is
to go up there and give them a line, keep
them fooled., and lead them around by the
nose. Mr. Speaker, tliat is why I am here,
and that is how I got here. It is not because
I think this way, it is because the people
who elected me think this way.
Mr. Speaker, I have a feehng the mem-
bers of the party to the left are going to
change their minds. They are called the
party of the underdogs; they have not got a
mine. I can tell you this much I am not
very interested in the New Democratic idea;
I think I would rather switch to the old
democratic idea, and I think they ought to
tliink very seriously about that.
I think what really happened to the party
to the left at the Lakehead was that some-
where along tlie way it made a decision
against the Lakehead Labour Council, which
is, of course, CLC and affiliated with this
party— or at least the executives did. I can
read you some letters on this, too, in a
minute. The Lakehead executive of the
1 aboil r council decided in their vdsdom that
there should be no vote. Then somebody
from the citizenry in the New Democratic
Party Association in Port Arthur advanced a
resolution into a meeting, and those people,
obviously not realizing what labour had done,
turned around and got this resolution through
asking for a vote on it.
What a crisis up there; a real problem.
Here we have labour at the Lakehead going
against the vote, and the local riding associa-
tion coming out in favour of it. Of course,
Mr. Speaker, this is bound to leave the
leader of the iparty to the left in a terrible
dilemma. Who does he back? Does he back
labour, now that labour has gone ahead and
made this mistake, and has made this un-
democratic decision? What in the world are
we going to do? There was only one thing to
do, Mr. Speaker. As is the way of political
life there had to be a scapegoat: Get rid of
the president of that local; get rid of the
president of that association, and then we
can reverse the position of the association
and blame the president. Thus we have this
story Mr. Speaker, of what happened at tiie
Lakehead with the party to the left.
Anyway it strikes me as very amusing,
Mr. Speaker, because just last week, all of a
sudden, out of nowhere the leader of the
party to the left is suddenly taking an interest
in the Lakehead people and amalgamation. Is
not that something for him to finally come
and take an interest in? Have you taken a
stand yet, out in the open? No. Through you,
Mr. Speaker, to the leader tliere has been no
one over there taking any stand; no one over
there taking any position. Why? Oh, you
have got a lot to say— yuk, yuk, now that it
is all over, now that the fight is here. If
you are the party of the people, through you
to the members to the left-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The hon. mem-
ber is now not speaking to the principle of
the bill; he is making an attack on another
party in the House, and this is not the time
for that. He will revert to the principle of
the bill.
Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
will be glad to return to the matter of the
bill. The only reason that I had brought up
this matter was on behalf of so many people
of the party to the left at the Lakehead who
had asked me whether we would receive
support in our request for a vote from the
hon. members to the left. I said I would
do everything in my power to try and make
them understand how important it is to the
members of the association. Now, Mr.
Speaker, I have fulfilled that commitment.
APRIL 23, 1969
3495
Interjections by Hon. members.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, there are many
crosses to be borne, really. It is strange, Mr.
Speaker, in the midst of all the din from the
left, that I had an editorial in my hand the
Fort William Daily Times Journal, which
says, "Pushing and Shoving Won't Help You
—Union." At this point, pushing and shoving
won't make my particular contribution to
this debate any shorter.
This is in the Daily Times Journal, Fort
William, dated March 20, 1969:
It seems a pity that with the approach
of the time when Port Arthur and Fort
William shall become one city under the
edict of Robarts government, we should
have a flair-up in a Fort William council
meeting featuring a diatribe against cer-
tain Port Arthur interests that the Fort
William council members believe had
been pressing unduly to enhance the Port
Arthur image at the exi)ense of Fort
William.
Yet, in all fairness, some representatives
of Port Arthur asked for such a show of
indignation. It has been Mayor Laskin who
has been lobbying diligently on members
of the Toronto government in the interests
of amalgamation. None should blame Fort
William aldermen when they become in-
censed because appointments to the inter-
municipal committee are made without
consultation with elected representatives of
the cities, and when the Port Arthur Public
Utilities Commission and other Port Arthur
bodies have taken it upon themselves to
call meetings with their Fort William coun-
terparts, autocratically setting the day and
time and the place of meetings.
If this cause for dissension is not elim-
inated soon, the new city is in for a peck
of trouble. If the powers that be in Toronto
have pushed amalgamation of the two cities
in the belief that rivalries between the two
cities would be rubbed out, they may have
a rude awakening. Without a change of
attitude by Port Arthur leaders, a new
enmity between the two sectors could make
relationships of the old look very tame.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there has been tremen-
dous evidence of unrest, of name-calling, and
of one city or one council or one mayor
throwing rocks at the other. It seems to me
that those of us in favour of amalgamation
over the years have been in favour of it to
do away v^dth all of this; to do away with
this name-calling and these differences of
opinion because they leave the electorate so
confused. When they see their elected ofiRcials
fighting in this manner at the local level in
tlie city council chamber, naturally this
sparks all kinds of dissent out on the street.
I think the reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is
that the people were not allowed to decide
this in a democratic way. The people feel
pushed. They feel they are being forced into
this thing.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my
mind that over the years the Lakehead people
have always felt that they would decide this
issue. If you do not believe me, ask them.
Ask them in a vote, in a plebiscite on the
whole matter of incorporating a new city at
the Lakehead?
I referred to the term mental cruelty a
litde while ago. Is it not strange that so many
divorces in this country, so many weddings
end on charges of mental cruelty. Here is one
involving 110,000 people that is starting with
charges of mental cruelty, from the people
involved against this government.
No community in the history of this prov-
ince of opportunity, Mr. Speaker, has been
told "No" more often by this government,
or been put through the emotional workout
that our Lakehead community has by the
Minister due to his awkward immature handl-
ing of the whole situation.
He has treated the people not as mature
and intelligent voting citizens, but as children
who must be spanked and put to bed and
tied to the bedpost. He has not heard their
pleas for self-determination, Mr. Speaker. I
do not even think he has bothered to really
sit down and talk to them to find out really
why they feel that their democracy is being
eroded in this manner.
He has taken no notice of their urgently
assembled meetings or their petitions.
I have a petition right here which I plan
to put on the table later. I would say that
the vote in favour of amalgamation would
hsLve been 78 or 79 per cent if the people up
there had been granted the democratic de-
cision but this Minister, Mr. Speaker, he
simply does not feel that he should listen to
the people when they request this, and he
thinks I am just speaking for a handful of
people.
But I have already quoted editorials, and I
have presented other affidavits which I think
should make it very, very plain and very
clear that there is a very large cross section
of Lakehead people who feel exactly the
same way as I do.
3496
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Here is a very interesting editorial that
iippeared early in the game, early in this
battle in the Port Arthur News Chronicle
which I tliink will contribute to this debate,
certainly contribute to the better understand-
ing of all these well intentioned Ministers.
This one is entitled "McKeough can be
tough, nice isn't necessar>'", I am sure he
read that one because it was complimentary
in some ways, but in other ways I would say
that it was not. I am not going to read the
whole thing liecause it is terribly long. I will
Tead the part that is ad\'antageous to my
argument at this point.
Ontario's regional government programme
came under the guns of the Opposition at
Queen's Park this past week, and George
Bukator, Liberal member for Niagara Falls,
brought some numerous relief into the
Legislature near the close of the day-long
debate.
I am sorry the hon. member is not here at the
moment:
An hon. member: He is here!
Mr. Knight: He is here? Yes, he is. My
apologies to my hon. colleague from Niagara
Falls (Mr. Bukator). But anyway, this editorial
quotes Mr. Bukator as saying:
The difference between rape and romance
is salesmanship, he told the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, Darcy McKeough.
Regional re-organization might become a
romance if you exercise some salesmanship.
This is the point. The people could have been
allowed to exercise what they feel is their
democratic right. They could have put this
to a plebiscite if the Minister would ha\e
used a little salesmanship, and if the other
pro-amalgamationists in the community had
gone out and done a little bit of educating
and a little bit of salesmanship. The people
could have passed it and everybody would
have felt happy. You would know it was a
democratic decision.
I have the commitment and the promise,
Mr. Speaker, from every single person, every
single dissident that I have quoted here so
far, that if this were put to a democratic
vote they would be quiet; they would join in
with the Lakehead city and mo\'e ahead on
a bigger and better city, Mr. Speaker.
Their word is good enough for me.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is the purpose
of the bill.
Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the gov-
errmient can be allowed to come along and
arbitrarily force something, enslave 110,000
people; bring them down to their knees in
this manner— oh you laugh— how much is it
going to cost? The Minister does not know,
Mr. Speaker. If we see happening at the
Lakehead what is happening at the county
school board system, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Is the member in
favour of amalgamation?
Mr. Knight: I am in favour of amalgama-
tion, Mr. Speaker, yes. Very much in favour
of it, but it is not so important that you or I
are in favour of it. What is important is that
the people who are going to have to live with
it are in favour of it. Nolx)dy here knows
whether the people are in favour of it or not.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have more affidavits
here. I am committed to the people to bring
their voice to this House, and to bring it here
loud and clear. Even witli the opposition I
am receiving now, it is the same old bally-
hoo—get on with tlie job, never mind the
people, let us get the job done. It is not the
people that are important, it is the job.
Amalgamation for amalgamation's sake? I
have never been in favour of amalgamation
for amalgmation's sake, Mr. Speaker. I only
want amalgamation because I am interested
in the people up there and what I think it can
do for them. But imtil tliey recognize what it
can do for them, imtil they are willing to
accept— or at least a majority are willing to
accept it— I do not see how we can assimie to
be so powerful and so brilliant and so elo-
quent that we can go in and push it upon
them.
I was trying to read an editorial in the
News Chronicle. I wish we had heard from
the hon. member in the back row here a little
bit earlier when the fighting was going on,
when it was time to be really taking an in-
terest in what was going on at the Lakehead.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakcshore): The mem-
ber is their spokesman?
Mr. Knight: He is terribly vociferous at
tliis point. This is another one of these
bureaucrats, these legislators who are going
to rule from afar. "I will tell the Lakehead
people what is good for them." All I am say-
ing is that tlie Lakehead people tell us what
is good for them. I am happy to say, Mr.
Speaker, that I have the support of my leader
and my caucus in wanting to give the people
at the Lakehead a democratic decision in
this matter, and you have no idea how proud
that makes me tmlay.
APRIL 23, 1969
3497
What is important is that the people at the
Lakehead know it. My leader, Mr. Speaker,
has never been afraid to go on record as
supporting a vote, and he has made this
statement to the people at the Lakehead, he
has made it public and he has made a stand.
He has taken a stand, Mr. Speaker, and that
is the kind of leadership that I can admire
and appreciate.
I was about to read this editorial from the
Port Arthur News Chronicle, Mr. Speaker,
which was entitled "McKeough can be tough
but nice isn't necessary". And I was talking
about the statement of the member for Nia-
gara Falls to this House at a time when he
was discussing this very matter, regional gov-
ernment. I continue with the editorial:
It was the Minister's brusque and arro-
gant indifference that so incensed some
Lakehead aldermen and many news media
representatives during his recent visits to
the Twin Cities, ostensibly to explain the
mechanics of this area's impending amalga-
mation of municipahties.
But, overlooked in the grating and gnash-
ing of teeth over Mr. McKeough's manner-
isms is one simple and unalterable fact— he
doesn't have to be nice. He doesn't have
to sell amalgamation, and nobody knows it
better than the Minister himself.
He has the full backing of already-
enacted legislation in his pursuit of amal-
gamation, and a layman's review of the
Municipal Act revised statutes of Ontario,
1960, and so on— indicates almost dictatorial
strength already at the Minister's fingertips.
Mr. Speaker, it shocked me to find out that
in our Municipal Act, there is such legislation,
that gives the government power to fly in
the face of local opinion to this extent. I
think at some future date this is something
which should be amended, something that
should at least be considered and debated.
I think it would be very good for this House
to reconsider that particular legislation which
gives this Minister the power.
Mr. Speaker, this Minister in his handling
—I am sure he is a far different person, you
know, when he is not dealing with Lakehead
amalgamation and the unification of the Lake-
head cities— but if he can only apply some
of that understanding that I am sure he must
apply to the running of his family and his
relationship with other people in his personal
life, if he could only apply that, to the Lake-
head people and see these people want the
right to make the decision, Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that I would not have to go on very
much longer to convince the hon. Minister.
I want to quote this article, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Lawlor: Almost a scandalous per-
formance.
Mr. Knight: The member is listening, is he
not?
An hon. member: The member is not get-
ting through to him, though.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, through you to
the hon. member. If the hon. member would
rather attract our attention to him, rather than
to the Lakehead people, I would like to get
the attention of the House back to the Lake-
head people because they unfortunately do
not have a voice here, Mr. Speaker. As I said
before, they are 900 miles away and if there
is an air strike —
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
read a concluding paragraph from this par-
ticular editorial, just to round it off, because
it goes into the whole business of the legisla-
tion and it finally says:
One might further concede that, if the
Act means what it says, the tiny light of
autonomy still burning in the municipality
is flickering only by benevolent permissive
grant of Queen's Park administrators. This
being true, it would seem that the real
weight of battle should shift from the
Lakehead to the provincial capital with a
renewed interest in, and ultimate amend-
ment of, the amalgamation and annexa-
tion section of the Municipal Act.
Mr. McKeough's successor may be per-
sonally more amiable, but possess a less
benevolent nature.
The indication here is, Mr. Speaker, that
perhaps what is happening vvdth the Lake-
head and the manner in which this legislation
is being brought about, is perhaps a sign to
us, as well-intentioned legislators, that we
should entirely review that particular section.
Mr. Speaker, I have other letters here that
I know the hon. members would like to hear,
from individuals who will have to live with
the Lakehead city once it has come about.
I think perhaps this might be a good time to
read this particular letter. It was not to me
personally, Mr. Speaker, but it was published
in the local editor's mail box of the Port
Arthur News Chronicle. This letter says:
Appearing in your January 17 issue was
a release ^iiat the Lakehead Chamber of
Commerce and our MPP Ron Knight had
3498
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
clashed on their resx>ective views on amal-
gamation. The chamber stated that the
member was not properly representing the
majority of the Lakehead people on this
issue.
While I am not one of his party, Mr.
Knight in my opinion, is properly repre-
senting the majority of Lakehead citizens.
Mr. Knight has stated time after time that
he favours the amalgamation of the Lake-
head but disagrees with the manner in
which it is being accomplished.
Perhaps these chambers of commerce
should take their heads out of the sand
and take a count of those they represent.
An editorial appearing in your paper on
December 6, 1967, stated: "In the light
of the election results in both cities, it does
not seem that the chamber is entitled to
assume that its views always accurately
reflect those of the community as a whole.
While the editorial referred to a poll
taken in the chamber on fluoridation and
dayhght saving time, I believe the same
could be said for the method of the amal-
gamation of the Lakehead. It is about
time ... so let's hope Ron Knight . . .
And so on.
Mr. Speaker, this letter sent to the editor
by J. G. Peschell, whom I am sure is well
known to the members to the left, because in
personal conversations he has told me that
he followed their party. He is the leader of
a very outstanding and very active imion, a
very important union, at the Lakehead. Here
again labour support for this idea of self-
determination on the matter of amalgamating
the Lakehead cities.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is so much
material, really, to back up this position that
one has difficulty knowing just what to use
and how much to use. There was an incident,
and perhaps this is why the hon. Minister is
having some difficulty with the newspapers
and the voice of the people at the Lakehead,
Mr. Speaker. An issue some time last January.
Yes, I recall now, the Minister was coming
to the Lakehead to announce some legislation
for the bringing about of this new city. T^^is
statement says that the Minister gave the
press the brushoflF. I will read this story very
quickly:
Newspaper readers in Toronto will have
full details on Lakehead amalgamation
about 24 hours before the people it affects
directly. Ontario Minister of Municipal
Affairs, Darcy McKeough, on arrival at
Lakehead airport earlier today, gave re-
porters a brush-oflF and declined to discuss
the contents of an address he was to deliver
at 4 p.m. to the municipal councils coair
cemed with amalgamation. Contents of tlie
address will be released to Toronto news-
papers at 3.30 p.m., but despite the assur-
ances by the Daily Times Journal that
copies of the paper would not be on news-
stands or streets before 4 o'clock the
Minister would not accord the same privi-
lege to the local residents.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister made a big
mistake there. A very big mistake, and I
will knock him too hard for it, unless, of
course, he was really putting these boys
down. These reporters, and I do not have to
tell this House or this Minister, are the
fellows who convey impressions to the people.
I think in most cases they should convey tlie
acciu"ate and the true impression.
If they are emotionally upset by this kind
of arrogance that the Minister really demon-
strated on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I do
not see how they can do justice by their
readers or their listeners. To show how
deeply they were touched by the Minister's
reaction to them at that time, Mr. Speaker,
an editorial appeared in the Port Arthur
News Chronicle the next day, whidi had a
picture of the hon. Minister and said, "Big
man, important message." I would like to
go through some of this, Mr. Speaker. You
may feel, and some of the members opposite
may feel I am trying to be personal with the
Minister, but I am not. I am trying to indi-
cate why the Lakehead people feel so upset
about this and so confused.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that what the hon.
member is trying to get across?
Mr. Knight: If you were a resident and
you picked up a paper like this and you saw
a picture of the Minister and it is called
"Big Man"; and you went on to read an
editorial by a paper whose editorials you
have been reading for years, and who you
have relied on for information as to what
is going on in the community, how would
you feel? The editorial says:
Coming to the Lakehead, advance
notices said, was a big man with an im-
portant message. And the twin cities
waited. The big man, Ontario Minister of
Municipal Affairs, Darcy McKeough. The
important message, legislation for amalga-
mation of the municipalities of the Lake-
head area, an order of change destined to
reshape the very root fibre of every facet
of community life. More than 100,000
APRIL 23, 1969
3499
- residents of the vicinity Md their attention
rivetted directly or indirectly on the big
man's arrival. Consciously or subconsciously
they locked mental radar on an heretofore
elusive target and positive plan of action.
Resting on the plan of action are careers
of hundreds of civic employees, who face
certain adjustments in the impending re-
organization of the government depart-
ments. Hundreds more employees in private
business and industrial concerns with oflBces
in both cities anxiously wait to see whether
their firms will merge operations in keep-
ing with the new one-world look, or con-
tinue to maintain neighbourhood branches
in this metropolis.
And tensions in the office are com-
pounded in magnified emotional strains at
home where families also try to decipher
unfamiliar signals of evolution.
I interrupt the editorial for a moment, Mr.
Speaker, to point out that this editor is
trying to create a mood. He is trying to tell
the reader both inside and outside the Lake-
head of the state of mind of the people at
the time that they awaited the arrival of
this Minister with this important announce-
ment that could change their whole future.
The editorial in the News Chronicle goes on:
Details of the legislative plan were to
be made available at a news conference
scheduled for 4 p.m. Here the doors were
to be opened to newspaper, radio and
television, each in its place a valuable in-
strument of public communication. Lake-
head news media, long sensing the anxiety
of its residents, waited eagerly to translate
the government's intentions. Time— hours,
minutes, seconds— in such cases is an un-
forgiving factor. For radio, the seconds
counted. A written report can be trans-
mitted to listeners without delay. In
minutes, television can broadcast an iden-
tical account graphically presented with
the impact of living, moving film.
And so forth; it goes on. I move ahead, Mr.
Speaker.
But unlike the fleeting message of broad-
cast impact, a newspaper remains at the
fingertips of its readers for repeated refer-
ences. Bearing in mind the complications
of more time consuming production, the
Lakehead newspapers asked Mr. McKeough
to release content of his policy statement
far enough in advance of press conference
time to allow printing of the legislative
outline and at the outset the Minister
agreed.
Prior to departure for Toronto, he did
release the material to MetropoHtan dailies
in the east but on arrival at the Twin Cities
declined similar courtesy to local news-
papers.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. The hon. member, of course,
would want the House to know that that
statement is completely wrong. It was not
released here until the same time it was
given in the Lakehead.
Mr. Knight: Very good, Mr. Speaker, I ac-
cept that explanation from the Minister. It is
the first time that I have heard it and I think
it is about time the explanation has been
made, because it has been in the press, it has
been radioed. The reporting, though well-
intentioned they may be, causes the people
to be confused if everyone is not organized on
the manner and the time of release of these
statements.
What I am trying to convey to the House,
Mr. Speaker, is that it is not any wonder that
the Lakehead people are so confused at this
point because every time the Minister comes
back to the Lakehead he has something new
to announce, something new to come about.
Yet still, two months from today, Mr. Speaker,
the people in my riding and the people in
the riding of the hon. member for Fort Wil-
ham, are going to elect a mayor and a
council for that city. Really the people are
having a hard time trying to understand
exactly what it is all about. I think I have
letters here, Mr. Speaker, that will sub-
stantiate that statement.
Dear Mr. Knight: Please find my en-
closed slip. For myself I am not in favour
of amalgamation, but I am still behind you.
And so on and so on.
A letter to the editor, which relates to
amalgamation. I will just take one little
portion of it.
Another fine example of what the people
of this area can expect in future from this
government and those involved in illegally
taking the people's rights away from them.
You can go through letter after letter, Mr.
Speaker, and the people up there are in this
mood. Why are these rights being taken away
from them? Here is one:
I commend you on your stand to the
approach of the amalgamation of the two
Lakehead cities and surrounding townships.
This, for a change, is a business man, Mr.
Speaker: "Keep up the good work," and so
3500
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on and so on and so on. And, "We pray that
the people will smarten up before it is too
late. Keep fighting for our rights."
Mr. Speaker, the members of the House
have indicated that they do not entirely be-
lieve me. I have got to substantiate, or at
least authenticate, my statements here in the
House by indicating that there are people
who do believe that the feelings I express are
truly from people at the Lakehead.
Here is a letter to the editor in relation to
this:
Upset and costs are the two basic prin-
ciples which will be needlessly aggravated
if and when the amalgamation of the Lake-
head municipality takes place. The two are
interrelated, each aflFecting the other
directly and indirectly. Mr. Hardy lightly
passes o£E the fact.
This is a letter that goes on to take tiie whole
Hardy report apart. It is by Mr. John Chappie
and it goes entirely against amalgamation,
Mr. Speaker. It is not entirely related to the
principle of the bill-
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member,
if he is intending to continue for any length
of time, would adjourn the debate in order
that the House might be closed at six? If he
is only going to be a few moments then, of
course, he could continue and complete his
address.
Mr. Knight moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue to
consider legislation and if time permits we
shall then return to the estimates of the
Treasurer.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment
of the House.
The House adjourned at 5.55 o'clock, p.m.
No. 94
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, April 24, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 24, 1969
Tabling report, Mr. Rowntree 3503
Zinc smelter at Timmins, statement by Mr. A. F. Lawrence 3503
Transfer review board, statement by Mr. Davis 3505
Education cost sharing, statement by Mr. Davis 3505
Landlord and tenant, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer 3516
Central Algoma Board of Education, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Nixon 3516
School facilities for Hawkesbury, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Nixon 3517
Board of education and school principals, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. MacDonald and
Mr. T. Reid 3517
Employment Standards Act, 1968, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. MacDonald 3518
Farm machinery, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. MacDonald 3518
Nicholas Volk, Jr., questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. MacDonald 3519
Land surveyors, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Martel 3520
Farm income committee study of com industry, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Spence ... 3520
Directors of education, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Lawlor 3520
Oil spill in Windsor area, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Paterson 3520
James Street store in Hamilton, question to Mr. Welch, Mr. J. R. Smith 3521
After-four programmes, questions to Mr. Davis, Mrs. M. Renwick 3521
Indian bands and school boards, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 3522
Coimty school boards, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 3522
Colleges of applied arts and technology, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 3523
High school student groups, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Pilkey 3523
Joseph Viner, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Makarchuk 3523
Nuclear installations, question to Mr. Simonett, Mr. T. P. Reid 3524
Licensed premises in Windsor, questions to Mr. Welch, Mr. Peacock 3524
City of the Lakehead, bill respecting, Mr. McKeough, on second reading 3525
Recess, 6 o'clock 3549
3503
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, April 24, 1969
The House met today at 2 o'clock p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to say, for the
information of the members, that next week,
beginning Monday, I will be using for the
opening of the House prayers which have
been submitted by the House committee in
the order of their preference.
The one on Monday will be their first pref-
erence, and so on until Thursday; and then
perhaps we can get an agreement as to the
prayers, if any, which should replace the
present prayers.
Our guests today are many. In the east
gallery we have students from Donview
Heights junior high school in Don Mills, and
from Penetanguishene secondary school in
Penetang, In the west gallery we have stu-
dents from Martingrove collegiate institute,
Islington, and the members of the Women's
Progressive Conservative Group in Orillia.
Later this afternoon, in the east gallery,
we will have students from Owen Sound col-
legiate and vocational school in Owen Sound,
and from Kingsway collegiate in Oshawa.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial AflFairs): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to table The Department of Financial
and Commercial Affairs report covering the
period from January 1 to December 31, 1968.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
The Minister of Mines has a statement.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
I think the House has a right to know at the
earliest opportunity that Texas Gulf Sulphur,
at the urging of the goverrmient, announced
this morning that they will be building a
zinc smelter, refinery and sulphmic acid
plant at Timmins.
Dr. Charles F. Fogarty, the president of
Texas Gulf, telephoned my office directly
from a board meeting of the company in
Houston, Texas, this morning at approxi-
mately 10.45 a.m. and informed me that the
decision had just been made by the board
and would be given to the shareholders'
meeting in Houston, which would be held
later in the day.
With me when the call was received was
Mr. R. D. Mollison of Toronto, the vice-
president of the metals division of Texas
Gulf, and the man with whom I have had
most of the discussions relating to this im-
portant project. These discussions, in our
view, have directiy resulted in the company's
decision.
The company has decided to build a zinc
smelter, refinery and acid plant complex as
soon as possible on property beside their
concentrator at Timmins, which will cost
approximately $50 million.
The announcement by the company fulfills
the requirements of the government respect-
ing the nature of the plant, its initial capac-
ity, the construction and production time-
table, and most importantly, the location of
the plant.
The government has indicated its desires
and objectives to the company in relation to
each of these matters, and today's welcome
announcement indicates that the company is
following the government's proposals.
In particular: (1) The government has in-
sisted that a zinc smelter-refinery should be
built in Canada. The company had acceded
to this insistence. (2) The government has
indicated its strong desire that the complex
be built in the Timmins area. The company
has agreed with this request. (3) The gov-
ernment has insisted that initially the capac-
ity of the smelter should be designed so that
at least 51 per cent of the zinc concentrate
is processed in it, and that this capacity must
be increased as markets are obtained and
experience is gained by the company. The
company has now agreed. (4) The govern-
ment has indicated that the plant should be
immediately started, and I am happy to an-
nounce that soil tests are now taking place,
and as soon as the engineering plans are
completed it is our hope that construction
should start this calendar year and produc-
tion of zinc and sulphuric acid should begin
by the end of 1971 or early in 1972.
3504
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The complex should employ directly about
300 persons and should be a very worthwhile
boost to the area's economy. We feel that
we can reasonably expect a growth of serv-
ice industry, and eventually secondary in-
dustry in the area, resulting from today's
announcement.
These plans, sir, relate only to zinc and
acid production and no information is yet
forthcoming respecting the company's cop-
per, silver, lead or other metal processing
plans. However, in view of the excellent
relationship and good co-operation we have
had from the company's officials, I hope I
will be able to keep the House informed of
further favourable developments as they take
place.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs-
view.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of privilege, I am a little
puzzled as to how this news got on the news-
wire at 10.30 this morning in advance of the
Minister's annoimcement. The news is cer-
tainly gratifying and we are very pleased that
the constant representations of this party, and
the member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) par-
ticularly, has resulted in this. But I think
the House deserves an explanation as to why
an important announcement like this is given
to the press hours before it is announced in
the House.
Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Minister
makes any reply to that, I would say that the
hon. member's point is not well taken unless
he would indicate to the House that the
announcement in the press came from the
Minister's office.
Mr. Singer: Well Mr. Speaker, had the
Minister described how it came about—
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister
does not have to describe how anything came
about unless it came about through his office
or his position as a Minister. Now if the hon.
member wishes to make a point of privilege,
he must do so by showing that this was a
breach of the privilege by the Minister or by
someone else. A blanket announcement in
the press, which can come from the company
or otherwise, is not a point of privilege as
fas as I am concerned; and unless the mem-
ber can substantiate his point by the neces-
sary reference to the article and the source
of it, I rule there is no point of privilege.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I can only con-
clude that it must have come out of his office
because as he ga\e his announcement today
he appeared to indicate that it originated
there. If it did not, then he can-
Mr. Speaker: I disagree with the hon.
member's conclusion and rule his point of
privilege not a point of privilege.
The hon. member for Cochrane South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Yes Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask a question or
two for clarification. Of course the people of
Timmins were very happy with this announce-
ment and we are glad that the government-
Mr. Speaker: Order! Did the hon. mem-
ber wish to ask a question? If so, he will
proceed to do so.
Mr. Ferrier: I would like to ask this ques-
tion of the Minister: can he inform us
approximately how many will be employed
in the construction of the smelter, and also
if he is in a position to take the feasibility
study for the zinc smelter with which he has
been presented?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I can only assume,
sir, that the particular members who have
just sat down were not listening to the
announcement I made. I indicated, sir, that
the Texas Gulf Sulphur Company itself
announced this morning that the zinc smelter
refinery and sulphuric acid complex, is going
to be built. I am sorry, but I only heard the
first part of the question from the hon.
member for the area concerned. He asked
me, I think, how many people would be
employed. It is our estimation that there will
be 300 employed.
An hon. member: He said in the construc-
tion of the plant.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, in the construc-
tion of the plant; I have not that information,
I am sorr>'.
Mr. Ferrier: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, would
the Minister be prepared to table the
feasibility study that Texas Gulf has prepared
and presented to him for the members of
the House?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No feasibility study
has e\ er been presented to me.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order sir, I am sure
you would want me on behalf of the whole
House to congratulate the hon. member for
Cochrane South for the victory which he has
won today.
.. L
APRIL 24, 1969
3505
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: On a point of order,
sir, does that require the unanimous consent
of the House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Educa-
tion has two statements to the House.
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief statement
to make relative to a matter raised by the
member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman), and
I beheve, the leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Nixon) and the member for Sudbury East
(Mr. Martel) from time to time. It relates to
the matter of the transfer review board. As
I indicated to them, I will be prepared to
debate this at the time of the consideration
of the legislation, and also in the education
committee.
However, Mr. Speaker, time does move on
and certain steps have to be taken, so as of
today a regulation was passed— and we will
still have this opportunity to debate this mat-
ter—a regulation was passed and approved by
the government indicating to the boards that
they must notify a teacher by the first day of
May if they intend to transfer that teacher
from one municipality to another municipality
within the board jurisdiction. That is there is
no inhibition on the transference within the
municipality', but if there is to be a transfer
outside that municipality notification must
be given by the first day of May.
This, Mr. Speaker, was really the basis of
certain understandings that we had reached
in the latter part of 1968. The federation then
had consultation with its membership and I
believe that they indicated they still prefer
to have the transfer review board itself.
We were not able to reach any consensus
on this matter and I indicated to the teachers'
federation that we would be quite prepared
to discuss it further. We will keep an eye on
the situation as it develops, and as I have
said on other occasions, if we find that a real
problem is in fact created we are quite pre-
pared to look at that particular situation.
Now Mr. Speaker, dealing with another
subject that is I think of some general interest
to the members of the House, it will be re-
called that I told the Legislature on at least
two or three occasions that The Department
of Education was in the process, after the
grant regulations were distributed, of obtain-
ing certain information from the new larger
units of the school administration regarding
costs of education in the former jurisdictions
to December 31, 1968, the estimated increases
in enrollment for '69, the budgets for 1969,
the calculated grants and the estimated local
levies. This information was channelled to us
through our regional directors of education.
I have, in addition, met with representa-
tives of a considerable number of school
boards and their oflBcials in an e£Fort to de-
lineate their problems and to see whether
there was any widespread pattern.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the former
board ceased operation at December 31, 1968.
The new boards took over effective January
1, 1969. Because of the great number of
former jurisdictions, it has not yet been pos-
sible to secure audited financial statements
for last year's operations, and while these are
now being received the list is still far from
complete. This fact has made it difficult for
the new boards to know the actual costs last
year. There has been a great deal of press
speculation and I think in fairness in a num-
ber of instances the speculated costs in 1969
really have been higher than the increase in
costs will prove to be when the audited
statements come in from the operation of last
year's boards.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Want to bet?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I would be quite
prepared to do so. I carmot match the eco-
nomic resources of the member, but I would
be prepared to bet a dollar; this is about what
I can contribute.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, his—
Mr. Singer: The Minister should get odds
of two to four on this one.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This fact has made it
difficult for the new boards to know the
actual costs last year as the basis for deter-
mining the increase for 1969. The need to
secure other infonnation relating to the pro-
portion of costs among the municipalities,
the equalizing factors that have application,
the apportionment of the local levies and the
establishment of mill rates have all taken
more time and a great deal more effort in this
initial year of operation than will be the case
in subsequent years.
Other developments in 1968 which have
had a considerable bearing— and I think the
members opposite should know these as I
know some of them have experienced this cer-
tain situation, to a degree at least, in their
own ridings.
We have had developments that are illus-
trated by the practice whereby certain boards
which were going out of existence at the
end of 1968 reduced the mill rate in 1968,
spent any surplus which they might have had
at the end of 1967 and came into the new
3506
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
arrangement either without any balance, or
quite frankly in a number of cases with a
considerable deficit. This, I think, is obvious
to a number of the members opposite.
Mr. Singer: It is everybody's fault but the
Minister's.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no! I am not assessing
fault at all. We are trying to delineate and
determine solutions.
Funds were spent which under the former
organizational pattern would have been car-
ried forward; and while these funds were not
wasted, in large measure the programmes on
which they were spent might well have been
deferred until the new larger units could plan
on an overall basis in tenns of needs and
priorities.
It will be evident that where a board had
a certain mill rate in 1967 and reduced that
mill rate in 1968 for the reasons cited, a rise
in mill rate in 1969 ought to be considered
in relation to the 1967 situation. I think it is
unrealistic, Mr. Speaker, for people making
comparisons to find very many, if any, valid
situations whereby— with the cost of education
today increasing on a province-wide basis at
roughly between 10 and 12 per cent— to find
many situations, if any, where in 1968 one
could say that the cost of operation would
be less than 1967. I think most realistic
people would understand tliis particular
point. I mention this example only to indicate
some of the difficulties encountered by the
new boards.
Other factors having a bearing on the new
jurisdiction relate to the necessity of bring-
ing about a gradual integration of the em-
ployment practices within the county and the
district under the board in the matter of
salaries, fringe benefits, bus routes and the
hke; and these are not easy problems to
resolve, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes I think the
members opposite do not really have an
appreciation of the total complexity of this,
perhaps they do.
Mr. Singer: Oh dear!
Hon. Mr. Davis: I know that the trustees
on the new boards have spent countless
hours in attendance at numerous meetings,
board and committee meetings, in an attempt
to find the best solutions.
Mr. Sargent: Was this necessary at all?
It was not necessary at all!
Hon. Mr. Davis: While it is easy to criti-
cize, no one who is not directly involved
realizes the great contribution these men and
women who have been elected as trustees
are making to the educational programme in
this province. They are fully conscious of
the tasks confronting them and in my view
they are conscientiously attempting to dis-
charge their duties in the interests of the
young people whom they serve. In this
endeavour, Mr. Speaker, they will continue
to ha\e the support of my department.
It will be evident from what I have said
that it would have been impossible to deter-
mine in advance some of the outcomes in
particular areas in the application of the
proportion of the local levies to mill rates.
Someone has suggested that possibly the
results in certain areas could have been fore-
seen if computers had been utilized. This, of
course, is utter nonsense. Computers are only
helpful to the extent that the data and in-
formation provided and fed into them is
accurate and relevant to the cases with which
they deal.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order.
An hon. member: Sit down and let him
tell us what he is going to do.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member has
risen on a point of order.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order: surely the statement has all kinds
of political overtones.
Mr, Speaker: Order! What is the point of
order? The hon. member, if he has a point
of order, will state it. He has not stated
one yet.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I m^ust bring
to your attention that the Minister is not
reading a statement of fact, he has been
leading a debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has no
point of order. The hon. Minister will con-
tinue.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.
We are really attempting to solve some of
the problems faced by some of the members
opposite.
Mr. Sargent: On a point of order!
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell us—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will state
his point of order.
Mr. Sargent: He should be telling us when
he is going to resign.
APRIL 24, 1969
3507
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
The matters being discussed by the House
at the moment are serious matters of great
import to all the people of this province. I
would hope the members of the House on
both sides would give a reasonable amount
of quiet and attention to the hon. Min-
ister's statement, and then at a later time it
will be quite possible to debate anything
that is not to the satisfaction of any mem-
ber, on any side of the House. The hon.
Minister has tlie floor.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, since the
beginning of this year, and particularly dm*-
ing the period since the grant regulations
were issued, the new boards have been mak-
ing real efforts to reduce costs imposed on
them, to some extent by the stringency of
the grant regulations. The result has been
that many millions of dollars have been
deleted from the budgets for this year, with
consequent savings to the taxpayers. While
some reduction in the original figures might
have been anticipated, the searching analysis
of the last two or three weeks has made a
further substantial saving possible.
As a result of the information submitted to
the department— and I must emphasize, Mr.
Speaker, that some jurisdictions have still not
been able to provide all the information
requested — and after a tliorough study of
it by officials, together with information
gathered at meetings with delegations from
school boards and other local groups, it is
evident that some difficulties are being
encountered by a number of approximately
950 municipalities in this province.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Just some?
Hon. Mr. Davis: These circumstances arise
in part because of the necessity to apportion
the amount to be raised within the board's
jurisdiction among a number of municipalities
having differences in the basis of assessment
and the necessity to provide provincial equal-
izing factors for the first time to this appor-
tionment.
Even with these disparities, there are many
municipalities, in almost every jurisdiction,
where the increases in local mill rate are
modest and quite manageable as they stand
at present. But for others, the impact of
reallocation among the municipalities and the
assumption of a share of the increased normal
costs would create too sharp a rise In 1969.
To ease the situation for these municipali-
ties, and on the basis of a careful study of the
budgets of one half of the boards in this
province, it has been decided to assist those
municipalities where there may have been
distortions in mill rate for the reasons that
I have enumerated.
The proposal provides a special grant to
the boards to limit the increases in mill rate
on provincial equalized assessment in any
municipality having a population of less than
60,000, to one mill of provincial equalized
assessment for elementary school purposes,
and to one mill of provincial equahzed assess-
ment for secondary school purposes over the
greater of the 1967 or 1968 mill rate.
This special grant will apply to an expendi-
ture per pupil for 1969 up to 115 per cent
of the expenditure per pupil for 1968. In
other words, the boards must come within
the 115 per cent increase in per student cost;
this is exclusive of growth.
This latter limitation is considered to be a
reasonable one and will encourage the boards
that may be faced with increases beyond this
level, sir, to try to bring their cost down
to 115 per cent of the per pupil cost in
1968. In fact a number have already done so.
In this endeavour the department will assist
these boards in their budget review to deter-
mine if there are any ways in which further
reductions can be made. While the effect
of limiting the increase to one mill of provin-
cial equalized assessment will obviously vary
from one municipality to another in terms
of local mill rates, on the average the in-
crease in local mill rate will probably vary
from approximately two to five mills.
Although this of course, as the members
know within their own areas, is subject to
some shght variation. The result then will be
that The Department of Education will pay
a subsidy to the board for the portion of
the levy in the municipality above the one
mill of provincially equahzed assessment; or
as I have indicated, above the average of say
three to five mills on local assessment.
It should be emphasized here that I have
used averages in terms of translating provin-
cial equalized assessment into local assess-
ment, and that in some cases at the extremi-
ties, the variations, may be less or greater
than the average, depending on the equaliz-
ing factors. But I emphasize, Mr. Speaker,
it must relate to the 115 per cent of in-
crease per student cost in 1969 over 1968.
A second area where an adjustment is
being made is in the territorial district
where secondary school students for whom
the province formerly paid 100 per cent of
the cost of education are now included in
3508
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the new larger units. The proportion of the
cost of education for these students to be
borne by local authority is not offset by a
corresponding increase in assessment, with
the result that there is an increased liability
for the boards in their municipahties.
To meet this situation the proposal pro-
vides that for a divisional board in a terri-
torial district: (a) The amount received from
Ontario by a former component secondary
school board for the education of pupils who
in 1968 were non-resident territorial district
pupils but who in 1969 are resident pupils of
a divisional board, will be considered as
general legislative grants; (b) These pupils
will be considered as resident pupils of the
divisional boards; (c) The assessment of the
localities in which they reside will be con-
sidered as having been assessable by the
divisional board.
The effect of these changes for boards in
the territorial districts will be that the full
cost of education of former non-resident
pupils outside the former board's area will
now be included in the new board's grants.
This will mean that the load assumed by
the new boards for these pupils will be com-
pensated for by grants.
Mr. Speaker, it is the view of tlie govern-
ment that these measures will eliminate the
extreme mill rate increases that might other-
wise have occurred, and that any problems
along these lines will be substantially alle-
viated.
In addition, it is also the intention of The
Treasury Department to accelerate the instal-
ment payments on grants to boards during
1969. The instalment schedule for May will
be paid in that month, and the June instal-
ment will also be paid in May. Tlie instal-
ments originally scheduled for July and
August will be paid in June. This will help
a great deal with the question of interest on
the borrowing capacities of many of the
boards. This action will apply to all boards
in the province of Ontario and will provide
them with operating funds, with consequent
savings to them in interest charges. It will
also reflect itself in mill rate savings.
These changes that I have outlined repre-
sent a conscious and deliberate acceleration
in the movement towards assumption by the
province of 60 per cent, on the average,
of the total cost of education at the local
level.
As the Treasurer (Mr. MacNaughton)
announced in his recent Budget, it was the
intention to commence this movement in the
fiscal year 1970-1971 and to complete it in
1972-1973. Howe\'er, in the view of the
government, present conditions warrant an
earlier beginning to this phasing-in process.
It has been decided to proceed with it in
1969-1970 and particularly, after we have
now reached in most board areas, I think, a
more realistic budget for educational pur-
poses.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be able to
make this announcement on behalf of the
government and to assure our citizens
throughout the province of our desire to find,
and it is not easy, the most equitable basis for
sharing the costs of education.
In my view the policies that I have just
outlined will achieve this objective in a very
large measure.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, there are two
points of clarification I would like to address
to the Minister. The first is, as I listened to
his statement, it was not clear to me what
the total cost would be. He described a
formula but he did not describe, unless I
missed it, the total cost. Can the Minister
advise us, clear up that point as to what the
total cost of this programme will be?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. member is, I hope, sufficiently knowl-
edgeable and aware of the grant regulations
and the sums provided under the votes
already in the estimates to recognize that
until all the information is in; until the cal-
culations are done relative to the funds that
are already provided, it is completely im-
possible to put a dollar tag on what the
new changes or policies annunciated will, in
fact, cost.
It will take weeks, it will take several
months, to get all the information relevant to
this particular matter.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I am still not
clear. The Minister seemed to announce this
programme as being carefully studied and
calculated to do certain things. Surely, for
the clarification of the House he could give
us an estimate if he has one?
An hon. member: Right!
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member has
asked for clarification and the hon. Minister
has given his answer to the question. Now
if the hon. member has another point of
clarification, he will place it now.
Mr. Singer: All right. Mr. Speaker, the
second point that I am not at all clear on is:
In view of the fact that the budget has
already been presented, is there enough
APRIL 24, 1969
3509
money in the education budget to provide
for this new uncosted system?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say
that we will have an opportunity to discuss
this matter at great length when considering
the vote in the estimates related to legisla-
tive grants. We will be in a position at that
time perhaps to giver fuller information to
the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if I might ask, in follow-
ing up the question of the member for
Downsview, if the Minister did not go be-
fore Treasury Board and get the approval
of Treasury Board before this policy was
announced?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member's question
is not for clarification. It has nothing what-
soever to do with the question. It is out of
order. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
clarification, will the Minister advise, on the
equalizing payments the government is going
to make to municipalities, what happens in
the cases where there is no equalized assess-
ment in about 600 municipalities? What
happens to these people? If assessment is the
base for equalizing payments, what happens
when there is no equalized assessment?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I under-
stand there are equalizing factors. That is the
term I use for the municipalities and, of
course, this is the base.
Mr. Speaker:
Waterloo North.
The hon. member for
Mr. Sargent: How can the Minister set up
a formula-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member is
not asking a question of clarification.
Mr. Sargent: I would like to know then,
how the Minister can establish a formula for
equalization-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is still not
asking for a point of clarification. He is ask-
ing for details and this is not the place for
it.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
fact that the Minister has given us an equaliz-
ing formula, using assessment as the base for
repayment to municipalities, and we have no
standard equalization of assessment in
Ontario-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member
will realize, having been here in this House
for a long time, that there are equalizing
factors; I as a member know it and I am
sure the other members do, that are used by
the government for such purposes.
It is my understanding that that is the
factor to which the hon. Minister was making
reference. The hon. member for Waterloo
North.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Speaker, by way of clarification, is it correct
in the Minister's statement that— though the
elementary costs have not risen to the 115
per cent per pupil cost and the secondary
costs have risen beyond that, and if the
average cost would bring it down below the
115, would the grant be available for
secondary purposes even though it would
not be available for elementar>% is that
correct, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, our dis-
cussions have been with the boards on the
basis of the total budget as it relates to the
total number of students and to the total cost
this year as a percentage increase over last
year. Roughly, the way we discussed it with
the delegation that you were with.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, to the Min-
ister, on a point of clarification. Do these
new equalization factors, for want of a better
term, take in the increase in cost and trans-
portation? Was this part of it? That term
itself was not used.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are relat-
ing it to an increase, and we are limiting the
increase to 115 per cent over last year's per
student cost. This student cost relates to
transportation.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, could I ask for clarification? Does
that 115 per cent include services that were
previously financed out of the Minister's bud-
get which have since been transferred to the
new county school board budgets or is it net
of the transfer of functions to the county
school boards?
Hon. Mr. Davis: It will include, Mr.
Speaker, those costs assumed by the board
3510
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which were formerly undertaken by the de-
partmental officials. If this is what the hon.
members is referring to.
Mr. T. Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but just to
make sure I do have this straight. When the
Minister refers to 115 per cent, he does not
mean that the comparable costs to the county
school boards have gone up by say, 115 per
cent, because he has transferred certain func-
tions to those county school boards?
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is the factor being
used, 115.
Mr. T. Reid: So, we really cannot say that
the increases that county school boards ex-
perience is their fault, in that sense.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I hope
I outlined in that very short debate the other
day, the average of increases ranges from 8
per cent and 9 per cent increases to some in
excess of 17 or 18 per cent increases which
are now, I think, coming down to closer to
15.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce was on his feet.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has
given the House a multi-million dollar com-
mitment today-
Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. member
a question of clarification?
Mr. Sargent: Will the Minister tell me, on
a point of clarification, it is very important
that we know, how he can set a formula
when he does not know what it is going to
cost the taxpayers of Ontario?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sargent: How can the Minister set a—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is out of
order and will return to his seat.
Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What is the hon. member's
point of order?
Mr. Sargent: I have asked the Minister
a question, I want the answer.
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that the hon.
member is out of order. He will take his
seat. The hon. member for Peterborough has
the floor.
Mr. Sargent: I challenge your ruling, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: All right, order!
The hon. member will take his seat when
the Speaker is on the floor. The Speaker has
ruled that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce
is out of order in asking the question that
he has asked. As many as are in favour of
the-
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Excuse
me, Mr. Speaker— the hon. member who chal-
lenged your ruling is surely entitied to
explain.
Mr. Speaker: He is entitled to explain, yes.
The hon. member is entitled to explain.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, very respect-
fully I say that this Minister has made a
multi-million dollar-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
The hon. member is entitled to explain why
he is appealing Mr. Speaker's ruling not what
the Minister has said.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I represent about
60,000 people here and I have the right to
know the answer to a question of that
Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: I asked him a straight ques-
tion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member has
asked a question of tlie Minister which Mr.
Speaker has ruled is not a question of clarifi-
cation. The hon. member has insisted that it
is and the Speaker has said that the hon.
member is out of order in continuing to ask
the question. Now the hon. member has
appealed the Speaker's ruling. I would point
out to the hon. member that no member in
this House is required to answer any question
; unless he wishes to; whether he be a private
member, on either side of the House or a
; member of the government. And therefore,
i-,so far as Mr. Speaker is concerned, the hon.
ijMinister does not have to answer any ques-
! tions. Now, if the hon. member has anything
I further to say with respect to his appeal
lof Mr. Speaker's ruling that vdll be fine and
Ithe House and Mr. Speaker will be glad
■to hear it.
Mr. Sargent: May I ask a question— on a
point of clarification. Will the Minister tell
me how he can clarify to me, sir, how you
can-
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the member
does ask another question I think that we
APRIL 24, 1969
3511
must dispose of what is at hand. If he wishes
to withdraw the appeal of the ruhng on the
other question I certainly will be glad to let
him try and rephrase it, but we cannot have
another question being asked while we have
an appeal of the Speaker's ruling on our
hands.
Mr. Sargent: At the Speaker's suggestion
I will rephrase the question.
Mr. Speaker: No, no. The hon. member
will either withdraw his appeal with the
consent of the House or we will vote on that,
and then we will hear his further point of
clarification, if he has one.
Mr. Sargent: I withdraw my appeal for
now sir. In view of the magnitude of the
sum involved and—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce is now asking his question in a dif-
ferent way.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you, sir, you are very
neighbourly. You tell me sir, on behalf of
the taxpayers I represent, to clarify how you
can assess a formula when you do not know
the costs?
Mr. Singer: That is a good question.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the hon. members
who have been dealing with this item for the
past number of years will recognize that the
funds provided for legislative grants purposes
reflect the cost that we get from the boards,
which is really a year after the funds them-
selves are estimated.
We are not in a position yet to give the
House the accurate or detailed information
as to the dollar efiPect of the particular pro-
posal this afternoon. It must relate to the
total grant regulations whereby there is al-
ready a sum set out in the estimates of 600
and some millions of dollars, whatever that
figure may be. This is a point that must
be made.
Mr. Pitman: Could the Minister estimate
whether by the time his estimates come up,
he will have any estimate of what the differ-
ence between these grants and—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, not to be
facetious at all, but if one could estimate
when my estimates will come up after some
of the lengthy discussions on other items in
the Legislature— it will all depend on the
length of time. You know, we are getting
more information every day. I would like to
think that if it follows the traditional pattern
and we are relatively near the end of the
estimates, then I am sure we will have more
factual information to make available to the
members of the House at that time.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if the Minister
would clarify the previous announcement.
This question relates to the transfer review
board-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
I have pointed out to the members of this
House who are here to represent their people,
that what is being discussed is very impor-
tant to everyone in this province and cer-
tainly no one in this House can understand
what is going on if there is continued bedlam.
I would therefore ask that the hon. members
please give the courtesy of a hearing both
to the-
Mr. Sargent: The chaos is over there.
Mr. Speaker: —both to the private mem-
bers asking the questions and to the Minister
when he endeavours to answer them. The
hon. member is in the process of asking a
question.
Mr. Pitman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West would like to ask a question
on this second announcement.
Mr. Speaker: That will be fine. The hon.
member for Scarborough West.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a
point of clarification, Mr. Speaker; in view
of the fact that the Minister indicates there
will obviously be an appreciable dollar sign
attached to it, can he relate it to the budget-
ary statement of the Provincial Treasurer
when he said on page 23: "These considera-
tions taken together persuaded us to aim
for-"
Mr. Speaker: Order! This has nothing
whatsoever to do with the statement given
by the Minister. This is a matter which is
open for debate at the proper time. The Min-
ister's statement has merely indicated what is
being done and the hon. member is now try-
ing to relate it to something else which is
not in the statement at all.
I would rule, subject to the hon. member's
opportunity to explain further, that his ques-
tion is not one of clarification and is patently
out of order.
3512
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I submit to you,
sir, that any increase in expenditure an-
nounced by the Minister must come from
somewhere. The government has indicated its
reluctance to turn to borrowing on the pubhc
market in order to maintain a balanced
budget. This obviously violates that principle.
I wanted to ask the Minister then, by way
of clarification, whether his announced inten-
tion would take the government to borrow-
ing on the public market or where the money
would come from.
Mr. Speaker: I would rule the member's
question entirely out of order because it has
nothing whatsoever to do with this Min-
ister's statement. That is something which
has to do with the Treasury Board and the
government as a whole. Therefore I still rule
that that question is out of order.
The hon. member for Peterborough was
on his feet and he is entitled again to have
the floor.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask tlie Minister for clarification. What re-
course would a teacher have if he was
transferred from one municipality to another
before May 1?
Hon. Mr. Davis: As I understand it, the
teacher could decide to seek employment.
This is the reason for the May 1 date. He
could seek employment with some other
board if he so desired. This was the basis
of the discussion with the federation which,
was reasonably understood in the latter part
of December. Then, at the meetings of
January, they determined they would prefer
the transfer review board in a more formal
fashion.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo
North.
Mr. Good: Thank you. For further clarifi-
cation, the formula as given here this after-
noon relates to the per-pupil cost. Is this of
the county board? What mechanism is there
within the county board to transfer these
funds which are available? Is this a dis-
cretionary power of the boards to the local
municipalities or is it related to their mill
increase—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I thought I
had made it abundantly clear that there is
no discretionary power. It relates to those
municipalities that have had a mill rate in-
crease in excess of one mill for elementary,
one for secondary, provincially equalized
assessment.
The boards will receive moneys to reduce
the local levy by whatever the exc^ess was
above that. There are no additional moneys
for the board to spend. There will be funds
available for tliem to reduce the impact of
mill increase on those municipalities that
come under this particular portion.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. E. W. Martcl (Sudbury East): I would
like to ask the Minister about the first state-
ment he made. Since all the board mem-
bers, right from Mr. Muir down, have indi-
cated that they would not transfer teachers
without their consent, why is there a reluct-
ance on tlie government's part to allow—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not
asking for clarification, of the statement, he
is asking for what went on before the state-
ment was prepared. What is set out in it was
agreed upon. Now, if the hon. member has
something relating to the statement itself and
its non-clarity, I will be glad to give him the
floor— but not to discuss what is not in the
statement at all.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely
it. I am not sure why the government took
tliis course of action.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has no
right to be advised as to that, he has the
statement and he is entitled to inquire about
the statement. What he is inquiring about
is the government's intention and this is not
the place.
The hon. member for Scarborough East has
the floor.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
clarification on the increased grants, I assume
from what tlie Minister said there will be
an increased flow of funds from his depart-
ment or from the equalization fund to the
county boards. Could the Minister let us
know whether—
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member who is now speak-
ing and asking questions of clarification was
not in the House when the Minister made his
statement. I think this is getting a little out
of hand. How can he ask questions of clarifi-
cation on a statement he was not here to
hear?
An hon. member: Let him read it in
Hansard.
APRIL 24, 1969
13
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
It is quite obvious that the leeway which
Mr. Speaker has given over the last year
regarding certification— despite the fact that
the rules do not allow it— is not being prop-
erly observed by the members of the House.
It is quite obvious that this important mat-
ter—and in my opinion both these were im-
portant matters— should have been discussed
reasonably by way of clarification.
Instead of that, the members have been
determined to reduce it to a debate. I hereby
serve notice that I will not any longer allow
questions for points of clarification on Minis-
ters' statements unless they are exactly for
the purpose of clarification of the Minister's
statement and not for ascertaining the
motives behind it or government reasoning.
I therefore also will rule that any further
questions at this time for clarification are
out of order. And I will at least abide by
that ruling myself. I hope the House will.
Mr. Singer: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, at the same time as you make that
ruling, I wonder if you would address your
attention to the length and full character of
the Minister's statement. In my opinion, only
the last two or three pages related to an
announcement concerning government policy.
The first half-dozen pages related to a de-
bate that took place in this House on a
motion of non-confidence several days ago
and was a justification for the Minister's
position at that time.
Now I would think, sir, that when Min-
isters rise before the orders of the day to
give statements, they should be strictly con-
trolled insofar as making announcements
about government is concerned. They should
not be> allowed to rehash debates that have
already taken place.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order-
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Minister
would let me deal with this. Should I decide
that it was Mr. Speaker's duty, which I do
not believe it is, to edit the statements made
by the Ministers, Mr. Speaker would then be
in the position that he would have to do the
same thing with the questions submitted by
the hon. members— and I would say that very
few members would be able to submit ques-
tions as they are submitted if I adopted that
particular course.
I have done with private members as with
Ministers. That is, I have accepted their
questions unless they are, in the opinion of
myself and my advisors, entirely irregular; I
have allowed them to go with preambles and
various other things, which are not allowed
by our present rules.
I likewise have no control over Ministers'
statements and so far as I am concerned I
trust that they will endeavour to keep to a
reasonable statement. But Mr. Speaker has
no control.
If the House as a House wishes to direct
Mr. Speaker to edit Ministers' statements,
then of course the House will have to direct
that and Mr. Speaker will be most pleased
to carry out whatever the wishes of the
House are. Therefore, in answer to the hon.
deputy leader's statement, I feel that I have
no jurisdiction whatsoever to edit or other-
wise deal with Ministers' statements.
They are not submitted to Mr. Speaker,
and I would think it would be very impru-
dent and improvident if they were before
they were delivered in the House.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
stated that I had no right to ask the Minister
of Education a question because I was not
sitting in my seat during the full time the
Minister was making his statement. Is this
correct, sir?
Mr. Speaker: Well, I am not quite sure—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on
the-
Mr, Speaker: On the same point of order?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: On the same point
of order. I did not say he did not have a
right, and, secondly, I did not say while he
was not sitting in his own seat. I pointed
out that he was not in the House at all.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Now if the hon. mem-
bers do not have the courtesy to extend a
hearing to themselves they might perhaps to
their chairman, whom they have put in here,
and whom they may not always agree with.
But at least he has the duty of endeavour-
ing to get this House in operation, and I
am sure that this afternoon has not been
an exceedingly good example of how we
should carry on our business.
Each one of us here, as the hon. member
for Grey-Bruce says, represents a large num-
ber of citizens who are vitally interested in
3514
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
what goes on here, and I think that each
one of us is entitled to have a hearing.
Now I would say, with respect to the
point of order raised by both the hon. Min-
ister and by the hon. member for Scarbor-
ough East, that I did not hear what the hon.
Minister said; and therefore, in view of my
statement a little later about how I propose
to deal with this, I felt that point of
order— if there was one— could have been
very easily overlooked at this time. So I say
to the hon. member for Scarborough East, if
he wishes to pursue it, it is quite his pre-
rogative. Otherwise I would think this might
be a good place to close the particular inci-
dent. But it is entirely up to him.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to go back if I might to an earlier point of
order.
Mr. T. Reid: Not right now. I was placing
a question before I was rudely interrrupted
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The
Speaker can then rule whether or not I am
in order, and the Minister-
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled no more ques-
tions of clarification.
Mr. T. Reid: May I speak on a point of
order, please?
Mr. Speaker: If you wish to speak to the
point of order, yes; but not to address the
Minister.
Mr. T. Reid: The point of order is this:
I delivered what I thought to be a relevant
question to this issue and the Minister of
Municipal Affairs rose— and Hansard may
correct me if I am incorrect— and certainly
implied that I had no right to ask the Min-
ister a question because I was not sitting at
this seat.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I did not say that at
all.
Mr. T. Reid: That started it all, and this
is the first time I have had a chance to
continue my sentence, I believe I had a
dangling participle, like the Minister is
dangling.
Mr. Speaker: My recollection of what the
hon. Minister said was that the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough East was not in the
House when the statement was being read
and, about that time, I believe some bedlam
arose. Consequently, as far as I am con-
cerned, the matter is closed. But I would
think it was rather diflficult for a member
who had not listened to the statement to ask
for a point of clarification. But I do not know
whether the hon. member was in his seat or
not, but that was the allegation.
Mr. T. Reid: There are loudspeakers fU
over this Legislature, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Well, if there are, the Speakef
is not aware of it; because he received a list
the otlier day of four loudspeakers in this
whole building and not one of them was in
the hon. member's office.
Mr. T. Reid: The leader of the Opposition's
office has one.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The loudspeakers are
sitting in their chairs.
Mr. Speaker: We might now perhaps
resume.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want
to return briefly and quietly, if I can, to the
point of order raised by the member for
Downsview a moment or so ago.
I would suggest that one of the top priori-
ties for the rules committee to examine is
the issue we have been grapphng with this
afternoon. As I understand your interpretation
of the rules, you are reluctant— but when you
see the necessity you do so— to censor ques-
tions from the Opposition. But you feel
it would be imprudent to intervene in a state-
ment made by a Minister, and I submit to
you that any objective examination of the
statements made by the Ministers-
Mr. Sargent: Hear, hear.
Mr. MacDonald: I wanted to do this
quietly. If I could plead with the hon. mem-
ber for Grey-Bruce. I submit that by any
objective assessment of statements made by
Ministers, they are in violation of the rules
of the House.
Now I acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, this pre-
sents you with a problem. How do you act
in advance? But, sir, that is your problem,
along with the rules committee. Because if
Ministers insist in violating the rules, then
the Opposition is not going to sit and have
restrictions placed ui)on them, because that
is an imeven apphcation of the rules of the
House.
Mr. Speaker: Order! May I say to the hon.
member for York Soutli that, first of all, I
know of no rule which gives the Speaker
any right to deal with Minister's statements,
and I do know of a rule which gives the
Speaker a right and duty to deal with ques-
tions.
APRIL 24, 1969
3515
Secondly, may I say that Mr. Speaker is
not on this new committee which is set up
to deal with the rules. It is chaired by the
Clerk of tlie House with two representatives
from each party. As I understand the set up,
Mr. Speaker will perhaps be consulted, but
he is not on tlie committee. I will be glad
to pass along to the committee chairman, who
is here of course listening to this, the views
of the member for York South. Then, of
course, it will be entirely up to the com-
mittee to deal with the matter.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would
respectfully say to you that you have a
responsibility to intervene when the rules
are broken by statements given by Min-
isters; and on occasion-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
still pointing out to me that the rules allow
me to do this and unless he is able to pro-
duce to me the rule that says that I am—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when a Min-
ister gets up and makes a statement which
presumably is a statement of policy, and it
becomes argumentative and political in over-
tone, I submit to you that it is an abuse of
a privilege, if not a violation of the rules.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a rule, it
should become a rule, and we on this side of
the House cannot live with rules when the
spirit of them are violated on that side. That
is why I put it all in the context of it being
reviewed by the rule.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, continuing that
point of order, may I draw your attention,
sir, to a ruling made within recent times
—I believe it was by Mr. Speaker Morrow
on this point.
It was made when a similar discussion
arose and it is a written ruling to the effect
that Ministers could make statements, before
the orders of the day, in connection with
announcements relating to government policy.
But that they should not be political; they
should not rehash already expended business;
and they should be germane and brief.
As I recall that was the content of Mr.
Speaker Morrow's ruling, and I think it is
contained in the annals of this House.
Mr. Speaker: Well, with all due deference
to the deputy leader of the official Opposition
and Mr. Speaker Morrow, I would like to
look at that ruling; but I would not concur
in it, in the terms expressed by the hon.
member for Downsview.
I would point out to the hon. member for
York South that this is a political House and
that any time that Mr. Speaker endeavoured
to stop political speeches and activities on
the Opposition side of the House, there would
be a great outcry from there as well as from
the government benches. And likewise, there
was a great outcry today when it was sug-
gested that Mr. Speaker should endeavour to
proof read or edit the Minister's statements
for fear they might contain some political
reference or some pre-editing.
Mr. MacDonald: You have an obligation
to intervene when they violate the rules.
Mr. Speaker: I have already pointed out to
the House, insofar as I am concerned, that
I have not seen any, what I would call grave
violations on the part of the government with
respect to these matters. There have been
long statements and there have been state-
ments which, by the very nature of them,
must be political. Because on one side of
the House, is the political party forming the
government, which has a policy to carry out.
And on the other side, there are two parties
which sometimes are in disagreement with
themselves— and always in disagreement with
the government party and its policies. So
there must be a certain element of political
undertones.
However, I am sure the chairman of the
committee will take to his committee the
suggestions by the hon. member for York
South and the member for Downsview. I
have explained that, insofar as Mr. Speaker
is concerned, for the moment at least, he is
not a member of the committee, he has not
been invited to be on it, and I think that
is probably very well indeed.
Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
would like to bring to the attention of this
House an event that took place in the Mada-
waska Valley in the great county of Renfrew
in the great riding of Renfrew South, last
Saturday. I am happy that in view of the
bitterness demonstrated on the opposite side
of the House-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
If the hon. member has any statement of
interest to the House and the public which
would make a proper basis for his statement,
he will make it. Otherwise he is out of order.
Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, all I was go-
ing to say was that my announcement would
be in a sweeter vein.
3516
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. P. Reid: He is going to resign.
Mr. Yakabuski: Last Saturday, at Comber-
mere, Ontario, the Madawaska Valley syrup
producers opened a new maple syrup pro-
cessing plant. The new industry will make
possible $1 million more in annual income
to the farmers of Renfrew and Hastings
c-ounties. After four years of steady growth,
the Madawaska Valley Maple Products Co-
operative reaches a new phase in its develop-
ment with the opening, on Saturday, April
19, of its new processing plant at Comber-
mere.
After that date, sir, the co-operative,
owned and operated by the local farmers,
will be able to process and market all the
maple syrup that can be produced in Ren-
frew and Hastings counties. These counties
are in the heart of Canada's best maple
forests, and with goxernment now assisting
the development in many ways, the new
Combermere co-operative seems assured of
a steady increase in membership and sales.
I might menticm, Mr. Speaker, that of
a)urse this programme was made possible
thrc/ugh the—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
The hon. member has made his statement,
and he is now out of order.
Mr. Yakabuski: —through the ARDx\ assist-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member has
made his statement, and he has told the
House what has happened. He is now out of
order.
The hon. leader of the Opposition. Does
the hon. leader of the Opposition have his
questions?
Mr, Singer: Well, I am acting in his place;
he v^as not due to come back yet.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I was about to ask
you, do you wish to place them?
Mr, Singer: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker, if I
may. I ha\e a question for the Attorney
General.
Will the Attorne>' General ad\ise if he is
preparing legislation to amend the law of
landlord and tenant?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, we are studying the recom-
mendations of the law reform commission
and other matters related to the law of land-
lord and tenant, and proceeding with the
drafting of legislation.
Mr. Singer: By way of supplemeotary ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker, could the Attorney Gen-
eral advise us whether we can anticipate
legislation in that regard in this session?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I have
no idea how long this session is going to last,
but we will do our best to be ready.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): After the debate on the "Last
Post?"
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have another
question, which I addresesd to the Prime
Minister; I do not know whether the Attor-
ney General wants to undertake to answer it
or whether we should let it sit until the Prime
Minister is back in the House. The question
was this: Can the Premier advise when he
will be in a position to table part 2 of the
McRuer report in the Legislature? Perhaps
the Attorney General can answer that, and
perhaps he cannot.
Mr. Speaker: I was of the impression that
the deputy leader was asking questions for his
leader; instead of that he was asking ques-
tions of his own. I apologize to the hon.
member for York South.
Mr. Singer: I am sorry; I did not know he
had any questions,
Mr. Speaker: So the hon, leader of the
Opposition may ask his questions.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Thank you, Mr, Speaker, Perhaps my first
question is one that is held over.
Can the Minister now report to the House
what action he is going to take to relieve the
extraordinarily high increase in education
taxes? But I understand that in my absence
he has given a partial reply,
Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for
the Minister of Education on a matter of
some detail. Is the Minister aware that some
ratepayers from the municipality of Mac-
Donald, Meredith and Aberdeen Additional,
in the Echo Bay area of Algoma, feel that
they will not be as conveniently served by
the Central Algoma Board of Education, .since
the students will have to make 70-mile round
trips to school rather than the 30-mile round
trips involved in the use of collegiate facilities
at Sault Ste. Marie, and will the Minister
undertake to review that situation?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we en-
deavoured to find out information on this
particular problem. As we understand it, the
APRIL 24, 1969
3517
central Algoma board has not yet reached
a decision as to the location of the new
seoortdary school to sei»ve that purpose. Until
the decision is made we cannot really tell
the hon. leader of the Opposition whether it
will be X number of miles at this particular
point.
Mr. Nixon: Is there some process whereby
citizenss under those circumstances can appeal
to the Minister? Is he available to hear the
problems?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I have
said on many occasions, I feel I am available
to hear just about every view or protest or
concern of education. I tiy to be as available
as I can.
Mr. Nixon: Somewhat similar to tliat,
another question has been hanging fire for
some days.
Does the Minister support the decision of
the Ontario Municipal Board to grant ap-
proval of the preparation of final plans for
a new elementary school in the counties of
Prescott and Russell, which will result in the
town of Hawkesbury having no elementary
school whatsoever, even though it provides
half the total assessment in the school area,
and 350 pupils? Will the Minister undertake
to have the situation fully reviewed in view
of the growing need of Hawkesbury for these
facilities?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr, Speaker, I will an-
swer the latter part of it. I am always pre-
pared to review or try to assist in any way
in these matters. I should point out that
when applications are made by a school board
to the OMB for its approval of a capital
expenditure, the board's decision obviously
is based upon the ability of the ratepayers
concerned to handle the financial obhgations.
In this case the school board under its author-
ity. The Schools Administration Act, has
apparently selected a site for a new school to
replace the two existing schools in Hawkes-
bury and Vankleek HiU. These two coonmu-
nities, as the leader of the Opposition will
know, are some seven miles apart. And if
the elected board of education selects a site,
obtains the necessary approvals from the
OMB, The Department of Health, the fire
marshal, and so on, and if the plans and
specifications of the proposed building meet
our requirements, really I have no statutory
authority to interfere and say that school A
must be here or there. There is no statutory
authority but, as I say, over the years I have
always been available to discuss these matters
with the ratepayers and with the boards.
Mr. Speaker: There is one further question
of the Minister of Education. Does the leader
of the Opposition wish to place it?
Mr. Nixon: Pardon?
Mr. Speaker: Did you decide that 1140,
in connection with the education taxes had
been answered by the Minister's statement?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: A question about hous-
ing perhaps?
Mr. Nixon: Yes, yes!
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact, the
interjection by the Minister of Correctional
Services is valid. I wish the Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) or our Minister of housing were
here to make some statement as to how they
are going to pick up the pieces in view cf
the collapse in Ottawa, but neither of our
Ministers is here so the collapse is complete.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: I have a question for the
Minister of Education.
Under what legislation and regulations can
a board of education ask a principal of a
school to answer for his views as a member
of a profesisonal organization under the
threat of firing? Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should
explain— that question was asked eight days
ago with regard to a situation in Windsor
which I understand, has been resolved, in
that the board has withdrawn the charge or
action. But my question really still stands.
Is there any legislation or regidations under
which a board can take action against a
teacher who is speaking in his professional
capacity as the head of the teachers' federa-
tion or the local body?
Hon. Mr. Davis: We have not been able
to determine—
Mr, T. Reid: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: The member has a similar
question.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry.
Mr. T. Reid: In the light of the recent
case of disagreement as reported extensively
in the Windsor Star between the principal
of Vincent Massey secondary school in
Windsor and the school board, does the board
3518
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of education in Ontario have the legal
authority to fire a school principal who, as
an Ontario Secondary School Teachers Feder-
ation public representative, constructively
criticizes a specific pohcy of the board?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, both of
these questions really represent my giving
something of a legal opinion, and while I
used to do this some few years ago for fees,
I am not sure I am really adequately pre-
pared to do so today.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): We will pay
tlie Minister what it is wortli.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well I know, but tlie
member for Riverdale will say that it is
not worth very much when I am finished.
Mr. J. Renwick: No, we will pay you
what it is worth.
Hon. Mr. Davis: As I look at the legislation
I do not see anything in the legislation that
would enable a board to fire or, shall we
say, prevent a principal from expressing a
personal point of view relative to a matter
of this kind,
Tlio statutes provide, of course, that tlie
board does have the right to discharge or
fire any member of the staff, and that same
person, of course, has the statutory right
under the board of reference to rectify the
situation.
Mr. MacDonald: My second question, Mr.
Speaker, is to the Attorney General.
What explanation is there for the un-
explained wididrawal of charges against some
68 citizens of Metro Toronto charged as
found-ins under The Liquor Control Act of
Ontario, as related in the Ron Haggart
column in the Telegram on April 23?
Second, if charges are to be withdrawn
in this fashion in the future, is it not possible
to have the persons notified so that time
and money will not needlessly be wasted?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am ask-
ing myself the same questions. I just got
the hon. member's question before I came in
the House. I will get the answers. I will
take it as notice today.
Mr. MacDonald: They are intelligent ques-
tions obviously.
A question to the Minister of Labour.
Mr. J. Renwick: I hope the answers are
equally intelhgent.
Mr. MacDonald: Some people are obviously
not persuaded.
Does The Employment Standards Act,
1968, apply to route salesmen in the milk
and bread industry? If not, why not?
Hon. D. A. Rales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to tlie question of the hon.
member for York South, tlie answer is yes.
The effect of tlie Act in reference to certain
collective agreement situations in these in-
dustries is currently being reviewed with
both management and union people.
Mr. MacDonald: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if
the Minister of Agriculture and Food is in a
position to reply to a question I put to him
some two days ago?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the question of the hon. member for York
South, I think for purposes of Hansard, I
might read the question and provide the
answer:
Is the government aware that Interna-
tional Harvester has made a short term
offer till May 31 for tractors on terms as
favourable as imports from Rritain, obvi-
ously for the purpose of wrecking the
import programme and then reverting to
normal high prices in Canada after June 1?
We are aware International Harvester has
made an offer to sell tractors at prices and
conditions comparable to imported tractors.
Part two of the question:
Since the price differential between
Britain and Canada is in the range of
$1,000 instead of the $971 in the ads as
stated by the interim report of the Royal
commission, what explanation is there for
this factual discrepancy?
The International Harvester Company adver-
tisement does set forth the figure of $791 as
the differential in price between the Cana-
dian and United Kingdom prices for a 434D
International Harvester tractor. It quotes as
its source of information the interim report
of the Barber commission on farm machinery.
It has been drawn to my attention that the
tables in the commission report deahng with
this matter are based on the United Kingdom
prices in the 1966-67 selling season.
It will be appreciated that since 1966-67,
there has been a further devaluation of the
pound sterling and it has been suggested to us
that this has had the net effect of widening
the spread between United Kingdom and
Canadian prices to the extent of that de-
valuation. This could well account for the
APRIL 24, 1969
3519
discrepancy of which the hon, member has
referred.
Part three of the question read:
Does the Minister not anticipate diffi-
culties between dealers and farmers when,
on this short term sale, dealers will be
encouraged to provide no warranty whereas
a normal sale includes a warranty?
It may well be that this action by Inter-
national Harvester Company, as announced
in the advertisement, could have some effect
upon the relationships between the buyer and
the dealer. However, the ads state very
clearly that anyone purchasing a tractor under
the conditions set forth will automatically
waive any rights to warranty or after delivery
service.
Many farmers who have purchased tractors
and equipment through the Ontario Federa-
tion of Agriculture's overseas programme have
already waived these rights. They did so
with full knowledge that such warranties do
not exist. It would appear that this advertise-
ment by International Harvester is an effort
to offer, for the time being at least, an alter-
native to the OFA undertaking.
The important thing it seems to me, Mr.
Speaker, is that the buyer be made aware of
the conditions of the offer that has been made
in these advertisements and of the limitations
being placed. If he reads these conditions
and these limitations very closely, there
should be no problems. The fourth part of
the question was:
What action does the government intend
to take concerning this short term cut-
throat competition design to protect the
high price of farm machinery in Canada?
In view of the fact the Royal commission on
farm machinery is involved in the study of
matters pertaining to farm machinery prices
and service, I feel that this information should
be drawn to the attention of Dr. Barber, the
Royal commissioner, and his staff.
In Ontario, we have the farm machinery
advisory board, whose terms of reference also
include services to farm machinery. We are
therefore forwarding to the Royal commis-
sion of farm machinery, to the federal Depart-
ment of Agriculture and to the Ontario Farm
Machinery Advisory Board, the questions and
my reply, as well as the copy of the Inter-
national Harvester advertisement as it
appeared in one of the recent Ontario papers.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a question of
the-
Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. member for
Sudbury East, may I ask the hon. member
for York South whether the question of some
days ago to the Minister of Education about a
Nicholas Volk, has been asked or whether it
is withdrawn?
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
it was not asked. I have mislaid my copy.
Could I borrow yours?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be
delighted to read it to the hon. member for
York South.
Mr. MacDonald: Fine, it was the first day
after the recess and that is a little while ago.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I think I have the
question here.
With regard to the appointment of
Nicholas Volk, Jr., an American informa-
tion officer at the United States consulate
in Toronto, as regional officer to the On-
tario Council for the Arts:
1. How many contenders were there for
this position?
2. Was there no Canadian contender of
comparable capacities and experience?
3. What is Mr. Volk's experience which
qualifies him for this appointment?
I think this is the question. The answer, Mr.
Speaker, to one and two is that more than
20 persons were contenders for the position
of regional officer. Several well-qualified
persons were interviewed before the position
was offered to Mr. Volk.
Mr. Volk worked for the U.S. government
abroad for almost 12 years, where he had a
variety of cultural, educational and informa-
tional responsibilities. He set up and de-
veloped a series of teacher organizations for
the exchange of ideas and information. He
travelled extensively learning at source about
the culture of the people. Most important, he
developed an enormous sensitivity to the
basic needs of human beings and the ability
to relate, co-ordinate and organize ways and
means of assisting them to help themselves.
He also organized and directed a foreign
service training seminar for two years, work-
ing with top-level government oflScials, senior
academics and business executives. For the
past four years he has been the director of
information of the United States consulate in
Toronto during which time he has travelled
the length and breadth of the province and
has applied himself to acquiring a first-hand
3520
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
knowledge of its education, culture and busi-
ness.
If the hon. member so desires, I have a
lot more— indeed this is the terminology used.
If the hon. member would like to have this,
I understand he has already had some dis-
cussions with the director of the Ontario Arts
Council relative to this particular matter.
Mr. MacDonald: What about the fourth
question?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry. I only ha\e
three.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, the final question
was: Does Mr. Volk intend to become a
Canadian citizen?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
I do not have that. I will have to find that
out for the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of
Justice and tlie Attorney General, Mr.
Speaker.
Will the Attorney General receive dele-
gations of land surveyors of Ontario to dis-
cuss Bills 102 and 103 before second reading
of the bills?
Were the land surveyors consulted prior to
the bills being drawn up? If not, why not?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am
always ready to receive delegations and I
receive a great many of them. As a matter
of fact, I met the Ontario land surveyors
delegation yesterday with my officials. We
discussed the land titles bill, I am not sure
v/hether that is 103 or 102, but that is the
one with which they were concerned. We
discussed it at length and they were not con-
sulted before we made the proposed change.
It is an administrative change which we
think will make for better administration and
will save considerable costs to the public
in the administration of that Act. It is not
a matter about which I would ordinarily
need to consult the profession about, any
more than the change in section 6, which
removes the requirement that a master of
titles be a lawyer or barrister, required con-
sultation with the legal profession. These are
administrative changes, looking for better
administration. I would not ordinarily consult
them, but I would be quite glad to talk to
them about it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the Minister of Agricul-
ture and Fooi.
What is the delay in the report of the farm
income committee's study of the province's
corn industry?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I was
advised by the chairman of the committee
that there were certain matters with reference
to the cost of producing com where addi-
tional information was required. Representa-
tions have been made to the committee
regarding the differences in price between
Ontario and the United States.
Also, the committee has been attempting
to get up-to-date pricing information on
fertilizer. The committee is requesting further
information on all these matters before final-
izing its report, and therefore I am advised
there will be some delay. I am sure we all
share their concern, as does the hon. mem-
ber, in any delay. But I think we want to
know as many facts as possible about this
very important commodity.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): On behalf
of my colleague, tlie member for Sandwich-
Riverside (Mr. Burr), a question of the Min-
ister of Education:
Were any of the 68 new directors of edu-
cation of the new county boards of educa-
tion on the payroll of The Ontario Depart-
ment of Education in 1968? If so, how many?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Eighteen of the 68 were
former members of the staff of The Depart-
ment of Education.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex
South.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Energy and Resources Management.
Has the department sent an investigator
to the Windsor area to assist the lands and
forests conservation officer with the problem
of the oil slick resulting from a release of
72,000 gallons of oil at an automotive plant
in the area?
Can the Minister report on any serious
damage?
Can he advise if dresinate is injurious to
fish and other wildlife?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, I
received notification of this spill within hours
of its occurrence. The Ontario Water Re-
APRIL 24, 1969
3521
sources Commission survey staflF in the area
were put on standby to provide assistance in
resolving any problems that might have arisen
from the spill. The commission stajff were
also in consultation with The Department of
Lands and Forests district office at Aylmer
and wildlife inspection staflF concerning
mutual assistance.
An examination of the area from Amherst-
burg to Bar Point did not indicate any
deposit along the Ontario shoreline. Similarly,
no oil was detected along the shoreline from
the mouth of the Detroit river to Point
Pelee during onshore examinations and aerial
reconnaissance the following day. Information
received today indicated that the waste
material had dispersed sufficiently within the
lake and is not likely to present any further
potential damage. A slight oil slick was noted
the following day near Bar Point; however,
it does not appear to be related to the spiU.
Mr. Paterson: The Minister did not answer
the third point; the chemical that is breaking
down the oil slick, is that damaging to wild-
life and fish?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I am
sorry I have not been able to get an answer on
that part of it yet. The engineer I was talking
to thought not, but he thought perhaps he
should look into it a little further before
answering the question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamil-
ton Mountain.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the hon. Provincial
Secretary:
When does the hquor control board intend
to make the upper James Street store in
Hamilton, the LCBO outlet, a self-service
store?
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the board
hopes to complete the necessary alterations
by about October 15 next.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre): A
question of the Minister of Education:
Was there a cutback in the junior kinder-
garten at Ryerson this year, due to a shortage
of space? If so, how many children could not
be accommodated?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I regret
really, I have to ask for some clarification of
this. Does the hon. member mean Ryerson
pubHc school or is the hon. member referring
to a particular programme that relates to
some activities of Ryerson Polytechnical In-
stitute?
Mrs. M. Renwick: I believe, Mr. Speaker,
that the junior kindergarten is at the public
school.
Hon. Mr. Davis: At the pubhc school. Mr.
Speaker, I will endeavour to get this answer
for the hon. member. We were not sure when
the question said "Ryerson"— there is a pro-
gramme related to one of the adult pro-
grammes at Ryerson— so I will find out the
answer to that question for the hon. member.
Mrs. M. Renwick: A further question of
the Minister of Education:
How many schools in Ontario, particularly
in Metro Toronto, have embarked on after-
four programmes, primarily for children of
working parents?
How many are operating at this time, and
in which schools?
Are some of the schools on a fee to parents
for this service?
If so, how much is the fee? Which schools
are charging fees? Who subsidizes the pro-
gramme?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
the hon. member is aware that we do not have
statistics or information relative to this, be-
cause it is not part of the regular school
programme. I am sure the hon. member is
aware that in Toronto— and I believe in Lon-
don, Windsor, Hamilton and Ottawa— they
have special programmes relating to this and
where the inner-city schools have been estab-
lished, it is very difficult for us to get this type
of information. I would suggest perhaps that
for the Metro area, if the hon. member wishes
to contact the chairman of either the Tioronto
board or the Metro board or their directors,
they would be quite delighted to get this
information for the hon. member.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask a supple-
mentary question?
I would like to ask the Minister, is there
any consideration being given that in the
future, after-school programmes may be ad-
ministered through the department?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, like so many
programmes today that I think are desirable.
There are certain economic limitations— and to
say that today we could encompass a pro-
gramme of this kind, I think, would be some-
what optimistic. This does not mean it does
3522
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not have validity, but we do not contemplate
—at this moment— becoming involved directly
as a department.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. memtber for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I had two ques-
tions yesterday, for the Minister of Educa-
tion; I redirected them to tlie Premier.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member then
wish to ask the Minister and withdraw the
ones for the Premier?
Mr. T. Reid: The first question to the
Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.
What steps have been taken, are being, or
will be taken, by the government:
(a) To directly inform Indian bands in
Ontario, which had education agreements
with local boards of education prior to the
changeover to the county school board sys-
tem, that each of these bands has a legal
right under The Schools Administration Act,
section 35(c)(3), to recommend to its new
county board that an Indian representative be
appointed by that board as a full and equal
ntember of that board; and—
(b) to directly inform tlie new county
school boards, whose jurisdictions contain at
least one Indian band with which a former
township school board had an education
agreement, that the Indian bands concerned
have a legal right to recommend that an In-
dian representative be appointed by the
county board as a full and equal member of
that board?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, actually
there has been no change relative to the
legislation. The legislation that was in effect
since about 1967 still has application for the
new county board structure. I think it is
important to point out really that Ontario
has taken the lead in providing legislation
whereby the native people in this province
are being given the opportimity for some
involvement and responsibility for the educa-
tion of their children. It is interesting to
note, Mr. Speaker, that in fact this same
opportunity to be involved does not relate
to those schools operated by the federal
government in the reserve communities. This
is not the present practice there, which we
found very interesting.
And while the legislation itself is not com-
pulsory at this time, Mr. Speaker, it is anti-
cipated that the boards will recognize the
value of having representation from the re-
serve communities. There are a number of
boards that already have this and, Mr.
Speaker, I think the boards know about it,
but if not, we are going to fully inform them
of the provisions in the legislation.
Mr. T. Reid: By way of a supplementary,
will the Minister or his department be writing
a letter to the chief of each band in Ontario
informing them once again that they do have
this right to recommend such representation
to the boards?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. T. Reid: Another question to the Min-
ister of Education, Mr. Speaker, in two
parts:
Has The Department of Education received
a resolution from the Barrie city council re-
questing the Premier to evaluate and audit
the administrative and budget commitments
of the Simcoe county board of education, in
order to assure local property taxpayers that
their property tax dollars to the new county
board of education are being properly spent?
If the Minister has received such a resolution,
will he respond to the request of the local
government council?
Does the government require the new
county school boards to tender for their new
office requirements? If so, what guidelines,
if any, docs the Minister provide for such
tendering of contracts by the new county
school boards?
Hon. Mr. Davis: We received this resolu-
tion, and of course not only have we re-
ceived it, we have had discussions with the
Simcoe county board relative to their budget.
I think that the results of this are already
somewhat in evidence.
I think also, with respect to part (d)
of tlie question, I shall send to tlie hon.
member "Guidelines on Business Aspects in
New Divisional Board Operations"; in sec-
tion (b) there is a section entided "Pur-
chasing, Warehousing and Distribution",
which gives suggestions about the tendering
of supplies and other guidelines in this whole
area of acquisition of supplies and space.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the
Minister a supplementary question? Is it
mandatory for a new county board to tender
for such ofiice space?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, guidelines
obviously cannot be mandatory. We were
discussing that point a week ago yesterday.
The guidelines indicate certain practices that
should be followed but, being guidelines,
APRIL 24, 1969
3523
they are not in themselves mandatory, they
are not legislative.
Mr. T. Reid: Right. Another question out-
standing from April 16.
Did Humber College of Applied Arts and
Technology request approximately $100,000
in operating revenue for its technology divi-
sion for 1969-70 from The Department of
Education?
Did the Minister grant approximately only
$14,000 of the $100,000 requested, and if
so, why?
^ Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the method
used by the colleges— to the council and to
the department— relate to total budgets, with
the projected increase in number of students.
We do not make the determination or allo-
cation of the various branches or divisions
within the college. So it is really quite
impossible to answer this question other than
to say— and there is another question relative
to this— that the total amount requested by
all of the community colleges was not
reached by the amounts allocated by the
government.
Mr. T. Reid: I have one final question out-
standing, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Minister agree with Dr. W. G. G.
Bowen, president of the Niagara College of
Applied Arts and Technology, that the col-
lege must refuse the admission of 500 duly
qualified students this year because the
college only received 75 per cent of its pre-
viously promised grant?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think, in
the first instance, there has never been any
previously promised grants. There were
submissions by the various colleges to the
council, and to the department, and I cannot
agree or disagree with Mr. Bowen with re-
spect to the number of students he may, or
may not, or the college may or may not, be
able to accept, or will have to refuse.
I should point out that the colleges received
and increase of about 38.4 per cent in grants
over last year's operating grants.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oshawa
was on his feet some little time ago.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): A question of
the Minister of Education.
Is the government planning a convention
or conference in the near future for the
students of the Ontario secondary schools;
and, if so, what would be the purpose of such
a convention or conference?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am really
not too clear on the origin of this question.
There have been various high school student
groups, or representatives of high school
groups, in some sections of the province,
meeting to form, shall we say, high school
councils with a view towards communication
among the various regions and the repre-
sentatives from the schools.
There was also some discussion, which I
mentioned in an address to the Vanier Insti-
tute some few weeks ago, of the possibility
of some government involvement in a pro-
gramme whereby students from various high
schools would become involved. I do not like
to use the term "a model parliament experi-
ence", but something related to involvement
in political procedures and situations as we
know them here as members. This has not
come to any finality at this point. This is
perhaps what the hon. member is referring to
and, if so, I may have some further word on
this in the not too distant future.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brant-
ford.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): I have a
question of the Attorney General.
In view of the fact that, under section 18
of The Evidence Act, it is incumbent upon
the presiding officer to advise the person be-
ing tried of his rights to an affirmation, and
since this was not observed in the case of
Joseph Viner, will the Minister reopen the
case?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, no one
has any right to reopen a case, to interfere
with the judgment of a judge.
In certain circumstances the higher court
may direct that a case be reopened, but the
remedy which Mr. Viner had is by way of
appeal— if he is dissatisfied with the disposi-
tion of the case. I did mention yesterday, in
answering a question on this matter, of
having read the transcript although he did
not know, apparently, he might reaffirm, I
could see no suggestion of any miscarriage
of justice. But his only remedy in any event
would be to appeal.
Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, by way of
a supplementary question: would the Attorney
General agree that the presiding officer has a
responsibility to notify the man being tried
that he is entitled to an affirmation?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I believe I said that
yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
3524
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Makarchuk: Just a point of clarifica-
tion. The Minister says that the man-
Mr. Speaker: Order! There is no place for
a point of clarification here. The member
may address a supplementary question.
Mr. Makarchuk: By way of a supplement-
ary question, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did
not answer my question in that case. What
I asked is, whether it is incumbent upon the
judge to tell the man that he is entitled to
a note of affirmation? This is my question.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, I think it is good
conduct, good practice, for the person pre-
siding on the bench to go as far as he can
in explaining rights. The Crown Attorney
also has that obligation, and I hope that
would be carried out. I think certainly I
would agree that that should be done.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, a question
for the Minister of Energy and Resources
Management.
What provisions have been made by the
go\ernment for insurance for atomic installa-
tions in the province?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, insofar as
nuclear installations for the production of
electric power are concerned, the govern-
ment of Ontario has made no provisions for
insurance.
These installations are insured by Ontario
Hydro and the government of Canada, the
latter being responsible in all cases for third
party liability in the event of a nuclear in-
cident.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor West.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Provincial Secretary.
Does the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario
have statutory authority to impose the observ-
ance of daylight saving time on licensed
premises in the municipality of Windsor?
If so, has the board yet reached a decision
with respect to the hours to be observed
by licensed premises in Windsor?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in the
operation of the Liquor Licence Board, the
hours of sale on licensed premises are gov-
erned by the time which is observed by the
municipality.
Mr. Peacock: May I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker? Is the Minister aware
that the city of Windsor has found that it
does not have the statutory authority to im-
pose the observance of daylight saving time
standard, and has called upon citizens of the
community to voluntarily observe daylight
saving time?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this infor-
mation was brought to my attention the
other day. It may be helpful that the hon.
member's attention was drawn to The Time
Act, which is set out as in chapter 400 of
the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1960.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And if you can under-
stand that Act, let us know.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): I rise on
a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, with re-
gard to questions that I have had for some
time. I have noted in the last nine days
that the Minister of Highways (Mr. Gomme)
has been in during the question period only
once.
I wonder is there any criteria, or anything
else, as to the limit the Minister may be in?
I have seen this in other Parliaments where
they have two or three days a week that
they may come in, and I wondered if you
might enlighten me a little bit as to this?
It seems to me that the Minister has been
absent for some time. I wonder if you would
enlighten me?
Mr. Speaker: Well I must say that the
hon. Minister of Highways was here the
other day. I had drawn the question of
the hon. member on that particular day he
was not here. We must realize that, on both
sides of the House, Ministers and members
find it necessary to be absent from the House
on duty, both for their constituents, and in
the case of the Minister, for the department.
There is, in this House, no rule that I
know of, and no understanding among the
parties, and I would think that this also
might be a good thing for the committee,
to which the member for York South re-
ferred earlier, to consider. The chairman of
the committee is the Clerk of the House, and
I am sure he will make a note of it and
perhaps have that matter also discussed.
I agree with the hon. member that some
sort of system should be agreed upon among
the members of the House.
Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 27th order; re-
suming the adjourned debate on the motion
for second reading of Bill 118, An Act
Respecting the City of the Lakehead.
APRIL 24, 1969
3525
CITY OF THE LAKEHEAD
(Continued)
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): When this
debate on Bill 118 adjourned yesterday, I
was placing affidavits before this House which
proved the majority of Lakehead residents
opposed this bill receiving approval in prin-
ciple without permitting a vote by the people
affected.
Mr, Speaker, I am here today with more
affidavits which I feel I owe to the people
I represent; affidavits which would be very
illuminating to the members of this House
as we deliberate a very important principle,
the principle of democracy, which many of
us at the Lakehead feel is not really included
in this bill. Certainlv it is flaunted by the
bill.
I was rather amazed yesterday to find my-
self arguing to uphold the democratic prin-
ciple in this government's administration of
this province, and to be jeered at so much.
But that is fine; that is the democratic way.
And I was equally perturbed today, prior to
the debate, to be approached from various
quarters asking: "Will you please cut this
kind of short now— you have been going long
enough." Well, obviously a lot of people are
not aware that a beachhead for democracy
has been established by the Lakehead people
in this House. A beachhead, and Mr.
Speaker-
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Well,
they are caught in the backwash.
Mr. Knight: —there is an awful lot con-
nected with the Lakehead in the government's
chessboard— in its manner of setting up re-
gional government in this province. That is
why this debate is extremely important, and
I am hoping that once the subject has been
properly introduced, as we debate this bill
very important to my people at the Lake-
head, that other members of the House will
undertake to debate the same principle.
Is democracy, as we understand it, under
attack in the govenmient's treatment of the
Lakehead people, in the matter of instituting
this Act which incorporates the cities of the
Lakehead?
This beachhead has many heroes, and I
think, I tried to acknowledge some of them
in my argumentations here yesterday. I feel
that today others should be acknowledged,
because, Mr. Speaker, each name on the
petition which I referred to yesterday, and
there are 6,292 names on this petition, is a
voice, a Lakehead voice. This petition, which
I plan to lay on the table a little bit later on,
states, and I read from the petition itself:
I, the undersigned, demand my demo-
cratic right as a resident to vote in a
plebiscite, either for or against the pro-
posed incorporation of the new Lakehead
city.
The petition I hold in my hand is signed by
Mrs. C. W. Clayton of Port Arthur; Mrs.
F, T. Dennis of Port Arthiu: signed the
same petition. Mr. Speaker, these are heroes.
These are people who are helping to hold
this beachhead for democracy in this prov-
ince—where democracy is very much threat-
ened at this time. I bring to the House's
attention other names: Mrs. S. Macormick, of
Rita Street, Port Arthur; Mrs. Rosemarie
Goslin; Mrs. V. L. Coulter; Mrs. A. J.
Murphy; Helen C. Hedge; Valerie Soris.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): This is worse than the last post.
Mr. Knight: Some day, the descendants of
these people will look back and look into
Hansard and say: "So those were the people
who had enough courage to stand up and
appeal to democracy." People like Miss J.
Masenick of Port Arthur and Mrs. L. Mase-
vesky. These are mostly Port Arthur names
tliat I have now.
You will note the ethnic backgrounds of
most of these people. We have about 47
varieties at the Lakehead, all speaking up for
what they feel is tlieir democratic right. C. C.
Bedard is another who signed this petition.
And F. Hutchison. I would also like to name
Oscar Neomi, which is a very good one.
I said earlier that the Lakehead had estab-
lished a beachhead for democracy. That is
the principle under debate in Bill 118 at
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask a question,
although it seems so obvious to me. Is the
Lakehead being used by The Department of
Municipal Affairs to win its battle with
Metropolitan Toronto? It, seems very odd to
me that while this Department of Municipal
Affairs is forcing four municipalities together
in one Lakehead city, it is keeping a large
number of municipalities apart down here in
Metro Toronto.
And I think that some of my colleagues in
this House who are from Toronto ridings
might be able to develop that particular point
a little bit further. But I think it is worth
noting. The people at the Lakehead do not
want to be used in this big chess board.
They want to be treated as an individual area.
3526
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as individuals, and when they ask for a
vote they want a vote.
People like Paul Meckie, Mr. W. O.
Faber. And these people all bring back
memories to me. These are voices for demo-
cracy opposing this bill in the House today.
W. J. Cole; E. Whiteman; Mrs. Pearl Thomp-
son; Robert Kerr; Edward K. Milne; Fred H.
Geecock— these names will go down in his-
tory because they were not afraid to stand up
when their democratic rights were being
opposed.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the member pre-
paring to read the six thousand names into
the record?
Mr. Knight: Mrs. Elizabeth Telfer; Mrs.
Tillie Milton; Walter Alexander.
I am proud of these i^eople. The members
of the House should be too. This is the
voice of the Lakehead. It has been quieted
for a year and a half while the hon. Min-
ister has been talking to 24 or 25 people
at the Lakehead, many of whom merely pre-
tended to represent the wishes of the Lake-
head, and it is about time the average
guy— the fellow with the blue collar and the
dirty hands— and all of the other fine people
who keep the Lakehead going— had a voice
here.
This is their voice. Can you imagine how
proud they would be to know that their
names are being called to the attention of
this House? They are not afraid to stand up.
People like Mrs. A. Osadis; William
Polowski; Mrs. Mary Turney; Mrs. J. J.
Sismar; William Carl Kreisig; Donald F.
Hamer, of Wolsley Street, Port Arthur; Mrs.
M. Ambrose; Mrs. Y. Niburg; Ivor J. Watson.
These people were invited to register their
opinions on this bill. Do you want this amal-
gamation as recommended by Mr. Hardy and
later endorsed by the Minister? Or do you
think— whether for or against— you should
have the right to decide it along with your
neighbours here at the Lakehead?
And they have signed this petition. People
like F. A. Thomas of Port Arthur. These are
all Port Arthur names— yet some people try
to give the impression that the Port Arthur
side of this merger is entirely in favour of
amalgamation without a vote.
Well, these signatures argue very strongly
against that idea. Mrs. S. J. Wainroach signed
it. Mr. William Small; Mrs. W. Small; Mr.
and Mrs. Robert Lindsay.
Down at the bottom of this petition, these
people say: "Thank you for letting us know
we still have our rights." Thank you. Let us
vote on this. This is the voice of the people.
That is democracy. Mr. and Mrs. R. L. Hudd;
Emil Crabbe and Minnie Crabbe; Mr. and
Mrs. William Donaghue.
To those people who told me to be quiet
and not advance any more arguments, and to
anybody who really cares about the Lake-
head people, these names are of great sig-
nificance and importance. I apologize to the
House if I am speaking too fast, perhaps
I should slow down a bit.
Other names I would like to present today
in the name of democracy: Mr. and Mrs.
Dave Solomon; Mr. and Mrs. C. E. Mills; Mr.
and Mrs. George Merrifield, and they are
from just outside Port Arthur, on RR No. 3;
Mr. and Mrs. L. Hogarth— there is a long-
standing name in the Lakehead area; P. J.
Teskey and L. Teskey; Dudley and Dorothy
Vigers — another well-known, long-standing
Port Arthur name; Mr. and Mrs. H. Jaudoin;
Mr. and Mrs. M. R. Maher.
How I wish the hon. Premier were able
to be in the House today to hear these names.
Unfortunately, the urgent business of the
province called him away yesterday. Far be
it for tlie people at the Lakehead to try to
occupy all of the Premier's time, but I know
the Lakehead people would have liked him
to have heard some of their expressions and
asking for a vote in this matter.
You will recall that the federal member,
Mr. Badanai, in his statement supporting the
vote on amalgamation, put his plea directly
to the hon. Premier. I do not know to this
day whether Mr. Badanai received an answer
from the Premier or not. But we have many
arguments against this Bill 118 going through
without a vote of the people— people like Mr.
and Mrs. Allan Head; Mr. and Mrs. O. Merri-
field—another well-known Port Arthur Lake-
head area name; Mr. C. Thompson and Mrs.
C. Thompson; Mr. and Mrs. Frank Perrapelic
of Shipley Street, Port Artliur; Mr. and Mrs.
E. Block of Tupi>er Street; Mr. and Mrs. D.
Madsen of Rattan Street; Mr. and Mrs. L.
Whitesill; Mr. and Mrs. John Elloranta of
Ontario Street.
If I could read all of the streets— and I do
not want to take more time of the House than
I feel is proper— you would soon see that
the^e signatures come from a wide, cross-
section of the Port Arthur area, and I think
that is an important point.
Others who have signed this petition: Mr.
and Mrs. R. L. Pilon; J. A. Roice McQuaig;
Mrs. Edith Mills; John L. Deeley and Loma
M. Deeley-that is from RR No. 2, Port
APRIL 24, 1969
3527
Arthur, again; F. G. Taylor; Mr. and Mrs.
R. Tibbs; Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Heron; Mr.
and Mrs. G. Mossendee of Cumiberland Street,
Port Arthur; John F. Klobacha; Warner A.
Saunberg; W. J. Gunn; Mrs. Isaac Jewer;
Frank Longley; Andre Louis— all people who
had the courage of their convictions to stand
up and fight when it was time to fight. I want
to thank the members of the House for listen-
ing so attentively to these important names-
Mr. Peter Nasnesky; Mrs. Laura Corcola; Ab
Mills; Mr. and Mrs. Miller-
Mr. Speaker: Order please!
It seems to me that the purpose before the
House, at the present time is a discussion of
the principle of this particular bill. Now
surely, the repetition of an endless number
of names of people who are residents of the
city does not constitute a debate on the
principle of this bill.
Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to
differ with you on that. I have tried to con-
tinue debate as I have advanced what I
feel are affidavits. These are the names, the
actual signatures of people who are trying
to impress the hon. Minister and the govern-
ment and this House with their deep need,
their desire to decide this matter themselves.
I am hoping these names will be part of the
ammunition that will cause this Minister
finally, to turn around and say all right,
they can vote on it.
Mr. Speaker: Well the hon. member-
Mr. Knight: Let them decide it.
Mr. Speaker: Order please!
The hon. member has made his point by
putting to the House a large number of
names. It seems to me that any continuation
of this would be repetitious.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, if I might speak to the point
that you have raised. I know it is not the
hon. member's intention to read the names
of tlie very lengthy petition he holds in his
hand and will no doubt place upon the table
some time during his discourse. But I think
the point he makes is a very important one—
and that is the involvement of his constituents
and other citizens in the area. I am sure it is
not his intention to read an unduly lengthy
list of these names.
Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon.
leader of the Opposition, it seems to me
that the list has been unduly long at the
present time. There have been dozens of
the names read out and I do not think that
reading of dozens more will add anything to
the debate on the principle of this bill.
Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have
been hee-hawed in this House and I have
been jeered and tlie indication has been that
I do not know what I am talking about. So,
I am presenting the most legal form that I
know of— that of a person's signature to back
up my argument.
Mr. Speaker, I said this was a beachhead.
There is nowhere else for us to go, those of
us who are fighting to give the people a vote
on this matter. The govement is all powerful.
It has already been indicated to me in many
ways that I am wasting my time. "Do not
take that into the House, they know what
they are going to do and they are going to
This is the most horrible, the most con-
demning commentary that can be made on
any government. To think that, no matter
how the voice of the people is presented to
them, they still will not change their minds.
I think this House should be aware that
there have been those involved in this
very important issue who have had the cour-
age to change their minds. I would like to
quote a story that appeared in the Fort
William Daily Times Journal, at the begin-
ning of this battle this year. The title of it is:
"City could still vote on amalgamation issue".
I am trying to prove that there are those
who change their mind I read this column
written by Mr. Bill Merritt:
Why is a city council vote necessary
now on whether a plebiscite be held on
amalgamation?
Aid. Michael Chicorli at a regular ses-
sion Jan. 28 tabled a notice of motion
calling for a plebiscite. His motion is open
to discussion at the Feb. 11 meeting.
On May 14, 1968, council voted 6-5
in favour of a plebiscite. In favour were
aldermen Mickey Hermessey, Walter Assef,
Larry Baarts, Michael Chicorli, Art Widnall
and Harold Lockwood. Opposed were
aldermen Grace Remus, Wally Bryan, Don
Aedy, William Nealin and Alex Anderson.
Mayor E. H. Reed and Aid. Hugh Cook
were absent.
Well the mayor at tliat time was not able to
register his position. But he did later on
while being interviewed by newsmen. I quote
from an article this time from the Port Arthur
News-Chronicle, in which the mayor does
3528
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
put fortli his position as of January 30, 1969.
The story says:
Ma>'or E. H. Reed of Fort WilUam says
that, while he is not 100 per cent sure the
chosen approach to amalgamation is the
proper one, there would have been enor-
mous—if not insurmountable— difficulties to
wording of a plebiscite because recom-
mendations range far beyond the single
question of uniting two cities.
And here, his worship in his first feeling on
this matter, would seem to echo the feeling
of the hon. Minister opposite, Mr. Speaker.
Well things changed, as you will see in
this later article. On February 24— not one
month later— was the headline: "Mayor still
demanding deferment of merger." I read the
stor>', again written by Mr. Bill Merritt:
Not giving up, Reed declares:
"Could the city take the matter of amal-
gamation without a plebiscite to the
Supreme Court of Canada?"
Mayor E. H. Reed today termed the
question "interesting" but declined to ex-
press an opinion.
The mayor was asked for comment on
statements Friday by Ontario Minister of
Municipal Affairs Darcy McKeough in
which the Minister flatly rejected Mayor
Reed's call for deferment of amalgamation
proceedings.
"It appears I have failed in my attempt
to get a message across to the Minister and
perhaps others as to the seriousness of
what is happening," the mayor said.
And the article goes on, still quoting Mayor
Reed of Fort William:
I am a long way from giving up on the
matter and I will attempt shortly to pre-
sent further reasons for deferment, which
I sincerely hope will be considered.
I hope everyone will realize we are no
longer discussing amalgamation itself, but
rather we are discussing the basic rights
of the people to determine their destiny.
These words, from a mayor who has served
seven years anyway at the Lakehcad, a
gentleman who is certainly well acquainted
with the feelings of the people in the back-
ground of this whole issue. His statement
goes on:
As representatives of the people, we were
not elected to change or alter the ground
rules by which the people are governed,"
he said.
The mayor said he had made a point
during a weekend conference at Quetico
Conference and Training Centre attended
by Mr. McKeough.
The Minister gave clear indication there
was no rush for implementation of regional
government in the outlying districts and
there would be plenty of time for dialogue.
"Proposed amalgamation as it affects the
Twin Cities, is not being given equal time.
"The Minister has said only a minority
favours a plebiscite, but he does not sit
back behind this desk and he has not seen
or heard the rising swell of public opinion
which demands a vote."
Mayor Reed concludes his statement: "Should
I just ignore these demands?"
Now there is a man who had the courage
to change his opinion. The kind of courage
that I seek to stimulate in the hon. Minister,
in the hon. government opposite.
I notice that the hon. Minister is preparing
some affidavits for his answer when he rises
to support the bill later. If he is not, he
should be ruled out of order for not paying
attention to the subject.
This is the voice of the Lakehead I am
trying to present here today. And I know
that a lot of people back me on this— people
like Mrs. Ethel Jones of Mortimer Street,
Fort William. I only mentioned Port Arthur
before. I think Fort William should be
brought into this because there are-
Mr. Speaker: Any further repetition of a
long list of names will be out of order.
Mr. Knight: Well, there will be no long
list, Mr. Speaker, but I would just like to
mention two names— W. J. Ryan, of RR No.
1, Fort William, that is in the rural area of
Fort William. I am trying to show to the
House that there is a good cross section of
people represented on this petition. But not
to bore the House too much, I will go on to
other matters and return to that later.
It seems to me that we are discussing pub-
lic attitudes— attitudes like that of E. J. Alex-
ander of Broadway Avenue, Bickers Heights.
Now that is—
Mr. Speaker: That is the second name the
hon. member intimated to the House. He
said he would read two more names and I
have permitted the two more names. Now
there will be no further mention of a list of
Mr. Knight: Well, it seems to me, Mr.
Speaker, that I said that there would be no
long list. But this is just getting to be a bit
too much. I am not a man who is taken to
APRIL 24, 1969
3529
ire very easily, Mr. Speaker, but I tell you
I have seen people put down far too often
in a matter that concerns them.
What does Toronto care? By Toronto I do
not mean the people out there, because they
are going to be facing the same Department
of Municipal Affairs, the two to three million
out tliere this government is trying to keep
apart.
A bureaucrat named Eric Hardy comes to
the Lakehead and tells us what to do and
says: "You are not going to decide, you are
not going to vote on the matter." A Minister
from Chatham, Ontario— wonderful area, I
was born not too far from there myself— bst
he comes from there to Toronto up to the
Lakehead to say: "I agree with Hardy— you
are not going to get a vote."
Then the Lakehead people figure maybe
we are going to be able to choose the mayor
of our choice. We will be able to have a
good, wide selection of candidates. And what
happens, as we will see in this bill, is a
clause to block that other democratic idea.
The Lakehead people ought to be able to
pick a mayor from anywhere. If they want
Doug Fisher to come back or John Freezen
to come in from the west or anybody they
want to run their city, why is Toronto and
The Department of Municipal Affairs telling
them who they are going to have for a mayor?
I should point out that at one time I offered
to run for mayor and withdrew because of
the impending clause, so I do not have a
conflict of interest at this point.
I will not be nmning for mayor and that
has been made pubhc. But I do feel that the
Lakehead people should be able to pick
anyone they want. We go on from that. The
last big meeting to disband at the Lakehead
this past weekend was the inter-municipal
committee, upon which this Minister places
so much importance.
The people say "give us a bigger hall and
we will all come out and hear this first hand."
I asked the Minister the question right here
in the House whether he would consider a
bigger hall and he said: "Oh I do not think
that is my impression of things."
Well, the people are asking. How can you
keep saying no in this matter? Now, I come
into the House, I try to acknowledge people
who are regular heroes, and you are telling
me that this House does not permit me to
acknowledge these people.
By golly, Mr. Speaker, what will the gov-
ernment do with this petition? What will they
do with this loud voice? Put it on a shelf
somewhere to gather a lot of dust? What
acknowledgement will these people get for
fighting for their rights at a time like this?
I would like to point out that Eugene Hum-
mell had a part in this whole battle because
he did. And I expect that later on today we
might be receiving more petitions from the
Lakehead, because the Lakehead people
realize that a beachhead has been established
here for their democracy. They are not going
to sit back and let somebody else fight for
them.
They did not in two world wars. Thousands
of men from the Lakehead area— just like men
from everywhere else in this country— died
to keep those flags flying up there, and
this is the principle. The Lakehead people
say: "Here it is again in front of us, right
here in our own backyard by a government
down in Toronto— 900 miles away." And this
government wonders why the people up in
that area sometimes say, "Let us go into a
separate province."
Democracy is the thing. We have got to be
sure to estabhsh that before anything else in
this bill, not amalgamation or how it is done
—democracy. Is it being done the right way?
I think we should work that over very well,
because it pertains to all of the already in-
dicated intentions of the government along
the hne of regional government, where the
province steps in and reorganizes an area.
A lot of people in this province are very
concerned about that matter.
I have another affidavit I would like to
present. This is not repetition, Mr. Speaker.
This one is from a Mr. Bill Crocker at the
Lakehead and he does not mind me using his
name, obviously. It is a letter to the editor,
which I think should be called to the atten-
tion of this House. He speaks to some extent
for one faction of labour at the Lakehead.
The title of this is "Locahty Important",
and Mr. Crocker says:
In regard to the latest statement by the
trades and labour on amalgamation and
plebiscite, this to me is much the same
attitude as the government has taken.
The trades and labour has taken on their
own when they make such statements as,
"Unions are in favour of going ahead with
amalgamation, and the faster the better."
I have made it a point to check different
unions and I carmot find any that has
taken a vote or stand on this issue. Before
the trades and labour do any recommend-
ing I think the union should vote first and
3530
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
then have their delegates bring the deci-
sion to trades and labour at their meeting,
and then rule on it.
It appears that trades and labour are
sticking their necks out too far without the
consent of the anions who are aflBIiated
with said body.
Now I bring this letter to the attention of
the House, because here the Minister hangs
his argument— he says he made that decision
to go along with Eric Hardy on no plebiscite
in this matter when he was at the labour
hall apparently talking to labour leaders at
the Lakehead. So this sheds important light
on this matter. Mr. Crocker goes on:
Maybe it was just from their executive,
but it sure was not from the unions. Until
this action is taken by the union the trades
and labour should wail and see the results
of such vote and what recommendations
come from the unions.
A certain alderman at a council meeting
thought it was tlieir democratic right to
vote for chairmanship of different commit-
tees, and then remarked on the radio that
he did not think it was needed for the
people to vote on a plebiscite or have one.
This statement was made on one of the radio
programmes. The Premier of this province
is claiming that the federal government is
pushing Medicare down and he goes into a
federal matter, Mr. Speaker, to draw a paral-
lel to support his argument. His letter goes
on:
Referring to the cost of the plebiscite,
what is a few thousand the way money is
thrown around now? At least we will see
where some is going.
This gentleman goes on to debate actually
the principle of amalgamation. This is his
voice and I think he is entided to have it
aired. He says in regard to more industry:
What makes anyone think more will
come because we will be one big city?"
Further on he says:
Now if Port Arthur and Shuniah woiJd
only speak up the way Fort William and
Neebing are doing, then maybe Toronto
will hear us."
He concludes by saying:
By not letting the taxpayers vote is very
much in line with what the U.S.S.R. is
trying to do in West Berlin. Just think,
we could have a north and south in one
city instead of a wall between us. Maybe
we should put it around the district and
let Toronto throw us the scraps. That is
a lot more than we get now.
Then he says— and this letter apparently is
addressed to the Premier:
So, Mr. Robarts, if you want a say in
the Medicare plan, just imagine how we
feel when we are told that that is it— and
that is the way it is going to be.
It is signed by Mr. Bill Crocker, a letter
which was made public, and quite expressive
of many of the conversations that have been
brought to me by people at the Lakehead
who demand a vote on this matter. And I
think, of course, Mr. Speaker, that they
should get it.
People like A. J. Kelly, of Fort William,
Mr. Speaker, another Lakehead resident who
has taken the time to express an opinion on
this matter, and it was not easy for these
people because in so many places they could
not actually get to the petition— places the
organizers were not allowed to put it. So
what we did here, Mr. Speaker, was the
group concerned, the ratepayers association,
put an advertisement in the local newspapers,
and then made quite readily accessible to
people— to people like R. W. Blundin—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Knight: Mr. Blundin, Mr. Speaker,
owns a house-
Mr. Speaker: Order pleasel I have sug-
gested to the hon. member that the con-
tinual mentioning of people's names, who
have signed petitions, or have contacted him
or in any manner have expressed their opin-
ions regarding this particular bill, is repeti-
tious, and there will be no further reading
into the record of a long list of names. A
great lengthy list has now been read, and I
would ask the hon. member to restrain him-
self from employing these tactics any further.
These names should not be read into the
record. Quite sufficient examples have been
given.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of clarification, Mr.
Speaker, you would not include names asso-
ciated with direct letters that are quoted by
the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: No, I would say to the hon.
leader of the Opposition that is exactly why
I have permitted him to read the letter from
Mr. Crocker.
Mr. Knight: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, let
me at least say to the House that there are
many thousand more names all of whom, I
feel, should receive recognition at this time.
They should be read into the record, because
no one is more worthy than the other. They
APRIL 24, 1969
3531
all have done their very best, they have all
tried to participate in this beachhead for
their democracy, and Mr. Speaker, they are
prepared to do more, believe you me.
I have a feeling that on June 23, when
they do have some say, when they do have
a mandate— one mandate that is still left to
them at least, that of choosing their mayor
and their 12 council members— they will be
heard very, very loud and clear.
I think there are other angles to be brought
forward, Mr. Speaker, in support of a demo-
cratic decision in this matter and that the
people should have a vote on it. I think,
for example, of a letter— and I would like to
refresh the memories of the members of this
House, because they all, to the best of my
knowledge, have received a copy of this
letter from the Fort William Taxpayers Asso-
ciation. They sent many, and this is just one
that I believe is worthy of entering into the
record here. It is addressed first and fore-
most to "The Hon. John Robarts and mem-
bers of the Ontario Legislature, Queen's
Park, Toronto":
Gentlemen: We recently sent to all mem-
bers of Parliament two letters of appeal to
hold in abeyance until a plebiscite had
been taken, the amalgamation of the Lake-
head cities of Fort William and Port
Arthur. As no acknowledgement has been
received from the government although
we have from other members, we there-
fore made an intensive investigation as to
the reason.
Why would they not receive an answer from
the government, Mr. Speaker?
To our surprise and dismay we found
that this government really does not need
to answer our inquiries or appeals as we
are now under a more or less dictator rule,
at least in Ontario, and its citizens appear
to have lost their personal rights. The
reason given was because of the apathetic
and non-interested attitude of the general
public in running the affairs of this coun-
try.
Now, are these Lakehead citizens out of
order? Are they wrong? Are they not entitled
to their impressions from their dealings with
the Minister and his government? I do not
see why anybody should laugh at statements
like these. These people feel very strongly
about this, and the proof that they do is that
they have gone out and worked hard and long
to bring in petitions like the one here that
I was trying to read.
You know in that connection, Mr. Speaker,
there is a strike on right now and those
people are 900 miles away: they cannot be
here sitting in the press gallery or demon-
strating outside. Air Canada's 114 planes are
on the ground. A lot of them would like
to come down here and fight for their demo-
cratic right, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the
reasons why I was trying to make their voice
heard here loud and clear. They are sitting
at home listening and watching to see what
is going to be done in this House in regard
to what they feel is their democratic right.
We merely sought to help them to partici-
pate, help them to fight, and yet I see that
not only the House, Mr. Speaker, but you
yourself have ruled that this is repetitious.
A technicality, and on the basis of that
technicality, I cannot give further acknowl-
edgement to these people. I am not at all
happy about that, but I shall go on with the
letter from the ratepayers, the Fort William
taxpayers association, a letter which I should
say was sent out on February 28 to the
members:
If the above information is true, and we
believe it to be authentic, considering the
present events, then we are in a serious
situation and what we consider to be an
anti-Canadian Act was performed and cer-
tainly met with the approval of the citizens
of Canada and which requires immediate
clarification publicly.
What they are talking about here, and I wiU
have to quote the previous paragraph, they
say:
The government has preferred this deed
by creating self-appointed powers so that
they can legislate any law they wish with-
out the approval of the general public.
That is a horrible commentary, Mr. Speaker,
certainly a pretty strong criticism of the
government, and it goes on:
They can tell us when to vote, where to
vote, and although they do not tell us who
to vote for, this is not necessary as the
representative elected must do as he is
told or he is made useless in the House.
This letter continues, and the members will
remember it because I am sure they read
it at one time. I am trying to refresh their
memories in the interest of arguing the
democratic point in this:
The Ontario Conservative Party and its
candidates would never have been elected
by the people had they known their per-
sonal rights would be rescinded. No one
in their right mind would do that.
3532
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The letter goes on:
Our association's interest in this aflFair
has always been taxes and their related
interests which includes plebiscites. At no
time has amalgamation entered into the
matter, although it seemed to be part of
the campaign. This was due to the fact that
it tied in with the necessity and the right
to vote on such matters. The association is
not trying to throw road blocks in the path
of government endeavours, such as regional
development, urban development, and all
other boards set up by both federal and
provincial governments for equalization
purposes for the betterment of our coun-
try.
This is from the strongest voice at the Lake-
head, demanding a vote on this matter. They
say that this is good, regional government.
I told you they felt this way because their
letter goes on:
We think tliis is good, provided it is
implenfhented through democratic proce-
dures which is the safety pendulum for our
well-being. If standard democratic pro-
cedures are by-passed, exploitation of tlie
peoples and our resources will occur. It is
recognized that the voting process, does
slow expediency to some extent and we
need inamediate action on some projects,
however in our view this may be for the
good, as we consider our runaway and un-
controllable economy is partly due to the
loss of the retarding valve effect which
voting promotes.
This very much applies to the principle under
debate of Bill 118. The letter from the rate-
payers goes on:
It also lightens the load on our Parlia-
mentarians, when making federal and pro-
vincial-wide decisions, and spreads the
responsibility on the shoulders of all. No
few government representatives can take
this responsibility, nor are they expected to.
If voting is by-passed, people do not
understand the situation, causing dissen-
sion, friction, non co-operation. It invites
retaliation in many forms, and in the
end cost to the taxpayer is increased many
times. As pointed out in one of our appeals,
co-operation of the people can be obtained
by doing a good selling job, and some
bargaining with the citizens. Few people
are unreasonable.
We mentioned earlier tlie many residents of
the Lakehead who might have liked to have
come here today, but are blocked because
they cannot fly due to the Air-Canada strike.
Also, they could not make very good plans
because the government introduces these bills
when they are ready and without notice.
However, I should like to x>oint out that
there are one or two people on the steps out
front at Queen's Park right now who are
helping to hold the beachhead for the Lake-
head people who could not be here. They are
in effect picketing the government in a very
peaceful manner. Believe me, the person in-
volved can be otherwise than peaceful, if you
knew her as I did. In any event, she is trying
to do what other Lakehead people cannot at
this time fly here and do.
We ha\ e referred to Mr. Hardy on a num-
ber of occasions and it is only right that
we should in such a debate since he is the
gentleman who conducted tlie study upon
which much of the legislation in Bill 118 is
based. I think the House should know what
Mr. Hardy has to say in his report about
public attitudes. It is something that I
certainly— not only as an elected representa-
tive of the public but also as a broadcaster
and a guardian of their information over the
>ears— have always been very concerned
about.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly uphold the prin-
ciple of an informed public. Mr. Hardy on
page 54 of his report says:
The importance of public attitudes to
local government change can scarcely be
over-emphasized as a part of tlie Lake-
head local government review. This aspect
of the study is perhaps the most difficult
to define the most likely cause of mis-
understanding and yet the most dangerous
to ignore. It has been considered consci-
entiously and will be dealt with thor-
oughly in this report.
I feel that in many ways Mr. Hardy did that,
as I told the House yesterday.
However, he went on to suggest that the
government should decide this matter and not
the people. I think this is where he made his
mistake and I think this is where these affi-
davits help me to prove that he has.
It is never too late to correct an error. It
takes big people to say: "Well, all right,
perhaps we were a bit too hasty, the people
are speaking now, we will give them what
they ask for."
I have to put this question to the House
today, specifically to the government and this
Minister. Has this government reached that
point of bureaucratic control where it will
listen to a bureaucrat, Mr. Eric Hardy in this
case, ahead of the citizens of this province,
because Mr. Hardy has said, "no" to the
people's vote?
APRIL 24, 1969
3533
Is there nothing that Lakeheaders can do
to change that, Mr. Speaker? That is why
I am on my feet here today, estabhshing a
beachhead for the Lakehead people. I look
forward to seeing other members in this
House rise in defence of the democratic
right of the Lakehead people to decide this
matter and not have Toronto reach out its
mighty arm into the Lakehead and decide
the matter.
We have to ask ourselves in this House,
is it the amalgamation that is the important
thing or is it the ftiture of the people who
live in the Lakehead area and their children
who will come after? The answer is obvious,
it is the people. It is not the idea of amalga-
mation; it is not this bureaucratic organiza-
tion, it is not this idea that is so important,
it is the people and their feelings and their
sentiment.
If the government proceeds with this matter
of implementing tlie new city, we have to ask
ourselves what will the attitudes, what will
the public attitudes that Mr. Hardy has
already said are so important, what will those
attitudes be? Will the dissidents, after the
fait accompli, stop screaming? Will they stop
knocking on Queen's Park's door? If they do
stop— and I think they will stop— what will
happen at the Lakehead? Will we have great
dancing in the streets and enthusiasm for the
new city? Is that what we are going to have?
Mr. Speaker, that is what we should have,
there is no other way to go into a new city,
you will have to agree with me. This is a
marriage; it should be a happy time. There
will be people saying what they are saying
now, "I want no part of it". This is their city
they are talking about. "I want no part of
it, they forced it down our throats, it was a
shot-gim wedding" and all the other expres-
sions that have come out.
I submit to you that if the Lakehead
people had been respected sufiBciently, if the
government had appealed to their intelligence
and allowed them to vote on this matter, the
dissidents would have been quiet, as they
have already promised they will.
We could have gone into a brand new era
at the Lakehead, a new city, the city of the
Lakehead or whatever the people want to
call it, and there would have no looking
back. But one day, very early when the re-
port was presented, the people found out
what they had thought for years, that they
were going to decide this matter, it was
being gradually slipped out from under them
in the comments of Mr. Hardy in this report
and the Minister later on when he was ques-
tioned.
Mr. Speaker, as their representative, I
could not believe it, I refused to believe it,
and I am sure there are those who say the
member for Port Arthur made a fool of him-
self. He put the question to the Minister so
often. That is right, a fool. I was one of
those who refused to accept it, I believed so
much in the principle. And there are those in
this House who still hee-haw me. There are
those who still think that I am just up here
babbling like a brook.
Mr. Speaker, I am a novice in politics, a
novice, but at the Lakehead as a broadcaster,
I always try to reflect the feelings of the
people in the comanunity. That is how I was
a successful broadcaster, because I stuck with
the democratic principle, "stick with the feel-
ings of the people," continually reflecting
their feelings, through editorials and news
stories, and now an elected member, it is
even more encumbent upon me to reflect their
feelings, and their opinions. I must do it in
this debate until I am convinced that tJie
House is told just as much as it can be told
along these lines to convince it.
I should not Hke to leave tliis debate,
because I understand once I sit down, that
is it, somebody else will speak, and I will not
get another chance. I have to be sure in
conscience, in my sense of responsibility to
the people, the average man up there at the
Lakehead, that I have done my duty to him.
You see, when I go to the Lakehead, I do
not do like the hon. Minister has done, when
he has bone up there to investigate it, I do
not stick around city hall. I go and look for
the blue collar workers, or the fellows with
the dirty hands, who say the truth.
Down there in the Legion hall, pubs and
so forth, where after they have had a couple
of draughts, they look across at you and say,
"Look you so and so, what is happening
there?" They tell you what they really feel,
that is where all tiiis feeling comes from, it
does not come from up on "snob hill" there.
It comes from people who are going to pay
the shots; people who have got to live with
it, and whose children are going to live with
it; people who will answer to their children—
they will have to answer to their children for
what is happening now. If, three years from
now, the taxes go up to an exorbitant level,
Mr. Speaker, who is going to be blamed— the
people of the Lakehead, because it is their
city.
Well, I can assure hon. members where
the blame is going to go— it is going to go
3534
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
right over there. This go\emment is creating
all kinds of trouble for itself for nothing;
surely it should be obvious, because if the
government is prepared to dictate this legis-
lation—to bring this city into being— then
surely they will have to bear the responsi-
bility of the increased costs. They will not
be able to say, well it was the Lakehead
people's fault, oh no. They will have to say
we pushed it in— even when so many were
saying, let us vote on the matter— we pushed
it in and so, when the time comes the Treas-
urer (Mr. MacNaughton) should be wilHng to
reach further into the old pool there and say,
we have to pay for yet another mistake in
this province.
Mr. Speaker, you know it just was not
done right; it was forced in far too quickly.
That is one of the things that has a lot of the
people in the Lakehead concerned. Why was
it done so quickly? For what reason? What
earthly reason was there to push this thing
along so quickly? Why could not the people
vote next September 15 if this legislation is
going to go through with Bill 118? But why
jiot let the election wait for a while to give
the people a chance? I understand that the
new council will have to ha\'e sufficient time
to prepare itself to take over the responsibili-
ties of office, but what about the people? Are
they prepared sufficiently? I wonder if the
Minister is really satisfied in his own mind
that the people are sufficiently prepared for
this matter? Well, I do not think they are;
there are too many of them who come to me
and say, "Look, you are down there, what is
it all about? Tell me about it."
It takes very big people to re\'erse a posi-
tion once they have entrenched themselves
as deeply as the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. McKeough) has entrenched this
government with his 4,C00 noes. He has said
it so often now, that he does not even know
how to say yes. With all due respect to him,
it must be very difficult for him to say yes.
I would like, for example, for this govem-
jnent to have the courage, and the car for
people, that the Texas Gulf Sulphur Company
has. We heard from the hon. Minister of
Mines (Mr. A. F. Lawrence) today in the
House when he announced that Texas Gulf
Sulphur is prepared to build a refinery up at
Timmins. Now there is a board of executives
which had the courage to listen and to re-
assess their position, and having announced
they were going to build a smelter down this
way somewhere in southern Ontario or in
the States— I do not know which, but at least
it was not going to be Timmins— tliey reversed
that; they listened to all the appeals, to all
the pleading, and they said. All right, we
will go ahead. We will invest the money; we
will take the chance and do it. And you know
this takes courage.
Why not this government? Why cannot you
have the faith in the Lakehead people that
Texas Gulf Sulphur is showing in the Tim-
mins area people? There is a question for
you to mull around for a while. You do not
know the Lakehead people as I do; they are
not just ordinary people. I told you all about
that yesterday, and more and more I think
you will come to find that out.
I do not want to abandon this debate until
I am absolutely sure in my own heart, my
own mind that I have really advanced as
many arguments as possible. It seems to me
that there are other letters to the editor that
I have not as yet read. Here is one that was
sent to me, for example. I will just read it
in part.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please!
If the hon. member is going to read letters
from constituents or to the editor, setting
forth their complaints about this bill, I be-
lieve this would also be repetitious.
Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is
not a word in this whole letter that is repe-
titious. What is repetitious?
Mr. Speaker: It is repetitious for the hon.
member to continually repeat what he has
said before. One letter of complaint or oppo-
sition is no different from another letter of
complaint or opposition, and therefore consti-
tutes repetition.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my
question, what is repetitious? The act of
speaking is the repetitious use of one's vocal
facilities, is it not? I mean, if you want to
start shaving eggs, as they say in very blunt
language, it seems obvious to that somebody
here is— well, I better not say it because I
will get in real deep trouble. But, Mr.
Speaker, these Lakehead people have put
down enough, they expect me to advance
every argument that I have, and your ruling
suggests to me that you do not think that the
members of this House want to have as com-
plete a case before them as is necessary to
defend this point.
Mr. Speaker, you are pushing the Lake-
head people off their democratic beachhead,
and it is not like you, sir. I am very dis-
appointed. I would like to ask you to reverse
that ruling, Mr. Speaker. I do not have that
many more letters.
APRIL 24, 1969
3535
Mr. Speaker: I repeat that any reading of
further letters of that nature would be repe-
titious according to the rules of this House.
Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously
a very effective way has been found to quiet
the voice of democracy. So be it. This House
condemns itself, this government condemns
itself, you condemn yourself, Mr. Speaker,
with the manner in which you are shutting
me up at this time. Let that go down in the
record of Hansard.
The Lakehead people do not have very
much to fight with. There have been sug-
gestions that they might be violent, Mr.
Speaker; they have not been. They do not
want to be, and I certainly hope that they
never will be. But they are not going to take
very kindly to this, believe you me, and I
predict that what is happening to the Lake-
head will happen to other municipalities if
this bill goes through in this province— by
this Minister and his whole idea of regional
government— if there is not a reversal in the
government right now. This may be the gov-
ernment's last chance to prove its good inten-
tions, and they had better think seriously.
They are usurping the power the people gave
them, and they are not going usurp it for too
long; you had better think about that— and
do not think about it as intellectuals, think
about it as people and think of human beings.
How long can a father say no to his kids,
how long can a friend say no to another
friend on a simple plea. "Let me decide my
own affairs," that is what the average Lake-
header says.
I am extremely disappointed at this point,
because— well, you have cut down the peti-
tion, Mr. Speaker; you have cut dovra the
letters. Let us see what we have left here
that may not be interpreted as repetitious.
We have of course, Mr. Speaker, come in here
with quite a few aflBdavits.
This is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. I
think some visual aid should be advanced on
this case, because after all every little bit
helps to perhaps convince this government
that they should change their stand.
A series of pictures on the front page, Mr.
Speaker. You see pictures of the hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs as he appeared to the
Lakehead people and reproduced in the local
newspaper, and you wonder why the Lake-
head people think they are dealing with a
dictator. Who in the world is proving the
opposite around here? Who? When is this
government convinced? When is it going to
prove that it is not dealing with the people
of Ontario in a dictatorial manner? I look
forward to that day, because that picture
right there is a horrible comment on them.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I know there are others
who want to get on their feet and contribute
to this argument, and I cannot blame them.
Other members of this House come from
areas where their people are screaming about
the arrogant attitude of this Minister and this
department. Bear witness this editorial in the
Port Arthur News-Chonicle of Wednesday,
April 9, Mr. Speaker. And it is well written.
"Control by Government Soon to Take a New
Step". This is a real insight into what is hap-
pening here. It is a Thomson newspaper; I do
not know if that means anything or not. The
editorial says:
The continual din about amalgamation
and regional government is not peculiar to
the Lakehead, although we might be par-
doned for thinking ours is something
special because of the manner in which it
was ordered from Toronto, and because it
is an early experimental effort. Screams of
protest can be heard from councils and
other bodies all over the province where
similar plans have either been ordered or
are under study.
These developments are bound to raise
questions about what is happening in a
province that has progressed along certain
lines up to this point, and almost overnight
finds itself involved in municipal upheavals
that have not been known before. Cities are
disappearing to become part of something
bigger, and names that have been on the
rural scene for more than 100 years are
going out of existence.
It is fairly obvious that some kind of
plan is in operation, though it is not too
clear where the direction is coming from.
Municipal Affairs Minister Darcy Mc-
Keough is giving some of the orders, but he
has not been in office long enough to have
developed such an overall upheaval, so the
thinking must be coming from Queen's
Park mandarins who may have a great
deal more up their sleeves than has already
been indicated.
The content of this editorial obviously is
very much to the principle of this Bill 118.
The editorial goes on:
This was given substance recently by
Dr. Richard S. Toman, director of regional
development for the province's treasury
department—
3536
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This will interest the hon. Minister of the
Treasury—
—Dr. Richard S. Toman director of re-
gional development for the province's trea-
sury department, in a speech to the Erie
Region Economic Council. He said that
what was happening was nothing less
than re-designing the entire province.
The official said Ontario is now very
close to a total land use plan which will
specifically state where industry will go,
which land will remain agricultural and
where new parks will be placed.
The land use plan, if accepted by tlie
Legislature, will be brought into effect
by 1976. It will be specific in all areas of
the province, and is expected to be political
dynamite because it will finally dictate
which areas will be allowed to continue
their urban growth, and which will be
halted in the interests of either agriculture
or recreation. Officials expect a "great deal
of opposition" to the plan, but there is no
hint that they will deviate from their in-
tention of making it operational on
schedule.
And this editorial in the Port Arthur News
Chronicle goes on: "Sounds like Big Brother
is getting set to control just about every
move that anyone makes in Ontario?"
That is a question, and it is answered by
this editorial:
It sure does, and the frightening aspect
is that the planning has gone on to an
advanced stage without tlie public being
aware of what is happening.
This plan is for land use only and, as
such, might bring some order into an
otherwise haphazard hit-and-miss sys-
tem which allows an uncontrolled sprawl
of industry and housing into areas where
they have no business being. But it is also
another indication of how Queen's Park
is marching at the double toward more
and more control over all activities of
people in the province.
Not my words, Mr. Speaker, only my voice,
echoing the words of one of the very power-
ful voices of the people in my riding. And
the Port Arthur News Chronicle editor con-
cludes this commentary by saying:
If the people really want this type of
planned living, then all well and good.
Some of it is obviously necessary. But it
seems that a great deal more careful
thought is required if we are not going to
wake up some morning soon and find the
government ordering what colour our shoe-
laces should be for any given event.
So, anyone who tliinks that I exaggerate in
the argument I am putting forward here—
no way, Mr. Speaker. There are many others
at the Lakehead who hold the same view,
as I am convinced do many other people in
this province. And I do this government a
service in calling these matters to their
attention.
We have the other newspaper now, the
Fort William Daily Times Journal, shooting
off its blast guns in regards to the manner
in which the Lakehead municipalities are
being brought into one super city. And this
editorial, of April 18, in the Fort William
Daily Times Journal, entitled "Why Be Dif-
ferent"—it is just a short one— says:
It was naive to expect that Municipal
Affairs Minister McKeough would accede
to suggestions that larger premises be
utilized to discuss the amalgamation Act
when he is here Thursday.
He has shown little inclination to discuss
any aspect of the scheme with the people
whom it is going to affect most— the public
and taxpayers so why have them in on the
final show?
Our MPP, Jim Jessiman has said history
will be made at the Thursday meeting.
We'll drink to that.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I can see the hon. Min-
ister saw that one because it seems to have
tickled his funnybone. It is nice to see him
smile once in a while. I wish he would smile
at the Lakehead people more often.
Mr. Speaker, it must be pretty obvious
that when the boundaries of four municipali-
ties are going to be changed drastically and
that these municipalities are going to be
merged into one, tliat there has to be a con-
siderable amount of top-quality leadership,
leadership that has used confidence, leader-
ship that brings up the enthusiasm and that
brings up the faith of the people who are
going to be affected by these changes. That
leadership could have come from many areas,
but it had to come primarily from the Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs, and especially after
he decided that the Lakehead people would
not determine it themselves. He showed a
number of qualities of leadership, that all of
us admired him for, not knowing what
awaited him at the Lakehead—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
May I ix)int out to the hon. member that
he is debating the principle of the bill and
not the qualities of leadership of the Min-
ister. I would ask, as the Deputy Speaker
did a short time ago, that he remain on the
APRIL 24, 1969
3537
principle of the bill or unfortunately I will
have to rule his remarks out of order.
Mr. Knight: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker. I was trying to recreate for the
House, the background to the confused minds
of the Lakehead people at this point in
relation to this matter.
Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing tlie
confused minds of Lakehead people, we are
discussing here the principle of this bill.
The hon. member has been allowed to stray
far and wide the last day or so on this,
and I will now insist that he keep to the
principle of the bill.
Mr. Km'ght: Mr. Speaker, you obviously
overlook the fact that the principle that I
have brought up in discussing Bill 118, is
the principle of democracy. In my under-
standing, that is just about as broad as the
world, sir.
I do not see how I have wandered away
from the principle of democracy in anything
that I have said, because leadership is very
much a part of democracy, Mr. Speaker,
because democracy is what—
Mr. Speaker: The member is now expound-
ing a basic principle for any bill which is
introduced in this House and I would cer-
tainly think that that is out of order. Mr.
Speaker would so rule, that if he wants to
show, as he has been doing from time to
time in between other things, that that par-
ticular principle is not being observed by
certain things in this bUl, then he has every
right to do so, but not to discuss at great
length on the broad principle of democracy.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, democracy is
being violated, I think, by this bill, more so
by what is not in it, tlian by what is in it.
The bill gives the authority to this department
to go ahead and implement the incorpora-
tion of the city of the Lakehead and of course
it excludes a vote or plebiscite on the matter.
My entire argumentation in the last two
days, Mr. Speaker, is to point out very con-
clusively and to make it absolutely clear to
the government side, for their benefit as well
as the benefit of tlie people of the Lake-
head— and everyone else in this province—
that the Lakehead people at this pomt in
time, are at a very historic moment, a very
important moment and in large numibers,
Mr. Speaker, would like to have the right to
make this decision themselves.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the
hon. member that has nothing to do with the
principle of the bill. The principle of the bill
can be very well covered by what the hon.
member has recently said just a few short
moments ago, that there is not the right of a
plebiscite. I agree, that is the principle of
the bill. To support that he has brought in a
great many extraneou? -matters. He has been
allowed to do so, but from now on he will
confine himself to the principle of the bill
and not to what he thinks or what various
people have said to him, other than by proper
support of the argument on the principle of
the bill. I think it is fair fhat he has had
every opportunity to do that and he has so
over quite an extensive period of time and the
House has all the time in the world for that,
but he must speak to the principle of the
bill.
Mr. Knight: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, for that excellent explanation. I
will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, in
that case— and I hope I will be allowed to
conclude them without being called out of
order- by simply stating that I am hopeful.
I am still hopeful that the Minister and the
Premier and his government will reconsider
how this matter is being done, how this bill
sets out the bringing about of an amalga-
mated area, because there will be other
amalgamated areas. This will be, in effect,
an experiment. There is no other situation
in all of Ontario that involves two cities of
equal size so close together, coming together.
It is really a very unique situation.
In my opinion, if this bill were to allow
decision by a plebiscite of the people, it
would not set a precedent for any other part
of the province, because there is no other
situation in the province that is quite like it.
It is special unto itself. It is entitled to a
tailor made form of implementation. In no
way does the government necessarily com-
mit itself to the people of the rest of the
province to a vote. I do not say that they
should not, and I do not say that they should,
but I say that each area should be treated
on its own merits.
If the Lakehead people had not asked for
this, if they had said, "fine", and allowed it
to go, the Minister and his bill. Bill US
would be on the right course to bring this
about, because the people, by their silence,
would have indicated their acceptance. But
I have here a petition, bearing 6,292 names
of which I am very proud, which states:
We, the undersigned, whether for or
against amalgamation, ask for the demo-
cratic right to decide this matter.
5538
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, it is my biggest affidavit, and
I have had many. I would Hke to be able
to lay it, with your permission, Mr. Speaker
and the permission of the House leader, on
the table, so that I can tell my people, "your
voice reached the govenmient, your names
are there in Queen's Park and you can be
proud of them."
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that if the hon.
member wishes to table this as an appendix
to his speech there is no objection. It is not
the proper way to receive it as a petition,
but it can be received as a reference work
with respect to his address to the House,
and I presume that is the manner in which
he wishes to present it to the House.
Mr. Knight: Are you indicating to me, Mr.
Speaker, that these names would be recorded
in Hansard or in some other form?
Mr. Speaker: No, it will be recorded in
Hansard that this was tabled as a reference
work for your speech, rather than as a peti-
tion presented to the Legislature. Once be-
fore I explained to the hon. member that
petitions are not presented in that way,
but it can be tabled in the House for the
inspection of the members and also shown
as a paper that has been tabled by the hon.
member, and I presume that is what the
hon. member would wish.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, let me apologize
for not sitting down vvhile you were speak-
ing to me, and may I thank you for making
this suggestion. I think it is an excellent
suggestion that the people who have taken
the time and the effort and the heart to put
this together would endorse.
There has been an awful lot said about the
Lakehead in the last two days in regard to
the manner in which Bill 118 is being intro-
duced, and I want to thank the members
and the Minister for paying such careful
attention. I hope that others will see fit to
rise and comment on a matter of really great
importance. I still say I am for this amalga-
mation, but somehow we have got to make
the people up there feel that their rights are
not being impinged so that this new city
will go on to perform for those people and
those who will come after them, all of the
things that we want for them.
Mr. Speaker: Before this debate continues
I would like to extend my thanks to the hon.
member for the Lakehead for winding up
his speech in the manner in which he did.
He returned exactly to the principle of the
bill, and I think made us all aware of what
he has been trying to say for some time
now.
The hon. member for York Centre.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, this bill has interested me to a
great extent also, and particularly in the
matter of the principle of the role of elected
representatives in any body or corporation.
We think when we elect people that we
elect men to give leadership, to develop
programmes, to plan for the future, to carry
out those plans and to meet the needs as
they arise. They work out agreements for
changes in structure, but before they imple-
ment them they place them before the group
or body they represent for ratification. There
is a very important reason for our having a
custom whereby representatives we elect put
such matters for ratification before us. It en-
sures that a representative keeps in mind,
first of all, that all interests that he is repre-
senting are being looked after to the greatest
possible degree, because he wants to ensure
that he has their support in whatever he
does. We also know that unless he com-
municates to the people he represents, the
reasons the thinking, the details, the whole
basis on which the whole programme is
based, he will not have their support and
therefore he will greatly inhibit the oppor-
tunity or the likelihood of success of the
programmes.
This is a safeguard that we go through
in almost any organization, any structured
body; that people who are elected to rep-
resent groups work out programmes— but that
they put the programmes before those they
represent for ratification. The hon. Minister
made a mistake in the way he developed
the plan. He just hired an outsider to work
out a plan. At that time he perhaps did not
know better the reaction that would result
from an outsider going in, looking over a
community and deciding what the future of
that community should be. He has since
learned. I am very pleased to see that in
the county of York his programme involves
the department of a regional plan by the
elected representatives of the county of York.
It shows that now he recognizes the value
of the knowledge, the contribution that can
be made by local leaders, and his main
responsibility is how well those local lead-
ers can be brought together and assisted in
the development of a plan for the people
they represent.
So, at the Lakehead he consulted with the
local representatives and he adjusted his plan
so that it seems to meet the need for the
APRIL 24, 1969
3539
greatest niimber, and it seems to be a very
good plan. But, that is where the story
changes to a tragic denial of the democratic
rights of the people of the Lakehead. And
we are sorry to see this because if you are
a shareholder of Tilden Rent-a-Car in, say,
the Lakehead, and you decide to merge with
Avis Rent-a-Car in the Lakehead, so that
you may become number one, the manage-
ment or those who represent Tilden and Avis
shareholders will get together and work out
a programme. But before they can make that
amalgamation effective, they have to put their
programme before those who elected them to
represent their company for ratification. They
have the responsibility of developing a plan
of amalgamation, but they must set out in
detail what the programme is and have the
shareholders ratify it.
In the statute of The Corporations Act of
this province, it sets out exactly the procedure
by which those that are elected to represent
investors of a corporation— people who have
money tied up ia a corporation— how they
must protect their rights, in any change in
the corporate structure, and amalgamations,
which they carefully develop. But before the
Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council acts on the
amalgamation, there must be evidence given
to him that the people represented are given
a full opportunity to ratify and confirm the
acts of those who represent them in the
work. In this way, we are ensuring, first of
aU, that the rights of the majority of those
concerned are considered. We are ensuring
that the commimications job that is necessary
for any successful amalgamation is carried
out, and we are then sure that there is justice
being done, that the democratic rights are
not ibeing denied.
Well, why are we discriminating here be-
tween shareholders in the Lakehead, and
those who have invested in property in the
Lakehead? Why is it that we do not assume
that investors in property have the same
ability to judge what is in their best interests
and ratify what their leaders have done for
them in the same way that we would protect,
imder the laws of this province, the rights of
investors in companies and in corporations in
the Lakehead. I cannot understand why one
is given the protection of the laws of the
government of this province, and yet others,
the ordinary public— the man who has prop-
erty, the man who is a citizen— of the Lake-
head, does not get the same rights.
In my view it is very important, now that
a programme has been worked out that
appears to have taken into account the needs
of the people, that it be put before the test
of having the people ratify that programme.
I cannot see our discriminating between the
rights of shareholders and the rights of voters
in this section of the province. I am sure if
we are dealing down in Chatham in a cor-
poration there, I know that there will be the
same needs or the same consideration given
the shareholders there. And if there is amalga-
mation of a municipal corporation in the
Chatham area, I cannot help but feel that the
Minister would feel that he would have to
put before the voters in that area the pro-
grammes for ratification by them.
And so, we must take into account, in our
democratic process, when we are making cor-
poration changes here in the Lakehead, either
corporations and mimicipalities being changed,
the conditions of operation being changed.
We must give them the same protection that
we give others in other aspects of Hving. I
cannot see why the Provincial Secretary or
the Minister of Financial and Commercial
Afi^airs does not require this Minister to get
away from his autocratic smug method of
saying, "This is the way it will be, and
you will have no say in the matter," but
insist that in the same way that an ordinary
shareholder of a corporation has a right for
protection from those who are elected repre-
sentatives, that the people at the Lakehead
have a right to ratify the work done on their
behalf by their elected representatives before
they change the corporate structure of those
municipahties in that area. We do not want to
burden this new Lakehead city with a tre-
mendous disadvantage of being launched in
a sea of local resentment. We must either have
this bill withdrawn and allow the Lakehead
voters to ratify the plan or add a clause to
this bill that provides ratification prior to
implementation.
We must not allow a power-mad dictator,
a Minister who refuses to recognize the value
of the support of local people signified in
the ballots, to run over Lakehead people
in this way.
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort WiUiam) : In reply to
Bill 118, known as the Lakehead bill, I would
congratulate the member for Yorkview (Mr.
Young) on his concern for the people of the
Lakehead, and also the leader of his party,
the member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald). Both of these members travelled to
the Lakehead to attend the final meeting held
at the city hall in Fort William, and to speak
with the 40 members of the four mimici-
pahties involved with amalgamation, and to
make up their own minds and not just take
3540
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
someone else's advice or word. And I ap-
preciate that the meeting was very well
attended; there were some 225 people at the
meeting. The meeting had been advertised and
it was an open meeting, and tliere were some
vaca»t chairs, Mr. Speaker. There was plenty
of room for the member for Port Arthur ( Mr.
Knight), and the leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Nixon) had they wished to come.
Now I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that
a political leader-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Jessiman: I suggest to you, Mr.
Speaker, that a political leader who accepts
bad advice is, in return, not a man who can
make rational decisions. He lacks the neces-
sary essential, either to understand tlie events
taking place, or to form a sensible sound
policy.
Mr. Knight: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will state
his point of order.
Mr. Knight: My point of order, Mr.
Speaker, is that the hon. member for Fort
William in his remarks has brought wrong
information to this House. No leader in this
House has come to die Lakehead more often—
Mr. Speaker: Order, Order!
The hon. member has no point of order.
Mr. Nixon: Well then what about the point
of order, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member
is not speaking to the principle of the bill?
Mr. Speaker: I would think that the hon.
leader of the Opposition would be the last
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I say that advisably because
I have given a great deal of leeway to the
first speaker in this debate, a member of his
party, and I gave leeway to the hon. member
—not very much leeway because he was very
much on the point— and to the hon. member
for York Centre, and I would propose to give
a certain amount of leeway to the hon. mem-
ber who is speaking now. I think that we
must be fair to all sides of the House.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since you have
raised this point, you have said that surely I
would be the last to raise it. I must say to
you, sir, that I resent the implication. The
hon. member for Fort William who was on
his feet a moment ago has not be«n dis-
cussing the principle of the bill since he
stood up. He has been making allegations
that I am afraid to go up there and meet his
fellow citizens in Fort WilHam, which is just
incorrect.
Mr. Speaker: Order, Order! I have sat in
tliis House for a number of hours and
listened to much debate, nowhere near the
principle of the bill-
Mr. Nixon: Why did you permit it? It was
in order!
Mr. Speaker: -and I did it for the reason
tliat I have expressed, that I felt that people
of the Lakehead felt that they needed a rep-
resentative to speak for them. He did so, and
he did so very well, but eventually we had
to come back to the principle of the bill.
I understand why the leader of the Opposi-
tion is taking a point of order, because the
hon. member for Fort William mentioned
him, and as far as I remember, the hon.
member for Fort Wilham was merely reciting
the fact that certain people had been at the
meeting, and certain other people had not.
Now there is no imputation; as far as I know
he was stating a fact. I was not there, so I do
not know, and if it offends tiie succeptibilitv^
of the hon. leader of the Opposition, I cer-
tainly will withdraw any remarks about him
being the first or last to object, and would
merely say that I hope that under the cir-
cumstances he would not feel that it is
nec^essary to object.
Mr. Jessiman: If I may continue, Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that we ha\e seen com-
parisons time and time again in this House,
of the Liberal leader accepting bad advice.
We remember his badly researched state-
ment, by making a comparison to the bill;
we remember his badly researched statement
last year regarding the Ontario Water Re-
sources Commission at the London Public
Utilities-
Mr. Speaker: There is no point of clarifi-
cation in a debate such as this, there is a
point of personal privilege, there is a point
of order. If the hon. member has cither he is
entitled to the floor.
May I say that I overheard a remark by
the hon. member for Port Arthur to the eflFect
that the present member is reading his speech,
which he is. But I sat here for a number of
hours and watched the hon. member for Port
Arthur reading and reading, and therefore I
take it as very ill-mannered on the part of
APRIL 24, 1969
3541
the hon. member to draw attention to some-
thing which the rules of this House say must
not be done, but which by common consent
and practice over longer years than I can
remember has been done. It is done, and I
think everyone agrees it must be done in this
day and age, when there is so much infor-
mation that must be imparted to the public
and to the members of this House by debate
in this House. The hon. member will carry
on.
Mr. Jessiman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There seems to be a lot of chatter coming
from over there, we will have a little more
now.
Now we see the bad advice he is receiving
on this bill. The member for Port Arthur
really has led him down the garden path.
This is a case, Mr. Speaker, where bad ad-
vice leads to poor judgment. This is not only
my own view, and let me at the outset read
into the record a letter dated January 28,
1969, and I quote: "I wish to congratulate
you upon your public presentation here yes-
terday"—meaning the Lakehead— "regarding
the amalgamation of our Lakehead cities and
area without a plebiscite."
This letter, Mr. Speaker, is signed by the
president of the Port Arthur Women's Liberal
Association, Mrs. R. J. Desjardins.
I have a copy for the leader of the Oppo-
sition.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What a revolting de-
velopment-
Mr, Jessiman: I might also point out, Mr.
Speaker, that in this letter, Mrs. Desjardins
says, and I quote again:
Many of our members are keenly inter-
ested in the Hardy Report, but so far we
have had no opportunity to study same for
the simple fact that there does not seem
to be a copy available here.
This suggests, Mr. Speaker, that the member
for Port Arthur was not very co-operative in
getting information even to his own workers,
thus implying that by keeping information
from them, he could keep them quiet.
Mr. Knight: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. This is not on the principle of the
bill. This is a deliberate attack on a member.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Fort
William must realize that he may not impute,
and may not use words or phrases imputing
any motives to another members. It would
appear that the hon. member for Port Arthur
feels that in his case he is doing so. I there-
)fore trust there will be no further occasion
to draw this to the hon. member's attention.
Mr. Jessiman: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, for bringing it to my attention.
The member for Port Arthur puts great
faith in editorials. He said so many times
yesterday and today, so I will read from an
editorial in the Lakehead over Radio Station
CKPR-and I suggest that the Port Arthur
member is a product of radio stations— some
excerpts by editorial writer, a friend of his I
am sure, Mr. Rick Smith on his show, "One
Man's Opinion". He had this to say on amal-
gamation, and I quote:
The executive of the Liberal organiza-
tion of Port Arthur planned a meeting
with leader Robert Nixon. I am informed
it was their intention to disassociate them-
selves with Mr. Knight ... to tell Nixon
that they no longer supported the candi-
date they worked so hard to elect.
Mr. Smith goes on to say and I quote:
They privately claim the theatrics of
Knight serve only to embarrass the riding
members of the Liberal caucus with whom
I have discussed Knight's dramatic displays,
and privately admit that Knight is not
taken seriously and, from time to time,
only amuses or embarrasses the Liberals in
the House.
So says Mr. Smith in his editorial.
Mr. Nixon: What rot!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Jessiman: I will send over a copy of
editorial to the hon. leader. Further, I want
to read into tlie record a telegram sent to
the Liberal leader on January 21, 1969 which
reads as follows:
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY RON KNIGHT, MPP,
LIBERAL ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE VIEWS OF
THE PORT ARTHUR LIBERAL ASSOCIATION.
Mr. Knight: Pretty low blow.
Mr. Jessiman: The telegram, Mr. Speaker,
is signed by Jack Ferguson, the president of
the Port Arthur Liberal Association.
An hon. member: Never mind the associa-
tion, throw them out.
Mr. Jessiman: Is the member shaken up?
Mr. Knight: The member for Fort William
will be.
An hon. member: Tell him the truth.
3542
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Jessiman: I am giving members the
truth.
Mr. Knight: Well, the member is good at
that.
Mr. Jessiman: Mr. Speaker, I am told that
the leader of the Liberal Party has not re-
plied to this particular telegram as yet.
An hon. member: How does the member
know?
Mr. Jessiman: I found out by telephone
this morning. I would also place on record,
Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal member for
Port Arthur-
Mr. Nixon: Tell us about amalgamation.
An hon. member: Listen to that drivel.
Mr. Jessiman: This is going to hurt; this
is going to hurt.
I would also—
Mr. Knight: Has the member answered
your letters?
Mr. Jessiman: There is a loud noise com-
ing from the far corner.
Mr. Nixon: Come on, get to the principle
of the bill.
Mr. Jessiman: I would also place on the
record, Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal mem-
ber for Port Arthur, the hon. Robert Andras,
Minister Without PortfoUo, the first president
of the Lakehead Chamber of Commerce, of
which I am a proud member who amalga-
mated the Port Arthur and Fort Wilham
chambers of commerce and is the champion
of amalgamation and has stated on every
possible occasion . . . This is the federal
member for Port Arthur.
Mr. Nixon: So is the provincial member.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Ap-
parently they are not members of tlie same
party. Each one has his own view.
Mr. Jessiman: Mr. Speaker, one of the
statements made yesterday, and again today,
quoted the venerable federal member for
Fort William as supporting a plebiscite for
amalgamation, and he did. I read it in the
paper. But may I quote a news report from
radio station CJLX— and the member used to
work over there, in his spare time— in Fort
William of February, 1969. The quote is
from Dr. George Morrison, the president of
the Fort William Liberal Association and
Mr. Speaker, may I add that Dr. George
Morrison is a fine doctor, a most respected
citizen, as many of my Liberal friends at
the Lakehead are, and Dr. Morrison says:
The opinions of Mr. Badanai supporting
the amalgamation are not necessarily the
opinions of the Fort William Liberal Asso-
ciation.
Mr. Nixon: Maybe we had better have an
election up tliere.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Jessiman: Now, Mr. Speaker, while I
am on this particular area of setting out
qualifications for my earlier remarks that
the Liberal leader receives bad advice and
thus shows weak leadership, I just want to
put in the record a resolution that was
passed by the Fort William and Port Arthur
District Labour Councils.
This statement was issued on Friday,
February 28, 1969, and reads as follows:
The Fort William and Port Arthur Dis-
trict Labour Councils confirm their stands
on amalgamation of the cities of Fort
William and Port Arthur and the town-
ships of Neebing and Mclntyre into one
municipality. We believe this to be in the
best interests of the vast majority of the
citizens concerned. Amalgamation should
come about as soon as possible. Any de-
lay, such as to carry out a plebiscite at this
late date, would be intolerable.
Mr. Martel: Labour people!
Mr. Jessiman: Great labour peoplel
An hon. member: When did he resign?
Mr. Jessiman: Mr. Speaker, he is still there;
he is still there. Now, Mr. Speaker, for
myself I am on record as favouring amalga-
mation, but today rather than elaborate on
remarks I have already made both here in
the Legislature and in the Lakehead district,
I prefer to support my stand and the views
of many local citizens.
Mr. Nixon: Do not read too long a list.
Mr. Jessiman: I do not for a minute argue
that amalgamation is unanimously supported.
However, I do know and believe that by far
the majority of the citizens of the Lakehead
want amalgamation, that they want it without
delay and in some way feel a plebiscite would
only hold back the job that we must get on
with.
Unlike my friend from Port Arthur, our sup-
porters in the Lakehead have asked us to get
on with the job and not to indulge in the
APRIL 24, 1969
3543
circus tactics which have become so obvious
from the member for Port Arthur.
Mr. Knight: What is the member's defin-
ition of democracy?
Mr. Jessiman: In January of this year the
the member for Port Arthur said he was going
to run for mayor of the new city, which I
might point out will be the eighth largest in
Ontario. Then last week he announced that,
after all, he is not going to run. This is typical
of Liberal policy in this province.
The Liberals do not know what they are
doing. They do not know what they want.
They do not know where they are going and
this-
Mr. Speaker: May I call to the hon. mem-
ber's attention that I have allowed a consid-
erable amount of latitude away from the
principle of the bill, and I think it is time he
now returned to it and not deal any further
with the principle of whether the Liberal
party is as he says it is, or is not.
Mr. Jessiman: I stand chastised, Mr.
Speaker.
One of the most interesting and satisfying
results of the debate on amalgamation is the
enormous interest taken by the young people
in the future of the Lakehead area. They
have studied this question and, in many cases,
in schools across the whole area in the later
Grades of 10, 11, 12 and 13 and the university
and the college. They have voted on it, and
here are some of the results.
At the Fort William collegiate institute, out
of 591 students voting, 447 were in favour
of amalgamation, which is 75 per cent, 355
voted yes for the name Lakehead as the name
of the new city.
From the faculty and students at Confed-
eration College 80 per cent favoured the
name Lakehead because, as they said, the
cities are already known under this name.
A vote taken in Westgate collegiate and
vocational school among 1,000 students: 750
voted for the amalgamation, or 75 per cent;
720 of the 1,000 students favoured the name
Lakehead for the new metropolitan city.
At the McKellar Park Central School, 158
out of 220 students, or 72 per cent, wanted
amalgamation. They also choose overwhelm-
ingly the name Lakehead for the new city.
I am also informed by letter by Mr. Thomas
W. Joseph, political science teacher at the
Confederation College of applied arts and
technology that the faculty and students voted
for amalgamation by 85 per cent and gave
the following reasons.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the people
involved in this vote were all residents of
Fort William-Port Arthur region. Others
were denied the pleasure of the vote, and
gave the following reasons-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
rising on a point of order.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Will the
member tell us why-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member will
address the Speaker and state his point of
order.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, will the hon.
member tell us why he-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member will
state his point of order to Mr. Speaker.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Jessiman: The faculty and students
voted for amalgamation by 85 per cent and
gave the following reasons: More economical,
more efiRcient, reduce imnecessary conflicts—
the most important part of it. These figures
indicate the views of the young people in our
area, these young people who in a very few
years will have both the challenge and the
responsibility of making local government
work in the Lakehead and on whose shoul-
ders the development and the future of the
Lakehead will rest.
The subject of amalgamation is not new to
our area. From my information in researching
it very thoroughly, I understand that as early
as April 11, 1901, a pioneer citizen of Port
Arthur, Mr. George T. Marks— described as
being among those most strongly in favour
of amalgamation— regarded the union of the
two cities as one of his hobbies. The argu-
ment that Mr. Marks advanced above aH
others is the one that amalgamation would
cause both ends of the united cities to give
all of their energy to clearing and filling the
vacant lands between the two portions— mean-
ing Port Arthur and Fort William.
It is also interesting to note that George
Marks was a nephew of Thomas Marks, the
reeve of Shuniah, in 1907, and later to be-
come mayor of Port Arthur.
It is further noted in the history of Port
Arthur that in 1915 a vote on amalgamation
was taken in Port Arthur. The results of that
vote were 1,183 in favour of amalgamation
and only 740 against.
3544
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In the election in Port Arthur in 1958—
we are coming up to modem history— Mayor
Norman R. Wilson was elected mayor. Seven
of the present ten aldermen from the 1958
council are still members of the 1961 council
—this is very important— including Mayor Sol
Laskin, a name very famihar to the Grits
over in the far comer, being one of their
members.
The question of amalgamation passed with
a percentage of 60.43 per cent and the
present Port Arthur council voted 10 to 1 for
amalgamation without a plebiscite — the
present council of Port Arthur under Mayor
Sol Laskin, a Liberal,
I suggest the question of amalgamation is
not being pushed down anyone's throat, as
has been said tliis afternoon or yesterday.
There have been plebiscites in favour of
amalgamation; there have been studies and
discussions for a great many years. We have
had the Hardy report, further discussions on
its contents, a statement by the Minister of
Municipal Affairs on January 28, and a great
deal of discussion between that date and the
present time. I have many hundreds of letters
to prove it— not just one, but many hundreds.
Now is the time to make a decision and
quit beating around the bush. Tliis is the
time for action— not more talk.
Mr. F. Young ( Yorkview ) : Mr. Speaker, I
rise this afternoon to support this bill in prin-
ciple, although with some reservations.
We have heard some of the bloodletting
this afternoon and I am not going to indulge
in much more, because I think it has been
pretty effectively carried on. The plebiscite
has been discussed fore and aft and I think all
that needs to be said about it has been said,
although I would like to make a comment or
two about the attitude of the party to my
right about democracy, because it does affect
this bil]. If we are to take a bill like this back
to the public, we are abrogating our rights as
representatives of the public in the provincial
Parliament.
This kind of thing we have heard tlie last
couple of days is nothing less than village
democracy, which was workable in a tiny
village in prehistoric times. Perhaps that is
where this party fits— I do not know. But the
fact remains that as civilization grew more
complex, what we have done is delegate
responsibility to representatives— to a minority
group within that civilization— and said to
them: "You legislate. You carry on the public
business for us. If we do not like the way
you do it, you come back to us and we will
kick you out in four years, or whatever tiie
time may be."
This is the way the democratic process
works. And for anyone to advocate in this
day and age that every issue be taken back
to the public which it concerns, is just an
abrogation of that kind of respomsibihty.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Young: More than that, surely this
party does not advocate that the people of
Waterloo— and I did not hear them say any-
thing about the people of Ottawa voting in
this way— surely they are not advocating the
people of Waterloo and the people in other
areas of this land vote this way.
I think we have to face the fact that for
some years now members of the Liberal Party,
as well as the New Democrats, have been
pounding away at this idea of larger units of
government. We have been stressing it.
Some of the members on the opposite
benches have heard about it. To give credit
to the present Minister, I think he heard the
message and he is moving forward now in a
more or less realistic way. I will have some-
thing to say about that later. He is moving
forward, trying to bring the municipal gov-
ernments of this province into the 20th
century.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): That is
an improvement over the last Minister.
Mr. Young: That is an improvement over
the last Minister, says the member for
Cochrane South.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): That is
correct.
Mr. Young: That is correct. And we are
delighted about the "Ferrier" smelter that is
going in up there. We heard about that
today.
An hon. member: Is that what they are
going to call it?
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that
many members of both parties in the Oppo-
sition have been pounding away at this theme
for years. We have to get more reasonable,
more rational, more sensible units of munici-
pal government. And we all agreed on that.
Some of the members— and I think the leader
of that party is among us— have been heard
time after time in this House on this very
theme. The member for Downsview (Mr.
Singer), of course, has been very vocal on
this and I think he believes in this kind of
government.
APRIL 24, 1969
3545
How you can be on both sides of the
fence at one time, as my friend has said, I
do not understand. It can't be done. That
fence is pretty sharp on this issue; the points
are pretty fine and, beheve me, somebody
is going to get cut on that fence— and cut
badly.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard for many
hours in this House the last hope, as he
called himself, of the people of the Lake-
head. My guess is that one letter ought to
be changed in that phrase after all this pre-
oration and write it "the lost hope", because
his case was not made and I do not believe
the people of Ontario or the people at the
Lakehead are ready to listen to his kind of
a case. As a matter of fact, as has already
been said, some of us have been keeping in
very close touch with the situation in the
Lakehead, and some of us have been there
from time to time to have a look at it. There
were some disruptions, as has been pointed
out, within the New Democratic Party in
the Lakehead over this issue. But no more
and not as much as the disruptions within
the Liberal Party. More than that, we did
not resolve our problem there by a wishy-
washy resolution such as was finally passed
by the Liberals, simply saying we will criti-
cize the government about inept handling
and leaving it at that.
Mr. Sargent: He just resigned.
Mr. Young: One man resigned from his
position, that is right. But the majority of
our group, as far as we are concerned in the
Lakehead, has made it abundantly clear how
they feel about this issue. We hope the same
thing is true of the party to my right.
Now, we have heard that 78 per cent of
the people of the Lakehead are for amalga-
mation.
Mr. Sargent: How does the member know?
Mr. Young: Your member said so; he said
so time after time that 78 per cent of the
people were for it. We are willing to take
his word. We have heard something this
afternoon of the vote that has taken place
and the samplings of public opinion. I per-
sonally have talked to a lot of people in
the Lakehead cities, and I think I have some
assessment of the feeling there. It is not
unanimous, but I think the people there are
now ready to say, "The plebiscite is a dead
issue; let us get ahead with the job that we
have all been talking about."
I come back to the fact that we delegate
authority to our representatives at the muni-
cipal, at the provincial, at the federal level.
We tell them to do what is best for us, and
if we do not like it, out they go. If the
member is right, then of course a lot of
people are going to change in the next elec-
tion at the Lakehead. All right, that is
democracy, but my guess is that there are
not going to be as many changes as he
thinks there are going to be.
An hon. member: Only two!
Mr. Young: Only two, my friend says. That
may well be. The fact remains that the
representatives at the Lakehead who have
taken the responsibility; they know from the
provincial member at the Lakehead that 78
per cent of the people want amalgamation.
They have within their own power if they
wish it, and have had within their own
power, the right to hold a plebiscite on this
issue themselves.
Mr. Sargent: What happens if they vote
no?
Mr. Young: All right, they have had that
power to express their opinion. My guess is
that the Minister might have listened to a
vote like that, but the fact is the local
representatives understood that the people
wanted amalgamation, they were ready for
it, and they went ahead and co-operated to
bring it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Young: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not
think there is much more to be said on fhis
particular aspect of the bill. The fact is that
all of us have been looking forward to the
day when some action would be taken by
this govenmient to really do something on
this whole matter of regional government
and bring bigger units of government at
the municipal level. And so we are welcom-
ing this move, we are welcoming it particu-
larly because we believe in this instance the
majority— the vast majority, according to the
member himself— are behind it. But there
are some things that I would like to point
out about the bill, the principle of the bill
with which some of us are a bit unhappy,
and perhaps the Minister could give some
thought to it.
First of all, I would point out this, that in
any democratic government the will of the
majority of the people is expressed.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): What
about the member for Port Arthur?
Mr. Young: It is being expressed tiiere at
the Lakehead. Time after time when we have
suggested something on this side of the House,
3546
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Prime Minister has said, "The people
voted for our poHcy, not yours." All right,
he did not get a clear majority, but the
fact is one pai-ty formed the government in
this House, and so that government has a
right to express the policies for which it
stands. The rest of us can advocate our
policies all we like, popularize them if we
can, take them to the people— if they are
not already stolen by the government at the
next election— and say to tlie people that we
believe we have a better way. But that is
democracy, and if we come out tlie next
time with the majority, then we form the
opinion-expressing part of Parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that in the
municipal field this also ought to take place,
that the majority point of view expressed by
the elected representative ought to prevail
in the municipal council. I think this just
makes common sense. If a majority of the
people in that council want to set certain
priorities, they should be able to set them.
Some members of the council might think
sewers are more important, other groups in
council might think that more rational plan-
ning, building a city of greater beauty, build-
ing a community for people, are more impor-
tant. And so you get groupings, but unfor-
tunately in this province, and generally
throughout Canada, we have frustrated this
kind of democratic expression which we find
in the federal and provincial Houses; we have
frustrated it at the municipal level because
we have adopted the American system rather
than the British or the European system of
elections. And so we elect a mayor across
the board, we have elected in many cases a
board of control across the board, and in
this case the suggestion is that the aldermen
be elected across the new cities.
The problem is a simple one: Tliere is no
way under this kind of a system by which
the majority on that council can group
together to express their point of view in ini-
tiating bylaws and initiating and carrying
through legislation. Because, supposing one
group which thinks in terms of better com-
munity planning elects a majority, but the
mayor elected across the lx)ard had a differ-
ent point of view, he can frustrate the major-
ity on the municipal council, and how true
that is for a board of control. It looks as if
the Minister in his new legislation— and cer-
tainly in this legislation— is not countenancing
boards of control at the municipal level. I
think that is good.
As we set up these new govermnents, we
should be thinking in terms of the expression
of the majority point of view. To do that,
we should be patterning our new regional
governments after the provincial and the
federal modes.That is, the mayor, the head of
government, should be elected in a ward as
the premier is elected in a constituency. Each
member should have his own ward. Then,
when the election is over, the council itself
elects its mayor and its executive committee,
which takes the place of a Cabinet at the
provincial level.
This way the majority point of view can
express itself adequately. This is democracy
as we know it. For politicians to be afraid
of politics at the municipal level is a strange
thing, because so many people will say: "Well,
we are going to keep politics out of the
municipal level."
Why? It is there now, in many ways. It
is there but in such a way that the political
groupings in the municipality cannot express
themsehes adequately, as they can in the
provincial and federal Parliament. So, as we
l^egin this process of regional governments,
it seems to me we should make it possible to
bring party politics into municipal govern-
ments.
Why should we be afraid of it? Why
should we not make it possible? Party politics
simply means the expression of the majority
will within the government, so I would like
to see the Minister take a look at this bill.
There are several points: one, that the
mayor should be designated or elected from
among the members of the council. This is
general practice in nearly all European coun-
tries. It is the practice in Great Britain, and
it is from Great Britain we get much of our
parliamentary heritage.
Mr. MacDonald: It is the way they chose
the wardens up in Victoria county too.
Mr. Young: It could well be.
Now the second thing I would like to
point out to the Minister is tliat, instead of
the administrative head or die city manager,
which is proposed, tliere should be an
executive committee. If they want the civil
servants necessary to do an efficient job, it
is up to them to hire them, to build them up.
But we can well repeat the pattern of the
provincial Cabinet at the municipal level
in the Lakehead and in other areas of this
kind.
We have had so many squabbles at the
Cabinet level in municipalities — boards of
control made up of different people with dif-
ferent points of view from different parties,
APRIL 24, 1969
8547
resulting in little agreement, and very often
squabble after squabble after squabble.
The result has been that the municipality,
lacking real direction, has been frustrated.
Then the provincial government has had to
move in with its conditional grants and tell
the municipahties how to spend their money
and what to do.
As more and more conditional grants are
given, we must free those municipalities to
make decisions— make their own mistakes if
necessary — but make the decisions about
priorities. So if one municipality wants to
spend its money building sewers or side-
walks-
Mr. Sargent: All they have left-is garbage
disposal.
Mr. Young: Or garbage disposal, all right!
Mr. Sargent: Thirteen cents to the dollar is
what they have got left.
Mr. Young: All right, okay, that is the
reason; because we have not given the muni-
cipal level any freedom to govern. I am say-
ing we should build the kind of structure
that gives them that kind of freedom.
Mr. Sargent: The member has been reading
the wrong books.
Mr. Young: The other thing I think the
Minister ought to take a look at in this bill
is the way the election of aldermen— two
from two of the wards, and five each from
the other two wards.
This may well be simply a device to over-
come some immediate problems, I do not
know. It may be a transitional thing. But if
we are going to have real government, then
each one of those aldermen should have his
own constituency, his own ward just as we
have provincially. So Lakehead city should
be divided into the number of wards neces-
sary—twelve I suppose, or thirteen in this case
with the mayor. Each one should be more or
less equal in size — 8,000 to 10,000 voters.
Then when the elections are held, the execu-
tive committee and the mayor appointed—
they would be free to take action.
Perhaps I should mention to the Minister
the necessity— and I think he is aware of it
—of safeguarding the telephone system of the
Lakehead, because they have the largest
publidy-owned telephone system on this
continent. It is very large and very success-
ful and there is real fear among the people
that that telephone system might somehow
be frittered away.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): It will be sold
to Bell.
Mr. Young: That will be sold to BeU even-
tually. But I think tliat some safeguard should
be made so that some people get their tele-
phone service at cost over the years, so I
bring this to the Minister's attention.
But the other matter I want to speak about
for a few minutes is the problem which the
hon. Minister of Education tried to face up to
this afternoon when he had to backtrack and
do some back-filling because of a mistake,
the fundamental mistake which had been
made at the very beginning regarding finance.
As the Minister moves into the larger units
of government, whether it be amalgamated
city or regional governments, there must also
be an adequate base of finance. This govern-
ment has not yet been willing to face up to
that fact in this field. Perhaps after today
and after the action which has had to be
taken in the field of education, the Minister
of Municipal Affairs will give this far more
serious consideration.
Time after time we have placed before this
Legislature the fundamentals of a foundation
plan which would bring financial stability to
the municipalities. Granted, there would have
to be new sources of revenue, but we have
also given this government an indication of
where those sources can be found.
My leader did this. I did it in my Throne
speech and many more of us have done the
same thing. When today, one of the major
mining corporations of this province an-
nounced that it has $40 million of a clear
profit for the first three months of this year, it
is time perhaps we looked at some of the
raw resources of this province and asked our-
selves whether that kind of resource could
not be tapped more adequately than it is—
particularly when profits are paid in the
United States in American funds, not Cana-
dian.
What I am saying to the Minister, is that
there are adequate sources of income. Tlie
Minister of Revenue and his confreres must
look at those and determine where the money
is coming from. He must provide an adequate
financial base for these new regional govern-
ments for the amalgamated city of the Lake-
head. Unconditional grants must go there.
They must provide their own part of this
according to the foundation plan which we
have outlined.
But unless the govenmient is willing to do
this in amalgamated cities and in regional
government, they are going to run up against
3548
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
exactly the same problem that the Minister
of Education (Mr. Davis) is running up
against. They are going to have to backtrack
and wonder where they are. This alone, in
years to come, can destroy this government
and perhaps that is not a bad thing to hap-
pen in the proxince of Ontario.
That is about all the remarks I want to
make on the principle of this bill. By and
large, the general idea of the biU is a good
one, but I think there are many details that
need to go back for more consideration. The
Minister heard many submissions from the
people of the Lakehead last week and he
seemed quite willing to listen to them and
make certain amendments and certain changes
in the bill as it stands.
I have brought other ideas before him this
afternoon. I think they would not only
strengthen this bill, but would strengthen the
whole concept of regional government and
amalgamated cities within the province of
Ontario. I hope he is listening and I hope he
is going to take action in this regard.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add a few words on
the principle of this bill. First of all, I would
like to observe that the member for Port
Arthur used material that dealt only in one
subject, backing up the argument that the
people of the Lakehead wanted a plebiscite
on this matter.
I was very saddened to see the debate
from the member opposite get out of hand
and be used as a personal attack on the mem-
ber for Port Arthur and on the Liberal Party.
I do not think that has any place in the de-
bate on this bill.
The member to my left used it as a method
of expounding this theory on partisan politics
in municipal affairs, the NOP philosophy of
foimdation tax plan and an attack on the
ineptness of Bill 44.
I was disappointed that the speakers were
not brought into line for these infringements
of the rules of this House.
As one who comes from the last twin city
in the province of Ontario— that of Kitchener-
Waterloo— I can maybe add a littie bit to
the debate on the principle of this bill which
will make it a little more relevant to those of
you.
I have lived in the twin cities all my life.
The member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt)
has too. The difference is that he was bom
in Waterloo and now lives in Kitchener and
I was bom in Kitchener and now live in
Waterloo. This in itself shows that, when two
municipalities are side by side— as Port Arthur
and Fort William— a kinship and a kindred-
ship grows up among the peoples of the
cities, as well as a very friendly type of com-
petition.
There are joint boards and commissions
ser\ ing people of both areas, and there are
independent councils and mayors, and other
agencies which look after the needs of both
people. So, the point I would like to make
boils down to this:
Twenty years ago, in our community— and
I think the same would be tme in Port Arthur
and Fort William— it would be worth your
life to mention the word amalgamation on
the streets of the city. Fifty years ago you
would not even dare mention it.
Things ha\e changed tremendously since
the war and in the last 15 years especially.
Many people are realizing that there is need
for a change in government stmcture in many
parts of the province. In spite of the fact that
this appears to be a revolutionary concept, I
beliexe the people have realized that this is
\ ery necessary.
However, I think the important point we
ha\'e to keep in mind here is, that although
people's feelings change over the years, they
do so through their own observations, on a
local lexel, without any outsider coming and
telling them what to do. We have all had
communication from the Lakehead. You
notice some of it was not answered by the
government, and I can appreciate very much
the feelings of a great many of these people.
To return to the fact of how these people
feel, I think that, in the last five years, the
people in my area have been well aware that
there is going to be a change in the go\ em-
ment structure in our area. My own assess-
ment of the situation is that the feelings have
progressed very well.
I am glad to see that The Department of
Municipal Affairs, through the Minister, is
changing its tactics in bringing in govern-
ment stmcture changes in a great many of
the areas of the province. Their announce-
ment in Norfolk-Haldimand was a step in
the right direction. No longer are they saying
that we are going to send an expert into
your area, he is going to study the situation
and he is going to come back and tell you j
what you have to do. In my opinion this is
where the mistake was made in the Lake-
head. The peoph up there, I think, were just
as close to amalgamation— it has been shown
that they are in favour of it— as anywhere else
in the province. Now, I do not know what
the feelings of the people would be in my
APRIL 24, 1969
3549
own area, but my own assessment would be
that the feeling has progressed so far now
that I would hate to see the wrong methods
used by the department and by this Minister
to come in and stir up a problem which could
result in a situation that has developed at
the Lakehead.
So I am asking the Minister to use the
example of this bill, as you have now pre-
sented it, to benefit from the problems which
have arisen. And may I state at this point
that the pohcy of this party has been— and I
have said this as long as I have been in the
party— that we are not asking, we have said
in this particular instance we feel that the
feehng of the people in the Lakehead is that
they want a plebiscite. This may not be neces-
sary in every area where change in structure
of government is going to be made.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of
Municipal Affairs ) : The member cannot have
it both ways!
Mr. Good: All right. I would say, if you
were doing your job, you could bring people
of different localities along by good pubhc
relations, good promotion, and let the people
sit down and in effect write their own terms
for their own type of structural change.
People are intelligent enough to know that in
this day and age there has to be a change in
the structure of municipal government.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Good: I would like to make one fur-
ther point, Mr. Speaker. The attitude that
has been taken by this department in various
areas around the province, in my mind, has
done a great deal of harm in promoting gov-
ernment structural change at the municipal
level. To back this up I would just like to
read from an article in the Globe and Mail of
February 15-"The Hint of a Battle Over
Regional Government"— and this relates to the
attitude of the government towards people
who are contemplating municipal change
which, in my mind and the minds of some of
his own backbenchers, is doing more harm
than good. The article reads:
Recent speeches by a government back-
bencher and the Liberal municipal affairs
critic show agreement on one major point
—that the government must not run rough-
shod over local opinions to an idea.
The other criticism already voiced by
the Liberals, and likely to be heard even-
tually from the New Democrats, is that
moves to regional government must all be
part of a master plan so that no part of
the province will become a tag end.
Now I will skip a part of it.
As if to punctuate his statement Decem-
ber 2 that no municipality will enjoy a
veto right over the regionalization pro-
posals, Mr. McKeough went to the Lake-
head in January to announce an area-wide
merger will take place next January 1.
The first hint that the Minister may be in
a real battle within his caucus came this
week when Eric Winkler, PC, Grey South,
urged Mr. McKeough to use the area of
consultation and flexibility in the apphca-
tion of this form of government. "The
acceptance clause of this legislation, in my
opinion, is the most important," he said in
the Throne Speech. "As I have said to this
Minister on previous occasions, I beUeve
oflBcials in his department are much too
dictatorial in the rural areas especially
where there can be orderly progress with-
out complete control."
Well, he blames it on the ofiBcials—
Mr. Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, can
the hon. member finish shortly?
Mr. Good: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: I thought the end of the
editorial might be an appropriate place, but
if the hon. member wishes to finish, we wiU
allow him to finish.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m. the House
took recess.
No. 95
ONTARIO
Hegisrtaturc of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, April 24, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Trice per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the Home, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 24, 1969
City of the Lakehead, bill respecting, Mr. McKeough, second reading 3553
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Haskett, second
reading 3571
Public Vehicles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Haskett, second reading 3572
Highway TraflBc Act, bill to amend, Mr. Haskett, second reading 3573
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3581
3553
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
CITY OF LAKEHEAD
(Continued)
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Speaker, the province varies greatly from one
area to another. I think the Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough) must rea-
lize this. I think he has already changed his
tactics to some extent in other areas, but
since the method of study for municipal
government reform at the Lakehead has
brought on this intense desire for a referen-
dimi, surely it is not too much to ask that
the wish be acknowledged. Over 6,000 people
have signified their desire to vote and I
would think that this in itself must be con-
sidered.
I would like to make one additional point
and that is that the principle of this bill
reflects that the wrong method was used by
the government to bring about reform in
municipal government. Why not stop this
business of antagonizing municipalities across
the province? You talk of community accep-
tability and community participation. Let us
not, to use the Minister's ov^oi words, adhere
to this in principle and violate it in practice.
Until this Minister is willing and able to
sit down and tell the people of any munici-
pality what a restructuring of government
will do for them; until he is able to tell
them what the cost will be; until he is willing
to tell them what their powers are going to
be and what will be given to them or taken
away, he will continue to have people who,
because they are not properly involved, will
wish to have plebiscites.
It is interesting to note that the state-
ment of the Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis) this afternoon, in the matter of edu-
cation costs, shows that these things are not
being properly figured out and presented to
the municipalities before the changes are
being made. Consequently, with other cri-
teria being adhered to, the population status
would mean that at the present time, the
cities of Port Arthur and Fort William could
qualify far additional educational help, where
under amalgamation they could not.
Thursday, April 24, 1969
Mr. Speaker, I feel in the case of the
Lakehead a plebiscite is necessary to restore
the confidence of the people in good govern-
ment. I hope that the Minister will act in
a manner in other areas so that people will
not feel their rights of self-determination
have been violated.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with a great deal
of interest to the discussion in connection
with Bill 118. As you are aware, Mr.
Speaker, the implications of this bill and the
amalgamation of the two Lakehead cities
and the two surrounding municipalities is of
great importance to me, representing the
riding of Thunder Bay, since the riding goes
right around the two Lakehead cities and
the particular geographic area in question.
So it is with a great deal of interest that
I watch this bill and its provisions, particu-
larly the implications of the legislation as it
affects the surrounding municipalities and the
Lakehead area, being the only centre of sig-
nificant population in northwestern Ontario,
in all deference to the member for Kenora
(Mr. Bemier). I think that we do look upon
the Lakehead area as the service centre for
all of northwestern Ontario, certainly, the
area that I happen to represent, rural
Thunder Bay. Since Mr. Hardy's report on
regional government one and two-tiers, we
are very much aware of the implications of
regional government both as it applies to
the Lakehead area and the surrounding rural
municipalities.
Now the people that I happen to rep-
resent are watching very, very closely just
what regional government and the amalgama-
tion of the two Lakehead cities will do to the
surrounding area. When one considers that it
is the educational centre, the distribution
centre, the communication centre and the
transportation centre for all of the Thunder
Bay district, we want to make very, very sure
that the kind of government that they ulti-
mately end up with in the Lakehead area
will contribute to the well-being, growth
and development of the whole area.
I am very gratified to see that the Minis-
ter of Municipal Affairs has taken a go-slow
3554
ONTARIO LEGISIATURE
policy with regard to the second tier as en-
visaged by Mr. Hardy. He has given some
opportunity for consultation in that area and
I have his assurance that he will continue
to do so. It will only be by consultation that
he will extend it further into the rural areas
where the criteria, the objectives, the goals
and the aspirations of the people are much
different from those in the immediate area
of the Lakehead.
While I do not agree with the stand taken
by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Knight)
on this particular issue, I must say that I
admire his tenacity. I admire the dogged-
ness with which he has pursued this whole
issue. On many occasions he has stood up
almost alone in the fight, particularly around
the Lakehead. I cannot agree with the stand
he has taken on it. As a matter of fact, if
I might allude to an editorial in the News
Chronicle on March 4, 1969, where it was
discussed at some length by the Fort Wil-
liam Liberal Association, it says:
Fort William Liberals compromised their
way out of a dilemma last night. Nearing
the close of the annual meeting, a motion
presented to the membership by former
MPP John Chappie asked that the meeting
endorse a stand requesting a referendum
on amalgamation.
Immediately the sides on the issue
formed. Speakers began making their way
up to the microphones. "I think the Liberal
Party should pursue the democratic rights
of those who supported us," said Chappie.
"This is a most serious matter. Our leader,
Robert Nixon, has said he will fight for us
in the House. This issue is not cut and
dried."
Fort William Alderman Wally Bryan
said he regretted the issue being brought
up and turning the gathering into a meet-
ing of dissension.
"I am also concerned that it might pass.
A vote on amalgamation will only separate
the people even more. I do not want to
differ with men like Robert Nixon or
Hubert Badanai, but I feel tliere are enough
safeguards to make amalgamation a suitable
arrangement. MP Hubert Badanai said his
constituents were being denied the sacred
privilege of having a voice on an issue.
Tlhey should be given the right to express
an opinion."
Officials of the Lakehead University
Liberal Association, Fred Porter and Eric
Wilson, told the meeting that the final
decision must go to the Ontario Municipal
Board.
"It is the option of any municipahty to
hold a referendum on any issue at any time
and the municipality does not need the per-
mission of Municipal Affairs Minister, Darcy
McKeough."
This has been mentioned by my colleague,
the hon. member for Yorkview (Mr. Young),
and I think that the hon. member for Port
Arthur is well aware that at any time, on
almost any issue, the Lakehead cities could
have held their own referendum regardless of
any action.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
That would not be binding on the Minister.
Mr. Stokes: It would not be binding on the
Minister, but I feel quite sure, though, that
had the people in the Lakehead felt strongly
enough about this issue, they could have pre-
vailed upon the councils of both Lakehead
cities to hold a referendum just to demon-
strate to the Minister how they felt about it.
I feel quite sure that if the majority had
indicated that they were against amalgama-
tion, a referendum would have dictated a
course of action that the Minister would have
taken.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): That is
what they want to do now.
Mr. Stokes: By the hon. member for Port
Arthur's own admission, there are anywhere
from 75 to 79 per cent of the people of the
Lakehead area who favour it. You can argue
all day about the merits of plebisdtory
democracy-
Mr. Nixon: He said 79 per cent want a
referendum.
Mr. Stokes: If we, as legislators, want to
abdicate our responsibility in this field and
put it off on to somebody else, this is another
matter.
Mr. Nixon: I abdicate the responsibility.
Mr. Stokes: I happen to think that the I
Minister is well enough aware of the impli-
cations of regional government and amalga-
mation of the two Lakehead cities that he is
prepared to suffer the consequences in 1971
if events prove him wrong, and I think he j
is big enough to stand that threat.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): As is the member for Foit
William.
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): There is
only one member for Fort William.
APRIL 24, 1969
3555
Mr. Nixon: An overnight guest thoughl
An hon. member: We will see about that.
Mr. Stokes: As I said in my opening re-
marks, Mr. Speaker, I, as a member for
Thunder Bay, am watching with a great deal
of interest. Since it is not likely that the
course taken by the hon. member for Port
Arthur is to be successful, I would hope that
he and all members of this House, and all
members in particular representing ridings in
northwestern Ontario, will join together and
see that the amalgamation that is imminent
will take place in an orderly fashion, that we
will get the best type of government and ad-
ministration possible for the Lakehead area,
so that they can contribute in a very signifi-
cant way to the development, not only of
regional government where it is possible and
feasible in northwestern Ontario, but more
particularly, regional development in north-
western Ontario. I would invite both the
member for Port Arthur and the member for
Fort William to strive for that end, and I
am sure that if everybody looks at it realistic-
ally, we will come out, in northwestern On-
tario so much the better for it.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
on section 19—1 know we are not going by
sections, but I just want to make a very
brief comment on the offer of employment as
a guarantee. I think that the Minister has
provided the protection that is necessary,
but I am wondering about their guarantee
of tenure of employment. I can only assume
from what is in the bill that you are relying
on the collective bargaining agreements that
the employees have through their union. The
only comment that I wanted to make was
that I wonder if the Minister, while he is
peaking to the bill, could make some re-
marks as to their guarantee of tenure for
these employees.
As I said, it seems to me that you have
guaranteed the salary, the sick leave, and you
have mentioned the question of hoHdays and
the offer of employment, but I just do not
see in the bill the guarantee of employment
following the date of amalgamation. Maybe
the Minister will allude to that so that we
could have some elaboration on that section
19 particularly as it refers to the employee.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Speaker, in travelling through northwestern
Ontario last September I had the occasion
to talk to many people in Port Arthur and
Fort William, and the feehng was there, I
think, that they wanted amalgamation. In
some cases the businessmen did not want it.
Of course, when business still would like to
keep the free enterprise system, the rivalry
between one municipality and the other, but
when you get down talking to the people on
the street, their concern is the cost involved.
Today in Ontario we have the federal govern-
ment spending beyond its means, and the
provincial government spending beyond its
means. The local government is the one that
has to suffer.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Jessiman: What is the member's point?
Mr. Haggerty: I am talking about regional
government. This is a trend in Ontario, the
new evolution of government, a change in
Ontario, as quoted by the Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) in Welland, Ontario, the guide-
lines he says here:
To accomplish this the government is
being guided by a set of basic guidelines.
They are:
1. A region should inhibit a sense of
community.
2. A region should have a balanced
interest.
3. There must be throughout the region
an adequate financial base.
And this is what is lacking at the mimicipal
level. For a number of years now, since the
Mayo report came out, and the Hardy report,
they are excellent guidelines— there have been
a number of times that I have attended the
Ontario Municipal Association when the ques-
tion has been raised— what about the grant
structures? When we talk about regional gov-
ernment in this province and the great change
that is going to come about we think about
Metro Toronto, where the tax grant there on
a per capita base is $7.50. Through other
regions or other areas in the province, they
vary from $3.75 to about $5.50 in some other
cities.
Now what I would like to know is what is
the grant structure going to be at the Lake-
head? What is it going to be for the regions
of Lincoln and Welland? What are the road
grants going to be? We find in Metro Toronto
they have received some 50 per cent subsidy
on roads, 80 per cent on bridges, but I am
afraid that when you take in the townships in
the area of the Port Arthur and Fort William
area you find that perhaps they receive 50
per cent grants. I am sure they do, and once
they enter into this larger unit of government
they will receive some SSVs per cent.
3556
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, one can see here the shift of pro-
vincial responsibihty on local taxes again, on
local real estate. I think these are the ques-
tions that people in the Lakehead want to
know. For three years, this government has
played around with regional government but
has refused to give the local municipal gov-
ernments the answers to the grant structure.
I think we learned a lessx)n when the
county school boards went into larger units,
and we all agree that this is good, but look
at the financial fix that each municipality is
in today when some local taxpayers have to
pick up $70 and $90 alone for educational
tax, additional from last year; they cannot
bear this cost. Some place along tlie line the
Minister has to come through with this grant
structure. And I think the people— the mem-
bers of local government— should know what
this grant structure is going to be.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Did the member for
Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) support that?
Mr. Haggerty: I am asking tlie Minister,
not the member from Owen Sound.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am just wondering.
Mr. Nixon: Did they know what they were
getting into before they got into it?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Gertainly.
Mr. Haggerty: Well, he does not.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Haggerty: This is right, and I have a
grievance here, when one looks at the mem-
bers sitting here tonight that are going to
have to vote on this Act.
Mr. Jessiman: Bill 118, in case the mem-
ber has forgotten.
Mr. Haggerty: Well Bill 118, there will per-
haps be many more. There is about 25 per
cent of the members here in this Legislature
from Metro Toronto and Toronto. Now, we
have often heard in Toronto that they are
talking about amalgamation of the Metro
region. I was just wondering— perhaps I
should put this question to the Minister— is
this going to be the stepping stone for amalga-
mation of Metro Toronto? They are forcing
it on the Lakehead.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is far oflF
the principle of the bill now, and I would
ask him to come back to the bill or to the
principle of the amalgamation of the Lake-
head cities.
Mr. Haggerty: I quite agree with you, Mr.
Speaker, but I am talking about the evolution
and change in local government in Ontario,
and I think this covers it as well as many
other changes throughout the province. This
is going to be a guideline, there is no doubt
about it, and this is the point that I raise.
Are we going to have amalgamation in Metro
Toronto?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member's remarks
are quite out of order; we are not talking
about amalgamation of Metro Toronto. Would
he please go back to Bill 118?
Mr. Haggerty: When one looks at the bill,
we find out that in many cases they are not
going to be elected officials. I find, reading
into the bill, that hydro is going to be
ai>pointed, the public utilities wiU be ap-
pointed, the library board is going to be
aippointed. So when you look at it, are the
people going to have government by the
people?
Mr. Jessiman: Good government.
Mr. Haggerty: Yes, the member for Fort
William might say this, but I might say that
he is going to have to live with it. But I do
believe that the people in this province-
Mr. Jessiman: I was bom with it and I
will stay with it.
Mr. Haggerty: —the people in this province
are entitled to know what grant structure is
going to come forth from the Minister, what
help is going to be passed on to the local
municipalities, for this is the pr^^blem in
this province, taxation.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
wishing to speak to this bill before the Min-
ister? The hon. member for York South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of rather impor-
tant points that I think should be made in
speaking to the principle on second reading
of this bill. I think they can be made briefly
and I intend to do so.
Mr. Nixon: A great expediter!
Mr. MacDonald: I think at this point some
of these rather important areas have been
buried in a Niagara of words and at least
those that I think are important, I am going
to attempt to rescue.
Mr. Nixon: That is not the word the mem-
ber usually uses.
APRIL 24, 1969
3557
Mr. MacDonald: Last week, as the House
will have learned from the comments of my
hon. colleague, the member for Yorkview, he
and I visited the Lakehead. I might say that
this was onJy the final stage of a continuous
living with this problem by close contact
with not only our own riding associations,
bu)t with individuals in the Lakehead.
In fact, I am sure the Prime Minister
would be interested to know that we were
aible to use the northern tour of NDPs last
fall, by one evening at the Lakehead being
devoted to meeting with the riding associa-
tions for the very purpose of an initial dis-
cussion on the Hardy report. So as far back
as then, we were looking at it.
But we were particularly interested last
week to find out what the reaction was after
all of the cross-currents had been dealt with,
and therefore, we met on the Wednesday
evening with our riding associations. Thurs-
day morning I had the opportunity of being
on one of those "hot-line" programmes at
the Lakehead, in Fort William, with a name-
sake by the name of Hugh MacDonald.
It was rather interesting— there were no
calls for the first ten minutes, though the
issue was obviously the issue of the day,
since it was the day of the public meeting
and everybody knew that a gentleman by the
name of McKeough was arriving in town. At
the end of ten minutes no queries had come
in, so Hugh MacDonald rather chided the
militants of the Fort William Ratepayers
Association for having gone into the wood—
they apparently had nothing more to say.
That brought them out of the woods, and
we had a lively period for the remainder of
the hour. That gave me a good indication of
the grass-roots feeling on this issue. Finally
we had the meeting in which, as has been
indicated, there were some 200 to 300 people
representative of the inter-municipal commit-
tee, and various bodies, both public and
advisory bodies in the four municipalities that
are being brought together.
I found it a very useful exercise. I was a
Jittle puzzled, quite frankly— and I do not
want to say this provocatively— as to why the
hon. member for Port Arthur did not attend
Publically he was credited with saying there
was not going to be room for him. There was
plenty of room for the so-called VIP's in the
front row, and there were 40 empty seats at
the back for general public who could have
come to have listened in.
The Minister summed it up at the end that
there was obviously no very serious objec-
tions to this bill at this point, and gave that
as his explanation as to why he had updated
the actual time for the elections for the first
council of the amalgamated city.
If there were any serious objections, they
certainly did not emerge at that meeting.
They had been worked out in what had been
a rather continuous process of negotiation,
behind the scenes and out in the public, over
the last four or five or six months.
The first basic point that I want to make,
Mr. Speaker, with regard to this situation is
the Minister's image in this whole develop-
ment. Quite frankly, I do not know what the
Minister did at the earlier stages, but if he
had sat down and tried to plan a campaign
to picture himself in the community, not only
with horns and a tail, but combining that pic-
ture of the devil with something of Hitlerian
proportions in terms of arrogance and authori-
tarian approach, he could not have done a
better job.
An hon. member: It is the way he looks
down here!
Mr. MacDonald: Well, sometimes he does
and sometimes he is quite a congenial fellow.
I can never quite figure him out. But cer-
tainly this is the image throughout the whole
community. You can talk to newspaper men,
you can talk to workers, you can talk to
people on the Council— a cross-section and
'this is the kind of image he has acquired.
Quite frankly, I think it is in the public
interests that the government, and the Minis-
ter particularly, should rather quietly, and in
detail, review how this bill has been handled,
because to a considerable extent it has been
mishandled. I think the whole proposition of
regional government, and the steps for the
publical educational process to get acceptance
of regional government in the area, are too
important to become fouled up by mishandl-
ing. I suspect, in the first instance, it arose
partly from the fact that Eric Hardy, in pre-
'paring his report, went beyond his original
terms of reference.
Now, that may be defensible, Mr. Speaker
—let us be rather objective about this whole
thing. When one starts to look at an area,
and a person is doing an honest objective
study, he might come to the conclusion that
he cannot really provide the best solutions to
the problems for that limited area if he does
not go beyond it.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: All the Commission-
ers have!
Mr. MacDonald: I accept the Minister's
word for it— that all the commissioners have
3558
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
found this to be the case. I think we are
breaking out of our tendency to a parochial
approach into a regional approach. Perhaps
in setting the terms of reference, we were a
victim of the old parochial approach.
However, the reaction in the community
was one of quite understandable amazement
and puzzlement as to what in heaven's name
was going on when this "bureaucrat" from
down in Toronto— and Toronto is regarded
as a rather nefarious comer of the world— in
all parts of Ontario, but when you get to
Northern Ontario it takes on an extra over-
tone. Unfortunately I think this set the stage.
I will say this to the Minister— I think an-
other factor that contributed to it was the
way he handled the announcement of the
.Hardy Report. I do not think the Minister
can afford to go in and say, "now here it is,
and I am not going to answer any questions
at this stage". As a result there was created
a feeling which has never died— indeed, it
has been fanned and developed since then—
that this was the Minister's rather arrogant
approach: he was not going to comment,
take it or leave it, here it is. I suggest there
may also be some lessons to be learned in
tenns of the mechanism for continuing study.
Indeed, some questions were raised during the
course of last week's meeting with regard to
the personnel of the intermunicipal commit-
tee, as to whether it could not have included
and should not have included people from
some of the citizens' bodies in addition to the
elected representatives. There was one at the
meeting— I have forgotten which body it was
—but a spokesman rose and asked the Min-
ister why, for example, they had never been
consulted, and the Minister said, "Well, per-
haps we should have consulted with you."
I think there are lessons to be learned here.
It is too late as far as the Lakehead amalga-
mation is concerned, but this is an important
and ongoing process that we are going to
live with perhaps for the next generation—
certainly the next ten years— and we should
not fail to learn them.
However, the important point, Mr. Chair-
man—and now I begin to relate my remarks
to some of the comments that were made by
the hon. member for Port Arthur. That is,
that you have divisions in all parties. Let us
not try to kid ourselves on this score, or hide
the fact. I suppose it is inevitable when you
get into a local community on an issue of
this nature, that you are going to get these
divisions. The issues are not wholly ideologi-
cal and in keeping with the normal philos-
ophy or approach, so you get a lot of other
community factors influencing people's think-
ing.
Howe\'er, I think this significant point
should not be missed. As far as the New
Democratic Party is concerned there is no
doubt that the majority view is in favour of
amalgamation. Indeed, the definitive vote— if
there ever was a definitive vote, because
there was never a referendum taken among
all the members of the New Democratic
Party— was at a seminar on municipal affairs
held the first weekend in March at which two
things happened (1) a vote on amalgamation
was at least 2 or 3 to 1 in favour, and (2) a
decision that as a party we were going to go
into municipal politics.
Quite frankly I am proud of that decision.
I think it was evidence of maturity on the
part of the New Democratic Party in an
emerging urban area. Indeed now at the
provincial level, at least two of the parties,
the Liberals and our own, have recognized
that if you are going to get more meaningful
democratic representation, the individual
candidate can be rescued from the anonimity
of his stand, and an incapacity to fulfil his
election promises by relating to a party,
for the platform and the capacity to imple-
ment it, when they get adequate numbers
elected to council to have a majority, or in-
deed a minority group that can push for it.
The hon. member for Port Arthur has
predicated his case on the proposition that
the Liberal party is going to oppose this bill
because a plebiscite has not been held.
Mr. Nixon: That is not one of the prin-
ciples of the bill.
Mr. MacDonald: All right, it is not one of
the principles of the bill. I accept the addi-
tion that the hon. leader of the Opposition
has made.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if there were any doubt,
any doubt at all as to what the overwhelm-
ing majority view of the people in the Lake-
head is on this issue, there might be some
validity in this proposition. But, quite
frankly— and I say this as unprovocatively as
I can— the logic escapes me—
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): There is a
pattern set.
Mr. MacDonald: Would the member listen
for a moment and perhaps you might know
v/hat I am talking about.
The logic escapes me when a case is put
that state, "I am in favour of amalgamation,
78 per cent of the people in the Lakehead are
in favour of amalgamation but I am going to
APRIL 24, 1969
8559
oppose the bill if we do not have a plebis-
cite."
If there was any doubt on the proposi-
tion, if it was 52 to 48 or something of this
nature, then I think there would be real
validity in the proposition. It would be like
holding a vote, for example, on a farm
marketing plan. To establish a farm market-
ing plan when it was split down the middle,
is certainly a good way to invite disaster for
that plan very early in its life. Likewise, it
v/oukl be, I think, rather disastrous to move
in to the establishment of amalgamation
without a good majority.
But the hon. member for Port Arthur
says himself, that there is 78 per cent. You
see, the big difference between our positions
is this: As far as I am concerned, I am si>eak-
ing for the majority of New Democrafts with
regard to tliis issue in the Lakebead. I con-
cede there is a minority who are opposed.
This is their right. That is the democratic
process. However, I suggest to the hon.
member for Port Arthur that he is speaking
for a minority of tlie Liberals at the Lake-
head.
Mr. Knight: I am not speaking for Lib-
erals, I am talking for the people at the
Lakehead.
Mr. MacDonald: Now how I come to that
conclusion is that if I go to the elected rep-
resentatives, if I go to those people who are
the elected officials in the riding association
of the Liberal Party at the Lakehead, the
overwhelming majority of them have indi-
cated that they are in favour of amalgama-
tion. They are opposed to a plebiscite.
I am not objecting to t3he hon. member
pursuing a jjoint on which he obviously has
conviction but he is pursuing it to the point
of it becoming an obsession. The difference
between a conviction and an obsession is
that an obsession blinds you to the full
context in which you are working. You begin
to get things out of perspective. And I say
to him, with all respect, I think that is what
has happened to him.
What puzzles me is that the Liberal Party
here has been willing to support what is a
minority view at the Lakehead among
Liberals— for their own particular purposes.
Apparently tliey could not cope with the hon.
member for Port Arthur.
Mr. Jessiman: Poor leadership, that is all.
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey South): Just
sounds like Ottawa!
Mr. Knight: He is talking through the
top of his head!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Through you, Mr.
Speaker, I thank all of my collaborators in
this debate. It gave me an opportunity to
have a drink of water.
I want to repeat, in passing, a point that has
been made a number of times in the debate-
that there has been nothing standing in the
way of the Lakehead holding a plebiscite on
this issue at any time. I submit— it just seems
to follow logically— that if there was such an
overwhelming majority of people in favour
of a plebiscite, those elected representatives
in the council, who are political anunals and
who are going to respond to political pres-
stures, would have bowed to it. They would
have exercised the right, which they have in
The Municipal Act, to have held a plebiscite.
I grant you it would have been no commit-
ment on this Minister. He could have defied
it. And if he lived up to the image of his
arrogance in the community, he undoubtedly
would have defied it. But at least, they could
have held the plebiscite and they could
have found out what the i>eople thought.
But there has been no effort by the members
of the council to hold a plebiscite.
Mr. Knight: How does the member know
that?
Mr. MacDonald: Therefore, I conclude
that there is not a majority who are in favour
of a plebiscite, even though there are some
people who hold it with a very strong con-
viction which has become an obsession.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is another
point that I want to draw to your attention
at the moment. That is, that I do not object
to a person being in favour of or opposed to
a plebiscite. But when opposition to this
bill, because there is no plebiscite, is coupled
with all the arguments against amalgama-
tion, then we are entitled to wonder whether
they are now opposed to amalgamation.
Mr. Nixon: That is not right.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): That
is not right and you know it.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a moment!
Mr. Knight: The member believes in forc-
ing it on people.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a moment! I spoke
to people at the Lakehead, some of whom I
know very well, who were in favour of
3560
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
amalgamation and predicted their whole dis-
cussion of this development on their support
tor amalgamation two or three months ago.
Because they have not got a plebiscite, they
are now opposed to amalgamation. I suggest
this is missing the real point, the real issue
at stake. Because we are going to come back
in a moment to what is the real issue here—
and its wider implications for the province
as a whole.
I am not going to speak for the hon,
members here in the Liberal Party as to
whether they are genuinely in favour of
amalgamation. But I could not help but
interject during much of the ^'.ebate by the
hon. member for Port Arthur that, unwit-
tingly, he got himself oflF into fivj and ten-
minute presentations which weie a sojhI
presentation of the argument against amal-
gamation.
It could not be financed; it was going *o
cost more, he agreed.
Mr. Knight: That is part of the views of
the Lakehead; who are you speaking for?
Mr. MacDonald: He even used, I suggest,
a rather unwise analogy for a man who is
in favour of amalgamation. If we get to the
edge of the precipice, he said, we are willing
to jump over ourselves, but we do not want
to be pushed over.
I suggest it is rather an unhappy analogy.
I suppose, philosophically, all life is a bit
of a gamble. When you get married, it is
a bit of a gamble. If you go into amalga-
mation, it is a bit of a gamble and you never
know exactly what is going to happen. But
the thought that amalgamation is jumping
off the precipice, that they would have been
willing to have done it themselves but they
did not want anybody to push them over, is
just not convicing— at least to me.
My colleague from Yorkview made the com-
ment that at the Lakehead, insofar as we
were able to discover in talking with people,
the plebiscite is now a dead issue. I ack-
nowledge, with some people it is not a
dead issue. But this much is certain— at this
stage the plebiscite is not an issue to unite
the people and deal with the problems in-
volved in amalgamation. It is the most
incredibly divisive — not only divisive but
diversionary— because it divides groups and
I do not care what group it is. I am
certain that if you got into a meeting of
Tories, I know if you got into a meeting of
Libeials, as the news account my hon. friend
from Thunder Bay read, when you start talk-
ing "plebiscite" immediately it becomes an
Irish Donnybrook. They forget to deal with
the issues that they have to live with in
implementing amalgamation.
That is the reason why I think that if it
is not a dead issue, it is a divisive and
diversionary issue. For better or worse we
have now reached the stage where we have
got to move towards a larger unit of ad-
ministration and this is the next point I
want to make.
Again I find the logic a little beyond my
grasp, for the Liberal party to be arguing
against the proposition of amalgamation of
the Lakehead, for a party-
Mr. De Monte: We are not against amal-
gamation at the Lakehead.
Mr. MacDonald: Well if they are oppos-
ing this bill. Mr. Speaker-
Interjections by hon, members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let me try
to state my case. If the purpose of this bill—
Tntenections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order, please!
Mr. MacDonald: I have noted, Mr. Speaker,
that when six Liberals are speaking, it is
no more contradictory than when one is
speaking.
The point I was going to make, Mr.
Speaker, is that the Liberal Party and the
New Democratic Party have been pioneer-
ing and fichting for regional government and
for larger administrative units for years, as
we tried to badger this government into
acceptance of it. Now the Tories are moving
in that direction. They have got a few dead-
weights to carry along, like the hon. member
for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), because he is
not persuaded yet.
They are now moving and the proposi-
tion of regional government with the amalga-
mation of the Lakehead being a step towards
it, certainly involves the necessity of a larger
administrative unit. Some experts tell us that
to have an efFective administrative unit you
should have up to a quarter of a million
people. Others say that 150,000 is adequate.
I have not heard anybody who has suggested
that-
Mr. Nixon: That is not an expert view.
Mr. MacDonald: —who has suggested that
anything below 100,000, in the range of
100,000, permits the kind of administrative
unit necessary for modem procedures so as to
avail ourselves of all that is possible in
modem administration. We have only reached
APRIL 24, 1969
3561
at the Lakehead, partly because of the restric-
tions of population in that area, the minimum
necessary to establish an effective unit.
Mr. Speaker, the reason I am strongly in
support of this bill— and I am not going to
use any excuse about not having a plebiscite
to oppose it— is that at the level of Queen's
Park we simply cannot begin to decentralize
powers which ha\'e been taken over by the
provincial government down through the
years to the point that today there is no local
autonomy. That is part of our problem.
Mr. Sargent: First true thing you have
sai'j all day.
Mr. MacDonald: Right. That is part of our
problfi7>. We can start to decentralize some
of tPe responsibilities that have been drawn
to Qi.een's Park, so that they can be handled
more effectively by the people only when you
have got a large enough administrative unit.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hear, hear!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad
that the Torirs— if I may borrow the phrase
of the hon. leader of the Opposition— 'love
me" on this point. It raises the question as to
whether the Tories, as the new converts to
regional government, have not got a clearer
concept of what is necessary than the Liberals
who, presumably, have been promoting it for
years. So you had better put that in your
pipe and smoke it because you cannot have
it both ways.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): I have never
seen this. I have never seen such a display
in favour of my leader.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I said at
the outset that major points could be made
briefly— there were four or five of them. I
have made them and the conclusion of them
is that we have got a bill which is moving
to establishing a large enough administrative
unit-
Mr. Sargent: Where does the member get
all that stuff?
Mr. MacDonald: There are 78 per cent of
the people in support of it according to the
testimony repeated ad nauseum by the hon.
member for Port Arthur. Therefore I do not
think that there is any fundamental violation
of the democratic process to move ahead and
get on with the job. We will support this
second reading of the bill so that that can be
done.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, those taking part
in this debate on behalf of the NDP-Con-
servative axis have spent a considerable
amount of time assessing the opinions of those
iv pc dcs and the man on the street in favour
cf the position that they support, and in
searching for those who have the respon-
sibihty to seek out this opinion and express
it clearly, they have forgotten that the man
who speaks for the people of Port Arthur has
expressed the view that there should be a
plebiscite and this is a significant view indeed.
The other speaker from the Lakehead, that
eminent toady of the government, who is pre-
pared to trot out all sorts of scurrilous
rumours and repeat them on the floor of this
House-
Mr. Tessiman: I will document every one
of them.
Mr. Nixon: —who was certainly the last to
be consulted by the Minister of Municipal
Affairs or anybody else, is simply trying to
make the best of a very difficult situation.
Mr. Jessiman: I will send the member over
copies.
Mr. Nixon: A situation in which his own
Minister has made his poHtical future com-
pletely impossible. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would
hke to deal in as reasonable a way as possible
with the issues as we see them and our
responsibihty in this issue is not to support
the government, not to support the NDP, but
to put forward the proposition that has been
so excellently expressed by the member for
Port Arthur.
Now I, too, have visited the Lakehead on
many occasions and I would hasten to say,
sir, that during the summer of 1968, when
many of us as hon. members were on a tour
of northwestern Ontario, I appreciated the
hospitahty of the hon. member for Fort
William-
Mr. Jessiman: And he never came back.
Mr. Nixon: —who was indicating the usual
hospitahty of the citizens of that particular
municipality, or group of municipalities. But
I would say further that it was on a very
important day, indeed, March 11, 1968, when
the hon. member for Port Arthur and I
arrived in the Lakehead. That was the day
that Mr. Hardy brought forward his report
pubhcly. We felt it was an occasion in which
3562
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we could assess opinion and we made a point
of doing so.
Now the view has been expressed by many
people that Liberals in the Lakehead are
divided on this and there has been ample-
Mr. Jessiman: Sure they are, to a man.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, there has been
ample evidence to show that this is true, but
it is not my duty as leader of the party to go
from house to house and say are you a
Liberal and what do you think. We had
meetings of the party there, we had meetings
in the university. I talked to the mayors of
both cities and it is right that Mr. Laskin,
who in all probability will become the first
mayor of the new city if, in fact, this bill
goes through, and there is every possibihty
and probability of that, has indicated to me
in a most reasonable way his reasons for sup-
porting the legislation and for recommending
that there not be a referendiun. But everyone
here is prepared to assert that there is a
division of opinion, and we are expressing the
other side of the argimient.
Mr. MacDonald: The minority!
Mr. Nixon: The minority remains to be
seen and we for one are prepared to base
our future on the vote and not the iDrediotion
of the vote.
Now the cities of Port Arthur and Fort Wil-
liam are a special case in this province. They
are 1,000 miles from here; they are not on
the frontier of the north; they are both 900
miles from here.
Mr. Jessiman: On a point of personal privi-
lege, I would correct the leader of the official
Opposition. I do not know how he measures
miles— 1,000 mile around, square, or directly
to-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is asking a
question and if he wishes to do that, of
coou-se, he must have the permission of the
Speaker. If he is rising on a point of personal
privilege he has not stated it, and if it is a
point of order he has not stated it.
Mr. Jessiman: I am just questioning his
authenticity.
Mr. Speaker: Tjhe hon. member really has
not the right to interrupt an address by a
question such as that.
Mr. Nixon: I, of course, measure miles in
units of 5,280 feet and I think the point is
perhaps this that these two major cities are
very remote from this provincial capital. It
aocoimts for the reason why they are so sus-
picious of those who carry great authority
like the Minister of Municipal Aff^airs, or any
other member of this government, when they
travel in the government plane up to the
Lakehead, move down the main street into a
secluded room, confer with the local officials
and come down with a decision that affects
the future of tliese i)eople.
I think that there is an essential point here,
that these two cities are under no circum-
stances to be considered frontier towns. This
attitude is too much the attitude of the gov-
ernment across the way. They think that if it
is in northern Ontario, people have to have
a lot of patronizing help in tlieir decisions,
and a lot of direction. I believe that this is
not the case. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker,
that these two major cities in Canada; they
are equal in size.
I ask you to compare this with the situa-
tion of many of us as citizens in our own
commxmity and as politicians where we have
come up against a city that has grown out
into a surrounding rural area. The rural town-
ship is obviously containing areas which
should be annexed by the growing city, and
there is the problem of what to do. A situa-
tion like that, of course, requires direction
and decision by the Minister of Municipal
Affairs, as his responsibility.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not my responsi-
bility. It would require a decision of the
Ontario Municipal Board until now with no
direction from the Minister of Municipal
Affairs; and of course the member would also
want to add that it would require a decision
of the Ontario Municipal Board without the
benefit in any way, shape, or form of a
plebiscite.
Mr. Nixon: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that
this is the highest court in the land, can do
whatever it chooses within our constitution,
without a plebiscite. And our point is that
in this particular case, two remote cities,
populations 50,000 each, should have an op-
portunity to discuss, to have the opportunity
of reasonable, meaningful consultation, and,
in this case, tlie opportunity to vote on their
own future and their own municipal future.
Now I would say this, in fact, is the rami-
fication for the province, as the leader of the
New Democratic Party has said, that we
beheve that regional government must come
upon this province in separate circumstances.
We must not pull out some sort of a regional
cookie cutter and say, that is what we do for
APRIL 24, 1969
3563
the north, that is what we will do for Nia-
gara, this is what we will do for Brant county,
this is what we will do for Essex. This is
a special circumstance, and it is necessary
that the local citizens be involved in this deci-
sion which is of such great importance to
them.
Now, much has been made of the point
that we, as Liberals, should not vote against
this bill if we as individuals favour the
amalgamation of the Lakehead community.
The point, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not
citizens of the Lakehead community, we
believe that a further principle of tibe bill
should be the principle involved in it per-
mitting the citizens to have a vote and express
their own opinion.
So, as I have said to you, Mr. Speaker,
these circumstances must be recognized as
separate and special. The needs of the Lake-
head communities are of great importance,
and related to their distance from this cap-
ital. These needs have been expressed by the
citizens of that particular area. For these
reasons, Mr. Speaker, when the time comes,
we must certainly— representing the opinions
expressed by the member for Port Arthur
and many other citizens to me and many
other members on both sides of the House—
oflFer as an alternative a referendum or pleb-
iscite, which in my view is a reasonable
alternative, a democratic alternative. An
alternative from which we, as elected mem-
bers of this Legislature, should not shy. We
should not step back from any fear. We
should not use the authority, that is undoubt-
edly the authority of this Legislature and the
authority of the Minister, to impose these
changes.
Now, for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, since
this principle is not contained in the bill, we
must oppose it in its present form.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
have enjoyed most of what has gone on these
last two days and tonight. I suppose, if I
might say, I was shaken enough by the
member for Port Arthur's entreaties, that I
thought perhaps I had better seek some solace
from somewhere and some guiding words for
what I might like to say tonight and perhaps
set the stage. I did not turn to the Holy
Scripture, I turned to our holy scripture
which is Hansard, and I found these words:
The hon. Minister has said himself, that consider-
ably more research would have to go into the
redrawing of the boundaries, but I submit to him,
Mr. Chairman, that you can research and study
forever, but somebody must make the decision to
redraw these boundaries.
Now, who would have said that?
Mr. Nixon: It is called leadership.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, that was the
leader of the Opposition in 1966, who is the
present leader of the Opposition.
And then I looked a little further, Mr.
Speaker, and I found these words, and I
thought these were rather interesting:
Now to get back to amalgamation. The report
suggests that there might be three kinds of amal-
gamation: permissive, persuasive, and mandatory
amalgamation. What I am going to suggest, Mr.
Chairman, is that the only way this is going to
come about, if it is worth while at all, is by
mandatory amalgamation, the same as the select
committee—
And this is referring to the Becket com-
mittee on municipal aflFairs:
—suggested in its report. If you are going to get
the type of regional government that the committee
believed in unanimously— there was some disagree-
ment about how it would come about— unanimously
believed was needed, then the impetus and the
direction has to come from the top down. If you
are going to get the kind of government that you
want, it cannot come voluntarily and it is not going
to come voluntarily. All these years we have been
talking about it and it has not been happening.
Mr. MacDonald: What date was that?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Those words were
on May 6, 1965, and it was the deputy
leader of the Liberal Party who was making
those statements, the hon. member for
Downsview (Mr. Singer), who is not here.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: And then I think
you know, that having been said once, then
this is, in 1965, further holy writ, Mr.
Speaker:
This regional autonomy is a very important
thing. But the hon. Minister can be too afraid of
showing the leadership that is surely his responsi-
bility. We are at a point of departure. If we are
going to go along the lines recommended by the
select committee— not particularly about jails but in
the whole area of regional development— this is one
place where the councillors from a number of
coimties, with no real leadership among them, need
someone to step forward and say, "I will be chair-
man." They are going to look to the hon. Minister
and his representative to bring this thing forward,
not with undue haste, but with all deliberate haste,
I would say—
And this was to the then Minister:
—do not be afraid to give leadership.
Now that was the leader of the Liberal
Party who happens to be the same leader of
the Liberal Party today. Now, Mr. Speaker,
I put these things on record because it dis-
tresses me, as a member of the Legislature
and a believer in parliamentary democracy
as we know it, to see the waflling, and the
3564
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
shifting of that party over there. Really, it
is rather sad.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): They do
not know their own minds.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, yes.
Mr. MacDonald: That is why they rational-
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, the leader of
the New Democratic Party says that is how
they rationalize the position of a minority
position. I would put it this way, the hon.
member for Port Arthur got them away out
on a limb and they are still trying to get off
it. It is sad to see.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: They cannot postpone the vote
forever.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In speaking to the
principle of the bill, perhaps we might re-
view, very briefly, a little of this particular
bill, number 118. In 1965 the municipalities,
three out of the four we are talking about
today in particular, approached the then Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs. There were con-
versations and discussions back and forth over
a period long before that. There have been
referendums. There have been studies. But
in 1965 the then Minister, Mr. Spooner,
agreed with the municipalities that a com-
mission should be decided, and I think that
in December of 1965 Mr. Eric Hardy was
appointed.
The commissioner was to take a look at
the situation at the Lakehead and report to
the municipalities and report to the govern-
ment. I would disagree with some of the
items in his report as hon. members would,
but I think it is fair to say that Mr. Hardy
held public hearings, he talked to people, he
gave the fullest opportunity for the councils
to go on record. There was collected for him
in the preparation of his report a great deal
of data.
He received the suggestions of the people
at the Lakehead and finally, after a lengthy
period— and I well recall when I first became
Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member
for Port Arthur asking rather nagging ques-
tions about when Hardy's report was going
to come in because, "we want to get on and
do something about it and where was his
report?" He was echoing the word of the
mayor of Port Arthur, who is still the mayor,
with whom he seems to have had a certain
falling out in the meantime.
However, Mr. Hardy's report arrived in
'the spring of 1968. And I went up, and I
would say to the member for York South,
that I went up and presented the report. I
was interested in the comments that he made
because I am the first to admit my role
throughout all this has not been 100 per cent,
the way I would do it again if I were doing
it all over again. But I was interested that
"I did not present the report in perhaps the
way it might have been presented."
I had not thought about that particularly.
I read that report going up on the plane that
morning and we presented it in the afternoon.
It was not a report which was in my oflBce
for days or months before we went up, it
was that close time-tabling. I did not com-
ment on the report. Perhaps I did that rather
bluntly. I think I drew that from what the
member said. I did not know really, had not
thought about, all the implications of the
report.
^^ We gave them the report, sir, and said
!"It's yours". I did not comment on it and I
certainly did not indicate any opinion, I do
not think, at that particular point in time. I
suppose if I had sat on it for a couple of
months, then the hon. member would have
been the first to criticize that, I think, for I
would have if he had done the same thing.
I might have had a comment to make, but I
did not. It is an interesting bit of reaction
from the leader of the New Democratic
Party.
The report was presented in March, 1968,
and we awaited reaction. We had reaction
from individuals, municipalities, associations,
the trades and labour congress and the cham-
ber of commerce, from churches, from people.
I had letters. I had some petitions, I might
add. It became evident to us that the report
divided itself, or could be divided, into two
parts.
Mr. Hardy was asked to look at the Lake-
head in particular and he decided in his wis-
dom that he should look at the district itself
because he felt the district and the Lakehead
icity, which he was about to propose, were
bound together and the one needed the other
that there was an interplay. I would think it
would be safe to say— and there has been
this reaction in particular from the hon.
member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes)— that
iMr. Hardy did not have the interplay and
the communication and the discussions with
the people in that area and the district which
he had at the Lakehead. Perhaps this was, I
think it came along later in his thinking,
after he had concluded his hearings. We
separated the report; at least, I did im my
APRIL 24, 1969
3565
mind when I read it and came back from
the Lakehead and thought about it and
talked about it to my officials. We separated
it in our minds into two parts.
We decided that if we were going to
move, and it could be separated temporarily
perhaps, we might be able to move on one
part, i.e., the amalgamation, if that made
sense and was agreeable, but that the district
was going to take a great deal moie studying.
We then wrote to government departments
and to the municipalities and said, "Try and
keep your comments on the two levels." What
also had happened was that there was very
little comment, and I think this is fair to
say, either internally or from outside on the
district proposals which Hardy made. Part
of the reason for that is because the district
did not know that they were going to be
included in the report, I think; they were not
conditioned for it.
We separated the two things and tried to
think about it for the time being as two
different things. The Prime Minister, through
the Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr.
Brunelle), on that same tour in September,
announced that we were going to set up
a committee of civil servants of some
department, of about ten departments, to
report by July 1 next— and I hope they
will— on the implications as far as Hardy's
recommendations on the district were con-
cerned. But realizing that what perhaps was
appropriate for that district might well be
appropriate for other districts, with variation,
we had better know completely what had
been recommended. That committee is work-
ing and I think working effectively. It has
been to Quetico; it has been to Nipigon, it
has been to the Soo. They are not involving
politicians at this point.
They will report on or about July 1 and I
think that will be the beginning then. It will
be the beginning of the dialogue which we
have been talking about a little bit here to-
night. Because they are civil servants and
—although they are entering into some dia-
logue, not all the dialogue which we would
want to enter into— they are collecting fact
and figures and perhaps putting the depart-
mental positions into some sort of a per-
spective.
We were impressed, Mr. Speaker, with
what Mr. Hardy had to say in terms of
amalgamation. We were also impressed in
terms of the reaction to Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce has risen on a point of order. Will he
please state the point of order?
Mr. Saigent: Mr. Chairman, over the years
there ha^; been quite a love affair between
Mr. Huidy and this government.
Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.
Mr. Sargent: My point of order is this, I
would like to ask the Minister—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is not a point
of order.
Mr. Sargent: Will the Minister permit a
question then?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister has the
floor.
Interjections by hon, members.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: We were impressed
by what Hardy had had to say and we were
impressed by the reaction. Hon. members in
the Liberal party particularly may have for-
gotten that there was an endorsation in prin-
ciple by the two cities and by Shuniah of
what Hardy had had to say about amalga-
mation of the Lakehead. That did not in-
fluence our opinion completely. We studied
it; we decided it was a good idea. We were
also fortified by the responses which we saw
in terms of council resolutions from three of
the councils; in terms of letters which came
to us from individuals; in terms of resolutions
which came to us from various groups and
organizations; by contact with one of the local
members, who gave us his opinion forthrightly
and openly and said that it would be accept-
able to the people. We thought it was a good
idea and on November 25 we announced that
we were going ahead with the amalgamation.
Let us try and put this in some sort of
context in terms of what some members have
tried to do with the regional government
programme. This is not regional government;
this is restructuring of a part of local gov-
ernment which has been talked about for I
do not know how long. It has been talked
about seriously since Hardy was appointed
in 1965, four years ago. Hon. members oppo-
site cannot say that we are acting in undue
haste, which I heard from two of them.
Four years! How long do you talk?
An hon. member: One year and one
month.
Hon. Mr. McKeough. We have been talk-
ing about it for four years. Where was the
member? He was apparently saying he was
in favour of amalgamation and then when it
3566
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
comes to the crunch he sits on the fence. He
cannot sit on tlie fence forever.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am interested-
Mr. Knight: Let them vote on it.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: My hon. friend
wants to vote on it. He is going to have
that opportunity in about five minutes and he
is going to have to make up his mind one
way or another. He has had four long years;
now he has to make up his mind.
I am interested, you know. The member
for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) talked about
what we have called in our term "community
acceptabihty" and "community participation."
We have not been perfect in this, at the
Lakehead or anywhere else, and we are not
going to have anywhere in Ontario— and the
Liberal Party should remember this— 100 per
cent approval of everything we do, but we
are going to have to make up our mind and
move ahead.
By community participation we mean that
we are going to try to involve as many
people in the thinking as we can. And you
can always involve more. By community ac-
ceptability we are going to try to have as
many people in favour of something as we
can, but there will always be a few more if
we waited longer. Sooner or later, in terms of
participation, in terms of acceptability, you
have to move. And the Liberal Party has for-
gotten about the term "moving" since some
26 years ago, except in other terms which we
perhaps will not go into.
Mr. Nixon: Would the Minister clarify
that?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I hardly think so,
Mr. Speaker. We have been talking about
imdue haste. Now if I might comment for a
moment. We announced in November that
we were going ahead and from November 25
on, we worked with, in particular, the inter-
municipal committee, which is a committee
chosen of representatives from each of the
four councils and from the district as well,
some 10 or 15 people who have given a
great deal of their time and effort. I am sorry
to hear, and I do not say this provocatively,
that the member for Port Arthur in his
remarks tonight did not speak as kindly
about the inter-municipal committee as I
would speak about them. They have served
well. They have gone over the sections in the
bill. It is my responsibility and the govern-
ment's responsibility for what is in this bill,
but they have been a great help to us on
what should be in the bill and what should
not be in the bill.
We could have consulted with other people
or we could have taken the position we
would consult with no one and make it our
responsibility. We chose to consult, in the
drafting of the bill and the particulars of the
bill, with a group of elected people from the
four municipalities and we will continue to
do so. We will deal with elected councils,
elected by the people to try and arrive at
their opinions. But, in the final analysis, it
must be our responsibihty. But we will deal,
where we can with elected councils and their
representatives.
In this particular instance, I think the bill
represents a great deal of their thinking on
the details, on the principles and I would be
proud to say and am pleased to say and pay
tribute to the work of that committee. I pay
tribute, of course, too, because there has
been some suggestion there were some
bureaucrats who were sent up there. I do
not think Mr. Hardy can be described as a
bureaucrat and I resent the tone of the voice
of some of the members opposite who des-
cribed my staff as bureaucrats. They have
been up there. John Pearson is well known—
I am not going to enumerate them— to many
members of this House John Pearson has
sweated many hours at the Lakehead, lias
worked with those people and to dismiss him
as a bureaucrat being sent into town at the
behest of the Minister is just no being fair to
a very kind public servant.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there was some men-
tion of cost factors.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the
Minister would permit a point of order— a
point of clarification. The term "bureaucrat"
refers to a person employed by the govern-
ment ratlier than a person elected to the
government. Now there is a difference here.
If you are going to let an employed person,
no matter how skillful, no matter how well
motivated, do the haison between yourself
as Minister and tliose people whose respon-
sibility it is to, let us say, hold their own
future in their hands, then we can use the
term "bureaucrats". That is what he is. There
is nothing there critical of the Minister for
not taking some responsibility.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the
point that the leader of the Opposition makes
is well taken. Unfortunately, he was not here
APRIL 24, 1969
3567
to hear the member for Port Arthur and the
particular sneer in his voice when he said
they were bureaucrats. Had he been here
he would have understood what I said,
Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to
comment just for a few moments on some of
the points raised. I was interested in the
remarks of the member for Yorkview who
came down on the idea of what we had
chosen to call community participation, com-
munity acceptability, and he added this bit
about the plebiscite and the referendum.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting
and I must comment that what we are talk-
ing about in terms of regional government
is a recommendation of the Smith committee
which said nothing about a plebiscite; a
recommendation of the select committee en-
dorsing the Smith committee's viewpoint
practically completely, but with no mention
of a plebiscite.
The Liberal Party who dissented on every-
thing that they thought was politically ex-
pedient failed to dissent from that recom-
mendation of the select committee. If they
had, and had said, "We dissent because we
think there should have been a plebiscite,"
what you are saying here tonight would be
a little bit more plausible. There was no
mention of a plebiscite then, no mention and
that, Mr. Speaker, was last September?
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Last September.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Last September, they
could not dissent and say, "We want a
plebiscite, we believe in regional govern-
ment." No dissent then. But we have to point
that out.
Why did you not dissent from the select
committee's report?
Mr. Nixon: It did not have anything to
say.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, it certainly did.
It gave a four-year timetable with no mention
of a plebiscite. You just cannot change your
position every day of the week.
Mr. Nixon: Since the Minister is getting
personal, there was no issue in that report
at all.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Consistency. You
have got to be consistent. I say to the leader
of the Opposition, let us be consistent. He
may be wrong but at least be consistent and
do not wafiBe.
Mr. Speaker, the question of tlie cost fac-
tors was brought up. Now this bill, if the
member for Well and South will read it, makes
very definite transitional provisions phased
over a foiu-year period, I believe. I have
said this, I have explained this and I will
detail this in the course of my estimates.
When we get down to the crunch of making
a regional government proposal, we examine
the fin-ancial figures to the very best of our
ability, remembering that in the case of the
Lakehead, for example, when we did this,
which would have been probably in Novem-
ber, December or January— or perhaps we did
it two or three times— we were then dealing
with 1967 audited figures because the 1968
audited figures were not available then, al-
though they may be available now.
Remember also that we are dealing with
about half of the tax bill because education
under bill 44 is something separate and apart.
We are dealing with 1967 figures and using
them in our present calculations which can
became a very difficult task because there
are a number of things which can happen
in three years* time to upset those figures
completely.
We looked at the figiures and what I have
said is that we look at them and if we see
something which causes alarm, our finance
branch within the department blows the
whistle. Now they blew the whistle on several
instances in this bill and when we get to
the committee stage we can discuss them—
the provisions for phasing in Mclntyre and
Neebing; provision for a grant to the residual
portion of Neebing. I think those things are
in the bill. They will be, if necessary, in the
Niagara Bill and they will be in futmre legis-
lation insofar as it is possible for us to
project what may happen and may be done
by a local autonomous, brand new council.
The member talked about extra grants.
Well, he can refer to the unconditioned per
capita grants and he can find out that the
Lakehead will get 50 cents more per capita
—and that is it pure and simple. He can also
find out what will happen to Niagara. I am
not going to stand in this House and sell a
programme in which I beheve, in which this
government behoves, in which the New
Democratic Party believes, and in which we
think the leader of the Opposition believes
but we do not really know, and say I have
got to sugar-coat it with grants.
It will stand on its own merits. We are not
here to sugar-coat something. It will stand on
its own merits. It will stand on its own merits
3368
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
without any sugaring. I do not have con-
currence? I would like to have it, certainly,
but he had better straighten that away witii
the member for Grey-Bruce, because when
Toronto gets 50 cents more, he screams. So
let him straighten that away in his party and
then let me know what his policy is going to
be. While I may recognize what it was
tonight, it may be different tomorrow and I
will understand that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Now the member for
Yorkview, and I appreciated his comments,
the member for York\ iew talked about-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: We will talk about
that and you will look like a bigger fool on
that, than you do tonight. I guarantee it— and
that will be hard.
Mr. Speaker, tlie member for Yorkview
mentioned the question in the context of party
politics, and I guess we should debate that at
some other point in time. I say to him frankly
that the fact the mayor is to be elected at
large, that the aldennen are to be elected at
large, although they are within wards, was
really recommended by Hardy. It was con-
ferred on by the committee, and we accepted
it completely. You could make the criticism
that we did not consider party politics; I do
not think they did. I am not quarrelling with
that particularly; we could debate that at
another time and place, but no one has sug-
gested that perhaps it is the appropriate
thing at the Lakehead.
They did suggest, and finally agreed, that
they wanted as one of the two municipali-
ties has had, the city manager, administrative
manager system, which one of them has had,
the other has not. They agreed that they may
appoint someone, and that is why that is in
the bill.
The ward system which the member won-
dered about. In particular, I think it was
devised to protect, in the short run for the
first two terms, Neebing and Shimiah, to
make sure that they had a representation of
one person each which they felt was very
important, and with which I would agree. I
think we might debate at some other point
in time whether a ward system is, in that
particular size municipality, a good thing or
tiot. We could argue, and there are some-
times plebiscites on that matter. It is a philo-
sophical matter and a municipality, I think.
becomes a size where a ward system be-
comes necessary.
Here, I agree with what the committee
wanted and suggested, and with what Hardy
suggested. It certainly is a transitional pro-
vision in the bill. It is written that way and
the local council will make a determination
at a later date.
I appreciate the remarks of the member
for Thunder Bay which were concerned
mainly with regional development, but I do
'not think we should lose sight of this. The
Treasurer (Mr. MacNaughton) talked, in the
Budget paper, about four or five very signifi-
cant things which we are trying to under-
take in the province— reform of our own pro-
vincial taxation, reform of local taxation,
reform of provincial aid to municipalities,
and reform of the local government structure
and regional development.
Each one of those things is probably com-
plementary, one to each other, they depend
on each other. There is a plan— if I can put it
that way— the Treasurer summed it up rather
well in Budget Paper B, in my opinion and I
have been quoting him at some length. Each
one of these things may appear, perhaps, to
be going forward in a different pattern, in a
different way, but they are co-ordinated and
each one is necessary, one for the other. We
must not lose sight, as the member for Thun-
der Bay pointed out, because I have not
been allowed to lose sight, of the fact that
what the Lakehead needs in many ways is
perhaps not a regional government, which
we may consider at a later date. But they are
concerned about their growth prospects,
which have not been as rapid as some other
parts of the province. They point this out to
us and we want to give them the structure
wdth which, we hope, they can do something
about it.
This is part of the story. It is not the
whole story and we should not lose sight of
the regional development need in that par-
ticular part of the province and we do not.
The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Pilkey)
mentioned section 19 of the bill and I think
his concern is met. I would just say, in pass-
ing, the bill speaks for itself and I think
tribute should be paid to the council and the
senior stafiFs of the Lakehead municipalities
and to the unions at the Lakehead munici-
palities. I think we had one of the nicest
letters we have had about anything in a long
time just about a week ago. I have not got it
here with me but it was saying how well the
staffs and the union were working to bring
this thing together. The provisions in the
APRIL 24. 1969
3569
bill, I hope, create the kind of atmosphere to
have that happen. I hope that the concern
of the members will be met, and before we
get to committee I will try to answer it speci-
fically.
"To the member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald)— I had made the point about not
reading the report till the way up— I would
say frankly I have learned some lessons in
this; the government has learned some les-
sons. I think I would have to say that what
we cannot lose sight of is that there are a
number of very sincere people at the Lake-
head who, no matter how much time we
had taken and no matter how well we had
explained it, may well have come down on
the same side that they are on at this par-
ticular moment.
They are, in my own mind I am convinced,
a relatively small group. There is another
group which has been inspired or stirred up
by— well, it does not matter by whom really
in the final analysis. I would be the first to
admit that we can always, as a government,
do something better than we have done. But
looking back, I do not know what we would
have changed commensurate with behaving
responsibly and commensurate with not just
going out on a bandwagon and trying to sell
something.
The local councils, the local organizations,
certainly have a responsibility in this area to
generate and focus public attention. If we
tried to do it, I think we might be suspect.
Another time, I would like to try and get
those local organizations to generate more of
the discussion— perhaps the trades and labour
council for example— to which we would go
as participants. We have learned something
and I appreciate his remarks. I do say that
there are those who, I think no matter what
we did, perhaps would have come down on
the side that they are on now. There are
others who, in my opinion, have overlooked
what the bill is doing, what the proposal is
all about, because of a blind obsession— and I
think these were your words— a blind obses-
sion with a plebiscite.
We have talked about a plebiscite and I
am not going to answer those thoughts com-
pletely. We have said it is not a matter of
yes or no. We have pointed out that this
matter has been dealt with in this province.
The hon. leader of the Opposition knows
this. You can look to St. Catharines and Mer-
ritton and Port Dalhousie six or eight years
ago. He could talk to the member for Wind-
sor and find out about the Windsor annex-
ation. He could look around the province;
he could go to the Lakehead or to Sault
Ste. Marie and find out from the Attorney
General (Mr. Wishart) what happened there.
And he would find out for his considerable
edification that for the last 40 years munici-
palities have annexed and amalgamated with
other municipalities and there have been
public hearings in front of the Ontario Muni-
cipal Board and there has not been a plebi-
scite.
Mr. Nixon: When has the government ever
amalgamated two cities?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: What about Whitby
and Whitby township? What about North
Bay and Widdifield. What does it matter
whether they are equal or not? It is only be-
cause they are equal that we are going to
consider a plebiscite? Do you not think the
people in Whitby township who were not
quite equal to Whitby had a say.
Mr. Nixon: This is a difiFerent situation.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, they are two big
boys, we treat them differently. We will treat
all the municipahties in this province on the
same basis.
Mr. Sargent: He is drunk with power, this
boy.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: To talk about, Mr.
Speaker, and I do not suppose we should,
but to talk about the erosion of democracy,
the beachhead for democracy, is so ludicrous
it leaves me a little speechless. I think I wiU
leave it at that.
These sorts of things have been going on.
Talk to some of the people in your party
who are involved in municipal affairs.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! There is an hon.
member on the government side who is not
in his seat and persists in interrupting. He
is voiceless as he sits there.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Talk to some of the
members. Perhaps the Liberal caucus suffers
from the fact that they do not have many
people who were formerly in municipal poh-
tics, other than the former mayor of Owen
Sound, but he is in a category by himself.
If they talk to some people they would find
out how these things have been done and
they could put it in a perspective which does
not so becloud their minds, as they have
obviously been beclouded on this particular
issue.
We have said and we believe as a govern-
ment and as a party that these are not things
3570
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
you settle by plebiscite. This is an Ameri-
can tradition; it is not in the British tradition
as we know it.
Mr. Sargent: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Nixon: And therefore bad.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would say this.
\\'hat is wrong with it is one of the problems
with the great American cities today— Detroit,
New York, Chicago, Buffalo— you name them
—big and small. One of the problems is that
they have been hamstrung completely by the
business of their charters, by the necessity,
so-called, for a referendum. Their states and
their governors have been hamstrung to do
anything about moving those cities ahead.
That has not been true in this province and
as long as we are the government, it will not
be the position.
Mr. Jessiman: Does tlie hon. leader of the
Opposition want to join the Americans?
Mr. MacDonald: It is also the Mackenzie
King way.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right! It is a Liberal
tradition, but we in this party believe in
standing up to be counted— the member for
Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith) says,
"stand up and be counted" — assuming our
responsibilities. The member for Fort Wil-
ham (Mr. Jessiman) stood up on this matter
right from the beginning. He has been con-
vinced of the Tightness of this. He has talked
about the Tightness of it. He has not got
confused by the talk or otherwise of a plebis-
cite. He has pressed forward to do something
for the Lakehead community.
But it is just a little bit much for the
leader of the Opposition, talking about the
member for Fort William toadying to the
government on this. The member for Fort
William has been part and parcel and is of
this team.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: He will not be back.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: So, Mr. Speaker,
what we are saying in Bill 118 is that we
recognize our responsibilities. We are pre-
pared to assume leadership, to provide the
kind of government which the people of
this province want and need-
Mr. Sargent: Steam roller tactics!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are pleased, in
this particular instance, because we are con-
vinced and we know that the great majority
in the Lakehead communities support what
v^'e are doing. Look at what has happened.
The member for Port Arthur echoed what
some people at the Lakehead got all upset
about — because there was an article in
Maclean's magazine about one of the more
exciting things, perhaps, which is going on in
this country. I do not know whether it is
feasible or not. I do not know whether it is
practical or not. I am talking about the mid-
Canada development corridor. I do not know
that much about the north. I detect a little
bit of a ring between what he is talking
about and what the member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) is talking about. Maybe they are one
and the same thing. I think it is exciting.
Macleans said: "Here is the Lakehead cit\'-
right at the centre of it."
No municipality in this province could buy
the kind of publicity that the Lakehead has
in that article, about where they were in the
context of the Canadian north. Some people,
in this government, the member for Fort
William, and the members of the New
Democratic Party I must say too, look for
what can be done at the Lakehead, the
challenges of the Lakehead and how we can
make the Lakehead bigger and better. That
is why I ask you to support Bill 118.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
The motion is for the second reading of
Bill 118. Is it the pleasure of the House
that the motion carry?
The House divided on the motion by hon.
Mr. McKeough, which was agreed by the
following vote:
Ayes
Nays
Allan
Ben
Apps
Braithwaite
Auld
Deacon
Bemier
De Monte
Boyer
Edighoffer
Brunelle
Farquhar
Davison
Gaunt
Deans
Good
Demers
Haggerty
Downer
Innes
Dymond
Knight
Evans
Nixon
Ferrier
Paterson
Gilbertson
Reid
Gisbom
(Rainy River)
Grossman
Reid
Hamilton
(Scarborough East)
Haskett
Ruston
Henderson
Sargent
APRIL 24, 1969
3571
Ayes Nays
Hodgson Singer
(Victoria-Haliburton) Smith
Jessiman (Nipissing)
Johnston Spence— 20.
(St. Catharines)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Kerr
Lawlor
Lawrence
(Carleton East)
Lewis
MacDonald
MacNaughton
Makarchuk
Meen
Morrow
McKeough
McNeil
Peacock
Pilkey
Pitman
Potter
Reilly
Renwick
(Riverdale)
Renter
Root
Rowntree
Simonett
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
(Hamilton Mountain)
Snow
Stewart
Stokes
Villeneuve
Welch
White
Winkler
Wishart
Yaremko
Young-57.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 57; the "nays" 20.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
CLAIMS ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport)
moves second reading of Bill 101, An Act to
amend The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
Act, 1961-1962.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Just a few
remarks on this bill. The increase is long
overdue, from $35,000 to $50,000 exclusive
of costs to a claim under this bill. Mr.
Si)eaker, of course the bill would not be
necessary at all for the purposes of the motor
vehicle accidents claims if this province would
bend a little, like British Columbia has done
recently and introduce a liability without
fault formula.
The bill in principle is questionable perhaps
insofar as it may not go far enough imder
certain headings. I wonder why it is that the
Minister, for some time past, in the case of
hit and nm accidents includes only the per-
sonal injury aspect of claims and does not
take cognizance of property that is damaged
in these accidents. Surely the logical prin-
ciple is there and it should be extended. Ilhis
does not do so.
The other thing, and speaking on behalf
of the legal profession at least in some re-
gards, and against the interests of the insiur-
ance companies, this biU does not extend-
when it is widening its terms you would think
it might do so— but it does not extend its
terms to the business of "limitation period."
One of the small irritations under The Motor
Vehicle Accident Claims and The Highway
Traffic Acts is that one year time limitation.
In most of our law we reach a point of flexi-
ibihty, a point where at least you can appeal
to a court, by a motion before a judge, and
obtain a certain leeway with respect to time
limitations. As long as the other fellow is
not being prejudiced or, if he is being preju-
diced, then you may, who is seeking the
boon in question, be placed under terms.
But why the coerciveness, why the re-
strictiveness in the legislation as it now stands
as to this mandatory Damodes and the
sword of one year? Let me say that many,
many times the insurance companies and other
individuals escape liability by using that tech-
nical device and luring their opponents, by
malice of forethought, into a false position,
letting the time go over and then saying, "You
are out of court, boy." Those things have not
been taken under cognizance of the bill. Apart
from that you used a fairly innocuous imder-
taking and I think we are in favour of it.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to speak to the bill?
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I just
want to make this one comment. I am rather
surprised that in this particular bil, payments
for damages to property is given priority even
3572
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
though it is to the extent of $5,000 over in-
juries to the person. However, I imagine that
that is the way that this government thinks
and that is about the only comment I can
make on it. I hardly think that is a good
principle to follow.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, in that
the comments have been by way of approv-
ing what we are doing, I do not have to add
anything to what the bill has set forth. The
two matters dealt with are both of a nature
that I think have elicited general approval. I
do take cognizance of the comments made
by the hon. members opposite. They do not
deal with matters that are in the biU bat
with matters that are not in the bill. Nevej-
theless I shall be happy to give thought to
what they have said.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsviev 'i: Does the
Minister want me to tell him about oliier
things?
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second
reading of Bill 101.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC VEHICLES ACT
Hon. Mr. Haskett moves second reading •"•*
b:IJ 106, an Act to amend The Public Vehicles
Act.
Mr. l^awlor: Mr. Speaker, we will be
shortly approaching another bill, 105, with a
principle that is embodied in this bill. Lord
knows it is short enough. Nevertheless, it
is an increase of a penalty, it is increases of
fines. 1 am sure we will have enough to say
about die peculiar Philistine; puritanical,
punitive approach that this Minister takes to
these matters— seeking to rectify human psy-
chology and bring about the new utopia by
whipping everybody with scorpions, such as
it is. And I claim that he does that within the
terms of this bill.
You know, there is a range of offences
under The Public Vehicles Act. If the hon.
Minister would advert to say, section 12 of
that Act, the "no operating license shall
be; transferred except widi the written
approval of the Minister."
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker I hesitate to do
this, but on a point ot order. We are deal-
ing with a bill that does not have a section
12 in it. There are sections one, two and
three. If we are going to go through these
bills in any semblance of order we should
keep to tlie principle of the bill that is
before us.
Mr. Lawlor: As usual, my obtuse friend
does not know what he is talking about.
This is a penalty provision which covers all
the sections in the Act, and if he looks at
the sections of the Act the dunce, he would
find that it is-
Mr. Nixon: Is that Parliamentary? That is
certainly beyond Parliamentary language, Mr,
Speaker!
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon.
member for Lakeshore that a moment ago
the hon. member for Downsview was on his
feet on a point of order and should have
yielded the floor.
secondly, I am not sure v.'hether the ap-
pellation is quite proper and T am sure that
the lion, member for Lakeshore meant in the
); ud itory form rather than otherwise. I would
iAso say that in part I agree with the hon.
•(Miber for Downsview, that tliis is a bill,
ti.e general principle of which is to raise
the minimum forfeiture of fine, and that the
h^n. member therefore must not reduce him-
self to discussing sections either of this Act
oi of tlie Act as being amended.
But if he wishes to make remarks with
resp^'Ct to the general principle of the mini-
mum fine increase he is quite in order.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, first of all when
the hon. member for Downsview begins to
make some positive contributions to these
debates and simply di)es not interrupt some-
body else-
Mr. Speaker: Order, 'i he hon. member is—
Mr. Lawlor: I shall de.-t, \lr. Speaker.
Mr. Singer: Not feeling . :, well tonight?
That is too bad.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, section 23 of
the section being amended reads as follows:
Every person who contravenes any of
the provisions of this Act or the regula-
tions is guilty of an offence and on sum-
mary conviction is liable to a fine ot not
less than $20 and not more than $200.
That is the first section, and that is the
section being amended. At the present time
it is being changed up to $50 from $20.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with respect, I
suggest that since this section says "any of
tlie provisions of this Act" I want to point out
that some of the provisions of this Act, per-
haps even in the opinion of the Minister,
APRIL 24, 1969
8573
ought not to receive so punitive a penalty,
and I shall do it shortly. There are only two
or three sections which are of this kind. The
one I adverted to— the section 12 and "no
operating hcense shall be transferred except
with the written approval of the Minister"—
well, I do not know if that is such a heinous
thing after all. You know, somebody might
do it quite innocently, unbeknowingly and is
hit with this added penalty.
The next section-
No driver or operator of a public vehicle
carrying passengers shall drink an>' in-
toxicating liquor during the time he is
on duty or at any time use intoxicating
liquor to access.
Now really. First of all, that secticn should
be deleted completely. Imagine saying' that
a man may not even have a swi^ of wine be-
fore he climbs onto the vehicle and is stib-
ject to an increased penalty for so d >ing.
Then to go into his private life and claim that
at any time he may not use intoxicating
liquor to access-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
The hon. member is discussing another sec-
tion not being amended at all. The only
amendment is the increase in the minimum
fine and he is not talking about that now.
Had he prefaced his remarks with the general
statement which he made a moment ago, then
certainly his remarks up to a moment ago
would have been in order. But it is not in
order for him to discuss whether or not the
section in the Act, with resi>ect to the condi-
tion of the person, is a matter of principle in
this Act at all. It is merely whether the in-
creased minimum fine is proper in principle.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Singer: What is the member going to
call the Speaker now?
Mr. Lawlor: He is a fine fellow. He hap-
pens to be right on this particular point.
There are a number of sections but the
final one I will make mention of is section
14, Mr. Speaker-
No driver or operator of a motor vehicle
carrying passengers shall smoke any cigars,
cigarette tobacco or other substance while
driving the vehicle.
Well, I again would question whether this in-
creased penalty ought to apply if a man in-
advertently pulls out a package of cigarettes
and has a httle smoke as he drives along
looking into the bright summer day. He has
to pay a fine of $50. I mean, I just do not
see that, and mention should be made of it.
Maybe the Minister will subsequently alter
seme of tliese sections to bring them into
a state of greater human finesse.
Mr. Speaker: Any other member wishing to
sjeak to this bil!?
Motion aoireed to; tccc^iid reading of tlie
bill.
THE HIGHWAY TIUFFKJ ACT
Hon. Mr. Haskett moves scond reading
of bill 105, an Act to amend Ihe Highway
Traffic Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. men^ber for Went-
worth has the floor.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentwortii): Yes, Mr.
Speaker-
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, T thought on
second reading the official Oppv^siti<>n—
An hon. member: He was o.' his feet be-
fore you even called second reading.
Mr. Singer: He was!
Mr. Speaker: The Speaker has stated thai
the hoi member for Wentworth has the fltH)r.
The lea 'r of the Opposition has a prior r 'it
at any t ne, but apart from that, I recogin/c
no othei olHcial person on that side of the
House. I do not think that our rules call for
that, and it is whoever has the Speaker's eye
first. If I did not get the hon. member for
Downsview's eye, or if he did not get mine,
I am sorry, but the member who got my eye
was the member for Wentwortli.
Mr. Stokes: By divine right?
Mr. Singer: No, we are here because we
have eight more members than the hon.
member has. That is what is in mind.
Mr. Stokes: And the hon. member has one
vote, and he has one voice.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Last
time he had a hell of a lot more than that.
Mr. Singer: The member is wrong again.
An hon. member: Obviously the Speaker
must be wrong then.
Mr. Lewis: The Speaker has never been
more perceptive.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the
principle of this bill, I think it could quite
easily be summed up in two words, punitive
3574
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
action. There is no doubt that the main pur-
pose of this is to impose more severe penal-
ties for breaking the laws as laid out in this
particular Act. It appears that the Minister,
in some misguided state, feels that perhaps
he can attack the highway problem through
imposing more severe penalties.
Now, I do not happen to believe that this
is the case. In many instances— and I do not
intend to do, as did the member for Lake-
shore (Mr. Lawlor), go through the Act sec-
tion by section and point it out where these
changes ought to be made at this time— but
there are many instances where the penalty
suggested by the Minister is far in excess of
the offence that has been committed. And
what I suggest to the Minister is that prior
to introducing these changed penalties, he
ought first of all to define more clearly what
the offence really is. For example— we will
just pluck one out— in careless driving or in
the case of— there are others which do not
come to mind easily this evening— but there
are many instances where the penalty appears
to me to be far in excess of the offence. One
other thing that the Minister, I think, ought
to consider in doing this, is the tremendous
burden that he will place on the Attorney
General.
There is no question that by imposing a
$100 fine where a $10 or a $20 fine pre-
\iously existed, he will force most of those
who have broken the law into the courts.
Where, in prior cases, they would have paid
the fine, they no longer will do this. They
will go into court because they will be forced
to go into court.
I am quite sure that this will place a tre-
mendous added burden, both in terms of
manpower and in terms of cost, on the admin-
istration of justice.
Now, if the Minister's intent is to raise
additional revenues from the province, he
could be far more forthright about it and
raise them in some other method. If, as I
imagine, his intent is to attempt to cut down
on the highway accidents, and to improve
highway safety, I think he is going about it
in entirely the wrong way.
By imposing these penalties he is not going
to solve the problem at all. It is going to
create more problems than presently exist.
If he attacked the problem from the point
of view of making a more safe automobile, as
he has the power to do, then I am quite
sure it would be a much better means to the
end that he has in mind.
The bill in itself has many, many changes
in it, most of them housekeeping measures,
but in particular the ones dealing with the
increases to the fines— I would ask the Min-
ister if he could in some way, prior to im-
posing these, define more clearly exactly what
the offence is, rather than leave it in the
vague state that it is in many instances.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by and large
we applaud the principle in this bill, or the
series of principles in this bill. It is rather
strange to hear the approach of the hon.
member for Wentworth this evening. It is his
party that, very effectively over the years,
and his colleague from Yorkview in particular,
who have spoken about one aspect of the
cause of accidents on the road, and that is
the safety of the motor vehicle. I think that
he made a good point in that regard. I do
not think it is a major cause of accidents.
I think all the accident statistics that we
have seen indicate that, while imperfect cars
do cause some accidents, and this should be
stopped, and there is a vehicle available for
us to stop it— the Minister has not seen fit
yet to use it properly, but there is a method
of doing it. But by far the greatest percentage
of accidents, damage, injuries, fatalities on the
road, are caused by the person who is be-
hind the wheel.
For many years, Mr. Speaker, on this side
of the House, and occasionally on the gov-
ernment side of the House, we have had
people stand up and say, "It is time that we
got tough with erring drivers." And this is
what the Minister is doing. To say that there
is going to be a burden thrown on The De-
partment of the Attorney General I think
begs the question. If we want to be meaning-
ful in our legislation cM3ncerning offences on
the road, then one very good way of doing it
is to increase the fines, so tliat people will
believe that those in charge of enforcement
of law mean business.
Mr. Deans: Not indiscriminately!
Mr. Singer: Well I do not think it is in-
discriminate, with great respect to the hon.
member for Wentworth. I would think that
the offences are there. They are defined in
the old statute. The comparison of the of-
fences there with the penalties that are here
is reasonably ascertainable; it has been for
some considerable time.
This may be a new theory that the NDP
has discovered tonight— that The Highway
Traffic Act does not clearly define the of-
fences. If so, I have rarely heard it argued
in court, and I do a fair bit of defence work
relating to The Highway Traffic Act. I have
never heard it suggested, and I would doubt
APRIL 24, 1969
3575
that most of the provincial judges before
whom I have appeared would accept that
kind of an argument as being meaningful.
If there is a charge which would form an
offence under The Highway Traffic Act— care-
less driving, improper terms, you name it,
and there it is— the Crown has to prove that
the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. That is why the comrts are there; the
Crown does this or else the accused is ac-
quitted.
What more precise definition the hon.
member for Wentworth is talking about, I do
not know. If he has evolved a new legal
theory I would be very happy to hear it, and
let him expound on it, or let one of his legal
colleagues expound on it, but that kind of
criticism is just completely meaningless.
By and large, sir, I say that we are going
to get a little more sense in the control of
people who use the roads if those in charge
of law enforcement make the penalties suflB-
ciently meaningful that they are going to act
as a deterrent. This is why, on this side of
the House, we have advocated this sort of
thing for some considerable period of time.
This is why we, in keeping with the NDP,
have advocated things like compulsory
breathalizer tests and that sort of thing. I
suppose, following the logic of the member
for Wentworth, that he would think that the
compulsory breathalizer test would be some-
what vague, and meaningless and would let
us concentrate on the safety of motor
vehicles.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth has risen on a point of order.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I did not at any
time state that I was opposed to breathalizer
tests and the member for Downsview well
knows it.
Mr. Singer: I did not say that the member
for Wentworth said he was opposed to it. I
said to follow his theory through to its ludi-
crous conclusion he would have to say that a
compulsory breathalizer test would be mean-
ingless because it is not sufficiently well de-
fined. Now, whatever that means I do not
know, but—
Mr. Deans: Everyone else knows what
that means.
Mr. Singer: —but that is the ludicrous end
that you must arrive at if you accept his
arguments. That is all I said, Mr. Speaker.
There is one section, Mr. Speaker, that
concerns me. That is section 8, which says
that every person who is unable or refuses
to produce his licence in accordance with
subsection 1 when requested by a constable
to identify himself, and refuses to do so he
can be arrested.
It is difficult to pull out one section on
second reading, Mr. Speaker, but since this
is a composite bill, I respectfully suggest
that there are many principles in it. This is
one principle that, I think, probably invades
the whole idea of civil rights— the compulsion
and the necessity of people to identify them-
selves.
I recognize that there is a strong feeling
amongst some law enforcement oflBcers in
this province that it would be neat and tidy
if everyone carried around an identification
card— if everyone had a number. And this is
abhorrent to many people, including those of
us in the oflBcial Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Hear, hear!
Mr. Singer: I think that this section is a
beginning of an entree into this kind of
thinking, and on that basis, sir, I am very
concerned about establishing this in a statute
such as The Highway Traffic Act.
I would commend to the Minister's atten-
tion the remarks of Mr. McRuer, in his re-
port. I am sure the Minister of Transport
must have a pretty good idea of what Mr.
McRuer said. I am a little surprised that in
an Act that, by and large, has very substantial
merit, he would introduce a principle that,
to my mind, is an offence to the civil liber-
ties of the citizens of this province.
Now, sir, with that remark I think when we
come to section 8 in committee of the whole
House, we will probably vote against it. We
are going to support the bill in principle.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, the real intent of the bill, of course,
is to do something to reduce the number of
accidents and bring about saner and safer
driving habits in the province of Ontario.
No group in this House has proposed more
ways and means to bring this about than our
party and particularly the member for York-
view. We know of his deep interest in this
whole problem, but the methods proposed in
|this lengthy bill are to do it by imposing
heavier penalties and that is, in the large
way, increasing fines.
First, I would make two suggestions as
to why this is not going to do the job that
it is intended to do. One, I think that more
3576
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
attention has to be paid to the hiw enforce-
ment availability in the province. I do not
think that police recruitment has kept up
with the growth of the province and the
development of highway traffic. I think we
have to start and enforce some of the laws
that are now on the books by more policing.
Again, in regards to the fines method of
penalty. There are a large number of people
who drive cars who can well afford to pay
the increased fines. This bill will have no
effect upon their driving habits.
A small group will be affected drastically
by it if their habits do not change drasti-
cally.
So just to raise the fines, we are going to
set up a discriminatory feature. I would
suggest if the Minister can find some real
purpose in this method of reducing violations
of traflBc rules in this province— if it is feasible
that a higher fine, as a penalty, will do it-
then he has to start thinking about a fine
based on ability to pay, or based on income
in a sense.
If a person is in a high income bracket and
he violates a law in the sense of driving, then
he should be made to pay a heavier fine in
relation to his income than the others. This
way it will have some real intent. Otherwise,
some people will just pay the increased fine
and it will not have any effect upon their
habits whatsoever.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may
be permitted to say a few words on this
particailar bill? I was rather surprised at the
statements that have come out of the party
to our left today on both this bill and the
l)revious bills.
They talk about penal bills. The bill itself
is penal, before any amendments were ever
suggested to it. The purpose was to penalize,
also to serve as an example. The party to
our left, Mr. Speaker, has always been harp-
ing on what it calls a safer car and I do not
know how you are ever going to get a
safer car. There may be a car that is so
cushioned that it is like the barrel in which
one goes over Niagara Falls, but that does
not mean the person operating it is not
going to involve it in an accident.
Like the barrel that goes over Niagara
Falls, it is cushioned enough but there are
no windows or no steering wheels and this
is probably what they are after. I said once
during a debate on this topic that the
weakest component in the automobile today
is the nut behind the wheel and as far as I
am concerned, perhaps this bill will act as
a sort of a wrench to tighten some of these
nuts so they will not be running around so
loosely over our highways.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, there are some
weaknesses in the bill. One section here, and
I am just referring to section 74, not sug-
gesting any amendments, which has a glar-
ing contravention of a person's civil rights.
It is things like this that are a blot on the
escutcheon of British democracy and justice,
when it talks about, as it says here, "that
every constable who on reasonable and
probable grounds believes that a contraven-
tion, if any, of the provisions," and then
recites a number of sections that have been
committed, whether they have been com-
mitted or not; "and who on reasonable and
probable grounds believes that any person
has committed such contravention may ar-
rest such person without warrant whether
such person is guilty or not."
To me, with a great personal respect for
the British system of law and order and
administration of justice, nothing is as re-
pugnant as the section such as this, con-
tained in different statutes where they say
"on reasonable and probable grounds" and
then the courts deny anyone brought before
them the right to determine what were those
reasonable and probable grounds.
If there was ever a gestapo form of ad-
ministration of justice in the British system
it is those sections which keep on saying, a
police officer can do anything if he has rea-
sonable and probable grounds and Lord help
you if you dare try to ask what those reason-
able and probable grounds are. Nobody has
the right to ask a police officer what were
those reasonable and probable grounds and
if they have the temerity to do it, the
answer will be, on information received.
Now to me this is reprehensible. It is dis-
graceful. It is contemptible and that is the
character of anybody who would introduce
such legislation into this Legislature.
Now the gentleman over there says, "oh
well." Well, I thought he was one of those
that stuck up for democracy.
Mr. Lewis: I did not say that.
Mr. Ben: I apologize, I did not know— I
thought that was what he said. But to me
it is reprehensible that any citizen, in this
day and age, in this province, should be in
a position to be arrested with or without a
warrant, guilty or not and not be subject to
the right to have recompense from the per-
son arresting him because that person can
say, "well I have reasonable and probable
grounds. What are they? None of your busi-
ness." If that is justice you can have it. I do
APRIL 24, 1969
3577
not think that is. This is exactly what this
Minister is doing here.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other hon. mem-
ber who wishes to speak to this bill?
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I would like to say a
word or two, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. Lawlor: Thank you.
There are many ways of approaching the
problems of quasi crime or crime. Some of
tSiem, I suppose, can be done by purely puni-
tive measures. As I said a few moments ago,
whipping people with scorpions— to use this
device wholly and exclusively— is certainly a
totally wrong approach in this day and age.
It shows a retrogressive mentality with re-
spect to human psychology and to its possi-
bilities. I suggest that if this government did
more on safety and on education in this re-
gard, it would not be obliged to turn to
these penalties.
Some of the penalties actually are divided
into three different areas. Some of the penal-
ties, curiously enough, are justified— that is,
increased penalties in some areas. For in-
stance, I would say that the provisions with
respect to the penalty for driving while one's
license is suspended has been increased and
justifiably so. Perhaps the penalty was too
light in those circumstances.
The second area of penalty is what the
Minister does. He takes the second offence
and makes it a first offence. In most cases
where he does that, I suspect that the penalty
is too severe for the purpose he has in mind.
It will not, by placing people on the rack,
cause them to be good. It has been tried a
long time in civilization. One of them, I
think, which comes to attention, is the sale
of new motor vehicles in section 19 of the
bill, etc., where your fines were formerly
from $50 to $350; now they have gone from
<^100 to $500 in your new bill and I would
avert for a moment to the charge of careless
driving under this section 60 of The Highway
Traffic Act. You know what careless driving
consists of?
It exists at the whim of the magistrate or
now, our provincial judges. It is one of the
most difficult cases to try, just as ability im-
paired is the rule of thumb kind of thing
where any lawyer would say, I think, that
it is easier to try many cases of murder than
to try a case of careless driving and succeed
if the magistrate was not at all determined
that morning to see that you did not, because
it is a question of discretion.
It is a question of the flick of an eyelash,
it is a question of inattention, of incaution.
It is not reckless driving; it is not dangerous
driving; it is some degree, some nebulous
degree which one feels in their viscera. Who
can re-live those incidents; who can say
whether the inattention was such-and-such
on that occasion? I always find the pleading
to that particular charge kind of fruitless.
What does the Minister do under this head?
He increases the penalty, I suggest, exorbi-
tantly. It is on page 12 of the bill.
The minimum fine is increased from $10
to $100, ten times the amount. He is really
going to straighten them out, he is going to
put the knuckles on and drive the point home.
If they have to go back to the little woman
with their pockets empty, they will never
forget it, will they, Mr. Speaker? The Min-
ister makes them straighten out, they will not
be careless any more. It sounds like sergeant-
majorship exercising the school of potentiality
over there in The Department of Transport.
And a term of imprisonment up to three
months is increased to six months— doubled.
You pay six months for a state of inattention
and a noxious magistrate. That is a pretty
grim penalty, I suggest to the hon. Minister.
When you run through this there are many
headings, in many ways, indicating severities,
but the whole thing stinks to high heaven;
the approach, the vindictiveness, the curious,
twisted, almost neurotic sensibility contained
in this document.
I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker,
an article which appeared a few days ago in
the Toronto Daily Star by John Weingost,
a letter. I will read a portion of the letter
anyhow:
While everyone is greatly concerned
about the increase of trafiic accidents on
our highways, I take little comfort in the
proposed legislation introduced by Trans-
port Minister Irwin Haskett to The High-
way Traffic Act for the purposes of
reducing accidents. The public is ever so
ready to embrace the prospect of automo-
bile safety that they have failed to scrut-
inize the proposed legislation to determine
its true purpose and character. Taking into
consideration that the rate of automobile
accidents increases in proportion to the
number of automobiles on the highway,
this writer finds the punitive character of
the proposed legislation quite shocking.
3578
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The proposed amendments are neither de-
signed nor framed towards safety legis-
lation and will do little but increase the
coffers of the provincial government from
the exhorbitant increase in fines that will
be collected.
And among those of the general public,
of whom one in five are below the poverty
level, who nevertheless have to drive auto-
mobiles to get to and from work, such as
their work is.
And what do you do, you penalize them,
even in that prospect.
Secondly, the proposed amendments
have the character of police state legisla-
tion—
I think that may be a little harsh, you know,
but there is that tone about this thing.
—which will increase the already great
powers given to police officers in respect
of traffic offences, especially the amend-
ments that will require a driver to identify
himself at the demand of a policeman, the
arrest without warrant; such powers can
only lead to abuse insofar as they may be
exercised whether or not a traffic offence
has been committed.
Further, traffic charges are usually laid
at the discretion of the investigating police
officer, who carries out a quasi-judicial
function in deciding who was to blame
where there has been an accident. Taking
into consideration that, in about 90 per
cent of the cases involving traffic offences,
there is a conviction registered, the very
laying of the charge itself by an officer is
almost tantamount to a conviction.
And then he goes on to talk about the care-
less driving sections and about the speeding
sections. It is pointed out that this is manda-
tory across the board. You leave no room for
the variations of possible circumstances.
Going at 80 miles an hour on a highway, a
completely empty highway late at night, the
courts have ruled that not to be careless
driving and it may not even be subject to
speeding regulations. No one is in danger.
The only one danger, if you will, is the in-
dividual who himself performs that trick and
if he wishes to do so, who are you to stop him?
If people wish to commit suicide, that is their
own business as long as they do not involve
"harm to others. I am suggesting, in the cir-
cumstances I am talking about, there is no
harm to others.
On the business about making left-hand
turns or stopping at stop signs, and a whole
host of things you have doubled the penalty
all the way through; and failure to yield
right-of-way, going from different lanes. All
this is aimed at the pocketbook of the driver.
There is \'ery little being done on the whole,
for the education of that driver, and that is
where the real weight of the legislation
should fall, not on penalization. I venture to
say, Mr. Speaker, as we become slightly more
civilized, I would trust in the next ten years
—such is the escalation of our party— and the
coming of humane power, the position of a
great many of the sections of this legislation,
after its testing and its full vindictive effects
are felt, will have to be reversed.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
I have only a very brief comment on this bill,
but I want particularly, not only the Minister
responsible for the bill, but also the Attorney
General, to check carefully what I have said
about this. I happen to be a person who
carries all his means of identification in one
wallet. If, by any chance, I should ha\'e in-
advertently mislaid or lost or forgotten to
ha\'e this in my pocket when I was driving
an automobile, then the effect of the pro-
visions of section 8 of the bill, without going
into the specific details and the effects of the
provisions of section 74, means that if I am
stopped while driving my automobile on the
highway— operating a vehicle on the highway
—and since I cannot produce my operator's
licence and cannot produce any other e\1-
dence which would be acceptable as satisfac-
toiy to the constable to identify myself, then
I am a person who has contravened a par-
ticular section of the bill. The constable may,
knowing that I have committed that contra-
\ention, arrest me without a warrant which
means in fact that I have been deprived of
my liberty.
I am suggesting that that is not a necessary
corollary to the administration of The High-
way Traffic Act. I do not think there was
ever any intention that if any member of
this assembly, who undoubtedly carries all
his identification in one particular wallet,
finds himself in the predicament that I ha\e
just put forward, that this Minister or, indeed,
the Attorney General in his role as Minister
of Justice and Attorney General, should per-
mit this particular bill to go through with
that clause in it. We intend to oppose it on
clause-by-clause reading of the bill.
Mr. Lewis: The Attorney General is check-
ing his pocketbook.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other memljer
wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon.
Minister. ;
APRIL 24, 1969
3579
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, when I
introduced this bill, members may recall that
I spoke at greater length than is my custom
in bringing in legislation. In the course of
my remarks, I drew attention particularly to
those sections of the bill or those phases or
aspects of the bill that I thought were of
particular interest to the members and to
which I invited their particular attention. I
did it, asking that they view these in the
perspective of their purpose and their need.
I come back to that now as I have listened
carefully and attentively to the remarks made
by various members speaking to the principle
of the bill. Paying attention to all of them,
I reach this conclusion— that we need to attack
this whole matter of trafiic safety with greater
severity than we have heretofore.
Penalties are as reupugnant to me as they
are to other humane members of this Legis-
lature and I do not beg any special attention
there. But when we looked at the penalties,
they had to be reviewed in total because
they were an accumulation over the years
and some of them had become completely
inadequate as times had changed. We made
the major changes that were required and I
spelled them out in my opening remarks. If
members refer to those comments they will
see they detailed pretty carefully the major
aspects of the revisions in the penalties.
I do not want to quote from the press
extensively because we have had exceptional
coverage and almost unanimous endorsement
of what we are doing. But pertinent to what
was said tonight, perhaps a sentence or two
out of the Globe and Mail editorial that was
highly commendatory— and I can skip that
except to say that after commending the
work he had done, it went on to say: "The
revised Highway Traffic Act introuced in the
Legislature this week should help carry on
the good work." Then it went on to deal
with the specific matter of arrest and the
inadequacy of penalties, particularly with
regard to careless driving, and I had used
an example in a quotation from a magistrate's
remark that was reported in Chitty's Journal,
and it said:
Perhaps Mr. Haskett has placed his
finger on the flaw. One would hope that
the judges would collectively examine
their consciences. One would also hope
that if this examination does not produce
penalties more fitting in such crimes as
leaving the scene of an accident, Mr.
Haskett's next round of reforms will in-
clude mandatory jail sentences for all the
more dangerous offences.
Now, this goes beyond what I think most
members would want to see and certainly
beyond what I would want to see. I go into
one other editorial I thought was germane in
its overall application and this is from Le
Droit in Ottawa:
La Securite Routiere en Ontario
Sage decision que celle du gouveme-
ment ontarien— de M. Irwin Haskett,
ministre du Transport, plus particuliere-
ment— de donner plus de mordant au Code
provincial de la route.
And he finishes with this sentence:
Encore une fois, le gouvemement on-
tarien agit sagement en accroissant la
severite du Code: dommage que les amen-
dements n'aient pas force de loi imme-
diatement.
What it was saying, for the benefit of those
who did not follow me was:
It is a wise decision that the Ontario
government has taken— more precisely that
of the Minister of Transport, to give more
bite to the provincial road safety code.
Its increased strictness regarding careless
drivers is imperative, when you consider
the increasing number of cars on the roads
during the past few years.
And I finish with that other sentence I read:
Once again, the Ontario government acts
with wisdom in increasing the strictness of
the Code: too bad that the amendments
do not become law immediately.
Now, I am not going to try to spell out our
reasons for doing each and every one of these
things. SuflBce is to say I have noted care-
fully what has been said. I come to the
matter of what is careless driving. Careless
driving has been in the law for many years
and the record of charges and convictions in
careless driving are recorded every year in
our statistics and in our annual report.
I come down finally to the amount of use
that has been made of the power of arrest
in careless driving, which has been as I said
on the statutes for some time. In the Toronto
area last year, careless driving charges num-
bered 4,182 and the power of arrest was
used in only 170 cases, approximately four
per cent.
In most of those cases, if you go into them,
you would find that the reason for arrest in
those careless driving charges where the
power of arrest was available, stems from
some other consideration, a vehicle from out-
side the province, a driver perhaps at border-
line in intoxication, a questionable bona -fide
3580
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the holder of a driver's licence, if he had
one, or the absence of a driver's licence
So I say that these things give us some
reason to expect that the power of arrest
extended now for the first time to this of-
fence, namely, that of failing to identify,
will not be abused. Now, why did we bring
it in?
Mr. De Monte: How de we know that?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I say that gives us
reason to expect this. Now, why did we
bring it in? And the member questions me
properly on this except that he either did
not listen to, or he has not read, what I said
when I introduced the bill because I was
very careful to specifically set forth why I
had done it, and exactly what we did. We
went back to the report on civil rights by
the McRuer commission. The McRuer report
says that those who take vehicles on the
highway have no civil right to do so, they
may do so only if they hold a licence for
that purpose.
And then he went down the list and item-
ized the arrestable offences, those allowed
under The Highway Traffic Act and other
Acts, and in consequence of careful scrutiny
of that report we removed three arrestable
offences from the pertinent section, section
154 of the Act?
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, that is right.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I think so. And we put
in this one, and why did we put in this one?
This is what the McRuer report says:
Excessive powers may be useful in
assisting the police in the investigation of
crimes but the investigation of crimes does
not justify the confirmative powers of
arrest and detention for trivial offences. If
the police require such powers, the prob-
lem should be faced with legislative
honesty and power ought to be given for
the purpose for which it is intended to be
used.
And for that reason we deleted three offences
that were arrestable. Then it goes on:
It might well be that the police should
have greater powers to control and investi-
gate the use of the motor vehicle on the
highway. A motor vehicle is a dangerous
machine. If it is not carefully used, it is
a lethal one.
It is a convenient vehicle for the com-
mission of crimes of all sorts. iTiose who
take motor vehicles on the highways have
no civil right to do so. They may do so
only if they hold a licence for that purpose.
This requirement is no invasion of civil
rights. There is no reason why anyone
driving a motor vehicle while on the high-
way should not be required to show an
officer of the law enforcement agencies
that he has a Hcence to do so.
If the police have power to question the
driver of a motor vehicle for the purpose
of verifying his right to drive it, the owner-
ship of the vehicle and the name and ad-
dress of the owner and driver, there would
appear to be little or no need for all the
drastic powers of arrest that we have been
discussing.
The necessities of the case would appear
to be met if the power of arrest without
a warrant were restricted to those oases in
which the driver of a motor vehicle, with-
out showing reasonable cause, does not
properly identify himself as the owner o£
the vehicle and those cases in which the
driver does not appear to have any legal
right to have a vehicle on the highway.
And that is specifically what we did, I think,,
in complete conformity of what was suggested
in the McRuer report. So we have put that
into the Act as an arrestable offence, as was
suggested, or as my understanding of what
was suggested there.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, would the
Minister permit just one question on the
comment which he has just made?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes, I will.
Mr. J. Renwick: I do not want to enter
into the principle of what we have already
covered. I simply say there is no reference
whatsoever in that section— even though I
would disagree with it if the reference were
tliere as being inadequate— there is no ref-
erence in there to "with reasonable cause"
at all, it is a blanket statement.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you
have no identification on you, the officer can
arrest you, period, because you have, by that
fact, contravened the Act. I do not neces-
sarily mean that it would be adequate to add
those phrases, but I do not think you can
call in aid Mr. Justice McRuer as I imder-
stand what the Minister read to the House.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, I was just
closing what I was about to say to the House
anyway with that comment on our reason for
putting that section into the Act, because I
think it agrees with what was suggested in
the McRuer report. We had, as I said, deleted
APRIL 24, 1969
3581
three of the powers of arrest we acknowl-
edged were unnecessary and we added that
one power of arrest where I thought it was
in keeping with the recommendation of the
Royal commission.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
Minister would permit another question? I
wonder if the Minister is familiar with Mr.
Justice Dalton Wells' report on the Leiner
affair, Rabbi Leiner, who was taken and
forced to identify himself, or the police
attempted to force him to identify himself.
I would commend to the Minister's atten-
tion before this bill gets back into the House,
the very cogent and apt remarks of now
Chief Justice Dalton Wells in regard to this
pohce power to force people to identify them^-
selves.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
that the Royal commission on civil rights took
that matter into its consideration when deal-
ing with this matter.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Just by way of explanation for tomorrow
morning, it is my understanding there will be
some Budget Debate in the morning. If by
any chance the Whips are unable to produce
a sufficient number of speakers until the
private members' hour, then we will return
to legislation.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, this phrase "legislation" that the hon.
House leader uses, is a very difficult one.
There is a tremendous amoimt of legislation
on the order paper and it is very difficult for
members of this party in any event to know,
in any way, what we can anticipate in such
a large volume. I would hope that there can
be some indication from the government when
they say, "we are going to go to legislation,"
of the approximate order of bills to which
they are going to refer to.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I just
assumed that everyone is here to do the busi-
ness of the Legislatiue, and that anything
ready on the paper could be called.
Mr. J. Ren wick: Mr. Speaker, if I couM
comment on the point of order that the memr
ber for Downsview has raised.
I do think it is quite an imposition to
expect us, on this side of the House, to be
able to stand up and debate intelligently any
one of 36 pieces of legislation which are up
for second reading, and an additional ten
items which are in committee of the whole
House. A reasonable area of dehneation by
the House leader of the legislation which
may come, cutting it to eight or ten bills,
would be quite adequate. We of course can,
if necessary, speak on any biU at any time.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I have never known the
hon. member to be speechless at any time, Mr.
Speaker. I cannot be any more specific than
I am. It is an academic question, anyway,
because the first call will be for Budget
speakers and if, in fact, the time is occupied
by Budget speakers, there will be no legis-
lation called. I am just preparing for these
in case the Whips will not be in a position
to fill the time until the private members'
hour. I cannot be any more specific than
that.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, I think then that what we are asking
is that if it is not possible for tomorrow
morning, then in the future, if some likely
area of legislation could be delineated by
the House leader, even in terms of the
Cabinet Ministers who might be involved,
because members on this side of the House
do have other engagements on occasion as
well. It has been suggested, for instance,
that the ad hoc committee on the rules may
have to meet while the House is in session.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Not tomorrow!
Mr. Lewis: Not tomorrow, but in the future;
it would be useful to know, therefore, when
certain pieces of legislation are likely to be
debated and how one could appropriate one's
time. I do not think that is on unreasonable
request to the House leader.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. members to
my left have brought this sufficiently to the
attention of the House leader and I am sure
that will be given consideration, and I would
hope that some reasonable arrangement could
be made.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:05 o'clock, p.m.
No. 96
■A.A
ONTARIO
t .•.,.;■. X .■■:.^-J' <
Hcgts^lature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, April 25, 1969
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, April 25, 1969
Resumption of the debate on the Budget, Mr. Sargent, Mr. Winkler 3586
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Winkler, agreed to 3599
On notice of motion No. 3, Mr. R. S. Smith, Mr. J. R. Smith, Mrs. M. Renwick,
Mr. Ben, Mr. W. Hodgson, Mr. W. G. Pitman 3599
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3608
3585
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Our guests this morning in
the east gallery are students from the Rich-
ard W. Scott separate school in Toronto; and
in the west gallery from Richview collegiate
institute in Islington. Later this morning in
the east gallery we will have students from
Gosfield North township school area in Cot-
tam; and in the east gallery later from
William E. Brown senior public school, in
Wainfleet.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I rise
on a point of order. This may or may not
have been drawn to your attention.
Yesterday the hon. Minister of Trade and
Development (Mr. Randall) gave answers to
a couple of questions and he said they were
rather lengthy and therefore he would file
them with the Clerk. They were answers to
oral questions and I think the rules of our
House do not permit filing answers for re-
production in Hansard that are in the nature
of part of the debate.
I can see what the hon. Minister was at-
tempting to do; namely, avoid taking up the
time of the House in lengthy replies. Maybe
this is something that, once again, our rules
committee should take a look at. I have an
answer but I hesitate to advance it— namely,
put it on the order paper and let the reply
come back in two or three days; it would
be printed without having been read. But
since the delay is so long in answers to ques-
tions that are put on the order paper, I
repeat, I hesitate to advance that. But I
think it is a solution if it were combined
with some sort of a time limit for answers
that could be printed without reading.
Mr. Speaker: Yes. This matter was drawn
to my attention; I noted it at the time. It
Friday, April 25, 1969
was drawn to my attention by Hansard and
the hon. member for Scarborough Centre
(Mrs. M. Renwick) later enquired about it.
When I phoned die Clerk of the House I
was advised that action had been taken by
him to have it placed in the journals of the
House and that the procedure apparently
was in order.
I would have preferred, since the hon.
Minister did not wish to take up the time
of the House and it had been done that way,
to have had the answer printed in Hansard
rather than in the journals of the House.
Perhaps the Clerk might wish to advise me
further on that.
Instead of being printed in the journals
it becomes a sessional paper as a return,
the Clerk advises me; that is what happened
to those answers. In the future I will en-
deavour to see that they are answered orally.
I believe that day we had had a long ques-
tion time, and tiie Minister stood up and
said he was filing them with the Clerk, or
tabling them. It escaped my notice at that
particular moment and when I did investi-
gate I found that it had gone to the Clerk
and had been dealt with as a sessional paper.
Instead of dealing with it otherwise, I
thought it best to have it done that way.
I agree with the hon. member for York
South that the problem is one which this
committee, I hope, will deal with, because
it is full of pitfalls, not only for the ques-
tioners and the Ministers to whom they are
directed, but certainly for Mr. Speaker and
his deputy. I hope the hon. member under-
stands that we did have this under advise-
ment and that we did not know just what
to do in view of the action which had been
taken.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, just one
point. If it is filed as a return, it does not
get printed at all so that one has to go and
seek the answer from the Clerk. That is
even more unsatisfactory and I trust will
never be repeated.
Mr. Speaker: If Mr. Speaker misses it on
another occasion, I hope the member who
asked the question will remind him at that
3586
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
time, because normally I do not allow ques-
tions to be answered, even in that way, with-
out either the member being present or the
consent of the party.
The hon. Minister has a word on that
point.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, at the time the
questions were asked there was some diffi-
culty in getting all the ansiwers. My staff at
the Ontario Housing Corporation were away.
In the interim, the Minister of Social and
Family Services (Mr. Yaremko) was present-
ing his estimates and most of the questions
were answered. So in respect to the member
for Scarborough Centre, I wanted to make
sure she got the information, and as it was
somewhat redimdant I thought this was per-
haps the best way to handle it after we had
received the advice from the Clerk.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): We could handle some of the re-
dundant speeches, too, like the "Last Post"
one.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The first order, resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the amendment
to the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave
the chair and that the House resolve itself into
the committee on ways and means.
ON TiHE BUDGET
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
in continuing and finalizing my remarks on
the Budget Debate, I wish to say the large
crowd this morning is very flattering. The last
time I spoke there were six in the House.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Just
give them five minoites and the member will
l)e down to six again.
Mr. Sargent: I believe the hon. menubcr for
York South is right.
I want to take this time, when I have the
good humour of the House for a moment, to
thank the hon. Minister of Trade and Devel-
opment (Mr. Randall). He was in Owen Sound
yesterday and he made a very important an-
nouncement that we are to be designated—
and I think this is long overdue— and I do
want to thank the Minister for his considera-
tion on behalf of my people. I xmderstand he
made a very fine address in opening the first
new Kiwanis home for senior citizens in the
Dominion of Canada, and I want to thank the
Minister for his co-operation in this and other
things. However, this does not preclude the
fact that I may take a shot at him in other
ways.
At the same time I would like to thank
the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond)
for his kindness in coming to Owen Sound
on the day before Good Friday on his holi-
days to make an address at our hospital and
assess hospital needs in that area.
Mr. Si>eaker, at this point I think it is a
serious situation we are in where, in about
ten days of discussing estimates, we have a
system whereby only one vote is passed. I
think that any system like that needs review,
and I think that somewhere along the line
the leaders of the three parties should get
together very quickly and assess where we
are going. I cannot see, Mr. Speaker, how we
are going to get good men in government if
this system continues.
There is an old saying that you see a lot of
small men rattling around in high places,
because good men cannot afford to. Well, I
think it is going to be the case that pro-
gressively we are causing the House to
deteriorate. Maybe I am part of that de-
terioration, I do not know. But I say as a
businessman, I do not know how one would
ever operate in the business world the way
we are operating here now.
So I think we aje long overdue for setting
up of guidelines, so far as time limits are
concerned, in every aspect of present issues.
No one has the right to subject me to three
or four hours of his or her opinions on any
subject. I am speaking not for the Opposition,
but as a private member.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): That is why we are not getting
any place.
Mr. Sargent: Getting back to what is more
important. We witnessed yesterday the be-
ginning of the crumbhng process of this gov-
ernment in the admission of the Minister of
Education (Mr. Davis) that the foundation
is starting to crumble. He is going back to the
people of Ontario to ask them for another
$50 million, or maybe $100 milhon, no one
seems to know.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Least of all the Treasurer (Mr. MacNaughton).
Mr. Sargent: Least of all the Treasurer, is
right! No one seems to know how big a ball
of wax he is asking us to support.
APRIL 25, 1969
3587
An hon. member: Another blank cheque!
Mr. Sargent: Another blank cheque is right.
In other words, if anyone in the area of busi-
ness were asked to set up a formula for spend-
ing money, the first thing they must know is
the net, or how much gross cost is involved.
This Minister admits he only knows 50 per
cent of the budgets of the 952 municipalities
in Ontario and he has the lack of sagacity to
come to 117 would-be intelhgent people and
tell them tiiat he wants a formula for some-
thing—an unknown quantity — x millions of
dollars. I suggest that we are watching the
beginning of the end for the party here.
A few weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) was interviewed and he told the re-
porter that, mainly, his job was one of bluff.
He said you should always appear to be in
control, or do not appear—
Mr. Nixon: Or do not appear.
An Hon. member: That is why we do not—
Mr. Sargent: —and it is an amazing thing,
Mr. Speaker. Since the first two shots I had
at the Prime Minister in this House, he has
never yet shown up for any more of my
remarks, because he cannot take it. But he is
a great guy at dishing it out to the people
of Ontario.
I am not going to go into the—
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): He is always elected.
Mr. Sargent: Pardon me?
Hon. Mr. Randall: He is always elected.
Mr. Sargent: Well, he is getting hit pro-
gressively harder, as I imderstand it. A lot
of highly regarded editorial writers have said
that-
Hon. Mr. Randall: He laughs all the way
to the Legislature.
Mr. Sargent: —have said that the Prime
Minister is, and I quote from the Kingston
Whig Standard-
An hon. member: That is a Liberal-
Mr. Sargent: From the Kingston Whig
Standard: "Premier Robarts said the govern-
ment, which favours the vested interests . . .".
He goes on to talk about Medicare and the
sweet package deal the government had with
London Life Insurance Company and to spell
out the tie-up it has with the big corporations.
And so Mr. Newman said to the Prime Min-
ister, on page two of the Whig Standard,
March 1, 1969:
Mr. Prime Minister, is it not politically
risky to ask the people of Ontario to pay
taxes for a national Medicare scheme in
which they are not going to participate?
An hon. member: He did not ask him that.
Mr. Sargent: No, Mr. Newman asked the
Prime Minister that and he replied: "Yes, it
is. It is very politically risky." And he said,
"How tough can I be?"
It goes on to tell that he is going to stand
up and, in effect— if you read between the
lines— fight for London Life. Somewhere along
the line—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that what he said?
Mr. Sargent: No he did not say that, but he
said it between the lines. That is unquote.
Mr. W. Newman (Ontario South): That is
the member's interpretation.
Mr. Sargent: Sometime it would be nice to
know how many millions of dollars a year
go into payments to London Life from the
civil service insurance plan, but that is ancient
history. We know that he is married to the big
boys, and the taxpayers are paying the shot,
year after year.
So the hon. Prime Minister, being very
frank and saying that he is very risky in the
approach to this matter, says that he is going
to take his lumps where they come.
Well, he will get them all right. All the
turkeys are coming home to roost here, Mr.
Speaker, and even with the big dollar budget
the government has for pubhc relations, to
spend on the image of the Prime Minister, I
suggest that it cannot con the public anymore.
Let us take a look at just what this govern-
ment has been responsible for in the past three
or four years. I have been watching this scene.
We have a $20 million University Avenue
subway which the government is closing half
time because it does not take enough in to
pay for the ticket takers. That cost the tax-
payers of Ontario $20 milHon. And we have
the $15 milhon investment in the GO-Transit
system, which costs us $2.5 million a year,
and of which the Prime Minister promised
that like sums of money would be forthcoming
across this province to other areas which had
transportation problems. Not five cents has
come out of that.
We have a $600 miUion nuclear research
programme going on. We are pioneering for
the world, the rest of the nations cannot afford
3588
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it but we can afford it. We have a $50 million
project in Queen's Park in building these
monuments to the Tory government, and if
you walk into any of the offices of the Cabinet
Ministers, they have the Hollywood type of
setup there, very lush and beautiful. Madison
Avenue, New York, does not have this type of
accommodation, but we can afford it here in
Ontario. So much so they have had to call off
some of the development because the bankers
have said, the people of Ontario have said,
"It is time to call a halt".
Hod. R. Bnmelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): The member will have to come to
my office.
Mr. Sargenf: If you do not have it now,
you will have it soon, I guess. We have about
a $15 milhon a year bill for supper parties,
and travelling expenses. This is a part of the
picture every year in the Budget. It cost us
$1 milhon to have the hon. Prime Minister
put on a Confederation television show where
he was the star.
We spend millions of dollars a year for
foreign offices across the world, and most of
the offices are, in the words of the Minister,
right next to the federal offices, so we have
great dupHcation here. We spent $30 milhon
on the Centennial project, which is two years
behind in the schedule. It still is not opened
yet; and it was to have cost $5 million, so we
are just, in this case, only 600 per cent wrong.
We have contracts given to the friends of
the Prime Minister, the MacNamara boys, for
the Expo pavihon at Expo, and they did not
have to tender on it. They got the deal and
six per cent of their gross, which gave them
about $500,000 to $750,000 profit, which no
one else had access to.
We could go on and talk more about the
London Life insurance deal. We could talk
about the Melchers deal, which has never
come to trial yet, where they were charged
$10,000 to get their name on the Ontario
Hquor licence board list. The money is going
to the Conservative Party's treasury. We can
go on and talk many hours about the deal
with Victoria and Grey where the govern-
ment used $3 million of taxpayers' funds to
bail out the bankers, where millions of dol-
lars were made in a tax split, using taxpayers'
funds.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): On a point of order.
That last statement is not correct.
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank
the Minister, and I know that it is true. He
is just putting in his piece as House leader
to let us know he is here. But it is a matter
of record that we did commit $3 miUion of
taxpayers' funds to Victoria and Grey so that
they could buy the British Mortgage set-up
which was a multi-million dollar profit. He
knows that, and if he wants to talk about it
I will sit down for a moment. Does he want
to talk about it?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: What the member is
referring to, I think, had to do with the
stabilization of British Mortgage.
Mr. Sargent: I know the Minister does
not believe that because of the fact that
Victoria and Grey went to the bank to borrow
money. They could not borrow it. They went
every place else, and they could not borrow
the money, so the government gave them $3
million credit to buy British Mortgage. We
know that.
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey South): Did the
member give that information to the president
of the company?
Mr. Sargent: It is in Hansard. It is on the
record here!
Mr. Speaker, we have seen this govern-
ment operate, using public funds to further
themselves right down the line. I know that
it is old history to all of them, and they are
very embarrassed about it, so we will not go
into it too far.
The Minister of Trade and Development
has an operation called Sheridan Park, and
they must have $50 milhon worth of invest-
ment down tliere, of our money. They are
doing research for industry.
Now, the parallel in the United States is
that industry down there does its own
research and the taxpayers do not pay for it.
But here, the taxpayers are paying for it.
The Minister told the House, last week or
last month, that the money from any sale of
copyright or of new ideas would come back
to the taxpayers. I think he told the House
that there was less than $100,000 that came
back over the years from sale of patents
from this $50 million investment of our
money.
The Provincial Treasurer is spending $500,-
000 of our money to do a survey on how to
cut down and save some money. Well, it is a
matter of record that we spend milhons of
dollars for consultants to this government and
we get such light-weights as Eric Hardy who
went up to the north country to do a job
in Fort William. I was president of the
Ontario mayors and reeves and I do not know
APRIL 25, 1969
3589
how this man got to be such an authority. He
certainly was no heavy-weight in this field
at that time but he has been married to the
government here—
Hon. Mr. Randall: He has improved lately.
Mr. Sargent: He has been one of the gov-
ernment's lackeys for a long time. There must
be somebody else in the business who can do
these things other than Eric Hardy.
Mr. Speaker, we have about a $3 bilUon
debt here and now in this province, sir, we
are paying about $1.5 million in interest. The
Minister and the Treasurer MacNaughton hie
off to Germany to borrow $60 million, but
Hydro goes down to New York and borrows
the money there.
Is this an excuse for tlie Prime Minister
and the Treasurer to take a junket in Europe
at our expense? After we pay this loan back
in the rising economy of Germany, we will
have to pay it back in increased funds.
We have the case of the basic tax exemp-
tion on shelter. It was an admission of an
over-taxation of $150 million. It cost them
$5 miUion to give it back to the people and
it cost us $500,000 worth of advertising to
do it.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Haskett)
over there has an operation where they sell
the names of people who own cars across
the province. That sweet little deal is worth
about $250,000 to $500,000 in anybody's
money, and he gives away about $30,000 to
some of his friends— I do not want to say
his friends, but the department's friends. I
think the truth should be told about this
kind of thing. In Ottawa, an audit depart-
ment digs into things that are going on, and
every member of the House knows of any
hanky-panky going on, but there is never any
hanky-panky in this outfit.
The government was five cents wrong in
one of its estimates last year in 1968 in The
Department of the Provincial Secretary. What
is wrong with us when we are so naive that
we do not think that something is going
wrong over there? I am not suggesting to any
one of you that there is any conflict of in-
terest in this, but in all this maze of thous-
ands and thousands of people and billions
of dollars being spent, there are boimd to
be things that should be corrected, yet the
Provincial Auditor here gives you a carte
blanche every year and somewhere along the
line there is need for review here.
They have in the United States, in New
York state, what they call an audit on funds,
and this is a quote of the paper, the New
York Daily News:
One of the last items approved by die
Legislature was a performance audit biU
that might give the answer to budget
questions.
In other words, we do not only suggest that
there might be something wrong internally
in the operation of our funds, but we like to
see the taxpayers know they are getting a
performance deal. This is what this bill does
in the United States, but we are not ready
for that here because the government will
not entertain anyone looking inside its books.
When I was mayor of Owen Sound I
changed the rules. Anybody could walk into
the tax office and find out what his neighbour
was paying in taxes. Our books were wide
open; you could walk in oflF the street and
see what was going on. There are no secrets
in public business there. But let me try and
find out something about any department
and you have got to have a Royal Commis-
sion enquiry to find out if you pay 50 cents
for a shoeshine. It is simply ridiculous, the
fact that our books are not public. We
cannot find out what is going on.
We have the closing down of our hospitals.
They are building these big monuments to
the OHSC. We have the corridors of our
small hospitals in the country flooded with
beds; they cannot handle the people. But we
are going to close these hospitals down. We
have schools being closed and they are
building new ones. There are hundreds of
millions of dollars of unpaid debentures on
the schools they are closing in the eff^ort to
build new ones, under a plan submitted yes-
terday. They bungled; they do not know how
badly they have bungled.
This is the situation in Ontario in 1969,
in the place where we are supposed to have
equal opportunity. In our area we have the
lowest economy; I will give you those facts in
a minute. I think that there is a great need,
Mr. Speaker, for a chance for the outlying
parts of this province to have some say in
the development of a roads-to-riches pro-
gramme.
Before I say that, I want to say that in a
general analysis of this government's move
towards central control, and viewing the
chaotic conditions in every aspect of munici-
pal government across Ontario today, hun-
dreds of municipalities are asking them-
selves just where did we go wrong? Why
and how did we suddenly lose the right to
govern ourselves? It is a long story, Mr.
Speaker, but we are well along the road to
3590
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
central government today, the form of a
police state.
As I said yesterday, we have these steam-
roller tactics. If we do not stop this we are
going to ha\'e a socialist takeover, the home
of free enterprise in Ontario is going down
the drain.
Mr. F. Young (York view): The sooner the
better!
Mr. Sargent: The sooner the better, he
says. No place else in the world can you live
as affluently as you do here and the hon.
member talks like that.
Mr. Young: It can be still better!
Mr. Sargent: But still, we are going to
lose the whole thing because the govern-
ment is moving into this type of police con-
trol from here. We have the last area now
of taxation in municipalities being taken
over by the government. They are going to
take over all the assessment and all the tax-
ing is going to be done from Queen's Park.
It breaks down that less than ten per cent
of the tax dollar will be autonomous at local
level. You cannot even go fishing.
In discussing the steam roller technique
on the final control from Queen's Park, if
one is to depend on his own wisdom he must
say, "I shall not be a fake." Secondly, what
do I know or think I know from my own
context and not by literary osmosis?" An
honest answer would be, "Not much" and
"I am not so sure of most of it but one
think, however, seems pretty sure, that the
tasks in front of the front bench over there
are hard ones and that the right to govern
ourselves at the local level has all but disap-
peared." This did not come from any lack
of ideas or suggestions. Simply a case of
where the government has listened to a
bunch of eggheads and theorists who, to
justify being on the gravy-train they have
been riding for a long time, I suggest have
come up with this regional government
theory. These deliberations pour out on the
unhappy labourers in the local governments
across the province in a generous and varied
flux.
There are two kinds of people in this
world. There are those who talk about things
and those who do things. The competition in
the second group is not very heavy but here
we have a motivation for control that needs
a springboard, and regional government
springs into action, with no consideration or
direction or method. It comes pretty directly
from the medium in which one works, that
the human animal feeds upon itself.
I also feel that one man has about as
much human nature as another, perhaps a
little more. We find ourselves involved in
focusing the will of 7.5 million people into
a revolutionary new concept of living and
taxation and control. We find ourselves in
trouble.
There is a reason behind all this, Mr.
Speaker, and it is simply a plan where a
firmly entrenched government, 25 years in
power, feels it is not responsible to the
people any more. It has looted and drained
the provincial Treasury in the same maimer
that the directors of the finance companies
we have watched, have looted and drained
their companies. Using the assets of the
people of Ontario to build their own empire.
The final steps of this drive are now in
the hopper, and the takeover of the last step,
even— the control of taxation at the local
levels.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Do not stop, I will be
back.
Mr. Sargent: I will look for the hon. Min-
ister of Trade and Development.
This control by commission is not respon-
sible to the people in every segment of our
lives— hospitals, police, law enforcement,
power, you name it, the whole complete
spectrum now. The government has the
whole ball of wax and the people have lost
the right to govern themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that the people
of Ontario are in trouble. I could be in
trouble, sure I could. But I can tell the
House that the taxpayers will have the final
say here—
Mr. Winkler: The meml^er always is in
trouble.
Mr. Sargent: Pay day always comes. The
only reason the member is there is because
the NDP put him there. He did not get
there by himself.
We saw the love affair yesterday between
the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) and the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. McKeough). It was a pretty sick
outfit, I will tell you.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, up our
way we have top regional government. In
the springtime when the frost is breaking
up, the roads are almost impassable and at
one crossroad I saw this sign. It said, "Take
care which rut you choose, you will be in
APRIL 25, 1969
3591
it for the next 50 miles." I was going to talk
about "roads to riches" on behalf of my
people but I think the answer is not in
roads to riches for my people because we
have the report of this map which came
down, on March 7, about a month ago,
showing that the Georgian Bay area is in
trouble with a king size prosperity gap.
I want to tell the House about the prob-
lems of my people and I will try and be as
brief as I can, but I think that in summa-
tion, in watching this thing, I would tell
the story about a quotation of Abraham
Lincoln's during the American Civil War. A
young man showed Abraham Lincoln a rail-
road map of the United States. The young
man pointed out that most of the railroads
ran east and west and said that if they had
been built miming north and south the war
would not have lasted six months because
they would have been able to get troops into
the deep south so fast that the rebellion
would have been crushed before it had time
to get a real start. Lincoln's great sad eyes
looked earnestly at the young fellow and
from the eloquent tongue of the great eman-
cipator, came these words of wisdom. He
said, "Son, if the railroads had been built
running north and south there would have
been no war because the people of the north
and the people of the south would have
been better acquainted, too well acquainted
with each other ever to enter into any
fratricidal conflict."
I say there is a parallel here, Mr. Speaker.
We have all our highways— main highways
—running east and west, but if we are to
open up the great area of the peninsula,
the resort areas, the Owen Sound and Grey
and Bruce area, we need major highway
development.
Mr. Nixon: Hear, hear. We will build
them.
Mr. Sargent: Thanks, that is a promise. I
will hold him to it; and he will keep his
word, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Gomme) never admits to
having received the brief which was sent to
him.
Mr. Nixon: Where is he?
Mr. Sargent: He is never in the House any
more.
Mr. Nixon: Which member is that?
Mr. Sargent: He sits just in that second
row there. This brief was submitted by the
Grey-Bruce special highway committee-
Mr. Nixon: He is conferring with the
Minister of Education.
Mr. Sargent: —to show the urgent need
for a controlled access highway linking the
counties of Grey-Bruce with the highly popu-
lated section of the province to the south.
It says briefly:
1. The Grey-Bruce area has an eco-
nomic position in Canada's most prosper-
ous province that is far from enviable.
Studies by the Ontario Department of
Economics and Development show that the
two counties have one of the lowest econo-
mies of Ontario.
In 1965 the study indicates that among
53 counties and districts in the province,
Bruce ranked 48 out of 53, and Grey 43.
It is worse than that now. The counties
stood 47 and 41 in respect to the percen-
tage of wage earners making under $1,000
a year, and 50th and 38th in disposable
incomes; the disposable incomes being
only $980 and $1,180 compared to the
provincial average of $1,640. The low
economic condition is reflected in nearly
every phase of the lives of the residents
of these two counties. In education, for
example—
And this is important.
—the counties rank 45th and 49th in per-
centage of population with university edu-
cation. As a matter of fact, only 2.8 of our
children ever get to university, as against
six per cent average across the province.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member just
said we had too many "eggheads".
Mr. Sargent: Now, come on, be intelligent.
You must have an education to get along
today.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a few moments
ago, the member said it.
Mr. Sargent: And our people are 300 per
cent behind the rest of the province.
Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Poor leader-
ship!
Mr. Sargent: Glad to have the hon. mem-
ber back.
In education, for example, the counties
rank, as I said, 45th and 49th. The provincial
average is six per cent as compared to 2.8
per cent in our area. It went on to say:
It is also reflected in the value of our
lands and buildings per acre, which is only
$79 against the provincial average of $138.
3592
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Our purchasing power means we cannot as
readily obtain the articles of which those
in other sections take ownership for
granted. For example, automobiles pur-
chased can be considered an indication of
aJBBuence or lack of it. These two counties
rank 52nd and 49th among the 53 coun-
ties in charge of motor vehicle registration.
We cannot afford to buy cars up there.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Prob-
lems, problems!
Mr. Sargent: To continue quoting:
Not only is our economy low, but we
face years with no likelihood of marked
improvement unless measures are taken
to stimulate our economy. The Department
of Economics and Development forecast of
1964 indicates that we will still be in the
lowest position by 1981, unless concrete
action is taken to bolster the economy and
provide more job opportunities.
Now, recognition and continued concern for
their plight brought several hundred people
of these two counties to a joint meeting. And
the meeting felt that imless this part of die
province is linked by a major road to the
industrialized south of Ontario, the clouds of
economic depression will not lift from Grey
and Bruce areas, and for succeeding genera-
tions. We felt that a tremendous impact would
come to our area if we had the same deal
that Highway 400 has given to Barrie and
Midland. Contrast the economic growdi of
the two other communities— Owen Sound and
Orangeville are not blessed with such gold
in their areas. For example, there is not a
worse highway in the whole of Ontario than
Highway 10 from Toronto to Owen Sound
through Orangeville.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): That is a
lovely drive.
Mr. Sargent: Try that drive. It is the worst;
it is a disgrace in this affluent province. The
people of Grey and Bruce counties feel that
the economy will remain stagnant unless a
controlled access highway links it with the
south.
Mr. Peacock: One of the nicest drives in
Ontario.
Mr. Sargent: The Minister never admitted
having received this, and I asked him in the
House repeatedly, what goes on? He looks
out of the window; he has no answer at all.
Apparently there is less chance now because
the highway budget is getting cuts right
down the line.
Yesterday, the Minister of Municipal Affairs
was trying to justify equalization of assess-
ments. The fact of the matter is that across
this province today there are himdreds of
municipalities that do not bother to assess
their correct business tax. There are 803
municipalities in Ontario, or 85 per cent, not
using mechanical assistance to prepare their
assessment rolls. And 154 mimicipalities have
no appraisal records of any kind.
There were 590 mamicipalities, or 62 per
cent, which showed completely unacceptable
deviations from their valued norm of a certain
class of property. So we are ia this regional
government takeover, paying increased wages
of $20,000 and up for assessment people who
are now receiving $8,000, $9,000 and $10,000.
And in the area of education, the Minister is
being paid $31,000 or $35,000 a year, while
the taxpayers are paying increased tax rates.
Mr. Speaker, I say the people across this
province are getting fed up with the accepted
traditions of paying tribute to this establish-
ment, to the banking industry and the insur-
ance company monopolies, and giving banks
the right to increase their interest rates.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not a provin-
cial matter. It is under the Liberal govern-
ment's jurisdiction.
Mr. Sargent: As I said before, if I were
the Premier of this province, or if we had our
leader as Premier of the province here, he
would make sure that there was co-operation
from the federal level right down to protect
our people in Ontario, because this is our
ojperation here.
But getting back to the picture in our
area. As I said, three per cent of our children
get to university as against six per cent in
the rest of the province. The farm income
is growing worse every day. Half of the
farmers are going broke in Grey-Bruce areas,
and many never make enough money to pay
income tax. Of 4,000 farmers in Grey and
Bruce counties, half of them are over age 60.
Anyone who could make a success of farm-
ing could run any business on Main Street
today, but the trouble is that farming is not
a good deal for a young man because he
never gets out of debt. The cost of everything
he buys and the way the banks are today
make it progressively worse.
A story was told about an ignorant sheep-
herder who was faced with the loss of his
flock during an unusually severe winter when
APRIL 25, 1969
3593
no food was available. He finally had to go
to town and for the first time in his life he
went to the bank and asked to borrow $400
for feed. The bank manager was tough and
he said, "We do not know you, and before
we let you have any money you will have to
put out some security. How many sheep have
you got?" The banker took a mortgage on
all the sheep and most of the other herders
lost their shirts. The price of sheep was very
high in the spring, so our sheep-herder sold
his flock for aibout $4,000 and he went back
to the bank to pay the bank back. As he was
leaving the bank, the banker said, "Where
are you going next?" And he said, "Back to
the mountains." The banker showed great
concern and said, "Well, you should not go up
there yourself with all that money, you will
be robbed." And the sheep-herder said, "What
else can I do?" The banker said, "Leave your
money with us." The sheep-herder looked at
him coldly and said, "How many sheep have
you got?"
This is the story today. Bankers are no
help to the farming country, and progressively
so in Ontario. We have had the province of
Ontario cut off the junior farmers' loans. The
fact is that a farmer in Quebec can borrow
money for 7.75 per cent; the government
pays a five per cent subsidy on it and the
net cost to the farmer is 2.75 per cent. The
farmer in Ontario is paying five per cent more
for his money than the farmer in Quebec.
This is the equal opportunity here in
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think we have seen this
whole circle start here, the whole si)ectrum;
assessment being taken over. Big Daddy con-
trols everything now— sales tax, gasoline tax,
beer and hquor. Now we are taxing hotels
and meals, hospital tax, hundreds of hidden
taxes. Queen's Park controls your farm and
your home and your business and what is
left? There is very httle left. The picture is
that the whole ball of wax is gone now that
King Kong has taken over and the taxation is
all directed by Queen's Park. In the process
of this the school taxes are jumping in some
areas about 30 mills. We are going to equalize
that and it will cost us, maybe, $100 for the
equalization; everything done by the wielding
of the big stick.
But somewhere along the line, I think, Mr.
Speaker, that there is a great need for recog-
nition in the outlying parts of the province,
that no one in this province, regardless of
geography, should suffer in education for his
children and their children; that no one in
this province should suffer in hospitalization;
and that no one in this province should suffer
in their pay cheque because of geography.
And that is my plea. I think you must get
tired of hearing about the outlying parts of
the province, but by and large the people in
the outlying parts are afraid of this big take-
over; they are afraid of regional government
being set up. I only warn the Minister of
Municipal Affairs that insofar as regional
government is concerned, stay out of Bruce
county because we do not want it up there,
we do not want any part of it. We want the
right to run our own affairs, to look after
our own economy. Let the system of demo-
cracy work at local level.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the oppor-
tunity to make these remarks. And you will
hear more intelligent remarks from our leader
on the Budget in time to come. Thank you
very much.
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey South): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to say that for the
first time since I have arrived in the Legisla-
ture there are a number of points the member
for Grey-Bruce has raised on which I can
agree. And I shall elaborate on those points
in due course.
First-
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): I am kind
of worried when the member says that.
Mr. Winkler: Maybe the member is right.
First, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was
pleased to hear the hon. member enumerate
the facts, the points, that only 2.8 per cent
of our people get a university education.
At the same time, I think that I might com-
pliment the Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis) for his recent plan for extending the
base of education so that our students and
our young people will have this opportunity.
This is, of course, as has been said before,
the basic purpose of the programme.
I had the pleasure of being at the opening
of one of the large new schools in Meaford
on Georgian Bay the other evening with the
Minister and it was quite evident from the
comments of a group of local people from all
the adjacent areas, over 2,000 of them I
believe, quite a substantial mmiber of stu-
dents, that they were aware of what this
programme will mean, and they will not
shirk their responsibilities in seeing that these
people have the advantage of an education.
Maybe then that area can develop from
what it is today because I feel that contrary
to what the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr.
Sargent) says, many of the old parochial ideas
in those areas cause oin: backwardness at this
3594
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
particular time. I say that without any hesita-
tion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Sargent: That will not get him any
\ otes.
Mr. Winkler: I know it will not get me
any votes, but it is the truth, it is the absolute
truth and the member knows it. And if it is
truthful, I am prepared to stand up and
say so.
Mr. Speaker, let me say it is something
like the hon. member's presentation that he
keeps bringing up— I have heard it for five or
six years, long before I ever got here— his
determination to get at the people who have
done something immoral in the Victoria and
Grey Trust Company.
An hon. member: We will hear it the next
time.
Mr. Winkler: Yes, that is quite right, but if
there is something immoral in the develop-
ment of that company he should go to his
political friends, his own political friends,
who can give him the answer in that regard.
Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, the mem-
ber is misinterpreting my remarks, and I
will say them again—
Mr. Winkler: No.
Mr. Sargent: Now just a moment, he had
the lack of decency to know what I am trying
to say and yet—
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member
will state his point of order.
Mr. Sargent: On a point of order; I am
going to state-
Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear the
point of order.
Mr. Sargent: My point of order is he is
not telling the truth. The point of order is
that I have nothing against Victoria and
Grey. If they can got out and use public
funds to buy a company, that is—
Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. member is mak-
ing a speech on a pK)int of order. The hon.
member is not making a point of order.
Mr. Sargent: Yes, but I am correcting him.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has no
point of order. The hon. member for Grey
South.
Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much. I was aware of that, too, but I thought
I miglit just open the trap a little fartiier
if I may.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that I know the func-
tion of the Victoria and Grey, and know
there are honourable men running that par-
ticular company and doing an exceptionally
good job.
Mr. Sargent: They are pretty good at
stick-handling.
Mr. Winkler: Well, the member belongs to
a group of good stick-handlers, he should
know. It takes one to know one. When I hear
the member for Grey-Bruce decrying and
deprecating the administration of this prov-
ince. I want him to know that the people
of this province have chosen it for the last
26 years— and perish the thought that he
should ever sit on the front benches of any
government.
Mr. Sargent: Do not hold yom: breath.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): No, we will not.
Mr. Winkler: Now, Mr. Speaker, the way
I was about to atpproach my remarks is that,
I want to make a reference to a situation that
arose in the House some time ago in regard
to the committee on health, on which I did
not have an opportunity to express my views.
I would like to say that I am very concerned
about the recent development that took place
within that committee in regard to the hear-
ing we had about the Brockville hospital.
I am concerned because of the charges that
were made in this House that were not only
imtrue, but were unfounded. The thing that
botliers me most of all is that a member,
obviously without investigating the circum-
stances or the charges that were levied in
this House, can rise and do so at the expense
of a very-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for
Lakeshore has a point of order.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): On a point
of order, I wonder if this is in order: This
matter has been referred out to a committee
of this House which has the matter under
adjudication. A report is to be submitted,
as I understand it, very shortly, and the
hon. member is pre-empting the report forth-
coming from a committee of this House. I
would suggest that that is a breach of order.
Mr. Speaker: We have had a committee
investigating the matter referred to by the
hon. member. I do not believe the report has
been submitted to the Legislature, in which
APRIL 25, 1969
3595
case the hon. member for Grey South would
not be in order to refer to tlie matter.
Mr. Winkler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
raise the point in relationship to what hap-
pened in the House following that particular
hearing, and the points I will raise in regard
to the administration of the hospital.
I am not now referring to the report that
is to be drawn, not at all, but I know that
there was a very strong effort made immedi-
ately, and it was allowed to be put on to the
record of this House, as to what the opinions
of other people were in regard to what the
problem was.
The point that I am making here, Mr.
Speaker, I was not permitted to make at that
time. Inasmuch as it is a rather wide-ranging
debate, I do not believe that I am breaching
in any way the rules of the House. I simply
want to say that what transpired in the House
following the hearing was a smoke job to
cover up what the actual facts were— that a
member of this House can actually deprecate
an institution such as Brockville to the public.
Mr. Speaker: Order please!
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
would you clarify for me whether or not the
member who is now speaking is challenging
the ruling which you just made, or whether
he is now continuing in the debate in contra-
vention of the ruling which you have just
made?
Mr. Speaker: I might point out to the hon.
member for Riverdale that I did not specific-
ally make a ruling. I suggested that any refer-
ence should not continue to a report as a
result of the deliberations of a committee of
this House which has not yet been given to the
Legislature. Now the hon. member, as I under-
stand it, was speaking about the matters that
took place in this Legislature— in the assembly.
Mr. Winkler: To put the hon. member's
mind at ease quickly, I will terminate these
remarks by saying this. I believe that the
member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) did
this province an injustice, the institution at
Brockville, everybody who works there, in-
cluding Dr. Molner, and all the nursing people
in that complex.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. J. Renwick: My point of order, Mr.
Speaker, is that these are matters which are
referred by this House to the standing com-
mittee on health. They are matters dealt with
in that committee, and since the member is
on the committee he should have at least the
courtesy to wait until the report of the com-
mittee of which he is a member is presented
to this House before making any allusions to
the surrounding circumstances leading to the
inquiry which that committee imdertook.
Mr. Speaker: I do not really believe that
there is a point of order.
I have suggested to the hon. member for
Grey South that he should not bring into the
record at this time any of the proceedings that
took place in the committee— any of the
evidence, any of the matters that were dis-
cussed—until that report is tabled. However,
I do believe that it is perfectly in order for
the hon. member to mention anything that
has taken place within these Chambers in
committee, or while the House is in session.
Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much. As I said, I will terminate my remarks
immediately, but if that party is allowed to
raise it subsequently in the House I see
nothing wrong with my raising it in the
House.
I will conclude by saying this: I am very
happy that the NDP found room in their ranks
for the member for High Park.
Mr. J. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. The member has just stated that a
member of this party breached in some way
the rules of the House, or was permitted to
breach them.
The member for High Park, when he com-
mented in this House following the hearing of
the committee, did so within the terms of the
rules of this House. I am suggesting, Mr.
Speaker, that the member who is now speak-
ing is engaged in a breach of the rules of the
House, because he persistently continues to
refer to a matter with which this House is
dealing through a standing committee, which
has not yet submitted a report.
When the report is submitted the member
can make whatever comment he sees fit to
make, but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you
should direct him to proceed with other por-
tions of his remarks.
Mr. Speaker: I must say that the hon.
member for Grey South has made comments
as to matters that took place in these Cham-
bers. Whether or not his suggestion that
certain other actions or remarks were in order,
or not in order, is beside the point.
The hon. member, I believe, is perfectly
within his rights to speak as he has been
doing, as long as he does not refer to the
3596
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
report, or anything that took place in the com-
mittee. In any event he has suggested that
he has terminated his remarks at this time.
Mr. Winkler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that
is the case and I thank you for your courtesy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn to other
matters and another point I wish to make
arises out of the previous speaker's remarks.
He made reference to this government being
interested in strong central government and
compared it to a police state. Those were his
remarks and they may be his thinking in re-
gard to government, either in the province or
in the Dominion of Canada, but I can assure
you they are not mine, nor are they the think-
ing of his party.
I wish to refer now to a matter that has
arisen which has a very serious provincial
implication. That is the resignation of the
Minister of Transport in the federal govern-
ment. Mr. Speaker, following the debates
that have taken place in Ottawa, and follow-
ing the federal-provincial conferences, and
following the constitutional debate that took
place in this Legislature, I believe that most
people, particularly here, are rather con-
cerned because they feel, I think, as I do,
that a strong central government in this
country is still a very necessary thing.
I think it is insignificant that at the time
of Confederation the difficulty was to bring
enough provinces together to form the union
that took place. Over the years it took the
participation of a lot of people, a lot of
political leaders, not only on the federal
scene but on the provincial scene as well.
To these people we owe a very lasting debt
of gratitude for that which they brought
about. I would think now that it is a sad
situation, a sad commentary, when we see
the beginning of a disintegration of central
government in Canada the way it is taking
place at the national level.
I have, Mr. Speaker, with me an edition
called "Democratic Government in Canada,"
by McGregor Dawson. The last reprint was
1968, so it is rather topical, contemporary,
and I would like to put into the record a
portion of the thinking of this man regarding
federal-provincial authority and responsibility.
I quote:
Provincial-municipal affairs are at the
moment in a state of flux and the reme-
dies which are most often considered sug-
gest the dominion-provincial problem at
another level.
One remedy is increased grants, or grants
in aid from the provincial Treasury, for
there seems little likelihood that the muni-
cipalities can raise more revenue in an
already overloaded tax system. Another is
a redistribution of power, so that the prov-
ince will take over some of the functions
which the municipalities now discharge.
Yet another is the possible combination
of the above. The financial situation in
most of the provinces however is such that
little can be done to relieve the munici-
palities until the provinces and the do-
minion achieve a permanent adjustment in
their relations. When those become sta-
bilized the provinces should be in a position
where they can pass on some of the bene-
fits direcdy or indirectly through the
municipal governments.
Mr. Sargent: What else is new?
Mr. Winkler: Well, yes, I wish that the
member's party would recognize this at the
federal level.
We have, as the Globe and Mail stated this
morning, lost a very valuable man so far as
the federal government is concerned, and so
far as the province of Ontario is concerned,
and as far as the city of Toronto is concerned.
There is no question about that.
There is no development in housing that
has been negotiated since last December. All
the plans that were laid have fallen apart
and I suggest that the new thinking inter-
nationally, as far as the Prime Minister of
Canada is concerned, had a very strong
bearing on what the Minister of Transport
did. He was made the goat to bring about
integration which was going to save a lot of
money and it saved nothing. He was sent out
on a task force on housing which was very
necessary. Maybe he was not given the
proper power, so what has happened? Noth-
ing. He felt it incumbent upon himself in
that dictatorial centre of power in Ottawa to
resign.
He had no authority. He had no right to
proceed, because his Cabinet colleagues knew
that, scraping at the Throne, they could not
support Mr. Hellyer in his views that were
indeed for the benefit of the people of—
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is
safer than talking about the member's own
government.
Mr. Winkler: What is that remark?
Mr. Singer: The member was there. Why
did he come back?
Mr. Winkler: I came back because the
Liberal knife eliminated my constituency.
APRIL 25, 1969
3597
They wanted to get rid of me. The hon.
member for Downsview camaot deny that
one. I will have a little bit for him, too,
later on.
Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting thing to
read the words of the now retired Minister
of Transport. He goes on to say that his
interests were with the small people of this
country. That we know, Mr. Speaker.
Unquestionably, the need for housing, not
only in Ontario but in the rest of Canada,
was a very, very important thing in our
economy. It was stated not many months
ago that our requirement up imtil the year
2000, is going to be 300,000 units of one
kind or another annually.
I think we were getting some place nearer
to about 200,000, but you had a man who
was prepared to put his heart and soul into
this job. Let me tell you that it is a hard
thing to swallow, to see a man who is play-
ing with the federal powers and decimating
the federal powers. It is hard to see where
we are going, what direction we are going
to take and what fate the people of Canada
can have. That has all happened in a very
short space of time.
I drove down to the hotel with a taxi
driver the other day and there was some
Liberal meeting on down there and he said,
to me, "What is going on here? We cannot
get in the side door." I said, "Oh, there is
a Liberal meeting"; and did not say it in a
discouraging way either, which I might have.
He said to me, "I hope Trudeau is not here.
If he is, he is only here for a party because
he has not done anything else in the last 18
months." I think Gordon Sinclair made the
same remark.
I would like to quote now what the Min-
ister of Transport said to the press in filing
his resignation, and I quote;
I have now come to the conclusion that
there really is no alternative but to resign
and express publicly my disappointment
at the fact that I have not been able to
make greater progress in this area.
That is obviously defeat. He was defeated
by his peers. A man who was the Deputy
Prime Minister has had to stand down be-
cause his word no longer ranks. I suggest to
you, Mr. Speaker, that not only Canada will
lose, the province of Ontario will lose, and
certainly every project in the city of Toronto
that has been on the books since last No-
vember has been stalled for this fact. What
will happen? Again Ontario will have to step
into the breach and take the leadership.
Mr. Sargent: Talk about the closing of the
hospital!
Mr. Winkler: We can talk about that too
if the member wishes.
Mr. Singer: What did Mr. Stanfield say?
Mr. Winkler: But we will not play politics
with things, my friend, the way you play it.
No sir, I will never be guilty of that.
Mr. Singer: What did he say?
Mr. Winkler: I will never be guilty of
that, I will tell the member for Grey-Bruce,
and he knows what I am talking about.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about housing,
I think it is wise to relate what the people
in this House have said in the past— running
from the leader of the Opposition through
to other members of his party— because it
reflects directly on Dominion-provincial rela-
tions, it affects the economy of this particular
province and adds a very strong flavour, I
believe, insofar as the future of our province
is concerned economically.
I have here a statement by the leader of
the Opposition made in his reply to the
Budget speech and dated March 20, 1968,
where the leader of the Opposition made this
statement, point two:
The paltry commitment in dollars and
initiative towards alleviating the worsen-
ing housing diflBculties—
The leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario
recognized what the problem was, but now
the Prime Minister of Canada has said he
is wrong too, he does not know what he is
talking about— although the co-operation that
took place prior to this, in this province,
through the Ontario Housing Corporation
and the federal government showed leader-
ship over every jurisdiction in North America.
Granted, I will say right away, we used 90
per cent federal funds, of which they re-
ceived everything back with interest. It
showed at least that this government in the
province of Ontario, which I can disagree
with on many points, certainly showed leader-
ship in the field of housing. But what did
other members of the Liberal Party have to
say? I have a statement here— by the member
for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha). Let us hear what
the member for Sudbury had to say, he is
quite an important man in that party. The
member for Sudbury said.
When you have three levels of govern-
ment responsible for housing as we have,
3598
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in this country, then the buck-passing can
be carried on at the highest development
oi the art.
The buck-passing is all finished. The Prime
Minister of Canada fixed that. He passed
every buck back to the provinces and said,
now you carry your own load.
Now let us have a look at what the mem-
ber for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter), said in a
speech in this House, June 14, 1968, and
I quote from Hansard:
Under these particular estimates, Mr. Chairman,
one of the most important problems we have in the
province of Ontario, and certainly it is a problem
throughout this country, is the problem of housing.
He goes on to say, I will miss some of
these lines:
I must say in all frankness, Mr. Chairman, that
there is a bankruptcy of ideas in this department.
Who is bankrupt today? In the federal
government, if anybody in this country should
resign, it is the Prime Minister of Canada
today. He is the man who is bringing about
the disintegration of the federal authority,
he is the man who is weakening the power
of the federal government and he is the
man who is decimating federalism.
I remember the day the airplanes flew
over Toronto and I think the wording they
carried was, "A vote for Trudeau is a vote
for Canada." What is he doing now? He is
clipping it up in little bits. That is what he
is doing. He has done more harm to this
country, in the short time he has been Prime
Minister, than anything else that has ever
happened.
Mr. Singer: They need the member up in
Ottawa.
Mr. Winkler: What was that remark?
Mr. Singer: They need the member up in
Ottawa.
Mr. Winkler: There are days when I think
that is true. I must admit that; there are days
when I think that is true. When I have to
sit and listen to four-hour speeches from that
side of the House I know I am wasting my
time.
I have another quote here from the leader
of the Liberal Party, again in regard to
housing. He made this statement, and I
quote:
Finally, it is clear to all, that the gov-
ernment has been totally remiss in its
encouragement of public housing where
this is needed—
This is a reference to the present administra-
tion in Ontario.
This inadequacy of housing for those
who need it reflects, once more, the failure
of this government to get its priorities in
order. Ontario citizens in 1968 do not have
access to a freely operating housing market.
Why? Because you cannot have one member
on the front bench there saying it needs the
co-operation of both levels of government,
and then turn around and demand that the
one authority that should take the leadership
alone is the provincial government. You
cannot do that. You cannot have two policies.
But I must admit, this year the members of
the Liberal Party are the tallest people in the
world because they can walk down bodi
sides of every fence I have ever seen at one
time, the whole works of them.
Let us consider what the member for
Downsview (Mr. Singer) had to say in regard
to regional government. I am not going to
put that to him now. I will save it for a
better time. And then he went last night and
turned full circle, turned turtle, and voted
against what he had to say in 1966. To get
back here to the housing problem again, Mr.
Speaker, back to the—
Mr. Singer: I hide my head-
Mr. Winkler: Oh I am sure that he will!
Back to the words of the leader of the
Liberal Party:
Today, Ontario has a totally artificial
market in which tlie government, by its
negligence and its irresponsibility in the
matter of priorities, has already interfered
ineffectually. The effect-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Winkler: I think we need an answer
today from Mr. Paul Hellyer. He will tell
us who has been ineffectual, he will give
members the answer to that one, and it affects
this province as seriously as it affects every
part of Canada. Do you want to be part of
the national scene or do you not? Do you
want to be a federalist, or do you not? Oh,
where is that little noisy member from
wherever he is from— he came in; he wants
to take up a little time with the noise, too.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Winkler: All right, there is another day.
Quoting again:
The effect of the existing interference by
the provinoial government has been to dis-
tort the market completely. The supply of
APRIL 25, 1969
3599
homes has been cut ofiF because it has
proved imeconomic to build in a national
manner.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Winkler: Hon. meombers applaud that
statement, when in the province of Ontario
we have built more homes than any other
government in any other part of Canada or
any state in the United States. Tjhat shows
you how far behind reality you people are,
that shows how far behind the thinking you
people are. The supply of homes has been
out ofiF because—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Winkler: Is someone else making a
speech over there? Does someone e^lse want
to make a si>eech over there?
Mr. Speaker, I would think that when we
come to the final reason for the resignation of
the Minister of Housing at the federal level,
we will see that there is not much feeling-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, every court has
its jester and every Legislature has its fool,
but I cannot figiu-e out which one is the
biggest.
An hon. member: A legislative fool!
Mr. Winkler: To conclude this, we just
have to look at the headlines in the Globe and
Mail of this morning, saying that Hellyer's
resignation was over federalism. Indeed, that
is correct, and I fear for the national future
of this great coimtry when we have an ad-
ministration such as exists there now.
It is no wonder that the tax burden is great,
too great perhaps, for some of the people in
the province of Ontario, but without the
acceptance of responsibihty at the national
level and without an interest in co-operative
federahsm such as we should have, it cannot
be any other way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with
the next point, may I adjourn the debate?
Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
3, by Mr. R. S. Smith:
Resolutign: That this House supports
the addition of prescribed drugs and medi-
cation costs to present family benefits pay-
ments, in the same manner as hospital and
medical costs are now included.
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for
Scarborough East, resolution No. 3 standing
in my name on the order paper.
Mr. Speaker, over tiie past few weeks we
have discussed at some length the estimates
and programmes of The Department of Social
and Family Services. So perhaps today is a
good time to discuss a programme which has
often been promised over the years by this
government, even going back to the period
of time of the predecessor of the present
Minister of Social and Family Services.
Almost every year they indicate that they
are going to go ahead and provide a pro-
gramme to give to recipients of family bene-
fits the cost of drugs which they incur in the
period of a year. However, it has become,
more and more, a growing problem for people
on family benefits and general welfare assist-
ance to meet tiieir drugs costs as their fixed
income shrinks in buying power almost daily.
Tlhere is one problem, however, which faces
us with this resolution and it is that it should
have been broadened so that the provincial
government would take over the total welfare
progranrmie in the province and remove that
portion of the costs and the administration
that now rests with the municipal taxpayer
and organizations. This is a position which our
party has held for some years and is a posi-
tion that received the support of the Minis-
ter of Revenue (Mr. White) in this Legislature
last year. However, we must deal with the
resolution as it is and that is that this gov-
ernment accept its responsibility in at least
the one area of the supply of drugs to
recipients.
The federal government, when it estab-
hshed the Canada Assistance Plan in 1966,
recognized this need and included the supply
of drugs as an allowable expense for a
federal govemanent grant of 50 per cent of
the costs to the province.
Under the interpretation, section 2, of the
federal assistance plan, it is set out that "in
this Act" 'assistance' means aid in any fonn
to or in respect of persons in need for the
purpose of providing or providing for all or
any of the following." And included under
the following is:
"Part (iv) health care services", which are
described as meaning:
"Medical, surgical, obstetrical, optical,
dental and nursing services and includes
drugs, dressings, and prosthetic appliances".
3600
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Section 5 of the Canada Assistance Plan
sets out the contribution of 50 per cent of
the cost for the supply of the above services.
The present Minister of Social and Family
Services (Mr. Yaremko), when he signed the
agreement with the federal government under
the Canada Assistance Plan, placed his hand
very heavily in the federal Treasury. But he
only chose those programmes which were
of an immediate financial benefit to the prov-
ince and ignored those which would also
provide essential extended services. So, since
April 1, 1967, the recipients of our province
have been short-changed and forced to go
without many medical services for which the
federal government is prepared to pay 50 per
cent of the costs.
The Minister has now established two
separate programmes and at the same time
foisted their administration on the munici-
palities in order to provide some assistance
in those areas of extraordinary costs, includ-
ing drugs. Many municipalities have not
seriously accepted the programme and, as a
result, recipients obtain help only if they
happen to live in a co-operative municipality.
In one programme called "special assist-
ance", the cost of supplying drugs and other
services to "general welfare assistance" recipi-
ents which are generally under municipal
jurisdiction is shared 50 per cent by the
federal government and the total, the other
50 per cent, is paid by the municipality. This
provincial government pays nothing, although
the Minister continues to point out in this
House what the programme provides, as if it
is costing his department a substantial amoimt
of money.
This, I would suggest to you, is a direct
steal from the other two levels of govern-
ment on the part of the provincial govern-
ment. In many cases the recipient in need is
refused assistance, even though he would
qualify, because the municipalities are un-
willing or unable to pay what should be the
provincial share. In accepting the federal gov-
ernment share of 50 per cent and contribut-
ing nothing itself, the province is not only
denying needed services to the poor of our
province, but also is not acting in good faith
in regard to its agreement signed under the
Canada Assistance Plan. The special assistance
programme is, in effect, a federal-mimicipal
programme for which this Minister continues
to take credit.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, under this
same Canada Assistance Plan the province
shares equally with the federal govemment
the total costs of family benefits programmes
covering such things as mothers' allowances,
disabihty pension, blind pension, old age
security, and numerous other programmes.
There is no municipal concern in these pro-
grammes and they are fully administered by
the province. Under these programmes the
widowed mother, or the dependent father,
and their famihes, are not provided with the
costs of drugs, but are told to go again to
their municipality welfare oflBoe to receive
help under another programme set up by the
province to push their responsibihty again
on the municipality. This programme is called
"supplementary assistance" and, under the
programme, if— and I stress the if— a mimici-
pality decides to participate, drugs and other
services— what the govemment terms extra-
ordinary costs— are provided up to a maximuan
of $20 per month and the cost sharing is 20
per cent municipal, 30 per cent provincial
and 50 per cent federal.
Many municipalities and county or district
welfare boards do not participate in this fully,
because they feel the costs and administra-
tion should lie with The Department of Social
and Family Services. The niggardly attitude
of the department in the programme is deny-
ing to a majority of family benefit recipients
in this province a decent, reasonable health
care programme. Of what value is a visit to
a medical practitioner, paid by the depart-
ment, if the patient on welfare cannot obtain
the assistance to get the prescribed medica-
tion he needs to cure or allay his illness?
The person receiving assistance under a
provincial family benefits programme must,
if he requires drugs, apply to his municipality
and again go through another test of financial
ability under an agency other than the one
responsible for his care. In many cases even
if the municipality is willing to co-operate,
the recipient cannot bear to go through an-
other investigation ordeal to gain the small
amount of assistance required but would
rather endure the illness without benefit of
drugs or medication. Similarly, in many cases
the children of recipients are forced to suffer.
And I should point out to you here, Mr.
Speaker, that the provisions of the health
services under the Canada Assistance Plan
are given in order to provide these facilities
to people, but also in order to help them to
get back to a position in life where they can
go out and enjoy the ability to earn a living.
In denying the right to these drugs by the
province, they are, in effect, contravening the
principle of the Canada Assistance Plan.
APRIL 25, 1969
3601
These two programmes then— supplemen-
tary assistance and special assistance — are
designed by the government to deter the
recipient from acquiring services. In spite of
this, most mimicipalities in the province use
them to some extent, but, because of the
administration of the programme in a dif-
ferent manner by the different municipalities,
the provision of services and drugs under
them varies across the province. The basic
requirement of need is, in actual practice,
ignored. One may live in one area and
receive full assistance and be eligible for no
assistance if he lives in another area, even
though his need and circumstances are exactly
the same.
To ix)int out the discrepancies in the
administration of the programmes and, as a
result, the different levels of help available
across the province, I would like to draw to
the attention of the Legislature the amount
spent on drugs by certain municipalities under
the supplementary aid programme from April
1, 1967 to March 31, 1968.
Per Capita
Total Amount Expenditure
(invents)
$ 94,614.16 33.0
549,308.15 30.0
46,332.00 105.0
39,566.13 55.0
35,099.15 44.0
8,621.86 4.5
4,190.54 2.6
8,780.93 11.0
1,569.25 10.0
962.94 0.9
157.15 0.7
481.61 2.0
392.10 0.6
384.83 0.7
CUy
Ottawa
Metro Toronto
Cornwall
St. Catharines
Oshawa
Welland county
Sudbury district
Sudbury city
Pembroke
Algoma district
Parry Sound district
Barrie
Nipissing district
North Bay
From these figures, Mr. Speaker, you can
see the difference of service and provisions in
different areas ranging from a total per capita
exi)enditure of 0.6 of a cent in Nipissing
district, to $1.05 in Cornwall. In our more
prosperous areas with less poverty, such as
Toronto, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls,
spending is up to 60 times as much per capita
as the poorer areas of the province, with
higher numbers of recipients, spending propor-
tionately less instead of more. The expendi-
tures are inverse to the need and point up
most spectacularly the complete inadequacy of
the programmes presently administered under
municipalities.
In Metro Toronto and London, where the
expenditures are among the higher level.
the municipalities have set up good program-
mes to provide drugs to both general welfare
recipients and those on family benefit pro-
grammes. Each recipient of both programmes
is provided each month with a drug identifi-
cation card, which he places with one phar-
macist. He then is able to obtain prescribed
drugs for that month, under certain limita-
tions, and the city welfare departments are
billed at a prescribed rate.
A formulary is used to help keep costs down
and the pharmacist associations have co-
operated with the cities to provide a good and
reasonable programme. All recipients are
eligible and all receive their requirements
without further indignity. The programme
has worked efficiently and, for a great number
of years has provided a service which the
province has refused to provide.
These two municipalities are, however, the
exceptions and in most areas tiie assistance is
almost impossible to obtain.
If the government is to live up to the
spirit of its agreement under the Canada
Assistance Plan, it must assume its share of
the cost of prescribed drugs for welfare
patients across the province. It must also
assure that all recipients are able to acquire
their needs and it therefore has the respon-
sibility to enter into and provide a complete
programme for at least those people for
which it is directly responsible under family
benefits and to pay its 30 per cent share of the
cost for those on general welfare assistance.
The programme developed by Metro Tor-
onto is a reasonable programme which could
be easily adopted to the provincial jurisdiction.
Each family benefit recipient could be pro-
vided with a drug eligibility card with their
monthly cheque right across the province. The
provincial share of 50 per cent of the cost
would not exceed $1.5 million per year based
on experience in London and Toronto. Pre-
sently the government is spending in excess of
$600,000 for the programmes I have men-
tioned before.
The present chaotic system has provided
only a poor level of assistance and at the same
time created a bureaucratic system involving
municipal welfare offices, who must do a
double check on recipients already qualified
by the Social and Family Services field
workers. The administrative costs must almost
equal that amount that would be spent on a
total provincial programme.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamil-
ton Mountain is next on Mr. Speaker's list.
3602
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak
to this resolution since not only I, but my
government, is very much concerned with the
availability of health care for the people of
this province. And this government has long
ago accepted the principle of availabhty of
health care.
I wish to stress initially, Mr. Speaker, that
the development and evolution of this avail-
ability is of a definite interest and relevance
to the resolution that is before this House
this very moment. However, Mr. Speaker, I
found it rather interesting that at the last
moment the sponsor of the resolution some-
what changed the context and intent of the
resolution to cover the takeover of welfare
entirely by the province and municipahties.
As we all know, hospital coverage for
recipients was for many years an obhgation
assumed by the municipality under The Public
Hospitals Act. Under his particular statute,
the municipahties were obhged to pay hospi-
tal costs for indigent persons who received
hospital care.
When Ontario entered into the national
hospitaMzation scheme, these costs became a
provincial responsibility under The Hospital
Services Commission Act. In this respect, the
government has accepted the principle that,
where such general insurance schemes are
available, recipients should receive treatment
and services similar to those available to the
general public.
Again, in the field of medical care, a similar
progression can be identified. In that connec-
tion, as early as the 1930s, a plan had been
devised under which, in co-operation with the
medical profession, the recipients of welfare
benefits could receive necessary medical care.
When Ontario introduced a public medical
insurance programme, the Ontario Medical
Services Insurance Plan, the recipients under
our programme became eligible for medical
services under The Medical Services Insur-
ance Act of 1965.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as we can all very
clearly see, earlier arrangements were inte-
grated with public insurance provisions, so
that these beneficiaries received full benefits
equivalent to those available to members of
the public able to be self supporting. I should
point out at this time that I make reference
only to medical assistance as it relates to
medical services and shall not touch on dental
care since this matter is to be dealt with by
another member.
As to the matter of prescribed drugs, the
government accepts the principle that those
on assistance require help with essential
health needs. Of course, we fully accept that
prescribed drugs are in that category, since
the fact that they are prescribed on a physi-
cian's instruction is an indication that they
are an integral aspect of a physician's care of
his patients.
In direct line with this point of view, there
is legislation which provided for drug costs.
The legislation is The General Welfare Assist-
ance Act, which has two separate ways by
which municipalities may grant to recipients
of family benefits, or of other governmental
allowances, including old age security pen-
sioners, the cost of prescribed drugs.
One of those ways is the jwovision of sup-
plementary aid under section 14 of the regula-
tions of The General Welfare Assistance Act.
This section enables municipalities to pay
assistance for extraordinary needs up to $20
per month and claim reimbursement from the
province for 80 per cent of that cost.
Mr. Speaker, I know the members of this
House will be interested to know that the
city of Hamilton's welfare board had been
one of the most progressive bodies in this
province with its programme of drugs for
welfare recipients and those under family
and social services assistance, through the
availability of drugs from the Hamilton Gen-
eral Hospital drug dispensary.
I would also like to add that those who are
ill and are not able, tlirough infirmity or
sickness, to go with their prescriptions to the
general hospital pharmacy, or to pick them
up, that the welfare board does provide a
taxi facility whereby tiie prescriptions can be
picked up and delivered to the recipient.
The second way is covered under section
13 of The General Welfare Assistance Act.
Here, municipalities may provide drug costs
to recipients under so-called "special assist-
ance". And you will find under subsection 3,
item 9, that the cost of drugs prescribed by
a physician is .specifically mentioned as an
item of need along with a great many otlier
needs of a special nature.
The granting of these drug costs under
both of these provisions remains at the dis-
cretion of mimicipahties. Perhaps we find
that cities like Hamilton are more progressive
than cities like Toronto; we do not have quite
the same need. This is a practice I have heard
being referred to as "not the most desirable
kind of arrangement". Let me say this— the
APRIL 25, 1969
3603
practice in this regard is bound to vary some-
what frorn one miuiicipahty to another. How-
ever, I firmly believe that, in the great major-
ity of oases, municipalities and their welfare
administrators respond to cases of genuine
need where drugs are required for the health
and well-being of the person concerned.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I wish it to
be known by the hon. members opposite that
government policy on the matter is anything
but "inflexible." Methods and extent of cover-
age have been changed in the past in response
to developments in the entire field of health
care. Further changes axe being, and will be,
made as situations change and as methods of
coverage for the general public may change
and develop and as needs which are essential,
but are for some reason not being met under
the present arrangements, are brought to the
attention of this government,
I was interested to learn in doing the
research for this that at this very time the
research and planning branch of iTie Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services is carry-
ing out an intensive study specifically to
determine whether there are areas or essen-
tial needs that are not being taken care of
at present. This kind of analysis will provide
the information necessary to determine the
extent to which the drug coverage is now
being utilized through the municipaHties.
As is very clearly evident, Mr. Speaker, the
government is doing a great deal to bring
about what is needed by the less fortunate
of our province. We are prepared to listen to
everyone and anyone who has anything con-
structive and positive to offer in that respect.
And, in this way, we intend to continue pro-
viding for the people of Ontario the very best
possible.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre): In
this resolution, once again we hear a member
of the Legislature attempting to interest the
Minister of Social and Family Services, the
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) and the Cabinet
of this government in updating its antiquated
Department of Social and Family Services.
We heard tlie Minister of the department
state last week that there are some 50,000
recipients of benefits under The Family Bene-
fits Act. These persons, when they need
drug care, must somehow move over into the
department of The General Welfare Assis-
tance Act as tlie Minister has not seen fit to
classify all persons in need as such and put
the benefits under one Act and one standard
of administration.
When the recipient moves over to general
welfare assistance here is what happens to
him. First, he perhaps does not know that
being a recipient of government of Ontario
benefits, he is entitled, as a person in need,
to go to the local welfare authorities for
assis'tance in the first place for payment of
drugs.
Second, the recipient then is at the mercy
of the local municipality which, of course,
varies from county to county. In Metro, a $20
a month drug allowance is made. Drugs may
be dispensed only on a monthly basis; for
continuing need of drugs, the person is sup-
plied with a drug card.
The role is confusing both to the doctor
looking after the patient and to the recipient.
The doctor runs into difficulty if he does
not know that The Department of Public
Welfare wants the drugs dispensed only on a
monthly basis. If he prescribes for his patient,
drugs or tablets for two or three months, as so
often he does, then the person has to go back
to the doctor and have it rewritten.
This is particularly a hardship on elderly
persons for whom going to a doctor in the
first place is a major trip in itself; the filling
of the prescription should be the culmination
of the effort. However, under the present
system the person is faced with more red
tape.
There are no taxis, Mr. Speaker, that I
know of in my riding, for recipients or for
picking up of drugs. I have seen elderly
persons not go back to the doctor or to the
speciaHst downtown who prescribed the
original two to three months' prescription.
Of course, we support the resolution of
the member for Nipissing. I feel that he made
the case very well. We will simply add to his
case that the municipalities are finding this
a financial hardship which they are unable
to bear; that to really provide a service as
was outiined by the hon. member in the
resolution— and I read from the resolution— "a
service in the manner as hospital and medi-
cal costs are now included," would entail,
of course, a provincial drug plan to be the
method for the provision of drugs to persons
in need, and in fact all persons in Ontario.
DBS surveys, in a report called "The
patterns of family spending for personal
health services in Canada," show that families
pay close to 15 per cent, 14.5 per cent, of
health care expenditures on drugs; this was
selected from 11 cities in 1964. I think, Mr.
Speaker, that that in itself makes a case for
3604
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
consideration of a drug plan whereby the
recipients of the benefits under family bene-
fits might then have drug costs included in
the same way as the hospital and medical
costs are now.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, in ris-
ing to support this resolution of the hon.
member for Nipissing, I want to first con-
gratulate the hon. member upon having all
the facts so clearly and lucidly before us.
It leaves, as the hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre commented, little to say on
the resolution except to offer support and,
perhaps, an addendum.
I might say, with reference to the state-
ments of the hon. member for Scarborough
Centre, that her attention must be drawn to
the fact the member for Nipissing has not
done very well in trying to impress the
gentlemen she mentioned, namely, the Min-
ister of Social and Family Services, the Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond), and the Prime
Minister himself, with the need for this, be-
cause none of them is present in the House.
As a matter of fact, the only Minister who has
seen fit to warm the benches is the hon.
Minister of Correctional Services and one
to whom they have not given a portfolio
yet.
I think that this perhaps represents the
concern that this government does have for
this very serious problem. I see one has just
entered the House— perhaps the Minister of
Transport (Mr. Haskett) has come in.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): Is the hon. leader of the Liberal
Party here?
Mr. Ben: Yes, that is why he got us to
speak on this topic.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is not here now.
Mr. Ben: He is sitting there.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I think that you
cannot help recollect how long this House
sat trying to convince the government that
certain information with reference to the
board of review and a certain Form Six ought
to be brought to the attention of every wel-
fare recipient because there are many people
who are not cognizant of their rights when it
comes to welfare.
The government, through the Prime Min-
ister, finally conceded that they would do
something to apprise welfare recipients of
their rights. Too many of them did not know
of the board of review. I would dare say,
and it was pointed out by the hon. member
for Scarborough Centre, that the majority of
them did not know their rights witii refer-
ence to the board of review.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the
same ignorance among welfare recipients
prevails when it comes to having knowledge
of these two supplementary benefits— to sup-
plementary aid paragraphs in The General
Welfare Assistance Act, namely supplementary
aid and special assistance.
It is our submission, Mr. Speaker, that this
is done more or less deliberately by this
government. They do not want it to be too
obvious that these services are there, because
if it is known, they are afraid that too many
people will take advantage of them. For this
reason they even have them in different
paragraphs. It depends upon the generosity
of the municipality whether in fact many
people get much-needed drugs.
I had a situation where one of my con-
stituents complained to me— I should say
former constituents— that she just could not
exist on what she was getting from mother's
allowance because she had to buy drugs.
When she complained about this to the field
worker, the field worker told her that she
was lucky she was getting what she did.
When I took the matter up with the de-
partment, I had to convince them that the
drugs were necessary. Fortunately, for me,
unfortunately for the recipient, I did not
have too much difficulty doing that because
the recipient was an epileptic, and these
drugs were an absolute essential to her every
day existence. She was spending some $9
a month for these drugs.
She finally was able to get her allowance
for these drugs. But no one informed this
recipient that she could go to the municipality
and proceed either under supplementary aid
or special assistance. This is why we support
the resolution by the hon. member for Nipis-
sing. It must be brought under The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services as a right,
rather than as a benefit that one must plead
for on bended knees.
The fact is that all municipahties find it
difficult to supply this supplementary aid or
special assistance; and it has been brought out
by the statistics given to this hon. House, by
tlie hon. member for Nipissing, that some
municipalities spend less than one penny per
capita imder these supplementary special
assistance provisions.
APRIL 25. 1969
3605
He named a number of them. I might just
add a few. For instance, Wentworth county
spends less than one penny per capita. Essex
county spends less than one penny per capita.
I think he already mentioned the district of
Algoma which also spends less than one
penny per capita.
Now it has alwtays been the contention
of this party, Mr. Speaker, that certain social
services such as health, welfare, administra-
tion of justice and education are all social
services that should be the responsibility of
the provincial government because everyone
in this province should be entitled to the
same minimimi standard of service in these
regards and, in fact, in reference to any other
services that governments jxrovide.
In all truth, perhaps one should extend it
and say that everybody in Canada is entitled
to the same standard of services if, perhaps,
the federal government should take this over.
We cannot, however, help recall that Mr.
Hellyer just resigned from The Department
of Transport portfolio and in so doing he
spoke about housing. He said that the people
in tliis country need housing and they need it
desperately, and that they do not care who
supphes that housing, whether it is the pro-
vincial government, the federal government
or the municipal government, they just want
that housing.
Now I can only paraphrase his statement to
say that the people receiving general welfare
assistance or social services from this gov-
ernment, or in this province, need medical
attention. They also need drugs and when
they need drugs they do not care where these
drugs come from, whether it is from the
municipal, provincial or federal government.
They want the drugs; they want them quickly
and when tliey need them.
I do not think that this government adds
anything to its already diminished stature by
hedging the provisions of these drugs and by
creating a labyrinth where the poor welfare
recipient just cannot find his way to the drugs
he needs.
It is one thing to say that in Hamilton, the
Hamilton General Hospital supplies these
drugs to welfare recipients. I do not think
that is to the credit of Hamilton. In the city
of Toronto, you do not have to go to any
specific general hospital. You can go to your
local drugstore and get the drugs that you
need.
So I think that all the hon. member for
Hamilton Mountain did was to establish that
th^e is a crying need for the type of amend-
ment that the hon. member for Nipissing sug-
gested to this House, and I hope that we will
receive the support of the whole House.
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member
for York North would allow me to advise the
House that in addition to the students from
the William E. Brown senior public school in
Wainfleet, whom I announced earlier, we
have with us the Fort Erie Young Progressive
CJonservative members in tlie west gallery.
Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to allow you the time
to announce the attendance of these young
people in the House today.
Mr. Speaker, while I agree wholeheartedly
with my colleague, the hon. member for
Hamilton Mountain, I wanted particularly to
speak today on matters pertaining to dental
care.
It is my firm belief that dental care for our
young people of this province, as well as
those not so young, is every bit as essential
as any other type of medical care and atten-
tion that one might require.
We are all constantly reminded of the
importance of our teeth, particularly the
importance of the teeth of our young citizens.
If I am not in error, I believe that medical
authorities attribute good or poor health,
good or poor physical development to the
state of teeth. That is why I feel that every
possible consideration should be given our
teeth.
It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that I am
not alone in my belief. This specific area of
health care has been provided for at least
ten years for those under The Family Benefits
Act, and it was done in a special agreement
between this government and the Ontario
Dental Association. It is a form of an in-
surance plan whereby all families with chil-
dren are covered for general dental care. It
is a plan which has worked exceptionally well
over the past years and one that brings
important benefits to thousands of Ontario
citizens who otherwise would go vvdthout any
dental care whatsoever.
Basically this plan provides for fillings.
X-rays where necessary, and extractions. I
am told that dentures are not included be-
cause they are removable appliances. Gold
work is also not included. So, for all intents
and purposes, it is a basic plan designed to
fill basic needs.
Mr. Ben: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Humber has
risen on a point of order.
3606
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, we find this most
interesting, but I can hardly see how this
has anything to do with the—
Mr. Speaker: Well, I would suggest that
it is as much in order as the hon. member,
who is now speaking, was in order in refer-
ring to the resignation of a certain Minister
in another place. Therefore, we must have
a broad view of these debates and I con-
sider that the hon. member is quite in order
and would ask him to proceed.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Or referring to the
absence of some members, when the mem-
ber who made the resolution is not even
here to hear the debate.
Mr. W. Hodgson: Thank you Mr. Speaker.
The agreement covers the mother and/or
father and those children who are under the
provisions of The Family Benefits Act. Eligi-
bility of children is determined by The De-
partment of Social and Family Services, and
it is usually based on whether they are still
at school.
It is very diflBcult to establish how many
persons are actually taking advantage of this
service, Mr. Speaker. The Ontario Dental
Association would only go so far as to say
that it is at about 27 to 33 per cent of those
covered by The Family Benefits Act.
What really happens under the plan is
this. The Department of Social and Family
Services pays the association $1.10 per elig-
ible beneficiary per month towards the fund.
The dentists bill the association for work
done, and the association, in turn, pays those
dentists out of the trust fund established for
this purpose by the department.
Meanwhile, dentists are paid in accordance
with how much money there actually is in
the fund. And, I am told that these pay-
ments to dentists have been as low as 66
per cent of the actual fee.
However, even despite this, I am told by
the association that dentists have indirectiy
subsidized the fund for years. Apparently,
rather than turn the people away because
the particular dental circumstances involved
are not covered under the agreement, the
dentists have gone ahead and done the job
for nothing. I would like to say here, Mr,
Speaker, that they are to be, at the very
least, congratulated on this attitude.
There is one more thing that I wanted to
bring to the attention of this House, Mr.
Speaker, That is, that the Ontario Dental
Association has advised me that to the knowl-
edge of its membership, no person who is
under this programme has ever been turned
away from the dental chair. The association
does admit that from time to time there have
been rumblings of a refusal. These, how-
ever, according to the association, can be
traced to the fact that the person concerned
has sought the services of a dental specialist
who does not do the tynpe of work that the
person actually requires. Consequently, that
person has merely misunderstood. There has
not been a refusal as such.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the dental serv-
ice is not one we can consider as lavish.
It is, however, sufiicient. And with the study
being done by The Department of Social and
Family Services, it is xx>ssible that, as a
result of findings, the services shall be intensi-
fied in the future.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if I might just say a word
or two in support of this resolution. I think
it is important for us to realize the degree
to which health, welfare and poverty seem to
be very much interlocked. I was interested
to look at the Minister's statistics for the
years 1966-67 and noticed that of the case
loads in the family benefits legislation, there
were some 21,000 of the 66,000 who were
disabled.
Now, it would be facetious to suggest that
all of these required medication, but one
could, I tliink, sui>pose and asstmie that a
large number of these would need some
degree of health services which would be
provided by this resolution.
But tliat is not the total problem, Mr,
Speaker, because if you look at the disabled
persons' allowance breakdown, you notice
that of the 3,050 that were approved in this
specific year of 1966-67, there were some
2,550 or 40 per cent who were ineligible. In
other words, they had a health problem even
if they were not considered.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if the hon, member would mind me asking
a question? Does he appreciate that the hon,
meml:>er for Humber has left the debate too?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): The hon. mem-
ber for Nipissing has retiumed.
Mr. Pitman: One of the problems, I would
say to the hon. Minister-
Mr. R. S. Smith: Apparently, the Minister
pointed out when I left the House for a few
minutes that I did not stay to see his mem-
bers participate. I did hear one of them, and
APRIL 25, 1969
3607
he dad not add too muoh to the debate, so I
thought I would leave for a few miniutes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would like to point
out to the hon. member that it was nothing
personal; it was only in reply to the fact that
his colleague, the hon. member for Humber,
was at great pains to point out those who
were missing from the debate here, and I
am sure he will appreciate that nothing per-
sonal was meant. There are, of course, other
places some members have to be at certain
times.
Mr. Pitman: One of the things that bothers
me, Mr. Speaker, about this whole Friday
session is that I look up above and see all
these young i)eople sitting in the gallery, and
to think they walk out of this place with the
impression that this Legislature is in the
normal session on a Friday morning. It really
does bother me to think that they might go
away thinking that the legislative process in
Ontario is as ghastly, and as dull, and as
unimaginative as I am afraid these sessions
tend to be.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are doing what
we can to see that the debate is interesting.
Mr. Pitman: Might I suggest to the hon.
Minister that we might try to close the doors
up there and not let them see this rather
ghastly affair, or that we put on a better
show. I am not sure what the answer is.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Pitman: I did want to bring to your
attention, Mr. Speaker, that this whole ques-
tion of health is very much a part of the
spectrum and the fabric of welfare services,
and not just a small matter as one might
come to believe in looking at this.
I was very interested in the statement of
the Canadian Welfare Cotuicil, "Social Policies
for Canada, Part 1," and their concern over
health services as being a major problem.
They make two assumptions. The first is that
Canadians accept the principle that in a
ctmntry with such a high standard of living,
every person has right and access to all the
health protection and health care services he
requires, whatever these may be. Canada's
long-established pubHc health programme,
The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Serv-
ices Act 1957 and The Medical Care Act of
1956, are major steps in support of this
assumption.
Secondly, the implementation of the first
assvmiption irtvolves not only the elimination
of financial barriers to the use of these serv-
ices, but also the taking of measures to
strengthen Canada's health manpower, and
to improve the quality and distribution of
personal health services. I think that what
we are deahng with here is, to a large
extent, the question of rehabilitation. It is
very hard to rehaib^tate a person who is on
welfare and who needs public assistance, if
that i>eTSon is not in good health.
One only has to look at one's own con-
cern over this matter. I think it is a major
distraction if a person who is on general
welfare is in a constant state of need in
regard to some form of medication, drugs or
the kind of assistance that is suggested by this
resolution. I think also, it is a matter of in-
equality. They should be equal. It is quite
obvious from what the member for Ham-
ilton Mountain has said, and what the mem-
ber for Humber has said, that there is a
great inequality of services which are avail-
able across this province, particularly, I
would suggest, in many rural areas where,
indeed, people are not given the drugs, the
health services and the medication that they
need— in many cases, not even being aware
of what their rights are in regard to securing
this kind of assistance, I think it is a part of
a whole much wider problem. And in conclu-
sion, I would suggest that this is a problem
which can only be dealt with through the
regionalization of health services and the
services of The Department of Social and
Family Services. I would say, as well, that
probably it is only going to come as we see
rehabilitation of people as a total spectrum
involving not just the government services but
all the services which are available through
the community.
Until we can have some kind of co-ordina-
tion and co-operation between the voluntary
services, between the semi-professional serv-
ices, and between the government departments,
we are not going to be able to provide the
kind of spectrum which people on welfare
so desperately need. If we really believe we
are out to rehabilitate people, rather than
keep them on a kind of a penny-pinching
budget which goes on and keeps them teeter-
ing between financial chaos and some mea-
sure of stability, then I think that in that
regard I would support this measure as
simply another step towards that dire neces-
sity in this province's policies.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to this resolution? If
3608
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not, the private members' hour is con-
cluded.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, on Monday it is our intention
to go back to the order paper to consider
legislation that will be ready at that time.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Further to the discussion last night, Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Provincial
Secretary could narrow the list of bills a
bit beyond those pieces of legislation that will
be ready at that time, sir? Any indication at
all?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I am really sorry, Mr.
Speaker, I carmot today.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 12.50 o'clock, p.m.
No. 97
ONTARIO
Htqi^Mmt of Ontario
Be&ates
OFFICIAL REPORT -DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, April 28, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, April 28, 1969
Establishment, upon an opinion poll by secret ballot of the farmers in Ontario, of a
general farm organization, bill to provide for, Mr. Stewart, first reading 3611
Airstrip programme in northern Ontario, statement by Mr. Haskett 3613
Implementation of regional government, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 3613
Education grants, questions to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Nixon 3614
Water pollution, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Nixon 3614
OHSC and hospital costs, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. MacDonald 3615
PSI and medicare, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. MacDonald 3616
Constitution committee, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sopha 3616
Water levels on Gillies Lake, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Ferrier 3617
Texas Gulf zinc smelter, questions to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Ferrier 3617
Loan from European sources, questions to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Breithaupt 3619
Essex county request re assessment, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Burr 3620
Canadian Research Services Ltd., question to Mr. Gomme, Mr. J. Renwick 3620
Channel Island milk, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Gaunt 3620
Chain link security fence, question to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Innes 3621
Zone painting and repainting, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Innes 3621
Mowing on highways, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Innes 3621
Mobile homes, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Knight 3621
Vick's Medimist, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 3621
Atrazene for farm use, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Spence 3622
Algoma Central Railway, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Stokes 3622
Highways in Essex and Kent, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Ruston 3622
Mrs. Pamela Jane Newman, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. T. Reid 3623
Labour relations board and CUPE, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. De Monte 3623
Volkswagen passenger safety, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. B. Newman 3623
INCO stack and sulphur dioxide, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Sopha 3623
X-rays from colour TV, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 3624
The Ontario Producers, Processors, Distributors and Consumers Food Council Act, 1962-
1963, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, second reading 3625
Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Bales,
second reading 3625
Department of Health, bill respecting, Mr. Dymond, second reading 3632
Dog Tax and Livestock and Poultry Protection Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart,
second reading 3635
Toronto Stock Exchange, bill respecting, Mr. Rowntrce, on second reading 3635
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Sopha, agreed to 3640
Employment Standards Act, 1968, bill to amend, on second reading, Mr. Davison,
Mr. R. G. Hodgson, Mr. De Monte, Mr. Pilkey, Mr. Ben, Mr. Gisbom 3640
Recess, 6 o'clock 3650
3611
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This afternoon in our gal-
leries we welcome as guests to the Legisla-
ture: in the east gallery students from Samia
Central Collegiate Institute in Samia and St.
Basil's the Great School in Weston; in the
west gallery, students from Havergal College,
Toronto.
Later this afternoon in our galleries we will
have students from Walkerton District Secon-
dary School in Walkerton; from Forest Hill
Collegiate Institute in Toronto, hosting stu-
dents from Colorado in the United States of
America; and students from Bramalea Secon-
dary School in Bramalea.
This evening we will have the Agincourt
12th Scout Patrol with us.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
GENERAL FARM ORGANIZATION
IN ONTARIO
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food) moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to provide for the establish-
ment, upon an opinion poll by secret ballot
of the farmers in Ontario, of a general farm
organization.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this bill is two-folt: (1) to provide a
formal means whereby the farmers of this
province can cast a secret ballot in an opinion
poll and express either approval or disap-
proval of a general farm organization; and
(2) if 60 per cent of those farmers who vote
aj^rove this proposal, to provide the author-
ity for a founding convention and subsequent
continuity of representation.
The opinion poll provided for in part one
of this bill will be conducted in midsummer
Monday, April 28, 1969
under the supervision of The Ontario Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Food, provided a
petition from 15,000 Ontario farmers has
been received requesting such action. Farm-
ers, their wives and family members over 21
years of age who are engaged in the farm
operation will be provided with an oppor-
tunity to express themselves in this poll. A
number of alternatives relating to the basic
structure of the organization and the method
of financing and membership will be open to
the voters at that time.
Part two of the bill provides for the estab-
lishment of a body corporate known as the
general farm organization, which is author-
ized to act on behalf of farmers in Ontario
generally.
The purposes and objects of the organiza-
tion are briefly: (a) to conduct research into
all phases of agricultural activity; (b) to make
representation on behalf of farmers to any
level of government or any agency or board
or commission; (c) to develop, perform and
carry out programmes for the benefit of farm-
ers, either by itself or by negotiations with
any level of government or any agency, board
or commission, or any segment of industry and
to develop processes for such negotiations;
(d) to study, evaluate and make recommenda-
tions relative to policies and procedures of
government, agencies or boards; (e) to co-op-
erate with other organizations having similar
objects; and (f) to assist in the establishment
of a single general farm organization in
Canada.
The general farm organization provided
for in this bill seeks to establish financial sta-
bility through a form of check-off on farm
products marketed in Ontario to a maximum
amount of two-tenths of one cent on every
dollar of total sales of the product. If this
means of financing the organization is ap-
proved in the opinion poll, the organization
will receive its funds through compulsory
levies assessed against the commodity boards
and associations that are defined in the Act.
The general farm organization, if estab-
lished, will be governed by a provincial coun-
cil which will have the power to pass bylaws,
subject to ratification by the delegates at
annual conventions. The composition of the
3612
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
proxincial council and the manner of elect-
ing or appointing its members are not spelled
out in this bill, but will be a matter to be
detennined by the delegates at the founding
and subsequent conventions.
The bill provides also for the appointment
by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of an
interim management committee whose powers
shall be restricted to the organization of the
founding convention, the preparation of draft
bylaws for the consideration of delegates to
that convention, and the establishment of an
interim provincial coimcil. This interim man-
agement committee shall cease to exist at the
conclusion of the founding convention.
The bill also provides a means whereby
further opinion polls may be held from time
to time on matters relating to the organiza-
tion. In fact, it sets forth a provision requir-
ing that such an opinion poll shall be held
upon receipt of a petition bearing the names
of 15,000 or more farmers. However, such
petitions may not impose an opinion poll
more frequently than every two years.
It is our intention that part one of this bill
will come into force following third reading
and upon receipt of Royal assent, in order to
provide the authority for the initial opinion
poll. Part two of the bill will not come into
force until after the opinion poll has been
taken, and only if the general farm organiza-
tion is accepted by at least 60 per cent of the
Ontario farmers who vote.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister can
tell the House if the so-called plan "A" is
going to form a part of the ballot as proposed
by the farmers' union?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Plan "A"— the ballot is
not fully develoi>ed as yet— but plan "A", as
a plan, will not be on the ballot, on the
advice that I have received. However, the
ideas and the principles incorporated in plan
"A" will be on the ballot to some degree, so
that farmers will have an opportunity for
expression of opinion.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, by way of further clarification, may I
ask the Minister with whom the decision rests
ius to what will go on the ballot— with the
Minister? Or with the committee that is
sponsoring the plebiscite, or with whom?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well I think, Mr.
Speaker, that there is no really clear-cut an-
swer to that. Unfortunately, there really is not
a committee as there is when a marketing
board is set up. There is always an interim
committee established to draft the plan and
have it approved and worked out by the farm
products marketing board, and what goes on
the ballot is usually determined by that com-
mittee.
In this case a committee has been estab-
lished to work on the promotion of the Gen-
eral Farm OrganiziUion and on tlie drafting
of the ballot. I would assume it would be
a part of their responsibilities, certainly I
would think it should be; and we would cer-
tainly work with tliat committee as to what
should be on the ballot.
I think we have to recognize, Mr. Speaker
—without getting into any debate on this par-
ticular matter but if you will permit me to
clarify this as much as I can— that we should
avoid having a complicated ballot if we pos-
sibly can. It would seem to me tliat if a
ballot were set out which would clearly indi-
cate whether the farmers of Ontario wanted a
General Farm Organization and how that
organization should be structured, that is as
to membership, as to whether the marketing
board should l>e given voting rights in such
an organization and whether or not member-
ship fees would Ue required; this, I think,
would pretty clearly indicate to the farmers
of Ontario in their founding convention how
their bylaws should be drafted.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, just so that
I can m<ake certain I clearly understand what
the Minister has stated: since the committee
has not got tlie officiid status of a committee
when they are moving towards a marketing
board, would I be correc-t in assuming then
that the final decision with regard to what
goes on the ballot will have to rest with the
Minister?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well I would suppose
it would have to. I think that is fair to say.
I think we ha\e to accept that responsibility
to some degree, but I want to be sure that
everybody has as much opportunity to say
what should be on the ballot as possible;
there are many plans that have already been
advanced thint should be on the ballot.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Bnant-
ford.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr. Speaker,
in view of the possible controversy that may
arise over this bill, can the Minister assure
the House now tlwt this bill will go to the
agricultural committet* some time before third
reading?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker;
as soon as the bill has had second reading
APRIL 28, 1969
3613
in this Legislature it will go to the agricul-
ture committee for thorough review, and
everybody can present their thoughts at that
time,
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-
Bruce.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
on a matter of clarification, am I to assrnne
from what the Minister has said that the
committee now promoting the GFO is not
going to be given official status?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well really we have no
authority as yet to give them official status.
This is a bill that simply provides that the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint
a management committee, if 60 per cent of
the farmers vote in favour of the GFO estab-
lishment, to arrange the founding convention
and to arrange for the election, in the coun-
ties and districts of Ontario, of the delegates
to that founding convention.
Mr. Nixon: Is the Minister going to follow
de Gaulle's example on this?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well now that is a
possibility.
I Mr. Gaunt: I am just wondering; the inter-
management committee then will not neces-
sarily be composed of people who are now on
the GFO committee?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, that does not follow
at all in that regard. We have to appoint
them, and I would think it is reasonable to
assume there might be some of them ap-
pointed, but there is nothing definite about
that at all.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to remind the members that it is
essential I be advised by them as to whether
they are able to accept the invitation for the
showing on Thursday at the Planetarium. So
far less than half the members have done so.
We do owe that courtesy to the director of
the museum who is arranging it. I wonder if
today those members who have not let us
know would let my secretary know.
May I advise the House that as a result of
the stress and strains in the printing industry
in this city, the printed copies of Hansard
are not going to be forthcoming for an unde-
termined period. I made arrangements with
the printers that a small number of proof
copies, which are run off by the proofreaders
and not by the printers, will be made avail-
able and I am furnishing each party caucus
office with ten of these copies as they come
in. The legislative library, the press gallery,
and the Prime Minister's office will also be
furnished with a small number of these
copies. These will enable us to know what
will come out when the Hansard is printed,
but we cannot do any more than that at the
present time.
I trust the members will be able to accom-
modate themselves to this. Each party office
will have the copies as they come in and
the members will be able to consult them.
Eventually they will come out in print and be
distributed.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you
could tell us what the problem is in printing
and how long we will be delayed.
Mr. Speaker: That I endeavoured to find
out this morning, and I have also read the
papers, as I am sure the bon. leader of the
Opposition has. Negotiations are going on,
but as yet there is no sign of any settlement
of the matter. Of course, the Hansard is
printed by Ryerson Press, a union shop, and
I think that it would be very ill advised on
the part of Mr. Speaker to make any arrange-
ments at this stage which would have any
effect in changing the contract which we
have for the printing of Hansard.
I think with ten copies in each party office
the leaders of the parties, as well as the
caucuses, can keep up to date on what will
eventually appear. I can assure you that it
will not take too long for them to appear once
the strike is settled, because the typesetters
and the proofreaders are not on strike. The
type is being set up and all that has to
happen when the strike is settled is that they
will have to be run off.
The hon. Minister of Transport has a state-
ment.
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, a report on the proposed de-
velopment programme for airstrips in* the
northern section of Ontario is being distribu-
ted to the members today.
The report is provided as a matter of
information. The department embarked last
year on this airstrip programme that will play
an important part in the life of our citizens in
the north. I am sure the members will be
interested in noting the substantial progress
that has been made so far and the plans for
this fiscal year.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Premier. Was the Attorney General
(Mr. Wishart) speaking for the government
when he was reported in the Globe and Mail,
3614
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Saturday, April 26, to have said that the rate
of implementation of regional go\ernment was
going to be slowed down?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I can only say this, that The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs is not undertaking
any more studies than it presently has in
force.
Now, 1 have referred on se\eral occasions,
to the speed with which regional govern-
ment might be brought into effect in the
province, and I tried to make it very clear
that it was not the intention of the govern-
ment to impose regional government on a
mass basis, to try to do this all at one time.
It is extremely complex in each area in which
it might be feasible, possible and necessar>-.
So that 1 think really what the Attorney
General was referring to was some feeling,
that seems to be abroad in the pro\ ince, that
this government is going to impose regional
government on various areas, sort of immedi-
ately.
This is not our intent. I made this very
clear in a speech which I made in Aylmer, I
believe last December. I went into the matter
very carefully then.
To be quite frank with the members of the
House, there is enough work before those
who have knowledge and skill in this area
in The Department of Municipal Affairs at
the present moment to keep them going for
some considerable time in the future. I think
perhaps that is what the Attorney General
was referring to.
There is, I am quite aware, a feeling
abroad in the province, and an apprehension,
that we are going to, in some way, attempt
to impose regional government, perhaps with-
out consultation, and so on. This is not our
intent.
Mr. Nixon: He was not simply reporting a
change in the timetable that had been set out
by yourself and the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. McKeough) in the speech "De-
sign for Development".
Hon. Mr. Robarts: 1 could refer the leader
of the Opposition to the speech I made. I
have it here, I will send him a copy.
Mr. Nixon: I saw it; there was a timetable
in that. I believe the Premier referred to
what could be done in the next three years.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I referred to specific
areas in which studies had commenced and
were going ahead; and of course they will
continue.
Mr. Nixon: So there is no change in the
government's timetable.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not think so; no,
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Treasurer. Can the hon. Minister give
the House an estimate as to the cost to the
province of the revised education grants
announced by the Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis) last Thursday; and how does the
Treasurer intend to provide the funds?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, the answer to part one is no, not
with any degree of meaningful accuracy. Part
two, if necessary, I would say by supplemen-
tary estimates, at which time the Legislature
would be required to vote the funds.
Mr. Nixon: One estimate has been made of
$50 million. The Treasurer is not prepared to
say that is an estimate of any meaningful
accuracy?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, the Treasurer
is not.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): The editorial
Royal "we", third person.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: 1 answered in
exactly the same context as the question was
asked.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the hon.
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment, Mr. Speaker.
Have there been recent difficulties in the
construction of the atomic energy station at
Pickering which will result in further delays
in its completion?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
not that I am aware of; but I have asked
Hydro for a complete report on this. I will
hav e to give it to the hon. leader later.
Mr. Nixon: A further question to the same
Minister:
How many violations of section 27, para-
graph 1— which I may say, Mr. Speaker, deals
with water pollution by municipalities and
individuals and commercial operations— of The
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act
have received legal action?
How many of those charged were con-
victed?
Will the Minister table the names of those
convicted and the fine or sentence for each
conviction?
APRIL 28, 1969
3615
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr, Speaker, I wonder
if the hon. member means since the Act was
brought into being or is he speaking of any
particular year?
Mr. Nixon: Well I would like it for the
last 12 months.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well I am sorry, we
have misunderstood the question. I have asked
OWRC to give me a report since the time the
Act was brought into being, but I will change
that now; 12 months is satisfactory?
Mr. Nixon: Could the Minister give me the
information he has presently?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do not have it for the
last 12 months.
Mr. Nixon: Could the Minister give me the
figures he has now?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have not any figures,
because I was asking for the information from
the time the Act came into force.
Mr. Nixon: All right.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I had a
couple of questions of the Minister of Health
from last week. I wonder if he is in a position
to reply to them. They are numbers 1263 and
1284.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Healtli):
Mr. Speaker, on question 1263, "Does the
OHSC set ceilings on hospital costs by cate-
gories, such as wages, food, etc?" The answer
is: the OHSC has standards which are estab-
lished for various hospital costs, based on a
combination of factors— market conditions and
operating levels— which hospitals with good
management practices are able to meet.
Part two: "Is it accurate that a hospital
must get permission from the OHSC to switch
funds from one category to another?"
In 1968 and prior years the commission had
an understanding with hospitals that they had
to operate within the approved budget for
each category of expense. However, if there
was a change in volume or extent of patient
care or a change in operating conditions be-
yond the control of the hospital, the hospital
could submit to the commission an amend-
ment to their budget. If circumstances war-
ranted an increase, approval was given to the
additional spending. Hospitals generally found
this provided them with fair treatment and
allowed them to work within the general
framework of their budget.
Part three: "Was Toronto General Hospital
recently exempted from these procedures, and
given blanket authority to spend its budget as
it sees fit?"
In 1969 there has been a progressive tran-
sition from the prior practices to a new
approach. Within the basis on which the
1969 budget was approved the hospital may
expend the funds that they deem necessary,
and this permits the hospital to switch funds
from one category of expense to another. We
are trying in this way to introduce some sense
of responsibility on the part of boards and
administrations, and we hope that by provid-
ing them with something more or less in the
form of a "global" budget, they will be
persuaded or induced, or seduced, to adopting
modern, good business practices. The Toronto
General Hospital was given the very same
approval for expenditure of its 1969 budget as
all other hospitals, as outlined already.
Part four: "How many other hospitals have
asked for such authority?"
The policy outlined with regard to 1969
applies to all hospitals.
Mr. MacDonald: I wonder if I might ask
a supplementary question on this before we
move on to the next one.
If the rule now applies— that the Minister
has a global approach to the budget— does this
not permit a flexibility for any hospital which
gets into a bind in terms of negotiations with
its workers, so that if they see fit, they can
reapportion their budget to be able to meet
tlie requirements of any negotiation without
having to abide by the dictate of OHSC?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Right, We are trying to
get away from line approval of budgeting, we
are trying to encoiurage the hospital boards
and administrations to submit the budget
which is necessary to run their entire oper-
ation. If they find it is costing them more in
salary and less in something else, they are
allowed to switch it around. We are trying to
encourage this, hopefully to persuade, as I
say, them to adopt the most modern business
practice possible.
We have tried the other way and we found
that it does not work in all cases. On the
other hand, we do find that in certain areas,
particularly in higher executive salary levels,
there is a tendency to go a little bit overboard
from time to time on the part of some hos-
pitals. We try to keep a reasonably tight
check on those in order that the rest of the
hospital operation will not suffer.
Mr. MacDonald: Has there ever been a
case where they went overboard in paying
the workers in the hospital?
3616
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dyitiond: No, I must admit I
really cannot say tliat. We have found it has
been quite impossible for the administration
to stay within the budgetary framework in
respect of negotiated contracts, and we have
maintained that a contract negotiated in good
faith must be honoured. If the board accepts
it, then it must be honoured. We have tried
to support them in this way, at the same time
encouraging them to find the additional
wherewithal from some other part of their
budget if possible.
Mr. Speaker, on the other question which
the hon. member asked, I thought I had
already answered it as best I could at the
time. Did the hon. member say No. 1246?
Mr. MacDonald: It is No. 1284.
Mr. Speaker: No. 1284, according to my
records, has not yet been put.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I wonder, Mr. Speaker,
would you mind leading it in order that—
Mr. Speaker: He did not put it before so
the hon. member will now put it.
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry, that is right,
the Minister was not in; it was the latter part
of last week. It is a two-part question:
1. Since the contract olfered by the gov-
ernment to PSI to become a ciirrier within
Medicare has now become public, will the
government table a comparable contract
offered to the private insurance companies?
2. If not, will the government indicate
whether the contract offered to the private
insurance companies contains a clause, such
as 1(f) offered to PSI, that the private car-
rier shall refer all persons requesting financial
subsidization to the public authority?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I would
point out that there is a little misunderstand
ing in respect of this. We did not offer a con-
tract to PSI, we submitted a draft proposal
on which we would base our discussions, and
the same draft proposal was submitted to all
of the carriers who in our belief were big
enough to act as agents of the public author-
ity. The answer to number 2 therefore, is
"yes", but there is nothing really to table yet
because it has been very largely a matter of
discussion so far. I think in due course when
it reaches a stage where there is something
to table, someone representing the govern-
ment will table it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury.
Mr. Sopha: I have a question of the Prime
Minister, Mr, Speaker, I apologize for the
grammar and syntax, I will correct it as I go
along.
1. Is it the intention of the government to
create a continuing committee comprising pri-
vate members of this Legislature to study
the Constitution of Canada and its provinces
in order that private members msy participate
in the development of the Constitution?
2. If it be the intention of the government
would the committee have the advantage of
hearing submissions from members of the
advisory committee on the Constitution?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr, Speaker, the gov-
ernment has no present intention of creating
such a continuing committee and on the otlier
hand I would point out that we have made
a\'ailable to all the members of this Legisla-
ture the submissions that have been made by
the advisorj' committee to the Constitution.
These have been reproduced, published and
distributed to all members so that they may
have the advantage of knowing what position
the advisory committee has taken, and those
matters, of course, have been the basis of
debates in tliis House.
Mr. Sopha: May I ask the Prime Minister
a supplementary (juestion? I should like to
ask whether the Prime Minister is content
on behalf of the government that tlie develop-
ment of Canada's Constitution be left in the
hands of the bureaucrats and the technocrats,
as it is now?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, of course I
would say at once that this government does
not leave any of its decisions in the hands of
the bureaucrats and the technocrats, though
I do not know what is the matter with
bureaucrats and technocrats. However, we
have various means whereby the government
is advised. The government accepts responsi-
bility for the positions it puts forth. It does
not leave it to bureaucrats and technocrats.
I would say to the hon. member that tliis
whole business of constitutional revision is
an on-going process, I tried to make this
clear v.'hcn we were discussing it the other
day, I do not think we have any fixed, firm
lx)sition as to how it is handled. I think at
this stage of the game it would be impossible
to have any such fixed positions because we
are evolving this whole process as we go
along just as we are debating the form vi'hich
the next constitutional conference might take.
I am not attempting to limit the participa-
tion of every member of this House but if
APRIL 28, 1969
3617
the member asks me a question in which he
says it is the intention of the government, I
must say at this stage of the game that the
government has not this intention.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Coch-
rane South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Prime Min-
ister. Who, in the Prime Minister's opinion,
is responsible for controlling the water level
on Gillies Lake in Timmins? Will the Prime
Minister take steps to ensure that pumping
operations will be carried out to reduce the
flooding of the property adjacent to the lake
that presently exists?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr, Speaker, I really do
not have an opinion at the moment because
I never heard of Gillies Lake until this
question came in. I will, however, have an
opinion probably by tomorrow, when I con-
sult some of the bureaucrats and technocrats
who are able to tell me just what the situation
is in regard to this particular lake. Tjhere is
an inference in the question that there is
some difficulty there, having to do with
pumping operations and flooding of the prop-
erty adjacent to the lake. I will certainly
make it my business to find out what is going
on and who is responsible and see what we
can do to protect any of our citizens who are
being inconvenienced or damaged by what is
going on.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a sup-
plementary question?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: We can tell the Premier where
the lake is.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: There are thousands of
lakes in this province, I do not know where
they all are. I would like to take every oppor-
tunity I could to fly in and out of every lake
of the province, but roughly, 750,000 are
quite a lot to cover.
Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, my next question
is to the Minister of Mines. What were the
particular concessions offered by the provin-
cial government to Texas Gulf solely on the
condition that they build their zinc smelter
in the Timmins area? To the Minister's knowl-
edge, was the $6.5 million grant to Texas
Gulf by ADA given on the sole condition
that the smelter be built in the Timmins area,
or was it a grant available to them to build
in any federally-designated area?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, if I could deal with the second
qoiestion first. I have not had the ox>portunity
of checking either with the Texas Gulf Com-
pany or with the federal government. It had
been my own assumption that the $6.5 mil-
lion grant by ADA was available to this
company if they built in any federally-desig-
nated area.
In other words, my understanding— and I
may be completely wrong about it— but my
understanding all through our negotiations in
respect to the Texas Gulf smelter, was that
this would be available to them throughout
the whole country, not just in Ontario, if the
complex was built in any federally-designated
area. I think in Ontario alone there are five
or six designated areas. I think in the country
as a whole there must be somewhere aroimd
18 or 20, but I am not just too sure about
that.
So, while this was a very great factor in
the decision of the company to build a
smelter in Canada, I am not so sure that it
was, if I read the innuendo in the member's
question, I am not so sure that it was such
a strong factor as to whether they built in
Timmins or not.
In respect of our concessions and our
desire that the company build in Timmins, I
think the best way I could answer that would
be to read a letter directed by me to the
Texas Gulf company, to the attention of Mr.
Mollison, the vice-president of the metals
division. It is the last piece of correspondence
on the file and, therefore, it can best answer
the question, I think:
Dear Dick: Over the past year, the frank
and co-operative attitude of you and your
colleagues in our various meetings has
been appreciated by me and by the gov-
ernment.
As a result of our meetings and your
studies, under date of April 7 last, you have
written to me indicating certain plans and
making enquiries of me relating in par-
ticular to certain matters respecting hydro
rates and transportation costs.
As well, our own progressive develop-
ment of resources policy and the continued
mounting of public pressure require us,
in our view, to make public very shortly a
more detailed and definitive statement of
standards respecting mineral resources
development, and the targets we expect
those in the private sector to reach, so that
we may realize our already-announced ob-
jectives. ,
3618
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Our purpose, as you know, has not been
to embarrass your company by harsh state-
ments indicating that government poHcy
has been forcing the company into steps
which it was reluctant to take, and partly
because of this, details of our methods to
encourage processing of our mineral re-
sources in Canada have not even yet been
publicly re\ealed. But we feel, in fairness
to all concerned, and especially bearing in
mind the position of potential developers
and investors, that I should make a de-
tailed statement in the Legislature before
too long.
Naturally, if at the same time I could
also announce the plans of Texas Gulf
Sulphur in relation to at least its proposed
zinc smelter, it might also remove any
stigma that the company is- and has been
developing its plans solely at the urging of
the goverimient.
In more detailed reply to your letter
of April 7, and on behalf of the govern-
ment, the following points should now be
made:
1. As is obvious from our recently-
introduced statutory changes, we do insist
as a matter of irrevocable government
policy, that a smelter be built in Canada
to process zinc concentrates from the Kidd
Creek mine of your subsidiary, Ecstall Min-
ing Ltd.
2. It is the strong desire, even though we
feel that we cannot insist upon it, that the
zinc smelter should be built in the Timmins
area. To encourage this, and as evidence
of our desire, and of course, on the con-
dition that the company will locate its zinc
smelter as soon as possible in the Timmins
area, the government will:
(a) Enact into law tlie provisions already
introduced into the Legislature but not yet
passed, (The Mining Tax Amendment Act),
which relate the allowance for pre-produc-
tion expenses to the date of Januiiry 1,
1965, as a special concession to the Kidd
Creek mine operation.
(b) Recommend to Ontario Hydro that a
cheaper power rate than the flat six mills
you are expecting will be your power cost,
l>e made available to the company for its
power needs. On your behalf, a presenta-
tion has already been made to Hydro by
me, and indications are diat for 1969, a
rate for firm uninterruptible supply at 115
kv having a load factor of 90 per cent could
be provided to you for 5.69 mills per kwh,
or if the load factor increases to 100 per
cent, this would reduce the rate to 5.42
mills per kwh. For an interruptible supply,
or a combination of firm and interruptible,
the cost would be even cheaper: I have
been quoted, for you, if needed this year,
rates which would reach a low of 4.33 mills
per kwh for interruptible power having a
load factor of 100 per cent. Unfortunately,
Hydro estimates that there could be a
15 per cent increase in power rates be-
tween now and 1973, but I am assured,
on the basis of quotations I have received
from them, that they should be able to
come up with a more satisfactory proposi-
tion for you than your letter would indi-
cate.
(c) Obtain a quotation for you from the
Ontario Northland Railway of a freight
rate for sulphuric acid, using a special
unit train with equipment supplied by you,
Timmins to Hamilton, which would be
competitive with the rate supplied by other
railways for a similar operation for acid
transported from Copper Cliff to Hamilton.
It is the intention of the government under
the herein-referred-to circumstances that
your company would not be at a com-
petitive disadvantage respecting the trans-
portation costs for your sulphuric acid by-
product, although I should also state to you
that economic studies which we have com-
pleted would lead us to believe that an
increase in development and production in
other mining operations, especially ura-
nium, would lead to an increasing demand
for Ontario acid at the same time that your
production might start. We hope that your
fears of the over-production of metal-
lurgical by-product sulphuric acid are
exaggerated.
3. Tlie government also believes that
your initial plans to utilize on an annual
basis, only 200,000 tons of the average
500,000 tons of zinc concentrate from the
Kidd Creek Mine are not good enough. We
have not yet announced publicly, but will
have to do so shortly, our objective that
initially, unless special circumstances war-
rant an exception, at least 51 per cent
of base metal concentrate from any On-
tario mining operation should be processed
as soon as feasible to the metal stage in
Canada, and as time goes on, this percent-
age will be expected to increase. Therefore,
in applying tiiis policy to your subsidiary
Ecstall Mining Ltd., we must state either
that the high level of ore extraction from
the site should decrease, or that your plans
for the capacity and production of the
smelter be immediately increased, so that
in any year of operation, including the first
APRIL 28, 1969
3619
one, at least 250,000 tons of zinc concen-
trate be smelted if your average zinc con-
centrate production is to be 500,000 tons.
We would also expect to have an undertak-
ing by the company that the smelter pro-
duction would be increased so that after
five years of smelter operation and time has
given you experience and the opportunity
to cultivate markets, that at least 75 per
cent of the zinc concentrate would be
processed in the Timmins smelter.
4. Finally, we feel that the time is over-
due for definite action. Assuming that con-
struction could start this calendar year, we
would like to hear from you why actual
production from the smelter could not be
expected by the end of 1971 or at the latest
by the middle of 1972.
May I have your observations?
With the warmest personal regards.
Yours truly.
And I signed that.
As well, Mr. Speaker, one item that was
not detailed in the letter, because it is a
matter of procedure that is tied to the amend-
ments that are now before the House and
which will be applicable to all such process-
ing in Canada, relates to a special method
which the mines assessor of The Department
of Mines has devised, once the amendments
before the House go through, for assessing
the value of the ore at the pit's mouth.
This new procedure, Mr. Speaker, does
recognize the value added to the ore which
is treated in company-owned plants in
Canada. I hope when the opportunity comes
on the passage of that particular bill to the
committee state in this House that I will have
an opportimity of detailing this procedure
much more fully to the House.
Mr. Ferrier: Would the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes.
Mr. Ferrier: In thanking the Minister for
that very detailed answer, could he inform
the House to his knowledge if there has been
any real pressure brought to bear on this
company by the federal government?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I ha\'e no knowl-
edge of that.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Kitchener.
Mr. Ferrier: What was the date of that
letter?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: April 21.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Kitchener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Sir, a
question of the hon. Provincial Treasurer:
What will be the total increased cost of the
loan from European sources to Ontario, if the
Deutschmark is revalued upward by (a) 10
per cent, or (b) 15 per cent, as variously pre-
dicted overnight?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, Mr.
Speaker, I think it will be apparent to the
hon. member that the question is completely
hypothetical, particularly in respect to the
percentage increases referred to by the hon.
member. To my knowledge, there is no
immediate indication that a revaluation of
the Deutschmark will take place. Recent
events in Europe in fact suggest that there is
less possibility of this development than pre-
viously, notwithstanding the developments of
the last weekend. The effective cost to the
province of any revaluation in future would
depend entirely on the actual time of the
revaluation, and therefore I suggest it would
not be meaningful to me to provide any esti-
mate at this time.
In the meantime, we are enjoying maximum
use of the funds secured from the European
market at the favourable rate negotiated.
This rate, this benefit, of course, mitigates
against any future increased costs in terms of
repayment if revaluation should take place
during the lifetime of the loan. In other
words, the longer it takes before revaluation
is implemented, then the less the impact of
the revaluation.
Howe\'er, to answer the somewhat hypo-
thetical question of the hon. member, I sought
certain information from the Comptroller of
Finance which has just reached my desk, and
he estimates that yield exposure from possible
revaluation of the Deutschmark, with respect
firstly to the six-year private placement loan-
would be an increase in effective yield of
two per cent and three per cent respectively
in relation to 10 per cent and 15 per cent
revaluation— providing that the loan was re-
tired rather than refinanced.
I would say, of course, that refinancing is
a possibility and the manner and the extent
to which refinancing took place at, or before
maturity would have a bearing on the impact
of revaluation. And the latter possibility, of
course, could reduce the costs very materially.
Increase in effective yield on the 15-year
3620
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
public issue would be one per cent and 1.5
per cent respectively, against the 10 and 15
per cent revaluation to which the hon. mem-
ber made reference. The difference in effect
between the six and 15-year loans relates
directly, of course, to the longer use of the
funds which has a direct bearing on the cost.
However, I would simply say and reassert
to the House that we believe the probability
of revaluation is not imminent at this par-
ticular point in time, until, of course, the
matter of possible devaluation of the franc is
detennined, and the possible effect of such
a move on other currencies— the relationship
of other currencies to the Deutschmark, the
United States dollar, the Canadian dollar.
All of these things must be taken into con-
sequence before a finite answer to the hon.
member's question could be pro\ ided.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to ccmclude by
saying these matters were all clearly fore-
seen, and the disadvantages of the probability
to which references have been made can be
very largely, in the period, mitigated against
by the very favourable nature of the loans
that were made.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Foreseen, but
not understood.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It is a
pity they did not consult the Minister on the
French referendum.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): A
question, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs:
Is the Minister giving consideration to the
request of the county of Essex that the gov-
ernment take over full cost of the assessment
departments as of March 4, 1969, and that
the sharing of money already spent on the
re-assessment programme throughout the
province be negotiable?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
Mr. Burr: As a supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not agree that
those counties which have been prompt in
implementing this plan are now going to be
penalized for their promptness?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if cer-
tain counties have progressed along the route
to re-assessment, to better assessment prac-
tices, then undoubtedly the citizens of that
coimty in particular are receiving certain
benefits because that money has been spent.
Mr. J. Ren wick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of the Minister of High-
ways:
Has Canadian Research Services Limited
ever been retained by The Department of
Highways? If so, what studies were con-
ducted by that company and what fees were
paid for their services?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of High-
ways): Mr, Speaker, we have examined our
records and cannot find any indication that
this company's services have been retained by
the department.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-
Bruce.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Agriculture and Food:
Would the Minister indicate when he intends
to have the agricultural committee pursue
the charges of the chairman of the Ontario
Milk Marketing Board in relation to the so-
called illegal procedures of some dairies
regarding Channel Island milk?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the ques-
tion that was given to me, and we called
back to the office to have the question
checked, does not lead as the hon. member
has read it now. I am wondering which
question he really means to ask.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, if I may clarify
that point, it is a typographical error, it says
"some boards" and it should be "some
dairies".
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is not what the ques-
tion said when it was asked me.
Mr. Lewis: Well, the Minister knows now.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I did not know what
the question was at all.
Mr. Gaunt: I presume the Minister knows
what meaning I was referring to?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The way the question
was worded, it was completely irrelevant,
and I would ask the hon. member for clari-
fication. Now he has given it, all I have to
say is that it is in the hands of the agricul-
ture committee. We do not direct the agri-
culture committee.
Mr. Nixon: Why did the Minister make
such a fuss about it?
Mr. Speaker: The hon, member for Ox-
ford.
APRIL 28, 1969
3621
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the Minister of Highways,
of April 23.
Why was the contract for $103,515.00
chain Hnk security fence from the Golf
Links Road, westerly to Shavers Road in the
Hamilton district, not awarded to Frost Steel
and Wire Company Ltd.? Have new tenders
been called for this work?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, the single
bid for this work was considerably over the
estimates of the department's engineers, and
therefore an award was not made and new
tenders are currently being prepared for the
work.
Mr. Innes: Thank you. I have two more
questions for the Minister.
1. How many projects are now under way
throughout the province of Ontario to re-
paint faded highway markers and signs?
2. When will white or yellow lane lines
and temporary pavement around construction
sites along the Queen Elizabeth Way and on
Highway 27 be repainted?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, all zone
painting is carried out by the department's
own maintenance forces, and repainting of
the lines commences as early in the spring
as weather permits. All of our southern dis-
tricts are already painting, and the northern
districts will start as soon as weather condi-
tions permit.
The temporary pavement around the con-
struction site along the Queen Elizabeth Way
has been repainted within the last two weeks
and is in good condition. The Highway 27
area has top priority and will be repainted
as soon as weather permits.
Mr. Innes: Another question of the Min-
ister.
f 1. What are the circumstances surrounding
the cancellation of contract number 69571 in
connection with mowing on King's Highway
and freeways 9, 27, 50 and 400?
2. When will the mowing begin on these
locations?
3. Have mowing contracts been awarded
for all other provincial highways and free-
ways?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: In answer to No. 1: a
single bid was considered too high.
No. 2: Mowing will begin when considered
necessary by the dei)artment and will be
governed by growth.
No. 3: All other contracts whose tenders
have closed to date have been awarded. Ten-
ders on three other contracts will close in the
near future.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Artliur): Does the
government have a policy which now makes
it possible for individuals to obtain mobile
homes due to the modest down payment re-
quired and the low overall price?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): I am not quite sure what
policy the hon. member is referring to. If
he is inquiring whetlier there is a pohcy of
providing loans to indi\dduals wishing to
purchase mobile homes, the answer is no.
If, however, he is inquiring whether there
is a policy which discourages individuals from
purchasing and living in mobile homes, then
I am pleased to reply that we certainly do
not discourage this form of accommodation,
and for that matter we have had meetings
with the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Asso-
ciation with a view to determining how we
might be of assistance to them.
However, as the hon. member will appre-
ciate, the approval of trailer parks is a matter
which must be dealt with by individual muni-
cipalities. Therefore my colleague, the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs, is in a better
position to provide an appropriate answer.
I might say we met with these people a
year or so ago and suggested if there was arvy
impediment in our legislation we would be
glad to correct it. They have not been back
to us since that time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hmnber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question of the hon. Minister of Health.
1. Has Vick's Medimist been analyzed by
the department because of the solvent therein
called trichloroethane?
2. Will recommendations on tlie products
label he changed in view of the fact that a
17-year-old boy in St. Catharines died on
February 1 after inhaling this decongestant
sprav through facial tissues as directed by the
label?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the an-
swer to tlie first part of the hon. member's
question is yes, it was analyzed by both the
centre of forensic sciences of the Minister of
Justice's department and the occupational
health laboratory of my department. Both
confirmed a presence of the solvent trichloro-
ethane. We believe the report regarding the
above was made available at the inquest
held recently.
3622
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Unfortunately this product is a proprietary
preparation and as such is not required to
hst the ingredients on the label. Any changes
in this requirement or other alteration in
labelling normally are the concern of the food
and drug directorate of the federal govern-
ment, and they are l)eing made aware of this
matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister of Health.
Has The Department of Health placed
restrictions on the use and purchase and
supply of atrazene for farm use for control
of weeds and cash crops? If so, what are
tlie restrictions and why?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, no, we
have not placed restrictions on the use, pur-
chase and supply of atrazene. The purchase
and supply of any pesticide is not within the
jurisdiction of The Department of Health, we
only control the use of the pesticide.
In order to better safeguard the health of
our people our regulations under The Pesti-
cides Act prohibit the use of any pesticide in
plant or animal production that is not regis-
tered under The Pest Control Product Act of
Canada and does not have a registration
number assigned to that product under this
Act.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Minister a supplementary question?
Is no consideration given to controlling
prices, since only one or two companies have
registered atrazene that can Ix? used here in
the
provmcer
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Speaker, we
have no authority to control prices at all.
This comes within the federal legislation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Tjiun-
der Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the
Minister of Lands and Forests.
1. What taxes are included in the $5.7
million of tax relief which Algoma Central
Railway is expected to obtain under the
negotiations with the Ontario government for
handing back certain of its timlx^r land hold-
ings, as reported in the Globe and Mail of
April 12, 1969, based on comments made by
the Minister of Lands and Forests?
2. What is the nature of the tax relief
expected and under what legislation is it
authorized?
3. In the negotiations, is the government
asking for compensation for the people of
Ontario for more than $3 million of mineral
taxes which the people of Algoma Central
Railway Company have failed to pay over the
past 45 years?
4. Will the mineral rights be ceded to the
government along with the land which the
company is proposing to turn back to the
l^rovince?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests ) : Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member for Thunder Bay:
1. In the negotiations with the company.
The Department of Lands and Forests made
no commitment to Algoma Central Railway
regarding any tax relief. Such matters will be
dealt with by the company and the respective
taxing authorities when the claims are made.
2. This taxation matter comes under the
purview of The Department of Treasury and
Economics.
3. This subject was not part of our nego-
tiations with the railway.
4. No, we already own the mineral rights.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Highways.
1. Did the Minister, his deputy, or engineers
from the district office in Chatham have dis-
cussions with officials from the counties of
Essex and Kent in the past three months
about turning back to counties of Highway
98(2) and 18(a)? If not, why not?
2. Is the Minister aware that Highway 98
in the county of Essex does not have what
is classed as adequate shoulders or even
reasonable road surface that would in fact
meet standards of a county road?
3. Is the Minister aware that Highway
18(a) in some locaions of Essex County has
a total width of only 30 feet?
4. Does the Minister feel he is being abso-
lutely unpolitical in giving back to the coun-
ties of Essex and Kent the total of all roads
for the province that has been designated to
be turned back to the county jurisdiction?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, in reply:
1. In the past three months, no discussions
have taken place with the counties. However,
the counties have been aware since the
presentation of our southwestern Ontario area
study that certain roads would be transferred
out of the highway system. In the past two or
three years, discussions have been held with
county officials concerning the department's
APRIL 28, 1969
3623
takeover of Communication road and Bloom-
field road and the transfer of Highway 98.
2. We consider the existing condition of
Highway 98 adequate for the volume and
type of traffic presently using its facilities.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): I have
a question for the Minister responsible for
the Ontario Housing Corporation.
When will Mrs. Pamela Jane Newman of
344 Morningside Avenue, West Hill, be able
to expect a place to live in view of the fact
that Mrs. Newman and her two children will
not have a roof over their heads after Wed-
nesday, April 30?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The application for
housing from Mrs. Newman was only received
by Ontario Housing Corporation on March 12
of this year, at which time she was not under
notice to vacate. It was not until April 10
that the corporation received a letter from
Mrs. Newman enclosing a notice from her
landlady that vacant possession was required
on April 30.
Mrs. Newman is one of a number of
applicants in similar circumstances and, al-
though her application is well placed on the
waiting list, the corporation does not have
accommodation immediately available.
Based on the current waiting list and
anticipated future completions, Ontario Hous-
ing Corporation should be in a position to
offer Mrs. Newman accommodation within
two months.
The corporation has been in touch with
Mrs. Newman's landlady in an endeavour to
arrange an extension, but without avail.
An hon. member: What happens to her?
Hon. Mr. Randall: What happens to other
people on the waiting hst?
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): That is no
Hon. Mr. Randall: Sure it is.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Dover-
court.
Mr. D. M. De Monte ( Dovercourt ) : A
question for the Minister of Labour: What
action will the labour relations board take on
the request of local 1170 of the Canadian
Union of Public Employees, the non-teaching
employees of each Middlesex district high
school board respecting contract negotiations?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, the
union has applied to the board for determi-
nation under the successor clause of The
Labour Relations Act. The matter is before
the board and when the hearings are com-
pleted the board will make a decision.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the
Minister of Transport.
1. What steps are being taken by the
Minister's department to ensure that the
Volkswagen is a safe vehicle for passenger
use in the province of Ontario?
2. Has the department requested a copy of
the data which was collected by the Digitek
company of California for the United States
highway safety office?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, my depart-
ment has knowledge of the tests being done
by the Digitek company under contract to the
National Highway Safety Bureau in Washing-
ton and involving vehicles of American, Euro-
pean and Asiatic manufacture.
The tests on the make of vehicles men-
tioned by the hon. member were done last
month and the complete report is not yet
available. As soon as the report is released
to us I can assure him we will give it very
careful study.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day I have two questions
of which I took notice. One is from the hon.
member for Sudbury. I see he is not in his
seat, perhaps the hon. leader may not want
it answered.
It was the question directed to the Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management
re the stack at Copper Cliff.
Because the construction of a new stack
by INCO will not reduce the amount of
emissions of sulphur dioxide in the air,
and because INCO announced its inten-
tion recently to increase the production by
30 per cent, will this not increase the
amount of SO2 being discharged into the
atmosphere?
The Minister of Health issued a certi-
ficate of approval to INCO as referred to
in Section 7 of The Air Pollution Control
Act of 1967. Is this not a licence granted
to INCO to continue its poHcy of pollu-
tion?
3624
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, I think I can best answer the
question by directing attention to the state-
ment I made in respect of this matter when
approval was signed to allow INCO to build
a 1,250 foot stack. Included in the stack
were olher facilities, other equipment, which
would withdraw a good deal of the particu-
late matter before it got to the outside of
the stack. Then there was the construction
of the stack and the various features built
into it to increase not only the height, but
the temperature and the velocity of the ex-
pulsion of the smoke.
This is getting highly technical, as you
will imderstand. It goes out faster, it goes
up higher, it is widely dispersed and we
have every reason to believe from the scien-
tists that there will not be ground contamina-
tion, enough to damage vegetation as—
Mr. Sopha: It will now kill all the vegeta-
tion for 200 miles!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, no; I think my hon.
friend knows a little better than that. He
has been in on these deals too and he knows
pretty well that this has been a well thought
out scheme, on a scientific and engineering
basis.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): He will
not admit it though.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, he does in his
more calm and mellow moments. He knows,
really, that they have done a good job. But
the important thing, Mr. Speaker, is to em-
phasize that this was an interim measure
only, and both the company and ourselves
made that eminently clear to each other.
Indeed, I wrote it over my signature that
no doubt this is considered an extreme meas-
ure, and continuing steps to improve the
control of this pollution must be taken.
The hon. member for Himiber, on April
18, asked me question 1217 with respect to
the emission of X-rays, or the puiported
emission of X-rays from colour TV. Since
Jime, 1968, the Canadian Standards Associa-
tion Laboratories have been measuring X-ray
emissions from all television sets which passed
through their hands for examination of elec-
trical faults. This examination is the one
which is necessary in order for the CSA ap-
proval sign to be put on the set, and no
television set can be sold in Canada without
the CSA stamp of approval.
Since these tests were begun last June, no
set has been found to exceed an acceptable
and the original American level of X-ray
output, and, therefore, we can presume from
tills that they are safe. I have been assured by
the CSA standards group that this is an on-
going study and being watched very care-
fully in view of the findings in the United
States.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the
hon. Minister will accept a supplementary
question. Mr. Speaker, the Minister has read
the articles that were published with refer-
ence to the experiments carried on in the
United States and all who have been reading
the papers last week-
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member
would direct a supplementary question to the
Minister as he stated he would do.
Mr. Ben: Yes, I will. Having read the
Toronto papers, will the Minister please try
to get some information for this House why
diametrically opposite reports that have been
issued from the two jurisdictions. I think the
hon. members of this House-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member has
asked his question. He will now see if the
hon. Minister will answer.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I really
answered this question some days ago.
There is much controversy about tliis whole
matter. C»n the very same evening, I watched
one side present their argument where they
were saying there were dangerous levels of
X-ray emissions from the set. The very next
programme, on the same channel, from the
same station in the United States, absolutely
denied this contention. Therefore, it is very
difficult to get information that one can say
is totally objective.
We believe that we must depend on the
reports coming from the CSA people. They
are responsible and they give their seal of
approval. I am (juite sure the hon. member
knows that this is a rather valuable thing
and a standard upon which tremendously
great emphasis is put.
Mr. Ben: A supplementary question. Why
should we have to depend so completely
upon CSA? Surely, with two contradictory
reports, we are entitled to a better verdict.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
can think of no better than CSA. This is a
Canadian group. I am not interested in what
tlie Americans say. They may think they
know everything. .As far as I am concerned,
Canadians know far more, and I am quite
satisfied with Canadian standards. The
United States does not mean a thing to me.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
APRIL 28, 1969
3625
THE ONTARIO PRODUCERS,
PROCESSORS, DISTRIBUTORS AND
CONSUMERS FOOD COUNCIL ACT,
1962-1963
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food) moves second reading of
Bill 87, An Act to amend The Ontario Pro-
ducers, Processors, Distributors and Con-
sumers Food Council Act, 1962-1963.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTES
ARBITRATION ACT, 1965
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves second reading of Bill 90, An Act to
amend The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitra-
tion Act, 1965.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, this might be an opportunity
to raise one or two points having to do with
the amendments on The Hospital Labour
Disputes Arbitration Act. It appears that
the Minister is going to have more and more
of a problem in extending the jurisdiction of
this bill if he is going to use it exclusively
for keeping labour difficulties out of hospitals
and ancilliary responsibiUties.
I am sure the hon. Minister is as aware as
I am that among those people employed in
hospital responsibilities, there is an ever-in-
creasing pressure for a better salary, a better
share of the economy of the community, a
better standard of living, and a feeling that
perhaps they are being called upon to a
point more than other groups in the com-
munity, because of this statute, to help hold
the line in rapidly increasing hospital costs.
I think there have been several examples
where arbitration hearings have shown that
this bill, and the amendments to this bill,
come in conflict more and more with the
requirements of the Ontario Hospital Services
Commission, and the policy of the govern-
ment as a whole.
I knew the Minister's brow is furrowing a
bit because he realizes that there may be
some conversations going on about it. But
these particular amendments, while they deal
specifically with some areas of concern, my
feeling is that there are going to be prob-
lems, troubles and difficulties tliat will be
faced by the Minister of Labour, his col-
league the Minister of Health (Mr. Dymnnd),
the Ontario Hospital Services Commission
and the whole system of arbitration in this
connection, unless a much more generous—
and I would say modern— approach to fiscal
requirements is taken.
Certainly everybody here is concerned
with holding tlie line in costs as well as other
areas, but just because we have some legis-
lation which requires arbitration in tliis par-
ticular field of endeavour, surely does not
mean that those people concerned have to
continue to carry an unnecessarily heavy part
of the load for the policy of so-called holding
the line in hospital costs.
I agree with die principle as stated in the
original bill, that we cannot permit our
hospitals to close down because of labour
disputes. But if we are going to take that
position, then it must be balanced by an
attitude perhaps, I think it was described as
bending over backwards, to see that those
who come under the arbitrary aspects of the
legislation are not doing so if they have a
feehng tiiat they are unfairly treated.
There are altogether too many, let us say,
poHcy-forming bodies associated with the re-
sponsibility that the Minister of Labour must
bear. His colleague who sits directly in front
of him is as responsible for this as anyone. He
is much too quick to say that the Ontario
Hospital Services Commission must make
independent judgments on these matters when
surely tlie final responsibility is his.
This is the difficulty I see in principle, in
extending the original Act, entitled The
Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act,
with these amendments.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr, Speaker,
the whole question of expanding The Hospital
Labour Disputes Arbitration Act is one that
I do not think we can support. I make that
observation because in this bill, this Act will
cover nursing homes and homes for the aged.
I am not sure that compulsory arbitration
ought to be applied to these institutions, as
well as the subsection 2 that provides for
laundry and power plants.
I might also say, at the outset, that I do
agree, and commend the Minister, for chang-
ing the time limit in the Act.
This is updating the procedures that will
give the employees a greater measure of
equity in terms of providing that the dispute
go through the procedure that much faster.
Getting back to sections 1 and 2 however,
it seems to me that when we start to expand
in this area of compulsory arbitration, then
we are providing an instrument or a vehicle
that will put the workers in these homes at a
disadvantage. I am of the opinion that the
5626
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hospital workers were placed at a disadvant-
age because of the compulsory arbitration
that was perpetrated on them some time ago.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, tliat this gov-
ernment ought to provide a formula that will
give hospital workers and workers, who they
feel iue in the area of essential services, a
measure of equity in terms of what the indus-
trial workers receive. I was very happy to
see that Professor Weiller did upset, in effect,
the guidehnes that were laid down by this
government's agent, the Ontario Hospital
Services Commission, and rightly so. This
government has set down guidelines that were
obviously inadequate; they were unfair to
the people who are working in that kind of a
ser\'ice industry. Professor Weiller upset it.
It appears to me, as it appears in this
editorial, that if there is going to be honest
collective bargaining for the hospital workers
in this province, then the people who are
dictating the terms ought to come to the
bargaining table. There is no use bargaining
with somebody who is making unilateral deci-
sions but does not have to come to the table
and justify them. This is exactly what is going
on in the hospitals today under compulsory
arbitration.
I suspect very strongly that Mr. Weiller's
decision, I think it was in Brampton, is not
going to be the rule; it is not going to be
the rules that are really set for hospital
workers. It just happened to be an unusual
case where hospital workers were the lowest
paid, as I understand it, in the province of
Ontario, and even Professor Weiller could not
stomach that, and brought them up compar-
able to other workers.
I also want to say this, that we have to
distinguish between the question of incon-
venience and public safety and health. As far
us workers going on strike, it would be an
inconvenience to tliat institution. I want the
Minister to tell me if a home for the aged
oould operate even though there was a strike
on in that situation, as they very well did in
the Hydro situation. There was a strike on
there and that facility still operated.
I want to commend the Minister of Labour
for that, he did not bring in a bill that
resulted in compulsory arbitration as far as
the Hydro workers were concerned, and a
veiy essential service in our province. Yet we
now find the Minister of Labour expanding
thLs whole question of compulsory arbitration,
and I think it flics in the face of the demo-
cratic process that we live under and it
destroys the question of free collective bar-
gaining as we understand it.
One of the very essential instruments that
lias made real progress in this province, has
been the question of free collective bargain-
ing and the democratic right of individuals
to bargain. This type of legislation circum-
vents that whole procedure with no real
alternative for those people to get their
measure of economic and social justice in
tliis province— no way! We are hoisting com-
pulsory arbitration on those workers, but the
Minister does not say he will give them any
method of getting their measure of economic
and social justice. I diink it is just ludicrous
that we adopt this kind of a policy.
Let me also say this; it appears to me that
this is just a question of ojyening the door. I
would be very much afraid that this govern-
ment is going to attempt the policies of com-
pulsory arbitration in other areas as well. I
think there is some argument for the question
of pubHc safety and healtli, but in my opinion
this does not really come in that area, and I
think tliat the Minister could very well have
given tliese people the right to free collective
bargaining so that they could make some gain
in terms of increasing their standard of
living.
The results of compulsory arbitration when-
ever it has been implemented in this nation
and in some other jurisdictions, have really
shown that those workers continue to fall
further, and further behind. Most of them
find themselves on the bottom rung of the
economic ladder. Therefore, I caution the
government of extending this question of
compulsory arbitration, and I would suggest
that we, maybe I could use the term, "hold
the line," in terms of expanding it, so that
these workers will get an opportimity to
bargain freely and to perpetuate the demo-
cratic process as we understand it.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to say a few words on this
bill. I support this bill, along with other
members of my party. I am one of those who,
in most cases, does not approve of compulsory
arbitration. There is no question, however,
in my mind from what I have seen of nursing
homes, and homes for the aged, that if there
was a strike in one of these homes it would
cause a tremendous amount of inconvenience,
to the point of endangering many of the
patients that are in the institutions.
There are innimierable patients in every
home for the aged, or nursing home, that are
completely and entirely dependent on the
help of the staff that are employed there. If
there was a strike or even the threat of a
strike, there could easily be chaos in the
APRIL 28, 1969
3627
administration of these homes. I have only
one reservation about supporting this bill,
and that is the fact that I think that the
government, when they are settling wage dis-
putes with these people, should err on the
side of liberality, simply because they do not
have the right to strike. They should not be
in the position where they are, in effect, sub-
sidizing the operation of a nursing home or
a home for the aged.
We have often used as an example, Mr,
Speaker, the railroad brotherhood. At one
time they were considered the aristocrats of
labour. The right to strike has never been
taken away from them, but at the same time,
whenever there is a strike, on almost every
occasion when there has been a strike. Parlia-
ment has been called. I think that we would
be in an untenable situation if we had to call
the Legislature every time there was a strike
in a nursing home, or in a home for the
aged. It may be a matter of degree. Where
do you draw the line? What is the most
important? But certainly, with a railway
strike, or a hydro strike, you are really deal-
ing with one particular group that can be
handled very quickly, and again, with trans-
portation. Today, there are alternatives.
But, when you are a patient in a home for
the aged, or in a nursing home, there are no
alternatives. Literally the patient is not in
a position to bargain, and those of us who are
in government, Mr. Speaker, have to keep
this major principle in mind.
We have to respect the rights of business.
We have to respect the rights of labour. But
both business and labour today are well
organized, and the people that suffer and the
average people in the middle, and again, I
look at these patients— in the homes for the
aged, and in nursing homes— as the helpless
people that are in the middle of any dispute
between management and labour.
So, by this legislation, I feel that we are in
some considerable measure trying to help
them. But again, and I emphasize this with
strong reservation, the employees in the
homes for the aged and in the nursing homes,
are at the bottom of the economic ladder,
and not enough is being done by this admin-
istration in helping them. I would, in this
plea, emphasize that, when settlements are
being made, the government should be far
ttiore generous than it has in the past.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I
want to comment just briefly on the bill.
There are obviously two principles involved.
The latter part of the bill deals with
expediting the arbitration procedures, and we
are in favour of that. The first principle em-
bodied in the bill, of course, is to extend the
compulsory arbitrations bill to nursing homes,
as well as to the homes for the aged.
Now, and let us be perfectly clear about
it, by and large, in the province of Ontario,
the employees of nursing homes— and I cannot
speak from any specific knowledge of the
homes for the aged-may, or may not fall
within this category. But employees in nurs-
ing homes are not organized at the present
time.
They are a group of people who, by and
large, are engaged in an industry which is
expanding and is essential; but in which the
wages paid are very low. Now, by extending
a compulsory arbitration provision to the
employees of nursing homes, we are simply
saying to them: not only are you not organ-
ized, and therefore not in a position to strike
in any event; but even if you were organized,
and were in a position to strike, we are going
to let you know that you are not going to be
able to exercise that right.
There may be some logic, but only some
logic, in the Minister of Health suggesting
that the compulsory arbitration provision
should be extended to employees in nursing
homes, because they are health institutions
which ha\'e some of the attributes which are
comparable to the attributes generally
attributed to hospitals.
Let us be perfectly clear, though. We are
again segregating a group of people who are
very lowly paid in the province. They are not
organized; and therefore there is no threat
of any kind that they would withdraw their
services.
Now, if we go back to the original intro-
duction of The Hospital Labour Disputes
Arbitration Act, even in that situation, there
was no specific circumstance the government
could point to where any union in this prov-
ince had threatened the health or welfare of
patients within the hospitals. Now, here we
have the government extending this compul-
sory arbitration provision to a group of un-
organized people. We have again the addi-
tional factor that the government, by and
large— while it is not necessarily the Ontario
Hospital Services Commission— has in fact
laid down guidelines which are going to make
it again the third party at any discussions or
negotiations which do take place within the
nursing homes; I refer to the amount of
$9.50 per day, which this government is pre-
pared to pay to the operators of nursing
homes for patients for which this government
is assuming financial responsibility.
5628
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It seems to me that we are divorcing our-
selves from reality if we start to extend the
principle of compulsory arbitration to a large
number of people in the province receiving
\ ery low wages, and do not have the benefit
of being organized and being aible collectively
to bargain for their rights.
I would think that the government's first
obligation would be to provide some kind of
incentives by which people, who are in
nursing homes, would become organized, so
that they could begin to collectively bargain
for their rights. This, ratiier than starting at
the far end of tlie scale and immediately,
lx?fore they are in a position to strike in any
sense of the collecti\'e withdrawal of their
labour, before they are even in that position,
to say to them: well, even if you do organize,
we in this government are going to make cer-
tain that you are forced within the restricting
provisions of oomipulsory arbitration.
Therefore, on that principle of the bill, and
not on the second principle of the bill, we in
this party will oppose the second reading of
/the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
wishing to speak ot this bill? The hon. mem-
ber for Sarnia.
Mr. J, E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Just a few
words, Mr. Speaker. I want to associate myself
entirely with what was said by the hon.
member for Parkdale.
In connection with the comments of tlie
hon. member for Riverdale, I could not
exactly understand his concern for the fact
that these people are not organized at tlie
present time. I do not see anything in the
statute that disentitles them to self-organiza-
tion if they wish to do so.
The one thing that I wanted to record as
one member of this House is a question of
attitude and posture, if you like, in connec-
tion with the depriving of groups of people
of their fundamental right to strike. I have
had some direct association in acting for the
police in my own area and in other areas
and sitting on boards of arbitration. I do not
know how one can do this, but I think one
must record in Hansard at least a general
attitude regarding groups depri\'ed of this
right.
There is some justification. I see a justifica-
tion as far as the police force is concerned.
I go further; I see a justification in con-
nection with fire departments. There is an
economic and, more important, a social justi-
fication for this type of legislation.
But what I want to convey to boards of
arbitration is that when you deprive and take
away from these groups what is essentially
their right— rights that we have, collectively,
to act— then these groups must be concur-
rently compensated for such deprivation.
What we have attempted to do in the field
of labour relations involving police associa-
tions, is to establish some type of criteria
that does take into consideration the fact that
these rights are being taken away.
I now direct my remarks, through you Mr.
Speaker, more to the Minister of Labour than
to the Minister of Health in connection with
tliis legislation.
When we are looking at the entire
field of labour, when we are looking
more importantly at the Rand report
and some of the concepts put forth there, we
should keep in mind that this is an inherent
right that is being taken away and concur-
rently there must be some benefit accruing
to the people. But I do agree with the mem-
ber for Riverdale and the member for Oshawia
when they talk about the economic strata of
these people. I s-iay they have every right to
bargain collectively. There is nothing in this
legislation w^hic-h taJces away such a right.
When tlie hon. member for Riverdale talks
about some enticements that the government
shouild initiate, some enticements to invite
these people towards collective bargaining,
I do not understand what those enticements
are. I do not in any way take issue with his
comments, but I just do not know how a gov-
ernment can entice people in this particular
position to bargain collectively.
Certainly one has to take into considera-
tion the economic strata of these people, and
one has really to bleed for them in a way,
and so let us have some forward thinking
from The Department of Labour. When they
do have bilateral discussions with respect to
questions of principle as far as arbitrations
are concerned, let us keep in mind that these
inherent rights are being taken away by us
in this Legislature for good and sufficient
caiise. That is what we say in this party.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, it would seem to me, addressing
myself to the principle of the bill, that the
point that is being made— I do not think with
appropriate logical consistency about the ooii>
clusion by the member for Sarnia— is that
the deprivation of rights exists and is being
extended in a very real way in this bill, with
no concomitant indication on the part of
the Minister that the people who will sufiFer
APRIL 28, 1969
3629
thereby, or might conceivably suffer thereby,
will receive any appropriate guarantee or any
just recompense, or any sufficient warning.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker,
that it is a rather dangerous precedent, gen-
erally, in a democratic society to extend com-
pulsory arbitration and deprive people of the
right to strike when there is no legitimate
basis on which to found the extension.
Which home for the aged might the Min-
ister indicate to the House has recently had
its employees strike? What are we discussing?
Which nursing home has recently had its
employees strike? Where is the list of in-
cidents that he has on file where the sug-
gestion of an imminent strike is available?
The fact of the matter is that there is no
basis in the world to suggest that the
employees in these various areas have acted
in other tlian a responsible fashion. There is
no basis in the world on which to suggest
that they would leave the patients defence-
less, or that they would visit upon their cares,
their wards, all the distress that would come
by virtue of a strike.
It seems to me that tliere is no particular
logic in extending a bill by way of supposed
clarification into yet another social service
area from which we have had no evidence
v/hatsoever of irresponsibility on the part of
the employees, or an intention to behave
irresponsibly on the part of the employees.
So, Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with
a right as significant as tliis one, one does
not deprive workers of it so cavalierly,
whether they are organized, as in the case of
homes for the aged, or whether they are
unorganized, as in the case of nursing homes.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that
it is rather more important than that because,
as the Minister will know, as the Minister
of Healtli has indicated to him as a colleague
I am sure, the area of nursing homes, for in-
stance, has been invaded by some pretty
substantial corporate concerns, not all of them
from this province; not all of tliem from this
country.
I do not know all the details, the Minister
might be able to enHghten me, but the 200-
bed imit that has been built in Kitchener as a
nursing home, is a pretty tough minded cor-
porate concern. The willingness of the Min-
ister of Health, Mr. Speaker, to insist on a
per diem of $9.50 a day, ratlier than granting
nursing home operators what they say they
need which is $12.00 a day, is precisely be-
cause a large conglomerate institution like the
200-bed nursing home in Kitchener can pro-
vide the required custodial care at a $9.50
per diem with very low wages indeed.
But the level of wages by virtue of the
government per diem is arbitrarily set by this
Minister. The workers are now deprived of
an additional fundamental right although they
show no irresponsible behaviour at all. We
play right into the hands of what is not par-
ticularly an attractive development in this
province, a corporate structure for nursing
homes of a very large and conglomerate
nature which is the antithesis to what some
of the smaller and private operators are
attempting to provide.
It seems to me that we put very severe
limitations on the possibilities for the em-
ployees, at least by way of wage level. Their
wage levels are constrained within tlie per
diem rate which the Minister is prepared to
pay the corporation which now controls their
working conditions. It is no longer a small
operator, but it is a fairly substantial cor-
poration.
The money coming from abroad is obvi-
ously going to attempt to keep wage levels at
a pretty minimum rate. Then on top of that,
tliis Legislature, with no basis or precedent
whatsoever, says to tliem: "We are going to
extend this bill on compulsory arbitration to
you as well, lest you think tliat one jot or
tittle of right will be left to you by virtue
of the developments in this field."
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what
you are doing is locking the employees in
nursing homes into a strait-jacket, a critical
strait- jacket, because the trend in the prov-
ince is away from the appropriate and mean-
ingful care of the aged and those in nursing
homes, to the rather larger more sterile, more
dehumanizing institutional framework on
which the Minister's per diem is now based.
And that is going to be a battle royal as
the Minister of Labour and the Minister of
Healtli know, when the independent nursing
home operators meet head on these rather
large conglomerates financed from abroad.
Mr. Speaker, albeit collective bargaining
procedures may be available to some who
organize, the limits are very firmly set by the
government. To remove from them their ulti-
mate threat or weapon, is an exceedingly
premature and ill-advised move, and is a
serious deprivation of liberty with no
authority whatsoever.
But, Mr. Speaker, let me take it one step
further. The same argument that was made
by the member for Parkdale, and with
respect, by tlie member for Samia, can be
made in related fields.
3630
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There is no reason in the world why one
should not apply, by the same logic, com-
pulsory arbitration to all the child care and
social service and social welfare and social
work people in agencies looking after chil-
dren or the physically disabled. There is a
similar threat of danger, where they could be
abandoned as charges, a danger of serious
self-destructiveness and self-inflicted punish-
ment, if not the danger in the case of the
physically disabled of being permitted to— I
do not know what one would say— to lapse
into neglect, in an institution for the aged
if the workers were not there.
One is merely setting the ground here for
an invidious extension of this particular prin-
ciple into all kinds of services to people.
What you are saying essentially is that em-
ployees engaged in services to people cannot
be tmsted to behave appropriately in negotia-
tions, because once you have isolated one
service next year you will come back with
another service. And the year after that you
will clarify the legislation and move to
yet another service, because there are no
qualitative distinctions here.
The same danger of abandonment is
implicit in all.
I think that what we on this side are say-
ing today is that there is no basis, no pre-
cedent, on which to presume to make this
extension. There are such limits and con-
straints already put on the people by virtue of
government per diems imposed by The
Department of Health, that to remove this
particular aspect of rights is to seriously
jeopardize the future of these employees.
Third, Mr. Speaker, you do not extend
anything as perilous and iniquitous as com-
pulsory arbitration quite so lightly into the
social service fields, because it casts asper-
sions on all services to people. And I daresay
it will cause grave concern to tens of
thousands of employees from whose mind it
would be totally remote ever to endanger
their charges, but who wish the collective
rights of all other organized or unorganized
employees in this society when they choose
to exercise those rights.
And that is why we oppose the first
section and the principle of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: The hon.
Kitchener.
member for
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, I think with respect to the eloquent
way that the previous speaker has mentioned
some of the difficulties, there is one thing with
which I would take a certain amount of
difference. That is, of course, with respect
to the approach that this party has made,
that we do see qualitative difi"erences in the
approaches with which we have to deal as it
comes to supporting the kinds of principles
with which this bill deals.
In this party, Mr. Speaker, we have been
prepared to discuss each situation and to look
at the merits of the various situations as they
are brought before us. I think we would do
ourselves an injustice if we were prepared to
say that, because we make a decision in a
certain area, we may therefore be forced to
set a pattern of that same kind of decision-
making in every other area that may be
brought before us.
It may well be that we may decide this
same way in certain other legislation as the
government may bring it forward. But I do
not think that we must, of necessity, commit
ourselves to that agreement by the approval
in principle of this singular situation.
With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I
think it is fair to say that we will support this
bill in principle and we will deal with other
situations as they are brought before us.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. Minister
of Labour.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I think it is
quite clear that the principle of free collective
bargaining is a very important one for us, as
it is for others in this House, and certainly it
has been e\ ident that we do not depart from
it except in very special circumstances.
But in the year 1965 the original Act was
brought into force. It applied then to hos-
pitals, and with the change encountered in
hospitals and nursing homes, homes for the
aged, since then, we cannot see a disruption
of essential services for those people.
Dealing for a moment with the matter of
central laundries or central power plants: this
is a natural extension. When you establish a
central laundry or a central power plant,
servicing a number of hospitals, surely you
must follow the same principle of protecting
the inmates or those who are resident in these
institutions from disruption of those essential
services that they require for their protection
and the maintenance of their health and well-
being.
In reference to the nursing homes and
homes for the aged, I think there has been a
great change in pattern in these type of
institutions in the last few years and again
the same principle is applied— we want to see
those people who may be resident there pro-
APRIL 28, 1969
3631
tected in cases where they could not
adequately protect themselves.
We hope that the employees and the man-
agement in these institutions will reach agree-
ments and it is only after that breakdown has
taken place— if there is a breakdown— that we
step in with the other measures.
But you will also note in this matter that
we have tried to reduce the period of time
from the 35-day period down to seven days,
because we realize it was a period of time
which only caused greater distress and dis-
agreement. By doing this, we think we can
improve the situation and decrease the bitter-
ness and the conflict that might otherwise
develop.
So. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we recog-
nize the principle of protecting those people
who are residents of the institutions and it
is for that reason and that reason only that we
would depart from our normal practice of not
imposing compulsory arbitration.
Mr. BuUbrook: Mr. Speaker, might I direct
a short question to tlie Minister of Labour?
I made some remarks about the deprivation
of rights. I am wondering if he would—
Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon,
member that no member is permitted to
speak twice on—
Mr. BuUbrook: I appreciate that ruling.
Mr. Speaker: But the hon. Minister wishes
to reply in this particular case.
Hon. Mr. Bales: I do not want to go into
it in long detail, but the point raised there
is very valid and it is a matter to which I,
and the government, have been giving care-
ful consideration. I recognize the problem. It
is one of those things tliat is being very
carefully considered in the light of the Rand
report and the federal task forces report.
Mr. Lewis: What does that mean? That is
not an answer.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second
reading of Bill 90.
The House divided on the motion, which
was agreed to on the following vote.
Ayes Nays
Allan
Brown
Auld
Bun-
Bales
Da vison
Ben
Deans
Boyer
Ferrier
Braithwaite
Gisborn
Breithaupt
Lawlor
Ayes
Brunelle
Bukator
BuUbrook
Carruthers
Connell
De Monte
Downer
Dunlop
Dymond
Edighoffer
Evans
Farquhar
Gaunt
Gomme
Good
Grossman
Haggerty
Haskett
Henderson
Hodgson
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Hodgson
(York North)
Innes
Jessiman
Johnston
(St. Catharines)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Kerr
Knight
Lawrence
(St. George)
MacKenzie
MacNaughton
Meen
Momingstar
Morrow
McKeough
McNeil
Newman
(Windsor- Walkerville)
Newman
(Ontario South)
Nixon
Paterson
Price
Pritchard (Mrs.)
Randall
Reid
(Rainy River)
Reid
(Scarborough East)
Reilly
Renter
Robarts
Rollins
Nays
Lewis
Makarchuk
Pilkey
Renwick
(Riverdale)
Renvdck (Mrs.)
(Scarborough Centre)
Stokes
Young— 14.
3632
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ayes Nays
Rowe
Rowntree
Ruston
Singer
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
(Hamilton Mountain)
Snow
Sopha
Spence
Stewart
Trotter
Villeneuve
Welch
Wells
White
Winkler
Worton
Yaremko— 74.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the ayes
are 74, the nays are 14.
Motion agreed to, second reading of the bill.
Clerk of the House: The 12tli order; re-
suming the adjourned debate on the motion
for second reading of Bill 97, An Act respect-
ing The Department of Health.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Mr. Speaker: Is there any member who
wishes to speak to this before tlie Minister?
The hon. member for Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lavvlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
just a word or two on this bill, with particular
reference to the constitution of the Ontario
Council of Health as set up in the bill. This
bill of course, has wide-ranging ramifications,
but its general terms are so vague and innocu-
ous that I do not think anyone could possibly
take exception to them.
It seems to me, as in most departments of
human life, it is not The Department of
Health and the guidelines laid down here
that will give any great guidance to future
Ministers of Health. It will be tlie question of
the personality and the degree of incisiveness
of that very Minister in his capacity. Some
Ministers, as they grow older, grow mellow,
and hov/ever restrictive and narrow an Act
may be, may give it a sense of tone and be-
nignity.
Certain other Ministers— I have certain
ones in mind, Mr. Speaker— as tliey grow
older, grow slowly more sour, and no matter
how benevolent and how fine the Act may be
in its terms, and however higli- sounding the
phraseology and purpose set forth in tlie Act,
it will be administered in a narrow, partisan
and invidious way, undermining its own pre-
tentions.
It is therefore, up to the individual in-
volved, in this particular kind of legislation.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I can see no purpose for
an Act of tliis kind, so vacuous and vague is
its terminology.
Turning to tlie council that is set out here,
tlie deputy Minister will be the chairman of
this council and there will be 16 appointed
people. Some day we must tot up for tlie
benefit of the members the number of
various forms of councils, clubs, private and
otherwise, boards and what-not, being
founded by the present government. But in
any event, here is anotlier one.
If it is being set up in the terms as set forth
here, then I suggest that these bills and
various departments define what they con-
sider the range and responsibility to be. I
suggest that when they set up councils within
their departments to give guidance to that
department, that tliey set out in some defini-
tion, who these people are likely to be. The
tendency— due to the impetus of McRuer—
has been to various kinds of quasi-judicial
agencies, and professional associations re-
quiring members of the public and the legal
profession to be present.
In this particular area it would seem to me
that a man, in the legal profession, with well-
known civil libertarian tendencies, might very
well sit on this lx)ard, because we know of
many instances of arbitrary measures being
taken through this department affecting the
lives of the citizens.
I would recommend to the Minister that his
bill be amended in that direction. If he does
not accede to tliat, as no doubt he will not,
then I suggest that when the appointments
come tlirough, he at least be aware of the re-
marks and seek to select out of the 16
people to be appointed, at least one member
of the legal profession.
I would also think that somebody in a
chronic care hospital, some patient or
patients in a wide range of tlie services he
deals with, with nursing homes, etc., people
in the field and directly affected, those who
are immediately allied to the needs and
cares could be given a high status in selec-
tivity. It should not be people who are per-
haps a little socially minded, but whose chief
qualification is that they are Tory hacks, who
shoidd be appointed to these boards, because
they will really assist the Minister in a mini-
mal way.
APRIL 28, 1969
3633
Let us bring an end to the particular dis-
pensation which aflflicts all jurisdictions, not
just this one. But at the same time I would
like to see this province move ahead at least
in this regard. Perhaps the Minister may give
some thought to my remarks and be able to
indicate just what qualifications and what
kind of individuals he would have in mind to
assist him in the conduct of his duties within
the term of this new statute.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to this? The hon. mem-
ber for Beaches-Woodbine.
Mr. J. L. Brown (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to raise some question
about the wording of sub-section (b) under
section 41, "the Minister shall oversee and
promote the health and the physical and
mental well-being of the people of Ontario."
I take exception to tlie word "mental". I
think the time has come when we need to
take a look at whether or not health is the
proper area for services that have to do with
the adjustment of people. If, by this word,
the Minister intends those persons who are
organically impaired in their functioning, if
he means to restrict it to only those people
in whom organic problems are a central
factor, then I think there is no question about
the words "mental well-being" being included
in there.
If this phrase extends to persons who are
maladjusted or incapable of fulfilling their
capacities in work or in living as a result of
life experiences as a result of negative learn-
ing, then I think this is a fimction that should
not appropriately be in The Department of
Health or under the Minister's jurisdiction.
I wonder if the Minister could define
exactly what he means by the word "mental"?
It does not seem to be used in other parts
of the Act, only in this one particular section.
I wonder if the Minister could comment on
his intentions there.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to speak briefly to
the principle of this bill. I am wondering, if
the duties of the Minister are to advise the
government in resx>ect of the Health of the
people of this province, whether in fact this
means that the Minister and his department
will become more concerned about the lack
of medical practitioners, particularly in the
north; and whether this means that the duties
and the purview of the Minister and his
department will be much wider in range
and scope to provide for more medical prac-
titioners in tliose areas of the province which
ai-e in dire need of them at the present time.
Mr. Speaker: And other member? If not,
the Minister has the floor.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grey-
Bruce (Mr. Sargent) began this debate, sir,
and he did begin discussing a point that is
of very keen personal interest to me, but
unfortunately did not have a part in this Act.
I think it would be unfair to him in his
absence to appear as though it had gone
unnoticed.
He was speaking about the broad physical
fitness programme on which, in my view, the
whole of the health of our nation rests. I
have felt very keenly about this for a long
time; as you and certain other hon. mem-
bers in the House will recall some years ago
this became a matter of real concern. But this
is in the hands of another department. We
are engaging very closely with that depart-
ment in these matters, and the hon. member,
I think, has a right to know that his remarks
did not go unnoticed.
In respect to the remarks made by the
hon. member for Lakeshore, the council of
health is not something new, it is of rather
recent origin. I believe it is about three years
now, two-and-a-half-years now since it was
established. And it was established because
we have felt keenly tlie need for an advisory
body to the government and to the Minister
of Health on all health matters. This is in
miniature, but a counterpart of the Dominion
Council of Health. It was one of the import-
ant recommendations of the Hall commission
as hon. members will recall.
Our province, I am rather proud to say,
was the first in the country to adopt the
principle, although I do not think Hall
referred to it under diis name. But the
Ontario Council of Health is carrying out the
duties and responsibilities and functions as
proposed by the Hall commission in their
report of 1964.
The body was primarily set up by Order-
in-Council and has been carried on in that
way because of the fact that we never did
have, until the present time, a Department
of Health Act. 1 think we are now the last
department of government to bring in an Act
codifying all our functions and responsibilities.
We are really asking for little in this Act
thiat does not now fall to our lot through a
variety of Acts which come imder our depart-
mental purview and responsibility, but we felt
3634
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it was long overdue to bring these together
under a Department of Health Act in order
that we would all know what it was about.
I am a little disappointed that my hon.
friend, the member for Lakeshore, believes
that it is fatuous and innocuous, I believe
were his words. But then, of course, he is
such a highly skilled scholar and so well
versed in the use of language. As I sit listen-
ing to him I am sometimes temi>ted to think
of the late Sir Winston Churchill because
his flow of language is not totally imrelated
to the flow that used to come from the lips
of diat great man.
Indeed, in tlie last two or three years, I
note that his friend just in front of him and a
little bit to his right, has found in the member
for Lakeshore a real competitor. One has
great difficulty sometimes, although not so
much of late, determining the pros and cons
between die two. I say not much difficulty of
late because the hon. member in the second
row is not in his seat quite as often as he
used to be.
Nonetheless, it will be a great pity if that
party were bereft completely of this melli-
fluous verbiage, sir, which ofttimes makes one
th ink-
Mr. Speaker: I might enquire of the Min-
ister if he intends to come back to the prin-
ciple of tlie bill?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker,
but I thought I might l>e granted just a little
of the licence that you are so prone to grant
to those on the other side.
I would emphasize, returning to the prin-
ciples of tlie bill in deference to you, sir, that
this is not another council. Its duties are quite
reasonably spelled out, its duties are broad,
its duties are important. It is to advise the
government and tiie department on all matters
pertaining to the health and well-being of the
public. Its constitution is such that it is
representative of the full broad spectrum of
our society.
The chairman is the Deputy Minister of
Health, the deputy chairman is the chairman
of the Hospital Services Commission. This is
laid down in our regulations. The fixe basic
health professions are represented, the volun-
tary organizations are represented, the hos-
pital association, the bodies which are
involved in educating and training health
manpower and the citizenry at large, includ-
ing labour, business, industry and the ordinary
nm-of-the-mill citizens. This has l^een a
council which has afforded us a great deal
of support in the last two years since it came
into being, since it became active, and its
reports have been very useful to us.
The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine
raised the question as to whether or not the
responsibility for supervision of the mental
health of the public should be in The Depart-
ment of Health. I would have to say to him,
as I am quite sure he would expect me to
say, yes, most assuredly it should be. A sound
mind is just as essential in my view as a
sound body, and I recognize quite readily,
jsir, that all mental ill health cannot be, at
least we do not believe can be, attributed to
a strictly organic basis as yet. But there is
increasing e\ idence that much mental disease
which we thought of in the past as having no
relationship to an organic basis, has a closer
relationship to the body processes, be they
organic or chemical, than we previously
thought.
Therefore, apart from the fact that tradi-
tionally nearly all jurisdictions in the civilized
world have consistently looked to their
governments to provide supervision over, and
treatment for, the diseases of the mind, I
believe that from the standpoint of health this
does lie directly within the purview of The
Department of Health, recognizing at the
same time, sir, that The Department of Health
in its strict and limited connotation of other
days, cannot take total responsibility.
But The Department of Health now is so
concerned and so involved in a broad
spectrum of discipline and technologies that
it no longer holds the narrow, stultifying,
sometimes, \ery limited connotation of other
days.
We involve great numbers of other skills
and disciplines in our activities and I think
that The Department of Health acts more or
less as a co-ordinating body, sometimes a
catalyst, to get the job on the way.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay brought
out a point that is of great concern to him
and great concern to those who represent the
northern parts of oiu- province— the scarcity of
health manpower. It is equally of great con-
cern to many of us who live down in the so-
called densely-populated part of our prox-
ince.
For the first time in the history of our
province we have written into the statute a
body that has responsibility for seeing to it
that there is concern exercised and respon-
sibility taken for the provision of an adequate
flow of health manpower— the preparation and
education of an adequate flow of health man-
power. This can be found in the bill in
section 4, subsection 2 (a) and (b).
APRIL 28, 1969
3635
This is the first time this has been written
into the law. It was one of the amazing things
to me when I became Minister of Health
that nobody, no organization, had respon-
sibility to see to it that there was preparation
made for an adequate flow of health man-
power.
The bill only really brings together duties
and responsibilities and functions which we
now exercise under the aegis of many Acts
and regulations and puts them all within this
one departmental Act.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second
reading of Bill 97. Is it the pleasure of the
House that the motion carry?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
Mr. Speaker: Any other member?
Does the Minister wish to say anything to
the bill?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
bill.
THE DOG TAX AND LIVESTOCK
AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of
Bill 98, An Act to amend The Dog Tax and
Livestock and Poultry Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, this bill is one
of the most unprincipled pieces of legislation
ever to appear before this House. I say that
with malice aforethought.
If Mr, Speaker were made fully acquainted
with the hidden purposes, with the scheming
intent, and with the subversion of rights con-
templated under the terms of this bill; if
he were well aware of the rank discrimina-
tion countenanced, preserved, and forwarded
in the purposes of this bill, I am sure he,
along with myself, would instantly resign.
We would no longer wish to remain members
of this House.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that under section
2, which is being amended under the Act, a
male dog is taxed at $2 whereas a female dog
is taxed at $4. Every subsequent additional
male dog is taxed at $4, whereas the females
are taxed at $6. To add insult to injury, Mr.
Speaker, this is so imless the female dog is
spayed. Spayed of all things!
Is there no provision made in this Legis-
lature within the terms of our intent, or by
this Minister in his callousness, to protect the
rights of female dogs? There is a gross dis-
crimination in your legislation in this particu-
lar area and I would ask the Minister to take
a bill of rights for female dogs under imme-
diate consideration.
TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs) moves second reading
of Bill 110, An Act respecting the Toronto
Stock Exchange.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry
that the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer)
is not in his place because I know he is
very much concerned about the provisions of
this particular bill.
There has been considerable discussion
aibout the principle that the Minister would
bring public representatiofa onto the board
of the stock exchange. I think it is accepted
that this is something that would be in the
public interest, to say the least.
The old feeling— perhaps not founded on
fact, but certainly prevalent among those
like myself who are not expert in matters of
this type— is that the Toronto Stock Exchange
has been for years very much a closed cor-
poration, run for almost the total benefit of
those who have been able to purchase seats
at high cost and take part in the deliberations
which have been to their benefit over many
years.
Now I would be the first to say that since
we have the department headed by the hon.
Minister and for a few months just before,
there has been a much more extensive aware-
ness of public responsibility associated with
the Toronto Stock Exchange, and the public
sale of securities of tliis type in general. There
has been a great reform indeed and the
reform coming much too late to save those
among the citizens of this province who have
lost a good deal of money— in many oases
their savings— before the protection that
should have been minimvun and essential was
brought into being.
Now there are some criticisms as far as tlie
amendments are concerned, amounting to a
difiiculty in seeing how public interest is met
by the appointment to the board of the
stock exchange of those individuals recom-
mended directly by the Minister, or the
Lieutenant-Go vemor-in-Council. There is a
suspicion that the old attitude will be per-
petuated in this way, since there is no ade-
quate provision for the involvement of the
community at large.
3636
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now I must admit I am not in a position
to offer an alternative. I do not suppose these
seats should come up for general election
and yet surely there is some way whereby
the Minister in giving his recommendations
should be required in the provisions of tliis
statute to seek out recommendations from
tliose more immediately involved— and I do
not mean the present members of the stock
exchange— but from the community at large.
There is also the feeling that I have
heard expressed that the stock exchange
itself could be made much more of a public
enterprise if seats on the stock exchange were
not to continue to be so \aluable because
their numbers were so limited.
This government should act through amend-
ments and the amendments before us do tliis
in some measure. But they could do it much
more effectively to make this a more public
responsibility— a board that is more responsive
to the requirements of the little man in the
community, the man who, as he finds his
situation improving, is interested in investing
and in the development of our nation and our
own natural resources, or even in trying to
make a profit through the facilities offered
iDy the Toronto Stock Exchange.
I just wanted to bring these matters to
your attention, Mr. Speaker, and it may very
well be that they can be dealt with more
fully in this debate than I have attempted to
do.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to speak to the bill? The hon. member for
Riverdale.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a
number of brief comments about the bill so
that we will understand its scope. The bill
perpetuates the monopoly of the Toronto
Stock Exchange as the only body in the prov-
ince of Ontario which conducts a public
market place for tlie trading in securities.
It is true that under The Securities Act it
is possible that another stock exchange could
at some point in time be incorporated, say,
for the mining business or to conduct some
portion of the securities business. But we
should be perfectly clear that the bill itself
as it now stands, provides a monopoly to the
Toronto Stock Exchange for the public mar-
keting of securities in the province.
I am delighted to see that the Minister
brought the bill in as a public bill, the orig-
inal bill was a private bill. I tnist in due
course that his colleagues, particularly the
Minister of Education (Mr. Davis), will see
fit to adopt the same practice in dealing with
the universities in the province. I think it is
a very useful precedent that the Minister
should see fit to bring this bill in as a public
bill, and not leave it to be introduced by
way of a private bill sponsored by one of the
members of the Legislature.
At the time when we debated at some
length the revision of The Securities Act, I
had at that time, and in some detail, laid
down the provisions which we thought were
required in order to clearly outline the power
of the Ontario Securities Commission to over-
see the affairs of the Toronto Stock Exchange.
I am somewhat disappointed to find that
there is no specific reference in this Act to
the Ontario Securities Commission. It is, of
course, true that the stock exchange, the
public market place, can only be exercised
within the framework of whatever the author-
ity of the Ontario Securities Commission is,
but there is again the perpetuation in this
bill of the Toronto Stock Exchange as being
a corporation which is a law unto itself. I
simply reiterate, that I think the government
is going to find that in due course it will
have to provide specifically, either in this
Act, or in The Securities Act for the overall
supervision of the affairs of the Toronto Stock
Exchange by the Ontario Securities Commis-
sion.
The bill provides, as the leader of the Op-
position has pointed out, for two members
of the public to be elected to represent the
public interest. I do not know whether that
is adequate, but my own view is that it is
not likely to be adequate. The reason being
that the directors appointed are, in all like-
lihood, going to be persons who, by and
large, are within the same club, or have the
same outlook about the Toronto Stock Ex-
change as those persons who themselves are
members of the Toronto Stock Exchange.
It has a certain appeal, for public relations
purposes, for the Toronto Stock Exchange to
be able to say, "yes we do have two persons
on our board representative of the public
interest." However, I do not think that that
is a sufficient assertion of the public interest,
which in the long run can only really be pro-
tected by the operations and the conduct of
the Ontario Securities Commission, and its
relationship with the Toronto Stock Ex-
change. That is the fundamental point which
has always been of concern to me, that re-
gardless of the reports which have been made
by commissions appointed by this govern-
ment, the Minister is still content to allow
the Toronto Stock Exchange to operate as a
corporation, separate and distinct from any
control or supervision or the minimum con-
APRIL 28, 1969
3637
trol or supervision by the securities commis-
sion.
I notice that this bill is distinct from bills
relating to the professions or other bodies
which are granted a monopoly, in the sense
of a particular area of activity in the prov-
ince, such as the legal profession, or the
medical profession. There are no provisions
relating to the whole question of the way in
which the exchange conducts its affairs in
the public interest in the event that any
member of the exchange as such, or any
person who is not a member of the exchange,
but has been granted trading authority on
the floor of the exchange would have re-
course by some method of appeal, or other-
wise, against a decision made by the board
of directors and their very extensive powers
granted to this board of directors in this non-
profit corporation for the purpose of carry-
ing out its objective, which is to operate the
exchange.
In relation to the operation of the ex-
change, they are going to have to impose
certain standards of conduct; they are going
to have wide areas of authorizing persons
to use the facilities of the exchange. There
are going to be wide areas where, in due
course, the exchange may well be extended
to other aieas of the province. Tliere are
persons who are going to have dealings with
the exchange, either as members with riglits,
or as non-members with rights, or as members
of the public, who should have some method
by which they can appeal, should they have
any sensation that their rights have been
affected, or their privileges have been denied
to them. I notice that as distinct from the
other bodies which are granted monopolies
in the province, there is no adequate provision
for the exercise of disciplinary authority to
protect the rights of citizens of the province
incorporated in the bill.
There are other matters which we will
deal with when the bill comes through com-
mittee of the whole House on the clause by
clause discussion. Those, however, are the
essential ingredients of the bill and, so far
as I concerned, we will not oppose the bill.
We do not think that by opposing the bill we
are going to persuade the government to
introduce the kind of amendments to The
Securities Act which would give us a sense
of the presence of public interest through the
Ontario Securities Commission in the opera-
tion of the exchange. We do not think that
the government would, by our opposing the
bill, endeavour to make it a more public in-
stitution or to recognize it as a public
institution, away from the sensation that many
of us still have, that in a very real sense it
is a private clause. We will, therefore, not
oppose the bill in principle, but will restrict
our comments to the clause by clause discus-
sion of the bill.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, I was very interested to hear the
hon. member for Riverdale throw his lot in
with the government on supporting this
private club.
Over the years that I have been here, one
of the strongest voices of criticism, about the
stock exchange has visually come from the
socialist party, and as all things change, so
has the socialist party. I suppose the fact that
their membership represents several people
who have an interest in the continuation of
the stock exchange, perhaps their views
change in that regard.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Two mil-
lionaires!
Mr. Singer: Now, for ourselves, sir, I think
that this is an objectionable bill, and my
colleagues and I are going to oppose it. We
are going to oppose it for two very substan-
tial reasons.
The first one is that, search as I may,
within the four walls of tliis statute, I cannot
find out how you become a member of the
stock exchange. It is a rather interesting
question that we have posed for a long period
of time. This statute throws no light on it
at all. The exchange here in Toronto, which
does the largest business of any exchange in
the whole of Canada has approximately 100
members.
Seats sell for substantial sums of money,
$50,000, $60,000. But that is not tlie test.
Apparently there is no test unless you can
be accepted in tliis exclusive club. The test
is not that you have enough money to buy
a seat. The test is not that you comply with
niles and regulations laid down by this Leg-
islature. The test is not that you have carried
on business in an honourable way. The test
is not that you are able to post bonds, or get
a bond for good performance. The test is
whether or not the people who control this
exchange decide that they are going to vote
you in.
We have set out on many occasions the
contrast between the rules that govern this
exchange and the rules that govern say the
exchange in London, England. In London,
England they have a membership of over
1,000, and here we have a membership of
100, you cannot get any more in. When
3638
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I pose this question to some of my friends
who know something about tlie exchange they
say, "Oh the physical faclHties will not allow
any greater membership." If there ever was
an answer that begged the question, Mr.
Speaker, that is it.
If there was a real desire to allow persons
other than tlie select few to participate in the
affairs of the exchange, the facilities could
readily be made available. It would seem to
me that before the Minister brings a bill
like this before us, in light of tlie discussions
that we have had about the function of the
exchange, its exclusiveness, the right to cut
ofF people merely because, insofar as the
public can tell, they do not like the way tliey
oomb their hair, tliat the Minister would have
had a careful look about what McRuer says
about civil rights. Also he should take a look
at what has been said in these debates, what
has been said on this side of the House, in
this party, what has been said in other years
by the socialist party, but not being said
today. The Minister would not have brought
in a bill like this unless there was a clear
laying down of principles as to how you
become a member of the stock exchange.
Because it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that a
privilege is being granted by this Legislature,
to a very select group of our community.
And the privilege is set out in section 5 of the
Act.
The Act says:
The Corporation shall be carried on
without the purpose of gain for its mem-
bers and any profits or other accretions to
the corix>ration shall be used in promoting
its object.
That is an indirect way of saying that once
you get in, you do not carry on the opera-
tions of direct gain, but if you are there,
then the firm is there, and carries on for
gain. Now, there is no gainsaying the fact,
Mr. Speaker, that once stocks are listed, the
public has a greater faith in dealing in those
listed stocks than it has dealing in unlisted
stocks. And the people who can buy and
sell them, and the method by which they
are dealt with, is a very important thing in
carrying on the commercial market in this
country, in this province, and in this city.
If this kind of activity is limited to the
hands of a very few people, as this statute
perpetuates, tlien, sir, I think it is wrong.
Now, we begin to pay lip service to a
couple of the principles McRuer makes and
we are talking about two public directors.
And how do we get to a point of two pubhc
directors? Well, the present directors shall
elect them from a list approved by the Lieu-
tenant-Govemor-in-Council, on the recom-
mendation of the president. In other words,
sir, we are again paying lip service, ap-
parently, to a democratic principle.
There is no way in which you or I can
be responsible for advising the Lieutenant-
Govemor-in-Council or having any word to
say about it. Nor can we have anything to
say or do about the appointment or the
nomination of the two public directors. The
cosy little group has been extended just a bit
further. It is extended to the approval of
the present directors, together with some
sort of a say that the Lieutenant-Govemor-
in-Council might choose to exercise. Whether
he does or not will be completely unknown
to the members of this Legislature.
It will also be completely unknown to the
members of the public, because there is no
requirement at all that the representative of
the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who is
going to make this recommendation, or give
this approval, has to come before this House
and say: I would like to approve of A and
B; what does the House think?
One would think, sir, that as we begin to
move slowly and painfully, kicking, yeUing,
and screaming into an era where our statutes
are supposed to disclose some idea of civil
rights, and the protection of civil rights-
some idea of the protection of the mass of
the pubhc, as against the select few— that
rather than picking out a sentence or a phrase
out of McRuer 's recommendations, we would
really enact them in the spirit in which those
recommendations were made.
We put in a Section 7, here— 7(2)— which
apparently is a very liberal section until you
read it, and then you find it means little
more than the statute that exists today.
Now, sir, I say, that before there should
come before this House, the statute entituled,
An Act respecting the Toronto Stock Ex-
change, that the people of Ontario are en-
titled to know how you can become a mem-
ber of that exchange. They are entitled to
know whether you, sir, or myself, or anyone,
provided they can qualify— the qualifications
may be very strict, and they may have sub-
stantial financial or other qualifications— that
we are entitled to be able to pick a piece of
paper and say: these are tlie rules as to how
you can get to be a member of the Toronto
Stock Exchange.
If I want to do that, and I can fit within
those qualifications, then I can go up there,
file my apphcation, provide the necessary
proof and become a member.
APRIL 28, 1969
3639
The second point, sir, and I tliink this is
most important. If we are going to do some-
thing about putting representatives of the
pubhc on these special interest boards, then
let them truly be representatives of the
public. Not representatives chosen by the
select group with the approval of the
Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council. If they are
going to be representatives of the public,
then, before they are appointed to these select
bodies, let them have the approval of this
Legislature. For these reasons, sir, we are
going to oppose this bill.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, the points made
by the hon. member for Downsview are very
salient, and very well spoken. I greet them
with a great deal of enthusiasm. They are
in marked contrast to the wdshy-washy atti-
tude of the member for Riverdale, on this
occasion, which is quite inimical to his usual
posture. This makes it difficult to understand,
really, his reasoning that we would not pose
the bill because we could not persuade the
Minister of Financial and Commercial Af-
fairs to make the stock exchange more rep-
resentative of the public interest.
Well, that reasoning could apply to that
majority, or that 67-seat occupancy, in respect
of almost any measure before the House, and
E would inhibit one from making a protest.
I greet with enthusiasm the remarks of
my colleague from Downsview because my
points of contact with the question of the
place of the Toronto Stock Exchange in the
economic life of diis country, cover the
whole span of the nigh on ten years that I
have been in this House.
I As I recall it must mark the ninth anni-
versary when, from my seat in the back
row where my friend from Dovercourt now
sits, I advocated that the exchange be
divided into two branches. One to deal in
blue chips— those solid securities, in which
the public could repose a good deal of con-
fidence—and another to deal in the specu-
lative issues, which would clearly delineate
their nature for the member for Parry Sound
(Mr. A. Johnston), and those other dilet-
tantes of the game who need, sometimes,
more protection than their own rational
faculties afford them. He will know what I
mean.
That has not taken place yet, but some-
thing has taken place that I have referred to
before, and I may be permitted to relate once
again.
I recall very well going down before that
Kimber committee, the Attorney General's
(Mr. Wishart) committee, on which sat a num-
ber of estimable people. Indeed, one of the
persons who now sits at the clerk's table was
on that committee.
I make no apologies. The Minister of Mines
(Mr. A. F. Lawrence) has chastised me for
appearing before committees and Royal com-
missions. But I am one of those who has al-
ways felt, with a proper amount of humility,
that if I had some opinions, and there was a
Royal commission carrying out an investiga-
tion somewhere, that I owed it to my constitu-
ents to make my representations to that com-
mittee or Royal commission.
So I appeared before the Kimber commit-
tee, and I recall making the point about this
bastion of— that word was bastion, Mr.
Speaker— of privilege, the very homeland of
it, the Toronto Stock Exchange. And I said
to the committee: "Look here, I have no time
to waste in considering any other consider-
ation concerning the Toronto Stock Exchange,
except the efficacy of the part it plays in de-
veloping the natural resources of this country."
"That is its only raison d'etre— the only jus-
tification for its existence. To raise capital to
develop the resources of this country and its
people. It has no reason to exist to accumulate
undeserved profits for the membership of the
exchange.
Now that statement of principle, of course,
goes unchallenged. But, historically since its
inception, the Toronto Stock Exchange and
those privileged members of it, to all intents
and purposes, have acted as if they were
given Royal letters of Marque.
In the days of Elizabeth, she gave them to
Raleigh, and later Charles II on his restor-
ation to the Royal throne.
From the turn of the century these people
carried out their depredations as if they had
Royal letters of Marque, and it became an
idiom of usage in Ontario— in the language—
that the Stock Exchange was not mining the
ground, rich as it is in minerals, but was
"mining the public."
"Mining the public" denoted the activity of
these people, and that phrase has continued
to very recent times. I must say, by way of
interpolation, that the activities of the Attor-
ney General have not been very effective in
inhibiting people who would make such use of
the exchange.
I pass that over, but really, it can be stated
succincdy, that the only justification for the
operation of that cathedral-like structure on
lower Bay street, is the assessment of its part
5640
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the development of the economy of On-
tario and Canada beyond that. And one notes,
of course, in that regard, that during recent
years, the amount of fresh capital raised by
the Toronto Stock Exchange has been
steadily on the decline. The curve is a de-
escalating one. They ha\e raised less and less
new capital.
One notes that, on the other hand, the fees,
the brokerage fees, ha\e consistently increased.
And it can be stated that they have reached
the point of being an imreasonable burden
on the investor— which I am not— on those
who do invest in the issues traded on the
floor of that exchange.
Before, I leave it, the other thing about
that Kimber committee, it gives me a good
deal of pleasure to remember this, not in
exaltation, but I spoke in great length to that
committee about the operation of mutual
funds.
I was one of the people in the country that
was aware of the study made at the University
of Pennsylvania about the operations of
mutual funds commissioned by the securities
and exchange commission. I felt a teeny
weeny bit of chagrin that that committee—
and my enthusiasm for its membership was
under good restraint, let me tell you— but I
had a bit of chagrin that they did not advert
to the fact that I had made some obser\ations
about the operations of mutual funds.
Well, it was not too long— though it did
not make any impression on that committee
at all— it was not too long before the Minister
of Financial and Commercial Affairs bounced
in here one day and said he was setting up a
committee himself to look into the operation
of mutual funds.
Well, that reference, the original, the etio-
logy as doctors say, of that initiative on his
part, from American experience, gives one
lea\e to remind the House that a refomiing
Franklin Roosevelt in the \'ery earliest days
of his first term took \ery forthright steps to
reform the operations of the securities market
in the United States. He enlisted the exper-
tise of one of the leading traders, the most
successful of financiers, the man most knowl-
edgeable about the sinister practices that
might 1)6 carried on to milk an unsuspecting
public, no less a person than Joseph Kennedy.
And Mr. Kennedy was the author of legis-
lation which I think passed in the United
States no later than 1934. That is, 35 years
ago they established inhibitions in their stat-
utes against depredation of the public.
Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the hon.
member that the time has arrixed for the
private members' hour. If he can complete his
remarks, perhaps he would do so, or if he
wishes to move the adjournment of the de-
bate-
Mr. Sopha: I will move the adjournment
of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
ACT, 1968
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton Centre) moves
second reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend
The Employment Standards Act, 1968.
Mr. Davison: Mr. Speaker, in introducing
Bill 32, An Act to amend The Employment
Standards Act by providing a minimum wage
rate of $2.25 an hour, I would like to bring
to the attention of the hon. members how
inadequate our present rate is.
Last October red headlines blazed across
tlie Toronto Star, annoimcing that a minimum
wage raise of 30 cents would benefit 190,000
Ontario workers.
Had I been a member of the government,
I would have prayed that this announcement
would be hidden in the smallest of letters, in
the most obscure corner of the Ontario papers.
Concealment would have been desirable be-
cause it revealed the shameful treatment
accorded to a section of Ontario workers.
These 190,000 workers will receive wage
increases of up to 30 cents an hour due to
the establishment of higher minimum wage
standards. This sounds fine until you realize
that $1.30 an hour means only $52 a week.
This is for a 40-hour week and I do not want
to have it pointed out to me that this govern-
ment considers a 48-hour week to be stan-
dard. I ha\e news for this government— the
40-hour week has been standard for 15 years
—the 48-hour week is the exception. In the
case of the construction worker, who would
appear to earn another 25 cents an hour for
$1.55 an hour, this means only $51.65 a
week, based on working for the usual 10-
month construction period in each year. Their
yearly income would be $2,704 and $2,686
respectively.
Only a few days ago, on April 22, The Eco-
nomic Council of Canada called on the federal
government to ease the lot of the "working
poor". They call these people the "forgot-
ten group". Believe me, it is quite a "group"
because they number some four million across
Canada. In fact, the council claims that one
APRIL 28, 1969
3641
in every five Canadians lives in poverty which
they define as:
An insufficient access to certain goods,
services and conditions of life which are
available to everyone else and have come
to be accepted as the basis to a decent
minimum standard of living.
The council has translated the poverty line
into dollar values; for a single person $1,600
a year; $3,000 for a family of two; $3,600 for
a family of three; $4,200 for a family of four;
$4,880 for a family of five.
The council was quick to point out that
their figures did not lean to the side of gen-
erosity. It becomes perfectly obvious that
Ontario's minimum wage standard places
everyone except a single person well below
the poverty line defined by the council. The
figures given by the council are averaged
across Canada and though they are lower
than the income required in Ontario, where
The Social Planning Council of Metro To-
ronto declared last year a family of four
needs in excess of twdce the annual income
of $2,704 resulting from Ontiirio's new mini-
mum wage of $1.30 per hour.
The Economic Council of Canada states
that any family or individual spending more
than 70 per cent of total income on food,
clothing and shelter is in a low-income situa-
tion and likely to be suffering from poverty.
Let us examine what we would be able to
buy in this way. Seventy per cent of $2,704
is $1,892.80. If a family of four were allowed
$1 per day, per person for food, and of course
this is an impossible figure at today's prices
but even so, this would require $28 per
week or $1,456 for the year, leaving a balance
of $435.80 per year or $36.40 per month for
shelter and nothing for anything else. I know
of no shelter available at $36 a month for a
family of four.
Thus we find that even on a starvation diet
M'e cannot supply shelter nor yet pay for
utilities or clothing out of the 70 per cent of
income recommended for these expenditures.
Let us forget the 70 per cent allocation
for these expenses and blow the whole bit
and see where we get. Say by some miracle
we find shelter for four at $100 per month,
including heat, hydro and/or gas. We would
then have spent $1,456 for food plus $1,200
for shelter and utilities or a total of $2,656,
leaving a balance of $48 for the year to buy
clothing for four, drugs and medication, un-
employment insurance, hospitalization insur-
ance, medical insurance, Canada Pension
Plan, bus or carfare and so on. Of course it
goes without saying that this worker, unable
to put proper food on the table, is the one
most likely to suffer illness and yet he dare
not be ill for even one day.
It is not difficult to realize that this gov-
ernment has condemned large numbers of
Ontario citizens to live a hand-to-mouth
existence.
The unbelievably shocking fact is that this
government is aware of the total inadequacy
of this minimum wage because it has set
higher standards for a family of four on
welfare and heaven knows that is too little.
The old phrase "sweat shops" is used no
longer, although the same low wage places
still exist. Social workers now dub them "in-
dustrial ghettos". Here the unscrupulous em-
ployer takes advantage of the newcomer to
our land, as well as the native unskilled
worker.
It is this kind of place which the Min-
ister of Labour fears may be put out of
business if they are required to pay decent
wages, or they might move to another prov-
ince, or such industries might not be
attracted to Ontario. When he said the gov-
ernment had to give priority to low un-
employment rates over higher wages, he was
really saying that it is better to have low
unemployment even at starvation wages than
to force employers to pay decent rates.
New York state surveyed the effect of
higher minimum wage rates on low-wage in-
dustries and discovered there was little net
effect on employment. Only the most mar-
ginal firms are forced out of business and
more efficient finns make up much of the
employment loss. Sooner or later the marginal
firms will go out of business, even though
they have government blessing to maintain
low wages. It is only a matter of time.
The question we should ask is, do we want
to attract and keep an industry that can only
survive by paying its employees wages so
low that they cannot enjoy even the basic
necessities of life? Are we in such bad shape
that we must accept industry on any terms?
It is not enough that tliese victims of low
Vv-ag&s must suffer but we are paying the cost
of keeping them locked into poverty. If this
employee is one of the few fortunate enough
to obtain subsidized public housing we pay
for it in our taxes. We pay for his medical
insurance and so on down the line. We all
feel it is just and right that our taxes provide
relief for our fellow men but I do not think
any of us would care to subsidize a company
which this government encourages to operate
by providing for them a pool of low-paid
3642
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
employees— and that is exactly what we are
doing.
The time has come to make it possible
for all to buy the necessities of life. In fact,
the time has come to place some of the
luxuries that make life worth living within the
reach of everyone.
It is time we ceased cheating poor people
by allowing employers to pay wages lower
than welfare and very closely related to un-
employment insurance benefits.
We must make an effort to restore the
self-respect which grinding poverty reduces
day by day. We must insist on a minimum
standard of wages that will at least provide
the basic necessities of food, clothing, shelter
and health.
For this reason I urge the hon. members
to support Bill 32 to establish minimum wage
standards of $2.25 per hour for all Ontario
workers without exception.
Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should first of all men-
tion the fact that this member's bill is veiy
much like the presentation by the Ontario
Federation of Labour, and covers quite a bit
about the matters that were in that brief
presented to the Premier (Mr. Robarts) of this
province about March 19 of this year. That
brief asked for a minimum wage of $2.25
per hour, among a great many other things.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us take a look for
one moment just at what is being done by
our Department of Labour about minimum
wages.
Effective January 1, of this year, the mini-
mum wage set out for Ontario is $1.30 per
hour— or a 30 per cent hike in minimum wages
in Ontario, covering all industiy with the
exception of construction which falls into the
seasonal category.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that
this minimum in Ontario wages is exactly that
—a minimum that any employer can pay his
employees— a level below which wage rates
cannot go. It is not meant to be the basis
for a fair living wage. It is, however, intended
to be an influence on income levels, but not
necessarily a direct detenninant of those
levels.
By definition, a minimum wage tends to
be a lowest common denominator. Estimates
indicate that some 150,000 members of the
work force at January 1 were below $1.30
an hour. This is a significant impact. One
must not forget, however, the "wave effect"
of a rise in minimum wage. For example, in
most establishments only those at the bottom
of the skill and productivity ladder would be
paid tlie minimum. There would be others
farther up the ladder who would be paid
higher rates. When the minimum goes up, it
is inevitable that these higher-paid people
would also go up as differentials are main-
tained. Thus, the income-raising effect of the
minimum wage is much greater than the
bare figures would suggest.
On a broad basis, tlie impact is substan-
tial, but when viewed in relation to particu-
lar industries, it is high indeed. Take hotels,
restaurants and taverns as an example: Here
surveys show that some 51.4 per cent of
employees are below the $1.30 level, while
some 74.5 per cent are below the $1.50 level.
In other industries, there are lengthy his-
tories of collective bargaining. Yet many
union rates are below $1.30. This is a reflec-
tion of economic realities, not the result of
exploitation. Indeed, one thing our critics
fail to recognize is that wage rates in Ontario
are really based far more on economic reaUty
than on old-fashioned exploitive tendencies.
It is noteworthy that surveys found a far
greater proportion of females than males
below $1.30 or $1.50. T^he equal pay for
equal work provisions of the new Act had an
additional influence as far as raising female
rates is concerned.
One always runs up against the question of
how much impact is too much impact. Re-
ferring again to some unionized industries
where wage rates are below $1.30, and where
these bargained rates reflect economic reah-
ties, we could legislate prosperity for their
employees, but how long would it last? If
we were to establish a $2.25 minimum for
the knit-goods branch of the clothing industry,
that industry might be forced to pack up and
leave Ontario. It could not survive the com-
petition of other provinces and of other
countries. It happens that many of the
respected and unionized firms in this industry
are located in small centres. What alternative
employment would be available for the em-
ployees?
The minimum vsage is just one element in
a larger cost— or benefit— package established
under The Employment Standards Act. We
raised minimum wages by 30 per cent, and
we also introduced premium pay for work
beyond 48 hours, and for certain "statutory
holidays". As suggested earlier, the new, more
effective equal pay for equal work provisions
has raised female rates. Moreover, the mini-
mum wages is only one of a number of in-
come-raising devices with which the govern-
ment is concerned. Others are the collective
APRIL 28, 1969
3643
bargaining system itself. The Industrial Stan-
dards Act and fair wage schedules on gov-
ernment contracts.
Our province of Ontario cannot be too
far out of line with other provinces. Our
minimum wage level was liigher than any
other province except B.C.— and there the
levels are by industry— as of January 1. We
always face the possibility that marginal,
mobile and volatile industries can pack up
easily and move to another province. Un-
fortunately, these industries tend to be
located in smaller centres where lower wages
are the pattern, and where alternative em-
ployment is not always readily available.
Our minimum wage level and our other
employment standards are simply steps along
the way. They have not been static in
the past, and will continue to move ahead.
Those who support the gradual approach
of increasing levels of minimum wages, feel
that strong measures as proposed in this bill,
create very grave risks of increased unem-
ployment, with all the hardships and social
disturbances that I am sure the sponsor had
as his objective to improve. The problem
really is to keep business activity flourishing
so that no loss of contracts and markets cause
unemployment by extraordinary increases that
create pricing the costs of production beyond
competition levels with others in the world.
In nine months of 1968, we had nearly 10
billion dollars of exports by Canadians. One-
third was in the finished factory goods cate-
gory. Two-tliirds then were in other products.
Official DBS figures show that as at Septem-
ber last, average hourly earnings in manufac-
turing for Ontario were at $2.73 per hour, a
full 11 cents above tlie Canadian average-
more than twice the new provincial minimum
wage. The same DBS figures also show a
definite increase in the labour income per-
centage of the gross national product.
They also show a decrease in corporation
profits percentage. The DBS figures, as Bill
32, does not mention a very significant em-
ployee benefits amount— equivalent in much
of our industry to 25 per cent. This amount
must be considered by employers in all cal-
culations of labour costs percentage of
product price.
Capital has a habit of finding the most
rewarding source to grant its benefits upon.
Any danger of outflow from our province—
as our country— has grave consequences to
our workers and to the value of our dollar in
this really small world. The increasing simi-
larity of production patterns among countries
are well known today.
The hon. member for Hamilton Centre goes
one further step in creating the suggestion—
by not mentioning it— that employers who
provide employees with accommodation and
meals should subsidize such benefits by not
charging the full cost to, or deducting actual
cost, from wages.
The criticism levelled at the government
re five per cent tax on manufacturing machin-
ery is negated by this bill being presented
here in Legislature at this time. The infer-
ence of the critics is that the tax bill be
passed on to the consumer, increasing the
inflationary spiral, and, therefore, crippHng
the economy.
By the same token, when the actual cost of
the hon. member's resolution is examined in
the cold light of day, the cost in one year
that will have to be absorbed by the con-
sumer makes the five per cent tax hike look
like small potatoes. These are hard, cold
facts that tend to reflect on the resolution
of this bill speaking with a forked tongue.
He apparendy has also failed to realize
there is a different minimum charge allow-
ance for these provisions, established by the
income tax deductions branches of The
Department of National Revenue and the
Workmen's Compensation Board, Ontario.
I suggest to the hon. member that he now
move to withdraw this bill and support the
government's attack on several fronts, to cor-
rect the same purpose and objective of this
proposal. The government's measures of its
minimum wage and the new Employment
Standards Act, the encouragement pro-
grammes lifting the economic levels of re-
gions with disparity problems and its public
services improvement to our people. A sen-
sible graduated programme of advancement
in environment and standard of living that is
proven and able to demonstrate its equivalent
to any other comprehensive programme.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to support this bill, I think
we should set out the ground rules at the
outset. The Minimum Standards Act is
designed to protect those workers who are
not protected by collective bargaining. This
is the crux of the minimum wage and The
Employment Standards Act.
I would like also to point out, Mr. Speaker,
that when you raise a wage 30 per cent of
one dollar in today's living conditions, you
are not raising the wages to an appreciable
extent.
Now, the government seems to think that
if we raise the minimum wage to a living
wage, to a wage where a man and his family
3644
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
can live in decency, that we will lose in-
dustries to other provinces and other coun-
tries.
There is one important factor that perhaps
the government forgets. That is that we in
Ontario have the largest market in Canada
and industry will think twice before leaving
this province, because it is close to the pur-
chasers' market. It is close to the source of
many raw materials and many other things
that make industry settle in Ontario.
So I do not think this is a valid argument
against raising the minimum wage in On-
tario. If some industries are not willing to
pay at least a living wage, Mr. Speaker, per-
haps they should leave Ontario.
Another factor that the government does
not realize, Mr. Speaker, is that if this prov-
ince had a decent minimum wage, the welfare
costs of the province would be cut accord-
ingly and they would not have to raise as
many taxes as they are now required.
That is the factor, Mr. Speaker, and I think
the hon. member who just spoke has placed
an economic condition on the human better-
ment of the people of Ontario. The govern-
ment opposite never thinks in human values,
Mr. Speaker. It thinks in dollars and cents
values, and sometimes we have to forget
dollars and cents values and give the people
vvdiat they really deserve, a decent minimum
wage.
Let us just examine the living wage that
has been established by The Employment
Standards Act which was passed last year. If
an employer pays the minimum wage, he
pays $53.80. This is the average wage that
was paid in Canada in 1951. 1951! That is
what they consider a decent living wage.
What a pity, Mr. Speaker!
The Canadian average of last year was
S 108.40 a month. The minimum wage as
established by the Act, the general minimum
wage, was $52. In construction, it is $62 if a
man worked a 40-hour week.
What the government says is that if you
want to earn more money, work at least 60
to 70 to 80 hours a week. We are not going
to give you a decent wage.
My friend mentioned that they are paying
the minimum wage to people on the lower
rung of the labour force. Well, the people on
the lower rung of the labour force deserve
a decent living wage, and the minimum wage
estal)lished by tliis province is a fallacious
standard on which, as my friend says, to set
the basic standards for the wages in the
province.
The whole point is that the government,
by it's "living wage" is fostering poverty.
Have you ever tried to consider what a man
and his wife and one child can do on $52 a
week, when to rent a bachelor apartment costs
at least, in the city of Toronto, $125 a month.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that if a man is
earning the minimum wage, it costs him two
weeks' salary to rent an apartment for one
month. The hon. Minister of Labour,
said in October when he passed that legisla-
tion raising the minimum wage to $1.30,
and $1.55 respectively, said:
I am convinced that minimum wage
legislation, important as it is at this stage
of development, will be, in the long run,
a comparatively minor factor in the
elimination of poverty.
That is a tremendous statement to come from
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Bales), to say
that the government does not take any posi-
tion in the prevention of poverty in Ontario,
and there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that a
person earning $52 a week in Ontario today,
is living in poverty. There is no doubt that
he is living in poverty.
Let us examine the fact that the minimum
wage as established last year, was the aver-
age weekly wage in 1951, Since 1951 to
February 1969, the consumers price index
went up 43.7 points to 158.4. Do you know
what the government opposite has raised the
minimum wage from? From $1 to $1.30
within four years— before that, there was
really no minimum wage. Since 1964, Mr.
Speaker, when the government decided to
establish a minimum wage, the consumer
price index went up 23 points, almost half
the amount since 1961, and they raised the
minimum wage by 30 cents.
You would think, Mr. Speaker, that the
government would at least tie the minimum
wage to the cost of living. That as the cost
of living goes up, they would insist that
minimum goes up with it.
What we are really doing, Mr. Speaker, is
subsidizing certain marginal plant operations
to carry on business. I do not think that the
government should be subsidizing any two-
bit outfit that is not willing to pay a living
wage. What happens, Mr. Speaker, when they
do not pay a living wage? They throw these
poverty stricken people on public welfare.
They throw them into public housing. They
throw them into all these services designed
by the government opposite to help people
that cannot, and are not, earning a decent
wage, and thereby, Mr. Speaker, raising our
taxes to a place where they should not be,
APRIL 28, 1969
3645
simply because, by not paying a living wage,
people of Ontario have to subsidize that wage,
That is the point, I want to leave with this
House, Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill,
that if the government insisted on a living
wage, the welfare costs of this government
would go down.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I hope that the Minister of Labour's absence
is not indicative of the government's position
on the minimum wage. It appears to me that
when we are debating legislation that is
relevant to a Minister's portfolio he should
have the courtesy to be in this House.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): Is the hon. member sure the
Minister knew that this was going to be
called?
Mr. Pilkey: I have known for over a week.
Mr. Speaker: May I point out, for the in-
formation of the hon. member, that the
presence of Ministers in the House has been
discussed by the party leaders and there is
no unanimous opinion among them that a
private members' hour is a proper place for
a Minister to be present. These are the
views and I think it only right that I should
convey them to the hon. member.
Mr. Pilkey: Thank you Mr. Speaker. It
appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the
member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G.
Hodgson) is enunciating the position of the
government, then-
Some hon. members: He is not.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): He is almost
always stating it.
i Mr. Pilkey: Oh, I see. Then I want to say
or echo the sentiments of the member for
Dovercourt in saying that it appears to me
that his proposition is that the employees
subsidize those industries that cannot pay a
higher wage. Obviously this bill does not call
for that, and this party does not support that
proposition. I want to say that the statistics
that were released by this government in
June of last year, indicate that there are
approximately 500,000 workers in this prov-
ince earning less than $2 an hour. We know
that the 30-cent increase reflected in a wage
increase for 190,000 workers in this province,
and $1.30 an hour related to 40 hours per
week, puts those employees in the category
of being below the poverty line. As a matter
of fact, it puts them in that area of bitter
poverty, as enunciated by the Economic
Council of Canada. I think they used a
figure of something like a little over $3,000
per year. These people will earn less than
$3,000 per year.
We all know that The Labour Relations
Act which should be a vehicle to encourage
collective bargaining so that employees may
gain a measure of economic and social jus-
tice, is, in effect, denied the individual.
Therefore, the government through the legis-
lative process, becomes the agent which the
unorganized worker must look to if he or
she is to gain their fair share of the eco-
nomic pie. I want to say, when The Employ-
ment Standards Act was introduced, that the
Minister of Labour, said that this was "a
charter for the unorganized", "a charter",
this is what he said. We are going to talk
about that a little later on.
The government must provide a shield for
these employees against the powers of man-
agement. The Minister of Labour, through
his government, in effect, becomes a bargain-
ing agent for the unorganized, with a juris-
diction covering employees in a variety of
industries and service trades. I want to say
now, that in all good conscience, what we
must do is review the agent's activities over
the past years to see if the bargaining agent,
in this case the government, has given the
employees adequate and proper representa-
tion.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there should
be an annual wage increase, and in this case,
this was the first wage increase that em-
ployees who were receiving the minimum
wage, have received since 1963. By the way,
it did not cover the increase in the cost of
living that took place during those inter-
vening years— make no mistake about that.
The government has provided nothing in the
area of protection against the increase in
the cost of living: On the guaranteed annual
income, which would provide most workers
with a continuity of income for the full year:
The government has done nothing in that
area. The question of providing comprehen-
sive hospital and surgical medical benefits:
The government has done nothing in that
area. Sickness and accident benefits: They
have done nothing for the unorganized in
that area either. Life and accidental death
and dismemberment insurance: They have
done nothing in that area. I could go on.
On the question of paid holidays, what did
this government do? They introduced seven
paid holidays and they said that if the
worker worked he got time and a half but
if he did not work that day he did not get
paid.
3646
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I want to submit, Mr. Speaker, that if
the government was the representative in a
legally constituted trade union that they
would soon find themselves voted out of
office, make no mistake about that. There
would not be a trade union group in this
country that would tolerate that kind of rep-
resentation, and yet the people of this prov-
ince are tolerating it to this point. I want
to suggest that if they do not mend their
ways in terms of providing some of the
amenities of life that the unorganized deserve
in this province, I want to suggest that they
will be voted out of office as well.
I recall in the Hansard of Monday, March
18, 1968, when we were talking about the
branch plant economy, during that debate
the Minister of Trade and Development (Mr.
Randall) said that there were 13,000 manu-
facturers listed in this province and 8,000 of
them employed 14 people or less.
I pointed out to him at that time that the
Minister of Labour had made a statement
and he said that the inefficiency of many
small employers explained why 23 per cent
of Ontario's work force made no more than
$3,000 in 1965, and I do not think that that
situation has improved. In other words, the
Minister of Labour at that time was saying
that it was the inefficient small companies
which were being imported into Ontario and
were the cause of people earning less than
$3,000 a year. But as is the case, many times
these Ministers seem to be able to fall on
both sides of the issue. On October 24, 1968,
the Minister of Labour said this:
A drastic increase in the minimum wage
could force small industries into bankruptcy
and result in huge increases in unem-
ployment, Ontario Labour Minister, Dalton
Bales told a group of manufacturers yes-
terday—
I want to tell you who he was speaking to
when he made the statements prior to that,
it was to the Ontario Federation of Labour.
Well, he could get away with that statement
there, but when he was speaking to the manu-
facturers he came down on the other side
and that is understandable. He said.
The government, faced with intense
competition for new industry, has had to
give priorities to low unemployment rates
over high wages. There is strong public
sentiment which appears to have priority
and which government of today must con-
stantly bear in mind: The need to manage
the economy as close to full employment
as possible.
And that, Mr. Speaker, is the case.
If this economy of ours was operating on
the basis of full employment then we would
not have to worry about this question that the
member for Victoria-Haliburton raised about
where do these employees go if we raise the
minimum wage. What we need to do is to
devise the means to provide a full employ-
ment economy and his problems will be
resolved.
I also want to make an observation, Mr.
Speaker, if I have time— have I got time?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is at the
end of his time, but I am sure that the
House will allow him an extra minute or two.
Mr. Pilkey: Well, I just wanted to make
one observation I think is relevant to this
debate. It was not so long ago that the
member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) made a
two-hour speech in this House and he talked
about the freedom of tlie individual and the
freedom of choice of joining the union, of
paying the dues. I could not understand it
because I did not really think he was sincere
in his presentation. I do not really think that
he believed that sincerely, and I was con-
templating to myself why he should make
that kind of a speech in his House. After con-
siderable contemplation I think that he made
that kind of speech to cover up the govern-
ment's omissions in this area.
If the member felt that these people should
have all of those freedoms, why is he not
talking about them having the freedom from
economic want, which is equally as im-
portant? But nothing was said in that regard.
He does not fall on the side of providing
a decent standard of living for the people
which the trade union movement has con-
sistently fought for.
He talks about all these freedoms, but he
does not come down on that side. It seems
to me that he is covering up a very serious
omission on behalf of this government in
those kind of speeches. It appears to me that
he ought to come down on the side of
eliminating the economic disparities that
exist in this province as far as workers are
concerned, whether they are organized or
unorganized. If he travelled in that direction
he would be providing a greater representa-
tion to the people of this province than he is
with the other kind of speeches he has been
making in the past.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by say-
ing that I think that we can provide a
measure of economic and social justice for
the great numbers of people in this province.
APRIL 28, 1969
3647
All we need is the will and the desire, and if
we have that we can do the job.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to support the principles of this bill I
want to digress a little. I do not believe it is
digression. I want to warn your Honour that
it may be taken as digression, but it is to
make a point.
What I want to say is that the Liberal Party
in its philosophy does not support the prin-
ciple of welfare, because in its democratic
society, in a liberal society, the kind of society
we strive for, welfare would not be necessary,
because everyone would receive a fair living
wage.
Now my colleague, the hon. member for
Dovercourt, used the phrase "decent living
wage". I use the phrase "a fair living wage",
because the government speaker, the hon.
member for Viotoria-Haliburton, said, in re-
ferring to the minimum wage in the province
of Ontario, "It is not supposed to be a fair
living wage". Those are the truest words ever
spoken.
I tliink one time the Star referred to the
minimum wage here in Ontario as being "a
minimum wage indeed". At that time last
year, before the increase came through, they
pointed out that minimum wages in Manitoba,
Alberta and British Columbia, were raised to
at least $1.25 an hour. But rich Ontario had
remained at $1 an hour. In other words, these
provinces had set the pace.
Now in speaking about welfare again, this
party has been in favour of a guaranteed
annual income. This party believes that every-
one in this province, in this country, and in
fact in the world, has a useful purpose to
play in society, and that he should be given
a fair living wage.
We recognize that there are many people
who may not come up to the standards that
the Tories would require of a person in per-
forming a certain ftmction, but the good Lord
made them that way. We in this party are
prepared to take them to our bosom as
being God's children, and simply because
some person is incapable because of a lack
of mental ability to absorb a grade 13 edu-
cation, or university education, and become
a mechanic, or technician, or an engineer,
does not mean that he should be condemned
by this government to living at a sub-subsis-
tence level.
Many people, some handicapped, and who
cannot go to work, still perform a useful pur-
pose in society in that they teach us humility
and understanding and tolerance. Those
people who look after them should perhaps
be paid an additional wage so that they are
looked after properly. If the people them-
selves cannot do anything, then those that
look after them should, but they certainly
cannot do it with this so-called minimum
wage.
My colleague from Dovercourt pointed out
that if you did pay everyone a decent, or
fair living wage you would not have to have
general welfare assistance. For that matter,
you would not have to subsidize people who
subscribe to OMSIP or you would not have
to subsidize people who subscribe to Ontario
Hospital Services Commission. They would
be able to pay their own premiums and you
would not have to levy those additional taxes.
I mentioned this because the competitive
factor comes into it. If you do not have to
raise these funds, you do not have to tax
to that degree, and industry in this province
could then be given a tax advantage that is
not present in otiier provinces, thereby meet-
ing a competitive level.
But let us, for the sake of this argument
or the sake of this discussion, accept the
Tory philosophy. We do not accept it, but
let us for the purpose of this debate give
consideration to the Tory philosophy that
those who work should get paid for it and
those who do not work should not. I know it
breaks their hearts to give welfare, but if
you accept that philosophy, then those who
work should be getting more than those who
do not work.
But it is not quite so with this minimum
wage. For example, the minimum wage of
$1.30 in a 40-hour week will give you $52
per week. Now jobless benefits were in-
creased last year so that, depending on the
contribution, an unemployed married man
would receive $53 a week— one dollar more
than the minimum that a man in Ontario
would be receiving if he was employed.
Now, surely that must go against the
grain of the Tory philosophy. Here is a man
who is getting one dollar more for not work-
ing than a man who is working. So that in
order to correct that injustice to the Tory
philosophy we should increase the minimum
wage. Then again look at your tables for
assistance under The Social and Family Serv-
ices Act. An adult person and spouse, if they
are boarding, would receive $130 a month.
Then say they have four children, two of
nine and under, and two 10 to 15, they
would then be receiving a total of $274
under welfare assistance.
3648
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Under the minimum wage that you pay
here, a man with four children who was
working, receiving the minimum wage will be
receiving $249.60 to $250— or $74 less than a
person with the same nunxber of children who
was not working. Now surely that must hurt
you. So we say if you cannot increase the
minimum wage out of consideration for the
people who are earning it, at least increase
it to give credence to your philosophy that
those who work should get more than those
who do not.
We cannot appeal to you on humanitarian
grounds, so we may have to appeal to you
on monetary grounds. Although I doubt very
much that that will get anywhere either.
Last year, the papers reported that the
average wage in Canada for industrial workers
rose to $104 a week. I do not think anybody
has ever argued that, by receiving $104 a
week you become the Aga Khan. As a mat-
ter of fact, sociologists point out that after
everybody takes their bite there is very little
left.
My colleague from Dovercourt pointed out
what it cost to rent an apartment and I
remember the hon. Minister of Correctional
Services and the Provincial Treasurer just sort
of shaking their heads either in bewilderment
or amazement. I do not know whether they
were .shocked by it or could not understand
the calculations. I guess I think sometimes
even the Provincial Treasurer gets baffled by
figures when they go over ten-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
He is baffled most of the time.
Mr. Ben: But at any rate that was the
average wage. In Samia, which has the
highest wages, it was $133 a week.
Mr. Nixon: Write me a blank cheque like
that.
Mr. Ben: That was up from $131.58. Monc-
ton was $81.16. It had gone up from $75.94.
Oshawa $128.69. It was up by $9.37 from
the previous year. Sudbury $110. Now these
are just average wages, and as I say no one
has tried to imply that you can live like an
Aga Khan or a Rockefeller on those wages.
One surprising thing was the .statement of
the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton talk-
ing about a 30 per cent increase. As tlie
hon. member for Dovercourt said— 30 per cent
of nodiing.
I am reminded of when I went to high
school. I went to Central Technical School
here in Toronto and we had a machine shop
instructor whose name was O'Connor. He was
quite a fellow. I have reason to recall him.
I remember one time the class had not per-
formed as well as it should, so he imposed
a penalty on tlie class and he gave them a
choice: take a hacksaw and cut through
either three one-inch diameter bars, or one
three-inch bar.
Tihe majority took the three-inch bar. They
figured it was easier to go through. If they
had known their mathematics they would
have chosen differently. When you double the
diameter you square the volume, so they
were sawing considerably more going through
the three-inch bar than they were through
three one-inch bars.
I mention this example because the hon.
member for Victoria-Haliburton tries to find
a comparison between the 26 per cent in-
creases that are now common to industry and
a 30 per cent alleged increase in the minimmn
wage. Well, as the hon. member for Dover-
court said, 30 per cent of nothing is .still
nothing.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon.
member that his time is up. If any other
member wishes to speak on this, I think he
should have that opiportunity. Otherwise I
am sure that the hon. member can continue.
But perhaps we might ascertain if someone
else wishes to speak. Yes, well then, the hon.
member will please draw his remarks to a
conclusion.
Mr. Ben: All right.
Well I think I have made the point. We
think everybody in this province, regardless
of mental ability or physical capacity, is en-
titled to a decent living wage. Minimums of
$1.30, $1.50, $1.55 or $1.15, depending on
the industry, are neither decent nor fair
living wages. We will support this bill.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, I support Bill 32 introduced by my
colleague from Hamilton Centre and I would
have thought the hon. member for Eglinton
would have stayed and taken part in this
debate. He has shown a deep interest in the
problems of the people in the working field,
particularly in the trade union movements,
and I thought he would have been interested
in this particular subject.
The member for Victoria-Haliburton who
spoke on behalf of the government referred
to the speech made by the member for
Hamilton Centre in introducing his bill, as
being one taken from a brief presented to
the government by the Ontario Federation of
Labour.
APRIL 28, 1969
3649
I do not know whether that is correct or
not, but I cannot figure out just what differ-
ence that makes. If the brief presented by
the Ontario Federation of Labour was a
worthy brief, and was factual, and was done
with a sincere intent to bring to the attention
of the public the need for a higher minimiun
wage, then it is well worth repeating.
I would say he might have added and
given some credit to the Ontario Federation
of Labour because, if you remember five years
ago, they conducted— at their ov^oi expense
aiKl with their own persormel— a lengthy
survey across the rural parts of Ontario to
determine what poverty existed.
I would recommend to the hon. member
for Victoria-Haliburton that he get the book-
let they put out— "Poverty in Ontario", I think
he would be willing to rise in this House
to support an increase in the minimum wage
when he got the facts of what is going on.
Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Does the hon. member
think I was criticizing that brief?
Mr. Gisbom: Now the government can gi\e
all the statistics they want as to what an in-
crease in the minimum wage might mean to
the economy of our pro\ince, about driving
industry away, and reducing employment. It
just does not fit into the picture, because
everybody who is interested in the economics
of the province, including those people who
I are paid high wages to make the study, have
said that we have to provide a higher income
for the lower groups in our economy.
Mr. Sopha: The right to li\e in dignity!
Mr. Gisborn: The other groups cannot carry
the economy continually when we have such
, a large number— the number mentioned was
I 750,000 in Ontario— who cannot participate
I in the economy of this province. They cannot
I buy the things that we produce in the way
they should be able to. They take everything
they earn to go to the food store and that is
it. Even their shelter is not adequate.
Now, when we relate a minimum wage in
the province to that wage earned by some in
organized plants— I would like to just gi\'e a
comparison. In the Steel Company of Can-
ada, they have a good strong, collective, bar-
gaining position. Their minimum rate is
$2.59 an hour at the present time, but that
only includes what we call the base rate.
That is class 1, that is the chap who has ful-
filled almost all of his contribution to that
industry, other than to look after, as a care-
taker, the change houses and the mailing job
and menial jobs of that nature.
The first-class in the labour rate then goes
up by an increment of seven and a half cents,
and there are five classes in what we call the
labour rate in that industry. And this holds
in most of the industrialized trade union
movements.
But when we talk about an income, e\en
at the rate of $2.25 an hour— for, if we say 40
hours, $90 a week— we forget that out of that
those people have to pay the fringes that
other workers in the organized groups receive
on top of their base rate. That includes in-
creases for shift premiums, their Medicare,
and their hospitalization which is subsidized
through collective bargaining; vacations with
pay, and that is those that are in addition
holidays demanded by goverrmient legislation;
pensions, and a lot of the industries have non-
contributory pensions. And even if there is a
contributory feature, they are subsidized; and
and statutory holidays are to a greater extent
more than provided by the legislation of this
province. So I think we have to take a reason-
able look at what people ha\e to put up with.
I do not agree with my friend, the hon.
member for Dovercourt, that the minimum
wage was brought in to protect those who
are not organized. I think the government
brought that minimum wage in because they
were becoming a little ashamed of the ex-
ploitation by those groups who took advan-
tage of the fact that they could pay as little
as they could get away with in the province.
The government has never given encourage-
ment to those groups to get into unions of
their choice in a manner that will help them
to increase their pay.
But it is enlightening, Mr. Speaker, when
one considers this: I have been here since
1955, and I think there have been five in-
creases in members' indemnity since 1950,
and I have never heard one squawk from the
other side when that time came when we
had to stand up and be counted in favour of
an increase. And I have not heard a squawk
in the last few weeks about a rumoured in-
crease for the members. There has been no
squawk from the members on that side of
the House— and I would have thought they
would have been supporting this bill at this
particular time.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have not heard the
hon. member objecting either.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Gisborn: But at least we are pointing,
as well as you are, to the others across the
floor.
3650
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: The member ne\er squawked
about it.
Mr. Gisbom: That is right, the member is
getting the point, tliey are the people we are
taking the issue on, not the member.
Mr. Sopha: The member recalls the day I
pointed out to him when he was complaining
about the increase to judges? Does he re-
member that?
Mr. Pilkey: The member has missed the
point.
Mr. Gisbom: Mr. Speaker, just to close, I
would like to relate what is happening in
this province and why we should be trying
to raise the income of the group we are talk-
ing about at this particular time.
I want to quote from the Fort William
Journal of April of this year:
The latest annual survey of the senior
management salaries by tlie H. P. Chap-
man Associations Limited, a nation-wide
executive placement firm, shows the execu-
tive salaries have gone up by an average
of 60 per cent since 1961; in the same
period average wages of hourly-rated em-
ployees rose by only 40 per cent. Now,
based on 3,000 job samples across Canada,
the Chapman report of the average salary
of a general manager last year was $34,100.
Bonuses raised the average to $40,750.
We know how the bonuses come in. That is
a very enlightened way of beating tax pay-
ments.
The report states that executive salaries
rose by about eight per cent last year, com-
pared with 7.3 per cent for hourly-rated
workers in manufacturing, and should climb
by another 8.7 per cent this year. Executives
on the west coast received the highest aver-
age, $52,350 a year.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the hon. member
has seen the hour and I would ask him to
conclude his remarks.
Mr. Gisbom: I will, Mr. Speaker.
I was trying to illustrate that tliere can
he ways to increase the minimum wage, re-
gardless of what the government's fears are,
without driving industries away from the
province, if tliat is a real fear. If that should
happen, then maybe some of the "have"
industries can help to subsidize those "have
not" industries to make sure that they can
pay a decent wage and not have the worker
subsidizing industry so they can keep going.
Mr. Speaker: That completes the private
members' hour.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m.
took recess.
the House
No. 98
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, April 28, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, April 28, 1969
Toronto Stock Exchange, bill respecting, Mr. Rowntree, second reading 3653
Marketing of fresh water fish, bill to regulate, Mr. Brunelle, second reading 3667
Fish Inspection Act, bill to amend, Mr. Brunelle, second reading 3675
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, on second
reading, Mr. J. Renwick 3676
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. J. Renwick, agreed to 3678
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3678
3653
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8. o'clock, p.m.
AN ACT RESPECTING THE TORONTO
STOCK EXCHANGE
The Clerk of the House: The 19th order,
resuming the adjourned debate on the motion
for second reading of Bill 110, An Act
respecting the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): The prin-
ciple of tliis bill as enunciated by the hon.
Minister (Mr. Rowntree) in its introduction
in the House, purports to be the participa-
ion of nominees of the public in governance
of the Toronto Stock Exchange.
We oppose the bill because we say that
the phraseology adopted in section 7, Mr.
Speaker, amounts to merely a sham and
artifice and does not e£Fectively achieve the
announced purpose. Read the provisions of
that too lengthy section, a section that the
draftsman might well have divided into two
or three sections so that it would be com-
prehensible to the reader, in the light of what
the noted Professor Harry Arthurs of Osgoode
Hall had to say the other day. He repeated
what I have been saying for years, that public
statutes of this province should be written in
such form that they are readily compre-
hensible to any member of the public who
may choose to read them, and especially
those who are afiFected by them. We can-
not hope that a level will obtain in respect
of insurance policies and other works of art
like that, but surely in respect of the public
statutes we can demand that they be com-
prehensible.
Toward the end of that lengthy subsection
—and it is amazing how a draftsman can
gather together so many words without a
punctuation mark; it seems that they never
run out of breath to the extent that they
need a period to enable them to get another
lung-fuU of oxygen— you will see in that sec-
tion he just go^ on and on for two, four, six,
eight, ten, twelve lines until he finds the
need of a period, but in the last three or
four lines you see the burthen of these sub-
sections, and tliat is that no person is
Monday, April 28, 1969
eligible to be elected as a public director if
he is a member of tbe corporation, and unless
his nomination for such election has been
approved by the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council.
We say that is inefiFective to achieve the
ultimate purpose that is sought— that is effec-
tive public participation in the governance
of the exchange. It denotes on the other hand
the lack of seriousness of the Minister and
the government. Presumably any member of
the corporation of the Toronto Stock Ex-
change who had a brother-in-law, and I am
not trying to be facetious, who is living like
a remittance man and had nothing else to do
with his time, could see this brother-in-law
nominated to fill the position. The unsus-
pecting Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Coimcil, on
some sleepy Thursday morning when this
came before Cabinet among the pressure of
other business, could let this nomination go
through, and you have added two people-
perhaps a brother-in-law and an uncle are
present members— who have neither the desire
nor the motivation and much less the knowl-
edge required to effectively enhance the
public interest.
Draw the contrast, by the way of analogy
if you will, with the method adopted by
Franklin Roosevelt dealing with the same
area of public concern. When Franklin
Roosevelt wanted to correct the abuses in
the trading of securities he looked abroad in
the land and he got the man who knew more
than any other person among the 150 million
Americans then alive about the artifices, the
devices, the tricks of the trade because he
had practised them himself. I do not think I
demean the name of Joseph Kennedy in say-
ing that; it has been published many times.
No one knew better than Joe Kennedy how
to trade in securities to maximize personal
profit. Roosevelt employed him and said to
his great friend Kennedy, to whom he had
already given the franchise for tiie importa-
tion of Scotch whisky into the United States:
"Go at them and draw up a statute that will
effectively eliminate the abuses in the trading
of securities." And that is what Joseph Ken-
nedy does.
3654
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy Ri\er): Get the hon.
member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) to do
it.
Mr. Sopha: I will get around to that in
a moment. My esteemed colleague from
Rainy River says that we could get the hon.
member for High Park to do it for Ontario,
because he proclaims himself to be more
knowledgeable than anyone else alixe pres-
ently about the methods of gathering easy
money through the trading in securities.
I say that the Minister, in employing the
words that he uses in the statute, indicates
his lack of seriousness. Were he serious about
it, he would not hesitate to say to the
Toronto Stock Exchange, "Listen, brethren,
we made some reforms a year or so ago,"
and I give every credit to his courage in
taking the steps he made the year before last
and tightened up last year, when we spent
so many hours in the committee on legal
bills dealing with the statute. He should say:
"We took some steps to effectively control
the operation of this mechanism, and now
we mean to take another one. We, the gov-
ernment, the Cabinet will appoint two people
to your board who will be the overseers of
the public interest— people whom we deem
to be objective, impartial, uninterested and
completely neutral in their assessment of the
value of your operation."
That is the way we do with horseracing,
that is the way the Ontario Racing Commis-
sion operates, in putting impartial judges in
the stand. It is the operation of a very valid
principle, Mr. Speaker, one that ought to be
carried into effect in this bill. I do not think
it needs a great deal of argument to support
it because I really do not see how anyone
could quarrel with it when it is enunciated
in that way, but no doubt I am being too
sanguine and the Minister will get up and
quarrel with that statement of the principle.
Now, I want to address myself for a mo-
ment to the ways in which these people work
on the exchange. I made some reference to
the Kimber committee, and I do not really
recall whether in that time it was in opera-
tion, that Mr. Jack Kimber was the chairman
of the Ontario Securities Commission. I do
not think he was; I think it was subsequent
to the work of that committee that he became
chairman. But you will note that the Toronto
Stock Exchange, in a very shrewd act, went
into the camp of the enemy— and I use that
tenn by way of hyperbole— that is to say
that they took Mr, Kimber from the chair-
manship of the exchange and enlisted him in
their own payroll. So you would have to
say, to use the Imlachian phrase, you would
have to say that they are not so dumb. There
is nothing like hiring somebody from the
enemy camp, who knows a good deal about
the operations of the commission and dis-
charged them as a matter of public respon-
sibility.
In line with what my colleague, the mem-
ber for Downsview (Mr. Singer) was saying,
we have to bear in mind, I made the one
point, that it is my belief that the exchange
has never been a very effective mechanism,
and I am open to be challenged on that
score, in the development of capital resources
for the enhancement of the economic life of
this country. I do not think the exchange was
ever serious along those lines, and I am a
person who grew up in Cobalt where their
operations found a locus for a good many
years. While I was in mining camps in the
northern part of the province— Porcupine and
Kirkland Lake— I do not think they ever seri-
ously attempted to accumulate large resources
of capital for the development of mining
ventures. They were concerned with their
private profit, and for a long time there was
persistent complaint in this country that of
the resources— be it X dollars— that was col-
lected in relation to a specific mining ven-
ture, only a very small proportion of that
would actually find its way into the ground.
I believe in the recent and enlightened
years of the nuclear age, the securities com-
mission keeps a very watchful eye on that
aspect of the operation. The sum total of the
operations has been that a seat on the
Toronto Stock Exchange is a very valuable
and profitable commodity. My friend from
Downsview said today that it fetches in the
neighbourhood of $70,000; he would not
mind being corrected when I state that that
is close to 50 per cent of the actual price,
and they trade for somewhere around
$125,000 each.
If anyone wants to see an illustration in a
public document of the profitability of that
exclusive right of trading on the exchange,
the case of Sedgwick against the Minister of
National Revenue, first reported in the Ex-
chequer Court of Canada, subsequently in
the Supreme Court of Canada, shows just
how profitable an operation this is. The
holders of the specific seat that forms the
subject matter of that case, held it for only
a relatively short period— a couple of years—
and then traded it, and the question came
before the courts as to whether the increased
value of that seat formed part of income or
was it to be credited to capital gain. I do
not recall the figures, but a study of that
case will reveal that it was a very respectable
APRIL 28, 1969
3655
amount of money which represented the in-
cremental value of a seat on the Toronto
Stock Exchange in a relatively short period
of time.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the operation of the
Toronto Stock Exchange must always be
carried on subject to the public interest. In
this age of the just society we no longer
hold it to be in the divine order of things that
people be given the privilege to operate a
franchise, an exclusive right, whereby the
maximization of their profit is the pre-emi-
nent consideration. All rights that the public
acting collectively now gives to any group
must be exercised consonant with the public
interest and the advancement of the public
good. So it is with the Toronto Stock Ex-
change.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Hear, hear.
Mr. Sopha: The government have got to be
serious about this if they want the support of
this group. They have to indicate to us in
language that is free of ambiguity and clearly
expresses their sincerity of purpose that the
government mean, in this instance, that they
shall nominate two people exclusively who
will in no way have about them any aura
or suggestion that they are partial or re-
lated to the operations of the exchange, and
will carry out-
Mr. Singer: Not the board of the stock ex-
change or the government.
Mr. Sopha: That is right— will carry out
their stewardship as members of the sov-
ereign body of the exchange in a manner
that is often attributed to the characteristics
of Caesar's wife, and that is not asking too
much.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What
do you know about Caesar's wife?
Mr. Sopha: I knew Calpumia fairly well.
The intervention by my friend from York
South allows me to tell him that we who
were participating in the debate were some-
what amazed by the attitude of that group
in saying that they are going to support this
bill, but-
An hon. member: He has changed; the
member has reversed his position again.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: They are going to support the
bill, that is what they said, but how could
they do otherwise, having as they do in their
midst three mdllionaires, one of whom has
gleaned his fortune from the operations of
the Toronto Stock Exchange? I do not know
that he should participate in the discussion
of the bill-
An hon. member: He might have a conflict
of interest-
Mr. Sopha: He has a conflict of interest-
Mr. Singer: He might well have, yes.
Mr. Sopha: —in it, because all they have
to know, he taught them. But I am not
going to tarry. They have become a bour-
geois party; they are a bourgeois party;
they fat cats now, and we may expect that
they will continue to support the bastions of
privilege in this country. But the govern-
ment is not going to carry this group along.
They are not going to carry us along, if you
have convinced our friends to the left— and
let me tell the Minister through you that my
friend from Downsview and I have talked
for many years in this House about the
operations of the Toronto Stock Exchange.
We have drawn attention for a decade to
some of the things, and I admire the restraint
today of my friend from Downsview, that he
did not advert to one aspect of the operation
of that private club that must bother him no
end. The Minister will know that to which
I refer.
I hope that is part of an age that is
passed also, but as one looks over the roster
of the governors, one sees those whom for-
tune has favoured in this community, and
these people, by the exercise of a licence,
have been able to amass a good deal of
wealth. We are saying here that it is time that
the public poked its nose in the door, nothing
short of that, sit at the table and say, "We
are here in an objective role to scrutinize
your operations from the point of view of the
public interest," and that is consistent with
what Mr. McRuer has said in the report.
We can read what Mr. McRuer has said;
it makes good sense; it has been lauded from
one end of this country to the other. All we
need to do is read what he says in the
report and translate it into action.
The Prime Minister of Ontario, he feels this
way about Mr. McRuer, so that when he goes
to join his ten fellow counterparts in Ottawa,
he and his Attorney General (Mr. Wishart),
say to them that on an important aspect of
the development of the Constitution, they
cannot give Ontario's position until they hear
from Mr. McRuer. That is what the Prime
Minister says in Ottawa, and that is how our
3656
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fastidious Mr. McRuer is. So we say to the
Minister of Financial and Commercial Affairs,
if he is serious, he does not need to employ
words that are meant to mislead the sincerity
of the intrusion into the affairs of the ex-
diange. We say to him, take them out, let
them say two people are to be appointed by
the Legislature and we will support that part
of tlie principle of the bill.
My friend from Downsview adverted to an-
other very important aspect of it that is
quoted there, and the Minister heard what
my friend had to say and they will have to
change that portion of the bill before we can
invest our total support.
Mr. Singer: Hear, hear.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a
step in the right direction but it is not a
big enough stqp—
Mr. Singer: Here comes the retreat from
Moscow.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a step in the right
direction because finally—
Mr. Singer: Who do you believe?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if you could
persuade the hon. member from Downsview
to quit talking and listen for a moment he
will find out. But there is one thing he cannot
do, that is listen and talk at the same time,
though he tries to practise it all the while.
Mr. Singer: Well now, let us get down-
Mr. MacDonald: Or if he does not want
to listen, let him continue to talk. It is as
simple as tliat. I said this bill is a step in the
right direction because finally this government
has rescued us from a situation in which the
private club operated under a bill of 1878.
To estabhsh the operation of the Toronto
Securities Commission under a public bill is
good. However, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Singer: You have not got that right.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if one goes
back ten years ago—
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Would
someone give that calf more rope.
Mr. Singer: Oh no, you are hanging your-
self and you are enjoying it.
Mr. MacDonald: If one goes back ten years
ago, I can recall when something of the
public furore, which has gone on without
interruption in the past decade, first broke
out. I think voice was given to it by a whole
issue of Saturday Night magazine which pub-
lished in a detailed analysis the operation of
the Toronto Stock Exchange. I will never for-
get, a year or so after that, when the then
chairman of the Ontario Securities Com-
mission was brought before the standing
committee on legal bills, and a lot of ques-
tioning was done with regard to the operation
of the Toronto Stock Exchange.
I quoted the chairman from one of the
articles in that issue of Saturday Nighty to
the effect that there was a lot of illegality in
the operation of the Toronto Stock Exdiange
and asked whether he would agree that this
was the case. He conceded that was the case
to a considerable degree. Then the question
was put to him, "Why not clean it up?"
and he gave a very frank and a very interest-
ing reply. He said, "If you cleaned it all up
at once you would bring the stock exchange to
a halt."
Mr. Singer: That is why the NDP are
supporting this bill.
Mr. MacDonald: He was conceding that the
corners that were being cut in the Toronto
Stock Exchange were so many in number that
to clean them all up at once— even though a
desirable objective— would in effect bring the
whole operation, with disastrous impact on
the economy, to a halt. This, of course, would
not be desirable.
This government is slowly moving towards
this; but in my view, too slowly. Indeed, our
position in this party, for those who wish to
listen, has been consistently, for a ten-year
period, that the Toronto Stock Exchange
should be under the constant supervision of
the Ontario Securities Commission.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Hear, hear.
Mr. MacDonald: In effect, the powers the
Toronto Stock Exchange exercises— and this is
even more clearly admitted now that there is
a public bill— are really delegated by the On-
tario Securities Commission. When we used
to query OSC chairman, O. E. Lennox many
years ago on this particular point, he in effect
said, "We did not have the staff to do the
job, so we, in effect, let them look after their
own affairs." He would not put it that way;
but it was their own affair rather than a
public affair.
Mr. Singer: Why do the NDP support
the bill?
Mr. MacDonald: I think, Mr. Speaker, we
have reached a ix)int where the Toronto
APRIL 28, 1969
3657
Stock Exchange should be under the con-
stant supervision of the Ontario Securities
Commission; not merely a delegation of
powers with periodic examination of its
operation, but a much closer supervision. As
a matter of fact, just to show you how con-
sistent has been our basic approach, let me
quote from an amendment that was made at
the time The Securities Act was introduced in
this House some three years ago, on July 4,
1964. The deputy leader of this party intro-
duced an amendment which got the support,
I believe, of the Liberal Party, The key to
his amendment was this:
There is no indication by the government
, that it wishes to fulfill its responsibilities
to the economy of the province of Ontario-
Mr. Singer: The member for High Park
has a great influence on the—
Mr. MacDonald: Obviously, Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is not listening again.
Mr. Singer: Oh, I am listening, I can hear
what the member for Riverdale says-
Mr. MacDonald: He is drowning out his
own capacity to hsten by his own noise.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: If I may read it once
again :
There is no indication by the government
that it wishes to fulfill its responsibilities to
the economy of the province of Ontario,
and indeed of Canada, by making certain
that the Toronto Stock Exchange, which
has operated for so long as a private
organization with its own rules, and with at
least a minimuun of concern for the needs
of investors in the public, should be subject
to the supervision, specifically and without
equivocation, of the Ontario Securities
Commission.
This bill does not yet achieve that, Mr.
Speaker. There are two ways of altering the
bill or trying to persuade tlie government to
change the bill-
Mr. Singer: One is to vote for it.
Mr. MacDonald: One is to oppose it in
principle, the other one is to make amend-
ments during the committee stage.
Mr. Singer: Oh, shame, shame!
Mr. MacDonald: Indeed, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Singer: How low does the NDP get?
Mr. MacDonald: Indeed, Mr. Speaker,
there is another way to do it, and that is to
oppose it on principle and to move the
amendments in the committee, and we might
even do that.
You see, Mr. Speaker, at least as far as we
are concerned, our basic approach is con-
sistent. It was significant the other day when
we got to the establishment of regional
government at the Lakehead, the hon. mem-
ber for Downsview was so inconsistent that he
voted against a larger unit of administration
at the Lakehead. He will change his basic
position to suit the pohtics of the hour. Our
basic position has always been the same; our
tactics to acliieve it are flexible.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to participate in the debate? If not, the hon.
Minister. The hon. member for Lakeshore
has spoken before and we can permit only
one-
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Not on this
bill, no, no.
Mr. J. Renwick: He spoke about dogs be-
fore dinner.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, the hon. member for
Lakeshore asked, what is his party's position
on this bill, and I tliink we should have an
answer. He is looking for direction from you,
sir.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I believed the hon.
member for Lakeshore had participated in
this debate previously.
Mr. Lawlor: No, you are wrong, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is the
privilege of the hon. member to be wrong,
but not you.
Mr. Singer: I do not know why I bother
with you.
Mr. Speaker: Well, if the hon. member for
Lakeshore has not participated in the debate
on second reading, he may do so now.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Seems as
though he has.
Mr. Sopha: His speech could fit any bill.
3658
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, on this bill I
would like to refer immediately to the re-
marks made by McRuer touching on self-
governing bodies, professions and such, at
page 1162. He said:
The power of granting self-government
is a delegation of legislation and judicial
functions and could only be justified as a
safeguard to the public interest. The power
is not conferred to give or reinforce a pro-
fessional or occupational status. The rele-
vant question is not, "Do the practitioners
of this occupation desire the power of self-
government?" But, "Is self-government
necessary for the protection of the pubUc? '
No right of self-government should be
claimed merely because the term "profes-
sion" has been attached to the occupation.
The power of self-government should not
be extended beyond the present limitations,
unless it is clearly established that the
public interest demands it.
That is the basic proposition in McRuer
with respect to this sort of organization, and
while I am in complete agreement with what
a number of people over here have said
with respect to the proper place for govern-
ments being exercised under The Securities
Act and with the security regulations, at the
same time I personally have some misgivings
in not opposing this bill. The bill itself runs
counter to practically every nostrum in
McRuer. As a matter of fact, it flagrantly—
Mr. Singer: Why support it then?
Mr. Lawlor: I am speaking for myself.
Mr. Singer: Oh! Now the front row and
the back row-
Mr. Lawlor: It flagrantly opposes McRuer
in instance after instance. The bill should be
withdrawn by the Minister. The bill is, in
the light of what has been said by McRuer,
and all the money we have spent on that
particular inquiry, a travesty. Curiously
enough this is the first major bill touching
professions to come for extended debate be-
fore this House. We have waited weeks for
tlie professional engineers bill; the profes-
sional engineers bill does carry out a sub-
stantial part of the 31 major recommendations
as to what these bodies ought to do, what
their internal governments ought to be. These
are disparaged and completely disregarded
in the course of this legislation. We will have
before us, perhaps before the evening is
over. The Surveyors Act; it too takes cog-
nizance of the full ramifications of McRuer.
This, again, ignores and thumbs its nose so
to speak at the possibilities of McRuer and
in the light of the paragraph I just read, they
do not run the show-
Mr. Singer: It will never do.
Mr. Lawlor: Better sit down if you want
to talk. They do not run the show, according
to McRuer, for their own internal benefit and
for the niceties of the club atmosphere; they
run it for the general good of the public.
This Act, and it has always been the case
witli the Toronto Stock Exchange, has tra-
duced that principle, in principle, and to
come forward to this House at this late date
with a measure of this Idnd is a land of
blatantcy. I admire the tactlessness and I
admire the gall, but to present this as a
legitimate piece of legislation at this time
seems to me to run counter to the whole
principle of what we are after in this Legis-
lature and which the government members
have so often affirmed in the House when it
suits their purposes.
May I run through a few of the provisions
that it does not contain? There is no appeal;
they have given internal jurisdiction and dis-
ciplinary powers over their members in the
shortest and most arbitrary way under sec-
tion 10, but when a member is so disciplined
by being, I suppose, thrown out of the club,
there is no right of appeal provided at all,
running directly counter to McRuer in section
10, if I may just read the clause in question:
They may issue such orders and direction
pertinent to such bylaws as is considered
necessary for the purpose, including the
imposition of penalties and forfeitures.
By the way, as I remember McRuer, the by-
law situation had largely to do with certain
forms of internal governments; but the
regulations were the more proper method to
impose penalties and directions. But he still
uses the term bylaws in any event.
McRuer is quite conclusive on the point
that these bodies must not fine their own
members. The fines, if they are levied at all,
are payable to the province of Ontario, not
into the treasury of the associations them-
selves. Why do they continue in that vein?
Why does the government permit them, in
the light of what I am saying and what Mc-
Ruer has said, to undertake within them-
selves the imposition of penalties and for-
feitures? That is a retrograde step. I notice
that the whole business of supplying proper
hearings, notices, rights of cross-examination,
rights of counsel, types of hearings— in-camera
or otherwise— is omitted; nothing is said about
them at all.
APRIL 28, 1969
3659
One of the fundamental purposes of Mc-
Ruer is a code of ethics. I think it would be
the finest thing in the world to see a code
of ethics of the Toronto Stock Exchange,
some kind of elaboration of the method
given. They may say that the regulations
apply, but everyone knows that they are
enormously defective, and the problem is
that what they do fundamentally lack is a
code of ethics, or at least an operative code.
With respect to the terms and criteria of
membership being spelled out and the non-
exclusion of people who are qualified to be
members, that too is completely absent from
this proposed statute. Again McRuer says
the purpose of the thing is not to be a self-
enclosed, autonomous body, but on the con-
trary to be for those who have the necessary
stipend to qualify, and the other qualifica-
tions, to be admitted since they are qualified.
Otherwise it runs against the fundamental,
democratic principle.
On the whole, therefore, Mr. Speaker, this
bill is mightily defective. As a matter of fact
it is a caricature of what a bill might be and
the Toronto Stock Exchange is to be dis-
commended with respect to bringing forward
such a measure at this hour and before this
body, and I for one personally intend to
vote against it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
Centre.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, as some of you may know, I had
some close relationship with the stock ex-
change over my lifetime, having been the
son of a man who 64 years ago bought a
seat in this exclusive club, and for the past
eight years having had a brother who was
a member of the board of governors and in
the last two or three years was chairman of
the stock exchange. Therefore I have been
very interested in the debate that has gone
on so far with regard to this new Act that
the Minister has brought in to change the
rules of incorporation under which it operates.
One of the points that has been brought
up is the matter of membership in the stock
exchange and the value of a seat, which I
have seen go up and down like an elevator
over the years depending on the amount of
volume that has been carried on on the ex-
change. The value of the franchise that one
buys when one acquires a seat, of course,
has varied with the amount of business being
done there. The aspect of the stock exchange
that I have been pleased to watch change
over the years has been an increasing recog-
nition by its members that unless it took
much more of an interest in the safety and
the diligence with which the investing pub-
lic could feel it was being protected— that the
surveillance of the operations of the stock
exchange was good— then it would lose the
confidence of the investing public and it
would suffer. Particularly since the Windfall
event of some years ago, the members have
finally become aware that they do not have a
licence to operate without regard to the wel-
fare of the investing public at large, and
some measures included in this bill show
that there is a greater awareness on the part
of the members, of the obligations of the
Toronto Stock Exchange to the public at
large.
An aspect of this bill that does <;oncem
me very much is that though it refers time
and time again to members, nowhere in the
bill does it state how a person becomes a
member. I recognize that there are peculiar
situations arising between members of the
stock exchange that do not arise if you are a
lawyer— you do not have to deal with another
lawyer if you do not trust him. In other
types of organizations of this sort there is
not the same compulsion to deal with another
member of the group, regardless of what you
feel toward him as far as confidence in his
ability to deal with you and to meet his
obligations to you is concerned.
If you are a member of the Toronto Stock
Exchange you must buy or sell with the
person having the market on a stock, regard-
less of how much confidence you do have or
do not have in that person's ability to meet
his obligations. You have no choice in the
matter. Therefore the stock exchange has
been very particular with regard to the finan-
cial strength of its members, so that mem-
bers dealing with other members could feel
assured that when they did trade and there
was a wash— what they call a cancelling out
of trade at the end of a day— they knew that
they would be dealing with somebody who
could deliver as promised on the contract.
This has been one of the great problems the
stock exchange has faced with regard to
opening up membership.
But they have opened up membersh^ re-
centiy. They recognized in recent months
that there was an unusually heavy demand
for seats because of the high volume of trad-
ing on the exchange. They ascertained after
careful surveillance that there would be a
demand for perhaps 20 seats more than were
available for sale on the market. No one
wanted to sell his seat because he needed his
seat to look after the business now going
through the exchange.
3660
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The exchange governors, members of the
board, decided that if they offered 20 seats
at a price close to the last sale— which at
that time had risen from a low of $65,000
or so two years ago, to the present price of
around $125,000-if they offered the seats at
this new price for a period of time they
would then be able to satisfy the current
demand for seats on the stock exchange.
Actually, after a period of offering, some 13
seats were bought at this tender price. After
the tenders were closed the exchange decided
to sell only those 13 seats and leave it at
that number. But they did meet the unusual
demand that was existing by that course of
action.
It seems to me that we should have set
out in the rules in this Act some means of
determining how membership is available,
how one can acquire it, and how it is going
to be controlled, so that when there are
situations of unusual demand, then there is
opportunity for people to buy seats.
In the same way it may be that the ex-
change should have the right to buy seats
itself and hold them in time for members, so
that there is a floating supply available in
times when there is not such great demand
and which will be available for a change in
conditions. I cannot understand why an Act
which sets out how a board of governors
should be elected by members does not say
how people become members.
The second point that concerns me is this
matter of appointing governors and I cannot
understand why we do not state here that the
Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council shall appoint
governors. We saw two years ago in the re-
organization of the Ontario Securities Com-
mission some excellent business people
ai^pointed to fill outside vacancies on the
securities commission, men who were knowl-
edgeable in business in various aspects, and
they have made a tremendous contribution
since that time to the operations of the securi-
ties market in this province.
There could be a great problem in get-
ting people to act as directors of the stock
exchange from outside because they do have
50 or more meetings a year. These meetings
are held once a week and probably take up
three hours or more. The customary stipend
in the past has been $1,200 a year, and not
too many who are qualified to make a signifi-
cant contribution can afford to spend time in
this way. This is a problem that should be
met by the government by having it appoint
those who are to be the public directors. It
has put the onus here on the stock exchange,
which I think is most unfair. Therefore on
those two points I am concerned about the
bill in its present form. I hope that the Min-
ister will give consideration to covering both
these points before he asks us to give approval
to this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to participate in the debate? The hon. mem-
ber for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) Mr. Speaker,
I am a little confused by the previous mem-
ber; I am not sure whether he was supporting
or opposing the bill-
Mr. Singer: Well, you will see.
Mr. Shulman: However, we will find out in
due course.
I will be very pleased to support this bill if
the Minister will just make one slight change
in the title of the bill; if he would add two
words there would be no problem. If he
would call it, An Act of Whitewash Respect-
ing the Toronto Stock Exchange. I would
be only too pleased to support it under those
circumstances because that—
Mr. Singer: That is not what the member
for Riverdale said.
Mr. Shulman: I must explain to you, Mr.
Speaker, that in our party we are allowed to
think for ourselves. I know it is different in
certain other parties. I know that in certain
other parties this is looked down upon and
frowned upon, but we are allowed to think
for ourselves and we all have minds of our
own and we do not agree on exerything, but
we do agree on basic principles.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, will you tell
the hon. member for Downsview he is re-
pudiating every statement that he made on
amalgamation and—
Mr. Singer: We know which way we are
going.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Where was the
hon. member for Downsview during the
supper hour?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I find it very
interesting to listen to the members of the
third party to my right describing the reasons
they oppose the bill, and the reasons, of
course, are, as usual completely irrelevant to
the subject under discussion. They are oppos-
ing the bill for things that are not in it. They
APRIL 28, 1969
3661
are opposing it because of the reasons why
the members are, or are not, elected to the
exchange. Of course, everyone in this Cham-
ber is aware of the closed club of the ex-
change and of the method by which people
become members of the exchange. Of course
we all oppose it, and of course we are pre-
paring a bill which we hope to present in
this Legislature which will get rid of this par-
ticular matter. But to have people in this
House who should have more intelligence,
get up and oppose something which is not
present is just sheer nonsense, a waste of
time. We are opposing the bill, I am opposing
the bill as the member for High Park, because
of what is in this bill.
Mr. Young: The member for Downsview
said you were in favour of it.
Mr. Shulman: The member for Downsview
is always wrong. The purpose of this bill, as
stated in the bill, is to bring in public direc-
tors to be a voice of the public on the board
of the exchange. Well, it is just nonsense,
Mr, Speaker, and everyone including the Min-
ister, knows it is nonsense.
Mr. Singer: You said that, too. The mem-
ber for Riverdale is supporting the principle.
Mr. Shulman: The principle is a good prin-
ciple; there should be public directors. But
the bill has been drawn up so ineptly. I hope
it was drawn up ineptly, and I will give the
Minister the benefit of the doubt in this case.
If it was drawn up ineptly I can excuse him,
but if, on the other hand, it was drawn up
with thought aforehand, then he is really a
very poor Minister, much poorer than I had
thought, because then he is acting at the
behest of the exchange and not of that of the
public.
This bill does not appoint public directors.
What are the words of the bill? "To be ap-
podnted on the recommiendation of the presi-
dent." What kind of pubHc directors are
those? What kind of silly whitewash is this?
It is not even a good whitewash. It is a silly
whitewash that the Minister is throwing at
us. He is not going to fool anybody with this.
Mr. Singer: The member for Riverdale
said he was supporting it.
Mr. Shulman: Perhaps there is still time.
Mr. Speaker, the membership in the exchange
is purely a licence to print money. There are
other ways to print money, but this way of
printing money is at the expense of the gen^
eral public. There should be control by the
securities commission and by this Legislature
over the exchange, and there is not at this
time. This bill brings not one improvement
to it, none whatsoever.
Mr. Singer: The hon. member for Riverdale
said he was supporting it.
Mr. Shulman: That is the principle. Mr.
Speaker, may I say again, the principle of the
bill, if the bill had been properly drawn up,
was a good one. But, somewhere between the
original idea which was propounded by this
party for so many years, and the drawing up
of the bill which was done— obviously very
hastily— something has gone very awry, and
the bill must be opposed.
Mr. Singer: What about the member for
Riverdale?
Mr. Shulman: He is allowed to vote as his
conscience chooses, the same as every other
member of this party.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): It is a demo-
cratic party.
Mr. Singer: He supported the principile.
Mr. Pilkey: It is a democratic party.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, if the member
for Downsview wishes the floor I would be
glad to yield to him.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs-
view is not entitied to the floor; he has already
had the floor on one occasion.
Mr. Shulman: Do you think you could
manage to muzzle him for about five minutes
so some of the other members of the House
could get a few interjections into my speech?
Mr. Singer: We are muzzling "Morty"
tonight.
Mr. Young: He needs delubricating.
Mr. Shulman: My colleague has suggested
he be delubricated. I hope this will not
produce another headline but it seems like
a good suggestion.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Lawlor: If he gets too close to the air-
planes maybe he will take oflF.
Mr. Shulman: There are two major prob-
lems in connection with the nmning of the
3662
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
exchange at the present time, which hit the
public, in the form of individuals, in the
pooketbook, and which hit companies which
have to raise money, in the pocketbook. First
of all, underwritings are basically made at
too low a price. The reason this is done is
to allow the members of the exchange to
make more money. You will find this happens
time and time again, particularly when the
rosy times are with us and when money is
easy— it is not quite as easy today. I am sure
the hon. member for York Centre could have
spoken alx>ut this aspect of it if he had
wished, but he saw fit to pass over that
matter.
Underwritings are brought out, particularly
by the leading brokers in the exchange, the
ones we ha\e so much respect for, the Wood
Gundys, and the Dominion Securities, and
the McLeod, Young, Weirs, and well, perhaps
I should not mention that other firm. They
bring out issues, convertible issues, issues
priced too low, which immediately sell at a
premium, which means that they are running
no risk. Their clients immediately make a
quick scoop, a quick profit. The only people
who suffer are the shareholders and the com-
panies that are forced to do the underwriting
through them, l^ecause there is no true com-
petition for these underwritings in Canada.
There is not a tme competition at the
Toronto Stock Exchange, so the companies
get robbed time and time again. T^ey do not
put the money into the treasury they should
get, and then what happens on the other side
—the public gets robbed. How many times
have we seen in the last six months, issues
come out at $5, or $10, and they immediately
start trading at $10 or $20, stocks which are
not worth an>'Avhere near that, because the
exchange members are producing an artificial
holdback. Every member of the exchange
knows this. They announce they are bringing
out 100,000 shares of the new issue. In actual
fact the issue is 20,000 shares to the public,
and they hold the rest back to get an artificiiil
price rise.
We got these artificial over-the-counter rises
which are seen day after day, and when the
balloon collapses, and it is going to collapse,
we will have so many stocks trading at the
time, at completely unrealistic prices, that it
is the public that will be hurt. These brokers
are not behaving in the public interest, but
are acting time and time again to pad their
o^vn pockets. They do not care about the
companies they are underwriting, they do not
care about the pul:)lic they are serving. They
need to be regulated, and this government
has not done it. This Minister has not done
a thing, not a move in the right direction, and
he tries to fool us with a stupid bill like
this. We intend, I intend to oppose it— and
I was talking to my colleague from Lake-
shore who also intends to oppose it, and I
presume the majority of this party will oppose
it as well.
Mr. J. Renwick: I think we all will.
Mr. Shulman: I am happy to hear from the
front bench that everyone is going to oppose
the bill, because it is a bad bill and the Min-
ister should save himself countless embarrass-
ments and withdraw it, because that is the
only thing thvat should be done with this bill.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): The Min-
ister of Correci:ional Services (Mr. Grossman)
is shaking his head; he is going to oppose it
too.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to participate. The hon. member for Samia.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, if I might take
a few moments of your time to discuss this
bill further. I would like to refer to some of
the remarks made by the hon. member for
Lakeshore in cx)nnection with this statute—
if I might be permitted to say in beginning—
because I was only too pleased to hear him
make diose remarks. I thought he would be
unduly stifled by some of the remarks that
were made this afternoon by one of his col-
leagues-
Mr. Lawlor: Nc
stifled.
Mr. Bullbrook: —in connection with the
statute. Basically, what has concerned me,
sir, in connection with this bill, is a question
of principle, in connection with the exclusion
of the members. Much has been said, and
very well, by the member from Downsview
and my colleague from Sudbury and also my
colleague from York Centre in connection
with inclusion within this exclusive club.
I am not too knowledgeable in that con-
nection but I am very much concerned with
section 10 of the bill, and if you would permit
me, sir, I want to discuss the question of
principles of exclusion. To do that, I want to
read some words from section 10, not to
debate the section per se, but to debate the
impact of these words, which say:
For the purposes of the object of the
corporation the board of directors has the
power to govern and regulate.
I suggest to the hon. Minister through you,
Mr. Speaker, that, "the power to govern and
APRIL 28, 1969
3663
regulate," are very significant words, very
direct words, without real restriction, without
any fetter, and they say:
—to govern and regulate the partnership
and corporate arrangements of members
and other persons authorized to trade on
the exchange.
We can think of the members, as being other
people authorized to trade on the exchange,
but you have in effect, then, the concept of
people who are not members of the associa-
tion themselves. They are delineated, as I
understand it, without any specific words
under subsection 2 of section 4:
The board of directors may authorize
persons other than members to trade on
the exchange, subject to conditions as are
imposed by the board of directors.
I hear in tliis House, many times, words used
without the proper regard to their ultimate
significance sir. In effect what we are saying
is that a corporation established by us in this
Chamber to whom we delegate authority; we
delegate to them the authority to govern and
regulate the corporate arrangements of its
members. On the face of it, I am sure if I
had a personal discussion and a frank discus-
sion with my colleague from York Centre he
would say to me— perhaps he can nod posi-
tively or otherwise in connection with this—
tliere is a purpose here.
The purpose is, as he mentioned in his
speech, that tliere must be a reciprocal atti-
tude between the members of this club diat
they appreciate and approve of the financial
standing, and the corporate background, and
fiscal foundation of each other, so that we can
properly serve the public. I do, Your Honour,
respect them. Am I correct in assuming that
this is tlie reason that these words are put
in, but again, it is unfortimate that the words
themselves inlierently lead to other things?
If we are going to say that one corporation
can regulate and govern the corporate
arrangement of another corporation, in eflFect
really we are inviting disaster.
The hon. member for Lakeshore spoke
about appeal. I will not dwell on that un-
duly, but there is nothing in this statute, not
one thing in this statute, to afford tlie mem-
bers any right of recourse. If I can tear away
the Attorney General for a moment from
what must be a most interesting discussion,
are we assured that The Statutory Powers
Procedures Act will insure to the benefit of
these members? I am really not certain that
it will, as I look at it.
We are going to have, perhaps even to-
night, the opportimity of digesting in prin-
ciple that bill which is printed in Bill 129
in our bill book. It does give some attempt,
it does put forward some attempt to codify
the attitude of Mr. McRuer under pages 1202
and 1203 in connection with the application
of statutory powers. But I am really not
sure— and perhaps the Attorney General after-
wards will help me— whether recourse to the
court in this connection demands per se
some breach of natural justice before we get
there.
The Minister is giving them some powers
in effect— I put this to you, sir, by way of
exaggeration— does it mean in ejffect if I have
a client, by way of example, who wishes to
issue supplementary letters patent to freeze
the equity position of one of its directors,
must I go to the Toronto Stock Exchange to
secure their approval for what are in efiFect
indoor management procedures? I would
hope not. I would really hope not.
But when you use these words such as "to
govern and regulate the corporate arrange-
ments of its members", in my respectful
opinion, they are much too wide; this really
is not the intention of the legislation, and I
use this again as a vehicle for the fact that
time and time again, we have some senior
administrative officer— and I do not mean
the Minister— bringing before us words that
convey much more power than was ever in-
tended by the government. And so I accept
the position of my colleagues as to the inclu-
sion of members, but I say this to the Minis-
ter, there are civil rights that inure not only
to the benefit of the poor but to the rich.
And that is our obligation here: to make
sure that civil rights inure to everyone's
benefit. I am not at all happy that they do
in these circumstances.
The member for Lakeshore has said, "no
appeal". That speaks for itself. There is
certainly a question whether The Statutory
Powers Procedures Act does apply in these
circumstances. Perhaps it does, perhaps it
does not. But to use words of this real
ambivalence and breadth, to carry out the
purpose that I believe is the intention of the
Minister, really is not doing justice to his
intention or carrying out his purpose. I will
not get into any dialogue about who is for
and who is against on the left, really. It is
too late in the night and too late in the
session to get into that, frankly.
The hon. member for High Park comes in
tonight and says in effect that the main prin-
ciple is the inclusion of two public directors
—and he makes a point— but really there are
principles that flow through this bill that
burden all of us.
3664
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. mem-
ber wish to speak? If not, the hon. Minister
may reply at this time.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
debate on this bill has been of some great
interest to me, and I do have some observa-
tions I would like to make.
We have covered a lot of ground in the
debate, much of it probably on subjects that
may be collateral to this bill, and I welcome
the observations that have been made in
such a wide-ranging discussion as we have
had.
When I looked at the legislation some
time ago with respect to the Toronto Stock
Exchange, I was astounded, and if you look
at page four of the draft bill before you,
you will find that the three pieces of legis-
lation were enacted in 1878. That was an
Act to incorporate the Toronto Stock Ex-
change, and then there was an amendment
to that Act in 1902, and a further amend-
ment in 1912.
Without going into the actual contents of
those three pieces of legislation, I think it
will be obvious to all of the hon. members,
as it was to me, that updating was necessary
and required at the earliest time.
Accordingly, the first point that I felt
should be accomplished was that the bill
should be a public bill. No matter what the
position was in 1878 or 1912, no matter what
that position was, certainly in the economic
climate and the social climate in which we
live it should be a government bill. So that
is the first point that I advance to the hon.
members, that it is a government bill.
Secondly, there were two major points
which I felt should be determined— and had
not been determined— in a proper or adequate
way, and one was the definition of the duties
with respect to the office of the president.
When Mr. Kimber, who had been the
chairman of the securities commission, was in-
vited to become the president of the Toronto
Stock Exchange, at first I felt that was a
very sad thing for us in the government and
in our new department. But, on thinking it
over, it had its more positive aspects in the
sense that it took a man who had a very
broad knowledge of the legislation and of
the new Securities Act, who had a large part
to play in the research that went on over a
very considerable period into what should be
included in a modem securities bill. Mr.
Kimber was familiar with the problems that
government was considering with respect to
the public interest, and that is something the
government must always keep in mind. So
he was taking to the stock exchange and its
organization this background.
I have no knowledge of the details of his
contract whatsoever, but I would expect that
he has a high degree of security of tenure,
which is something that is very important to
that office. In an event, that is the situation
as it develoi>ed in the spring of 1967 when
Mr. Kimber left the securities commission to
go and take up the position as president of
the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The second point is that the bill does
delineate— and it had not before that in the
public eye— the duties of this office of the
president, so some time is spent, and whether
the hon. member like the draftsmanship, the
fact is the material is there. There is a high
degree of security of tenure provided, and he
is defined as the cliief executive officer, a
phrase which I think is well understood in
these days in the corporate or business sense.
He is not an operating broker and does not
come from that group of the members.
Mr. Singer: But he could.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: But in the case at the
moment he does not.
Mr. Singer: At tlie moment he does not,
but there is nothing in the Act that says it.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is right, but it
does define it and we are just chatting about
the thing as we go along.
Mr. Singer: Yes, well I just wanted to—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I listened to you for
about tliree hours, please just listen to me
for a while. I want you to exercise the same
courtesy as some of us demonstrate to you.
Mr. MacDonald: He does not know the
word.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Now let us go on
about the question of the public directors,
which becomes the next major point. While
some of you may disagree, the fact is that
there are two directors from the public.
There are ten members, directors or gov-
ernors from the membership of the exchange,
who are brokers. So that of a total of 12, two
are, as I see it, representing the public at
krge.
When the bill was introduced, there was
some publicity about it. There were some
questions aisked outside the House and the
press speculated on this point. But I think
tonight I should express my views as to the
kind of person that I would hope would
occupy this position.
APRIL 28, 1969
3665
I would hope that those two men would
each be men of experience and of mature
judgment; whether they come from the busi-
ness world, or from tiie academic field, or
what background in life, could not matter.
On the other hand, I do not think we are
limited to any one professional group. But
I think that the qualification must involve
the characteristic of experience and good
judgment, plus a dedication to one's fellow
citizens.
Mr. Sopha: You do not need the assistance
of the exchange to find—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No, this is right. Now
there is a reason for the exchange nominating
them. While we are providing by statute that
there shall be these two directors, I think
the nomination is quite proper to come from
that source. We will have the chance to
investigate and to veto— if you like that word
—or to refuse to approve.
I have no doubt in my mind as to the
calibre of man who will eventually be ap-
pointed to this kind of position-
Mr. Lawlor: Retired brokers.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: —and he will be one
that will be acceptable to the members of this
Hooise.
Mr. Singer: How do we know if we cannot
have a say about it?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Everything is not go-
ing to be settled on the floor of this House,
by a long shot, and—
Mr. Singer: Oh. If we have no way of
knowing we have no right to say.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No, it is not a ques-
tion of not having a right. It is just a question
that all the business in the province is not
going to be determined in detail here in this
House.
Mr. Singer: You are saying in the statute
we have no right.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No! I am saying the
right will be exercised by the government
which has been elected by the people of
this province.
Mr. Shulman: It is not going to be exer-
cised by the government. It will be exercised
by the stock exchange.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I did not interrupt
you when you were carrying on which your
remarks.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Let us now have a
look at the question of the matter of appeal.
Let me make some observations about the
operation of the exchange in the past two
years.
Without going into a lot of detail, I would
simply remind the members and those who
are familiar with the current economic cUmate
in the securities field, that there has been a
good deal of activity and, I think, a lot of
progress has been made by the Toronto Stodc
Exchange, as well as by the Ontario Securities
Commission in trying to provide for better
disclosure, in the public interest, in various
aspects of security trading.
Let me refer you to The Securities Act
of 1966, which is tlie revised Securities Act
and which is really where the right to appeal
—to which reference has been made— lies. It
is in section 139, part 14, under general pro-
visions—section 139 of The Securities Act of
1966— and it reads as follows.
( 1 ) No person or company shall carry
on business as a stock exchange in Ontario
unless such stock exchange is recognized
in writing as such by the commission.
(2) The commission may, where it
appears to it to be in the public interest,
make any direction, order, determination,
or ruling
(a) with respect to the manner any
stock exchange in Ontario carries on busi-
ness;
(b) witli respect to any bylaw, ruUng,
instruction, or regulation of any such stock
exchange;
(c) with respect to trading on, or
through, the facilities of any such stock
exchange; or with respect to any security
Hsted and posted for trading on any such
stock exchange; or
(d) to ensure that companies whose
securities are listed and posted for trading
on any such stock exchange comply with
this Act and the regulations.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, would the Min-
ister permit a question at this point?
Under the powers of that section, Mr.
Speaker, has the securities commission ever
delineated rules of admission to the stock
exchange?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I will come to that
in a moment.
3666
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The relationship, under The Securities Act,
of the securities commission to a stock ex-
change operating in this province is that the
securities commission has a very powerful
influence and control over it. First, it is the
court of appeal for any member of the stock
exchange— that is a broker member— against
whom the executi\es, or the stock exchange
itself, has made a ruHng, or an Act, or a
bylaw, or made any decision to which the
member takes exception or objects. He then
can appeal that ruling to the securities com-
mission, and this is provided for in The
Securities Act in section 139. There is the
built-in right of appeal-
Mr. Bullbrook: If I might be permitted a
question.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes.
Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry. I now have a
copy of the statute, but I am not following
wherein that section this right of appeal lies.
I am sorry.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I have read the section
word for word. "The commission may, where
it appears to it to be in the public interest,
make any direction, order, determination, or
ruling," and then it goes on (a), (b) "with
respect to any bylaw, ruling, instruction, or
regulation of any such stock exchange—"
Mr. Bullbrook: In a very broad sense.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: —and so there we are,
right in The Securities Act itself. Built-in in
the masterpiece of legislation is the right of
appeal to the commission.
The next point with respect to the rela-
tionship between the commission and the
exchange is that the securities commission
must approve all the bylaws of the stock
exchange. This has been in operation and is
currently the case. Since the introduction of
this bill, and in order that the stock exchange
may comply with the bill in the event that
it becomes the law, certain draft bylaws
have already been submitted to the depart-
ment and sent on to the securities commis-
sion for its approval or otherwise. I under-
stand from the stock exchange that the
entire bylaws are being updated, and they
are in the course of revision, so that all of
their bylaws will be submitted and will then
require the approval of the securities com-
mission.
I will simply make this statement— I think
it really is something that would come under
the estiiuates of some other area or item, or
some other order— but there is a very dose
relationship in the operation of the commis-
sion and its supervision and what the stock
exchange does. I could well imagine that
many things would exist where the stock
exchange, the governors ithemselves, would
try to regulate the situation through their
own internal rules. On the other hand, I
would think that if the commission felt, and
I must stress that this is a hypothetical propo-
sition I am trying to give you, that the ex-
change was not being effective in those
efforts or that their efforts were not being
successful, it would remain for the commis-
sion, within its authority, to go on wdth
respect to that particular subject or item and
pursue it further to adiieve the best result in
the public interest.
With respect to the question of a fine, I
am not satisfied that we have the best answer.
The Toronto Stock Exchange does have, and
traditionally has had, the right to fine mem-
bers for breaches of regulations or for certain
kinds of conduct.
Traditionally, in stock exchanges, this has
been the course of action, and those who are
concerned with deterrents or penalties, know
that in financial matters, a money penalty is
probably one of the strongest deterrents that
there is.
Now about the proceeds, and I want to
distinguish this item very carefully. The fines
imposed by the Toronto Stock Exchange do
not go into its own treasury. They go into a
trust fund which is the liability fund main-
tained to honour liability with respect to
certain financial situations that might develop.
But it does not go into tlie operating funds.
There is no benefit to the rest of the members.
Mr. Shulman: It amounts to the same thing.
It is used to pay the members' bad debts.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Not necessarily, that is
not quite the same thing.
Mr. Shulman: That is what it is used for.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No. Not the same
thing. There were some other points that
were raised here. Some reference was made
by the member for Lakeshore about control
in The Engineers Act. I do not think that
there is a parallel in the engineers' situation
with what we are talking about here.
I would make reference to section 12 of
the draft bill which is before you, and fur-
ther to my comments about the relationship
with the securities commission, that nothing
in this Act shall be construed to derogate
APRIL 28, 1969
3667
from the powers of the Ontario Securities
Commission under The Securities Act. The
question was raised about the activity of the
stock exchange with respect to the raisinig
of capital which 1 took to be initial capital.
I think that item would better come vmder
some other order or debate and I would be
interested in the meantime to get the figures
as to what its raising of initial capital has
amounted to over a period of time.
I think that this bill goes a long way to
getting the operation of the exchange into the
right perspective. I am confident that the
public directors will work out and that the
hon. members of this House will be pleased
with that portion of the bill.
I think that portions of the bill dealing
with the duties and position of the office of
president are highly desirable and I urge the
memibers to support this bill.
I think it should also be noted that I am
somewhat amused that we hear a lot of
phrases about a private club. I have had a
good deal to do with the Toronto Stock
Exchange and I have heard a lot of these
mmiours, but I have found that a good many
of these men are pretty responsible citizens.
I do not think that the remarks or phrases
which have been bandied about should be
left as though it was intended that they apply
to everyone connected with any stock ex-
change.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second
reading of Bill 110.
The House divided on the motion for sec-
ond reading, which was agreed to on the
following vote:
Ayes
Nays
Auld
Braithwaite
Boyer
Bukator
Brunelle
Bullbrook
Carruthers
Burr
Connell
Davison
Demers
Deacon
Downer
Edijrhoffer
Ehmlop
Farquhar
Dymond
Ferrier
Evans
Gaunt
Gomme
Gisbom
Grossman
Good
Haskett
Haggerty
Henderson
Lawlor
Hodgson
MacDonald
(Victoria-
MacKenzie
Hahburton)
Makarchuk
Hodgson
Newman
(York North)
(Windsor-
Jessiman
Walkerville)
Nays
Paterson
Pilkey
Pitman
Reid
(Rainy River)
Reid
(Scarborough East)
Renwdck
(Riverdale)
Ruston
Shulman
Singer
Smith
(Nipissing)
Sopha
Stokes
Worton
Young-32.
Ayes
Johnston
(St. Catharines)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Ken-
Lawrence
(St. George)
MacNaughton
Meen
Mornings tar
Morrow
McKeough
McNeil
Price
Pritchard (Mrs.)
Reilly
Renter
Root
Rowe
Rowntree
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
(Hamilton
Mountain)
Snow
Stewart
Villeneuve
Welch
White
Winkler
Wishart-44.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the "ayes"
are 44; the "nays" 32.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
AN ACT TO REGULATE THE
MARKETING OF FRESH WATER FISH
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves second reading of Bill 116,
An Act to regulate The Marketing of Fresh
Water Fish.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to commend the hon.
Minister for moving into this realm. It has
been brought to my attention over the past
year or so by the assistant to the federal
Minister of Fisheries, who happens to be my
federal member, that possibly Ontario had
been lacking in its foresight in not moving
into the umbrella of the federal Act, and I am
pleased to see the Minister has taken the
initiative in this regard.
3668
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In section 3 of the bill, the principle enun-
ciated there concerns the fact of inter-provin-
cial trade, and I would like, in the Minister's
summation of this bill before it carries, if he
would clarify this point for me. In my par-
ticular area on Lake Erie, most of the com-
mercial fishermen's products are going out of
our country, and it is really not interprovincial
as such and should the commercial fishermen
in my area see fit to apply to take advantage
of this Act, I just wonder how this would
apply on the principle of the export of this
quantity of fish.
Further in the section dealing with inspec-
tors, we note there are a number of different
people qualified to act in this regard. We
ha^e the federal meat inspectors; I assume
inspectors of The Department of Agriculture
and Food of the province, inspectors, as well
as the officials of the Minister's own depart-
ment who would be able to act in this regard.
To me, it seems to be a duplication of eflFort
to a certain extent, and possibly this could be
clarified. Perhaps the Minister, through this
particular section, might be implying that
only one such agent might deal with a par-
ticular report.
Further on, the principle enunciated re-
garding convictions of contraventions of the
Act, to me is something that also needs clari-
fication. Among commercial fishermen on
Lake Erie, the members of the crew are in
fact part owners of the catch, and I would
assume that contravention of the Act by any
one of them would make the total crew liable
to be penalized, not just the owner of the
particular ship in question.
I would appreciate some clarification on
this, but again I would compliment this bill
as a forward step.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I find it very
difficult to be either for or against this par-
ticular statute, when in fact it was instigated
by a federal statute that we are not aware of,
and when we do not know its content. I
believe it was Bill 4 or something in Ottawa.
For those very reasons, it is difficult to see
the reasons for the introduction of this bill
when it is in fact the vehicle for the policing
of a fish marketing board that was instigated
at the federal level. While I think a good
majority of the commercial fishermen, par-
ticularly the inland commercial fishermen,
have Noted in favour of a fish marketing
board, I do know several of the larger com-
mercial fishermen on Lake Superior who
Noted against the concept of this bill and
would like to market their fish as they are at
present. They are quite satisfied with the
price levels they are receiving. Now, I under-
stand this is not so with the smaller commer-
cial fishermen who do not enjoy that advan-
tage.
But among the shortcomings in this bill I
see no provision whatsoever for coarse fish.
It restricts itself basically to the premium
grade fish, the filleted fish such as trout and
pickerel, and there is no mention made of the
coarse fish. As members are well aware, in
the northern part of the province, we are
interested in getting coarse fish processing
plants started to ultimately clean up the lake
and make it possible for a greater yield of
the high-quality fish, so I think there is a
shortcoming in this bill.
It does make mention of designated areas
in Ontario, but other than that it does not
state where the designated areas are, and I
suspect that this will be done by regulation. I
think that it might have been much better
had they been incorporated in the Act so that
we would know just what sections and what
areas of the province we are dealing with.
It is not clear to me whether all commer-
cial fishermen will be covered by the Act,
regardless of whether they are dealing pri-
marily with coarse fish or with the premium
grade of fish or the edible fish. I suspect that
the corporation that it speaks of in the Act
would be under federal charter even tliough
this bill deals with the regulation of the fish
marketing board. It does not make any speci-
fic mention of what the duties Nvill be of these
inspectors who are going to be hired.
As far as the Act is concerned, about the
only thing that is mandatory upon the com-
mercial fishermen is that tliey make their
premises available for inspection, and it does
not say what the reason is for this. It just
says they must make them available for in-
spection, and as the hon. member who has
just spoken has said, the summary conviction
for violation of this Act is a maximum of
$5,000 which seems extremely liigh for an
offence of this nature. I can think of a lot
more serious things that a person could be
doing in contravention of a provincial statute,
or indeed Tlie Criminal Code, where the
penalty would be considerably less than this.
It really does not mention in detail in sec-
tion 9 Nvhat arrangements are to be made for
payment to the owner of any plant or equip-
ment used in storing, processing or otherwise
preparing fish for market.
So it is pretty difficult, as I said in my
opening remarks, to be for or against a bill
when really it is not spelled out in sufficient
detail for you to make up your mind whether
or not you are for or against it. I realize the
APRIL 28. 1969
3669
basic concept behind the bill would benefit,
to a much larger extent, the smaller operators
where they do have the advantage of market-
ing their fish collectively and, therefore, pre-
sumably would get a higher price for the
quahty fish.
But I do not think that the bill was drafted
in suflScient detail to give some assurance to
us, as legislators and to the commercial
fishermen, that their rights are being ade-
quately protected under this statute.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brant-
ford was on his feet first.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Just a few
points on this particular bill. It seems to
me that, as my predecessor said, there are
not too many details in this bill and one
wonders just exactly what effect it would
have on the fishing industry.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I was
wondering if this bill may not be more at
home with The Department of Agriculture
and Food than with the Minister of Forestry.
It would seem to me that you are dealing
here virith a commodity, with a food, and
that you are going to go into the marketing
of the product and so on. You are going to
make regulations controlling the marketing.
This is more a jurisdiction or a field in which
The Department of Agriculture has had some
experience and also has the people who are
dealing with other boards or other market-
ing commodities and other marketing groups.
There is some doubt in my mind as to just
exactly what the powers of the corporation
are going to be, or what you intend to do.
You state in section 2 that you may make
regulations designating the corporation as a
body to control the selling and buying of
I fish in such parts of Ontario as may be desig-
nated in the regulations. Do you intend to
establish marketing boards? Are you going to
establish quotas? What restrictions do you
intend to place on the fishermen? I think
these are some of the matters that should
be clarified.
Also, there is a certain amount of concern
as to what say the fishermen themselves will
have in this corporation. Are they going to
be appointed members of the corporation,
become members of the board or whatever
it is you are going to call them? These are
some of the things that need some clarifica-
tion.
Of course, there is also the matter of
what bargaining rights the fishermen are
going to get under the corporation itself;
whether they would be in a position to be
able to bargain with the processors as to
the price they get for the fish, taking into
account the marketing; whether they are
getting a fair deal; whether they will be in
a position to establish their own processing
plants or some co-operatives to handle their
products?
I think these are some of the questions
that should be answered in this particular
bill as there is a great deal of concern and
uncertainty in the fishing industry at the
moment and I think some clarification is
needed in this case.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to add a series of questions to those
that have already been put by the speakers
who have spoken before me.
Just to reiterate. The first question— what
is the purpose of this bill? I have had a look
at the federal legislation and I do not see
how this bill of the Minister's is going to
add anything to that present legislation other
than perhaps to give eflPect to the federal
legislation at the provincial level.
If that is the case, I cannot see why we
need a duplication of inspectors for this. I
would like to ask the Minister if he intends
to add more personnel to his department as
inspectors to cover the legislation in this bill?
I would also like to ask the Minister if cohoe
salmon comes under the regulations and
schedule of the federal Act, and if not, is
the province of Ontario going to make any
provision for this? I understand in the Great
Lakes now the cohoe salmon planted by the
state of Michigan especially have left Lake
Michigan and have got into waters a little
farther south and these are being caught by
commercial fisherman and sold as commercial
fish.
I would like a comment from the Minister
on that.
I would also like to know, under the fed-
eral legislation, if commercial fishermen can
vote to opt into this plan? I would like to
know if these commercial fishermen who have
not voted to join a fish marketing board can
sell their fish directly to the middle man or
to the market that they have already been
serving, without going through the fish mar-
keting board; or whether, in fact, they will
have to sell their fish to the marketing board?
I would like to know also, this may be get-
ting away from this Act, but it is a little
confusing, whether those commercial fisher-
men who voted to join the fish marketing
board will be able to opt out of this board
3670
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
if they do not like the procedures that the
board has set up?
I would like to know one last thing, and
that is if the Minister is prepared tonight to
tell us what designated parts of Ontario will
come under this fish marketing board?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury.
Mr. Sopha: There are a number of things
about this statute that bother me. Firstly, I
have always felt it to be a matter of great
curiosity why Ontario continues to regulate
its fresh water fishing under a federal statute,
and especially is that feeling of curiosity
underlined when I hear Ontario's Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts) and its Attorney General
expressing such sensitivity about jurisdictional
matters when they meet with their ten
counterparts.
But Ontario, in the regulation of fishing,
by its citizens, contents itself to rely upon
the regulations made under The Canada
Fisheries Act. Ontario regulates the taking
of game and hunting under its Act and I
really cannot understand why we perpetuate
this archaic system. You know, Mr. Speaker,
if you take a gill net and drop it into Lake
Wanapitei, then you will be haled before the
Queen's justices for that, and you will be
charged under The Canada Fisheries Act for
using the gill net, but it will be an Ontario
regidation made under that Act.
Now, of course we have that constitutional
transferrence of jurisdiction; we have the
liberty to do it, but I ask aloud, why does
Ontario not pass its own fisheries Act, setting
out in statutory form, as it does with game,
deer, birds, moose, bear and everything else,
the regulations in respect of the taking of fish?
But the Minister perhaps can tell us why
they perpetuate that system.
Now, the second thing that bothers me
about the statute is that my senses have told
me not to care much for the methods of taking
game fish for sale, for commercial purposes.
I refer to pickerel, and my friend, the Deputy
Minister of Agriculture, great outdoorsman
as he is, will bear me out that last fall we
were at the Bad River Camp, which is one
of the eight or nine outlets of the mighty
French River— route of the voyageurs, some-
time called the Sorcerer's River, it was sup-
posed to have magic qualities — and many
Americans, of which this department is so
intensely fond— this department has a greater
fondness for Americans than any other
department in government, it simply dotes
on them— many Americans were there, not
catching a fish.
Not a fish was to be found, which was
rather an inconvenience to our American
friends who spend so much in the province.
But we were told that commercial fishermen
off that outlet in the French, had, a few days
before, lifted 3,000 pounds of pickerel, three
of four miles off shore— 3,000 pounds of
pickerel, in one netting.
Mr. T. P. Reid: That is about 1,500 fis;h.
Mr. Sopha: In one netting, one lifting of
the nets, and is it any wonder that our Ameri-
can visitors— whom the Minister is so anxious
to attract here and to keep— were not catch-
ing any at that very fine resort?
There are very few lakes left in which
freshwater fish can be caught com>merciaHy.
There are not many other than the Great
Lakes— and the lamprey will ruin most of the
fishing in the deep water in the Great Lakes.
The pickerel and pike are caught in the
shallow waters where the lamprey are not to
be found, of course, but we have so very few
lakes left. There are not many fish left in
Wanapitei. They fish in Nipigon, in the Great
Lakes. They fish in Nipissing, though I am
given to understand that the catoh there is
much less than it was in yesteryear.
And I wonder, in starting a fish marketing
board, to what extent The Department of
Lands and Forests is looking at the avail-
ability of these fish, and I am particularly
thinking of the game fish, which fetch so
prohibitive a price on the market. You have
to pay almost the equal of a king's ransom
to buy some pickerel at the fish market. One
wonders, really, when the fellows are catch-
ing 3,000 pounds in one catch, why you
should have to pay anything like $2.50 or $3
for a fish by the time a three- or four-pound
one gets to the market. I do not know. It
just seems the numbers of fish are decreas-
ing.
I am absolutely convinced— my senses, my
eyes and ears have told me— that the Min-
ister and his officials, so sensitive are they to
the feelings of our American brethren that
I think there is almost no enforcement among
American tourists of limits to catch. One
hears them boasting about taking between
two people 60 or 70 pike in a day.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): It's impossible to catch so many.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes, 60 or 70 pike in a day.
They will boast about it, without any fear
that the Minister or his o£Rcials are going
to come and hale them before the justices
as they should. The Minister fears that they
APRIL 28, 1969
3671
will not came back if they are arrested. But
I am convinced that many Americans just
have no regard to our limits of catoh what-
soever.
Mr. MacDonald: How does this relate to
the Ml?
Mr. Sopha: I do not know.
The third thing about this bill that bothers
me is that here is an ideal area— the catching
and marketing of fish— where the resources
of our Indian population could be employed.
This is an ideal area for encouragement of
Canada's first citizens in an enterprise that
could be profitable to them. But I have never
seen any encouragement by The Department
of Lands and Forests of initiative on the part
of Indians to become seriously involved in
commercial fishing.
Now, in that regard, I have spoken of the
3,000-pound catch oflF the mouth of the
French River; they tell me that in Smith
Bay, which aibuts the reserve of the Manitou-
wanee band, they are catching virtually no
fish, no fish at all.
To go farther west, how well I remember
the complaints of Albert Wren about the
Winnipeg goldeye, caught in Ontario and
exported to Manitoba where it is cured and
prepared. There was never any initiative by
this department to encourage those Indians
that catch the goldeye— I forget the name of
the lake they catch them in now, north of
Kenora— and to establish a plant on their
own, to process and prepare that very edible,
very valuaUe fish for marketing. I recall
travelling down the west shore of Lake Nipi-
gon, and Indians fish Lake Nipigon commer-
cially, but the plant at that place— I forget
the name of it-
Mr. Stokes: MacDiarmid.
Mr. Sopha: MacDiarmid, thank you very
much. The plant is owned by white people
who buy the catch from the Indians. Why, I
asked, no initiative among our Indian popu-
, lation to establish these enterprises? I know,
I among the great fishermen of Manitoulin
Island, the great Indian fishermen— I am not
going to pause to extol their expertise in fish-
ing, they are among Canada's best fishermen—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now you are pro-
ceeding to do it.
Mr. Sopha: I hope the Manitoulin Island
tourist association does not read this—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do not say it then.
Mr. Sopha: —but the departmeht has never
encouraged those Indians to giet into fishing in
a commercial way in Lake Nipissing when
the catch was good. You have Dokis Reserve
and you have the Nipissing Reserve— I look in
vain for my friend from Nipissing (Mr. R. S.
Smith)— those two reserves on the lake. They
do not fish commercially. Now, the govern-
ment is to be taxed severely for never exer-
cising any initiative in this way among our
Indian population to do that which comes so
naturally to them and is the result of their
heritage of many hundreds of years. The
special inherited expertise in th6: catching of
fish, and it is a matter of sadness that in
natural pursuits our Indians have not been
encouraged. . ;
The numbers of commercial fishermen in
the upper lakes— of course, I know nothing
of Lakes Erie or Ontario— but in the upper
lakes the numbers are certainly on the de-
cline. You only have two or three operators
around the north shore of Lake Huron and
Manitoulin, so far as I am aware. They
appear to go at it in a big way, quite in
contrast to the many scores of people around
the village of Killamey— one of the oldest
settlements in northern Ontario, one of the
very oldest, beautiful Killarney— that used to
fish out of Killamey and catch the Georgian
Bay trout before it disappeared. Then the
Lake Superior trout disappeared, but I am
told it is coming back a little bit. ;
But you have only two or three along the
north shore. You have one at Spanish, you
have the Lowe brothers at Killamey; perhaps
one or two on Manitoulin. And that is about
it. It just seems to me that it is late in the
day for the government to be establishing a
fish marketing board when the fish are gone.
It is certainly tme of the great trout fishing
industry of the upper lakes.
For those reasons I express my discontent
with this statute and hope the Minister will
enlighten us to some extent concerning those
observations.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to
speak just briefly about the bill as I under-
stand it. I certainly agree with the comments
that have been made, that the bill is ex-
tremely permissive if, when it is passed, the
government has all sorts of options available
to it as to what it will do under the bill.
But contrary to what the member for
Sudbury has said, I think this is a very good
example of the kind of co-operation within
the constitution of the country which can
take place between a province and the federal
government under a federal system. I just
3672
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
noticed that the reason for this bill, as I
interpret it— I am subject, of course, to what
the Minister says— is to complement a scheme
in which, by and large, the initiative comes
from the federal government under their Act.
I would think, if one looks at the Constitu-
tion of the country, you could see that is
quite rightly so. I notice in section 91 under
heading 12 that the Parliament of Canada
has exclusive jurisdiction to pass legislation
dealing with sea coast and inland fisheries and
in addition, of course, under heading No. 2
of section 91, the federal Parliament has ex-
clusive jurisdiction to pass laws for the regu-
lation of trade and commerce.
We know that the Privy Council has to a
substantial extent circumscribed the power
of the federal government under that par-
ticular head in relation to trade and com-
merce by drawing the distinction which this
bill endeavours to cover, namely between
intraprovincial trade as distinct from inter-
provincial trade. It is only, as I understand
it, by means of complementary legislation of
this nature that the two jurisdictions— the
province of Ontario and the federal Parlia-
ment—can jointly regulate all aspects of the
trade in fish. I assume that the province of
Ontario believes— and that anyone who wants
to use the Constitution as it is intended to
be used would indicate— that the province
has some legislative authority under the
traditional heading No. 13 of section 92
dealing with property and civil rights.
I just want to emphasize that we certainly
will support this bill in the principle of it.
Mr. Singer: You are sure now?
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr, Speaker, I made that
comment for the benefit of the member for
Downsview—
Mr. Singer: Well, we just want to know
where you stand.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, events will indicate
whether or not we will support the bill.
But let me just re-emphasize that one point
about the Constitution. We have heard so
much these latter days that somehow or other
the Constitution obstructs what people in the
country want to accomplish. I think we
should certainly point out that this bill in
fact is the co-operati\e operation of both
levels of government within their exclusive
legislative authorities to prov ide an adequate
method by which fish can be marketed with-
out getting into a constitutional hangup about
the respective legislati\e authorities.
If my imderstanding of the bill is correct,
I would like to know specifically— and the
other members have put many other questions
—from the Minister what are the operative
conditions as he sees it under which, in fact,
the goxemment will designate the corpor-
ation as the body which will control the sell-
ing and buying of fish at the same time as
they designate the particular part, or parts, of
Ontario to which this Act will apply.
Mr. Speaker, let me state that again. What
are the operative conditions that the govern-
ment will require before it, in fact, imple-
ments the bill?
Once the bill is implemented I notice that
there are extremely wide powers even then
for the government to exempt various classes
of fish and various parts of the areas which
are designated and particular persons, or
classes of persons, from the Act. Now it is
customary for the government to ask for this
wide regulatory power, but I assume that
the regulatory power will not be used for the
purpose of defeating the Act but will be used
in conjunction with and in co-operation with
the federal department responsible for the
administration of the federal Act.
Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity
to look at the federal Act, but I would hope
that the Minister would comment about the
point which has been made by the member
for Rainy River and by the member for Brant-
ford as to the way in which the Act will
come into force in terms of the participation
of the fisherman in the particular area in
implementing the scheme— so that the Act
will come into force by way of their initiative
and not by way simply of government fiat,
both from the point of view of the individual
fisherman but more particularly from the
point of view of any organization of fishermen
which may have specific interests and rights.
This should be of concern to the government
before it decides to bring the bill into oper-
ation.
Those are the points on which I would
like clarification, and I think 1 might make
this one further comment, Mr. Speaker; when
a Minister of the Crown introduces a bill and
only makes a statement of the summary form
set forth in the explanatory note, which is all
that this Minister did on the first reading of
this bill, when it is a complicated bill provid-
ing for complementary legislation at two
levels of government, it wotild appear to me
that this is the kind of occasion when the
Minister responsible for the bill should take
adxantage of the opportimity under the rules
on the calling of the bill for second reading to
APRIL 28, 1969
3673
make a more detailed statement of the pur-
poses of the bill. He would have saved us
raising all these questions, and then, of
course, he would have had his traditional
right of reply.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to the bill before the
Minister? The hon. Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
thank the hon. members for their comments
and I think the last speaker, the hon. member
for Riverdale, had a very constructi\'e com-
ment when he said that I probably should
have made a statement longer than the ex-
planatory note I gave on first reading. As was
mentioned by some of the members, this bill
is complementary to the federal bill which
was passed in the federal House on February
27, I believe, establishing the Fresh Water
Fish Marketing Corporation.
Now this corporation has the sole right to
buy and sell fresh water fish in the prairie
provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta, the Northwest Territories and certain
designated parts of Ontario.
At the present time, this Act will only
apply in northwestern Ontario, and this will
include the forest district of Geraldton and
Port Arthur, excluding Lake Superior, and the
districts of Sioux Lookout, Kenora and Fort
Frances, excluding Rainy and Namakan Lakes.
It is the fishermen who decide by a majority
vote if they want to come under this Act,
so this Act when passed will just include the
northwestern part of Ontario, excluding those
three areas.
Mr. T. P. Reid: We will be able to opt in
later, will we not?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is right. At a later
date, once the legislation is passed, the fisher-
men in the Lake Erie or Lake St. Clair areas
may be included if they wish. They may do
so on application, and of course they will
have to decide themselves by a majority
vote if they wish to be included.
Now the federal legislation deals with
exports of fish and also rnter-provindal trade.
Our legislation deals with intra-provincial
trade, that is within the province itself.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, might I ask if
the persons who can vote are the crews of
the ships or the ship. owners in the commer-
cial fishing industry? Just who has the vote
that you mentioned? As the crew members
are shareholders in the ketch, do they each
have one vote or is it just the owner of tiie
ship in question?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: My imderstanding, Mr.
Speaker, is that it is one vote per fishing unit.
Mr. Paterson: For a Hcence?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Per licence, that is
right One vote per licence is ri^.
With reference to inspectors, the next bifl.
Bill 117, will establish that federal inspectors
can be used for this provincial legislation. In
other words, we do not intend to appoint
additional inspectors. Tlhe federal inspeofcors
will be empowered to inspect the JBsJieries.
Now with reference to coarse fish, the
fish at the present time that will be includod
are pickerel— I would also Hke to mention,
Mr. Speaker, that these recommendations
came about of the commission of inquiry by
Mr. George Molvor in 1965, which was ap-
pointed by the federal government and
whereby they had many meetings in various
parts of the prairies and northwestern On-
tario. At these meetings the fishermen were
represented, and that was the result of thedr
recommenda,tions .
Now the fish that will be included are
pickerel, pike, sauger, whitefish and lake
trout, which are the major species and are in
total marketed mostly round or dressed. And
90 per cent of the total catch of these species
is produced in the inland fisheries of Mani-
toba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the
northwestern part of Ontario.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay made
a good suggestion that coarse fish should also
be included, and I think this is a very good
recommendation .
The board of directors of the corporation
will be composed of 11 members. Our mem-
ber, the director for Ontario, will be Mr.
John Brubacker, who is in charge of our
commercial fisheries. Also there will be three
persons on the advisory committee, one of
whom will be an Indian, and the others a
conmfiercial fisherman and a business man.
One member, the hon. member for Rainy
River, mentioned cohoe salmon, I would say
that at the present time cohoe salmon is still
in the experimental stage. However, at a
later date, once this fish becomes established
in our fisheries, I see no reason why it should
not be included.
The hon. member for Sudbury raised the
point, I believe, about why the fisheries came
under federal jurisdiction, and I appreciated
the hon. member for Riverdale who referred
to the fact that under section 91 of Tlie
3674
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
BNA Act, subsection 12, that sea ooat#t and
inland fisheries are the responsibility of the
provincial govemanent.
Mr. Sopha: Federal government.
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: I am sorry, federal gov-
ernment.
I would also like to tell the hon. member,
of course, that we co-operate very closely.
There is federal and provincial co-operation
with regards to fish research in the Great
Lakes. With reference to Indians, 1 was sur-
prised to hear the hon. member's comments
about The Department of Lands and Forests
—I forget his exact wording, but he implied
that we are not encouraging Indians in com-
mercial fishing.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I will cer-
tainly be glad to send him the number of
Indians who are in commercial fisheries, and
this very Act is to help them. A great
majority, a large number of fishermen in
northwestern Ontario are Indians, and they
are receiving very weak prices for the fish.
One of the main purposes of this legislation,
is to establish and give them better prices,
and this will be very helpful to the Indian
fishermen in northwestern Ontario as well
as to Indians in other parts of Ontario.
It was asked by the hon. member for
Riverdale what operative conditions the gov-
ernment will require before it will implement
the bill? According to my understanding of
his question, we will enter into an agree-
ment with the federal government to pay our
share. The federal government is putting up
$100,000 for the initial administrative cost of
implementing this corporation and the prov-
ince of Ontario will be paying five per cent,
$5,000, and then, once the corporation is
established, we hope that it will operate on
a self-sustaining basis. Since our share of the
fisheries is calculated to be ten per cent,
losses are incurred— and we hope there will
not be any losses. However, of whatever
losses are incurred we will pay five per cent
and the federal government will be sharing
on a 50-50 basis. They will be paying the
other five per cent.
Mr. Stokes: What about the unusually high
penalty?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The penalty. Again,
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is based on the
federal legislation. There have been many
meetings and consultations with the federal
authorities and other provincial authorities
and this legislation is very similar to the fed-
eral legislation. We were guided by them.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Can I ask a question on
a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker? Those
people who are not part of the fish market-
ing plan will be under these regulations just
the same, will they?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This legislation will
apply initially only to that part of north-
western Ontario excluding Lake Superior,
Rainy Lake and Namakan Lake and so, all
those that are within that designated area
will have to market their fish through this
fish marketing board. It will be the sole
agency to market, to buy and to sell the fish.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Some of these regulations,
however, could refer to people who are not
in these designated areas, and yet, who are
commercial fishermen. Will they also be
subject to these regulations?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, all the
commercial fishermen in that designated area,
will be subject to the regulations of the fish
marketing board.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to see if I have
omitted to answer some of the questions that
were put to me. With reference to the ques-
tion of whether more personnel would be
added to our department, asked by the hon.
member for Rainy River; we do not antici-
pate adding any more personnel to our de-
partment. The director for Ontario will be
our present supervisor of commercial fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, if I can sense the general
attitude of the members, this legislation is
good legislation. It will greatiy help to bet-
ter the prices, especially those in a desig-
nated area where Indians predominate, and
we also hope that this will be well received.
This corporation will be very helpful in the
processing and also in the handling of the
fish. We hope that it will not only increase
sales but also make for better quality.
Mr. Stokes: One final point of clarification,
if I may, Mr. Speaker. What arrangements
will the province enter into in repaying the
present fishermen for any plant that becomes
redundant as a result of the operation of this
fish marketing board?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the hon. member, the legislation provides
that if some plants become redundant it will
be the responsibility of the province to pay
for these redundant plants. But, I am advised
that we do not anticipate that we will have
any redundant plants in northwestern Ontario.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
APRIL 28, 1969
3675
THE FISH INSPECTION ACT
Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves second reading
of Bill 117, An Act to amend The Fish
Inspection Act.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Just one short comment,
Mr. Speaker, which may refer back to the
other bill but I think it might come in here,
under the penalties under The Fish Inspection
Act.
It states that fish may be seized by an
inspector, but these fish may be held only
for the expiration of 90 days from the day
of seizure. Then part of the bill reads that
only good wholesome fish may be sold.
I would suggest to the Minister that after
90 days there is not going to be much that
would be edible left of the fish.
Mr. Speaker: Any other member wish to
make a comment? The hon. member for
Samia.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted
to make one comment in connection with the
comment made previously by the hon. Min-
ister relative to cohoe salmon. Through you, I
might dk-ect to him a fact of which perhaps
he is not knowledgeable. Recently, in our area,
I am informed, that commercial people have
taken out about ten tons of cohoe salmon,
from Lake Huron. These fish really began
their existence in Lake Huron as a result of
a planned seeding of the area by the state
of Michigan, intended for sportsmen. I had
already taken the liberty of dealing with one
of the Minister's assistants, perhaps his exec-
utive assistant? I phoned in connection with
this and I wanted to convey to the Minister,
in connection with his comment relative to
the former bill, that cohoe salmon are be-
coming a significant fish in our area. Frankly,
I would not want to see commercial activity
unduly or adversely affect the intent of the
state of Michigan and from the point of view
of my own constituents and the sporting op-
porttmity available to them.
Mr. Speaker: The hon, member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. Stokes: I have just one brief comment
to make, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering, in
view of die Minister's comments on the pre-
vious bill, when he said he did not anticipate
that any additional personnel would be re-
quired. In fact the federal level of govern-
ment will be providing the inspectors. Is this
Act really necessary at all? You do not
anticipate any inspection staff under the
auspices of your own department?
Mr. T. P. Reid: Read the RSO No. 150,
1960.
Hon. Mr. Brunnelle: This Bill 117 is to
clarify the provisions of the Act respecting
inspectors and although the Act now provides
for inspectors, it does not expressly provide
for their appointment. With the additional
emphasis being placed on fish inspection, par-
ticularly in view of the fish marketing iDoard
being established, it is essential that there be
proper authorization for the officers. In 1955,
we passed The Provincial Fish Inspection
Act, but, now that we are dealing with the
export of fish between provinces, the same
federal inspectors will act on our authority as
provincial inspectors.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Minister
would wait to answer all the members at
once, as the custom is. The hon. member for
Essex South.
Mr. Paterson: Yes, for the purpose of
clarification, Mr. Speaker, there are two points
I would like to raise. Under this Act these
inspectors would be acting throughout the
whole of the province, and not just in that
area which was designated in Bill 116. Do I
have this correctly? If this is so, will they
have enforcement authority to deal with
commercial fishermen who may stray across
the international boundary such as happens
in my riding quite frequently with the Ohio
people coming over? Will these inspectors
have authority to deal with these particular
people?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: In relation to the cohoe
problem, and it has become quite a serious
problem, in tomorrow morning's Globe there
is quite a lengthy article on this problem. The
commercial fishermen are apparently far more
upset than the anglers, because the cohoe,
which are pouring over from the American
side, are driving out the pickerel and the
other lake fish on which the commercial
fishermen depend. What is worse, as a result
of this tremendous growth in the cohoe, ap-
parently there are vast numbers of anglers
going into the area near Goderich, specifi-
cally to Bayfield and surrounding area. As a
result the nets of the commercial fishermen
are beginning to be damaged. Apparently on
the American side there has been a tre-
mendous growth in the angling and to quote:
In North Michigan the people went wild.
One of two conservation officers had better
3676
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not go out i>y themselves, there were just
thousands of boats and that is what we are
afraid of here. It will be all right if they
do not catch too many, but if they really
start getting them, they will be out there
by the thousands all over our nets. Besides
everything else—
I interject here to point out that "everything
else" means the driving out of the pickerel
and the other lake fish:
—we will have our nets cut to pieces. If
the cohoe stay all summer, there will be
trouble.
So this is becoming quite a serious problem.
It is a bonanza for the anglers but it has
created a very serious problem for the com-
mercial fishermen. I hope the Minister will
give it some attention.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to the bill? The hon.
Minister.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, with
reference to the hon. member for Essex, the
federal inspectors will be really working in
northwestern Ontario in that designated part
of the province. That vdll be their responsi-
bihty. There wiU be no changes in the other
areas, in the area the member is referring to.
Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves second reading of Bill 121, An Act to
amend The Medical Services Insurance Act,
1965.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on the sec-
ond reading of Bill 121, I want to reiterate
the opposition of this party to the proposal
put forward by the Minister in introducing
the bill.
There are three or four matters which I
think have to be dealt with and brought
to the attention of the government in order
to explain to the government fully why we
are opposed to what the Minister proi>oses in
the bill. The Minister, when he was speaking
earlier on one of the other occasions when
the bill was before the House, used, if my
memory serves me correctly, the illustration
of the cost of a visit of a plumber to a house,
and the fee charged or the amount charged
for such a visit. I am not famihar with the
prices which independent plumbers charge
for their services; I am not familiar with the
costs of carrying on the plumbing business,
nor am I aware of the economics of that par-
ticular industry.
I have some knowledge, cursory as it may
be, about the requirements of persons who
are plumbers in this society. Is is necessary
for such persons to be quahfied; they have
an apprenticeship course and then they obtain
their various papers designating them as per-
sons who can carry on the trade of plumbing
in the province.
At the present time, throughout the con-
struction industry in Metropolitan Toronto,
the plumbers, along with a large number of
the other traditional trades, the bricklayers,
sheetmetal workers, the masonry workers and
many other trades in the construction in-
dustry in Toronto, are engaged and have
been engaged for some three months in the
collective bargaining process under which the
Toronto Construction Association and the 18
agreements of the 15 unions that are up for
renegotiation have been subjected to inten-
sive collective bargaining by the parties to
those agreements.
The amount of money which they are talk-
about, by and large — whether or not the.se
particular skilled tradesmen, the carpenters
and the plumbers and the electricians and the
sheetmetal workers and the refrigeration
workers and other persons, who have special
qualifications — without getting into the fine
points of the number of cents involved,
whether or not they will be able to negoti-
ate wages, will be somewhere in the neigh-
bourhood of $4.50, $5 or $5.50 an hour.
Now, let us take what I believe to be
the position of the plumbers in this case.
They are negotiating and expect to get some-
thing just over $5 an hour for the exer-
cise of the skill of their trade. On a 40-hour
week, they will have a gross income of $200,
and if they work for 50 weeks out of the
year— and I would indicate, Mr. Speaker, that
in the construction industry it does not neces-
sarily follow that everyone is employed full
time throughout the year— they will then have
a gross income of about $10,000.
I suggest to the Minister that he cannot
call in aid that kind of negotiated settlement
which provides an income of about $10,000
gross to assist him in supporting the principle
that the medical profession under this bill,
without any collective bargaining process of
any kind, should be able unilaterally to in-
crease the schedule of fees in a profession
which, as I understand it, on the latest statis-
tics which are available from the federal gov-
APRIL 28, 1969
3677
ernment, indicate that across Canada the
average income of a person in the medical
profession for tax purposes is in the neigh-
bourhood of $25,000 a year-
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Was.
Mr. J. Renwick: —was in the nei^bour-
hood of $25,000 a year, because I think the
statistics are two or three years out of date,
if not more. That is the first point I want to
make and I want to make it perfectly clearly
that the time has passed when the professions
in this country, in this province, are entitled
unilaterally to decide what their tariff or
schedule of fees will be.
The second point I want to make is that
there is, in each of the professions and in the
medical profession, a statute of this Legisla-
ture which provides for the self-governance
of the professions and the medical profession
is, as we all know, governed by the Act
respecting the college of physicians and sur-
geons.
That is the body which is charged with the
supervision, admission, discipline and conduct
of the profession in all its branches. That
body is responsible through that legislation to
this Legislature in the sense that we can, in
fact, change that legislation should we wish to
do so. It has not, Mr. Speaker, been cus-
tomary for those professions to be called
before any of the standing committees of the
Legislature, but certainly I made two or
three years ago, and have reiterated on other
occasions, the proposition that this govern-
ment by and large is going to have to pro-
vide for more adequate direct supervision of
tlie professions.
I say "supervision". I do not mean that the
government is to take over the governance
of those professions but it is certainly
required to supervise the statutes which grants
such a wide area of self-governance to the
profession.
Now, those bodies, charged as they are
with that responsibility, are quite separate
and distinct, both in the medical profession
and in the legal profession, and we are cer-
tainly going to nm up against all the prob-
lems which are involved when they are not
separate and distinct when the Attorney
General brings in the bill relating to the
professional engineers.
But in the medical profession, the college
of physicians and surgeons is one body, which
is the statutory body, and there is the other
body, the Ontario Medical Association, which
is the body primarily concerned with advanc-
ing the self-interests of the medical profes-
sion. That is a legitimate object and a legiti-
mate purpose for any group of people to band
themselves together to accomplish.
But that distinction, again, is the second
one that I wanted to make perfectly clear.
The Ontario Medical Association is formed
and conducts its business, quite legitimately,
for the purpose of enhancing its own self-
interests. TJiere is no intrusion of outside
interests in the operation of that body, nor,
in my judgment, should there be.
But the importance of the college of physi-
cians and surgeons is that the legislation gov-
erning that body should provide, and the
Minister is obligated to provide, in my judg-
ment, amendments to that legislation which
will permit that body to establish the tariffs
and schedule of fees, because that body is
charged with the exercise of a pubhc interest.
It may be that that body by itself, if
charged with that responsibiity, will discharge
its obligation to the public because of the
different connotations of that corporation,
the college of physicians and surgeons, and
the purposes which the statute requires it to
serve.
If it did not discharge its public duty with
respect to the fees to be charged by members
of that profession, then the government has
got a very clear way in which to bring the
public interest to bear upon that profession. I
say this quite advisedly, because I happen to
believe that, in an analogous way or sense,
that is what should be done and what, in a
large measure, will in fact at some point be
done so far as the Law Society of Upper
Canada is concerned, in the governance of
the legal profession.
Let us take this in the two stages. The
Ontario Medical Association is designed to
provide for the self-serving purposes of the
medical profession, quite legitimately so. The
college of physicians and surgeons is a body
charged with a public duty and a public
responsibility, and one of those duties and one
of those responsibilities, which should be
exercised by that college— and I happen to
believe that, in the first instance in any event,
as a matter of good faith, the college of
physicians and surgeons should be given the
opportunity to show whether or not it can act
in the public interest and not simply in the
interest of the profession itself— is the matter
of the fees to be charged for services rendered
by the members of that profession.
If we can come on, Mr. Speaker, to th©
next area, we have had in this Legislature—
since The Medical Services Insurance Act
was originally passed— another occasion when
unilaterally the Ontario Medical Association
3678
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has changed its schedule of fees. I would
have thought by now the Minister would
have taken the step to assure the people in
this province that the public interest would
be represented. But he has not done so and
we, of course, called for the roll back in
those fees,
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the
train of thought but, if the hon. member
would like to move tJie adjournment of the
debate, I have an interesting motion to follow
that.
Mr. J. Ren wick: I move the adjournment
of the debate.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member is
getting to be the best filibusterer in history.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
we will carry on as today, considering the
legislation on the order paper.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment of
the House.
Mr. Speaker: Before I place the motion of
the hon. House leader, I would like to apolo-
gize to the members for Mr. Speaker's appear-
ance earlier this evening. It apparently did
not influence the outcome of the division,
and I found it so comfortable, I must confess,
that I am going to make submission to the
committee on rules and precedents, that per-
haps, except on ceremonial occasions, Mr.
Speaker might have some leeway when the
hot weather arrives.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 99
ONTARIO
Hcgislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, April 29, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 29, 1969
Presenting reports, Mr. Welch and Mr. Randall 3681
Cancer Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 3681
Time Act, bill to amend, Mr. Jessiman, first reading 3681
Tabling copies of Hedlin-Menzies report, Mr. Brunelle 3681
Carriers of medical insurance, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon 3683
Bruce trail and Niagara escarpment, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Nixon 3683
Miss Alice Murphy, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon 3684
Bill 112, questions to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. MacDonald 3684
Tabling report of Ontario law reform commission, Mr. Wishart 3684
Dumping of oil into Great Lakes system, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Paterson 3685
Hamilton urban renewal programme, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Deans 3685
Assessment appeals at local level, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Ruston 3686
Algoma Central Railway, question to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Stokes 3687
Quetico park, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Stokes 3687
Facilities at provincial camp sites, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Stokes 3687
Regional government, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Knight 3687
Area directors, property assessment, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Good 3688
Evictions at Cobalt, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Good 3688
Hydro discharge of warm water into Great Lakes, question to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Ferrier 3688
Water pollution, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Nixon 3689
Atomic energy station at Pickering, question to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Nixon 3689
Operating Engineers Act, 1965, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. Haggerty 3689
Frank Marchildon, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 3689
Film censorship, questions to Mr. Auld, Mr. Shulman 3689
Construction industry and construction safety, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. De Monte 3690
Highway 522, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Innes 3690
Road superintendent for Alnwick township, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Pitman .... 3690
Corporate consohdations, questions to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Sargent 3690
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading .... 3691
Mining Tax Act, bill to amend, Mr. A. F. Lawrence, on second reading 3711
Recess, 6 o'clock 3719
3681
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This afternoon our visitors in
the east gallery are students from the Herman
E. Fawcett secondary school in Brantford and
in the west gallery from Mount Mary Im-
maculate academy in Ancaster and Bayview
junior high school in Willowdale.
Later this afternoon, there will be students
from Parry Sound district high school with
us and this evening there will be the 23rd
Toronto Scout Troop from Toronto as our
guests.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, we have a very special guest in
your gallery, sir— Miss Delia Opekokew, who
is a Cree Indian from the Canoe Narrows
band in Saskatchewan. Miss Delia Opekokew
is the organizing secretary of the Ontario
Native Development Fund. The purpose of
this fund is to raise money for Indian organi-
zations and for Indian research. Miss Delia
Opekokew will be marching in the Miles For
Millions march on Saturday and she would
be delighted to meet with any members, or
any members of the press gallery in the west
lounge, in 15 minutes' time.
She is seeking sponsors.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the members
will be glad to meet with the yoimg lady. We
are delighted to have her with us.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to tiie
House the annual report of the teachers'
superanuation commission for the year ended
October 31, 1968.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to
present to the House the following: the
Sheridan Park Corporation annual report for
1968, and the Ontario Research Foundation
annual report for 1967.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.
Tuesday, April 29, 1969
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE CANCER ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
to amend The Cancer Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the rea-
son for this amendment is to add one repre-
sentative to the institute board to represent
New Mount Sinai hospital, one of the teach-
ing hospitals of the University of Toronto.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE TIME ACT
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend
The Time Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Jessiman: This bill provides dayUght
saving time throughout Ontario and author-
izes the councils of local municipalities to
provide for the observance of standard time
instead of daylight saving time.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
Orders of the day.
The hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
has a statement.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table
copies of the Hedlin-Menzies report entitled
"The Ontario Forest Industry: Its Direct and
Indirect Contribution to the Economy".
In order to evaluate the direct and indirect
contribution of the forest industry to the
economy of the province. The Department of
Lands and Forests commissioned Hedlin-
Menzies and Associates, a firm of consulting
economists, to conduct such a study. Co-
operation in undertaking the study was pro-
vided by many individuals, my department
3682
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
officials, federal and provincial government
departments, forest related industries and
three northern Ontario commmiities.
The results of the project were presented
to the department in two forms. One, a com-
prehensive statistical manual of the Ontario
forest industry, which was prepared as a
foundation for the analytical work. Second,
the report I am tabling now, entitled, "The
Ontario Forest Industry: Its Direct and In-
direct Contribution to the Economy."
The report contains an overview of the
forest industry as a whole as classified by the
Dominion Bureau of Statisics. Among the
more interesting results of the study are those
relating to direct and indirect employment
and government revenue generated by the
forest industry. For example, it is estimated
that for every person directly employed in
the forest industry, an additional 1.73 jobs
are created somewhere in the province.
With respect to government revenue, for
every dollar received by our provincial
Treasury through Department of Lands and
Forests direct charges to the industry, an
additional $4.22 accrues to our Treasury by
way of direct and indirect taxation. The
federal Treasury receives another $9.21 for
that same one dollar.
The report states that 213,000 people, or
about 10 per cent of the labour force in
Ontario, earn their livehhood from the forest
industry. For every four employees in the
mills and forests another seven jobs are
created somewhere in the province. Six out
of every ten jobs in the forest industry are
found in southern Ontario. This is primarily
due to the location of secondary wood-using
and paper-using industries in that portion of
the province.
Mr. Speaker, the results and conclusions of
the forest industry impact study are important
to government, industry and the people of
our province. It will provide us with a better
Ijasis for planning of our various programmes.
Also, it will lend support to educational
material which will be useful in acquainting
the general pubhc with the value of Ontario's
most important natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, the report confirms the im-
portance of the resources of the north and the
significant contribution these resources make
to southern Ontario. Lastly, the study places
the whole forest industry in perspective with-
in the province's economic system.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a short statement
concerning logging in Algonquin Park. In
order to correct some misconceptions on the
part of the public concerning logging opera-
tions in Algonquin Park, I would hke to make
this statement.
Logging has been carried out in the Algon-
quin Park area for over 130 years. This time
span points up the capacity of the living
forest to replace itself. This fact, coupled
with modern forest management techniques,
ensures that a healthy forest is available for
all users of the park— both present and future.
Algonquin Park is considerably larger than
the province of Prince Edward Island. It is
logged to the extent of approximately 1.5
per cent each year. This percentage of the
total area is directly involved in the actual
production of logs. Not all of this area is
clear-cut— much of this area is selectively cut,
leaving suflficient tree cover to preserve scenic
values and assist in establishing a new crop
of trees.
From ten to 20 years following cutting, the
evidence of prior cutting has all but dis-
appeared and the forest continues to serve the
purposes of both the recreationist and the
forest products industry.
Basically, it is the evidences of logging,
sudi as noise of trucks, bulldozers, and power
saws, as well as roads and bridges in certain
areas, which have proven to be most ofiFen-
sive to the recreationist. Accordingly, we have
created certain restrictions on logging opera-
tions which have as their objective the mani-
mdzing of these irritations to the canoeists.
The large proportion of park users in camp
grounds and otlier locations in the park are
sufficiently removed from logging activities
that no noise i>roblem arises.
The following restrictions are being
imposed for this year 1969:
1. Some 730 miles of waterways are to be
set aside as designated canoe routes. Along
these routes there will l>e a 1,500 foot
reservation in which only marked trees will
be cut. There will be no cutting within 100
feet of shorelines or within 200 feet of port-
ages.
2. There will be no cutting zones along
public roads, railways, i>ark boundaries and
around developed recreational areas.
3. Road construction will n»t he permitted
in any of the reservations and all road loca-
tions are to be approved by the park super-
intendent and buik to the specifications laid
down in the provincial plan.
4. During the summer period, June 28 to
September 1, the hauling of logs wiU be per-
mitted only during die periods from 8.00 a.m.
to 5.00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There
APRIL 29, 1969
3683
will be no hauling on weekends, or on statu-
tory holidays. No mechanized equipment is to
be used at night.
5. A two-mile wide "sound buffer zone"
has been created for tlie purpose of protec-
tion of the canoeist from the normal noises of
logging operations. Experience will determine
to what extent this distance is adequate,
since there is no known basis in research for
this type of zone. If the 1969 experience
suggests that a wider zone is required, this
will be kept in mind for 1970.
Mr. Speaker, of the 23 companies holding
cutting rights in the park, 11 will not be
operating during July and August 1969.
Eleven other companies will operate during
tliis period, but none of these will be operat-
ing within the two-mile sound buffer zone.
Through economic necessity', one of the 23
companies will be operating within the two-
mile zone. Alternate areas of supply for this
company were fully explored before per-
mitting this operation. Company officials have
been fully apprised of the new logging regu-
lations and the necessity for their being
observed.
The experience gained during tliis sunmier
will be most helpful in the development of
adequate safeguards to ensure both a healthy
forest, a satisfying recreational environment
and an economic forest industry.
Mr. Speaker: May I remind tlie members
again of the Planetarium visit? I am sure that
more than half the members by now must
know what their plans are for Thursday night,
and again I would ask your co-oi>eration in
advising me.
I am advised that the Planetarium showing
itself will begin about 6.45 p.m., so that tf
I any of you cannot take advantage of the sand-
f wich supper being served, you would be
welcome to come over direct to the Plane-
tarimn about that time to be there by 6.45.
The hon. leader of the Opposition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min-
ister of Health. Will the Minister report to
the Legislature on the progress he has made
in gaining agreement with carriers of medical
insurance in preparation for Ontario's entry
into the national Medicare plan?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I can only
say that we appear to be making progress,
but I have no definitive report to give at this
time.
Mr. Nixon: A supplementary question, Mr.
Speaker. I wonder if the Minister will recall
me asking him to table his correspondence
with PSI in this regard? He said there was
none and yet I have since seen a copy of a
draft agreement that was put forward by the
Minister to PSI which might have been con-
strued as part of his correspondence.
As a matter of fact, I am siu-e the Minister
is aware that this was brought to pubhc
attention in a press release by the member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald), and it has
occurred to me that the Minister might be
considerably franker with the House in these
negotiations so that the information would be
available to all of us.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I have
already assured the House that when informa-
tion is available it will be made available in
this House.
Mr. Nixon: Why was that draft agreement
not made available?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Because this is a mat-
ter of discussion and it was not corresx>ond-
ence. It was a working paper that was
handed to the people, if you want to be
strictly technical. It was never sent through
the mail, therefore I do not think it assvunes
the guise of correspondence, but—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): He talks like
a lawyer.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have had good prac-
tice listening to the hon. member tell of the
cases he loses. I have said to you, sir, that
when our negotiations have reached the stage
where there is something positive to report,
it will be reported in this House.
Mr. Nixon: Right. Mr. Speaker, I have
a question of the Minister of Energy and
Resources Management. What action is the
conservation branch, or any other branch
of the goverrmaent, taking to assist in the
developing of the Bruce trail and the preser-
vation of the Niagara escarpment?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
the Bruce trail was developed by private in-
terests and no application has been received
from any conservation authority for assisting
in this development.
With regard to the preservation of the Nia-
gara escarpment, the conservation aulliorities
branch is awaiting a decision on the recom-
mendation contained in the Gertler report.
When a decision has been reached, the
branch will review development plans with
3684
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the eight conservation authorities involved to
determine the role these authorities may play
in the preservation.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Minister could
tell me if he is aware of the fact that recent
land acquisitions— some of them fairly large
—are disrupting the Bruce trail potential and
that the exectuive of at least one organiza-
tion association with this is blaming the gov-
ernment of Ontario for not giving assistance
in planning for this particular project?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I am
aware that there have been some land trans-
actions, or attempts at buying some of the
property, but I am not aware that there are
organizations that have complained to the
government about this.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
remaining from yesterday for the Attorney
General: Can the Minister explain the cir-
cmnstances that resulted in Alice Murphy, of
Cayuga, formerly clerk of the provincial and
family and juvenile court, presently acting
sheriff, registrar of the supreme and surro-
gate court, and clerk of the county court,
going without pay since January 1, 1968?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I am getting the details, but,
first of all, she did not go without pay. My
understanding is she drew over $7,000 by
regular cheque. The story in the press seems
to be completely off base. But I am getting
the complete detail and I wdll take pleasiue
in giving it to the House.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
might ask the Attorney General a supple-
mentary question? Is he aware that there is
some question as to whether provincial court,
scheduled for Thursday of this week, will
continue unless this matter is ironed out?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not think the court
will fail to operate, on that account at least.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of our currently
overworked Minister of Education, which I
shall have to hold, but one which I can put
to the Minister of Mines.
First, what explanation is tliere for the Min-
ister's statement that the government now
believes full implementation of Bill 112
would force out of business 23 of the 66
mining companies now in operation in On-
tario?
Second, is the retreat from the 100 per cent
processing-in-Canada policy permanent or
temi>orary?
And, third, if only temporary, when will the
100 per cent processing-in-Canada becoane
obligatory for companies now in operation?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is attributing
statements to me which I have never made.
It is my hope that this matter will come up
for second reading this afternoon and, rather
than get into a hassle in the question period,
perhaps he can make his point and his argu-
ments then and I will make mine then.
Mr. MacDonald: The Globe and Mail was
inaccurate then?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I have the Globe
and Mail here; it does not say that.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General
has asked permission to revert to presenting
reports. I think he has a report for the
House.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I beg
leave to table herewith the report of the
Ontario Law Reform Commission on the
limitation of actions.
This exhaustive study was undertaken by
the Ontario Law Reform Commission in view
of the desirability of revising this veiy sig-
nificant and important body of the laws of
this province. The present statutory pro-
visions find their origin in many ancient laws
which, of course, were conceived at a time
when the problems of our society were quite
different from that which we find today.
However, the significance of these limitation
periods to our citizens is of a nature that
requires our deepest consideration before any
general revisions may be carried out by this
Legislature.
Limitation periods are important to evcr\-
citizen of the province, because they not only
protect him from actions being brought after
an inordinately long period, but they also
ensure that his rights may he dealt with in an
orderly and proper manner and with a de-
gree of certainty that is desirable in the
establishing of his rights.
I do not propose introducing any legisla-
tion implementing the recommendations in
this report until the public and the legal
profession have had an opportunity of con-
sidering the report and making comments
upon it. The impact of the recommendations
will best be recognized by the lawyers
throughout the province and I commend it to
them for their study. After full consideration
and review it may well be appropriate to
implement various recommendations which
APRIL 29, 1969
3685
are contained in the report and we will look
forward to our continuing study in the light
of the comments which we may receive. In
the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I would com-
mend it to the consideration of those mem-
bers of this House who have an interest in
the legal affairs of our province.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex
South has a question of the Premier.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Premier.
In view of the dumping of 72,000 gallons
of oil into the Great Lakes water system at
the pressure plant in the Detroit-Windsor
area, is there any remedy available to the
government of Ontario, or to any individual
who may have suffered damage as a result of
this dumping, either by way of criminal pro-
cedure under any federal or provincial statute,
or by civil action?
What action, if any, does the government
of Ontario intend to take in this regard?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
I Speaker, in the first place it must be under-
stood that this involves a good deal of inter-
national law, criminal law and civil law. I
am not in a position this afternoon to detail
to the House what action might be available
to any individual or any government that
might be caused damages as a result of this
particular incident.
As far as what action we intend to take, I
am informed that no damage has been caused
by the situation, and therefore the matter is
pretty well academic. There is no need for
us to take any action, nor do I think there
will be any pressure for any individual to
take action. No doubt, there are remedies
available to those who may have suffered
damage.
I think the real point in the whole matter
is that we must have some form of inter-
national agreement, and some form of control
of wastes, in order to ensure that this does
not happen, because perhaps it is only luck
that there is not a good deal of damage
caused by this particular event.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a
further question?
Mr. Paterson: Yes, I have a question of the
Minister of Highways.
What were the maintenance costs for each
of the last three years for Highways ISA, 98
and 2 in Essex county and Highway 98 in
Kent county?
If these highways are to return to their
respective counties, what will be the dis-
position of equipment, patrol buildings and
properties and the staff connected with the
maintenance of these highways?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested on
both these questions will require breakdown
of accounts. We are proceeding with this
work so that the questions can be properly
answered in approximately two weeks' time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth has the floor if the Minister has now
returned.
Mr. L Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I have a question for the Minister
of Municipal Affairs, in three parts: Does the
Minister receive regular reports on the Hamil-
ton dowmtown civic square urban renewal
programme?
Does the department have a full time
representative in Hamilton for the purpose of
protecting the province's interest?
Is the Minister satisfied that the changes
being made by the Hamilton city council are
acceptable to the province, in order to assure
the province's participation in the programme?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the
member's question. I would say to the first
part, yes, we do receive regular reports be-
cause we have a representative on the co-
ordinating committee. We receive frequent
written reports, some of which end up on
my desk.
Second— do we have a full time representa-
tive in Hamilton for the purpose of protect-
ing the province's interest? The member for
Halton West points out that the hon. member,
Mrs. Pritchard, is our full-time representative
in Hamilton.
She, of course, is a member of the urban
renewal committee and does keep us posted
on a number of things. However, in terms of
a full-time civil servant— no, we do not have
that kind of a representative.
The expendittures, of course, are subject
to the prior approval of the committee and,
therefore, through the committee to the
province, as well as to the federal level. I
do not think that it would be advantageous
on our part to interfere this way by having
a full time person there.
Regiarding the third part of the question, I
think I would first of all say that the city
council has not as yet finally adopted the
revised plan, and with that qualification we
3686
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
really do not know completely what plan is
going to be put in front of us. I would say,
yes— that the revised plan is generally accept-
able to the province. The revised plan, in our
\dew, is a definite improvement over the
one originally adopted by the city.
The revised plan provides for a compre-
hensive series of activity centres formed by
a somewhat greater concentration of the
various uses which are now interconnected
horizontally and vertically through the civic
square by a weather-protected, grade-separ-
ated pedestrian system. This also provides
access to a series of more publicly usable
open spaces.
This inter-related system facilitates an in-
creased urban quality, generated by the
organization of the uses and spaces within
the civic square, so that a greater range of
urban experiences can be enjoyed by the
public tlian was previously possible.
Uses on either side of King, Main and
MacNab streets, are now connected by the
pedestrian system. Provision is made for the
eastward extension of this pedestrian system
in the future, to connect across James street.
There is significantly more usable open space
on the north side of King street than pre-
viously.
The amount of open space provided is con-
sistent with the somewhat more intensive
pedestrian trafiBc and the greater number and
variety of uses proposed on the north side
of King street.
The open space areas will be attractively
landscaped and are now directly accessible
for pedestrians from the adjacent areas. And,
on tiiat basis, and again, subject to the quali-
fication that we do not know what the city
will finally lay in front of us, yes, we are
satisfied.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Eveiy-
body is confused now.
Mr. Deans: This is really a mess now. By
way of a supplementary question, if I may,
is the Minister aware, first, that there is to
be considerably less open space than in the
previous plan? And, second, that there is
considerable turmoil within the dty council
of the city of Hamilton as to what actually
is happening in the downtown area?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, I would point
out that my information is that it will pro-
vide more open space and, second, if there
is turmoil in the city council, that is part
of the normal democratic process. In due
course the city council will resolve this issue
and send it to us for approval.
Mr. Deans: And spending the money of the
province, in some instances.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-
Kent.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think we must cor-
rect this, Mr. Speaker. They are not spending
the money of the province without our ap-
proval, and I do not think it would be
appropriate at the present time for me to
interject myself into some of the turmoil
in the city council, where the matter should
be properly settled.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Munici-
pal AflFairs.
What plans does the Minister have to allow
assessment appeals at local level when the
province assumes assessment? Will the coun-
ties and cities appoint members of the courts
of revision, or does the Minister intend to
appoint them? Will the courts of revision be
held in local areas as they are at the present
time?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we will
of course continue to allow assessment appeals
at a local level when we assume the responsi-
bility for the assessment function.
With regard to the appointments to the
courts of revision, botli the Smith committee
and the White committee recommended that
both methods of appointment be used, both
locally and by the Minister and the govern-
ment.
The suggested approach by the Smith com-
mittee provided that appointments to assess-
ment appeal boards for cities, separated
towns and counties, or any combination
thereof, would be made by the municipality
involved.
In the case of the assessment appeal boards
for districts, the committee recommended that
the Minister of Mimicipal Affairs should make
the appointment upon recommendation of the
local municipahties.
Those recommendations, of course, were
all made before the announceanent of the
assumption of the assessment fimction by the
province.
The answer to the third part of the ques-
tion, I think I can say, is yes, but the main
answer to the second part of the question
will be known at such time as the assessment
legislation is brought into the House.
APRIL 29, 1969
3687
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Tihun-
der Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. A question for the Provincial
Treasurer. Was any tax rehef given or
promised to Algoma Central Railway in re-
turn for timber lands handed back to the
government of Ontario?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Trea-
surer): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon.
member's question is no.
Mr. Stokes: I have questions for the Min-
ister of Lands and Forests. Is there a study
under way by your department to assess
the future use of Quetico Park?
Is this study to assess the future use of this
park for recreation exclusively or a multiple-
use concept? Will this study attempt to co-
ordinate economic use for this area by adja-
cent regions on the Canada and American
sides?
Hon Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the hon. member for Thunder Bay:
1. Department field staflE are currently
assembling data for the preparation of the
master plan for Quetico Provincial Park. In
1967, a mail survey was carried out by the
parks branch among visitors to the interior of
Quetico Park and, in addition, supplementary
data were collected at the ranger station on
the perimeter of the park. Also, data on all
visitors to this park has been gathered in
the past, and will be gathered again this
year, to provide necessary information for
long-range planning of this area.
2. Planning studies of this park will assess
the capabihty of the area for all natural re-
sources. Decisions on the most desirable use,
or uses of the park will be made on comple-
tion of these planing analyses. I consider it
to be very likely that a major part of the
park will be set aside for exclusively recrea-
tional use. It is also probable that some parts
of the park will be managed in accordance
with our concept of multiple use, ensuring
that our recreational needs are given first
priority consideration.
3. We hope to carry out next year an
economic study of Quetico Park which will
provide essential planning information. This
study will consider the economic impact of
the park, including its influence on adjacent
regions, both in northwestern Ontario and in
Minnesota. The economic implications of the
proposed planning concepts for the park can
then be better evaluated.
Mr. Stokes: A second question to the Min-
ister: Can the Minister assure campers that
facilities at provincial camp sites will be
improved this summer, that good dry fire-
wood will be made available, and that roads
to the camps will be repaired, so that the
uncomfortable aiid unsanitary conditions
found in some parks last year— as reported in
the Toronto Star, April 26— can be elininated?
Hon. Mi*. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the hon. member that the
department intends to spend our parks im-
provement budget this year on improving our
existing parks. These expenditures will include
road improvements, bathing— construction of
additional sanitary facilities— and provision for
fuel wood. I think the member will see that
this summer we will have our parks in a much
better condition than previously.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Min-
ister of Municipal Afi^airs. In view of the
Premiers announcement yesterday that re-
gional government will not be imposed on
local people, will the new jwhcy of caution
towards regional government affect the de-
partment's plans to implement regional gov-
ernment in the Muskoka area?
How serious are the complaints from that
area, in view of the meeting on regional
government held in Bracebridge last Friday
evening?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the
statement to which the hon. member refers
was in keeping with the government's policy
of not implementing regional governments on
a wholesale basis, if we can put it that way.
"Cookie cutting," my colleague, the Provin-
cial Secretary, says.
It has been stated a number of times,
and the Prime Minister took the opportunity
yesterday to again state that regional govern-
ment will be phased in on a priority basis.
Mr. Nixon: The Minister should let the
Attorney General make a statement on re-
gional government.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, the Attorney
General was talking about the Sault, that
great part of Ontario, the Sault.
Mr. Nixon: He is likely to grow a beard
before they let it in up in his area, he said.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Attorney Gen-
eral goes away for long weekends and grows
5688
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a beard nearly every weekend, but it comes
ofiE on Mondays.
Mr. Nixon: . . . Next hell be selling
cough drops.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, with
regard to the second part of the question,
concerning a meeting in Bracebridge on Fri-
day evening.
This meeting was organized, I am delighted
to know, by a group of ratepayers who met
with me— or their representatives have met
with me. I think they wanted to know more
about regional government and they organized
a meeting to that end. The hon. member
for Muskoka was there and spoke to them,
on Friday night last. A member from my
staff, I beheve, was there as well.
The situation in Muskoka is that we are
awaiting the report from the commissioner,
Mr. Patterson, which is expected, I would
suppose, in the next few weeks. When it is
received it will be presented to the people in
the area and they will react to it and we will
react to it as a government and as depart-
ments and then we will decide how we will
proceed from that point.
At this time, of course, there is nothing to
react to, because there is no report.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Water-
loo North.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I have
a question of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs. What salary will be paid to seven
area directors, property assessment, whose
positions are advertised on page B9 of the
Globe and Mail today?
Second, what steps will be taken to see
that the salary escalation associated with the
county school board of education does not
recur in the field of assessment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, speak-
ing to the second part of the question first,
the member is aware that salaries for asses-
sors, when they become civil servants, will be
determined in the normal course of events
by the Civil Service Commission. After that
they are subject to the approval of the
Treasury Board, and of the Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council, in the same way that
any other salaries are subject to that kind of
approval.
Let me put it this way— perhaps there
would be some thought from members oppo-
site that those three groups, the Civil Service
Commission, the Treasury Board of Ontario
and the Cabinet of Ontario, have never been
known for being overly-generous when they
were setting salary schedules. That might be
an observation which members opposite might
make at some jwint or another. Perhaps that
answers the second part of the question.
In reply to the first part, I would just say
that the commission have settled on a salary
range for these seven top jobs based on cur-
rent salary rates for assessment staff in muni-
cipalities, based on the rates currently in
effect for assessment classes in The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs and based on a
relationship with the provincial civil service
—such as rates for property management and
tax auditor classes. On that basis the rates foi
the seven area directors to be hired in the
next few months, in a range from $16,619,
$17,610, $18,680, $19,802, and $21,002.
Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I have an addi-
tional question of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs: What are the terms of the proposal
which the department has drafted to bail
out the 52 families facing eviction at Cobalt
on land owned by the Master-Met Cobalt
Mines Limited?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, very
briefly, the department has not made a pro-
posal on this matter, although I realize diat
there is a press report to the effect that we
have. We have not made such a proposal.
We are meeting and have met with the
officials of the town of Cobalt to discuss the
various alternative courses of action which
are open to the town in effecting a solution
to the problem.
Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, by way of a sup-
plementary question.
If it comes to the point where action by
tliis government is required to keep these
people from losing their houses, is this de-
partment prepared to make a proposal?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The final responsi-
bility rests witli tlie town of Cobalt, and we
have been endeavouring to assist the town of
Cobalt in working out a solution to this
problem.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Coch-
rane South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Energy and Resources Management.
What assurance can the Minister give that
Hydro power stations will discontinue the
discharging of warm water into the Great
APRIL 29, 1969
3689
Lakes thereby endangering game fish now
found in the Great Lakes?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
give any assurance that Hydro power stations
will discontinue the discharge of warm water
into the Great Lakes. I am not too sure that
there is a problem of endangering game fish.
As I imderstand from Hydro, the overall
eflFect of the discharge of warm water will
»ot exceed one quarter of one degree Fahren-
heit, and it would seem to me that the amount
of water going into the Great Lakes would
not affect it materially.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister has an-
swers to some questions which he might now
wish to give?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have the answer to
question 1316 asked by the hon. member
for Essex South.
All of tlie Ontario portion of Lake Erie is
under licence of exploration or lease for oil
and gas explorations or production respec-
tively.
Mr. Speaker: It might be well to point out
to the hon. Minister that that question has
not been asked and has been withdrawn by
the hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I had not been
notified, and I was out of the House-
Mr. Speaker: Until it was asked the hon.
Minister should not have answered the ques-
tion. Perhaps he will pass to one of the
other questions?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Perhaps the rest have
been withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of it
having been withdrawn. The hon. Minister
did not pay attention to what the Speaker
said. The Speaker said that the question had
not been asked.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: But it had been with-
Mr. Speaker: The question had not been
asked, and until it is asked the Minister
should not endeavour to answer it. Perhaps
he will proceed with his otlier questions,
which were asked on anotiier day.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have the answer to
question 1317 from the hon. member for
Brant.
There were 14 alleged violations which
received legal action in 1968. There were
nine convictions and five withdrawals.
I am having the information prepared and
will table the answer as requested.
There was another question from the hon.
member for Brant yesterday regarding the
atomic energy station at Pickering, and al-
though I gave him my answer yesterday, I
understand the answer from Hydro is no.
Mr. Nixon: No problem?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No problem.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wel-
land South.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the
Minister of Labour.
When will The Operating Engineers Act,
1965, be proclaimed?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, I anticipate that the Act will be
proclaimed next montli.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park. ,..
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Attorney General.
When is the case against Frank Marchildon,
accused of robbing and beating Meyer Rush
and arrested on February 20, 1967, to come
to trial?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I under-
stand that counsel for Marchildon and the
Crown Attorney are seeking a date from the
court. I should anticipate they will have a
date shordy for trial.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question for the
Minister of Tourism and Information, Mr.
Speaker.
Will the Minister intervene with the censor-
ship board so as to allow the showing in
Ontario of the film "Titticut Follies", a docu-
mentary on the mistreatment of the mentally
ill in mental institutions?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Speaker, the procedure
for an appeal from a decision of the board
of film censors is set out in the Act. No
appeal has been made in the case of this
film.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, will the Minis-
ter accept a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Auld: I will listen to one.
Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister aware that
at the committee hearing the other day I
personally appealed this decision?
3690
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not sure that the
hon. member appealed the decision. I under-
stand he discussed it, and in fact I recall he
had some comment about it in a speech made
in this House last fall. I was a little sur-
prised that it did not come up in my esti-
mates. Howe\er, I can only repeat that the
pro\ ision for an appeal from the decision of
the board has not yet arisen, and in fact the
time has expired in which it could ha\e been
made.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
further supplementaiy question?
Hon. Mr. Auld: No.
Mr. Shulman: The Minister sa)s no. I have
another question for the Minister of Cor-
rectional Services, but because I have written
him on this matter today I will await his
reply.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Dover-
court.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Labour.
Is the Minister in the process of arranging
non-stop negotiations between the Toronto
construction unions and the contractors in
order to avert a catastrophic strike threatened
iby May 1, and if not, what action has the
Minister planned and has the Minister's de-
partment been involved in bringing the
l^arties together?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the question, we are keeping in close touch
with the situation and we have been taking
and are continuing to take all possible steps
to assist the parties in their dispute.
Mr. De Monte: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question? What action has
the department taken?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I could not
go into details at this moment. We have had
meetings over a considerable period of time
with reference to this matter and they are
continuing.
Mr. De Monte: I have a further question
of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.
Is the province planning the takeover of
construction safety law enforcement from the
municipalities this year?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, this matter
is under consideration and it is a matter of
•government policy in the future.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oxford.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the Minister of Highways.
When will Highway 522 from Loring to
Highway 69 be completed?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, no date has
been established for the completion of this
highway, and a recent economic study indi-
cates that it has a low priority rate.
Mr. Innes: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a
supplementary question? Has the Minister
received a resolution from the Parry Sound
area industrial development commission ask-
ing for its completion, since it had priority
prior to October 1967?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware of the receipt of this and I am also not
aware of the priority which it received be-
fore that time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough has a question from the other day.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Yes, it
is for the hon. Minister of Highways.
1. W^as a bylaw passed by the township of
Alnwick repealing the bylaw appointing Mr.
Fred Murphy as road superintendent of said
township?
2. Did the Minister consent to the repeal
of the bylaw?
3. Did the township council of Alnwick
pass a bylaw in a proper manner appointing
a new road superintendent?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: The answer to number
1 is no. Approval of the new appointment by
bylaw repeals the old one.
The second question is answered imder
nmTil:)er 1, and to number 3 the answer is yes.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Gre>-
Bruce.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): A question,
Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Financial and
Commercial Affairs.
Will the Minister advise what steps he is
taking to levy a two per cent merger tax on
corporate consolidations; is he aware that
the Federal Trade Commission of the U.S.
Justice Department is requiring a 60-day prior
notice on the consummation of a merger or
acquisition, and will he consider the installa-
tion of legislation of merger notification?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): I am not contem-
plating the imposition of a two per cent tax
APRIL 29, 1969
3691
referred to by the hon. member at the
irtoment.
With respect to the legislation referred to
in another jurisdiction, I draw the attention
of the House to the fact that the securities
commission is conducting a study into
mergers, takeovers and other related matters,
and I have asked the commission to take into
account the matter referred to by the hon,
member.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in a supple-
mentary way; the Minister has tlie power to
make merger legislation here, if he wants
in Ontario. Are you in favour of doing this?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We are in favour of
implementing legislation which has to do with
adequate and proper disclosure so that the
relevant facts and information pertaining to
the transiaction is placed before the public
and those parties who are concerned.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 17th order; resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the motion for
second reading of Bill 121, An Act to amend
The Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965.
MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE ACT,
1965
(Continued)
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
wben the House adjourned last night I was
commenting upon the principle of the bill
and our opposition to the principle of the
bill, and I would like, extremely briefly, to
sinnmarize what I had said to the point of
the adjournment and then to carry on with
some further remarks about it.
The points which I had made last night
were that, first of all, there is no possibility
of drawing any parallel between the method
adopted by the doctors, unilaterally, through
tlie Ontario Medical Association— an associa-
tion designed to serve the interests of its
members solely, by which fee increases were
arrived at, and the procedures which are
followed by the construction industry. To use
the example which the Minister of Health
(Mr. Dymond) had used, of the plumbers, in
the course of collective bargaining and after
serious negotiations between the association
of employers and the various trade and grades
union construction industry, in due course
collective agreements will be entered into,
establishing the rates of wages which will be
paid for the next period of time.
So that point is simply that in the one
case it is a unilateral decision of a self-serving
society, quite legjiitimately seHf-serving to
change the rate schedule. In the other case,
the fees or the wages earned in a particular
trade are determined as a result of intensive
collective bargaining and as a matter of
public policy in this province, by the large,
we accept that intensive collective bargaining
is the method which will achieve a result
which is in the public interest.
In that case— the public interest— is, by
policy of this government, weU looked after
tlirough the processes of the collective bar-
gaining. The second point that I made, Mr.
Speaker, was that the time has come, and I
think this may be generalized amongst the
other professions, but in this case, it has
very clearly arrived when the question of the
fees charged by professions in the province,
particularly the medical profession, should be
a matter that comes within the purview of the
statutory body of the college of physicians and
surgeons which is a body created by this
Legislature for the purposes of serving the
public interest, by granting a wide area of
self-governance to the medical profession and
by asserting the public interest in the persons
who are qixalified to practice medicine in the
province, and the various rights and privileges
and duties and obligations imposed upon
tliem. The time has come for the college of
physicians and surgeons to have the responsi-
bility in the public interest, of dealing with
the question of fees which are charged by
doctors in the province. It should be removed
from the authority of the self-serving associ-
ation, the Ontario Medical Association.
I pointed out that I used the term "self-
serving" as a legitimate term in the sense of
any group of i>eople may serve their own
interests and meet together to establish an
association to further their own ends. But in
this instance, the time has come to transfer
that authority from the Ontario Medical
Association and put it into the statutory body
which is accountable to this Legislature and
indeed, to the government, for the govern-
ance of the medical profession in the prov-
I now move on, Mr. Speaker, in my
remarks. The third matter I want to deal
with is that the government should have
insisted, when they could not get agree-
ment from the doctors to hold the line in
their fees, by legislation introduced into this
House, that the fees be rolled back to the
fees which were in effect prior to April 1,
1969; that there should be a freeze on those
fees until such time as the necessary changes
are made and new arrangements entered into
with the college of physicians and surgeons,
3692
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
devising procedures by which the impact of
public opinion and the accountability to the
government and tliis Legislature, could be
worked out in order that a forum would be
available for explanation of the reasons for
any increase in fees. A method could be
devised by which the impact of public opinion
could have a direct bearing upon the decision
which would finally be made by the college
of physicians and surgeons after discussion
and pubhc debate and, if necessary, the gov-
ernment would also require an adequate
agreement.
Now we can all say very easily that the
government can fix the fees. We are not
talking about that. There are many stages
before a government would be forced into
the position of establishing the fees in depth
for the medical profession or for any other
profession. But, there are procedures by
which the government, in the discharge of
its responsibility, and by which the standing
committees of this Legislature, in the dis-
charge of the responsibility of this Legisla-
ture, could provide a forum and means of
public discussion and debate about the fees
that are going to be established.
I just happen to have sufficient confidence
in members of the profession when they are
charged with carrying out an obligation in
the public interest, that the government could
reach the kind of agreement which would
avoid the kind of problem which is presented
by the present unilateral increase.
The next point that I want to make, Mr.
Speaker, is that the bill provides in substance
that the government had no alternative, and
this is what I object to and what we here
object to. The government, in fact, were in
the position where they were faced wdth, on
the one hand, either accepting the increase
and amending the Act, or imposing on some-
thing over one million people in the province
of Ontario inadequate coverage, thereby de-
feating the plan— the purpose of the plan,
which was the subject of such lengthy and
protracted debate in this Assembly over the
course of three or four years.
I do not think that any body in our society
should be in a position to place the govern-
ment in that kind of a strait-jacket where
they have no room for manoeuvre, where
they have no opportunity to assert the public
interest but must just follow along and intro-
duce the legislation which the Minister of
Health has introduced.
What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, there-
fore, in summary, so far as my remarks are
concerned in this debate, is that we are op-
posed to the bill. We are opposed to it for
the reasons which I have stated and obviously
other reasons that the members of this party
will put forward in the debate.
In essence, what we are saying is that the
highest paid profession in the land, the pro-
fession which has, if any profession has it,
the benefit of very substantial public invest-
ment in their education and in their continu-
ing education, and in the facilities which are
made available to them through which they
carry on their profession, that that profession
must have brought home to it the public
interest which is involved in their fee sched-
ule and the impact which that fee schedule
has upon all the medical plans in the prov-
ince and particularly upon the government
OMSIP plan. And therefore, Mr. Speaker,
within the rules of the House, I move what
I believe is known as a reasoned amendment
on the second reading of the bill. -
!
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by Mr.
J. Renwick, seconded by Mr. MacDonald, that
the motion for second reading of Bill 121,
intituled "An Act to amend The Medical
Services Insurance Act, 1965", be amended
by deleting all the words after "that" substi-
tuting therefor the words:
—that this bill be not now read a second
time in order that:
1. The government reject the principle
implicit in the bill that the Ontario Medi-
cal Association may unilaterally increase the
fees for medical services thereby forcing
the government to provide for payment of
90 per cent of such fees charged in accord-
ance with the Ontario Medical Association
fee schedule.
2. The medical profession, already the
highest paid in the province wdth an aver-
age income in excess of $30,000 annually,
be not further provided vdth large sums
of public money through the vehicle of
the Ontario Medical Services Insurance
Programme without negotiation.
3. The government may introduce alter-
native legiijlation roUing back the fees for
medical services to the level in effect prior
to April 1, 1969.
4. In all dealings with the medic-al pro-
fession in the matter of fees for sendees
provided, the principle of public accounta-
bility be established by requiring the
College of Physicians and Surgeons and the
government jointly to negotiate and agree
upon any alteration to the existing fee
schedule.
5. The prubhc interest shall be further
protected by ensuring that such negotia-
APRIL 29, 1969
3693
tions be instituted through the forum of
the standing committee on health of this
Legislature.
Now, while I have placed that motion at
the moment, before the House, I reserve my
right to rule on whether it is a proper amend-
ment or not. In the meantime, I will be
pleased to have the debate continue.
The hon. leader of the Opposition has the
floor.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposiiton):
Mr. Speaker, it was five months ago, I believe,
that the Ontario Medical Association an-
nounced the ten per cent increase in their
fees. That corresponds to the enactment that
Ls before us, which would mean that this
increase would be paid from the funds avail-
able to OMSIP.
In the intervening period, the Minister of
Health has taken it upon himself to be the
sole negotiator in this matter of such great
importance. I believe he has been in error
in assuming this responsibihty himself. I feel
that it would be incumbent upon him to make
use of the Legislature, and the standing com-
mittee on health in the Legislature, to assist
him in at least bringing to public knowledge
and to public attention the reasons that the
doctors might have for increasing their fees,
other than the fact that they think the traffic
can bear it. Second, the Minister must ex-
perience diflBoulties in assuming the respon-
sibilities for administering OMSIP on a fair
and equitable basis.
He himself told the House that he had used
everything within his armoury to roll back
the fee increase that had been unilaterally
announced. He left it until the last moment,
indeed, to present the legislation that is be-
fore us. I suppose it was simply exacted
from him as if a gun had been held to his
head. Because, if the legislation were not
made available and if, in fact, it were not
passed, it would mean that the doctors in
charging the extra fees, would be able to—
and no doubt in most cases would— render a
second bill to their patients which would not
be covered by the OMSIP responsibihty.
For that reason, and under the circum-
stances that the Minister of Health has found
himself, I would say that it is essential that
this money be available so that doctors are
not going to render second and separate bills
to their patients. This would be imconscion-
able, particularly when we find ourselves in
this province approaching sole participation
in federal medicare and all that that involves,
in a state-operated system.
I had the opportunity and, as a matter of
fact, a great pleasure, in participating in a
radio forum having to do with PSI. The
interests of Physicians Services Incorporated
was represented by the president of that
organization. Dr. Miller. One of the things
he had to say was that the costs of medical
service are just beginning to escalate in a way
in which we can hardly fathom at the
present time.
He undertook to describe the requirements,
financial and otherwise, in a kidney transplant.
This used to be an extreme rarity, but is
becoming much more customary or usual in
the regular practice, particularly in the
sophisticated facilities in hospitals such as
we have in the city of Toronto.
Dr. Miller indicated that there are 40
patients at least, within his particular knowl-
edge, waiting for a transplant of this type.
While the operation itself can be accom-
plished for a fee of $400, he went on to
enumerate and list the special tests and spe-
cial care under doctors with out of the
ordinary knowledge and ability which is at-
tendant upon this sort of oi>eration.
Most of us are aware as well of the many
other facilities and procedures that are be-
coming much more standard and which all of
us, as members of the Legislature and men in
the street, looking after our families, are
going to demand for our families if necessary
in the immediate future. It becomes apparent
then that the costs for OMSIP parallel with
the costs for hospitalization, are going to
grow at a very rapid rate indeed.
Because of this I think the time during
which the doctors, through their professional
organization, the Ontario Medical Association,
can unilaterally make these decisions— which
have some far-reaching effects, not only on
their own income but on the Budget of the
pro\ince— that this time should come to an
end.
I am not suggesting that we, in this House,
can set the fee schedule. Surely, they have
the responsibility and the continuing respon-
^sibility to do that. But I am saying that the
time when they can do this unilaterally and
without any discussions, without effective
liaison, either with the Minister of Health or
any other responsible department of govern-
ment, should be brought to an end.
We have said on this side for some years
that the standing committees of the Legisla-
ture could be put to good use in diis regard.
The doctors, and the Ontario Medical Associa-
tion in particular, should be called before
3694
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the standing committee to give what justifica-
tion they can for the increase that is co\'ered
by this particular bill.
I think we should make a practice in the
standing committees to keep abreast of
changes so that the professional organization
that is immediately concerned will have the
opportimity, and perhaps even the advantage,
of stating its case before a public forum. This
forum would be amply covered by the press
and we, as members of the Legislature can
attend, and put our questions, not just to
the Minister of Health, but to those people
who are going to be directly affected by the
increases in the rates which we are called
upon to approve today.
This, of course, has a broader application
because if we are going to apply this means
of justification to doctors simply because we
provide the major share of the funds that go
towards meeting the requirements of their
fee schedule, the same is true of other pro-
fessions which enjoy something tantamount
to a monopoly in this province because of the
action of this Legislature.
It is certainly true of lawyers; it is true of
teachers, and if I might extend it in some
circumstances to agriculture— and I speak as
a practising farmer. If I am in the business
of selling a product which is directly con-
trolled by an agency of this government,
including its price, then surely before that
price is changed there should be the require-
ment that it be justified before the standing
committee on agriculture if such a justifica-
tion is possible and so that the citizens, who
must in the end pay for these services and
these products, can have at least the oppor-
tunity for the public interest to be put for-
ward.
I think this concept applies perfectly imder
these circumstances. This afternoon, we are
asked to approve in principle a ten per cent
increase in these fees without anyone— and
surely the Minister of Health is not going to
undertake it— justifying the need for the in-
crease. We know that the doctors are very
highly paid indeed. On the other hand, there
are not many of us that envy them their
responsibilities. As in any other profession,
there are those who get away without carry-
ing the major load of providing the service
that is normally associated with the medical
man. Yet, if we think of the responsibilities
that are carried by these individuals in our
own community, we not only do not envy
them, but we respect them for what they do
for our own people and for the community
at large.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that I ha\'e
listened to the amendment, which has been
put forward, with a great deal of interest and
some care. In my view, a reasoned amend-
ment of this type is eminently in order; I
would say so because actually I have one
of my own that I would put before you, sir,
if there had not already been one put on the
floor of the House.
The one that I had intended to move was
that all the words after "that" be struck out
—in other words, it would not be moved a
second time— and the following substituted:
"that the bill be refened to the standing com-
mittee on health with instnictions to hear
public representations from the Ontario
Medical Association and other concerned
groups relating to medical fee increases dealt
with in this bill."
I believe it is eminently reasonable, before
we decide on the principle of the bill, that
we have the information that can come to us
through the sort of public hearing that I
have in mind.
I recommend this to the Minister because,
surely, he has shown that he himself is in-
adequate to deal as an individual with all
the forces of the Ontario Medical Association
and his colleagues in the medical profession.
I must say that he must be aghast at the
steps they have taken. In the past, he has
always been one of their chief proponents in
this House— as a matter of fact, to the extent
that I have questioned in my own mind
whether a doctor should be Minister of
Health when the responsibilities under these
bills come under his direction to such an
extent. But I am quite sure, in his own re-
marks, he will continue with the expressions
that he gave to the House during some ques-
tions that were put before him, in which he
indicated that he really felt that the doctors—
at least their professional organization— were
acting in a manner which approached the
unprofessional.
My point is that we— in this House— could
help him in this particularly heavy job, that
we owe it to the citizens of this province to
call before us those people who are in fact
holding a gun to our head now, saying that
if we do not go along with the ten per cent
increase, it means double billing, something
which we should not permit.
So there is the situation that faces us. The
Minister in extremis has brought down this
bill at the last moment almost over his dead
body which is not a bad illustration in this
particular case— and we are asked to approve
a blanket increase in fees.
APRIL 29, 1969
3695
I recall when the OMA made this an-
nouncement, it was a rather garbled one. The
first announcement was that only some pro-
cedures would be subject to this ten per cent
increase. Those particular procedures were
ones which had gone through quite an evo-
lutionary phase in the last few months so
that many more people were taking advan-
tage of them; they had come to such a level
of use that they became more standard in
the procedures that the medical men make
use of. But then this was replaced by further
information, which indicated that there was
an across-the-board ten per cent increase.
It was almost as if the doctors could see
the handwriting on the wall as far as Medi-
care was concerned. They no longer will
have the problem of collecting overdue
accounts themselves and this in itself, we
are told, amounts to an increment of 15 per
cent in their gross income. And they no
longer will have to provide for the welfare
cases that used to be a part of their pro-
fessional responsibility, which have been
taken over by the terms of OMSIP— terms, I
would hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, which
I approve and support.
So this is the situation that now confronts
us: The Minister and the government are
asking us to approve this increase without
having any justification for it. He is surely
not in a position to give that justification
himself. It would amount, in one respect, to
a conflict of interest, since he himself is a
professional medical man, and he himself has
spoken against the increases, which he felt
were uncalled for. And he has said that he
has done his best to prevent and roll back.
The terms of the amendment put before
us by the NDP are not satisfactory, as far
as I am concerned, in that they do not set the
standing committee of health as the forum
in which we, as members, can get the infor-
mation needed before we approach the second
reading, the approval of the bill in principle.
You know of course, Mr. Speaker, that
when the bill is put, you will simply require
us to vote on whether it should now be read
a second time. The fact that there is a
reasoned amendment accompanying it is of
some interest, but I am afraid under these
circumstances it is of academic and perhaps
political interest only.
So our position is that when you call for
the bill to be read a second time, we shall
vote against that because we feel that the
bill, before being put to us a second time,
should have gone to the standing commit-
tee so that this information would be made
available to us.
Now in my own view it would be very
difiicult-
Mr. R. Cisbom (Hamilton East): It is not
the procedure of the House.
Mr. Nixon: Why can it not be the proce-
dure of the House? There is precedent, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Cisbom: What changed your mind
yesterday?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that
you could inform the hon. member who is
interjecting that there is plenty of precedent
for a bill to be sent to the standing conmiit-
tee before second reading so that information
of this type can be put before the members
before they are called upon to approve it in
principle. This is an eminently orderly way
to proceed with this matter, and surely the
Minister of Health would find his own posi-
tion much more tenable if he were to accept
the suggestion that I have put before you
this afternoon.
I hope I have made our position clear. We
feel that the Minister of Health has been
inadequate in dealing with the responsibilities
that are his. He has acceded to what is, in
fact, the blackmail procedure of the Ontario
Medical Association in saying we are going
to charge it whether we pay for it through
OMSIP or not. Surely, the justification has
to be something more than in the mind of
the Minister and in his recommendations to
his Cabinet colleagues. This is something
that the whole Legislature, the whole com-
munity of Ontario is involved in. The only
reasonable way we can proceed with this
and the many similar amendments I predict
will be brought before us having to do with
the medical practice itself— unless far-reach-
ing changes are accomplished. The Minister
should move that the bill be not now read
a second time but go before the standing
committee. In the event he cannot accept
that suggestion, we will oppose the bill on
second reading.
Mr. Speaker: I think it proper before the
debate proceeds that I deal with the mat-
ter of the amendment as introduced by the
hon. member for Riverdale, and I would say
J that reasoned amendments are, of course,
I always acceptable in a case such as this,
I provided they are not a mere negation of
f the original motion. After reading the motion
myself and being advised through approp-
riate channels as to precedents, I am of the
opinion that paragraphs numbered 1 and 2
are mere negations of the motion as brought
3696
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
\
in by the hon. Minister but that paragraphs
3, 4 and 5 are quite proper under the circum-
stances. Therefore my ruling is that the
amendment is not in order with respect to
those paragraphs numbered 1 and 2, but
that it does fall within the rules and prece-
dents of this House if it reads, and I read
partially:
Tliis bill be not now read a second time
in order that the gov'emment may introduce
alternative legislation.
And so on, to the end of the motion. And,
tlierefore, the debate from now on will deal
with the amendment under those terms.
Ml-. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, which I assume
it would be congenial to this caucus, to this
party, to leave the amendment, if that is the
final ruling of the Speaker, as long as the
amendment is there and the intent is clear,
which it is, that it can be voted on in that
form, but I would draw your attention, sir, to
two things: First, "Parhamentary Procedure in
Ontario" by Alex Lewis, in w^hich it says
at page 57:
No amendment can be offered to the
motion for the second reading of a bill
which would have the effect of altering the
(question which the bill proposes, but
amendments may be submitted for the pur-
pose of killing the bill.
Which I think would justify the first two
sections. And in May, Mr. Speaker, under
"reasoned amendments," it indicates that an
amendment.
May be declaratory of some principle
adverse to or differing from the principles,
policy or provisions of the bill.
I suggest to you, sir, that we are entirely
covered both by the traditions of this Legisla-
ture and the more historical tradition of the
other Legislature in the contents of the
amendment. It is not a matter which we
need dispute at length, but we did try to
bring it within the context of precedent when
submitting it to you.
Mr. Nixon: Well, speaking to the point of
order, Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested in
this since it is a procedure that I believe
should be used perhaps more frequently—
that surely if the amendment, in fact, negates
the bill, the course open to the party that may
find himself out of order in that regard is
simply to vote against the bill as it is put
forward. Surely the comment that the hon.
member read from Lewis that it would tend
to kill the bill or would kill the bill is the
well-accepted procedure on second reading,
that the amendment be that the bill be read
a second time this day six months hence or
something like that, which in fact kills the
bill. If that were to carry, it would mean
the bill would be dead. But surely if the
amendment merely negates the intention for
second reading the course oi)en is to vote
against the original motion.
Mr. Speaker: As I have said, I think only
yesterday in this House, I do appreciate the
interest which members have shown in the
rules and precedents of tlie House because it
is good for them and it is certainly of great
assistance to the Speaker. The hon. leader of
the Opposition has brought to my mind a
ruling which I made in this House within the
last week where it was pointed out that an
amendment which is a mere negation of the
original motion is out of order because the
' way to deal with the matter is to vote against
the original motion.
Despite the reasoned speech and the
authorities quoted by the hon. member for
Scarborough West, I remain firm in my rul-
ing. I agree with him that it really does
not affect the course of this debate but I
thought it well to have the matters dealt
with so far as Mr. Speaker was concerned
at this point.
The hon. member for Parkdale, I believe,
was he on his feet? The hon. member for
Humber, I am sorry, I knew it was someone
to my left.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Thank you. Mr.
Speaker, in rising to support the amendments,
I want to point out as was already pointed
out by my leader and other si>eakers, that
doctors are indeed in a unique position. No
other group in our society is trained for such
a period of time at such a great expense to
the public. This training entails to a degree
not present in the training of any other
group; the use of very exx>ensive capital
equipment and buildings supplied by and at
public exi)ense.
After the doctors begin practising, the
public again supplies them with their capital
needs and pays for these capital needs, that
is, hospitals and all the expensive equipment
that goes into the hospitals. Then, to top it
off, doctors use this public service and are
paid for so doing out of public funds even
though they pay nothing for the use of these
facilities.
Mr. Speaker, no one is suggesting that we,
the government, should interfere or disturb
the doctor-patient relationship and no one
APRIL 29, 1969
3697
to my knowledge makes such a suggestion.
But when we pay for their training, supply
the facilities, pay them, we should have some
say as to what tiiey should be paid.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): What about a lawyer?
Mr. Ben: The hon. Minister of Correctional
Services speaks of the legal profession. The
legal profession uses the taxpayers' money to
train, so do almost all other groups, but until
quite recently, the legal profession supplied
its own facilities.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Like the courthouse?
Mr. Ben: No, they supply their own facili-
ties for training in Osgoode Hall law school.
It has been only in the last six or seven or
eight years, somebody here might correct me
who has a better appreciation of the time
element, that universities started to give law
degrees and the Law Society of Upper Can-
ada lost its monopoly on its granting of
degrees.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They tell me it was 20
years ago.
Mr. Ben: No, it was not 20 years ago be-
cause it has been since I graduated.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just lost my QC.
Mr. Ben: Furthermore, the legal profes-
sion, when it decided to take public money
for serving the pubhc, agreed to take 25
per cent less than what they had as tlie
minimum tariff. We are having di£Bculty
persuading the doctors to take 10 per cent
less. Furthermore, it is the doctors who are
the highest paid profession, and not the legal
profession. The doctors keep on speaking of
their Hippocratic oath.
I would suggest what they should call it is
tlie "hypocrite's oath" because I can only
draw to the attention of this House, Mr.
Speaker, that for many years, as a matter of
fact until OMSIP came into being, a doctor
as part of his accreditation to a hospital, had
to serve out-patients free of charge. This is
a service every doctor accredited to a hospital
had to render in some degree or another
without charge.
Since OMSIP came into being, the doctors
set up emergency services and they now
charge for services rendered to out-patients.
But this is not just the one aspect of being
a hypocrite manifested by these people. You
may recall, Mr. Speaker, that when OMSIP
did come into being, many doctors simply
refused to bill the government directly. They
said that this would rip asunder their sacred
patient-doctor relationship, that they were
serving the patient and not the government
and it is the patient who should be billed
because that is where the relationship was.
But do they follow this practice when it
comes to serving emergency patients or out-
patients? Can you visualize some Hairless Joe
or Lonesome Polecat character being brought
in for over-indulgence and after he is treated,
the doctor say to this humble individual, "All
right, Hairless Joe, you can go home now,
we'll send you a bill and you can collect from
OMSIP and then pay us." Not on your life!
In that particular instance, when anybody
comes off the street for emergency treatment,
then they are quite happy to take the 90
per cent of their tariflF because 90 per cent
of what they were being paid is a lot more
than 100 per cent of nothing, considerably
more. So it seems that they can laugh out of
both sides of their face and they are the only
ones I know who can take your money while
tliey have both their hands in their own
pockets.
Further, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be
some idea that the rates have only gone up
10 per cent. This is not so. For example, these
are some of the figures that are taken out of
the new tariffs that the medical profession
is now subscribing to. Under general prac-
tice for office visits the old tariff was $5; the
new one $5.50, an increase of 10 per cent.
But hearken— if I may use the phrase often
used by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha)— to the rest of these figures.
Home visits— the 1967 tariff was $7, the
new tariff is $8, a 14.5 per cent increase.
Night house visits, if you can find a doctor
for it, 1967 tariff-$10, the new 1969 tariff-
$12, an increase of 20 per cent.
For specialists in internal medicine— con-
sultation—the old tariff $30, the new tariff-
$35, an increase of 16 per cent.
General assessment— old tariff $20, the new
tariff $25, a 45 per cent increase.
General assessment every 12 months, old
tariff— $15, new tariff $20, an increase of 33
per cent.
Hospital first visit, formerly $20, now $25,
an increase of 25 per cent.
Pediatrics— for consultation— old tariff $25,
new tariff— $35, an increase of 40 per cent.
Repeat consultations— formerly $15, now
$20, an increase of 33 per cent.
For under physical medicine— consultation
—formerly $25, now $35, an increase of 40
per cent.
3698
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Repeat consultation— formerly $15 now $20,
an increase of 33 per cent.
Psychiatry— guess these fellows could not
face themselves if they charged too big an
increase— formerly $30 now $35, an increase
of only 16 per cent. I say only because of all
the other large increases.
Mr. Lewis: That is per hour.
Mr. Ben: That is per visit. That is less
than an hour, so that does not help.
Obstetrical care has gone up 15 per cent
and obstetrical care total has gone up 25
per cent.
Now where is this so-called 10 per cent? The
average increase is closer to 25 per cent than
it is to 10 per cent. This has gone on, as I
say— taking public money after they were
trained with public money and just sneering
all the people that pay them. They really must
have taken "Hypocrites Oath". I cannot think
of any oath that they would have taken.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I
cannot see how we in this party, or in this
House, can do anything else but try to compel
this government to convince these doctors,
either through the use of a club, or through
the use of honey, that they are not a law
unto themselves; that they were not the
people that were put above all the others to
govern them; and that they owe a duty and
obligation to the pubhc, whose funds they
used to attain their exalted position, to treat
the public fairly. For that reason we are going
to support this amendment. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis: The member is supporting the
amendment rather than voting against the
biU.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): One of the
great tragedies of this legislation before the
House is that between the increased rates and
the view of the government on insurance com-
panies' medical insurance— which I beheve is
a tremendous benefit to the general public-
medical insurance is becoming the milch cow
of a few very particular interests.
In speaking on the principle of this bill I
have in mind not only how the Ontario Medi-
cal Association is abusing the privileges which
it has in our society but also that there is
considerable reason to believe that this
government wants to turn medical insurance,
or the administration of it, over to a private
insurance consortium. In the event that they
enter a federal scheme, we are facing a very,
^'e^y serious problem that there is going to be
no control whatsoever on the cost of medical
insurance.
And if the costs continue to run completely
out of hand, Mr. Speaker, it means that the
people— either through premiums or through
our general taxes— are going to pay far too
heavy a price for medical insurance. Medical
insurance need not be expensive, but if there
are no controls, if the government has made
up its mind to sit back and hsten to the
private pleaders— and by the private pleaders
I mean the insurance companies and the
medical doctors— there is simply no stopping
the costs.
You know, Mr. Speaker, one of tlie mytli-
ologies in government is that the Tory admin-
istration because they are more closely
attached to business are efiBcient in adminis-
tration. This is a mythology that if it has not
been completely bursted by now— I do not
know if bursted is the right term or not-
busted, or whatever you might use— if it has
not been broken by now, this mythology is
going to be obvious in the near future as
exactly what it is.
For example, Mr. Speaker, just the other
day— after having hstened a few weeks ago to
the Treasurer of this province talk about a
balanced budget— we were told that there
were going to be increased grants in educa-
tion for $50 million. I do not know where
that appears in the balanced budget, but if
this bill becomes law, Mr. Speaker, it means
that even with a 10 per cent raise— which I
beheve is a low estimate, and the hon. mem-
ber for Humber has pointed this out— but even
-with a 10 per cent raise OMSIP is going to
cost at least $11 miUion or $12 milhon more
a year. There is no allowance for this in the
budget that was before the House only a few
weeks ago. So here is another $11 milhon or
$12 miUion added to our budget, and again
I say, Mr. Speaker, where has the balanced
budget gone?
In the event that medical insurance as
advocated by the federal government comes
into effect and tliis province joins the scheme
—and 7,250,000 citizens are part of the
scheme— I believe that medical insurance will
cost approximately $400 milhon a year in tiiis
province. A year or two ago I would not have
believed that that was possible. But because
there is no control on costs and because this
province, just used as an example in the
principle of this bill, is making no effort to
control costs, we are going to be paying for
medical insurance approximately $400 miUion
a year.
If you look at a 10 per cent raise— and I
do think that is taking an extremely mild view
of it— it means that with legislation such as
APRIL 29, 1969
3699
this it is going to cost this province approxi-
mately $40 million a year more if we go into
the new scheme. And I, in all frankness, say
I am in favour of this province becoming part
of the medical insurance scheme as advocated
by the federal government, because I believe
in the principle of it and if it is efficiently
administered it can be a good thing, and it
will be a good thing for all the people in the
province of Ontario, in fact, across the
country.
When we are faced with the facts— and
when we pass legislation that we have before
us— that we are faced with an immediate bill
of $12 million at least, and if we have an
overall scheme we are faced with a $40 mil-
lion bill in the province of Ontario, it seems
to me that the government has been extremely
lax in coming to grips with what is an obvious
problem that has not only been with us for
some time but that is going to be with us for
a number of years unless we lay down the
rules to the Ontario Medical Association that
they just do not have the privilege of using
pubHc funds and treating the public treasury,
as I said before, as a milch cow.
In fairness to the medical profession, if
you look at the history of medical schemes
it was the medical profession that really
pioneered the prepaid medical scheme. And
no doubt the PSI was inspired by medical
men and the people that founded that scheme
certainly had a considerable social responsi-
bility. But the spokesmen of the Ontario
Medical Association today are utterly and
completely devoid of any social responsibility.
You would almost think that they consider
themselves citizens apart from the rest of us.
So we are simply going to have to devise
schemes that bring the Ontario Medical
Association into line.
We have some means of comparison, Mr.
Speaker, in the use of legal aid. Certainly
the lawyers are subject to a great deal of
criticism if a particular group of lawyers
receives too many cases under legal care.
The legal fees are stringent and they are
under control, and I do not see why the
Ontario Medical Association should not be
in the same situation. I heartily endorse,
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of my leader that
if there is any change in the schedule of fees
charged by the Ontario Medical Association,
such a review should come before the stand-
ing committee on health.
Not only does the general public have
some idea— in fact, should have a good idea
—of what the medical association is charging,
but the medical profession as a whole would
have an opportunity to see in black and
white just what is going on. There is no
question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the
average general practitioner, the average doc-
tor, is really too busy in his own practice to
pay much attention to what the Ontario
Medical Association is doing.
I remember a few years ago just checking
to see how many doctors actually belonged
to the Ontario Medical Association. Admit-
tedly the majority of them do, but not as
great a number as I would have thought.
If you examine how many members of the
medical profession and members of the
Ontario Medical Association actually attend
meetings, you will find they are almost as
bad as lawyers in attending meetings of, let
us say, the York County Law Association.
They simply do not attend. And the rules
and regulations of the Ontario Medical Asso-
ciation are made by a very small clique and
this particular clique, I feel today, is doing
not only a disservice to the public of the
province of Ontario, but they are doing a
disservice to the medical profession itself.
As much as many of us may admire and
respect our own medical doctor, our own
specialist, our own GP, there is no question
in my mind that the medical profession has
been falling into great disrepute with the
general public in this province. I believe
they deserve to be the highest paid, because
it is probably the most difficult and certainly
the most honoured profession. However, be-
cause of the assistance extended to individual
doctors, in obtaining their education, but
more particularly because of the heavy re-
sponsibility they bear in the work that they
do, they must certainly examine far more
closely the economics of the medical profes-
sion.
No matter how up to date the average
doctor may be in medical treatment, there
is no question in my mind that of all the
professions in this province, it is the most
archaic in its economic thinking, and in how
its profession fits into the general picture of
the economy of the province and of the
country as a whole. The government, essen-
tially, Mr. Speaker, is the one at fault.
When it started OMSIP it got oflF on the
wrong foot in the way it set up the whole
system. For example, when an outpatient
now attends at a general hospital, and I
think it was one or two years ago I went
into this in some detail, we are now paying
far too much money for outpatient services
through OMSIP. This is only going to in-
crease the folly, by paying more in the way
of funds. I think at one time, Mr. Speaker,
3700
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I pointed out how doctors in hospitals had
formed doctors' associations. That money
which OMSIP paid for individual treatment
for outpatient services went to the doctors'
association, despite the fact that the work
was done by interns and the medical doc-
tors were not there in attendance. This is
just a little bit more on the medical gravy
train. It is the system itself that we have
set up that is certainly ineflBcient, and un-
economic.
It is time that we completely overhaul our
medical administration in this province. I
think it is complete folly for us at this time
to pass Bill 121 and encourage the Ontario
Medical Association on the road that it
insists on following, which is complete in-
difference to the problems with which the
average person is faced in paying medical
bills, if they have to pay the extra, and many
of them do.
If the medical profession was an oppressed
minority, a poverty stricken group, I would
be the first to speak on their behalf. But
when you bear in mind that the medical
profession in this province, probably second
only to the insurance connpanies, is the most
powerful political lobby in the country, and
that in passing this bill, all tlie government
is doing is bending its knee to a selfish in-
terest that will perpetuate itself in its greed,
unless we in this House, and particularly this
government, say it must stop. I would urge
diat everyone in this House defeat this ibill.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, there are many remarkable features
about this bill that I think merit discussion
on second reading but I want to concentrate
on what is, to my mind, the most remarkable
feature, namely that this government had its
fingers burned rather badly two years ago.
Tihe Minister was rather indignant, many
backbenchers joined him in an expression of
that indignation, but tliey did nothing about
it, so that two years later they had their
fingers burned again. One wonders when they
are going to learn, because the biU indicates
no machinery, indeed, no intent on the part
of the government to cope with this fvmda-
mental problem of assuring prior consultation
and joint agreement between the medical pro-
fession and the government on behalf of
OMSIP, before we have another fee increase.
The result is the government has been a
sitting duck for still another unilateral raise
that the OMA has made.
Now, while the responsibility of this rests
with tlie government as a whole, it primarily
rests on the Minister of Health. He is appa-
rently willing to permit himself to be dic-
tated to by the medical profession, in a
manner which he himself deplored in years
gone by. Where is the self respect of this
once proud Scot that sometimes rises up in
righteous wrath when this kind of thing
liappens in the Legislatiu-e? Well, that is a
personal matter for the Minister to attend to,
but in bowing once again to the unilateral
dictates of the medical profession, he lias
shown himself to be both unwilling and/or
imable to stand up to the protection of the
public interest. Perhaps, as has already been
suggested in the debate this afternoon, it is
impossible for a member of the medical
profession to negotiate with the medical pro-
fession. Perhaps the Minister has unwittingly
slipped into a position that represents a con-
flict of interest. If so, I think it is his respon-
sibility to resign the post and let somebody
take it over who is in a position to negotiate
and protect the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, if you think I am being harsh,
I just want to let the record speak for itself,
because it is a pretty astounding one, to
put it frankly.
In 1965, when the original OMSIP legisla-
tion was in committee before this Legislature,
members of the Opposition raised the pros-
pect of periodic increases in fees and what
public control there would be over it and
what accountability there would be. On page
3993 of Hansard for 1965, the Minister ob-
served that the Opposition critic seemed,
to imply that this section means that the fees in
effect from time to time automatically will go up.
This, to me, does not follow at all. I do not read
that into this section at all.
What sort of a dream world is the Minister
in? He did not "read it into the section."
One did not need to be very astute or knowl-
edgeable as to procedures to speculate that
at some p>oint there was going to be a fee
increase, but the Minister did not read it into
that section.
Two years later tlie fees went up, by
unilateral decision of the OMA, and Doctor
R. M. Matthews, who was then president of
the OMA, was asked to come before the
standing committee of health. According to
the news reports, the MPPs tangled vigorously
with him.
I would just like to remind the House of
some of the reports. I quote, for example,
from tlie London Free Press, despatched by
Norm Ibsen for March 22, 1967. The despatch
opens this way:
Doctors and MPPs tangled yesterday over
the forthcoming increases in the Ontario
APRIL 29, 1969
3701
Medical Association fee schedule. Both
Conservative and New Democratic Party
members accused doctors of jeopardizing
the Ontario Medical Services insurance plan
and appealed to them to postpone fee
increases.
Several MPPs asserted that doctors' in-
comes are already high enough and that
an immediate fee increase is unnecessary.
However, Dr. R. M. Matthews, president of
the OMA, said last night, "The doctors
still consider their reasons vahd and the
increases will become effective as sche-
duled.
John White, P.C, London South,
since elevated to the etherel heights of Min-
ister of Revenue in this province
who said he was "deeply distressed" by the
increases, suggested that OMSIP,
by guaranteeing payment of bills and the
higher fees together,
would add $10,000 a year to doctors* in-
comes, raising the Ontario average to
$35,000.
Well I am not going to vouch for tlie exact
accuracy of his figures. On occasion in the
past I have been critical of his figures but
they are not too far wrong. It is certainly
beyond the $30,000 mark at the present time.
However, Mr. Speaker, note this:
Hon. Minister Doctor Matthew Dymond
joined in the criticism of the OMA action.
He enquired why plans for a general fee in-
crease were not mentioned during his
negotiations witli doctors, when the OMSIP
legislation was being prepared. The Min-
ister said he would have made allowances
in the legislation had be known about the
imminent increase.
Mr. Speaker, there is almost a pathetic touch
about this. Who is in control in this situation?
Here is the Minister of Health complaining,
I pleading that OMA had not played fair with
him. He had negotiated with them but they
had not told him that they had this little trick
up their sleeve, that they were planning this
I unilateral fee increase and if they had told
f him, of course, he would have put something
in his bill to accommodate them!
Well, unwittingly, in this one little quote
you have the whole attitude and indeed, the
problem that arises from the Minister's atti-
tude which we have to cop© with in this
Legislature.
However, tlie Minister came back to the
Legislature after that meeting of the stand-
ing committee, licking his wounds. But he
was vigorous again; he assured the hon. mem-
bers of the House that it would never happen
again and Hsten, Mr. Speaker, to this, page
1801 of Hansard 1967:
In order to ensure that this situation does not
occur in the future, I recently wrote again to the
OMA and to the Ontario College of Physicians and
Surgeons inviting them to participate in an arrange-
ment which would offer prior consultation and joint
agreement on these matters.
Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister did
not get that assurance. Once again he has
been tlie helpless victim of a unilateral fee
increase, but apparently the Minister never
learns. He is either unwilling or unable to
cope with tlie situation because this year
he tried to sneak the bill into the Legisla-
ture. I do not think there is any other way to
describe it. It came in without the official
notification that is required for a bill, and on
the last day of the session before Easter. We
fought it. My colleague, the hon. member for
Riverdale asked the Minister, whether he
had in any way endeavoured to roll back the
doctors' fees charged in the province, or did
he just sit meekly by and accept what they
had to say to him.
And the Minister's reply was: "Yes, I did
endeavour in every possible way".
Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask once again, who
is running the show— the Minister or the
medical profession?
An hon. member: Who is looking after the
store?
Mr. MacDonald: I do not know who is
looking after the store. Obviously the store
is not being looked after— the public interest
is not being protected in this whole matter.
The Minister can do something and this is
the point I want to lay emphasis on this
afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The Minister can
do something and one wonders why he so
stubbornly refuses to do something when it
is he who is the victim of each unilateral act
and of fee increase, therefore, the most
embarrassed— I would hope the most embar-
rassed person in the whole picture. Indeed,
if some of his public statements back in
1967 are accurate he was not only very
embarrassed, he was very indignant.
Let me remind the House, Mr. Speaker, of
the kind of thing that has been done in
other provinces. I am not necessarily advocat-
ing this as something to be duplicated auto-
matically in the province of Ontario but I
draw it to the attention of the hon. members
to assure them that this problem has been
coped with successfully where you have gov-
ernments and Ministers v^^ho are willing to
3702
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
stand up and protect the public interest.
Strange as it may seem, the case I am going
to cite to you, is the Social Credit govern-
ment in British Columbia. God help us if the
Social Credit government is ahead of us. That
just goes to prove how lax is the government
liere in the province of Ontario is being.
In British Columbia there is an agreement
—I have a copy of it right here— between
the British Columbia Medical Plan which is
their equivalent of OMSIP and the Canadian
Medical Association, B.C. division— an agree-
ment with regard to fees and the relationship
between the professional body and the pro-
vincial insurance carrier in the province of
British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, the original agreement is
based on a formula that is geared to the rise
in the cost of living and to the weekly wages
and salaries, so that at least in terms of their
increase if not to their present highest posi-
tion in the range of professions, there is
some tying of doctor's incomes to the cost of
living and the increase in the capacity of
those who are paying doctors' bills as repre-
sented in weekly wages and salaries.
The agreement allows for an automatic
granting of schedule increases up to 5.6 per
cent when it is opened every second year.
With demands of up to eight per cent, they
are subject to negotiation. Anything beyond
the eight per cent is negotiable with the
added right, if either side care to exercise it,
of settling the matter by arbitration. I draw
this to your attention, Mr. Speaker— when this
agreement had been in effect for two years in
the province of British Columbia and was
coming up for re-negotiation last year, the
doctors of the province of British Columbia
demanded a nine per cent fee increase and
this was subject to negotiation and they finally
settled at 6.75 per cent. I have here a story,
it was carried in the Victoria Colonist on
July 26, 1968, in which they spell out this
formula and its operation.
It concludes with these two paragraphs,
which I draw particularly to the attention of
the Minister:
A sxx)kesman for the B.C. Medical
Association said the medical profession is
showing itself to be responsible and willing
to exercise restraint in the period of in-
flation by accepting a 6.75 per cent fee
increase. The agreement was reached
amicably.
In short, when you are willing to sit down
and negotiate, and protect the public interest,
as my colleague from Riverdale has indicated,
the medical profession has indicated that they
too are willing to negotiate and that it can be
done amicably. So why has the government
not moved in this area? Why do you have
to be the victim of this unilateral increase
and then cry in anguish e\'ery couple of
years?
I am sure if we had gone before the stand-
ing committee once again this year, we would
have had precisely the same kind of protest
from the government backbenchers. So quite
apart from meeting the public need, before
this bill is passed, we should have included
in it legislative authority for such an agree-
ment, if for no other purpose than to protect
the Minister— or more likely, his successor—
from being the victim of still another unila-
teral increase some two years from now.
And that is, in general terms, what is
included in our amendment. We have talked
about it in terms of discussion at the stand-
ing committee on health. I have now added
one example of the formula that is appar-
ently an effective formula in another province.
The Minister must have known of these.
Therefore he must have deliberately come to
the conclusion that he is not moving in that
direction, and for that reason we think that
he has been negligent and that the bill
should be killed for the moment. It should be
withdrawn until the government can do the
complete job and protect the interests of the
people of this province.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
this whole question of the doctors making a
unilateral decision to increase their fees
through the OMA is rather foreign to what
workers have to do, in terms of having to
justify their demands at the bargaining table.
And we found only yesterday the govern-
ment putting civic workers and workers in
nursing homes in an even more precarious
position by having to submit to compulsory
arbitration.
I want to say at the very outset that I for
one am not opposed to a fair fee for services
rendered, and I do not think anyone in this
province of Ontario would object to that. I
also want to say that it seems to me that
when the doctors opposed Medicare initially
—and I am not too sure that they are not
playing this same tune— that this would de-
stroy the patient-doctor relationship.
It seems to me now that really their opposi-
tion to particijmting in Medicare may mean
that the doctors will have to justify their fee
increases if they do participate in Mediciare.
Maybe this is really the reason why they do
not want to participate in a Medicare pro-
gramme in this country, and it is not really
APRIL 29, 1969
3703
the question of destroying the patienit-doctor
relationship.
Maybe we could transpose the doctor's uni-
hxteral rights to raise their fees by the Ontario
Medical Association and relate that to the
hospital workers. Maybe we should say to
the hospital workers, if this standard is good
enough for the doctors then we will apply it
to the workers as well, so that they can set
up a board of governors or an association to
make the decision as to what their wages or
fees should be for services rendered. In this
case we have provided a double standard.
In other words, the profession can set their
own fees while the workers have to justify
theirs through collective bargaining or
through compulsory abitration. And really, I
submit to this House, this puts the doctors
in a very privileged class, and one that I do
do not think is absolutely correct in this day
and age. I support the whole resolution, or
amendment by my colleague from Riverdale,
but the last two points, I think, deal specific-
ally with the point I am trying to make,
when it says:
In all dealings with tlie medical pro-
fession in the matter of fees for services
provided, the principle of public account-
ability be established by requiring the
College of Physicians and Surgeons and
government jointly to negotiate and agree
upon any alteration to the existing fee
schedule.
And where it goes on to say that the public
interest will be further protected by ensur-
ing that such negotiations be instituted
through the forum of the standing committee
on health in this Legislature.
Surely this will then, to a degree, put the
doctors in the same relative position as many
other people in this province find themselves.
At least they are going to have their fee in-
creases reviewed by public scrutiny. It may
not be dealing with the public directly, but
through the government and through the
standing committee, and it seems to me that
this is the only adequate procedure. Obviously
they are not going to negotiate vdth each
individual subscriber, but this vdll be the
form— they would justify their fee increases.
And I make that point, Mr. Speaker, be-
cause I feel that the professions should justify
their demands or their fee increases as every-
one else has to in this province and it is only
fair that they do that. And I would reoom-
tnend to this House to support the amend-
ment that my colleague from Riverdale
placed, and that doctors justify their fee
increases as everyone else has to.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to participate in the debate before the hon.
Minister replies?
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose
the principle of the bill and to support
the amendment. I do not think it is neces-
sary to enter into much of the statistical
material which is now on the file to demon-
strate the fallacy in the government's case
and the iniquity in this particular piece of
legislation. I think perhaps it is only neces-
sary, at this point, to reinforce what has been
said by our party in this debate and by
members generally in the House.
The first observation, obviously, is that the
fundamental principle of this bill is pro-
foundly repugnant to the legislative process.
There is no other group in this province, not
one, which can unilaterally extract from the
public purse without accountibility large sums
of money, unless it may be the members of
this Legislature themselves.
And even here, Mr. Speaker, let it be noted
that at long last, under the urgings of the
members of this House, the Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts), is presently involved in a
procedure which will exempt us from that
particular personal ignominy, and allow sal-
aries and wage levels to be determined by an
impartial tribunal outside. But that exemp-
tion, forthcoming as it is for the members of
this Legislature, will not apply to the one
remote and Olympian profession of this prov-
ince—the medical profession, in whose con-
nivance, in whose motives the Minister un-
failingly concurs.
Despite the greatest protestations of the
Minister, and he doth protest far too much,
Mr. Speaker— he is no longer credible in his
protests. He will not be credible when he
rises in his seat to explain how diJBBcult the
negotiations were, and how reluctant he is to
grant the increase, because all members of
this House now know that he is determined
to enter into complicity vvdth tlie medical
profession in the unilateral extraction of
moneys from the public purse. That is the
end result of all such negotiations which the
Minister is prepared to carry on.
I point out to you, sir, that it is repugnant
to every principle of collective bargaining—
and indeed, to the way in which society
operates generally— that the medical profes-
sion should set themselves apart in a manner
at once so arrogant and so inflammatory,
and, with the supine agreement of govern-
ment, invade the public treasury in this
fashion. It is not to be permitted and there
3704
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is notliing which can explain it. That is tiie
First point, Mr, Speaker.
The second point is, I suggest, that it is
not only wrong now, as it was wrong two
>ears ago when the Minister postured before
tliis House in an effort to redeem what was
left of his noble reputation; but it is doubly
and triply wrong now, because we are on the
eve of entering the federal medical care plan.
The Minister himself is in negotiation with
a number of private groups in an effort to
meet a deadline of July 1, 1969. All the pro-
testations notwithstanding, the Minister knows
that part of the reason for capitulating to the
medical profession on this issue of fee in-
crease is for the most ignoble of political
motives. This is to bring into disrepute the
total costs of a medical care scheme, and to
demonstrate from a position of the most
obscure and rigid Toryism, the fact tliat
medical care is a vastly more expensive
service to the people of tliis society than it
need be.
In the process of capitulating to this bill
and to the profession, the Minister is again
confirming, at least in his own mind, that
health services to people must result in pubHc
aggrandisement for the few and lavish cost
for the many. We will not be participants in
that nefarious political motive which under-
lines his willingness to comply.
Further than tliat, Mr. Speaker, tliere is
also the conflict of interest factor, to which
my hon. leader referred and the members of
the Liberal Party have referred. There is no
question, Mr. Speaker, that not a single
Cabinet Minister in this government would
have agreed to what the Minister of Health
negotiated— or indeed failed to negotiate-
not a single one. Only a medical doctor could
have been brought to heel in a manner at
once so humiliating and so inconsistent with
the public good as this Minister has been
brought to heel by the Ontario Medical Asso-
ciation.
Note, Mr. Speaker, that when those in the
related health fields— not doctors mind you,
but those in the related health fields— come
pleading and knocking at the door of this
Minister, he is prepared to say "no" to them
all.
When nursing home operators come to him
and say, "we caimot function on a per diem
rate of $9.50 if we are to provide more than
custodial care for our people. Give us $12
a day," the Minister says, "be gone."
When the staff in the Ontario hospitals—
his own staff, from the ward staff to the
psychiatrists— come pleading with his mental
health dixasion to provide tliem witli a
per diem rate which would bring them into
tlie twentieth century in mental health care,
the Minister says, "be gone."
When, under the civil service conmiission,
the members of tlie Opposition rise and ask
the Minister why he does not go to bat for
the people in his own department who are
on salaries abhorrent to a decent standard
of living in this society, the Minister shows
no interest whatsoever. In effect he says to
the member of the Opp>osition, "be gone."
When the auxiliary health services come
before this Minister— like the chiropractors-
and ask, with deference and humility, to have
him lower the drawbridge over die moat so
that they can enter the sacrosanct halls of
OMSIP and be eligible for the money pax)-
vided thereunder, the Minister says, about the
cliiropractic profession, as he has said about
so many others: "be gone."
In every auxiliary and related healtli serv-
ice the Minister will not move one jot in the
granting of appropriate and vaHd increases,
either for services rendered nor salaries pro-
vided. But note, Mr. Speaker, what happens
when the medical profession courts his favour
as a doctor. Note what happens under those
circumstances, Mr. Speaker. There is much
public fulmination, but there is always ulti-
mate capitulation.
Huddhng around their stethoscoi;>es, Mr.
Speaker, the medical profession takes the
scalpel to the Minister, every time.
It would be all right if it was only the
Minister's pound of flesh that was being
excised. But I point out to you, sir, that it is
the entire public that is being operated on
at the moment, and none of us are prepared
to bear that v^th equanimity.
The good doctor, nursing his wounds,
battered and beaten, treads his lonely way
back to the Cabinet and frantically drafts
Bill 121 so that somehow the services of the
profession can be rendered unto Caesar.
Well, this is the prostrate position you know,
Mr. Speaker, that the Minister invariably sub-
scribes to. It is an unlovely position.
I point out to you, sir, and to the members
of the House, again, tliat the Provincial Trea-
surer would never have agreed to such a
proposition if all the work had not been
done, and agreed to, and capitulated in, by
the Minister of Health. It is not only the
members of the Ontario Medical Association
that hold the gun to the government, it is
the Minister of Health who holds the gim
at the head of the government.
APRIL 29, 1969
3705
How uncomfortable it is for the Provincial
Treasurer, at the end of one week to have
his Minister of Education throw his balanced
budget into a cocked hat and at the beginning
of the next week the Minister of Health runs
riot with what remnant of financial austerity
there might be left.
The fact of the matter is that the Provincial
Treasurer would not have contemplated this
increase if it were not in eJBFect a fait accompli
in which he must join. The Minister of
Revenue (Mr. White) is already on record,
eloquently, both in committee and in the
House, as to the opposition of a member of
Cabinet to this whole proposition which
unilaterally increases fees in this society for
a select professional group when you never
grant that particular right to any other group.
Tpm between the blood oath of allegiance
to the medical profession and his own Tory-
ism, the Minister gave in.
Mr. Speaker, no one denies, as has been
repeated ad nauseam in the Legislature, the
right of a profession to earn a fair income for
services rendered. But that one group should
place itself outside the pale witii the agree-
ment of government as an intolerable proposi-
tion.
It is particularly intolerable, Mr. Speaker,
when, as the member for York South, leader
of this party, has pointed out, there are
alternatives available. There are precedents
on which to base a negotiating procedure
that has already been implemented in other
provinces.
It is not as though the Minister has no
alternative. He has had two years to find a
formula. How long does it take for the in-
tellect of one man and an entire Treasiury
Board to come up with a formula? Is it too
much that members of this House have asked
that you produce something viable and legiti-
mate after a two-year period of gestation?
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker,
that there is no possible explanation under
the sun which can convince the members of
this House for the need for an increase which
might conceivably have been arrived at on a
negotiated basis; but would certainly have
been subject to pubhc scrutiny if our amend-
ments were accepted and should certainly
have been the procedure that was adopted.
I remind you, sir, I remind the Minister,
that he is not a happy man. We know he
is not a happy man. We feel for this once
proud Scot— if that is not too much a—
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to rise on
a point of privilege? I wish my colleague
would stop referring to me as a Scot. I am a
Canadian, sir, and proud of it and will always
be a Canadian.
Mr. Lewis: We feel, Mr. Speaker, for this
once-proud Canadian of Scottish ancestry. We
want ham to know that we do, sir. We want
him to know that we do, because we know
the abject humiliation which has character-
ized his political experience over the last
number of weeks.
I asked the Minister some months ago, Mr.
Speaker, whether or not the unilateral in-
crease in tlie fee schedule which was to be
implemented on April 1 would be subject to
government negotiation. He indicated with
that hauteur, with that contempt that he often
has in this Legislature, that is was obviously
under government scrutiny. He gave those
of us in Opposition reason to believe that
there would still be some basis for alteration.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what disarray. What
about all the people on the front benches in
the Conservative Party? That is what one has
to ask. Is the whole Cabinet intimidated by
the medical profession? Is tliat sturdy rank of
Treasury Board appointees trembling and
palpitating in the presence of the Ontario
Medical Association? Are these grown men
but as petulant children when faced with a
medical ultimatum— all of them over there?
Do the lions of austerity become the lambs of
extravagance when faced by the medical pro-
fession?
Look at them. These Tories who practice
austerity, these people upon whom such un-
happy fate has come; falling, bowing, scrap-
ing, genuflecting, posturing, pleading, beg-
ging, paying endless obeisance to the medical
Mecca. That is the nature of this Cabinet
as soon as the Ontario Medical Association
speaks to the Minister of Health, he with a
Pavlovian response barks his willingness to
conform.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives dis-
honour Cabinet government, they dishonour
the parhamentary process and, much more
important in this instance, they dishonour
public accountabality. The government has no
honour left but to join with us in defeating
the bill on second reading and supporting the
amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Does any odier member wish
to participate in this debate? If not, the hon.
Minister of Health.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, it is rather
unfortunate that the hon. member for River-
dale drew a parallel between medical fees and
3706
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
plumbers' charges. First of all, he imputed
to me words which I never have used. I
searched Hansard and the only record I can
see is attributed to Mr. W. B. Lewis, then
member for Humber-York— I beheve it was at
that time-on page 2217 of Hansard, 1967.
It was not a very good analogy for the mem-
ber for Riverdale to use, and I am rather
surprised that he did use it. But I could not
help but note, sir, that he studiously avoided
comparison between my profession and his
own. He did not say anything about the
government of the legal profession.
Mr. J. Renwick: I did.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Oh yes, I know what
he said, but he did not say it in the same
context. He is quite prepared to find a statu-
tory body which—
Mr. J. Renwick: We will deal v^th that
when we come to the legal aid plan in the
province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, and an awful lot
of that has to come out too and a lot will
come out that will not— or should not— make
you very happy.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the Minister defending
the profession or defending the people?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, would
you mind keeping them quiet and stop their
nattering? I have not said a word throughout
the whole of their bluster.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I pointed
out that the hon. member for Riverdale, in
pleading that the statutory body relative to
the medical profession should have responsi-
bility for the setting of fees, did not state
that this is not done in his own profession
nor is it done in any profession operating in
the province of Ontario. The legal fees, as
I understand it, are set by the county asso-
ciation—I do not know if they have a pro-
vincial association— whereas, in the medical
profession, the fees are set by the provincial
association.
It would be quite impossible to put this
responsibility in the hands of the college,
because the college's job is to look after the
public interest. People are human and doc-
tors too are human, and it stands to reason
that if the college had responsibility to check
and control the fees of the profession, there
would be risk of real conflict of interest be-
cause it is rather hard to wear two hats at
the same time and look objectively on both
sides of the question.
I think the way it is set now is the only
satisfactory way, but on the other hand this
v^dll all be under review again, and it may
well be that out of the studies of the com-
mittee on the healing arts wdll come a rec-
ommendation of this kind to bring the control
of fees under the statutory body. For that
we shall have to wait and see what comes
along.
He also said there should be a freeze on
fees. Well I am quite certain that my pro-
fession—and certainly I, sir— would support
such a proposal if it were generally applied.
Every one of us has said from time to time
that there is no reason why there should not
be a freeze on prices, but it must apply to
everybody, to every profession, to every
group, to every business, to all costs, profits,
salaries, wages, whatever. When this govern-
ment is ready to introduce that, then of
course the medical profession shall be con-
trolled by it just the same as everybody else.
Mr. Cisbom: That is the same old red
herring.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, I know, it is
always a red herring when it happens to be
their ox that appears to be in the process
of being gored.
Mr. Cisbom: We are talking about account-
ability, not the freezing of salaries.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: There has been a great
deal of discussion, sir, about the doctors' uni-
lateral action. The doctors have stated to us
quite clearly that, "We reserve the right to
set our own fee schedules. If you choose not
to pay that under your plan, then this is
your responsibility and this is your determina-
tion." And this, of course, is what causes
us a very great deal of worry.
They did discuss fee increases with us,
they did ask for the right to see our statis-
tics, as they did all other statistics that are
made readily available and are readily avail-
able on a public basis. They have talked
about possible ways and means and proce-
dures or systems by which government could
control fees, but out of this has come noth-
ing concrete except they have stated that as
long as they are left with the right to set
their own fee schedule, to put to the services
the price they believe they should receive,
then let us determine what percentage of
that or what part of that we shall pay. They
cannot interfere with govermnent if we
choose to set a schedule of our own. But
what is gained in setting our own schedule
if it is so far apart from the schedule set
APRIL 29, 1969
3707
by the doctors tbemselves that the people
are charged for the service?
In setting up this programme, we hoped to
insure people against what could easily be
catastrophic costs, but if the difference be-
tween the payment for benefits and the price
charged is so great that no real advantage
liows to the subscriber or to the recipient,
then we have not gained anything. Indeed—
and this was written into the federal pro-
posal—as long as the procedures follcrwed by
the profession did not offend the purpose or
intent of the Act, then there would be no
interference with it. But when it comes to
dictating or setting fees or setting terms and
conditions, interference just does not work.
There was reference made to B.C.'s pro-
gramme, and I will come to that as we go
along, but we have had actual experience not
only in Canada, but in almost every country
in the world where interference has been
attempted, that services have been withheld.
Now, fortunately, we have only once had a
threat of that in this province, and I believe
there was a great deal of regret that even that
threat was made. I would not want to see it
come about, sir, because I know the only ones
to suffer are those who require the services,
and this I think has been proven, even in
our own country.
The government has no other alternative,
if we are going to have OMSIP provide the
service, which was our intention when we
brought it into being, if the difference be-
tween the amount paid for benefits and the
price being charged is so great that it con-
stitutes a deterrent, then I think we have
done far more harm than will flow from this
action which we have to take here.
At the present time, we have very good
reason to believe— and I cannot make it any
more specific than that because this is a
very diflScult thing to determine accurately—
that the great majority of physicians who bill
OMSIP or who accept the OMSIP pro-
gramme, do not bill the patients or do not
bill to schedule. They accept 90 per cent of
the fee schedule as the total fee.
An hon. member: Not all of them?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I did not say all of
them, and I have never professed all of them.
Your own organization, my friend, does not
do very much better. I can give you chapter
and verse of that too.
But I say to you, sir, the great majority of
physicians do accept the 90 per cent as the
full fee. If we were to continue— as I very
seriously considered doing— the fee schedule
at its present level— 90 per cent of the 1967
schedule— then we would be paying some-
thing of the order of 80 to 82 per cent. It
was my reasoning that if we do that, then the
great majority of doctors would consider it
was worthwhile billing for that 18 to 20 per
cent and there would be a general upsurge
in the whole cost of medical care.
There has been a good deal of talk about
us being the highest paid profession, that a
great deal of public investment is put in
our education— and this is quite true— but
what profession, outside of divinity, does not
gain a great deal from very large public
investment both in capital and operating
costs? And politicians, I agree with my friend
from Wellington.
Only last week I had the occasion to meet
with a group of doctors, and I put this very
argument before them that we were the
highest income group. Now do not give us
that nonsense. They trotted out a report
from the seven Metro municipalities that
every one of them had decided to increase
the salary for the director of education to
$35,000. Even with the extravagant figures
put upon our incomes by my hon. friend
from York South-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I will listen to you
after I am through— by my voluble friend
from York South, and from Riverdale—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister quite
rightly pointed out, and I have been Hsteninig,
that he gave the courtesy of a hearing to
the members speaking on the other side of
the House, and surely they can give him the
same courtesy.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: —that we have not yet
reached the stage, sir, where we are credited
or blamed for having an income of $35,000
per year on the average. I can say to you,
sir— I am not here to defend this but I am
only going to touch on it— a great many family
physicians who are the keystone of any medi-
cal service programme are not earning in this
bracket at ail.
The reason for increasing the fees was
pointed out to me that, as asked by the
hon. leader of the Opposition, the medical
profession point emit rightly that the average
increase in the fee schedule for this year is
9.7 per cent according to OM SIP'S own
figuring. The profession has set 10 per cent.
And whUe the hon. memiber for Himnnber
did point ooit that in many cases there are
3708
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
very large increases, he failed to point out
that in some cases there are reductions of the
fees and in other cases the increase is far
lower than those he quoted. But the overall
eflFect, according to our owti economists in
OMSIP, will be an increase of 9.7 per cent
across the board. And this is in keeping
with the general increase that has come about
over the past two years. But I have argued
Avith the profession that they were starting
from too high a base in the first instance,
although I have not been able to convince
them of this, and they still do not believe me
when I say this.
As for the proposal that the hon. leader
of the Opposition put forward— that this bill
should go to the standing committee on
health before it comes here for second read-
ing—I have never had any recollection of
another going thus. The legal counsel tell me
that this does happen, once in a great while,
but it is not usual or ordinary practice. I
would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the
hon. member for York South read into the
record what happened the last time that this
matter was discussed before the standing
committee on health. What concrete, what
positive benefit did we achieve from that?
Mr. Nixon: That was after the bill had
been read a second time.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I was talking to your
hon. leader, who has some intelligence. The
hon. member for York South himself pointed
out that nothing came out of that. How do
we expect, or how does he propose, that any-
thing would come of putting this amend-
ment to the committee before it comes here
to be discussed in principle?
Mr. Nixon: If the hon. Minister is asking
a question, perhaps I can give him an
answer? Surely he today is asking us to
approve a decision that he has already taken
—that we should pay the 10 per cent fee
increase? Would it not be more reasonable
if we had had an opportunity to talk to
those leaders in the profession who are ask-
ing, demanding, requiring this increase be-
fore we make our decision? What is unrea-
sonable about that?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, as I
understand the process of government, the
government maps out its programme and
brings it to Parhament, and Parliament has
the right to either support it or condemn it.
Mr. Nixon: We can do this responsibly
only after getting information.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well then, we are
trying to give the member the information.
Mr. Nixon: I do not think the Minister
competent to give that information.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well that is very nice,
but there is an old saying-
Mr. Nixon: There is nothing implied in—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister has the
floor, and he-
Mr. Nixon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker!
Mr. Speaker: Point of order.
Mr. Nixon: There is nothing in my com-
ment that is derogatory to the Minister at all
when I say he is incompetent to give that
information. He is a doctor, and the Minister
of Health, and the information might justify
the increases that are demanded by this
bill. Why should he be the justifier of the
whole medical profession, when actually he is
giving arguments that would in fact go
against them?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I am
not trying by this bill to justify the medical
profession in any way, shape or form. It can
justify its own actions. I am presenting to
this Parliament, sir, a piece of legislation
that has been authorized by the government
of this province. It is put before Parliament
for its approval or its rejection. I am back-
ing it up with the information that we have,
and upon which we based our decision to
present this piece of legislation.
I am not here in the role of an apologist
for the doctors in any way, shape or form.
The increases relate, as I pointed out, in the
main to services provided by the family
physicians and they are not general across
the board, although the effect across the
board will, as I have pointed out, mean an
increase in the cost of something of the
order of 9.7 per cent.
I have been not a little amused— and I
would be dishonest if I did not also say, sir,
not a httle hurt— to hear that I am accused
so frequently of conflict of interest. I do not
think that any hon. member in this House
who is fair minded or at all objective can say
that at any time I have had any interest at
heart or obviously presented other than the
interest of the people of the province of
Ontario.
I have been so insulting to my colleagues
in the medical profession many, many times,
that I have been ashamed of myself for
APRIL 29, 1969
3709
taking the attitude I have. I have insulted
them in this respect far more than has any
one of my colleagues in the Cabinet. They
know without any question where I stand and
they know my feeling about this. I have no
hesitation in saying to you, sir, and to this
Parhament, I still beUeve our fees are too
high. But I have one important duty to
perform: I have to make OMSIP work the
best way I know how, and it seems to me,
after careful consideration, that this is the
best way that I can devise.
Mr. MacDonald: How do other Ministers
of Health succeed where this Minister fails?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: None of them have
succeeded.
Mr. MacDonald: They have in other
provinces.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No. I am going to
come to that, because I have a httle in-
formation that you may not yet have.
The hon. member for Parkdale spoke again
—and I know this is a matter that has given
him a great deal of concern over the years—
of the apparent double charging when
patients go to the out-patients' department
in our larger hospitals. A great many of those
patients go to our larger hospitals— the hon.
member I think knows this— particularly the
downtown hospitals, because this is the pat-
tern of medical care to which they have from
birth almost been accustomed. Coming to
this, their new land, they try to follow the
same habit, the same pattern.
If the hon. member can document
any case where OMSIP has paid for a
patient who was cared for by an intern but
billed by a doctor who was not there and
was not in any way related with the case,
I would ask him to tell me who it is. Give
me the facts and I will undertake to see that
that doctor is prosecuted before the courts of
our province.
The medical profession has stated unequi-
vocally its stand on this matter, that no doc-
tor should render a bill for services with
which he is not in some measure involved,
and that involvement is not simply a matter
of signing his name to an accoimt. I give
you this as the avowed policy of the profes-
sion, but more importantly the avowed policy
of this department.
The hon. member for York South said there
had been no prior discussion. There has been
a very great deal of discussion over the two
years. Unfortunately, we have not reached
successful conclusions. We have not arrived
at mutually acceptable methods of dealing
with this, and looking back over what I said
two years ago I noticed I opened by saying,
"one man can lead a horse to water but
1,000 cannot make him drink." If my hon.
friend can tell me how we can come to a
conclusion I would be dehghted to Hsten to
it.
I have tried all of the things that he has
told us here. I do pay attention to what he
says— because he has a lot of good ideas
from time to time, a little bit woolly and airy
—but if they will work I am not too proud to
borrow his ideas and call them my own. I
have not found an idea that he has ever
presented in this House, or anywhere in my
hearing, that has worked yet, and I do not
think that he can bring one along.
He spoke about B.C. The B.C. programme
has worked for tlie first part of its hfe, but
I want to say to my hon. friend that the
latest information I have is that the profession
wants no more part of it, that when it runs
out its present term, that is the end of it.
Now I say this is the latest information I
have. I cannot prove that this is factual; it is
as factual as I have been able to get it up
to the persent time. After all, if you watched
the way that it worked, the increases there
have been just the same in total as the in-
creases in Ontario. Only today, there came
to my desk an extract from a paper in New
York about the group health insurance pro-
gramme, I believe they call it^a relative of
one of the Kaiser plans, where they have just
put up their fees 41 per cent for exactly the
same reason— because of the escalating costs
of health care.
The hon. member for Oshawa referred to
the principle of negotiation by hospitals and
related facilities and of course this is so.
But I would point out to my hon. friend
that the professional people employed on a
salary basis negotiate just exactly the same
as do the other workers, be they nurses,
orderlies, nurses aides or the houskeeping
staff in a hospital. They go tlirough the same
kind of negotiation and have the same pro-
cedures and systems available to them. Sal-
aried doctors in my own department negoti-
ate through the civil semce association and
with The Department of Civil Service just
as do all the rest of our staff.
The privately practicing physician is a self-
employed individual and again I have to
repeat, sir, that until we reach the stage
where we are prepared as a government to
legislate a freeze on all of these salaries,
wages, costs, etc., I find it very difficult to
i710
OxNTARIO LEGISLATURE
understand how we can single out one group
and say tliat their rates should be frozen or
their rates should be rolled back.
Mr. Pilkey: The Minister should justify the
fees, not make a unilateral decision.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not going to
apologize for them because they will have to
do this, this is up to them. I am faced with
the problem that this is the price that it is
going to cost the public of Ontario for medi-
cal care.
I would also point out— the only comment
I will make on what the member for Scar-
borough West said— tliat he spoke as though
we, under OMSIP, were setting the proration
of the fee that would be paid for all services.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we
have less than one-third of our people cov-
ered under our programme. We have some
two million people. The commercial carriers
alone have the bulk of our people covered—
3.2 million I beheve is the figure— and I
would remind you, sir, and the hon. members,
tliat they are paying 100 per cent of tlie fee
schedule.
This, in itself, puts OMSIP in an almost
impossible situation because the private car-
riers are now paying 100 per cent.
PSI, the next largest non-profit group, has
been paying 100 per cent now for two years
and has already undertaken to pay 100 per
cent of the new fee schedule. How in the
name of common sense, sir, can we continue
to pay what would be something of the order,
as I suggested, of 80 to 82 per cent, when all
other carriers are now paying from 90 to
100 per cent without any question?
I .say to you, sir, without me trying to
justify the action of the profession, this is
proposed by government in the interests of
the public whom we serve. And then I repeat
—and I think it is worthwhile repeating for
emphasis if for nothing else, that if the bene-
fit paid were far apart from the price charged,
then I am quite certain that the patients
would suffer. Deterrent fees are perhaps one
of the most vicious instruments that can be
used; the patient would suffer because this
would be a very substantial deterrent fee,
and the whole principle and intent of the
programme would be defeated.
I have to say to you, sir— and I am still
proud, I have not lost any of my pride, and
I have not lost any of my conviction either
—that I deny absolutely any conflict of
interast. But I have to say to you that this
amendment is essential in tlie best interests
of the people of Ontario and I would hope
that die House will rise to a man and defeat
the amendment that has been proposed:____«-
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that I do not need
to remind the members that the first ques-
tion which must be decided now by the
House is whether or not the word "now" and
the other words sought to be struck out shall
stand.
The motion is that by the hon. Minister of
Health for second reading of Bill 121. The
question to be decided by the House is
whether the word 'now' and the other words
ought to be struck out, shall stand as part of
the motion.
The House divided on the motion which
was agreed by the following vote:
Ayes
Nays
AUan
Ben
Apps
Braithwaite
Auld
Breithaupt
Bales
Bukator
Boyer
Bullbrook
Brunelle
Burr
Connell
Davison
Demers
Deacon
Downer
Deans
Dymond
De Monte
Evans
Edighoffer
Gilbertson
Farquhar
Gomme
Ferrier
Grossman
Gaunt
Guindon
Gisborn
Haskett
Good
Hodgson
Haggerty
(Victoria-Haliburton) Innes
Hodgson
Jackson
(York North)
Knight
Jessiman
Lawlor
Johnston
Lewis
(St. Catharines)
MacDonald
Johnston
MacKenzie
(Parry Sound)
Martel
Johnston
Newman
(Carleton)
(Windsor-Walkerx ill
Kerr
Nixon
Lawrence
Paterson
(Carleton East)
Pilkey
Lawrence
Pitman
(St. George)
Reid
Meen
(Rainy River)
Momingstar
Reid
Morrow
(Scarborough East)
McKeough
Renwick
McNeil
(Riverdale)
Price
Ruston
Pritchard (Mrs.)
Singer
Randall
Smith
Reiliy
(Nipissing)
APRIL 29, 1969
3711
Ayes
Nays
Renter
Spence
Rollins
Stokes
Rowntree
Trotter
Simonett
Woiton-40.
Snow
Stewart
Villeneuve
Welch
Wells
White
winKier
Wishart
Yakabuski
Yaremko— 48.
Clerk of the House
s: Mr. Speaker, the Ayes
are 48, the Nays 40.
Motion agreed to;
second reading of the
bm.
THE MINING TAX ACT
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines)
moves second reading of Bill 111, An Act to
amend The Mining Tax Act.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
on this bill, I think the general proposition
leading off could well be that the people of
Ontario derive little enough from their nat-
ural resources. In the case of forestry, it costs
us money to have the trees, we would be
better without them. That is a crying shame
on the basis of the proposition as such.
In the case of the mining industry, it is
perhaps not quite as bad. It is better to have
the industry than not, but this bill, coming
forward under the stalking horse and mas-
querade of certain refining potential being
established in this province, then proceeds to
cut down, in my opinion, the revenues we
derive from our mineral resources.
The bill, not in whole, but in part, is a
sell-out, and I would like, in instance after
instance, for the Minister to justify the meas-
ures he has placed before this House. I think
it would be well, at the inception, to refer to
the Smith report on mines— chapter 32 of that
reactionary document. However reactionary
a document it may be, it contains a simul-
acrum of truth here and there.
What it has to say about the nickel in-
dustry is particularly apposite, and what it
has recommended with respect to gold and
iron ore is something. In the case of gold,
it does not run adverse to the Minister, but
in the case of iron ore, it most certainly does.
And so far as nickel is concerned, the Minis-
ter has neither the intestinal fortitude nor the
good sense from a revenue standpoint to
begin to move in on that area, where our
greatest possible potential is.
Smith quotes from a man who was with
The Department of Mines for many years, a
kind of czar of mining, as I understand it, in
this province at an early time and in the
history of this legislation:
Tlie Supplementary Revenue Act of 1907
introduced a tax on mining profits, which,
after certain minor amendments enacted
in 1908, was embodied in a separate Act
entitled, The Mining Tax Act of 1914.
T. W. Gibson, who at this time held a
position equivalent to Deputy Minister of
Mines, explained the concept of relating
the tax to mining profits in the following
words:
An impost on mine products, say so much
per ounce of gold or silver, or per ton of
nickel-copper ore, would not discriminate
between rich ores and poor. An ounce of
gold wrung with difiBcuIty from low-grade
ore would pay as much as an ounce taken
from the richest quartz, so also a ton of
ore just above the neutral point would be
taxed as heavily as ore of the highest
ix)ssible grade.
The conditions indicated a tax on
profits. It was considered right to claim
for the public interest some share in the
bounty of nature, especially when lands
sold for $2, $2.50, or $3.50 per acre
were found to contain great riches, some-
times a veritable Golconda.
From its introduction, the profits tax was
levied upon profits derived only from the
extraction of ore. In computing the taxable
profit, only those expenses that directly per-
tained to the extraction of the ore and moving
it to the surface of the mine were allowed
as deductions from the value of tlie ore at
the pit's mouth.
Tliis concept has been retained to the
present day, although there has been some
liberalization in expense deductions.
And if I may break off at tliis point, there
is further liberalization under this new bill
before us with respect to expense deductions.
That is one of the areas, Mr. Speaker, in
which we are being mulcted of our revenue
—tlie continuing erosion through tlie recogni-
tion of wider areas of depreciation allowances
and tlie business of giving the 10 per cent
rebate.
But there are eight or nine various heads
where the mining industry of this province
3712
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and this country derives benefits which are
extraordinary. They are completely out of
keeping, compared to other corporations
which have to pay a certain range of taxes—
and goodness knows such corporations get
enough benefits imder the legislation that
exists.
But there is a cascading of benefits here
and when you add them all up, and when
you add the new ones being conferred under
this legislation, I would not care to predict
the amount of revenue that we are likely to
derive from our mining industry. I will ask
the Minister. Under the recommendations of
the select cormnittee, we would hope to get
$25 million a year. International Nickel alone
last year enjoyed a profit after taxes, of $125
million. We in this province get $25 million.
That is on the proposed tax, not the
present, when the mining municipalities are
brought under the shelter of the tax whicli
has not as yet taken place. And, incidentally,
why is this matter before this Minister at
this time? Why is not the Minister of Revenue
responsible for bringing this bill forward?
Surely his functions are not yet so onerous
tliat he cannot assume his responsibiUties,
which responsibilities have been given to him
imder the legislation. Why does the Minister
of Mines retain the taxing authority in this
regard? At this time, what is his intention in
this regard? Does he intend to place it in the
jxroper hands? We created a Department of
Revenue at considerable expense to the tax-
payer; let them collect the money. What is
the Minister of Mines doing sitting there?
The original Act made no allowances for
either depreciation or the costs of discov-
ery and development.
But he goes on to say, as you can probably
guess, that that did not last very long:
This was defended as being reasonable
in view of the low (three per cent) rate of
the initial tax. Municipal taxes were al-
lowed as a deduction, contrary to the
general principle of allowing only direct
costs of mining.
As an incentive to small mines, the first
$10,000 of profits was exempted from tax.
The 1907 Act was more concerned with
simplicity of administration than with at-
taining scrupulously equitable treatment
of taxpayers.
One could read on. Even in so bland a
document as this, one would come across
scurrilous passages attacking the mining in-
dustry as a whole— and you who consort with
the mining industry, you who lend your assis-
tance covertly to the mining industry in order
to have them escape their due share of taxes.
There is such a thing as, not a royalty,
but a rental benefit conferred on the people
of the province over and above anything
else, and this "economic rent" concept is
simply being eroded. There is no considera-
tion apparently in the mind of this govern-
ment or this Minister to what benefit are
the mines of Ontario to the residents of
Ontario. The rascals have never contributed,
at least in any measure, even to the main-
tenance of the municipalities in which they
find themselves.
They utilize the dormitory municipality in
their environment, and pay not a dime to
the maintenance of those municipalities. They
came before the select committee mealy-
mouthed and saying that they are now pre-
pared to do that. One of these ten or 12
heads under which I see you confer bene-
fits, that exceed the dreams of Midas, upon
these companies, and thereby mulct your own
Treasury. When you cry to the heavens for
moneys, as you do almost perennially, and
allow that whole field to lie fallow with our
resource industries, then I do not blame the
federal government for laughing up its sleeve
at you. You simply do not utilize the re-
sources that you have at hand or those that
may be seized.
The first thing that this new bill in prin-
ciple does, Mr. Speaker, is raise the exemp-
tion. Hurray! It used to be $10,000, now it
is going to be $50,000. Prior to this, it was
a graduated tax at six per cent from $10,000
to $1 million, and it went to 11 and then
12 per cent in excess of $5 million, and it
brought in little enough revenue, heaven
knows, over against the overall benefits con-
ferred.
In looking at the Smith report at page
305, it sets out the fiscal years beginning at
1960 and running through to 1966, where
you picked up in mining tax revenue $12.9
million in 1960 and $14.8 million in 1966-
I do not have more recent figures— represent-
ing one percentage point of the net ordinary
revenue of this province coming from our
resource industry.
And we know, it is known all over the
world, of the enormous wealth of our mines.
It is attractive; it is the bonanza; it is the
thing which we depend upon; it is our future;
it is the one source upon which this province
can orient its grov^i:h, and while tentative
steps have been taken in the right direction,
which will apply great employment and
greater corporation tax because smelters will
be brought in, why should not this blessing
APRIL 29, 1969
3713
conferred upon us by nature be utilized to
the benefit of all the people of this province?
We happen to be bom into a fortunate
condition but our birthright is being turned
into a mess of pottage over there, by simply
releasing them from their obligation to pay
what would be a normal, satisfactory, rational
tax, even as Smith has recommended. He said
if his recommendations were accepted, he
would have two sets of tax— a mines profit tax
at a flat rate and a mine service tax.
The mine service tax was directed towards
the municipalities and the basic concept be-
hind that was that he would give no basic
exemptions whatsoever. Some of the prov-
inces of this country give no basic exemptions
whatsoever, but this Minister sees fit to raise
the basic exemption from $10,000 which is
not too bad— the select committee was, I
think, if I recall, prepared to go on the
$10,000 basic exemption as an incentive to
mining industries— but to lift the figure to
$50,000 and then impose a flat rate of
15 per cent across the board, I suggest is
going to substantially lower the revenue
coming in from our mining industry.
I would like to see some figures on it; I
would like to know if the computations have
been done in this regard to justify that par-
ticular measure when, as I said in 1966, the
total revenue brought in from the mining
industry, according to Smith's figures, brought
in close to a billion dollars— we picked up
$14 million.
There is hardly justification for this. Is
there no kind of rationale, no kind of inter-
relationship between the profitability and
what the province derives from these re-
sources—which, imlike the forests, of course,
are irreplaceable? Once they are mined out
it is done.
Under this head we will begin to run
through the various exemptions. TJhe business
that the province, along with the federal gov-
ernment, gives a three-year tax holiday on
corporation income tax to new mines; that is
number one. That is enough manna falling
from heaven, let me say, to feed an elephant.
What do they do then? You see it is a most
self-defeating ordinance. They therefore pre-
pare their mine sites in such a way that they
will expect, if possible, the total ore extract-
able from those mines within the three years.
You set up housing projects around; you
set up a little town. People have moved and
dislocated their lives to go in there. You
have spent money through OHC, through
CMHC. You have given the semblance of a
community and then this mining operation
goes in and mines the thing out in a period
as quickly as it possibly can, and if possible
within the three-year period. Is that not
great? Therefore, you leave a derelict town
strewn throughout the northland and people
again are basiclly dislocated. It can ibe
nothing else but a question of considering
property of a hi_gher quahty than people and
making them even out these things over
periods of time.
The computation base upon which it is
made, therefore— the $50,000 you know is left
in their hands. We in law have a saying,
when we do not have a rule of law, when
we do not know how to put our finger on a
principle, and so on, we say it is as long as
the chancellor's foot. Mining assessors of this
province have mighty long feet.
If one runs through the basis of the com-
putation left in the discretion of this august
body— the mining assessors— who, if they had
even a suspicion or a desire to be in any way
allied with the mining industry, or in cahoots
with the companies involved, certainly have
the people of Ontario and this Minister by
the tail, with respect to the basis of the dis-
cretions and how they operate.
First of all, this is the one province in the
whole country in which there is nothing laid
down; at least at the time of Smith's report
there was nothing laid down at all. At page
311 he says: "In every province except On-
tario the method of valuation is published
either in the taxing statute or in regulations."
But not in Ontario. So it is left in the
Solomonic wisdom of some mining assessor
whose future dependency may be very much
allied to the interests of the mining com-
panies.
I dare say he is not going to bend over
backwards when he comes to his assessments.
And the range and type of his assessments-
well, I do not mind boring you. I will read
it. I think it should be placed on record
bow this is done.
You know your former Minister of every-
thing, Robert Macaulay, when he was a mem-
ber of that government and in its Cabinet,
that he often— both with respect to forests
and with respect to mines— found the gravest
difiiculty locating, putting his finger upon,
and being able to discern, what the basis of
various forms of taxation were. They were
the most mysterious things in the world, par-
ticularly in the forest industry.
No one could explain it to him, and the
one blessing that Smith conferred was that
he at least set it down in black and white,
3714
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
where we can get to it with some degree of
immediacy. Since that blessing lies on our
heads we may as well utilize it, may we not?
And tell just how mining assessors, using the
cloven foot, manage to come to an assessment
of such a megalopolis as International Nickel,
and much to their benefit I am sure.
When an appraisal is made, the mine
assessor usually, but not invariably, follows
a standard procedure.
But not invariably you notice. He is out at
the heels. The foot is breaking through.
This consists of deducting from the sale
price of the processed product the costs of
processing and marketing; the portion of
head office expenses allocatable to process-
ing; an allowance for depreciation of the
processing plant, since they are only going
to tax up to tlie point where processing
begins, just the mining operation itself.
And again I will break off in a long— you
know, James Joyce used to always speak in
brackets, and I think perhaps it is the best
way to speak but it does mess up Hansard,
I will agree with that. But apart from that
I shall bracket and break off and say that the
distinction between the mining and the pro-
cessing was obviated by Smith, and while the
select committee went against that, on re-
consideration I think it may have been a
bloody mistake,
I think that if we are going to assess mines
-^the way they sneak out of it a great deal,
through the mine assessor's logic in allocating
what comes to the mine from the mining
operation as such, in contradistinction to what
is the processing. They should be both
lumped together, then we will get the profit
situation in the mine and it should be taxed
on its gross profits. Now it may be a reduced
rate but the fact of the matter is that this is
too peculiar, too mysterious, and too—
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
I just wanted to know if that was the end
of the bracket?
Mr. Lawlor: I do not know where the
bracket ends.
Well, anyhow, we got down to an allow-
ance for depreciation of the processing plant,
an allowance for a processing profit. Now
you see, an allowance for a processing profit
—I got it, I jusi picked it out of the air, this
boy will not have to pay any money this
year:
The latter processing allowance is gen-
erally determined by the mine assessor
at eight per cent of the original cost to the
operator of the assets used for processing,
regardless of any depreciation that may
have been claimed in respect of them, but
this is modified, inasmuch as he will not
pennit the allowance to be less than 15
per cent, or more tlian 65 per cent, of the
profits of the combined mining and process-
ing operations before deducting the allow-
ance itself.
Now that is certainly an emormous span—
15 to 65 per cent being allowable. I tell
you, the man is either a czar or he is a
Solomon, but anything less than that type of
genius I would think would be beneath his
dignity.
Mr. MacDonald: He is Santa Glaus; he
gives everything away.
Mr. Lawlor: He could be Santa Glaus. I
suppose he could be Scrooge too, but not
too likely:
The lower and upper limits for tlie
allowance are arbitrary devices which are
adopted to ensure that not more than 65
per cent of the profits of combined opera-
tions of marginal producers would be at-
tributed to processing and that where the
investment in processing assets were small,
relative to that of other assets, the allow-
ance would not fall below 15 per cent of
such profits in practice.
The mine assessor gives the operators of
nickel mines a special processing allowance.
An hon. member: They need it.
Mr. Lawlor: You know, I really cannot re-
frain from, before this tiling is over, reading
passages about the International Nickel Com-
pany, with their special processing allowance
down over the years— which the select com-
mittee, incidentally said, "wipe out", and
which Smith himself said, "wipe out." But
you come forward with an Act today— you
know, with a little bill. There is no wiping
out, is there? No!
Where benefits can be conferred they are
granted— largesse— the great bonanza— the Min-
ister with the golden horn. But where any
type of money is to be brought into the
Treasury of this province for the overall good
of us all, then you ignore the recommenda-
tions as they stand.
In practice, the mine assessor gives the
operators of nickel mines a special pro-
cessing allowance, in addition to the gen-
eral allowance that is described, in recog-
nition of what he considers to be special
conditions that apply to smelting and re-
APRIL 29, 1969
3715
fining of nickel ores. This was a special
condition of nickel ores in 1919.
They discovered the secret and they have
been getting the benefits ever since. They
were getting special allowance because they
discovered a catalyst to some formula and
this has been claimed:
From 1939 to 1950, but not subsequently,
the basis for special allowance was author-
ized by Order-in-Council. To summarize:
under this metliod of appraisal the value of
ore at the pit mouth is determined by
deducting from the value of the processed
product specified processing cost and allow-
ance for processing profit.
And then there is a gross revenue and I sup-
pose you would say that there is a second
step you come down to. You allow certain
transportation costs, depreciation, business
and then there are allowances made for
proper working expenses of which there is a
range and which there is enormous discre-
tion left in the hands of this mining assessor.
I think all this should be codified and all
should be set up in black and white and
should be tied down. It is a built-in piece of
ingenuity to escape taxation over and above
all the taxation they escape in any other way.
That is why my remarks are directed in this
way to day, because of the profits.
First of all they start with gross revenue,
then they come down to the net revenue, and
then they make further deductions and get
down to the taxable revenue. By the time
they get to that, with the chancellor's foot
with his toes wigghng in the middle of the
pie, there is very little left that we can see
for the people of Ontario.
The tax that comes in is negligible. It is
hardly enough to maintain your department
in existence or go very far towards the sal-
aries and stajffs in maintaining it. I would
think that if that is going to be the case it
would be perhaps just as well to let them lie
for a year or two until we get rid of this
government and we can take over and make
some money on the mines. But in the mean-
time there is no use taking our ore away and
depleting our mines without deriving any
benefit from the mining operations.
Mr. Lewis: More goes to the Tory Party
than goes to the public purse.
Mr. Lawlor: My friend suggests that maybe
you fellows derive more benefit from it than
the pubHc purse, but far be it from me to
even consider such a thought.
As far as gold mines are concerned— and
there is a section in here, Mr. Speaker,
directly concerned with the gold mines. It
repeals the special benefit.
Now this is a somewhat ludicrous situation.
The ludicrous situation consists in the fact
that practically the only revenue we get in
this province that we get from gold mines is
the tax that we impose upon the federal
subsidy to the gold mines. In other words, we
impose a tax on what the government gives as
a grant and that is our gold mining revenue.
Now it is obvious that if you want the money
tlien the best thing to do is to go up to
Ottawa, cap in hand, and say, "Now Hsten,
with regard to gold mines, will you not give
it directly to us since we do not want to go
through the channels any longer? We would
just as leave have it given to us directly? That
is a mischievous piece of business and if that
is part of co-operative federalism then I would
tliink it is coming by tlie back door, where
you folks tax us upon federal government
money going to particular individuals.
Now you are wiping that out, and it is
recommended that you wipe it out, but I am
against wiping it out, because you are not
going to have any money left. Your revenue
derived in the mining tax. In 1962 the mining
tax paid by gold mines receiving the EGMA
—the payments made to the gold mines from
the federal government— was $248,000. If
you did what your bill proposes to do now—
wipe that out— you would get $10,000 from
gold mines.
The mining tax paid in 1964 under this
head, taxing the subsidy, was $632,000. If
you wiped it out it would drop by more
than two thirds down to $274,000. I mean,
you get little enough revenue from mines
in the province already without just casting
the rest of it away. This is eating substantially
into the amount of money you got in 1964,
which was $10,300,000, of which you would
lose, under this head, $358,000.
Mr. Lewis: Three to four per cent of
revenue.
Mr. Lawlor Yes, and this is what you are
proposing to do under the circumstances,
however ludicrous and however stupid a
way of taxing the gold mining situation. It
is just as well we maintain the tax rather than
jettison it as you are seeking to do, unless
you replace it with a more equitable tax in
order to make up for these lost revenues. And
so my question comes tmder this head, as
elsewhere, just how do you propose to make
3716
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
up the lost revenues that your new mag-
nificent Act, designed to raise revenues— or
maybe the Minister designed the Act to lose
revenues, it is a little out of the way but it
is not completely unheard of. Maybe he is
doing it inadvertently, but certainly the
justification does not appear on the surface.
As far as iron ore is concerned, as the
Minister well knows, for many years past the
smelters of the province have derived the
benefit under this head, and Smith, at 324—
he refers to in in many places, at 308 and
other pages, but at 324 he says: "The Min-
ister of Mines has had discretionary power
from 1907 to remit the tax on iron"— 1907!—
I do not think you have been in government
all that time, but you look hoary enough over
there to suggest that that is possible. Darwin
may never have Hved, you know, so far as
evolution is concerned. 1907? They have this
beneficence and you have been patting them
on the head ever since. I continue: —"to
remit the tax on iron ore smelted in Canada
as an incentive to establish smelting opera-
tions."
Well how long, oh Lord, how long? I
mean, they have set up the smelting opera-
tion. The new ones, I am sure, are going to
be exempted from the necessity of setting up
smelters from those other areas in northern
Ontario which are lying fallow up there at
the present time, but the ones who derived
the benefit from 1908 have the smelters. I
would say, i)erhaps a 40-year limitation
might be imposed on some of these.
When you passed out the privilege, did it
have an in-built life? What is the longevity
of a privilege? Have you given any thought
to possibly cutting it back? I guess maybe
a decade would be enough to recompense
them for the fact that they make such a good
deal of money out of the resources of this
province. Do you have to add a little to the
gravy, to the soup, kind of thing? "In prac-
tice the Minister invariably remits the tax."
He does it on the day before Christmas. If
it is a Sunday afternoon he puts a hat on. It
is a tremendous sight to see him remitting
that tax. He does it invariably. He has never
fallen down on the job once.
And the amounts remitted have been
small. The total amount of tax remitted
from 1946 to 1964 was $1,117,000. This
amount does not suggest that the incentive
has had any material e£Fect on the ex-
pansion of Canada's steel making capacity.
In other words, when they come down and
say that the remission is not that important.
that it does not have any impact on the
industry as such, and to cut it out— and the
select committee, under your Minister of
Revenue, similarly made this submission, as
page 260 of the select committee reports:
We accept this recommendation, but we
think its repeal should be staged over a
five-year period and we reword the recom-
mendation, therefore, as follows—
I will not read it, but where is this recom-
mendation in this proposed legislation before
us? It is simply nowhere evident.
We have seen a number of areas in which,
I say, a special kindness has been shown to
the mining industry. Looking at the Globe
and Mail of recent date, on the Texas Gulf
matter, the terms on which the Minister
came to with Texas Gulf, and are embodied
substantially in this bill to carry out his
intent, fists a nimiber of exemptions and
what-not, and beneficencies given to Texas
Gulf and to the mining industry of Ontario,
in extenso of, and compounding all the privi-
leges and exemptions and benefits that you
have given them in the past.
First, exemption from the processing in
Canada requirement of all Texas Gulf lead
and silver production at Kidd Creek, although
zinc concentrate is by far the major item.
Second, allowance of pre-production ex-
penses, retroactive to 1965, and that is one
of the sections in this bill, a 10 i>er cent
situation, which was never previously given
in mining.
There are two things that we have not done
in mining, which the Minister is quite likely to
allow in the tenure of oflBce— being the bright
young radical that his reputation comports
him to be. I suggest depletion allow-
ances in the future, and he is today honori-
fically allowing, for tfie first time in our
history, exploration and development costs-
allowance of pre-production expenses retro-
active to 1965 against the company's mining
tax. In other words, whatever exploration
costs they had, it was not enough to give it
to them as of today or tomorrow when the
bill is proclaimed, he had to go right back to
the beginning, he had to give them all the
money back again, just in case there should
be any extra money come into the Treasury
of this province.
They did not want even a red nickel from
that bunch. There is certainly an independ-
ence of mind, Mr. Speaker, the Minister
stands aloof; he allows pre-produotion ex-
pense, permitting the company to write off
10 per cent of preliminary expenses for each
year — these arrangements made possible
APRIL 29, 1969
3717
through tlie amendments of The Mining Tax
Act, and if and when adopted will be avail-
able to other mining companies. Is that not
nice?
Nmnber three: Mining tax write-off of eight
per cent of the capital costs of the ore con-
centration complex, increasing to 16 per cent
at the smelter stage, 20 per cent at the
refinery stage. Well, on top of that they
get low hydro-electric rates; on top of
that they get low freight rates on shipping
of sulphuric acid from Timmins via the
Ontario Northland Railway.
And these are a few of the special bene-
ficences conferred for some ungodly reason
upon the mining industry. Then tbey will
dispense out their dividends to some place
close to Houston and have ranches of 100,000
miles apiece, and none of us will enjoy any
of those benefits at all.
So in a wide range of matters contained
under this bill, benefits have been conferred
beyond anything that would be permissible
in any rational system of taxation. If I may
just summarize and bring to a head these
various tilings. First of all, the mining in-
dustries of the province have a three-year
tax holiday. That in itself is an incredible
thing.
Then, on top of tliat, tliis Minister is raising
the basic exemption from $10,000 up to
$50,000. That cannot help but have the effect
of lowering our total revenues from the min-
ing industry substantially. Just why he is
making this move— other provinces are not
making it, there is another province that
does, but by and large either there are no
basic exemptions or they are around a figure
of $10,000.
I have indicated the computation base and
the role of the mining assessor in this thing,
which means that in terms of the actual
profit, in determining the profit on actuarial
principles, if proper accountancy was kept
on this tiling, it would produce far greater
profits, I suggest, than what is presendy
allowed under The Mining Act.
By the way, I promised you the great
pleasure of reading about International Nickel
before I close and I shall laimch into that
banal enterprise right now. At page 329,
Smith said:
Finally, we believe that there is no
justification for the special allowance to
nickel producers. Since 1907, the taxation
of nickel companies having extensive pro-
cessing facilities in the form of concentra-
tors, smelters and refineries has been based
on the philosophy that a very substantial
part of the profits must be attributed to
these ore treatment facilities.
The combined effect of the general and
special processing allowances granted by
the mine assessor in his valuation procedure
has been to allow a figure close to 25 per
cent in recent years rather than the normal
eight per cent of the cost of processing
assets.
From 1907 to 1955, except for the period
of 1917 to 1921-
When even International Nickel Company
thought that perhaps the war might be won,
or ought to be won, and made a little con-
cession towards that ultimate objective, so
that the free world and the free price of
nickel may remain in suzerainty in all men's
minds. I had better read that over again, that
bracket took a little while:
From 1907 to 1955, except for the period
of 1917 to 1921, 60 to 65 per cent of profits
were attributable to processing.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Incredible!
What are you going to do about it?
Mr. Lawlor: As the hon. member for Grey-
Bruce said, "What are you going to do about
it?"
Mr. Nixon: Did the member bring his ball
of wax?
Mr. Lawlor: To continue the quote:
Since 1956, the rate has been calculated
annually by the mine assessor based on
the same premises. While the effective rate
of the combined allowance has fluctuated
slightly from year to year, 54 per cent of
die profits— of the company's profits— were
attributed to processing—
And therefore not subject to your tax at all.
-in the six years 1958 to 1963, the special
allowances to nickel mines have substan-
tially reduced the mining tax revenues of
Ontario.
I will read that again: "The special allowances
to nickel mines have substantially reduced
the mining tax revenues of Ontario".
Now coming from this fellow, you know,
that is an indictment. The calculation of the
nickel allowance was fully described by G.
R. Mickle, the first mine assessor in a memor-
andum prepared for the Royal Ontario Nickel
Commission dated November 20, 1916. He
had recognized the difficulties encountered by
the early refiners in developing methods of
separating nickel from copper and other
metals associated with it, and then refining
5718
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the nickel. Other evidence submitted to the
commissioner supported the mine assessors*
position in part. Nevertheless the commission
concluded that, despite early difficulties, by
1916 several refining processes were in use,
and it recommended that the special allow-
ance be abolished and that the tax applied
to all profits from the refined metal— 1916.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Tax re-
form in Ontario.
Mr. Lawlor: Its recommendation was
adopted for the special allowance was re-
\ived in 1921 in response to representations
to the government by the principal producer
of nickel in Ontario and ever since that time
you have been in their back pocket.
It could hardly be justified, the omitting
from consideration of these factors in bring-
ing forward the legislation that we are asked
to pass here today. As I have indicated, there
are special concessions made to gold mines.
The computation base is awry and this e\'en
perverts the stock market. The iron mines
have enjoyed an area of non-taxation which
is hardly deserved, in which independently
minded people I am sure including the Min-
ister, if he would rouse to the occasion, would
agree. It is an outmoded, unnecessary exemp-
tion and in effect is doing a disservice to the
people of Ontario. There the money lies,
there should the money be brought forward.
It is not on the little guy that the full weight
of taxation should fall, while we allow our
whole mining industry to escape from their
fair share. There is presently no economic
rent derivable from these sources.
To wind up this particular topic, this bill
is defective on practically every one of its
heads. And as we come through the Commit-
tee of the Whole we will see in detailed ex-
amination of section by section just how far
this falls short, and what a dereliction from
responsibility this kind of legislation is. It
is, you know. In a way it has elements of
treachery or something like that about it.
Where, as I say, the revenue is, and is readily
taxable, there ought your weight to fall in
equity, in justice, on the principle of the
ability to pay, as your own select committee
has recommended and as recommended to you
time after time— instead of undermining and
eroding the whole basis of mining taxation
and resource industries in the province, as
you are presently doing under this bill. You
are bringing in less revenue than you ha\'e
ever done before, or even at the best, not
producing the kind of revenue that is readily
a\ailable to hand.
And I have not yet turned to the recom-
mendation touching on the Sudbury area.
Then the final crux is in the mining industry,
that when you do impose a tax, on the con-
trary you are imposing a non-tax because
they make sure it is readily deductible from
their corporate income tax. It will not cost
them a dime. It is in their interest.
As a matter of fact, it may be to suppose
their rights to have some benefits to them.
The business of paying a little municipal tax,
for the first time in their history— which has
not come to pass yet, or is envisaged in this
bill— that possibility does not hurt Interna-
tional Nickel, Falconbridge or the other
mines in this province at all. That is simply
deductible expense along with the others.
Why should they not do it? It does not hurt
them a bit.
The same thing applies with respect to
your taxation. So why should you be so
niggling? Why you should be so solicitous
of their interest, when their interest is not
in any event well looked after by themselves
in terms of the deduction they can enjoy,
both under your corporate income tax and
that of the federal government. How to get
to them is a real problem, but to renege
upon getting to them, to withdraw from the
attempt, as this legislation obviously does,
that is a cry to heaven, and is an abnegation
of your responsibility as the new Minister in
this department who was going to give it
direction, weight and some dynamism for a
change, and not just simply sit and allow
them to take you for some kind of patsy,
some kind of person who will not— perhaps
because of campaign funds or for other rea-
sons—be prepared to look after the best
interests of your department and the people
you are sworn to look after.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
after that rather lengthy preroration, the
Minister does not ride out of that great
coffee cloud thrown up by the member for
Lakeshore as quite the white shining knight
that he rode into it. I think the member
for Lakeshore has raised some very good
points. They are a littie confused, perhaps,
but they were raised, and two points the
people of this province are particularly in-
terested in, are: (1) How much extra revenue
this bill will provide to the people of Ontario?
And, secondly, in regard to the Texas Gulf
smelter situation in Timmins, what is the
total tax bill going to be to the residents of
Ontario in the benefits that you have ex-
pended to that company in regard to cheap
Hydro rates, freight rates, etc?
APRIL 29, 1969
3719
Coming to the principle of the bill, it is
not the best bill in the world but the Minis-
ter has proceeded much further than his
predecessor ever did in this regard.
An hon. member: I will give the member
an "A" for that.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would suggest that per-
haps the hon. member who just spoke is not
perhaps aware of all the realities and eco-
nomics of the mining industry, but then facts
have never bothered the people on the left
anyway.
I would like to draw the attention of the
Minister to subsection 3 of section 2 of the
bill, in which, in subsection 2 of subsection
3, he says that the ore taken from the mine
is beneficiated, at least to the smelter stage
in Canada.
Now, I would ask the Minister if this does
not in some way contradict the intent of
Bill 112, in which in subsection 1, he says
that all lands claims, etc., "shall be so and
so, so as to yield refined metal, or other
products suitable for direct use in the arts
without further treatment." It seems to me
that that statement is contradictory and per-
haps you could give us an explanation.
Mr. Speaker: It being 6.00 of the clock I
do now leave the chair and we will resume
at 8.00 p.m.
It being 6.00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 100
ONTARIO
l^egisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, April 29, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
I Price per gession, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 29, 1969
Mining Tax Act, bill to amend, Mr. A. F. Lawrence, second reading 3723
Mining Act, bill to amend, Mr. A. F. Lawrence, second reading 3746
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3755
3723
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 of the clock, p.m.
THE MINING TAX ACT
(Continued)
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): With the
leave of the House I will recommence the
same speech I made immediately before
dinner.
I am sure it will gratify the Minister of
Mines (Mr. A. F. Lawrence).
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this occasion
to introduce to the House, constituents of
mine and party workers from the Lakeshore
New Democratic Party, who are in the gal-
leries; a memorable crew these people and
I thank them. They are the people who are
largely responsible for my being here, for
better or for worse.
I say for better or worse for your gratifica-
tion, sir, or for your aggravation, depending
upon the mood that you happen to be in.
Thank you very much.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): It is as
official Opposition critic for the mining area
tliat I participate in this debate, on the sec-
ond reading of Bill 111, which is before the
House.
I should sny, Mr. Speaker, that tlie official
Opposition has been arguing for years for
a modernization of this department's methods
and procedures, and also for steps to return
to the people of this province, the reasonable
tax profit from the development by private
industry of natural resources which belong
to them and which, once mined, are gone
forever. Now that we see, in this hon. Min-
ister, the foresight and the courage to at
least take some steps in those directions, we
are certainly not going to discourage him,
or certainly not contradict the very position
that we have held and argued for for many
years in the past.
The truth is, Mr, Speaker, we see in this
Minister at least some reward, let me put it
that way, for the Liberal Party's efforts
toward improvement in the mining field, and
if he and his department continue following
Liberal advice, believe me, he cannot go too
far wrong at all.
Tuesday, April 29, 1969
Mr. Speaker, the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Mines will be coming up very soon,
we hope. We have been waiting for three or
four weeks now for them to come, so I do not
plan to speak at length tonight.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give
a warning to this hon. Minister. As we have
seen with this government's attempts toward
the implementation of regional government,
though a policy may be a good one, the way
in which it is implemented is probably of
just as much importance.
While this party does agree with tighten-
ing the measures of this department, and also
adding further taxation in the mining field,
we certainly feel that this Minister in enter-
ing into this area has perhaps put himself
on a tightrope. Not just perhaps, he certainly
has, because it seems to me that this Minister,
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, is faced with
those who say "tax the mining companies to
the teeth" and those on the other hand who
say, "Wait a minute, the mining industry is
one of our major industries. We certainly do
not want you to do away with all of the
tax incentives that have attracted new mining
developments in our area."
Mr. Speaker, I woidd suspect this is espe-
cially true of the people in tlie northwestern
part of this province who right at this
moment, and I am sure the Minister is aware
of it, are wondering how far the Minister
or his department will go in this taxation.
Because it is not so many years ago that the
great iron ore development of Steep Rock
iron ores began its work in Atikokan and
the Caland Iron Ore Company followed be-
cause of tax incentives that were made avail-
able at that time which, along with the natural
raw material that was there for them to glean,
attracted them into the field.
And so we find in newspapers in north-
western Ontario in recent weeks, editorials
urging this Minister and this department not
to go too far. Mr. Speaker, I would add that
same warning at this time while I have the
opportunity: go far enough but do not go too
far.
How far do you go? Well, that is up to
the Minister, it is his problem.
3724
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Why do you not make up
your mind?
Mr. Knight: Now there is a Minister who
should know absolutely what I am talking
about. Perhaps he does not apply these
principles of wisdom in his own field.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
He never does anything for northwestern
Ontario, that Minister.
Mr. Knight: Never mind, let us talk about
Bill 111.
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister will listen for
a moment, I can see that his colleague, the
hon. Minister of Mines, does understand what
I am getting at. And I am not standing here
speaking for the sake of speaking. This is an
extremely important matter and the caution
I pass along to this Minister at this moment
is extremely important to the people of my
riding, if not to those of his riding. And he
should not forget it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to
understand why these two bills, 112 and 111,
have come together at this time; certainly
one is related with the other. One bill seeks
to increase a method of taxation on the min-
ing industry and the other demands that the
mining industry take its production right to
the refining phase.
It would seem to me that both of these
are impositions on the mining industry-
legitimate impositions on the mining industry;
however, the one must be balanced with the
other and the one must be weighed against
the other.
I would not like to think that by putting
up the taxes, we are going to discourage
companies from coming in because they can-
not afi^ord also, the added expenditure of
refining the product in this country. The
business of refining, in my opinion, is more
important than the increased taxation, Mr.
Speaker.
I say there has to be taxation but I say
it has to be balanced with new restrictive
laws such as we find in Bill 112, because I
do not want to discourage the mining indus-
try. I am too well aware of the number of
jobs it has brought to northwestern Ontario,
the number of roads, the amount of develop-
ment, the hope and encouragement that our
people have been given and I think I am
backed up very well by one of the voices of
northwestern Ontario, the Port Arthur News
Chronicle of March 26, and I read only in
part:
We stress, along with the industry
spokesmen, that it is unnecessary, indeed
unhealthy, to completely restructure the
tax base to delete incentives that have
served as the adrenalin for exploration and
growth.
So I say that this Minister has to maintain
constant consultation with the mining indus-
try; constant, that is right, and regular.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): What
concessions has he taken out?
Mr. Knight: I am speaking to Mr. Speaker;
the member is supposed to be listening. I
found the hon. member very eloquent when
he had his chance this afternoon, Mr.
Speaker, and I was happy to listen to him
at that time. I wish he would listen at this
time.
Mr. Lewis: I am listening very carefully.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): And he
said nothing.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
this department is suddenly coming up with
some action; something that we on this side
have been asking for for a long time. Now
we are saying, add to the action a consider-
able amount of wisdom and commonsense,
so that we do not kill development of the
mining industry in northwestern Ontario.
Mining is one of the three big industries
of northwestern Ontario; our three big hopes.
One is forestry, the second is tourism and
the other is mining, and when I hear out-
crys from communities, from the business
community, and I dare say even from labour
—the men who make their living in this
field— when I heard warnings of the danger
that these incentives might cause to them, I
listen. Because mining is the type of industry
that you might find is here today and gone
tomorrow; we are talking about a given
industry.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): This is just
nonsense.
Mr. Knight: We have seen what has hap-
pened in the gold mines up in Geraldton—
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): There is wealth
there.
Mr. Knight: We know that in Atikoken
there is only a limited supply, Mr. Speaker,
and there is nobody to say that Steep Rock
and Caland will still be producing 20 years
APRIL 29, 1969
3725
from now. As a matter of fact I have received
information to the opposite.
We have to be very careful. We have to
use a considerable amount of good judg-
ment in bringing in these new restrictions
and I say that tlie mining industry should be
treated in good faith. The Minister should
be in regular consultation with them and his
department should be making a continuous
assessment of individual industries and the
industry generally up there.
Mr. Speaker, I would also point out the
caution necessary in another area. While the
big mining companies might well be able to
absorb these taxes and possibly even further
tax increases— the tax that will be going on
the cost of production machinery, the federal
tax and all the other taxes that are attributed
to this industry— perhaps the smaller mining
companies might be in some difficulty. For
this reason I am glad that the Act indicates
that the 50 per cent tax will apply only to
those companies that realize a profit of
$50,000 and more.
There are local enterprises in tlie north—
our own Ontario people who would like to
be able to become involved and try to develop
something in the mining field. They find it
very difficult and I am thinking about those
people. I would not like to see these laws
being too restrictive on them.
Mr. Speaker, that is the extent of my
remarks at this time on this particular bill.
We will support it, and we will also con-
gratulate the Minister and encourage him. He
is headed in the right direction; he is putting
the mining department, and especially the
tax part of it, in order. But I caution him not
to kill the mining industry in the north and
on this matter he has a big responsibility and
a very delicate job indeed. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Timis-
kaming.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Mr. Speaker,
my remarks will not be too lengthy. My
colleague from Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) has,
I think, dissected the bill quite adequately.
But the member for Port Arthur; I just
cannot understand his reasoning. It has
always been our feeling in northern Ontario
that we get very little out of mining and
unless we do get something out of mining,
we cannot see much reason for it to exist in
Ontario.
Earlier today tlie Minister of Lands and
Forests (Mr. Brunelle) tabled a report and in
his remarks in the last paragraph he said:
"Mr. Speaker, the report confirms the impor-
tance of the resources of the north and the
significant contribution these resources make
to southern Ontario."
That is the point I would like to expand
on a little bit— the contribution the resources
make to southern Ontario— and when we are
speaking of mining, might we say to the
southern United States and to other coun-
tries of the world— more than they do to the
province of Ontario.
If we take this bill, Mr. Speaker, I think
we can say that really it is not a tax bill at
all; it is a give-away bill. When we talk of
the Minister with his hand in the company's
back pocket I think we should be saying that
the Minister has his hand in the pocket of the
public purse and is handing the money back
to the companies. Well, how then axe they
helping us?
We talk about development. Well, Mr.
Speaker, I choose to use the word the mining
companies have been using for a long time
"exploitation", because it is true. It is not
developing Canada's north, or Ontario's north,
when we allow them to come into the coun-
try, take out the raw ores, which we feel
belong to the people of Ontario, and then
give us nothing back.
At die same time, we turn around and
give them concessions so that they can do
tliis. We say "here it is, dig it out and we
will pay you to dig it out."
I have said before Mr. Speaker, I pointed
out during the mining estimate last year, that
contrary to the general belief that the mining
companies are here because we give them
big concessions to come in and mine our ore,
contrary to that, I pointed out last year, as
the Paley report in the United States in the
1950s pointed out, the United States could
not exist and increase their industrial capacity
without ore from all other countries in the
world.
Mr. Speaker, we have the ores; tliat is why
the United States is here; not because they
are getting concessions. They are here be-
cause we have the ores. Japan is here because
we have the ores and any other country that
is doing any mining or has any investment
in the mining field in this country is here be-
cause we have the ore and they do not have
it.
This is not a lessening thing. As the years
go on, the problem of lack of resource is
going to show up more and more in these
countries that have either used up their
resources without looking to the future or
never had any natural resources to start
3726
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with, such as, the position tliat Japan is in
at the moment.
Right at the moment, the United States
is in the worst possible political situation
that tliey can ever be in. Some of tlie Latin
American countries have told them to get out
in no uncertain terms. Soine of the African
countries, where they have a major source
of natural resources, have told them to get
out.
They have turned to Ontario, Mr. Speaker,
to come in here and say to us: we will dig
your ore as long as you give us a concession.
And we have never had the guts to say to
them: "Fine, dig our ores but there will be
no concessions, you are here because you
need them, and we want you here because
you will pay for them." Instead of that we
have said so often, we will give you some-
thing more.
To go back to what I said about the im-
I>ortance of the resources of the north and
the contributions these resources mcide to
southern Ontario, Mr. Speaker, this last week
newspaper, the Toronto Daily Star, I should
say, headlined an article "Plans for Zinc
smelters bring joy to T^mmiris".
This is quite true because it is going to
mean a lot of jobs for the people of our areas.
But wlaat good are jobs if in 20 to 25 years
we end up with a situation like we have
now. With the mines closed down, we look
around for added revenue to keep them going
and we have to give away a bit more in
order to put food on the table, you might say.
Is this what we are goiiKg to do for the
next 50 or 100 years of so-called growth in
Ontario? Give away a little bit more so that
we can have at least half of the loaf. Well,
Mr. Speaker, that, in my opinion is not what
we should he doing today. We should be
saying that our ores are here for the benefit
of everyone. But we want to share a little bit
in them— for our benefit too not just for the
benefit of Texas Gulf Sulphur or any of tlie
other mining companies who feel that if they
push the government hard enough and hold
out long enough, they will get another con-
cession.
I think there is very good reason to believe
that when you look at this so-called tax bill
and realize that by holding out, Texas Gulf
has got concessions that are completely ridi-
culous, completely against everything that
was said in this House for the last two yeaxs.
We have talked about added revenue from
our mining concessions or exploitation, and
instead of adding revenue to this province,
we have put added revenue into the coffers
of the mining companies for them to go and
use that added revenue to pay dividends to
people in the United States, or to put money
into another mining \enture in another coun-
try—New Zealand or Australia.
When I first mentioned my intention to
speak on this bill, my colleague from Lake-
shore told me that many of my views were
very selfish. Well, Mr. Speaker, I admit to
being selfish. It is my belief that not only
should this bill gi\'e us something for our
mining resources, but slwukl also drop this
"give-away" to the rest of Canada.
In Slaying that ores shall be smelted in
Ontario, they have left in the phrase that the
Lieutenant Governor in Council "may exempt"
and I think that is adequate protection for
any mining company. If we are going to
exempt, then let us have the Act read: "must
be smelted in Ontario."
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
What bill is tlie hon. member on?
Mr. Jackson: The Mining Tax Act, and it
says "ore that is smelted in Canada" and it
should read "ore tliat is smelted in Ontario".
You have already given yourself the little
loophole— the large loophole— that says "the
Lieutenant Governor in Council may exempt
any ore taken".
Mr. Nixon: You can drive a truck through
that loophole.
An hon. member: What does that mean?
Mr. Jackson: That is exactly what we have
been labouring under for so many years.
Mr. Lawlor: They should not write the Act
at all witli a clause like that.
Mr. Jackson: Why bother putting that
clause in if you are already giving them the
exemptions? The ore belongs to the people
of Ontario, not to any government, not to
any company.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): What is the
government but the people of Ontario?
Mr. Shulman: They sure do not represent
tlie people of Ontario.
Mr. Jackson: This government is a poor
example of a government, aixl a poor repre-
sentative of the people of Ontario; a decidedly
poor example.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Forty-two per
cent.
APRIL 29, 1969
3727
Mr. Lewis: Well it will not happen again.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Oh you had a small
percentage of that.
Mr. Pilkey: Forty-two per cent, that is all.
Mr. Lawlor: You are on the skids boys, and
you know it.
Mr. Lewis: It is bills like this that will
bring you down.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Jackson: To go back to my remarks,
Mr. Speaker, I maintain tliat it should have
read "Ontario" rather than "Canada"—
Mr. Martel (Sudbuiy East): They are just
polluting the air.
Mr. Jackson: —and that if this government
feels that any exemption should be made,
then they have the power in that section
that reads "the Lieutenant Governor in Coun-
cil may exempt any ore taken from a mine".
The power is there, but is a smelter any good
to people in Ontario if it is built in British
Columbia?
The Minister says it is, I disagree with him
very severely.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to leave that
and go to the $50,000 allowance that is part
of this bill. The $50,000 is supposedly to
allow the marginal mines to stay in existence.
Well, I feel that in some cases it will do just
the opposite; it will do just the opposite.
We have many, many mines. The marginal
mines stay in existence with a $10,000 ex-
emption, but there are many of those that
have laboured on under that $10,000 that
will make their $50,000 in a year, and they
will not be in business the following year.
Contrary to the belief that it will entice them
to stay in business, it will entice them to close
down, because anything over the $50,000
they would pay in taxes. I fail to realize the
rationality behind exempting the first $50,000,
and then charging 15 per cent tax on the
next $1,000.
In my opinion it means that a company
within any reasonable area around the $50,000
will close their doors for three or four months
a year, as happened in Cobalt many times.
They will close their doors for some months
of the year before they make over that
$50,000.
Some of them will close down and open up
again the next year under another name, as
many of the Cobalt mines have done. So
rather than being an enticement for a mar-
ginal mine to stay in business this will be
just the opposite; it will be an enticement
for a lot of marginal mines to get as much as
they can in one or two years and then get
out.
Something else that has bothered me, Mr.
Speaker, is the way die assessment is made on
mines profits tax, and as my colleague for
Lakeshore has said, there really is no criteria.
Often it is left up to the assessor to make his
own judgment of the profits, and many times
this assessor will accept the company figures
on profit.
They will accept the prices as arbitrarily
set by the company and this is particularly
true in the case of a captive mine where a
company like Jones and Laughlin Steel sets
a price in the United States for ore that they
are going to buy from their own mine. Who
is to say they are wrong? Who is to say they
are right? And yet our assessor will accept
the price that is put out by the company,
maybe at $16 a ton or $20 a ton, the price
that is arbitrarily set by a company that
wholly owns the mine that is selling the ore.
I will agree with my colleague that imtil
this department sets out some criteria for the
assessor to be guided by, then it does not
make much sense that we base our taxation
on mines profit on company information.
In winding up, Mr. Speaker, I believe my
colleague has said most of what I would have
to say. All I can add is that we welcome the
Timmins smelter and we would welcome any
smelter that is built in Ontario. We would
welcome any mining development. But unless
we, as the people of Ontario and we, as the
people of northern Ontario, who are more
directly affected by any mining development,
until we realize a fair return for our mining
resources, then any announcement of a zinc
smelter or a mining development is going to
to mean to us very short term benefits with-
out any guarantee that within 10, or 15, or
20 years we will not be back in the same
situation we are in today with mines closing
down and towns going bankrupt.
Mr. Speaker, because of that we cannot
support this bill and we intend to vote against
it.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to participate in the debate?
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to
comment very briefly about one or two por-
tions of the implications of the bill for the
province of Ontario, indeed, for Canada.
3728
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I certainly am sorry that the electors of
the member from the riding of Lakeshore
were not here this afternoon, to have had the
opportunity to hear the member expound in
an incisive and delightful and fascinating
manner about the implication for the province
of this particular bill. There is little question
that had they been here it would have en-
sured his re-election.
Mr. Lewis: It was magnificent, Mr. Speaker.
I know you would want the House to confinn
Mr. J. Renwick: We want to record our
tribute.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): How are
we voting tonight? Did >'0u say, or does the
other fellow say?
Mr, M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Who is the
leader tonight?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Pilkey: Be quiet or we will bring Judy
in again.
Mr. J. Renwick: I am only brought into
the discussion of the principle of the bill, Mr.
Speaker, because of the remarks of the mem-
ber for Port Arthur.
The member for Port Arthur seemed to
believe that for some reason or other there
was a very delicate operation in which he
and the Minister of Mines were engaged, in
order to make certain that those who wanted
to in\est in the mining resources of Canada
would not flee if the Minister of Mines were,
for example, to blink his eyes too rapidly, or
to cough in their face— they might just dis-
appear.
I want to point out that, unless the de-
termined action of government is taken, as
evidenced in the written word in the next
])ill which will undoubtedly be debated in
this House, we can only speak of the northern
frontier of this country as an American fron-
tier because it is an American resource fron-
tier. It is Canadian in a geographic sense and
in a governmental sense, but when one studies
the depletion of the resources in the United
States, one finds tlie continuing fact of Cana-
dian history. There s a terrific impingement by
American capital to replace the depleted re-
sources in the United States by resources
which are available close at hand in a stable
economy and in an area in which they know
they can invest their capital at a very fine
return on it.
I think in tliat kind of a bargaining situa-
tion the Minister of Mines need not be par-
ticularly concerned that, somehow or other,
capital will flee this country, because capital
will not.
The member for Port Arthur seemed to be
vmder tlie misapprehension that, in some way
or other, the bill which is before us is exact-
ing additional tax revenue for the province.
My understanding of it is— and I stand to be
disabused by the Minister himself when he
speaks— my understanding of it is tliat, in
fact, it consists of a series of substantial tax
concessions to mining companies which are
engaged in resource development in Canada
and in tlie province of Ontario.
Now if the Minister wishes us to believe
that this particular taxing statute is going to
produce substantial additional revenue, I hope
that when he comments in the bill he will
point out to us how this will be done. The
provisions for the deduction of development
expenses, for example, is a concession to the
mining industry. There is a recovery pro-
vision witli respect to depreciation. There is
an increase in the minimum income which
is required before mining companies become
taxable. But as I read the bill in its sub-
stance, it consists of a series of concessions
by the Minister to the mining industry, and
all I am simply pointing out to him is that
he need not be unnecessarily timid or con-
cerned about the remarks by the member for
Port Arthur.
I close my remarks witli the one survey
which has been done in tlie United States in
depth about the resources which have been
subjected to depletion in that country, and
the Paley report, which is now some years
old but is still a very good guide as to the
extent to which the resources of the United
States have been depleted and as to the ex-
tent to which they will look to Canada as the
major source from which they will replenish
those depleted resources.
The Paley report provided that of 29 key
commodities, Canada v/as specified as a
probably major source of supply for 12. The
12 which were listed are nickel, timgsten,
copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, bismuth, alu-
minum, titanium, fluorspar and asbestos. The
report did not deal with other than mineral
product in the widest sense of the term.
Therefore I think that, because we are in
this kind of a bargaining position, where the
United States will see us as a major source
of supply, I think that the Minister can very
well lean on the stick and avoid the carrot,
so far as the exploitation of the mineral re-
sources in Ontario are concerned.
APRIL 29, 1969
3729
There is an old saying that capital will
come and will be invested where it can, in
fact, make a return. That capital does not
as such have any nationality, any allegiance,
or any moral connotations to it. If it can
come to an economy in which tliere is a
stability, in which that investment can be
made over a long period of time, and a re-
turn can be earned, then you can be certain
as the day follows night that in fact capital
will flow to this abundantly endowed prov-
ince of Ontario to exploit its resources.
The plea of this party— and the consistent
plea of tliis party— has been tliat, to the
extent that capital, whether it is Canadian
capital, or Ontario capital, foreign capital, or
United States capital, whatever the conno-
tation may be that is applied to it, that in the
exploitation of the resources of this province,
a substantial part of the profit that is earned
and of the surplus which is created and of the
capital which is produced by the exploitation
of those resources, will be used here in
Ontario for tlie benefit primarily of the com-
munities in which those mineral resources
are found and in which they are exploited
and secondarily for the benefit of the whole
of the province of Ontario.
I think the Minister, Mr. Speaker, is mov-
ing slowly in that direction. I say slowly be-
cause, of course, it is 70 years ago that the
government of the province of Ontario estab-
lished this principle in definitive terms for
the lumbering industry in Canada— for the
forest products industry. It was consistently
applied for many, many years until it fell
into disuse, not by statutory abrogation but
by disuse of the government.
But the reason why we have in the prov-
ince of Ontario a thriving processing in-
dustry in the field of forest products is
because of the courage and stand and deter-
mination of the governments in the early
part of this century. I am simply saying tliat
70 years later the Minister of Mines has
brought in the bill which is the following
and companion bill to this particular statute
to again assert the public interest in the
province of Ontario in the processing of the
resources of this province within Ontario, or
within Canada.
If the member for Port Arthur has for
some reason or other weakened the will of
the Minister of Mines, my brief remarks in
this debate are simply again to stiflFen his
spine and to hope that he vnW insist more
upon the public interest in the province of
Ontario in the exploitation of those resources
in the light of the depletion continuous and
recurring in the United States of those re-
sources of which we happen to be abundantly
endowed in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish
to speak to the bill? The hon. leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, all of us in this
House are deeply concerned about regional
disparities in this province. I am quite sure
that the citizens of the town of Timmins are
not so concerned about the means used by
this government or even by the government
in Ottawa who contributed, I suppose, to the
enticement, if you would care to use that
word, that finally decided that Texas Gulf
would locate their Kidd Creek refinery in the
town of Timmins. I am surprised that the
hon. member for Timmins is not involving
himself in this debate along the lines that
have been put forward so strongly by the
deputy leader of the NDP and those who
have spoken before, because we are con-
cerned about regional disparity. I would say
heaven help this Minister and that govern-
ment if because there has not been suflBcient
government leadership that particular re-
finery had been lost to us. When we talk
about the next bill and the requirement that
ores in Ontario be refined in Canada, we will
have something further to say. However, in
my view, Ontario, which could be very rich
in electrical power, has lost this position of
pre-eminence in the last few years but may
regain it.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Nixon: We certainly hope we can
regain it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: Tliis province, through a series
of governments, has estabhshed the Ontario
Northland Railway which has at its direct
disposal and as a function of its policy, the
awarding of assistance in transportation.
Surely these are two features of enticement,
if you wish to use that word— and there are
many better words— for the assistance of com-
munities in the northern part of this province
which have been left in the lurch by many
policies of this government and the govern-
ment in Ottawa in years gone by. I would
say that, in this regard, we support the bill.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am con-
cerned further, that the tax concessions that
are, I would think, a more far reaching part of
the principle of this bill, have been never fully
explained to the members of this House.
3730
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
What it would mean for the development of
any particular ore body, the one in Timmins
is the one I have chosen as an example, and
some others associated with it, are of great
concern-
Mr. J. Renwick: Tlie member for Lakeshore
explained—
Mr. Nixon: Well, the member for Lake-
shore— I have heard of the Lakeshore mine
but I do not think it is in his particular area.
I would have liked to have heard from the
member for Timmins, who is basically con-
cerned with tlie fact that his town, standing
or living on a mother lode of riches, was in
fact an area tliat had to be designated by the
federal government because this government
took no definite steps to see that industry of
any sort, mining industry or even secondary
industry, were brought into that part of On-
tario, that part that has suffered from regional
economic disparity to such an extent. These
bills are of great importance.
I personally do not believe that the gov-
ernment is selling our birthright down the
river, I would say that it is essential that
government policy see to it that the north-
em part of our province is developed. It is
quite easy for some of the members in this
House who live in the centre of Metro-
politan Toronto and who are quick to say
that all the bills needed for the programmes
they are concerned with, can be paid by
the mining industry and the resources. It is
easy for them to say that, but I do not hear
the member for Timmins saying it.
We are going to divide the House on this
particular bill, we are going to divide the
House and those who are interrupting me
will have an opportunity to cast their vote
as they see fit and to express their views on
any occasion. But certainly I am here to say
that one of the biggest problems we have is
in providing the economic wherewithal so
that those citizens who are equal and better
than many of us who have sought to make
our lives in easier parts of this province, that
those citizens who live in the far reaches of
northern Ontario in situations where they
have every commitment to the community
and their family that we have and perhaps
more, have an opportunity to see some future.
They are going to participate in the wealth
of the province in a way that is not neces-
sarily the way the leader of the NDP is so
quick to see it, and that is that the taxes
will be extracted from the companies and
returned for their particular use, but that
the industry will be there in the first place.
I refuse to be tarred with any kind of a
bnish that is wielded indiscriminately by
someone to the left, that would say that I
or my colleague, the hon. member for Port
Arthur is prepared to sell out the
resources of this province. That is absolutely
ridiculous and I will not accept it. I would
certainly hope that the Minister of Mines
would not accept it either. The approach
taken by the deputy leader of the NDP is
irresponsible in this regard. It is an easy
political approach, that somebody else should
pay our bills, and he uses this at the drop
of every hat. Where are you going to get
the money, they say; fine, the mining indus-
try will pay the bills. I think the mining
industry can pay most of the bills, but I am
also concerned that the development of this
industry be directed to the northern part of
this province. I believe that the Minister was
pussyfooting when he put his restriction just
to our nation, rather than to our province,
but that is something we will deal with later.
So we will support the bill; we do not
think it is perfect. On the other hand, how-
ever, it is a vehicle which will direct indus-
tr>' to the northern part of our province and
that is what we want.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, I have various thoughts on this bill.
I have something to say about the gold min-
ing industry.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ferrier: If you will just wait, I will
say a few things. My own feeling is— and
I am going to go against my party on this
bill, but be that as it may— I think as far as
the gold mines are concerned, Mr. Speaker,
this bill will probably strengthen them and
goodness knows they need strengthening in
my riding. I feel that if this tax is now on
them, were taken off, there would be a possi-
bility of the unions, in their negotiations
with these companies, to speak with a much
firmer hand.
It was mentioned by the leader of the
Opposition that the area to the north was
designated by the federal government. This is
true, it was designated by them through the
efforts of Arnold Peters who is the MP for
Timiskaming. I had mixed thoughts as far
as the concessions that are granted to Texas
Gulf are concerned. They are a powerful
American company; they have been given a
$6.5 million grant. We have concessions that
are given in thus Act, the Minister mentioned
Hydro rates, and rates for sulphuric acid on
APRIL 29, 1969
3731
the ONR and this other concession oi- write-
offs, one wonders if when these kind of things
are given to a company, how much is going
to come back to the province. One also won-
ders if this kind of money is available for
private foreign owned industry. Why there
cannot be a much more public pohcy towards
mim'ng, and from tlie public purse, more
money put in to develop this industry.
Private companies such as Polymar not only
pay their taxes, but pay the dividends back to
the country. The country benefits in two
ways from the public investment. One feels
that this kind of thing should go on in the
mining industry and that really a sociaHst
policy would be the ansiwer to the develop-
ment of the north, and be the best use of
our money rather than gi\'in'g it away.
I am somewhat concerned that our north is
being bought by the Americans. Somebody
said that the Americans were shooting all
kinds of capital into the north, I do not think
they are. Another thing that concerns me is
that our own stock markets in Canada are not
putting very much of our Canadian money
into the development of the north. Fifteen or
twent>' years ago, there were millions of dol-
lars put into developing the mining industry
and the petroleum industries of the West, but
now our stock exchanges and investment
houses are diverting this money across the
Ixjrder to buy American stocks and put their
money into these conglomerates and so on.
They are not putting it into the development
of Canada, and there are mineral resources
in the north that could be developed. I am
concerned about this.
I am somev/hat concerned that the Northern
Miner of April 10 says that over 50 Canadian
mining companies seek minerals outside the
country. I would hope that our Canadian
mines would be channeling what money they
liad for development into our own Canadian
mining, for exploration and development of
our own Canadian mining industry, rather
than shooting it out to other countries.
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey South): Has the
member spoken to his colleague from High
Park?
Mr. Shulman: We see eye to eye on this.
Mr. Ferrier: I am speaking for myself. I
know that I am taking an unpopular posi-
tion, but sometimes one has to do this.
I am concerned that Canada is being
bought out by American firms, and that the
Canadian people have a sort of complicity in
this whole thing, that we are shooting oiu:
money out, and that others are coming in and
we are being taken over. This country is not
being taken over by arms; it is being taken
over by money, subtly, but it is being taken
over quickly. I am concerned that our mining
companies are among those that are shooting
money out.
I am not altogether happy with this bill.
As I say, it makes large concessions; how-
ever, I took the position in this Legislature
that this Minister and this government should
do e\erything possible to bring the smelter
to Timmins and to provide development and
growth for that area, and I think that our
futiue is an awful lot more bright because
of the fact that it is there. I suggested, per-
haps, that there might be Hydro concessions
given and that the ONR might make special
concessions as far as transportation is con-
cerned. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when the vote
is taken, I will be voting with the government
on this one.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thun-
der Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, this is a sad night for the province
of Ontario, when Ave get the official Opposi-
tion siding in with the government on a bill
of this nature, which is nothing but a com-
plete sellout to the mining companies. It is
my feeling, Mr. Speaker, that the time has
long since passed when we should be going
to mining companies cap in hand and saying,
"Won't you please come in and take what is
left of our natural resources." This is what
is happening in the mining industry'.
I can take you up into the riding of Thun-
der Bay, where we have dying communities
that were built and owe their existence to
the mining industry. All that is left are a
few shacks, a few people who are ill-trained
to do any other kind of work, who have no
outlook for the future at all, because their
town owes its existence to a depleted re-
source. We have seen fit to give these mining
companies tax concessions, write-offs, deple-
tional allowances. Now we are faced with
trying to woo one of the richest mining
co-operations on the face of the earth, Texas
Gulf Sulphur, into the nortliem part of our
province, to develop and exploit a $2.5 billion
ore body witli our own money. They are
going to spend something like $50 milHon on
a smelter, 18 miles from Timmins, and there
is actually about $26 million from the public
purse to help them exploit a $2.5 billion ore
body.
3732
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The government shovild ha\e the intestinal
fortitude to stand up to these companies and
say, "Yes, you can come in and develop our
resources, but we want a little bit more than
the wages that are entailed in mining it, or
a hole in the groimd left and a dying com-
munity that does not have a \iable base in
order to pro\'ide the ser\ices once they are
gone."
I think that the time has long since passed
when we could say the resources that we have
are only de\elopable and exploitable by
attracting in foreign capital. I think the time
has come when goxernment must stand up
to its responsibilit>' and say, "If you do not
develop these resources, or do not care to
develop them on our terms, we will develop
them oursehes for the benefit of the people
of this province."
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Stokes: We ha\e ample exidence that
Crown corporations are workable, and they
will work to the benefit of the majority of
the people of this pro\ince and this country.
1 think we have ample evidence that we have
the ability to do this. We ha\e the capital to
do it. All we lack is the will to do it, and I
say it is time this goxemmeut and this Min-
ister stood up to these mining corporations
and said, "If you do not develop our re-
sources, on our tenns for the benefit of all of
the people of the province, we will do it our
selves withour own resources, for the benefit
of our own people."
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, a few moments
ago when my—
Interjections by hon. memlx^'rs.
Mr. Shulman: You ha\e all night, gentle-
men. A few moments ago when my colleague
from Timiskaming was commenting on this
bill, the Minister of Mines asked which bill
we were discussing. We know the Minister of
Mines has suffered in recent weeks from foot-
in-mouth disease, but even allowing for this
little problem, perhaps this most recent gaffe
explains the problem he had in drawing up
the bill. He just did not understand what he
was doing because he was not paying atten-
tion. We have heard a great deal of talk to-
night about these vast sums of American
money that have been poured in to develop
the north. I happen to have the figures here
on Texas Gulf, because I have done a great
deal of research on this particular problem
in recent months-
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Is the member a
shareholder?
Mr. Shulman: No, I am not a shareholder,
I have not made a penny on the comi5an>'
yet, but I am going to make a great deal be-
cause I have a book coming out about it very
shortly.
Interjections by hon. members?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, try to keep the
rabble in order so that we can get some facts
on the record. Texas Gulf poured a huge
sum of money into developing the Texas Gulf
mine at Kidd Creek. They spent $500 for a
two-year option. At the end of the two years
they bought all of the mineral rights for
$18,000, plus ten per cent of the profits, which
go to a rather rich member of the establish-
ment who lives in Hamilton.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Ser\dces): Would the hon. member not rather
be rich?
Mr. Shulman: It is a pleasure to be rich
and be able to be here and tell the govern-
ment members all the things they are doing
wrong, and there is so much they are doing
wrong.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Shulman: That is what it cost Texas
Gulf to buy this mine. Now, admittedly they
spent money in exploration. They dug a lot
of holes, they flew a lot of air, before they
found the Texas Gulf mine. They spent $3
million in total.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How much.
Mr. Shulman: Three million dollars. Now,
let me tell you what they got back. 1967 was
the first year they started digging this ore
out, while the Minister of Mines was sitting
on his rear end not doing a dam thing about
it, because the member from Timmins had
not yet put a little needle under there to get
him moving. In 1967, the sales and earnings
of Texas Gulf were the highest in the CDm-
pany's history by a wide margin.
President Claude Stephens said that the
Kidd Creek mine had made a substantial con-
tribution to the company's increased sales
and earnings. Earnings went from $2.80 per
share to $6.15 per share in one year. The
next year it went on up to $6.99 a share. In
APRIL 29, 1969
3733
other words, the Texas Gulf people had dis-
covered an ore body worth, they admit, some-
thing over $2 billion.
Now, it is worth a great deal more than
that, because drilling has been done in addi-
tion to the 55 million tons which they admit
blocking, and they have not released the re-
sults of that drilling, and they do not intend
to release the results of that drilling in the
immediate future. What was the question?
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): Have you
been to Saskatchewan recently?
Mr. Shulman: No, I have not been to Sas-
katchewan recently, but this explains, per-
haps, the thinking of the member for Fort
William who knows as much about his sub-
ject as perhaps the member from Port Arthur,
but I have been up to Kidd Creek mine. I
was up there two weeks ago, and I stood in
that pit, and I went through their mill, and
I know this subject, and I know how much
money they are taking out of it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Shulman: This company had ten
million shares out before they made their
three for one split; those ten million shares
went up $100 a share.
An hon. member: So what?
Mr. Shuhnan: Wonderful, except all that
profit went to the United States of America,
it did not come to Canada. There was not
one shareholder in Canada; 99.9 per cent of
those shares were held in the United States.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Why did
Canadians not buy them?
Mr. Shulman: To answer the question from
tlie member from Halton West, the reason
Canadians do not buy them is because Texas
Gulf has never seen any reason to list their
shares here. They have never seen any reason
to issue a Canadian subsidiary with Canadian
stock, because the government here, and the
government in Ottawa, have not taken the
necessary tax steps to make this attractive.
It is very very simple. Poor government is
responsible.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. W. Snow (Halton East): I bought
them in 1965.
Mr. Shulman: Ah, now there is a Canadian
who bought stock. I am glad that the mem-
ber from Halton East bought shares. It
appears that you have to be in government,
in the Conservative government, to know
which stocks to buy. Well, perhaps they have
better connections than the public have. But
the public did not buy the shares, because I
have gone through the shareholders list and
the stock is owned by United States citizens,
and the profits have gone to the United States
of America because we have poor govern-
ment.
Mr. Singer: Keep it up, you are getting
to it.
Mr. Shulman: Well, they spent $500 for an
option on a $2 billion ore body, and we have
the Liberals here to my right in their usual
confused way, saying for goodness sake do
not make them pay taxes, we might upset
things. What poor understanding. And then
we have the Minister, who we know is bright
enough to understand but who perhaps can-
not move against his Cabinet colleagues, who
say: Goodness gracious, Inco might stop giv-
ing us the donations we receive if we start
putting in proper taxes.
May I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to
the Minister of Mines, there is at least one
official with whom I have had the oppor-
tunity to have some social intercourse at
Texas Gulf, whose opinion is that the only
reason tliat Texas Gulf was forced, and they
were forced, to put their smelter in Timmins,
was they made the crucial and horrible error,
before the last election, of not making a
suitable donation to the Conservative Party,
unlike the other large companies who are not
put in these awkward positions, because they
are more foresighted. Perhaps this lesson has
sunk in and before the next election I pre-
sume Texas Gulf will fall in line with all the
rich companies who know who to pay off, and
who is buyable. Certainly we know. It is you.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): A point of
order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order; please on a point of
order.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I wonder if the hon.
member would tell the House the money
spent by Texas Gulf to develop that mine at
Timmins.
Mr. Speaker: Well that is hardly a point of
order.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I think the
House would like to hear, I think this was
misunderstood the first time.
3734
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: If the lion. Minister wishes
to direct a question to the hon. member for
High Piirk, and the hon. member wishes to
answer it, it is quite in order.
Mr. Shulman: I am getting into it.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I wonder if tlie hon.
member would tell the House the money
spent by Texas Gulf to develop that mine at
Timmins.
Mr. Shulman: The point of order, Mr.
Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order,
it is simply a qviestion.
Mr. Shulman: But on a point of order, I
will just explain, through you, sir, to the
Minister, tliat if he wishes to ask a question,
he must first ask permission of the member.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for
High Park answer a question from the Min-
ister.
Mr. Shulman: I would be delighted to
answer any question from that Minister.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, may I
ask die hon, member if he would repeat
again the money spent by Texas Gulf to
develop the mine at Timmins.
Ml-. Shulman: I would be delighted to go
into some detail on that subject, if you
indulge me Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Snow: All we want is the facts.
Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): This
is the voice of authority.
Mr. Shulman: Yes, it is the voice of
authority; one year's study has gone into
this subject.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to
the hon. member for High Park that the
cjuestion was for a specific amount of money
rather than a detailed elaboration.
Mr. Shulman: I certainly would want to
give only the details of the amounts of
money, and nothing more than that, Mr.
Speaker, to explain to the quack quack from
Fort William, who is making the noises on my
extreme right.
Mr. Lewis: Well, that is the most notable
thing he has contributed to the evening.
Mr. Shulman: It may be the only speech
he has made since he came to this House.
Mr. Lewis: No, no. He has made others
of equal absurdity.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Give us the figures if
you will, please.
Mr. Shulman: Yes, I would like to, if you
can keep your back benchers quiet for a
moment. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that
the Cabinet members are not aware of this
but the exact cost is as follows. In November
26, 1963, they put down one drill hole which
came up almost pure ore. The cost was
$14,839.76. This allowed them enough infor-
mation; they stopped all drilling, putting a
tree which they dug up, over the hole they
had put down, so that no one would know
what had been discovered. They then went
out, Mr. Speaker, and in the next six months,
without doing any further drilling, bought up
all the land around for many, many miles,
and tliat is what it cost them to make this
tremendous discovery.
From there on in, their costs were some-
thing like 1/100 of 1 per cent of the ore
they took out because they did not have to
dig a mine; it is an open pit, you just shovel
the stuff out of there, tiike it down to the
United States and sell it— tv\'0 billion dollars
worth— my guess is four billion dollars worth.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: It did not cost a penny be-
cause as the ore came up it was immediately
saleable and the cost came right out of the
profits; it came out of the ground. Does the
Minister not understand anytliing?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems to me that
the (juestion and answer period should now
be discontinued. We shall get back to Bill
111.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Mines is probably not aware of tliis but an
event of high significance has occurred in
another country which affects Texas Gulf,
Ontario and the whole mining industry and
our relations with United States capital.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, what bothers
me is the comparative lack of knowledge of
the Minister of Energy and Resources. If
he knows nothing, we are in very, very bad
shape as regards water and air pollution.
Interjections by hon. members.
APRIL 29, 1969
3735
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. The hon. mem-
ber for Humber has a point of order?
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): This heated cross-
fire is causing my bouttonniere to wilt.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. members of
the House please take note as regards the
hon. member's contribution.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, a very signifi-
cant event has occurred in recent weeks in
Peru. The government there, supposedly a
pro-American government, has stepped in
and taken over, literally without compensa-
tion. United States-owned natural resources
companies. They say they are giving com-
pensation, but in return for the compensation
they demand back an equal amount of money
which they say was exploited out of the
country by the Americans concerned.
Mr. Winkler: Is the member in favour-
Mr. Shulman: The significance of these
events is that they are going to affect every-
one in Ontario, and seriously—
Mr. Yakabuski: What about Czechoslo-
vakia?
Mr. Shulman: In Business Week of last
month, in Time Magazine, in Fortune, this
event has received a great deal of attention.
Unfortunately, it has probably not yet sunk
through to the Conservative benches. As a
result of this event a \'ery serious disturbance
has occurred in United States capital, and in
the United States government.
Quoting from Business Week:
The United States government is now
encouraging United States capital to do
their developing in Canada because it is
an area which is poHtically stable, and
where—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: —where the alternative to
the Conservative and Liberal ruling parties
is the reform party, who everyone knows
in the United States is a moderate party
which will improve the relations between
the two countries. In addition to which,
they know that taxes may increase here,
but there are not going to be expropria-
tions or the other horrible things that have
occurred to United States capital in Africa,
in Asia and now in South America.
So no matter what the Minister of Mines
does, even if he screws his courage up be-
fore the next election and brings in a proper
tax bill, the United States capital is still
going to come here because the United
States government directs it here. And if
United States money comes here, they are
still going to explore here, because this is the
best place in the world to explore, and when
they do find it, they ring the jackpot. And not
just United States capital-
Mr. Winkler: Would the hon. member per-
mit a question? Does he agree with that
Peruvian takeover?
Mr. Shulman: Of course I do not agree
with expropriation anywhere in the world.
However, I do believe —
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for
High Park has the floor.
Mr. Shulman: I am answering a question-
Mr. Speaker: There was no question
directed through the Chair.
Mr. Shulman: That is typical. Does the
member wish to direct questions to the
Chair?
Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I
would put that question to the member for
High Park through the Chair.
Mr. Shulman: What was the question?
Mr. Winkler: My question was, does he
agree with the Peruvian takeover of the
American interests?
Mr. Shulman: No, of course not. But I
would say this, that in Peru as in anywhere
else in the world, tlie people in the country
deserve a share of the profits-
Mr. J. Renwick: Hear. Hear.
Mr. Shulman: —a fair share of the profit
and one-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as
the member has answered that question and
has permitted another one, I would ask him
to reconcile the second paragraph on page
136 of his book— something about making a
million dollars:
Alas, the obvious is not always the
truth. The fact is that except in unusual
circumstances, such as were earlier de-
scribed, one is better advised to buy US
securities. The reason is very simple, with
U.S. securities one has more security.
3736
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Does the hon. mem-
ber care to answer that question?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I believe this
question has already been answered.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, that question
was already answered by the member for
Halton West, who pointed out that he bought
shares in Texas Gulf. The only person clever
enough to do so. This is the reason why it
is better to buy shares in American com-
panies because you do not get rooked, and
the reason you do not get rooked is because
the United States has proper securities legis-
lation. Here in Ontario we have an incompe-
tent Minister of Commercial and Financial
Affairs (Mr. Rowntree) who has not brought
in proper legislation. That, I say, is the reason
why it is better to buy American securities.
Mr. Lewis: We do wish you would buy
the hard-cover edition— the royalties are larger.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know, but this way
it comes in handy for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, to get back to
the subject— we were diverted somewhere—
because of the developments and capital fears
in the United States, there is going to be a
tremendous amount of American capital pour-
ing in here. We should take advantage, we
should help them get started, but we should
not give them carte hlanche. The President of
Consolidated Goldfields in South Africa, one
of the largest companies in the world, is
here in Toronto today—
An hon. member: How do you know that?
Mr. Shulman: Because I am one of the
shareholders in one of his Canadian com-
panies-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: If the Minister of Correc-
tional Services has a question, I would be
pleased to answer it, otherwise I would like
to continue on the subject.
The president of Consolidated Goldfields
was here in Toronto today and he spoke on
exacdy the same subject. He said Canada is
the safest place in the world to invest your
money because of the political situation, be-
cause of the lack of expropriations. Send
your money here from South Africa and that
is what they are doing.
They are pouring millions of dollars into
Canadian development. They are not going
to stop doing that if we put in proper tax
laws. It is going to come here anyway. The
only difference is, the people of Ontario, the
people of Timmins, will get a fair share of it.
They are not getting a fair share of it now,
even with your arm twisting which the Min-
ister has done to force Texas Gulf to put the
smelter into Timmins for which idea, I give
full credit to the member for Timmins—
Mr. J. Renwick: Hear, hear!
Mr. Shulman: The Minister of Mines did
not make a move until the member for
Timmins got up in this House and forced
him to do so. Even allowing for the fact
that he only reacts when somebody sticks a
needle in him, he did react and he did twist
their arm, and he did force them to spend
$50 million up near Timmins, which they
are going to do. This will put another 200
or 300 people to work. All to the good, but
we are still not getting a fair share because
your laws are not properly drawn. You are
not aware of the problem, and if you are
aware of the problem you cannot get it
through that neanderthal cabinet.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Shulman: Well, now I have concluded
my comments, Mr. Speaker, except for two
minor points in the bill.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Surely you can
understand what is written.
Mr. Shulman: The bill itself was dissected
in a remarkably succinct and clever way by
the member for Lakeshore, and I do not
wish to repeat what he has said. But there
were two minor points which I find very
disturbing in the bill. One of them I presume
was a mistake and I presume the Minister
will change it. This has been mentioned by
the member for Timiskaming briefly, this
matter of $50,000. Perhaps the Minister has
not considered the problem.
As the bill now reads if a mine earns
$50,000 it pays not a penny of tax. If it
earns $51,000, it pays 15 per cent on the
whole thing. Well now, the obvious abuse
which is going to come into this Act is that
once mines that are earning under $100,000
category reach the $50,000 level they are just
going to stop producing for that year.
APRIL 29, 1969
3737
There is a very simple way the Minister
can avoid this particular problem. It will
bring in slightly less income, and although
we in principle wish more income, we do not
want mines shutting down for three or four
or six months.
The taxation level should begin at what-
ever the cut-off point is. I think it should
be less than $50,000 myself. I agree with
the member for Timiskaming, I think it
should be somewhere between $10,000 and
$25,000. But whatever level it is, that amount
should be exempt and your tax should begin
immediately above that because otherwise
you are going to run into abuses and evading
of the tax, one way or the other.
I hope the Minister will agree with me
on that point.
Now the other point, which he probably
will not agree with me on is that the Lieu-
tenant-Governor may accept any amount he
thinks is fine; in case there is a dispute, and
the company cannot pay. Well, of course, this
is nonsense. The tax is on net profits, so there
cannot be any question tliat the amount is
not correct. And this particular exemption,
which is worded in the bill, is an extremely
dangerous one.
I am reasonably sure the present Minister
would not be as sulbject to some of the
pressures as some of his predecessors might
have been— or as some of the people that
follow him might be. What disturbs me, Mr.
Speaker, as I look about tlie chamber op-
posite me is that this particular Minister will
not always l>e there.
If, by some ghastly, horrible mischance,
he were to be removed from our midst, and
one of the other backbenchers wesre to take
his place, I shudder to think, Mr. Speaker,
of what might occur with tliis particular
clause in the bill— of the abuses— of how Texas
Gulf might be completely exempted, from
paying any taxes whatsoever.
This is an exemption which can only lead
to trouble, Mr. Speaker; and, through you to
the Minister, I would suggest that there is
no reason for that exemption. There is no
reasons why anyone should be exempted.
If the tax is so much on profit, it should
be; if it is 15 per cent, everyone should pay
it. It is like saying that, in income tax, we
are supposed to pay 20 per cent or 30 per
cent, but someone will pay and someone else
will not pay, depending on what the Minister
decides, or the Lieutenant-Governor decides.
There should be no exemptions. It is not a
question of hardship. It is a tax on a profit,
nothing more, and nothing less. It is a stupid
exemx>tion which is put in in case someone
happens to give a very large donation to the
Conservative Party before the next election.
It should be taken out. This should not be
negotiable. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to pai-ticipate? If not, the hon. Minister of
Mines. Does the hon. member for Fort Wil-
liam wish to participate in the debate?
Mr. Jessiman: Could I ask the hon. mem-
ber for High Park a question?
Mr. Speaker: No, that would be out of
order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Jessiman: If he agrees, and I quote
from page 137—
Mr. Lewis: It has become a sort of bibli-
cal text for you.
Mr. Jessiman: It is wonderful. I quote:
"It is with difficulty that I, as a Canadian—"
this is your book, "—must recommend, other
factors being equal, buy American."
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
Mr. Speaker: On a point of order.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, are you
permitting this as a discussion of the prin-
ciple of the bill, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Well, I suggested to the hon.
member for Fort William that if he wanted
to enter the debate he could do so. But I
have not noted his participating in the debate.
So he would be out of order.
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order. Since
the matter has been brought up, I thought
you might find it of interest to know that I
was called today by the department of con-
sumers affairs in Ottawa who informed me
that that particular book was now used as
a reference book in matters referring to the
stock market.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Mines
has the floor.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, it is
very nice to come along and hear all of these
complimentary remarks and complimentary
words.
May I merely say to the hon. member for
Riverdale that I too join in bis welcome
to the people who may be in the gallery
3738
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tonight from Lukeshore; and may I also say
to the hon. member for Riverdale, that I too
regret that they were not here this after-
noon. Perhaps for completely different rea-
sons. As these people can see tonight, the
House is in a real jokester mood, obviously.
It may be fun— it may be richculous in the
eyes of some people. But, at least, they are
seeing what goes on in this Hoiuse sometimes
when the menibers are fille<l witli conviviality,
as they are tonight. But tlie greatest joke of
all, of course, was when he indicated thait
their member, this aftemon, made an incisive,
fascinating speech. Really! It is really an indi-
cation to them of the type of humour tliat
we imderstiind so well in this House tonight.
I would like to speak, if I could and try to
rebut some of the mellifluous phrases from
the hon. member for Lakeshore this afternoon.
For some strange reason, he accuses me of
acting covertly in some of these matters.
Somebody else from his own party, a little
later on— and they did not use the same
phrase iit all— was indicating that nothing that
I was ever involved in could be done in a
delicate fashion.
This again, is a measure of the consistency,
the organization, and the beautiful co-ordina-
tion that we are hearing tonight from all sides
of that NDP group.
In all seriousness, I do want to congratulate
the hon. member for Timiskaming. I have
only been in this House for 12 years, and
during that time, if there has been any single
political group in this House that has been
tightly knit, tightly organized, tightly dis-
ciplined, it has been the NDP group and
their successor the CCF.
Mr. Shulman: Get his name right—
Hon. Mr. Lawrence: I am sorry, the mem-
ber for Cochrane South, not Timiskaming. I
just want to say to him tliat I am sure the
decision he is making toniglit is what he
obviously believes is the right one for the
people in his area— when he votes for this
bill. I have never before seen a split in the
NDP ranks when it comes down to a vote,
and I can congratulate him for it. I really do.
Mr. Shulman: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Lawrence: Yesterday we—
Mr. Shulman: Point of order, Mr. Speaker—
An hon. member: Sit down-
Mr. Shulman: I am sure the hon. Minister
Mr. Speaker, would not want to mislead the
House. I personally am aware of at least two
occasions when our party has voted as con-
science required, in different directions. Tlie
member for Oshawa did so just last ye^r on
the matter of EMO.
Ken Bryden, when the Conservatives
wanted to raise everyone's salary, got up on
a matter of principle, and voted against
that matter. Those are two occasions I know.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister
of Mines has always been inaccurate. But
this time he is completely wrong.
Hon. Mr. Lawrence: Well, Mr. Speaker,
you can see how these rare, very rare, occur-
rences have been engraved in marble over
there. When they can be—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Lawrence: For the member for
Riverdale, of all people of course, to come
along and speak tonight in a manner that
differs from the obvious words of conscience
that we have heard from the member from
Timmins. This is a pretty poor example, in-
deed, when yesterday we heard a little bit
of his own mental outpourings. But he did
not have the courage to stand by his con-
victions last night in the House.
But enough of this hooferah. Let us get
down for a change to Bill 111.
Now, as for the member for Lakeshore,
Mr. Speaker, I really do not know if he was
trying to put in time this afternoon or not.
But again fascinated by the flow of his own
verbiage, he continued with a rehash, and
rewarmed, four or five paragraphs in an out-
dated report that was presented to this gov-
ernment a couple of years ago— in respect to
matter that even he, himself, rebutted and
threw away, and paid no attention to, in
respect to select committee deliberations a
httle while ago.
The hour and a lialf, or whatever it was,
that he took up of the House's time this
afternoon, was devoted really to a rehash of
about four or five paragraphs from chapter
32 of the Smith Committee report. Except
that the Smith Committtee report, and I use
the words of the member for Riverdale, said
it much more incisively because they com-
pressed it down to about eight or nine lines
—whereas the member for Lakeshore took
about an hour to say it.
We have not accepted, sir, the suggestions
and the paragraphs relating to tliis matter in
the Smith Committee report, his is obvious.
This is obvious to everybody.
One of the matters that he brought up, for
instance, was when with great thundering
APRIL 29, 1969
3739
phrases, he said: "why is not the mining
tax Act, why does it not come under the
jurisdiction of the Minister of Revenue?"
"At great expense," his words were. "At
great expense we have set up this new depart-
ment with this new Minister. This is the tax-
ing statute, why is it not under there?"
Solely and simply because I have gone to
great pains the government has gone to great
pains, to indicate that we are not utilizing
this particular statute as a revenue-producing
statute.
Clearly, simply— I cannot put it any clearer
than that— if it was a simple taxing revenue
statute, we would put it under revenue. It
is not.
I want to use this— and I welcome the
words of the leader of the Opposition, be-
cause I think he has been reading my
speeches lately. We want to use this statute
and we want to use this department as one
to help promote job potential, jobs in the
north, development in the north and that
is why-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Perhaps the member
for Lakeshore, knowing that his people were
coming in tonight, was in the House this
afternoon so that he could say he was here
this afternoon. But on at least three occa-
sions in this House in the last three weeks I
have indicated that we want to utilize The
Mining Tax Act as a vehicle for promotion
of northern development, not for revenue.
If he was not here to hear me, I repeat it
again now.
Mr. Lawlor: A complete sell-out.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Another argument
he came up with this afternoon, Mr. Speaker,
related to the emergency gold mining assist-
ance from the federal people. The EGMA—
we have had a very good rebuttal of this, I
think, from one of the member's own party.
But certainly, this government and this
department and this Minister, are quite
worried about the whole situation respecting
gold. I do not want to get into the pros and
cons of the gold standard as far as inter-
national finance is concerned, but obviously
the gold mining aspect of the mineral in-
dustry in this province is not doing as well
as it should.
It is not doing it becavise tlie men in the
industry ha\'e not been working hard. It is
not doing good solely because the manage-
ment have not kept up witli technological
changes. It is not doing as well as it should
because of a number of other reasons that
have been mentioned, including the depletion
of the gold. Obviously, there is still gold in
those gold mines.
The reason why our gold industry is not
as healthy as it should be is solely and simply
one fact. I defy any member of this House to
point out to me any other product— and we
are one of the three main gold-producing
nations in the world— if they can show me
any other product that has had its price
artificially pegged since 1938, at a time when
labour costs have gone up, at a time when
equipment costs have gone up. All costs have
gone up and this is the main reason why
Ontario's gold mining industry, as I have
indicated to you, has not been going as well
as it should. It is because we are tied to this
artificial price of gold and if we could remove
that, I think the gold mining areas of this
province would be doing much, much better
than they are.
Now one other argument that the hon.
member for Lakeshore brought up was his
continual reference to the special allowances
given by our mines assessor in respect of
nickel producers.
Mr. Speaker, there is no special allowance
built into The Mining Tax Act for nickel pro-
ducers. This, again, was another figment of
Mr. Smith's imagination. This part of that
report came up with false conclusions because
it was built on false facts— something that I
think Mr. Smith himself would be quite will-
ing to admit. There is no special allowance
for nickel producers in this province.
Mr. Lawlor: INCO never said so in their
brief.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
should never have brought his constituents
tonight.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: And by using the
arguments and by using the phrases, and by
using the statements he did, it was a dead
giveaway that he was not even using his own
material.
In any event-
Mr. Martel: He quoted from it.
Mr. Lawlor: He backed it up, too.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In any event, the
member for Lakeshore— I wish, by the way,
that he had turned the page of the Smith
report as well, because one other argument
that he used, of course, is an argument that
the Smith committee itself knocks down and
3740
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
attempts to disabuse the minds of some
people.
The hon. member for Lakeshore said: "Why
not soak the mines? Why not hit them right
where it really hurts? All these foreigners
coming in— why not really grind their nose
down on the grindstone? Why not hit them
for all their worth, because, after all, their
expenses and their payments under The
Mining Tax Act are deductible under the
federal income tax as well—"
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
Mr. Speaker: Point of order.
Mr. Lawlor: The point of order is that the
Minister is misleading the House. I said
nothing of the kind. I am sure the other
members can \ouch for that. I simply said
they should pay their fair share and that you
are subsidizing them.
Mr. Stokes: Based on ability to pay.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The actual words,
as I took them down, were that the expendi-
tures that the mines would make under The
Mining Tax Act and these were the words,
"are readily deductible under the federal
income tax." Those were the words he used.
Mr. Martel: He did not say—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right. My point
is, if he continued his great researches just
two pages more he would have found that
the next three recommendations of the Smith
report actually ask us to go to Ottawa and
say to them, "please make these expenses
completely deductible under The Income
Tax Act".
Mr. Lawlor: That is why Smith is with
you and not with Carter.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He did not want to be
confused with the facts.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: But in any event, Mr.
Speaker, let me move on— I am glad to see I
have him red in the face, in any event.
But the main point, Mr. Speaker, the main
point recurring— and it is about the only point
recurring through the main theme, recurring
through the NDP argument that we have
heard tonight— is that the mining operators
and mine management people are a bunch of
foreigners coming in here who are dragging
out our God-given resources and we are get-
ting nothing back.
Why are you giving more concessions, the
plea goes up to the Minister of Mines? Why,
why do you pemiit them to do this? Why do
you not hit them for more taxes? Man, their
research on this tonight is really something.
Just let me tell you, sir, what we are doing in
the way of the amounts of mining taxes, if
I can find it.
In 1967, sir, the mining tax collected in
this province was $14 million. Out of this,
the government was paying a mining muni-
cipality grant to the municipality. In 1968,
with this mining municipality grant which
amounted, I think, at that point to about $8
million— this is just last year— the revenue
from the mining tax increased to just over $19
million.
Now they come along and say, "Why are
you continuing to give it away? Why is there
not an increase in the mining tax?" Sir, from
$19 millions last year, in this forthcoming
year of 1969, not only will there be an in-
crease to $26 million as far as expected
revenue is concerned, but as well many of
the mines will have to pay a municipal tax
as well in relation to their processing.
So on the recurring theme— the only one
that has been co-ordinated through any of
their arguments today about putting the nose
of the foreign mine owners to the dear old
grindstone, why do we not get any more
money out of them— I say, please, do more
research next time, because these figures have
been available and they have been indicated.
We are increasing the tax.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We are increasing
the tax, sir. We cannot tax the processing
profits. This is a factor that I think the hon,
members hav^e missed. But on top of this,
if they want to come along and say our
increase to $26 million is not enough-
Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister if he
would permit a question?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, just keep your
coat on and ask me afterwards,
Mr. Lewis: My coat is fine. Will the Min-
ister—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He said no.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please!
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Even if they do
come along, sir-
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order—
APRIL 29, 1969
3741
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a point
of order.
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eghnton): There is no
point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I will determine whether it
is a point of order.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order-
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Scarborough West have a point of order?
Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether I have
a point of order until I put it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Sir, may I suggest
to you that I think the rules are really being
bent drastically, if not being absolutely
broken. If the hon. member has not the
honesty to tell you, sir, then he knows it is
not a point of order that he is rising on.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! With all respect to
the hon. Minister and all members of the
House, it is up to the Speaker to determine
whether or not there is in fact a point of
order. I believe any other hon. member has
the right to rise on a point of order at any
time. I will therefore hear the remarks of the
hon. member for Scarborough West to deter-
mine whether, in fact, it is a point of order.
Mr. Lewis: Indeed, Mr, Speaker, 1 now
have a point of i>ersonal privilege as well,
my shining integrity having been impugned
by the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member pro-
ceed?
Mr. Lewis: My point of order, sir, is to ask
you, as Mr. Speaker in the Chair, a question
You permitted earlier this evening during the
course of the members' remarks on second
reading, a question of the member while he
was speaking. I rise on a point of order to ask
you whether that may be permitted, in this
instance, of the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: I would say that it is not
really a point of order although 1 think the
question is fairly put. The Chair had per-
mitted questions from certain members to
others dirring the debate on this particular
bill. If the hon. Minister wishes to reply
to a question, it will be in order. I believe
the hon. member for Scarborough West has
stood in his place and asked the hon. Minister
whether he would i>ermit a question, and the
Minister would not permit it.
Mr. Lewis: No, I did not—
Mr. Speaker: The Minister has said no.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If I have really tar-
nished the shining image of the hon. member
for Scarborough West; my goodness, that
sliining image being tarnished—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It must be SO-'
fumes that are doing it, I am sure.
In any event, if the point that the member
for the NDP was going to make— and it could
well be a legitimate point, sir— was that $26
million even in the forthcoming taxation year
of 1969 is not enough to get from the mining
companies, this may be legitimate, sir, except
for this fact: I believe the innuendo in his
mind, and in the minds of the rest of the
members, is that this is the only taxation
levied against mining companies. I would
point out to them, sir, that the mining tax is
over and above all of the other corporation
taxes, income taxes and what-not that are
levied against every other industrial manufac-
turing or resource industry and company in
tliis province and in this country.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Did the hon, member for
Timiskaming have a point of order?
Mr. Jackson: It is this, Mr. Speaker: The
Minister is misleading the House when he
says it is an extra tax, because a producing
manufacturer must buy raw materials and
this tax-
Mr. Speaker: I think that is not a point
of order; it is merely the member's opinion.
The hon. Minister has the floor.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Thank you, sir. In
any event, I just merely want to point out
that the mining-
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, will the Min-
ister accept a question?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, could
I point out to you that I will gladly accept
questions at the end of my address rather
than during it. You are not hearing me, sir?
Let me repeat it: I will not accept any ques-
tions during the course of my remarks. All
right?
Mr. Speaker: I might point out to the hon.
Minister that the procedure in the House does
3742
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not permit questions to be asked after the
Minister has completed his remarks.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Not at the end of
my remarks, sir? If you so rule. Would tliese
be admissible just before I sit down?
Mr. Nixon: Oh, make your speech, for
heaven's sake.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The Opposition de-
layed things for weeks on end; give us a
chance to delay.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In any event, may I
re-emphasize that the mining tax is a further
additional tax levied on the mining industry
in this province over and above all the other
normal taxes levied against every other in-
dustry and every other process in our indus-
trial complex. Certainly, it seemed to me
that the impression was trying to be left that
this was the only tax or the only revenue
available to the province for the wasting of
these irreplaceable assets, and the privilege
that the mining companies do enjoy for taking
this matter out— which does belong to the
country as a whole, there is no question
about it.
The member for Timiskamiug, though, has
l>een really trying to get into the act. May
I merely point out to him and tlirow back to
him a quote, when he said, and I am sure
some of his constituents will be veiy inter-
ested to hear liis attitude on this, "We get
very little out of mining and can see no
reason for its existence." He said that, and
I am repeating it now for him in the hojye
that he is going to hear that statement a
great deal more in northern Ontario in the
years and months to come, and maybe he
wants to correct the record now.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, is that an in-
vitation to correct-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister has the
floor.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I was rather amused,
sir, at the picayune, petty little efforts of
the leader of the Opposition to try to claim
that big brother in Ottawa was the one
responsible for getting the smelter in Timmins.
Mr. Nixon: That is the way they see it in
Thnmins, picayune as it may seem.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: There is no ques-
tion that the $6.5 million grant from ADA
was of great assistance to this particular com-
pany in placing a smelter in any designated
area in Canada. But to claim, sir, that this
was of great assistance to the company in
placing this smelter in the Timmins area and
in the Timmins area alone, is not worthy of
the hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They should have
brought it into my area.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: And we turn then,
sir, to the remarks of the hon. member for
Thunder Bay, who indicated it was a great
shame and probably a loss of dignity and
prestige thivt the Minister of Mines would
have to go cap in hand to those dreaded,
foreign, nasty American interests to get them
to build a smelter in Timmins and to provide
incentives for them.
May I merely say, sir, tliat the incentives
and the encouragement and the consultative
advice that has gone to Texas Gulf Sulphur
in respect not only of The Department of
Mines, but other departments of this govern-
ment—we have all been working on it as a
team effort— were not to get them to build a
smelter in Canada. They were told, and they
were told in no uncertain terms, that they
had to build a processing plant in Canada.
The encouragement and the incentives that
were provided by this government, sir, were
provided to get them to build it in Timmins,
and I defy any other member to say that this
is something we should not have done.
Finally, sir, it is just not worth wasting
the time of the House, but I really must refer
to the words of the hon. member for High
Park when he talks about this forthcoming
book of his relating to Texas Gulf Sulphur.
It sounds, sir, like a pre-release from a pub-
lisher, but nevertlieless, we are not all tliat
ignorant over here of what is going on, and
of who writes what, and of the manuscript
that the hon. member has purchased to use
as a book in relation to this, and all I can
say to the hon. member is simply this—
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Point of order.
Mr. Shulman: The Minister has just lied. I
demand a retraction. He suggests I have pur-
chased a manuscript. I have never purchasetl
a manuscript. I demand he retract.
An hon. member: Quack, quack, quack,
quack.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Minister is spoil-
ing his shining image.
APRIL 29, 1969
3743
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I guess I am tarnish-
ing another shining image, Mr. Speaker, but,
let me merely say this, that certainly there
has been information and writing in relation
to this forthcoming book, and according to
my information there was a manuscript pur-
chased by the hon. member. If he says this is
not true, of course I retract immediately and
apologize to the hon. member. And I shall
check my sources.
Mr. Shulman: Then I apologize for using
the word I did in relation to the Minister.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right. But I hope
the figures in his book are going to be a httle
bit more reliable than the figures he gave to
the House tonight.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He will never sell it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: When he indicated
that Texas Gulf, in their pre-production ex-
penses in relation to exploration here is only
$3 million, I can say to him that I know a
man of his wealth— a million here a million
there does not really matter very much— but
he is out by approximately $3 millions.
It is not three millions. Our information is
that it is double this. And, of course, the
pre-production expenses, as far as the actual
exploration is concerned, is a mere drop in
the bucket. My information, and I may be
wrong, is die total investment in pit and
plants alone, excluding the exploration ex-
penses, amounts to about $62 million.
Mr. Shulman: It came out of the profits.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Now, Mr. Speaker,
this ain't hay. If the hon. members want to
make extreme and harsh statements to scare
off foreign capital in this country, this is their
prerogative, and this is the place for them to
do it. But I say that we ourselves have
matured as far as our own economic poten-
tial and our own God-given good sense is
concerned in relation to investment in this
country.
I would invite the hon. member to look at
Canadian investments because he has got the
money. If they want to make these harsh
statements and scare them off, fine and dandy.
But the fact of the matter is that we our-
selves, in our own market, are not generating
the mass of capital that is required to
develop our own north. I deprecate this,
and I am sure the hon. member does, but I
just do not feel at the moment that govern-
ment can look over everybody's shoulder,
wave a big club at them and say, "We do not
want your money here." We may have to if
we are going to develop the north.
No Canadian shareholders in Texas Gulf?
I am no apologist for Texas Gulf by any
means, but again, if that is the type of in-
formation that is going to appear in this
book, he had better check his facts. As a
matter of fact, there is a wholly owned, very
large Canadian corporation that is the second
largest shareholder in Texas Gulf stock.
Mr. Speaker, I have not really gone into
the general principle of the bill on second
reading because, quite frankly, the purposes,
the objectives and the way in which we are
attempting to achieve our objective of north-
em development in the north, primarily for
northerners, was covered at the time I made
the statement at the first reading. And now
if somebody wants to ask me a question, I
would be glad to attempt to answer it.
Mr. Speaker: There will be no further
debate. When the Minister resumes his chair
it concludes the debate on second reading.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well I had not quite
sat down.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept two
questions.
Hon. Mr. Lawrence: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: The first question is about
the $26 million of mining tax. What per-
centage is that of the total profits brought
in by the mining companies?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is not, obvi-
ously, all the tax that goes to the tax rev-
enues sections of either the province or the
federal government. I cannot tell you what
the total corporation taxes paid to the prov-
ince by the mining companies are because
I have nothing to do with that. I do not
relate mining tax strictly and solely as a
revenue-producing vehicle of this govern-
ment. Instead, I look upon it as a means of
promoting the public policy of this govern-
ment, which is to promote—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Helping the member
for Timmins to get re-elected.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —to promote north-
em development in this province.
Mr. Speaker: No questions from that side.
Mr. Shulman: I said there were two ques-
tions. To put it in perspective, how much
are the net profits of the mining companies
in Ontario this year, or last year?
3744
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Kerr: What is the diflFerence?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In relation to the
total tax take, do you mean?
Mr. Shulman: I could not tell you. That
is just what I am saying. What is the proc-
ess? And the final question in relation to—
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that the nor-
mal procedure on second readings is that
when the Minister takes his seat this con-
cludes the debate. I think there should be
no further debate on this bill.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. Lest the Minister have inadvertently
misled the House, perhaps he could tell us
what the wholly Canadian owned company
is that is the second largest shareholder in
Texas Gulf.
Mr. Speaker: There will be no further
questioning or debate on this bill.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I appeal
to the Chair. The Minister has made a cate-
gorical statement during his debate on second
reading. I am suggesting that he may have
inadvertently misled the House and I would
like to know the name of the company.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Is the claim that I
have misled the House? If so, I would like-
Mr. Speaker: The debate has been con-
cluded, and there should be no further ques-
tioning or cross talk about this particular bill.
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, while the Minister was still on his
feet, I rose and asked if he would accept
two questions. He said "yes", and I placed
one of those questions which was on the
amount of profit.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member
placed two questions. There will be no
further questions or debate. The motion is
for second reading of Bill 111. Those in
favour of the motion will please say "aye".
Those opposed will please say "nay".
In my opinion the "ayes" have it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: You cannot appeal a vote
you have won.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I must point out to
the hon. members that I declared the "ayes"
had it in favour of the motion, therefore the
motion is carried on second reading.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a i>oint
of order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
ber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, over five members
on the government side rose for a recorded
vote.
Mr. Speaker, I point to you that in this
House, I am recorded as being the only vote
against the majority vote when the Prime
Minister himself rose in this House to have
a vote recorded. I was so incensed by that
Act that although I was, in the first instance,
of the opinion that I would support the gov-
ernment and did on a voice vote, I alone
stood against the government.
I was the only member in this House that
stood against that when the Prime Minister
himself demanded a recorded vote when the
House was unanimous. Here the House was
not unanimous, and now I demand that you
give cognizance to the members that stood
on the other side, and take a recorded vote.
An hon. member: That is the rule.
Mr. Ben: That is the rule.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I might say that I had
put the motion for second reading. I asked
for a voice vote on those—
Mr. Ben: It carried, but six people rose.
Mr. Speaker: —on those meml^ers in favour
of the motion. I expressed my opinion that
the "ayes" had it, that the motion was carried.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with all
due respect, if I may, those who want to ask
for a recorded \ote, stand after the Speaker
declares how he heard the vote.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, could I address
myself to this point?
Mr. Speaker: All right.
Mr. Singer: With the greatest respect, sir,
I ciinnot quickly find it, but the rule says:
That after the "ayes" and "nays" ha\e
been asked for by the Speaker, he gives
his opinion as to who has won, and if five
members then stand in their place, the
members lia\'C' to be ciUled in and polled
individiudly.
Mr. Speaker: I may say that I agree with
the hon. member for Downsview. I do not
recall in my experience that this has hap-
pened. It may have. In my thinking it was
APRIL 29, 1969
3745
merely a matter of challenging the vote when
the Opposition or otherwise wanted to chal-
lenge the Speaker's opinion of the voice vote.
If it is a matter of requiring a recorded
motion, and the five members have risen, this
indicates to me then, as pointed out by the
hon. member for Downsview, and I appre-
ciate his clarification, that it is a case of
calling in the members, which I now do.
Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion by the
Hon. A. F. Lawrence for second reading of
Bill 111, which was agreed by the following
vote:
Ayes
Nays
Allan
Burr
Apps
Davison
Auld
Deans
Bales
Gisborn
Ben
Jackson
Bernier
Lawlor
Boyer
Lewis
Brunelle
MacDonald
Bukator
Martel
Connell
Pilkey
Deacon
Pitman
Demers
Renwick
Ue Monte
(Riverdale)
Downer
Shulman
Dymond
Stokes
Edighoffer
Yoimg— 15.
Evans
Farquhar
Ferrier
Gaunt
Gilbertson
Gomme
Good
Grossman
Guindon
Haggerty
Hamilton
Haskett
Hodgson
(Victoria-
Haliburton)
Hodgson
(York North)
Innes
Jessiman
Johnston
(Parry Sound)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kerr
Knight
Lawrence
(Carleton East)
Ayes Nays
Lawrence
(St. George)
MacKenzie
Meen
Momingstar
Morrow
McNeil
Newman
(Windsor-
Walkerville)
Nixon
Paterson
Price
Randall
Reid
(Scarborough East)
Reilly
Renter
Root
Rowntree
Ruston
Sargent
Simonett
Singer
Smith
(Nipissing)
Snow
Spence
Stewart
Trotter
Villeneuve
Welch
Wells
Winkler
Wishart
Worton
Yaremko-69.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the ayes
are 69, the nays 15.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park now has the floor on a point of order.
Mr. Shulman: My point of order, sir, is
that prior to the bell being rung and this \'ote
being called, I had risen on a point of order
simultaneously with two other members. I
was on my feet each time as the two other
members made their points. They were both
allowed to make their points on a point of
order. It was in connection with the calling
of the vote; they were both in agreement.
The point I wished to make was not in
agreement. The Deputy Speaker was sitting
in the Chair at the time and refused to hear
3746
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
me. As such when he called the vote, I said
he should not call it until having heard my
submission on the point of order. He went
ahead in any case, sir, and on that groimd I
say, sir, this \ote was not properly taken.
Mr. Speaker: I will be most pleased to
listen to the tape and hear the allegations
from both sides of the House as to when the
bell rang, and consult with the Deputy
Speaker, who was in the Chair, and be glad
to ad\'ise the House as to my findings to-
morrow. At the moment there is nothing more
that I can do about the matter.
Mr. Ben: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,
if I may. Mr. Speaker, I think it is irrelevant
whether the hon. member was on his feet or
was not on his feet when the bell started to
ring. The niles and procedure of parliamen-
tary debate are that the person must catch
the Speaker's eye and not just be—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member
may be quite right. But I think the hon.
member for High Park is entitled to ha\e
Mr. Speaker look into this, and I have said
that I would. I will consult with the Deputy
Speaker and also the tapes, which will give
the bell ringing, and I will be glad then to
deal with the matter on the basis of the sub-
missions by both the hon. member for High
Park and the hon. member for Humber, both
of whom ha\e points.
If the hon. member for Humber wishes to
add anything further he may, but what he
has added is a well-known fact and that is
why I wish to speak to the Deputy Speaker.
A member must catch the Speaker's eye be-
fore he has the floor. Likewise, if the di\ision
bells have gone, there is no further debate
and the matter is then ready for the vote.
If that covers the points of the hon. mem-
ber for Humber, then I will be glad to hear
him. It is obvious he has something else.
Mr. Ben: It docs not, Mr. Speaker. I find
myself in the embarrassing position of having
to take issue with the Speaker to protect the
dignity of the Speaker. The Speaker who was
in the chair-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member will
resume his seat while the Speaker is on his
feet. I advise the hon. member that I am
delighted to have the office of the Speaker
and his dignity protected, and I shall do my
best to look after that with the co-operation
of all the members. Now, if the hon. member
has a point of order without any preamble
or additions, I will be glad to hear it. If, on
the other hand, he merely wishes to protect
the dignity of the Speaker, then I do not
think it is a point of order.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for High Park rose on a point of order claim-
ing that he had been on his feet before the
division Ixjlls rang and, therefore, he was en-
titled to be heard before the division bells
rang. The Speaker occupying the chair called
for a division and the bells rang.
I suggest that on following the rules of
practice, the Speaker in infonning the hon.
member for High Park that he would listen
to the tapes to determine whether or not it
could be decided whether he was on his feet
before the bells rang, implies that it is being
on one's feet that determines whether a per-
son should be heard or not, and not catching
the Speaker's eye.
My submission is this, that if the Speaker's
eye was not caught by the hon. member, then
it is not incumbent upon someone to over-
rule what has occurred simply because the
Speaker turned a blind eye.
Now, Mr. Speaker was not in the chair at
the time. The Deput>' Speaker was acting as
the Speaker and to give credence to what
the hon. member for High Park is asking
is to condemn the Deputy Speaker who
is acting as Speaker for having failed to see
a member
Mr. Speaker: It is (luite obvious that the
hon. member for Humber has no confidence
in Mr. Speaker or the Clerk of the House
who would review this matter, because I am
sure that Mr. Speaker is quite capable of
determining the matters which he has raised.
I mentioned that I would determine and that
I would hear the tapes and that I would
speak to the Deputy Speaker. I shall do so
and I shall report to the House.
THE MINING ACT
Hon. A. F. Lawrence moves second read-
ing of Bill 112, An Act to amend The Mining
Act.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
to this Bill 112 and to support the policy,
the principle that is, of this bill, because in
many ways it is the answer to the suffoca-
tion of many of the people I represent in
the north. It certainly is an answer to the
efi^orts of many a mining Opposition critic in
this House in the past, especially my hon.
colleague from Sudbury.
APRIL 29, 1969
3747
I think there are many speeches in the
records of this House that indicate conclu-
sively how hard he has battled for this ore
which is removed from the province of On-
tario, and that it be refined, that it reach its
finished state here in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for High
Park, in debate of the previous bill, indicated
that I was no expert in mining. He was
absolutely right, much as I resented the fact
that once again he is attempting to pull
himself up by pushing other people down.
I do not stand here as an expert on mining,
but I do stand here as a person who has been
with the views and the feelings of the people
of northern Ontario for at least nine years; in
a position to know what their feelings are. I
am very proud and happy to convey those
feelings to this House.
I would be remiss if I did not congratulate
the Minister once again, even though he did
not choose to acknowledge my congratula-
tions in my words on the previous bill when
he rose to make his comments. I still think
he is entitled to some congratulations, as is
this government, for moving ahead with new
vigour and acting on suggestions that this
party has made many times in the past.
There are a couple of loopholes though,
Mr. Speaker. The bill suggests that these
ores be refined in Canada. I, too, feel that
they should be refined in Ontario and more
specifically, in northern Ontario, because it
should be pretty obvious where the jobs are
needed, where industry is needed in this
province. Certainly, northern Ontario is obvi-
ously underdeveloped, and now that the gov-
ernment, in the Minister's own words, is
making an effort with these revisions in The
Mining Act to enhance northern develop-
ment, then it should go all the way.
I think that this bill should state specifically
that these ores should be treated and refined
at site, wherever they are obtained, to be fair
to any mining developments which are not
definitely in northern and northwestern
Ontario.
The refinery operation, of course, being at
mine site in northern Ontario, Mr. Speaker,
means a multitude of jobs and that is what
we need. This type of extended operation
also means that there is going to be more
development in northern Ontario, and so,
Mr. Speaker, this is one part of tliis bill with
which I would have to take some exception. I
think that the Minister and the department
should go all the way and state definitely,
"Refine at the mining site or within a certain
proximity of the mining site," witli all due
respect to the feelings of the people in
northern Ontario.
Tlie other loophole I see here, Mr. Speaker,
is the fact that the Minister is given too much
power. This bill makes allowances for certain
exceptions to the rules that are indicated
in the first section of this particular bill.
Namely, that these ores or minerals raised or
removed from the land here in Ontario be
refined in Canada.
The section or whatever you call it after
that, the next clause, states: "The Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council may accept any lands,
claims or mining rights from the operation
of this section for such period of time as
seems proper".
Well, who has tliat power really? It falls
back to the Minister I think and he can
correct me if I am wrong. This seems like a
weakness to me. It is putting power in some-
body's hands, here the Minister or the
Cabinet. But certainly exceptions to the rule
can be made, and I am worried about these
exceptions.
I would not like, for example, to see a
fantastic nickel discovery and, following that
development in northern Ontario, some deci-
sion for some reason of this government that
it should be refined down here in southern
Ontario, making an exception to this rule.
I am taking hope and encouragement on
behalf of my people from this bill that this
will ensure that finally, once and for all, the
Lakehead area for example will get a smelter
and refinery and all tlie jobs that go with
that. People in the Lakehead have been talk-
ing about smelter for so long now it is not
funny. I think they had some hope that my
predecessor, the Mnister of Mines at the
time, would be able to bring a smelter up
to tliat area. I am sure at times he had hoped
that he would be able to. I am sure in his
own way he worked toward that end.
Well now, his successor, this hon. Min-
ister, has taken definite steps so that we
really have that hope. But I am wondering
whether because of this loophole in this
particular bill providing exceptions to that
rule, if we may not be building our hopes
up for nothing. I certainly hope the hon.
Minister will allay my fears on this matter,
and explain exactly to whom that power falls
and under what conditions.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side support the
principle and we are hoping— certainly I am
hoping— that eventually we may change that
part of the first section in this bill from
"refined in Canada" to "refined at the site".
3748
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
possibly even "northern Ontario", and that
exception to this rule will not be too broad.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Timis-
kaming.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very
brief. I remarked on this same clause in the
previous bill, and I do not intend to waste
the time of the House again in going through
it.
I regret, the same as the hon. member for
Port Arthur does, that it does not read "On-
tario" mstead of "Canada", and we will
be at the Minister over the next few years
to get it changed. I further regret, Mr.
Speaker, that it took the Minister two years to
bring in this bill, two years and much urging.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: One.
Mr. Jackson: The Minister says, "one." I
hesitate, because if he will think back when
he was first put into office, he mentioned this.
In my recollection, it was before I came to
tliis House and that is two years ago.
Hon A. F. Lawrence: I wish the member
would tell the Treasurer that, I would get
paid for that. It just seems like two years.
Mr. Jackson: Anyway, we regret it took
him as long as it did because it would have
saved a lot of time in this House, when we
as the Opposition were up here trying to
urge him to put through the very same
amendment. Congratulations, I believe, are in
order to the Minister. I can only hope that he
is enlightened a little further and changes
that one word "Canada" to "Ontario", in the
next session.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I put a question to the Minister this
afternoon and he waived his opportunity to
reply to it at that point in favour of second
reading of the bill. So I raise it now.
I wonder in light of the development yes-
terday and today as to whether or not the
government is not beating a fairly significant
retreat from the objectives set forth in this
bill. The objectives set forth in this bill state,
in the explanatory note, that the purpose is
to make certain that all ore mined in Ontario
shall be processed in this country. Yesterday,
the Minister, to cope with what appeared to
be new circumstances that had been brought
to liis attention, indicated that he had drop-
ped back to a 51 per cent figure; in short,
before the bill had even gotten second read-
ing, the objective was cut in half, from
100 down to 51, which if that speed is
maintained we will have no bill left by the
time we get to third reading. However, the
specific point that interested me was a com-
ment attributed to the Minister in the Globe
and Mail this morning on page B-8, the busi-
ness section, which states:
Mr. Lawrence said outside the Legis-
lature yesterday that 23 of 66 mining
companies in the province would be
forced out of business if the government
insisted this requirement be met. There-
fore, the government had decided 51 per
cent would be an appropriate figure for
existing operations.
New mining companies, however, would
have to meet the 100 per cent requirement.
That seems to raise a number of questions,
some of which I put to the Minister this
afternoon. But, an overriding question, before
I return to those, is, how come the Minister
learned only at this stage of the implementa-
tion of a bill, which presumably with a new
and vigorous Minister who is on the ball, he
would have known of the full effects of his
bill. After he gets it introduced he dis-
covers it is going to put 23 out of 66 com-
panies out of business. Does the Minister
confess that his assessment of the impact of
this bill was so inadequate that he was not
aware of the fact that he was going to put
23 out of 66 companies out of business? That
is almost as bad as a Walter Gordon budget,
which has to be reshaped three times inside
of the next three months. In fact, if there
are 23 companies of the 66 which in the
Minister's view are now going to be put out
of business, quite frankly I would be inter-
ested to know what those companies are, and
what the other 43 are, that presumably can
survive the 100 per cent imposition.
A second point I would like to raise is
that it seems to me there is an imfaimess
in the proposition that those who now hap-
pen to be in mining operations in the prov-
ince of Ontario, can revert back to 51 per
cent, for how long is not yet clear. It was
for that reason that I put to the Minister
the question, "Is this retreat from the 100
per cent processing in Canada permanent or
temporary?" and, "If only temporary, when
will the 100 per cent processing in Canada
become obligatory for companies now in
operation?" It seems to me there is an ele-
ment of unfairness in giving these companies
any great length of time to accommodate
themselves to the full objective of this bill
as originally introduced in the House when
any new company is going to have to meet
the 100 per cent immediately.
APRIL 29. 1969
3749
So, my question to the Minister is, would
he answer these various questions, but par-
ticularly why he had to beat such an early
retreat on such a noble objective?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. Martel: Just a few points, Mr. Speaker,
it is nice to see the government finally, like
so many other things, steal from this party,
ideas, location and so on. I am glad they
have seen the light after these number of
years.
The two points I would like to raise are
quite similar to those of the leader of the
New Democratic Party. What criteria will
be used in granting exemptions to this bill
and what criteria will be used in trying to
fix locations for smelting processes and so on?
These are the only two points I would like
answered. Other than that, I would like to
compliment the government on advancing our
policy.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Coch-
rane South.
Mr. Ferrier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
am very happy to see the Minister introduce
this bill because it is very much like the bill
that I introduced about a year ago and it
is nice to see that they sometimes take ideas
from this side of the House.
This whole idea of processing in Canada
and Ontario, has been one that has been
discussed very thoroughly in my community
in the last few months. You have people who
believe that pressure, even force, should be
brought to bear on companies to have them
process their ore near the mine site. You
have other people like the manager of one
of the mines in Timmins, who believes that
government should not say anything to min-
ing companies, that they should sit around
and do everything to help them out. Good-
ness knows, if you bring any pressure to bear,
you are going to so disrupt this free enter-
prise system that it is going to collapse over-
night. This man resigned from the Porcupine
Development Commission on this issue.
Those of us who live in the north have
seen our resources taken out in trainloads and
other ways, to be processed elsewhere. The
people of our communities have done the
dangerous job, the hard jobs, the low-paying
jobs, and then we see the resources go out
to be processed elsewhere. These people get
the higher paying jobs and the minerals are
used for secondary industry and they are sold
back to us at a much higher rate. Other
people are benefiting and have benefited at
our expense, and it is a good thing to see
that a stand is now being taken.
We in the north have watched, as I say,
our wealth go out and mining companies, in
the main, have been rather remiss in putting
very much back into the community. That
seems to be free enterprise at its worst, as it
has gone on, and this government has allowed
it to persist. But, now with this bill to be
enacted, it looks like things are looking up,
although I share the opinion of other mem-
bers who have spoken of the danger in this
bill because of the exemptions which are
granted under it. One wonders really whether
it will make that much difference. I would
think, however, that in view of this bill, that
the Minister would now be in a position to
start pushing for a steel complex up in the
northwest. He has the ammunition to do some
real hard pushing in negotiation, if he has the
will so to do.
I remember last year when I introduced
my bill to this effect, that the Northern Miner
threw up its arms in horror that a member of
the NDP would suggest that ores be pro-
cessed in Ontario and Canada. It was an un-
heard of thing; it would min mining. They
would not even lower themselves to mention
my name or the mayor of Timmins at that
time. Well, it was one of the lowest of the
low kind of things to take this stand.
Now, they have sort of come around and
they are making a few complimentary re-
marks about the Minister's policy, that he is
plunking for home industry and with the
exemptions he grants, and if he is not too
hard, does not wield a big stick, why, they
will go along with him.
Well, I suppose that free enterprise has got
to try to adjust to changing circumstances
and I hope the Minister is prepared to push
companies in this way and do some real hard
negotiating. I think that the nortli is just be-
ginning to open up. I hope that there are
more and more ore bodies found and that it
will be feasible to build smelters and process-
ing plants in the north.
I share the feelings of these others who
have spoken who suggest that, where pos-
sible, the ore should be processed near the
mine site and the communities that are there
should not take dangerous, low-paying jobs,
but should have the other benefits that go
along with processing.
I also think secondary industry has a good
chance of developing around processing facili-
ties in a way that is not otherwise there. I
know that it has not happened this way as
much as the people in Sudbury would like,
3750
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but we hope that, with some real leadership
in the community and from the government,
that this will in fact develop in our area and
in other areas where there are processing
plants. We hope that secondary industry will
come in and that there will be diversification
and that a wide variety of jobs will be avail-
able. So that the people of the areas where
the ore is taken out will be able to get more
of the benefits that should rightly be theirs
than has hitherto been the case.
I think this 1917 date has persisted far too
long in this bill and it is still present in some
of the Lands and Forests legislation and it
would be a good thing if the Minister of that
department went to his Acts and took this
date out and made regulations that apply
after-
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member
will stay with the principle of this bill, which
is a mining bill, and not a Lands and Forests
bill.
Mr. Ferrier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
have only one more thing to say. Some of the
federal Liberals are sort of saying that this is
a futile Act— that it really did not have much
effect on the situation in our area, bringing
the Texas Gulf smelter to that area. They said
they had to jump in and do the work for the
Minister.
I cannot quite share their \iews. I think
that this kind of bill, when enacted, and if
the Minister does not use his discretionary
powers completely for the benefit of the min-
ing industry but pushes for this province or
this country, then it is going to be a real help
to the north.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to take part in this debate before
the Minister? The hon. Minister.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I wel-
come the calmer atmosphere of the debate on
this particular bill than on the previous bill,
because it certainly is indicative, I think, of
the seriousness in which the members have
approached this problem. They are both inter-
twined, at least, but I am glad to hear that,
if perhaps a little grudgingly, the Opposition
is ready and willing to at least give us on this
side of the House at least an E for effort
with respect to this particular issue, if nothing
else.
Mr. MacDonald: It took us two generations
to achiexe it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence. The hon. member
for York South says that it took two gener-
ations for us to get it done and whatnot.
This is an old familiar refrain, you know.
As I said, I have only been in the House here
for 12 years and I have heard this suggestion
to the economic growth of northern Ontario
advanced from all sides of this House, among
all parties.
There have, I feel, been very valid reasons
in the past why this government and previous
sets of governments have not gone ahead
with this thing. We feel the time is right now
to do it, but the old familiar refrain here, of
course, echoed by the member for Cochrane
South, is that, well, we— he means himself—
we really thought of this first. It may be,
but after all, actions speak louder than words.
We are doing it. That is it.
As I understand it, sir, the argument-
Mr. MacDonald: Sounds like Paul Martin.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Holy smoke! As I
understand it, sir-
Mr. MacDonald: I know that is belo^v the
belt, but-
Mr. Lewis: That is the imkindest cut of all.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —as I understand it,
the argument from the hon. member— I prom-
ised myself that I would try to keep this
within reasonable bounds and not get excited
aibout it, although it is an exciting prospect
to get involved in.
In any event, the hon. m€ml:>er for Port
Arthur came along with the argument that
the member for Timiskaming also made earlier
and repeated here— the question about the
wording of the Act respecting whether the
processing should be done in Canada, or
whether it should be done in Ontario.
Now I think it is indicative of something,
sir, that the only member of the NDP that
has picked up this particular argument is
the member for Timiskaming. But I would
like to draw to your attention, sir, that I
believe the hon. member foo- Port Arthur was
really speaking for his party on that. Because
the weekend before last, there were a num-
ber of speeches made throughout northern
Ontario by the official leader of Her Majesty's
loyal Opposition on this particular subject.
If I can believe the press reports— arwl
maybe they are wrong— but he was reported
quite widely in Canadian Press wire stories to
the effect that, while the government was
coming along with legislation forcing these
comi>anies to do their processing and their
APRIL 29, 1969
3751
refining in Ontario, that what .the Liberal
Party of Ontario was really standing for was
that this processing would be done in north-
em Ontario, rather than Ontario as a whole.
Mr. Nixon: Right, right! That is the way it
should be done.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: And he says "right".
Well, sir, I really resent those misrepresenta-
tions, because at no time have we said that
we would insist that it be done in Ontario.
There is a real point here—
Mr. Knight: Well let us hear it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We are not that
parochial-
Mr. Knight: They are worse.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We do not want to
set up interprovincial trade barriers. We do
not want to set up any more customs agents
than we now have across this country. We
are not yet wilhng—
Mr. Singer: Customs? What power have
you got to set up customs?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —are not yet wilhng
to take part with any group of Ontario-
Mr. Singer: Section 91 of the BNA perhaps?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —separatists, sir, who
would want to set up tliis type of barrier
between our provinces. We are Canadians
first; we are Ontarians second, and there is
no question about this.
Mr. Nixon: Oh ho! The Minister should
talk to the Treasurer about that.
Mr. Pilkey: That is good for the record.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: As I say, sir, we are
not willing to take— because we do feel, again,
that the big brother in government can look
over everybody's shoulder. But nevertheless,
there is no sense in forcing any particular
corporation or any particular aspect of any
industry— a resource industry or not— 'into an
area where that particular function in the
long run is gouig to be uneconomical. It will
only land back on the taxpayers as a whole,
in years to oome, if it is an uneconomic
operation. It will do more harm than good
as far as potential development in that par-
ticular area is concerned.
So what we have said, sir, and what we
have insisted upon, is that the processing
plant in general— and it is a long-range ob-
jective—be located in Canada. They meet our
requirement if they are located in Canada.
Now, the Texas Gulf situation is a prime
point. We indicated to the Texas Gulf com-
pany that while we felt we could not insist
that they build in Timmins, nevertheless we
were wilhng to hang out certain carrots, cer-
tain incentives, certain encouragemen'ts in
front of them in order to have them do it,
and to make them realize that they had a
duty and a responsibility to the people in
that particular area. This we welcomed. This
we worked for. But we are not yet willing
to hold a clnb over any group, to insist to
that group, or that corporation, tliat they will
locate anywhere else other than in Canada.
We have not yet reached that stage of
parochiahsm.
Now the question of exemptions comes up.
And, if I may, in my general remarks here,
I would refer to the honest worry of the
memiber for Port Arthur, the member for York
South and the member for Sudbury East,
because they are all tied in together.
The hon. member for York South really put
it most cogently and succdntly. He says, "Why
are you retreating from your proposition that
all processing must be done in Canada?"
Even though it is part of the preamble of
the bill, we have never yet indicated that
this is possible of attainment.
In the original statement that I made in
this House on first reading, I indicated that
this is a long-range objective— that I am
worried about the potential investors. Putting
the rules of the game right on the table, so
that there can be no crying later about these
rules, we are saying to i>eop]e, as they now
come into Canada and as they now come
into Ontario: "If you are going to invest in
northern Ontario and in our mining areas,
then you should know what the rules of the
game are from now on." They are embodied
in this statute and that is our long-range
objective and with this, obviously, there is
no argument anywhere.
Mr. MacDonald: Surely, the explanatory
note should have been a little clearer?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, sir. I have been
emphasizing this all over the lot as much as I
can.
Now, sir, if we took the harsh attitude and
if we took the rigid inflexible position that,
as of January 1, 1970, there should be no
exemption to this— tliis is why we have got
the exemptions in. I have indicated to the
press that there are at least 23 out of the
66 mining corporations who are producing in
Ontario that would be affected. If we took the
harsh point of view they would not be
3752
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
affected, they could be forced out of busi-
ness.
Now tliis would do the hon. member for
\brk Soudi, it would do his members from
nortliern Ontario, no good at all. It would
do none of us any good. We are taking the
long-range objective that as far as—
Mr. MacDonald: How long?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence:— as far as new pro-
posals are concerned, people should know
that this is our long-range objective, but that
as I indicated on first reading, under the
standards that we would be using for grant-
ing exemptions, there can be exemptions.
We may never completely reach the objective
of 100 per cent processing in tliis country of
the ores produced here, because in some cases
it would be undesirable. In some cases it
would be completely uneconomic, and in
some cases it would be dangerous, quite
frankly, in resi>ect of radioactive things and
such like.
In some matters, especially in relation to
corrosive substances, it would be quite
ridiculous to insist upon processing in
Canada, for these corrosive substances are
going to be utilized in another country com-
pletely. It would be far better, from all points
of view, having looked at the benefit that is
going to come to the people in this country, if
in those cases processing be done in another
country, and we would l>e quite willing and
ready and able to ship some of these things
out of the country, and these are not aca-
demic subjects. These are matters that come
before us every day, and a matter already
before us— on which I will have to make a
recommendation when the Act becomes effec-
tive—will be in relation to a corrosive siib-
stance.
The main objective here, as I have said, is
to provide jobs. It is to provide potential for
development. We are dealing here with an
international market— not a provincial, not a
local, not a national, but an international
market. We are dealing with international
matters, and tlie market condition, the smelt-
ing capacity, the processing location can have
a lot to do with this. But the main thing, of
course, is the type of ore itself that we
produce or can produce as distinct from what
can be produced in other countries. I am
no metallurgical expert. I am sure the House
would not expect me to give it a long disserta-
tion, even if I could, on metallurgical prob-
lems. However—
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister is not Robert
Macaulay.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: However, these mat-
ters are all factors which we have to look at
when exemptions are applied for. What we
want to look at when exemptions are applied
for. What we want to do is shift the onus
over to these companies and over to manage-
ment of these companies to prove to us that
it is essentially uneconomic, or that there is
no market— which really is saying the same
thing— or that the substance itself is such
that, economic or not, it should not be done
here. There are examples of this which I
could detail to the House if the members
want, but I do not really believe they want
it.
When hon. members take this position that
there should be no exemptions, it is a meas-
ure to me that perhaps some of them do not
know the particulars of what is going on in
their own ridings. This may not be their own
fault. But the hon. member for York South
would like a list of some of these companies.
Let me give them to him. In the riding of
Cochrane South, Timmins, Canadian Jamieson
Mines Limited, ships its copper out to the
U.S. and to Sweden.
Mr. MacDonald: Are these the people who
have asked for exemption?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No sir, no one yet
has asked for an exemption.
Mr. MacDonald: Who would be put out
of business—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: These are corpora-
tions who are exporting at the moment. These
are the corporations who, we expect, will
have to apply to us for exemption. In a lot
of cases the knowledge of what they do and
how they do it and where they ship their
concentrate is unknown to us, quite frankly,
and we are using this as a means of getting
the information. We are going to have very
detailed accounts of all sorts of matters that
they have to prove to us make it uneco-
nomic to do this. Really, the matter has to
be handled in a moderate, sensible way;
otherwise, we are going to do far more harm
to the north and to the mining industry than
anything else.
Does the member really want a list of
the 23? I will give them to him: Canadian
Jamieson Mines Limited in Timmins; Copper-
field Mining Corporation in Timagami— tlie
member for Nipissing, is he here?- it ships
out copper; Ecstall, of course, which is the big
one, is the wholly owned subsidiary of Texas
Gulf, and lead, zinc and silver at the moment
go out; Kam-Kotia Mines in Timmins ships
APRIL 29, 1969
3753
its copper and zinc out; the Geco Mines of
Noranda Mines at Manitouwadge, the riding
of Thunder Ba>', ships lead and zinc out of
the country— I am sorry, no, tiiey just ship
their lead out— North Canadian Enterprises
in the Algoma riding, that is a copper cor-
poration-
Mr. Ferrier: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the
Minister would accept a question. Does Kam-
Kotia Mines not have its ores smelted in
Canada in Noranda rather than out of the
country?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The information that
I have is that they do ship their zinc; their
copper certainly goes to Noranda, this I
know. My unders.tanding is that part of their
zinc comes down here in Ontario but part
of it does get shipped out of the country
as well. The member is right. The informa-
tion that I have there may l>e quite wrong.
Maybe I am damning the company for some-
thing that it should not be damned for.
Geco of Noranda ships some out. North
Canadian Enterprises, that is in Algoma, ships
copper to Europe and Japan. Will-Echo in
Manitouwadge, Willroy in Manitouwadge,
ship out of die country. Zenmac in the riding
of Thunder Bay ships out. Falcoobridge, of
course, does ship nickel matte out. Interna-
tional Nickel ships matte out of the country.
Mr. Martel: No problem with that one.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence: I would like to speak
now about the iron ore situation, because
this again is one of the factors that have to
be brought into the consideration. I will say
quite frankly to the House that we are deal-
ing here in gray areas and we are groping
for policies and the type of information tiiat
we want from these companies. VVe are
coming up with suggestions. If the members
of the House in committee have suggestions
as to the infonnation that we require and
any other standards that we should impose
on these things, I would be glad to hear
them, because this is a different approach
than we have had in this province before.
But I personally feel— and I cannot com-
mit the government yet because my recom-
mendation has not gone to the government
yet in respect to the iron ore and steel bvisi-
ness— that over the last ten or 15 years in
this province, a very \aable, wordiwhile and
effective steel industry has been built up,
partly due to the administration of The
Mining Tax Act in this province, in respect
of the remission of taxes where pig iron is
produced from our own blast furnaces. The
iron ore and steel business in this province
is a very worthwhile, effective, economic
industry right now. The economic study that
we have commissioned would lead us to
believe that over the next ten years we are
going to need twice as much of our own
Canadian iron ore as we now produce in
this province. Tlierefore, I am very loath to
interfere and inject, in some ways, the
deadening hand of government, into an in-
dustry which, at the moment, is proving
itself to be a very viable one.
I mentioned these iron ore producers here
now in saying that my feeling is that, under
the laws, they will certainly have to apply
for exemption. But also, I must admit, in all
candour to the House, that my present feel-
ing would be that because of the situation of
the iron ore producers in this province, and
the steel industry, we would be a very fool-
hardy government indeed, right now, at this
stage of the game, especially with some
major developments right on the cliff, so to
speak, to get in and interfere wdth the
economic laws at the moment.
C aland Ore, in Atikokan, ships its iron
ore out of the province. Jones and Lockman,
the Adams mine in Kirkland Lake ships out.
Marmoraton and Mining Company Limited,
Marmora, in the riding of my friend from
Hastings (Mr. Rollins), ships across Lake
Ontario. National Steel Corporation, in the
riding of my friend from Nickel Belt (Mr.
Demers), at Capreol, ships out of the
province. Steep Rock is an oddity, sir, in the
iron and steel business in tiiis hemisphere,
in that Steep Rock is an independent pro-
ducer of iron ore, and this is quite unusual,
because the tendency in this industry has
been a complete vertical integration.
The steel company owns the iron ore pro-
duction facilities. Steep Rock is an oddity in
this in that they are an independent iron ore
producer. But even so, they have taken extra-
ordinary steps over the last few years, so that
90 per cent of their production there now goes
to Canadian steel mills. So they will be
obliged to apply to us for an exemption be-
cause of the 10 per cent that they still mine,
but ship out of the country.
Of course, the final one again is Inter-
national Nickel. Perhaps this sounds strange
to some of us who come from the south, but
International Nickel is quite an iron producer
as well, and they produce pellets, a large
percentage of which get shipped out of the
country.
So there we are. I think, if you total them
up, you will find that with the three uranium
3754
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mines now in production— Rio-Algom, Stan-
rock and Dennison, all of which, of course,
ship yellow cake out of the country— with
these three added and Siscoe Metals in
Cobalt, again the riding of my friend from
Timiskaming— they ship silver concentrate
out of the country, do Pot ask me why but
this is something we want to look at— those
total, I believe, the grand sum of 23 produc-
ing mining companies.
Now, I draw this distinction to the atten-
tion of the hon. member. I am talking here
about producing mining companies. I am not
talking about mines. There are 66 producing
mining companies in this province, and 23 of
those companies now export out of the prov-
ince. I talk about mining companies because
some of these companies ha\e more than one
mine, obviously. Falconbridge has seven.
International Nickel has nine or ten. But I
am talking here about producing mining
companies and not mines.
But that is the story. We feel it is straight-
forward, but again, as I emphasized in my
initial statement, we have not backtracked
from anything. We knew which of these mines
were the ones that were going to be affected
long before we brought the legislation in,
long before it went to Cabinet. Obviously, it
is a long-term objective that we set. It is not
going to be an objective that is going to be
met overnight.
Indeed, due to some of these special cir-
cumstances that we have to look to, which is
why we have written in the very wide exemp-
tion powers in the Act, it is an abjective that
may never be reached. But certainly, our
objective is there, our intention is there, even
though it is long term.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the Minister would answer a question before
he concludes. The statement attributed to
him in the Globe and Mail this morning,
"New mining c-ompanies, however, would
have to meet the 100 per cent requirement."
My query to him is simply this. I recog-
nize the validity of his contention with re-
gard to a degree of flexibility, but my worry
is loopholes in the law. I know of no in-
dustry which has exploited loopholes in the
law more efiFectively than the mining in-
dustry, to the effect that the law was
honoured in the breach.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has asked
the permission of the House, because this is
not normal, and of the Minister to ask a
question. The member has not yet come to
the question. Would he please place his
question?
Mr. MacDonald: It is a two-fold question.
Would the Minister give us assurance that
the flexibility is not going to permit an ex-
ploitation of loopholes in the law in the
future to the same extent as has been the
general practice in the past; and secondly,
does this statement attributed to him mean
that he is not going to have the same flexi-
bility with regard to newcomers?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am glad the hon.
member drew this to my attention. Certainly
it is our intention that there will be no loop-
holes in the law, or of the administration of
it, old company, new company, or anything. I
can see how the conversation I had with that
particular reporter last night could have been
misinterpreted. I did not say those words.
However, my explanation of it may not be
favourably received by the hon. member
when I tell him what my explanation was.
My purpose in mentioning new projects as
distinct from existing, established firms in
this province, and in this country, was simply
to point out to the reporter involved, that
we again wanted the rules of the game right
out on the table, so that the people coming
in would know what those rules are. How-
ever, there may well be new developments
to take place in this country, where we will
not be able to say to them, due again to
some of these factors— the provision of sul-
phuric acid from pyrite alone, for instance—
we will not be able to say to them, " You
are coming in here, you have to have 100
per cent process.*
The same standards that we hope to apply
to the existing establishments may have to
be applied to new companies as well. That
may not be the explanation the hon. member
was looking for, but again I do not like to
see discretionary powers given to any single
Minister, or for that matter, this wide type
of discretion written into any Act, even to
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I do
not like to see it.
I have been convinced, howexer, that when
you are dealing with the 1001 different vari-
ables that can come along in these applica-
tions, each one of them may have to be
looked at in view of the individual circum-
stances that do apply in respect of that par-
ticular mine, in that particular locality, with
that particular type of ore, and also that par-
ticular product.
There can be a by-product from one mining
development that may not affect it at all. On
APRIL 29, 1969
3755
the other hand, just two miles down the rail-
road there may be another development that,
as its main product, there may be an attempt
to produce what the other plant is producing
as a product. We may have to look at this
from completely different circumstances,
solely and simply because of what it is we
are trying to promote.
I just reiterate to the House that the overall
objective here is to promote northern devel-
opment, and to promote job potential in the
north, and in any individual circumstance it
is made evident to us that a harsh application,
or harsh administration of this overall objec-
tive, would defeat those purposes. Then
obviously we are not going to go for it.
I hate to sound facetious, but I would like
to use this time in the House merely to say
that these days I feel like a used car dealer.
The message I am trying to get across to
people who want to impst in Ontario is that
"we make deals".
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second
reading of Bill 112. Is the pleasure of the
House that the motion carry?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue
with the order paper and consider the legis-
lation noted thereon.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.20 o'clock, p.m.
No. 101
ONTARIO
J,t^islatmt of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, April 30, 1969
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per Bession, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 30, 1969
Metropolitan Toronto council, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 3762
Miss Alice Murphy of Cayuga, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon 3762
Hallucinogenic drugs, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon 3763
Expropriation Act, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. MacDonakl 3764
Health and medical insurance, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Trotter 3765
INCO refinery, questions to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Martel 3766
Hanes Company in Rexdale, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. Pilkey 3767
Export of beech trees, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Stokes 3767
Summer employment in Algonquin park, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Stokes 3767
Use of roads in Grand Lake area, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Stokes 3769
Police radio calls, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Ben 3768
Privacy of citizens from computers, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Ben 3768
Fog conditions at Copper Cliff creek, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Martel 3769
Stocking of fish in Great Lakes, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Paterson 3769
Grey County health units, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Trotter 3769
Hospital bed shortage in Hamilton, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Trotter 3770
Joseph Viner, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Makarchiik 3770
Betting shops, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Haggerty 3770
Radiation from colour TV, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Makarchuk 3770
Fire safety in high-rise buildings, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Ruston 3771
Registry Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 3771
Land Titles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 3780
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 3786
Legal Aid Act, 1966, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 3792
Regulations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, on second reading 3796
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Lawlor, agreed to 3800
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3800
S759
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met today at 2 o'clock p.m.
PrayOTS. •
Mr. Speaker: Today as our guests, in tibe
east gallery, we have students from the H^-
man E. Fawcett Secondary School in Brant-
ford; and in the west gallery from McKay
Senior Public School in Port Colborne; and
in both galleries we have members of the
High Park Branch of the Second Mile Club
in Toronto.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions. .
introductiori of bills.
Mr. Speaker: Last evening, while a vote
was being taken on a division with respect to
the second reading of Bill HI, the hon.
member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), being
in his seat, declined to vote, and, by way of
explanation, stated that when the division had
been called and the division bells started to
ring he had been on his feet on a point of
order and that he was not recognized by
Mr. Speaker and tiierefore that the entire
voting procedure was not in accordance with
the niles and, therefore, he was not required
to vote.
I directed that the vote be continued by
the Assistant Clerk of the House and that the
hon. member for High Park, declining to
vote, be recordied as voting against the
motion before the House.
Upon the conclusion of the vote and the
announcement of the result by the Assistant
Clerk of the House, which was in the affirma-
tive and the second reading of the bill, the
hon. member for High Park then explined
his position and put forth his point of order,
namely that Mr. Speaker had not given him
the opportunity to be heard on his point of
order before the division was called. Since
die hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr.
Renter), chairman of the committee of the
whole House, was in Mr. Speaker's chair at
tfie time the division bell started and the
division was called, I stated that I would be
glad to^ and would, in fac^, hear the tape of
Wednesday, April 30, 1969
the part of the evening's proceedings in ques-
tion and consult the rules and precedents of
the House and deal with the matter the fol-
lowing day. At this point, die hon. member
for Humber (Mr. Beai), rose in his place on
the point of order and pointed out to me that
there was no need for such procedure on die
part of Mr. Speaker since no member can be
heard in the House unless he catches the eyes
of Mr. Speaker, is recognized, and given the
floor. This obviously had not occurred so far
as the hon. member for High Park at the
time in question was concerned and there-
fore the hon. member had no point of order
and Mr. Speaker had nothing to investigate
and report upon. I felt that under die cir-
cumstances, since I had not been in the
House at the time the division was called
and the bells started ringing, I should inves-
tigate the matter as I previously mentioned
and report to the House.
I have now listened to the tkpe Of that
part of the proceedings last evening wliich
was brought into question by the hon. mem-
ber for High Park and I must confess that
it does not give me much assistance because
there apparendy was a very considerable
amount of confusion and noise in the House
at that particular time.
However, I would point out to the mem-
bers, as was mentioned by the hon- member
for Humber last evening, that a member of
the House gains the floor of the House only
by recognition by Mr. Speaker and this, I
believe, is known by every hon. member in
this House, including those to M^KMnr I have
referred. The contention that the failure of
the Chair to recognize the hon. member some-
how invalidates the voting procedure is not
tenable.
I have discussed the matter with the hon.
member for Waterloo South and he confirms
that the hon. member for High Park did not
catch his eye nor was he recognized or
given the floor by the hon. member for
Waterloo South, then in Mr. Speaker's Chair,
prior to the division being called and the
division bells started ringing.
As a consequence, therefore, tlie hon.
member for High Park's point of ord«" is
not well taken and is itself out of orders
3780
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, I want to address myself to a point
of privilege not related to your ruling.
Earlier today in tiie television rciom in this
building a press conference took place at
which were present, a certain Mr. Eagleson,
who I understand is the president of a politi-
cal organization closely aligned to the govern-
ment, and the hori. member for York-Forest
Hill (Mr. Dimlop), in his capacity as chair-
man of the selection committee on election
law. _
During the course of tliat press conference,
and the sole purpose of it insofar as I have
Ijeen able to ascertain, Mr. Eagleson handed
over to the chairman of that select commit-
tee a brief expressing the opinions of Mr.
Eagleson's group about certain laws that this
committee is investigating. Sir, this com-
mittee has, by decision of the committee and
at its^ session, called for the presentation of
rejxjrts. The reports have been transmitted
to the secretary of the committee and have
been dalt witii by the committee. Never be-
fore, either on this committee or on any other
select committee in which I have had the
privilege to serve, has there been a vdhicle
available where an individual has been able
to present, in press conference form, his re-
port to the chairman of the select committee,
rec«ving it by himself and entering into a
joint discussion as to the merits or lack of
merits of the suggestions contained therein.
It is my submission, sir, that a press con-
ference being called in this manner, and the
actions taken, wexsjaubies^eh^^^ the privileges
of all the members of tlie copimittee; and ^y**
tliie same token a breach of the privileges
of the House, because the House appointed
the committee. .
If there are any briefs to be submitted, I
would think that they ^ould be submitted
in the ordinary way, they should be received
by the; committee in the ordinary way; and at
the proper time. All those concerned should
have the privilege and opportunity of com-
menting on them.
In addition, sir, there is a second point as
to the use of that room by the heads of
political parties or the organizational heads
which we discussed before, l?ut much more
serious is this unusual procedure that was
embarked upon today, apparently to favour
as publicly as possible, views of a particular
poUtical organization in contempt of the
position of that select committee appointed
by this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker: If I may speak first to the
second part of the hon. member's submission.
That particular matter, I think, was well
discussed in the House in the not too recent
past and the views of the leaders of the two
Opposition parties and the Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts), as I recall it, were given and
undoubtedly will be found recorded in
Hansard. I would think that the proceedings
referred to by the hon. member would be in
line with the expression of opinion, as I
remember it, by the Prime Ministeir;Sj._^_^^__
^Wit>i ]-f^p^f>f,^*^- tliM r^rv{'-''^^^>^|-.;«fi^n, it
"would be my view that this is a matter that
the members of the committee, if they felt
that their rights were being in some way
infringed or impinged upon, should take up,
and I would receive from the chairman of the
committee of this House, the select com-
mittee, the appropriate report and request
that either action be taken, or that it be
brought to the notice of the House so far as
the committee members are concerned.
With respect to the situation of tfie mem-
ber of the House— not a member of the com-
mittee or a member of the committee to
which the hon. member has also referred—
I must say that I do not share his concern
with respect to this. It is a well knowb
fact in this day and age that on every side
of the House politically, everyone takes their
problems to the people in the best way to
get the widest i>ossible dissemination.
Now whether or not this is the proper way
from the committee viewpoint, I do not think
it is up to me, at this moment, to decide or
to rule upon, but I certainly will be pleased
if the committee itself wishes to report to
this House, through Mr. Speaker, to have Ae
matter dealt with at that time.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, if I may add just
a word. The difficulty is that the committee
was not made aware of tins in advance of this
event and my point of privilege is addressed
to the actions of ^e chai rman. , of the ooin-
mittee. I took the first opportunity, which
was today, to bring it to the attention of the
House because I believe seriously that the
privileges of that committee were infringed
upon, and that it was beiirig used— or the
chairman's good office were being used^-for
poUtical purpose, and in this' case, the politi-
cal purpose of the govemmcfnt parfy,
Mr. Speaker: The honi member for York-
view.
Mr. F. Young (Ywkview): Mr. Speaker, I
am wondering if the statement which has
just been made by you means that any mem-
ber of the committee may then bring in a
delegation who wishes to present a brief to
APRIL 30, 1969
3761
him and, to highlight a certain point of
view, may use t!te fiacilities of that rbom.
I would take that this follows. Certainly
what happene<i this morning— and it Just came
to my atteiitiori this moment— would indicate
that tihe chairman of this committee has used
his position— misused his position, if I can
pick up the phrase just handed to me by
my friend— misused his position in order to
highlight a particular point of view inimitable
to:,inany members of this House and to many
members of this province.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the
chairman has not only abused and misused,
but he has perhaps betrayed a trust, if that is
not too strong a phrase, as chairman of this
committee to use this position.
I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if this
means now that any other member of this
committee can use that room for the purpose
of highlighting any point of view in connec-
tion with election law which he may Wish to
do.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): K I
may speak to these points, Mr. Speaker, and
in the reverse order. I hope that whatever may
be the reaction to this particular use of this
room, we follow die guidelines that were laid
down by the Prime Minister earlier, and not
lay restrictions on the use of tiie room. It has
been built for the purpose of TV and matters
that deal with Ontario provincial politics.
Anybody can guess where I stand with regard
to this issue. But I am not going to complain
about that room being used for issues that are
relevant to Ontario pohtics. So much for that.
The second point and the basic one; I think
the hon. member for Ddwnsview has raised
a very pertinent point, and the hon. member
for Yorkview I think has drawn attrition to
some corollaries. Can everybody now engage
in the same pursuit? But the question I want
to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is, does that com-
mittee, in fact, exist? Am I not correct tiiat a
select committee, particularly after it has pre-
sented its report— we all know that sometimes
select committees do not complete their work
and work unoflBdally, so to speak, concur-
rently with the session imtil they have com-
iJeted tfieir work— but once they have com-
pleted their work and put in a report or an
interim report, does not a select committee in
effect die?
So there is no committee, and if it is re-
established, it will be re-established with or
without the same chairman? You see, I do
not object to the Tory party drami^tizing their
fearfuhiess of the New DemocraUc Party at
the next electiop. ,. .
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak to this point of
order.
I do not know about the last point raised
by the hon. member for York South— whether
the committee in fact exists— that is a tech-
nical question. Certainjy the report was an
interim report.
But as far as the submission of points of
view to any select conmiittee of this House
are concerned, I can only say that, of course,
all kinds of points of vie>y will be submitted.
These may be agreed with, or disagreed with,
by the government. That is the whole point of
a select committee, Mr. Speaker— that we have
a wide variety.
I am quite certain, if I choose to investigate
how that room has been used, I cannot be-
lieve that there have not been press confer-
ences held there countering submissions made
by all kinds of people to select committees.
Now, I do not happen to have one at the tip
of my fingers, but I am sure it has been.
This is where the member for York South
and I find ourselves in a;^ement, where wc
very seldom are. Anything which restricts the
use of that room I would want to examine
pretty carefully.
In this particular instance, I would only
say this. Just because it was presented by this
particular group does not mean that the
government has put an endoriement on what^
ever recommendations the group may make.
Now I realize there is one recommendatioii
there that my hon. friends opposite might feel
a httle sensitive about; there are a great
many others.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: In any event, the point
I make, Mr. Speaker, is that in the function-
ing of a select committee, there will be pre-
sented to that committee a great many vary-
ing views and the committee then will have
to take these views and do with them as it
sees fit. It then will report to this House, Mr.
Speaker. This House w^ do as it sees fit with
the report of the select committee and then
Mr. Speaker, the government will have to do
as it sees fit with whateyer recommendations
there are in the report.
So, I think it is a tempest in a teapot, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that has
been spoken to by several hon. members.
Surely, we are not concerned with the use
of the television room. We are not concerned
3762
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that the Progressive Conservative Party has
seen fit to offer a brief, which is certainly
within their powers and responsibihties. But
we are concerned that the chairman of the
select committee eistablished by all of the
members of this Legislature has lent the
dignity of his oflSce to a particular point of
view in this way and I believe he shonld be
reprimanded for it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Again, as with the
member for Yofk South, I would like to speak
to the matters in rieverse order. Certainly I
am of the opinion that the use of this par-
ticular facility, which is a well-equipped and
expensive one, should be made available to,
not only members of the House, but others
who have important matters to be discussed
with and for the people of Ontario. I think
that by and large we are all in agreement
with respect to that.
With respect to the other matter raised by
the member for York South, offhand I would
think that art iriterirtn report would not dis-
charge the committee. If I find that I am
incorrect in that \"iew I will advise him. I
will advise the House if I am incorrect that
the committee is still in existence. I will find
out from the appropriate sources of informa-
tion which are available to Mr. Speaker and
the House.
With respect to the other point raised
originally by the member for Downsview and
spoken to by the other members. I again re-
main firm in the opinion that, if the committee
is existing, it is a matter for the committee
first to deal with. If I find that this com-
mittee is not in existence, then if the hon.
members wish at that time for me to take
action, after I have reported, I will be glad
to put the matter to the House in the manner
that I feel it should be, bearing in mind the
representations by the hon. members to my
left.
I would hope that, for the moment at least,
would deal with the point raised by the hon.
member for DownSview. I do not think, at
the moment, there Is any different way of
dealing with it to be fair and to know where
we do actually stand in accordance with the
niles and precedents of the House and the
existence of the committee.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Premier.
I wonder if the Premier can tell the House
if he is going to meet with Metropolitan
Toronto council to discuss increases in school
costs submitted in the metro school board
budget?
I might just mention that I understand that
they have requested such a meeting.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, the understand-
ing is wrong— at least it has not reached my
desk as yet. I have had no request nor can
I find, in looking through the various sources
through which requests come to my desk,
that it is in the mill any place. So I can only
say I have not been asked for such a meet-
ing.
I read the press report and it might be
interpreted that a request had been made,
but, in fact, it has not.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question to the
Attorney General further to the matter that
I raised yesterday.
Has Mrs. Alice Murphy, of Cayuga, an
employee in a provincial court, received pay-
ment for services in addition to the amount
reported yesterday, this payment having been
received since the difficulties were brought to
the Attorney General's attention last week?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):;
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a ques-
tion previously, on April 28, to which I re-
plied in part yesterday; and I undertoook to
reply further as soon as I could get the facts.
So I should like to reply to the previous
question and the question today and hope to
clear the whole matter up at this time.
The previous question was:
Can the Attorney General explain the
circumstances that resulted in Alice
Murphy, of Cayuga^ formerly clerk of the
provincik and family and juvenile court,
presently acting sheriff, registrar of supreme
and surrogate court, and clerk of the county
court, going without pay since January 1,
1968?
I said yesterday that that was completely
wrong, as the woman had received over
$7,000 to 1968 in the regular and usual way
by bi-monthly cheques, or whatever basis we
are all paid upon.
The question today said: has she received
anything since for services, m additiori to the
amount reported yesterday?
The facts, Mr, Speaker, are that prior to
the assumption by the province of the costs
of the administration of justice on January 1,
1968, Miss Alice Murphy Was receiving the
following remuneration:
As deputy sheriff, deputy local registrar,
SCO, deputy county coUrt clerk and deputy
surrogate registrar— $6,548 per year.
APRIL 30, 1969
3763
Then as magistrate's court clerk, on a part-
time basis she was paid $120 per month, from
the proceeds of fines and receipts in the
magistrate's court— $1,440 per year.
Then as juvenile and family court clerk,
paid by the municipality on the basis of $75
per month— $900 per year.
Total as of January 1, 1968-$8,888.
In addition to that Miss Murphy recei\ ed
fees as justice of the peace, for work which
was performed outside of regular office hours.
Those fees, I might say, in 1968, amounted
to $1,482.62.
After the assumption by the province of
the costs of the administration of justice, all
the above positions were combined and The
Department of the Civil Service assessed the
position at tlie level of a Clerk 5 General.
For this position Miss Murphy was paid
during 1968 the maximum of that category,
namely $7,266 per annum. And on January 1,
1969, that rate was increased to $7,553 per
annum. That would be the ordinary incre-
ment. So as of the first of this year, her pay
was $7,553 per annum. But I wish to stress
that that amount, $7,266 was paid to her
regularly in the usual way. So the story that
she went without pay for a year and a half
is complete nonsense.
Further, Mr. Speaker, attempts were made
to have the position reclassified as Clerk 6
General—
An hon. member: Does that matter?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: -a higher rate. That
was an attempt on the part of our depart-
ment to have her standing increased. That
did not succeed on our first presentation. We
made a recommendation, then, to The De-
partment of Civil Service that she be paid
on what we call a red circle rate, which is
the combined amount which she had been
receiving from the government, and from the
municipality, and from the magistrate's court.
That was approved. Last week, an order-
in-council was passed setting her salary at
$8,888 as of January 1, 1968, and that car-
ried through to February 28, 1969. A cheque
was forwarded to her for those arrears of
what she had received, the amount being
$1,391.59.
Mr. Nixon: When was that sent?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not have the exact
date, but the order-in-council was passed
last week.
Mr. Nixon: She had just got the money
after the matter was raised.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No-well perhaps she
has got it since she raised the matter. But
the story that she was not paid for a year
and a half is just nonsense. It will hardly
bear notice. The fact is, efforts were being
made on behalf of this woman to increase
her standing; and it was through the Civil
Service that this was done, not through The
Department of the Attorney General. I would
like to make that clear, although we extended
efforts on her behalf to show the amount of
work she was doing. I should point out fur-
ther, Mr. SpeaJcer, that at the present time,
due to the illness of the present sheriff, Miss
Murphy has been acting sheriff since March
1969, and she is beiog paid at the rate of
$9,157 since that date, since she has per-
formed that extra service. Perhaps that wiU
set the matter completely at rest.
Mr. Nixon: Just one further thing. With
all her titles, does the Minister of Justice
mean to say that the assumption of the ad-
ministration of ju^ice of the province is rele-
gated there to simply Clerk 5?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I said the classification.
That is just a civil service classification. I do
not know but the civil service, as far as I
am aware, does not give a person his official
title; he is a driver, or a file clerk or whatever
the classification may be. There is Engineer
1, Engineer 2— these are just classifications.
I would just correct the hon. member by
pointing out she is now Clerk 6; that is the
top, I think.
Mr. Singer: Could the Minister see if he
could borrow the services of the Minister
of Health (Mr. Dymond) and the fellow who
invented the title for the stuffed animals Act
—give her that name?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, if I could
just add this: in fairness to Miss Murphy, she
herself never complained of the treatment she
was receiving.
Mr. Nixon: Was it the provincial judge who
complained on her behalf?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I did not receive any
complaints, although a newspaper article in-
dicates that he had brought the matter to
the attention of the Attorney General. Nothing
of that sort came in, and Miss Murphy did
not complain.
Mr. Nixon: Mr, Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Health. Is the quality
analysis of hallucinogenic drugs made by
the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research
3764
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Foundation of a confidential nature? If so,
does the Minister know how it has reoei\'ed
widespread distribution?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Heiilth):
Mr. Speaker, the foiuickition is not conduct-
ing a quality analysis of hallucinogens, but it
has been analyzing various substances to
determine the content. Tihe question that they
have been attempting to research has l:)een
the kind of substances that drug users in
Ontario are consviming. The material is sent
to the foundation by individuals or by groups,
organizations, schools, social agencies, hos-
pitals and sometimes parents, and since the
reports are considered of a confidential nature,
they cU^e returned to the person.
However, we have learned that for some
unknown reason a niiml>er of these reports
have fallen into the hands of some person or
persons at Rochdale College and this is how
we believe they have got circulation. But
they were not sent there by the foundation,
unless someone from Rochdale asked that an
analysis or a determination be done.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Attorney General.
For expropriation cases which were not
setded l^efore the new Expropriation Act
came into effect last December, have prop-
erty owners the right to avail themselves of
a board of negotiation, as per section 27 and
the land compensation board, as per section
28 of the new Act, rather than the board of
arbitration under the old Act?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I just got
this question before I came into the House.
I was inclined to take it as notice, but per-
haps I could help the hon. member to some
extent. I brought The Expropriation Act in
with me, and I would direct his attention to
section 46 and would like to read it and
comment upon it. Section 46, subsection 1:
This Act applies in respect of expropria-
tions for which a plan has not been regis-
tered under section 4 of The Expropriation
Procedures Act, 1962-1963, before this Act
comes into force, and an expropriation for
which a plan has been registered under
section 4 of the said Act before this Act
comes into force shall be continued in
accordance with The Expropriation Pro-
c^edures Act, 1962-1963, except that where
the compensation—
I think this is perhaps the crux of the matter:
—where the compensation has not been
agreed upon between the parties and no
evidence has been heard by a tribunal
imder The Expropriation Procedures Act,
1962-1963, other than the board of nego-
tiation, sections 13 to 21, 23, 24, 29, 33,
34, 35 and 42 apply thereto.
What that means with respect to compensa-
tion is this, that although the proceedings
may have started under the former Act, if
compensation has not been determined by
some tribunal, or at least if evidence has
not been heard before the court, it would
not necessarily have to be a judgment. The
board of negotiation does not count. Evidence
before the kitchen table does not count. If
the compensation has not been either before
the court for determination and evidence
heard or determined, then you get your com-
pensation under the procedures laid down in
this Act. You go before the land compensa-
tion Ixxird. This Act was proclaimed on
December 20, 1968.
So that in short, if evidence was not given
before a court on the matter of compensation,
or compensation was not awarded by the
court, then the persons may proceed to get
the compensation determined under the prin-
ciples of this Act and the agencies created
by this Act, including the land compensation
board.
I should perhaps note, subsection 2 of the
section 46 that I read and which says:
Until section 28 is proclaimed in force,—
That is the section which sets up the land
compensation board,
—in force, the Ontario Municipal Board
shall be deemed to be the Land Compensa-
tion Board.
We have not yet established the new land
compensation board, but we are moving to
that, and I would hope that before too long
the board would be established. But I think
that that perhaps answers the question very
fully.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if you will
just permit me a brief comment.
I want to thank the Attorney General. I
do not know whether he is aware of the fact
which I discovered last night that no fewer
than five reputable lawyers involved in ex-
propriation cases were genuinely puzzled and
in conflict as to whether or not they could
proceed under this Act on cases for which
evidence had not been heard by a tribunal
and for which, final settlement had not been
reached. I think the problem is that sections
27 and 28 are not listed in that section 46
as being available to unsettled cases, and
that creates the uncertainty. Having clarified
it now, the Attorney General may well have
APRIL 30, 1969
3765
resolved an awful lot of doubts and perhaps
saved expropriating authorities a lot of money
with lawyers squabbling over the issue.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I must say I think the
procedure is pretty clear here. If you have
not got the compensation determined, or
have not given evidence before a court, you
get it under this Act.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough
East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Premier
in two parts.
In light of the current dispute at Forest
Hill Collegiate Institute as reported in the
Globe and Mail today:
(a) Does the publication of a mimeographed
newspaper by a group of high school stu-
dents constitute grounds for suspension of
some of those students by the school prin-
cipal?
(b) Does the free association of a number
of individuals into a student group consti-
tute grounds for suspension of some of those
students by the school principal?
Second, in light of the point of view at-
tributed to school trustee Mr. Ying Hope in
tlie GloJ)e and Mail this morning, that he
thinks it unlikely that the school board will
intervene on behalf of the suspended stu-
dents of Forest Hill Collegiate Institute, can
the school board legally refuse to hear an
appeal from the students? If the board can-
not refuse, does not the point of view attrib-
uted to Mr. Hope prejudice the "due process"
of such an appeal?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have re-
ferred this question to the Minister of Edu-
cation (Mr. Davis) under whose jurisdiction
the many technical matters in the question
come.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the
Prime Minister when the Minister of Educa-
tion is going to come to this Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
can only say that he is not the least busy
man in this House. I will find out where he
is at the present time and what he is doing.
He answers u host of questions posed by this
particular member and I am quite certain he
will be here. Why he is not here at the
moment I do not know, but I am afraid I can-
not undertake to answer questions involving
technicalities in all the departments of this
government.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Park-
dale.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Premier. It is a
three part question.
When did the Minister of Health meet
with the representatives of the insurance in-
dustry to discuss the insurance industr>''s part
in health administration when Ontario joins
the federal medical insurance scheme?
Second part is, has the government invited
the private insurance industry to fonn a
consortium to administer either all, or part,
of the health insurance in Ontario when
Ontario joins the federal medical insurance
scheme?
The third part is, did the government offer
the same terms as offered to the private
insurance industry, to Physicians and Sur-
geons Incorporated, permitting PS I to admin-
ister either all or in part, health insurance in
Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there have
been many meetings between the Minister of
Health and representatives of the insurance
industiy. There are some very close negoti-
ations going on at the present time. I think
this is obvious. There are times when the
public interest is not served by the govern-
ment revealing everything being said or done
or we are saying or doing in negotiations of
this type. Therefore, at this time, I do not
propose to give the particulars that are asked
for in this question.
Of course, I will immediately be accused
of keeping information from this House, but
there are some areas where in government
activity where it is just not possible to put
the entire position at all times in front of
the public. This is one of those situations.
In due course, when the government has
worked its way through the many very com-
plexed questions that are involved in this
whole matter, we will make a report to the
House. At that time, we will be prepared
to answer questions as to what we have done,
and we will accept the responsibility for any
decisions we might make.
In the meantime, I do not think that the
public interest will be served by attempting
to provide answers to the details of negotia-
tions that are presently taking place.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
Prime Minister would accept a supplementary
question.
3766
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Does he think the pubhc interest of the
people of Ontario is ser\ed when the govern-
ment contemplates selling out to the private
insurance industry?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, that is
the kind of, I would sa>, completely stupid
supplementary question to which we are
subjected in this House. We have one in-
terest in what we are doing-
Mr. Trotter: Yes, prixate insurance com-
panies, that is the Premier's only interest.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I remember another
member of this man's party who criticized
and cast false imputations on the motives of
the insurance companies. He lost his seat and
with it, lost the leadership of the party. I
remember that incident very well.
Mr. Trotter: It just shows the power of
pressure, and the government has not got guts
to stand up to them—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not think the
member can come in here—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not think that any
member of this House should come in here
and impute motives, and generally ulterior
motives, to—
Mr. Trotter: It is justified in that the
Premier cannot give a straight answer to that
question.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, the member can
give them to me, if he likes. I will stand up
to anyone I wish, and anyone I think I should,
including the federal government, if it is
in the interest of the people of this province.
Mr. Trotter: The Premier is contemplating
a sell out.
An hon. member: There were a lot more
when the hon. member's party was in.
Mr. Trotter: The Premier is afraid to answer
the question.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, we went
through this same rigamarole and a long
series of accusations when we had to deal
with the Canada Pension Plan. We were
accused then of protecting the vested interests
of the insurance companies.
Mr. Trotter: The government would have
stopped it if it could have. They tried to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If the hon. member
would listen, perhaps he might learn some-
thing, I realize—
Mr. Trotter: We observe too!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I realize he approaches
the whole subject with a closed mind. We
are not buying anything particularly from
anybody until we see what we can achieve
for the people of this province and what
might be best. I refer to the Canada Pension
Plan, because in that regard we had the same
accusations hurled at us. I think as far as
the people of this province are concerned, it
was a better plan for them when we finished
than when we started, and at this time we
were involved in a somewhat similar dispute
to this.
We will do what we think is right for the
people of this province. When we have com-
pleted what we are doing, we will lay it
before this Legislature and we will lay it
before the people of this province. If we
have done wrong, I suppose we will suffer
as inevitably people in our position will. If
we have done right, it may be we will con-
tinue in the position we have held for 25
years.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Speaker, a question submitted several days
ago, one to the Minister of Health:
Because the construction of a new stack
by INCO at Copper Cliff will not reduce the
amount of emission of sulphur dioxide in the
air, and because—
Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the hon.
member that that question was asked and
was answered. In my recollection— 'the hon.
Minister supports me in that — perhaps he
might check Hansard and find the answer
and go on to his question of the Minister
of Mines.
The hon. member has a question of the
Minister of Mines which has not been asked.
Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of
Mines:
When was the waste heater boiler section
of the INCO refinery last inspected by The
Department of Mines? And what recom-
mendations were made to INCO with respect
to cleaning up the many hazardous conditions
which exist there which have been discussed
with management and which management
refuses to correct? And what action does the
Minister recommend the men follow when
management refuses to correct the hazardous
condition, after the channels now available
to them have been exhausted, to result in
corrective measures being taken?
APRIL 30, 1969
3767
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, this matter is still under very
active investigation by the officials of The
Department of Mines in Sudbury with the
company men involved.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I also asked a
six-part question of the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management on April 17. He
ansAvered the last three parts and indicated
he would answer the first three later on. I
wonder if he has the answers.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
was tliat question 1194?
Mr. Martel: I do not have the original
question; I have it in Hansard. The first ques-
tion is: "Was it concluded by the committee
of representaives of OWRC" and so on.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am sorry, I liave not
that question, or I have not an answer for it.
I thought I had cleaned up all the member's
questions.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker's records indi-
cate that there are no questions outstanding
from the member, and if he would wish to
check with the Minister, then witli Mr.
Speaker's office, we will try and get our
records altogether.
The hon. member for Oshawa was on his
feet a minute ago.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
a question of the Minister of Labour:
Has the Minister made any effort to bring
the parties to the bargaining table in the
dispute with the Hanes Company in Rex-
dale? Can the Minister tell the House what
the issues are that remain unsolved and
whether this is a first agreement? And how
long has this company been located in Rex-
dale and is this a wholly owned American
subsidiary?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the question of the
hon. member: Efforts have been made by my
conciliation branch to bring the parties to-
gether and as recently as this morning furtlier
discussions took place.
The second part: This is the first agree-
ment, and I am sure the hon. member
appreciates that the issues between the parties
are matters between the management, the
union and those mediating the dispute.
And the third: Our files do not indicate
how long this company has been in Rexdale,
or the answer to the otlier matter.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): I have two ques-
tions of the Attorney General.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will note
that the Attorney General is not in his seat
at the moment. When he returns to his seat,
the hon. member may ask his questions.
Mr. Nixon: He is finding out what is going
on in Haldimand county,
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thun-
der Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I liave two
quesition of the Minister of Lands and Forests.
The first one is in four parts: Does the
company exporting beech trees from Algon-
quin Park to Tennessee have an export per-
mit? What volume of this species has been
exported for the past two years? To what
use are these tree-length logs being put? Is
it not possible to process them in Ontario?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member:
1. No beech trees are exported unprocessed
from Ontario Crown land. 2. None have been
exported in an unprocessed state from Crown
land. 3. Not applicable. 4, Yes, it is possible
to process them in Ontario.
Mr. Stokes: Another question, Mr. Speaker:
How many university students were hired
for summer employment in Algonquin Park
for the years 1968 and 1969? Is the Minister
aware that American owners of trailers have
been allowed the use of roads in the Grand
Lake area— that should read "of the park"—
which is a portion of the park reserved for
canoe routes? Is there any explanation for
this?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to question No. 1: at Algonquin Park in 1958
there were 50 positions on seasonal staflF
filled by students during the summer season.
This year we will be hiring between 70 and
80 students. The increase this year will be
in large measure due to the strengthened pro-
gramme planned for the guidance of those
using the park interior and also for improv-
ing the cleanliness of the park.
Question No. 2: Since 1959, access by
government constructed roads to the Grand
Lake area has been available to the general
public. Camping by tent or tailer is permitted
at that lake under a camping permit. This
area has not been reserved entirely for oanoe
access only, although, like other camping
3768
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
areas, it may be reached by canoe as well
as by road.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
her.
Mr. Ben: These are question, Mr. Speaker,
1299 and 1314, of April 28.
The first question is: Are the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police testing scramblers to frustrate
criminals hstening in on police radio calls?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Not as far as I know,
and they advise me they are not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ben: May I ask a supplementary ques-
tion? Will the Attorney General give consid-
eration to having the OPP do just that?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I will discuss it with
them. I will go that far.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I have another ques-
tion:
Are representations being made to the
federal Department of Justice for the piissage
of a law to protect the privacy of citizens
from invasion by snoopy computers, because
of recent statements made by Kenneth Cheng,
director of the Ontario statistical centre in
an article in the recent issue of Chittt/s Law
Journal that there is no guarantee that all the
infomiation on people stored in data banks
around the country will not be brought to-
gether to create complete dossiers for sale
on a profit basis?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, we are
not making any further representations at the
present time, but from the remarks I pre-
viously made in the House I think the hon.
niember is aware we have had communicatioai
and representation with the federal committee
on justice, which is a parliamentary commit-
tee. We sent forward to tliat committee the
report of the Ontario Law Reform Commis-
sion on protection of privacy, and that matter
is being studied at the federal level. I have
had discussions vdth the federal Minister of
Justice about this whole matter, but for the
moment that is where it stands— it is being
studied by the federal parliamentary com-
mittee.
Mr. Ben: May I ask a supplementary ques-
tion of the Attorney General? Will the Minis-
ter make enquiries to find out how the studies
are progressing and let this House know?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I talked with tlie federal
Minister of Justice Friday last on a number
of subjects in Sault Ste. Marie when we hfl<l
an opportunity, and he informs me that this
is a very exhaustive study that is going for-
ward. I am kept pretty well informed. I do
not think there is any point of making an
enquiry of that committee, perhaps, imtil it
reports.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. memiber for Essex
South.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Energy and Resources Management— No.
1357.
1. Is the Ontario Water Resources Com-
mission aware that the U.S. Anny Corps of
Engineers is proposing to deposit materials
in the area of the Amlierstbvirg Channel of
the Detroit River?
2. Will the Minister's staff enter into dis-
cussion to detennine whether these materials
will be industrial waste or materials dredged
from seaway shipping channels?
3. Will the Minister assure the i>eople of
our province that tliis operation, if allowed,
will not pollute the Detroit River and that
while the site is being filled, landscaping and
conservation practices will be enforced?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, the staflF
of OWRC were appearing before tlie com-
mittee on commissions today, therefore I was
unable to get the answer, so I will take the
question as notice.
Mr. Paterson: A question to the same Min-
ister.
In view of the Ontario Water Resources
Commission's announcement of April 28 that
a study is being done by the International
Joint Commission concerning nutrient removal
from municipal waste discharges and the in-
crease of tlie eutrophic level in the Great
Lakes: 1. Would the Minister indicate the
increase on the phosphorus levels in Lake
Erie? 2. Can this increased level of phos-
phonis be directly related to primary waste
treatment plants being built by municipali-
ties under the orders of the Ontario Water
Resources Commission? 3. In the Minister's
opinion, will the Ontario Water Resources
Commission now consider ordering munici-
palities to build secondary treatment plants to
alleviate this situation?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I will also
take that question as notice.
Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. member goes
on with his questions, I wonder if the hon.
Minister has located-I think he sent me a
note he had located something to do with the
questions from the member for Sudbury
APRIL 30, 1969
3769
East, wliich means his records are better than
mine. Perhaps he would deal with it now.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I do have
the answer to question No. 1194.
The answer to the first part: the committee
fonned to study the fog situation has not yet
submitted its final report. Work done by
the OWRC in 1968 suggested that topo-
graphy of the area and warm water dis-
charges to the creek could be factors affect-
ing the formation of fog.
The International Nickel Company Limited
is carrying out a programme to eliminate the
direct discharge of warm water to the creek.
The answer to the second part: the OWRC
is not aware of any unusual discharge of
hot water to Copper Cliff Creek at 11 p.m.
on April 2, 1969.
The answer to the third part: the OWRC
has received information that a fog condi-
tion existed in the area around Highway 17
and Copper Cliff Creek on April 2, 1969.
Mr. Martel: May I ask the Minister a sup-
plementary question?
Would the Minister inquire of Interna-
tional Nickel if they did, in fact, discharge
their boiler water on the date in question and
time in question?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I think
I answered that in the second part. I think
employees of OWRC have tried to establish
whether there was water discharge at Copper
Cliff Creek at 11 o'clock on April 2, and I
said that they are not aware of any unusual
discharge.
Mr. Speaker: The lion, member for Essex
South might now please complete his ques-
tions.
Mr. Paterson: Yes, I ha\'e a question of the
Minister of Lands and Forests.
Are there any international agreements
respecting the stocking of coho salmon, or
any other fish, in tlie Great Lakes?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply-
ing to the hon. member, there are no fonnal
international agreements respecting the stock-
ing of coho or any other fish in the Great
Lakes.
There is, however, a general understanding
that the United States and Ontario will con-
sult each other through the offices of the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission prior to the
release of any new species. Ontario provided
a prospectus to the commission and to the
United States and recei\'ed agreement prior
to releasing kokanee salmon four years ago.
There has been agreement since before 1960
on the lake trout releases in Lake Superior
where Ontario plants half a mdllion yearlings
and the three states and the United States
federal agencies plant between on* and four
million trout annually.
There was general agreement between
Ontario, Michigan and the commission, that
splake, developed by Ontario, would be used
in 1969 and afterwards to rehabifitate Lake
Huron. We supplied Michigan witli 2,500
breeding stock splake some time ago and the
United States Fish and Wild Life Service
with 100,000 splake fry tliis year, for culture
and release in Michigan waters.
We in our department question the plant-
ing of coho in international waters and
especially in Lake Huron, where there is a
possibility of interference with our splake, our
kokanee and rainbow trout programmes. As
the hon. member knows, the coho has made
a dramatic appearance in the Great Lakes,
but before my department commits any large
sums of money to their management, the
species' long term contribution needs to be
fully attested.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Park-
dale was on his feet.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, two questions
for the Minister of Health.
1. Is the government of Ontario paying
grants to the county council of the county
of Grey for health units on the basis of the
count>' budget as approved for the present
fiscal year? If so, does the government realize
that the county of Grey budget provides for
increased salaries for public health nurses,
but that at present the county council refuses
to pay the increased salaries?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, we are
not paying grants as the hon. member sug-
gests, yet; we are paying interim grants based
on the audited statement of last year and will
continue to do that until the new budget has
been fixed and then there will be adjustments.
We do know that there is some diflFer-
ence of opinion between the county council
and the board of health, but all our grants go
to the board of health, which is the duly
appointed body responsible for the setting
of its own budget and the expenditure of it.
We do not send our money to the county
council.
Mr. Trotter: Just a point of clarification,
if I may, to be sure of that answer, Mr.
Speaker. As I understand it, the grants you
3770
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
send to the board of health are based on the
audited statement of last year?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is the interim
measure until the budget is finally set.
Mr. Trotter: Right, thank you. I ha\e a
second question for the Minister of Health.
What action is the Minister taking to ease
the apparent shortage of hospital beds in
Hamilton, as reported in today's Toronto
Globe and Mail?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this question as notice, because I
would like to get to the root of this.
Just a few days ago I was discussing this
matter of bed space with the OHSC staff
and I was told that there is actually a statis-
tical shortage of nine chronic care beds in
Hamilton, more than made up by a surplus of
convalescent care beds. But I would like
to get the facts underlying this report appear-
ing in today's paper and I will report back
to the hon. member.
Mr. Trotter: If the Minister is checking
into it he may, for his information, pass on
that the social planning and research council
of Hamilton says in some cases it takes as
long as a year to get a chronic bed in Hamil-
ton.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brant-
ford.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Justice and Attorney General.
In view of the Minister's reply yesterday—
that should read a few days ago— if Mr. Joseph
Viner wishes to appeal his case, will the
Minister's department underwrite the cost of
that appeal, so that Mr. Viner has an oppor-
tunity to have his case heard in court?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The answer, Mr.
Speaker, is no; we would not be paying the
cost of any appeal.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland
South.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Speaker, a question to the Attorney General.
When does the Minister plan to introduce
legislation to prohibit the operation of betting
shops, or to provide the licensing, regulating
and governing of the owners or operators of
the betting shops by the province of Ontario,
or by the board of commissioners of police, as
requested by a resolution of the city of
Niagara Falls?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I must
say I have no plans at the moment for intro-
ducing such legislation. We are watching the
situation, getting all the information we can
as to how these shops are operating, the
number of them and where they are located,
and how they conduct their affairs.
Apart from that, I think the hon. member
is aware, that, after the supreme court case
which made legal the operation of what is
known as the messenger service, I urged that
the Minister of Justice at Ottawa take action-
look at the law, and possibly amend it. In
that I was supported by the Attorneys General
of three of the other pro\ inces. This was at
the time of the dominion provincial confer-
ence in February.
I have spoken with the Minister of Justice
on a number of occasions since then, the
latest time Friday last. The federal Depart-
ment of Justice is looking at the matter of
amending the Criminal Code, which covers
gaming and betting. They have not, so far
as I am aware, reached a firm decision yet.
If the situation became such that we be-
came concerned about it here, then I would
find it necessary to discuss the matter with
my colleague and see if some policy could be
developed.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the da)'. The han. member for
Brantford put a question to the hon. Minister
of Labour, part of which was referred to me:
Has the department investigated the pos-
sibility of TV repair technicians, and possibly
TV factor>' workers, receiving harmful doses
of radiation?
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes we have.
We have visited the assembly lines of four
maufacturers and four very large service
shops. In none of the cases have we found
any evidence of chronic damage, or damage
growing from chronic exposure. We are,
however, keeping the matter under constant
check and making periodic reviews of these
situations.
Mr. Makarchuk: Would the Minister accept
a supplementary to that?
I was wondering if the department has
done any checking in, not necessarily the
better-equipped shops, but the shops that
operate in basements, where the technicians
do not have the proper equipment to measure
the voltages and as a result they can bring on
larger radiation?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I cannot answer that
definitively, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure the
APRIL 30, 1969
3771
member we will check the different relations
of shops.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, last week I believe, I
imswered a question put by the member for
Cochrane South (Mt. Ferrier) in which I
referred to the number of lakes in Ontario,
and I believe I said 750,000. I am very
enthusiastic about our province, but I was
just three times out on that. There are
250,000 lakes in our province, not 750,000,
and I would not like to mislead the members
of the House, so I will make that correction.
An Hon. member: It is still a lot of lakes.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, a question was asked on
April 22, by the hon. member for Essex-Kent
(Mr. Ruston). The question was:
Is the Attorney General making any
recommendations to the fire marshal's office
to prevent the hazards of living in 15- to
25-storey buildings without the adequate
facilities to rescue residents in case of
fire?
The only answer I can give, Mr. Speaker, is
that at the present time studies are being
made by the National Research Council and
the Dominion Fire Commissioner, to consider
the ramifications in the problems created by
fire in high-rise buildings sucli as are men-
tioned by the hon. member. When these
studies are completed, the results will be
reflected in amendments to tlie various build-
ing codes. At the present time, the fire mar-
shal advises all fire depaitmenits in Ontario,
by such publications as the Fire Marshal's
Quarterly Revietv, so tiiat fire protection
agencies are aware of the current thinking
and the results of study on this subject.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE REGISTRY ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice)
moves second reading of Bill 102, An Act to
amend The Registry Act.
Mr. J. E. BuIIbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Speaker,
in connection with this legislation it is dif-
ficult to speak to a matter of principle be-
cause I think my friend the Attorney General
will agree that really there are no great
principles enunciated in this particular bill.
So I just want to comment on one principle,
or one aspect of the bill.
Basically, as I read the bill, it really is of
a technical nature involving changes in the
procedures available to the public in connec-
tion with registrations of various types of
documents, and the necessary and concurrent
proofs of, and ^rm* of, registration. How-
ever, there is one thing that I want to men-
tion in connection with this bill that has
struck me as it relates to Bill 103, and that is
the transference of jurisdiction regarding
registration matters from the office of the
inspector of legal offices, to the office now
called the director of land registration. Per-
haps it would be more germane, when we get
to Bill 103, to mention that basically I in-
vite the attention of the Attorney General to
the fact that here, under section 4 of the
bill it says:
The office of the director of land regis-
tration must be occupied by a person quali-
fied as a barrister or solicitor.
And happily so, because frankly, with the
new techniques in connection with planning
and zoning— and for that matter, financing
relating to building— it is becoming more
and more technical every day to deal with.
At one time was a simple matter of registra-
tion.
When we go to Bill 103, Mr. Speaker, we
will find that the master of titles does not
have to be a barrister, and we will discuss this
further. Basically, I can be short in this con-
nection because, as I say, there is really no
thrust of any great principle relative to the
legislation as I see it. I am not going to
talk about, by way of example, the necessity
to prove age for a guarantor in a mortgage,
and this is really what the statute deals with
—matters of that nature.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I agree with
my learned friend that the bill contains no
matters of great substance. At the same time
there are two or three points of principle
that perhaps should be brought to the atten-
tion of the House. With the creation of the
new office of land registration, there is an
integration procedure taking place between
the land titles office, and the registry office,
whidi is also spelled out in the next sub-
sequent bill to come before us, and I thiiJc
all my remarks will be directed to that point
at this time.
As I see the situation, a new office has been
created, the position that has thus far
been assumed by the inspector of legal offices
being derogated from. I do not quite know
what the range of powers of the inspector of
legal offices is, but he certainly carried out
the functions of looking after registry offices
and land titles offices throughout this province
to this time. If they are going to integrate
3772
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the two regLstry systems, it is anticipated that
masters of titles will be superseded, that they
will be integrated in the fullest sense, that
only one individual, perhaps called the
director of titles or what you will, will exer-
cise in any particular county the full powers
of that office? Or is it anticipated, since many
people have been appointed and enjoy tenure
at this time, that perhaps what I suggest in
the long run will take place, namely that
one individual will handle both procedures?
Or is it to happen that there will be two
individuals within a single office, conducting
various asi>ects of the integration?
I tliink the Attorney General will agree
with me that in the long run it will be highly
desirable that every registry office in this
province l>e closed in the sense of being
integrated into the land titles system. That is
the ultimate objective. I would be most inter-
ested in learning of that, because as everyone
knows, at least within the legal profession,
this is a far more expeditious procedure,
and should be less costly, since the titles and
land titles are guaranteed titles, and there is
no necessity for solicitors to go beyond the
fact of the title. There is an insurance fund
to back the title, and certainly the registry
office system going back on a 40-year basis,
as we do at the present, is an increasingly
outmoded, and archaic and unnecessarily in-
volved system for the legal profession to
have to contend with as it comes into the
nex-t decade. I would trust that this would be
the overall objective of this new bill.
I would point out to the Attorney General
that there may be a misprint in section 1 of
his bill, where he refers to section 3 of the
bill. I suggest that that probably should be
section 4 of the bill; that is where the
appointment for the director comes into
being, tlirough the Lieutenant-Governor.
Apart from that tliere are one or two
points, I think the bringing of affidavits into
being, where guarantors or sureties for mort-
gages are for the first time being required to
give an affidavit of age, is all to the good.
Some people under age, acting as sureties,
tlien cannot be held responsible unless certain
rather basic conditions are met, and to have
this disclosure made most of the time, would
mean their signatures as sureties would not
be worth the paper they are written on.
There is a further point I would like to
bring to The Attorney General's Department,
and that is widi respect to affidavits not to
bar dower in mortgages or in deeds of com-
mon law wives. I take the case of the joint
tenancy situation where two people have
taken property as joint tenants. They have
comported themselves as husband and wife
to all intents and purposes. Truly it is a com-
mon law relationship. They represent to all
and sundry that they live in matrimonial
bliss, but the fact of the matter is that they
do not happen to be married. I wonder if it
is necessary— I do not think it is under tlie
present sections, and it could be called perjury
—for people to swear that they are married.
In tlie legislation that the Attorney General
is bringing l:>efore us here, he does require
them to make it quite clear that they are
married to one another, period. I wonder if it
is not unnecessarily embarrassing to the in-
dividuals concerned, to enforce that restric-
tion upon them. We have managed for many
years to get along without it. Most people
who come into legal offices call the women
"my wife" and the documents are written up
that way. They do not make any particular
disclosure, nor are they under any grave
obligation to do so. But, under this new
section, it would be mandatory of them to
make the disclosure with all the ensuing em-
barrassment that might result.
On the other hand, there may be good
reasons with respect to the validity of titles,
why this regulation is being changed. I know
of no cases that have risen recently w'hich
have called a title into question because of a
basic misrepresentation, if this would be
called such. If tliat is the basis for the
Attorney General's reasoning, for introducing
this measure, very well and good. It would
then obviate the difficulty.
The only final remark I have to make is
that I was pleased to see the exclusion of
memorials of all kinds dating back to before
certain dates. So that hidden documents
dating back to ancient times and kept in hope
chests around the province, or in musty
dormitories, do not get themselves registered
—throwing titles into grave question.
He has extended the provisions with respect
to leases, and notices of leases, back in those
days; but us for claims to title, aphart from
very specifically designated ones, they have
been excluded from now on.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs-
view was first on his feet.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview) Mr.
Speaker, I do not know whether to make my
annual speech about tlie uselessness of our
system of dealing with tides under this bill,
or under the next bill. But, since it was in-
troduced by the member for Lakeshore under
this bill, perhaps I could pick it up again. I
have said for I think as many >'ears as I have
APRIL 30, 1969
3773
been here, that we must surely have enough
intelligence in this province to evolve a system
of land registry which will not necessitate
the useless procedures that we go through
today.
I have criticized the legal profession in this
regard because I have more than a sneaking
hunch that this system is being perpetuated,
in order to allow the charging of fees for
comparitively mechanical jobs that really bear
no real relationship to the work involved.
It continues to appall me, Mr. Speaker,
when I see, on one real estate transaction,
four different lawyers attending a closing-
all having done the same work, all charging
a fee related to the total value of the trans-
action under the guise that they are certifying
title.
All four of them are doing the same kind of
work and, all four of them are taking a per-
centage of the total fee. And all four of them
are purporting to guarantee a title that prob-
ably has very little wrong with it.
This brings me baok to my old friend,
Sam Dodds, and I have talked about him in
this House before. He was the deputy regis-
trar in the city of Toronto when I was a
student, and he was a kindly gentleman who
knew more about titles than probably any-
body who has been in the registary office.
He came up the hard way. He came up as
an office boy and worked his way through
until, eventuidly, he got to be the assistant
registrar of titles. That meant he ran the
office, because in those days— and I do not
put the blame on any particular political
party— the registrar was a pohtical appointee.
If he happened to have seen a registry
office before he was appointed, then that was
a happy coincidence. But it really did not
matter. He just arrived in that office— and
the running of the office was done by his
deputy or by the assistant.
That is what Mr. Dodds was, and, as a
student, Mr. Dodds was very helpful to me,
and to all the students at that time. In fact,
my father used to talk about how helpful
Mr. Dodds had been to him, in his earher
days, when he practiced law. And that goes
back a long time.
But Mr. Dodds once told me that if he
was given $2 to certify every title in the
city of Toronto's registry office, he would
gladly accept it and certify them just by
writing out one certificate. Then he wooiM
end up a millionaire. He would not have to
look at any of the titles. He said there are
so few bad titles that he would have enough
money left over to pay oflF any damages
suffered. Because enough of these titles are
so good, and have been so thoroughly
searched over the years, that there is just
no question of them being inaccurate.
Now, as I say, Mr. Speaker, that goes back
over a long, long period of time. But we
continue, unfortunately, to go through this
farce of having titles searched, again, and
again, and again. And these fees charged, in
relation to the price of the total transaction,
are not in relation to any real responsibility.
Now, hopefully, as we see these blanket
amendments to this Act, and to Bill 103, we
are moving in the direction of having a sys-
tem of land registry in the province of
Ontario, along the lines of The Land Titles
Act, or the Torrens system; and, hopefully,
some day, sometime, we are going to have a
system whereby anyone can go in and search
a tide if they want to— and the assurance
fund \sdll be there in case anybody has made
a mistake.
But, as so often happens in the actions
of this government, the progress that we
make is so slow even under the new pro-
cedures for dealing with the registration of
plans. We have the situation where now,
when you register a new plan of subdivision
in the registry office, you still have a pro-
cedure somewhat similar to bringing it within
The Lands Titles Act. I do not know why.
I urged at the time this legislation was
brought forward— I do not know why those
new plans are not put under The Land Titles
Act. But you still have your choice. You
can still put new plans under the registry
office.
Now, even if we are waiting for the pas-
sage of time to make everything uniform—
and certain steps have been taken in this
regard— why we could not make new plans
registerable only under land titles, so that
they are there, and the system of certifica-
tion would carry on, I do not know.
I was interested in the point the hon.
member for Lakeshore raised in connection
with the affidavits about marriage. This really
goes back to the whole question of dower.
The affidavit would be quite meaningless if
we would get up to date, and do away with
this dower right.
There is really no point in it; and with all
the study and all the research that our law
reform commission is doing, why we have to
perpetuate this anachronistic and historically
out of date idea that there must be dower,
I cannet understand.
3774
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
You have to satisfy yourself as to whether
or not the dower right has been barred. We
have all sorts of other remedies in our courts
to protect women, in relation to their marital
status, and their claims for support against
their husband or against the person with
whom they are living.
Undoubtedly those statutes do not go far
enough. But trying to deal with it, in rela-
tion only to land, is an anachronistic system
in this day and age. This is another one of
those carry-overs from the day when the only
wealth in the community lay in real estate,
lay in property. That is no longer the case,
and has not been the case in this province for
a long, long time. Why then, do we con-
tinue with the dower right? It is almost
impossible to calculate it.
I do not know how many hon. members
of this House, and who are lawyers, have
ever had to calculate what a dower interest
is where a reluctant spouse refuses to sign,
and you can go to court, and you can «?et
an order paying into court a certain amount,
on the basis of some tables prepared by an
actuary. How many years ago those tables
were prepared, nobody knows. And the
learned judge looks down and says, "Well,
you have the right tables, and you figured
out the right figure to pay in. It is abso-
lutely right."
Nobody could figure them out, and I defy
any member of this House who has any real
understanding of the problem, that when he
offers to pay in $324.33— and that is the way
it seems to work out— to say whether this is
some sort of compensation for the wife in
lieu of her dower.
Why not be done with all this outdated,
old-fashioned and ridiculous procedure? Let
us bring our property laws up to date and
in so doing, we will provide a service for
all the people of Ontario, and to some extent
we will lower the cost of housing. Because
the cost of housing reflects very seriously the
legal charges that are attendant on the ex-
change of property from a buyer to a seller
—when mortgages are involved and so on.
So, to quite a marked extent, if we made
our procedures more viable, made them more
simple, we would reduce the whole cost of
housing. In addition we would modernize
our procedure and make it somewhat mean-
ingful in the light of the circumstances under
which we live.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitch-
ener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, briefly on this bill. It is, of course,
difficult to speak to the principle because of
the various items which are involved. How-
ever, I would call to the attention of the
Attorney General simply three areas:
T^e first of them is tlie one deahng with
the appointment of the director of kind regis-
tration and insuring that this person is quali-
fied as a barrister and solicitor. I would
commend this approach to the Attorney Gen-
eral because I feel, as my colleague, the mem-
l)er for Sarnia, has mentioned, that with the
difficulties on titles that can arise and with
the problems of zoning with redevelopment
of downtown areas, and the dealing with very
old planning bylaws in some cases, or rights-
of-way and various other problems, that a
person who has a training as a barrister or
solicitor is a useful kind of person to have
in this kind of office. I think this goes to the
general upgrading of the method by which
we deal with some of tliese problems and
the Attorney General is to be commended for
this approach.
Secondly, I would also commend him for
the approach which is taken concerning the
lien which can arise thTX>ugh The Estate Tax
Act of Canada. Heretofore, of course, as the
hon. members of this House are aware, these
liens, as well as certain others, have had to
have been searched and a negative reply be
received in the same manner that we search
for corporate tax now. I commend the Attor-
ney General in bringing in this provision that,
if there is a claim, it must be registered. If
the registration is not extant, tlien of course
the claim is deemed not to be a claim on the
title. I think this kind of an approach is a
reasonable one and one which is long over-
due.
I would thirdly ask just one question with
respect to the general pro\ ision that has been
made in this amending Act with rcsi->ect to
leases. My understanding from the reading
of the section here, is that a notice of lease
is able to be registered in place of the whole
lease document. I am wondering if the
Attorney General, in his comments on the
bill, might just give the House some provi-
sion and reason as to why it is felt that the
registration of the notice of lease is perhaps
sufficient?
It would seem to me that if tlie lease for
a property is registered on title— this is under
section 5, Mr. Speaker— if the lease is regis-
tered on title then certain knowledge, of
course, is available for anyone who is in-
volved in the seardiing of that title. However,
if we have only the notice of lease as a per-
missive item, then it may be somewhat inor«
APRIL 30, 1969
3775
involved, somewhat more costly and more
wasteful of time, to have to tractk down the
lease, wherever it may be. I am just wonder-
ing if the Minister might give us his opinion
as to the reason for the amendment for the
registration of the notice of lease provisions
that he has made in the Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
ber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humiber): Mr. Speaker, as the
hon. deputy leader has mentioned, I too have
risen every year that I have been in this
House and tried to persuade the Attorney
General to bring forth legislation which would
combine all registry systems under the Tor-
rens or land title system. Even before I came
to this House, when I was on the dty and
Metro councils in this city, I was doing the
same in those two jurisdictions. I have been
pointing out year after year that in the city
of Toronto we have, not one, not two, but,
in fact, three registry systems. We have the
city of Toronto proper system; we have the
county system, and we have the land titles
or Torrens system.
Very frequently one finds, in searching
titles, that the lands in question are to be
found in two registry offices, the city registry
office and the land titles office or tlie city
registry office and the county registry office.
I had one occasion where in fact they were
in three. I think this is simply nonsense.
Surely there should be one system whereby
a person can know whether in fact he holds
the title and knows what the encumbrances
are against his property.
I also pointed out last year and the year
before, if my memory serves me correctly,
Mr. Speaker, that under one system, the land
titles system, it would be possible to ooon-
puterize the whole procedure. I think at that
time I mentioned having spoken with A. J.
B. Gray, who was then the assessment com-
missioner for the municipality of Metropohtan
Toronto. He had indicated to me, as had
Douglas Ford, who is now the city surveyor,
that a system could be worked out, of descrip-
tion, whereby a computer could record not
only the ownership of property, not only its
dimensions, but the encumbrances against
it; the zoning of this property; the density
that applied when it came to constructing
apartments or the like; how much the taxes
were; whether the person was a puibKc or a
separate school supporter; whether the taxes
were paid; how much were paid; Itow much
interest was owing on any arrears of pay-
ment; all this could be done with a computer
and it could apply for the whole of the prov-
ince of Ontario.
In other words, one would only require
one centralized computer with all this infor-
mation being fed into it. This computer could
also record if there were any work orders
outstanding against the property by a muni-
cipality. In the city of Toronto, as this House
knows, there are minimum standards of hous-
ing by-laws, whereby they can issue work
order and register these work orders against
the property. A computer would also be able
to record this.
A purchaser, buying property, could con-
ceivably even dispense with a lawyer com-
pletely. By paying a prescribed fee to the
proper official at a new land titles office, he
could obtain a complete history of his
property in a manner of minutes or at the
most, hours or a day. No steps evidently are
being taken to do this.
I suggested, as the hon. member for
Downsview has suggested, in tlie meantime—
and this was back in 1966, I believe— every
new plan that came up for registration should
be registered under the land titles system
so that eventually by working back over
from the newest plan to the oldest, one
eventually would have all the land under the
Torrens system.
In subsequent bills, there are new areas
that are being brought within the scope of
T^he Land Titles Act and I regret extremely
that all new plans that are submitted for
registration are not brought under the land
titles system. I, too, Mr. Speaker, would like
to comment on the remarks made by the hon.
member for Lakeshore with reference to the
clause in the bill which requires that parties
that are described as, "man and wife in the
instrument," take affidavits to that effect.
I tliought, Mr. Speaker, that we had estab-
lished, from what occurred in the federal
field, that most people were of the opinion
that government ought not to stick its nose
into people's bedrooms. This section, I do
not know if I will get into trouble mentJon-
ing it, but this section does just that. In
section 8 the government sticks its nose into
bedrooms. I can understand why an affidavit
may be required if a man and a woman hold
land as tenants in common, and dower rights
might attach, but I see absolutely no reason
why this should be so general and compel
everybody who is recited as man and wife
in an instrument to take affidavits if they are,
in fact, not man and wife.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the laws of
divorce have been loosened, and it is now
3776
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
easier to get a divorce. However, there are
many people who could obtain a divorce on
the grounds of permanent breakdown of
marriage because of separation, who clioose
not to because tliat would be an admission
to their offsprings that they are not, in fact,
husband and wife. There are many like that.
They would rather live with their secret
locked in their breast until their dying day,
than go dirough the form of a divorce, and
divulge that they had been living the last
25, 30, 40 or 50 years in what is now called
a common-law miion.
I cannot for the world see wliy it should be
necessary to make this so broad. If the sec-
tion required that if a man and a woman
hold land as tenants in common and the
woman is recited as being the wife of the
man, then perhaps I could see the reasoning
behind the Attorney General wanting to make
such an amendment. But, to make it so
broad tliat even those who hold land as
joint tenants and not as tenants in common
have to make such an affidavit, is beyond
my comprehension.
I agree completely with the hon. member
for Downsview about dower. It is silly and an
anachronism, and in most cases, an absolute
nonsense, because dower these days attaches
to so little land, mortgages being so common.
For the benefit of those who are not quite
so famihar with the system of dower, origi-
nally it was the right for a woman to re-
side in the main house of her husband, I
think for a period of 40 days, before she
could be thrown out. Dower was important
in the days when a Methuselah married a
young maiden, and there was a great gap
between their ages. But this does not apply
any more.
The table to which my friend from Downs-
view referred is called "Cameron's table on
dower." Dov^er amounts to what one-tliird of
the net value of the proi>erty women earn
at five per cent per annum during the time
between the husband's death and her death.
Mr. Singer: Based on the mortahty tables
of about 100 years ago.
Mr. Ben: Based on mortality tables of, I
think, 1800 and something, if not earlier than
that.
So, as I said, Mr. Speaker, when an old
Methuselah of 99 married a maiden of 17,
that dower could amount to something. But
nowadays, when the age gap between a man
and a woman is not that great, how much
is the interest at five per cent going to amount
to on an equity of three or four thousand
dollars?
You know, today if you buy a house and
get a mortgage on it for 30 or 40 years, the
chances of a husl>and passing on a clear
house, or dying witli his house paid to the
full, are very slim, and it is only the equity
tliat counts.
So the difference, first of all, in ages, is
small. Second, men are not living so much
less dian women these days, although there
is still a gap. But five per cent is so little that
it is nothing but a nuisance and the sooner it
is disposed of the better. So, as I say, I
cannot agree with that. There was a principle
enunciated there and I cannot understand
what principle is involved that would in-
duce tlie Attorney General to submit such a
section.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive us.
We are discussing two bills, but I think one
ties in with the other.
I am still beseeching the Attorney General
to give strong consideration to start now
to bring all the land into the land titles
system, beginning with the most recent plans,
and to set up a central computer land titles
system, which would give a complete history
of any piece of land.
My colleague, to the right of me, the hon.
member for Oxford, asked, "Do you mean
that if property changed hands ten times in
six months, ten different lawyers search the
title?" I said, "If ten lawyers handle the
property in six months, it is all the more
reason for searching that title more
thoroughly, because there is all the nK>re
chance of them making a mistake."
Mr. Bullbrook: This speech is from knowl-
edge.
Mr. Ben: I think that the fewer cooks there
are, the less chance there is of spoiling the
broth. But I think we would be better off to
have one party in charge of these titles, and
I think it should be the director of land titles.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to participate in the debate? If not, the hon.
Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, when this
discussion first started, both the member for
Scarborough Centre (Mrs. M. Renwick) and
the member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Prit-
chard) were in the House. I thought they
might wish to get into the discussion on
dower, but they both left.
An hon. member: They are safe enough.
APRIL 30, 1969
3777
Hon. Mr. Wishart: So I presume the matter
of dower does not interest them very much.
Mr. Bullbrook: When you are married to
a member, there is no dower left.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I shall speak of dower
later, but I think I shall deal with the remarks
in order of the speakers who made them.
The appointment of an official known as
the director of land registration, which is
provided for in this legislation, is really some-
thing that has been in existence for some
little time, or we have been moving towards
it. That official will assume all the duties,
both with respect to the registry office under
The Registry Act, and with respect to the
land titles office under The Land Titles Act,
which are now carried out by the inspector
of legal offices.
There are a number of considerations for
this appointment. Actually, the assistant
inspector of legal offices has been doing the
duties which the director of land registration
will assume. There will be no new appoint-
ment; there will be no change in salary; the
official is there. We will perhaps have an
assistant director of land registration, but
this is an office which has been going on for
some time. We have been working towards
the integration of the two areas, land titles
and registry, bringing them together. So that
another thing is that it will divorce from the
inspector of legal offices, who has the field of
all the court administration, the land titles,
land registration, and real property feature.
We are now required to budget on a
functional basis, so we will be separating the
court and this function of land registration.
Actually we are really putting into legisla-
tion something which has been in effect, and
I think that it will be much more effective.
With respect to the whole matter of inte-
grating, or bringing together, these two
systems of land registration, we are aiming
at that. We have done a good deal to
accomplish it. A good many of the areas
throughout the proxince have been brought
luider the land titles office. Not all new plans
are required to be filed in land titles, but a
great many of them are and we encourage
that.
There is a good deal of expense involved
if you are to certify an area of title where,
over the past years, a great many trans-
actions have taken place. It is quite an ex-
pensive thing to make the re-surveys, which
are often necessary to check those titles back
for the required period of time and to certify
them so that they may qualify for registration
in the land titles office where the titles are
guaranteed.
Mr. Singer: The Minister is doing that
with all the new plans commencing?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, with new plans
we are doing generally practically all that,
but not all. People can put on the new sub-
division plans that do not have to go into
land titles.
Mr. Singer: No, but even to put them into
the registry office you still have to go back,
and in efi"ect they are certffied in the registry
office, but the same results do not grow from
them.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, I point that out.
I say we are striving very hard to accomplish
this and doing a great deal towards it. All
new titles from the Crown, we ask to go into
land titles.
Now, I heard the hon. member for Downs-
view say, "Get it all into land tides so that"
—these were his words— "so anyone can go in
and search the title." I have yet to see any
really simple procedures, I must be frank to
say— perhaps shorter— but perhaps the pro-
cedures are much more simple in land titles
than in the registry office. But I do not see
the man on the street going into land titles
to search his title.
In the area where I practised law, prior to
coming into government, a great deal of the
country was under land titles, but it was
still the lawyers who were in there searching
title and, frankly, I did not see much differ-
ence in the fee either.
Mr. Bullbrook: I wondered about that. Is
the tariff the same up there?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: So let me be frank and
say I did not see much difference in the fee.
I think the hon. member for Sarnia used to
be in North Bay— I do not know whether he
practised his profession there or not and I
do not know how much land titles is there—
but land titles has great advantages, I agree.
However, I would point out that whUe a
title is certffied— guaranteed, as it were, by the
government— and an assurance fund was set
up, curiously enough, until very recently they
kept still augmenting that fund by a de-
duction from the first registration until the
fund had grown into a tremendous amount.
We do not insist upon that any longer, but
the curious thing is— and I will be discussing
this more in the next bill— there have been
very few claims against the assurance fund
and very few of them were successful.
3778
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: And when there is one you
really ha\ e to have some to spare, because the
money—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes. I did not want to
pass over the remarks without saying that I
think the appointment of the director of land
registration will be effective in helping the
integration of these two s>'stems.
I wanted to say, with respect to that inte-
gration also, that I think you are aware that
the law reform commission was asked do to
a study on the whole field of property law,
and the landlord and tenant study came out
of that.
There will be remarks on dower I am sure
in that study, and there will be sometliing,
I am certain, on the system of land regis-
tration which wall come out of that report
and which we should have before too long.
In the meantime, we are doing what we can
to bring as much of oiir property under land
titles as possible.
The notice of the lease— a point wliich was
raised by the hon. member for Kitchener-
it is simply a matter of convenience. Some
of the leases now which are presented for
registration are documents of many pages
with very compHcated clauses, particularly
as to rent where they are on a percentage
basis, where they are in shopping centres and
that sort of thing. Sometimes there is a
reluctance actually to reveal all the detailed
clauses that are in these documents. I think
we have had a number of complaints when
we have insisted upon the registration of the
whole document. They were very long, tliey
were very cumbersome, they were very com-
plicated, and while we have in most registry
offices the ability to photograph and to com-
press or minimize, still they make a compli-
cated business if you have to register the
whole document. The notice would require
the essential elements— the parties, the prop-
erty, the term— and there will be available the
abihty to find out where to go to get further
particulars. It is a convenience generally.
As to dower, I would like to say seriously
that first of all in the Act— and I say this
partioulairly to the member for Lakeshore—
in the Act at present in section 5, which I
think is referred to in the proposed bill as
section 8, that subsection 5 of section 52 is
repealed and the following substituted there-
for.
The substitution which you have before you
is exactly the same as the subsection being
repealed, with the di£Ference of three words
which are added after the word "married"
in the second last line. The words "to one
another" are added, so that you have always
had, or at least for a long time have had, the
requireonent at the affidavit that the parties
were married.
I guess somebody was cute enough to get
away and say: "Yes I am married." These
two people were perhaps married to two
different persons, but they qualified luider the
piresent language of the Act.
Mr. Bullbrook: Did it not usually say, "and
that the person joining therein to bar her
dower as my wiie"? I thought that is what
it said.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, the sub-section now
simply says.
That is made by a man in which a
woman joins as his wife, to bar her dower
shall not be registered unless there is made
thereon, or attached securely to, an affidavit
by such a man or a woman deposing that
they were married at the time of execution
of the instrument.
We have simply added, "married to one an-
other". I presume apparently that some
people were beating it, they were two separ-
ate families, and we have had that in dower.
I agree to a considerable extent with some
of the remarks that have been made about
doing away with dower. Perhaps this will
come, but let me say that dower has protected
a great many women from being defeated of
their property rights.
Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, but in this century?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: In this century, in very
recent time, yes. I do not like to talk about
my own experience, but I know cases which
have come to my own attention where the
woman would have been beaten out of prop-
erty, deprived of the value of it had there
not been the requirement that she sign the
conveyance which was disposing of the
property.
Mr. Bullbrook: Oh I see.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: So tliat a right of dower
gave her protection and she did not have to
go to court.
Mr. Singer: That gets her a little, but the
tables are so outdated she does not get what
she is entitled to.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am not talking about
getting into the tables— the dower tables—
that the woman whose signature was required
APRIL 30, 1969
3779
was able to stand up and say, "I will not
sign" and hold up the transaction until she
got a fair shake.
Mr. Bullbrook: Will the Attorney General
permit a question?
Mr. Singer: Well, if the lawyer on the
other side has any sense at all he will look up
the dower tables and say, "Well you are
entitled to X dollars and tiiat is the best I
can do." The tables are outdated.
Mr. Bullbrook: Is that right?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps you will permit me to interject. The
dower tables are of no assistance if you are
deahng with the dower of a married woman
in the case of, for example, an oil and gas
lease where there is a royalty payable. They
are of no assistance whatsoever, and very
substantial amounts of money are payable in
that kind of a case.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that questions of
this type at this time are out of order.
Nevertheless, the hon. member for Sarnia was
on his feet before either of the previous
speakers. Perhaps he would be permitted to
direct a question now.
Mr. Bullbrook: I am wondering if the
Attorney General will agree? In connection
with the burden of his argimient is it not the
fact that she has to sign an instrument, not
that she has dower, that is very effective?
It is not the quantum of the dower, it is the
fact that she has to sign the instrument.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: She has to sign the
instrument, but she has to sign the instrument
because she has the dower right which the
husband cannot do away with. As I was about
to say, the dower tables do not come into
play at all in a good many transactions.
Mr. Lawlor: I wonder if the Attorney
General would accept a question.
That can easily be avoided, I think you
will agree, by simply paying the money into
court and having the judge give an order
dispensing with dower. Usually it is such a
negligible sum if the people are yoimg.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Do not mistake me. I
am not arguing that there are not other
remedies that could be provided, but if the
parties have property I simply say that the
existence of that dower right has a value to
the wife. It has protected her in many,
many cases.
True, you can provide other means, other
court actions, but again you are still going
to have some other means to replace it. It
is not a case of getting into the bedrooms
of the parties at all.
If the hon. member for Huraber were buy-
ing the property he would want to know
that there was not an outstanding interest. It
is not a case of getting into the bedrooms at
all, it is simply a case of making sure that
the title is good, whether you are certifying
it for your client or for somebody else.
Mr. Ben: If the Minister will permit. I
think he is well aware that all instruments
now recite that "I am married, widower,
divorced", and in the next paragraph— at
least in the forms we use in Toronto— it says,
"I am married to so and so, who is my wife
or husband herein". So this has been taken
care of long ago. You now have to recite
who you are married to.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I appreciate that and I
think perhaps we are getting into what is
really a detail in this legislation. As I pointed
out, the requirement has been there for a
long time to give this affidavit. We have
simply added "to one another," three words.
Just one final remark, the suggestion that
we could bring all our system under a com-
puter is perhaps meritorious and we are
moving to that— as I am sure the hon. mem-
ber for Humber knows— in the personal prop-
erty field. But even there, there are great
difficulties. It takes time. These machines
are expensive.
It is not so much the machine, it is the
programming for it. It is all very well to
say you could find out if the taxes are paid,
what the encumbrances are against the prop-
erty, whether there is a work programme
going on, or what is planned for. Someone
has to tell the computer originally what it
is to produce. I am not sophisticated enough
to understand these great machines, but my
experience has been that in some depart-
ments where I find them— it seems to take
a lot of people to run them and they some-
times make errors-
Mr. Ben: And cause delay!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: —make errors or have
a tendency to be guilty of delay. I am not
altogether enamoured of them yet. Perhaps
they will improve their character, We are
moving toward them in the personal property
field. At the moment we are not planning
it in the real property field.
3780
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think that is all, Mr. Speaker, I would
have to say on this legislation.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LAND TITLES ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading
of Bill 103, An Act to amend The Land
Tides Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Samia.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, in connection
with this legislation, frankly, I find myself in
this position that my colleagues have en-
tirely discussed the principles of 103 already,
under 102.
Mr. Speaker: I trust there will be no repe-
tition, then.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, there will not
be on my part, because I have not opened
my mouth in connection with 103 yet.
In any event, I am sorry I did bring to
the Attorney General's attention section 6,
This is something that I do not think, frankly,
we on this side, should accept. That is that
the Attorney General is establishing, I sup-
pose by way of principle, that the master of
titles at Toronto does not have to be a bar-
rister and solicitor. I really think here that
some reconsideration should be given to it.
He had the obligation under the other
statute— and this is the focal point of my
argument— albeit that the director of land
registration, really, if he is going to take
over from the inspector of legal offices, is
filling an essentially administrative function.
I would think he would agree, really.
This is the function that Mr. Russell now
undertakes, and it is an administrative func-
tion. But when you get down to the office of
master of titles at Toronto, when you get
down to the office of registrar of the county
of Lambton, then you are dealing day in
and day out with the titles. We need some-
one of professional capacity more so under
this system where we are guaranteeing titles
and we are providing some assurance to the
public as to the adequacy of their titles. I
mentioned before, in connection with 102,
the evolution in connection with real prop-
erty law, the layering of mortgages, the
planning requirements, the zoning require-
ments, the fantastic application of needed
economic and social strictures on dealing with
real property, and so I suggest to the Attorney
General most respectfully that he reconsider
that section— at least, perhaps he can per-
suade me, as one individual, that the master
of titles at Toronto does not need that
knowledge.
I am not saying he need only be a bar-
rister and solicitor. It might be that he wonld
he well qualified also as an Ontario hmd
surveyor or have some other professional
background. But I do think he should have
tlie fundamental background in the law that
is required, and the same applies to section 7.
I fail to see frankly why he is deleting the
requirement that the assistant examiners of
surveys be Ontario land surveyors. It seeans
to me that it is eminently reasonable that
they should be Ontario land surveyors. Per-
haps the Attorney General can convince us
otherwise.
As far as the principle is concerned, and
I do want, for a moment, with the members'
indulgence, perhaps to repeat what has been
said particidarly by, I think, the hon. member
for Downsview and the hon. member for
Humber in connection witli the land titles
system. I say in fairness to myself, sir, I did
not have the opportunity, because I thought
it would be appropriate under this bill, to
discuss this question of land title. Perhaps I
am unfair to the Attorney General, because
in counitering the discussion perviously under
102, he has gone into land titles. But really
as one provincial lawyer, I find that dealing
day in and day out with the registry system,
which we do, we have a considerable real
property practice.
There are two things that come to my at-
tention, and perhaps the Attorney General wall
clarify this for me. The first thing is that
I have not run across too many titles that
cannot be rectified. As a matter of fact in
16 years, I guess it is now— no, 14 years— I
have not yet encoiuitered a title that I have
not been able to rectify through an error on
my own part or an error on the part of some
sohcitor acting previously. I think it was
my friend from Downsvieiw who mentioned to
me that some person of some considerable
activity in this field in the city of Toronto
said tiiat he wished he had a dollar for
every title in the city of Toronto or county
of York which could be rectified. I think he
said he might be nearly a millionaire or
something of that nature.
So I think that we in the profession recog-
nize this— from the Prime Minister of the
province down— that really titles are not that
difficidt to rectify. We have available to us
the instruments, declarations of possession and
necessary applications to the court. The Quiet-
ing Titles Act. Nobody wants to go under
APRIL 30, 1969
3781
tlxat, but it is available to you if necessary,
and so is The Vendors and Purohasers Act.
What I want to say, therefore, is this: On
the premise that there are too many titles,
just what gamble is being taken by the prov-
ince of Ontario if they say, "From now on
I think we will put an end to this charade
of sohcitors certifying titles all the time." I
speak against my own livelihood to a certain
extent, but really in the pubhc and common
weal, because when you see the duplication
of certificates, at significant charge to the pub-
lic, it is something that is not unconscionable,
but really it is wasteful of money.
So the Attorney General, in response, in
talking about the application of the Torrens
system throughout the province, says in effect,
"We have this in mind," Perhaps I have not
given this sufficient consideration, but I sug-
gest this to the Minister, having regard to
the quality of titles per se, to the remedies
available to us to rectify titles, what gamlble
would there be in considering the imple-
mentation of the guarantee system throughout
the province? Perhaps we could get into a
technological implementation such as my
friend from Humber discusses. I do not want
to get into that, but I want to speak to the
Attorney General about the principle that is
shown here, and that is the principle of
elastioizing this system. He says he is going
to do it some time, but he speaks of expense
in connection with it. Really, I think it will
l>e well worthwhile that the Minister in
charge of the administration of justice for
this province would consider that expense
forthwith, because I think really he would be
transmitting to the people of Ontario an
eventual great saving through the government
of Ontario.
That is basically my feeling, that certainly,
as a matter of principle, we support whole-
heartedly this biU. There are certain sections
in it, to which when the time comes, unless
the Attorney General can persuade us other-
wise, I think we will invite his consideration
and the consideration of the members of this
House about an amendment. But on the mat-
ter of principle, we say yes, it is good legisla-
tion. We say he should have gone further,
and we say that really substantially there is
no reason why it cannot go more quickly.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Kitchener.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I would just
add some comments concerning the portions
of the bill which deal with the changes in the
background requirements and qualifications
of the master of titles at Toronto. And then
as well, some comments with respect to
assistant examiners of surveys being no longer
required to have the qualification of an On-
tario land surveyor.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the previous
bill we have spoken with respect to the
general upgrading of the methods and qualifi-
cations of the persons who are dealing with
these various items of legislation. You will
recall in the previous bill we referred, and
with approval, to the good approach to up-
grade the qualifications and die title of the
gentleman to be called the director of land
registration. The Attorney General has men-
tioned to us, Mr. Si)eaker, that we have had
this gentleman in fact in operation within the
department for some time. I agree that for a
position of this type, with the various prob-
lems that come before him, the qualification
of being a barrister and solicitor is well
worthwhile. But as the member for Sarnia
has pointed out, the functions which will be
greatly covered by the director of land regis-
trations will by necessity be of some adminis-
trative purpose.
The kind of man who is on the actual firing
line of approving changes in various regis-
tered plans, or of developing certain projects,
is going to be the master of titles. I put it
to the Attorney General that the master of
titles at Toronto is probably going to be the
man who is called upon to make the most
serious decisions with respect to land titles
of anyone in the province. This is the man
who is going to be closing all the little lanes
and the old rights-of-way in the downtown
portion of the city of Toronto as some great
new project is put together that may cover
half a block.
It is certainly this kind of a person who
has to have a great knowledge and depth of
view of these ancient rights or whatever
they might be; of easement or whatever are
going to be cleaned out in preparation for a
new Toronto-Dominion Centre or something
like this.
I suggest to the Attorney General that it
would be well worthwhile for this person,
who has this ultimate responsibility of certifi-
cation of cleaning out all these old cobwebs
of title that have existed perhaps a century
or so in Toronto in various guises or forms;
it is essential, I think, that the province be
served in this post by someone who is quali-
fied as a barrister or solicitor, and perhaps
may have other quahfications as well. In this
way the entire ramification of the problems
which are cleaned out by his decision, are
known to him.
3782
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think if we have a person who does not
have this qualification, then we are not
properly guarding ourselves against the neces-
sity for insuring that this job is well done.
I invite the comments of tlie Attorney
General, as well, with respect to the other
point that is made in tlie bill dealing with
the decision for assistant examiners of sur-
veys not to have the Ontario land surveyor
qualification. Again, we are called more and
more into the de\'elopment of projects for
urban renewal; more and more called into
new large projects in downtown areas. As
the land title system becomes more and more
with us, we must have persons who are
qualified to deal with it. Surveys have to be
more and more tied togetlier as the whole
jigsaw puzzle of land titles and surveying
covers this province and all these loose ends
and comers are tied in.
I tliink it is not too much to ask that the
persons who are sitting in authority and
who are making decisions have certain basic
qualifications. And while, of course, certain
experience is well worth while in any of these
areas, the basic qualificiition in this case is for
the master of titles to be a barrister and
solicitor, or for these assistant examiners of
surveys to be Ontario land surveyors. There
are two areas of upgrading which I think
we should develop further. We should
encourage this and not discourage it as, im-
fortimately, this bill does.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
it is with some timidity that I rise to take
part in the lawyers' hour in the Legislature
this week, but I would hke to just bring
a point to the attention of the Attorney
General.
Mr. Lawlor: The member is in good com-
pany.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes, well sometimes one
cannot choose one's friends, you know.
I would like to bring to the attention of
tlie Attorney General section 7 of his bill in
which he seeks to repeal subsections 2 and 3
of section 11 of The Land Tides Act. Now,
the principle has been enunciated already by
my colleague, the member for Kitchener, but
I would like to read into the record, and I
am sure the Attorney General may have
received a copy of this telegram from the
chairman of the northwestern group of On-
tario land surveyors at Atikokan. I quote from
the telegram:
The nortliwestern group of Ontario land
surveyors feel most strongly tliat a person
appointed as assistant examiner of surveys
should be ciualified in tlie survey of land,
plans and descriptions, and that such per-
son can only be an Ontario land surveyor
as now required by subsection 2, section
11, of The Land Titles Act.
It would seem to me that tliis is a perfectly
reasonable request. I liave the land titles bill
in front of me. I would like to know why
the Attorney General feels that this subsection
2 and 3 of section 11 should be repealed, and
I wx)uld ask him that he give furtlier con-
sideration to tliis bill, and section 7 of tliis
bill, and make it mandatory that assistant
examiners do, in fact, be Ontario land sur-
veyors with a minimum of three yiears experi-
ence, as set out in subsection 2 of section 11
of The Land Titles Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I feel
like Senator McCairn. Maybe it is ill-fitting
that people of this party should be so cost-
conscious like myself.
In setting up this new office, it seems to me
like a proliferation of the aheady existing kind
of thing. I would trust tiiat tlie inspector of
legal offices staff will be reduced, and the cost
potential will be decreased on the whole,
and that there is a sufficiency, I would trust,
of staff in tlie inspector's office.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: If the hon. member
would permit me to say, while I realize tlie
bill might well mislead in using the title,
"The director of land registration," that is
not really a new office.
That is actually the title which tlie assist-
ant inspector of legal offices bears under the
civil service. They call him a director of land
registration. We are not doing anything other
than giving him that title now in the Act,
and he carries on the duty, or he is the
assistant inspector, of legal offices.
Mr. Allan Russell, Deputy Assistant Attor-
ney General, is the inspector of legal offices,
who does the work of inspection of the court
functions and the administration on that
side. Mr. Richard Priddle— I am going to use
these names— is presently the assistant inspec-
tor of legal offices and the civil service call
him director of land registration.
We are just giving him that title in the
Act. We are not setting up a new o£Bce, and
as I mentioned in connection with the pre-
vious bill, no difference in salaries, no new
APRIL 30, 1969
3783
in
proliferation. I thought I might nip that
the bud right there.
Mr. Lawlor: My nostrums on economy are
not lost. I would trust there would be other
instances.
I will come back to the remarks I made.
In this bill there are two levels, there is the
director up here and there is tlie interrela-
tionship between the registrars of deeds and
the masters of title. In this bill it says every
land titles office shall be combined v^th the
registry office, or the registry division in
which the Act has been extended.
It is interesting to contrast that, Mr.
Speaker, with the Act as it is set forth in
the year 1966, section 5(a) (1). I read:
Subject to subsection 2 of section 4, and
except as provided by subsections 2 and
3, every land titles office shall be operated
as a part of the registry office.
So this is an advance, tliis is a step in the
right direction. While I feel there is justifi-
cation for having an overseer in the form of
the director for both types of oflBces, I still
question in the long run the intent of inte-
grating one type of registrar and a master
with the other.
Is that the intent at lower echelon at the
registry oflBce as the years go on? I would
trust that it would be the intention, and
while in a sense it must be the intention be-
cause it is being indicated in the registry
system, the intention is to phase it out.
Whether it is envisaged possible to wholly
phase it out would be another question due
to certain technical difficulties on titles. But
I would trust that in due time there would be
simply one registrar and again economy
would rule the day.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in with other
members of this House who have taken ex-
ception to the appointment of master of
titles at Toronto, particularly to the fact that
he does not have to be a barrister or sohcitor.
Possibly the basis of this is because the
director who is given official status under tliis
bill has to be a barrister solicitor. I suppose
under the Attorney General he may well be
a lower echelon individual now, and has been
for some time past, but he can exercise these
functions quite adroitly with the kinds of
skills he has acquired by simply being asso-
ciated with the office.
I suggest not for the many reasons given—
particularly in the land titles office. It is
curious, Mr. Speaker, that the same sugges-
tion is not being made, as far as I can see.
with respect to the registrar of deeds. He
retains his status as a barrister and solicitor.
Under The Land Titles Act, section 9,
subsection 2 reads:
The Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council may
appoint a person, being a barrister or
solicitor of not less than five years standing,
to be the senior deputy of the master of
tides.
That, too, is being deleted in the course of
this, so that both the master and senior
deputy will require to be barristers and
solicitors. It was, I am sure, devised in those
days that this was requisite to the carrying
out of the functions.
I suggest, irrespective of the director, that
it is equally requisite and no more so than
in the office of lands titles because the titles
are guaranteed, and to guarantee a tide very
often being transcribed from the registry
system to the land titles system requires very
close and nice investigation. The delicacy of
points and conveyancing law are at issue, and
a person must be trained in this particular
area.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Do I understand the
hon. member to say that the registrar of deeds
in his opinion had to be a barrister or
solicitor? Is that so? I did not think it was
so?
Mr. Lawlor: Well, you may have caught
me out. It may not be so. I assumed it was
so. I think that you are right that George
Bark, of the registry office in Toronto, is not
a lav^^er, as it strikes me. That takes away
nothing from my point of course. It sticks. It
just may reinforce my point in some instances,
but I wish to say nothing against that gentle-
man with whom I have splendid relations.
However, in land titles I suggest that
lawyers are needed. What does he do in the
registry office, but simply accept documents
according to form. If they comply with the
form he is obliged to register them, but that
is not so in land titles; quite a different situa-
tion pertains. He must guarantee that title;
he must scrutinize that title; he must go
through it with a fine tooth comb; he must
expose the land titles system to insurance
claims. I think it is a retrograde step, it is a
mistaken mo\'e on the part of the Attorney
General to seek to take a barrister or solicitor
out of that particular area.
Similar remarks should be directed to the
business of surveyors. Section 11 is the
present section under chapter 204, having
to do with surveyors, and it requires "the
3784
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council may appoint
an Ontario land surveyor of not less than five
years standing to be the examiner of surveys,
who should perform such duties if the
director of titles requires"— and it goes on.
The subsection 2 of that says,
The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may
appoint one or more Ontario land surveyors
of not less than three years standing to be
assistant examiner of sur\'eys who should
assist the examiner of sur\eys in the per-
fonnance of his duties.
As the hon. Attorney General well knows Mr.
Speaker, he has before us another bill that
may very well come on this afternoon, The
Surveyors Act, a reaffinnation of that statute
which places very tight and very jealous
conditions upon tliose who may or may not,
exercise the functions of a surveyor in this
province. That has been somewhat tightened
up, and they are, as I say, extremely jealous
about their role and the functions that sur-
veyors may perform. It comes down to this,
that somebody who is relatively unqualified
in the survey business is i:)laced in the posi-
tion of authority over those who are
thoroughly qualified within the fairly tight
and restrictive conditions that are being
imposed under this other bill that we have
before us, and it is due substantially at the
same time under the present Surveyors' Act
in any event.
If I may read a letter that has come into
my hand, I will not mention the firm— it is
a surveying firm from Port Arthur, they take
some exception to this bill on these grounds:
That Section 7, subsection 2 of Bill 103
repeals section 11, subsection 2 and 3 of
The Land Titles Act, which in subsection
2 gives the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council
power to appoint one or more Ontario land
surveyors of not less than three years'
standing to be assistant examiners of sur-
vey, who shall assist the Examiner of
Surveys in the performance of his duties.
And then it goes on:
The new Act in section 7, subsection 2
gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council
power to appoint special examiners of sur-
vey to assist the examiner, but does not
si>ell out just what the qualifications of
such assistant should be. As a firm of
Ontario land surveyors we feel really
strongly that these assistant examiners,
whose main duty is to examine and approve
the plans we prepare under The Land
Titles Act, can only do this adequately if
they are also Ontario land surveyors traine<l
in the survey of land plans and description
of land. This legislation, if passed, would
mean that the submissions of the Ontario
land surveyors who are all members of a
professional body incorporated in 1892
would be judged and approved by clerks
or draughtsmen who might have been
working for said land surveyors a short
time before.
And then tiiey ask for any assistance that
may be given.
I think those marks have weight and bear-
ing on this issue, again with your unqualified
titles, with your absolute title, and in the
land titles office and the guarantee that
effects it. Notliing could be more crucial than
the survey, and nothing could be more
excruciating than trying to get a survey
passed, if one has been through that par-
ticular procedure. Dante in all the levels of
the inferno knew nothing like the pain suf-
fered by a solicitor seeking to pass— ma>be
if you do not make them surveyors they will
pass them through, you know, with a great
amount of cavalier or blase, maybe it is all
to the good for the practicing profession, but
in any event I think not. We must have the
designated descriptions which are all impor-
tant, an inch may mean vast sums of money
and a layout that is improper could traduce
the law of titles for many years to come.
Witli that in mind, I would ask the
Attorney General to reconsider, if he will,
the move on restriction. I think it is a move
in the direction of economy, and all to the
good if such is the case, on the other hand, I
suggest that this is a false economy.
I want to say a word, before sitting down,
about certain remarks which are not really
in order, but have been made in this House. I
suppose we all have tlie liberty of the day.
The remarks about searching titles and
lawyers featherbedding. Of course, they
featiierbed, Mr. Speaker, but I would be the
last one in the world to bring this to public
notice. The whole range of work which
lawyers do, most of the litigation with re-
spect to highway traffic and the litigation in
the civil area; could the great involvement,
all the song and dance that go into it and
the munificent maintenance of lawyers that
it involves in this day and age be necessary?
Professional people ought not to blame, point
their accusing finger at their solicitors. My
own profession is a very grievous offender,
but I would not do anything to cut it out
Mr. Speaker, because they use tide com-
panies in the states and in British Columbia
and elsewhere. They pay a terrible price
for the elimination of the featherbedding.
APRIL 30, 1969
3785
the terrible price being that champerty and
maintenance and various forms of contin-
gency fees are allowable. The second condi-
tion of the man is far worse than the first
if we want a 10 per cent or a 50 per cent
cut as the American lawyers have. Is there
a way of making money in substitution for
their searching of titles?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think these remarks are in order at all. They
should have been made on the previous bill.
If there is any featherbedding, it might be
in the registry office. I do not think it is a
principle of this bill. I enjoy very much
listening to the hon. member, but I have
more legislation. I am sure he is as anxious
as I am to get that forward. I do not want
him to get off on champerty, maintenance,
featherbedding and away from the principle
of this bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I see
the non-lawyers are out of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member for
Lakeshore concluded his remarks? Is there
any other member who wishes to speak to
the bill before the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am in-
debted to the members for their comments
with respect to this bill. I must say at once
that with respect to the section which re-
quires or provides that the master of titles
at Toronto need no longer be a lawyer, I
am not of a hard and fast attitude with
respect to that. I think there is no need
now that he need be so qualified, although
he probably will continue to be qualified in
that way. The need is removed by the fact
that we have now, the director of land regis-
tration, who will he of course, a lawyer and
who is presently a lawyer with some 14
years' experience in this very work.
I have not heard, I may say, a single
complaint from any member of the bar, al-
though this bill has been introduced here
for some weeks-
Mr. Lawlor: The Minister will!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I think I will not
except those in this House, and in the
Opposition side.
Curiously enough, when we examine the
other sections, 7 and 13, which remove the
requirement for the assistant examiners to be
surveyors, I have had, as hon. members are
aware, some considerable complaint; and I
met with the executive of the Ontario Land
Surveyors' Association on the 23rd and hajd
quite a long discussion with them.
There is good reason also for that proposal.
But again, I am not of a hard and fast atti-
tude. If it were established, to my satisfaction,
that damage would be done by suoh a
measure, as this bill proposes-I would be
quite prepared to reconsider it. But I will
point out this, in the land titles system over
the years, the system of examination of sur-
veyors was not introduced until late in 1957,
and I think, became effective in 1958.
From the inception of the Torrens system,
there was always the feature of a certified
title, guaranteed as it were by the Crown.
There, I think, you could count, certainly on
the fingers of one hand, all the cases where
a title was ever found to be wrong, or where
compensation needed to be paid, or where
the insurance fund was ever called upon to
pay. And there was no examination of surveys
in that system until 1957, beginning in 1958.
Now, we are not dispensing altogether, in
this proposal, with examiners of surveys or
with Ontario land surveyors. There are now,
I believe, some 12 or 15 in the land title
system, nine of them here in Toronto, I be-
lieve, with the master of titles. They are also
located elsewhere in the province— and they
are presently land surveyors— at Sault Ste.
Marie, Kenora, Sudbury and Bracebridge. In
addition, the master of titles at North Bay is
a surveyor, and he serves as the assistant
examiner there.
But surveyors are highly qualified profes-
sional people, T;hey do their work in the
field. These gentlemen sit in the offices and
look at the plans. The work which they do
oould very well be done by persons trained
and with technological qualifications to check
plans, to check angles, to measure distances,
to observe that the bearings run in such a
way that they will meet, and surround the
area described. In addition to this most of
the survey plans now submitted all across
the province are placed in a computer sys-
tem to see that they are correct. So, we do
not need these sx)ecialist surveyors. They are
very expensive.
At the present time, there is some economx'
involved. The master of titles office resulted
last year, I may say to you, in a deficit of
some $300,000. To require all the examiners
of titles to be Ontario land surveyors would
probably increase that deficit to $500,000.
They are not needed. I would be prepared,
if it could be established to me that titles
would suffer as a result of reducing this re-
quirement, to retract, or to amend the bill.
But I see no need of that, and I have not
been con\ inced of its need. I think the policy
3786
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is correct. So it would take a good deal more
than what has been said to me today, or by
the Ontario land surveyors, to change my
opinion in this regard.
Mr. Singer: I thought the Minister was
such an enlightened person.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, perhaps I am a
little bit more enlightened than some of those
who speak out of darkness.
I think those are the points that were
mainly brought forward. I would like to say
this, the member for Samia spoke up and
put in a good word for the registry office
s>'stem, as I \mderstood him. He said: I find
few titles that are difficult to rectify, that I
could not rectify in a hurry. I think when I
spoke-
Mr. Bullbrook: That is the quality of the
profession.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Right. Pardon? How is
this?
Mr. Bullbrook: I say that is the quality of
the profession.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Right!
Mr. Singer: Not a system—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, I distinguish that,
and see that difference. But I would point out
that when I spoke to the previous bill. The
Registry Act, I pointed out that I found the
registry system a fairly effective system too,
that not much more time was spent there
than in land titles, and that there was not
much difference in the fee charged by the
profession in certifying a title in one place or
the other. At least, this was my experience.
I would, however, point out this: that in the
running of a land titles office there is quite a
difference in the staff required, and there is
quite a difference in the time that it takes to
check a title. One can go into land titles—
and the parcel there is recorded in one page,
or perhaps at the most, two pages of the regis-
try book, or land titles record.
That is about all you require to look at,
because it says: so and so is the owner, with
a guaranteed or certified title, and there is
this mortgage or that encumbrance charged.
That is all.
Mr. Singer: It would save the public more
money by having the government—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, I am pointing
out this advantage of land titles. That there
is a great saving of time and there is a con-
siderable saving in the amount of staff re-
quired to run the land titles office. So it has
certain advantages— only to mention those two
—and that is all, Mr. Speaker, I would have
to offer with respect to this legislation.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill 123, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, as I see it,
there are really only two principles that flow
from this Act. One is the principle set out in
the explanatory notes in relative sections 1,
2, 3, 9, 10, and 11. And that is the amend-
ment to abolish juries in division court actions.
I do not think that much needs to be said.
In my limited experience at the Bar, I have
never had a jury trial at division court. I do
not know if any of my colleagues in this
House have. I really think this is an appropri-
ate attitude for the hon. Attorney General
and his department to take— this abolition.
I would be interested in having his com-
ments as to whether he himself has ever had
a jury trial in division court.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): I had
one.
Mr. Bullbrook: My friend from Dovercourt
says that he has had one, but really I think
it is hardly ever used.
I wonder if I might compliment the Attor-
ney General in connection with sections 4, 5,
6, 7 and 8. That really concerns the abolition
of the committal of judgment debtors to prison
for wilful default in making the payments
ordered by the judge.
The theory behind the committal of a
judge of a judgment debtor is basically, that
he was in contempt of the order of the court.
To perhaps exaggerate, you tell a man who
perhaps owes another man $100: pay him
$10 a week; but what you in effect say to
him is: whether you have got the $10 a week
or not, you will pay him it.
Now, I must say, in fairness to the judiciary,
there usually is a proper and appropriate
examination. But we do have, frankly, at
times— and I think perhaps your honour
might have experienced it in his practice-
judges who do not always equate income and
expenditure with the concurrent expenditure
and lack of income of some of the public.
APRIL 30, 1969
3787
I, for one, have seen some orders made on
judgment summonses where, really, the per-
sons could not meet the responsibility.
So, technically, when they do not meet the
responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, they are in con-
tempt of that court. Now we are doing away
with this really archaic principle that, where
they cannot meet that responsibility, they be
thrust into jail. This, of course, is something
that we wholeheartedly support.
Collaterally to this, perhaps— and if you
will just permit a slight digression, I think,
from the principle of the bill— we might have,
in the position of incarcerating people, a
tightening of credit.
Because if there is something that has
bothered me, sir, is listening to the radio as
I shave in the morning and listening to these
advertisements— I realize I digress, but—
Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to cut the hon.
member ofiF, but it is an invitation to all
other members to digress on the line of credit,
and really, that is not the principle of this
bill.
Mr. BuUbrook: Your honour, I agree with
that. The only thing I must say, and I say
in deference to myself, is that so many times
I sit here and hear digressions much worse
than that. Really, I do not in any way mean
to be disrespectful to your ruling, but I
would just record this in Hansard for tlie
moment. Let us hope, then, that, as I say,
there will be a new economic attitude, and
a lack of invitation to the public by some of
these finance corporations to commit economic
disaster every morning. If you are in trouble-
Mr. Speaker: Now that the hon. member
has made his point, I beheve, perhaps he will
come back to the principle of the bill.
Mr. BuUbrook: Thank you. Your honour.
I think those are the only remarks I wish to
make.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I share the
opinions of my colleague from Samia in his
comments on this bill, but I wanted to ap-
proach it from a somewhat different aspect.
Looking at the bill as carefully as I have been
able to examine it, I see nothing in this bill
that is going to help the deplorable situation
that I think exists in the county of York.
There really, Mr. Speaker, is not a more
frustrating place for anyone in the profes-
sion to try to appear, or for any citizen of
the public who wants to handle his own case,
than in those division courts in the county
of York. The dockets are so long-
Mr. Speaker: Might I enquire how the hon.
member is going to relate this to the prin-
ciple either of doing away with jury trials or
of the section of the bill repealing incarcera-
tion for debt sections, because in my opinion
he is nowhere near either of those two prin-
ciples?
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that
my colleague from Sarnia and I have said
makes substantial improvements in The Divi-
sion Courts Act.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Perhaps the hon. mem-
ber wants jury trials?
Mr. Singer: Oh no, no, no! That is not
what I want to say at all, and I was com-
mending the Attorney General for taking
these steps, which are substantially advanced
and in keeping with what has gone before.
But I would have thought that while he
brought in the substantial revisions to this
Act, he would have wrestled with one of the
more serious problems as to who is going to
hear the cases, how long the dockets are, and
the handling of the staff in these coiuts. I
am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Act
would have been a much better Act, which
we would have been able to commend much
more thoroughly, if it had dealt with some
of those things, and it is with much regret
that we have to say that we cannot find
those things in this Act. I recognize the
validity of the point, Mr. Speaker, that you
suggest to me, and we will deal with these
questions under sections.
We need more judges in the division courts
in Toronto. We need to take the staffs off the
fee system where that still exists. There is
a certain prolific letter writer who addresses
himself to tlie Attorney General and to my-
self and to several other members of the
House on frequent occasions, and while he
does it in an unusual and occasionally objec-
tionable way, once in a while he has a point.
It would seem to me that the public could
be well served by a much more thorough
analysis of what goes on in the division
courts, particularly in the county of York,
with a view to enabling the citizens and
the members of the profession who deal with
these courts, to be able to deal with their
business more expeditiously and more effi-
ciently.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I shall just briefly
comment on this. I shall leave to my hon.
colleague, the member for Riverdale, the re-
marks with respect to the jury, and will
simply advert to the expunging, at long last,
from this province, and from the exercise of
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
jurisdiction within tlie division courts, of
the committal orders— but with i>articular
relevance, since no remarks have been made
up until now, to tlie contempt proceedings
under section 132. There was a wide range of
matters which could be called contemptuous
and which involved a penalization of up to
40 days. I will not run through what has
been expunged or is being expunged at this
time except simply to mention tlie general
headings.
If there was e\idence before a division
court judge that someone obtained credit
from a judgment debtor or incurred debt or
liability under false pretenses, or by means
of a fraud or a breach of tnist, tliat was
sufficient. And it takes us back to Bleak
House, you know , and the days of Dickens
and the debtors' prisons, and the whole of
19tii century literature— Thackeray comes
back to me. We have it retained until this
afternoon in this province; it was possible
to do it, and in some instances, under more
N'indictive judges, it was actually done. It
has become rarer and rarer, and the whole
practice has become suspect and otiose,
which is all to the good, and I commend the
Attorney General on abolishing the whole
wretched procedure.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
again infringing on the lawyers' hour, I just
wanted to make one observation. The hon.
member for Sarnia said that juries are never,
or \ery seldom used, and I want to say that
the comments on section 2 relative to page
3 indicated to me that juries are used, be-
cause the provision is made tliat abolishing
juries does not apply when tlie jury notice
has been served before the Act comes into
effect. In essence, juries are used. It is all
right for the lawyers to abolish them; it
appears to me that the lawyers would like
to get the juries to one side, so that they do
not have to appear in front of a jury. But I
think that the democratic process ought to
give the individual tlie option to determine
whether he should be tried by a judge or by
jury, and—
Mr. Bullbrook: He is not being tried.
Mr. Pilkey: Well, or to appear, I am sorry;
but at least to appear before a jury or judge.
I just happen to think, as a layman, that this
is part of the democratic process and should
be maintained. It might be more expedient
for the profession to eliminate juries.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): We have
to make the profession exi^editious.
Mr. Pilkey: Maybe so, but not at the
expense of infringing upon the democratic
process of the individual and his rights.
Mr. Bullbrook: Nobody is interested in the
profession's point of view.
Mr. Pilkey: I maintain that this should
prevail, that the jury should be maintained
and not eliminated at any point where a
jury could prevail. That is the only point
tliat I make.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to comment very briefly on the question
of the jury. I think it is true that within tlie
legal profession as such, certainly there
has been substantial pressure against the
jury system at all levels at which it is used—
perhaps not so much in the case of criminal
cases, but certainly in civil actions. I simply
say to the Attorney General that really the
problem in the division court is not caused
by having the jury system in the division
court, and it certainly is not going to make
the profession any more efficient or the court
system any better by abolishing the option
where the option exists for the person to have
a civil dispute decided in the division court
by a jury.
There is some general impression around
that because tliere are only relatively minor
numbers of dollars and problems involved,
that is from the point of view of the legal
profession, these are insignificant to the
people who in fact are participants in dis-
putes in the division court. I do not think
there should be any distinction drawn be-
tween the type of matter which is put in
issue, because of limitations of juristliction
in the division court, as distinct from tlie
decision of matters that are put in issue
which are of larger monetary value or in
someone's judgment of more serious import
that are put in issue in the county court, or
in the supreme court.
I do not think that that is the test. I think
any citizen who is before a division court
should certainly have the same right to a
trial by jury as the person before a county
court or before the supreme covirt. Because,
with the jurisdiction of the division court as
it presently stands, matters are decided in the
division court for people who come, for
example, from my riding of Riverdale—
matters of great import to the people who are
affected by it.
The first point that I would like to make
is that I do not understand the qualitative
distinction between issues which may be in
dispute in the division court and those in
APRIL 30, 1969
3789
the county court and tliose in the supreme
coui-t.
Mr. Bullbrook: I wonder if the member
would permit a question?
My question is: Do you analogize in the
criminal field too?
In other words, is a person entitled to a
jury trial on a careless driving charge, as he
is in connection with an indictable offence?
Certainly if there is logic to what you say,
does it not apply in tlie criminal field as well
as the civil field? Is there not a qualitative
analysis to be made there too?
Mr. J. Renwick: Of course, there is a very
obvious distinction between criminal matters
and civil matters. I did really want to address
my remarks mainly to the question of the
pressure within the profession— which is year
in and year out— that, somehow or other, tlie
jury should be either emasculated and limited
in its scope in civil actions in the civil courts
of this province. It is constant and it is
continuing.
I cannot answer the question of tlie mem-
ber for Sarnia just off hand. I do not think
it is germane to the topic. But the matters
in my riding which go before the division
court are just as important to the people
concerned in those disputes as any matter
that is in the county court, or in the supreme
court, although the number of dollars in-
volved may be somewhat less in the case.
The second point I want to make is that,
by and large, there used to be some form of
equity through the equity part of the devel-
opment of our legal system, as distinct from
the common law part. That historic distinc-
tion which all of us were taught at school
was that the common law was rigid and
inflexible, and that equity introduced some
form of equity into various parts of it.
The fact of the matter is today that, again,
by and large, the only equity which is avail-
able in most of our courts is the kind of
judgment which can often be rendered by
peers of the person who has the issue before
the court, peers who can in a sense— if you
want to use the term— introduce a little com-
mon sense into some of the absurdities which
for very good reason and with legal prece-
dents the courts get involved in.
I happen to be one who feels that what
is wrong with the division court— for example,
I forget the number of the court, but the
division court which is held in the Scarbor-
ough courthouse. What is wrong with that
court has nothing whatsoever to do with
the jury system.
I do not think that the number of trials
which take place because the option exists
for the jury trial in division court through-
out the province of Ontario affects in any
way the efficiency of the administration of
justice. If that is the point— if there is some-
thing to be said for more efficient operation
of the courts— then I would put the counter
argument that law is not necessarily being
efficient. There are other vast areas in which
the eflBciencies of the court procedures could
be improved, without eliminating this option,
this sense of choice, this ability, at some
point or other, in cases where the individual
often is not represented by a number of the
profession; where, in many cases, the person
for one reason or another cannot either
afford a lawyer, or because the person is not
prepared to go into the division court at a
fee which the lawyer considers to be reason-
able.
Whatever the development is going to be
to improve the division court system, I will
follow it with a great deal of interest. But
I am concerned to see that a bill comes
through for the purposes of abolishing the
jury system in the division court as if it is
a matter of small concern and has a minor
relevance to the system of the administration
of justice with which we are concerned.
I think it is probably true that most of
the lawyers in the House would likely agree
to abolish the jury system in division court
cases. I think there is a point of view which
the member for Oshawa has put and which
I am, perhaps, trying to put in a slightly
different sense— why the Attorney General
should not proceed with this particular por-
tion of that bill.
I think for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that
we would, in the absence of very cogent and
reasoned explanation by the Attorney Gen-
eral of why he selected this particular amend-
ment to The Division Courts Act, why he
is putting this forward, that we would be
under considerable compulsion to oppose the
bill.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak before the Minister?
The hon. member for Kitchener.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I might just
add a word to comments raised by the hon.
member for Riverdale.
As the most junior solicitor in this dis-
tinguished House I perhaps cannot speak
with the greatest amount of authority on
matters learned in the law. However, I would
3790
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
say that in the seven brief years of my prac-
tice in Kitchener there was only one occa-
sion, of which I am aware, on which a jury
notice was served within the division court.
It got the court ojfficials so upset, because
they did not know what to do with it, or
how to handle it, that finally the solicitor
who had served it was talked out of going
ahead with it. Of course, the matter fell
there.
I think that the situation now, with re-
spect to the availability of legal aid to persons
who are requiring certain assistance, with-
draws from the reasons put forward by the
member for Riverdale concerning the abilit>'
of the individual to deal with a decision and
with problems by treating with his peers at
the division court level.
While the amounts of money involved are
not the important criterion, it is the prin-
ciple of justice that is the more important,
of course. I think that in this situation the
jury at this level does not, any longer, per-
form the useful function that it may once
have done. I think that the simple fact
that it is not being called into use shows
that it is somewhat anachronistic. As a result,
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government in
this instance with respect to this item should
be supported.
Mr, Kerr: Just a few short remarks, Mr.
Speaker. These are as a result of the remarks
of the hon. member for Riverdale.
I think that the fact is that there would be
delays in hearing matters if jury trials were
used frequently in division courts. At the
present time, as has been indicated by some
members, there is a shortage of judges serv^-
ing our division courts and for one to sit all
day, for example, to hear a matter that may
involve a $50 or $75 claim, does not make it
worthwhile for the plaintiff to press that
claim.
Now I do not think it is a matter of minor
importance or relevance. I think that all
claims in division court, whether they are
small or large, up to $300 or $400, are dealt
with quite adequately by our county court
judges and I do not believe a defendant's
democratic rights are being affected in any
way by the sections in this bill.
As the hon. member for Kitchener has in-
dicated, there could be a great deal of
confusion and a delay in processing or in
empanelling a jury and I think that delay
would be unnecessary.
I can assure the hon. member for Oshawa
that certainly in most of our division courts
the judges are quite patient, quite considerate,
because in many cases the defendants do not
have legal counsel. I think that justice i.s
dispensed in that forum as well as in other
courts in this province.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any further debate
before the Minister?
The Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I must
first point out that I deserve httle credit,
although someone attempted to pay a com-
pliment to this bill.
These provisions are simply picking up the
recommendations of the Hon. Mr. McRuer in
his study into civil rights. All that we have
done is perhaps to note those recommenda-
tions, and to attempt to implement them into
legislation.
Listening to the hon. member for Downs-
view, I felt like a lawyer sitting in court
knowing that my opponent was asking lead-
ing questions, but taking no objection to
them. I felt that what he did have to say
on the di£Bculties of getting some of the cases
forward, while they are not related perhaps
to the principle of this bill, they are there,
particularly in York.
I do think they relate to the administrative
process of that court which has been brought
to our attention and of which we are aware.
I think, if you will permit, Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to say that perhaps this will
certainly come in my estimates and I do not
want to usurp that ground now.
We are asking judges of the county court
to do what I think they should be doing,
and that is spending some time in the divi-
sion court, as they do outside of Toronto
and do very effectively.
I am not going to talk about the section
which does away with committal for wilful
default. I think everyone agrees that is
sensible and proper in this day and age. As
the member for Lakeshore pointed out, there
is still lots of room for the use of the com-
mittal for contempt. Perhaps some day we
may address ourselves to some of those
matters, too.
With respect to the jury and the use of
the jury in the division court, I would like
to spend just a moment on that. Particularly,
since the member for Oshawa and member
for Riverdale have spoken so strongly in this
matter. I do not mind a vote on this issue,
but I really think-at least I really hope- 1
can persuade them that is not necessary. Mr.
McRuer, in his report number one, at page
APRIL 30, 1969
3791
634, in dealing with jury triak in the division
court, and it is interesting to note, says:
Where the amount sought to be recovered
exceeds $50, either party to the action,
upon notice to the Clerk in payment of
fees to the expenses of summoning a jury,
may require the act to be tried by a jury.
First of all, there is no right for a jury trial if
the claim is under $50, and the division court,
as all members know, is the small claims court
where civil matters only are tried. So the
tights of individuals are not involved as to
their liberty as they would be in criminal
cases. I point that out.
Mr. McRuer went on to say that there are
many instances where the judge may still
dispense with the jury, even in division court,
and each juror, even in these small claims, is
entitled to a fee of $6 for every day or part
of a day in which he is required to attend the
court, plus an allowance of 10 cents a mile
for his transportation. These fees are paid by
the clerk of the court, and he is, in turn,
reimbursed by the treasurer of the county,
and this in turn is a charge of the court which
eventually is carried on to the debtor, the
small debtor, or the parties at least, either the
plaintiff or the defendant in the case.
So it becomes a pretty substantial tax on
the parties who engage in their small claims
for collection.
So, Mr. McRuer went on to say:
The treasurer of each county maintains
an account under the head of division court
jury fund. This fund is maintained for spe-
cial surcharge imposed on plaintiffs, in
addition to all costs and jury fees payable,
and this fund builds up into a very sub-
stantial amount of money although the
jury is hardly ever, ever used, even with-
out the law that I am bringing forward
here. Out of $182,970 claims-nearly 183,-
000 claims filed in division court in the
year 1966— fewer than 15 were tried by a
jury.
Then he shows the considerable sum of money
collected under this jury fund, charged to the
parties, so that really an injustice was being
done to everybody who came before the
court. Mr. McRuer finally ended up by say-
ing:
The whole process of trial by jury in
I division court actions is a relic of pioneer
h days. Those using the division court appear
to be almost unanimous in the opinion that
jury trials are unnecessary. Fifteen jury
trials out of 182,970 claims leaves little
room for argument. Jury trial in division
court should be abolished.
Those are the words of Mr. McRuer. Now I
hasten to say that I do not take everything
which the hon. gentleman said in his report
as being inspired, but I think there is great
merit when he supports it with such cogent
argument as this. It was to pick up that
recommendation that I brought forward that
portion of this bill which removes jury trials.
They are not used. They are an expense. They
are truly an anachronism.
Mr. Singer: At least the Minister read the
whole of his. His colleague is remiss on that
point.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am sorry to hear that
one of my colleagues would do that.
Mr. Singer: The Minister will hear about
that.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, will the
Attorney General permit a very brief com-
;nent in view of the remarks made by the
member for Kitchener? I quite appreciate
that there can be certification under the legal
laid system for the division court. But it is
true that it requires, in the exceptional cir-
cumstance, the approval of the area director
which makes it quite a different proposition.
It is not a matter of right.
Mr. Breithaupt: Quite so!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am not sure I get the
point. Is there suggestion that legal aid should
not be applicable to division court? I do not
follow.
Mr. J. Renwick: No, I do not mean that,
Mr. Speaker. I just make the point that it
falls within that category of discretion con-
ferred on the area director as to whether or
^ot a certificate for legal aid will be issued
in a division court matter. I was drawing
attention to it because there are many people
who go before the division court without the
benefit of a lawyer, and it is not necessarily
true that legal aid would be available in all
cases.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: There is a discretion,
but the general principle is, I think, that if
they need council they get it. I would hope,
Mr. Speaker, that we would be able to accept
this legislation without the necessity of divi-
sion. I trust I may have persuaded my friends
across the way that it is good legislation.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
'92
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE LEGAL AID ACT, 1966
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill 124, an Act to amend The Legal Aid Act,
1966.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to
amend The Legal Aid Act of 1966, and to
correct certain defects in that plan. I think
one of the things that we in this Legislature
can be most proud of is the fact that we have
a legal aid system, and that in such a short
period of time it has been working so well.
In previous years, before we had a legal
aid system established, we urged upon the
government, with all the force at our com-
maml, that we should have such a system.
While it took an awful long time for the
government to move in this regard, they did
mo\'e, and I think we have one of the best
systems which exists in the common law sys-
tem throughout North America at least.
There are faults in it, and some of these
faults are now being coiTected as we read
the various reports submitted in coimection
witli this. We listened to the discussions at
the various meetings of the bar association,
and others. We recognize that they are all
our faults and tliat they have to be corrected.
Certainly no one can have any sympathy for
those members of the legal profession who
have abused the legal aid system, and cer-
tain abuses have come to light.
It seems to me that some lawyers have
made a business only out of serving as legal
aid solicitors and extracting out of that a
kind of service fees, totalling large amounts.
I would think that some of the suggestions
we have heard to limit the number of cases
that can be handled by any one lawyer make
good sense. And the actions of the law society
in examining very carefully accusations that
some lawyers have been soliciting business
under The Legal Aid Act.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. I question whether these matters may
not properly fall within the Attorney General's
estimates when we deal with the legal aid
plan, and that we should deal with the prin-
ciples of the changes which are involved.
My reading of the bill bears no relationship
to what the member for Dowcnsview is sipeak-
injg about.
Mr. Singer: Well, with great respect for
my friend from Riverdale, if he will notioe
what these provisions are, and the remarks of
the Attorney General that accompwinied them
originally, they are direoted to the ability to
tighten up certain loose provisions in the
Act as originally drafted; to give larger regu-
latory powers to enable discipUne of those
people who have abused the Act. I tliink
these remarks are most pertinent in connec-
tion with this second reading.
Mr. Speaker: Well, it would be my view
that the lion. meml3er for Downsview is lay-
ing tlie foundation for what he wishes to
say with respect to the principles of the bill.
Mr. Singer: As I say, Mr, Speaker, there
have been these abuses, and, therefore, in
line with the ooimnents of these lx)dies relat-
ing to these abuses, we have these new pro-
visions.
It would seem to me tliat there are a couple
of tilings in connec-tion with this bill, imd in
connection with something else that we have
been talking about in this House, tliat we
should have another aireful look at. There is
a reference in here to a percentage of the
tariff that lawyers can charge, and that is
tliree-quarters of tlie tariff.
No\w, certain comments were made in con-
nection with a certain other bill that was
here about the ability of a professional asso-
ciation to determine what its own fees ai"e.
The theory was annunciated by my colleagues,
by my leader, that where there is a collection
of public money and the distribution of it
by a government of the province of Ontario
on behalf of the i>eople of Ontario to a
specific professional group, that the amoimt
that that professional group, or individual
members of that professional group, receive
is the concern of the Legislature.
I am concerned that as we deal with the
tariff that lawyers are going to be able to
charge under this, and as we assess it at
tliree-quarters of tiie tariff as fixed, that the
Legislature has nothing to say about what that
tciriff is.
It would seem to me that as we mention
the tariff in this Act that it should be encum-
bent upon the government to say that when
the hiriff is first determined— and it did not
say that in the bill of 1966— but in this refer-
ence here, when the tariff is being reviewed
and from time to time clmnged, the ability
to change it should lie only after some sort
of approval coming from tliis Legislature, or
on the recommendation of a committee of
this Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would
interject at this moment that in very definite
contrast to the bill, the other bill to which
the hon. member has referred, when the
tariffs under the legal aid was prepared, it
APRIL 30, 1969
3793
was brought before the Lieutenant-Govemor-
in- Council and the Treasury Board, and there
reviewed and passed upon. It was not passed
by the profession alone. It was cleared be-
fore government.
Mr. Singer: All right Mr. Speaker, the
difference is obvious to the extent that I ap-
parently indicated, and I was indicating that
it was only prepared by the profession alone.
I withdraw those remarks.
However, it was not considered by the
Legislature, nor by a committee of it, and
there is a substantial difference between the
Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council and the Trea-
sury Board, and the Legislature. It would
seem to me that we, as members of the
Legislature, should have a say in that regard.
This bill, even though it does again refer
to the tariff, makes no such provision. I think
it should, and draw the parallel to the argu-
ment that we put forward in relation to a
certain other bill which was the responsibility
of the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond).
There is one particular reference towards
the end of the bill, Mr. Speaker, about
regulations, and the Attorney General here
introduces a suggestion that a regulation may
be limited in its scope. That seems all right,
but may be retroactive in its operation, and
this, of course, brings to mind the fear that
many of us have about the inequities and
dangers of retroactive legislation.
There is no indication, either in the ex-
planatory notes or in the introductory remarks
of the Minister, as to why he wants this
unusual power about retroactivity to be in-
cluded. There are very serious dangers about
retroactive legislation, and unless it is par-
ticularly directed to specific instances which
should be corrected, and the retroactivity be
hmited in its scope to steal a phrase from
that subsection, then I think that there has
to be very serious objection to it.
It is bad enough to extend large powers
under the regulatory procedures of particular
statutes, and we view these with concern
frequently, because more and more of our
legislation seems to give to the Minister con-
cerned, powers to regulate matters that are
not specifically dealt with in the specific
statute.
Those regulatory powers, seem to me over
the years, to get broader and broader in their
scope. Bad as that may be, this is worse,
because what we are saying here is, that in
an Act which gives very broad regulatory
powers— and we view those with some re-
serve and some concern— now we are going
to be able to pass regulations that are re-
troactive in their operation.
There is no rhyme, no reason, no colour
of necessity in regard to this, and I am very,
very concerned about this kind of a phrase
being included in legislation. It is beginning
perhaps to form some sort of a pattern as we
see more. But this is the first sample of a
new type of legislative draftsmanship.
We might just as well not be here, be-
cause if we continue to extend powers to
pass regulations, powers to broaden the
meaning of an Act by regulation, and then
we go on to say these regulations may be
retroactive in their operation, there is little
point really, Mr. Speaker, in having the
Legislature sit and consider these matters at
all.
Subject to those two specific comments,
and subject to our concern about the effec-
tive working of the legal aid scheme, I can
say we are going to support it. We are not
going to support subsection 5 of section 10
when it comes to committee of the whole
House, but we will deal with that at that
time. I would hope that the Attorney Gen-
eral would be moved, before we got to that
stage, to remove that subsection.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I notice that
under this new bill, although it has been
mooted very much in the press and in the
meetings of the law society having to do
with legal aid, it was in the cards that a
statutory declaration would be extracted from
people touching their assets and their ability
to pay. That it is not embodied in the bill
as it presently stands.
What is embodied in the bill— I am not
pleased that it is not embodied but I sup-
pose it may have to come to that in due
course although the Attorney General being
a cautious man has not yet reached that
stage— what has been embodied is a new
clause under 6(3), that the assessment officer
to whom an application is referred shall con-
sider the income, disposable capital, indebt-
edness, requirements of persons dependent on
the applicant, and such other circumstances
he deems to be relevant, that are disclosed
in the application, or that he ascertains after
investigation.
The hon. Attorney General knows there
was a recent discussion by some of the four
panelists-part of this has been reported in
the current law journal, or the one just be-
fore this one— in which John Amup particu-
larly felt that the family circumstances, the
overall family circumstances, of an applicant
ought to be given a good deal of scrutiny.
3794
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He also felt that the investigation should
range beyond the present ambit, which pres-
ently affects the applicant only, in his direct
and personal circumstances.
In other words, the group felt that a
wealthy wife could very well support an
impecunious husband in a criminal action,
particularly if he had written a cheque on
her account.
This sort of thing may be the intent of
the rather vague amorphous wording— but
what I am really doing is asking if this is
the range envisaged for this particular sec-
tion, and whether this was the intent behind
it?
This bill, Mr. Speaker, extends the scope
and possibilities of legal aid in a number of
directions, all very worthwhile, and all which
should be done in the interest of people in this
House. It extends now to quo warranto pro-
ceedings, which I am sure everybody is going
to avail themselves of almost instantly. It
adds contempt to the subject matter, for
which a certificate may be issued.
It also gives some right now to people
being prosecuted, under summary conviction
procedures, for by-laws of municipalities, or
a metropolitan regional municipality or a
local board. That is an area in which people
really do suffer a good deal these days; and
there is no reason why it should not extend
to cover this area. I commend the Attorney
General on recognizing the need in these
areas.
I suppose it must be scrutinized to some
extent, and here I am thinking of local
appeals on taxes, and matters of that kind.
That probably is not envisaged. The area
that is specific is, I suppose, where restric-
tive covenants and by-laws of various kinds
are taken before those who were formerly
the magistrates of the province. That move
is beneficial.
Section 6 is a complete revamping of many
sections of the Act to bring out the logic.
Again, reading through it and comparing it
—contrasting it with what was there previ-
ously—it is a very worthwhile amendment.
There is also a re-orientation of sections
of the Act as to what the role of the area
committee is, as to when provision certifi-
cates will be given, as to the contribution
made by the individual, as to the problems
of costs that arise out of that— if the indi-
vidual owes costs at the end of the day as a
result of action taken under a certificate. Or
if he derives benefit from the costs it may
repay the fund. And the payment out of
moneys in excess of the cost to the individual
who was using legal aid.
Now, in all these areas there are con-
siderable benefits conferred upon the people
of this province. It may cost a little bit
more, I suspect it does. We know how
people are raising their hands to high heaven
over the cost of the legal aid scheme. But
really, if you compare it with the British
scheme, it is not that much, per capita, out
of line for the benefits being conferred on
wide ranges of citizenry.
I would like to comment now upon the
attempt within the new bill to regularize
those lawyers who have taken advantage of
the scheme. Section 8 brings some weight to
bear. It makes it crystal clear that these
lawyers must not take emoluments, must not
take payments of any kind, direct or in-
direct, cash or otherwise, over and above
what the legal aid scheme is prepared to
pay, as a back door way of increasing their
fees. That is a valuable addition to the Act
too.
Finally, it brings in privileged communica-
tions, which is a very sacrosanct thing for
sohcitors and lawyers— an ancient privilege
which we enjoy. It also brings the area
director and the assessment officer under
that heading, which is as it should be.
It would be a great mistake to have them
blabbing about people; or, at least, having
their files made available to the general public
in matters of specific legal intent.
Finally, regarding the member for Downs-
view— I do not know whether he is right or
not. I will turn to the Attorney General
under the business of that retroactive clause,
that the regulation may be limited in its
scope, and may be retroactive in its opera-
tion.
There may be very good reason why you
feel that the regulation should be made retro-
active. Looking through the list of the wide
terms on which regulations may be set up,
they have to do with application for legal
aid, respecting entitlement.
I suppose, in those areas, there may be
cases in which you feel that the retroactivity
may be necessary— if not beneficial— in a num-
ber of instances that have come to yoiu:
attention. I would ask you not to make the
fees to the barristers or sohoitors retroactive,
that is under sub-clause (j) of the regulations.
Then there is the problem of recovery of,
and payments into the fund. Problems of
retroactivity would be detrimental in that
area too, I suspect.
APRIL 30, 1969
3795
I think we will bide over here— hearing
what the Attorney General has to say as to
tiie reasons for, and the necessity of, this
retroactive feature. It cannot be very serious,
because the Act only came into operation
a couple of years ago and the retroactivity, I
suspect, would not be of a hard impact upon
individuals.
On the oAer hand, you know the way
lawyers shy from the word retroactivity. It
runs against the fundamental legal grain, and
unless well justified, is to be opposed.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I only have
two brief comments on the principles in this
amending bill, and because they are in the
nature of a criticism, or because they are
unclear, I do not want the Attorney General
to think that the balance of the bill is, in
my view, an improvement— as would be ex-
pected after the period of time during which
the fund has been in operation.
I would like to make this other preliminary
comment that, to my surprise, it does not
cany out any of the horrendous things that
I was concerned about in the tightening up
of die plan.
I really think the report in the press greatly
exaggerated the extent to which the law is
being changed, in order to squeeze people
who may legitimately be entitled to legal
aid. I assume that is because the Attorney
General is waiting; for the results of whatever
study is made by The Department of Social
and Family Services, in conjunction with the
law society, about the way in which the fund
is actually operated, in terms of ultimate
recovery of some of the moneys expended.
I am concerned with the principle section
of the bill, which grants the authority for a
certificate to be issued— and which is perfectly
clear as written in the bill— and states:
"except where otherwise provided in this
Act, the certificate shall be issued". For
some reason or other, the Attorney General
now feels that there must be some provision,
by way of regulation, to cut down that right
or privilege, which is reasonably well protected
in the Act to every citizen. It makes it diffi-
cult for a person to find out, even in the
major matters in the supreme court, the
county or district court and the surrogate
court, whether or not a person charged with
an indictable ofiEence, or under The Extra-
diction Act. In the exchequer court, the
Attorney General has added in the exception
clause, which would permit a certificate to
be refused, or other limitations to be placed
upon the issue of a certificate. I think to
the extent that regulations are involved, it
makes it just a litde less cleat as to precisely
the rights of the persons involved. Of course,
regulations can be filed and .changed, and
while they are of public notiq^ it is. just some-
what more difficult to find put precisely what
the person's entitlement is to. w^iat is in sub-
Stance more or less a right to .^ certificate,
even though there is still a d^scrgtionaiy ele-
ment to it.
I do not know what is in the Attorney
General's mind but it seems to: me that at
least the statute has the protectibn of being
available for a whole year without any change
of substance in it, and if regulations are
going to be made, of course they can be
made from time to time. I object to Aat part
of the bill, if there are to be exceptions carved
out to that principal clause of d^ jurisdiction
to grant certificates for legal aid; I think it
should be done directly within the statute.
The second item of the principle of the
bill about which I am concerned is the pro-
vision which appears to indicate that the
discretion of the area direpfMur tp issue a cer-
tificate in a proceeding before a quasi-judicial
or administrative board or commission is with-
drawn in the case of what is called an appeal
to the board, on the grounds that it is con-
tained elsewhere in the statute requiring, as
I understand it, the approval of the area
committee in substitution for the director's
right to issue it.
I draw to the attention of. the Attorney
General that in the workmen's compensation
board hierarchy of internal arrangements for
reassessment of claims, the first place at which
the claimant is entitled to appear in appeal
against the claim is before the appeal tribunal
of the workmen's compensation board. It
would appear to me that in those cases where
a claimant wishes to be represented by coun-
sel—and they are relatively few but they are
the more difficult cases— L think that because
it is the initial appearance of the claimant
before that kind of a board that the matter
should be left the way it is presendy provided,
namely, in the discretion of the area director
Without involving the area committee in it
Perhaps if I could just explain, in case the
Attorney General does not iminediately have
it in his mind as a procedure, that if a <?l2Lim
is settled by the claims officers in the work-
men's compensation lx)ard, tJiie fitst step is
this internal review committee. Btit that is an
internal matter and there is nb appearance
before it by anyone. So the first time, when
that has been sorted out and you have the
summary of evidence on whieh die review
committee based its findings, ^e ^claimant's
3796
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
opportunity is before the appeal tribunal* and
that-
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I appreciate the hon.
member's explanation in relating this but I
should tell him that as a member for a riding
I get a lot of these complaints and I take
them and have become fairly familiar with
what happens although I do not go down to
the board. I do know the procedures, and
they have been related to me and I have
related them to constituents, so that I am
aware of the situation as respected by the
procedure. I just wanted to save him relating
it to me.
Mr. J. Renwick: Just completing the point,
I do not see, in the case of that board, and
there may well be other boards, why it is not
left in the hands of the area director rather
than taken tp the area committee.
With those few comments on the bill we
will leave it for the clause-by-clause consid-
eration.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to participate in the debate? If not, the hori.
Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, since this
bill is going definitely to the committee on
legal bills I will be very brief in my remarks.
I would just like to comment on the sug-
gestion that section 10, subsection 5(3) be
removed before we go to committee. I am
not going to alccept that suggestion. I wiU
study the effect of that provision that the
regulation may be retroactive. I am not
certain at the moment why we put that in.
I do not mind admitting that, because it
nuikes it open for me to say that I have had
a most cflFective and capable advisory com-
mittee outside the administration of this
Act, headed by Mr. Justice Brooke, and with
other persons on it including civilian repre-
sentation. They have been most thorough,
and it was from • some of their recommenda-
tions—they have furnished the report which is
tabled here in the House— that some of these
provisions eome forward. I cannot recall the
reason but I will perhaps have it, I hope I
will have it, when we get to committee.
Mr. Singerj We will wait until then.
Hon. Mr> Wishart: I hope the member
will. There was one other point I did intend
to make, but perhaps I could leave it for
committee too. The hon. member for River-
dale mentipn^ed that he was agreeably sur-
prised that we had not become carried away
by some of the past criticism and brought in
a drastic bill which I might. have had difiB-
culty defending.
I would like to say— although it is perhaps,
not related to the principle of this legislation
and I recognize it— that the legal aid pro-
gramme has worked very well generally. We
have observed a few abuses, places where its
administration could be improved. The whole
intent and purpose of this legislation is not
really to catch people out but to improve
some areas where the administration needed
some perfecting, and I think with tiiat we
will look forward to going to coximiittee with
this legislation.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE REGULATIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading
of Bill 125, An Act to amend The Regula-
tions Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Samia.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, in connection
with this statute I will attempt to be as brief
as possible. Basically, as the explanatory
notes states the principle, the bill implements
the recommendation of the Royal commissioh
inquiry into civil rights for a committee of
the Legislature to scrutinize regulations, and
I would refer the hon. members of this House
to chapter 24 of McRuer in coimection with
subordinate legislative power.
It is not my intention to unduly dwell at
length in connection with the comments
leading to the establishment of this legisla-
tion. But I do want to make some i)er$onal
comments in connection with certain words in
the Act itself as an example of the principle
flowing from the bill. Firstly, in . connection
with section 1 and subsecfaon 4 thereof:
The special comrnittee on regulations
may examine any member of the Exe<iutive
Council or any public , SOTvant designated
by him respecting any regulations made
under an Act that is under his administra-
tion.
The words "designated by him" cause mie
concern. I would like to relate, Mr. Speaker,
to the definition of Vegulations under The
Regulations Act, which is chapter 349 of the
RSO 1960. Regulation means:
Any regulation, rule, order or bylaw of
a legislative nature made or approved
under an act of the Legislature by the
Lieutenant-Giovemor-in-Council. ,.
APRIL 30, 1969
3797
Then we go further, sir, ajidl think this is
tlie impo^itant aspect:
A Minister of the Grown; an o£Bcial of
the government or a board or commission,
all tJie members of which are appointed by
the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Gouncil.
The point I make in reading that definition
to yourself and flie other members of the
House is, that a regulation of itself is this
subordinative legislative power that we have
delegated to others and that the Lieutenant-
Govemor-in-<^ouncil has delegated to others,
sometimes of tremendously far-reaching
ramifications and sometimes unbeknownst
to us all.
In connection with subsection ,4 I want to,
mvite the response of the Attom€?y GeckeiFal
as to why the restriction, of the words, "desig-
nated by him."
I would think, if we are carrying out the
intent of the report on cdvil rights and the
recommendations carried out in that report;
the intention is that there be estab^shed this
special committee. They should have powers
of bringimig before them any Minister of the
Grown, any official of the governmeait, or
any member of any board, or commissicm^
that promulgates such a regulation. I do not
see why it should be necessary that an indi-
vidual member of the Executive Goimcil has
to deisignate, or approve, in effect, Mr.
Speaker, the person who is being compelled
to appear before the special committee.
I see, in effect, a true restriction on the
activities and the; very necessary activities of
this pommittee. Basioally, it is section 3 with
which I would particularly take issue and I
want to read that, if I migiht:
T^ special committee on regulations
shdtt examine the regulations with particu-
lar reference to the scope and mediod of
the exerd^ of delegated legislative power,
but 'without reference to the merite of the
policy or objectives to be effected by the
regulations or enabling statutes and shall
• deal with such other matters as are re-
ferred to it from time to time by thei
Assembly.
And; of couarse, I think the offending words
there, to a great ex*ent, are, "but without
reference to the merits of the policy or ob-*
jeotives to be effected by the regulatians"i
I am not worried at all.
Mr; Kcrrt That is our job.
Mr. Bullbrook: The member for Ualtoix
West says it is our job. I will take my ^at
and he can explain who "us" is. ^
J^ any event, it is not the question of
referenpe to the merits or the policy or ob-
jectives of the enabling statutes that I am
womed; about, because the enabling statutes
vye pass here. But the qu^tion that comes to
my mind is the restricting of the ability of
this committee to look into the policy or
objectives to be effected by the regulations
under such statutes.
Suredy, this committee, to carry out its func-
tion and its duty, should be able to see that
the Tegulations passed pursuant to a statute
and, more import^it, regulations passed by
boards car commissions established by this
Legislature, should be concurrent with the
intent of this Legislature in enacting the
enabling legislation. I do not see for a moment
why we have to restrict the committee.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously,
when we have passed leigislation in this
House, the purpose of this committee, as set
out by McRuer, as I understand it, is to see
that the administrative intent of that legisla-
tion, the substantive intent of that legislation,
i« iwoperly carried oiit in any regulations
passed as a result of the statute. My basic
question, therefore, to tiie Attorney General
is twofold. =
One: in connection with section 4, why
restrict the designation of those people com-
pellable before the cxwnmittee as only those
people designated by a member of the execu-
tive council? Let us give this committee-if
we are sincere in our intent in establishing
this committee of ourselves, to see that the
public is adequately protected, in connection
with delegaited adminisb-ative function^let us
give this cx>mmittee the power to call before
it whomsoever it wishes.
Second, and more important, let us give
this committee the power to see that the
regulations passed under statutes truly carry
out the intent and policy of this Legislature.
Not solely the whim of some administrative
official, or solely the whim of the govemmeot,
not consiistent with the legislation diat was
passed in the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Laker
shore;
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps
the best: vvay is to lead off on one section
from chapter 26 of McRuer, on which this
wbole bill is based. And may I express my
delight. I have spoken previously in a nui»-
bear of debates about the absence of a scrutiny
committee in this Legislature to review regU/*
latio^is. We ;give the bills and the AcJts that
come before us a pretty, good going over*
3798
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But difiire is a whole vast terrain in Ae
terra incognita of regulations which, in their
impact, in their actual effect, and what-not,
may have a far greater effect, partaouJarly
through this thing called red tape, and through
administrative arrogance.
None of us, in his role here, if we are
working at all hard, find time to really—
except in specific areas in which we are
terribly interested — review the regulations.
They pour through tfie Ontario Gazette and,
as I say, there is an avalanche of these
things. It is crucial for civil liberties, if not
for the pure exercise of the law, that some-
body should bring these matters under review
and surveillance; and at long last we have
determined to do so. Many other jurisdictions,
Great Britain, Australia South Africa, India,
all mentioned in McRuer, Chapter 26, set out
the various ways in which these jurisdictions
have handled the matter, I will be making
some remarics, as concisely as may be, about
these jurisdictions, and the way in which they
handled it
I find the bill, while we will have to
support it, defective in seeking to be, per-
haps too succinct. A great many areas where
it should perhaps spell out, it tries to capsul-
ate in as few words as possible. There is not
that great a dearth of paper in the province
of Ontario, with our great forest industry,
that we could not expand upon these terms
somewhat more.
McRuer says, it is imperative that somfe
effective form of review by, or on behalf
of, the Legislature should be established.
The volume of supportive legislation is very
great. It is frequently of more practical
importance to the individual than the general
framework of statutes under which regula-
tions are passed. It is a primary function of
the Legislature to make the laws, and it is
responsible for all the laws it makes or
authorizes to be made.
The failure of the Legislature to spend
some specific place in the legisls^ive calender
for supervision of subordinate legislation is, in
our view, a dereliction of duty on its part
and a failure to protect the fundamental civil
rights of the individual.
Could a stronger statement be made of
derelictions in tiie past which is being
repaired and improved today? Now let us
just sec to what extent it is being approved.
In the United Kingdom in 1924, there was a
committee set up to review 1932 the Dome-
more committee which made proposals to
both Houses of Parliament in Great Britain.
I am not going to nm through these
various proposals as they came forth because
subsequently in McRuer and among the
recommendations at page 378, he picks up
the bulk of them and rewords them and
indicates the direction in which we should be
going in this regard.
This bill is perhaps defective and it tries
to use too few words, as I said. It says in
section 3:
The special committee on regulations
shall examine the regulations with particu-
lar reference to the scope and method of
the exercise of delegate legislative power.
I contrast that and intend to some contrasting
with the rather more lengthy spelling out of
precisely what you mean by "scope" and
"method" and I suggest that this bill pu^t
to be expanded to determine that. The
words are— why not, it is already done. It is
done in every other jurisdiction. They set up
their wording in a wider way to make deter-
minaWe what scope the regulations are and
what we have to review when the special
committee is set up. It is also defective on
some minor points. There is no rule for
written explanations emanating from indivi-
duals.
Hon, Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am
sorry I could not follow. I could not hear
the hon, member when, referring to section
4 subsection 3— he referred to the scope and
method, I wanted to get his words there.
He said they should be expanded, I do not
follow how you expand that language. Does
he want some adjectives to qualify scope, or
how is that to be expanded? I would like to
have to dilate on that a bit.
Mr. Lawlor: Well, I mean the wording.
The Domemore committee recommended a
standing committee of both Houses be estab-
lished to review bills and propose new
powers; to pass regulations on aU rules and
regulations as they are n\ade; and then they
set them out in black and white, that is at
page 370,
There is another spelling out on page 371
with respect to the select committee on statu-
tory rules and orders 1944 of the House of
Commons, where they set them out in four
headings.
That is not as good as perhaps the one in
Australia on page 372, and what I am saying
is we can get around all that and not prolong
the debate unnecessarily by simply referring
to the range and scope and method as set
forth in "the biWe" at 378.
APRIL 30, 1969
3799
Mr. Singer: Is the member at 378; is that
where he is?
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I am at 378; that is
recommendation 4 of the McRuer report.
That is what I mean—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: May I interject there.
In recommendation 4 on page 378, I do not
think it is ever suggested that that should be
contained in the Act. Mr. McRuer, says the
following principles should be laid down to
guide the committee in its examination. My
thinking would be that when the committee
is appointed, those guidelines would be laid
down. I am sure the Legislature will per-
haps provide some other guidelines. But I do
not think we would spell it out in that detail
in a section of this Act, not that those are
not good guidehnes, but I think we would
leave that to the committee at the time of
its appointment.
Mr. Singer: The Minister emasculates that
in section 3 of his Statute.
Mr. Lawlor: That is what has been done
in other jurisdictions. I was seeking to elicit
from the hon. Attorney General a reply as to
once the committee is set up it sets its own
guidehnes and—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I must take this up at
this moment because the very first thing Mr.
McRuer says in 4:
The following principles should be laid
to guide the committee.
And then he says:
They should not contain provisions in
initiating new policy.
That is what I said in subsection 4, "but
should be confined to detail." The hon. mem-
ber for Sarnia was saying they should have
power to almost make new regulations, to
almost, in a sense, legislate by way of regula-
tion.
Mr. Lawlor: The member for Sarnia is
quite wrong.
Mr. Bullbrook: I did not say that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, well-
Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order. Really,
I did not say that. I did not imply it. I did
not infer it.
Mr. Lawlor: The member did say it!
Mr. Bullbrook: I certainly did not.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence ( Minister of Mines ) :
Anyway, he did not mean it.
Hon Mr. Wishart: If I do the hon. mem-
ber for Sarnia a wrong and am wrongly para-
phrasing him, I apologize. But I got the same
impression that the hon. member for Halton
got, and that he said, "That is our job, to
legislate." That is what he was meaning; that
was his reply, and I concurred vwth him and
he said, "That is our job, not for the com-
mittee revievidng regulations. They do not
make new ones. They do not change them.
They report back. They say they are missing
this, or they go too far in that."
That was the intent of this legislation to
create such a committee. Well, I have inter-
rupted the hon. member for Lakeshore more
than I had intended.
Mr. Singer: That certainly is not what the
Minister said in his section 3.
Mr. Lawlor: I must say that I was under
the same misapprehension about the hon.
member for Sarnia touching the problem of
policy. It is simply not within the scope of
this regulations committee to consider the
policy or merits of legislation. And that is
made abundantly and conclusively clear
throughout this whole chapter 35, and 36 in
McRuer. You can see good reason for it.
Just let me quote a word or two from
McRuer on that, page 377:
The poHcy of the Act having been
settled l:>y the Legislature after full debate
and discussion, ought not to be reopened
for discussion in the committee. The merits
of the regulations as an evaluation and
their need for them and their efficacy
within the framework of the policy ap-
proved and provided for in the Act, are
matters for which the government is re-
sponsible to the Legislature.
He goes on in this vein. In any event, there
are things that are in here. For instance,
there is no provision made, and I suggest
there should be within the terms of the bill,
no provision for assistance to the committee.
It is agreed in McRuer that the committee
must be very small. The claim is that psy-
chologically to have a small committee, you
will have a non-partisan one, who somehow
have to be objective and get along together,
and so it must be a small committee. He
makes a recommendation of seven members,
with a quorum of three.
But tlien he goes on, and I think recom-
mends substantially, that they do have some
kind of legal assistance, and a secretary. And
he says, over against what was done in other
jurisdictions, for instance, in Manitoba, he
3800
ONTARIO tEdlSLATURE
recommends tiiat the people not be*-you
know my first thought was that they should
be the legislative counsel, or the registrar of
regulations— he says no.
They may be privy to secret matters
within the government which involve them
in framing the regulations initially, and,
therefore, ought not to be placed in a ques-
tionable position in this regard.
Mr. Speaker: May I ask the hon. member
to observe the clock and perhaps find a
point to make an appropriate motion.
Mr. Lawlor: Any time is appropriate to
adjourn. Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I move
the adjournment of tiie debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will resume the esti-
mates of The Department of Social and
Family Services.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Before
the motion for adjournment is placed, I
wonder if the Premier could advise us if at
any time tomorrow or Friday it is the inten-
tion to return to the order paper.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, we will see what
tomorrow brings. I would like to get back to
the order paper, because there is lots of legis-
lation here which needs to go to committee.
On the other hand, Friday morning is a
rather diflBcult morning in that we have the
question period and private members' hour,
and in between these two there is a rather
short period of time.
I think I might say that we will return to
the order paper in that interval on Friday
morning, unless the Whips tell me there are
some people who wish to speak in the Bud-
get debate. That is a possibility. But we will
not go to the estimates on Friday morning.
Does that answer the member's question?
Mr. Singer: More specifically, one of my
colleagues is concerned about The Engineers
Act. Is that likely to be called?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, it will not be called
on Friday morning.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock p.m.
No. 102
ONTARIO
Eegtsilature of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, May 1, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 1, 1969
Sixth report, standing legal and municipal committee, Mr, Demers 3803
Presenting reports, Mr. Bales and Mr. Welch 3803
Tabling report re Judge Lucien C. Kurata, Mr. Wishart 3803
Ambulance Act, 1968-1969, bill intituled, Mr. Dymond, first reading 3803
Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, first reading .... 3803
Child Welfare Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, first reading 3804
Senior Citizens Week, bill respecting, Mr. Carruthers, first reading 3804
Junior ranger jobs, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Nixon 3817
Provincial cost-sharing of education, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. MacDonald 3817
Referendum re general farm organization, question to Mr. Stew^art, Mr. MacDonald .... 3817
Hamilton theatre auditorium grant, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Deans 3817
Forest Hill collegiate, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 3818
Don Mills Developments Ltd., question to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 3820
Peter Kormos, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 3820
Decision making in provincially assisted universities, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 3821
Landlord and Tenant Act, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. T. Reid and Mr. Shulman ... 3821
Death of Beryl Higgins, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 3822
Council of health, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman 3822
Town of Petrolia, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Bullbrook 3822
City of Kitchener council, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Bullbrook 3823
Industry-wide collective bargaining, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. Ben 3824
Residents of Burwash, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Martel 3824
Supplementary budget, question to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. J. Renwick 3824
Subsidies for school boards, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Farrier 3824
OMSIP rates, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Trotter 3825
Landfill for Ontario PaviUon, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Trotter 3825
Work stoppage re OHC projects, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Trotter 3825
Takeover of public libraries, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Burr 3826
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3828
Recess, 6 o'clock 3845
380.3
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today in the west gallery
we have students from Wildwood Park Cen-
tral School, RR No. 1, Lakeside; and later,
in the east gallery, we should have students
from Coronation Drive Public School in
Windsor and from General Amherst High
School in Amherstburg; and later again this
afternoon, in the west gallery, students from
the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto.
Motions.
Presenting reports.
Mr. Demers, from the standing legal and
municipal committee, presented the commit-
tee's sixth report which was read as follows
and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments.
Bill 36, The Mechanics' Lien Act, 1968-
1969.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Labour.
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour):
Mr, Speaker, I wish to present the itfport of
the Workmen's Compensation Board, Ontario,
for the year 1968.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the annual report for 1968 of The
Ontario Department of Municipal Affairs.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Jus-
tice): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the
report of the Hon. Mr. Justice Donald A.
Keith, respecting his inquiry into the con-
duct of Judge Lucien C. Kurata, and at the
same time I beg leave to table a certified
copy of the order of the Lieutenant-Gover-
nor-in-Council removing Judge Kurata from
office effective May 1, 1969.
Mr. Justice Keith, after a complete and
exhaustive inquiry, has come to the conclu-
sion that Judge Kurata is by reason of his
misbehaviour unfit to serve as a judge. The
government has considered the report and
Thursday, May 1, 1969
agrees with that conclusion and the judge
has accordingly been removed.
This was a difficult and trying inquiry for
the commissioner and on behalf of those
whom he has served I wish to express our
sincere appreciation. He undertook this re-
sponsibility with a minimum amount of notice
and postponed other conmiitments in order
that he might proceed with the inquiry as
soon as possible. This was in the best in-
terests of the administration of justice and
all concerned. The exceedingly thorough
report reflects the very conscientious atten-
tion which he gave to this matter in order
that it could be resolved.
The report is now being printed and copies
will be available to all of the members and
the public just as soon as the copies are
delivered to my office.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE AMBULANCE ACT, 1968-1969
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves first reading of bill intituled, The
Ambulance Act, 1968-1969.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this bill is to transfer the adminis-
tration of the ambulance services to the
Ontario Hospital Services Commission.
THE HOMES FOR THE AGED
AND REST HOMES ACT
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services) moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Homes for
the Aged and Rest Homes Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, the
changes are respecting administration and
certain borrowing powers and new definition,
plus a change in definition from the term
"special home care" to "private home care".
3804
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE CHILD WELFARE ACT, 1965
Hon. Mr. Yaremko moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Child
Welfare Act, 1965.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, the bill
also pertains to the matter of procedures and
the matter of payment of capital grants, and
matters relating to wardship. A significant
section is for the establishment of an ad hoc
child welfare review committee in cases of
disagreement respecting societies' estimates of
expenditures composed of a chairman ap-
pointed by the Minister and one member
appointed on behalf of the society and one
member appointed by the municipality or
the district child welfare budget board. The
committee will inquire into matters in dis-
pute and make its findings to the Minister,
who will make the final determination.
SENIOR CITIZENS WEEK
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act respecting
Senior Citizens Week.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of diis bill is to create senior citizens week in
honour and recognition of the invaluable con-
tributions which older men and women from
<;very walk of life liave made to this province,
ixnd sets out the objects of its observations.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to mention to the members that
I did not know before and would now like
to advise them that we have also with us as
guests five students from the Orchard Park
Secondary School in Saltfleet township sitting
under Mr. Speaker's gallery in the west.
I would also like to advise the members
and the attendants in the House, and those
in charge of pages, that when the House
rises tonight you will please, at your early
convenience, go over to the McLaughlin
Planetarium and you will be met inside the
door by the director, Mr. Swan, and mem-
bers of the board of directors and the evening
will proceed from there. The House, as we
have mentioned before and as we have
arranged, will rise at 6 p.m. and wiU resume
at 8.30 p.m., which will give tlie members a
chance to attend. Now those members who
have found that it is possible for them to go,
even though they have said they were not
able to, will be \'ery welcome because there
is plenty of accommodation. Mr. Swan advises
me that anyone who before was not able to
come and now finds that he can come will
be most welcome. ^^
I Cast week, the hon. member for Lakeshore
1 (Mr. Lawlor), rose in the House on a point
i of personal privilege in which he was
I seconded and supported by the hon. member
for High Park (Mr. Shidman). The hon. mem-
bers asked for a ruhng from Mr. Speaker with
respect to the existence of _£g€cial_^tdleg^
of members ^<^gp^^i"|{ Yi^^^^~lb provma^
i institutions which would exempt them fronT
I the ordinary regulations of any such institu-
1 tion applied to all visitors.
/ iln the interval since this ruling was
f requested, I have explored the question in
j considerable detail and must report that I
I have been unable to find anything to sug-
j gest or support the coiitention tlmt "liieriii^^^
I' -nfThls assembl57^s"menibers, may rightfully
claim imy special privileges respecting visits jj^
to provincial institutions which would exempt
them from the regulations respecting visitors
at such institutions.
This is not to be construed that I do not
recognize the special interests, concern and
obligations of members of the Legislature and
that these may well differ from the interests,
concern and obligations of members of tlie
public. I do, however, report that I have been
unable to determine any precedent bearing ■— ^
upon this matter and I accept the view which
is often expressed that the welfare of the
inmates of such institutions must be held to
be of paramount importance and that un-
scheduled visits, whether by members of this
assembly, members of immediate families, or
others, may not be in the best interests of
these inmates.
The determination of this question as to
the best interests of the inmates must in-
evitably, as has been often stated, rest with
those charged witli the responsibility of
operating these provincial institutions under,
of course, the ultimate resi>onsibility of the
government and the responsible Minister.
As I promised the hon. members at the
time the point of privilege was raised, I have
discussed the matter with the Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts). He has advised me that he
agrees with this view and that his ministries
will be guided accordingly.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it re-
quires a point of order, but if you will permit
me to say a few words about your ruling that
has just been handed down. I appreciate the
fact that you have searched the precedents
MAY 1, 1969
3805
and found none that would substantiate your
belief that the members of the House have
a special privilege to visit public institutions.
You are aware, sir, that at least in the one
case, having to do with schools, that we do
have this right, which may be changed ac-
cording to the word from the Minister of
Education (Mr. Davis).
Mr. Speaker: I would correct die hon.
member by pointing out that a school is not
a provincial institution.
Mr. Nixon: I accept your correction, but
my feeling is that while it may not be within
your competence nor your jurisdiction to rule
that we do have the right to visit these pro-
vincial institutions at any time we choose,
surely it is the responsibility of the Ministry—
whose responsibility it is, in your judgment—
to make it very clear that any member of the
Legislature can visit any provincial institution
at any time. And instructions should go forth-
v/ith from the Ministers to those who serve
under them in these institutions, that this is
to be the rule whenever the occasion occurs
in the future.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have no desire to argue the case
at the moment, but I would suggest that this
is another issue that might be reviewed by
the rules committee which has been estab-
lished, and if there are no precedents whidi
can guide you at this point, perhaps we can
establish some precedent. By analogy, as the
leader of the Opposition has indicated, a
memiber of the Legislature has got the righit
to visit schools, though they may come under
municipal rather than provincial jurisdiction.
It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, as being idle to
say that we have a special obligation, and then
immediately to indicate that we have no right
to visit, except under prepared conditions, in
order to fulfil that obligation in our examina-
tion of the operation and the expenditure of
public moneys in these institutions. The sig-
nificant point, it seems to me, is that there is
no problem in the overwhelming majority of
provincial institutions. Indeed, many Minis-
ters have issued invitations for visits at any
time we see fit. The problem happens to
be in the one instance before us now, and
I would think that since the privilege of
visits has been extended down through the
years, that we can come up with some sort
of a ruling through the rules committee. And
I would hope that the Prime Minister or
representatives of his party on the rules com-
mittee might be willing to take an open-
minded approach to it, l:>ecause tliere has
never been a disruption of the programme of
the institution in any instance.
So that, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is a red
herring that should not distract our attention.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
I do not wish to discuss this in detail. I just
wish to point out to you, sir, that if this
ruling stands, it inevitably will lead to grave
abuses in the future.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. memiber for River-
dale has the floor, then the Minister.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. . Speaker,
I only want to make one brief comment. I
accept, of course, the ruhng that there is no
precedent that you could discover providing
for this activity on behalf of the members of
the Legislature. I would however, suggest
with great resx>ect that you may have over-
looked the fact that a custom over a long
period of time, which has gone unchallenged
for a long x>eriod, would of necessity mean
that there was not any precedent because the
question had not been raised. I would submit
eitlier by way of reconsideration of your rul-
ing, should you see fit to do so, or by refer-
ence to the rules committee that a custom of
long standing is not necessarily overturned
because there is no precedent which can be
found in the \yritten records of the House.
I would suggest that the tlien Minister of
Reform Institutions in 1965 recognized, in the
comments which he made in the House, if my
memory senses me correctly, that there was
such a custom and that he might have to
take whatever steps were necessary to change
die custom, reluctant as he was to make that
comment. I would tiierefore again very
humbly submit that the question of the cus-
tom is not necessarily determined by whether
or not there is an actual precedent as a
result of a prior ruling when that custom has
gone imchallenged for such a long time.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Cor-
rectional Services): Mr. Speaker, first I would
like to make one thing clear in respect of the
comments of the hon. member for Riverdale.
As far as I am aware, there was no custom
in respect of the freedom of the members of
the Legislature to visit the institutions in my
department, certainly at any time without
advising and making arrangements with our
department.
It was I, in fact, I think, who set the
precedent for my own department to make
^806
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
sure that the members of the Legislature did
not feel that there was anything we had to
liide. I then invited all the members of the
Legislature to visit at any time.
The occurrence to which the hon. member
refers, in respect of the suggestion that there
might be a change a couple of years later,
was when tliere were, in fact, disruptions of
the programmes of tlie institution. At that
time, I was concerned with what was hap-
pening under the wide open invitation and
did not suggest that I was thinking of curtail-
ing the visits. At that time, if my memory
serves me correctly, I suggested there would
liave to be some terms laid down. In fact, in ,
respect of the comments made by the hon.
member for York South, there are some prob-
lems associated with these visits. There has
been, in my view, an attempt made by one
of the members opposite to deliberately get
himself barred from visiting the institutions
and I have done everything possible to avoid
this.
The latest incident, sir— and I point this
out as an example, if it is going to be dis-
cussed at any level— was the fact that the
hon. member for High Park, who is the hon.
member I am referring to, advised me in a
letter that he was going to visit one of my
institutions. And "knowing," as he put it, I
would have no objections to him taking a
member of the press with him— he knew
perfectly well from previous correspondence
and discussions that I would have— and after
my having advised him that I would have
such objections, that my department is quite
well able to look after visits by the press, he
in fact did take a member of the press with
him. I suggest, sir, that this privilege can
only continue so long as certain members of
this Legislature respect the needs and require-
ments, as 99 per cent of the members of this
Legislature have for years.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Windsor West.
Mr. Shulman: I rise on a point of privilege,
sir.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor West has the floor. The hon. member's
privilege can come in a moment.
Mr. Shulman: I understand, sir, a point of
privilege takes precedence.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker I wanted to join with some of the
remarks that were made earlier in respect to
the recognition and weight which your citing
of the precedents, or lack of them, in respect
of this matter should have. But I wish to take
objection, with respect, to the portion of
your statement which expresses your own
views as to the propriety of members visiting
these institutions without notice. I think that
is a matter for the Minister to speak to, and
not Mr. Speaker in his position as the im-
partial chairman of this House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park now has Mr. Speaker's eye.
Mr. Shulman: The point of privilege is,
and a point or order at the same time, that
, the Minister has once again, as is his habit,
I misled this House.
I wrote this Minister requesting permission
—informing the Minister that a member of the
press had requested permission to attend with
another member and myself while we toured
institutions and asked if he had any object-
tion to this I presumed he would not. He
wrote back saying he did, in fact, object. I
so informed the member of the press. We sub-
sequendy went to interview a prisoner, which
we did in the waiting room.
Subsequently, the member for Lakeshore
and I toured the prison. Before touring the
prison, we asked the member of the press to
leave the prison so we could make the tour
in a way to comply with the Minister's wishes,
and in spite of this he has misled the House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a
question of privilege, the hon. member stated
that I had misled this House. This, sir, is
what is generally known as a "Shulmanism".
May I read in respect of this matter of
privilege, sir, a series of correspondence I
have had with the hon. member in respect to
this visit. He wrote me on April IL
Dear Mr. Minister:
Mr, Geoffrey Stevens, of the Globe and
Mail, has requested permission to accom-
pany me on my next tour of an Ontario jail,
and being sure that you would have no
objection, I have agreed to take him along
some time within the next few weeks.
Hon. members will notice that— "within the
next few weeks."
I trust that this meets with your approval.
(Signed)
Morton Shulman.
And I replied on April 16:
Dear Dr. Shulman:
This is in reply to your letter of April 11
regarding the arrangements you have made
for a member of the press to accompany
MAY 1, 1969
3807
you on a visit to one of our institutions. I
am surprised that you have taken such a
liberty on the assumption that I, as you
stated, "would have no objection", par-
ticularly when you are familiar with our
policy regarding press accompanying mem-
bers of the Legislature on such visits.
I must tell you that I certainly do have
an objection and I cannot agree to the
invitation which you have unilaterally ex-
tended. While I have invited members of
the Legislature to visit our institutions I
have done so in the knowledge that such
visits can in some instances create unrest.
On the other hand visits by members of
the Legislature can be of great value in
providing a better understanding of our
work.
However, to make these visits accom-
panied by a member of the news media
takes on different connotations. Some
manipulative irmiates often seize upon such
an opportunity to promote their own selfish
interests and/or to disrupt our programme.
We are firmly convinced that if members
were to go into institutions accompanied by
a representative of the news media, they
would not have the opportunity to meet
staff or inmates under reasonably normal
conditions where objective evaluation could
take place.
I am sure that you can see the wisdom
of my staflp making their own arrangements
with the news media when such action is
indicated.
And that was signed by me, sir, on April 16.
The hon. members will note that on April
] 1 in his original request he said, "within the
next few weeks." He did not give much of
an opportunity, sir, for us to make certain
that he was carrying out the requirements as
laid down in the letter and as had been pre-
\'iously arranged for. He immediately went
to work and went out to the institution with
a member of the press-
Mr. Shulman: What date?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —and on that date I
found a letter on my desk when I came in
here. It is dated April 2L
Dear Mr. Minister:
Thank you for your letter of April 17.
This weekend Mr. Stevens accompanied
Mr. Pat Lawlor and myself on a visit to a
specific iimiate, but in consideration of
your wishes we had him leave the jail be-
fore taking our tour.
Yours sincerely,
Now, Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. mem-
ber is playing on words. He knew perfectly
well we were referring to a visit to the institu-
tion accompanied by a member of the press.
All he did, sir, was make sure that the gentle-
man from the press did not accompany him
through the institution. He kept him waiting
outside in the interview room, brought the
inmate out and interviewed the inmate in the
presence of the member of the press. This,
sir, in my view, is irresponsible.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr, Speaker,
I listened with interest to your very well
spoken ruling today and I hasten to assure
you, sir, that I have no quarrel with it so
far as it goes. What bothers me, sir, is that
being mindful that as a member of the Legis-
lature-and sharing that privilege with 116
others— we have many duties and responsi-
bilities in keeping a scmtiny on the public
business which exist apart from membership
in this assembly. Accordingly, sir, since we
have the responsibility and especially when
this assembly is not in session and we are not
under your watchful eye and the guardian-
ship that you provide for us, it may well be
that we have certain rights and privileges to
allow and assist us in free passage in and
around public institutions and beyond the
examination of the institutions themselves. I
am thinking of such activities as the work
of various boards and commissions and their
meetings in which they conduct very import-
ant matters in the furtherance of the public
good.
Then I would say to you, sir, that beyond
your ruling I, as one member of this assembly,
would want to see a more farreaching investi-
gation and quantity of research done perhaps
by the law officers of the Crown. It could
well be that the Attorney General's agents
could undertake that research on our behalf
and provide a report to yourself before any
final determination is made that would in
any way inhibit our freedom of movement
around any area where the public business is
transacted.
And having said that, sir, I do not have to
elaborate the obvious in underlining how im-
portant that iB for the public weal of
Ontario.
Finally, I think it unfortunate that our
lights here are in some way related to that
abrasive, volatile and disgusting conflict
which goes on between this Minister and the
member for High Park,
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If I do not answer,
I am considered to be arrogant.
3808
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, without entering into the internecine
war between the Minister and the member
for High Park, I think there is much more
at issue as a result of the ruHng tliat you
liave recently given. I think it revolves around
the phrase that we heard from the Minister of
Mines (Mr. A. F. Lawrence), tlie other diiy
as to whether or not we have a right to know
alx)ut the business of tlie province of Ontario.
There are 117 of us here, sir, and wc were
sent here by the people of the province of
Ontario, not only with the right to know,
but the duty to inquire and to bring to their
attention things that we think are wrong.
Now, with the greatest respect, sir, to your
ruling, it is my opinion that it is not some-
tliing tliat falls vdtliin your aegis to deter-
mine whether or not we should inquire,
whether we have a right to inquire or
whether we have a duty to inquire. It is part
of our democratic duty by being here and
being sent here by the people of the province
of Ontario to find out what is going on witliin
the government of Ontario and vdthin its
various agencies.
If by any chance, any individual member
abuses his privileges that are his as a mem-
ber, there are various ways in which this
can he dealt with, and one of them is in tlie
House. There are other ways as well. But it is
my position, sir, and I am going to assert it
just as firmly and as strongly as I can, that
notwithstanding that arrogant phrase from
the Minister of Mines, I have a right to know
what goes on in the province of Ontario,
what its Ministers do, what its agencies do
and what happens in its various institutiorus.
Mr. Sopha: It is a case of the Minister of
Correctional Services whittling away our
rights.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development ) : Remember what happened at
Mercer?
Mr. Singer: Indeed I do and I rememl>er
what happened and it was as a result of our
visit that improvements were made.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
I just want to put in my word of protest in
regard to your ruling. There is no question in
my mind, after having over a period of time
toured a number of the provincial institutions,
that there is a lot to be hidden. Any tour
you have, unless you were well informed be-
fore you go and know where to look, is like
a tour you have of Russia. You are shown
what the establishment wants you to see,
and notliing more. I notice the hon. Minister
of Trade and Development shouted over
about Mercer. That was no witch hunt. But
to give you an example of how even duress
can be used on members who are trying to
inspect a provincial building—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, I do not be-
lieve your rulings are debatable in this House.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): The Premier
has not been here.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Orderl
Mr. Sopha: I saippose tliat the Clerk-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member will
take his seat, the Speaker is on his feet. We
hear the hon. members imploring us to obey
the rules, and one of the rules which will
make this House operate is if the members
will resume their seats and regain peace and
quietness when Mr. Speaker takes the floor.
Now— and I, of course, have been criticized
on both sides of the House for this— but
regardless of whetlier it is by the rule and
precedent of the House or not, I have felt
that when there is an important matter which
requires a certain amount of discussion, the
members should have the opportunity to
do it.
There is a time and a place for a debate
on these matters and I was in the process of
arranging to stop the present development
because I felt that it had gone far enough.
And while I am on my feet then, I will make
one or two remarks. Then, so far as I am
concerned, this has developed into a debate-
Mr. Bullbrook: We should all have the
right to speak.
Mr. Sopha: That is right; we should have
the right to speak. We were being allowed to
until he got up tool
Mr. Speaker: May I just say this—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member
received the courtesy from Mr. Speaker not
to l)e interrupted when he had the floor. One
would think that he would extend the same
courtesy to another member of this House.
The hon. member for Riverdale, of course,
has a history in this House of some years,
but his history as a member of this House
does not go back to days when I and others
who are Iwe have been here, and he would
MAY 1, 1969
3809
then know, if his memory could take him
back, that it was not the custom and it was
not an acoei)ted custom for such a visit to
be made.
For many an hour, tlie matter was debated
the same as it has been today in this House
in my own personal hearing, and I am sure
in the bearing of a great many members on
}x>th sides of this House. So, therefore, I
cannot accept his submission with respect to
that. Perhaps in the last few years there has
been siome indication of the custom being
established, bust there is by no means any
such custom in my opinion.
With respect to the hon. member for
Windsor West, I would say that I did my best
to compose the ruling, if you wish, or the
r^ly which I had promised to the point of
privilege raised by the two hon. memibers,
without inserting any particular personal view
except for the fact that I stated I had ac-
cepted what appeared to be the result of
my examination of precedence, rules and
customs. Ilhere is, of course, no personall in-
volvement in it.
I would say this to all the members, and
this is one of the reasons I allowed this dis-
cussion to go perhaps farther than it should
go, that it is painfully obvious, as the hon.
member for York South has pointed out, that
there are many things which do not fall
strictly within Mr. Speaker's piuview.
In my opinion, it is not, unless directed by
the House, Mr. Sf)eaker's duty to say whether
members have or have not privileges of which
he can find no record in the annals or cus-
toms or procedures of the House. That is
up to the hon. members of this House, as a
House, and if they feel there should be some
new order of some new regulation or^ rule,
then certainly we have 117 members here
quite capable of making that rule, either
through the use of the committee, as the
hon. member for York South said, or right
from the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker
then has the duty, and would be most pleased,
to carry out the wishes of the members of
this House.
So I am sorry that the hon. members
have taken this as meaning that the matter
is closed off; it is not, and I promise the hon.
members, and I think a review of Hansard
woidd indicate I promised the hon. members
two things-^liat I would search and see if
there was any such special privilege; and,
secondly, that I would consult with the
Prime Minister, because imdoubtedly, as has
heefn pointed out, the governing of provincial
institutions is witliin tlie government respon-
sibihty.
I did both, I Teported both. From there on
the mattei- now rests with the House. And I
assume there would be an appropriate time,
either when some committee report is brought
in, or some other time, for a further dis-
cussion and a debate on the matter. But
I would not hke the hon. membere to tliink
that my ruling meant that there could not
be any particular, special right or privilege
on the part of a member.
That was farthest from Mr. Speaker's view
Jind mind when tlie wording of the missive
delivered today was made out. All that I
tried to do was to bring to you a report on
my search for the precedents and then I did
state that I agree that, at the present time,
that was sound, and then I consulted with the
Prime Minister and I gave you his views
today.
Now I think that that perhaps might close
the matter for now and, in due course, I
would think that a good time for a debate
on this might easily be if and when we have
a report from the comimittee which is con-
sidering this matter— (before which Mr. Speaker
has not yet appeared but I understand he
will be invited to appear. I warn the com-
mittee memibers, he has a list of problems
referred to him by all the members of the
House during the last year, and I shall prob-
ably not have to bring them to the notice
of the committee because I believe they are
working on mosit of them as it is.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely one point
that needs some clarification on your ruling
before we leave it is that I wonder if you
could inform the House why you tmdertook
to consult with the Prime Minister before
delivering the ruling, and why you imder-
took to tell us that he concurred with your
views.
Mr. Speaker: As I pointed out, when the
matter was brought to my attention some
time ago, there was a considerable amount of
discussion as to whose responsibility such a
matter was, and at that time I said to the
House that I would investigate precedents
and I would discuss it with the Prime Minis-
ter. That is what I said I would do, and I
liave said why I did it. That is why I did it
and why it is embodied in my report to the
House.
Mr. Nixon: Well, surely under those cir-
cumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent
upon the Prime Minister not to bring to your
attention that any comments are out of order,
3810
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but to clarify his own position in this re-
gard wherein, in the Speaker's view, the
responsibihty is ob\'ioiisly his to make it
abundantly clear that the members of this
Legislature have the right to visit the pro-
vincial institutions at any opportimity.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have given
this matter serious consideration. I find that
I have no alternative but to challenge your
ruling because your statement today is a
ruling tliat, in effect, establishes a rule of
this House in an area where you stated tliere
was no guidance.
You also stated, Mr. Si>eaker, tliat when
you took this under yom- consideration you
would discuss the matter further with the
hon. members for Lakeshore and High Park
as well as with the Prime Minister. As far
as I know—
An hon. member: Just Lakeshore!
Mr. MacDonald: With the hon. member for
Lakeshore then. As far as I know, no such
further discussions were held with the hon.
member for Lakeshore. What has happened is
that restrictions accepted by some Ministers
of the Cabinet have now become a rule
because it is supported by the Prime Min-
ister. So we are closing things off where we
had a considerable amount of latitude. The
The Prime Minister has indicated prior to
this, and you have included it in your ruling,
that he, in effect, will order such restrictions.
»
That, I think, is an unnecessary and un-
desirable infringement on the rights of the
House and an impediment to us doing our
duty as members of this House. Therefore, I
find, Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but
to challenge your niling.
Mr. Speaker: May I, before the hon.
leader proceeds, say this. It was the reason
that the last paragraph was included, and
I have no objection whatsoever to having that
stricken from it. It was inserted merely be-
cause I had said I would do so and actually,
it is not part of the ruling. It is an addendum
that follows the ruling that I had consulted
about with the Prime Minister as I promised.
I certainly have no objection, if that would
solve that particular area of the problem, and
the hon. member for York South could
decide whether tlie rest of the ruling need be
appealed or not; or we can leave the whole
thing in.
But the reason for that was it was an
addendum to keep my word to tlie House
that 1 would consult with tlie Prime Min-
ister who, in iny opinion, had responsibility
for institutions to a large extent as the leader
of the government.
The hon. leader of the Opposition might
perhaps let the hon. member for York South
reply.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we might
have found it possible to live with a ruling
that there was, no rule in the book. But
now that you have, in effect entered a rule
in the book, and even if you were to strike
out the last paragraph, it does not alter the
fact of your having conferred with the Prime
Minister and secured the Prime Minister's
support. You, in effect, are including witli
your ruling a closing down, a complete clos-
ing down, where we had certain privileges
for our work in the past.
This is a new ruling infinitely more
restrictive than we have ever had in our
traditions in this Legislature. It is for that
reason, I think, it has to be challenged. I
trust, in spite of whatever happens today,
that it will be reviewed by the rules com-
mittee in an open-minded fashion, because I
think we aie breaking rather dangerous
ground here.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I must say that
I have felt in the past that challenges to your
rulings were made too frequently and some-
times as an expression of policy rather than
for their prime purpose.
But under these circumstances, surely,
there is every reason for us on this side
to be critical, not so much of yourself, sir,
but critical of the leader of tlie government
who has once again led tliis Legislature into
this impossible situation.
Fie must surely be aware of the truth of
my statement. There is every reason for him
to assume his responsibility and make it
abundantly clear that no ruling of this Legis-
lature and no procedure in which he was
consulted would, for a moment, restrict the
visits or the rights and freedoms of the
members of this House.
Surely this is a time for him to speak and
not call us to order in these matters. For this
particular reason, Mr. Speaker, it is going
to be necessary for us to vote against your
ruling.
Hon. Mr. Robarts; Mr. Si>eaker, I would
like to make a few comments. I realize that
your rulings are not debatable, but I missed
the opening part of this discussion.
Mr. Sopha: Which made his intervention
all tlie worse.
MAY 1, 1969
3811
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Not deliberately. In any
event for good and valid reasons, I was not
here when the discussion started.
Mr. Sopha: But he wants to pitch in right
away.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I get so tired of the
yakking of tlie hon. member for Sudbury;
however I can take it because I am used to it.
Mr. Speaker, I did not ask to be consulted
by you as to whatever decision you reached
on this point. It was not my suggestion nor
my idea that you should consult me. I do
not quite remember how I became involved
in it, but I would point out to you that in
your i-uling I think the real nub of the situa-
tion is contained in the ruling you have made
in the second to last paragraph, where it
reads:
The determination of this question as to
the best interest of the inmates must in-
evitably, as has often been stated, rests with
those charged witli the responsibihty of
operating these provincial institutions
under, of course, the ultimate responsibiliiy
of the government and the responsible
Minister.
You and all members of this assembly have,
of course, the right to visit any institution
that we have. But you have not got the
right to disrupt the operation erf those insti-
tutions.
Mr. Shulman: No one has disrupted.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Now just allow me to
complete my remarks, and then the member
may make whatever point he likes, subse-
quent to that.
The ultimate responsibility, Mr. Speaker,
will of course rest, as it always does, with
the government. We must accept the respon-
sibility and if it is possible for any member
to demonstrate, as some have attempted to
in the past and failed, that this government
has moved to exclude any member of this
assembly from any of our institutions for any
political reasons or in order to hide any
activity that might be going on in any of
these institutions, then, of course, this will
become a matter of public discussion. The
government will sujffer and we accept that
responsibility. We also accept the responsi-
bility, which we must, of looking after the
inmates.
I do not think even the leader of the
Opposition would care to have his last com-
ment interpreted that any member of this
Legislature has the right to enter any one
of our institutions at, say, half-past one in
the morning, because he simply thought he
would like to visit it at that time of the day.
Carried to the ultimate extreme this is what
you are suggesting, and if we think-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I will
simply say this: if the government exercises
this discretion and exercises its responsibility
improperly, then I have no doubt my vocifer-
ous friends on the other side of the House
will bring this to the attention of anybody
who cares to listen. If we have done it
badly and if we have done it improperly we
will be judged where we are all judged
eventually-in the greatest court of all, the
court of public opinion.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That is
the last refuge of the politician.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: But that is what I mean.
Mr. Singer: Jury of the people.
An hon. member: Best jury in the world.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Is the member afraid of it?
Mr. Singer: Call the byelection for Middle-
sex South!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We will. I remember
the same challenge being hurled at me by
the hon. member for Sudbury. He said, "Call
a byelection in Kenora." So what did we do?
We called a byelection and we wiped them
up, that is what we did.
Now I want to get back to my point be-
cause it is a very serious and important point.
We exercise a responsibility in terms of the
care, custody and control of the inmates of
these institutions.
Mr. Sopha: No one denies that.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If we exercise that re-
sponsibility in an irresponsible way, we will
have to answer for it. But we cannot stand
in our places and say that any member of
this Legislature has the right to walk in to
any institution in this province at any time
he chooses or under any circumstances. We
simply carmot say that.
Mr. Sopha: Then the government is wrong.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Then if I am wrong,
Mr. Speaker, once again we will go back
to the ultimate court. That is why— and, as
I say, I was not asked to be consulted— we
3812
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
put in this the responsibiHty of the govern-
ment, the responsibility the government car-
ries. We accept that responsibility so I will,
of course, Mr. Speaker, support your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps, in fairness to the
members and to the Prime Minister, I might
say v^^hat happened. I received from the
Clerk his view, in writing. After considering
it, I made out a draft of what I intended
to bring here, which was very similar to the
statement I read, except for the last para-
graph. And then I sent that to the Prime
Minister, personally, and I received it back
with his view that he concurred, and I ad-
ded the last paragraph. I said that I would
consult the Prime Minister, and I did so in
that manner. Therefore, if the use of the
word "we" by the Prime Minister indicates
that he was with me that night, because it
was late at night I did it, I can assure you
that he was not.
The hon. member for Carleton East.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East):
Mr. Speaker, without dealing with the merits
of the question, it strikes me that there is a
fundamental misconception involved in the
total discussion, and that is that the rules
themselves— and even your ruling— can be an
adequate vehicle for either enforcing or not
enforcing the privileges being discussed. It
seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the rules of
this House govern this House and the con-
duct of the members of this House. On the
other hand, it seems to me that governmental
institutions are governed by statutes, and
therefore, no matter what ruling you may
malce, or what the rules committee may pos-
sibly say, it will be completely abortive,
because this is not, I would suggest, the
vehicle that can be used even if the purpose
is good.
Mr. MacDonald: That is a legalistic argu-
ment, and irrelevant.
An hon. member: That is a fair one, never-
theless.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, might I be
permitted to speak in cormection with the
challenging of your ruling? Two points, if I
might. Firstly, when the Prime Minister
made mention of the fact that he was under
the impression that a ruling made by you
was not subject to debate, he was voicing
for me a thought that had crossed my mind
about 20 minutes previously. I want to say
this to you: I thought that under our rules,
your rulings were not subject to debate. I
thought as a matter of your own good
nature, and the elastic position you can take
at times, that as a courtesy you ofiFered my
leader and the leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party the opportunity to voice their
opinion. And then, sir, we permitted five or
six other members to discuss your ruling,
and I want to register with you, sir, my
objection to the procedure then that ulti-
mately we cut it off. I think we should all
have the opportunity of speaking to it.
But we are losing sight of one fact here,
and if I might again voice what happens to
me in the city of Sarnia. I have a happy re-
lationship with the governor of the institution
there, and I am able to go and make my
visitation on an unscheduled basis, and I say
most respectfully to the Prime Minister, I
want to continue in that, and so I must vote
against the ruling.
But I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to keep in
mind the nub of this whole thing. We are
wasting the time of people of the province
of Ontario now, because of the irresponsi-
bility of one member of this House, continu-
ously. If he would abide by the same position
that we usually take, we would have ik)
difficulty. But time and again, we find our-
selves alx)ut to be restricted in connection
with our activities as legislators because of
our need to restrict the irresponsibility of the
member for High Park.
Mr. Speaker: I must say that the hon.
member for Sarnia has exactly put his finger
on one of the problems of the House and
one with which Mr. Speaker, in his own in-
adequate way, has been trying to struggle.
And that is tlie fact that our rules do pro-
vide for certain things that are not accept-
able to the members of the House, and they
allow certain other things which are accept-
able. In order to endeavour to have the
House nm, Mr. Speaker— and I believe the
chairman of the committee— has endeavoured
to give Opposition members in particular,
but also any member, a reasonable oppor-
tunity to discuss important matters, whether
it be strictly within the rules and precedents
of tlie House. And, of course, on every occa-
sion, including today, it has got out of hand,
and Mr. Speaker, of course, has been very
loathe to do as the hon. member for Sarniii
has said, to cut off the next one who v^dshes
to speak. Of course, the only answer to that—
and it is the only answer that I will have to
adopt in tlie future, as I have done widi
questions after ministerial statements— I will
have to say tlxat from now on there will be
no debate of Mr. Speaker's lulings, not even
by leaders of tlie Opposition, in order to deal
properly with the problem, because otherwise
there is no control. I accept what I consider
MAY 1, 1969
3813
to be a well-deserved rebuke from the hon.
member on behalf of the members of the
House.
Mr. Lewis: Oh, it was not a well-deserved
rebuke at all.
Mr. Speaker: It was indeed. And I accept
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Lewis: We flip from one extreme to
the other in ten minutes.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Not at all.
Mr. Lewis: No consistency.
Mr. Sopha: No, Mr. Speaker, you did not
need to say all that.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not really
the one to say that one should not say a
great deal.
The ruling delivered a short time ago by
Mr. Speaker regarding special privileges of
members of this House with respect to pro-
vincial institutions, has been appealed by the
hon. member for York South. Therefore, I
will put the question-
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. I have gone through the mles
very carefully, and I deny that you have the
power under the present circumstances to
make such a ruling. In other words, it is my
submission that the nihng which you did
make, Mr. Speaker, was ultra vires. It was
ultra vires. 1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you
have no control over the conduct of the
members once they leave this House. If the
members misbehave, then the proper proce-
dure is that they be cited before the standing
committee on elections and privileges.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, deeming your
nding to be ultra vires— and I am not disput-
ing the pros and cons of what you ruled,
but denying your right to make a ruling on
the conduct of an hon. member outside of
the House, and away from your presence—
I shall vote against Mr. Speaker's ruling.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Niagara
Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): T suppose
as a member of this Legislature I have been
ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker more than
any member in this House— as many times,
anyhow— and I would hate to think that the
ruling of the Speaker of this Legislature will
govern my activities when I go about my
province visiting the institutions, where I am
welcome, to think that possibly the governor
"will not let me into this institution because
Mr. Speaker's influence has followed me into
that institution also.
I would like this House to know, regardless
of the Speaker's ruling, when I am invited or
I am tempted to attend or visit any institution
I will be there regardless of the outcome.
This is democracy at work, and we are not
going to be governed by Mr. Speaker's ruling
out into the institutions also. We cannot
support his ruling, that is certain.
I find myself in a very embarrassing posi-
tion because, as I have said on many occa-
sions, I thought I was right in this House,
but the Speaker says the member is out of
order and I accepted his ruUng. But I am not
going to be governed by his rulings out in
the province, in the institutions that I think
I have a right to visit.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, my point of
order is that one of the hon. members has
suggested that irresponsible conduct has pro-
duced this. I wish to point out to you, sir-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member has
not a point of order.
Mr. Shulman: Point of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has not a
point of privilege; as far as I recall there was
no connection between the hon. member and
the expression.
Mr. Shulman: Sir, my conduct has been
called in question and my conduct is a ques-
tion of privilege.
Hon. Mr. Randall: More than once!
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member, as I recall
it, was not called into question when irrespon-
sible conduct was mentioned, but the hon.
member's riding was mentioned by the hon.
member for Samia so I think he is entitled to
make his point.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the only point
J wish to make, sir, is that the irresponsible
conduct which has been called in question,
has been going on about this province at
reasonable hours of the day with another
member of this House visiting the institutions
and seeing what could be improved and
bringing those suggestions to the attention
of this House.
3814
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Well, we are about to take
the vote on the ruling and I would like to
say this— since everyone else has had an
addendum— that Mr, Speaker-
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order before you put the vote, would you tell
us how much of that ruling is attributable
to the Prime Minister of Ontario?
Mr. Speaker: I ha\e already explained to
the House the genesis of this ruling and I do
not need to do it again. The hon. member
can reiid it in Hansard, but I would hke to
say this, that the niling, so far as I am oon-
cenicd is, or is not, a ruling. I am not sure
that it is, except that it says that I have done
as I was requested and checked the prece-
dents, and this is what I found.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, could I
have just one word. It occurs to me, as this
argument has developed, that I see some
virtue in the position taken by the hon.
member for Humber. I might have some
doubts myself as to whether a ruling of this
type would have \alidity outside the Legis-
lature.
To get to the merits of the matter— I do not
propose to debate that again— but there is one
solution to the problem and it may be that
this might be taken as, I suppose, an opinion
rather than a niling as to what the privileges
and rights of the members of this House are
outside the House.
I would be quite prepared to accept it on
this basis. As far as I am concerned it will
not alter the policy of the government one
way or the other. I do not think any member
of this House has ever been denied reason-
able access to any institution.
Mr. Singer: Oh, we have a right now? I
I did not think that we did have!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Of course they have
Mr. Speaker. No one has ever denied that. T
am just going to say this—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: What did he send it in for
then?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, my answer
to the hon. member for Sudbury is that it
was a member in the Opposition that asked
the Speaker for a ruling. Now if it is not a
Riling, then he asked him for an opinion.
Now it occurs to me that it may not be a
ruling. I am not prepared to say it is a
ruling, or not a ruling, but it certainly is an
opinion of the Speaker as to what the rights
and privileges of the members of this House
are outside the House.
Mr. Sopha: It is much more than that.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will accept it either
way, but as I say it will not—
Mr. Singer: Either withdraw or re\erse it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I am going to—
Mr. Singer: Mo\e that it be withdrawn
and we will support the withdrawal.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, I would not mo\e
that it be wathdrawn.
Mr. Trotter: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would be happy to
make a motion that this be treated not as a
ruling of this House, but as an opinion of
the Speaker as to what the rights of the
members are, because it was asked for not
by the government side—
An hon. member: The Speaker is standmg.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Mr Speaker: I am glad to see that the
hon. Prime Minister and certain others have
reahzed what I was trying to say a minute
ago before I was about to put the vote, and
that was that I had been asked to look into
this and that I gave that as my opinion of
what I had found, li it is to be considered
as a ruling, which I presume it is being con-
sidered, then, of course, I am somewhat of
the some opinion as the hon. member for
Humber and of some other hon. members
who have asked what binding effects it has
outside of the precincts of the House. I would
rather suggest that they were very small if
any.
I would draw to the attention of the hon.
member for Sudbury, of course, the genesis
of how this arose. He has been making some
interjections which indicate that he did not
listen to what I said earlier.
I would suggest to the House— I am quite
prepared to put the matter to a vote but it
seems to me that this matter is one of very
great concern to everyone, not just to the
Opposition members but to every private
member as well as members of the govern-
ment—that the House might allow me to with-
draw, and redraft my findings by way of
opinion, and then perhaps that would give
the opportunity of a further debate if neces-
sary, or it could be dealt with otherwise
because I have no desire to make a ruling
as such that would bar members. That was not
MAY 1, 1969
3815
my intention, nor was it my imderstanding
of what this particular ruhng would do, or
this particular report as it is now called.
Now if the House wishes to do that, it is
fine with me. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, having,
put this in, will take the responsibility for
having it dealt with by the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I made the
motion, perhaps I can speak to the motion-
Mr. Speaker: Yes I think it would be wise
to let the hon. member for York South speak.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am quite
willing to withdraw the motion for the time
being, since you have indicated that you are
willing to reconsider this matter. I think quite
frankly, after this debate, that is what should
happen.
Indeed, whether it is a ruling or an opinion,
either now or later, the point that makes the
distinction irrelevant, I would draw to the
attention of the Prime Minister, is the last
sentence "The Prime Minister has advised
me that he agrees with this view and that his
Ministers will be guided accordingly". So that
is the law.
Mr. Speaker: I must confess that that was
put in by me, and not by the Prime Minister,
after talldng to him— so please do not tie that
on to the Prime Minister.
Mr. MacDonald: Well we are getting in
deeper and deeper, Mr. Speaker. I am de-
lighted to withdraw my challenge of your
ruling for the moment on the understanding
that you will reconsider this whole matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I might just say
that I concur in the views already expressed,
and if you are going to remove this for re-
consideration and further consultation, that
certainly is acceptable to us.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: As far as I am con-
cerned, I will agree with this. Already I see
many misinterpretations placed upon it which
cause me some concern and certainly— I did
not interpret this the way it has been inter-
preted here in the House but I would be
delighted to take a look at the whole matter
again— as far as I am concerned I am going
to take a long look at it because I want only
to discharge the responsibility I think the
government has.
It is not my desire to limit the rights and
privileges and, I think, the record of this
government would indicate that we have
never attempted to hmit the rights of the
members of the House, so I concur whole-
heartedly in the withdrawal. We will get at
this and see really what it is about.
Mr. Speaker: May I make this further
suggestion. I believe that Mr. Speaker is to
be invited by the committee on rules to attend
one of their meetings shortly, and may I have
the leave of the House to withhold further
consideration of this until after I have had
that opportunity of meeting with the com-
mittee. I am sure that there are several mem-
bers who have spoken here who are on the
committee and there the matter can get very
full discussion and I can have some guidance
as to how they felt it should be dealt with.
Would that be agreeable to the House? It
may take some time for that to happen.
The hon. member for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, after these
heated words. I beg the indulgence of the
House to draw their attention to an event
which was a very heated event in Canadian
history but one which with the month of
May 1969, should be commemorated.
Fifty years ago this month there took place
the famous Winnipeg strike, an event which
was not only memorable in the economic and
trade union history of this nation but in our
political history also.
Briefly, what happened was that two unions,
the buildinig workers and the machinists in
the metaJ trade, were on strike for what they
thought were very valid reasons. They sought
the support of the Winnipeg Trades and
Labour Council in May, 1919. They got that
support, with the result that some 30,000
people went out on strike and the whole life
of that city was brought to a standstill.
The result was inflammatory articles in the
press, and the appearance of cartoons across
the nation showing the citizenry of Winnipeg
in the grip of bearded Bolsheviks. There
emerged a conunittee of 1,500 citizens to face
the strike committee and the hysteria quickly
extended as far as Ottawa with the result
that on one day, within one hour, they passed
through the House of Commons and the
Senate and gave Royal assent to amendments
to Tlie Immigration Act which permitted the
deportation, as undesirable, of any immi-
grant, British or foreign-bom, regardless of
his length of stay in Canada, and without
trial by jury.
Tliere were ako amendments to the Crimi-
nal Code, the infamous section 98, which
3816
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reversed the whole tradition of British law,
permitting persons to be arrested on suspi-
cion, and placing the burden on the accused
to prove his innocence.
In fact, perhaps the most outstanding of
the charges was oaie charge laid against J.
S, Woodswordi. It constituted, Mr. Spealcer,
three brief verses from Isaiah, and on that
he was charged witli uttering sedition. The
verses, it is interesting to recall, are as
follows:
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous
decrees, and that write grievousness whidi
they have prescribed; to turn aside the
needy from judgment, and to take away
the right from the poor of my people, tlmt
widows may be their prey, and that they
may rob the fatherless. (Isaiali 10: 1-2)
And they shall build houses and inhabit
them; and they shall piant vineyards, and
eat the fruit of tliem. They shall not build
and another inhabit; they shall not plant,
and another eat; for as tlie days of a
tree are the days of my people, and mine
elect shall long enjoy the work of their
hands. (Isaiah 65: 21-22)
That quotation became the basis of a charge
for uttering sedition. However, I think it is
perhaps most important to note what hap-
pened afterwards, Mr. Speaker.
F. J. Dixon, member of the legislative
assembly, was charged with seditious libel
as the editor of the Strike Bulletin. He had
as his counsel— so Prof. Ken MacNaught
reminded us in an article some 30 years later
in the Canadian Historical Review— \ihe Hon.
E. J. McMurray, K.C., who suggested to
Mr. Dixon that he should defend himself.
Mr. Dixon read Milton on the freedom of
the press; he read the biography of Joseph
Howe and many famous Enghsh trials for
sedition. He defended himself through a 16-
day trial, at the end of which he was
acquitted.
A. A. Heaps, an alderman, conducted his
own trial and was acquitted. He was sub-
sequently elected to the House of Commons
in 1925.
John McQueen, an alderman, was re-elected
to the city council by an overwhelming
majority while waiting for the trials, and yet
when he was brought to trial he, with five
others, was convicted and sent to jail. Later
he became mayor of the city of Winnipeg and
a member of the legislative assembly.
Reverend William Ivens, the founder of
the Labour Church, who was one of the key
people in the leadership of the strike, walked
out of the jail cell where he was confined
for a year and went directly to take his seat
in the legislative assembly of Manitoba.
J. S. Woodsworth, some two years later,
was elected to the House of Commons where,
in 1927, he succeeded in securing the repeal
of tliat iniquitous amendment to The Immi-
gration Act and, in 1936, getting the repeal
of section 98 in the Criminal Code.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, some 20 years
ago listening to a panel on the CBC in which
five distinguished Canadians were asked to
name the five outstanding figures of our
political history since Confederation. All of
them were unanimous with regard to three.
One of those three choices was J. S. Woods-
worth.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, in drawing
tlie attention of the House to the 50th anniver-
sary of the Winnipeg strike, and the emer-
gence, as a political figure of the stature
of J. S. Woodsworth, I would once again
point out to the Minister of Tourism and
Information (Mr. Auld) that for ten years
he and the historical plaques committee have
been periodically reminded that J. S. Woods-
worth was born in the western outskirts of
what is now Metropolitan Toronto. His place
of birth is discoverable, and if they cannot
discover it. Ken MacNaught as the definitive
biographer can guide them. I would hope
that sometime soon a plaque might be erected
in the province of Ontario to commemorate
the birthplace of such a distinguished Cana-
dian.
Mr. Speaker: In order that I may allay
the fears of the members, to my right and
to my left, to whom I have heera listening,
I may say that it is a custom in this House
on special days such as St. George's, May
Day and so on, to allow appropriate mem-
bers to make remarks. May Day is recognized
as a day for labour and our hon, friend from
York South requested the opportunity of
speaking, wliich I afforded to him on that
basis.
Before we proceed with the questions I
would like to advise tiie hon. member for
Scarborough East that certain questions which
he had asked of the Minister of Education
ami later redirected to the Prime Minister,
were redirected by my office back to the Min-
ister of Education because, in my opinion, it
was not reasonable to expect the Prime Min-
ister to be able to answer the type of ques-
tion which was being asked. I am pleased to
see that the hon. Minister of Education is
here so the questions wiU undoubtedly be
asked. The hon. leader of the Opposition.
MAY 1, 1969
3817
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, could I just comment.
Mr. Speaker: No, no comment. When you
ask tlie question you may cover your com-
ments.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Lands and Forests.
How many eligible applicants for jimior
rangers' jobs for the summer have not been
accepted?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
leader of the Opposition: There are 385
eligible applicants for junior ranger jobs for
this summer who have not been accepted.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
Minister might advise me whether or not the
aooeptability of tiie eligible applicants
depended upon their recommendation by a
member of this House?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, we accept
these applications on a priority basis and,
as the member knows; the hon. member from
his party, from the NDP party or our own
party often make recommendations-
Mr. Nixon: I am not implying that it had
to be a government men*ber in any way. But
I have the impression from having heard
from two or three applicants who were not
accepted that they were tlie only ones I
know of that had not asked for recommenda-
tion from a member. It seemed to be a
ridiculous criterion if in fact it is one.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I said, Mr.
Speaker, they come on first come first served
basis.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Education, asked
some days ago, in two parts.
Will the cities of over 60,000 which are
not eligible for the school board subsidies
announced last week, get any relief from
education costs this year?
In other words, is the staged takeover of
60 per cent of education costs which will
be initiated this year rather than in 1970-
1971, restricted to municipalities of less than
60,000 for the current year?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the studies revealed that
tlie basic problem— I do not say the com-
plete problem, but tlie basic problem— related
to the small rural municipalities. Those mimi-
cipalities with, shall we say, lesser popula-
tion and the moneys that will be used to
develop this programme will, of course, go to
increasing the total percentage. However,
with respect to the Treasurer's announce-
ment in the planned programme to go to an
average of 60 per cent, this will begin to
reflect itself in the next fiscal year.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a question
of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.
The Minister has been reported in the
press as stating that the likely time for the
holding of a referendum on the issue of a
general farm organization will be, "mid-
summer". What period does the Minister
consider as being "midsummer*'?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Well, Mr. Speaker, when I
issued that statement I am afraid I was think-
ing of that delightful time of the year. I
inadvertently said "midsummer" when really
I should have said "mid- June", if the petitions
come in as I would expect they would, for
the holding of a vote. The time that has been
suggested as an appropriate time, is mid-
June, and I would think that would be
acceptable. If, however, they do not come
in in time, then by midsummer all well and
good. Whatever time the petitions come in.
We are not particularly adamant about any
particidar time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
wortii.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentwortli): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the Prime Minister:
Has provision been made in this year's
Budget for the $2-million grant for the
Hamilton Theatre Auditorium?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, Mr. Speaker, there
is no provision in this year's estimates. It
was in September 1967 the Treasury Board
approved a conditional grant to be paid over
a number of years to the Hamilton civic
auditorium development project on the basis
and condition that a matching grant would
be made by the federal government. Tliis is
part of a total urban redevelopment plan in
the city of Hamilton in which the province
is sharing on another basis entirely.
We have never been informed that the
condition, i.e. that the federal government
would make a matching grant, has ever been
met and until we know tliat, of course,
there is no commitment on the part of this
government to pay the money. Until sudh
3818
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
time as we know tliat arrangements are being
made to proceed with the project and the
federal government is fulfilling the condition
we attach to our position, it is not necessary
for us to apportion any money.
Mr. Deans: Would the Prime Minister
accept a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Roberts : Yes.
Mr. Deans: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the
pro\ince would consider making this grant
without the provision for the federal go^'em-
ment's participation?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Not a chance, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Deans: What is the matter with the
member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R.
Smith) does he not want it to go ahead?
To the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General: has the Minister ascertained the
entitlement of Mr. and Mrs. Orr in the case
which I brought to the Minister's department
some three months ago?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I ha\e not yet, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Raid: Mr. Speaker, I certainly accept
\our re-direction of the questions from the
Premier to the Minister of Education. I had
hoped that the grounds wore that you knew
the Minister of Education would be here. I
say this is all seriousness.
Mr. Speaker: The grounds were, as Mr.
Speaker stated, that they were matters one
would not expect the Prime Minister to have
knowledge of and would expect the Minister
of Education to have knowledge of.
Mr. T. Raid: Mr. Speaker, could I com-
ment on that, because there are times when
fjuestions are quite important; I beliexe that
is the purpose of the question period. The
Minister of Education is a very busy man,
with two very heavy portfolios, and I can
appreciate the fact that he cannot be here as
often as an Opposition member for example,
hut the grounds-
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member could
ask the question now when he does have the
Minister here.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, I would like to raise a
point of pri\ ilege then, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a point
of privilege; he will state it.
Mr. T. Reid: My point oi privilege is that
during the question period, if a member has a
question which he believes to be of urgent
public importance, he ought to be able to
address it to the ministry. The suggestion I
ha\'e is simply that if the Minister of Educa-
tion cannot be here, which is quite under-
standable, the member of the Opposition
ought to be able to re-direct that question
to another member of the ministry. If it is
inappropriate to direct it to the Premier 1k>-
cause the question involves detailed knowl-
edge in order to answer it, it is very diffi-
cult to do one's job. Perhaps it could be
directed to the House leader, or in the case
of education, to the very knowledgeable hon.
member for Carleton East (Mr. A. B. R.
Lawrence). But some way, somehow, I l^elieve
that in my function as the official Opposition
critic for education, I do have questions, most
of which I hope are relexant to public issues
of urgency, and I would like to be able to
get answers from the government. I was
wondering if you could comment on this.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the hon. mem-
ber's problem. It is a problem which every
member in the House has, because every
Minister has many other responsibilities. This
matter was discussed, I believe, during the
first session of this House— and I only imder-
stand it because I have not been at a meet-
ing and have had no report— but I understand
that one of the matters the committee looking
at the rules and the question period are con-
cerned with is how to arrange an orderly
manner of obtaining prompt answers from
various Minister whose duties keep them away
from the House a great deal of the time.
I would suggest the hon. member might
discuss it with his members on the committee.
I am sure there is an answer for it.
Mr. T. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have two questions, both relating to
Forest Hill Collegiate.
The first question is this: In light of the
current dispute at Forest Hill Collegiate In-
stitute as reported in the Globe and Mail,
April 30, 1969, (a) Does the publication of a
mimeographed newspaper by a group of high
school students constitute grounds for suspen-
sion of some of those students by the school
principal? (b) Docs the free association of a
number of individuals into a student group
constitute grounds for susix.'nsion of some of
those students by the school principal?
The second part of tke first question: In
light of the point of view attributed to the
school trustee, Mr. Ying Hope, in the Globe
and Mail of April 30, 1969, that he thinks it
MAY 1, 1969
3819
unlikely that the school board will intervene
on behalf of the suspended students of Forest
Hill Collegiate Institute, can the school board
legally refuse to hear an appeal from the
students or their parents, and if the board
cannot so refuse, does not the point of view
attributed to Mr. Hope prejudice the "due
process" of such an appeal?
The second question relating to Forest Hill
to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker,
is this:
(a) Have the parents or guardians of the
students who have been suspended during
the last ten days by the principal of Forest
Hill Collegiate Institute been informed in
writing of their right, and the rights of the
suspended students, to appeal the suspensions
to the board of education of the city of
Toronto, as provided for under The Schools
Administration Act, section 22 (2) (k)?
(b) Within what period of time, after re-
ceiving such notification of suspension, must
the parents or guardians register their appeal
to the school board?
(c) Withini what period of time, after re-
ceiving suc"h a request for an appeal, must
the school board hear the appeal?
(d) Are parents making such an appeal
allowed to retain legal council? If so, does
the lawyer representing the students have
full access to the relevant school files in-
cluding "student records"?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, regarding
the two questions asked by the hon. member,
and just to reply very briefly to the other
aspect of the question, not the question itself
but perhaps obtaining information. I have
endeavoured to make it a practice where
matters are urgent and a member is inter-
ested, if I am not able to be itere— and I
think this is true, other members would recall
this— we either have had the information sup-
plied by the oflSce or we are quite prepared
to give it. I know that they will want to
raise it further in the House, but we have
always tried to have as much information
available as possible.
To deal with the two questions— and I
think in fairness, Mr. Speaker, it should be
pointed out that basically the questions are
asking the Minister for, shall we say, a point
of view or to comment on a situation where,
quite frankly, I am not personally involved.
I do not have any more facts related to it
than what I see or has been reported in the
press, and I think in fairness, one of the
other questions relates to basically an in-
terpretation of the statutes.
I think I will reply, Mr. Speaker, in a
general fashion, if I may, by drawing to the
attention of the hon. member that following
discussions between staff and students, there
is a basis, as I read it, for settlement of the
dispute at Forest Hill Collegiate, and this
appears to be presently in prospect. And I
need hardly say that in my view this is a
most welcome development. It has been
suggested earlier— and this is a point I wish
to make on this occasion again— that I should
intervene in this dispute. I have said on
repeated occasions in this House that, as a
matter of general policy, for me or for my
department to intervene in the internal affairs
of local school authorities unlesf invited or
involved in some other fashion, to do this
for every situation that arises would be, I
think, detrimental to the structure of educa-
tion in this province. From a strictly prac-
tical standpoint I am sure the hon. member
would realize the impossibility of doing this.
I think one must state that we must have
confidence in our school trustees and our
teachers and in our students to deal with
these problems in an enlightened, and I hope
reasonable, way. I was interested to note,
Mr. Speaker, as a general observation, that
one principal very recently has indicated—
and I think I quote him correctly— that "I
am encouraging student radicalism".
Mr. Lewis: The Minister was responsible
for inviting incendiary radicals to his oflBce.
He espouses radicalism at every opportunity.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure this is a point
of view that the two members from Scarbor-
ought opposite would not share.
Interjections by hon. meiii4)ers.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be interested to
get a definition of "radical". I wotild be
delighted, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, to dis-
cuss this with the principal on SMne future
occasion, if he really has some concern in
this regard. I do want to point out further,
as I have said in this House on other occa-
sions, in my view the students do h»ve a
right to dissent; they have a right to be
heard. I think this is important in this da>'
and age. In fact, on some occasions where
this is denied, trouble does develop.
However, I make this point too, Mr.
Speaker, because I think it is equally rele-
vant. The right to dissent is not a licence for
disruption or disorder. This too, I tliink, is
part of what we are undergoing, not only
in this jurisdiction, but everywhere else, at
the present time.
5820
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
You know, where tlie right to become in-
\ol\ecl is denied, perhaps education becomes
the loser. I do not want to become too
philosophical, but it was Socrates who said,
"Tlie imexamined life is not worth living."
W^oll now surely this applies to a degree to,
an educational process. There must be, I
believe, some constant re-examination.
In recent years, Mr. Speaker, I must say
I have had the opp<irtunity to engage, as per-
haps few other members have, in discussions
with many hundreds of young people in the
schools, the universities and the colleges, and
never without profit. Not always pleasant,
not always easy, but I have always learned
something, and I must admit that on occasion
I have found the ^iews exj)ressed to l^e both
imreasoning and unreasonable, and I think
this is a fair analysis. I should also say that
on very many occasions I have found them to
be not without validity.
I think we live in times that are difficult.
We must keep pace with the new policies
and tlie new attitudes, and perhaps answers
that were given in the past are not neces-
sarily relevant today. We must, I think,
recognize that our system must evolve, must
develop, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,
that in a very general way, perhaps this an-
swers the questions proposed by the mem-
ber for Scarborough East.
Mr. Lewis: The Minister cleared away
the rubble.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
Minister would answer a supplementary ques-
tion.
An Hon. member: Has ho answered the
others?
Mr. T. Reid: The first part of my first ques-
tion, concerning the reasons for suspension,
as rejx)rted in the press, Mr. Speaker, are
about a newspaper and an Jissociation of a
group. My supplementary question to the
Minister is: Are these reasons included under
section 22, (2) (k), of The Schools Adminis-
tration Act, which reads: "The principal may
suspend any pupil guilty of . . . etc. per-
sistent opx>osition to authority,"
That is the (jucstion to the Minister, Mr.
Speaker. In odier words, if those are the
reasons the students were suspended, the only
place tliat they could come in to that sub-
section (k) is under that phrase of tliat sec-
tion. Could the Minister explain how those
two reasons constitute a "persistent opposition
to authoritv?"
Hon. Mr. Davis: I tliink, as I said at the
outset, the two questions really involve per-
sonal opinions on the part of myself or
interpretations of the statute. Obviously, tliis
is an interpretation of the statute and tliis is
why the right to appeal is involved. It is not
for me to comment whether or not from
press reports, those two, shall we say, aspects
that were outlined in the press would consti-
tute legal reason or the right of the principal
to suspend.
I tliink, Mr. Speaker, it is asking for an
interpretation where I would assvime tliat I
probably do not liave all the facts available
to me in any event. I mean, it is an impos-
sible question to answer.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, a furtiier sup-
plementary based on the Minister's remarks.
Has tlie Minister requested from die principal
of Forest Hill Collegiate, "information re-
specting die discipfine of tlie school," as he
is authorized to do under section 22, (2)(g)
of The Schools Administration Act?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I said at
the outset, we have not become involved in
this situation at the moment, and, as I under-
stand die press reports, the matter is hope-
fully in the process of resolution.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, may I .say thet
die second question was not answered at
all. But I will leave that at this time. A
further question to the Minister of Education.
Has The Department of Education contracted
with Don Mills Developments Limited for
that company to supply, on a profit basis, a
complete educational TV network in die
proposed Erin Mills new town project, north
oi Oakville?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Si>eiaker, never want-
ing to correct the lion, member for Scar-
borough East, but in that the prime part of
this development happens to be not north of
Oakville, but in the area of Peel North, shall
we say, in the township of Mississauga, no,
we have no contract whatsoever with Erin
Mills with respect to the development of any
ETV network widiin tiiat proposed develop-
ment.
I must say that having now read it, and
understanding something as to the possibili-
ties, if the developer were, at his own cost,
to provide all of this for the educational sys-
tem, I would be grateful. However, I do
not think this is anticipated.
Mr. T. Reid: A furtlica: outstanding ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. Has the
government received a request from Peter
MAY 1, 1969
3821
Kormos, 16, for an interview to appeal
against the continued refusal of Welland
county board of education to lift his suspen-
sion from Welland's Eastdale secondary
school?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the depart-
ment and I have received a letter from tliis
young man, a letter arriving, I beheve, tlie
day before yesterday. I looked at the letter in
the process of studying the file, and I shall
have an answer for this young man at tlie
beginning of the week.
Mr. T. Reid: The final question to the
Minister, Mr. Speaker, is this. Would the
Minister answer the charge by Dr. John
Deutsch, principal of Queen's University and
Dr. John Macdonald, executive vice chairman
of the committee of university presidents of
Ontario, as reported in the Globe and Mail
of April 25, 1969, that the Ontario govern-
ment is dangerously close to takeover of
essential decision making in the administra-
tion of Ontario's 14 provincially assisted uni-
Aersities?
Secondly, is not this statement by Dr.
Deutsch and Dr. Macdonald in eflFect a
charge that the present provincial government
intends to create a government-run Univer-
sity of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am some-
what intrigued by the interpretation put on
the speeches and press reports, and I guess it
is aU in the way in which they are read. I
would only point out that I do not think, in
fairness to Dr. Deutsch, that he charged the
government, or charged the Minister, as I
read the press reports, both in the Globe and
Mail and the Kingston Whig Standard.
I think both he and Dr. Macdonald were
involved in discussions with other university
people relevant to a very basic issue that we
face in this jurisdiction and elsewhere. That
issue is the relative role of government and
universities; and the need to further develop
procedures whereby the autonomy of the
university is maintained while, at the same
time, the institution remains an integral part
of our society.
Now, as I read tlie press reports about the
remarks of Dr. Deutsch and Dr. Macdonald,
I think that what they were really attempting
to say was that there are still some areas
where the universities themselves must move
ahead with their own organizational structures
to improve their own situation because of
their own increasing involvement with govern-
ment from a monetary standpoint, including
operating and capital grants.
I do not beheve that he was indicating
that the government had any plans to develop
a University of Ontario, because if he were
to make this suggestion, I would have to say,
Mr. Speaker, that there are no such plans.
And I do not think he thought there were.
Mr. Speaker: The hon member has a
question of the Attorney General. He will
place all his questions now, please.
Mr. Reid: A question of the Attorney Gen-
eral.
Does the Attorney General beheve that the
provisions of the present Landlord and
Tenant Act are inadequate for the rights of
apartment dwellers, as suggested by the Scar-
borough council and reported in today's
Globe and Mail, and Toronto Star?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know that I am called ui>on to give an opin-
ion on this matter in a direct way. I think
that I will perhaps answer the hon. member's
question in that it was a result of our request
to the Law Reform Commission in respect to
landlord and tenant matters that we indicated
the inadequacy of the law situation generally.
It was as a result of that request that we
received a report of the Law Reform Commis-
sion on the law of landlord and tenant, and
tlie several recommendations therein con-
tained. I think I have reported to this House,
recently, that we are studying those recom-
mendations and seeking to implement them
with legislation which will, what shaU I say,
improve the situation. I think that answer
indicates that we are not satisfied wdth the
present situation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, could the hon.
Minister give us some idea of when the new
Act might be introduced by his department?
Will it be this summer or will it be next
winter?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I caimot be too definite,
Mr Speaker; there has been quite a bit of
work involved. I think perhaps in the formu-
lation of the new Landlord and Tenant Act,
at least of a new lease which \n\l be one
feature of it, we might make some progress
report before too long, but there is a great
deal of work to be done in trying to deal with
this very difficult matter and I am not going
to try to fix a date. I have no idea how long
this session may endure. I think that is the
proper word.
3822
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order.
Earlier this afternoon we were all given
copies of the annual report of The Depart-
ment of Labour. These have now been re-
trieved by your stafF. Is there any particular
reason for this?
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of that,
but I am sure we will be able to find out a
little later.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Tlie Provincial Secretary
would normally present the report. It had
not been presented to the Legislature and it
had been handed out inadvertently. There is
no reason why it should not be withdrawn.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question to the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Has the Minister had an opportunity to
determine whether or not his department can
intervene to provide a transcript of evidence
into the death of one Beryl Higgins, as he
promised in the House on February 17? And
when may the party expect to receive the
transcript?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The hon. member will
be glad to know the transcript has been
sent to the party.
Mr. Shulman: Was this today?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Recently.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question for the
hon. Minister of Health. It is peculiar how
these things work.
Will the evidence and submissions heard
l)y the Ontario Council of Health be pub-
lished? If so, when? If not, why not?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I am
afraid I am at a loss to understand what the
hon. member means. The council of health
is not involved in taking evidence. It is an
advisory body, the principal advisory body
in healtli matters to the goverrmient. It will
hear submissions and will ask for advice and
opinions from others. If any of those matters
.should be of pubhc interest, we would have
no hesitation in publishing them. But the
afiEairs and actiA'ities of the council will be
noted in the amiual report of T}ic Department
of Health.
Mr. Shulman: Will the hon. Minister aHow
a supplementar>' question?
lion. Mr. Dymond: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Will the submissions be in
the annual report?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Si)eaker, tlie sub-
missions might very well be too bulky to be
put in the annual report. They have Httle
or no relevance to the on-going affairs of
the departmeait or a report on the affairs of
the department.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for
Humber allow his colleague, the hon. mem-
ber for Samia to have the floor for reasons
which liave been communicated to me?
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Mmiicipal
Affairs from yesterday. Will the hon. Minister
advise whether he will intervene in the action
of the council of the town of PetroBa, in re-
fusing to levy taxes on behalf of the Laanbton
County Board of Education by reason of the
fact that the board's requisition for funds
was not submitted by March 1, 1969, as re-
quired by law?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there
is no specific legislation which I know of
which would allow the Minister of Municipal
Affairs to intervene directly on this specific
problem. The hon. member's question does
not make it clear whether in fact the esti-
mates have been submitted by the board to
the mimicipality, and I do not beheve they
actually have at this iKwnt in the case of
Lamb ton, have they? I am not sure. They
have been?
Mr. Bullbrook: I think so.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that that point
is crucial to the determination of the prob-
lem. I am advised that there is no obligatioai
on a municipahty to levy for school taxes
until the estimates of the school board have
been submitted. After the estimates have
been submitted, the municipality is required
by reason of section 88(1) to levy and collect
school taxes. Presumably the school board
can enforce this levy and collection by a
writ of mandamus. As the hon. member will
realize, we are into questions of law and I
would suggest that this cx)uld best be settled
by lawyers, perhaps even two such eminent
lawyers as the hon. Minister of Education
and the hon. member for Samia, but not the
Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Bullbrook: I would apprecdate by way
of supplementary—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hon. Attorney
General has volunteered.
Mr. Bullbrook: Really the biirden of my
question was— can I be assured there will be
MAY 1, 1969
3823
some liaison between The Department of
Municipal Affairs and The Department of
Education to see that this type of situation
does not become widespread throughooit the
province?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I tliink I could speak
for my ooilleagues that The Department of
Municipal Affairs and The Department of
Education are in haison continually.
Mr. BuUbrook: Thank you. I have an addi-
tional question for the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs. Would the hon. Minister
consider implementation of the following reso-
lution of the council of the city of Kitchener,
as endorsed by the council of the city of
Samia:
That the Minister of Municipal Affairs
be requested to set up an advisory com-
mittee of municipal officials to make an
immediate study of the effects on munici-
pal administration of the proposed provin-
cial takeover of the assessment function, it
being the intent that such an advisory com-
mittee could identify and delineate prob-
lems in municipal administration which
would arise, to the end that solutions for
such problems can be devised and imple-
mented, and the transfer of the assessment
fimotion realized without undue dislocation
to other aspects of municipal administra-
tion.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I recog-
nize the concern of the city of Kitchener and
certain other councils which have endorsed
this resolution in the last few days and we
are in the process of writing to them.
This concern was expressed by, I think, the
Ontario Municipal Association when they met
with the Cabinet several weeks ago. I have
discussed the matter with the small advisory
committee which I have and we have circu-
lated letters to municipal officials asking them
to furnish us with a list of services rendered
by assessment departments to their muni-
cipahties and the public.
This morning I wrote to the Municipal
Clerks and Treasurers Association of Ontario,
requesting that association to form a com-
mittee to meet regularly with my officials to
assist in solving problems such as those posed
in the resolution.
We recognize the concern. I may say that
we are very anxious to have much of the
information which assessors have collected
and we are very anxious to have it on a
uniform basis. We have been working, as has
been The Department of Treasury and Eco-
nomics, with tlae Dominion Bureau of Statis-
tics, the Ontario Statistical Centre, to develop
such things as a system of coding for pro-
cessing assessment data suitable not only to
supply the needs of the municipalities and
their local boards and commissions but also
to get information which we need and which
tlie federal government need in the course of
determining certain policies which they
undertake.
Certainly the work of the assessors, which
they have historically done, aside from just
the assessing, is very much in our mind. I
have assured the municipalities, and will con-
tinue to do so, that it is our intention to
provide as good service or better service and
a more standard service right across the
province.
Mr. Bullbrook: The supplementary to the
answer is yes, that the hon. member is con-
sidering—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not really, because—
Mr. Bullbrook: Well, maybe?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I suppose it is.
An advisory committee of municipal officials
is to meet with me and I have asked the
clerks and treasurers to meet.
Mr. Bullbrook: A quahfied maybe?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right!
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Humber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of the hon. Provincial Treasurer, notice of
which has been given.
How many civil servants have had their
job classifications upgraded retroactively, but
are not receiving retroactive pay increases in
line with this upgrading?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): I have to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that
the hon. member place this question on the
order paper. There is a very considerable
amount of research to be done to obtain this
information.
Mr. Ben: I take it the Minister is taking
it as notice.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No. It is being
referred to the order paper.
Mr. Ben: Very well; tiien I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Toiuism and
Information which should not require so
much research.
J824
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Were any employees of the Minister's
department upgraded in their job classifica-
tions retroactively? If the answer to the
above is "yes", ho\v many of them were
<lenied the pay increases to which they were
entitled from the period to wliich the up-
grading went back?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Infonnation): Mr. Si)eakeT, I would ask
that this question also be placed on the order
paper. I received the question about 1
o'clock today and I just have not been able
to get the information. I do not know how
much is involved. It would seem to me that,
properly, if there is a wealth of detail, it
should be on tlie order paper.
Mr. Ben: I cannot argue with that, Mr.
Speaker. That is the rule that I have been
always trying to uphold.
I have a question of the Minister of
Labour.
In light of tlie fact that the vote of 1,500
electricians is putting 21,000 other construc-
tion workers out of jobs and preventing the
construction of desperately needed housing, is
the government giving consideration to mak-
ing the already accepted procedure of in-
dustry-wide bargaining mandatory through an
amendment to The Labour Relations Act?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I take it
from the wording of the question that the
member is aware that unions and the
employers have engaged voluntarily in a
modified form of industry-wide bargaining
during the negotiations and procedures that
have led up to the current situation. I am
sure we may draw a number of conclusions
from the dispute that may be helpful to us
in drafting new legislation, but at the moment
my main concern is with reference to this
particular dispute.
Mr. Speaker: Tlie hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Minister of Education, how many people
employed in Metro Toronto high schools, as
teachers, do not hold teachers' certificates?
How many are teaching on a letter of per-
mission? How many are teaching on a letter
of standing?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this ques-
tion takes a considerable amount of research.
We will have to do this in co-operation with
the Metro scliool boards. Perhaps we could
put it on the order paper as notice, or I will
be delighted to give the information to the
hon. member as soon as I get it. It will take a
few days.
Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Minister of
Education. He does have the material on
trial though, I trust?
A question of the Minister of Education
again. Were residents of Burwash given a
vote to elect school trustees to the Sudbury
and District Board of Education and the
Sudbury and District Separate School Board
in the last election? If not, why not?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I under-
stand the residents of Burwash were not
given a vote because they were residents of
Crown lands and as a result they do not
pay taxes. They get their elementary educa-
tion at Warmup School and an addition is
being built on behalf of the Burwash pupils
after negotiations between the board and
The Department of Correctional Services.
Their secondary education, as perhaps the
hon. member well knows, is given in the city
of Sudbury.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for River-
dale.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Treasurer. Does the Minister
intend to introduce a supplementary Budget
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I
think the hon. member will realize that it
is a little too early to indicate any such
intention at this time.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping
to find the hon. Minister off balance.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That wall be the day.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Coch-
rane South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Edu-
cation.
Are the new subsidies for school boards,
announced April 24, available to divisional
boards in territorial districts in the north on
the same basis as to county boards in the
southern part of the province?
If not, what subsidies are available to the
northern boards?
Will the Minister provide members with
copies of any circulars or instructions issued
to the school boards explaining how the
subsidies are calculated?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to answer
the third question first, I shall certainly
MAY 1, 1969
3825
endeavour to do this. I gather the hon.
member is being asked by some constituents
to explain the grant formula. When he does
this, he might give me, in "me-Tarzan,
you-Jane," sort of language his explanation
because I find them very complicated to
attempt to explain myself.
With respect to the first two parts of the
question the answer, of course, is yes, ex-
cept that there is an addition to the moneys
available here in the southern part of the
province. There will also be provided assis-
tance for the boards of education in the ter-
ritorial districts. They will be able to recover
the whole cost of education of those secon-
dary pupils who formerly resided outside the
former board's area and who are now resident
pupils of the new divisional board. Actually
that was contained, I think, in the first part
of the statement I made last week.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Park-
dale.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, a question for
the Minister of Health. Does the govern-
ment intend to raise the premium rates for
OMSIP in the near future as the result of
Bill 121? If so when, and by how much?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, this mat-
ter is not under active consideration.
Mr. Trotter: A supplementary question.
May I then take it as an answer that there
will be no raise in the premium rates?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I really cannot say
how the hon. member will take it, sir, I
cannot change my answer.
Mr. Trotter: I had a question yesterday,
Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Health.
Mr. Nixon: The Treasurer will look after
the hon. member, he looks after all the
members.
Mr. Trotter: There goes the balanced
Budget.
Mr. Nixon: He will look after it, just speak
to him.
Mr. Speaker: Ordex! The hon. member has
another question, he will place it.
Mr. Trotter: Yes, may I have an answer
to the question about the bed shortage in
Hamilton that I asked yesterday? The Min-
ister was going to enquire into the matter.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I expect about Mon-
day, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, I have two ques-
tions for the Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment from previous days.
1. Why would the Toronto Harbour Com-
mission approve the $145,000 purchase of
three old lake boats to be sunk as anchors
for landfill for the Ontario pavilion at the
CNE?
2. Does the Toronto Harbour Commission
or the Ontario government pay for the land-
fill either all or in part?
Hon. Mr. Randall: 1. The Toronto Harbour
Commission is acting as agent for the prov-
ince in creating the offshore islands for the
Ontario pavilion. The boats' superstructure
will be removed and the boats will be sunk
in specially prepared cribs on the lake bottom.
The boats will be filled with rubble, and then
concrete will be laid on top of the rubble.
Trees and shrubs will be planted also. Sink-
ing the boats will allow us to create 1,400
feet of shoreline very quickly.
The Toronto Harbour Commission looked
into the availability and suitability of many
ships and recommended the purchase of these
three to the province. The province will re-
imburse the Toronto Harbour Commission for
its expenses.
2, No, we just provide a site for clean
landfill.
Mr. Trotter: Well as I understand it then,
as a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is
the cost of this building being borne entirely
by the province of Ontario and not by the
harbour commission?
Hon. Mr. Randall: That is correct.
Mr. Trotter: And I had a second question
from April 29, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister
of Trade and Development.
1. What effect will the threatened strike
between the Toronto construction union and
contractors have on the housing situation in
Metro?
2. What is the potential effect on OHC
projects?
Hon. Mr. Randall: If the threatened stop-
page of work takes place it will affect OHC
construction to the same extent as it will
affect private and other government build-
ing programmes.
The effect any stoppage of work will ha\'e
on completion dates depends, naturally, on
the duration of the stoppage. We work
exactly as any other contractor, and we use
the same kind of trades. If they are out on
strike, we cannot do anything about it.
3826
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, as a supple-
mentary question, approximately how many
projects are affected by the strike where
Ontario Housing Corporation is concerned?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I could not tell you how
many. Any of them in Metro would be
affected that are under way at the present
time, but I would point out that there are
many projects sitting up in Ottawa that we
have not had approval on for Metro, so per-
haps we are lucky that we do not have as
many as we would have.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
S andAvich- Riverside .
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, a question from some days ago— No.
1298— for the Minister of Education.
Can the Minister assure the House that
he will not introduce legislation enabling
boards of education to take over public
libraries without consulting representatives of
organizations such as the Ontario Library
Association, the Ontario Public Library Coun-
cil and directors of the Ontario Regional
Library?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have already had a
number of discussions with the various groups
related to the library service. Nothing con-
crete or specific is emerging, related to what
might be the future stmcture for library de-
velopment here in this province.
Certainly there will be no significant change
made without consultation with the various
organizations.
Mr. Speaker: I wonder, while the Minister
of Education is here, if I could ask the
deputy leader of the New Democratic Party
whether some of those long-standing ques-
tions of the Minister, from the member for
Peterborough (Mr. Pitman), should now be
asked while the Minister is here?
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, if the Minister has
the answers.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member
for Peterborough very kindly sent me a note
saying that he had a matter of rather pressing
importance to which he had to attend, and
asked me to postpone these questions until
next week.
Mr. Speaker: I thank you.
Mr. E. Dunlop (Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I should like to
rise on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to rebut the charges
made against me by the members for Downs-
view and Yorkview in tliis Legislature yester-
day and to set the position clear.
These charges arose during an incident
which the Prime Minister very aptly char-
acterized as "a tempest in a teapot", and I
should ha\e been glad to let it go at that,
had it not been that I examined the Hansard
advance this morning, where I found words
like "abuse" and "misuse" of my position,
and words such as "breach of trust".
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is mild to what
they usually say.
Mr. Dunlop: Well, you are professionally
experienced. There were certain matters
which I do not think I need to deal with—
the question of the use of the television
room, which I think is irrelevant to myself,
and is probably settled in any event, and the
question of the technical point as to whether
or not the committee is in existence.
I should like to tell tlie members what, in
fact, happened. The memibers will rememiber
that there are various means of dehverinig
documents and communications. There is the
mail, there is exipress and there is the old-
fashioned way of delivering documents by
hand.
Mr. Nixon: Before cameras!
Mr. Dunlop: Yes, I will oome to that. Let
me finish, please. Mr. Eagleson, who is the
president of the political party which sup-
ports the government, telephoned me and
asked if he could present to me the 14 copies
of the written submission of the Conserva-
tive Party. I siaid "certainly."
He then told me that he had informed the
press tliat he was doing this. I think that was
quite within his privilege and capacity. When
he arrived, he gave me the 14 copies and sub-
sequently, I gave tliose to one of the sec-
retaries of the select committee. I hatl not
read the submission of the Conservative Party
then and I have not read it yet.
It was the submission of the hon. member
for Downsview tliat by entering into a dis-
cussion of tlie merits or lack of merits of a .
sul>m,ission of any particular political party, I
I had abused the privileges of the memibersi
of the select committee and, indeed, thell
privileges of all meml^ers of this Legislature.''
Had I done this, that might well have been
so. I rather wish that he had found out what
I had done, even ask me, before he made his
chaiiges.
MAY 1, 1969
3827
The press who were present asked Mr.
Eagleson about the various positions that his
brief represented. I did not comment on any
of the positions in the Conservative Party
submission. The press who were present not
unnaturally asked me questions such as,
"VVhen will the public hearings of your com-
mittee take place?" and questions relating to
tine first report which already has been tabled
in this House. I did not comment on the ques-
tions of any political party.
Mr. Speaker, I submit thiat this was neither
abuse nor misuse nor breach of trust.
Mr. MacDonald: Is there a committee, and
is the member the chairman?
Mr. Dunlop: I said I would not coiTument
(HI that because it is a technical question. I
do not know, and I think my examination of
Hansard suggested that Mr. Speaker, I think,
is going to inform the House whether there
is a committee or not.
I would rather hope that those members
migilit consider withdrawing those somewhat
abusive words applied to me, but I shall leave
that in their hands. I would have been rather
longer and firmer in what I have said, /but
I am conscious of the fact that, as members
of that committee, these two members have
lieen extremely useful and co-operative. I
hope that in the future deliberations of the
committee, they may continue to work in
that same spirit.
Mr. Speaker, while the closing date for
the submission of written briefs to the com-
mittee was April 30, yesterday, I might say
that I am sure that should the New Demo-
cratic Party or should the Liberal Party see
fit to make their views on this matter known
to our committee, I would be delighted to
receive the brief in the same way; hand it
to the secretary of committee and give them
exactly the same courtesy as given Mr.
Eagleson.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, if I may address
myself to the point of order. I do not intend
to wididraw anything that I said yesterday.
I do not beheve that the regular procedure
that the committee had established of asking
for briefs and suggesting they be submitted
to the secretary should have been altered. I
thdnk it is more than a coincidence that the
one brief that was received by the chairman
of the committee and was received in the
presence of the press and the television
cameras happened to be, by strange coinci-
dence, the brief of the Conservative Party of
Ontario.
An hon. member: I wonder why?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-
view.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker,
speaking to the point of order, I appreciate
the words of the hon. member for Eghnton—
I am sorry, York-Forest Hill-
Mr. Lewis: They advocate the same thing.
Mr. Young: —the same general point of
view, so I am a bit confused— but I think the
point that I made yesterday is still a valid
one, Mr. Speaker, tliat the report in the press,
whether it was accurate or not still has to be
determined, indicated that the chairman, as
he was called, of the committee, associated
himself with the brief which was intended,
and which did in fact, highlight certain poli-
cies of the ttade union movement and of this
party, namely the checkoff. He lent his posi-
tion, according to the press report, to the—
Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the hon.
member for a moment, because if I under-
stood the hon. member for York-Forest Hill
correctiy, he said that he did not do what the
hon. member is now stating that he did, and
surely we are entitled to accept the word of
the hon. member for York-Forest Hill.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I am simply say-
ing that it was on this basis that I made my
objection yesterday. Now if the hon. member
for York-Forest Hill said that he did not
associate himself witli those views, then that
is another point of view.
Mr. Nixon: The member said he heard
about it just tlie moment he came in.
Mr. Young: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: So he cannot base his objec-
tions on what he has read.
Mr. Young: The report was here on a desk
at that time and was handed to me at that
moment, so tiiat I simply make tliat point of
clarification, Mr, Speaker, for the benefit of
the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
different point of order. I would not blame
you if you were somewhat hesitant to rush
forward to resolving still another rule, or lack
thereof in this House, but I think that there
is an even greater urgency in resolving the
issue that was drawn to your attention yes-
terday. Because the hon. member for York-
Forest HiU has indicated tiiat the committee,
which may not exist, is actiially in operation
•-aiid sollt'ltllTg briefs' for whidi there was a
3828
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
deadline yesterday. If it does not exist, it is
a strange kind of clandestine operation.
Mr. Speaker: At the risk of incurring the
displeasure of the members of the House,
and of the Clerk regarding the precedents
of the House, I would say tliat my pre-
liminary enquiries indicate that a select com-
rnittee, among other things, is not discharged
[until it has completed its work, and it would
appear that tliis committee has not done so.
I only say this by way of indicating what I
have discovered to date.
As to certain points raised by tlie hon.
members yesterday, I do not have any an-
swers yet, but it would appear cursorarily
tliat the committee perhaps is not yet functus.
Mr. MacDonald: Why is it traditionally
r£-appointed after making an interim report?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think
there is one other element that we might look
at while we are at it. I am not going to use
the time of the House, but it has occurred
to me tliat with the sittings lengthening out
the way they are, we should take a look at
the functioning of select committees while the
House is in session.
Now previously the select committees func-
tioned between sessions, and there is ample
time to plan a course of action and carry it
out and so on.
At the moment, with the House sitting the
periods of time it does, if ^e select commit-
tees are to be as efiFective as we would want
tliem to be, we might wish to take a look at
how they can function when the House is, in
fact, sitting. May I just throw that in as a—
Mr. Nixon: Are there certain plans that
tliey have already made up?
Mr. Lewis: As of a matter of personal
privilege, Mr. Speaker, relating to the re-
marks of the member for York-Forest Hill,
lest he feel tliat he was subject only to abuse
in this House, sir, let me say to him, on be-
half of the members of the New Democratic
Party, that we would like to tliank him for
the publicity which he afforded to Mr. Eagle-
son's submission on this occasion.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-
Forest Hill was on his feet a moment ago;
he has my eye.
Mr. Dunlop: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I
would like to comment on the remarks just
made by tlie member for Downsview. In a
rather suspicious way he said, "I notice that
only one brief was placed in the hands of
the chairman." That is because only one per-
son was asked to do so. I would also point out
that when he mentioned that these matters
were usually placed in the hands of the clerk,
the clerk is in Vancouver.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The twenty-eighth
order, House in committee of supply; Mr.
A. E. Renter in the Chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
On vote 2002.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2002, programme
by activity on page 153, municipal allow-
ances and assistance.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Tliank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two points to deal with and I will
deal with them as speedily as I am able.
What will lead into these two points, Mr.
Chairman, is the fact that I was trying to
communicate to the Minister through you
that there is a dire situation at the municipal
level, and that the standards of administra-
tion vary from area to area. I drew a contrast
between Cornwall and Victoria County. I
have two points to make on this before lead-
ing into the two points that will close the
topic.
To continue the variance throughout the
province, Mr. Chairman, going into the area
of Hamilton-
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The hon.
member not only covered Victoria county,
she covered Lindsay, Peterborough, Corn-
wall, Fort Erie and was moving on to Hamil-
ton. This is repetition. She has used the
other centres for examples, and I feel that
those are quite sufficient examples.
Mrs. M. Renwick: You do not want to
hear about Hamilton, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: We will deal with anything
generally under municipal allowance and
assistance, but I think she has covered the
areas quite sufficiently. Anything further on
the various centres would be repetitious.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it just
seems wrong to me that you can assume that
the things I am going to say about Hamilton
MAY 1, 1969
3829
and Welland are the same as in die odier
areas.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member was deal-
ing widi various matters pertaining to The
General Welfare Assistance Act. She dealt
with the situations as they existed in these
various centres across the province they must
surely be similar and constitute a repetition
of the same jxjints.
Mrs. M. Renwiek: They certainly are a
rei>etition of the repretitiveness of the prob-
lem, Mr. Chairman, and attitude towards
recipients. However, if you wish to rule that
I have no right to speak about conditions in
Welland county and in the city of Hamilton,
I will continue with the—
Mr. Chairman: I just want to point out to
the hon. member that rule 17 does prohibit
repetition, and that the general situation has
been covered in the examples given for
several different municipalities. But I do not
want to restrict the hon. member from—
Mrs. M. Renwiek: I do not believe, Mr.
Chairman, that any of them were down in
the area of Hamilton and Welland. I am
simply trying to point out, in using Victoria
county and Cornwall and then coming across
to Hamilton and Welland, that it is exactly
the same situation as reported in various
daily newspapers. This particular report was
in the Globe and Mail; some of the others
were in local newspapers, respecting different
problems about the situation. That is tlie
difference.
Mr. Chairman: Municipal allowances and
assistance.
Mrs. M. Renwiek: Well, Mr. Chairman, will
you clarify for me whether it is repetitious if
I speak about Hamilton and Welland after
speaking about Victoria and Cornwall?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I pointed out to the
hon. member that she had already covered
numerous municipal situations,
Mrs. M. Renwiek: But only one half of the
province, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The entire province-
Mrs. M. Renwiek: I suppose then that I'll
always be open to being told that the other
half is working fine.
Mr. Chairman: The entire province is
under the control of the department insofar
as The General Welfare Assistance Act is
concerned. The municipal administration
costs and homemakers and nurses services
under this particular programme, are all the
same for the entire province.
Mrs. M. Renwiek: To continue, the reason
for these conditions, Mr. Chairman, is no
mystery— it is the high cost of welfare to the
municipalit>^ Municipalities cannot cope with
the problem and this has been shown in
the following areas by newspaper items. In
the Algoma district: "Welfare budget in-
adequate—director blames provincial legisla-
tion, stating that any head of a household
employed full-time is ineligible for assist-
ance."
Reading from the Sault Star, October 21,
1968, two small sections, Mr. Chairman,
under an item headed:
Social and Family Services Area
Board Has Cash Problems
Thessalon— In looking over the year's ex-
penditures at their meeting here Thursday
evening, members of the Algoma district
social and family service board expressed
concern over the ever-mounting costs.
Undoubtedly, the allotted 1968 budget
will prove inadequate. New government
legislation, they felt, is not helping their
cause in spite of the fact that the Premier
of Ontario has clearly stated there must be
cuts in welfare spending. A regulation in
the Act states that any head of a house-
hold who is engaged in full-time employ-
ment is ineligible for assistance.
"I would strongly recommend," sub-
mitted director J. B. T. Stewart in his
report, "that this board petition the pro-
vincial and federal governments to change
this regulation so we would be able to
supplement wages and make it possible for
many oases to be at least semi-supportinig
as opposed to completely dependent.
"It is my opinion that this regulation will
create far more welfare recipients than it
will curtail."
September costs in that municipality, Mr.
Chairman, amounted to $22,831. Total costs
for this year so far are $209,476. The 1968
total budget was set at $218,350. In Brant-
ford township, "Costs Skyrooketted, Reasons
Why". From the Brantford Expositor, June
11, 1968, entided:
Welfare Costs Skyrocket
Welfare costs in Brantford township have
spurted skyward like a bilious volcano,
coimcil learned Monday night.
3830
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
For the first five months of 1968 the
township handed out $8,130 to otherwise
destitute citizens. Last year it had spent
$6,674 by this time.
Last year's budget of $10,000 was also
exceeded by nearly $5,000 so this year,
council had to set aside $17,500. Part of
the reason for increase is because there
are more people who are virtually un-
employable who need it, said one town-
ship official.
There is also an increase in the numbers
of deserted, separated or divorced women
with children. With people aware that aid
is available for families, and that it is rela-
tively easy to get, there is less to hold back
foot-loose fathers from heading for greener
pastures, he said.
In Wellington county, "Welfare costs higher
than anticipated."
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is again
being repetitious. She has cited the shortage
of funds in two different municipalities now;
there is no point in citing similar situations
right across the province.
Mrs. M. Ren wick: Mr. Chairman, I will add
then to those remarks that in Wellington
county it was shown that welfare costs were
higher than anticipated.
In Waterloo, costs increased 105 per cent.
In Oshawa, payments rose: reason— strikes,
high rents and unemployment. Whitby: costs
almost double relates four categories of re-
cipients. Stratford: more recipients, higher
costs, just no employment. Samia: high costs,
links a similar situation all over Ontario.
Windsor: costs rise, director blames new resi-
dence regulation, more recipients and
extremely grave housing situation.
Sault Ste. Marie: costs rise. Peterborough:
costs approach $1 million, aldennan talks
about policing of claims. Ottawa: city wel-
fare department grows, low minimum wages
receive some blame, province should pay.
Prince Edward county: welfare cases in-
crease, more investigation work is the answer.
Obviously the economic bind in the munici-
palities is pushing to reduce the payments to
the citizens in need, and obviously this is
throwing the concept of welfare right out the
window. Mr. Chairman, this is no situation
that anyone, certainly any government, can
fail to pay attention to, because, from this
type of situation has flowed the organizing of
citizens, organizing of the poor, and as many
people, such as Mayor Campbell of Scar-
borough said recently at the end of a health
meeting here in these legislative buildings.
he had never seen poor people who had to
be organized before, especially in the years
that he had been around, administering wel-
fare. I think I am trying to make a case to
the government that it is a very serious
position out there this time.
In Toronto, we have the Metro Federation
of Citizens organization; and in Peterborough
we have the united workers and unemployed
organization; and in the federation of citizen's
organizations in Toronto there are several
groups, such as the "Just Society" and so on,
that are organized to look after their own
particular problems.
I think that my plea in the last session
for a government commission to look into
the whole field of service, including the
trouble that the private agencies are having,
is a valid one, Mr. Chairman. Because the
private agencies have shown, just like these
municipalities have shown— and these are all
taken, Mr. Chairman, from last year's news-
paper releases, just since I have been a critic
of this department— and the private agencies—
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Chairman, on a point
of order.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I fail to see where the
matter upon which the hon. member is
touching falls within the category of munici-
pal allowances and assistance.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, perhaps the hon. mem-
ber could relate the relevance to the munici-
pal allowances programme.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it is not
a very difficult one for anyone to figure out.
If you or the Minister of Social and Family
Services, were welfare recipients, and the
municipality did not have enough money to
assist you, then the only place that you have
left to go is to the private agencies. When
you go to the private agencies you find in
Toronto they have glaringly shown that they
have not sufficient funds in order to assist
you or assist the government in its job of
looking after persons in need in the province
of Ontario.
To go back to general welfare assistance.
From the paper on welfare as a right, with
which I spent a great deal of time in my
opening remarks, I would like to draw atten-
tion to one paragraph which covers all (*f
the material that is here. That is to say, Mr.
Chairman that:
T,he attitudes are not consistent with the
right concept of welfare assistance. The
MAY 1, 1969
3831
reason for denial was not the recipients'
unwillingness to work, but rather the lim-
ited budgetary requirements of the munici-
pality. In other words, the recipients were
forced to sacrifice their rights under the
Act, because the municipality failed to
fulfil its responsibilities under the same
legislation. In effect the poor were forced
to subsidize the rich.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
under municipal allowances and assistance?
The hon. member for Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, I
think on many occasions I have risen in
this House and discussed the question of
working for welfare, or subsidizing one's wel-
fare allowances through moneys earned in
working. I think that the people of this
province, to take the Tory point of view,
would be spared the necessity of raising
large sums of money through taxation for
general welfare purposes, and the recipients
themselves would find it a much easier life,
if The General Welfare Assistance Act was
revised to permit, in essence, one method of
introducing a guaranteed annual income.
During private members' hour, I pointed
out to the House that people on unemploy-
ment insurance or welfare can receive more
money under given circumstances than they
could if they were working at the minimum
wage that was prescribed by Acts of this
House. I wondered how the Tories had toler-
ated such a situation. I remembered when I
was in another jurisdiction it was pointed out
that one family were receiiving some $300 a
month welfare; that they were in possession of
a television set, automobile, a deep freeze
unit and all the other amenities that go with
Hfe and the man had not worked for years
and years. As a matter of fact, the whole
family was now becoming unemployable be-
cause it had been unemployed for so long.
When it was asked why this individual,
who was able-bodied, was on welfare, it was
pointed out that if he was not on welfare,
the most he could earn was $50 a week and
he could not support the family that he had
on that amount. It struck me as being rather
ridiculous that this government, in fact, did
and does force such a situation to exist.
In that particular instance, I suggested that
the man should be allowed to go out and
work and earn his $50 a week, which would
be some $200 a month, and that he be
allowed to receive a certain amount from
Ontario welfare assistajnce. For exam;ple, in
this particular instance, he earns $200 a
month; if he was permitted still to receive
$200 in welfare assistance— and I am just
using this as a figure— he would then have an
income of $400 a month, $100 more than he
was receiving. But in the same circumstances,
the taxpayers would be saving $100 a month,
or $1,200 a year on one welfare case alone.
The people would be saving $1,200; the
welfare recipient would be receiving $1,200
more than he had been receiving, and I
should think that everyone would be happier
under those circumstances. This is just one
concrete example of how this government
could save some money. But it will not. It
permits certain minimal incomes to welfare
recipients and when I say minimal, they are,
indeed, minimal.
A heavy smoker would not even he able
to supply himself with cigarettes with what
this government permits the welfare recipient
to earn on the side. I am not advocating that
anyone should be a heavy smoker; I do not
want to get into trouble with the hon. Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond). As a matter of
fact, the only reason I can suggest for having
such a small allowance is i)erhaps that the
Minister of Health has been whispering into
the ears of the Minister of Social and Family
Services and saying, "Look, keep their in-
comes down and they caimot smoke; in that
way we can prevent cancer.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
What about the Provincial Secretary (Mr.
Welch)? Surely he enters into this?
Mr. Ben: He may but I diink perhaps tlie>'
do not want to cut down allowances com-
pletely, because they still want some revenue,
so they are trying to balance these two causes.
At any rate, it has been pointed out by the
previous speaker, ad nauseam, I might add,
that the municipalities are finding it difficult
to raise funds. The Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
MacNaughton) has been crying out that it
is difiicult to raise funds. Why, then, not
give consideration to this compromise? Not
only would it cut down on how much funds
would have to be raised by this department
to pay welfare assistance; not only would it
entitle people on welfare to receive greater
sums and live a more decent life. But as long
as they were working tihere is a good chance,
or there will be a good chance, that they vr21
improve their working abilities and draw
more by way of salary thereby enabhng the
government to reduce the allowances tihat it
would pay, perhaps to the degree that,
eventually, the recipient would be self-sup-
porting.
5832
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
One of the things that I did learn in dis-
cussing matters of welfare was that if they
remain unemployed too long, they eventually
become unemployable. They lose the incen-
tive to work; they lose the habit of getting up
at fixed hours and going to work. They lose
the practice or the habit of putting in so
many continuous hours of labour or efiFort,
they become unemployable. In fact there
was a good article on that once. Why con-
tinue to perpetuate these evils and these
ills? Why do you not just smarten up and
give some consideration to adopting such a
procedure? I say that everybody is going to
Ijenefit from such a programme, why do you
not try it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
matter of relationship of incomes of people
on maintenance allowance and incomes
earned by people where the rate of pay is
very low is a very complex one. I do not
think that we face this to any great degree
presently in the province of Ontario. It is a
matter in which we are taking a good deal
of interest. There really are no statistics to
delineate the size of the problem, although
we have discussed it in relationship to
several municipalities within Ontario.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister
will forgive me, of course there are not
statistics because it has not been done. How
in heaven's name can you have statistics on a
non-existing thing? Try it and you will get
statistics, try it for a year 'or two.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we are
looking into this matter to be able to
delineate the problem. No one is forced to
work for relief although there is a require-
ment that the person make a reasonable
effort to obtain employment. A problem does
arise by virtue of the fact tliat our main-
tenance allowances are, under certain cir-
cumstances, so generous that the man or the
family might be less well off if the man
were to be fully employed in a very low
paying capacity.
This problem might arise since the main-
tenance allowance is geared to the size of
the family, whereas income earnings are
geared to the ability and skill of the person
involved. You get into the matter of the
subsidization of low wages. It is a problem
which must be confronted— and I may say
that in this field there are aspects about
which the Minister of Labour, The Depart-
ment of Labour and our department are in
touch with each other to be able to evaluate
the effects of the minimum wage provision,
vis a vis, the scale of maintenance provided
under our rolls. This is, as I say, a matter in
which we are going into.
It is far more complicated than appears
from a superficial assessment of the question.
We are concerned about maintaining incen-
tive to work and re-estabhshing in those who
have lost this incentive, some method of re-
instilling that incentive. There is a basic
principle that I think everyone will sub-
scribe to, that invariably, where a man is
able to look after himself he will always be
able to do a better job— unless he is suffering
from a handicap of age, disability or other-
wise—than the state could ever do. Very often
the matter resolves itself into deaHng with
the individual cases of upgrading the skills,
family counselling and the other related
matters in order to make that family unit a
more self-suflBcient unit with independent
income other than on maintenance. It is
however, a matter which is continuously be-
fore us.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I
might discuss the charitable institutions and
Laughlin Lodge. It actually falls under "resi-
dential care and services for adults", but it is
under this vote 202.
Mr. Chairman: We are endeavouring to
deal with it by programmes and activity.
Mr. Ben: But I would have to wait until
I grew a beard like Santa Claus.
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, but we must—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Perhaps the municipal
allowances and assistance could be carried?
Mr. Chairman: We must clean up—
Mr. Ben: You are dreaming.
Mr. Chairman: We must clean up the pro-
gramme, by programme and activities, and
then we will come to that in the next section.
Mr. Ben: Did you say next session?
Mr. Chairman: Next section.
Mr. Ben: You are a real optimist.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of questions that
I would like to raise and deal with, as sharply
and briefly as possible.
With regard to the pre-added budget
which we have discussed earlier in connec-
MAY 1, 1969
3833
tion with the FBA. We have it once again
with the General Welfare Assistance. I want
to raise one question with the Minister. It
seems to me very anomalous that one should
have a pre-added budget based on meeting
specific needs of a particular family, particu-
larly when those components of the pre-
added budgets are in themselves of an in-
adequate nature— according to the assessment
of most welfare experts— that you should then
end up by having a maximum so that some
of the components in the budget, are elimi-
nated. What is the purpose of having a pre-
added budget that can be built up to meet
the needs, but then cutting it off with a
maximum when you happen to have an extra-
ordinary situation such as one that was drawn
to our attention? For example, a woman who
had 12 children, and her husband had left
her. Now, you sit down and calculate the
pre-added budget for that family, and you
get much beyond what she received because
of the maximums fixed.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is a matter which
is on my personal list of items to check and
double check. The same question that has
arisen in the hon. member's mind has been
in my mind, and as I have gained a great
deal more insight into the workings of the
two Acts in the last couple of years, I think
that we will be devoting a fair amount of
time to examining these special situations
which seem to occur when you try to set
forth things in regulations that become sort
of inflexible. This particular question is one
that is on my personal list. I have not got
the answer to it yet.
Mr. MacDonald: I wish the Minister had
been a bit more convincing in his handling
of the reply. If it were uppermost on his
mind, I do not think he would have taken
two or three minutes in consultation with
his oflBcials to have gotten it off his mind.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is a matter which
has been discussed within the department
over a period of time, and I was checking to
see just what progress we had made.
Mr. MacDonald: Has any conclusion been
arrived at?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No conclusion has, as
yet.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I leave the matter
there. It strikes me that it is something more
than an an<Mnaly because it violates the
whole spirit of this legislation, namely of
meeting needs. When you start out meeting
the needs, then fix a maximum, which cuts
off meeting those needs, you are in conflict
with your own stated objectives.
A second specific point, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to address to the Minister is, if
you are going to continue with these two
statutes, the FBA and the GWA, why do you
tolerate discrepancies in the pre-added bud-
get? For example, for a single adult, the
discrepancies range anywhere from $15 to
$19. Now the reason given is that they do
not include Hydro and other utQities. If you
look in your pre-added budget you will
notice for example in the instance of GWA
that for one adult it is $47 monthly. The
same figure for one adult on the family
benefit is $62 monthly. Is this another of
the problems that the Minister is wrestling
with?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually we are deal-
ing with two types of assistance, if you think
in terms of the general welfare system as
being with relationship to immediate short-
term assistance, and the family benefits as
being the assessment on a long term or per-
manent basis. That is the rationale which
is applicable. However, I do point this out
to the hon. member, that the ultimate effect
can be the same under both Acts, that under
The Family Benefits Act, which comes out
to a set figure, this is the figure to which the
general welfare assistance can be brought up.
This is the maximum under which that could
be brought up. By and large there are cir-
cumstances under which the two would be
the same. They were worked out in differ-
ent ways but they added up to the same
amount.
Mr. MacDonald: There are other circum-
stances in which they are not the same, and
whether there are circumstances in which
they end up the same, I am not going to
argue with the Minister, but there are
circumstances in which they are not. I think it
is particularly discriminatory, for example,
with regard to single recipients who live in
fiu-nished rooms. Under GWA they get $47
a month plus shelter allowance, which is the
same in both Acts, but under FBA the self-
same person gets $62 plus a shelter allow-
ance.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He can get the otlier
two items under the general welfare assis-
tiinc^. He can get the pre-added budget
imd the shelter plus $8 for utilities plus $7
for household supplies, which would bring
liim up to the maximtun, the same maximiun.
That is permissible. It is within the power of
the municipal administrator to bring those
figures up to that amount.
3834
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Starting from two dif-
ferent figures strikes me again as an anomaly
whicli I invite the Minister to take a look
at in his continuing review of these two Acts.
The next question, Mr. Chairman, that I
would like to raise i» one that has been con-
sidered in this and other contexts a number
of times—that is the question of streetcar
fare. In some areas the welfare administrator
is pretty insistent, that recipients report back
(mce or twice a week; this is true in Corn-
wall. The Minister will be aware of that
because my office has been in touch with
liim because of the situation in Cornwall and
he gave his explanation of it. I will not go
into the detail.
But if you have a welfare administrator
who insists that the welfare recipient should
reE>ort once or twice a week and, therefore,
that he should be regularly in search of a
job, surely providing the means for trans-
portation becomes a very important aspect of
liis so-called income. For example, in the city
of Toronto, where you have the two-zone
fares, life becomes even tougher.
Most of the welfare recipients are not in a
position to buy a book of tickets, therefore a
single fare is going to be 30 cents. If they
happen to be in a two-fare zone it will
result in $1.20 for one return trip to seek
possibility of employment.
Very quickly that faces the welfare recip-
ient with the choice between whether or not
he is going to spend this money in looking
for a job or miss one or Kvo meals at one
stage or another. It seems to me that Ls Irving
])elow subsistence.
I wonder if the administrators or the
dei>artment have ever given any consideration
to providing the recipient, particularly those
who are in a position to seek employment
and where there is an efiFort to persuade them
to seek employment, wdth say, ten tickets per
week. If they received their benefits twice a
rnontli, that would mean that they would
have 20 such tickets over a period of a month
and would not be cutting into tiie basic
necessities of life such as food.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The only travelling
that we permit now is that we make a special
allowance for the disabled and the blind, but
I was just trying to check. It seemed to me
that the welfare administrator always has
the flexibility to issue that supplementary aid.
It seemed that, in the course of all the read-
ing I have done, somewhere I have seen that
some municipal administrators have done this,
have participated to this degree. But I do
not think it is common across the province.
I think it would be as part of the coun-
selling and the rehabilitative work. It would
seem to me that would be an item which
could be taken into account when somebody
is trying to get a family to be independent.
It woidd be a very small amount, a very small
seed to plant witli tlie j>ossibility of great
returns.
Mr. MacDonald: I agree with the Min-
ister's last comment, and he anticipated my
reaction when he acknowledged earher that
this is not the practice generally across the
province. It seems to me that in our basic
structure of benefits we should not have an
arrangement whereby you have the supple-
mentary amount of money available, but it is
turned to with great hesitation and reluct-
ance, particularly in those mimicipalities
where you have not professional welfare staff;
indeed, in some of those municipalities where
you do have professional welfare staflF.
Therefore, it should be more clearly spelled
out in the benefits so that you do not have
to depend on the right kind of counselling
to the recipient. The Minister has nothing
further to add to that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I was going to say I
have just found the spot I was reading. I
think the practice that has occurred is that
there is provision for transportation where it
is a matter of a person getting to and from
a place of training, but it would seem to me
that a suggestion of this kind, of a provision
for getting to and from a i>Tobable place of
employment, has merit.
Mr. MacDonald: I come back to the obser-
vations of the hon. member for Humber. I
am not certain whether I want to be asso-
ciated with them. But as a general proposi-
tion, if one wants to persuade people not to
become habitual welfare recipients and to
seek employment, you are placing major
hurdles in the way of realizing that very
commendable objective when you deny them
the wherewidial to travel— unless you invite
them to walk for the five or ten miles that
might be involved, but that may have
accompanying costs of shoe leatlier that
would be more than tlie cost of the public
transiX)rtation.
I move on to another jwint, Mr. Chairman,
that I wanted to raise with the Minister, but
I liave to precede that witii a question. With
regard to homemakers and nursing services,
I notice that this year's budget has a figure
of $1,322,500, as compared witli last year
when it was $1,048,000.
MAY 1, 1969
3835
May I ask the Minister whether that figure
includes the federal! contribution?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, it does.
Mr. MacDonald: If it does include the
federal contribution, it is a significant cutback
in the province's assistance to homemaker
services. If I am wrong, I would like to be
corrected. As I understand it, homemaker and
nursing services used to be subsidized 50
per cent by the province and 50 per cent by
the municipality.
Tliis year it is being changed to 50 per cent
federal, 30 per cent by the province and 20
per cent by the municipaUt>'; that what was
in the estimate last year related to the 50
per cent of the province's contribution, but
what is in the estimate this year relates to
the 50 per cent for the federal and the 30 per
cent from the province— a total of 80 per
oen*. A litde arithmetic will s-how that this
year's appropriation, admittedly $274,000
larger than last year, represents 80 per cent
of the overall expenditure so that expendi-
ture is smaller than the 50 per cent of this
year's overall expenditure.
How can the Minister argue that this pro-
gramme is being expanded?
I come now, to what motivates my raising
this issue. It seems to me that we are en-
gaged in a very penny-wise, pound-foolish,
kind of aL-ppToach when we deny the fuller
development of homemaker services. It is
partly because an inadequate amount is being
paid. For example, in Toronto the minimum
rates are $1.65 an hour; the maximum $1.75
an hour. When vacations and other fringe
benefits are added, the hourly rates approxi-
mate $2 an hour. The maximum is for only
eight hours and that is not enough. I am in-
formed that for most homemakers the re-
(luirement is a minimum of nine and a half
hours.
Now this difference in Toronto has been
made up by dipping into the United Appeal
contributions, and I do not need to waste
time in saying that this is a source for which
there is not much dipping capacity. Tliere is
greater and greater difficulty to meet the
target for the United Appeal, and quite
frankly I do not think we should be dipping
into the United Appeal funds to supplement
contributions for a service that, presumably,
the government has become persuaded is a
worthy service.
As a result, right now the only people who
are getting homemaker service are the elderly
people. I happen to have had my attention
dra\vn to the Idnd of case which I think can
be duplicated, tragically, in hundreds of cases
across this province, if not in thousands. A
cx)nstitiient of mine is physically handicapped
and retarded, and had been in one of the
provincial institutions for a time. The parents,
for very commendable reasons, felt that the
child would be better with the family so they
took tliis child out of this provincial institu-
tion and, incidentally, in so doing, are saving
tlie provincial Treasury' approximately $3,000
a year.
Now this woman is getting very close to the
breaking point. She has two smaller children;
she simply cannot, in the summer time, take
her children out for a walk, or take them
to the park, because she is tied down with
this phvsically handicapped and retarded
child at home. Twice a week she has to make
some sort of an arrangement for certain treat-
ments because of a hip condition. I repeat,
she is getting very close to a breaking point.
I suggest to the Minister that to let that
kind of situation drift to a point where this
woman's health breaks, or the child has to
go back into a provincial institution at $3,000
a year outlay from the provincial Treasury,
is again penny- wise -poimd- foolish. With
adequate expendltiu^ to provide enough
homemakers, maybe on a part-time basis for
this kind of case, you would avoid the much
larger expenditure that you are inevitably
driving towards.
So I ask the Minister a double barrelled
question— does he not agree that it woidd be
desirable and economioally wise, to move
towards this kind of extension of homemaker
services, and is it not wiser that it should
be done on the budget at the municipal and
the provincial level rather than having to dip
into United Appeal fimds?
And, if so, how does he anticipate that
that kind of expanded programme can be
met when, if my analysis is correct, the
amount being provided this year is less than
the amount last year because the 80 per cent
of the total expenditure is $1,322,000, whereas
last year the 50 per cent that the province
was giving, without the federal government
being in the picture was $1,048,000?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The comparison is the
same; that is, the division last year was the
same as tliis year and the amount has in-
creased l>y $172,000, I believe.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that $274,000?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have $172,000 as the
increase that has taken place over last year's
estimates.
5836
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Is tlie Minister suggesting
that the federal government was sharing in
the cost last year as well as this year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: They canie into the pic-
ture during the course of the year. If that
is the case, then I presume they must have
backdated it for the whole of the fiscal year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, we made it retro-
active.
Mr. MacDonald: All right, we have resolved
what I thought was a contraction, rather than
an expansion, in budget, but I come to my
basic point. I doubt whether the kind of
budget that we are speaking of, or the rela-
tively small inci"ease in the budget this year,
is going to make it possible: (a) to avoid
dipping into United Appeal funds for supple-
menting, or; (b) for the very desirable ex-
tension of homemakers' services l^eyond
meeting the needs of elderly people, to meet-
ing the needs of famihes such as the one I
cited, a constituent wdth a child that is
disable<l and retarded.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course I would have
to know the exact details of tlie specific
situation. But when you lay down regidations,
the philosophy is tliat you either have some-
body who has complete discretion— and then
as the hon. member for Lakeshore says, you
would have it being adinjinistered like the
length of tlie chancellor's foot— or you have
the regulations. And if the case does not come
within the regulations, then we cannot assess
it in this regard. I cannot grasp the signifi-
cance of the hon. member's point.
Mr. MacDonald: Which point specifically?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The specific case— the
woman who has a disabled child.
Mr. MacDonald: She has a disabled and
liand:ioapi)ed child whom she has decided to
luring back into the bosom of tlie family in-
stead of leaving it in a provincial institution.
She is not in a position to hire help; she is
tie<l down vdtli no relief at all. There are
difiiculties being created with the other two
children; there is no assistance for this family
which in eflFect has reheved the provincial
Treasury of the $3,000 annual outlay when
that child was in a provincial institution.
Now for distinctly less money, this situa-
tion of a family which is being driven in-
exorably towards a breakup of the health of
the mother could he avoided.
It is the firm conviction of the woman in-
volved and of people who are generally fami-
liar with this kind of problem that this
could be avoided by some relief to the mother
who is carrying tlie burden of raising two
other children in a home, with all of the
added burden and anguisth of coping with
a physically disabled and retarded child. Now
can the homemakers' service not be extended
to meet that kind of a situation? While I am
on my feet, I want to come back to the Min-
ister's observations with regard to regulations
—either live up to them or give complete
flexibility. It seems to me the i>art of the
problem which creates tlie situation you have
in MetropoHtan Toronto is where they have
to supplement the payments laid down under
the regulations, because you simply caamiot
get homemakers at the wages laid down in
the regulations. You cannot get an adequate
munber of homemakers.
So they axe supplementing payments by
dipping into the United Appeal. I suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that the United Appeal sihould
not have to be a reserve that lias to be dipped
into for purposes of supplementing the home-
makers' service. So your regulations are in-
adequate, and because tliey are inadequate,
you have aU these consequences flowing from
it.
Now, if we have not enough hoonemakers
—let me put it this way—is the Minister not
persuaded that one reason why we do not
get enough homemakers is because we are
not paying an adequate amount? When you
take a person who is capable of looldnig
after elderly people, or a family such as I
have described, do you really believe you
can get them for $1.65 or a maximmn of
$1.75 an hour? Does the Minister really think
he is going to be able to get adequate home-
makers on that basis?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First of all the rela-
tion to the specific case, it is true our regu-
lations presently do not cover that kind of a
situation and it is the type of thing which
might be considered when any expansion of
the homemakers programme were determined
—and by our family counselling. I think, as
we get more and more information on th(;
number of situations such as that, we will
know the size of the problem because again
the basic principle is to re-establish a family
—to be, "what is it, penny wise and pound
foolish"— so save a poimd to get some seetl
money and so re-establish a family. That is
a matter for further consideration at some
future time.
MAY 1, 1969
3837
With respect to the maximum that we will
share in, we establish a rate across the prov-
ince. We have examined this, and we have
found that between the agencies giving ser-
\ice there is quite a broad range; there is
almost a 30 per cent differential between one
agency that gives service and another giving
service. We are inclined to take as a yardstick
the figures of the lesser agency, and of course,
when you try to deal with the province of
Ontario and a high-cost community such as
Toronto in comparison with other communi-
ties, you do have this problem arise. I direct
the hon. members' attention to the fact— and
everybody in the whole province seems to
have ignored this-that the unconditional
grants, which are moneys made available to
the municipalities, were originally headed in
the schedule for health and welfare services,
and those unconditional grants also are re-
lated to the size of the community.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
How can they be called unconditional then?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, this is the way
this has come about and I say that on the one
hand I pick up 80 per cent of the tab, and the
Minister of Municipal Affairs with his uncon-
ditional grants is providing the municipalit>'
with certain moneys which is available to
pick up the other 20 per cent. Now I do not
know if any data processing machine would
ever untangle that and be able to trace the
tax dollars.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually we are put-
ting a great deal of faith into the home-
makers' services because, tied in with coun-
selling either at the private level, our level
or the municipal level, that is one of the
answers to achieving prevention and rehabili-
tation. I will not read the number of statistics,
except to say that in 1965-1965 the number
of cases were 4,300 with 36,000 hours in-
volved, and in 1967-1968 there were 6,600
cases, with 77,000 hours of service involved.
So we do have continuous escalation through
the years-36,000 hours, 48,000 hours, 60,000
hours, 77,000 hours in the last four years,
and that is the rate of escalation we are giving
in the service.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
glad to hear the Minister state that they place
a lot of faith in the development of the home-
makers' services because of its economic and
social value. I would be more convinced of
the statement if it were backed up by some
evidence of a pretty genuine expansion of the
programme.
If I must just retrace my steps a bit, when
the Minister, for example, cited that they
disco\'ered there was considerable discrepancy
-up to 30 per cent-in the rates that were
being fixed or being paid across the province,
of course he picked the lowest. Well, if you
pick the lowest that means you can have
your service in the one municipahty, but in
the other municipality where they have higher
rates they are out of luck, they have got to
dip into the United Appeal.
Tliere is a simple alternative here: You
pick the highest, if there is only a 30 per
cent discrepancy and I think the extra amount
that might go as a "bonanza" to the munici-
pality that happens to have a lower rate, is
not going to be money wasted. In short, the
Minister unwittingly, I think, has revealed
the reason why we have the problem.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the rate was lower
than the Metro rate, but higher than in
various parts of the province. It was not the
lowest rate.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, you picked a median
rate?
Well, I leave the matter. I have raised it,
and at least we agree on the objective of
expanding this worthy service. I hope that
next year we can come back and see that it
has happened.
A further point, Mr. Chairman, I want to
raise with the Minister, and that is in regard
to prepaid funeral services. There used to
be a day when prepaid funeral services were
not considered an asset, but now they are. I
am tempted to be a little bit facetious and
ask how you might cash in on that asset.
But let us deal with the matter rather
seriously.
Some years ago, the previous Deputy
Minister, when we would raise cases widi
him, intimated that if you happen to have a
person with cash available— cash just beyond
the limits— one way to reduce it to the limit
so that the person could get the assistance
he very much needed, was to prepay their
funeral and therefore reduce the cash amount
that they had on hand, and make them
eligible so that they would not have to deplete
their already hmited savings. Now, ap-
parently, this has been changed. The depart-
ment has now decided to interpret section
11 (j)— liquid assets, which reads,
Liquid assets means cash, bonds, de-
bentures, stocks, the beneficial interest in
3838
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
assets held in trust and available to be
used for maintenance, and any other asset
that can be readily converted into cash.
Now I have a little difficulty in seeing how
that phraseology can be interpreted to mean
that a prepaid funeral is an asset. If I may
just make this point, Mr. Chairman. Elderly
people in their declining years have a lot of
leisure; they are contemplating all the
eventualities of Ufe that they are going to
have to face— and one of them is going to be
deatli. One of tlie things they inevitably be-
come interested in— indeed sometimes become
preoccupied with— is the preparation for their
own funeral. So the proposition that this is
going to be considered an asset through a re-
interpretation of the regulations rather puzzles
me, and I would like to ask the Minister why
this kind of change is to be made in policy
through a reinterpretation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I gave
a rather lengthy answer with respect to this
during the course of the family benefits pro-
visions. Under the general welfare assistance,
prepaid funeral expenses were always con-
sidered as an asset. Under FBA medical plan,
initially they were not. Then when the
regulations were changed for conformity, they
were brought in as an asset. I am very acutely
aware of the attitudes of elderly people with
respect to this. I know of instances where
a lady would have $1,000 in the bank and
she would starve— she would go hungry rather
than touch that amount which she had set
aside for what she thought was the one
decent thing in her hfe, and that would be
to have a decent funeral. I have listened to
people in this regard, even before I became a
Minister.
My understanding is that we take the total
amount prepaid; in respect of the funeral, it
would seem that in some situations those
items paid are refundable. It depends upon
the terms of the contract with the agency
pro\iding that service. Then, of course, you
get into the situation that if you grant one
exemption, what may be important to one
person— a prepaid funeral may be very im-
portant—there are other instances where there
are people who could not care less; they
would just as soon be buried in a pine box
or cremated, or whatever it may be. So you
have this difficulty.
It may be that when we take a look at
these things that perhaps we could make sort
of allowance. I know that the public trustee
mil only allow certain amoimts of money
witli respect to fimerals \Vhere the heirs
cannot be traced immediately, and 1 think
there is a provision as to the amount that is
allowable for someone destitute up to a
maxmmn. Under the general welfare assist-
ance, we share I think some variation of the
cost of funerals. It may Ix; that we could
anticipate tliis type of thing, and have some
more flexibihty.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
while we are on this question of burying
those who cannot afford a proper funeral, I
would just hke to approach this general policy
of tlie government by giving an example of
how the situation is handled in Toronto.
A few months ago two children were pLiy-
ing in my riding and they were killed. In one
case the family could afford to bury the child
on its own; in tlie second case the family was
on welfare and Uie city of T/oronto intervened
in order to bury the child. I understand the
province gives grants to tlie city of Toronto
to bury the indigent poor.
There is no question that the funeral was
properly carried out, but the father of the
deceased child phoned me; he was greatly
upset. They did not even want the mother-
it was their only son— to go out to Prospect
Cemetery. I said, "Why?" and he said, "Well,
I will take you out". So I went out to Prosx>ect
Cemetery to see how our indigent poor are
buried and I drove my car out to this par-
ticular part where he directed that I go. The
grounds looked very nice, I wondered what
they were comp^laining about.
We got out of the car and walked along
a bit on the grounds, and I said, "Well, where
is the grave?" He said, "You are standing
on it". And I said, "Where is the marker?"
He said, "There isn't any".
And I find that the policy of the city of
Toronto— it is not througliout all Ontario, but
it is at least the case in the city of Toronto-
is that the indigent poor are buried in un-
marked graves. I know a lot of us may argwe,
"Well, once you are dead, you are dead, so
what?" But I tliink if there is going to b<*
any dignity for the individual, be they living
or dead, the policy in the city of Toronto is
pretty callous and indifferent.
In other words, this 11-year-old boy is
buried in Prospect Cemetery, literally in a
mass grave. We think of mass graves as
where they line up a lot of Polish soldiers,
shoot them down and bury them, as the Ger-
mans and the Russians did, but here is an
individual case of a young kid of 11 years
old, buried in a mass grave, and it is no
wonder that the family are very upset.
MAY 1, 1969
3839
The father said, and he is a sick man and
on welfare— and beHeve me, he is a very bitter
man, he is so bitter that he would hardly
talk to me feeHng I am in public life— that
this is my fault. And it is true, it is my fault;
it is the fault of every citizen of the city of
Toronto and the province of Ontario.
I think the Minister should see to it that
this policy is changed.
I started to make enquiries as to why this
policy should exist in this area. It is true that
in smaller communities it does not exist
because land is not so expensive but I think
we are carrying this matter of the economic
value of land to a ruthless, stupid extent,
when we cannot even permit a person to be
buried in a grave that is marked.
It may well be that 30 years from now
nobody will know who is there and nobody
will care, but in the meantime, you have a
mother and a father and a sister, in the case
of this boy, who are very upset. It is not
just a case of somebody picked up on Jarvis
Street who has dnmk himself to death, and
where his body is either used for medical
purposes or is dmnped in a common grave.
It is a case of an individual from a family
established in an area— and this is the situa-
tion that does exist.
When I did make enquiries they said,
"What do you expect for nothing?" Inci-
dentally, this was a private citizen who had
connections with the burial of people and I
was pretty appalled that this would be their
attitude. The government either does not
know or does not care and just says, "Well,
what do you expect for nothing?"
My view, Mr. Chairman, is that I tliink the
responsibility is incumbent upon society to
see to it that people are given a decent burial
and a decent burial ground. And whether the
dead realize it or not, at least the living have
feelings and certainly one can understand tliat
family being very bitter towards society-
just because they were short of $300, the
boy was literally dumped into a mass grave.
I would like to know if the Minister is
aware of this situation and if he has any
intention of changing the rules so that people
can have a marked grave, because there is no
question that the municipalities are going to
come to you asking for money. I believe it
comes under The General Welfare Assis-
tance Act— I think from memory it is regula-
tion 13— this would afFect it.
But they are going to come to the Minister
looking for money and I think it should be
a policy of the government of Ontario to
say to any municipality, whether the real
estate costs a lot of money or whether it
does not, that there should be a marked grave
if and when it is requested by the family.
I would like the comments of the Mim'ster
to see if there is any hope of him doing
anything at all about this matter.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, as the mem-
ber says, I will look into the matter further.
I think tliis particular aspect is tied in with
what should be our whole attitude in tliis,
and I think the proper word is "dignity". I
think that all human beings should be
entitled to the dignity of human beings and
anything which relates to that is a most
important factor. However, there is always
the question of priorities. What do you
supply first?
Mr. Trotter: The Minister may say it is a
question of priorities and it certainly is. I
mention this matter— and I know this is a year
when you are trying to balance the budget,
which you are, incidentally, not balancing—
but tliis is not going to cost the province
of Ontario a tremendous amount of money.
It would be a relatively small amount of
money.
But people today are not allowed, even if
they could raise a small amount of money,
to put up a marker. And for the Minister
just to say he is going to look into it is not
good enough, because I have become pretty
cynical over a period of time as to what this
department says it will do and what it
actually does. I think this Minister should
get mighty irate with municipalities that con-
tinue such a policy of burying the indigent
dead that we have in the city of Toronto.
As long as this situation continues, I am
going to literally bug this Minister every
year when this estimate comes up. But surely
the Minister, if he looks into it within a week
or ten days, could come before this House
and say diat we are going to change the
regulation; we are going to make it possible
that people are entitled, not only to a decent
burial, but the family at least has an oppor-
tunity of going to a place where they can
respect those whom they have lost.
Mr. Chairman: On municipal allowances,
the member for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I welcome
the break which the hon. member for Park-
dale gave me, but there were a couple of
points that I would like to complete with
regard to prepaid funerals— and then a final
point.
3840
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I do not want to argue at any length with
tlie Minister but my infonnation is that pre-
paid funerals were allowed under GWA at
one point. Perhaps as an historical footnote,
you can check that, but I repeat, I am not
going to argue the point fiuther now.
On tlie question of paying for funerals,
the very fact that people do not want to
have a pauj)er's fimeral is what leads to this
preoc«rupation with preparing for their own
funeral and, therefore, I am all the more
puzzled as to why the department insists
in regarding such prepayment as an asset.
I underline tliat and leave it as one of
the many items for tlie Minister's review in
the next year in the hope that we can come
back with more general agreement.
The final point that I wanted to raise is
that I have been told that the department
has stated, has ruled, has decreed, that
elected municipal officials should not handle
welfare funds. Now, if this is the case— am I
wrong, the Minister looks as though I am
m error.''
In fact, I am certain I am right, so I
shall pursue the point because it is a great
theory, but it certainly is not observed in
practice. We are continually getting letters
in our oflBce from recipients who tell that,
for example, when somebody is in need,
the reeve has been handing them $20, or
$30, or $40 out of welfare funds. There is
no assessment as to the need. Just "Here it
is, come back next month*'— that kind of an
approach.
These same people are often given assis-
tance in the form of food vouchers and told
that they must use these food vouchers in
the local municipality. Now, this is the rea-
son I proceeded because I am confident it
is true— when we drew this to the attention
of Dr. Clifford Williams, who is the director
of municipal welfare, he took steps to see
that it ceased. But it seems to me that if
it is an important enough point to have it
in effect, laid down in regulations, you must
take cognizance of the fact that the regula-
tion is being violated in a significant number
of cases.
If the province is not going to move into
the full handling of welfare costs— something
that we feel is a very advisable relief to
municipalities in their over pressed budget
condition— then it seems to me the director
of municipal welfare should be given greater
powers to deal with wayward welfare admin-
istrators who are periodically engaged in this
kind of thing.
On the proposition of food vouchers, Mr.
Chairman, I am tempted to say that the
abuse is such that we should review the
whole proposition of the use of food vouchers.
In one instance that was drawn to our at-
tention, not far from Toronto, a man took
the food voucher to the local butcher where
they had a lamb chop "special" on. He asked
for however many were needed for his fam-
ily. The butcher told him that the sausages
were good enough for anybody on welfare,
and refused to sell him anything else— the
kind of open designation of a welfare person
submitting them to this kind of humiliating
experience. I do not know how you are
going to avoid it, as long as you have food
vouchers and the stipulation that they must
be expended in the local municipality. I was
wondering if the Minister had any com-
ments in regard to this rule that welfare
money should not be handled by the elected
official, and the breach of it in many in-
stances through the use of food vouchers?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: With respect to that,
there is no rule of prohibition, because since
the administration is at the municipal level,
there could be instances where there is no
welfare administrator— the municipality is not
large enough to warrant the designation or
appointment of one, so there is no such
prohibition.
I do not think that kind of abuse would
take place in those circumstances, assuming
that the elected oflBcial would be acting
properly. There is no question of the hand-
ling of funds, it is just a question of the
proper administration of welfare. No such
problem has been brought to my attention.
With respect to food vouchers, I am per-
sonally dead set against food vouchers. I had
never heard the expression in recent times
until the hon. member had brought it up.
If they are being used— certainly nothing in
the regulations permit them and I guess noth-
ing in the regulations prohibits them— but I
think we can very easily send out a directive
included with our opinions to the adminis-
trators that they do not resort to that. I do
not subscribe to food vouchers. Anything
that points to or highlights the fact that
somebody is a recipient, is contrary to my
personal beliefs.
Mr. MacDonald: I will draw a few of
these cases to the Minister's attention.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr. Chair-
man, I just want to follow up the relation-
ship that exists between the Minister's depart-
MAY 1, 1969
3841
ment and the municipal welfare adminis-
trators. I was just wondering, when you
get a complaint, either from a member, or
from some citizen, or possibly where the
children's aid society contacts the regional
welfare administrator regarding the munici-
pal welfare administrator, and lays a com-
plaint stating that this man is either not
operating properly, or abusing the people
who are seeking welfare, and so on, what
is your department's action? What action can
the regional administrator or Dr. Williams
take regarding the municipal welfare admin-
istrator? How can he deal with him? What
can he do about it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He uses his good
oflBces to check into the situation and ex-
press an opinion, which invariably, I gather,
is successful, although I do not know how
many such instances there would be in the
course of a year. But there is, I may say,
much closer liaison and relationship between
the municipal administrators and the depart-
ment. We, presently, are committed to a
policy of general welfare assistance being
administered at the local level.
We recognize, however, that the admin-
istration of family benefits under us has
certain advantages and seems to bring uni-
formity and perhaps equity across the prov-
ince, and our job is to bring the equity and
uniformity used within our programme to be
the yard stick by which the allowances are
given at the municipal level.
We use our good oflBces in cases of alleged
abuse which are brought to our attention.
We made provision with the municipalities
for our own field workers to assist them in
dealing with problems and engage in coun-
selling. We have the manual which is avail-
able. I think we have sent out a manual to
every municipal administrator within the
municipality, and certain municipalities re-
ceived several copies, in which we laid down
general principles, and also tried to deal with
certain specific situations.
Last week a very successful seminar was
held, where we had mimicipal administrators
from the province come in to a very broad
discussion and seminar in order to bring
about this uniformity and equity and a com-
plete understanding of the regulations.
Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, there obvi-
ously seems to be a bit of a misunderstand-
ing between the oflBce here in Toronto and
the regional administrators out in the prov-
ince, because it seems to me that I just
recently heard one regional administrator say
that he has no supervisory authority.
He says that the relationship is strictly a
voluntary association and that they have no
authority to check out the operation of the
municipal office. All they do check is discuss
the scope and the policy and see that the
money is not being overspent. It seems to
me tliat it is about time that your particular
department started looking into this thing.
As you say, you are carrying on a consider-
able amount of checking across the province,
and with all this, during this period of time,
we continue to hear of case after case of
inhuman abuse across the province. And you
say you are checking on this thing. What Idnd
of checking are you doing? How long is this
particular checking supposed to go on?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If the hon. member
will submit to me the case histories of every
inliuman abuse, I will check into them, and
I would like to see the list the hon. member
can produce.
Mr. Makarchuk: I can produce quite a
lengthy list, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister
is willing to check. Unfortunately, these par-
ticular cases that I am acquainted with are
before an enquiry at the moment. But what I
am talking about right now is the fact that
diere have been cases, in the past, where it
seems to me that your regional people, your
welfare people have been advised of a situa-
tion and, as I understand it, have really no
autliority to go in there and intervene, and
tell this man, this mimicipal welfare admin-
istrator, to change his tactias and the way
he operates.
This is the field of concern. I just won-
dered, Mr. Chairman, if any studies are
going on in the Minister's department, to
find out, to evaluate new methods of apply-
ing municipal welfare and of administering
municipal welfare. Are you considering get-
ting people into this field on a municipal level
who have some training in social work, or
are equipped to understand the problem of
welfare?
I would just hke to know, Mr. Chairman,
what would happen in Sudbury with respect
to the municipal welfare administrator?
The other question, Mr. Chairman, I
would Hke to have answered is one I asked
the Minister last February in the House, and
I will read the question:
Does the Minister intend to approve the appoint-
ment under section 5(1) of The General Welfare
Assistance Act, of former Victoria coimty warden
Everett Cameron as special investigator for the
county, bearing in mind Mr. Cameron's reference to
welfare recipients, referring to them as nothing more
than "bums and leeches on society," as reported in
a news story in the Telegram of February 2?
3842
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The reason I bring this to the Minister's
attention, Mr. Chairman, is that it seems to
me that every day I get calls, complaints
from various people, from various places,
who have been abused by welfare adminis-
trators through the province, and this is a
situation that should not continue any longer.
It is about time we moved into the 20th
century, and if you talk about dignity to the
individual when he is dead, let us give him
some dignity when he is alive.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): The Minister
tells us about a seminar held last weekend
with these local welfare administrators. I
must say that it is about time, although my
devotion to the concept of freedom of speech
permits me the licence to say that as I grow
older I begin to doubt whetlier a seminar
on any subject under the sun can ever be
described as being successful. However, I
pass that by.
As long as we have to put up with welfare
being administered by municipalities at the
local level we have to, I suppose, suffer the
deficiencies. It seems to me, though I have
little in the way of evidence to suport it, that
the local administration does not have tlie
advantage of the type of political supervision
that is exercised by the 117 ombudsmen in
this Legislature. I do not want to break my
elbow by i>atting ourselves on the back, but
quite apart from all the talk of the review
board and all the talk this afternoon about
our rights to go into insitutions, certainly
there must be some efficacy and some pro-
phylactic effect achieved by our activity in
keeping an eye on the operation of the vari-
ous schemes and mechanisms that operate, of
which this is one. I get the feeling that local
politicians— and I do not mean to chastize
them at all— do not take that same interest
with the same fervour, as I know many of
my colleagues do about such things as the
Workmen's Compensation Board.
One is bestirred into enthusiasm by the
activities of my friend from Huron-Bnice
(Mr. Gaunt), in that regard. Of the defici-
encies, I want to cite two which indicate the
prehistoric, antediluvian, perhaps pseudo-
Victorian, attitudes adopted by some of tlie
local officials to which we give such vast
sums from the Provincial Treasury. My com-
plaint is that there is not sufficient guid-
ance from the central authority— how I abhor
that term "guidelines"— I do not want to use
it at all, it is .such a disgusting importation
of meaning to an otherwise decent word.
However, what I am really speaking of is a
certain firm hand from the parental authority,
the central oofFers of the province.
I have two illustrations. I will give the
less prurient one first, because the second
one is even more oJBFensive.
The Indian girl, tlie alcohohc, wIk) is off
the Hquor for a period of, I think, ten months.
She was 10 months sober and she needed a
crutch that chemistry can provide, the pre-
scription of antibuse. A montlily supply of
antibuse tablets were costing the local wel-
fare people something like $12 or $15. Sud-
denly the local administrator called up the
doctor and said no more prescriptions for
antibuse and he said "goodness gracious,
why?" "Well," said the administrator, "it is
too expensive and we cannot justify charging
this to welfare any more. She has had them
for 10 months and the condition ought to be
cured." His remark demonstrates an almost
total ignorance of the nature of alcoholism.
However, by that edict over the telephone to
the doctor, that sustenance was thereupon
abbreviated completely.
It took me a telephone call to the person
in the welfare office, where I got nowhere,
except being insulted but, knowing me as my
hearers do, perhaps I was the provoker. I
was guilty of the provocation. Then I called
the mayor, a couple of alderman, a board of
control member or two, but I did not really
get any action until I called the head office
in Toronto. Of course, down here in the big
city with all the cultural configurations and
understanding of alcohol, they saw the nature
of the problem and acted the role of the
peacemaker. However, that is typical of the
type of attitude you run into among the local
officials who look upon this almost as being
—if it is not their money, at least they are
indentured to a strict code of protection of
the public money so that it will not be wasted
by these people whom my friend from Brant-
ford so correctly uses the epithet they fre-
quently use, "these ne'er do wells", I must
say, however, that municipal councillors arc
often more guilty than the officials in describ-
ing them in that type of term.
That is one example. The second is e\en
worse. The widow under the statute with
three or four children— I forget now— who was
drawing pretty close to the maximum allowed
at the local level. While her application was
l>eing processed by the provincial authorities,
this weekly a.ssistance was suddenly and dras-
tically reduced. She came to me and I made
the enquiry and was told that they had cut
it down because she had a boyfriend. The
boyfriend, they said, was living in the house
with her. So, I got the woman in and and
enquired and it turned out that the boyfriend
MAY 1, 1969
3843
actually had not moved his packsack in the
house but he visited quite frequently, he
visited the house. I drew to the attention of
the local welfare people, that he was merely
a visitor and they said it did not make any
difference.
This time I did not bother with the mayor
or the alderman, or a controller or two, I
called up the head oflSce. The first offensive
thing about it is that, because people are as-
sisted from the public purse they have to be
pure, that is the first offense, they have to be
moral, they have to become almost inhuman.
The poor woman, because she is getting pub-
lic money, she has to not exactly take the vow
of chastity but she certainly has to go into
the realm of total continence in her habits.
In other words that is purely a doctrine of
Victorian prudery that if you are poor you
have to be pure, but if you are rich you can
1)0 licentious as long as you sneak around and
do it on the quiet, and not get caught. That
is the doctrine that Oscar Wilde portrayed so
successfully in his novels. The very idea
that these people would set themselves up as
l)eing the adjudicators on moral habits of an-
f)ther citizen just because they have the liberty
of doling out a few dollars, is so revolting in
this age that one would plead with the cen-
tral authority, beyond the seminars the Min-
ister tells us about, that they would give some
instruction to the local administrators as to
the concept of flexibility in the administration
of these funds. I base that argument upon
my own certain belief that I would go so far
if I had the power, if I saw a woman living
with a no-good skunk who had fathered five
or six children to her, and spent his time
either drinking or at the track or both, rather
than keep them in the degradation of poverty.
I would be willing to go around to the house
and say to the woman: "How much do you
think you need next year to raise them in
dignity and cleanliness and good nourishment?
Do you think you need $7,500 to do it?
Fine, here it is." Give it to her.
That is the place where I would pitch my
camp on it, instead of all the regulations.
Because Gunnar Mehrdahl has taught me for
all time, that it is good economics to eliminate
poverty by buying it out. You simply buy it
out. You do not permit people to be poor in
the affluent society. That does away with all
the regulations. You do not need them then.
Throw them all in the wastebasket, and you
would find in the end, as Mehrdahl points
out, that you are saving money, great gobs
of it, large amounts of money, by that ap-
proach.
For the moment, faced with the regulations,
I am objecting to these antediluvian attitudes
in the administration of this statute and the
provision of funds to the local authorities. I
think this department should get pretty firm
with them when it comes to their attention.
They should get firm, even to the extent that
if there is a repetition, an unwillingness to
depart from that unreasonable administration,
tell the local people: "Look, get rid of that
person, get rid of him, we do not approve."
The Minister can do that by a telephone
call. He does not have to get complaints. Call
up the mayor and tell the mayor that we do
not think that person has a sufficiently broad-
minded attitude in the light of the modem
conceptions of being our brother's keeper.
Get rid of him.
I heard my friend from Sudbury East talk-
ing about the administrator of the district wel-
fare system. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr.
Demers) is temporarily seated beside him,
and I know the member for Nickel Belt and
I do not share the views of the member for
Sudbury East of that individual. I thought
he was rather able and generous of mind
and spirit. I just wanted to make it a matter
of record that in my dealings with him that
has been my experience. But with the city, I
unfortunately have run into some pretty in-
flexible attitudes.
There is no excuse, of coiurse, for Sudbury
to be out of the district setup. That should
never have been permitted in the first place.
When that Act, that very progressive statute
put the harness on INCO in the way it did-
making them bear their fair proportion of
the cost of welfare— Sudbury should have
been required to go in at that time. I dislike
the idea of Sudbury being an island unto itself
in the basin, being treated specially or in
any way exhibiting an attitude of insularity or
removal. I have said these things at home.
The Minister I would hope would move
quickly to remedy that and put Sudbury into
the district scheme so that everybody in the
Sudbury basin, that composite geologic and
economic unit, are treated in the same way,
on uniform standards.
The other thing I wanted to say is to
leave off where I began and refer to the fact
that all this is temporary, I am sure. As was
well said by the Minister of National Revenue
in that language which he can command and
which is carefully chosen, "It is time the
municipalities got out of the welfare business
anyway and the province took over the
responsibility for its administration. Then we
could apply those standards of uniformity
3844
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
right across the province." I am sure that,
having said that, that when Waterloo
Lutheran University has the advantage of
hearing the doctoral address of this Minister
on May 25, he will borrow largely from my
speech of today for the subject matter of his
address at convocation,
Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the Minister woidd answer my questions
regarding the welfare administrator of Vic-
toria county? Was he hired as the special
investigator, as you said you were going to
find out, and look into the matter?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think I answered this
already in Hansard. I am sure that we did
follow up the question. Our department was
in touch with the county oflBcials and we
actually could not pin it down that these
words were exactly said. We had to take the
report as being hearsay evidence. However,
he is employed in a fairly minor capacity
within the administration and as recently as
a week ago I was talking to the county
group and they were aware of our concern in
the matter.
Mr. Makarchuk: The other question, Mr.
Chairman, is that we rehashed the problems
with welfare administrators and welfare on
the mimicipal level— is the department carry-
ing out many studies or making any plans to
try to change the whole welfare setup at the
municipal level in terms that you have a lot
of multi-problem families, where you have to
have a co-ordinated approach to their care
which involves bringing in the children's aid
societies, family services, manpower, retrain-
ing and so on?
Is the department doing any study now?
Does it have any plans and if it does have
any plans, when does it intend to implement
them, to change some of these particular
situations that exist at the municipal level,
the sort of self-perpetuation of poverty that
is encouraged right now?
Hon. Mr. Taremko: Our research branch,
which will be going into full force, will be
looking into this matter. But I did outUne for
the House the steps that we had taken with
respect to administration, and I will make a
point of re-reading the speech of the hon.
member for Sudbtuy to see what gems I may
extract from it. I may say that I have here
a letter from a particular administrator who
attended the course, which is a very com-
mendable effort on the part of those within
the department to deal with this matter.
The long-term objective is to develop a
basic six-months training programme, eventu-
ally to be held in an educational institution.
The areas of studies will be social scdenoes;
perspective of service; communication skills—
that is interxiewing people; report writing;
the expression of positive attitudes to people;
the recognition of hmnan dignity in all con-
tacts; and the matter of income maintenance.
Then there will be a whole programme of
upgrading those who are within the field, and
traindng for field workers to be developed as
administrators. I think alx>ut 40 administrators
attended.
One of the letters, I think, sums up the
situation again quite capa;bly, it says:
Appreciation for tlie informative seminar
held last week. I for one have a much
better understanding of the legislation as
well as my role as an administrator.
I only hope that these seminars could be
yearly occurrences, I believe there is a
great deal to be learned, as well as the
fact that we are at the grassroots level
and this is a way of reporting back to you
and your staff of how well we are doing.
So it will be a two-way street. We will be
passing on to them our general principles and
we will be getting a feed-back of some of
their problems.
And the combination of the trained ad-
ministrator of the county and district adminis-
tration unit, which we are encouraging and
with which we have had excellent progress
in the last few years, will eventually inure
to a more equitable, uniform administration of
the welfare provisions that we have matle
available to the people.
And, of course, we are vitaUy concerned
because 80 cents of every dollar is providetl
outside of the municii>ality so that there
should not be that determination to prevent
people from getting tlie kind of assistance
they should be getting, because most of the
dollars being spent cooiie from other levels.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sand-
wich-Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwiah-Riverside): Mr.
Chairman, I am rather puzzled by a pohcy
that seems to be followed in some places—
tliat of having the recipient turn in his
chauffeur's licence. Is there any section in the
Act, or is tliere any regulation that pennits
a local welfare officer to claim or take posses-
sion of, or seize, a recipient's chauffeur's
licence?
MAY 1, 1969
384c
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know of no regula-
tion peimitting that, nor of course is there
a prohibition covering that kind of thing; I
have never heard of that. If the hon. memiber
wouki check and let me have the specific
information, I would hke to check it— not just
as to the particular solution to this specific
situation, but to learn what is the rationale;
what is the reasoning; what is the purpose;
what does it accomplish— in order to deter-
mine whether it should be adopted generally
or whether it should be prohibited generally?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, I would like to
know what is the rationale? I assume that
everybody who takes an action has a reason
for doing it, and imtil I know the reason I
will not discount it.
Mr. Burr: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was after
the rationale of it myself. Apparently the
only indication that I could get from the local
oflfice was that this prevented recipients
from earning money and not reporting it. I
sent a letter to you last night, and it is in your
office today; I have not been able to get any
reply as yet. I was hoping that you had per-
haps read this letter.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We will look into
it. That rationale escapes me, because
although the administrators are cliarged with
keeping track of the income of the person,
that is stretching things, I think.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I just
wanted to say to the Minister that he does
not need to go very far to check on this.
He needs only to check on the Lakeshore
offices wiliere they withheld licence plates.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
on municipal allowances? Perhaps in view of
the fact that there are other members wish-
ing to speak further, it being six of the clock
I do now leave the chair.
It being 6 of the clock p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 103
ONTARIO
%t^isUtmt of (I^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, May 1, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis. Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 1, 1969
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3849
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3886
3849
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8.30 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
On vote 2002.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Chairman, there is a policy practised by one
of the directors of welfare in my area, the
Cochrane District Welfare Board, in connec-
tion with single people in particular, and
that is to maybe give them welfare for a
week and then cut them oflF, hoping that they
will make a much more concerted effort to
find work and thus get off welfare. This
works sometimes, but in other cases it works
a good deal of hardship.
I would like to bring up the case of a man
who was resident in one of the provincial
institutions. He stole a car and was taken
away to Monteith, and from there he went
to the Alex G. Brown Clinic at Mimico. He
was released from that institution on Febru-
ary 10, 1969. Now when this man was
released from the institution he went to the
director of rehabilitation services in The
Department of Correctional Services and was
given a small amount of money on which to
get by, but of course their amount of money
is limited and he was sent to the Cochrane
District Welfare Board. He was given $35
to get by on, and after that was over he
was told no more welfare, you are out on
your own.
Now this man was desperate to get some
money to live on, so he went back to the
rehabilitation oflScer at correctional services'
Monteith Farm and brought his problem to
him; and he suggested that he write his
member of the Legislature. He wrote to me
and I got in touch with Mr. Rivard in Kirk-
land Lake, who took the matter under advise-
ment and brought some pressure to bear on
the welfare director in Cochrane.
The thing that really concerns me is, here
we have a provincial programme of The
Department of Correctional Services trying
to get a young man, who is an alcoholic,
trying to get him treatment, trying to get him
Thursday, May 1, 1969
rehabilitated and back into the stream of
things, and you have a district welfare board
who says we are not going to help this fel-
low over the hump. They cut him off money
and if the man were so inclined, perhaps to
get something to eat, he would go back and
steal, and then again find himself sent to a
correctional services' institution.
This is not something which has happened
just once. I have talked to the ofiBcials at
Monteith and have been told that this is a
problem with which they have to cope. I
feel that this Department of Social and Fam-
ily Services needs to take a good look at the
way some of their welfare people, and par-
ticularly the one in Cochrane, are making it
diflBcult for some of these men to get over
that period and to get back into the work-day
field. Rather than make it so difficult for
them that they are almost pushing them back
into crime, I would hope that this depart-
ment will review this matter and take it up
with the Cochrane District Welfare Board,
and if necessary consult with the people at
the Monteith Industrial Farm to get more
particulars on the situation.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correction
Services): Mr. Chairman, would the hon.
member send me a copy of that correspon-
dence?
Mr. Ferrier: Yes, I would be glad to.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Of course Mr. Chairman,
the whole philosophy behind the establish-
ment of county and district boards is to have
the emphasis on preventative and rehabili-
tative services; I will have that checked into.
Mr. Chairman: Municipal allowances; the
hon. member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Could I ask
the Minister a question in that regard?
Where a recipient of welfare gets employ-
ment—and I am talking about part-time
employment— what portion of that is de-
ducted from their actual payments? Is there
any leeway for them to have any employ-
ment at all?
3850
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The only considera-
tion given is to that portion that might be
considered as expenses relating to his em-
ployment. The rest is considered income for
the purposes of his allowance.
Mr. Chairman: Municipal allowances and
assistance; agreed to.
On residential care and services for adults.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion). Mr. Chairman, in trying to assess
where the Minister of Social and Family
Services, in conjunction with the Treasurer
(Mr. MacNaughton ) , reduced the original
estimates required for this particular depart-
ment, on of the areas specifically mentioned
by the Treasurer was that projected increases
in advances for facilities for old people's
homes and some other similar facilities had
been postponed. But it is my impression that
the order has gone out from somewhere, to
the Minister whose estimates are before us
now, that in granting approvals for new old
people's homes and extensions to these homes,
there has been a "concerted" eflFort to save
money— and I use that word in quotation—
during this year.
I am sure that the hon. member for Brant-
ford (Mr. Makarchuk) will bear me out,
since we share this responsibility to some
extent, in recounting the difficulties that the
county council, in conjunction with the city
council, the county council of Brant and the
city council of Brantford, experienced in
gaining departmental approval for an expan-
sion to the city-county home in that area
called the John Noble Home.
Their plans had been going on for a num-
ber of months and general approval had been
received from the authorities normally re-
quired, up to and including the Ontario
Municipal Board itself. Now in the past it
had been the experience of those people who
had been concerned with this matter for a
number of years that that was tantamount
to overall approval and that they could then
proceed with letting contracts and beginning
constiuction, which I understand was the
decision of the board of the John Noble
Home. I do not know how far the actual
construction had proceeded, but I under-
stand that certainly the shovel had been put
into the ground and some of the footings had
been poured when it became apparent that
this Minister was not prepared to give the
approval that was necessary for participation
of the provincial government. It appeared
that this was a definite departure, although
the Minister at the time was not prepared to
admit it to anybody. He indicated it had
been procedure for a good long time and
that it was a surprise to him— and perhaps
since he is here, he could speak for himself—
but it was a surprise to him that anyone
ever had considered that it was possible to
begin construction without the final initial,
or whatever it was, that was needed.
This is not the only case. I am told that
something similar occurred in Niagara Falls
and the member for that area may have some
further information to add. I think most of
us, as members of the Legislature, have re-
ceived some information pertaining to the
Niagara Falls situation where the Minister
has brought under direct criticism, because
it is beheved that in his efiForts to cut back
in the expenditure of his department— no
doubt on the orders of the Treasury Board
and of the Treasurer, and he is being a loyal
member of the Cabinet, he is the last to
point a finger at anyone else— he has been
made to bear a very difficult burden indeed
in cutting back what is the normal, and
believe me necessary, rate of growth pertain-
ing to these facilities for senior citizens.
A further case that has come to my atten-
tion is I beheve in Forest, Ontario, where
$50,000 was spent in the provision of plans
which have never come to fruition because
the Minister's advisors, operating under pohcy
laid down by him, which I suspect was dic-
tated elsewhere, has not seen fit to give the
approval necessary to proceed with construc-
tion.
I do not want to enter into any philo-
sophical arguments as to where economies
must come about. We have had those before,
from me and many other members. I would
criticize the Minister most seriously for hav-
ing permitted at least the board of the
county home in Brantford to have proceeded
on the misapprehension that there was noth-
ing standing in the way of this expansion. I
believe the Minister has indicated that per-
haps next year, or the year after, when the
ship is on a steadier keel, we will be able
to do this.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I wonder if I might
just inform the hon. leader of the Opposition
that all three of those homes that he has
referred to have been approved.
Mr. Nixon: I am very delighted to hear
that, and certainly I wish I had been in-
formed, but I would have raised it anyway
because I want to know what the process of
approval actually is that led to the difficulties
MAY 1, 1969
3851
amounting to the representatives of the coun-
cils of the city and the county coming before
the Minister or his representative. What, in
fact, was in the Minister's mind, or in the
mind of his advisors, when on these three
occasions of which I am aware, there was
every indication that the Minister was
attempting to hold back an approval that
seemed to be according to a policy that had
been customary, automatic.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, this
deserves a comment or two. The homes for
the aged programme— I begin by saying that
we have in the province of Ontario the finest,
if tlie member for Downsview will permit
me to say, the finest, at least in North
America if not e^lsewhere.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): I wish I
could control the rest of your remarks.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This I say categori-
cally, and I do not know whether Baycrest
is in the hon. member's riding or not—
Mr. Singer: Baycrest? Yes!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Baycrest is probably
the finest in tlie world. Now the homes for
the aged programme in its totality Ls the
finest, and that home is among the finest
widiin the province.
Mr. Singer: At that point, I missed the
first part of the hon. Minister's remarks, at
that point I agree with him. I am on the
board of that institution and I was there last
evening; I subscribe to that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: When did we put
you on the board?
Mr. Singer: I think my friend, the Min-
ister is also on the hoaid of that institution.
Mr. Nixon: Well you two gentlemen are
the finest of the fine.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Now if I may say this,
that in this programme-
Mr. Nixon: I have heard that phrase finest
of the fine somewhere else.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That has a ring to it,
when you—
Mr. Nixon: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This programme, which
really got an impetus in the early 1950's,
saw a redevelopment of the homes for the
aged programme across the whole of the
province, so that we now have about 150
homes, 75 municipal and 75 charitable, all
of which are either brand new or the replace-
ment of older ones. There are still a few
of the old ones, but the rate of growth has
been phenomenal.
When I became Minister just a little over
two years ago, the round figure of beds that
I was using at that time to descri'be the pro-
gramme was 10,000. The round figure which
I use now, two years later, is 20,000, which
indicates the rate of growth, because we
have-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): How do beds
gro"w?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: From 10,000 to 20,000,
the numbers.
Mr. Sopha: What kind of beds are those?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): The
kind you sleep in; are there any other kind?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is the statistical
figure we use. So that both the quality and
the quantity has improved tremendously. As
people have seen the programme expand
across the province they have seen the
tremendous transformation from what in the
old days used to be considered as a poor
house— you know going up the hill to the
poor house, a denigrating atmosphere. The
attitude of people has completely changed
and the people want to go to our homes for
the aged.
This is a programme which is very popular
with the public. I never heard a taxpayer yet
complain about the programme. So in recent
years more and more people have come
around for what I might call a second help-
ing, a new building, an exteasion. The rate
of growth has been very rapid so that the
Treasurer and ourselves, very wisely, in
reconsidering the programme, the overall
budget, came to the conclusion that this was
one area in which we could have what I
call a digestive period. Now heretofore,
because of an affluent period and because we
encouraged and stimulated people to think in
terms of homes for the aged, the application
would come forward, and I have never been
able to trace a situation where we discour-
aged or refused. We worked out programmes
and there was approval of a site after dis-
cussion, approval of preUminary plans, final
plans; there was a continuous series of
"okays", if I may use the word. But the
legislation requires— and in all fairness to the
department all the homes for the aged admin-
istrative boards are aware of the fact that it
is needed— the Minister's signature on the
3852
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dotted line, which would mean a committal
of funds and approval of that project.
Now, in re\iewing the correspondence of
many of the files, I could see the cordial tone
of letters — encouragement, congratulations-
would lead people to believe reasonably that
it was just a matter of time. However, when
the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) and tlie
Treasurer, early in 1968 or in the middle of
1968, announced to the public of Ontario the
fact of the province facing limitations on both
capital and operational funds, that should
have been a signal to everybody to stop and
take a second look and reconsider.
Now apiirt from that, we as a department
are in communication with everybody, and I
have letters in which there are paragraphs
pointing out that although procedures are
being carried out, no appro\'al was to be con-
sidered until they had the final approval.
Some of the homes went ahead. Now I have
reviewed the file; for example in Brantford I
have read and reread that file about five
times. I had people read it objectively,
strangers to the file, to give their points of
view. There was always a division of opinion.
Since our department goes on the basis of
the benefit of tlie doubt, we accepted tlie
fact that perhaps the John Noble Home was
a situation in which they may have in good
faith proceeded.
But I will say this, that there is sufficient
doubt in my mind that the people involved
were experienced enough, they should have
known. ,
Now this period of digestion —
Mr. Nixon: What was the date of your
approval for that one, if I may ask?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think it was a week
ago, I think it was last Friday.
Mr. Nixon: Six days ago?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It was last week, dur-
ing the course of last week. But we are taking
advantage of two things: We are examining
our whole programme of residential care for
our senior citizens so that we may have within
our province the full spectRim from the hos-
pitals for acute and intensive treatment under
the programme, for which I introduced a
change of name today in the bill— the private
home care— where the elderly person will be
technically and legally admitted to a home
for the aged but he will continue to reside
in the community.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Is
that the foster home?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is what used to be
known as foster home care. That is one
aspect.
The other aspect now is that, in assessing
the need, we will no longer deal with a
municipality or a group; we are going to deal
with an area. I discovered, for example, in
one of tlie counties, that there were charitable
organizations coming forward for a pro-
gramme, and the county coming forward with
a programme, but they had never spoken to
each other although, ostensibly, they were
going to service the same community. Now
we are bringing these people together so that
we will ensure that there is a need within
the area as a whole. For example, in the
Niagara Falls area there was some question
about the fact that one of the charitable insti-
tutions had 50 beds a\ailable, not being used,
at a time when the municipal home had a
waiting list. That is something that we are
going to go into.
The silver lining to this period is that we
are still in tlie business of building homes,
and I am telling everybody that their home
will be built. I cannot tell in every case when
it will be built, but we are gradually picking
up those that were well on the way, poised
with their feet on the shovel, and those who
are having plans approved, and I am very
hopeful that within the next two years or so
we will have digested everybody's application,
and will be entertaining new ones.
Mr. Nixon: Could the Minister tell me
when he approxed the Niagara Falls appli-
cation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The day before yester-
day.
Mr. Nixon: And the Forest application?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: At the same time.
Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister
why the dam has broken on these applications
that he had been refusing, as far as I under-
stand, adamantly until the last two or three
days? Has somebody in the Treasury Board
taken leave of his senses? When the Minister
of Education (Mr. Davis) gets the assistance
that we know about for him, and then the
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) announces
today that a ten-per-cent increase in payments
to doctors would not be balanced by an in-
crease in premiums, if the Minister of Welfare
is now announcing approval to at least three
homes for the aged that he has been holding
up, there is no other word for it.
MAY 1, 1969
3853
He had not given his approval, and it had
been held up for six months, and they were
expecting to build last fall. What has hap-
pened that all of a sudden the sweet gener-
osity has suddenly come flowing through in
all of these areas? What has happened to
government policy? I am delighted that this
approval has come through, because I thought
that on this particular area the Minister
would reply to me, as he has replied in a
very mannerly way, certainly, and with all
due hospitality, to those who have come
down form the county urging on him the
very thing, I suppose, that he has finally
granted the benefit of the doubt. But why
have these three approvals come through just
in the last few days?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
in the last three or four months, probably
had more delegations than in any other
period, as I have myself been participating
in examining this Homes for the Aged Pro-
gramme. I do not know whether the John
Noble delegation were down twice to see
me, but I think they may have visited me;
yes, they did visit me a second time, as the
Welland County people were in to see me a
second time at my invitation to come in and
discuss the matter. We came to the end of
the year, we were approaching the end of
the year, and we in our department have to
be very careful in conjunction with Treasury
to ensure a continuous flow of funds because
the Homes for the Aged Programme is at
various stages. There are those who just have
the lightbulb of an idea in their heads and
those who have already been on their third
draw; and we have to make sure, as we
approve, when the payments come legally
due that there is money in the stock to meet
that obligation.
Mr. Nixon: Where is that sock money?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Treasurer, because
we know what we—
Mr. Nixon: Surely the estimates—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let me finish!
We know what we were able to pay out
during the last fiscal year, which will no
longer have to be paid in the forthcoming
fiscal year, and therefore I know now that
I have-
Mr. Nixon: You knew that last month.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, no. I certainly
did not. I did not know that.
Mr. Nixon: Why not? If you did not, you
are—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, no. Our planning
is excellent because when we have committed
a dollar, we have the dollar always available.
Mr. Sopha: He found another pair of socks.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is a pretty good
analogy.
Mr. Nixon: Well, something happened.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If you pass this vote,
we will get the money out of the sock.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: So that our approvals
from here on will be based on the needs of
the community, the availability of money and
the cash flow, which is a terminology used
in industry and commerce, and is very ap-
plicable to our programme. We need to have
the dollar in the sock when the request comes
along.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I do not know
whether the Minister can or will answer this
question, but what happened after the dele-
gation made up of the mayor of the city and
the warden of the county, and others on the
board, visited the Minister— I cannot give him
a date, but it was six weeks ago— when they
were turned down flat with the usual story
about the difficulty in raising funds?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Nobody has been
turned down.
Mr. Nixon: You would not give your ap-
proval.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Everybody that came
upon me with a delegation wanted to go out
with a "yes" and I kept assuring everybody;
I said, "The home will be built", and they
asked, "When?" I said, "I cannot tell you
that today; I cannot even tell you when I
can tell you— though I will tell you at the
earliest opportunity". And that has taken
place with respect to these three homes.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Minister could
tell us how many other homes, besides the
three that I have specifically mentioned, have
gained approval in the last two weeks?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is one other,
the charitable institution in Chatham.
Mr. Nixon: There are still some in the
final stages of planning that have not re-
ceived approval?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Oh, yes, there are a
goodly number. There are homes in various
stages from the idea, there is a county which
came forward with an idea last week, to
3854
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
those who would like to, as I say, have their
foot poised on the shovel. We will attempt
to meet these people to have the people dig
the shovel into the ground at the earliest
opportmiity and to have tlie others come
forward.
Mr. Nixon: I would like to know what you
knew three days ago that you did not know
six weeks ago that permitted you to give
approval to the Brant home that you did not
give six weeks ago. You say now, "We know
that for a dollar committed we have a dollar
available." What kind of a business adminis-
tration do you run over there?
Surely there is every expectation that
eventually the dollars that are requisitioned
here are going to be voted. I think it is
incredible that you would say you did not
know that you would have the money six
weeks ago, and you know it now.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I said, the provin-
cial Budget is operated on a fiscal year. The
moneys must be spent within that year, and
if, for example, we had made a commitment
with respect to somebody during the course
of the last fiscal year and they had not come
forward to get the money, then we would
have had to pay them, and the dollar of last
year would not have been available and
would have to be available in the new fiscal
year. We would have to pay it out of the
coming fiscal year, but having been able to
pay certain moneys out of last year's fiscal
year, we do not have to use those dollars for
those projects; we have them available for
new projects.
Mr. Nixon: It sounds as if somebody over
there has milked everything he can out of
this fiscal nightmare and he has given up
and gone back to business as usual.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am very happy about
what has taken place.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Hum-
ber?
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, first
of all I want to say I have not had so rmioh
exercise since I took the Harvard step test.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What was that?
Mr. Ben: The Harvard step test.
Mr. Grossman: Explain that.
Mr. Ben: When I was in the air force
they had a bench about 18 inches high and
you were sui>posed to keep on stepping up
and down, stepping up and dovsm, stepping
up and down, for five minutes. Well, that is
what I have been doing for the last five
minutes.
An hon. member: I thought it was some
kind of a breathalizer.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal
witli one charitable institution that was not
approved by this hon. Minister. I am re-
ferring to Laughlen Lodge, and I have been
trying to get this in for days and days. Maybe
the hon. members here who have had occa-
sion to go down to what is called Chinatown
to have their dinner have passed Laughlen
Lodge. It occupies a block bounded by Ed-
ward, Chestnut, Elizabeth and Elm Streets.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was a member of
that board too.
Mr. Ben: I would not doubt it because at
one time I daresay, Mr. Chairman, that the
hon. Minister of Correctional Services had his
abode in the vicinity of that area, or at least
he played ball for what they called the
Lizzies.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was a member of
the board when representing the city of
Toronto— and I was a meml)er of the Lizzies
too.
Mr. Ben: Very well! At any rate, Mr.
Chairman, let me tell you something about
this lodge. It has been a wonderful place,
and I just want to read from a report for the
fiscal year ending December 31, 1967— I am
sorry, it is the report from January 1 to
December 31, 1967-1968. It is captioned 131
years of service, and the chairman. Dr. Ross
K. Cameron, is reporting to the committee of
which at one time the hon. Minister of Cor-
rectional Services was a member. He says,
describing the home-like atmosphere:
This lodge has maintained, among the
homes for the aged in Metropolitan To-
ronto, a home-like atmosphere. I can very
well remember when Mrs. Sifton was
chosen from about seven candidates for
this position, and while she didn't have the
qualifications of some of the modem wel-
fare workers, the thing that moved us and
really caused us to choose Mrs. Sifton was
that she had a very deiinite interest in older
people.
Dr. Cameron then goes on to point out that
for the first time in his memory the Grand
Jury came to pay a visit to this place, and
their report reads as follov^^:
MAY 1, 1969
3855
Laughlen Lodge— 87 Elm Street
The above lodge, under the siiipervision
of Mrs. Pearl S if ton for the past 17 years,
and offering a home to all faiths, was
built 131 years ago. The lodge employs a
staff of 11, and is home to 110 aged people,
both men and women, at the time of the
inspection. Management impressed the
Grand Jury as being sympathetic and hav-
ing a good understanding of the residents'
problems.
The residents each pay $85 a month
minimum. Any amount over the $85 is
dependent on their ability to pay the same.
There are a great many floor levels with
numerous flights of stairs. Cleanliness of
tlie establishment, considering the age of
the building, is excellent. Visitors are per-
mitted to call upon residents every day, all
day.
Residents are free to come and go dur-
ing regular daytime hours, and late passes
are issued where and when desirable. A
telephone is available for the use of all.
The food appears to be adequate and
nourishing.
There are several dormitory type bed-
rooms. While all beds are not in use at
present, as there is no proper storage for
unused beds, they are allowed to remain
in the bedrooms. This allows Httle free
space, and gives a feeling of crowded con-
ditions.
There are no facilities for married
couples. Smoking is permitted in approved
areas only, and not in bedrooms. We were
informed by the superintendent that a
night watchman makes hourly rounds with
a clock. We noted there are no key sta-
tions. We recommend that an approved
clock with properly spaced and located
key stations be considered, thus ensuring
the night supervision of all areas.
In the small dining-room adjoining the
men's infirmary, there is a tri-light electric
fixture witli hanging switch. The wire has
an amateur repair and it hangs close to an
electric bulb. The wiring is quite dry.
We would be pleased to know that a new
fixture was installed without delay.
We were informed by Mrs. Sifton that
the Toronto Fire Department inspects the
building montlily and holds fire drills. We
presume they check the condition of the
hose located on each floor. Safeguards
against fire appear to be as good as can be
expected. However, we suggest considera-
tion of tlie feasibility of a sprinkler sys-
tem. The cost may be prohibitive.
We could not but admire the ingenuity
of the superintendent who keeps the facili-
ties, constructed 131 years ago, function-
ing. No doubt the board will have to face a
choice of major improvements, or the con-
struction of a new building in the near
future.
That was the grand jury's report. Mrs. Sifton,
in giving her report, had this to say:
As you know, our building is 131 years
old and it is showing the effects of its
long life. The founders of our home did a
marvellous job by their foresight and plan-
ning at that time. When our home was
built there were no welfare programme as
we know them today, and it provided assis-
tance for the needy and care for the aged
with financial help from pubhc funds. It
is understandable that their chief concern
was die provision of food and shelter.
Through the years thousands of i)ersons
have been helped. Nowadays, however, we
are equally concerned that our residents
will also be happy and will truly enjoy
themselves while living in our home.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that
the residents are indeed happy but it has
nothing to do with this government. Let me
tell you what the public does for this home,
the pubhc at large:
Twice each month the welfare com-
mittee of the Royal Arch Masons holds a
bingo party for our residents. Regardless
of the weather or the time of year, they
are always on hand and this is one of our
most popular entertainments.
This is Mrs. Sifton speaking.
Their members attend and help any of
our residents who may not see or hear
very well so that they may win prizes
which are in the form of money.
A group of volunteer teenagers from
Yorkminster United Church come every
other month under the leadership of Mrs.
K. Dyer to have sing-songs, hobbycraft and
serve lunch to our residents. The Mabel
Hubbard Club (Bell Telephone ladies)
also come every other month and provide
a variety programme and lunch. We have
Mrs. Woodall's pack of brownies, who are
a dehghtful group of children, bringing
gifts and putting on a programme. A group
known as Wompies visits us every other
month witli a good programme.
Another activity each month is a birth-
day party as a celebration for our resi-
dents who have a birthday in that month,
with individual gifts and special cake. The
3856
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1st Emery Cub Pack comes frequently
witli a programme under the direction of
Mrs. W. Zaichkowski.
Also, the annual Christmas party is
always a highlight of the year. The party
is provided by our board, tlie entertain-
ment under the leadership of our board
member, Mr. Gordon Gilbert, Knights of
Columbus, who always arranges an ex-
cellent programme. As usual, we had Mr.
John Giordmaine, the famous magician, a
visit from Santa Glaus, Christmas stock-
ings and special luncli complete a very
memorable evening.
We have an annual picnic in June which
is always a big success. It begins witli an
enjoyable bus ride for about three hours
provided by the city of Toronto, followed
by a programme and picnic lunch. For
many years this was held in die flower
building and latterly the Salada Tea House
in Exhibition Park. However, in 1967,
when the Salada Tea House was not avail-
able, Mr. Lorimer of Canterbury Foods
very kindly allowed us to hold our picnic
in liis Grenadier Park restaurant. As one
of our ladies remarked, "Our station in
life is going up," and all agreed that our
1967 picnic was an outstanding success.
As usual we are indebted to our Mr.
Gordon Gilbert for an excellent pro-
gramme.
The downtown Kinsmen Club takes a
number of our residents to the theatre
once a month. The Kinettes (tiieir wives)
come to our home and have a delicious
lunch ready for us on our return. At the
Christmas season they took a group of
our residents to the Canadiana Motor
Hotel. Santa Glaus was there too, and the
party was something very pleasant to
remember.
Mr. Murray Anderson, one of our board
members, comes personally each week with
a very interesting movie which he has
selected as being suitable for our enjoy-
ment. His visits are eagerly anticipated
by our residents.
Mr Chairman: Order. Is this material all
relevant to this particular programme?
Mr. Ben: It is all relevant. I apologize to
you, Mr. Chairman, that I will have to do
some other reading but I need it to stress a
very important point.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member
could indicate the relevance?
Mr. Ben: The relevance? The relevance is
that this is a very essential function in a
community, and that this Minister is going
to let it disappear.
Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): But take
a short cut.
Mr. Ben: I do not have to take a short cut.
It is only down the street. If you got on your
legs you would be able to get there in five
minutes.
Now, would you tell me where I was be-
fore I was interrupted, Mr. Chairman?
An. hon. member: Santa Glaus was arriving
for the second time.
Mr. Ben: To continue:
Each year we are given tickets to the
Royal Winter Fair and horse show. The
Kiwanis Club arranges a boat ride around
Toronto harbour and islands—
And, by the way, I will interrupt here. If you
do not like me reading quickly, perhaps if I
sit down somebody else will read slowly.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member may read
as quickly as he likes, as long as he remains
relevant.
Mr. Ben: I will continue:
—transportation by Mr. Fairbanks. The
Hustlers club of a young men's Bible class
puts on a minstrel show at our home,
arranged by a board member, Mr. Art
Cusack. We are also given tickets to
shows at O'Keefe Centre, Eaton Audi-
torium and other musicals, etc., from time
to time. These are always excellent enter-
tainment and are greatly appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I have to continue because if
I stop now many people who have devoted
their time and their talents and their energy
to this place may feel offended that they were
not mentioned, because there are a lot more.
Before Christmas, Mr. Coglin, organist
of Ferndale Baptist Church, Scarborough,
arranged for a bus to take a number of
our residents to that church for a special
evening service. The ladies of the church
provided a delicious lunch and pleasant
social hour afterwards. At Easter, Mr. A.
McTier, Bethel Baptist Church, arranged
for a bus to take our residents to that
church for an evening service followed by
a social hour. Mrs. N. G. Hancock of the
United Church holds a meeting in our
home each week. Miss Lillian Ray of the
Presbyterian Church, comes in frequently.
MAY 1, 1969
3857
Father Crean of St. Patrick's Roman
Catholic Church, visits our home regularly.
Rev. Paul Sterling, of St. Andrew's Pres-
byterian Church and one of our board
members, also holds religious services. Mrs.
Dorothy Dalamont and Mrs. George Swad-
dling, representing the Salvation Army,
hold a weekly meeting in our home and
distribute literature.
I am trying to point out to you the scope of
the community's contribution to this place—
the citizens that are interested in maintaining
this; The citizens, excluding, of course, the
hon. member for the riding of Bellwoods, who
is the Minister of this department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That was a completely
unnecessary addendum. You were doing fine.
You do much better reading than you do
talking.
Mr. Ben: I will continue:
Mrs. R. H. Begg gave a group of our
residents—
I am getting to him—
—a delightful drive followed by a picnic
at her country home 30 miles from Toronto.
Every one enjoyed the day.
The Pilot Club of North Toronto take
some of our residents out for drives and
refreshments during the summer months.
At the end of the summer we are enter-
tained at the home of Mr. and Mrs. R. J.
Fairbanks, Unionville. This is an annual
event which is always a \'ery special treat.
Red Cross provides transportation to and
from our home for various entertainments,
also pleasant drives during the summer
months. Through the kindness of Mrs.
Smith, Junior Red Cross supervisor, we
get Christmas hats and baskets made by
Junior Red Cross Groups. In addition, with
the permission of Mr. John R. Ball, princi-
pal of Pape Avenue school, the Junior Red
Cross Group comes to our home to present
their gifts and sing Christmas Carols under
direction of Miss Milsop. This is always an
exciting annual event in our home.
The Daily Star and Telegram which are
delivered to our home mean a great deal
to our residents. Also, through the kindness
of the Star, we are able to help our resi-
dents pay for their glasses. We are always
grateful for the many donations of good
and used clothing which we receive. Books,
magazines and other gifts are much appre-
ciated by our residents.
This organization, Mr. Chairman, after hav-
ing received a report that it was in a deplor-
able and almost unsafe condition, put a pro-
position forward to Metro council. It came
forward as report No. 11 of the welfare and
housing committee, and was considered on
June 21, 1968. I would just like to read parts
of it.
The executive committee, on April 23,
1968, referred the following communica-
tion received from the secretary, board of
managements of Laughlen Lodge, to me
for a report thereon to the welfare and
housing committee:
The board of Laughlen Lodge has agreed
to approaching you with the following
proposition which we hope will receive
your sincere consideration.
Entirely without prejudice to our present
or future status, but purely as an explora-
tory venture, we submit a proposition that
may interest you in respect to Laughlen
Lodge operating as a home for elderly per-
sons who have limited financial means of
support.
It then describes the location of the property.
It gives a short history.
Incorporated as the house of industry by
Act of the Ontario Legislature, dated
August 2, 1851, to operate an institution
exclusively to provide for the destitute
poor and to promote and encourage habits
of honest industry in the young, and for
no other purpose whatsoever.
There was a legislative amendment in 1889:
And for the establishment and mainte-
nance of an infirmary and dispensary, and
for granting assistance to the casual poor.
If I may digress here, I do not know the
difference between the destitute poor and the
casual poor, but that is the way they worded
it. There was a further amendment dated
1947, changing the name to Laughlen Lodge,
Toronto. Then it states:
Approximately 100 elderly persons are
in residence in Laughlen Lodge sharing the
facilities as a communal home.
It is realized that advanced obsolescence
has made it imperative that the future
of Laughlen Lodge as a home for elderly
persons be determined, either by
1. Razing the present building and con-
structing a suitable building on the site,
that appears at the moment to be beyond
the financial resources and capabilities of
the present management.
2. Conditional transfer of the fee in the
land to the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto for the unequivocal use as a home
3858
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for elderly persons, and no other purpose,
for one dollar ($1.00).
Then they set out certain conditions, about
which (d) is—
Constructing a new building on the
described land within a period of 18
months from May 1, 1968.
There are other items like guarantee of em-
ployment of the higher personnel; agreement
to appointment of an auxiliary committee for
Laughlen Lodge; provision of suitable chapels,
etc., etc.
They go on to say-
In all sincerity, we make this presenta-
tion that should be attractive to you for
very obvious reasons, and in order that
your involvement, if any, might be con-
clusive, frank and decisive, immediate con-
sideration is respectfully requested. The
undeniable fact is that Laughlen Lodge as
a home for elderly persons is to be per-
petuated but how this is to be accomplished
has to be determined. That results in this
particular approach to ascertain accept-
ability and the potentials of such a scheme.
There was a study of this particular site by
the Metropolitan planning commissioner and
he gave his report. He describes the environ-
ment, pointing out the usefulness of having
a lodge at this site, and the end result was—
1. The proposal of the^ board of Laughlen
Lodge to transfer the fee in the land to
the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
for use as a home for the aged, for the
sum of one dollar ($1.00) be accepited.
2. That the Metropolitan solicitor be re-
quested to draw up an agreement between
the board of Laughlen Lodge and the
Metropolitan corporation on the terms and
conditions as set out above.
Well, Mr. Chairman, everybody was quite
pleased with that at the time. They thought
that it was to be proceeded with. They
learned a lesson in a hurry. Questions were
asked of the Provincial Treasurer and this
hon. Minister where the cuts came, the cuts
of $400 million, that were discussed here. We
could not get any word out of this Minister,
but perhaps I can inform him. One of the
cuts undoubtedly must have been with refer-
ence to this particular building, because on
April 15 of this year, report No. 8 of the
welfare and housing committee came up for
consideration by the coimoil of the mimdci-
pality of Metropolitan Toronto. Item No. 1
was respecting proposed transfer, Laughlen
Lodge, and construction of a home for the
aged on the site.
The welfare and housing committee
recommends the adoption of the following
report (March 31, 1969) from the commis-
sioner of housing:
The Metropolitan Council on June 21,
1968, adopted without amendment, clause
No. 1 of report No. 11 of the welfare and
housing committee, headed "Transfer of
ownership, Lauglen Lodge, to Metropolitan
corporation," which proposed a conditional
transfer of the fee in the land owned by
the board of management of Laughlen
Lodge to the Metropolitan corporation on
the understanding tliat the Metropolitan
corporation would erect thereon a new
home for the aged to be operated by the
Metropolitan corporation.
One of the conditions of the above pro-
posal was that construction of the new
home by the Metropolitan corporation
would commence within a period of 18
nwnths from May 1, 1968, which period
expires October 1, 1969.
As your committee is aware that the prov-
ince will give no definite commitment as to
the availability of capital fimcls with respect
to the construction of new projects at this
time, it has not 1:)een possible to proceed
with the finalizing of the agreement with
Laughlen Lodge.
I therefore recommend that the board of
management of Laughlen Lodge be advised
that until such time as the province will
give a definite commitment respecting avail-
ability of capital funds for construction of
new projects, the Metropolitan corporation
is not in a position to proceed with the
suggested proposal.
That beautiful corporation that has rendered
serx'ice since 1851, in which all the different
grovips that I have mentioned have taken a
deep, abiding aiKl a lasting interest and to
which they have given their time, will have
to finally fail because this Minister does not
see fit to c^me up with funds to keep it alive.
And is it a fantastic sum, the sum that they
asked of this Minister? When they were writ-
ing to him they said the new building would
contain approximately 78,880 square feet of
floor space and provide facilities for approxi-
mately 200 residents.
The estimated c^st of demolishing the
present building and the construction of the
new building is $1,285,000-$1,285,000 for
an edifice that in all probability under the
maintenance that it has received to date.
MAY 1, 1969
3859
Qould conceivably last another 131 years. This
governanent is quick to give unforgiveable
loans in sums of $500,000 and $250,000 to
companies like Allied Chemical, and Kraft
Foods, and other large multi-miUion and
multi-bilhon corporations but in its rock-hard
heart it cannot find $1,285,000 to set up a
home for 200 aged people.
Now I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that is
beyond contempt. And for the Minister to
get up here, as he did this evening, and try
to take upon himself all the praise and tell
us that we have the finest old age home sys-
tem in North America, when he cannot, as
I say, find $1,285,000 for our aged people
who, by the way, are not all charity cases.
This report indicated they are paying a
minimum of $85 a month for their support
there. And he cannot find that small amount.
He has the consummate gall to stand in this
House and tell us what a wonderful job he
is doing. I say shame and that he ought to
hide his face luider that handkerchief the
hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shulman)
had here the other day.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I would
not want you to get carried away by the his-
trionics of the hon. member. He is so far
off base that he is not even close.
I have walked by and been familiar with
Laughlen Lodge for at least the last 30 years.
Although I have no direct ties with it, I
have a great affection for it because it is
one of the historic landmarks of Toronto and
I pay tribute myself to the outstanding serv-
ice tiiat the lodge has rendered through 117
years within this great city. That period has
seen the whole scene of Toronto change.
My interest in Laughlen Lodge has been
twofold; one, the fact that it should continue
and should remain as a remembrance to the
past, but that it also should symbolize that
what in recent years has been appealing to
people, this flight to the suburbs, does not
have all the appeal for everybody, especially
with our senior citizens. They want to be
right downtown. They want to be where
the action is. They want to be able to walk
over to Queen and Bay or Queen and Yonge
or wherever they may wish to go. They want
to be right in the heart of things and this is
going to be, I think, the trend for the future.
Now, the fate of Laughlen Lodge has not
been decided. And when the hon. member
talks in terms of positive refusals, he is away
off base, because the matter is still under
consideration. One of the earliest homes in
which I took a direct interest was the fate
and future of Laughlen Lodge and this has
been a continuing interest. And tomorrow, I
think, the director has a luncheon meeting
with members of the board to continue this
exploration and considering the future of
Laughlen Lodge. It is true that we are
taking a second look at things and we are
going to assess all-
Mr. Ben: Every time we bring something
up, the Minister is going to take a second
look. Why does he not take a second look
the first time?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are going to assess
all of Metro's needs and if the hon. member
would care to go for a walk some day, you
can now walk south, walk north, and I
direct the attention of the member for
Downsview that up at Belmont Home here
on Belmont is probably the latest of the
finest of the fine. The sod was turned by
Mr. Keiller Mackay, the cornerstone was laid
by the Prime Minister, and it will be oflB-
cially opened, I believe, towards the end of
the month.
The Belmont Home, a 130-year-old struc-
ture, has been torn down and a new one in
the 20th century is going up. Now this I
envisage, something along this line, but some
time in tiie future. Here again I cannot state
a date but it would be a pity to see Laugh-
len Lodge disappear from the scene and I
have no intention of letting it fade or go
away or disappear.
Mr. Ben: The letter makes that clear.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am delighted that
with us, as it happens, in the gallery is Mrs.
Sifton, and I join in this aspect with the
report that the hon. member read of acknowl-
edging the outstanding service that she has
rendered throughout the past 17 years.
An hon. member: Which is Mrs. Sifton?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The lady in the white
hat. She has done an outstanding job and
I also pay tribute to those community organ-
izations and individual citizens who have
played a role in making life worth living for
our senior citizens. What the hon. member
has outlined is what is being done, to a
lesser degree perhaps, but to a good extent
with our homes across the programme. Bay-
crest has an outstanding programme in this
regard.
Mr. Singer: That is what I have been
trying to tell the Minister for the last 20
minutes.
3860
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yafemko: And other homes I arn
familiar with— I am always going to straw-
berry festivals, bazaars, concerts, movie shows,
bingos, that are being put on, and our depart-
ment has played a role and will play a role.
We took bus loads of our senior citizens
down to the CNE to see that wonderful film
"A Place to Stand"—
Mr. Nixon: Big thing!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: These 90-year-olds
said to me they wished they could begin all
over again in the province of Ontario. The
hon. members paid a visit to the planetarium
this evening, and we are attempting to see
whether we cannot arrange suitable hours to
have some of our senior citizens participate
in the planetarium, because our programme
does not mean only that we want to keep
people living a long time, we want to make
that life worth living.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, all I want to say
is while we are concerning ourselves with
the virtual existence of these people, all the
Minister does is fill up pages of Hansard
with platitudes to himself. While we are
talking about people hving and finding a
place to live, he is talking about getting bus
loads of them and taking them down to the
exhibition to see "A Place to Stand". These
people want a place to sit down and lie
down. They do not need! you or your people
to take them up to the planetarium.
I have just read a long list of public-spirited
citizens who will be very happy to take them
there and elsewhere. They will even supply
the buses to takei them down to the Ex to see
"A. Place to Stand". But the point is you
always say that you ae giving it a second
look. The fact is that on the 18th day of
March, 1969, you wrote Dr. Ross Cameron,
after he had written to you:
Dear Dr. Cameron:
I wish to thank you for your letter of
March 18th, 1969, and I am pleased to
learn that you have since had conversations
with our Director of Homes for the Aged,
Mr. Crawford.
You will, I am sure, appreciate the
present position with respect to capital
grants and proposals for a new develop-
ment on the present site of Laughlen
Lodge, 87 Elm Street, Toronto.
I do not know how you can be so sure that
he can but anyhow tliat is what you write.
^ On the basis of your discussion with
Mr. Crawford, however, you will be mak-
ing some preliminary plans for the long
run, together with a few changes to
accommodate certain requirements now for
immediate safety in the homes. '■
If you are doing that I can appreciate tliat
it is your intention to preserve this place for
another 131 years. But I do not want to see
it there for another 131 years, I want to see
a new place.
I want to congratulate you and your
board for the extraordinary effort you have
made over the years to vacate a home of
this type and I hope that we can count
on your continued public-spirited endeav-
ours until other arrangements might be
made.
Well bless me, I sure hope that we can count
on your public-spirited endeavours because
we cannot count on your money. Here a
Metropolitan corporation is writing to these
people and saying they have to pull out of
the contract because they cannot fulfil the
contract to construct this new place within 18
months;- because they cannot get any Capital
money from the province of Ontario. And
\vhat does the Minister do. He makes plati-
tudinous speeches and writes these letters
that nobody can make head or tail of and
has the gall to tell us he is trying to pre-
serve this place.
Now , look, if you are interested in having
second sight or having another look at this
place, stand up here like you should and say
you will find the money for this place so
that the Metropolitan corporation can take it
over and ensure that this place will exist
downtown as it has for the past 131 years.
Stop telling us this nonsense about taking a
second look. All night I have been listening
to you getting up when somebody criticizes
you for not doing something and you tell us
you are taking a second look, or that you
just decided tonight or last night that you
were going to do something about it. Why
did you not do it montlis ago or weeks ago?
Mr. Pilkey: Mr. Chairman, I want— just for
a moment— to echo the sentiments of the
member for Humber and in terms of being
somewhat critical of the Minister's answers
which are not of a positive nature.
I recall asking him a question about the
homes for the aged some time ago during
the question period. I asked him when he
expected to have a position on when these
homes would go forward. He just stood up
and said: "In due course". That was it!
That was the answer that this Minister gave,
and he is historically doing that in this
House— not giving a positive answer to a
MAY 1: 19«9
3861
question and it seem.'? to me that we have
got to have; something more than just "in
due course".
An hon. member: In the fullness of time.
Mr. Pilkey: In the fullness of time, right.
I want to say, first of all, that if there is
One area in this province that we ought to he
meeting the human needs of people, it is in-
terms of hofries for the aged.
, This government has talked about priori-
ties. I do not think we would have had to
revert to priorities if this government had
taken cognizance of my leader's suggestion
during the Budget debate last March. We
could have raised the resources to meet all
of the needs of the people if tliose recom-
mendations in the .Budget speech were im-
plemented.
Now the Minister says that they are going
to proceed with the homes for tlie aged and
I very frankly would like to know where he
is going to get the resources. In the 1969
Budget, if my meiaory serves me correctly—
I just cannot put my hand on it— there was
something like $7,000,000 laid aside for
capital construction in terms of grants for
new and acquired buildings. But in this
Budget of 1970, there is a cut of about
$2,225 million. Two and a quarter million
dollars less to meet a very urgent need in
tliis province.
You know it makes me kind of smile. The
government can make announcements hke
that palace pier they are going to put up in
the lake out there for $13 million. We cannot
find the resources to fulfil a human need
such as homes for tlie aged, yet we can
build this edifice out on the lake. I think it
is just ludricrous that we find ourselves in
that kind of position.
lam not suggesting for a moment that we
ought not to do that project, but I think we
ought to deal in priorities. Surely a home for
the aged is a priority over tliat palace pier.
The only difference, in my opinion, is tliat
kind of a thing \vill not make tlie headlines,
but the palace pier out tliere on the lake
will make the headlines. In addition to that,
it seems to me that this government wants
to put Toronto in a competing position with
Montreal. Well I do not think we ought to
be participating in that kind of a game either.
If we are going to deal in priorities, then
this government's priorities are badly out of
focus. It is not good enough for this Min-
ister to stand up and say that when the
government handed tlieir Budget down, this
was a signal to stop and reconsider our ex-
penditures, because I think we could have
met all these expenditures.
The government alleges they are having
economic difficulties and they said we ought
to deal in priorities. Obviously tlie homes
for the aged is a priority item. I think the
Minist-r would agree with that. It is a
priority item. But what is happening now is
tliat we are getting a priority on a priority—
if we could comprehend that incredible posi-
tion.
Regardless of what the Minister says in
terms of what has happened in the past— and
r do not think there is any question about
the facilities tliat have been constructed; they
£lre good, they are being utilized and serve
the purpose they were designed for— but I
want to suggest to the Minister that the
homes for the aged in the province are short
of approximately 10,000 beds. Many beds
are needed if we are going to meet the re-
quirements of today.
You talked about 20,000 beds. Now I do
not know how many senior citizens we have
in the province of Ontario, but my guess is
it would be somewhere in the neighbourhood
of 300,000 or 400,000. Obviously tliey do
not all need to be in homes for the aged, but
I want to suggest that this is a very small
percentage of beds in terms of tlie numbers
of people in this province.
Now we saw cutbacks in hospital con-
struction; we saw postponement of needed
accommodation for emotionally-disturbed chil-
dren; and we saw cutbacks in new and addi-
tional construction for the homes for the
aged. I want to say to the Minister that, when
he pointed out that none of the taxpayers
complain about homes for the aged, he is
correct.
He is right— they do not complain when
we are providing that kind of a service that
is badly needed in this province. I want to
support that position by reading a letter into
the record-rbut I want to point out a num-
ber of letters that I have received and I do
not know how many there are in total— but
I just want to show the Minister a number of
letters tiiat I have received from constituents
in my riding deploring the government's
position of not expanding the addition to
Hillsdale Manor.
There are some 150 applicants for needed
beds in that facility and yet the government
is not prepared to participate in their 50 per
cent of the capital construction. I understand
that the municipality of Oshawa went as far
3862
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as to raise the money, even up to the point
of calhng the tenders, and that the govern-
ment backed off at that point.
Let me read you one letter, from a Mar-
jorie Gifford, 536 Greerson Street, Oshawa:
I cannot express too strongly my feel-
ings of absolute disappointment and aston-
ishment regarding the action of the Ontario
government in their proposal to cancel
dieir subsidy for the addition to Hillsdale
Manor, the home in Oshawa for our elderly
citizens.
The people of Oshawa and their families
protest and resent very much any cut-back
of funds from our government at the
expense of our senior citizens, who with
their families have built this community
iuid this country.
Please do try and see, as our representa-
tive of Parliament, that our displeasure
and disenchantment is brought to the
attention of our government.
Now there was a great number of organiza-
tions: the Minister of St. George's Anglican
church, the Rev. Little; King Street United
church; the Catholic Women's League of
Canada; a ladies group from Kingsview
United church; St. Gregory's church, the
minister of St. Gregory's church; the execu-
tive board, Local 222 UAW; a controUer-
obviously I do not need to go through all
of these letters, Mr. Chairman, to illustrate
my point. But this is the concern of those
people in Oshawa, in terms of providing a
needed facility in that area.
Now I want to thank the Minister for send-
ing me a reply to the letter from Local 222
UAW, but I do want to read it into the
record, and I want to make just a couple of
brief comments. The Minister says:
I have received a copy of your letter on
March 28, 1969, addressed to your mem-
ber of the Ontario Legislature, Mr. C. G.
Pilkey, MPP, with copies to the Prime
Minister, the Hon. John Robarts, QC, and
myself. This was in connection with the
development of the proposed Hillsdale
Manor extension in the city of Oshawa.
You will, I am sure, appreciate that
your provincial government has given con-
siderable support to the city of Oshawa
in the progressive construction and opera-
tion of the present excellent home for the
aged in Hillsdale Manor.
This supi>ort has been iwt only in terms
of capital grants, and capital improvements
over the years, but also in forms of sub-
stantial annual maintenance and operating
subsidies. You will also be aware that we
have recently joined with your union, Local
222, the civic authorities, Colonel Mc-
Laughlin and a mrniber of other public-
spirited groups in Oshawa to develop
co-operatively the Oshawa senior citizens
centre which opened as recently as Febru-
ary 27.
I want to stop just there for the moment, and
say to the Minister that that is a fine facility,
and I want to tliank him on behalf of the
residents and the senior citizens in the area.
There is no question about that, I wanted to
make that comment. Now in the next para-
graph the Minister goes on to say:
These steps, I am certain you will agree,
are indicative of our awareness of the
needs of those who built up our country,
and they do show that we are continuously
moving forward in the development of new
facilities and services.
And, Mr. Chairman, the ix)int I want to make
here is that the continuity has ceased there.
You say you are continuing, but you are not
really continuing. It is not only in Oshawa
that you have curtailed construction, as I
understand it, because there were 17 com-
munities in this province that have made
application for homes for the aged— either
new centres or additions.
Now you say that you have granted three
within the last week, but there are a great
number of other communities in this province
that have made application to yoiur depart-
ment for that very needed facility. The Min-
ister goes on to say-
In earlier correspondence with Mr. C. A.
Crawford, UAW Women's Auxiliary 27, I
had outlined much the same position. I
would wish to stress that I will be meet-
ing further with the city of Oshawa muni-
cipal authorities concerning the proposed
addition of or new facilities for Hillsdale
Manor. We are endeavouring to review
this for future planning, at the same time
I regret that I am unable as yet to make
any commitment on capital funding for
this or a number of other projects until
several other matters related to the overall
capital programme has been resolved.
Now I ask the Minister, what does he mean
by that statement? What are the othear
matters? It is rather vague in that para-
graph what you are really talking about. But
nevertheless, as I said initially, there are
something hke 150 elderly citizens in Oshawa
who have need for proper accommodation.
Tlie stark facts remain that we are con-
fronted with a social problem that can only
MAY 1, 1969
3863
be aggravated by this government's present
policy. There is no question about that, it can
only be aggravated.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there are something
like 300,000 or 400,000 senior citizens in
Ontario, and many of them exist on a monthly
income of around $109.00. This, in my opin-
ion, Mr. Chairman, is a national disgrace, and
there have been extensive studies in this area
that pointedly show that we need additional
income. But even if we achieve that without
the proper accommodation, I do not think
that we have really accomplished a great deal
in this province. I want to suggest to the
Minister tiiat he is the one that is holding
back that kind of progress.
I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this
government has not kept faith with the older
people of this province. They are becoming
the forgotten individuals.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Along with the children!
Mr. Pilkey: I read a one-sentence statement
just about these older people— and I do not
know who wrote it— but it was someone ad-
dressing a very young group. He was talking
about senior citizens and he said:
We are walking on the very bridges that
they built. Yet, we find this government
taking a very callous attitude to those
people that have been really the pioneers
of this province who have been instrumen-
tal in us reaching this so-called affluent
society.
I want to suggest to the Minister that there
are many older citizens who are living under
appalling conditions. I also want to say that
what we really need is a compassionate gov-
ernment that would provide adequate accom-
modation, medical and personal services in a
home for the aged. Yet, we find instead of
that, a go\'ernment with a policy of retrench-
ment when we need to really initiate and
intensify the present programmes. Surely,
this province of opportunity can assure the
elderly a life of comfort, securit>% dignity
in the dechning years of his life.
The Minister indicated earlier in the esti-
mates as I remember, about going to the
Treasury Board- and I suspect they must have
turned him down. I do not necessarily agree
with his policies entirely but when Mr. Hell-
yer was turned down, at least he had the
courage to resign. If this Minister was turned
down by the Treasury Board in regard to
needed facilities in this province, then he
should have had the courage to expose the
government and resign from his position.
An hon. member: Oh, that is silly!
Mr. Pilkey: Well, it may be silly in your
eyes. But I want to also say that because of
the government's position of retrenchment,
maybe the whole government should resign
so we can go to the people and debate this
whole question of needed facilities for people.
Maybe we can really benefit from that kind
of debate in terms of finding out where the
money is going to come from because this
seems to be the problem. The crux of the
problem seems to be that the government
cannot provide the resources for these much
needed facilities.
Now I want to conclude by saying that if
tliere is any one area in terms of social serv-
ices that ought to be provided to people
surely this is the area in which we can have
a sense of compassion and provide the facility
for those people in the declining years of their
lives. There is a crying need for this facility,
for extensions and new homes in this province
as much as there is a crying need for addi-
tional moneys to take care of those people
that are in a position of bitter poverty.
I would urge on this Minister to review
his department's position. I would urge him
to go back to the Treasury Board if necessary.
In that regard, frankly, the government has
upset the applecart. The balanced budget has
gone right out the window so they should not
be worried about that.
He now can go to the Treasury Board and
ask for those additional resources. And at
least, he could go to the Treasury Board and
say to them: We ought to have as much in
our budget for 1970 as we had in 1969. Surely
that is not asking too much. If we had those
kinds of resources we could provide a greater
number of facilities than have been provided
at this point in time. I want to suggest that
this is not tlie time for cutting back in this
area. This is the time to move forward and it
is a time to show the people of this province
that we are concerned about people, we are
concerned about the human values and that
we are so concerned that we are going to
provide the necessary facilities to make sure
that they have a sense of comfort, security
and dignity in the declining years of their
lives.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, would the Minis-
ter, since Mrs. Sifton is in the gallery, please
assure us that before the 18 months run out,
this government will supply the funds neces-
sary to (perpetuate Laughlen Lodge.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I stated
the positon of the department earHer in that—
5864
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Ben: That is not a position.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not think that
any time limit is that rigorous. Mr. Chairman,
in—
Mr. Ben: Then your answer is no?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
members evidently will not take my word for
it. I will enhsit the witnesses: Bruce county
—construction completed to date in the 1968-
69 period; Bruce county— Gateway Haven,
Wiarton, 75 beds; Frontenac county, 96 beds;
Hastings county in Bancroft, 104 beds— Ban-
croft, which might be considered up in the
foothiUs of the eastern part of Ontario has
as fine a home as anywhere in the province.
Mr. Pilkey: Nobody is disputing that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know, I opened it.
Kent county-
Mr. Singer: I thought tliat Baycrest was the
best.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are getting better
all the time. Kent county, Thamesview
Lodge-
Interjection by hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Bruce coiuity, did you
say Bruce county was a Tory riding?
No, I have not been up in Bruce yet
to see it so I cannot make a comparison. Kent
county, Chatham, 160 bed«; Strathroy, 80
beds; Sudbury district. Pioneer Manor, 40
beds. Under construction at the present time,
Leeds and Grenville, 150; Oxford county,
158; Renfrew county, 150; Sarnia city, 40
beds; St. Thomas city, 142; Simcoe county,
150; Metropolitan Toronto, Cummer Avenue,
Willowdale, 350; Welland county, Northland
Manor— I guess that is completed now, is it
not?— 90 beds completed. Tjhat makes another
1,230 beds. And additions: Elgin county in
St. Thomas, 50; Fort William, Grandview
Lodge, 113; Lincoln county, Linhaven, that
I am going to be opening up in a month,
100 beds, for another one.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): It is all
Tory counties that are getting the 100-bed
ones.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Then into tlie chari-
table institutions: in Barrio, 69; Maxvillc
Manor, beautiful little Maxville Manor, a dot
on the map of Ontario, 91 beds; St. Anne's
Tower in Toronto, 178 beds; Carefree Lodge,
Willowdale, 125 beds. Under construction: St.
Joseph Villa, Cornwall, 130 beds; Sacred
Heart Villa in Courtland, 53 beds; Thompson
House in Don Mills, 150—1 laid the comer-
stone there or cut the ribbon, I forget— 150
l>eds; St. Joseph Villa, Dundas, 350 beds;
Trillium Home in Orillia, 75 beds; Belmont
Home, that I referred to up the street here,
a magnificent structure, a testimonial to the
compassion and care that we are giving for
our people of the province— nowhere, I say
this categorically, nowhere on the continent
can you walk up the street and see the land
of accommodation that has been provided in
Belmont Home.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Nowhere
in the world will you get such accommodation
is no doubt your contention.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the pro-
gramme is going ahead. It is going ahead
because I am Hke the average citizen: Care
for our senior citizens, care for our children
are the two uppermost things in my mind,
and they are going ahead. I may say that,
with relationship to Oshawa, to Hillsdale
Manor, I have had the delegation in twice;
we have discussed it rationally, sensibly. I
have put forth the case of the department.
One of the items that has concerned me is
that their cost per lx;d is $14,000 greater
than any other cost in the province, greater
than the average cost. I cannot automatically
approve of every liome.
If the hon. member— if the programme he
suggested could carry on, you would not
even need a Minister because all you would
have to do is just come up, file a set of plans
and pick up a cheque. Tlhat is not tlie reason-
able way to do business. I explained earlier
how we are examining the programmes.
These homes will be built. We are in the
business. The department is still going to be
around and I can assure you that it is the
Minister's intention to be around to see that
the programme is carried out.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellinigton): Mr. Chair-
man, while the Minister is in a generous
mood I wonder if he would tell me what he
is going to do for Wellington?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, Wel-
lington county is, of course, as the hon.
member knows— he led a delegation from
Wellington county and I became familiarized
with the situation. I have asked them to go
back and take a second look. The fact that
that home is a very old home need not neces-
sarily mean that it should go out of business.
We are going to check into it and see what
can be adapted at the present time. The fact
MAY 1, 1969
3865
tl^at a home is old does not necessarily mean
that we should rush in and tear it down. In
some instances, such as Belmont Home, it is a
very natural site. I can assure the hon. mem-
ber I shall take a great deal of interest in
that fine, early Canadian, stone structure.
Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
is a very hard man to get mad at but the
way I feel about it is that your oflBcials, and
rightly so, go about telling the county coun-
cil that they should start taking steps towards
providing a new home. Now, I know the
Minister says, "What is better than the old
constructed building that is there now?" But
I do not think he should use salesm.anship
unless he is sure, and after he has sold them
a bill of goods to the tune of $135,000 to tell
them to try and make do with what they
have, I do not think that is good business.
Mr. Pilkey: The Minister commented on
my remarks which I want to follow up. Well,
I am going to anyway. The Minister alluded
to all of the fine, good accommodation but I
do not think anybody has been critical of
the accommodation that you have.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You have been very
critical of this government— that we lack com-
passion. This is the exact opposite, we do
have great compassion.
Mr. Pilkey: What about those people who
are living in one room, that are living in
loneliness? What about those people who
have their names in, or applications in, to
get into those homes? This is what I am
talking about. There is a great short-fall in
terms of beds for people who have applica-
tions. Now you say that you do not need a
Minister— all we need to do is come in and
rubber stamp them. Well let me point this
out to you, that as I understand it, the prov-
ince pays 50 per cent of the capital costs.
Surely the municipal councils have some
integrity. Do you think they are all just
rubber-stamping their 50 per cent? That is
what you are saying, that the municipal
councils have no integrity in terms of pro-
viding their portion of the resources.
Mr. Lewis: Are you asking us to choose
between you and a rubber-stamp? Because
if you are, you know the answer.
Mr. Pilkey: It seems to me that it is not
just a question of rubber stamping the expen-
diture.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, just for
the record, those words wore the words of
the hon. member. They were not my words.
I was casting no reflection on the integrity of
the Hillsdale Manor group. They came down
to me. This is a matter which I say war-
rants us taking a look at the difference in
costs to see whether some adjustment can be
made when we are attempting to develop a
programme within the hmit of our funds for
the overall programme of the department.
We should quite properly take a look at
these things. As I said earlier, we have even
changed the name to private home care to
ensure perhaps that more and more people
can live within the community at a reasonable
cost under reasonable situations. That is a
matter that can be referred to at some other
time.
Mr. Pilkey: In your Department of Social
and Family Services 36th annual report, you
enunciated a great number of homes tiiat
have been built. You went from one end of
this province to the other, even down into
eastern Ontario. But let me ask you a ques-
tion, if I can just locate that page in this
document.
In any event, you list a number of homes
for the aged here in this book that are con-
templated. Now the question I want to ask
the Minister is, when do you expect to com-
plete the total?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have already given
approval to four for the coming year. We
have the money and I will be giving ap-
proval as the year rolls around in accordance
with the needs of the community and as they
are approved. We are in the homes for the
aged business and we continue to be there
within the limit of these funds. I take the
position that, as I pointed out to the leader
of the Opposition, I am a much happier man
today than I was a month ago because I
see the light at the end of the road and I
envisage being able to cope with most of
the requests and demands in the immediate
future.
Mr. Pilkey: Let me refer to page 42 and
page 44— one under the municipal homes for
the aged and the other one. The Charitable
Institutions Act. You have got a number
that you are contemplating— all I am asking
you is when you propose to go forward with
those that are contemplated as enunciated
in this docimient?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not got the
details in front of me, but I would imagine
that those contemplated ones have by and
large been completed by now. This report
goes back to 1867 and I Indicated to the
3866
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House the tremendous increase in beds in
the last two years, either completed or under
construction, so I would imagine that those
contemplated ones have either been com-
pleted or at least well on their way.
Mr. Pilkey: I just want to conclude by read-
ing two short paragraphs, just to indicate the
government's interest and maybe two para-
graphs that the Minister could use when he
is talking to the Minister of—
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Lands and
Forests!
Mr. Pilkey: He's cutting down those big
volumes of money.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer!
Mr. Pilkey: The Treasurer, right. Thank
you. Let me tell you what he said in 1968.
He said:
The message I bring to the members of this
Legislature is a preview of the profound changes
which lie ahead for us in the Ontario of tomorrow.
It is a reflection of the great strength of our economy
and the faith and confidence of the people in the
future of this province. It is a declaration that this
government is determined to play a purposeful part
in the economic and social development of this prov-
ince and our people.
Now that was part of his Budget speech in
1968. I want to suggest to the Minister that
he could use that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would like to tell the
hon. member that I already did this year.
Mr. Pilkey: You have used that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Pilkey: Well, let me give you the rest
of this document anyway. He started off by
saying:
The Ontario of the 1970s stands before us in
splendid array of opportunity and challenge—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hear, hear!
Mr. Pilkey:
—although man will probably be on the moon by
the time we enter that decade, we must continue
to seek a good life on this earth.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Minister,
that there are a great number of elderly and
senior citizens in this province that should
have their place, their good life, on this earth
and we need to provide that accommodation
that gives them the good life. I make that
comment because the hon. Treasurer has said
that, and I would suggest to you when you
go back to the Treasury Board to get that
budget increased to what it was in 1969, you
use those very statements that he enunciated
back at the time he was introducing his
budget.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the Minister a question in
regard to citizens whose cases are diagnosed
as heart, cancer and convalescent hip frac-
ture. I brought this to your attention a few
weeks ago and you gave me a \'ery satisfac-
tory answer. After these citizens are refused
admission to the homes for the aged, the next
thing they do is they try to get into the nurs-
ing home. Those who have not finances to pay
their way in nursing homes cannot in so many
cases be approved under the Ontario Hospital
Services Commission.
Now, Mr. Chairman, where are these people
going to do? Is there a group of citizens who
have no place to go? If they are refused
admission to the home for the aged then they
are unable to be admitted under the Ontario
Hospital Services Commission in a nursing
home? In those cases what takes place?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In those cases the per-
son, if he has no means, can be admitted to
a nursing home under the auspices of the
municipality and then we share with the
municipality in the cost of the nursing home
care to $9.50.
Mr. Spence: Your department would pay
80 per cent of $9.50, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Spence: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ham-
ilton Mountain.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr.
Chairman, we are very fortunate in the city
of Hamilton to be able to find space and ac-
commodation for many of our senior citizens
in our fine Macassa Lodge and I know that
the board of the Macassa Lodge certainly
appreciate the invaluable services of your
home for the aged branch and all the super-
visory personnel right down the line.
One thing that I think is evident, Mr.
Chainnan, is the changing role in the care
for the aged. I personally feel that the in-
creases in old age security over the years has
surely altered the admission rate to our local
home for the aged in Hamilton to the point
that I think last month there were approxi-
mately 19 vacant beds for men in the ambu-
latory wing of the Macassa Lodge. There was
a small waiting list for the women. Now I
think, Mr. Chairman, this reflects the fact that
many old people today are being cared for
MAY 1, 1969
3867
by other members of their family, probably
for a good portion of their old age security.
However, undoubtedly as the Canada Pension
Plan begins to play an important role in the
income of our senior citizens as they are
retired in the future, there are going to be
more and more old people able to find accom-
modation outside the custodial care of an
institution such as the home for the aged.
However, Mr. Chairman, I think the big
problem seems to arise when a senior citizen
finds that he becomes incompetent or requires
bed care. This is where the rub comes be-
cause accommodation cannot be found. I
would like to know what guidelines, first of
all, are laid down in the construction of these
homes for the aged? For example, in Hamil-
ton, we have a home that was a model of
what a home for the aged should be archi-
tectually when they were constructed about
12 years ago— yet it is so designed that it is
almost impossible to convert the male wing
for females when we have a waiting list for
females.
Likewise I can see that in another 10 or
15 years, there is going to be even a smaller
demand for ambulatory bed care in these
homes for the aged. I would like to know
what guidelines there are in their design so
that they can be converted when the need
arises for bed care facilities. I would also like
to know what the ratio is currently for new
homes for the aged such as the Minister
has just read us the list. What is the ratio
between normal ambulatory bed care and
ambulatory care?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well the hon. member
has very successfully pointed his finger on
several of the aspects with which we are con-
fronted at the present time.
There are many who by reason of good
health are able to remain in the community
either with their families or as we hope to
develop, private home care. Here they will
be technically admitted to a home for the
aged, not for custodial care, but for all of
the other administrative facilities they would
have in a home. We have seen this changing
emphasis in that people seeking admission to
the homes are older and less able to look
after themselves in a total way.
In approving plans in recent times we have
focused the attention of those who have
brought forward the plans to provide this
shift in emphasis. We are trying to stress 30
per cent normal care to 70 per cent bed
care— almost a complete reversal. It used to
be 70 per cent normal and 30 per cent bed
care and we have switched that completely
around. This is the purpose that our rest home
programme is to serve.
We hope, in the spectrum of care, to move
from the care type of thing, the acute hos-
pital, the chronic hospital, the nursing home,
the rest home, the home for the aged, to
private home care, and senior citizens' accom-
modation. Within the spectrum of all these
facilities we will be able to meet the needs
of everybody who is a senior citizen. There is
no such thing as an old person. They are just
as varied in all their human abilities as
young people are. We want to tailor our
complete spectrum of facilities to meet the
complete need, and the hon. member has
touched his finger on a very important point.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands):
Mr. Chairman, in listening to some of the
members in the Opposition, it appears to me
that they are trying to point out the fact that
there are waiting lists all over Ontario for
people who would like to get in homes for
the aged. I would just like to point out the
situation as it is in Kingston. In the city itself
we have Rideau Crest Home for the Aged
onto which in the last five years two fine
additions have been constructed.
We have a few more beds than we have
patients to fill Rideau Crest and the elderly
people in Kingston are being well looked
after in accommodation in this very fine
home.
The same thing applies in the County of
Frontenac where the Fairmont Home for the
Aged was just opened last year. It is a beauti-
ful location, a very fine building. They also
have beds available for the elderly people in
Frontenac.
Mr. Martel: What do you call that? Patron-
age? If you do not vote Tory you do not—
Mr. Pilkey: Is that patronage?
Mr. Apps: I have listened to the member
for Oshawa and the member for Sudbury
East insinuate a lot of things and I think
those insinuations are out of order. You
should be ashamed of them. The people in
Kingston have worked hard for these homes
for the aged. They have worked hard in co-
operation with the hon. Minister here, to
obtain these fine buildings. Our elderly citi-
zens are being looked after properly and we
are proud of them down there. To say that
you have to be a Tory to get into them is
just a lot of hog wash, and you know it. It
gets a little bit sickening to listen to some of
3868
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the accusations from over there from sup-
posedly intelligent people. In many cases they
do not act very intelligently.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
point out to the Minister and to the House
that the elderly citizens in Kingston and
Frontenac County have accommodations of
which they can all be proud. We still have a
few beds available to those who would like to
enter.
Mr. Pilkey: Mr. Chairman, the members
who—
Mr. Chairman: The hon. memlber for
Sudbury East was on his feet.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The hon. member
for Sudbury East has the floor.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Lewis: He deferred to the member for
Oshawa.
Mr. Chairman: I heard no deferment.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting
to hear the member for Kingston and the
Islands get up and spout off pious platitudes
about how hard the people in Kingston work.
Well I come from an area that has the
hardest working people in Ontario— the hard
rock miners. I knoiw what work is about. We
have a waiting list now of ^t least more than
the Minister just announced we got in beds
last year.
Do you know what it takes to get someone
who is bedridden into Pioneer Manor in
Sudbruy? One year! I have a case of a woman
at the present time who is living alone and
cannot get out of bed. Her son goes over and
cooks for her. I want to know how the
member for Kingston and the Islands can
justify that. Is he saying that our people in
the north, or in other ridings such as that of
my colleague from Oshawa, do not work
hard? Or is it just your area?
Mr. Apps: It seems to me tliat the gentle-
men over there do not like it when they find
some areas in the province that are being
looked after properly as far as elderly citi-
zens are concerned. Wliat I was trying to
point out is the fact that the elderly citizens'
homes in Kingston are looking after the nimi-
ber of people who want to get in them.
There is no waiting hst in Kingston.
Mr. Lewis: That is because Edgar Benson
goes to bat for them.
Mr. Apps: Well that may be of help, I do
not know. And also the same thing applies
to Frontenac county. So let us not get the
impression that there is a waiting hst in every
area of the province. I hsten to you gentle-
men all the time, and what I am trying to
point out to you is that in my riding in
Kingston they are being looked after well.
I am sure they are being looked after well
in many other areas of the province.
Mr. Pilkey: Why should there be a double
standard?
Mr. Apps: There is no double standard.
Mr. Martel: The point is that we have a
waiting hst right at the present time in
Pioneer Manor of at least 45. It takes from
six months to a year, if you are bedridden,
to get into Pioneer Manor. I want to know
what the plans are to expand Pioneer Manor
so that those old people in the Sudbury area
have a iplace to go, a place where they do
not have to be in one room by themselves,
attempting to look after themselves.
It is just ridiculous to suggest that we are
put ofiF by the fact that some of the residents
of Ontario are being looked after. Ridiculous!
What we are complaining about is that
there are too many who are not being looked
after yet. Maybe that is what the member
from Kingston and the Islands should be on
the floor doing, telling the Minister that there
are other people who need assistance. We
would not have got the hog-wash that we got
from the Minister when he brought out his
original statement that he had enough money
for his programme for this year, because he
does not. He has been trying to justify the
out-backs, the refusal to update the amount
that people were given imder Family Benefits
Act, which has now been reduced to 93 cents
on the dallor. He has been trying to justify
the lack of expansion in Ontario. He has not
got enough money. Why come in with a
phoney lot of nonsense when all kinds of
people in Ontario are hving in destitute and
dire poverty, alone, lonely and just coompletely
forgotten by this government. I want to know
before I leave, what the plans are for the
Sudbury area.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we do
not initiate plans. There liave been no pro-
posals put forward to us at the present tinne
for the Sudbury area.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
MAY 1, 1969
3869
Mr. R. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank youi
Mr. Chairman. This debate this evening has
revolved on those senior citizens who are
cared for in our special homes for elderly
citizens. I just wondered if I could dwell for
a moment on those elderly citizens, Mr. Chair-
man, who choose to end out their life in the
dignity and independence of their own choos-
ing, namely outside of these institutions. Cer-
tainly, those who would like to retard the
time that they are entering these institutions
at least until age, say 70 to 75.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a very
elite group of people. I know you are aware
of that but I would like to remind the com-
mittee, that if we are talking about a person
who is 65 we are talking about somebody
who was bom in 1904, someone who took us
through two world wars and a depression,
someone who has had to come along and
survive through the continually rising increase
in the cost of living; people who have had to
pay their own doctor and hospital bills;
people who have had to educate their own
children for the most part, and people who
now, in many cases, find themselves without
any money left. They are practically wards
of society, and yet they still would like to be
able to hold on to their little home, or even
to rent a home.
I just wonder, Mr. Chairman— I wish I
could put this in the way I would like to.
Most of the senior citizens I talk to, and I
am talking about the ones who do not have
money. Persons who do not have money, not
because they have squandered it all on them-
selves, but persons who perhaps have spent
their money on the education of their chil-
dren or on doctor's bills. You see, we are
talking about people who are 65 or over, we
are talking about people who are not going
to be able to, have not been able to and are
not going to be able to enjoy all the bene-
fits that we will be able to enjoy when we
are their age.
This makes them a very elite group of
people. Old age pension? There is very little
of that for them because it came along a bit
too late for them. The benefits of student
loans and university education is no good
for them— they had to educate their own
children. All of these other costs, Mr. Chair-
man, I cannot understand why we do not
put them in a special group and do more
for them.
For example, why could we not match this
guaranteed income, perhaps 50 cents to the
dollar, or 25 cents to the dollar, or try to
accompany the federal programme in assist-
ing these people. I do not think that what
they get from tlie federal government— at
least from what they tell me— is sufficient for
them to live on, or, in many cases, to even
pay their municipal taxes. I do not know how
much thought this government is giving or
this department has given to something along
these lines.
In other words, I want to ask the Min-
ister a couple of things. How much of this
estimate is going to elderly citizens outside
of the institutions, outside of the homes for
senior citizens, outside the chronic hospitals,
or outside ordinary hospitals? How much is
being done to help these people to prevent
the erosion of mind that leads to the erosion
of the body, that leads to the filling of our
hospitals, our chronic hospitals and our
senior citizens homes? Mr. Chairman, I would
like to know how much research this depart-
ment is doing? I would like to know, for
example, whether the Minister could tell me
in the month of January, this year, how many
persons who were bom in 1904 or prior to
that, who died, forgotten and forlorn, con-
sidering themselves an unwanted burden on
society? How many men, how many women?
How many of those people fought in the first
world war? How many fought in the second
world war? How many raised children
through the years of the depression? How
many educated their own children and "are
now broke because of that?
What I mean to say, Mr. Chairman, is
d^s this Minister have his finger on the
conditions, the living conditions of the senior
citizens, be it 300,000, 400,000, in this prov-
ince? Do they know that we are concerned,
or do they think that we are just waiting to
get them into another bed somewhere?
The people I talk to in that age group love
it when you take the time to sit down and
talk to them and listen to them. They feel
unwanted, and a lot of them do not want to
go into these places. They say give me a
way to earn an honest living and I will not
bother you. What are we doing to help these
senior citizens to maintain this quahty of
spirit, this respectability, Mr. Chairman. I
just wonder how much research this depart-
ment carries on to find out what the collec-
tive mental attitude is and how it changes,
of our people here in the province of Ontario.
I end on just one note. This is the land of
opportunity. Yes, land of opportunity to those
who have the youth and the health to take
advantage of that opportunity, and anyone
who does not fall into that purview, I think
3870
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
deserves to be assisted to the highest pos-
sible point by those who can afford to pay
our way in this society.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
maintenance programme, with relationship to
our senior citizens, is now purely, almost in
total, a federal matter because they have
progressively taken over. Until this year, I
think the class of 1904 was taken over com-
pletely. We do have a Minister's advisory
committee on geiiatrics which is making the
study in relationship to the problems of aging
because tliis department not only has the
homes for the aged, residential care, but also
tlie office for aging. There is a department
within the government and inter-depart-
mental and adxasory committee on aging
made up of various departments and they
consider all the matters related to the prob-
lems and plans for the aging. We have within
our homes for the aged, we have a very full
programme developed through our adjuvants
to keep the people occupied and busy and
make life interesting for them. We are em-
barked in expanding our senior citizens
centres which are fulfilhng a need and I pay
tribute to the Oshawa undertaking— along
with the hon. member for Oshawa.
The Oshawa undertaking was very large
in scope. The local people were very gen-
erous with their support and as a result we
were able to come up with that kind of a
scheme. Actually, we are moving into an
era in which the number of lonely, un-
wanted individuals should be fewer and
fewer because more and more the com-
munity is extending its hand to those who
need all the facilities I referred to and who
wish to stay in the community. I think the
picture that the hon. member painted is not
as bleak as it would appear although, of
course, even one person in those circum-
stances is not very happy but this is a
matter in which our office on aging will
continuously have under review.
Mr. Knight: Well Mr. Chairman, is the
policy of the department to get senior cit-
izens to go into these institutions or to help
them stay out of them?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, no. It is to pro-
vide the kind of facility necessary for the
individual. If he needs care and attention
he should properly go into a home for the
aged. If he does not need that kind of care
we want him to stay in the community be-
cause it costs less for a person to live within
the community than in a home for the aged.
This is why the bill that I introduced today
has— we have changed the name of the so-
called foster home programme, which has
the technical name of special home care pro-
gramme, to private home care so that people
will be technically and legally admitted to
a home for the aged, but they will be hving
within the community subsidized to the same
extent as in the home for the aged pro-
gramme so that they will receive the best of
both worlds: the facilities of the home for
the aged and living within the community.
Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Chairman, just one
more question. Does the Minister's depart-
ment subsidize the senior citizens' sunshine
clubs or centres, and to what extent?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Thirty per cent on
capital construction under The Elderly Per-
sons Centres Act,
Mr. Knight: And the condition for that, I
suppose, is that this would be done through
the municipality; would it be on the endorse-
ment of the municipal government?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes. It is done hand-
in-hand with municipality and private agen-
cies who also participate in the programme.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask of the Minister
the average per diem cost for individuals in
a home for the aged?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know that in char-
itable institutions we share 80 per cent up
to a maximum of eight dollars and that, by
and large, takes care of most of the homes
across the province. Now, not all; there are
some that provide a standard of care that is
costlier than that.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if we
assume that eight dollars was the average
per diem cost, would we be fairly accurate
in that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would think so. Just
a quick glance at figures here shows they
range from $5.84—1 will just read quickly—
$5.84, $6.50, $6.15, $7.19, $7.41, $6.99,
$4.06, $9.02, $11.66, $9.27, $4.55, $6.25,
$6.19, $6.57, $5.70, $4.35. The range is in
that area.
An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, where
would that be?
MAY 1, 1969
3871
Mr. Chainnan: The hon. member for
Windsor-Walkerville has the floor at this
point.
Mr. B. Newman: The average then, Mr.
Chairman, would run into approximately
seven to eight dollars. Now, Mr. Chairman,
the average senior citizen receiving only old-
age security with the CIS, gets approximately
$109.20 a month or little less than four
dollars.
Now here you cannot come along and
feed and house the senior citizen for less
than approximately eight dollars, and you
expect him to live on less than four dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister
should, under such conditions— those senior
citizens who have attempted to get into old
age homes or homes for the aged, and were
not able, because the waiting list is fairly
lengthy, and because these same senior cit-
izens may have the most difficult time paying
rentals— your department should be subsidiz-
ing them the diflFerence between the $109.20
that they receive for old age security and
guaranteed income supplement and the mini-
mum at least, that the department pays for
homes for the aged. If you cannot keep
them in subsistence for less than that amount,
how do you expect them to be able to take
care of themselves?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
cost in a home is far greater than within the
community because of the range of services
and the type of care provided and that is
why we are going to have an emphasis on
private-home care because we hope that the
cost in private homes will be considerably
less than both the investment necessary for
capital costs and maintenance within a home.
An hon. member: How can it be less?
Mr. B. Newman: This is quite all right,
Mr. Chairman. I was in conversation with a
party back home just yesterday-total income,
$151 a month old age security; rent, $125 a
month. Now those two people would just as
soon be placed in a home for the aged. They
have $26 a month on which to live.
It is all right for you to come along and
say that they can-that it is quite costly to
operate some of these homes, but then the
senior citizen finds it extremely costly to
rent likewise. So it behooves the Minister,
Mr. Chairman, to make up some of these
differences. You will say that he can get the
$20 extra from the local municipal welfare
officer. He can try to get that. But he cannot
necessarily get it. There are times when he
will get that. However, I will leave that with
you for the time, Mr. Chairman, and I imagine
someone else would like to get on to that
topic.
Back in my own community in 1963, an
editorial of the local newspaper said, "An-
other Provision Required to Care for Aged
and Infirm". And it goes on at some length
dealing with some of the topics that have
been mentioned here; the final paragraph
says:
There is nothing particularly new in this
problem. It was discussed a decade ago.
So ten years ago, in 1953, they were still talk-
ing about a problem and nothing actually has
been done. I know you will come along and
lay blame on the municipality for probably
not pushing the problem but if you can recall
my own municipality in 1956, when the Ford
Motor Company decided to move to Oakville
we had at one time 14,000 unemployed in
the community; and it is good that the federal
auto trade pact has been able to lessen and
practically diminish the problem that we had
then.
But, Mr. Chairman, with a long waiting
list for people wishing to get into Huron
Lodge, with the Riverview Hospital in the
community thinking of being turned into a
home for the aged, providing the Minister of
Health would assist in the construction of a
new facility, a new hospital in the community,
we could have the problem in the community
solved. But the problem can only be solved if
the Minister of Social and Family Services
and the Minister of Health get together and
assist the community in overcoming the prob-
lem of accommodations for the aged.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister made
mention earlier this evening of the so-called
foster home programme. I think that that
may be a partial answer to the thing. One
week ago, Wednesday, April 23, a Mr. D. H.
Rapelje, the Welland administrator of a home
for the aged in his area, made mention that
we are not placing enough emphasis on what
I term preventive programmes that assist the
older person in the community. He makes
note that in Britain 4.5 per cent of those over
65 are in institutional care while in Canada,
more than 7 per cent are receiving this care.
And the higher statistics in Canada do not
reflect better care than in Britain because of
the extended range of home services the
elderly are given, the opportunity to remain
in a home much longer than in Canada.
It is about time we extended our thinking
to incorporate any type of care, any type of
service, any type of programme that assists
the older citizen or will provide the necessary
3872
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
aid so that he can return to his home or re-
main in his ' home. He felt that one reason
that so many older persons arc institution-
alized is because they are forced to use the
services of the community because of the lack
of home care and other built-in services in a
community and he strongly recommends the
ser\ices of a homemaker, meals on wheels,
and even the Victorian Order of Nurses serv-
ices, including any other services that would
assist the senior citizen to be able to stay in
his own home in his own community. That
type of approach that you are introducing
now, Mr. Chairman, I think, will be the
partial answer to the solution of the problem.
May I ask the Minister at this time if he
has provision in his budget for a grant to
the Windsor senior citizens centre? I underr
stand it is- the . first senior citizens day care
centre or centre of its kind in the province
of Ontario, originally set up in 1962 and
successfully operating since then, and it is
a type of a centre that really could be said
to be a God-send to many senior citizens, a
place where they can come and spend profit-
able hours either in some type of hobby,
maybe simply in conveirsation wfith one
another, engaging in various types of choral
groups and miscellaneous other types of activ-
ities, so that they can get some pleasures out
of life. Approximately what is die grant for
this year to that centre, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Last, week I sent them
a dieque for $5,000.
Mr. B. Newman: For $5,000?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. B. Newman: Has the grant been in-
creased according to the cost of living over
the past year or has it remained stationary?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is the same amount,
$5,000.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, may I respectfully
suggest to the hon. Minister, that any cost
of living increase over a year be reflected
always in a corresponding increase in grants,
because it just costs that much more to oper-
ate the centre one year later than it did one
year prior?
May I ask of the Minister at this time, why
salary increases for supervisory staff at the
Sun Parlor Home in Leamington were turned
down after the Essex county council made a
fairly good and reasonable presentation to the
department requesting that they be given
salary increases?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: T|hose salaries were
considerably out of line with the salaries
across the province and accordingly were not
given.
Mr. B. Newman: They were not in line
with other salaries? How did they get to that
position in the first place then, Mr. Chairman?
They have to be approved by this department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Their initial increase
had not been approved and they went ahead
and gave another increase without even
getting the first approval. They just went
ahead on their own. - :
Mr. B. Newman: Are their salary changes
subsidized by the Minister's department to
some extent? . , .
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. B. Newman: So the Minister actually
did subsidize them in previous years. In spite
of the fact that they gave salary increases,
you still paid your percentage share of the
operational costs?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think in that instance
it is the senior salary that is under reviewy
not the other salaries. I think there has been
a settlement witli respect to those.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
made mention of salary incretises for super-
visory staff at the Sun Parlor Home, Leam-
ington. So they are still under review, are
they, or have they been turned down?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is still under re-
view. When the member uses the term super-
visory I do not know how many that
includes. We know of the one senior one.
Mr. Newman: All right!
Mr. Chairman, I will send this over to the
Minister and then he can perhaps look it
over. It is a communication from the office of
the county clerk of the county of Essex, dated
February 7, 1969.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister about the estimated
costs for capital costs this year in the light
of what they were in the last year's estimates.
I notice that charitable institutions are down
$1.4 million; homes for the aged, the capital
costs are down $2.16 million; elderly per-
sons centres down $50,000. I would like to
hk the Minister what building, what si)edfic
MAY i, 1969 ■
3873
btiildliigs or what m^terianioe was cut in
order to bring in this new tgcbnoiny?
Hott; Ml-. Yareiijkdl Of coufke, Mr. Chair-
man, the maintenance was not cut. For the
operation and maintenance of The Charitable
Institutions Act, there is an increase of over
$1 milhon and for the homes for the aged
and rest hoines there is an increase of over
$2.25 milhon^ so there is almost a $3.5
million increase in the operation and main-
tenance funds provided.
With ,jesx>ect to the other, the figures do
not rieflect that certain institutions have been
cut, because it just means that for the future
we will have that much less money to spend
in this immediate fiscal year.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it was
the capital that I was referring to. Is the Min-
ister not using the current figures?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, the hon, member
is quite right about the capital costs, they
are down, as she pointed out. Compared to
last year they are down $3.5 million.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, what buildings or what maintenance
has received this cut in order to make this
economy?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have not cut any-
thing. The hon. member is using capital and
thea she is! using the word maintenance.
Maintenance is a separate item. In operation
and maintenance for the two types of in-
stitutions W6 have provided an additional
$3.5 million over last year with respect to
maintenance. W^ith respect to capital, we will
spend $3.5 million less in the immediate
year, but that does not mean that we cut
out homes.
We have not started to approve all the
homes for the money we have available. They
will be approved during the course of the
year, to provide a cash flow, as I referred to
earlier.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister also what the criterion
was in deciding which homes for the aged
would go ahead, in choosing the three homes
that are going ahead? What established that
they would be the three homes to go ahead,
other than the other homes?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is a combination of
the progress that the homes-for-the-aged
planning has made together with the needs of
the community. On tlie question of the John
Noble Home, they actually went dhead and
stepped on that' sfh5vel and beg^arf to la^
bricks. Upon a review of the fiU, t'-cscrrie'tci
the conclusion— I gave them the- benefit of
the doubt— they had hone fide pi'oceGde^ with
the construction.
Accordingly when I was able to begin
making approvals, that was one of the first
to get the approval. With the Welland and
the Dorchester, the delegation attended upon
me and provided me with staitLstics relating
to the waiting lists and the urgency of the
matter. The fact that other facilities Within
the area were not available, to me degree
that some, had, been closed up so that any
slack that would have been taken; up by the
new addition had been set aside by the fact
that other facilities within the commuiiity
had been closed. Therefore the urgency of
their needs became greater.
The other home had been in the planning
stage for a considerable period, back and
forth, and I was involved in this" planning
right from the beginning. Thdse are the
criteria we are using. As I say,' it is my hope
that the frnids made available this year and
funds which I trust will be made available
next year, will continue the stream a^ it has
been in the past, perhaps not at an increasing
accelerated rate, but at least at a very
reasonable rate,
Mrs. M. Renwick: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, the Minister knows that in the Welland
situation the rest homes were closed on The
Department of Health's orders. The people
in the Welland thought they had their foot
on the shovel too, like that other home for
the aged the Minister was speaking about.
Only they found that someone had taken
away the opportunity to use the shovel.
I would like to say to the Minister that
surely, in his reply to the member for
Port Arthur, all the elderly people were now
being cared for under The Federal Assist-
ance Act. This somehow writes off the prob-
lem of those people. The problems of those
people are something that this Minister has
to deal with as long as they Hve in this
province, even if they are provided with an
amount of money each month federally. And
I think I would like to ask the Minister, has
he done any research or has any thought been
given to meals-on-wheels to assist the elderly
to stay in their homes in these years where
there is really a lack of incentive to prepare
food for oneself and so on. We talked about
this on the last estimate. Has the Minister
been able to take any interest in that pro-
gramme at all?
3874
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, one of
the things that we are going to have to do
in this department, I propose to let the
people of this province know of the pro-
grammes we have because we are moving
ahead with varied programmes. I have in
my hand a bulletin prepared in November,
1968, "Guide on Foster Homes for the
Aged— Special Home Care."
Now as I reiterated, it is not necessary
for a person to be admitted to a home for
the aged to have the advantages of actually
residing in a home for the aged. That—
Mr, B. Newman: With the $4 a day
allovvance too?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes. The person can
be in a private home care and we will sub-
sidize the costs in the same extent, to the
same degree as if the person were actually
in the home for the aged. We save money
because of the fact that we do not have to
spend the money on the capital costs in-
volved, which of course is not shareable
under the present programme of the federal
government. I am going to see to it that every
hon. member gets a copy of this and any
other material as we produce it. The member
for Windsor was referring to Mr. Rapelje
from Welland who has been a great exponent
of this and who really set the pattern in this
field. We have consulted with him and with
others in developing this programme. We
are bringing to the attention of adminis-
trators across the province 'the value of this.
Mr. Newman: That is a baby bonus in
reverse.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would also like to
ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, his view on
an item in the petition to die Minister in
March from the Association of Mayors and
Reeves on the matter of welfare services.
The Minister's view on the paragraph where
the brief points out that the present sub-
sidies towards construction costs of rest
homes amount to only 50 per cent while
capital grants to hospitals are approximately
66 per cent. Has tlie Minister given any
thought or time to work out the same sort
of assistance for rest homes as there is pro-
vided by this province for hospital beds?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The matter of capital
costs is under review by our department. To
make a comparison of the subsidization of
expensive hospital facilities with rest homes
is not really quite proper. We are hoping to
develop some methods whereby the capital
costs will be reduced so that even if the
sharing is not increased, less money would
have to be used at both levels.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And, Mr. Chairman,
under the movement of the department to
move into die private home care for the
elderly are there in fact any homes operating
in this way municipally now? Private home
care for the elderly?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, there are a num-
ber in municipalities which developed this
programme.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask the Minister
how many there are? How many there are in
Metro Toronto? What criteria is set out for
the requirements of that type of residence?
Is it covered under the Act?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The regulations imder
the Home for the Aged Act deal v^dth it
and the Act I introduced today. All it does is
change the name of special home care, which
was known as foster home care, to private
home care which I think will have an at-
tractiveness to both those giving the care and
those receiving the care. I have an idea that
some elderly people do not like the words
foster care, it seems to be appropriate to
children but not so for senior citizens.
We are, though, going to be laying a great
deal of emphasis on the development of
this programme in the immediate period.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Dur-
ham was on his feet first.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Chair-
man, I realize the hour is getting late and I
do not wish to prolong this debate. But I do
feel that I, as former chairman of the com-
mittee on aging, should say a word in sup-
port of the department and the Minister,
particularly to him, for the Office of Aging.
There has been considerable criticism, Mr.
Cliairnian, tonight of the home for the aged
programme, but may I say to you, sir, that
I as a member of that committee visited
homes for tlie aged throughout this province
and in various jurisdictions across the North
American continent; we can be very proud
of our homes for the aged programme in this
province of Ontario.
I do not know what the situation is in
Oshawa or Sudbury but I do know a great
deal of responsibility rests with the munici-
palities. Many times during our visits I hope,
and I think we did, hght a bonfire under
municipal officials to do something about the
situation that existed in respect to the local
home for the aged.
MAY 1, 1969
3875
I do wish to congratulate the Minister
on the work that is being done. I believe
there are about four municipal homes for the
aged that we visited that v/e considered to
be obsolete-
Mr. Pilkey: All you have to do is light
a bonfire under that Minister.
Mr. Carruthers: And you want to light a
bonfire under the municipal officials-
Mr. Pilkey: They agree. He is the hold-up.
He is the guy.
Mr. Carruthers: Well I do not know what
the hold-up is, but I know that a great deal
of responsibility rests there. So often we
found that there is a lack of interest in the
welfare of our senior citizens-
Mrs. M. Renwick: Lack of money at the
municipal level is the problem.
Mr. Carruthers: Lack of money at the fed-
eral level too. On so many occasions we found
so much being done for the youth of the
community. I can recall one community, Mr.
Chairman— and the member for Port Arthur
would be interested in this I am sure— they
had built a brand new swimming pool, a
beautiful swimming pool, for the younger
generation in that community, and they al-
lowed the senior citizens for their recreation
centre an old abandoned CNR freight build-
ing down by the docks.
Mr. Lewis: Typical of this government.
Mr. Carruthers: Typical of the community,
typical of society as a whole today as it
applies to our senior citizens. And it is about
time we gave a little more consideration be-
cause you and I and everyone of us will
reach that age where we are going to look
for assistance as well.
Mr. Lewis: This is special pleading night.
Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Chairman, I was
pleased to learn today of the programme for
private home care. I do not speak in this
House very often. On so many occasions, on
visiting private homes for private care, the
elderly people in those homes said never let
me be taken out of here, these people are so
kind and so good to us. These are ideal facili-
ties for the care of senior citizens and I would
urge the Minister to promote this programme
to a great extent.
I realize that there is a lack of initiative
on the part of municipalities and it appears
they are opposed to expanding the homes for
the aged programme.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Or nursery schools.
Mr. Carruthers: Well, I am particularly
interested in the senior citizens at this
moment, but basically it is a question of eco-
nomics. I can think of two individuals today.
A gentleman phoned me last night, this man
and wife have been getting along very nicely
on an income of around $5,000, now after
she has been in the hospital for over a year,
she is forced into a nursing home and they
are becoming desperate as far as maintaining
that home is concerned.
There is a real economic problem and per-
haps we share that responsibility in this
House. Society shares that responsibility and
certainly the federal administration ought to
be ashamed of themselves, the attitude they
take towards our senior citizens and the
pittance they give to our elderly people.
Mrs. M. Renwick: You had better check
your own government's allowances. They
give less under general welfare and family
benefits.
Mr. Carruthers: I say we share a responsi-
bility but certainly, from the old age pension
point of view, the responsibility lies with
society as a whole.
An hon. member: Both wrong!
Mr. Carruthers: That is right!
But there is one facet of the senior citizen
programme, Mr. Chairman, that I am par-
ticularly interested in. I realize a great deal
of work has been done at the Western Hos-
pital and a great deal of work has been by
Dr. Riddle, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Charles
Harris in respect to geriatric centres.
Last year I understood that the Rotary
Club of Toronto was very interested in estab-
lishing a geriatric centre and they were will-
ing, I think, to provide a considerable sum
of money to further that programme. I am
wondering whether any further action has
been taken in that respect because I believe
this is one of the most important features or
one of the most important facilities that we
must provide in the days aliead for our senior
citizens. Geriatric centres must be provided
where they can get physical examinations and
be treated for minor ailments. It is a place
where a great deal of research could be car-
ried on.
Certainly through our office of aging, there
has been a great deal of work done in this
respect. I give a great deal of credit to the
Director of that branch of the Minister's
department. But has there been any further
3876
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
action taken with respect to a geriatric centre
in the city of Toronto??
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, no; no definite
action. Some time ago this Rotary club pro-
posal was discussed in a general way, I think
in conjunction with the continued use of
Lachlen Lodge. I do not think that that has
gone ahead. The geriatric centre, of course, is
down in the Lambert Lodge. It is to hoped
that when Lambert Lodge some day gets a
new lease on life that the geriatric centre
might go along with it. I know that they—
Mr. Lewis: It depends on the board mem-
bers.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are doing a
great job under a rather difficult situation.
I have been there on a numlxjr of occasions
and I have seen the very worthwhile work
that they are doing under handicap. I cer-
tainly am taking a personal interest in that.
I think there has been an interest taken by
the Hamilton area in conjunction with the
development of a geriatric programme and
we look to an expansion of this programme
in the years ahead. But, as to the exact
form of direction I cannot say at this time.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Prince Edward-Lennox.
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportrmity
to speak on this very important subject and
I agree in great measure with what the hon.
member for Durham has stated. It was my
privilege to also serve on the select comnnit-
tee on aging and I do feel that this com-
mittee did learn a great deal and that the
report that was submitted reflects very much
of what they learned.
I do feel however, on the other hand, that
a great deal of the assi.stance that is avail-
able to senior citizens is in a great many
cases, unknown to them.
I refer for instance, to the municipal tax
assistance. It is available to them under
certain conditions and a lot of senior citizens
do not seem to }ye aware of this. Because old
age security cheques come from an office of
the federal govenmient in Toronto, I re-
peatedly get fjuestions and letters from
people who think tliat because the letter they
receivc<i in wliich notice is given that the
supplementary a^^sistance is c^it off or re-
duced, that it is the Ontario government
that is opKirating old age security.
The thought in my mind, is this: perhaps
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices could have a certain official in each
district, who might through local newspaper
announcements and different things, make a
social call on those people who have cele-
brated 5()th or 60th wedding anniversaries,
their 90th birthdays or something of that
kind. He could talk to them, gain their con-
fidence an<l advise them of anything pertinent
in our legislation, either federal or provincial.
It might be helpful to them and I think that
that might be a great senace because as I
have said, I do believe that many of our
people are unaware of the services that are
presently available to them.
It is really quite difficult to get that point
across. Now I know that we, as memibers,
try to be as helpful as we can. But every
now and then, a specific case comes to us
that we would have been able to help maybe
a month before had we known about it. We
were not advised arwi did not know.
I think that that is one of the difficulties:
that there is not that commimication. Some-
times these people might be deceived by
salesmen or something of that kind happens
needlessly. If we had good public relations
officers that could see and talk to these
people and gain their confidence, it would be
of great help in what might be done in the
future.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Humber.
Mr. Ben: Well, Mr. Chairman, I rise again
to speak under this section because of men-
tion that the Ministter made of Lambert
Lodge. Lambert Lodge was in the riding
that I represented before redistribution. I
recall the night that I was elected in the
by-election, I was asked what was the first
thing I hoped to acconiiplish now that I was
elected as the provincial member. I said:
Do away with Laml:)ert Lodge.
Lambert Lodge is located now in tlie hon.
Minister's riding and this makes it very im-
portant because he now is in a position to
do something for his riding, if he expresses
an interest in so doing.
Lambert Lodge originall)', if my memory
serves me correctly, was a cash register fac-
tory. I think it belonged to the National
Cash Register Company some time before the
first world war— or was it a peanut factory?
It was a factory anyway. At any rate some-
time during or after World War I, it was
turned into a veterans* hospital by The De-
partment of Veterans' Affairs or whatever
the department may have been called at that
time. Subsequently, it v/as found to be
antiquated for that purpose and Suimybrook
MAY 1, 1969
3877
Hospital was built and the military hospital
—Christie Street Military Hospital as it was
then called— was turned over to the city of
Toronto.
It was supposed to be a home for tlie
aged for a very short time but it has re-
mained there since World War H. It was
antiquated 50 years ago; it was antiquated 25
years ago; it was antiquated 10 years ago—
but it is still there. I guess this hon. Min-
ister wants to have the distinction of having
in his riding an old-aged home which is
older than Laughlen Lodge. I would like to
see hkn live 'that long, because I like him,
but I sure would not want to have that
place remaining there that long.
I rememb(%r I was criticized for making
that statement because some of the dear
souls there were frightened that they would
be evicted and sent out to what then was
the boondocks— out on Kipling, or out in
Scarborough— where they were constructing
homes at that time. I had to go there and
allay their fears and tell them I was in-
terested in replacing Lambert Lodge with
a modern, up-to-date community downtown
because I firmly believe tliat the senior
citizens should spend their declining years in
the community in which they grew up, the
community to which they contributed their
efforts for 60, 70 or 80 years, God bless
them. But Lambert Lodge is still there and I
have a sneaking suspicion it is going to
remain there, although just quite recently, I
think this year or last, a Doctor Rosen, I
believe, said he has set himself a goal to get
rid of Lambert Lodge because it is old and
antiquated.
Just a block up we ha\'e Hilltop Acres.
At least we have some acres around the Hill-
top, we have grass. There are a lot of port-
ables that have been housing the senior
citizens, and have been housing tiiem there
as long as I can remember, 10 or 15 years,
ever since it was taken over.
It was also a military hospital, by the way,
not a hospital in a true sense, it was a Red
Chevron hospital, I think, for veterans. It
seems that all this government is providing
for senior citizens is military cast-offs. Any-
way, at least there they have some acreage,
they have green grass. At Lambert Lodge
there are factories to the one side and railway
tracks on another, big smoking chimneys on
another, I think they have got— well, to the
north of it I must say they are not surrounded
by factories, there are some residential areas
to the north, but on three sides they are sur-
rounded by factories.
Inside the dormitories are so set up that
they try to get the light coming in through
the windows. This necessitates making use of
the space in the centre so it is used for rec-
reation areas and does not have any natural
light. I do not know what you would call
them— foyers, they are not foyers in the true
sense of the word— I guess they are just sur-
plus space they could not rearrange so they
put a television set in there and a few chairs
and there these people sit in semidarkness
because, as I said, there is no natural light.
Is this the kind of treatment we give to our
senior citizens? Look, Mr. Chairman, if this
Minister is as concerned about our elderly as
he claims to be, if his government is God's
gift to elderly people as he claims that it is,
why not give consideration to really doing
something for our senior citizens?
Mr. Chairman, out in Mimico we have the
old railroad yards, a considerable acreage
there, 500 or 600 acres. Take that land and
build a real senior citizens' community. It
could consist of low rise and some high rise
apartments. It could consist of a lot of cot-
tages, maisonettes, or town houses— whatever
you call them these days— with one or two
bedrooms, even bed-sitting rooms. Then a lot
of the senior citizens who are presently occu-
pying two- or three- or four-bedroom houses
would be able to move into this communit>'
and have a little cottage if they so choose—
a bedroom, a living room and a sitting room
would be fine for them.
They would then be able to vacate these
houses which they occupy, one senior citizen
or two senior citizens taking two or three bed-
rooms, and make these available for the
housing, of fjeople with families with chil-
dren. The elderly people could elect to either
live in a cottage if that is what they please,
or they could elect to live in an apartment.
If they lived in a cottage they could prepare
their own meals but would not have to pre-
pare them all the time. There could be a
large central dining room, and if they so
wished they could simply, by calling up the
dining room by 10 o'clock in the morning, or
two or three hours before a mealtime, dine
in that dining room. They could have their
lunch there or they could have their dinner,
or they could have their breakfast, but if
they wanted to prepare their own meals in
their own little cottage they could do so.
You could have chip and putt courses for
them, you could have walkways with flowers;
fantastic things you could do for our senior
citizens. But you have to have the will and
the desire to do it. Do not cry here that you
1878
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cannot raise the money— do you know that
the Minister sitting on the end there, the
Minister of Trade and Development (Mr.
Randall), do you know that in the first year
under this equalization of industrial oppor-
tunity programme he gave away $10 million
to big, million-dollar corporations that have
fantastic earnings? He gave away $10 million.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Yes, he
said he gave away $10 million.
Mr. Ben: In one year. Now, can you not
gi\e some consideration to doing something
for these people? Something to show that
they are still human beings, that they are not
like the Eskimos used to be, as soon as a
person reached a certain age and he could
not contribute to the community, he was put
on an ice flow and shoxed ofi^ into the Arctic.
Mr. Lewis: You are not serious.
Mr. Ben: That is what they did. It is about
the only thing we cannot blame on this go\ -
ernment.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Try harder!
Mr. Ben: They deserve something more.
Just think of the number of homes that you
could make available to families with young
children if you set up such a complex there.
I understand there is some talk about trying
to utilize some of the land at the Lakeshore
Psychiatric Hospital, but you have all this
acreage where the railroad yards are; you
have the surplus land around the Mimico
reformatory that was discussed here earlier
and which the Minister of Correctional Serv-
ices has declared surplus.
Why do we not create such a community?
You are not doing anything for these people
by sending them out to Kipling Acres, beau-
tiful as that place is as a residential area.
They want to live downtown. This is what
this report on Laughlen Lodge stated. They
want to be where the facilities are.
Let us see how much concern you have.
Let us hear an announcement this week or
this month that you are going to do something
of that nature. At least have the decency and
the consideration to replace Lambert Lodge
with something deserving of the people that
are in it. Just show some cx^nsideration for the
people in your own riding.
Hon. M. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, it is a
good thing the hon. member made tliat
speech. If I had made that speech somebody
might have thought I was playing favourites
in turning my eye to one particular area. I
may say that the kind of vision that the hon.
member has seen does not necessarily entail
a mo\e out to Mimico. In fact, I am almost
sure that just as the people at Laughlen
Lodge want to be where the action is, if they
cannot be that close to the action or as close
as Belmont Home, they like the location of
Lambert.
And the smokestacks and the railways
have nothing to do with the site, because
100 yards away from the site of Laml^ert
Lodge there is a proposal for three high-
rise luxury apartments. So, if it is good
enough for somebody to contemplate de-
veloping three luxury-type high-rise apart-
ments, I can assure you that the rasidents
also know a good site when they see one.
In fact, I have examined it in length and
breadth. I know that a building could go
up in one corner, Wlien that is built the
other building can go down. Tbere could be
landscaping. I have seen drawing plans for
the last two years in my mind's eye.
I want to pay tribute to tlie administrators
of the past, and the present administrators
of the home. I know the shortcomings of the
home and they have been pointed out from
time to time by various people. There are
administrators there who have used their
imagination and I invite the hon. member ii
he wants to see how the light of day is
being let into Lambert Lodge he could go
down there and see how at this ver\'
moment one wall is being ripped out and
the light is flowing in. And between the
light of the sun and the colour schemes on
the wall the administration is proving that
brick does not have to be brand new in order
to create an environment. I may say this,
that the happiness on the faces of the men
and women in that home is something to
behold. It is a delight to leave the diffictilt
atmosphere of downtown and walk through
the corridors,
Mr. Lewis: What do you think about the
happiness on the faces of those on the wait-
ing list?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I just want to say that
the residents in that home are very con-
tented; you can walk down the corridors
and it is very cheerful. I sec more happy
faces within the four walls of Lambert Lodge
tlian I do sometimes within this House.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke
with those persons in Lambert Lodge they
were fearful of being moved from the down-
town area.
MAY 1, 1969
3879
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We would not want to
do that.
Mr. Ben: I pointed that out. As a matter
of fact my first suggestion when I was
elected here was that the land occupied by
the Canadian Carbon Company — where
tliese high-rises are now going— be expro-
priated and used for the erection of a re-
placement of Lambert Lodge. In other words,
I was trying to keep the people in the area
where they grew up.
I am not for one minute suggesting that
you move these people to Mimico. I am say-
ing that you used Mimico as a pilot project
to create this kind of an area, because I also
said that you get people moving out of
homes where there are two or three bed-
rooms occupied by one or two people to
move into this new project. Obviously,
people in Lambert Lodge are not going to be
vacating homes that have two or three bed-
rooms. It is a pity that the hour is getting
late, for the hon. Minister of Correctional
Services cannot hear that well— neither can
the Minister of Social and Family Services.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can hear you!
Mr. Ben: But as I say, the first time I
brought up this suggestion, I suggested you
expropriate the land where the high-rises
are now going up. You could have had that
land, and you could have been using it for
a new Lambert Lodge. I only pray, Mr.
Chairman, the Minister will at least replace
that wall he knocked down with something
to keep the elements out.
Mr. Lewis: Well prayers will not do it.
Mr. Ben: I also wish-
Mr. Nixon: You need a little faith.
Mr. Ben: I am appreciative tliat the Min-
ister is always, as he put it, drawing plans
in his mind's eye. I think the members of
the Opposition would sleep much better if
he at least gave the assurances that he is
now starting to draw plans on paper, and
not just in his mind's eye.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Niagara Falls.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to get involved here. My name was men-
tioned earlier in the night by my leader.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): What was the name again?
Mr. Bukator: You are a pretty keen old
man.
An hon. member: Lambert Lodge for you!
Mr. Bukator: Why do you not go to
Japan? I think they need you there. How
many millions of the province's money are
you going to spend in Japan that could pro-
vide houses.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South):
Enough for ten senior citizens' homes.
Mr. Bukator: That is right. That would
take care of a few problems if the Minister
had it. Maybe you can persuade him to give
you a few more millions, because it is badly
needed.
I wanted to get involved because I feel
that I have some information that this
House ought to have.
I was invited to attend a meeting with
Douglas Rapelje of Sunset Haven in Wel-
land back in October, and they bad a brief
made up. They drove me over— at least I
went over with them and they submitted this
brief to this hon. Minister, dated October 21.
But I believe it was the 22nd that they
attended.
The chairman of that committee is Arthur
J. Mackinley, who happens to be working
with me in my office, in my business, but he
is also the chairman of the Welland county
system, and I might say doing a good job,
more so for the Sunset Haven than he is
doing for my office. The man is interested in
his work and doing a good job. I thought
maybe he might go out tomorrow and sell a
house for me when he heard what I said
about him.
On October 29 I found that this was an
interesting subject and someone should get
on to the job. I called Doug Rapelje and
asked him for the correspondence he had had
with the government up to that date. He sent
me photostatic copies of the correspondence
with Mr. Drew of the Minister's department.
He informed me that there were many wait-
ing to get into these homes.
That was on October 29, and we came into
the House a short while after that. Frank
Miller, the mayor of Niagara Falls, took an
interest, and I worked very closely with the
hon. member for Welland (Mr. Momingstar).
I am sorry he is not here this evening, but I
worked very closely with him because we are
former county councillors, and we work well
together. I took the matter up with him and
the next thing that I heard about Dorchester
Manor was that it was turned down. It was
in Barnard No. 36, page 1243.
3880
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The member for Hamilton East asked a
question of this Minister, and I was quite
pleased that I was getting some help with
the problems in my riding. The question was:
'"Why was the decision made to cease con-
struction of the home for the aged, Dor-
chester Manor, in Niagara Falls?" The
Minister was prepared with his answer, and
among other things he did say that Dor-
chester Manor is a proposed rest home, not
a home for the aged. And he went on to say:
"I might add that the county of Welland will
open on February 28, a 90-bed rest home in
Port Colborne."
Your department, Mr. Minister, was good
enough to imite me to this opening. Mr.
Crawford represented the Minister there that
day. I was asked to thank the gentleman. I
did not. I got involved in a political discus-
sion with a group of people. This is always
my problem. When there are a few people
around I want to make a political speech. So
I took the opportunit>' to tell the member
from Welland of the figure that he quoted,
S1.8 million from this province, to assist in
building the homes. I took it on myself to
say that while I was to thank the gentleman
who spoke, I might say that if $1.8 million
was given by the province, I knew another
$L8 million came from the people sitting in
that audience.
And since $1.8 million came from the
people anyhow, I suppose most of it was
paid by them, so we in government, we in
authority in these conditions, handle the
money of the public and we give them some
back. I think that in the process some of that
money is expenses, and they do not get value
for their dollar in every case. But in this
particular instance, in this fine home, I
thought it was a good contribution to the
system in Welland county.
I was there when the original home was
taken apart, so to speak. Mrs. Canning was
the administrator at that time, and it was a
home for the aged. It was an old folks' home
and, I might say, a deplorable place for any
old person to live in. She would come down
the corridors and if the elderly people were
out in the hall, she would clap her hands and
they would head for their rooms because she
handled them as though they were small
children or animals.
The administration there was terrible.
So, being in the county council at that
time, I, my colleagues and the member for
Welland before he came to this Legislature,
decided to sell off portions of that home farm
to build an addition. We made $155,000
from the home farm, and this province
matched it dollar for dollar. That was the first
addition towards a better type of living for
the people who had made a good contribu-
tion to this province. They have taken a few
steps just a few years before us, to make it
better for the ones who came after them. I
say that ever>' citizen in these homes has
made a good contribution to us and for us
and for this we are indebted to them. We are
not gi\'ing them anything, they are getting
only what they are entitled to.
When this was opened, I was pleased, but
I too said that since Mr. Crawford at that
time mentioned that you had meals on wheels,
it would be easy to buy some of the motels
that are sitting vacant, and your units with
meals on wheels be delivered to them in the
motel units. I find no problem, and immedi-
ately, Mr. Chairman, providing more homes
for the aged through that particular facility
that you ha\ e now, close to some of the new
homes, something would be better than
nothing for many of our citizens. So, I ha\e
stayed close with this particular project be-
cause I ha\e found that by dealing with the
Minister or his department heads, or the
people in the municipality, this is our job as
politicians and I see no reason why one
should walk about with a reporter, saying to
the reporter: "Look at what I have tried to
do", or "look at what I have done".
Having said that to you, the work went on
by many of the citizens in Niagara Falls and
many of the citizens throughout the province.
I might say for this question that was asked
of you, whether it came from the NDP or
anybody else— and I do not know why they
are so interested in my riding— there is not
a man or a woman in this House who has
not sufficient problems to take care of in
their own back yard without bothering the
people in my riding. If I am not doing the
job, then I think maybe they ha\e something
to do. But in the meantime, I want to relate
to you through history, through the facts as
I have them, that this particular problem as
I saw it was well handled by the citizens and
I thought by the government until you very
firmly said "no, the money is not here", at
that time, October 21 or 22.
Following up on that, this home in Port
Colborne was opened and I was looking for
the unit in Dorchester Manor. Let me tell
you, nearly every voter in that city, as they
met me, said: "Why not Dorchester Manor?"
I said, "The time will come, I hope, and I
hope soon." Because they had me, naturally,
over a barrel.
MAY 1, 1969
3881
"What is our member doing for us?" This
is what someone said.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: I say to you, that if some of
our vocal friends to the left would keep their
"bazoom" shut and do their work as they
ought to, the work of this province would
continue and get on a lot better than it does
today and people would be better served.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of privilege for a moment, the member has
made an interjection at this point which
prompts me to reply to an earlier question
as to why we stuck our noses into it." We
stuck our nose into it because the promoters
of the lodge came to see us in Toronto and
I will leave the hon. meml^er to contemplate
why they did that.
Mr. Bukator: That was an excellent con-
tribution, that was one of his better ones.
Mr. Nixon: That was another gratuitous
insult.
Mr. MacDonald: It was not.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It was a
point very well taken.
Mr. Nixon: Not a point of order.
Mr. Lewis: A point of personal privilege.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, nuts! A point of brass
politics.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: Listen who is talking now,
if you will; the professional, he thinks. He
thinks he is getting you off the track, but I
have all night and I am going to tell you
exactly what happened down in Niagara
Falls.
Mr. Nixon: The bare facts.
Mr. MacDonald: The member is ob-
viously very disturbed.
Mr. Bukator: Distuiibed? I am very pleased;
we have our home. I say to the hon. mem-
ber, that does not disturb me.
Interjections by hon. members.
An hon. member: They are excited over
there.
Mr. Bukator: I tell you they are enjoying
themselves, let them have their fun.
Mr. Stokes: The meml>er does not ap-
preciate our assistance.
Mr. Bukator: Any time I want some help,
I will not be asking you for it. That is, if I
want results.
Mr. Pilkey: But the people of the riding
might.
Mr. Bukator: They do not indicate that
when they vote at the elections.
Mr. Lewis: Your decades are numbered.
Mr. Bukator: A very interested citizen in
our riding— and I like to give credit where
credit is due-^her name is A. Gertrude
Doherty. She took this very seriously, she
talked to many people. The president pre-
sented a resolution to the city council. The\'
took it up through their chm-oli, a fine
organization too; the president of tliat par-
ticular group, the Rachel unit of the South-
minister Centennial United Church women
was Frances L. Green; the secretary, tlie
chairman of tlie visiting committee, was this
Mrs. Doherty of whom I spoke. I have be-
fore me another letter from St. Paul's United
Church in Chippawa, from a very good
friend of mine, Reverend John Kitchen. He
did write to the Minister and that was on
January 26. The one previous to that, was
from the women from the Southminster
Church of Januaiy 25. Reverend Kitchen and
I spoke about this and the hon. Minister
replied to his letter and said that he was
well informed of what is taking place and
he would like to— it says:
Dear Mr. Kitchen:
I wish to thank you for your letter of
January 26.
And then he says in the last paragraph:
You may be assured that your member
for that area, Mr. George Bukator, MPP
and Mr. Ellis Momingstar, MPP have
maintained acts of representation on be-
half of the citizens of Welland County and
that I have been in touch with the com-
mittee of management in Welland county
for the aged and rest home and the council
of the city of Niagara Falls.
The Minister rephed on several occasions to
people who have written to him in the same
manner. Reverend Michael M. Mandich, the
gentleman from the same church, whom I
did not meet until just within the last week,
a fine young man. I had a chat with him
only within the week. I see the Minister has
replied to him in the same way, stating that
3S82
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
he had been in touch. I might say on be-
lialf of those who are here to hear it, I do
not know how often I have spoken to this
Minister about this very matter, telling him
our problems, asking him what can be done,
and I do find that he is not hard to talk to.
I have another letter here written to Ray
Wilson, the secretary of the Niagara Falls
and District Labour Council. Ray Wilson
ran for the NDP, a fine young man. He is
widi the Niagara Falls and District Labour
Council. He wrote the Minister and sent me
a copy of the letter, spoke to me about this
particular pro'blem, and I naturally have a
similar letter in reply to him from the
Minister.
What I am trx'ing to establish here is that
we have kept on this thing constantly from
October 21 or 22. 1 found out from some
people in this House that they can read
letters for hours and 1 thought I might take
a few minutes and put some of the facts on
the record, because these are exactly that.
I have an editorial here from the Review
entitled "Still the Old Folks Wait." Well
they will be happy that they will not have to
wait much longer.
I have another letter from the South-
minster United Church and copies were sent
on to the Prime Minister, the hon. member
for York South, the hon. member for Wel-
land, the hon. member for St. Catharines,
the hon. leader of the Opposition and my-
self, the Provincial Secretary (Mr. Welch) and
member for Welland Sou^ (Mr. Haggerty).
You people visit there once in a while and
I suppose they remembered your names. Mr.
Hollywood, the manager of the chaml>er of
commerce, took it upon himself to write an
exceptionally good letter, I thouglit, to the
Minister and I have a copy of that.
My friends I have listened to so many
letters and so many words from that side of
the House that this is only a small sanijple.
Mr. Hollywood got the same courteous
letter from this Minister, and I find through
this particular file that one of the people
who was so involved decided to, according to
this, join the New Democratic Party l)e-
cause they were not getting results from
you; not me, I was just a meml>er of the
Opposition. You cannot pick on a member
of the Opposition because I can be critical
of you, bawl the devil out of them and still
be right with my people.
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey South): And ir-
responsible!
Mr. Bukator: Is that right; is that right?
Mr. Winkler: Yes.
Mr. Bukator: Well let me tell you some-
tliing— I can tell you something about you
but I will do that in the hall, in the gutter
where you are accustomed to doing it. You
perform better there.
Mr. Winkler: That is your duty my friend.
Mr. Bukator: Some people have been priv-
ileged to come into this House and I think
they should have some respect and some
dignity. And there are some who have for-
gotten that particular policy.
Mr. MacDonald: Sermon number five,
Mr. Bukator: How do you like it? Was that
not a good one?
Mr. MacDonald: I am enjoying it.
Mr. Bukator: I have listened to you for
ten years, my friend, and your contributions
are not that great.
Mr. MacDonald: Somebody put vinegar
in your coffee at supper tonight.
Mr. Bukator: Last week I met the Min-
ister. He said that he had some information
and he would like to talk with the com-
mittee. He made the arrangements. I was
privileged to be there Monday at 11:15; at
11:30 we were in tliis Minister's office —
Mr. J. W. Snow (Halton East): I thought
you went to church on Sunday at 11 o'clock?
Mr. Bukator: At 11:30 we were in this
Minister's office and when we left I can
assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I was not
too much encouraged with what the Min-
ister had to say. As a matter of fact our
local people did not seem to give us too
much of a chance to get what we were look-
ing for.
But I want to say that my leader did not
know that, as of last night. Unofficially I
heard that the chairman of that committee
was getting a letter and within the month
he woirld get his approval and within this
year they would build that house. Now, if
tl^at is going to be acoomplislied, I need not
say any more except that I think, if the
people of Niagara Falls get this, the rep-
resentatixes of that area have made a small
contribution to bringing that about.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, the member for Durham made
some comments about lack of interest in some
municipalities about aging people. But in the
MAY 1, 1969
3883
county of York I know they have been en-
deavouring to get a new coimty home for the
aged. In the village, now town of Markham,
there is one which has been negotiating with
the department for some time. In the village
of Unionville, a police village, there is also
one; and I would appreciate learning from
the Minister the status of these three projects.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, Mr. Chair-
man, we are very keenly aware of the situa-
tion in York coimty and very sympathetic to
the problem there. I am very much aware
of the names. Under the circumstances of the
past affluent years and the direction of con-
sederable sums of money in this field, I
imagine we would have proceeded with all
three. Now that we are in this phasing
stage we have been communicating with all
groups. We have brought them together. This
is one of the areas in which the area's needs
will be determined and the methods by
which they would be met.
To show the kind of thinking that can
evolve from a situation which may be a
problem, I think it was one of those asso-
ciated with one of the private projects that
put out the idea that somehow a charitable
organization should get together with York
county at the municipal level to try and
work something out. This was a very in-
teresting proposal and I think that we will
be pursuing this aspect. I assure the hon.
member that we are very much aware of
the present needs of York county in relation-
ship to the needs throughout the province
and we will endeavour to meet their re-
quirements as quickly as we can. But I can-
not, at this stage, say which of the projects
wiU receive an immediate go-ahead.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, tlie project
in Newmarket— I listened on the homes for
the aged— York Manor, but I am not fully
informed of the situation there, it is in the
riding of another member of this Legislature.
But I am quite well informed with regard to
the two projects in Markham and Unionville.
In the case of the home in Markham, it has
been in the past, and still is, a mursing home
which they have converted to a charitable
institution; they have incorporated under
The Charitable Institutions Act so that it can
build a new home for the aged. The prob-
lem tbat it faces there is that The Depart-
ment of Health imder which the home is now
operating, has set out standards of accom-
modation which cannot be met in the present
building. It had been a private home, as I
mentioned; it was recently converted to a
public charitable institution. But for them to
continue an oi)eration for the people now
receiving care there, they must have new
accommodation or be put out in the street
or be forced to find other accommodation by
a deadline which The Department of Health
has given to them. This is causing great
anxiety and concern on the part of the resi-
dents and that is one project that I would
feel that the Minister should give a decision
to very quickly or make arrangements with
The Department of Health that they do not
enforce the regulations they have been en-
deavouring to enforce until the new home
can be built.
I would appreciate the Minister's view on
that particular situation and how we can
alleviate the concern of the residents of
Markham.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First, it is the resxx>n-
sibility of the Minister of Health to see that
the requirements of his regulations are car-
ried out. He and I have had discussions along
these lines and he is sympathetic to my
problem and I am sympathetic to his prob-
lem because he does owe a duty to the resi-
dents in the event that some very imhappy
situation might arise because of the lack of
standards being met.
As I say, within the York county area,
though there is an overlap between the mem-
ber for York North and the hon. member
who was just speaking. We are trying to
evolve a plan to meet the needs of the
people on an area basis. During this period
of time, I do not think that everybody can
hope to operate their own show or have
their own idea take precedence if some
scheme can be worked out. I say to the hon.
members that York Manor, Union\'ille and
Markhaven are part of a package deal and
that I am trying to arrive at some satis-
factory solution.
Mr. Deacon: Sir, may I remind the hon.
Minister that the York Manor and Markhaven
are some 35 miles apart and they are serving
really quite a different area. Markhaven is
already serving a large number of patients
and it is a matter of future accommodation
for those patients. They have a problem with
regards to options on lands, things like that,
faced by them as well. They thought they
had a firm commitment from the Minister
last spring and then when they tried to get
with it, it was found that they did not have
one and they have been stalled since and
quite concerned. Of course, many of the
residents of the area and their relatives have
been pressing me— and pressing the Minister,
I am sure— for an answer for many months
3884
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and it is diflRcult for them to understand why
no definite answer has been given prior to
now.
I think it was in December, no it was in
No\ember, when the Minister indicated that
he would have an answer by the end of
December; and the time has been deferred
and deferred, and I am sure he can see that
he is not giving them satisfaction in alleviating
their concern.
The situation with regard to Uniom'ille is
even more desperate in that the Minister
gave his indication in a letter in February,
that when they put in their detailed plan it
would hsive his approval; and he indicated to
them that they should proceed. They pro-
ceeded to purchase the land; they have
undertaken obligations with regard to that;
they then proceeded with the architects and
some expediture of $66,000 in fees; they have
a mortgage on the land— they paid $20,000
approximately on the land; they have a
mortgage for sixty odd thousand dollars facing
them. They have payments on that mortgage
to meet.
I understand they now have a suit from
the architect for his fees of some $67,000.
They have raised, through participation of
citizens, some $20,000 in walks. One of the
walks, "Walk of Ages", which they held last
year, involved some 700 local community
people and raised over $20,000. One of the
men participating and completing the walk
was an 80-year-old gentleman.
It has really been of great concern to this
community to be written a letter from the
Minister that they should now proceed to
develop this land and get on with this home,
and now to say to them, I am sorry, these
plans do not fit in, you cannot go on your
own, you have now got to work with the
York Manor or Markhaven or something else.
This is not really good enough and I cannot
understand the Minister's feeling that these
people can tolerate any longer a deferment
of a decision.
I think the Minister should say to them, I
am sorry we do not believe Unionville or
Markhaven is a sensible thing. The Minister's
department has been looking at this matter
for months and I think they must tell these
people that they have got to forget about it
or we can promise you that this fits in with
our long-term thinking; you make some
temporary arrangements to carry yourself
through the period and we will come through.
We can assure you as a line of policy in this
department, we will come through with our
help eventually. We cannot now because of
pressing capital shortage, we caimot help you
at this moment.
But at least the Minister must say now to
these people how they are going to deal with
their long range problem. It is very frustrat-
ing to them to have this continual deferment
after deferment after deferment and the
situation now is such that they cannot put
off law suits or people not knowing where
they are going. They are going to be pushed
into the streets because of The Department
of Health regulations.
Hon. Mr, Yarcmko: The easy way out for
me would have been for me to have said a
categorical "no" but that is not within my
nature because the answer I want to give is
"yes", and that is the answer the people want
The people do not want any answer, they
want a "yes" and that is the answer I try to
evolve for them. If the hon. member is
implying to me that they would have accepted
a "no" last October, then he assesses the
situation in a different way. What they want
is an answer "yes". What I am thying to give
them is an answer "yes" but this sometimes
takes a little bit of working out and we are
working on that at the present time.
Mr. Deacon: Well, Mr. Chairman, I sug-
gest the Minister's statement to me earlier was
that he is now thinking in terms of a coalition,
one home, one programme, for the whole
county. That is the way I imderstood the
Minister's statement when I first asked this
question. If the Minister's statement is yes,
we agreed there should be accommodation
in Markham and there should be accommoda-
tion in Unionville, as well as in Newmarket.
But if he says we cannot see, programming
in 1969, accommodation in both Unionville
and Markham and not Nev^nnarket, it will
have to come over a staging and need will
be the priority, I think this is acceptable to
people.
All the Minister needs to say is, either give
up these plans or not. This is what is really
pressing us. They are so concerned about the
payments in the case of Unionville, are they
going to just declare themselves bankrupt and
disband, let the land go back to the original
owners, lose the money that has been raised
by the community? This is what is facing
these people. They cannot raise additional
funds in the community without knowing
whether this is a feasible long range project
or not.
They are in the position where it would be
better for the Minister to say, no, we want
no more part of it. We changed our minds
MAY 1, 1969
3885
since the letter I wrote to you in February.
That is no longer the case. We have changed
our long range planning. It is better for the
Minister to say that it is a mistake that he
made and a mistake, therefore, that they
made to go ahead with the project. But to
pay it now, or to say we will fit you in, we
caimot give you a firm commitment right now
but we will put you in our 1970 programme,
subject to approval by the situations at that
time. They must be given an indication, I
submit.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under this
programme? The hon. member for Sudbury
East was on his feet.
Mr. Martel: I have one short question. I
would like to know if the Minister has
approved the application by the Northern
Ecumenical Maternity Homes for Unwed
Mothers under The Charitable Institutions
Act, something I drew to his attention some
months ago.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say the member
for Sudbury East is the one I have heard a
good deal from in conjunction with this and
I think I sent a letter yesterday, or within the
last couple of days, which although it did not
say "yes", should be treated as a very en-
couraging letter to the recipients.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the ques-
tion I want to put to the Minister is— he has
announced today that during the past week
there have been, as I recall, appropriations
for four new homes. Is that covered in the
$4.84 million that is in the appropriations or
is this another supplementary estimate?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is covered. The
$4 million has not been allocated yet. That is
the money which will be available to the
Minister in order to make approvals during
the coming year.
The reason why I am a happier man today
than I was back in October is by reason of
the fact that we had arrived at the end of
the fiscal year and we were able to pay out
of last fiscal year's moneys which will not
have to be paid out of next fiscal year's
allocation and that will give me more elbow
room to meet with the requirements of this
coming year.
Mr. MacDonald: I now understand why
we had a week's delay in the estimates. I
think the Minister was making himself happy
so that he would not become unhappy in the
debate.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would say to the hon.
member that I speak to the House leader
daily and say let us grind out the estimates
day after day until we wind them up.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
under this programme? The hon. member for
Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Just two points, Mr.
Chairman, two questions of the Minister, and
an observation. The observation first. I was
quite understanding the sentiments of the
members for Durham and Prince Edward-
Lennox when they spoke with such nostalgia
for the select committee on aging as they
might speak of an old friend who had gone
out of sight never to return.
I believe we had an interim report on that
committee in 1967. We have had no final
report, and, Mr. Chairman, during the last
estimates I listed only seven of the thick
volume of 100 and something recommenda-
tions, the pertinent recommendations, which
of course have not been carried out.
But also the number for Durham spoke of
his concern for the aged about the hard
heartedness of the federal government in this
matter. I agree that old persons certainly
need more money than is being supplied, but
I would like to point out to the House that
the member for Durham could well speak for
the fact that in the province of Ontario the
same people under The Family Benefits Act
would be short $43 per month from what
they receive under the old age assistance plan
from the Ottawa government.
The question which I have for the Min-
ister, Mr. Chairman, is an annual question of
mine. It is regarding section 2 of The Homes
for the Aged and Rest Homes Act where it
states that:
except as otherwise provided in sub-
section 2 or in section 5, every mmii-
cipality not in a territorial district shall
establish and maintain a home for the
aged.
I think the Minister knows what I would like
to ask him. Except imder the arrangements
of section 2 and 5, which is where two
municipalities can join together and have a
home for the aged, do we yet have a home
for the aged in every municipahty in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
for Scarborough Centre is nagging.
3886
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mrs. M. Renwick: No, two questions, then
I am finished.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: All tlie required muni-
cipalities have a home for the aged.
Mrs. M. Renwick: All the required muni-
cipalities have. Might I ask the Minister also,
how man}' briefs or submissions he has on
hand now from municipalities for homes for
the aged?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not got the
exact number but I would imagine about a
dozen or more communities. This is a very
healthy exercise both from the Minister's
pwint of view and from those who come with
the briefs. We have discussion back and
forth and we are learning a good deal from
each other.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
this programme?
Mr. Pilkey: Just one question; I just want
the Minister to comment on the Budget
where tlie government said that it would not
increase the maintenance subsidy to 80 per
cent. Has the Minister any idea when the
government will be bringing in that pro-
gramme to increase the subsidy? In due
course?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It vnW be in due coiu-se,
depending upon what priorities have to be
taken care of within the department. It was
decided this year, in meeting the budgetary
requirements of the department and of the
Treasury, that there was not the necessity
for that item at this present time.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
this programme?
Vote 2002 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves that the committee
of supply rise and report and asks for leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Si)eaker, the com-
mittee of supply begs to report that it has
come to a certain resolution and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will do second
readings.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, before the motion is put, are we
going to pick up with the Attorney General's
bills? We left one in the middle the other
day.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Be prepared, be prepared!
Mr. Singer: Oh we missed the Minister all
night. I am glad he is back.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adio^lmment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 12.10 o'clock, a.m.
No. 104
ONTARIO
Hegislature of (l^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, May 2, 1969
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Cleii^: Roderick Lewis, Q.C
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per $euUm, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliamera Bldgn., TorotOo,
CONTENTS
Friday, May 2, 1969
Presenting report, Mr. Welch 3889
Imported atrazine, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. MacDonald 3889
Burwash industrial farm, questions to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Martel 3889
Ontario Hospitals for mentally retarded, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman 3890
Regulations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 3890
SheriflFs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 3899
Surrogate Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 3899
Trustee Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 3899
Law Enforcement Compensation Act, 1967, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, on second
reading 3900
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Ben, agreed to 3902
On notice of motion No. 6, Mr. Braithwaite, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Peacock, Mr. Ben,
Mr. Carruthers 3902
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3912
3889
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Our guests this moming, in
the east gallery, are students from LaSalle
secondary school in Sudbury; later this morn-
ing we will have, in the east gallery, students
from Kirby Centennial Public School, RR 1,
Orono, Ontario; and in both galleries, stu-
dents from Smithfield Public School, Rexdale.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the 1967-1968 annual report of The
Ontario Department of Labour for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1968.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Before the orders of the day I would like
to inform the members, that on behalf of the
members of the assembly I have extended to
the director of the Royal Ontario Museimi
and Colonel R. S. McLaughlin, the benefac-
tor who gave the funds for the planetarimn,
our thanks— particularly on behalf of those
members who were able to attend last night,
with the attendants and pages— for the gen-
erous hospitality and a wonderful view of a
new facility for the general information and
knowledge of the pubHc. I am sure the mem-
bers would join me in this expression which
I have extended.
The hon. member for York South has a
question.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a two-part question for the
Minister of Health, who is not here— I am
sorry, he is here!
1. What were the reasons for recent regu-
lations forbidding the use of imported atra-
zine by The Department of Health?
2. Was this question considered and such
action recommended by the pesticides advis-
ory board?
Friday, May 2, 1969
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, before answering the hon. mem-
ber's question may I crave your indulgence
to say that even though I have been on a
diet, I did not think I had faded away to
the point where the hon. member could not
see me.
The regulations controlling atrazine affect
regulation 84-65 passed in April 1965 stating
that only products registered for use in Can-
ada under The Pest Control Products Act of
Canada were permitted for use in plant or
animal production in Ontario. In April 1969
the regulation was amended but the intent
of the regulation was not changed; it was
made more specific, requiring that the pesti-
cide product bear the registration number
assigned by The Pest Control Products Act
of Canada. The Pesticides Advisory Board
was made aware of this amendment and
there was no disagreement. The regulation
is not specifically designed for atrazine only,
but applies to all pesticides alike.
Mr. MacDonald: The reason I was looking
and could not see the Minister was because
I realized that this is very much of interest
to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr.
Stewart) who is not here this morning.
However, is the Minister of Health aware
of the widespread feeling among some sec-
tors of the agricultural community that the
decision was an abrupt one and places them
at a distinct disadvantage in terms of costs,
because they feel that they can get equally
good pesticides at less cost, imported from
the United States? I am sorry if I used the
wrong word— the new regulation places them
at a disadvantage now.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have just been made
aware of this and we are looking into it to
see if our regulation is working a hardship
on them.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): A ques-
tion for the Minister of Correctional Services.
Is a swimming pool included in the plans
for the new social centre at the Burwash
Indiistrial Farm? If not, why not?
3890
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): Mr. Speaker, there is no swimming
pool planned.
The answer to the second part of the ques-
tion is, of course, that there are many more
liigher priorities than swimming pools.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a
question for the Minister of Health, Mr.
Speaker.
What is tlie per diem cost of maintaining
a patient in Ontario Hospitals for the men-
tally retarded? What is the cost per day in
the private nursing homes to which certain
retarded patients have been transferred?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, $10.57
per diem and $9.50 per diem.
Mr. Shulman: I have a second question,
Mr. Speaker, which I thought I had directed
to the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart). I do
not know whether the error occurred in my
office or whether it has been redirected. I see
it is now directed to the Minister of Health.
If the Minister can answer it I am quite
happy, but I think—
Mr. Speaker: The questions that have come
to my office on paper from the hon. member's
office are all directed to the Minister of
Health, as they now appear, without change.
Mr. Shulman: I will place the question and
if the Minister wishes to redkeot it to the
Attorney General, perhaps he will do so:
Did city ambulances take a body directly
from the Malton train wreck on April 20,
1969, to the morgue? Had this body been seen
by a physician or coroner before it was re-
moved from the scene? If not, why was die
body not taken to a hospital to determine
whether it was dead or alive? If it was known
that the body was dead, why was the body
transfported in an ambulance rather than the
deadwagon? Does the Minister believe that it
is good practice to transport dead bodies to
the morgue in the same ambulance that is
used to take the sick to hospitals?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I woiild
ask to take the question as notice.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Never a complaint yet.
Mr. Speaker: This perhaps mi^t be a good
iwint for Mr. Speaker to say that when he
(Ux'S redirect questions tliere is always some
discussion with the member as to whether
die member knew where he wanted to ask
the question and the Speaker knew where it
should go. We bad the problem the other
day, when the hon. member for Scarborough
East (Mr. T. Reid) was directing questions to
the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) which Mr.
Speaker redirected.
I would like to point out that normally I
allow the member's discretion— whether it be
through an error in his office or otherwise—
to rule me imless there is an obvious mis-
direction. So, in this case while I suspected
that perhaps it might be answered by another
Minister, I felt it best to let it go. The hon.
Minister is now taking it as notice.
Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 14th order; re-
siuning the adjourned debate on the motion
for second readmg of Bill 125, An Act to
amend The Regulations Act.
THE REGULATIONS ACT
(Continued)
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
last day when I was up on this matter we
were discussing the problem of the scope and
method of the legislation involved. There was
some contention between myself, as I imder-
stood it, and the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) as to precisely how this thing ought
to be handled. He will give himself accolades
for succinctness; and I will criticize him for
the failure to spell out his meaning. I would
refer the hon. Attorney General to what they
do in Australia under this head— at 372 of
McRuer-^where diey actually lay down the
basis for the examination.
This is an amendment to The Regulations
Act and I think it may be a little anomalous
that you would pass regulations to The Regu-
lations Act. I am wondering too, by way of a
committee of the Legislature, what the ambit
of its powers are with respect to setting its
own guidelines. When most select committees
or committees of the Legislatme are ap-
pointed, there is a fairly good determination
of precisely what their role and function is.
The scrutiny committee is a new concept
l)eing brought forward in Ontario and I rather
suspect that a greater determination ought to
l>e placed upon its role of pyowers apart from
simply saying that it must not assess the
merits of the legislation itself or review a
policy. I am, of course, wholly in agreement
with die latter.
MAY 2, 1969
3891
In the Australian case, the basis adoipted
for the examination of that standing commit-
tee was to scrutinize reigulations to ascertain:
(1) that they are in accord with the statute;
(2) that they do not trespass unduly on per-
sonal rights and liberties; (3) that they do not
make rights and liberties of citizens dependent
on administrative and not judicial decisions;
and (4) that they are concerned with adminis-
trative detail and do not amount to substance
of legislation which should be a matter of
parliamentary enactment.
Tliat is a fair spelling out, and I again
return to 378 of McRuer where he lays down
the guidelines. What they have done in Mani-
toba is, I think, along the lines that the
Attorney General himself prefers rather than
what I am suggesting— namely, that when
the legislative committee was set up, the rule
(it was passed according to Rule 68 of that
assembly's rules) contained no terms of
reference for the examination.
The first standing committee adopted the
following principles to apply in assessing the
regulations, and they set out about eiglit
of these principles which they adopted. I
just wonder what the validity of that is,
whether it is not subject to being returned
to the Legislature to be approved. I do not
doubt that anyone ever questioned the guide-
lines set out by the committee for its own
deliberations, but I wonder if that— within
our parhamentary system— is quite proper
either, since it seems to be no great infringe-
ment upon the liberties and privileges of the
House. It does not come under scrutiny.
But, I think that a scrutiny coanmittee
ought to come under scrutiny with respect to
its own forms. This is a cause of Caesar's
wife being completely virtuous. I throw it out
for what its worth, in any event.
On a secondary and ratlier minor matter,
which fails under subsection 4, provision is
made for an examination of any member of
the Executive Council or any public servant.
But, it is not again spelled out or made de-
terminate that in accordance with McRuer,
in recommendation 7, the committee should
have the power to ask for explanations, writ-
ten or oral, from the department concerned.
I say it is a minor point, it is again brought
under the Australian situation at 373. By
1960, the committee had scrutinized over
400 regulations. Sometimes it calls for a writ-
ten explanation of the regulation or it may
call for witnesses from the department con-
cerned. I want to advert again to the re-
marks made by the hon. member for Samia
(Mr. Bullbrook), imder this heading, as to
the scope of the people who may be called
in for some review under these regulations. I
would ask the Attorney General to give con-
sideration to that too.
In all the parliamentary jurisdictions in
this world wliich deal with regulations along
the lines promoted here, there have been twc
approaches— the one an aflBrmative approach,
and the odier a negative one— neither of
which is of particular application to this
province. The affirmative approach to regula-
tions is that they must be laid before the
Legislature for approval before becoming
effective, and the negative approach is that
they are subject to resolutions of the Legisla-
ture, which could disapprove of them after
they became e£Fective. Many jurisdictions, if
we run through them, have either one or the
other, and I think it is interesting back-
ground in establishing this new procedure to
point out that neither one of these— because
of the times of our sittings, and the length of
time that we sit, although a new precedent
may be set this year and we would be able
to revert to what other jurisdictions may do
under this head— because the Ontario Legisla-
ture sits six or seven months a year, accord-
ing to page 367 of McRuer, neither procedure
will work here.
He says:
The regulations passed between sessions
of the Legislature would either have no
ejSect until affirmed, or would be tempor-
arily efiFective but subject to disapproval.
In the former case, prompt action under
the regulations would be impossible, and
in the latter case, the risks of disapproval
would attend any action taken under the
regulations.
So it is simply turned over to the special
committee to work on it, without approval or
disapproval from that point of view, reporting
back here when they take exception, or sub-
mitting reports, reviewing the work of the
regulations.
I notice too, Mr. Speaker, that no provision
is made— and I think perhaps one should be
if there is no good reason to the contrary—
at least nothing is said here about this com-
mittee meeting during the recess. In all other
jurisdictions it is deliberately set forth in
the supporting bill that it can meet at such
times. True, one can come along with a spe-
cial resolution to have it do so. I suspect that
the job we have before us here on regulations,
since they have never been reviewed previ-
ously, is going to extend well beyond the
parliamentary session itself, and even if it
did not, I think there will be some obtuseness
3892
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
from some members perhaps to be appointed
to that committee. With the volume of work
we have got to cover here from hour to hour
and day to day, to have to sit on a regula-
tions committee while a dozen other commit-
tees attract our attention may be just too
onerous a demand of members of this House,
particularly as the members on the regulations
committee are quite likely all to be lawyers,
as is recommended again by McRuer, al-
tliough I trust that would not necessarily
be so.
A couple of other things that are not in
here that should be mentioned to the House,
Mr. Speaker, are that in the British domain
the chairman of that committee is a member
of the Opjposition— I think it is the British, al-
though I have not checked it carefully, but
certainly it is mentioned here. It is appar-
ently somewhat traditional that that be the
case, as in the committee on public accounts,
and I would ask that some thought be given
to that too. The other day I asked that in
accord again with the recommendations,
namely recommendation No. 5 of McRuer at
378, just how the committee is internally
functioning. Perhaps the Attorney General
does not think it has to be set out in the
Act itself that counsel will be supplied to the
committee and that it has adequate staff.
Perhaps he feels that it is enough to have
the committee self-constituting in this regard,
or at least to determine its own procedures
within a meeting— and then we come back.
I would prefer, if coming back is necessary,
that we do it hie et nunc, that we get it over
with. The bill is before us; let us clarify any
benefit or any requisite, any exigency that
may be necessary and that we can envisage
now, let us do so. As the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral knows, McRuer says the committee
should be assisted by counsel:
The legislative counsel or registrar of
regulations should not act; these officials
may have been involved in drafting the
regulations.
That is a matter which I would like to hear
the Attorney General comment on as to its
benefits going one way or the other.
I feel, as does McRuer, in our present
circumstances that tabling of the regulation
is not, strictly speaking, necessary since they
are published in the Gazette in any event,
although again, it is historical and traditional
in the British House of Commons and in other
jurisdictions that tabling be done. But because
of our fairly lengthy recess it is not felt that
that would be too effective in the circum-
stances here.
That pretty well winds the matter up; there
is the business of the report but I think it
pretty well speaks for itself. There are some
remarks made as to the handling of this in
Manitoba at 374-376. I will just mention the
report:
The Attorney General of Manitoba Yi&s
directed that the legislative coomsel assist
the committee and that a report from him
should accompany all the regulations laid
before the committee.
In his report he comments on regulations that
he thinks require special consideration. At the
beginning of each session of the Legislature,
the legislative coimsel reports on all regula-
tions referred to committee since his last
report, and tlie committee examines them
with particular reference to those upon which
the legislative counsel has commented. If it
cannot review them all during the session, he
may ask the House for authority to sit during
the recess. There is someone ferreting out in
advance of the situations, in advance of meet-
ings, the regulations to which it is particularly
desirous to give surveillance— because some
may be more obviously questionable than
others, and again I anticipate a mountain of
work in this particular area.
There are far more regulations to be dealt
with than there are statutes. They are nicely
worded and they are very long very often;
and they require a considerable knowledge
of the statutes themselves and their internal
workings, in order to see just how efEective
they are. So whoever takes on this monu-
mental task— and it is the worst kind of task
for a le^lator; I do not care who he is,
however dedicated he may be, because it is a
thankless task, completely thankless. There is
no fame to be derived from this. If this is the
hard bare bones of our democracy, the people
who are willing to give their time and eflfort
to this sort of thing are to be highly com-
mended. I am doing my best to avoid that
possibility right now; that is, of engaging in
that particular task. It is something that
causes one to shake one's head as to the
enormous amount of work involved.
Therefore, if we get assistance from legis-
lative counsel or from some other source, if
we get assistance in the ferreting out of what
is for one reason or another questionable—
as derogating from the power and deemed
perhaps an abuse or a piece of inaccuracy or
distortion of the processes of the subordinate
legislative jurisdiction which is a very jeal-
ously guarded thing, perhaps too jealously
guarded.
MAY 2, 1969
3893
I much prefer Willis' position in this regard
against McRuer, whose judicial temper and
legalistic intent is much too obvious com-
pared to the rather more sensible approach
of Professor Willis, whose experience with
administrative tribunals of this kind is such
that he accepts them as a necessary and oflB-
cial part of the modem world.
He does not look down his nose at him— he
thinks there is a good deal to be said. But I
understand there will be a debate on these
two relative positions in the private members'
hour very shortly. I will not labour it here
today.
That fairly well winds up what I have to
contribute towards the coming into being of
this new committee. I want to congratulate
the Attorney General again on moving for-
ward with McRuer, in taking the incentive,
acting on the lure, bringing in a thing which
will again preserve the civil liberties of the
people in this province.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with care, attention
and interest to the remarks of the hon. mem-
ber for Lakeshore and he has presented an
excellent review of what McRuer has had to
say about regulations and how to review and
control them. I think he has touched on most
of the substantiate points with a good com-
parison of what McRuer says and what the
statute recommends.
Mr. Lawlor: The hon. member is becoming
graceful.
Mr. Singer: I am always graceful when I
think the member is right, and I think he is
right-
Mr. Lawlor: Sol A change of personality;
the butterfly comes out of his cocoon.
Mr. Singer: No.
There is one point, Mr. Speaker, that
bothers me very much. I am afraid if the
statute is passed in its present form that it
will emasculate all the opinions given by
McRuer and eliminate the objective- or what
appears to be the objective— of this statute.
McRuer says— and the hon. member for
Lakeshore agreed and I agree with this— that
the terms of reference for the committee
should exclude from review any consideration
of the policy of the parent Act or of the
merits of the regulations.
That is correct and I do not think we can
rightly say that a committee set up to review
regulations can discuss or should debate or
report on whether or not the Legislature was
right in taking the course of action that it
did; or, secondly, that whoever is charged
with the power of making regulations in
accordance with the strictures laid down by
the enabling statute, can have the merits of
what they do questioned.
However, somebody put in the word "objec-
tives", into this statute, and subsection 3 of
section 12, the person who drafted the statute
says: "But without reference to the merits or
the policy or the objeotives."
At that point, I think we have made a very
serious departure from McRuer and I think
we have presented a statute that is quite
meaningless. As you read McRuer and listen
to the debates, the member for Lakeshore,
my colleague, the member for Samia, and
others, say: "Yes, this is a good committee;
it can serve a useful purpose."
The reason for it is to examine these regu-
lations and to see if certain guidelines have
been observed in their passing. What are
these guidelines? McRuer outlines some of
them on page 378 and he says:
The following principles should be laid
down to guide the Committee in its exam-
ination of the regulations:
(a) They should not contain provisions
initiating new policy, but should be con-
fined to details to give effect to the policy
established by the statute.
You pick up a regulation and you say, what
is its objective? Is it to lay down a new
policy? Now, according to the wording of
the statute, you cannot examine this objective.
The second thing McRuer suggests is:
(b) They should be in strict accord with
the statute conferring the power, particu-
larly concerning personal liberties.
Is the objective of the regulation some inter-
ference with personal liberties? The third
suggestion he makes is:
(c) They should be expressed in precise
and unambiguous language.
Perhaps that some line of argument does not
apply to that one. But it certainly applies to
the next one:
(d) They should not have retrospective
effect unless clearly authorized by statute.
And surely the committee, if it is carr>'ing on
a meaningful function, is going to have to
enquire as to whether the objective is that
the particular regulation they are examining
is going to have a retrospective aspect or not.
Then he goes on to say:
(e) They should not exclude the juris-
diction of the courts.
3894
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Is this the objective of the regulation? That
the jurisdiction of the courts should be ex-
cluded or included? It goes on:
(f) They should not impose a fine, im-
prisonment, or other penalty.
(g) They should riot shift the onus of
proof of innocence to a person accused of
an offence.
(h) They should not impose anytliing in
the way of a tax (as distinct from fixing the
amount of a licence fee, or the like).
(i) They should not make any unusual or
unexpected use of delegated power.
(j) General powers should not be exer-
cised to establish a judicial tribunal or
administrative tribunal.
Each one of those guidelines that McRuer
suggests relates to what could well be and
probably is the objective of the regulations.
If the committee is going to be tied in to an
examination which will exclude the considera-
tion of the objectives of the regulations, it is
my submission, Mr. Speaker, that the com-
mittee cannot function. So that we would
have paid lip service to setting up a com-
mittee that apparently is going to be able to
protect the rights of the people of Ontario in
this important aspect, but really will not be
able to.
Now the Attorney General is going to
answer me, as he has in similar matters raised
in this way, suggesting that what I am saying
is a possible interpretation but that no reason-
able person is likely to do it in that way. I
have heard him say that on many occasions.
But we are going to come to another bill
very shortly that deals with compensation for
victims of crime, and we stood in our places
in this House and made the same sort of point
to the Attorney General and he said, "Oh,
don't worry, everything will be fine," except
that when we were faced with cases every-
thing was not fine. Two of the people who
were supposed to have benefitted by the pro-
N'isions of the Act— and we had the assurance
of the Attorney General if that sort of case
arose, everything was going to be fine— were
deprived of any benefits. Now, sir, I have
been around here long enough to recognize—
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The
member gives him more than his due, he did
not say that.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
No, I think on a point of privilege perhaps
I would say that is not what I said. What
we were introducing in the compensation for
victims of crime was only a first step, that
we would go further; that is what I said. And
having introduced in this Legislature a bill
to take the matter further and cover those
cases, which we did not see fit to deal with
on the first round, I have carried out the
government's undertaking.
Mr. Singer: Well be that as it may, that
was the impression I gathered. The Attorney
General is very plausible when you hear him
standing in the House defending one of his
statutes. He refused to yield to our entreaties
to amend the statute dealing with compensa-
tion, so that it would take care of the cases
that we thought it should be able to take care
of.
He certainly gave the impression, Mr.
Speaker, whether he meant to or not, that
there should be little worry in our minds
because the statute, as he presented it in the
first instance could take care of most reason-
able things expected to rise in line with that
particular kind of an incident.
That is the kind of an argument that I
would expect the Attorney General is going to
give us today. But I started to say as well, sir,
that I have been around here long enough to
recognize that, notwithstanding all the good
intentions in the world, the Attorney General
has said—and if he says he has, I am sure he
has; he is an honourable man and he certainly
would not mislead us— that some day we are
going to get a chairman of this regulations
committee who is going to say:
"Well, the statute says vv^e cannot con-
sider the objectives of the regulation, and it is
too bad, Mr. Member, that you are con-
cerned that the regulation has a retrospective
aspect, that is one of its objectives. The
statute that set up the committee says you
cannot consider the objectives and if it is
retrospective or not, too bad. You can't con-
sider it, you cannot report on it and any
discussion among this line is ultra vires of the
powers of the committee and you are pro-
scribed from doing that by the provisions of
the statute that set up the committee."
There are other thing— imposing imprison-
ment, barring jurisdiction of the courts and
that sort of thing. The word "objective" is
the objectionable word in there. The other
things, I think, can be dealt with in a dif-
ferent way. The question of counsel for the
committee, I would think it would be suffi-
cient as part of the debates that if there is a
commitment from government that competent
counsel will be made available to the com-
mittee, that is fine.
Methods of reporting and meetings in be-
tween sessions and that sort of thing, I think
MAY 2, 1969
3895
a commitment quite apart from what is in
the statute. But if we allow this statute to
go through and set up this committee and the
oommi'ttee is told it cannot discuss the
objectives of these regulations, then we are
setting up a toothless and useless committee
and I just do not see why there is any point
in putting forward the statute with that
exclusive in it.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to engage in this debate?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I
want to comment on two or three points,
extremely briefly.
Tlie point which has concerned me about
the preparation of the regulations has been
the introduction of bills providing wide power
to pass regulations in difficult areas when the
regulations are not available at the time the
bills come into the Assembly. Now, I do not
know whether, as a result of the work of the
committee as proposed by this bill, that ulti-
mately there will be some solution to the
problem, but that is one of the major defects
in our legislative process.
To put it another way, the statutes are
becoming couched in more and more general
language, so general that in fact the principle
and objectives of the bill are very difficult to
ascertain. I think it is (a) the pressure of work
and (b) the long period of custom which
indicates the statute is drafted and then the
regulations are drafted anywhere up to a year
or two years afterwards.
That is a matter which I think tlie Attorney
General must direct his mind to, apart alto-
gether from this bill. Because I think hon.
members will find this committee will defi-
nitely recommend that tliat kind of activity
in the introduction of bills, to introduce the
bill and the regulations, will go a long way to
reduce the burden of work imjyosed upon the
proposed special committee.
The second matter that I want to comment
on is that I think tlie Attorney General must
say, yes, there is going to be a counsel or a
counsel secretary or a qualified secretary to be
a permanent staff for this committee. It is just
not possible, even with the best of intentions
in the world, for a committee of this Legis-
lature to do the kind of work which is
required by the proposed committee without
the benefit of the guidance by the proposed
committee without the benefit of the guid-
ance, selection and exposition by a permanent
person who is qualified and is a member of
this staff, separate and distinct from any other
activities which such person might other-
wise have.
The third point I want to make, Mr.
Speaker, is simply that I just do not agree
with tlie proposition that it is wise to have a
committee composed solely of lawyers. I think
that it becomes too much a speciahzed game
of a particular form of professional jargon
which comes into these regulations.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: There is nothing in the
Act to that effect but I think I agree with the
hon. member very heartily. I just point out
that I have not got that in the legislation.
I would not contemplate that kind of a
committee. I think you need a point of view
that is a little wider perhaps, if I may use
that term, than the legalistic point of view
which a committee composed entirely of
lawyers might take. I go along with the hon.
member, as he can observe. I have not got
anything like that in the Act.
Mr. Lewis: The Minister would not get
past the first regulation.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I hoiie it would not l:>e
that bad.
Mr. J. Renwick: I am pleased that the
Attorney General feels the same way that I
do on that matter.
The next point that I would like to com-
ment about is whether the Attorney General
would consider— not necessarily now but as an
additional responsibility of this committee—
that other aspect of the activities of the
executive branch of the government, namely,
the inclusion of orders-in-council in the work
of this special committee. I think the Attor-
ney General is undoubtedly aware that part
two of the Canada Gazette pubHshes substan-
tially all— perhaps all, but certainly sub-
stantially all— of the orders-in-councils passed
by the government in Ottawa as well as the
regulations.
Again, the same question arises concerning
the proper exercise of the authority, apart all
together from this difficult question— that the
member for Downsview, the member of
Lakeshore and others have adverted to— of
where is the line from the scope and authority
of the regulation that is passed. But I think
it is most important that we bring more into
the open, the orders-in-council which are
passed by the executive branch of the gov-
ernment.
My understanding is that at the present
time, for practical purposes, most of them are
posted up in the Privy Council offices. I have
never been too clear as to when they were
posted up, at what time, but apart from that,
there is little, if any, public knowledge of
3896
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
what is passed by the government by way of
orders-in-council.
Having made those very brief points, I
would Hke to say that I do not think we
should get this committee out of perspective.
I think it is going to be a useful addition to
the work of the committees. The registrar
of regulations and the staflF of the Legislative
Council's office, who are involved in the area
of the drafting and promulgation of regula-
tions, have done, in my judgment, a first class
job over the years within certain limits. There
are going to ibe obvious improvements that
can be made in the system. There certainly
is a need to have a body in this Legislature
that provides a siu-veillance function in con-
nection with the regulations in order to make
sure that, inadvertently or otherwise, there is
no unnecessary infringement of the civil rights
of citizens when they come into contact with
their government.
Therefore, I think that what we must try
to do, when we set up additional committees
of this Legislature, is to make them efficient
and economical so far as time is concerned,
because time impinges heavily on the mem-
l^ers, and try not to create any impression
that we are establishing by this special com-
mittee, some new branch of the legislative
assembly. I get the impression that there is
a tendency, in the comments I have heard so
far in this debate, to perhaps blow this com-
mittee out of perspective in terms of the
vigilante operation that it i^ going to perform.
I think it will be a valuable adjunc-t. It is a
matter with which I am sure, were the former
member for Woodbine in the House, he
would be dehghted, because he had pressed
for many years for a committee such as this
one.
I think the distinction, which causes us
concern and which has been voiced by the
other members who have spoken and whidli
is phrased in sub-clause 3 of the proposed
section 12 of The Regulations Acl:, has to be
made. I think no matter what language we
select, it is going to be subject to criticism.
I do not think for one moment that the gov-
ernment can introduce a bill which would
give this committee some overall right to rove
all over the field of policy which is involved
in the statute, when the statute itself pro-
vides this delegatory power.
So long as ix>licy which is not authorized
within the statute is not involved in the regu-
lations, then I think that it is quite proper that
the government should rule out a second
rehash of the poHcics involved in the statute
and give us a second go-roimd when this
special committee meets.
Mr. Singer: They do that by using the
word "merit".
Mr. J. Rcnwick: I suppose on Friday morn-
ing I have not expressed myself clearly. I
think it is very important that the govern-
ment do rule out any discussion of the merits
of it and the policy-
Mr. Singer: I agree; quite right.
Mr. J. Renwick: —the policy that is involved
in it.
Mr. Singer: You get two objectives, that
is too much.
Mr. J. Renwick: And regarding the use of
the word "objectives", maybe the semantios
of it escape me, I find the distinction is in the
absence of being able to phrase different
words, in order to accomplish somethinig
which will be closer to the concern which we
have spoken about. TJhen I think we are going
to have to accept these words because you
are going to have to have something equiva-
lent to, or with somewhat similar connotations
to the word "objectives". I do not think it is
simply going to be as easy as has been sug-
gested, that we can delete the word "objec-
tives" without substituting some word which
more accurately expresses the concern which
the member for Downsview has expressed.
Mr. Singer: Why does the word "merits"
not do it by itself? Why do we need anything
in addition to it?
Mr. J. Renwick: We can come to that when
we come to the committee of the whole
House. In substance, along with the member
for Lakeshore and this party, we support the
formation of the special committee. I would
ask that the Attorney General direct his mind
particularly to the possibility of the legisla-
tive counsel's office and the ministry when
they introduce bills into the assembly, en-
deavouring to introduce at the same time or
during the committee stage of the House,
the regulations which will be made under the
bill. I vi^uld think in that way we will begin
to get away from this problem that we have
of being too general in the statute and too de-
tailed and sixjcific in the regulations, and in-
corporate within the statutes some more
clear and adequate statement of what is
intended to be the purpose of the bill and the
principle of the bill.
MAY 2, 1969
3897
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to speak to the bill? If not, the hon. Attorney
General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am
particularly indebted on this occasion to the
remarks which have been made by those who
have spoken on this legislation. I think the
arguments put forward have been reasoned
and very pertinent to the legislation.
I would hke to deal with the points that
have been raised, and I would say that
generally our approach to this matter was to
take, as we have done in quite a number of
pieces of legislation particularly this session,
the recommendations of Mr. McRuer in his
report and attempt to implement them, and
to implement them, I think, quite fully. I
have tried to say on one or two occasions that
I do not altogether always agree with Mr.
McRuer. I think that is fair. I do not think
any one man can contain within his brain
all the knowledge and all the wisdom of a
subject so wide as rights. But I think we
have implemented very fully in this particular
case those things which he has reconmiended.
The objective, I think, which he set forth,
is contained in his language where he des-
cribes the creation of such a committee to
examine the regulations. In the way he says
it, he rejects the suggestion that any single
person such as the Attorney General or any
specified official be charged with the review
of the regulations. That seems very sensible;
no one person could possibly do it and do it
adequately. Then he says:
The supervision of subordinate legislation
is a function of the Legislature. The non-
partisan views of the committee of the
Legislature should carry great weight with
any department of government.
The proposed committee would have power
to sit, he says, during recess. We have at the
moment rejected that. It would sit and report
periodically to serve three purposes. These
are the three purposes that I think you will
find in this bill— (a) More care will be given
to the forming and content of the regulations.
This has been the exi>erience of other juris-
dictions, (b) Requirement that the committee
consult with the departments before making
an adverse report, should lead to the imme-
diate rectification of any ill considered pro-
visions.
It has just occurred to me, as I was looking
at this and thinking about it and looking at
this Act, I do not see that we have actually
set that forth in this legislation. There is no
requirement here that the committee shall
consult the departments. I do not know that
that might be done in instruction, but perhaps
we should have that in the legislation. I just
mention it in passing.
Thirdly, Mr. McRuer said: "(c) When the
committee reports"— and this I think is the
significant thing— "debate on the report should
have a salutary effect on the process of
legislation by regulations."
Now it is that power to report back to the
Legislature and the debate on the report
which I bring to the attention of members
of the Legislature. The eflFects of errors or
departures from what should be the scope
of the regulations and the language we use,
the scope and method of the exercise of that
power which government has exercised by
regulation, the debating of that report and
those defects being pointed out by that com-
mittee, will have a very salutary eflFect, I am
sure. As Mr. McRuer says, that has been the
experience.
I want to deal particularly with what the
hon. member for Downsview seems to think
is a wrongful use of language in subsection
3 of section 1.
The special committee on regulations
shall examine the regulations with partic-
ular reference to the scope and the method
of the exercise of delegated legislative
power."
He accepts that.
"But without reference to the merits of
The policies or objectives to be effected."
He, I think, takes exception, as I understand
it, to the word objectives.
Certainly Mr. McRuer says you should
not delegate your government responsibility
on policy to a committee. I think we all agree
with that, and I appreciated the remarks of
the member for Riverdale on that matter. I
would like to examine that and use an
example to show what I think is meant by
objective.
Let us say that the government has a
policy of encouraging industry in a certain
area of the province. Then, in its regulations
following legislation of that subject, it passes
some regulation which furthers that objective.
It is not for the committee, set up under this
Act, to be critical of that objective. It is not
its business; that is tlie business of the
government.
Let us say that the government has a pohcy
of encouraging regional government and legis-
lation is passed to encourage that policy—
that is an objective. If a regulation passed
3898
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
pursuant to that Act encourages that objec-
tive, it is not for this committee to be critical
or to deal wdth that objective. In its report,
the committee may say: "We think you have
gone too far in the scope of the exercise of
this power by regulation," But, they are not
to say: "Your pohcy is vinrong and we do not
agree with the objective you are proceeding
to achieve." They can say that in the House
during the leglation debate.
I think we must be practical people. No
matter how we may limit the language of
this legislation and the activities of this
committee, I am sure that in its report-
particularly if we adopted the suggestion of
the hon. member for Lakeshore, the Chairman
would be a member of the Opposition— and
that may be the way to go— the committee
will roam perhaps a little widely around. I
think we will find some pretty pointed com-
ments in the reports which this committee
will make from time to time.
I would like to take to demonstrate that
we followed the recommendation of Mr,
McRuer. His recommendations are on page
1274 of the report and I would like to indi-
cate how we have dealt with them.
The first one is number 126, a committee.
He says a quorum of three. We have set up
a committee, but have left the quorum up
to the Legislature and the committee to estab-
lish. Number 127— regulation to be perman-
ently referred to the committee. That is
implemented by subsection* 2. His 128— terms
of reference should exclude from review any
consideration of the ix)licy of the parent Act
or the merit,
Mr. Singer: That is right. But he does not
use the word "objective",
Hon. Mr. Wisharl: No, he does not iise the
word "objective", but I am not limited to his
words,
Mr. Singer: Of course the Minister is not.
But I am suggesting that when he excludes
them—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Oh no, I thought I
made that pretty clear in my examples, I
think objective goes along with policy. If
policy is designed to achieve some objectives,
you cannot segregate an objective and a policy
that clearly. Any policy that any organization
has, has to be designed to achieve some objec-
tives. If you are going to exclude policy, I
think you necessarily exclude the objective.
I am not limited to Mr, McRuer's words,
and I say we have accomplished what he says
in 128. In 129, he sets out guiding principles.
We did not attempt to set those forth in the
bill, I do not think they were intended to be
included for legislation, I think that when the
committee is appointed, the Legislature will-
within the terms of this Act and perhaps a
little beyond— set forth its direction and the
way it shall work. In any case, I am sure
that the committee would use every yardstick
to measure its conduct and its acti\ity. What
Mr. McRuer has said in this recommendation
129 is not legislative material.
In 130, the provision of counsel is likewise
mentioned. I am sure that when the Legisla-
ture sets up the committee it will say: "You
may have counsel," I think Mr, McRuer, at
some point, says that they should not be
legislative counsel who have been charged
with drafting regulations. This would be a
conflict to place such counsel in an invidious
position. I am sure we make provisions for
counsel.
So we pass to 131: to sit during recess. We
have studied that and feel that perhaps the
committee could accomplish the work it had
to do while the House is in session. I think
there is some advantage to them doing their
work at that time, if we found that that is
impossible, that the burden is too great, with
the other duties of members of the House, I
am sure that we could perhaps look at that
again. But, I would urge that the bill go
forward as it is drafted on that point,
Mr, McRuer gave another recommendation.
Should a power to ask for explanation, written
or oral, from the department concerned? I
mentioned earlier that he says they should
not make a report until they have actually
consulted the department. We have not con-
fined them to that, at least in the legislation,
and I suggest that any committee has the
power to ask for explanations. We have pro-
vided that the committee can call upon the
'Minister, so I submit that we have carried
out that recommendation.
Now, we have not dealt with 134— that the
rules of the legislative assembly be amended,
I do not know what amendments are neces-
sary, but if they are necessary I am sure the
Legislature could get to that. So, Mr. Speaker,
we have, in presenting this legislation, carried
out the recommendations of Mr. McRuer
almost completely. The member for River-
dale, in suggesting we could deal with orders-
in-council was not really talking to the prin-
ciple of this bill.
I did not want to interrupt him at the time,
but I think we are going beyond the scope of
this legislation when we talk about includ-
ing orders-in-council. I am indebted to him
MAY 2, 1969
3899
for die suggestion; it is something to think
about. Perhaps some other legislation would
deal with that but I do not think that it can
be contemplated within the scope of this
legislation as regulations and orders-in-council.
While they are similar in that they are passed
by government in the sense that it is the
cabinet, they are widely different in their
implications and in the reach that they have
to the people, and to the government policy
generally. Orders-in-council are more or less
specifically detailed things. Regulations reach
out over the whole field— the same in many
respects as a section of a statute. I think
that would have to be dealt with in different
legislation. That, I think, Mr. Speaker, is all
I have to offer with respect to this bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SHERIFF'S ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading
of Bill 126, An Act to amend The Sheriff's
Act
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SURROGATE COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading
of Bill 127, An Act to amend The Surrogate
Courts Act.
Mr. Lawlor: Just a word on this. The in-
crease from $400 to $1,000 is a very bene-
ficial thing. I would like to see it made more
evident to the general public that they do
not have to obtain legal advice on small
estates up to $1,000, that it can be worked
through the surrogate court clerk. But, just
how that is done, or the legal profession
themselves making it well known to the pub-
lic in this regard. In other words, I do not
tliink the benefits imder the Act are suffi-
ciently known, and in a way, I would like
to know, possibly in the committee of the
whole House, the number of applications that
are processed in this way in the past.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to speak to the bill? If not, the hon. Attorney
General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I appre-
ciate the comments of the hon. member for
Lakeshore. He is right that perhaps this is
not well enough known. The principle of the
bin is simply that we extend the amount to
meet the dollar value today, or to approach
it as it changed from what it was at the time
it was fixed at $400, to $1,000. Perhaps we
can do something to promulgate the fact that
persons whose estates are small, or under this
amount, can have the work done v^dthout
expense, by the officials we provide in the
surrogate court oflSce.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TRUSTEE ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill 128, An Act to amend The Trustee Act.
Mr. Lawlor: Just one word again on this
one. It is substantive enough; it is very fair
and reasonable; I do not think it has to be
elaborated upon. The business of going from
two thirds of the property to three quarters
of the value of the property for mortgage
loan purposes is something which, I trust
the Attorney General has taken up with the
hon. Minister of Trade and Development
(Mr. Randall) and pointed out that possibili-
ties of the mortgage market have been ex-
tended in Ontario, which is all to the good.
Also, the extension of the type of share and
prices of securities on which moneys may be
invested is a matter I think which has been
mooted for a long time in the profession and
by financial houses wanting to extend the
range and availability of funds, instead of
having them lying tied up and dormant,
especially when the public need, especially
in housing is so great. This measure makes
some small significant move towards helping
out in that situation.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would
just reply briefly and say, that of course, the
provisions here have been made known to
all my colleagues, particularly the hon. Min-
ister of Trade and Development. These pro-
visions bring the matter of the investment of
funds in an estate into line with what trust
companies are doing with funds generally.
This bill relates to funds in the hands of a
trustee who may be the executor for the
estate, maybe the trust company, maybe an
individual as named in a will. It permits the
investment of funds on the basis designed by
these two sections— that is, raising the amount,
where the money may be invested on a first
mortgage, from two thirds to three quarters,
after proper evaluation. It removes the re-
quirement of getting the consent of the court
on application where you have a specified
and well-delineated list of investments which
3900
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the trustee may use— sort of blue chip things,
debentures guaranteed by government, or de-
bentures of a municipality, or certain equity
stocks which have had a history of dividend
payment unbroken over a period of time.
These are all delineated, and trustees, or trust
companies, generally have been permitted, by
amendments made to their legislation, to
invest in this sort of thing.
The trustee who is handling estate funds
had to go to the court, and delay and
expense was occasioned, although he was
limited to a very select number of invest-
ments—really a blue chip situation. So we
have seen it wise— this is a recommendation
that had been made to us some time back-
to adopt the amendments, or propose the
amendments, as suggested here. I think they
are very wise and proper.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMPENSATION ACT, 1967
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading
of Bill 131, An Act to amend The Law En-
forcement Compensation Act, 1967.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs-
view.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the introduction
of this bill is a case of the chickens having
come home to roost. I know the Attorney
General would expect us to say we told him
so— we did tell him so, he had a bad Act
the last time and now he has to bring in the
amendment. It is a pity, Mr. Speaker, that
two citizens of the province of Ontario have
had to suffer because the Attorney General
would not accept the very good advice that
came to him from this side of the House.
He did not choose to do it then and now he
is closing the bam door after the horse is
gone, but along the way he is still neglect-
ing to provide a remedy for Botrie and for
Lindzon, who are two people who have suf-
fered and who now will be covered by the
provisions of the new Act.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The member wants it
retroactive?
Mr. Singer: I want it retroactive. Mr.
Speaker, I know exactly what the Attorney
General has in mind, he is going to point out
that I objected to the word "retroactive" in
another statute that he has before us. I did,
because it was very broad, it was far too
broad, there were no limitations on it at all.
In this case I think this statute should be
made retroactive either to a specific date or
retroactive sufficiently to cover the two cases
that we know about. Then there can be no
doubt in anyone's mind as to the effect of that
retroactivity. I am sorry, I should have let
him make his point and then come back at
him because the general use of the word,
"retroactive", without any limitations is a
very dangerous thing. It is not as though
this was something new; there are two specific
cases in mind, Mr. Speaker, and I think they
should be covered. I can see no excuse for
their not being covered and I am sure the
Attorney General, being a reasonable man,
is going to be happy to introduce that amend-
ment himself. If he does not we will have
one here at the appropriate time in com-
mittee.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I just won-
der if we should not have a good look at the
tide of this Act. It is called The Law En-
forcement Compensation Act and it would
seem to me that a far more appropriate de-
scription of this statute would be as some-
thing designed to do what it does— The Crimi-
nal Injuries Compensation Act. I think it
would be more appropriate and more descrip-
tive and really strike closer to the objective
that the statute, when it is eventually worked
out, is going to achieve. And I would com-
mend that to the Attorney General's specific
attention.
There were a couple of other points that I
think are worthy of some consideration and
that is the whole question of the necessity of
a hearing since we are having another care-
ful look at this Act. In England, Mr. Speaker,
as the Attorney General knows, there is a
hearing only if the board, having first made
an offer, has had its offer refused. There
is power in the English statute to allow the
board to make an offer when they become
aware of the circumstances of a particular
matter. I think there is substantial merit in
this idea of proceeding, because it would
have the time of the sitting of the board. It
could allow an offer to be made, it could
eliminate a lot of red tape, and I would
think that a power given to the board to
consider matters as they come to their atten-
tion, and a power to make offers vdthout the
necessity of a hearing, could be a greater
expediter and could be a great help in the
carrying on of these proceedings.
The final point I want to make is this, sir:
We have talked from time to time about some
type of legislation that, for lack of a better
descriptive phrase, might be called "good
Samaritan legislation". If a citizen comes to
MAY 2, 1969
3901
the the aid of another citizen— and it is not
necessary that there has been a crime com-
mitted—if someone is injured in an automo-
bile accident, or someone is drowning or that
sort of thing, and it occurs to citizen A to
come to the aid of citizen B and in the course
of doing that he is injured or suffers damage,
or worse than that is held liable for something
that might happen, it would seem to me that
along the general line of thinking that we
have in this statute there could and should be
some arrangements made to look after that.
I grant you, sir, that I am stretching the
principle of the debate on this bill a little far
at this point but I throw that to the Attor-
ney General for his consideration.
The main point though, as I say, sir, is the
principle of retroactivity that should be in-
troduced into this bill to cover the two spe-
cific cases and it is not as though this is
something new. If the Attorney General tells
us he does not like retroactivity, and he is not
going to have it in any of his statutes in any
way, that is fine, but I think under these cir-
cumstances and in view of the fact that we
can say with great authority "we told you
so", that what we predicted would happen
did happen, the Attorney General has to have
another look at what this statute is going to
do and to broaden the sphere of application
of this statute in order to cover the cases of
these people or their families who have
suffered.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add to what has already been
stated by the hon. member for Downsview.
I also took objection to the first legislation
enacted by this government to compensate
victims of crime. There was a very broad
loophole and the Minister would not pay
attention to the advice we were trying to
tender. I suggested to the hon. Minister that
again he has left a glaring omission or
loophole.
The Act— he proposes to amend it— will
compensate people injured or killed by any
act or omission of any other person, and these
are important words, "occurring in or result-
ing directly from", and then it continues to
describe the facts— but it must "occur in or
result directly from". In other words it must
be a causa causans as distinguished from a
causa sine qua non, 1 think the Minister
understands what I am trying to say. Then:
"(a) a commission of an offence, etc. (b)
unlawfully arresting or attempting to arrest
an offender or suspected offender while assist-
ing a police officer therein, (c) preventing
or attempting to prevent the commission of a
crime or suspected crime or assisting a police
officer therein."
Now what if we have a situation where a
citizen suspects that a crime has been com-
mitted. He is uncertain who committed the
crime, but he apprehends a citizen and
attempts to hold him for the police, so that
the police can investigate? In other words,
it is not an arrest, Mr. Speaker, we are deal-
ing with a legal statute here and we must
give a legal interpretation to the words used,
"lawfully arresting". Arresting must be given
its proper term— it is not apprehending, it is
not holding, not imprisoning, it is arresting
in a true sense of the word.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Or attempting!
Mr. Ben: Or attempting to arrest. But the
person is not attempting to arrest, he may
just be uncertain and he may just be holding
for investigation or interrogation by the
police. Now what happens there, Mr. Speaker,
how do you cover that situation?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: In the next subsection,
"preventing or attempting to prevent"-^:hat is
pretty wide.
Mr. Ben: An offence has been committed,
a citizen hears a commotion, he sees an indivi-
dual running, he suspects that a crime has
been committed, he does not even know
by whom, so he tries to apprehend the man
running; unless the Minister is trying to say
that escaping from the commission of an
offence is an offence. The only kind of a
crime that he could be trying to prevent—
because the crime has occurred— therefore—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, no, may I—
Mr. Ben: Please, I would be very happy to
bear the—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think the language—
if the hon. member would look down at
subsection (c). I do not know how much
wider the member would want legislation to
go, "preventing or attempting to prevent the
commission of a crime or suspected crime."
So that if he is doing anything to prevent-
even something he suspects— how much wider
can one wander in the field than that? I do
not know how much wider the member wants
to go.
Mr. Ben: I would ask the Attorney General
to listen carefully. Section (c) talks about pre-
venting or attempting to prevent. What ff a
crime had already been committed? This is
what I am trying to point out to the Attorney
3902
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
General, Mr. Speaker, that it does not cover
the situation where a crime has been com-
mitted and a citizen holds or tries to hold,
for interrogation by the poHce—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is subsection (b).
Mr. Ben: No. It says "lawfully arresting or
attempting to arrest" and I am suggesting
that there is a situation where the citizen is
trying to do neither, where the citii^n is not
trying to arrest— rather, does not arrest or
does not attempt to arrest, because arrest has
a particular legal connotation. The citizen is
merely awaiting tlie arrival of a policeman
to decide whether or not the person being
held-
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker,
for my inattention, I am trying to make
some arrangements to fly away today.
Mr. Ben: I would ask for his forbearance
because I am not talking for the record, I
iim talking for the benefit of the Attorney
General. I have two minutes left, and I
am trying to stress section (b) which covers
the situation where a citizen arrests-
Mr. Speaker: May I just point out to the
hon. member that the time left is so short
that perhaps since he has an important point
he would care to adjourn the debate and then
he could bring it to the Minister's aittention
when he is not trying to fly away.
Mr. Ben moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
6, by Mr. Braithwaite:
Resolution: That this House recognize
the reality of noise pollution as a factor
in the daily lives and welfare of the people
of Ontario.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Where is
the Minister of pollution?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will please
move his resolution before he makes his
address.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. mem-
ber for Humber resolution No. 6 standing in
my name on the order paper.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Etobicoke,
seconded by -ftie member for Humber, moves
resolution No. 6 standing in his name on the
order paper.
Mr. Braithwaite: Coming as I do from
Etobicoke, I have a special interest in the
resolution which is standing in my name,
and, quite shordy, I want to bring the issue
home and relate it to the welfare of m>'
constituents.
But before I do that, I want to review the
problem broadly because this matter is of such
general seriousness that it has impelled Dr.
Vem O. Knudsen, a physicist and sound re-
searcher at the University of California in Los
Angeles, to remark that "noise, like smog, is
a slow agent of death."
The president-elect of the American
Medical Association, Dr. Gerald D. Dorman,
said in Chicago April 27: "There is no longer
a place to hide." Just look at the average
day. A jet flies overhead to disturb your final
hour of sleep. The garbage men are at work
below the bedroom window. The next-door
neighbour revs up his automobile. The alarm
rings, or the clock radio comes on, and the
day begins.
Pity the man or woman who chooses to
sleep an extra 20 minutes. Toilets flush,
showers run, people clatter about.
On the way to work the diesel trucks roar,
horns honk; while back at home, the clothes
and dishwasher are operating at a sickening
70 decibels each, worse because their low
frequency noise goes largely unnoticed by the
conscious mind. All the natural sounds, which
seem designed by the Almighty to relax the
nervous system— the sigh of the wind, the
song of the birds— are drowned out by noise
pollution.
The noise of the vacuum cleaner is par-
ticularly irritating in the home. The noise of
the subway is set at 100 decibels on the
average— just 40 db below the threshold of
pain. A taxicab in traffic emits about 80
decibels. The sounds of construction reach
110 decibels, especially if pneumatic tools
are in use. A youth's souped-up motorcycle
can emit 110 decibels too, if the muffler has
been tampered with or removed. Even in
an axerage office, the noise level is 50 to 60
decibels throughout the day.
After work, why try to relax when a power
boat or snowmobile both hit 90 db, a power
mower and chain saw about 95 db, a model
airplane close to 100 db, a blender 100 db, a
rock-and-roll band over 100 db? A recent
measurement in a teenage club gave a higher
noise level at the bandstand— 120 db— than
that experienced at the press site during the
MAY 2, 1969
3903
Saturn V launchings. Dr. Pollock, who con-
ducted the experiment, is a University of
Florida researcher, and he found hearing
losses of between 15 and 35 decibels in teen-
agers exposed to this kind of music.
When I knew that there would be an
opportunity for this debate, I had our re-
search people send away for the report of
the committee on environmental quality of
the Federal Council of Science and Tech-
nology, which I had been advised had just
been published. I found this report to be an
eye-opener. About 16 million workers in the
U.S.A. are now exposed to industrial work-
ing conditions that must inevitably damage
their hearing. Yet most people are apathetic,
even though they may be very concerned
about air and water pollution. "You can
always move out of the noisy area," they say.
But the fact is that you cannot escape noise.
The real danger then becomes that the
body adapts to noise from which it cannot
escape, and the adaptation takes the form of
hearing loss. We have a great deal to learn
from the construction of older buildings, with
their larger rooms, heavier doors, drapes,
rugs and carpets. We are talking a good
deal about modular construction now, and I
see that Stelco has a proposal for prefabrica-
tion. I hope that due note will be taken of
recent findings that floors and ceilings should
not be solidly bonded to the joists, and the
walls should not be rigidly studded. Other-
wise all the acoustic tile in the world will
not prevent the transmission of noise.
The Owens-Coming fibreglass sound lab-
oratory at Granville, Ohio, has done all this
research already, and I suppose that the
Minister of Trade and Development (Mr.
Randall) should have these findings circulated
to the building trade and to architects and
engineers throughout Ontario as a public
service. I also want him to arrange for the
publication throughout Ontario of the results
of the study now being conducted in Los
Angeles by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development. In this pilot project,
Norman I. Pederson, architect and engineer,
who has specialized in sound-proofing Holly-
wood studios, has been engaged to scientific-
ally insulate houses that border on the Los
Angeles international airport by using cali-
bration methods before and after the installa-
tion.
At the same time, I hope it will be possible
to look into the idea of using a catapult, as
aircraft carriers do, rather than lengthening
the runways of airports, particularly at
Mai ton. A report in the Financial Post of
April 7, 1969, suggested this to be feasible,
since the aircraft can then climb to a height
of several thousand feet before it is neces-
sary to advance the engines from "idle" to
"thrust". We have to do something urgently,
and this brings me to the effect of noise in
my own constituency.
As a member of the board of the Etobicoke
General Hospital, I concurred in its con-
struction with apprehension, but we need this
$20 million project even though its site, on
Highway 7 just south of Albion Road, lies
directly in the path of one of the runways
now being extended at Toronto international
airport. OHSC shared my reluctance, and
called for what amounted to a $500,000 bond
from the borough before it would authorize
the go-ahead.
It's not going to be easy to raise the one-
third of the cost, about $7 million from a
community which is as concerned with noise
pollution as Etobicoke is at the moment. We
may have to look at a higher price for im-
proved sound-proofing, and, in any event, it
seems all wrong that we should have to
isolate a hospital from the outside world
before it can function, when the better
remedy would surely be to eliminate the
source.
I have promised to read in the record of
this Legislature, a representative number of
letters from my constituents, in the hope that
Hansard will be read by the two higher levels
of government. In all of my replies I pledged:
For my part I will continue to make the
federal government fully aware of your
views. Further, I intend to do everything
possible to see that any ameliorating in-
fluence that the government of Ontario can
wield is brought to bear on the federal
government at Ottawa as quickly as pos-
sible.
This speech is in fulfilment of that pledge.
Since time is short, I will condense the texts
and pick out the meat of the matter in each
case.
The first letter comes from Mr. G. M. Mac-
Lean, 3 Pergola Road, Rexdale, who writes:
I am extremely disappointed to learn of
the proposed extension of the northern run-
way—23 right, 05 left— at Toronto Inter-
national Airport.
According to information I have received
from the West Humber area residents'
association, my family, including three
children ages nine months to five years
and I, will be subjected to noise levels
3904
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
comparable to a riveting machine, a pneu-
matic peen hammer, a cut-oflF saw, an elec-
tric furnace area, and a casting shakeout
area.
After 20 years of industrial experience, I
feel quite sure that these noise levels
would be detrimental to physical and men-
tal health of my family. In addition, struc-
tural damage to the houses in the area is
inevitable.
I urge you to reconsider the "interim"
expansion plan and to conclude that the
only reasonable solution is to proceed
immediately with the second airport.
The second letter comes from Mrs. J. W.
Fitzpatrick, 42 Masseygrove Crescent, Rex-
dale, and she writes:
In my view, the expansion has not been
proved necessary. In addition, we do not
want a new noise area. We will find our-
selves in a 95-decibel area, where until
now we have been in a low-50s area. In
our specific case, our eight-year-old per-
ceptually handicapped child will be ad-
versely affected, as well as disturbing us.
The next letter, Mr. Speaker, was addressed
to the Premier (Mr. Robarts) with a copy
sent to me— and others. It came from Mr.
Renato Saidero, 15 Alicewood Court, Rex-
dale, and was worded as follows:
We live in the area that will be aflFected
by the new noise from the northern run-
way which is slated for extension accord-
ing to an "interim exparision plan".
This means: big passenger jets directly
overhead; noise that the DOT admits is
"unfit for human habitation"; pollution;
risk of plane crashes; taxes to soundproof
schools and other public buildings.
This is of great concern to me and the
residents living in northern Etobicoke area
because: the extension has not been proved
necessary; we don't want a new noise area;
let's get on with the second airport.
As a member of the West Humber area
residents' association, I want my objections
heard.
My next letter is written by Mr. G. W.
Vaughan, 27 Ludgate Drive, Rexdale, who
says-
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would point out to
the hon. member that the rules of this House
are very definite. Repetition is not allowed
and following the precedent which I think
was correctly established by the Chairman
when he was in this chair the other day, I
would rule that the hon. member has now
read a representative selection of letters and
that any further letters would be mere repe-
tition of the points made in his original
speech and the points made in the letters
which he is now reading.
Mr. Braithwaite: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the last letter I was going to
read was from Greg Rambo, a student of
West Humber Collegiate and it really was
representative of many of the facts that I
have brought to the attention of this House.
I have here a scientific abstract which is
perhaps more frightening than even the other
sources I have mentioned. It comes from a
German source, page 1100 of a house publi-
cation, No. 18, 1968 of the Versicherungs
Wirtschaft, which translates I suppose, as the
Federal Department of Safety and Security,
perhaps the equivalent of a Department of
Industrial Safety here. Here's the translation:
Does noise endanger health? Whereas
disturbances at a low noise level are
physically conditioned, high level noises
affect the nerve system directly, indepen-
dent of whether they are consciously ex-
perienced as an unpleasant irritation or
even as a pleasant sensation. Psychologically
there is no acclimatization to the noise,
since it affects directly the vegetative ner-
vous system.
Studies have revealed that the body
reacts to noise disturbances with a con-
traction of the blood-vessels, but without
any rise in blood pressure. The whole
system receives thefefore a reduced blood
supply, which can lead to oxygen deficiency
in main organs and thus be fatal for people
with heart disease.
The important thing in that abstract is that
there is no acclimatization other than the
increasing deafness I mentioned earlier.
Members will have noted that the 300
homeowners of St. Therese-en-Haut are
among a total of 800 homeowners whose
homes are not now to be expropriated for the
St. Scholastique Airport, the new jumbo jet
and international airport for Montreal. So
these unfortunate people, whose homes lie
less than three miles from the site of the
tragic Air Canada crash, which took 118
lives in 1963, are to have to endure living
in the flight path or getting out without
compensation.
Since, because of the separatist troubles,
five-year-old modem homes in this community
are already selling, if at all, for around
$14,000, it is reasonabe to remark that the
people of St. Therese-en-Haut are paying far
MAY 2, 1969
3905
more than any community should, for the
march of so-called progress. I am determined
this shall not happen to my constituents in
Etobicoke.
Unless action is taken now in respect of
aircraft noise, Etobicoke residents will be sub-
ject to a regular dosage of 65 to 80 decibels
of noise, as wiU the people of St. Therese-en-
Haut, who have my sympathy. Worse still,
from time to time, the level below the flight
path can be much higher.
The decibel scale by which noise is mea-
sured is not a linear scale, but a logarithmic
one. It leaps up faster than the numbers
would suggest. Thus at 70 decibels, only
the hardy can sleep. At 80 decibels we really
notice the difference, as communication by
speech becomes impossible. At between 90
and 100 decibels we must don ear-muffs.
Even so, at 120 decibels physical frustration
sets in and also mental confusion. Brain work
is hard or impossible. At 140 decibels, physi-
cal pain is experienced, often followed by
depression some hours after the experience. At
160 decibels, the eardrums may rupture and
mechanical damage to exposed parts of the
body can occur.
I ask myself are we, through apathy, going
to allow the tolerable limits to creep up?
Or are we going to put our foot down now,
and say; this is it! This is as much noise as
we will stand! For me, the time has come to
advocate the second course, and to make
appropriate moves to do something about it.
Many of my constituents who will be
affected by the proposed runway extension
are not aware that airports are strictiy a
federal matter coming under the jurisdiction
of The Department of Transport at Ottawa.
We at the provincial level can only urge the
federal government to become more aware
of the serious problems which the runway
extension will bring.
Yet I feel that this government here at
Queen's Park, through the office of the Pre-
mier, could bring in appropriate legislation
in connection with noise pollution. Further,
it should and could bring pressure on the
responsible individuals at Ottawa to urge that
the proposed extension of the northern run-
way—23 right, 05 left— be scrapped and that
the commencement of a second airport be
proceeded with, with all dispatch.
I I therefore propose the following pro-
I gramme of action for tlie consideration of the
government of the Premier at Queen's Park.
I hope that legislation will be introduced this
session so that some of the proposals may be-
come law at the earliest possible date. Here
then are ten points of proposed legislation:
1. Occupational health noise limits be estab-
lished by regulation.
2. Community noise levels be established
by regulation.
3. Noise-testing equipment and personnel
for community and occupational surveys be
expanded.
4. The government provide audiometric
testing for workers, especially in small indus-
tries unable to provide such service.
5. Research be undertaken into the health
effects of noise exposure particularly in the
psychological and annoyance areas.
6. The government expand audiometric
testing programmes in schools.
7. Construction standards be drawn up
dealing with sound-proofing of buildings, par-
ticularly apartments.
8. Manufacturers be required to take steps
to reduce noise in power equipment such as
power mowers.
9. A land-use compatibility map be pub-
lished as part of a plan for Ontario.
10. Promotion of the concept of hearing
conservation be undertaken by The Depart-
ment of Health.
As the summer approaches and the power
saws echo through Algonquin Park, perhaps
vacationing members, trying to sleep in their
tents, will recall this debate, and contem-
plate the remark of Dr. Leo Beranek, a
leading acoustics expert and former profes-
sor at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology:
In all probability the noise level will not
only grow in urban centres, but with increas-
ing population and the proliferation of
machines, noise will invade the few re-
maining havens of silence in the world. A
century from now, when a man wants to
escape to a quiet spot, there may be no
place left to go.
Mr. Speaker, in the early part of the century,
nobody recognized the importance of siUcosis
and the possibihty of miners being hurt by
lung damage. Just recently, we have become
aware of the fact that air and water pollution
are very, very important and have a great
deal of bearing on our lives. I bring this
resolution before the House this morning,
Mr. Speaker, solely because I feel that noise
pollution is something that we as citizens of
Ontario are not fully aware of. Those of us
who live in places like Etobicoke and have
jet fly overhead know what it is like to be
3906
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
awakened early in the morning by the rumble
that shakes the house and prevents any further
sleep.
Other members will be speaking on the
aspects of noise as it affects our daily life.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would
ask the other members of this House to join
with me and support this resolution.
Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr.
Speaker, in following the member for Etobi-
coke, I would say that I too have had ex-
perience with relation to the proposed air-
port expansion at Malton airport and the
noise that now exists. In contributing to this
resolution, I went back to basics and of course
came to the immediate conclusion that the
Lord gave us a couple of ears as one of the
main mediums of communication, the sense of
hearing. So man was supposed to be subjected
to a certain amount of sound. So, very simply,
in these terms, the only thing that happened
is that it is a matter of degree. We are now
in modern hfe engaged in many excesses,
and noise is one of these in which we indulge.
Mr. Lawlor: The Tories are excessively
silent about a lot of things.
Mr. Kennedy: That is the silent, strong
party, Mr. Speaker.
The subject of noise, as the member for
Etobicoke has stated, received dramatic
emphasis last fall when it was learned of
the proposed expansion of Malton airport. I re-
flected that when the previous expansion took
place, some 14 years ago I think it was, at
the present airport, I do not recall that there
was a single objection raised from any quarter
insofar as the aspect of noise was concerned.
I will say that there was an engineering study
carried out and it recommended, as I recall,
that tliere be no residential development
within seven miles. But this was not origi-
nated by residents, this was a technical study.
So there was some slight recognition but no
public clamour over it. It will now be seen
that there has been a profound recognition of
the problem of noise because of the 1968
proposal for expansion. In fact, it has re-
ceived the most sustained and most pro-
longed opposition, mostly because of the
noise factor which would be under the flight
patlis, of any issue that I can recollect.
At that time, there were numerous reports
and representations made, including one to
this government, I would like to set out a few
items in this report, just briefly, which were
pre»ented by a group of homeowners, associa-
tions and residents of the town. It was led by
Dr. Borgiel. If I might just quote from this
report, Mr. Speaker:
It is understood that the noise and pollu-
tants from aircraft tliat lies with the pro-
posed expansion of Toronto International
Airport could produce physical and mental
disorders. Medical evidence shows that noise
is not only irritating but is an insidious
and sometimes deadly enemy of human
energy.
It can prevent restful sleep, disturb think-
ing, threaten health. The noise and inten-
sity anticipated can bring about perma-
nent deafness and insanity. At best, we
have learned, it can affect tempers, accur-
acy and concentration.
They make reference to a medical study by
two doctors in the United States Department
of Health, in which tests of noise levels were
conducted at two major airports and in noise-
sensitive residential areas. These were located
four to six miles from the main runway take-
off point and perceived noise values that were;
twice the level that interfered with speech,
so that definite difficulty was encountered in
having telephone conversation and even face-
to-face communication beyond six feet.
Lord Horder, Physician to the Royal
Family, told a recent medical association
convention that doctors are convinced that
noise wears down the hiunan nervous system
so that both natural resistance to disease and
natural recovery from the disease are lowered.
Our own Department of Health acknowledges
the adverse effects of steady doses of 100 to
125 decibels of sound for several hours a
day. This is corroborated by Harvard and
Washington Universities Schools of Medicine.
They make reference as well to high noise
levels being linked to psychological illness,
allergies, upset stomachs, headaches, heart
trouble, fatigue, suicide, and so on. In fact,
there is a Globe ami Mail article this week
that made reference to upset stomachs and
some other disturbances created by excess
sound. The point is, Mr. Speaker, there has
been a profound recognition and a dramatic
shift in pubhc opinion, of no recognition
a few years ago to the present opposition
that has affected this multi-million-dollar
development aroimd Malton.
This is only one facet of the noise problem.
There are many, many sources of noise, all
irritants, bothersome and hazardous to hear-
ing as I have indicated. Now the gradual
build-up of noise, I think as a layman, has
resulted in some immunity both physical and
mental being built up to the degree that we
more or less accept noise as part of our
MAY 2, 1969
3907
modern way of life. But I can recall being
objected to the sudden passage of a train
when I was visiting a friend. I was not used
to trains, and it certainly disturbed me, but
the person whom I was visiting never heard
the sound. This illustrates the point, I think,
that society has accepted noise as part of our
way of life.
Other noise irritants that bother me, and
it has been referred to on previous occasions,
are various types of self-inflicted noise. I think
of the television commercial. Normally the
TV, I think, in the average home is kept
at a pretty high level-when it cuts in, is
several degrees louder and certainly grates on
the nerves and ears. I think that this is some-
thing that government can very easily control
by setting some noise standard and keeping
even the levels of sound emanating from the
TV and, of course, the same applies to the
radio commercials.
I was interested in an article in the Con-
temporary Review of September 1967. It is a
British publication and it makes reference to
the decibel range, as the member for Etobi-
coke has done. A still night out in the coun-
try-^and I do not think many people would
know of this other than in the rural residents
creates 15 decibels, a vacuum cleaner in yotu
home about 69, a steel riveter about 130.
Noise beyond 85 to 90 is likely to be
damaging. There is reference in this article
to a band using amplifying equipment and
one sentence in it says that at one New
Year's Eve party-it must have been quite a
party—the highest was a steady 110 near the
loudspeakers, where 20 or 30 young people
were clustered in dazed immobihty. So these
are some of the self-inflicted noises which we
presumably enjoy, Mr. Speaker. Beyond this
we have tlie normal noise of—
Mr. Speaker: I would just like to draw to
the hon. member's attention that there is
another minute of his time left, and while he
is doing that, perhaps the party Whips might
like to look at the members of their parties
who are here.
Mr. Kennedy: Tliank you, Mr. Speaker, I
will just conclude. I could make reference to
the other noise of traffic, transport and motor-
cycles and so on and the noise in apartments.
It should be a very simple thing to revise
standards so that apartments are either sound-
proofed or at least, the level of noise between
adjoining apartments greatly reduced by some
form of insulation. It might sound a bit illogi-
cal, but I would say, Mr. Speaker, there must
be many people who have never experienced
the sound of silence and so, I would certainly
endorse remedial action and eff^orls to control
noise pollution.
The state of California is making efi^orts to
reduce noise. The California article that I
read urges the co-operation of manufacturers,
management, labour and government toward
effective legislation and enforcement as
needed to deal with the broad area of anti-
noise pollution. I would just conclude by
quoting from this Contemporary Review
which says:
Silence is golden but never more so than
in tins day and age of mounting racket.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure
to join with the hon. memiber for Etc^bicoke in
supporting his resolution, that this House
recognizes the reality of noise as a pollutant
in our daily Hves. We can do no less in this
hour, in one of the few quiet moments that
this Legislature enjoys in its weekly business.
I must say that it is exceedingly appropriate
that this resolution has been introduced in the
name of the hon. member for Etobicoke be-
cause I think of all the constituencies in this
House none is delineated more by volume of
noise, than is the constituency of the member
for Etobicoke. It has major trafific routes sur-
rounding it and the noise of aircraft above.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to make reference
briefly to the article which appeared recently
in the Globe and Mail reporting the words
of Dr. Gerald Dorman, who has recently been
chosen president-elect of the American Medi-
cal Association, a group in the United States
which we, in this party, do not find ourselves
quoting with approbation. But the president
elect recently stated, as reported in the Globe
story of April 30:
We recognize that noise is as much of
an environment pollutant as the noxious
gases, chemicals and wastes that befoul our
air, water, crops and soil.
This indeed represents some progress in the
United States in giving recognition to the
impact of noise pollution on the environmeaiit.
If the American Medical Association and its
spokesman can be convinced of that, then
surely the government of the United States,
the state governments and perhaps even the
government of this countiy will take note as
they do invariably when the American Medi-
cal Association speaks on other matters.
In that same report, there is a further
reference to the impact of what is termed
"unexpected or unwanted noise" by Dr.
Samuel Rosen, a New York ear surgeon. He
3908
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
stated that the physical reaction to such noise
results in the dilation of pupils, the skin pales,
the mucous membranes dry, there are in-
testinal spasms and adrenals explode secre-
tions. I cannot help but interject, Mr. Speaker,
that members of this House can well confirm
Dr. Rosen's observations because they them-
selves are often subject to the same kind of
reaction to unexpected and unwanted noise.
But seriously, Mr. Speaker, the kind of
pollutant we are speaking of today is found
more outside this Chamber than in it, a gen-
eral pervasive pollution of our environment.
I want to deal particularly with one aspect of
it. That is, the generation of noise pollution
by traffic— a subject which has not been
touched on too much in this debate so far. It
has been dealt with, though, at some length
in debates on the estimates of the Minister of
Transport (Mr. Haskett), but it has yet to
inspire from this government the kind of
recognition that the urgency of the problem
calls for. In several excharnges in this House,
the Minister of Transport has exhibited an
indifference to the problem in discussing the
efforts of the municipality of Metropolitan
Tpronto to control noise, in discussing sug-
gestions for the establishment of provincial
standards for the control of noise levels in
the movement of traffic and generally, in ex-
changes with members of this House in
respect to the jurisdiction of his department
over the generation of noise pollution by
traflBc.
The Minister has stated on several occasions
that there is no good measuring device for
noise emission by motor vehicles that is use-
ful in enforoement, and he has relied on this
excuse to put off any effective concrete action
in dealing with the problem.
The contribution of traffic to noise pollu-
tion is well established, Mr. Speaker. In many
sxiiTveys, one of which was undertaken by the
American Transport Association several years
ago and discussed in the papers of the Na-
tional Research Council by Dr. G. J. Thiessen
of the division of applied physics of NRC,
the studies showed that no truck noise ex-
ceeded the noise limit of any existing bylaw
of any jurisdiction in the United States.
Another survey discussed by Dr. Thiessen
showed that the bylaw noise limit could be
exceeded ixk every case only by removing the
muffler of the vehicle, which was subject to
that bylaw on noise levels. In other words,
limits on noise levels had been set at such a
point that it was virtually impossible to
exceed them without stripping all of the
noise reducing equipment on the vehicle.
Dr. Thiessen pointed to the analogy of the
setting of speed limits to show how noise
level limits tend to be set by such bylaws.
It has been found that when surveys are
undertaken to establish traflBc speed limits,
the speed which is fixed upon as the limit
is that which is exceeded usually by 20 per
cent of the motorists driving along the route
on which the limit is to be imposed. In other
words, the motorists set their own limit, and
it appears to be very much the same case in
respect to the setting of noise level limits,
that those who make the most noise tend to
be the ones who finally establish the noise
level limit which is set by bylaw.
There may be some logic in the way in
which speed control is arrived at in the case
of motorists, because they can be said to have
an interest in moving from one point to
another at the quickest possible speed, al-
ways given the factor of safety, some influ-
ence on most of their decisions as to how
fast they will go. There is, however, abso-
lutely no logic whatever in using the same
kind of determination in setting noise levels,
because noise makers have absolutely no
legitimate purpose in making noise, and will
have no incentive to curtail or reduce that
noise unless fines or taxes are imposed upon
them. The noisiest operators should not be
allowed to set the limits.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that The Depart-
ment of Transport still is not prepared to
come to grips with the imposition of prov-
ince-wide standards of control. In the 1961
report by the committee of The Ontario Trans-
port Department which dealt with motor
vehicle noise, it was argued that the subjec-
tive effect of a noise could not be accurately
assessed from simple instrument readings. As
I pointed out earlier, the Minister of Trans-
port has continued to rely on that for all
these years. However, the trend today is
away from such efforts to measure the pol-
lution caused by noise subjectively and is
much more towards the use of instruments
which have some virtue of objectivity.
Dr. Thiessen, in another paper, has stated
that this point of view— the one leaning to-
wards objectivity, as opposed to the qualita-
tive—is gaining ground in most countries. He
afiBrms this in the appendices set out to his
study. He flatly rebuts the position taken by
the committee of The Department of Trans-
port and the position taken by the Minister
of Transport.
He says that such instruments used in
noise measurement need not be expensive or
diflBcult to use. Objections to a simple sound
level meter as stated in the report of the
MAY 2, 1969
3909
committee of The Department of Transport
of Ontario can be answered by the statistics
and material he sets out in appendices to his
study.
Mr. Speaker, my time has just about ex-
pired, and I would conclude by suggesting
that The Department of Transport now has,
as a result of the work of the National
Research Council and the efiForts of other
jurisdictions in the United States and in
Europe, the technical expertise to set out
objective criteria for the control of the emis-
sion of noise pollution in our province. There-
by it can make some inroads on this growing
problem of environmental pollution that is
becoming so injurious to the pubUc health
in this province.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to join in congratulating the hon.
member for Etobicoke, and the members for
Peel South and Windsor West, in supporting
the resolution of the hon. member for Etobi-
coke. I think it has been adequately estab-
lished by those three hon. members that
noise is, indeed, as much of a pollutant as
the noxious gases, chemicals and waste that
befoul our air, crops, water and soil. Big
jumps in noise pollution are the prospect with
increased automobile traflBc and introduction
of supersonic transport planes. In fact, en-
vironmental din is expected to be doubling
in intensity every decade. The hon. member
for Windsor West read to this House the
effects of unexpected or unwanted noise as
described by Dr. Samuel Rosen, the New
York ear surgeon. I would just like to add
some of the eflEects that were described by
Dr. John A. Parr, a British physician. He
stated that our muscles tense, and we jerk.
Our abdominal blood vessels contract to drive
extra blood to the muscles and produce that
feeling of the stomach turning over. In an
instant, the liver releases stores of glucose
to provide fuel for the muscles. This in-
ternal upheaval, if repeated again and again,
is exhausting physically and mentally— and
ultimately can cause a nervous breakdown.
Dr. Keith Neely, of the Defence Research
Medical Board, is concerned with hearing
conversation in the Canadian Forces. He told
a course in audiology at the Toronto General
Hospital last year how noise destroys hear-
ing. Hearing is destroyed first by noise in
the high frequency range. Since this does
not affect the understanding of conversation,
the loss is not noticed by the person. It is
only when the continued exposure to noise
begins to destroy hearing in the lower fre-
quency ranges that the individual realizes
that he is having trouble understanding con-
versations and he goes for aid. One of the
shameful aspects of this situation is that few
realize that their loss of hearing could be
attributed to their employment and that they
should apply for and receive disabihty com-
pensation from the workmen's compensation
board.
One is also tempted to ask oneself how
many others were also entitled to compensa-
tion for nervous disorders caused by the
excessive noise at their place of employment.
As a matter of fact, a workmen's compensa-
tion board report shows that they do have a
special department now that seems to handle
cases that do not fall under any other cate-
gory. Maybe this may be the reason.
Experimentation has established that at
noise levels of 85 to 100 decibels a person
should wear ear plugs or muffs if subjected
to the noise for more than four hours a day.
From 100 decibels to 130 decibels he should
wear ear plugs or muffs for any exposure.
Noise of 130 decibels is about the intensity
of sound when you are standing ten feet
away from an idling jet airhner.
A quiet room without conversations rates
about 40 decibels. An office with 15 type-
writers and a telex creates about 50 to 75
decibels. The hon. member for Etobicoke
described the decibels of sound produced by
taxis, subways, blenders and bands.
A study at Aetna Life Insurance Company
employing equipment using sound shields and
noise reducers, showed that overall office
efficiency rose 8.8 per cent over two years,
decreased typing errors 29 per cent, and cut
machine operators' errors by 52 per cent. The
most dramatic improvement over the two-
year period was a 47-per-cent decrease in
turnover rates.
The hon. member for Etobicoke discussed
noise in relation to airports and suggested
some actions to abate this harmful nuisance.
I should like to emphasize the need to compel
industry to take action to protect the hearing
of its workers.
(1) The workmen's compensation board or
The Department of Health should set up a
scale of maximum permissible noise levels for
various industries.
(2) Every industry should be required to
test new employees when they start work to
set a baseline, and then give subsequent hear-
ing tests at regular intervals to detect any
hearing loss.
(3) Every industry should install sound
shields and noise suppressors where required.
They might even give consideration to having
3910
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
some drapes or tapestries— without the orna-
mentals on them— to suppress noise.
(4) It should be a requirement that all
workmen be supplied with ear plugs or ear
muffs where required with the assurance that
surroundings will be safe for their use. I
make that addition there, because having
their hearing interfered with by the ear plugs
or ear muffs can get them into an accident.
The surroundings should be safe so that they
can use these ear plugs.
(5) Compensation should be paid for loss of
hearing even though such loss does not result
in reduced earnings. The loss of ability to
hear acutely, or to hear music with high
fidelity, in my opinion should be compen-
sable.
Aside from the foregoing the government
should also enact a noise control Act which
would protect the public from unnecessary
environmental noise during everyday acti-
vities.
The municipality of metropolitan Toronto
enacted bylaw number 835 to prohibit the
driving or operating of vehicles creating
undue noise within the municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto. I believe the hon. member
for Windsor West referred to it very briefly.
The shame of it is that the Minister of Trans-
port made it impossible to enact a bylaw witli
any teeth in it. This particular bylaw was
watered down to the point where it became
ineffective. In fact he made it farcical.
I would ask you to listen, Mr. Speaker, to
the involved and very restrictive list of con-
ditions which must apply to the time and
place at which the noise level meter required
to be used by the bylaw is to be operated.
Listen to this, please:
The section of street at which the noise
is to be measured must have negligible
grade. The surface must be smooth and
imbroken and free from streetcar tracks or
railway tracks. The permissible speed limit
must be 30 miles per hour and there must
be no building or structure within a radius
of 100 feet from the microphone.
In addition, at the time the measurements
are made, surrounding noises must l^e at a
minimum, the temperature of the air must
l>e 60 degrees Fahrenheit; there must be no
rainfall; in fact, the sky must be clear or
slightly overcast, and the wind velocity
must be less than 10 miles per hour.
Consider these restrictions, including if
weather permits:
(1) Most north-south streets have a grade
and therefore cannot be used. There is a
marked elevation between the lake front and
Eglinton hill and north.
(2) It is almost impossible to find a smooth
and unbroken stretch of roadway in Toronto.
An unwritten law requires a utility to turn
up within one month of a new roadway being
liiid and break it up to repair or to install
utilities.
(3) Not even on University Avenue, the
widest street in Toronto, could you set up a
noise meter and not have a building or
structure within 100 feet.
(4) You cannot set up a meter on Lakeshore
Road because the permissible speed is 40
miles per hour. The same restriction would
rule out the Frederick Gardiner expressway
or the Don Valley expressway, and in fact
University Avenue.
The question then arises, where in Toronto
can you set up a noise meter to enforce this
bylaw? For this reason it has just been sitting
on the books. It is an absolute farce, it is
preposterous, ridiculous. It is time that this
government stopped making a fool of itself
and in that way making fools of these muni-
cipalities. I think all the members who have
spoken have established that noise pollution
is a very serious problem and that we have
to face it four square.
I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that heed
should be given to this resolution and it is
time the government stopped being deaf to
the pleas of the people for action which
would save their hearing. Thank you.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker,
as one who has wakened to the sound of wild
geese honking as they go north to their
northern haunts, the sound of tulips blooming
and the whisper of the breeze through the
roses in a small rural community, it is rather
difficult for me to recognize the problem
exists that has been outlined by the hon.
member for Etobicoke.
Arriving in this large municipality of
Toronto it is not difficult however, to recog-
nize that there is a problem existing with
respect to noise. Noise has been defined as
any undesired sound. The sound of church
bells may be music to one person and may
be noise to the other.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services ) : Noise of the Opposition, for
example.
Mr. Carruthers: Sir, I was just going to say
that to some people a speech in this House
would be music; to others a five-hour speech
may become noise, and certainly become very
MAY 2, 1969
3911
irritating to the nerves and to the mental
outlook of the individual.
The law says that noise is an excessive,
ofiFensive, persistent or startUng sound. And,
as has been mentioned, noise is measured in
decibels which actually are called the sound
pressure level. A decibel is equal to 20 times
the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pres-
sure in air to an established reference sound
pressure.
Decibel is to sound, I might point out, Mr.
Speaker, as degree is to temperature. Out-
doors, the sound decreases six decibels each
time the distance between the source of the
sound and the microphone or the listener is
doubled. Indoors, of course, the acoustics of a
room greatly modify this rule.
As has been pointed out by the other
speakers, certain noise does have adverse
effects on a human being. It may annoy him
—certainly it annoys him in this Legislature
sometimeSj long speeches do annoy us.
It can disturb his sleep, and perhaps this
happens in the Legislature as well. It can in-
terfere with his ability to converse with some-
one else; this may happen in the Legislature
too. It can damage his hearing, and this is
serious and is a problem in many industries
where it is becoming a very common occur-
rence.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): What does
the member think of Sonar?
Mr. Carruthers: I do not know. Some
damage to hearing, Mr. Speaker, may evolve
from the noise of a blast or explosion. Gradu-
al damage may result from continual ex-
posure over the years— for example farmers
working with tractors day after day may
develop hearing problems. Other factors
being equal, a steady soimd such as that of
a textile mill will be less likely to dam-
age hearing than one that is impulsive, as
that of a pneumatic hammer. Those who
work around jet aircraft, in boiler shops,
in drop-forge shops, or those who use metal
cutting, chipping, and shaping tools are
most Hkely to suffer gradual loss of hearing.
I think we must recognize the fact that
noise from transport, industry and people
make this the noisiest age in human history.
Noise levels vary from a still night in the
country, as I mentioned, of 15 decibels, to
steel rivetters where the level is 130 decibels;
140 decibels is considered to be the thres-
hold of pain, while 85 to 90 and upwards are
dangerous noise levels.
A test carried out on teenagers celebrating
New Year's Eve uith a party, revealed the
lowest sound of 90 decibels near the edge of
the dance floor, and the highest, 110, neax
the loudspeakers where 20 to 30 youngsters
were gathered in dazed immobihty.
The new supersonic aircraft— and I beheve
this is the chief concern of the member for
Etobicoke-such as the Concorde, the new
aircraft developed by the British and tiie
French governments, will create a carpet of
sound, an atmospheric tidal wave that will
roll across the earth in the wake of the flight
path of these massive aircraft. iTiese planes
create a streamlined airflow around the plane,
piling up, and creating conical shock waves
that radiate from the object very much like
the bow wave of a ship. Experts estimate
that supersonic aircraft, crusing at 64,000
feet, will at ground level create a wave of
sound 64 miles wide. Anyone in its path will
hear a detonation after the plane has passed
in flight. Several solutions have been men-
tioned with respect to the problem.
I understand that in the new Institute of
Science and Technology, one exhibit deals
specifically with sound and its effects on
human beings. One room is equipped with
highly-technical equipment which, by con-
trolling air waves, creates a completely
soundless environment. A person standing next
to you and speaking could not be heard be-
cause the sound waves have been levelled
out or deadened through the use of this
highly technical equipment. Perhaps, Hke
air conditioning, the method in modified
form might be used to alleviate noise in in-
dustry or legislative assemblies, or other facili-
ties where noise is a problem.
In seeking solutions, may I suggest that a
nirmber of factors should be taken into con-
sideration.
First, the source of the nodse should be
considered with a view to substituting a
quieter machine. It is possible the noise in-
tensity could be reduced through the use of
resilient pads beneath the noisy device. Con-
sideration should be given to the use of a
mufiler, if practical.
Secondly, the path from the source of the
noise to the listener should be considered. Is
it possible for the source or the listener to be
readily moved in order that the two are
further apart? Should a barrier be erected
between the source and the listener? Is a
total enclosure for the source required? Will
the addition of an aibsorbing acoustic material
result in significant reduction of noise? Can
the worker be induced to wear ear plugs or
noise reducing cushions or helmets? Can he
be enclosed in a booth or other quiet space?
3912
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
A great deal has been done. I think the work-
men's compensation board has done a great
deal in this resi)ect, and certainly, the research
that has been done and will be done through
the new Institute of Science and Technology,
as I pointed out, will do a great deal to
alleviate this problem in the future. As the
other speakers have recommended, may I
suggest too that both community and occupa-
tional noise levels be established by regulation
under The Health Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we
require provincial legislation in this respect.
Certainly, on the municipal level and indus-
trial level we do require some type of
regulations governing noise pollution.
But noise-testing equipment and personnel
for commimity and occupational siu-veys
should perhaps be expanded to a greater ex-
tent, and more research be undertaken. I
repeat that a great deal is being undertaken
through government agencies. The govern-
ment should expand audiometric testing pro-
grammes, estabhdi standards dealing with
sound-proofing of buildings and particularly,
apartment, because this type of a problem
does exist in our complex world. Manufac-
turers should be reqtiired to take steps to
reduce noise in powered equipment such as
power mowers.
Silence is golden, Mr. Speaker, but never
more so than in this day and age of the
mounting racket. Noise pollution has ccwne to
be recognized as one of the most imwelcome
accompaniments of any industrialized com-
mercial society and 1 feel we should do
something about it.
Mr. Speaker: This concludes the private
members' hour.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday I would like to go to
committee of the whole House to deal with
quite a hst of bills that are on tlie order
paper imder the second order. I would like
to stert with Bill 118, An Act respecting the
city of the Lakehead so that we may give it
its complete progress through the House and
get it into eflPect. Then we will deal with the
other bills listed there. There is also the pri-
vate members' hour. If we complete all those
bills that are in comniittee, then we will go
back to second reading. In oilier words, we
will not leave the order paper on Monday
afternoon or evening. On Tuesday we will
resume the estimates of The Department of
Social and Family Services.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of tlie Hoiise.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 105
ONTARIO
l^egisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT -DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, May 5, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
I Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, May 5, 1969
Ambulance services, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman 3915
Indian children's education, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 3915
Provincial takeover of assessment, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 3915
Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Paper Company, questions to Mr. Rales, Mr. Nixon 3916
OflF-track betting shops, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon 3916
Go-carts, question to Mr. Haskett, Mr. B. Nevniian 3918
Pump-out stations, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Deans 3918
Calculating Ontario's population, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Young 3918
Detroit River, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Paterson 3918
Phosphorus levels in Lake Erie, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Paterson 3918
Tabling answers to questions on the order paper, Mr. Robarts 3pi9
City of the Lakehead, bill respecting, reported 3919
Appointment of a commissioner to investigate administrative decisions and actions
of the government of Ontario and its agencies and to define the commissioner's
powers and duties, bill to provide for, on second reading, Mr. Singer,
Mr. Camithers, Mr. Young, Mr. Ben, Mr. Lawlor 3944
Recess, 6 o'clock 3954
Appendix 3955
3915
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'clock p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Our guests this afternoon, in
the east gallery, are students from Romney
Central School in Wheatley and Nelson High
School in Burlington; and in the west gallery
from Gravenhurst High School in Graven-
hurt and Port Perry High School in Port
Perry, and from the Adult Education Centre
on College Street, Toronto. Later this after-
noon we will have visitors from the Adult
Education Centre on Keele Street, Toronto.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of hills.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shul-
man), asked a question on Friday which I
took as notice. Question No. 1388: Did the
city ambulance take a body directly from
Malton train wreck— plane wreck, I presume
that was— April 20, 1969. The answer is yes.
Had this body been seen by a physician or
coroner before it was removed from the scene?
Yes.
Three is answered by number two.
Four, if it was known that the body was
dead why was it transported in an ambulance
rather than tlie dead wagon? The ambulance
was on stand-by because it could not be
known in advance that the patients were, in
fact, dead.
The bodies were transferred to the morgue
because death had been confirmed by the
coroner. The ambulance was used owing to
the circumstances, and we believe that good
judgment was employed because of the
crowds at the scene. It was felt that further
delay while calling for a body wagon was not
justified.
Five, does the Minister believe it is good
practice to transport bodies to the morgue in
the same ambulance that is used to take the
sick to hospital? Not as a rule, Mr. Speaker,
Monday, May 5, 1969
but circumstances alter cases from time to
time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have two questions for the Prime
Minister. The first: have any churches with-
drawn from the operation of Indian schools
as has recently taken place in western Can-
ada; and second, will the government seize
this kind of opportunity to integrate Indian
education with our regular educational
system?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, the operation of these residential
schools for Indians by churches is a matter
of agreement between the federal govern-
ment aad the churches involved. We are not
involved in these agreements. Therefore we
are not party to any of these discussions and
we have no knowledge as to whether any
churches are withdrawing or not.
I can tell the member that the withdrawal
of any churches has not been brought to our
attention in any way, shape or form. We do
not know of it.
In regard to the second question, of course
the education of Indian children is a federal
responsibility. It is a matter of continuing
discussions between the federal people and
this government, and these discussions will
continue as they have in the past. The second
part of the question is really not relevant in
light of my answer to the first part.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, by way of
clarification then; the Prime Minister has in-
dicated on many previous occasions, as has
the Minister of Education (Mr. Davis), that
we are ready and willing at any time to
accept responsibility for education, presum-
ably following agreement with Ottawa.
My question really was, with this kind of
transition that is taking place in western
Canada and may be taking place in Ontario
—the Prime Minister cannot confirm that—
this would be an appropriate time to move.
Would the government consider intensifying
negotiations for an objective which they have
already accepted?
5916
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
say yes, we are quite prei^ared to do this.
But the whole point really is that the federal
go\eriinient in many cases is trying to avoid
it financial liability in various areas of dealing
with the Indians and this is really where the
rub eventually will come. We are prepared to
take them into our edueaticmal system, yes;
but we see no reason why we should assume
what is constitutionally the financial responsi-
bility of the federal government.
Mr. MacDonald: Well the latter point we
will debate at an appropriate time.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It will be debated at
some time.
Mr. MacDonald: My second question to
the Minister, Mr. Speaker. On March 5 the
Prime Minister indicated that the govern-
ment was going to negotiate with unions—
that word negotiate may be too strong— now
representing emiDloj'ces who will be affected
by the province's takeover of assessment.
Two questions then:
What negotiations, or what consultations,
have taken place in this connection?
Second, when can we expect Judge Little's
report on collective bargaining among public
employees?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I was going to suggest
to the member that the word 'negotiation' was
too strong, and indeed is a very broad inter-
pretation of the answer that I gave to his
question on March 5 when the hon. member
asked me about this. I said then that we were
assessing the situation to see what is involved.
There are a good number of people involved,
some belong to unions and some do not.
There have been no negotiations in that
sense of the word at all. However, I can give
you my assurance, as I did before, that the
necessary steps will be taken to consult with
those concerned when we sort out the in-
terest that these various groups may have,
and we will deal with them fairly and equi-
tably.
As far as Judge Little's report is concerned
I think it is fairly imminent. The last time I
was asked, in March, I said that the work
had been done and it was being written but
had not yet been received by the government.
When it is we will, of course, deal with it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is now
in the House. I would like to ask him: what
are the circumstances of the issuance of a
permit to the Ontario Minnesota Pulp and
Paper Company at Fort Frances for author-
ization of hours of work in excess of the
usual 48?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, that is slightly different than the
question which was given to me. It does not
really matter, Mr. Speaker, except it refers
there to section 9(2) of The Employment
Standards Act.
In reply to the question, no overtime per-
mit has been issued to the company under
section 9(2) of The Employment Standards
Act. However, a permit was issued under
section 9(1) arising out of a written applica-
tion from the company for the standard 100
hours of overtime per employee for the year
and for overtime for the so-called non-pro-
duction employees. The application was rou-
tine and the permit was issued accordingly. I
make the distinction, Mr. Speaker, between
sections 9(1) and 9(2), because there is a
diflFerent arrangement.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in the normal
course of events does the Minister— or the
people in his department who deal with this
matter, are they available to receive objec-
tions from people in the community? I under-
stand that the union local is opposed to the
extension of the work permit. They com-
plained by telegram to me and I presume,
made a similar complaint to the Minister, or
perhaps someone in the department. Is there
a procedure by which the department as-
sesses community reaction before the permit
is granted?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the permits
granted under section 9(1) are of a relatively
routine nature. But those under section 9(2)
require more extensive consideration, because
we do not give them as readily. We have to
assess the situation before authorization is
given, because it is for extra, additional hours
of overtime.
Mr, Nixon: Part of this assessment might
be to contact the local union to see what
their views would be. Thank you.
I have a question for the Attorney General,
Mr. Speaker. Has the Ontario Jockey Club
been in contact with The Attorney General's
Department regarding the future of oflF-track
betting shops?
Would it be legal for the Ontario Jockey
Club to refuse bets from betting shops as it
has threatened to do; and is the Attorney
General going to leave this matter com-
pletely in the hands of the federal govern-
MAY 5, 1969
3917
ment, or does this government have a plan
regarding the problem?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Jockey Club has
not been in contact with myself, and I think
not with the department as yet; although I
understand from a note on my desk that they
are seeking a meeting, which I hope we shall
arrange very shortly— at least that was the
purport of a note that I saw.
As to the second part of the question: no,
the Ontario Jockey Club by law must accept
a bet that is legally and properly placed. The
courts have held that the messenger service
is legal. A bet placed in that way would
have to be accepted. The Ontario Jockey
Club would be bound by the law to accept
such a bet.
As to the third part of the question, "Is
the Attorney General going to leave this mat-
ter entirely in the hands of the federal gov-
ernment or does the government have a plan
regarding the matter?" We have placed our
position before the federal Minister of Jus-
tice, as I think I reported before to the
House. Myself, with three Attorneys General
of other provinces, saw him at the time of
the federal-provincial conference and urged
upon him the necessity for legislation at the
federal level, where our gaming and betting
law is all contained. He undertook to study
the matter, and then on our return he asked
for our views in writing.
I spoke to the Minister of Justice as late as
Friday last, Friday morning of last week,
and he told me he had heard now from all
of the Attorneys General. I was urging him
at that time that they proceed with whatever
legislation they might have in mind. He is
aware of the urgency, he is aware of the
consequences of having this situation as it
is.
I do not know what the federal govern-
ment may do. There is a diflRculty in bringing
it in with other amendments to the Criminal
Code which had already been introduced. Mr.
Turner felt that to bring in something of this
nature would set the whole thing back, so we
would have to proceed separately.
I do not know what they may do or how
soon they may accomplish some legislation,
but I would say this on the latter part of
that question, that the whole position of
Ontario, of any province, would be predi-
cated and premised on what the federal
government does or does not do.
If we are left with this situation, the so
called messenger service; if we are left with
that and if it should develop as we think it
might, where persons v^U be taking advant-
age of that to do bookmaking, the provincial
government would have to, I am certain,
license, control and inspect such places.
That would be quite a serious undertaking,
quite a difficult undertaking, which is why
we think the federal legislation should go to
tightening up present law and making off-
track betting, whether you call it a mes-
senger service or not, illegal. Otherwise it
places a tremendous burden on the prov-
ince to license, inspect, control; because there
are so many people who would use that
front for illegal betting. It would become
much more than a messenger service.
I have answered the question very fully
because those are the considerations which
we have thought about; I would hope that
the federal goverrmient would make its
decision and bring in its legislation quickly.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Attorney
General has considered that perhaps the
license and control that he refers to might be
a more effective way of controlhng the under-
world elements that tend to involve them-
selves, that it might be a better way than
simply trying to make the whole process
illegal, which has not been too successful as
far as reports that have come to us from
competent autliorities are concerned.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have thought about it.
But the difficulty is that you think about it,
one would think that by licensing one would
know who is in the game and would be able
to control it; but first of all you would have
to select the person and there would be a
great deal of pressure as to why you select
one and not another to carry on. Second, the
procedures that are carried on in placing
bets vary from track to back— some do it by
machine or do it by message— and to know,
to follow all those tracks would be almost
beyond possibility of analysis. One would
have to know that different odds are not
being given and taken, and would have to
pursue each individual bet to make sure that
it was properly placed at the track odds and
paid out at that price. I think it would be,
as we understand it, almost impossible to
control it, even if you had just a small
number of persons engaged in that business.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney
General will permit it: Would it be right to
assume that The Attorney General's Depart-
ment has undertaken no specific plan to
license and control in the event that the
government at Ottawa does not act either
3918
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the way that they have been advised by the
Attorney General of Ontario, or in fact, if
they do not act at all for some months?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It is not correct to
assume that at all. We have thought about it,
we have studied it, we have quite a lot of
knowledge about the situation. I have been
concerned to point out how many di£Fculties
would lie in our way.
I think the hon. meml)er is aware too tliat
the present amendments to the Criminal Code
open up the field of gaming or betting, par-
ticularly in the field of lotteries, very widely.
The effect of those amendments ^vill he to
leave to the provincial go\'ernment the option,
in fact the control and if necessary, if con-
sidered wise, the licensing or whatever control
is planned on this type of betting, the lotteiy
situation. So that we will as a province have
to set up some sort of administrative body or
licensing body to determine whether or what
cliarities may carry on lotteries, to what
extent they may go, the prizes; and there
would have to be inspection, I presume. Muni-
cipalities are to be given, I understand under
these amendments, the right to have lotteries
if the province sees fit.
We have been studying this whole situation,
knowing that the day is going to arrive soon
when on our doorstep will be at least this
area of ])etting or taking a chance of buying
tickets on a lottery. But to get into the busi-
ness of controlling, licensing and controlUng
off-track betting is a very difficult thing. I
would hope we are not fixed with that, I
would hope that the federal goverimient
would control that.
We have not Ix^en idle, we have given it
a lot of thought; but I do not like to think
a]>out the idea of doing it.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Transport.
Is the Minister planning legislation to con-
trol go-carts and similar gasoline-powered
\ehicles as recommended by the coroner's
inquest investigating the death of a go-cart
driver in the Dufferin Plaza parking lot on
March 15?
Hon. I. Ilaskett (Minister of Transport): Mr.
Si>eaker, this coroner's report has not yet
r(-ached our department. When it does it will
l)e given due consideration.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management.
How many of the pump-out stations Listed
in the OWRC advertisement in the Globe and
Mail on May 1 are presently in operation?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Mirmstcr of Energy and
Resources Management ) : Mr. Speaker, there
are 16 pump-out stations now in operation and
21 additional stations will be operational
shortly. I am informed by OWRC that the
pump-out stations listed in the recent news-
paper advertisement will be operational dur-
ing the 1969 boating season. It is estimate<l
that 113 pump-out facilities will be provided.
Mr. Deans: Might I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker? Until such time as the
pump-out stations are in operation all over
the province, has any provision been made
for tlie boaters who have to travel in those
areas where there are no stations? Will they
be exempted from the law?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, Mr. Speaker; we
hope to have enough stations throughout the
province that we will be able to take care of
all boaters within a reasonable distance when
the boating season starts which we anticipate
will be May 15.
Mr. Speaker: Any more questions? The
hon. meml:>er for Yorkview.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a (luestiori for the Mimister of Municipal
Affairs. In calculating the population for On-
tario for 1968, as set out in the 1969 munici-
pal directory, how many persons were not
covmted because they lived in (a) institutions,
(b) defence establishments, and (c) on Indian
reserves?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the answer, in round
figures to (a) is 65,000; (b) 15,000; and (c)
35,000.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, does the hon. Minister of Energy
and Resources Management have answers to
either of my questions as yet?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, if the hon. mem-
ber would give me the numbers of the ques-
tions I woidd be happy to answer them.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, I have questions
1357 and 1358 in front of me. Should I
present these to the House? They have been
read in.
MAY 5, 1969
3919
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister just wished
to identify them, I think he can now answer
them.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: The answer to 1357:
According to our information, materials will
not be deposited in the Amherstburg Channel,
Information has been received, however, con-
cerning the proposed disposal of materials on
land witliin this area.
The second part of the question: Tliis
matter is currently under review by OWRC
staff; and the third part of the question, the
proposal will be reviewed with the U.S. Corps
of Engineers to ensure that this operation
does not impair the quality of the Detroit
River. Responsibility for landscaping and con-
servation practices will rest with the American
authorities.
Question 1358: The importance of phos-
phates in the biological cycle has only become
recognized in recent years, and as a con-
sequence, the OWRC, in conjimction witli the
international joint commission, initiated, in
1966, an intensive survey programme of Lake
Erie to monitor the phosphorus levels of tlie
lake. This information will form part of the
international joint commission pollution report
on the lower Great Lakes, which, it is antici-
pated, will be released within a year.
Tlie report will discuss the various phos-
phate levels in different sections of the lake.
And die second question: An increase in
phosphate level can be attributed to many
sources, such as land run off, sewage treat-
ment plant discliarges, and so on. Neither
primary waste treatment plants nor secondary
waste treatment plants effectively reduce die
phosphate content. Additional treatment pro-
cesses (chemical coagulation, settling and
filtration) are required for phosphate removal
and these can be applied to either a primary
treatment plant or a secondary treatment
plant.
And the third part: As indicated in the
previous answer, secondary treatment does
not adequately reduce the phosphorus con-
tent and the Ontario Water Resources Com-
mission will not, therefore, be ordering all
municipalities to provide secondary treat-
ment. Tlie feasibility of nutrient removal at
waste treatment plants is under consideration
at the present time.
Mr. Paterson: Would the Minister entertain
a supplementary to question 1357? To the
Minister's knowledge, was a member of his
staff in attendance on Satiuday morning when
the U.S. Corps of Engineers visited the site
in question regarding the dumping of
materials?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am sorry I cannot
answer that but I would anticipate that they
would, because they usually meet with the
IJC when they are meeting here or in the
United States.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Before the orders of the
day, I would like to table answers to questions
on the order paper. Nos. 42, 43, 45, 47, 50,
51, 52 and 60. (See Appendix, page 3955.)
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The second order.
House in committee of the whole; Mr. A. E.
Renter in the chair.
CITY OF THE LAKEHEAD
House in committee on Bill 118, An Act
respecting the City of the Lakehead.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Chairman, there are some
half dozen or more amendments to be moved
at various points.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Ardiur): Mr. Chair-
man, I think that before we proceed on dis-
cussion of this bill, the matter of the name of
this new city should be determined because
this section approves a certain name without
any qualification as to how the actual name
shall be determined. It occurs to me that once
this section is passed, then the name that is
indicated in this section is also approved. I
think there has been some indication that the
Minister would say eventually, prior to the
June 23 election, Mr. Chairman, as to whether
the Lakeshore people would vote on this
name at the same time as they vote for a
mayor and new council. I wonder if we could
get some comment from the Minister at this
time as to what he plans to do about this
name.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I
think this is covered under section 3, sub-
section 4.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): As an
amendment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Either way, it is
covered.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, do I take it
from the Minister then that he will clarify
what he plans to do under that subsection?
Thank you.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
3920
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On section 3:
lion. Mr. McKeough: Perliaps if I mo\e
tlie amendment first, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: I think that would be in
order.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I move that sub-
section 4 of section 3 be struck out and the
following substituted therefor:
(4) If directed by order of tlie Minister,
a vote of the electors of tlie city shall be
taken at the same time as the election for
the first council to determine from among
the names designated by the Minister,
wliich name the city shall bear and, follow-
ing the vote, the Minister shall by order,
(a) confinn the name of the city as seL
out in section 2; or
(b) declare the names that the city, the
Hydro electric power commission estab-
lished under section 8 and the public
library board established vmder section 9
shall bear,
and where a declaration is made under
clause (b), all references to the bodies
mentioned in clause (b) shall be deemed to
refer to the names of such bodies as
designated in the declaration.
And further, that section 3 be further
amended by adding thereto, the following
subsection, subsection 6:
Any lands that become part of the city
imder the provisions of section 4 of an Act
respecting certain aid by the corporation
of tlie town of Fort William to the Grand
Truck Pacific Railway Company being
Chapter 48 of the Statutes of Ontario,
1905, or of subsection 2 of section 5 of.
An Act respecting the City of Fort
William, being chapter 114 of the Statutes
of Ontario, 1910, shall form part of Fort
William ward.
Perhaps I might give an explanation. I think
the first one is self-explanatory, Mr. Chair-
man. The second one in the general legisla-
tion provision, is when part of an Indian
reserve is sold it comes into the municipality.
This, of course, will happen in the case of
the Fort William Reserve. If any part of it
is sold at any time, it will come into Fort
William. Subsection 6 will ensure that it
comes into the Fort William ward.
If you wish me to answer the question
specifically as to the name, I have written to
the chairman of the Lakehead planning board
and asked him to submit to me, by May 23,
three suggested names which I will then order
to be put on the ballot. Then the procedure
will be followed, whichever name receives
the highest number of votes will then be the
name of the new municipality and I shall so
order.
I may say I think we heard from Mr. Kosny
the chairman of the Lakehead planning board
this morning. He wonders if that time can be
extended, I think at the request of the trades
and labour council, until the end of May. I
have assured him that that will give us suffi-
cient time to order the ballots to be printed.
Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on
the amendment? The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. Knight: I would just like to ask the
Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, whether
we can presuppose that therefore the Lake-
head planning board may decide in any
manner it deems to fit as to how those three
names will be chosen. That is entirely up to
the planning board, is it?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is right:
Mr. Chairman: Does the amendment carry?
Shall section 3 as amended form part of the
bill?
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chainnan,
subsection 2 of section 3 the Minister pro-
\ ides that the first term of office shall be four
years, and then following that each council
shall hold office for two years. That is, the
first council shall hold office until January 1,
1973 and each succeeding council shall hold
office for the two year term?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is a three year
term-
Mr. Young: Beg pardon?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: -1970, 1971 and
1972.
Mr. Young: I am sorry, from the first?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Three and then two.
Mr. Young: Yes, the first one is three years,
but my question, Mr. Chairman, through you
to the Minister, is why the two year term?
It seems to me that today with large muni-
cipalities that a two year term is just too
short. The legislation allows for three years
and there seems to be no reason why, when
we are setting up these new municipalities,
we should not make the three year term part
and parcel of the new set-up.
Some years ago those of us who had
experience with one year term found it
almost impossible because you are electioneer-
MAY 5, 1969
3921
ing most of the time. Then, with the two year
term that in itself was better, but not good
enough. With the large municipalities today,
the business is such that a council should
have more stability than even a two year
term brings them. By the time the two year
term is over the council is working well
generally. They know each other. They are
familiar with the problems and they should
at least have one further year.
Personally, I think the term should be
longer than that for large municipalities but
the legislation says three maximum and per-
haps, we can leave it at that for the purpose
of this bill today. I would like to ask the
Minister though, why he does not make it a
three year term instead of two years when
we are writing the new bill?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, the
purpose in granting or suggesting a three year
term was to put this council on the same
cycle as the divisional board of education
who are on presently in the first year of a two
year term which will be for 1969 and 1970.
They will have an election in the fall of 1970
for 1971 and then presumably they will go to
the polls along with a great number of other
people in the fall— in December presumably,
of 1972. This will put them on the same cycle
and sometime before that time, I would hope
that there would be a determination made as
to whether— both for education and for the
municipal council itself— a two or three year
term is appropriate in the Lakehead.
As a matter of fact we are deliberately do-
ing this in a number of other instances, even
in tentative proposals, to suggest that if they
can get on the same cycle that is the first
step and then we can take it from there. I
suppose— and it is not really at issue— it would
be fair to say that the three year tenn which
was introduced three years ago has not met
with unanimous approval for many of the
people who live under it, or in it. I recognize
the point that the member makes about
politicking and when it starts there are some
who would suggest that in some municipali-
ties the politicking for the 1969 elections
began about two years and three months ago.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the amended section
3 form part of the bill?
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. Young: On section 4 again, Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to call to the attention of
the Minister through you, the matter which I
raised at the time of the second reading of the
bill, that is, section 4(1) says:
The mayor shall be elected by a general
vote of the electors of the city and then the
12 aldermen shall be elected by a general
vote of the electors of the city and so on.
And then the wards are set up.
Mr. Chairman, we are setting up a new
municipality, a large municipality, and at
the time when these municipalities are set up
it seems that the major changes that ought
to be made, should be made. When we get
the kind of changes that are envisaged here
it is not much more difficult to move a step
forward, that is, one further step forward, and
do the job that should be done rather than
think in terms of two smaller steps over the
period of years. Once vested interests are
set up, the second step may become almost
impossible.
In connection with the ward system I would
again urge upon the Minister that a ward
be set up so that you have roughly an equal
number of voters in each ward. Each ward
elects one alderman, and out of the aldermen
tlie mayor is elected. This pattern is one
which has been accepted in most of the
European countries, certainly in Britain, and
we have taken our pattern largely from the
United States. We do not find that it is too
conducive to some of the results which we
want; that is, there is no group responsibility
in this pattern.
The problem is also that if we get aldermen
elected across the board in this kind, then
no individual citizen knows what alderman is
responsible for his particular area. I suppose
the alderman who gets the reputation for
doing a job well will be flooded with calls
and with requests for redress, whereas the
alderman who does not, has a very easy time
of it. It may be that when the election rolls
arotmd the second alderman will find himself
in difficulty, where the first alderman does
not.
In any case, it seems to me that the pioning
down of responsibility is a good democratic
procedure; that we should set up the kind of
ward system here which can result in respon-
sibility being pinned down to aldermen. Then,
out of those aldermen, a mayor can be elected
by the aldermen themselves, and at that time
when this Act comes into effect we have
accomplished this whole procedure of demo-
cratic responsibility.
It may be that in time this kind of pattern
will emerge, as I believe it will, but I see
no reason why we should not take that step
3922
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
now and bring that responsibility right into
this bill at this time.
Mr. Chainnan: Does the hon. Minister wish
to comment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I do not think so, Mr.
Chairman, other than to say that as regards
the inter-municipal committee I think there
are two schools of thought on this. There are
a great number of people in the province,
and I would say that there is a trend in the
pro\'ince that this size of municipality and
those smaller are moving away from the ward
system rather than towards it.
I do not propose to debate that at this
point with the hon. member, except I think
you can make a very good case for a no
ward system in this size municipahty. I think
this is really what they wanted, except tliat
they wanted to preserve a representative for
Neebing and Shundah in the Mclntyre ward,
and for the Township of Neebing in the first
instance. But that is a long debate.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, that latter part
could be done by making Neebing and
Shuniah wards in themselves. They are large
enough to be separate wards.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The thing is, they
would not have had wards at all except for
that.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. Knight: The discussion of the matter
of wards— just for clarification— as I understand
this section of tlie Act, each of the four wards
will have nominees for the council. However,
the voting public at large will actually decide
which one of the nominees will become the
councillor. So it is not really completely true
representation, is it, only from the fact that
the person has been nominated from that
ward.
Actually, he is not a true representative of
the people of that ward, because he was not
chosen solely by the people of that ward. In
effect, the heavy voting populations of the
city could overrule.
Let us say three candidates have ]>een
properly nominated for the ward of Neebing
and the majority of the eligible voters in
Neebing would prefer candidate number 1,
and indeed, threw their complete support
behind candidate number 1. Candidate num-
ber 2 could, in eflFect, win the election if
he happened to be a little bit more effective
in his campaigning in the cities. In a way
there is a bit of a contradiction. Would the
Minister not agree with me, Mr. Chairman,
that this is not really the true ward system
idea of representation?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right. I think it is
a compromise between the true ward system
and no wards at all, and I think it was agreed
that it would be ideal if there were no wards.
But this will ensure that at least one person
is elected from those two municipalities.
Mr. Knight: Well, would this explain, Mr.
Chairman, why it is not being left to the
people within the wards to select their
representatives?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, because they
really do not want a ward system with which,
in this instance, perhaps I would agree. All
12 should be representatives of the whole city
rather than of a particular ward, but they
also want to make sure that at least one per-
son is from these two municipalities.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 4 stand as
part of the bill?
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chainnan, I have another
question relating to section 4, subsection 2,
on the qualifications for candidates for the
mayoralty.
I should, of course, mention tkat I had
wanted to run myself and that there are
certain stipulations in here that exclude me,
so I have announced I will not run and will
accept these limitations and these qualifica-
tions so that there is no conflict of interest
here. But I am wondering, working on the
theory that the Lakehead people should be
able to pick whoever they want to be mayor
of their city, about the way certain federal
members have been able to run in com-
pletely opposite parts of the country, if the
people in that particular constituency so
choose, or a party in that constituency so
choose to run a certain person frorw outside
of the riding as their candidate.
I wonder, inasmuch as this is a veiy special
change of municipal procedure in that you
ha\e four municipalities being amalgamated
into one, whether it would not be better to
relax these qualifications so as to allow the
people themselves to pick from a larger
selection of candidates.
There have been many great Lakeheaders
of the past who moxed on and left the Lake-
head who might be induced to go back and
nm, who might be very highly qualified to
do the job. I wonder whether the Minister
has considered this, and whether he does not
MAY 5, 1969
3923
feel that he is being somewhat limiting in
stating that every candidate for the mayoralty
must have been a resident as of September 1,
1968. It just says on that date, it does not say
between that date and the date of nomina-
tion, it says nothing about prior to that date.
It seems to me also, Mr. Chairman, that
there is some exclusion for persons who have
come to live at the Lakehead after September
1, 1968, who might be extremely qualified
persons and whom the electorate of this new
city may very well wish to have as mayor.
I think there is something being taken away
from democracy here. I think there is an
infringement on the people. God only knows,
we never ha\e sufiicient candidates of high
calibre nmning in those municipal elections.
I just wonder why we have to be so con-
fining. Would the Minister explain this
restriction?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, this
pro\'ision is substantially the same as that in
The Municipal Act which has been around
for a long time.
Mr. Knight: But the special stipulation of
September 1, 1968— why that particular date,
Mr. Chainnan?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think probably that
particular date was picked because at about
that time it was felt that was when the elec-
tion was going to be, and this was the year
before the election. I do not think there is
any more significance to it than that. It could
just as easily have been July 1 or November
1, or some other date. I think the significance
of it was that it was approximately a year
before it would come into effect.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
will agree with me that an acclamation for
mayoralty— the first mayor of the city— would
not be the most wholesome of things to
happen in this particular case. Indeed, there
should be a strong or good democratic battle
for that position, and this is my concern at
this time.
There has been no indication so far, unless
there has been a new announcement today.
There are really only one or two persons to
off^er for mayor in that city, and this is my
concern.
I think inasmuch as the province is exer-
cising its authority to bring about this new
city, that certainly the people— to continue
their feeling of ownership of their city or
participation in their city— should have the
opportunity of an exciting election with a
good choice, and I feel that this particular
clause makes that almost impossible.
So I register this complaint and this opposi-
tion at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Waterloo North.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Could
the Minister clarify his answer regarding that
section about the residency of the mayor? Is
he inferring that The Municipal Act states
that one has to be—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Good: Well, that is what I gathered
from the answer. It is just the matter of own-
ing property, is that not correct?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Of owning property—
I am trying to find the provision now. I will
get it for the member.
Mr. Good: Owning of property. This then
is not tied in with The Municipal Act as it
now exists?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Wait until I find the
section. Perhaps we could go on, Mr. Chair-
man; it is going to take a while to find this
section.
Mr. Chairman: Would there be any further
questions—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I may say, further
that despite what the member for Port Arthur
has said, there was a feeling at the Lakehead
—I do not think this was in any way directed
at him personally, because this was discussed
long before he had evidenced any interest s©
far as I am aware— I think as far as anyone
there was aware— that he might have some
interest in seeking the position himself. I
think there was a genuine feeling among the
intermunicipal committee— and, I think, an
understandable feeling— that the office of
mayor should be held by a person who is
a resident of the city.
I think that is the only thing that is behind
it. And I do not quarrel with that at all.
Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, is there any
other municipality where this is a stipula-
tion? I do not think there is.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, you will find it
in some of the private legislation governing
some of the cities. Do not ask me to name
which one, but there are some.
Sec+ion 4 agreed to.
3924
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On section 5.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, there is some
concern-
Mr. Chairman: Section 5?
Mr. Knight: On section 5, Mr. Chairman,
having to deal with the general administra-
tive head of the new Lakehead city. I just
wonder what kind of assurance the Minister
can give the committee that the appointment
of a general administrative head for the Lake-
head city will not give rise to a whole series
of bureaucratic appointments, as we have
seen in some cases in the county school boai'd
system.
I know there is some concern at the Lake-
head as to this regionahzing of the four muni-
cipalities, this unification of four municipali-
ties, will not make a number of new positions
at tlie administrative level necessary. Is there
any comment that tlie Minister could make
on that at all that would allay the fears of
the people, the residents of this would-be new
city?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, there is no guar-
antee or undertaking that I can make. The
section states: "The council of the city may
by by-law appoinit a general administrative
head." Now, whether they choose to do so
or not is entirely within their province, and
what they pay that man or what they do
not pay him— or her— is entirely within their
jurisdiction.
I am sure that the people of the new
council will act with their usual good sense
in detennining what rate of pay the man or
woman is paid, and whether there is a
proliferation of the bureaucracy because of
this or not. It is entirely something which
they will settle themselves, as indeed the
county school boards are entitled to do.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
There is a similarity all right.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The leader of the
Opposition says there is a similarity. Is he
suggesting that there should be some restric-
tion built into this?
Mr. Nixon: Since I have been asked, I
would tliink, Mr. Chairman, thiit surely the
example that the Minister of Education has
set in putting forward legislation in this
regard should be one that the Minister of
Municipal Affairs slwuld be aware of, as he
enters into a series of bills setting up regional
goverrmnents across the province.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hon. leader is
really not answering my question.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I am. I am saying the
Minister should be aware of it and should
not be so quick to say that he has no responsi-
bilities in this.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I did not say I had
no responsibility. I asked whetlier the hon.
leader would put restrictions in this; surely
he can answer that yes or no?
Mr. Nixon: Well, obviously we are not put-
ting forward an amendment.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, you are not pre-
pared to.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: What utter non-
sense! Mr. Chairman, this provision is, more
or less, taken out of the private legislation
which is now in tlie hands of Port Arthur.
They have been working with it for some 20
or 30 years. Now, what utter nonsense to say
because we put in a provision-
Mr. Nixon: The Minister has this bill across
the province. It is something for him to think
about.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: When we put in a
provision wliich has been there for 20 or 30
years, we are not going to be responsible for
an escalation of costs.
Mr. Nixon: Tliere is not a city manager up
there now.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: There certainly is in
Fort William. Perlmps the hon. member
would find out a little bit more about it.
Mr. Nixon: I am sorry for that, tliere is in
r'ort William.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The hon. member
for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I presume that
this clause was placed there because of the
situation in Fort William where the city man-
ager has been operating for some time. But,
again, it seems to me to make common sense,
when we are making changes of tliis kind
where the other parts of the Lakehead city
are not used to this set-up, that we should
bring this city into harmony with federal
and provincial usage. We should set up an
executive committee of council to do the job
that needs to be done at that particular level.
I mentioned this at the time of second read-
ing. Again I urge it upon the Minister. I
MAY 5, 1969
3925
suppose there is no mandate in any way say-
ing that we must do this as we set up new
regional governments or new amialgamated
cities, but it is a step forward, in my opinion.
It is a step which ought to be taken at a time
hke this, because once patterns are set, then
they are very hard to change.
Certainly an executive committee is the kind
of committee that an increasing number of
municipalities are thinking about today and
are mo\'ing toward. So it seems to me that it
is at this point that the Minister ought to
think very seriously of an executive conrniittee
for this new Lakehead city.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I
think there is a difference in point of view
here between me and the hon. member— be-
tween the people at the Lakehead and the
hon. member, or the councils, at any rate.
They have had a very successful city ad-
ministrator system in the one municipality—
not in the other— and they propose to continue
it. There was never any discussion of an
executive committee, and in fact, as the hon.
member will realize, in section 6, which fol-
lows, tliey did not want any part of a board
of control.
Mr. Young: The board of control is an
entirely different system.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, just one— one out
of the two, Port Artliur.
Mr. Young: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman,
that a board of control is not desirable, but
I do believe that in place of a board of con-
trol there should be an executive committee.
The cit>' of Toronto has just done tliis, other
municipalities are thinking seriously about it,
and it has worked well in the experience of
many of us. I think that this is the time to
make this step.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, on
section 7. I move that subsection 1 of sec-
tion 7 be amended by striking out "the
gardens board and the board of parks and
recreation of the city of Fort William are"
in the first and second lines, and substituting
therefor, "the Fort William garden board is";
and by striking out "boards," where it occurs
twice in the fifth line and substituting "board"
in each instance. In other words, the correct
name is the Fort William gardens board.
Motion agreed to.
Section 7 as amended agreed to.
On section 8.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I
move that section 8, subsection ( 1 ) be
amended by striking out:
one member appointed by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council and three members
appointed by the council of the city.
In the sixth, seventh and eighth lines, and
substituting therefor,
two members appointed by the Hydro-
Electric Power Commission of Ontario, and
two members appointed by the council of
the city.
And that subsections (3) and (4) of section
8 be struck out and that the following be
substituted tlierefor:
(3) The Hydro-Electric Commission of
the City of Fort William is hereby dis-
solved on the 1st day of January, 1970,
and all the assets under the control and
management of such commission and all
liabilities of such commission shall become,
on that date, assets under the control and
management and liabilities of the Hydro-
Electric Commission of the Lakehead with-
out compensation. (4) The Public Utihties
Commission of the City of Port Arthur is
hereby dissolved on the 1st day of January,
1970, and, insofar as they pertain to the
distribution and supply of electrical power
and energy, all the assets under the con-
trol and management of such commission,
and all liabilities of such commission shall
become, on that date, assets under the con-
trol and management and liabilities of the
Hydro-Electric Commission of tlie Lake-
head without compensation.
Just explaining two of these things, Mr.
Chairman, the amendment to subsection 1
brings the commission into line with other
five-man commissions of which there are
several in the province. Normally, in the leg-
islation, two members have been appointed
by tlie Hydro-Electric Power Commission of
Ontario ratlier than by the Lieutenant-Gover-
nor-in- Council, and it is two rather than one.
That is the reason for that change. Regard-
ing the change to subsection 4, tlie key words
are "control and management" of such com-
mission, and the original language was—
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Does that
include telephones in both cities?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. The original
language was "shall become on that date
assets and liabilities". Assets of commissions
legally rest in the municipality rather than
in tlie commission or an emanation of the
3926
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mtmicipality, but the control and manage-
ment should be under tlie new commission,
and that is the reason for that change in
wording.
Mr. Knight: I just wonder if subsections
3 and 4— this whole section, as a matter of
fact— does not leave something out. It makes
no reference to Neebing or Mclntyre that I
can see and we know, of course, that the
Hydro service in both of those townships are
liandled at the present time by Ontario Hydro.
We also know that the Hydro rates are higher
in the townships, and yet, after January 1,
1970, all will come under one city.
Does the Minister have any plan to equal-
ize the rates right across the board for equal
usage? I know, of course, that you talk about
industrial power, and you talk about resi-
dential power, and there has to be a differ-
ence there, but I mean rates for the same
usage right across the city. There is nothing
here to indicate that they will be one and
the same, and the Neebing and Mclntyre
portions are just simply not included.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: This section, of
course, deals with the dissolution of the two
existing commissions, and where their assets
and liabilities go, but speaking to the point
the member makes— of course, the new com-
mission will set rates, whether they be rates
in Mclntyre or Shuniah, or in Fort William
or in Port Arthur wards. They will set rates
on the basis of the facts that are presented
to them as to the cost of energy and the
cost of distribution.
We would expect, and I think it is rea-
sonable to assume, that they will set one
residential rate, depending upon volume used,
but this is a determination which has to be
made by the new commission and which I
cannot make, at this point, for them.
The Ontario Hydro has been requested to
undertake an immediate study— and I believe
that study is under way— as to what assets
will have to be purchased by the new com-
mission from Ontario Hydro, and arising out
of that I think they are also making a rates
study as well.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as
there is no provision, therefore, to equalize
the rates, I would like to move that section 8
be amended by adding thereto the following
subsection, a subsection 6, that, "the Hydro
Electric Power Commission of the Lakehead
shall supply power to all customers for
equivalent uses at the same rate."
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the hon.
member that I have a motion before the
committee now for an amendment to this
section that the motion should be held. As
I understand it, the hon. member wants to
amend it after this motion has been pre-
sented.
Mr. Knight: I do not quite understand, Mr.
Chairman— this amendment is not accepted?
Mr. Chairman: We will deal with this mo-
tion first, and then the hon. member can place
his motion.
Mr. Knight: Fine, thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, with regard to the motion that is
before us, may I make certain that I under-
stand what the Minister said in reply to the
hon. member for Thunder Bay. Did the Min-
ister state that the new Hydro-electric com-
mission encompasses the telephone system?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, sorry, did I say
that? No, I did not mean that. No, the tele-
phone commission comes into the new city.
Mr. Stokes: It will not be a separate utility
at all; it will just be a committee of council.
Mr. MacDonald: Just one moment now,
Mr. Chairman— I think we should deal with
this amendment first.
Mr. A. K. Meen (York East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to congratulate the Min-
ister in making the changes which he has
submitted to the committee this afternoon,
but I wonder whether there was not one
other point which was requested by the
Lakehead people at the time when the meet-
ings concerning their Hydro commission were
held.
As I recall, they also sought to have the
right, or at least the opportunit>' without
having to come before us for an amendment
to the Act, to elect their Hydro commissioners
after their first term of office. I do not know
that I heard the Minister include that in his
proposed amendment to either subsection (1)
or perhaps, to subsection (2).
I had believed that the people in the Lake-
head had suggested that there be some stipu-
lation that this appointment would be for the
first term only, following which they might
be elected or appointed at the option of coun-
cil of the city. I wonder if the Minister could
clarify my understanding on that point?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, that determina-
tion will, in fact, be made by the new coun-
cil. Perhaps I might explain a little bit
further: There was a difference of opinion, I
MAY 5, 1969
3927
think, between the council and the commis-
sions and between some of the commissioners.
Some of the commissioners felt that it should
be elected from the beginning, others felt that
it should be elected and others that the first
commission should be appointed or that they
should all be appointed. It was finally deter-
mined that the first commission should be
appointed and then the provisions of The
Power Commission Act would take over. The
council will have to make that determination.
Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I missed
it in the Minister's amendment to the Act,
but I did not hear any statement in his
ameadment to the effect that it was for the
first term.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, it will be until
such time as the council makes that determi-
nation which they will have to make.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, speaking to sub-
section 4, we must realize here that the
Hydro Electric Commission of the City of
Fort William and the Public Utilities Com-
mission of the City of Port Arthur are not at
all the same. One has to do solely with the
service of Hydro, but the Public Utilities
Commission of the City of Port Arthur has
to do with other services, and involves other
assets and other liabilities, and the subsec-
tion 4 makes no reference to that. The section
refers to:
And in so far as they ipertain to die dis-
tribution and supply of the electrical power
and energy, all the assets under the control
oi the management of such commission
and all liabilities of such commission shall
become—
It makes no reference to
those liabilities that do not
ter of power and energy,
what the Minister has done
telephone, for example— in
Arthur? Where does it go;
view does it now come;
stated in this Act?
those assets and
relate to the mat-
and I just wonder
with those assets—
the city of Port
xmder what pur-
and where is it
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Section 20, subsec-
tion 3, really determines whether the assets
go to the commission or to the city, and,
therefore, the responsibility.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have a
comment with regard to sulosection 4 of sec-
tion 7, which the Minister has amended. As
we are going to deal witli this first and vote
on it, perhaps I should make the comment
here.
This is one area where the Minister has
bowed to a point that caused considerable
apprehension in the municipality, and I think
he was wise to do so. Those who are asso-
ciated with the public utilities commission in
so far as it pertains to Hydro electric power
distribution were apprehensive because the
assets that have been built up out of the
consumers' dollars down through the years
were going to ibe lost to the new commission.
Now I understand that the lawyers have had
a bit of a field day here because, in effect,
the public utilities commission cannot own
anything, the council owns it, so it maybe
makes no difference. But since it makes no
difference, I think the Minister was wise to
bow to this ai>prehension; to acknowledge
this apprehension; and to spell out in the bill
that insofar as the assets related to the use
of power, they would be passed on to the new
Hydro Electric Commission of the city.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Under the control
and management of— as I imderstand this and
I am not a lawyer— they would still be
vested in the cdty, but they would be imder
the control and management of the commis-
sion. Would you explain the distinction to me?
Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion for the
amendment carry?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if we have
covered that amendment, there is another
point I wanted to raise on section-
Mr. Chairman: I have another motion be-
fore me.
Mr. MacDonald: Fine.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member
for Port Arthur would put his motion again?
Mr. Knight: The amendment has already
been read, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
move it please.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Knight moves that sec-
tion 8 be amended by adding thereto the
followinig subsection:
(6) the Hydro Electric Power Commis-
sion of the Lakehead shall supply power
to all customers for equivalent uses at the
same rate.
Would the hon. Minister care to comment
on this motion?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, Mr. Chairman,
generally speaking, this is a responsibility of
the new commission. I do not think—
3928
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): They
will do it anyway.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, the memljer for
Simcoe Centre says tliey will do it anyway
and this has certainly been the exxx'rience
on annexations. On amalgamations there has
generally been a difference in rates.
I think of Whitby and Whitby Township
where the rates were equahzed right away.
They were equalized, as a matter of fact, I
do not think the purchase by the town of
Whitby of tlie assets from Ontario Hydro
have been finalized as yet. I am not sure of
that, but the rates were equalized right away
and certainly Ontario Hydro encourage this.
They want one rate under the commission.
If there is to be a commission there should be
one rate. This will happen, I am quite sure
of that, but I do not think it is up to us to
say to a Hydro commission: "Your rates shall
be thus and so," or that they shall be equal-
ized.
There may be very good reasons that I
am not aware of that they should not be
the same. There ma>' be very good reasons
for all I know that the rates in Shuniah and
Necbing should be less than they are in the
remainder of the new city. This is something
I do not k-now, this is something that is
determined l)y the new conmiission, and I
think it is properly within their province to
determine this and not something which
should be settled here.
Mr. R. Haggei'ty (Welland South): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of clarification, the Min-
ister mentioned before that after the amalga-
mation of tlie four municipalities they would
assume the assets and liabilities of the rural
Hydro. Do you think this is justified when
perhaps in a period of over 20 years some
of these poles have been vmtten off, some of
the transformers and so forth?
I think people living in the rural areas
have always paid a higher rate for Hydro.
Some place along the line they have paid for
all these services, and I do not think it is
quite right that they should be paying again
for the assets and liabilities that perhaps they
have paid for some 20 years ago.
I think this sihould be written off. I do not
think we should come back and feather the
nest of Ontario Hydro again.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well of course,
Ontario Hydro would tell you that if the asset
which has been purchased has been written
off, or has been drastically reduced, then that
is the price at which they sell them. It is not
very good grammar, but I think it conveys
what I am trying to say— that whatever the
Ontario Hydro sell those assets to the com-
mission for, and will in this case to the Lake-
head commission at the depreciated value—
if they were poles that were completely
written off then they would be sold at that
figure, i.e. nil.
There is always some value I suppose, de-
pending on whether they are using a straight
line depreciation or whether they are using
a reducing balance depreciation, but there is
probably some value there, and the price
which is worked out by Ontario Hydro, I am
given to imderstand, leads to a considerable
amount of negotiation.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, if I could speak
to the amendment very quickly. I think this
Act ensures that all residents of this new
municipality, wherever they may be living,
will pay their fair share of the cost of up-
keep through the annual tax bill for this new
municipality. And I think, by the same token,
all residents of this municipality wherever they
be should also enjoy the benefits.
If one of these benefits can be the equal-
ization of the \ery vital cost and ver>' vital
services of say telephone and Hydro, then I
think that this House should guarantee that
to them. There is so much after all that is
indefinite about this entire thing that this
House should attempt to make some things
definite that are within our purview, and since
the Minister has already said it I will throw
an argument back at him.
He told me earlier that we did not have
to allow the people to vote up there because
it was obvious they already wanted it, so we
could go ahead and do it. Well now, by the
same token he says that most Hydro com-
missioners usually will equalize in such a
merger. Well, by the same token then why
does this House not go right ahead and
relieve the minds of the people and include
it in this Act and put their minds at ease since
the Minister seems quite sure it is going to
happen anyway.
I think the people should have something
far more definite to go on. Who knows,
perhaps in their negotiations the new Hydro
commission at the Lakehead and Ontario
Hydro will come to some kind of a standoff
where they will not be able to reach a de-
cision. They will have a very powerful
suggestion right from this House on this
matter, and I think it is a very safe one. I
think that we should move this amendment
now to guarantee to all those people that
particular benefit of this amalgamation.
MAY 5, 1969
3929
After all, those who have been selling
amalgamation, Mr, Chairman, for years have
been talking about the advantages of unifica-
tion, and this it seems to me is one of them—
the equalizing of these very valuable services.
I suggest that we in this House should take
the responsibility of seeing to it that they get
this equalization of Hydro costs now while
we have the opportunity to give it to them.
Mr. R. J. Beyer (Muskoka): Mr. Chairman,
if I might pick up some words that were just
used by the hon. member for Port Arthur
when he said that there should be a powerful
suggestion from this House to the local com-
mission at the Lakehead as to the equaliza-
tion of rates. I would suggest that a powerful
suggestion already is contained within The
Power Commission Act of this province which
deals with the setting of electric rates. The
intent is certainly that there be a common
rate for each class of customer in a muni-
cipality.
Mr. Singer: Can you give us the specific
reference?
Mr. Boyer: No, I regret to say, I have not
got the sections of the Act ofiF by memory.
But I might suggest to the hon. leader of the
Opposition, we could adjourn to a quiet
comer and look over the Act and I think I
could indicate where that would be. But you
understand that a local commission is based
upon a municipality. That will be the case,
as I understand it, in the bill.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Boyer: I am sorry, I missed that ques-
tion. What I would like to suggest to the
hon. member for Port Arthur is that his
amendment implies that in other parts of the
province there are municipalities where rates
do vary for a class of customer. I would say
that that is not the case. I would judge that
it will not be the case at the Lakehead,
because I understand that already the studies
which are under way are indicating that there
will be an equalization, and that it will be
favourable to the municipalities of which he
has just been speaking.
So I would hope that the hon. member
then would consider withdrawing his amend-
ment. In any e^•ent, I would have to vote
against it.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, since the vice-
chairman of Hydro has expressed his view on
this I have been quite concerned that the
public utilities commission, as set up here,
is going to have two people representing
Ontario Hydro and named to the commission
by them which, we are informed by the
Minister, is customary, but he was not pre-
pared to tell us on what other circumstances
this takes place.
Now, the vice-chairman of Hydro has told
us that there are no cases that he is aware of
where there is a differential within one muni-
cipality. Yet I am sure he could also tell us
that across northern Ontario, in jurisdictions
very close to each other, with very similar
requirements, there are quite large variations
in Hydro rates.
Associated with Hydro policy and the fact
that Hydro people are going to be appointed
to this board— numbering two out of the five
—I believe would indicate that there will be
a considerable carry-over of Hydro pohcy.
This may very well result in the same dif-
ferentiation in what the Minister calls the
four wards of the new city as is the case
now, when the four wards are separate muni-
cipalities themselves. Also, I really cannot see
why we should be setting up a bill which
permits Ontario Hydro to name two members
of the public utilities commission in the first
place.
My mind is not set at rest by the comments
made by the vice-cliairman of Hydro. I think
the experience of northern citizens with
Hydro now would indicate that it would be
very difficult for anybody to justify the differ-
ence in rates which now pertains in many of
these areas in nortliem Ontario. So I really
think that, rather than withdraw the amend-
ment, the members sitting opposite should
consider giving it their support, so that we in
the House have used our responsibilities to
impose on the new PUC the requirement that
there be uniformity in the rate structure.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, we will
support this amendment. We do so because,
quite frankly, I tliink there is a certain illogic
in the statement the Minister has made and
the vice-chairman of Hydro has underlined
tliat illogic.
If tliere is a "strong suggestion"— to use the
phraseology that they were using in The
Hydro Electric Power Commission Act— or if
the Minister believes that this is generally the
practice, what is wrong with the carryinig out
of the strong suggestions, and the general
belief that the Minister has, which by impH-
cation he hopes will be implemented here?
What is the danger in putting it in the Act?
Because the hon. leader of the Opposition
is dead right.
3930
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Wlien I go to northern Ontario— well, I
will not say that there are not a few other
questions I hear more about, but one of the
questions I hear a great deal about is the
discrepancy in power rates as between whiit
is charged to an industry and what is charged
to a local public utilities comanission or be-
tween different areas. This has been a battle
foir years.
It seems to me that, if the Minister thinks
that this is a desirable objective— that if it is
normally implemented, across the board— if
the vice-chairman of Hydro says that there is
a strong suggestion in The Power Commission
Act that this should be done, I would think
that they would accept the amendment. I do
not know what ground they are standing
on to oppose it.
Mr. Stokes: I would like to speak just
briefly on this too, Mr. Chairman.
In spite of the assurance that the Minister
has given and that of the vice-chairman of
Hydro, I had occasion to read a press release
just recently when somebody from one of the
rural municipalities asked about the Hydro
rates. They were given assurance from some
spokesman from either the public utilities
commission, or the Fort William Hydro com-
mission, that there would not be an equaliza-
tion, but there would be a reduction, bring-
ing the rural rates closer to what the rate
was in the cities.
Of course, as you know, tlie two cities
enjoy one of the most favourable Hydro rates
on the North American continent and I do
not think that it is implied that they will
equalize them. As a matter of fact, I think the
tendency would be the other way— that they
would not equalize. That has been indicated
in tlie press release that I referred to.
I think you are discriminating against the
outside municipalities if, in fact, you are
allowing a preferential rate in the cities to
prevail. Of course, the outlying municipalities
will not get the kind of development that they
might otherwise get with a stabilization in
rates. I think it is an excellent amendment
and I intend to support it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I was not
aware of this press release, but, quite frankly,
if this press release is an accurate indication
of what is contemplated, then the Minister
has imwittingly misled the House. He has
indicated that it is most desirable, and likely,
that there would be equal rates. Therefore,
the only way that the intent of the Act— if I
can take what the Minister has stated as the
intent of the Act rather than the words— the
intent of the Act may well be frustratetl.
I would think that the Minister would be
the first person who woidd want to avoid that
frustration of his own intent.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairmian, I
think we are looking up The Power Commis-
sion Act at the piesent moment, I do not
know-
Mr. Singer: With all that talent and vice-
chairman and you cannot find it. I am sur-
prised.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would just say this.
I know of no such press release. I do not
know where this came from; it did not come
from me. Certainly, the councils have
endorsed the principle of a uniform rate.
This is The Power Commission Act, I assume.
Mr. Singer: Better make sure.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I think we had
better make sure— Public Utilitie.s Act.
Mr. Singer: Oh, that is better.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Section 27(2):
In fixing the rents, rates or prices to be
paid for the supply of a public utility, the
corporation may use its discretion as to the
rents, rates or prices to be charged to the
various classes of consumers, and also as
to the rents, rates or prices of which a
public utility shall be supplied for the dif-
ferent purposes for which it may be sup-
plied or required.
I do not know whether tliat—
Mr. Singer: That does not quite say what
you were looking for.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Singer: Let us find another section.
An hen. member: Read the whole thing.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Do you want me to
read it all?
Mr. Singer: Yes, read the whole statute.
Try section 28 or 29. You still won't find it.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Treasurer): You
have not found it yet either, eh?
Mr. Singer: Well, have you got all that?
What are the references?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Sometimes you
do. I thought you might just happen to have
it-
Mr. Singer: Today I do not see why I
should do your work.
MAY 5, 1969
3931
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Legislative counsel
says the book is not here. All right, now here
is The Power Commission Act, section 99:
The rates and charges for supplying
power and the rents and charges to meet
the cost of any work or service done or
furnished for the purposes of a supply of
power chargeable by any municipal corpor-
ation, generating or receiving and distribut-
ing power, is subject at all times to the
approval and control of the commission.
And the rates and such rents and charges
charged by any company or individual re-
ceiving power from the oommission for the
supply of power are subject at all times to
such approval and control.
Mr. Singer: Still does not say anything.
Hon. Mr. McKeough:
Notwithstanding this Act, the commission
may from time to time when in its opin-
ion it is in the interest of the municipal
corporation under contract with the com-
mission so to do, make orders fixing the
rates to be charged by the corporation or
commission of any municipality having a
population of less tlian 200,000 for power
supplied by the commission.
I think these are tlie sections which I now
remember and I think this bears out with
what the vice-chairman of Hydro has said.
There is some discretion, but it is the policy
of Ontario Hydro to do exactly this. And I
think that is the position.
Mr. Singer: No, Mr. Chairman, with res-
pect, that is not what the section says. The
section does not say anything about equity of
the charges, which is the thrust of my col-
league's amendment.
My colleague asks that the residents of the
new city at the Lakehead be assured in some
way that the amount they are going to pay
for Hydro will be equal— that if they are
residents they pay equal rates. Now, there is
a discretion to review those rates, that is
clear from the section the Minister read out
of The Power Commission Act, but it does not
say that that discretion must be exercised so
that rates in a municipality will be equal for
equal users. And this is surely the assurance
that my colleague asks for in his amendment
and there is apparently no statutory answer
for it. So, therefore, I would think in view
of the concern of the Minister— and he says
this is only fair and in view of the opinion
given by the vice-chairman of Hydro, he
thought it was there already— and since there
is this grave concern in the city of the Lake-
head, the logical thing would be for all
members of the House to support this
eminendy sensible amendment.
Mr. Boyer: May I suggest that the House
come back to a remark that was made by the
hon. Minister who stressed the importance of
having this matter settled at the Lakehead by
the authorities there. He proposed that this
not be a condition imposed by this Legis-
lature on the Lakehead city.
Mr. Nixon: The member is shifting his
ground a bit.
Mr. Boyer: No, I am not.
Mr. Stokes: The member said the Act pro-
vided for it.
Mr. Boyer: I think in any matter such as
this in the restructuring of a municipahty,
whether it is in a large region or a city such
as this, we should do all that we can to avoid
having to thrust on the local people the views
of this body here without agreement in the
locality. There is an opportunity for the
people of the Lakehead to settle this matter.
I cannot for the life of me understand why
there should be any great problem about this.
It is under study now, to which the Minister
has referred. I understand that there will be
an adjustment for a number of people, those
who have been living in the townships— the
electricity customers of rural Hydro— who will
be coming into the city. I think this will be
a very favourable thing for them and I think
we shall find this matter we are concerned
about at the moment will be met properly.
I point out that it is the intent of Tlie
Power Commission Act, and the practice of
the municipal commissions and tlie provincial
commission to establish a common rate iu
the municipality for the same class of cus-
tomers. Now, tlie hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion, of course, went away from that and
talked about contrasting rates between dif-
ferent municipalities, which is quite another
subject and not really related to this matter
at hand. I would recommend, sir, that this
House vote down this amendment.
Mr. Nixon: It seems strange that the vice-
chairman of Hydro would ha\'e recommended
to the hon. member that he withdraw his
amendment a moment ago, because the whole
matter of equalization of rates was dealt with
in The Power Commission Act. We now see it
is not dealt with in The Power Commission
Act and he recommends that the House vote
against tlie amendment, that it should be a
3932
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
matter left to the tender mercies of Ontario
Hydro or tlie local commission.
Really, his arguments are so inconsistent
that I would think he would withdraw the
rec\)mmendations and ask his colleagues to
support the amendment, which I think is
eminently reasonable and would not trespass
on the rights of the local people in any way,
but would safeguard them.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, some-
thing seems strange to the leader of the
Opposition and I suppose I have to point out
to him that it seems strange to me that in
section 5, the leader of the Opposition wanted
to put som.e controls in one way and in tliis
section he wants to put controls in some other
way.
Now, cither we are going to have local
autonomy or we are not going to have local
autonomy, and surely as a matter of poHcy
these things have been settled by local Hydro
a)mmissions working with Ontario Hydro. It
has worked ratlier well in places. The mem-
ber for Windsor-Walkerville is not here but
I think he could tell you that it worked satis-
factorily on the annexation of Sandwich; it
has w^orked in Whitby; it has worked in
North Bay and Widdilield; and I do not think
there is any great cause for alarm.
If there were cause for alarm, then surely
—and I tliink this would be Ontario Hydro's
position— we would not legislate it in this
particular piece of legislation; it should be
done in The Power Commission Act or in
The Public Utilities Act. I think that would
be an appropriate place to do it, if it was felt
necessary to do it.
But surely in this piece of legislation, w^e
should leave die Lakehcad commission with
the same amount of responsibility, and charge
them with doing the same kind of job which
other commissions have done across the prov-
ince—and we should not unduly interfere. If
there is a larger area that is of concern, then
I think it should be appropriately dealt with
through the avenue of an amendment to The
Power Commission Act at some other point.
But I do not think it is necessary to single
this situation out where— and I think we can
assure the member of it— this has not been
a cause for concern in other parts of the
province.
Mr. Knight: In answer to the hon. Minister
and the member for Muskoka, I commend
them both for trying to underline at this point
tlie importance of local autonomy at the Lake-
head. It is something I wholly endorse. And
following in line directly with that I have
three letters before me from the municipali-
ties of tlie corporation of the city of Port
Arthur, the city of Fort William and the
municipality of Sliuniah asking exactly for
this— for equalization of the rates. These three
municipalities endorse a resolution originally
advanced and passed by the council of the
municipality of Neebing asking for just tliis,
and for clarification here I tiiink I should
read that resolution, Mr. Chairman:
Whereas Hydro rates in the townships of
Mclntyre and Neebing far exceed tiiese
presently paid by the residents of the cities
of Fort William and Port Arthur; and
whereas the equalization of this rate would
not be passed on to the residents of the
townships of Mclntyre and Neebing on
January 1st, 1970, if tlie lines of these
townships are under ownership of Ontario
Hydro; therefore be it resolved that the
inter-municipal committee be requested to
take immediate steps in having the two
city Hydro commissions proceed immedi-
ately to negotiate the acquisition or lease
from Ontario Hydro the transmission lines
in the townships of Mclntyre and Neebing.
If a rate study is necessary as indicated
by the Port Arthur public utilities com-
mission, and the Fort William Hydro com-
mission, that rates be made uniform as of
January 1st, 1970, and adjusted on com-
pletion of such study and that a copy of
this resolution be forwarded to the councils
of the city of Fort William—
And so forth. And I think the spirit of that
resolution, Mr. Chairman, is that something
should be done to ensure that there will be
equalization of rates, and that is purely the
intent of my amendment to this Act.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The interesting part,
of course, is that those resolutions came from
the four councils. I am not questioning this.
We discussed it with the two commissions
involved and neither one said there was any
problem. They said that they had already
requested the study and it was under way,
and this would happen in due course.
Mr. Singer: The point is there is a little
difference between a commission and a
council.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not in this instance.
Mr. Singer: No, there is everywhere else in
the province.
Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I think this is
the entire point. The Minister speaks of
local autonomy. The autonomy has been
MAY 5, 1969
3933
eroded; no longer are there elected public
utilities commissions in the Lakehead, and the
same thing could well happen in my own
area. We now have a Hydro commission
which has two members appointed from
Ontario Hydro, so we have Ontario Hydro
now entering into the municipal field in one
more area. There is more local autonomy
eroded there.
So we are dealing with an appointed com-
mission and not an elected commission, which
the municipalities were used to formerly. So
I think it is very important that something be
done here to ensure stabilization of rates
across the whole regional government. In my
own area, I would want the same thing.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the Minis-
ter has set up a straw man and then, with all
the vigor of his youth, beat it into a pulp.
He suggested that the leader of the Opposition
was arguing for local autonomy in one area
and now he wants to deny local autonomy. I
suggest that this is not a valid point. Surely
one wants a greater degree of local autonomy,
but granting a greater degree of local
autonomy can be exercised within the frame-
work of certain basic principles and the basic
P- principle is that there should be—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Which should be
under The Power Commission Act.
Mr. MacDonald: All right, but, you see,
the Opposition is correct in its assertion that
the government has shifted its ground. They
started out by saying it was in The Power
;', Commission Act, that this was the desirable
I thing, that this was what took place across
the province of Ontario. Well, if all these
things are the case, then they should have no
I hesitancy in making certain in this Act, now
I that we have found some doubt in The Power
'- Commission Act, that it will be implemented.
However, having made that point now, Mr.
Chairman, I assume— it is not for me to pre-
sume—that with this point, the debate on this
amendment is ended. But I am faced with a
dilemma. I am in favour of this amendment,
and I shall do everything possible to see that
it is adopted, but if it is adopted, it precludes
me from bringing in another amendment.
Mr. Nixon: No, if it is defeated.
Mr. Chairman: If it is defeated, then section
8 carries.
Mr. MacDonald: Right, if it is defeated-
but I am going to do my best to see that it
is not defeated, and, therefore, if my hopes
were achieved I would box myself in with
regard to bringing in another amendment.
Now, the only way I can see my way out of
this, Mr. Chairman, is that I should deal with
my other amendment now, and I will not
repeat the debate at a later stage. Then we
can vote on them in succession if there is an
opportunity for the second vote.
Mr. Chairman: I think I should make per-
fecdy clear what will happen after this
motion is put. If this motion is defeated,
then section 8 carries. If this motion is carried,
then further amendments may be introduced.
Mr. MacDonald: Because of my grasp of
simple arithmetic it leads me to believe that
it is possible that this motion will be de-
feated. I shall now proceed to put my second
amendment.
Mr. Nixon: What second amendment?
Mr. MacDonald: Another amendment.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. I think we get into great difficult)^ if
this rule is applied on a multi-portion section
such as section 8. My colleague from Port
Arthur's amendment is proposed to be a new
subsection 6. The amendment moved by the
hon. member for York South is an amendment
to subsections 1 and 2. Now, they are different
things and it would seem to me most unfair
if one vote has to deal with both, because
some of us may have different views on both
parts of it. It would be my suggestion, sir—
and perhaps we need the unanimous consent
of the House on this— but it would seem
eminently reasonable that such consent should
be given, that we deal with them separately.
We should deal first with the amendment of
my colleague from Port Arthur— whatever the
fate of that may be— then the hon. member
for York South be given the opportunity to
deal with his amendment as he puts it for-
ward.
Mr. MacDonald: I would agree with this
and I would hope that this is a proposal to
go to the rules committee so that we can
avoid this argument which is repeated at
least three times every session. The rules com-
mittee may come back with some new guide-
lines for us— but if the Chairman is willing
to assure us that it can be implemented now
I shall take my seat and bide my time.
Mr. Chairman: Well, it seems to me that
the position stated by both the hon. member
for Downsview and the hon. member for
3934
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
York South are valid positions at this par-
ticuhix time. In view of the rather complex
nature of section 8, and the discussion that
has taken place so far, it would be my opinion
that the motion of the hon. member for
Port Arthur is for an addition of a section,
whereas the possible amendments to prior
sections proposed by the hon. member for
York South are an entirely different matter.
It does seem to be, in this particidar case,
somewhat unfair. I would put it to the com-
mittee and with the concurrence of the com-
mittee we will put the motion from the hon.
member for Port Arthur, and then entertain
other motions for amendment to section 8.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Knowing what tlie
leader of the New Democratic Party's is, it
would seem an eminently sensible solution,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Do I have the concurrence
of the committee?
Those in favoiu" of the motion from the
hon. member for Port Arthur will please
say "aye".
Those opposed will please say "nay".
In my opinion tlie "nays" lijave it.
Call in the members.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port
Arthur lias moved that section 8 be amended
by adding thereto the following subsection,
siibsection 6:
The Hydro Electric Power Commission of
the Lakehead shall supply power to all
customers for equivalent uses at the same
rate.
Those in favour of Mr. Knight's motion will
please rise; those opposed to Mr. Knight's
motion will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 34, the "nays" 50.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.
The hon. member for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to raise with the House the proposition
of amendments to subsections 1 and 2.
The Minister and the Prime Minister have
given repeated assurance that proposals for
either partial regional government, as it is
represented by this amalgamation bill, or full
regional government, will be adapted to local
conditions, and that community acceptability
will be sought wherever it is possible.
One of the questions which has been
rather vigorously argued at the Lakehead, is
the question of election or appointment of
the public utilities commission and quite
frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think, that there has
been something of an unfortunate misunder-
standing here. I talked with some people at
tlie Lakehead at the end of the day on which
the public meeting was held, and they
reported that die private negotiations, prior
to the public meeting, had resulted in some
sort of an understanding. Their interpretation
of that understanding was, that there would
bo an election of the commissioners for the
public utility conmiission.
They have been willing to accept a reason-
able compromise, namely, tiiat for the first
term there will be appointments— so that you
will not have any more confused picture in an
election that must be held in the next six or
se\ en weeks. They felt that it would be desir-
able to have the election of the public utilities
commissioners spelled out in the bill for the
second and subsequent terms.
Now, there is a second and related fact,
Mr. Chairman. After tliis debate perhaps no
member of the House will need to be
reminded of tlie fact that the Lakehead has
rather a fierce pride. With regard to one par-
ticular institution in that area.
They have every right for their fierce
pride, and that is the development of a
publicly owned telephone system which is
not like many of the small pubhcly owned
telephone systems across the province of
Ontario which are not very modem and ulti-
mately have to be gobbled up by Bell in order
to provide a modern service, but rather, the
largest, I am told, publicly-owned telephone
system in the North American continent. One
that is very efficiently run. And, incidentally,
it nms at much less cost than if Bell were to
move into the picture.
So there is a widespread feehng that the
control and operation of tlie telephone sys-
tem should be integrated with Hydro in the
future as it has been in the past, at least, in
the city of Port Arthur.
By way of documenting what I tliink are
rather convincing economic arguments, I
would like to draw the attention of the House
to the fact that on January 30 this year, the
Public Utilities Commission of Port Arthur
wrote a letter to tlie Minister, and outlined
two or three points. I can do no better than
quote the paragraphs which make these
points. First:
The electric and telephone should make
joint use of poles. There should only be
one pole line to provide both utilities. This
is done exclusively in the Port Arthur sys-
tem, both in the city proper and the rural
area.
MAY 5, 1969
3935
In Port Arthur, the electric system owns
all the poles and provides joint use to the
telephone. Both being under the same ad-
ministration, a much smoother operation is
obtained, both for the electric and tele-
phone and also, for a third party, such as
CATV who also are granted joint use.
This joint use problem will also be pres-
ent with underground distribution such as
contemplated in urban renewal, and in resi-
dential underground where telephone and
power should be placed in the same
trenches and duct runs. We have learned
of troubles arising elsewhere in Ontario, in
Manitoba and Saskatchewan in such cases
where telephone is under one administra-
tion and the electric under another.
With this joint use of poles and under-
ground, it can readily be seen that the
design for the supply of electric power and
telephone to a certain area can be done
much more efficiently and economically
when those services come under one
authority.
Then there is the second point:
At the present time we use a common
warehouse for the electric axid telephone
utilities. The stock is quite similar and in
some cases identical.
The construction tools and vehicles used
in the two utilities are very similar, some
of them are identical and can be used by
either utility.
The work done by line crews of the
electric and telephone utilities is also quite
similar and we have, on occasions, tem-
porarily transferred men to assist in over-
loads and special installations.
And, therefore, they sum up:
The commission feels that the similarity
of the operations of the telephone and
electric utilities, the use of the same poles
and underground, the use of the same
warehouse, warehouse personnel, purchas-
ing personnel, engineering staflF, safety
officer etc., lends to a much more efficient
operation when these are operated under
one administration, rather than have many
of these items duplicated as they would be
when operated under separate administra-
tions.
Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that those argu-
ments are very convincing. The Minister has
seen fit— perhaps against his better judgment,
but with the agreement of the hon. member
for York East and many others— to have
Hydro as a separate utility rather than being
drawn in under the council.
I know that there is a widespread belief
among the most experienced in the munici-
pal field that these emanations of the local
crown, so to speak, should be drawn back
under the control of the council.
But the Minister ha.': seen fit to leave
Hydro as a separate institution. So he is not
setting a precedent by leaving the telephone
system integrated with Hydro as it has been
in the past, in at least one of the cities, be-
cause you are not going to have any other
cases across the province of Ontario of sizable
local telephone systems where you will have
to cope with this situation once again.
I think the economic arguments for an
integrated operation will result in more effici-
ency. In fact, I do not know how you can
really avoid unnecessary duplication of costs
if you have a committee of council operating
the telephone system and a public utilities
commission operating the Hydro electric.
So I do not think the Minister is setting a
precedent that is going to come back to
haunt him on any future occasion, any more
than the fact that he has agreed to Hydro
being a separate public utility, which we
would agree with in this case. So I want to
put an amendment covering that.
The second point I want to cover, and this
is with regard to section 2, is that there has
been a reasonable compromise by the people
at the Lakehead, those people who would
prefer an election rather than appointment.
Their compromise is that there should be an
appointment for the first term and that will
make the election much tidier in the next
couple of months.
But they would like to see the assurance of
election of a public utilities commissioner—
the Hydro electric commissioner as the Min-
ister has named it in his bill— for the second
and subsequent terms.
The Minister is taking the easy way out,
if I may put it that way, by saying that the
decision will be made by the local council.
I think that he is not going to do violence
to a very widespread view, and I think per-
haps do something to take the edge o£F that
"monster" image that he has created for him-
self at the Lakehead, by making It manda-
tory in the bill— I hesitate to use the word
mandatory— by indicating in the bill that the
second term beginning January 1, 1973, that
they will elect the members of the public
utilities commission.
3936
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Therefore, I would move, seconded by Mr.
Stokes, tliat subsections 1 and 2 of section
8 of Bill 118 be amended to read as foUovvs:
( 1 ) A public utilities commission for
the city to be known as The Public Utili-
ties Commission of the Lakehead, \vith
responsibility for the control and manage-
ment of the Hydro electric and telephone
systems, is hereby established on the 1st
day of January, 1970, and shall be deemed
to have been established under part 3 of
The Public Utilities Act, and shall con-
sist of the mayor of the two cities, two
members to be appointed by the Hydro
Electric Power Commission for Ontario,
and two members appointed for tlie council
of the city.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, I have incor-
porat^ed the amendments tliat the Minister has
made earlier in that section.
(2) Members of the commission shall be
appointed in the manner set forth in sub-
section 1 for the first term, from the 1st
day of January, 1970, to die 31st day of
December, 1972, but for the second and
subsequent terms all members of the com-
mission shall be elected at large, excepting
the mayor who shall serve ex officio.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York South
has movcxl as noted. The hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are two points
here, Mr. Chairman, and speaking to the first
part of it vvliich is the inclusion of tiie tele-
phone system, in some ways I suppose this is
a "heads-you-win, tails-I-lose", proposition. At
least it is an equal proposition because in one
municipality tlie telephone system has worked
well one way, and in anodier municipality
it has worked well the other wa>', and we are
a bit on the horns of a dilemma as to which
way it should be nm.
It is tnie that the commission made a
rather strong proposition in that brief, and
the inter-municipal committee, I think, having
listened to what so many people have said
about doing away witli boards and commis-
sions, have made a strong proposition the
other way. We ultimately determined that we
should return the function— not return in the
normal sense of the word because, as you
have pointed out, few municipalities have
ever controlled a telephone system— but at
any rate to put this telephone system under
the municipality rather than under the Hydro
electric x>ower commission— and I think only
time will prove which is right.
I think there will have to be a great deal
of liaison between the two. There was some
thought that this may not be possible but that
—and this was one of the suggestions for the
appointments by tire council. One of the
reasons for appointments by the council was
that they would ensure that there was a liai-
son between the telephone function which
they would direct, and the Hydro function
which the commission itself would direct.
There are a great number of arguments I
suppose. Ultimately we came down on the
same side as the inter-municipal committee
—which was simply that it was good to see
a function being put back under the aegis of
the municipality, rather than under the aegis
of a commission. I do not think Ontario Hydro
or other people have particularly strong views
one way or another.
I think tliat is the reason for what vidll be
my opposition to the first part of the hon.
member's amendment. What we are tr>dng to
do in the second part— and we have not done
it as well as we would have liked to, and I
am going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we
could add an amendment wliich perhaps
might further clarify it because it is not as
clear as it should be even now.
As members are aware, under The Power
Commission Act when a city reaches 60,000
people it may make a determination, to have
an appointed commission, or it may continue
to have them elected at large. Now unfor-
timately, or fortunately, because we were
creating a city of 110,000 from two cities of
50,000 and two municipalities of 5,000, we
were creating a city from four municipalities,
any one of which was less than 60,000 to a
city of over 60,000, we had to make this de-
termination. I think it is fair to say that the
local Hydro commission and tlie local utility
commission would have preferred to see— I
am not sure of this— an elected commission,
and this is, of course, the view of the Ontario
Municipal Electric Association although I
think it is fair to say that they are doing a
great deal of tliinking about this at the present
time.
I could argue this matter both ways be-
cause if you believe in bringing commissions
back under the aegis of council is it better to
have an appointed commission than to leave
it to the will of the electorate at large? Which
way does the council, if that is what you are
trying to build up, have the greatest amount
of control? I do not know.
At any rate we were put in the position of
having to make this determination, and we
ultimately determined, as the hon. member
has suggested, that the first commission, and
I think the Hydro commissioners agreed with
MAY 5, 1969
3937
this, so that there would be continuity and
because of the telephone situation, be ap-
pointed for the first term and that after that,
there would be a determination made whether
there be an election or whether there be a
continuation of the appointment.
Now the way the bill is presently written,
it would remain an appointed commission and
legislative counsel has suggested a way around
that. Perhaps I can indicate it to you without
moving it and then, after we dispose of this
motion, we could move this further amend-
ment, Mr. Chairman.
It would just be to add into the fifth
line of section 8, subsection 1, which begins
"part 3 of The Public Utihties Act" and add
in there the words, "until the 31st day of
December, 1972, shall consist of the mayor
of the city, etc.".
In other words, it makes them an appointed
commission up until that date and then a new
subsection— the council of the city in the year
1972 shall by bylaw provide that the com-
mission, except the mayor, may be appointed
as provided in subsection 1, or elected by a
general vote of the electors of the city.
It does not say the same thing as the
amendment made by the leader of the New
Democratic Party because he says "there shall
be an election".
This amendment says that the council must
again make that determination which we
have had to make now, whether it shall be
appointed or shall be elected, and I would
hope that by 1972, Ontario Hydro and OMEA
and The Department of Municipal Affairs,
and a lot of other people, will have thought
this whole question through in terms of
regional government.
Certainly I am in many ways in favour
of elected commissions. On the other hand,
I am torn the other way a little bit because I
want to see power return to the council. I
do not know whether anybody, for example,
has seriously suggested here in Toronto that
good purpose would be served by electing
two Hydro commissioners across the whole
city; it would be a tremendous responsibility.
I think there will have to be some com-
promises made along the way because of the
sheer size, particularly as and when Hydro
moves into perhaps being an adjunct or part
of a regional government.
I am hoping in the next two or three years
that we will be thinking through some of
these things and that, as we prepare an indi-
vidual bill, some of the policy guidelines
which will be laid down, which, I am quick
to say, are not at the present time. This is
the reason why we had to make the decision
which we have made to have them appointed
in the first instance. After that, it was our
intent, but the bill does not say that, to leave
it to the determination of the council, which
is what The Power Commission Act says now.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chainnan, we in the
Opposition were almost in a bit of a quandary
because while we were prepared to endorse
the second part of the second amendment in
this motion of the hon. member for York
South, we have serious reservations about the
first. However, now that the Minister has
indicated that he will bring forth an amend-
ment which will actually accomplish the pur-
pose of the second amendment of the hon.
member for York South, then we can go
ahead and vote against the amendment
brought in by the hon. member for York
South.
Our reservations about the first part are
based on several things. First of all, we are
inclined to believe in the principle that the
elected body, the city council, should control
as much of the city's business as possible.
We have had for quite a few years an
example of what an elected body can do with
the telephone services in the Lakehead in
the city of Fort William. We have, by con-
trast, had an example of what a commission
will do.
Of course, the Hydro commission, or the
public utilities commission of Port Arthur has,
of course, also been elected. Nevertheless, it
has been a commission controlling just a
specific area of public service.
Having sat on the Fort William city council
myself for several years, I am in a good posi-
tion to know that the Fort William telephone
department, run by representatives of the
council— really an elected group, and not
really a separate body, but rather a committee
of the council— we find that in Fort William
the telephone rates have been kept quite low,
really. As a matter of fact, they are lower
than the telephone rates in the city of Port
Arthur.
And the people of Fort William and the
city council of Fort William have also always
boasted of the fact of the great profits that
have been realized by the Fort William tele-
phone commission. Certainly, without com-
paring it necessarily to the ser\'ice rendered
by the public utilities commission in Port
Arthur, we can say that the Fort William
telephone department has rendered excellent
service. There have been few complaints, so
many many pluses, and very few negatives.
3938
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We ha\e an example where the elected
group can control such a service and do a
fine job, so why need we look elsewhere?
This is our position o\ er here.
I know that the elected people— certainly
those in authority at the Lakehead— feel that
the council should control as much as possible,
so we would be inclined to support that
principle. I too ha\e read that brief in the
submission from this joint gi-oup of representa-
ti\ es from the Fort William Hydro commission
and the Port Arthur public utilities commis-
sion, and I see their argument. Certainly
there are strong relationships between tele-
phone service and H>'dro ser\ice, but we feel
that this other principle overrides that—
namely the principle that to keep as much
power as possible within the elected group.
So, we are inclined to vote against tliis
amendment. But on the other hand— to the
member for York South— but to support that
of the Minister, provided that amendment
does, in fact, convey the same meaning as
part 2 of the amendment of the hon. member
for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: I think the member should
be under no illusion, it does not. My amend-
ment on part 2 specified that the bill will set
forth that, as of the January 1, 1973, they will
be chosen by election. The Minister is going
to leave it optional to a decision of the council
by by-law during the year in advance of that
date.
So you can live in faith that the Minister-
no, you can live in faith that the council of
the Lakehead will give what you apparently
want, or you can make certain that it is in
the bill.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: If I may just say this,
the leader of the New Democratic Party is
quite correct. My proposed amendment is not
the same as his— part of the amendment.
We are still leaving the determination open
to the council as to what should happen in
1972. Again, we do this because this is what
The Power Commission Act says, and hope-
fully by 1972 The Power Commission Act is
straightened away.
Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, the first amend-
ment proposed by tlie hon. member for York
South, as I get it, would require that the
telephone company be retained under the
public utilities operation. I think i>erhaps one
of the points that the hon. member is not
pursuing to its logical conclusion is that, in
the segregrati«n out of the Hydro commis-
sion's function, this bill segregates out an
operation that is in the competitive field. They
are competing with other forms of energy.
Tliey have to be constantly looking at sales
and promotional aspects, which is no-t a fimc-
tion, nor even a philosophy, that is involved
necessarily in tiie telephone end of things,
where they are supplying a utility on an
exclusive franchise basis.
I think it was probably very wise indeed
that the government saw fit to move the
telephone operation out of tlie public utility
function and under council. I think that is
where it logically belongs, so I could not
support the first amendment proposed by the
hon. member.
As to the second one, dealing with the
subsequent election of Hydro commissioners,
my recollection from talking with members,
the delegations from the Lakehead, was that
they might have preferred an election at large
to begin with. But they were rather appre-
hensive as to the way that that might take
place, immediately following, or at the time
of, amalgamation. Some candidate from Port
Arthur might get support from Port Arthtu:—
and perhaps a very good candidate— but if he
happened to Hve in Fort William, he would
not gain Port Arthur support. There might
very well be parochial voting going on.
I do not use that example in any derogatory
sense gainst the electors, but just simply as an
illustration of the way tilings go when you
know certain candidates and you do not know
others.
So, I think they wisely suggested that, not-
withstanding their basic wish that there should
be an election at large, that the first time
round it should be appointed. But they made
it very clear to me, at any rate, that, in due
course, they would like to have that opX)or-
tunity to be elected at large.
With respect to this amendment, I sym-
pathise with the philosophy behind the
amendment. Nevertheless, it would just as
sohdly freeze the position of the commission
and the way in which it would be created,
if we put in the provision that it would be
elected after tlie first term, as does the bill
presently freeze it— that is in its present un-
amended state — as an appointed commission
to go on ad infinitum. As I asked earlier this
afternoon of the Minister, had that not been
taken into account, because I knew perfectly
well they indeed wanted to have an oppor-
tunity to elect their oommission.
What the Minister is saying now, as I
understand it is, let us not freeze tkem so
that after 1972 they will be elected at large,
but rather let us give them the opportunity.
MAY 5, 1969
3939
I think that is the proper compromise be-
tween these two positions. It is the position
I took in speaking to them before— that I
could not really support an absolute require-
ment that they be elected, but indeed, I
could support a requirement for an oppor-
tunity that they be elected pursuant to the
existing terms of the Act, inasmuch as they
would then constitute a city in excess of
60,000 population.
Therefore, I cannot support the second
part of the amendment either, but do not
do so on the understanding that we will
have an amendment then introduced by the
Minister to make this an optional feature
available to the council of the new city of
the Lakehead in the year 1972.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I think
the hon. member should be congratulated for
rationalizing himself out of his original con-
viction.
Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I did not
rationalize myself out of any original con-
viction. That is precisely what I said at the
begiiming; that this is the opportunity that
should be available.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I do not want
to attempt to justify either irrational posi-
tions. However, I was very interested in the
remarks by the Minister about the difficulties
in electing Hydro commissioners at large in
a municipality as big as 100,000 people.
Now, very close to here is a very large
municipality that I know a bit about. It has
some 400,000 to 450,000 people in it, and
in December of this year it is going to elect,
at large. Hydro commissioners, which makes
no sense at all.
The Minister undoubtedly will recall the
select committee recommendation which
caused quite a fuss, and which the govern-
ment did not see fit to implement— I would
suspect by reason of the fuss that it stirred
up— which the hon. member for York East
never could see at all, and which I still think
was a good recommendation. That, namely,
was to do away with public utilities com-
missions and Hydro commissions and to give
that responsibility entirely to the elected rep-
resentatives in the municipality, the members
of the council.
I think that still makes abundant good
sense. I would commend that to the Minister.
He will have to be brave to bring it in. If
this is brought back to life again, there are
going to be all sorts of complaints about it,
and we are going to hear from many people,
including the hon. member for York East,
how important Hydro commissions are to
the wellbeing of the province of Ontario.
I strongly dispute that point of view, as
did all members of the select committee at
that time. But it seems to me, Mr. Chair-
man, that the first part of the amendment,
as moved by the hon. member for York
South, makes little sense at all.
As I understand it, in Fort William, where
the council ran the telephone business, they
ran it at a cheaper rate, and just as well as
in Port Arthur where the commission ran it.
Now that is one test. I gather it was run
just as efficiently in each municipality. So one
test is the cost.
The second test— and the most important
test I think— is the responsibility. It would
seem to me that, since this is a publicly
owned enterprise, the people who are chosen
by the public to sit on the council should
have the opportunity of running it as they
see fit. I do not see why you should make
the difi^erentiation in that it is a different
kind of a service, or a more complicated
kind of a service.
The municipality is going to be entrusted
with responsibility to build roads and water
mains and sewers and run bus services and
all the other things that municipal councils
do. Why then should they not be able to run
the telephone service as they see fit?
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I do not
see how we can possibly support the first part
of the amendment as moved by the hon.
member for York South.
The second part— I would rather see in the
Act that it be mandatory that the commission
be elected after 1972. On the other hand,
there is a choice going to be given to the
council; it is put in the Act. So, rather than
buying the multiple part, or the dual part,
amendment moved by the member for York
Sou til, we will oppose that and we will
support the amendment being put forward
by the Minister, But I would urgently com-
mend to him, in his thinking, the idea of
extending to municipal councils the responsi-
bility for running the municipaHty.
Let us not keep on whittHng away the
powers of those local councils. Let us not
have a board to do Hydro, and another one
to do parks, and another one to do libraries
and another one to do— a civil assessment is
going to come down here, so they are going
to have no more say about that ever again.
Let us leave some responsibility in the hands
of the local officials who are chosen by the
local voters.
3940
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, of course, this
is precisely what we are doing in this bill.
Mr. Singer: Not quite!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It certainly is, be-
cause, as you know, there is the parks
board and the gardens board and water and
so on, transportation, telephone, are being
returned.
Mr. Singer: Well, in some cases they
certainly are not.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Then I could only
say to the hon. member for Downsview that
our opinions are probably not too far apart
witli respect to Hydro commissions. I wait
with interest to see the remarks which he
has made today as part of the Liberal plat-
form.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr.
MacDonald's motion will please say, "aye".
Those opposed, will please say nay.
In my opinion, the "nay^' ha^^e it. The
motion is lost.
The hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Then, Mr, Chairman,
if I could move that section 8 be further
amended. May I say I do not know if this
is the exact wording wliich the Legislative
counsel has agreed to. I would suspect that
this section may have to be amended some
time between now and 1972, but I think it
carries out the intent at tliis moment of what
we want to do. The Act undoubtedly will
be amended then, but that we add in the
fifth line after the word "and" the words
"until the 31st day of December, 1972" and
that we add a new subsection 2 as follows;
the council of the city in year 1972 shall by
bylaw provide that thereafter the members
of the Hydro-Electric Commission of the
Lakehead except the mayor shall be ap-
pointed as provided in subsection 1 or shall
be elected by a general vote of the electors
of the city.
I would assume that present subsections 2,
3, 4 and 5, should be renumbered 3, 4, 5
and 6.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. McKeough has moved
that the council of the city in the year 1972
shall, by bylaw, provide that the commission,
except the mayor, may be appointed as pro-
vided in subsection 1 or elected by a general
vote of the electorate of the city.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that a new sub-
section?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I did
not write this out, I am sorry. In subsection
1 in the fifth line after the word "and" the
words be added "until the 31st day of
December, 1972".
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the Minister,
is that section—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I would suggest
that it should be a new subsection 2 and the
2, 3, 4 and 5 be renumbered 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. Chairman: Do I understand that the
hon. Minister wishes the present subsection
2 to remain as is, and that we just change
the numbering from there on down?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: Then the motion is firstly,
that subsection 1 be amended at the fifth
line by adding thereto "until the 31st day
of December, 1972", that a new subsection
2 be included as I have read to the com-
mittee and tliat the present sections 2, 3, 4
and 5 be renumbered 3, 4, 5 and 6. What
are you going to do with 5, though? Any dis-
cussion?
Those in favour of the motion please say,
"aye". Those opposed please say, "nay".
I declare tlie motion carried.
Mr. Mcen: In view of the amendment which
we ha\e just carried, it looks to me as if
subsection 2, now numbered subsection 3,
should be amended to provide for elected, as
well as appointed members. I would suggest
that we should have the words "or elected"
after the word "appointed" in the first line,
and at the end add the words "or elected, as
the case may be" in order to be consistent
with the amendment we have just injected
providing for the possibility, and perhaps
even the probability of election following the
first term.
Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member
please send a written motion to that effect?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: We could insert that
a member shall hold office for the same term
as members of council.
Mr. Meen: That will be perfectly satisfac-
tory as far as I am concerned.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would so move that
subsection 3, the new subsection 3 be
amended to read: "A member shall hold office
for the same term as the members of council."
Mr. Singer: In writing, please.
MAY 5, 1969
3941
Hon. Mr. McKeough: He tmsts me.
Mr. Singer: No, no, the rules say that.
Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I have a feehng
that that may not accomplish everything that
the draftsman of this section may have in-
tended, inasmuch as there might be a resig-
nation during the course of the term. I think
this section was intended to cover the appoint-
ment of a successor to fill a vacancy. I have
a suspicion that the Minister's amendment,
which basically picked up the idea I had,
would not go so far as to look after the
appointment of a successor to fill a vacancy
during a term.
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister wish to
comment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I think we all
know what we want and I wonder if we can
leave this up to the Legislative counsel to
sort out?
Mr. Chairman:
could—
I do not ki
how
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It runs through my
mind that we have done that sort of thing
before. If there is any objection to the way
it is sorted out, we could give an undertaking
to l»ok at it on third reading. All right?
Mr. Nixon: Is the Minister suggesting we
carry it now without correction?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. Carry it the way
it is, the way it is printed. If there is any
change, we will make it on third reading.
Mr. Chairman: I would not think, with
great respect, that this would be in order.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, then, let us
write it out.
Mr. Chairman: Would it be acceptable to
the committee if we hold section 8 until the
Legislative counsel has an opportunity to
prepare a properly written amendment?
Mr. Nixon: Just do not carry the whole
Mr. Chairman: We will move from section
8. The only thing I would want to determine
at this point, is whether or not there are
going to be any more amendments introduced.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think this is the
last, Mr. Chairman, if you let me move this.
"A member shall hold office for the same
term as the members of the council or until
his successor is elected or appointed." I think
that does it and I would so move that sub-
section 3 be reworded that way.
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McKeough moves
that the old section 2, now subsection No. 3,
shall be altered as follows:
A member shall hold office for the same
tenn as the members of council or until
his successor is elected or appointed.
Is there any discussion on the motion? Shall
the motion carry? Shall section 8, as now
amended, form part of the bill?
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10:
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I
move that subsection 4 of section 10 be
amended by striking out "thereof" in the
third hne and substituting "therefor" of the
subsidiary planning area, v^^ich is a matter
of clarification.
Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on the
motion? Will tlie motion carry? Shall section
10 as amended fomi part of the bill?
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12:
Hon. Mr, McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I
move that subsection 1 of section 12 be
amended by striking out the words "in the
years 1970, 1971 and 1972" in the first line
and that section 12 be further amended by
adding thereto the following subsection,
number 9:
The provisions of this section apply only
in the years 1970, 1971 and 1972.
Which again, is a matter of clarification, say-
ing the same thing.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion carry? Shall
section 12 as amended form part of the bill?
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
On section 13:
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I
move that subsection 1 of section 13 be
amended by striking out "50 mills" in the
sixth line and substituting therefor "55
mills", and that subsection 2 of section 13
be amended by striking out "50 mills" in the
ninth line and substituting therefor "55
mills". These are the provisions for interim
levies and this brings it into line with what
is required.
3942
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion carry? Shall
section 13 as amended, form part of the bill?
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
On section 14:
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, since
the introduction of the bill, we have received
a number of representations from tlie council
of Neebing that the transitional adjustments
wliich are covered in this section should take
into accoimt any change in circumstances
since 1967.
The schedule which is part of tlie bill was
based on 1967 data, the 1967 auditor re-
ports, and on that basis, we suggested the
changes in the mill rate which are laid out
in the said scliedule under subsection 2.
It would be a good idea to update these
figures. We expect to have the 1968 financial
statements, I would hope, within the next
month or so, and therefore we are suggesting
that this section be amended deleting the
schedule— I do not have the wording— and
that the section be amended to permit the
Minister to make an order with regard to the
transitional adjustments.
As soon as we have received the financial
statements, then we can rework these figures
and work out a more up to date basis of
computing how the transition should be
achieved. It certainly is our intention to en-
sure that the taxpayers in both Neebing and
Mclntyre wards shall pay no more taxes than
they would have under the proposal based
on the 1967 figures. This merely updates it.
I, therefore, move that subsection 1 of sec-
tion 14 be amended by inserting after "taxa-
tion" in the second line, "in the Mclntyre and
Neebing wards" and by striking out "in the
schedule to this section" in the third line
and substituting therefor "by order of the
Minister" and that the schedule to section 14
be struck out.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion carry? Tlie
hon. member for Niagara Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, by way of clarification on the reason of
the adjustment during tlie transitional period
—Mr. Chairman, does tlie Minister mean tliat,
as it is in other areas, cities get a lesser grant
for schools and roads and that the townships,
since they get more by way of grants, they
will enjoy the same grant structure for a
period of time? How would you explain that?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. The purpose of
this section is in simplest possible terms, using
the schedule which we now believe may be
incorrect. But let us assume tliat it is correct;
that the taxes in Neebing ward are approxi-
mately 15 mills less than they are in the new
city. There are a number of reasons for this,
mainly because Neebing enjoys a very healthy
industrial-residential ratio based on the fact
that it happens to have a couple of large
industries and the people live elsewhere.
Rather than increase their taxes in one fell
swoop by 15 mills, this transitional feature
would increase their taxes in effect by three
mills a year, over a peroid of four years.
They then would be at tlie same level as
ever\'body else. This is exactly the same sort
of provision which Forest Hill has, and I
think Swansea had, under Bill 81— to phase
them in rather than bring them in in one fell
swoop.
Mr. Bukator: Will they not be put in a very
costlv position? While you are increasing it
b>' three mills a year— because of the assess-
ment that they enjoy now from the industry
and commerce— will they not suffer from the
otlier end because townships and villages get
a larger grant for schools and roads than the
cities do? There is an adjustment to be made
there, too, I imagine. How are you going to
handle that?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is a section
dealing with schools. Of course, I cannot
speak to this— schools have been dealt with
an> wa>. But in terms of highwa>'S there is
a section of the Act-
Mr. Bukator: Will you come to that later
on?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we may e\en
ha\e passed it— which deems the amalgama-
tion to be in the same manner as an order
by The Ontario Municipal Board Act which
automatically brings The Municipal Subsidies
Adjustment Act— or whatever it is called, I
ne\er remember the right name— into play
which means that the highway subsidy, for
example in Neebing, is now 50 per cent.
It will remain 50 per cent for five years
and then for a period of five years after that
will be reduced from 50 per cent to 33 Vs
per cent. So that takes ten years and that is
the only other grant, I think, that is of con-
cern. In other words, the 50 per cent grant
will remain in effect in both Neebing and
Shuniah for the next five years.
Mr. Bukator: Whereby, the city only en-
joxs 33 Vs per cent!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right.
MAY 5, 1969
3943
Mr. Bukator: If we were talking about a
bridge, Neebing and Shuniah would get 80
per cent for a bridge where the city would
only get 33 Vs.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Fifty per cent.
Mr. Bukator: Well, for five years they will
continue the 80 per cent grant to those two
townships.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right.
Mr. Bukator: And after that, it will take
a five year period of adjustment to bring it
up with the rest of the city.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right.
Mr. Bukator: This is what will be applied
in this bill when it comes into eftect.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is correct, which
is the same procedure as when the board
makes an order on an annexation or amalga-
mation.
Mr. Bukator: You know why I am asking
this question— because it may apply in an-
other area in the near future.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: A very fine part of
the province.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion carry? The
hon. member for Port Arthur.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I may ver\'
well be demonstrating my ignorance on this
but who is going to pay what these residents
are not going to be paying? In other words,
does this mean that there will be a higher
levy for those who live within the city as a
result of this gesture?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. That is quite
correct. As it is here in Metropolitan Toronto
or in the city of Toronto, the other residents
of Toronto, in effect, have been assisting in
the transition of say, Forest Hill or Swansea,
into Toronto so the other residents will pick
up this amount of money which is not large
in dollars. It is large, of course, to the indi-
vidual taxpayer in Neebing or Mclntyre and
would hurt him if it happened in one fell
swoop, but in terms of dollars to the total new
city it is a very small amount.
Mr. Knight: In effect then, Mr. Chairman,
the same city dwellers, or present city dwell-
ers, would enjoy the benefits of the increased
revenue from those industries in Neebing.
Would this be possibly the equalizing factor?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 14, as amended,
form part of the bill?
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
On section 15.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I move that section
15 be amended by adding thereto the follow-
ing subsection 41, "the provisions of this
section apply only in the years 1970, 1971
and 1972", which is as it was before.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 16 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 20.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I move that subsec-
tion 3 of section 20 be amended by striking
out "or in the Hydro Electric Commission of
the Lakehead" in the third and fourth lines.
The reason for this is that we have deter-
mined previously that the assets are vested in
the municipality but they are under the con-
trol and management of the commission. It is
not necessary then to send this matter to the
Ontario Municipal Board for a determination
if it canaot be made locally.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Section 21?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I
move that section 21 be struck out and the
following substituted therefor:
The bylaws of the cities of Fort WiUiam
and Port Arthur, and the bylaws of tlie
corporation of the municipality of Neebing,
insofar as they pertain to the geographic
towns"hip of Neebing, and the bylaws of
the corporation of the municipality of
Shuniah, insofar as they pertain to the
geographic township of Mclntyre, shall
remain in force in the former municipalities
or geographic townships, as the case may
be, until repealed by the council of the
city.
Now the reason for this amendment is tliat
the original bill said that the bylaws of, for
example. Fort William, would come into
effect in Neebing; and Port Arthur would
come into effect in Shuniah. A former mem-
ber of this House, the reeve of Shuniah, was
quite concerned because this would preclude,
under the Shuniah bylaws, a person who pres-
ently can keep chickens, for example, or
horses or cows. Under the Port Arthur bylaws
he would not be allowed to do so.
3944
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Is that what he has gone
in for now?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I do not know if he
is iXTSonally involved or not, biit he was quite
adamant. I would agree with those people,
and the present member for Port Artliur
raised this, that this confirms the local bylaws
in the four municipalities.
Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would
agree with what the Minister has just said. It
has been a matter of great concern with
everybody, and not just the present reeve of
Sbimiah, the former memlx^r of this House,
Mr. Wardrope.
There is an editorial in the News Chronicle
as of April 29 this year entitled, "More
Clarity is Needed on By-laws for the new
City" and it goes into the whole business of
people wondering how this is going to affect
the new shopping centre out in Mclntyre
because the city of Port Arthur, if its bylaws
apply, has an early closing bylaw that per-
mits only one night a week of shopping, and
this could possibly interfere with that big
shopping development.
Also many i^eople out in Mclntyre and
Neebing keep horses and cows and chickens
and so forth, and, of course, the bylaw of the
city would prohibit these things. So that
people in the area have been very concerned,
and will be up until tliis point, when they
find out that the bylaws in their individual
wards will remain that way for a while. They
will have a chance of course, to lobby their
new c-ouncil and put forth their views. They
almost have a new lea.se on life.
But I do not envy the job of that mayor and
council who will have to resolve tliese things,
because they will have to have some excep-
tions to the rule or something. I think tliis
underlines just the kind of problem that is
involved in the mnalgamation, not only of
two big cities of similar size at one time,
which in most cases have similar bylaws, but
at the same time, incorporating two smaller
municipalities into the whole deal. \Vliat you
are doing in effect is tliat you may be, if
you are not careful, urbanizing the rural area
too quickly and in one fell swoop, so I think
it is well advised that the Minister should
bring in this amendment at this time, and I
do not think there would be any hesitation at
all in supporting it.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 25.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I
would appreciate the House's indulgence to
finish tliis bill before 5 o'clock.
On section 25, I move that paragraph 4
of section 25 be amended by striking out,
"section 14", in the first line and subsitituting
tlierefor, "sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 31"; and that
section 25 be further amended by adding
tliereto the following as paragraph 14 and by
renuml>ering the present paragraphs 14 to 16
as 15 to 17 respectively— 14, section 1 of The
Cit>' of Fort William Act, 1952.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Section 26 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 118, as amended, reported.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves that the committee
of the whole House rise and report progress
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chaiiman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report a certain
bill with certain amendments and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSIONER
Mr. V. M. Singer (Dovvnsview) moves
second reading of Bill 7, An Act to provide
for the appointment of a commissioner to
investigate administrative decisions and
actions of tlie government of Ontario and its
agencies and to define the commissioner's
powers and duties.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to
Bill 7, An Act to provide for the appointment
of a commissioner to investigate administra-
tive decisions and actions of tlae government
of Ontario and its agencies and to define the
commissioner's powers and duties, may I
point out, sir, that this is the fifth year in a
row that I have spoken to this same bill.
The popular title for this imposing soimd-
ing official is that of ombudsman, and it is
passing strange tliat the government of a
province that likes to call itself the most
advanced in Canada; or the most advanced
in North America; or, as we listen to the Min-
MAY 5, 1969
394c
ister of Social and Family Services (Mr.
Yaremko), the most advanced in the world—
the Minister is not with me at the moment-
it is surprising that this government has not
seen fit to enact a piece of legislation as ad-
vanced as this one is, or at least as advanced
as it would be for the province of Ontario,
because it really is not so far advanced that
someone should not have tliought of it here
in this province.
There are many other jurisdictions where
they have felt that it is proper and right that
we should have an ombudsman. In fact, when
we had a discussion about Bill 99 which was
called at that time, The Police Act, and when
the Premier (Mr. Robarts) came to set up
a commission of one— Mr. McRuer— to deal
with the whole problem of civil rights, one of
the things, either in the terms of reference
the government gave to Mr. McRuer or in
the way he defined his terms of reference,
was the study of the function and the role
of an oirabudsman here in this province.
And after he brought in the first section
of his report, it was indicated to us that the
second section would be following reasonably
soon and in fact would deal with tlie whole
question of an ombudsman, or a Parliamentary
commissioner as I called it in this bill that I
am talking to.
I have been trying to find out from the
hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) when
we might expect part two of McRuer's re-
port. TJie Attorney General has not, to this
date, been able to shed much light on that
inquiry other than he imderstands it is well
on its way and we can expect it soon.
It is my suspicion, sir, having listened to
Mr. McRuer over a considerable number of
years, and having heard the character of the
representations that were made to him in
this regard and his replies to some of the
briefs that were presented to him, that he is
very sympathetic to this whole idea. Without
wanting to anticipate what would be in his
report, and I have no way really of anticipat-
ing it othetr than on the basis that I have
already outhned it to you, it would be my
thought, my hope, that when we see part
two of this report, it will recommend that
there be a parliamentary commissioner or an
ombudsman for the province of Onitario.
Now if it was as simple as that, sir, I have
said my piece and I could sit down. But un-
fortunately I do not think it is that simple.
By way of ground work to a bit of what I
am going to say, let me read just very briefly
an article that appeared in the Daily Star
on May 1 last. It said that "Canada's third
ombudsman goes on the job in Quebec." Now
Quebec has recently embarked upon this and
the article says this:
Louis Marceau, the 42-year-old dean of
law at Laval University, today starts his
job as Quebec's ombudsman, Canada's third
watchdog over governmental injustice. Like
his two predecessors in Alberta and New
Brunswick, he can expect to be peppered
widi an average of a complaint a day from
citizens bogged down in red tape or, as
he puts it, "confronted with the adminis-
trative machinery".
Alberta's ombudsman, former RCMP
Commissioner George McClellan, received
535 complaints last year, his second on the
job. Dr. W. T. Ross Flemington, a United
Church minister, got 329 cases in New
Brunswick between October 11, 1967, when
he took office, and tlie end of 1968.
Their job is to rectify bureaucratic in-
justice. Again, if their recommendation goes
unheeded, they are empowered to make
public their private investigations in a
report to the provincial Legislature. They
cannot probe decisions by the Cabinet,
Legislature, or the courts.
A bill setting up such an official is now before
the Manitoba Legislature.
And I think, sir, that is a government bill,
so that we can anticipate that four provinces
will have an om]>udsman within a reasonably
short time. "Ontario has studied the possi-
bilit}' but has not acted." And I suppose the
"study", sir, has been the debate over five
years on this bill. I put it forward five times
and we have listened to a variety of so-called
answers from some of the members on the
government side.
I am going to deal at greater length with
those of the member for Durham. I know
he is on the list today. It is a very interesting
thing to see over the years. I am going to
quote his ideas back and see if his views
have perhaps changed.
And then the article goes on to talk about
Mr. Marceau and his various talents and so
on.
But I say, sir, that if we really believe
that this is the most advanced jurisdiction in
Canada, perhaps in North America— I will try
again for the Minister of Social and Family
Services, but he will still be busy talking—
the most advanced jurisdiction in tlie world,
surely we could have an omibudsman in the
province of Ontario, when so many other
3946
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
jurisdictions have seen tlie importance of pro-
tecting their citizens against injustices done
by the civil service?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): In Ontario we have 117 of
them.
Mr. Singer: This is just the difference Mr.
Speaker. I thought I could get the Minister
involved in this.
You see the problem is, Mr. Speaker, if
you look at this bill— that is before the Legis-
lature again. Hopefully, in the five times it
has been here, most of the members should
have glanced at it at least once or twice.
The design of the bill is aimed at the
ability of an individual to have someone to
complain about the civil service. Such an
official would have the right to examine, in
government departments, a variety of files,
call an oflBcial before him and so on. And
have some kind of a person who could de-
fend his rights against the ever-increasing
and larger and more powerful nameless and
faceless group of people, the provincial civil
service.
It is awfully hard, as any one of us who
is a member here can recognize, it is awfully
hard to try and pin down responsibility in a
department, once you have left the Minis-
terial responsibility— find out who really makes
the decision. Is the decision right? Is it fair?
And has the individual got a right to go to
someone?
It is all very well to say there are 117 of
us who have these rights. But we have not.
We cannot go into these various departments.
We cannot look at the files. We cannot bring
civil servants before us. We can make polite
enquiry and very often it is successful and
most times we get the kind of service that
we deserve to have, being members. Many
times we are able to right wrongs by reasons
of those enquiries.
But there are hundreds, and perhaps thou-
sands, of cases which members never get to
hear of. Are the members in New Brunswick
or the members in Alberta any the less
capable?
In Alberta 535 complaints were received
by their ombudsman, Mr. McClellan. In New
Brunswick there were 329 cases. The reports
are there and I am not going to dwell on
them at any greater length. The record is
there. There were that many people in each
of those provinces, both of which are sub-
stantially sm;Jler thaji ours— who made that
many complaints. Tlieir ombudsmen received
them. They were investigated and they were
dealt with in some way.
Now, sir, let me say this, lest I seem to
be establishing a negative approach. While
listening in past years to government mem-
l:)ers speak rather weakly against the need
for this kind of an official— I am referring
particularly to the member for Durham (Mr.
Carruthers), from whom I am going to have
some specific quotes. I have learned to an-
ticipate their objections and shall deal in the
course of my remarks with this aspect of
the bill, as with the very important positive
aspects of this biU.
During the June 3, 1965, debate on the
second reading of the same bill, the Premier
interjected with the remark that the Minister
of Social and Family Services has just now
made— that the members are supposed to do
right by the little man. This seemingly naive
statement sums up the need for this piece of
legislation.
Each and every member, when he takes it
upon himself to represent a constituency, is
placed under a moral obligation to act as a
spokesman for all of his constituency. But
unfortunately, sir, within the machinery of
government, not only here, not only in the
other provinces, but in the machinery of
democratic government, the civil service gets
larger and more powerful. The ability of a
member to act on behalf of all of his con-
stituency becomes less and less.
The members may wonder why, in relation
to a subject that is as obvious as this, we
have to encounter this resistance. And I
wonder why.
I wonder why, when the government com-
missioner who could have access to govern-
ment files would have the confidence of all
the members because he would be an official
of the Legislature, not an official appointed
by the government. Why, since he would be
permitted to use the information contained
to facilitate the concerns of the citizens. Why,
when he would be surrounded by the stric-
ture that he could not divulge information of
a confidential nature. Why it should not be
completely and positively obvious to mem-
Ijers of the government to take this important
and needed step?
The primary functions of the commissioner
are set out in section 9(1) of the bill. He
may also initiate investigations. I cannot see
why anyone would object to the functions
described in subsection 1 of this bill, nor can
I accept the objections that were made in
the past to subsection 2 of section 9.
MAY 5, 1969
3947
If any branch of any government objects
to an investigation, I suggest here, sir, that
this constitutes an admission that there is
some reason why this branch, or whole
departments, should in fact be investigated
without delay. I hesitate to dwell unduly
on the casual remark that the Minister of
Mines (Mr. A. F. Lawrence) interjected into
our debate a little while ago, about our hav-
ing no right to know. Unfortunately, in so
many instances, we as members apparently
have so little right to know that we do need,
and the people of Ontario do need— an offi-
cial of this sort who would have a right to
know; who would have a right to examine
government files; who would have a right to
ask questions of various government civil
service officials, and so on.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Meen)
in the last Parliament supported this idea
completely, but he went one step farther
when he suggested that if such a commissioner
was necessary, then there is something wrong
with the system and it should be changed.
Since he was apparently the government
spokesman that date, on March 8, 1967, I
assume, that he knew what he was talking
about, and in this case, I say that I couldn't
agree more.
We know that the system of the govern-
ment has to be changed, but until that happy
day, we must deal with the immediate prob-
lems that are here. Even with great respect
to ourselves, Mr. Speaker, even when we
move over to the other side, which will be
very shortly— immediately after the next elec-
tion—I would still think that very high on
the items of priorities that we will have if the
government has not done it by that time, will
be the appointment of such a parliamentary
commissioner.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Serxices): Well, that is when you will prob-
ably need one.
Mr. Singer: Well, we need one now, with
great respect to the hon. Minister, and per-
haps we can get the hon. Minister into this
debute. I would like to hear his views on the
important matter.
Now let me talk about the hon. member
for Durham, because I promised him I
would.
When he spoke in the debate of June 8,
1965, he opposed the idea of a government
commissioner, and the first reason he had
for opposing it was that the government has
already set up special boards to which a per-
son may appeal. Section 9, subsection 5(a)
of this bill says that "Nothing in this Act
authorizes the commissioner to investigate
any decision, reconmiendation, act or omis-
sion in respect of which there is a right of
appeal, or where there is a remedy through
the courts." So the hon. member had not done
his homework in that regard.
His second objection was that a commis-
sioner would interfere with the rights of
members. I do not really know how he de-
fines these rights, but let us assume it meant
the right of a member to attend to his con-
stituents personally. There are two ways of
answering this objection.
In the first place, if he is truly interested
in protecting the rights of his constituents—
and I hope he bears this in mind in carrying
out his duties as a member— is it not logical
to wish to streamline the service available to
his constituents.
Secondly, even with the commissioner,
members will no doubt find that many re-
quests will still come directly to them and
that they will be requests that the members
can deal with. But so frequently, I am sure
the member for Durham, and many other
members, including myself, have problems
that we just are not able to deal with because
we cannot get the kind of information that
we need. This objection from the member
for Durham, made in 1965, to my mind just
makes no sense.
The third objection raised by the member
for Durham, was that the office of the com-
missioner would serve as a receptive office
for crank letters. Now, this is so typical, Mr.
Speaker, of the approach that, unfortunately,
so many members of this government have
taken to this kind of suggestion.
I am pleased that he said "letters", because
section 11, subsection 1, states, "That all com-
plaints must be in writing". I am not so
pleased, however, that he seems to have fallen
into the ready trap of labelling many people
with problems as "cranks".
So often, Mr. Speaker, the person who
needs attention around here seems to be the
person who has been labelled for a while,
as a crank, and so often we have found out
that tlie person who has been labelled as a
crank turns out to be the person who has
sufficient sense of grievance to keep on with
his complaint until finally justice is rendered.
So I would think that when the member
for Durham idly dismisses this very important
suggestion, that has found an important place
in other jurisdictions in Canada, in the United
Kingdom, in the Scandinavian countries, as
merely servicing the "cranks" of the province
3948
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Ontario— that he either completely misses
the point, or really does not feel that he has
a duty and a responsibility to look after all
the people who are unable to speak for them-
selves.
The member said, too, "that civil servants
do not want a commissioner breathing down
their necks"— again another not untypical
Conservative excuse for avoiding positive
action.
I would think, Mr. Speaker, that many of
the civil servants certainly need someone to
breathe down their necks, and breathe down
their necks in a very effecti\e way.
It comes to my mind that back in 1965
when I posed to the Attorney General a long
series of questions— well over 100 in multi-
parts— the Attorney General came to me and
said, "You know you have really done some-
thing for our department. You have forced us
to sit down and to study and to get informa-
tion, and find out the answers to a variety of
questions, and a lot of new ideas have come
out of the questions that you have put for-
ward; the answers we have got to give and
the criticism of them".
Now that, I would imagine, Mr. Speaker,
is breathing down the necks of the civil ser-
vants. I think that more people have to
breathe down the necks of these departments;
breathe down the necks of the Cabinet Min-
isters; and do it with some colour of right.
Our ability to make the enquiries, if we want
to; our ability to right the wrongs that we
want to is very limited. We have not the
access that the Parliamentary commissioner
would have to government files and to gov-
ernment personnel.
I am conscious, sir, of the time limit. I
expect that I am coming to the close of the
period allotted to me. But I say with all the
sincerity at my command, that one of the
most advanced steps that could be taken by
this government immediately for the interests
of the people of the province of Ontario
would be to bring in an Act similar in terms
to this Bill No. 7.
I know it is asking too much that Bill No.
7 would receive second reading at this time,
but I notice the Attorney General is here,
and I notice, and I appreciate the fact, that
he is listening to these remarks. He is
famihar with my views on this subject, and
I suspect that his views are not too different
from mine on this point.
But I do get very angry and very im-
patient with the land of excuses, the kind
of palliatives, and the kind of nonsense that
we have heard from the member for Dur-
ham, I notice that he is booked to speak on
this bill at this time. Perhaps he has some
new views and some more advanced views
in connection with this bill.
Mr. A. Carruthers ( Durham ) : Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me once more to have the
opportunity of participating in the debate on
this bill. My conscience has been bothering
me somewhat since the last debate— on the
role of the ombudsman— I realize the member
for Downsview said that we have such a
commissioner in the Scandinavian countries
and Great Britain and in New Zealand, and
now in New Brunswdck, Quebec and Al-
berta.
I listened with a great deal of interest be-
cause I felt, as I said before, rather conscious
about this, and perhaps he would convince
me this time that such an office was needed.
I regret very much to say, Mr. Speaker,
that he did not change my views to any
great extent, although I still have an open
mind for argument to convince me that such
an office is necessary in this great province
of Ontario.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I hope I interpret
correctly the remarks of the member about
a ha]f an hour age, in the debate on Bill 118,
I think at that time he was quite concerned
about the whittling away of the powers of
elected representatives. Now he comes back
at this time and recommends the appoint-
ment of an ombudsman, which would, again,
in effect whittle away a good deal of the
responsibility of an elected member.
The member for Downsview is an ex-
tremely dedicated man. I think we all ap-
preciate this, and several times he has tried
to convince us of the need for an ombuds-
man, but if you will notice tliat very few
members appear to have an interest in it. I
think this reflects the fact that they feel
there is no need for such an office.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Carruthers: Well, I still am prepared
to be convinced on this matter.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Carruthers: Thanks. In any event, Mr.
Speaker, I shall try once again to have my
point of view recorded, so that the hon.
member for Downsview will not feel cheated,
at least.
At the same time, I do not wish the Op-
position members to have the impression
that I speak against some form of govern-
ing body which would actually perform a
MAY 5, 1969
3949
tiseful function in our society but I am not
sure that an ombudsman is the answer.
Generally in most cases an ombudsman is
the product of a welfare state, and except
for Alberta and New Brunswick, this has
been the case. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker,
that in such a vast area as the province of
Ontario, the oflBce of ombudsman would be
most diflficult to manage. Frankly, sir, we
would be, in my opinion, only adding an-
other bureaucracy, and I am afraid adding
a heavy tax burden to the taxpayers. I say
this because it is only logical to assume that
this ombudsman would require a network
of offices across the province, with hundreds
of assistants to carry out the work load that
the hon. member for Downsview would have
us believe exists.
It is true that the office of an ombudsman
is supposed to protect an individual from in-
justices, encroachments by government, on his
liberties and his rights. However— and I have
said this many times before— we have the
boards and commissions to whom we may
appeal. And altliough the member for
Downsview has pointed out that tliis bill
does not take these bodies into consideration.
Above everything else we have the members
of Parliament, 117 of them, whose duties are
to represent the rights of constituents who
feel they have suffered an injustice, or tliought
they had suffered one.
May I remind the House, too, that the new
legal aid programme now assures the right of
appeal to all citizens of this province. Under
the British system which has been adopted
in Ontario, the Legislature is the place for
ventilating the grievances of the citizens, and
certainly they have been ventilated in this
Legislature in the last few days and the last
few weeks.
By history, tradition, and past and present
practice, this has been the custom. It is one of
the functions of the elected member of the
Legislature to ensure that his constituents do
not suffer injustice at the hands of govern-
ment.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Is that
the same speech as last time?
Mr. Carruthers: Some of it is. The proce-
dures, questions and debates are specifically
for this purpose and are a pattern of parlia-
mentary government.
Mr. Singer: He has moved forward another
inch.
Mr. Carruthers: I might point out, Mr.
Speaker, that the speech of the hon. member
for Downsview is just exactly the same as he
gave the last time.
Mr. Singer: Oh no, it is not.
Mr. Carruthers: Well, he read it back-
wards, perhaps.
However, members of this Legislature are
continually taking up the complaints of con-
stitutents, corresponding with Ministers and
bringing citizens' grievances, great or small,
to this Legislature. May I suggest, too, that
the office of the ombudsman would only serve
as a buffer between the constituent and his
member and would this create difficulties
and could create a good deal of ill will. This
is undoubtedly an interference in the respon-
sibilities of an elected member. It is of par-
ticular concern to myself as a member from a
rural area, where I feel capable of represent-
ing every constituent of my riding, regardless
of political affiliation.
Such an office would undoubtedly merely
become a place for people to write in, as the
member pointed out and which I pointed out
the last time, letters of grievances which must
be dealt with. I say this with little hesitation.
The member failed to point out what I said
at that time with respect to the programme
in New Zealand. In New Zealand, the om-
budsman's office received some 760 complaints
in 1964, of this total some 400 did not even
warrant consideration, and of the remaining
360, there were about 50 which warranted
action.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Is the
individual not worth anything?
Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, I deal with
tliat many every two weeks at least. He
pointed out that in New Brunswick, and cer-
tain other provinces, a certain number of
complaints are received, but he did not point
out how many of these were legitimate, and
how many actually received serious considera-
tion. At this point I would hke to bring to
your attention the fact that with tliese many
complaints to look after, I wonder how long
it took actually to handle those cases that
were really legitimate. I suggest that they
would have been handled considerably more
speedily had they been handed to a person
such as the private member, whose first and
foremost responsibility is to the constituents.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Especially if he is a goverrmient member.
Mr. Carruthers: The real safeguard to de-
mocracy, the real safeguard to citizens, is a
fair minded civil service. I think you all
3950
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
agree, and again I repeat what I said before,
we have a vigilant and responsible civil serv-
ice in this province. We also have in this
province a responsible press, which can reveal,
and does reveal, many injustices. Actually,
Mr. Speaker, when I started to look really
closely into this matter, it came to mind that
perhaps an ombudsman system, such as they
have in Sweden, would not be such a bad
idea.
Here tlie ombudsman not only investigates
complaints by citizens, but he initiates cases
on his own, and most of tliese are the result
of an annual inspection trip that he makes to
pro\dncial courts and to the government
offices. It would seem logical, therefore, that
with an ombudsman, or a commissioner, such
as the member for Downsview is suggesting,
able to take care of grievances and to guard
the interests of the people of this province,
there would no longer be any need for an
Opposition party in the House. It is some-
thing to think about, is it not?
An ombudsman would perhaps be of value
with the federal government in tracing down
the exorbitant expenditures made by various
departments, at that level, and uncovered by
tlie Auditor General. His report has prompted
a series of articles by the Globe and Mail,
outlining in rather vivid terms, a terrible
waste of the taxpayers' money by the present
federal administration. The Bonaventure re-
conditioning and painting is an excellent
example of this type of waste. Perhaps an
ombudsman would be of use in situations such
as this. Mr. Speaker, in this great province
where we have a continuing audit of
finances-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member draw
his remarks to a conclusion as his time is up.
Mr. Carruthers: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I
do wish to point out though that McRuer
is still studying this problem, I understand,
and I believe this is not the time to give
consideration to such legislation. The time
will be when Mr. McRuer brings down his
second report.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Oh, yes, and
if he oomes out in favour of it the member
will join the bandwagon.
Mr. Carruthers: Perhaps Mr. McRuer will
do a better job of convincing me that an
ombudsman is necessary than the hon. mem-
ber for Downsview.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
hope that the hon. member for Durham will
be convinced when Mr. McRuer brings down
his report. It seems that government benches
are only convinced when die word comes
from on high, up to that time they are not
quite sure what their point of view is. How-
ever, I rise to support tliis bill this afternoon.
An ombudsman is one long-known in coun-
tries which have had social democratic gov-
ernments and is now becoming more and
more popular around the world. Today it is
being discussed in many jurisdictions, here
and in otlier places, and we hope that
Ontario, along with the hon. member for
Downsview, will see the light before too long,
and perhaps, Mr. McRuer will shed tliat light.
It is all right, Mr. Speaker, for the hon.
member to say to us that we are all ombuds-
men. True enough, we are. I get, in my office,
hundreds of people who come with problems,
all kinds of problems. I never knew that
trouble had as many facets as it has when
we sit down and listen to the people— but
the hon. member for Durham is lucky. He
understands all these problems. He is able to
go to the proper civil servants and get
redress, according to what he has said. This is
good, it is good to be a goverimient member
and do this. But some of us in the Opposition
are not quite as wise as the hon. member for
Durham.
For example, I had a case not long ago
where certain tough legal technicalities were
involved. I am not a lawyer, and when I
called a lawyer friend of mine, he said to me,
"you cannot get a lawyer to take that case. It
is just too bothersome, let us put it that way,
it is just too bothersome for the time involved.
Nobody is going to bother with that." Now
I, in my ignorance of the law, am not sure
where to go to get redress. Then, I call cer-
tain members of certain departments. As the
hon. member has said, I have to take their
word, I cannot go into the files, I cannot
demand the files. So, I say, "Well, this and
this and this seems to me to be common
sense." but he said, "No, we take this point
of view." I still think it is wrong, but there
is no redress as far as I am concerned.
Perhaps the member for Durham has the
secret words that unlock those files and gets
the redress, I do not know.
Sometimes people come to me and say:
"Well, now look, I didn't come to you for
several months because you know I worked
against you in the election campaign and I
voted against you and I felt foolish in coming
to you." I hope tliat there are not too many
like that, but tliere are some, and those people
are looking for some impartial jurisdiction, if
you will, an ombudsman who they know is
MAY 5, 1969
3951
impartial, to whom they can appeal, where
there are no political overtones of any kind.
I think this is extremely important for many
of our citizens. Sometimes too, things build
up in certain areas and no matter what the
local member may try to do, nothing seems
to happen. The mess in Brantford is a case
in point, where an ombudsman, perhaps a
year ago or a long time ago could have
brought justice there and saved the present
situation in that city.
What we have just gone througlh in the
welfare estimates is a case in point. There
is trouble in that department, trouble which
government members themselves have not
been able to resolve and certainly trouble
which other members in the Opposition have
not been able to resolve, and that depart-
ment goes merrily on its way.
I will say this for the civil service by and
large in Ontario, I find them an efficient
group of people. But if a civil servant makes
a decision I cannot argue that decision. I
can argue with him, but he still makes the
decision, the government backs him up and I
have no court of appeal to which to go.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member has it
right in this Legislature.
Mr. Young: All right, I bring it up here.
But in the meantime perhaps months have
gone by before I am able to bring it up, and
that thing has festered, and other cases which
might have been righted if we had been able
to do something before, many other cases,
have gone by and that wrong has not been
righted.
I have before me a short resume of what
happens with the Swedish ombudsman. It is
from an article written by Sidney Willens
from Missouri, and he says this, and I quote
him:
Today the Swedish ombudsman is Alfred
Bexelius, the country's 31st. He is called by
the initials JO.
Standing for a shortened form of a Swedish
word.
Presently, the JO heads a staff—
I call this to the attention of the hon. mem-
ber.
—heads a staflF of nine lawyers and three
secretaries. It's small on purpose— to avoid
criticism that it, too is bureaucratic. It
serves Sweden's 7.5 milhon people.
As many as Ontario.
Mr. Singer: It is bigger than Ontario.
Mr. Young: Seven and a half million
people.
Mr. Carruthers: Do these people have the
right to appeal?
Mr. Young: Now, how does the ombudsman
idea work? First he receives a complaint, it
must be in vmting and signed. The JO is
the whole judge of whether he wants to act
upon it. On 90 per cent of the complaints,
he does not. But the fact is that those 90 per
cent of the people have had a chance to put
in writing their complaints and very often
that is what is needed. Tjhey at least have
been able to be heard.
If he believes the complaint is justified, he
requests the official to explain his action. In
85 per cent of the cases the official's reply
closes the file after the JO writes the com-
plainant supplying him with a reason why,
and that is generally what he wants.
In the remaining 15 per cent of the cases
pursued, the JO goes to work. He may visit
the official, subpoena information or attend
the agency's hearings and deliberations. He
cannot interfere with, the decision-making. He
is not a court of appeal.
What is his weapon? It is the prestige of
his employer, Parliament; the dignity and
impeccability, the honesty with which the
Swedish citizen looks upon the office; and
publicity. A recalcitrant administrator does
not want his name in the newspaper.
The JO's biggest weapon is a book, his
annual report to Parliament. Each year he
lists all important cases and their disposition.
He may propose new legislation, and this
again is important, or changes in administra-
tive regulations to cure injustices he has come
across during the year. The book is distributed
to all courts and government agencies.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Has the member got
the list of the kind of cases he handles?
Mr. Young: The kind of cases he handles
are cases which the average member of Par-
liament finds very difficult. I think most cases
which come to us we can handle eflFectively.
But there is always that small proportion of
cases which come to all of us, which we just
have not the competence or the knowledge
or the contacts to handle. He handles the
kind of cases that you and I handle, and the
complicated cases that we find difficult.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I understand it was
mostly about court decisions.
3952
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Young: I think the Minister could find
a hst of those cases if he wants to botlier.
Mr. Singer: Or the Enghsh cases osr the
Alberta cases or—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The greatest objec-
tions are to judges' decisions.
Mr. Young: Right, but one of the things
which I think the ombudsman does, and doe^
with effectiveness, is just that thing whidi
was mentioned— he brings to light some of
the injustices. I quote here from Kenneth
Growncy of Kansas City, state representative,
when he says this to a United States sub-
committee:
I feel that the problems of poverty, ig-
norance and prejudice will not be solved
by estal^lishing this office, but by bringing
to hght basic injustices committed by ad-
ministrative agencies. The ombudsman can
encourage improvement in good, honest,
efficient and sound government-
Mr. Speaker: I would draw to the hon.
member's attention that his time has expired.
Mr. Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
think I have convinced the member for Dur-
ham that the time is here to appoint an
ombudsman. I have more material here wliich
he is entitled to read if he wishes to do so,
and I support the bill.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to support the bill, I want first of all
to congratulate the hon. member for Downs-
view for his perseverance in continuously
bringing this bill before tlie House. Tjie in-
troduction of bills asking that an ombudsman
]ye appointed is not new, at least insofar as
this decade is concerned.
Ombudsmen have been operating success-
fully in Sweden— that is where we get the
word from— since 1809, and in other jurisdic-
tions since 1919— Finland, Denmark, New
Zealand, Norway, New Brunswick, to name
a few. There are similar legislations in India,
Israel, Japan, Nepal and the Philippines.
Many other jurisdictions have given con-
sideration to appointments of ombudsmen—
Califoomia, IlHnois, Connecticut, the state of
New York, the city of New York and every
province in Cimada. They have cited more or
less the reasons that tlie hon. member for
Downsview and the member for Yorkview
have cited.
Aboiit the only reason that has been ad-
vanced in opposition to the appointment of
an ombudsman is the reason that was stated
by the hon. member for Durham, that each
member of the Legislating or of the council
or of the legislative body, whatever it may be
called, in that particular jurisdiction, is an
ombudsman or should be an ombudsman.
Now, that is not a statement to be denied.
On the otlier hand is it a statement which
should be accepted to completely wipe out
all the other arguments that have been ad-
vanced in favour of having an ombudsman?
The hon. member for Durham gives as a
reason why we should not have an ombuds-
man, tlie large number of cases that were
handled in other jurisdictions. For example,
New Zealand. One would tliink that the large
number of complaints received by an ombuds-
man would be a logical reason for having an
ombudsman. It obviously indicates tliat many
people are dissatisfied with the services they
are getting from bureaucracy.
But the hon. member for Din^ham takes
tlie other viewpoint, I cannot but recaU the
statements that were made by the ombuds-
man that had been appointed in New Bruns-
wick, W. T. Ross Flemington who became
ombudsman October, 1967, and to whom the
member for Downsview referred.
He tabled the report, as the hon. member
indicated, showing that there were 157 com-
plaints received from the time of his appoint-
ment in 1967 to the end of December for the
following year. Actually, it was a six-month
report.
He said 157 complaints had been received,
about one-tliird of them were outside of his
jurisdiction. About half of the remaining 100
had been investigated, and half of those
seemed to be justified. Quoting his words:
It is very difficult sometimes to deter-
mine whether complaints are justified or
not. In the judgment of the complaintive
they are justified, but this is sometimes due
to tlie fact that the complaintive is not
aware of the law, or tlie action he may take.
More or less along tlie line tliat was indicated
by the member for Yorkview. One newspaper
reacted to his first report in tliis way:
Most of the cases cited are of the sort
that may well be crucially important to
an individual, but would not of themselves
cause much stir in a mass routine in a
government department.
That is exactly the role of an ombudsman.
So in this particular instance, of the com-
plaints that were in the ombudsman's juris-
diction, almost half of them were justified.
MAY 5, 1969
3953
Now, the hon. member for Durham gives
the impression that we are all ombudsmen.
That is true.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not what tliis
report says.
Mr. Ben: I was quoting from a newspaper.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Reports say that the
ombudsman refused 90 per cent of the com-
plaints.
Mr. Young: That is what I said. I was—
Mr. Ben: That is not the report I was
quoting from. You are quoting from an Ameri-
can report and following the attitude of the
member for High Park (Mr. Shulman). He has
already brainwashed you and you are follow-
ing his tactics.
Mr. Singer: You were not even Hstening.
Mr. Carruthers: How many complaints did
he have?
Mr. Ben: He had 157 complaints in a six-
month period. One-third were not in his
jurisdiction, and of the remaining 100, half
of them were justified.
Now, one of the most prolific writers on the
topic of ombudsman is an American by the
name of Stanley V. Anderson, a professor of
political science at the University of California
at Santa Barbara. He has probably written
more books on this topic than any other
author. He had occasion, not too long ago—
as a matter of fact it was a while ago, in
1965— to write a book report on the ombuds-
man, "citizens' defender," edited by Donald
C. Rowat. He is from Carleton University.
In this article Professor Anderson has this
to say:
Further scholarly research might also be
useful. For example, legislators sometimes
argue that they are already functioning as
ombudsmen. Yet no systematic investigation
has ever been made of complaint-handling
procedures, or the number and kind of
grievances which enter an elected oflBcial's
office, whether in the executive or legislative
branch.
He goes on further:
The trouble with the lawmaker -as -
ombudsman approach is that some legisla-
tors are more able, more interested, and
more influential than others. At the state
level, many citizens are not aware of this
avenue of complaint.
In my opinion, the availability of elected
officials as buffers between citizen and
bureaucracy ought to be widely publicized,
particularly if politicans insist upon a
monopoly.
Well, a lot of politicians do not insist on a
monopoly. Mr, Speaker, I would hke to quote
what one illustrious member of this House
says about his duties, and I am quoting from
the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of April, 1969.
It is captioned "Like Private Citizen, Red
Tape Frustrates Tory MPP":
Gait-Allan Reuter, MPP for Waterloo
South, says the provincial government's red
tape is making it harder than ever for
him to help his constituents.
"The red tape is so bad," Mr. Reuter told
tlie Record in an interview, "that it has be-
come one of the greatest frustrations in his
life as an elected member." A lot of people
think a Conservative member of the pro-
vincial Parliament, like myself, is part of
the government, which he really is not at
all. Only members of the Cabinet are part
of the government. I find it just as difficult
to break through the bureaucracy and get
an answer to a question as any private
citizen.
"Sometimes you ha\e to go through fi\'e
or six department heads before you begin
to get rny where. Perhaps it should not be
that way, but it is."
Mr. Renter said he views his job as that
of a go-between to assist his constituents
in matters in which government action is
needed.
"I think every elected member should
act as an ombudsman. When you get some-
thing for somebody it is a great satisfac-
tion, and when you cannot it is a great
frustration, and I ha\'e no hesitation in
saying so."
Mr. Reuter said a lot of bureaucracy
is necessary to operate the machinery of
government. However, he said, many other
members of the provincial House find red
tape just as frustrating as he does when he
tries to get action on a constituent's prob-
lems.
The situation has become so exasperat-
ing, Mr. Reuter said, that he could hardly
wait to get out of Queen's Park and go
home on Friday nights.
Well, I do not know which one is the spokes-
man for the Tory side in this debate, Mr.
Speaker. Whether it is the hon. member for
Durham or the hon. member for Waterloo
South (Mr. Reuter) who was honoured by
the members of this House, by being elected
3954
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the post of Deputy Speaker, and Chair-
man of the committee of the whole House?
I would rather suspect, howe\er, Mr. Chair-
man, that the hon. Deputy Speaker of this
House gave a more honest and correct ap-
praisal of the situation as he finds it here,
than perhaps the hon. member for Durham.
And if there is ever a reason for supporting
the bill submitted by the hon. member from
Downs\iew, it is the recent statement made
so lucidly by the hon. member for Waterloo
South, showing that we ha\e at least one
Conservative member supporting this bill, if
not more.
Mr. Lavvlor: Mr. Speaker, there is not much
time to discant on this theme, and with that
in mind I shall simply congratulate the mem-
ber for Downs\'iew, who I was rather rough
with the other day in bringing so fine an Act
forward. My intention had been to contrast
and compare it with the British legislation
which is mightily defective over against this
one, and I am sure that the hon. member
for Downsview has drawn up his bill with
some \ iew of the glaring defects in the British
setup.
As a matter of fact, they are saying that far
from being an ombudsman, he is an ombuds-
man over in Britain. His teeth have been
drawn and in many areas which are protected
there he may not ask certain questions. The
restrictions that tie his office are so grave
that we would not want a bill of that kind.
I do trust that the hon. Mr. Justice McRuer,
as he then was, does bring forward this kind
of recommendation. It is certainly in rhyme
with his heartfelt and deep reaching feelings
of human liberty and the ombudsman becomes
the more necessar>' as the legislation that
comes before this House as a whole continues
to complexify.
As a matter of fact, it will not be long,
but 75 per cent of the legislation will be
debat(>d among a nice little closed group
around here. I do not know what is going
to happen to the rest of the world, but I am
sure this closed group will be delightfully
satisfied.
It will simpU- mean that the press and
larger numbers of individuals are going to
ha\e to enter in and stick their noses closer
to the grindstones in order to be able to act
iis the intenTiediar\- between oursebes and
the public, just as an ombudsman becomes
increasingly necessary between the civil ad-
ministrative process with all their secret files
and all their repressive measures. However
good and open and fairminded they may be,
nevertheless all kinds of calcifications develop
in a civil service— easy ways of doing things
which are restrictive on the liberties of the
citizen to which we, as members, however
we may labour at our task, cannot get to. An
ombudsman can get to them because he has
access to the files; he has access to the modes
of examination that are denied to us; he is
certainly necessary. I will just mention that
those areas in which we do seem to be pres-
ently capable of acting are severely restric-
tive.
In other words, as the government grows
old and falls into senility, it also falls into
high handedness and into arrogance. One of
the indications of the age of this government
is the fact that restrictions are being placed
upon the members to which I have alluded
in the past, and shall again. Take the role of
grand juries these days. It is falling more
and more into desuetude, and while they do
good service in a rather narrow way, only
once in a while does the role that they can
perform, narrow as it is in stmcture, bear
fruit.
When members of this House cannot at-
tend upon the public institutions of the prov-
ince, then more than ever "a fortiori" do we
need an ombudsman to perform precisely
that. To pretend that we are ombudsmen
and to strip us of the necessary instaimentali-
ties to carry out our responsibilities, is a
denial of the whole concept of British jus-
tice and liberty and the role that we should
be encouraged to play as members of this
House.
There are many ways, there are many areas
in which the hon. member for Downsview has
taken cognizance of the British situation and
has excluded it on the other hand. I am
thinking of Crown privileges, the business of
Crown offices hiding behind Crown immuni-
ties has been obviated to some extent in the
British statute and made explicitly clear in
sections 14, subsections 3 and section 15, sub-
section 4 of the present bill before us.
All to the good. It spells out and defines
the role of privileges and communications
and, in a number of other areas, this bill to
be adopted by the government just as it
stands, would do them credit.
Mr. Speaker: This concludes the private
members' hour.
It being 6.00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
MAY 5, 1969
3955
APPENDIX
(See page 3919)
13. Mr. MacDonald— Enquiry of the Min-
istry—1. What were the total advertisiag
expenditures of each government department
or agency during the past fiscal year (1967/
68), exclusive of amoxmts expended for adver-
tisements for personnel or purchase or sale
of goods and services? 2. What is the break-
down of such expenditures among the various
news media— daily newspapers, weekly news-
papers, ethnic papers, radio, TV, magazines?
3. What is the breakdown of such expendi-
tures among the various departmental or
agency programmes?
Answer by the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr.
Robarts): See page 3957.
42. Mrs. M. Renu^/c/:— Enquiry of the Min-
istry — How many doctors' vacancies were
there at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital
at the time of Dr. Mullner's testimony to the
Standing Committee on Health, March 6,
1969? How many doctors' positions have been
filled since that date, and for how long had
these vacancies been in existence? How many
of these doctor positions were filled by trans-
fers from other hospitals and, if so, from
which hospitals? For how long have the three
doctor vacancies the Minister spoke of on
March 27 been vacant? How long is it since
the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital had its fuU
complement of medical staff? How many
doctor vacancies have occurred since the
present superintendent. Dr. Miller, came on
staff?
Answer by the Minister of Health (Hon.
Mr. Dymond):
Three vacancies are sliown at the end of
February, 1969, for physicians. No doctors'
positions have been filled since that date.
None have been filled by transfer. The pro-
fessional staff has never been at full recom-
mended strength.
43. Mrs. M. Renwick— Enquiry of the Min-
istry—For how long did the Brockville Psychi-
atric Hospital operate without a stock control
on its drugs?
Answer by the Minister of Health (Hon.
Mr. Dymond):
Stock control has always been the responsi-
bility of the pharmacist. The present control
system is the establishment of a formal pro-
cedure for all Ontario hospitals.
45. Mrs. M. Renwick— Enquiry of the Min-
istry—Where, in Ontario Hospitals, should tlie
emergency key to the drugs in the dispensary
be kept and with whom?
Answer by the Minister of Health (Hon.
Mr. Dymond):
This is a decision which must be made by
the superintendent.
47. Mr. Haggerty— Enquiry of the Ministry
— 1. Is the Minister of Health aware of the
researches of McMaster University biologist
Dr. Doris Jensen into the serious effects of
DDT's presence in Lake Erie? 2. Is the Minis-
ter of Health aware that concentrations as
high as 6000 parts per million DDT have been
found in tlie body fat of dead gulls? 3. Is the
Minister of Health aware that the level of
pesticides found in fish from the lake is,
according to Dr. Jensen, "alarmingly high"?
4. Is the Minister of Health aware that Dr.
Jensen's researches confirm that DDT is being
passed to breast-fed infants of mothers who
drink water from systems drawing from Lake
Erie? 5. What researches are currently under-
way within the Minister's purview, relating to
the effects upon human healtli of the con-
centration of fertilizers and pesticides by ani-
mals eaten by man?
Answer by the Minister of Health (Hon.
Mr. Dymond):
1. Yes, it is known in my department that
Dr. Doris Jensen, a biologist of McMaster
University, is doing research on the organo
chlorine insecticides and in the course of this
work has checked seagulls for residues.
According to information available. Dr. Jen-
sen states she has only found 2 ppb of DDT
in the water of Lake Erie, although the level
in the clay and some of the sea weed has
been somewhat higher.
2. Dr. Jensen found only one gull with
6000 ppm of DDT in the body fat, and this
gull had not died as a result of this, but had
been killed.
3. No, I am not aware tliat Dr. Jensen
made this statement. To the best of my
knowledge Dr. Jensen's work did not include
work on fish.
4. No. It is suggested tliat Dr. Jensen was
misquoted in this regard. Enquiries from my
department have revealed that Dr. Jensen has
no recollection of ever making this statement.
5. Dr. John Brown of the school of hygiene.
University of Toronto, is currently working
under a health grant in the field of the con-
centration of pesticides in our food. As well.
3956
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
my department has already embarked on a
monitoring programme, which, when it is
fully operational, will be testing water, soil,
beef fat, hog fat, eggs and milk for organo
chlorine insecticide residues.
50. Mr. B. Newman— Enquixy of the Min-
istry—Will the Minister of Transport take
note of tlie experiment now being conducted
by the Dallas Transit System on a Freon-
vapour drixen propulsion system for buses;
and will he make appropriate recommenda-
tions in due course as to the apphcability of
this approach to public transit systems in
Ontario, in the continuing fight against en-
vironmental pollution?
Answer by the Minister of Health (Hon.
Mr. Dymond ) :
The Freon vapour engine is an external
combustion engine similar to a steam engine,
but using freon vapour as the work medium
to drive the pistons. The engines, developed
by Kinetics Corporation of Sarasota, Florida,
are being tested in the Dallas Transit System
buses. Details of these tests are not available
to the public as yet, but will be received by
the air pollution control service when they are
released.
51. Mr. Ben— Enquiry of the Ministry—
In view of the hterature now being published
on the effects of phytotoxicants, will the Min-
ister of Health set up a committee of spe-
cialists to review the new research and report
on tlie possible effects upon human health?
Answer by the Minister of Health (Hon.
Mr. Dymond ) :
The question implies that specific literature
is available now. The effects of air pollutants
on vegetation is a continuing matter and our
phytotoxicology section is not aware of any
special publications.
There would not appear to be any need to
set up a special committee to review the
literature and report on the possible human
health effects since this would fall within the
scope of the health studies service of the
environmental health branch.
52. Mr. Ben— Enquiry of the Ministry—
1. Are any of the new continuous coulometric
titration detectors for sulphur dioxide pollu-
tion in use in Ontario? If not, wall the Min-
ister of Health look into the experience of
the Dutch government at Eindhoven, with
a view to replacing existing monitors wtih
this modern automatic equipment?
Answer by the Minister of Health (Hon.
Mr. Dymond):
New continuous soulometric titration de-
tectors have been in use in Ontario for over a
year. Conductivity detectors are being phased
out. The equipment used by the Dutch gov-
ernment is similar to the equipment currently
used by the Ontario government air pollution
control service.
60. Mr. Peacock— Enquiry of the Ministry—
1. Within the past three years, has The De-
partment of Highways retained Canadian
Research Ser\ ices Ltd.? 2. If so, what projects
have been undertaken for the department in
this period? 3. What was the cost of each
project?
Answer by the Minister of Highways ( Hon.
Mr. Gomme):
1. No.
2. Not appHcable.
3. Not applicable.
MAY 5, 1969
3957
!>OOSU5CDC5
<M 1> r-l CD 00 O)
00-* t-O
-^
r-
(30
CO
(M
CO
■Tt<
cq
in
rr>
1^
m
CD
o
■^
CT)
^
cq
«<MOOO
CO (N iq o CO
<N 00 (M' 05 CO
Tl< i-l t- 00 --I
CD^^OT Tl< r-l CN
cd'ic
oooin
woinoo
OOrriOrH
OrHOJCD^
oo'co" oo'
oooo
oot>0-*
o
Gi
WOCD
S
coMeico
CD CO t> 00
00
o
■^•*w
o
"
C5 05CO
s
CO e
"^1
S ^ o
05 *
co"
S.S
o.ti
0 M ^?
c8^ ao
^■■8 2 S §
oJ o S >-i cj
1 a M S S
g oj "^ C
d c « a>c/:)
11 =
QOO<J
III-
■fill
O C CST)
'so ,«
"3 W^M
.-looeoOJ
looser in
CD l> CD in
&^
S m to
> a '^
«^ -I
00
O
oi-in«
■^
oocooinin o co
■*
oo
CO
00
r-icDinco
CO
coj>oi>a>«cD
05
050
in
«
rH'lO.-^t>
in
CD i-^ d c:5 in 00 i>
t>
dci
i^
in
osoooor-
CO
in CO 05 CD o CO oj
Oi
^ i>
o
in 00 cq CO
'^
Tt< C> cq t> -"f CO 1-1
CO
o
"f
oo'inco'in
CO
CO CD M CJl t^ t- l>
•<4<
1-1
<M
^
(N t> --I C7> CO .-1 r-t
g
w « ft
g<ftrt
> <u ^ ?^
f a oi <o
^rS" O N
ft 64 "!
s <p ?
ft ^
>^'^
^l^>
5^5 a> 2 «
» N
COOOO
e^cooo
§
s
1XNO5 00
2
in cDi-i
in
III
ctf en ft
w ? ;*
is| I
00
CO
0
00
i
0
s
00
g
h3
-<
6
C/3
w
u
QJ
5
>
S
Ph
0
w
0
C/3
Q
0
§
^
as
gi?
3958
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
oo
O
O
C4(M
Tl"
o
00 CD
■<1<
U5
tPCD
f-H
•r)<
--4 CD
00
CO
«N
03
2g
g
52^
t-CJ3
O
in
"
C4
It CO
o
CO 10
(Tj
ooo
00
10 03
C7)b-
^
««
05
o
l-t
11
b(iH
s:s
g
1^
H 4)
3
o
.£3
-c J
OS
g
^l3
2
1
2
01
11
1
^
11
iic3
u
u
<^
o
o
n<
o
o
'^
»o
CO
UJ
C<J
cd
>« ca
§§§
o
o
l>C7>t-
i-llOOO
CD
■-u>
CJ5
&^
^ fl 2
« r s
III
O5C0
cq
COO
t-
00 0-)
t-
t-<M
o
^kO
»
t|
§§g
o
'^COOO
in
"
«
> n-1
•3.2 S
oo
Ol
OCN
<N
llOCM
l-
COO
co
cot-
CO
i-HO"
Oi
"
C.'"
COIOCDOOOO-H
O .-I O >-l CO O 00
1>(M 10 W5 Tt* O O
S2 Qj 0)
PI
? d aj
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
csoodcsd
OOOOOO
q^ooooo^
rHoTio'efdcr
r-l ocqrf-^
r-l CO--I
1^.2
o
s ,«
M a 6
4> O p
^ ^ C! S O
i
i>
g
s
lO
CO
o
I-
g
CO
55
n
^
r*.
0
b
w
b
%
"n
Q
^i
Pk
uw
S
3
z
p
S
^i
<:
z
S
MAY 5, 1969
3959
C01>TJ*
O5C0<M
cog
I « ^
^ ^ u
S C o
o (u ii
S o o
«
^cq-f cop
i> o ''i*^ 05 q
05 d »' Tl3 CO
CD CO 05 -"t CD
05 s^ r!
" ft i
ft ft 5
G^ O ^ N
0003 O CD
»o
«<NW50'<«i
'<f
^^ CD1>CD
li5
CDr-l l^ O "-H
r-
CD CO CO »0 CO
t
00<M -<1< CO
CO
^^ ft 9<
9< ft ^
&^ ^ » a
S J? £h S "
3^ S « 2
g gggJSiSS
en
8
Pi
Wc/3
C/2p-
ogg
r:; t^w
Q2:
WW
No. 106
ONTARIO
ilegiglature of (l^ntarto
OFFICIAL REPORT -DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, May 5, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
I Trice per session, $5.00, Address, Clerk of the House, Parliamera Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, May 5, 1969
Pension Benefits Act, 1965, bill to amend, reported 3963
Residential Property Tax Reduction Act, 1968, bill to amend, reported 3967
Public Finance Companies' Investments Act, 1966, bill to repeal, reported 3971
Credit Unions Act, bill to amend, reported 3971
Loan and Trust Corporations Act, bill to amend, reported 3976
Ontario Producers, Processors, Distributors and Consumers Food Council Act, 1962-63,
bill to amend, reported 3976
Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, 1965, bill to amend, reported 3977
Insurance Act, bill to amend, reported 3983
Homes for Special Care Act, 1964, hill to amend, reported 3983
Pharmacy Act, bill to amend, reported 3983
Nursing Homes Act, 1966, bill to amend, reported 3984
Pesticides Act, 1967, bill to amend, reported 3984
Department of Health, bill respecting, reported 3984
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 3992
3963
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m
Clerk of the House: The second order,
House in committee of the whole; Mr. A. E.
Renter in the chair.
THE PENSIONS BENEFITS ACT, 1965
House in committee on Bill 76, An Act to
amend The Pensions Benefits Act, 1965.
On section 1 :
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): On section 1,
I wonder if the Minister would comment on
the point which was raised on second read-
ing, which if I recall was to the effect that
this bill is designed to put into effect what
in fact has been the practice of the pensions
commission up to this point without any
statutory recognition of it.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Treasurer):
Well I would like to think, Mr. Chairman,
that the section of the bill is being amended
at this time to remove any doubt about pre-
vious legislation. There appears to have been
some doubt as to whether the original intent
and spirit of the Act was in fact spelled out
in the original statute, and this is for the
purpose of clarifying the original intent and
purpose of the Act.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, I have a rather lengthy matter which I
would like to go into under section 1. It is
in relation to the pension plans and the em-
ployees not being able to withdraw their
contributions. This is rather a serious matter
in that I think the pubhc, and perhaps even
the Minister, is not aware of some of the
abuses that have arisen under this plan.
Perhaps I could lay the ground work by
reading a letter which I received and then
I will go into the figures, which are a little
complicated.
Monday, May 5, 1969
Dear Dr. Shulman:
Please find enclosed copies pertaining to
a pension fund registered in 1966 with the
Ontario government and the federal gov-
ernment.
For obvious reasons I have deleted the com-
pany name and trustees on these pages, I
am only going to generalize here but I will
put in the company name if the Minister
wishes. I am just reading the letter as it was
sent to me originally.
This plan, which was drawn up by an
actuary consultant on EgHnton Avenue,
exists and is in force with our company. I
feel that there must be more of these plans
in existence which an investigation would
show do not benefit the working man in a
lot of cases. I feel that big business is
taking advantage of the working man and
his dollars to further their own benefits in
a variety of ways.
If I can have these existing plans re-
vamped through you and your party I will
feel that I have contributed something to
my fellow man; and if you need this com-
pany's name, trustees and specific pension
fund to pinpoint, I can be contacted
through this phone number after 6 p.m.
I have contacted by telephone only Mr.
Tulloch, the pension commissioner of On-
tario, 454 University Avenue-365-1622._I
read to him important features of the plan
re divested interests and the formula for
deciding the pension. He cannot do anj'-
thing until he receives the company name,
but after checking his figures from the
formula used herein he is very interested in
receiving this information from me by
mail, but I have not sent it to him as yet.
The whole key to this plan is the Canada
Pension Plan being integrated into it and
this pension, when deducted using tlie
formula set herein, leaves nothing from the
company pension as the Canada pension
is a fluctuating figure from year to year
and as it will also change drastically 10
years from now.
Perhaps it will become clearer as I go along.
3964
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Using my hypothetical wages for tlie
next ten years I will have to live well over
100 years to even get my own contribution
back at 3.5 per cent interest, not even
counting the company putting anything in;
and that is if I start to collect at 65 years
of age.
Hoping tliis may be of some help in
bringing inequality to public attention at
government level, into the pubhc attention,
on important features which seem to me to
be unequal and unjust in this particular
plan. I hope that you feel there should
be an investigation by you and your party
into this plan and any other.
Yours truly.
And it is signed, but I am going to withliold
the man's name at this time.
Now the copy of the plan was sent to me,
along with a letter tliat was sent to all tlie
salaried employees and the company's name
as in the heading.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I was wondering,
Mr. Chairman, how this is associated with the
subject matter of section 1, or indeed any part
of the bill. The purpose of the bill, as ex-
plained in the introduction and then dealt
with on second reading, is to deal with the
matter of withdrawal from the funds.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chainnan, what I am
suggesting to the Minister is that because of
this section employees cannot withdraw from
a fund. Even when they are trapped into a
fund they cannot even get their own money
back.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is really
dealing with the principle of the bill. The
principle of the bill is the withdrawal of
contributions, and we dealt wdtli this bill in
principle at second reading.
Mr. Shulman: Sir, this does not have to do
with the principle, it has to do with the basic
fact stated in section 1 that under certain
specific circumstances funds may not be
witlidrawn from the contributions.
Mr. Chainnan: That is the principle of the
bill, is it not?
Mr. Shulman: But this is the specific clause
of the bill, and that is why I specifically held
it until we came to that clause as part of our
discussion.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Hal ton West): Mr. Chair-
man, I might try to explain to the hon. mem-
ber. The purpose of this bill and particularly
section 21 of the Act actually was to prevent
the withdrawal of contributions that have
been made by the emjployee. The main pur-
pose is that by allowing employees to with-
draw their contributions before the plan is in
effect a certain length of time, as for example,
for ten years or until the employee reaches
the age of 45 years, this in effect dilutes the
plan, makes it practically a nullity, so that
when the person reaches retirement age there
is not sufficient retirement income. The main
complaint up to the present time has been
that the Act is so confusing that it allows
people to withdraw funds before that stage
has been reached. In order to clarify the
present Act and to make sure that there is no
question of employees contributions, before
reaching tlie age of 45 years, being locked in,
we are proposing this amendment. What the
hon. member is dealing with is a certain pri-
vate plan. Because of the small amount of
contributions, particularly by the employer,
there was not an adequate retirement plan,
w4ien that person should reach retirement age.
This really has nothing to do with this sec-
tion of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: No, Mr. Chairman, that is
not really what I am saying. What I am say-
ing is that because of this particular section
of this particular bill, a large number of
employees tliroughout this province are going
to find that they are going to be trapped into
a plan where there is no adequate protection,
where they are not going to get their own
funds back, plus interest.
Mr. Chairman: This is certainly the prin-
ciple of the bill and should have been debated
at second reading of the bill. I do not see
how it can be construed as anything but the
principle of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: If I had brought a specific
case up under the principle of the bill you
would have refused it. Specific cases should
be brought up under the clause-by-clause
discussion.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, if
I could ask the hon. member, did he say that
this matter had been taken to the pensions
commission?
Mr. Shulman: No, it has not.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If it is a pension
plan that does not meet all the basic require-
ments as far as funding, vesting and every-
thing else is concerned, my suggestion is that
the legislation in total would deal with that,
and the pensions commission could act with
MAY 5, 1969
3965
respect to the plan itself. But it really is not
related to the puipose of this bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, through you
to the Minister, the reason it has not been
taken to the pensions commission by the em-
ployee is that he was quite honestly afraid.
This matter has come up in our discussions
some weeks ago. He was afraid he would be
discharged if he brought the information to
the pensions commisison. This is why he
brought it to me in a confidential way. But
the problem is not this specific plan. The
problem is that there are many, many plans
that are drawn up like this and unfortimately,
you need an actuary or someone who is rather
clever with figures to break it down. It so
happens this employee is an actuary and he
has taken the trouble to break it down and
it is apparent that this is very similar to a
number of plans which are really just nothing
more or less than legalized mumbo-jumbo
which robs the employees.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member certainly
is— the principle of this amendment is to pro-
hibit the withdrawal of contributions except
under certain circumstances and I do not be-
lieve that any other sort of discussion would
be proper.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman. Embarrassingly
enough, I am not sure how fervently I sup-
port my colleague in the view, but I think
that when the principle of the bill is reflected
in certain of the clauses, one necessarily raises
specifics under those clauses. In every bill
we come to the one or two or three clauses
which most accurately embrace the principle,
and on those individual clauses we try to be
a little more specific around an individual
case or around an individual point. I hardly
think that the member is out of order in that
sense.
Mr. Chairman: No, this total bill is in-
cluded in section 1 and the principle of this
section certainly is dealing only with the with-
drawal of contributions from a plan except
under certain circumstances. Now, to debate
that as to the pros and cons of it, whether it
is right or wrong, or desirable or to quote
examples, certainly is nothing more nor less
than the principle.
Mr. Shulman: May I ask a question of the
Chairman? Would it be proper to debate the
principle of this bill on third reading?
Mr. Chairman: Not after it has had second
reading, and gone through committees.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Chair-
man. You most certainly can debate prin-
ciples on third reading upon the assumption
that the point is newly made, or indeed, made
by a member who did not participate in sec-
ond reading.
Mr. Chairman: As long as it is not some-
thing that has been debated previously and
it is not repetitious.
Mr. Shulman: In that case I will be content
to wait for third reading, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: But surely, when the prin-
ciple of a bill has been passed—
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): On the
point of order, Mr. Chairman. I cannot antici-
pate what the hon. member for High Park
is going to deal with but there are several
portions of this clause 1 which could be
spoken to under the rules of clause-by-clause-
consideration. There is subsection 1 and there
is subsection 2. The "termination of his em-
ployment" or "the termination of the winding
of the plan", either of which would be ap-
propriate parts of the clause for discussion in
relation to the situation the hon. member for
High Park is talking about.
Mr. Chairman: If the discusison was upon
subsection 1, section (c), paragraph (i), purely
on a termination of employment, the termi-
nation of the date of employment or some
such thing, the hon. member for High Park
is not debating that particular aspect of it
nor is he debating the termination of winding
of the plan, to fall within the ambit of what
the hon. member for Windsor West speaks of.
The hon. member for High Park was purely
discussing the principle of this amendment,
which is contained only in this section 1.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
would you elaborate as to what could be dis-
cussed under this section 1?
Mr. Chairman: No, I would not. That is up
to the hon. members to determine what they
believe is adequate. I am not going to direct
them.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Well, Mr.
Chairman, if I might, I have a specific ques-
tion that I would like to ask. Now, if it is
out of order you can tell me so but it has to
do with several employees who terminated
their employment with the Canadian Pacific
Railway. The pension plan was under federal
jurisdiction, but their pension contributions
were held in escrow, supposedly by the pro-
vincial government, because they were a
3966
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
little bit hazy in one particular area about
whether or not they would freeze that money,
and apply it to some portability feature of a
future plan. And after making representa-
tions on behalf of several of those employees,
through the pension department in Ottawa,
and through the directors of the Canadian
Pacific pension plan— your department, I be-
lieve it was, Mr. Minister, agreed to release
those funds, and the moneys were refunded
to the employees who had had it tied up in
that fashion. Now does this bill prohibit
that in future?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, it does the
reverse, it facilitates it upon termination of
employment. If you read clause 5, of sub-
section (c) you will see that one of the con-
ditions permitting the withdrawal of funds is
upon the termination of his employment.
Mr. Stokes: Oh, that is the very point of
my question. Why are we bringing in this
bill if in fact you were doing it anyway?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I made the point
at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that there ap-
pears to be some— this was always the spirit
and the intent of the legislation, and I think
all hon. members who were here, when The
Pension Benefits Act, 1965, was debated at
some length in principle on second reading,
and clause-by-clause in committee of the
whole House will recognize that it was the
spirit and the intent of the legislation at that
time to do what this now purports to clarify.
There was never any doubt about it in the
minds of hon. members as I recall it, when
the original bill went through the various
stages of the House in 1965.
There have been situations arise where the
language of the original bill has been called
into question. This bill is simply to clarify
and to make sure that there is no doubt
about the original intent of the legislation—
that is all that we are attemping to do— so
now, beyond doubt, one of the clarifying
points is the condition upon which an em-
ployee may withdraw. I am reading the actual
section in reverse, in effect. The conditions
in which he may withdraw his funds are
two— the termination of his employment, or
the termination or winding up of the plan.
It will be clear beyond all doubt that the
problem that the member makes reference to
cannot be misinterpreted again.
Mr. Stokes: There must have been some
doubt in the minds of the people who are
administering the plan when in fact they had
held these funds for some two years.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes. I will go
further than that: They have always inter-
preted the original Act in the way that it has
been described and in the way that it is
being clarified now. It has always been ad-
ministered in that fashion, but the pensions
commission itself now has reason to doubt
that the language of the original bill pro-
vides for what we are attempting to clarify
here at this time.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on this sec-
tion, so that there will be no misunderstand-
ing in the Minister's mind or those of my
colleagues, I believe this is a good suggestion,
a good subsection. Employees should not be
allowed to withdraw their funds if the pen-
sion funds were drawn up properly. I am
going to leave my comments for a later date,
either in the Minister's estimates, or on third
reading, whichever comes first.
Mr. Chairman: Anything that is repetitious
or that deals with the principle as it was
passed carmot be debated.
Mr. Shulman: It is not repetitious, I assure
you.
Mr. Peacock: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, I think that when this does come
up for third reading we will have to recall
for you that we objected to the opinion that
you have just offered. On third reading it is
perfectly proper for members to express their
objections to the principle of the bill. We
have established this in regard to certain
other measures that may well be before the
House this evening for consideration in com-
mittee of the whole House. We will be de-
termined to object to them and debate them
on third reading, as was the case in the past.
I am referring to the bill that is on the order
paper in regard to the Ontario Medical Serv-
ices Insurance Plan.
Mr. Chairman: I leave that entirely up to
the hon. members; it is not my responsibility
to tell them what can or cannot be done at
third reading. I point out that members can-
not reflect upon a prior vote of the House,
but if the Speaker wishes to undertake any
such debate at third reading, this is beyond
my responsibility.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If I could com-
ment, Mr. Chairman, as long as it falls within
the precise four corners of what is contained
in these two sections of this Act it would be
debatable, but I do not think it needs to
permit any wandering away from the purpose
or intent of tliis amending piece of legis-
lation.
MAY 5, 1969
3967
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, just to com-
plete my comment in one sentence. The
.subsection is good, the purpose and principle
is good, there is no question about that; but
so many of their pension plans have been
drawn up so badly that unbeknownst to any-
one, except an actuary, many employees are
n>aking a very serious error in their contribu-
tions and in agreeing to this type of plan, but
we will leave these comments until third
reading.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, on
that point, and I do not want to pursue this
either, I do not know whether it is in order
to discuss this aspect of this bill on third
reading. I think we will leave it and deter-
mine it at that time, but I mention it to
you now because I do not think it is.
Mr. Shulman: That is not what the Chair-
man said.
Mr. Chairman: That is what tlie Chair-
man said.
Sections 1 to 3 agreed to.
Bill 76 reported.
THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX
REDUCTION ACT, 1968
House in committee on Bill 81, An Act to
amend The Residential Property Tax Reduc-
tion Act, 1968.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, I wished to move an amendment to
section 2, to the effect that sub-clause 1 of
clause 2, of Bill 81 be amended by adding
thereto the following proviso:
Provided, however, that the reduction
herein provided shall not apply to any
residential property, the owner of which
resides outside the province of Ontario.
I think it is clear on its face what we are
after, in this context. The cottage properties
throughout northern Ontario, held largely by
Americans, are enjoying, and have enjoyed
the full benefits of The Residential Property
Tax Reduction Act. We over here do not care
whether this Act is being phased out at the
moment. It still represents a piece of
stupidity. You have tried, even in the last
year of its survival, to ameliorate your own
situation by making it a 50 per cent situation
instead of their paying no taxes whatsoever,
as happened last year in many cases. We
think that does not go far enough, and to
rain benefits upon the heads of non-residents—
that they should only have to pay 50 per cent
of the tax— seems to us carrying that principle
too far.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, if I may ask of the last-
Mr. Chairman: If I may put the motion to
the House. Mr. Lawlor moves that sub-clause
1, of clause 2 of Bill 81 be amended by add-
ing thereto the folowing proviso:
Provided, however, that the reduction
herein provided shall not apply to any resi-
dential property, the owner of which resides
outside the province of Ontario..
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I would like to ask
the presenter of the last motion, Mr. Chair-
man, what he refers to by "an owner residing
outside the province of Ontario." Would this
include a Canadian citizen of Ontario who
may simply be residing in the States tempo-
rarily? It could be a college professor taking
some course in the U.S., and at the same time
renting out his properties in Canada rather
than selling the properties. There are a lot of
ramifications involved in this and I would like
to know the intent of the last member's—
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think that
one can, as the member for Windsor-Walker-
ville has started to do, spht hairs about it.
We are not experts in the drafting of techni-
cal tax law amendments; it is quite possible
just as it is done and has been done since
1917 in The Income Tax Act of Canada and
in The Income Tax Act of this province, from
the time it was enacted, to provide for resi-
dence as the test under a taxing statute to
detemiine whether you are or are not subject
to the tax, and this has been adopted in this
amendment. It is quite true that you can
use the phraseology "resident or ordinarily
resident" as is done in The Income Tax Act,
it makes specific exceptions for those who are
abroad in tlie services of the armed forces.
What we want to bring before the House,
subject to whatever technical drafting has to
be done to make it as tight and as airtight
and as clear as possible, is the principle that
has been enunciated by the amendment intro-
duced by my colleague, the member for
Lakeshore, and I think this the point to
which we should direct our minds and not to
3968
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the hair-splitting problems that the member
for Windsor-Walkerville has raised.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Park-
dale.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
we support the amenchnent, but I do not
think the meml^cr for Windsor-Walkerville
was trying to do any hair-splitting, because
there is no question that in these Ixxrder cities
like Windsor and Fort Erie and close by, that
a problem could arise, but I would agree with
the member for Riverdale, having had some
opportunity myself to go into the matter, that
it is quite possible to bring in such an amend-
ment as the member for Lakeshore has sug-
gested; and, at the same time, see to it that
Canadians, who are possibly temporarily not
resident in Ontario, can get the benefit of the
tax reduction.
There are questions, of course, that men in
the armed forces are going to be out of the
country. These, I think, can be taken care
of. But under the present legislation, as has
existed for the past year, we have had the
ridiculous situation of Americans, who are
here in many thousands, making little or no
contribution in the cottage countries where
they are. At the same time they are getting
all the benefits of the legislation as passed
in this House.
Of course, the most notorious example was
when former Governor Romney received a
rebate. He probably thought we were Santa
Glaus up here. This, of course, is a situation
which should not exist.
There is no good reason why people in the
province of Ontario should be subsidizing the
Americans— who certainly get more than their
fair share out of this province, and out of
this country. So we, on this side of the House,
assuming and well knowing that we can
protect those people who are temporarily
absent from the province, support the amend-
ment.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bnice): Mr. Chair-
man, as my colleague has indicated, we sup-
port the intent of the amendment put forward
by the hon. member for Lid<eshore.
I think this particular programme of the
Minister has caused more controversy— at least
up until the point he introduced it last year—
than perhaps any other progrannne which has
emanated from The Department of Mimicipal
Affairs, with perhaps the exception of regional
government.
In any case, this is, and has been, a very
controversial programme. There have been a
number of areas in the programme which have
lent themselves to this oonitroversy. One of
the main things has been the fact that we, in
Ontario, have been prepared to subsidize the
Americans— indeed other so-called foreign
citizens— who happen to have cottage resi-
dence in the province of Ontario, and who
happen to haxe the benefit of this particular
legislation.
I think it is fair to say that none of us
in this province should be in the position
where we subsidize people from other coun-
tries, and this is precisely what we are doing.
As my colleague has indicated, we support
wholeheartedly the intent of the motion put
forward by the member for Lakesihore.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (Yoirk South): I want
to make this brief comment: that this was an
unsolicited bonanza. That, in iteslf, is bad
enough; but that the unsolicited bonanza
should be handed out by a hard-pressed
Treasury makes it almost incredible.
The Provincial Treasurer has been lament-
ing his problems in matching revenues with
expediture. He solicits suggestions from this
side of the House to ease his almost impossible
burden. I suggest that here is a way to do
it. There is no reason why the provincial
Treasury should be used to provide an
imsolicited bonanza to foreign citizens.
Mr. Pilkey: I wonder if the Minister could
answer this question? Do the hunting lodges
owned b>' Americans, or people from some
other country— hunting lodges located on
Crown land— given a rebate as well?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): They do not pay real estate
taxes. All they would be paying is provincial
land tax.
Mr. Pilkey: But diey are not given a re-
bate?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, nor is anyone
else who is paying only provincial land tax.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the Minister could tell the House if he has
any idea of h')w much money was rebated to
Americans who own summer properties?
Would he have any idea?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, Mr. Chair-
man, in speaking to this amendment, I do
not want, first of all, to be controversial about
this. But I think what we are talking about
is an Act to amend The Residential Property
Tax Reduction Act, which was an Act passed
MAY 5, 1969
3969
last year to ease property taxes— to reduce the
burden of property taxes on real estate.
Whether that real estate happened to be
owned by an American, whether it happened
to be owned by an EngHshman, by a native-
born Canadian, whether it happened to be
owned by a Russian or a Chinese, is of really
no consequence, I think, in this particular
Act.
Mr. Lewis: The Minister is not serious!
Mr. MacDonald: He is digging himself in
deeper.
Mr. Lewis: He was facing an election cam-
paign in Ontario and—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services ) : What kind of election do
they have in the Soviet Union?
Mr. Lewis: There are elections almost as
democratic as your own.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The purpose of this
Act was to reduce taxes on real estate, purely
and simply. And who has the ownership of
that real estate I think is not of particular
importance.
Smith recognized this, when he recom-
mended what he called basic shelter exemp-
tion, which we ultimately called The Resi-
dential Property Tax Reduction Act.
Mr. I. Deans ( Wentworth ) : But it was
supposed to be a basic shelter allowance.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, the member
says it is supposed to be basic shelter and I
have explained to tlie House before— and
Smith recognized this although he did not
call it basic shelter— but it was very difficult
to determine what in fact is basic shelter.
For example, what is place of residence? It
has been proven by the courts that a person
can have more than one place of residence.
He can have several places of residence.
Who is to decide what is the principal
place of residence, if that is what you are
going to do?
I am wondering whether the members op-
posite really feel keenly as to whether the
person were from Quebec or from Manitoba,
or whether it is only the ilk of George
Romney— i.e., Americans— whom we are going
to exclude from this Act. I am really wonder-
ing whether the member for Scarborough,
who would be the first to rear up and get on
his high horse if we said we were going to
exclude Americans, or any other nationality,
from our universities— and who also receive a
heavy subsidy from the people of this prov-
ince, a heavy subsidy— would be the first-
Mr. J. Renwick: This is not on this section
of the bill.
Mr. Lewis: We are not discussing the
Americanization of Canadian universities.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it is not on this
section. Mr. Chairman, this is not on this
section, so I will leave it.
Mr. J. Renwick: We just come in here to
discuss the province's business and the Min-
ister wants to get us all upset.
Interjections by hon. members.
An hon. member: There are a lot of Cana-
dians getting the benefit of American uni-
versities.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister has the
floor.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I did not really realize that coan-
ment would stir so much heat from the mem-
bers opposite.
Mr. MacDonald: It is an inanity.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh no, I do not think
it is, you are talking about a subsidy—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is the logic of it
that bothers you.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: —a subsidy, a reduc-
tion in cost.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Property
and education are not the same things at all.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: You axe talking about
a reduction in cost.
Mr. MacDonald: Will the Minister permit
me to make a comment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, certainly.
Mr. MacDonald: I want to suggest to the
Minister that the analogy is phoney. There
are as many, if not more, Canadians getting
the benefit of subsidies to education in the
S'tates, but can you tell me where a Canadian
is getting the benefit of a subsidy on property
tax in the United States?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: All I am saying is
that the members opposite think it is more
important to subsidize a dropout from Berke-
ley who is going to the University of Toronto,
than it is to reduce—
3970
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Many interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think it is an inter-
esting comparison, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think it is interest-
ing. I will say that there are a lot of people
in this province who think it is more impor-
tant from the point of view of tourism, from
the point of view of reducing real estate taxes,
to do what I am siiggesting. This government
has the courage to do both because we treat
all die people the same way. There is no
discrimination over here in any respect
whether it is George Romney or whether it
is somebody whom I have mentioned, from
Calif oxnia.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. R. S. Welch (Pro\inciaI Secretary):
We are members of the global community.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Piovincial Sec-
retary says we are members of the global
community; how true that is.
Yes, the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) says,
"Let us get on with the bill' and I agree
completely. We have detailed these arguments
in the past. The member for Ri\erdale said,
"Of course, we do not have to be expert about
this, there are experts to do it." The member
for Riverdale should know— it has been ex-
plained to him before— that the assessment
rolls, the basis on which this infonnation is
prepared, does not indicate (a) what is a cot-
tage or is not a cottage; (b) what is a per-
manent residence, and what is not; (c)
whether they are Canadians, Americans,
Manitobans, Quebeckers, what they are. I
think if you are going to suggest— yes, it is
easy to do— the member would realize that
there are something like 2V2 million properties
on the assessment rolls in the province and
you do not just tomorrow indicate to the
assessors that this is the sort of information
you would like to have as of May 5, 1969, so
that the rebate can be paid out this year; it
just is not practical, without several years of
gearing up, to obtain this kind of information.
So, Mr. Chairman, speaking for all Ontario
and for all Canada, I would urge the mem-
liers to turn this amendment back from
whence it came.
Mr. Trotter: Will the Minister answer my
(luestion? Have you any idea how much
monev it has cost the Treasury of Ontario bv
allowing the American people to have tourist
homes.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think if the hon.
member will refer to Hansard he will find
that question was asked by his colleague from
Kent East about five or six months ago and
we indicated to you then and to him, as I do
now, that tlie assessment rolls, and therefore
the tax reduction returns, do not indicate this
kind of informiation.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Why do
you not find out?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: We cannot find out.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr.
Lawlor's motion will please say "aye"; those
opposed will please say "nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. Lawlor: The Crown in the right of
the province and the Hydro do not pay taxes,
of course. They pay direct grants to munici-
palities in lieu of taxes and apparently this
would appear to have been an oversight at
the time. I just wonder what did happen in
the circumstances. Did the municipality give,
in effect, a rebate to tenants and then the
province— is that the reason for the retroactive
feature?
And my second question— I think the Min-
ister knows the gist of my reasoning— how
much money is involved in this? I would not
think a very substantial sum in tliis instance?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I
think the member will recall that early in
the year a decision was made by the govern-
ment that this would happen, and that there
would be a retroactive feature to it so that it
would apply to both 1968 and 1969, and
this has been done.
As to the exact amount. As I recall, it was
something in the neighbourhood of $1.5 mil-
lion for tenants of public housing, and other
agencies of Canada and Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3 stand as part
of the bill? The hon. member for Niagara
Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, Hydro has been telling us for years that
they do pay taxes. It is a convenient tool
for them to apply the statute where it pleases
them and where it pays off to tell us it paid
grants in lieu of taxes equal to the portion
MAY 5, 1969
3971
that would be paid if tliey were paying taxes.
I have an invoice to a Mr. Steele. Maybe I
had better tell you something of the history
of this before I get into this item.
This gentleman bought one of the Hydro
houses. Hydro in different municipalities
either has iDuilt or purchased houses for its
employees. Over a period of time it decided to
sell these homes to the tenants who are em-
ployees of Hydro and they pay tlieir monthly
payment, including whether it be taxes or
grants in lieu of taxes— that is part of the
payment, interest, principle and, I believe,
taxes.
The invoice from Hydro to Mr. Steele at
2925 Dickson Street, the home that was pur-
chased from Hydro— and the man was paying
his mortgage off in payments, and I hope the
vice-chairman of Hydro will pick this up and
take it up with this people— covers all taxes
due under agreement of sale commencing
June 1, 1959. The assessment was $3,845 at
81.5 mills. This individual paid $313.37. He
believed it to be taxes. Hydro claimed it
grants in lieu of taxes, the rent rebate bill
says, "because Hydro does not pay taxes,
you my friend do not get the rebate".
This is a peculiar chain of events and I
hope tlie Minister can tell me, Mr. Chairman,
before this night is out whether people who
have purchased from Hydro pay grants or
taxes, which amounts to the same amount of
dollars they tell me. Is that individual en-
titled to his rebate the same as every other
citizen in this province?
Last year they did not get their money.
Tliey did not make that adjustment because
Hydro used the old argument, "we will nm
our show and, my friend, you are not entitled
to it".
It was as simple as that. Let me put a
little more on the record in connection with
tliat case.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, if the
member would let me interrupt for just a
minute.
Mr. Bukator: I would be happy to.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is one of the
pui-poscs of this amendment, to allow Hydro
in their great generosity, to do what the mem-
ber says they have not been doing, both for
1968 and for 1969.
Mr. Bukator: Is it? Do you assure me that
because they did not get it last year, that
they will be reimbursed for last year's pay-
ment? My friend, I congratulate you. No
more arguments.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3 stand as part
of the bill?
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5:
Mr. Peacock: During second reading, I
raised, with the Minister, the question as to
whether the rebate would be paid to those
tenants occupying senior citizens units admin-
istered by a municipality or by the Ontario
Housing Corporation where, I understand, the
municipality has agreed to accept $25 pay-
ment in lieu of taxes. I do not believe we
concluded that discussion in the interval be-
tween second reading and tonight's debate
on clause by clause consideration. I was in
touch with the Minister's executive assistant
but we did not again, finalize our discussion
of tliis question. I would like to ask him now,
if he has concluded that the rebate will apply
to the senior citizens who are tenants of these
units?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes it will.
Section 5 and 6 agreed to.
Bill No. 81 reported.
THE PUBLIC FINANCE COMPANIES'
INVESTMENTS ACT, 1966
House in committee on Bill 84, An Act to
repeal The Public Finance Companies' Invest-
ments Act, 1966.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 84 reported.
THE CREDIT UNIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill 85, An Act to
amend The Credit Unions Act.
On section 1:
Mr. Lawlor: I would like to enquire of the
Minister, Mr. Chairman; section 1 appears to
me to cut down the range and activity of
credit unions on the whole, in relation to both
share capital and non-share capital corpora-
tions. Is this so? What is this section designed
to accomplish? To put it another way, would
the hon. Minister tell me, what defect has
arisen that is seeking to be cured?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): The original inten-
tion of the authority of the credit unions to
loan money was that it should loan money to
those who are its members. I do not think it
3972
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was ever contemplated that corporations
should be borrowers. It was to be a member-
ship, the coiranon bond of the credit imion
was membership in the credit miion itself.
Laterally, there has been some type of loan
that a commercial or limited company would
seek from a credit union which would be in
the larger figures. It seemed that to comply
with the spheres of the credit union operation
itself that, before a limited comi>any should
be a member of the union that a majority of
its members should be members of that credit
union.
I might say that these amendments, and
certainly this one in particular, l>ear the
endorsement of the credit union league. All
of the amendments of this bill bear the sup-
port of, and are not objectionable to, the
credit union league itself.
I might take this opportunity of pointing
out that the entire subject of credit unions
and their operations will be reviewed by the
select committee on corporate affairs, under
the chairmanship of the hon. member for
Armourdale (Mr. Carton). At the conclusion
of the sittings of the House, when that com-
mittee resumes, it is my understanding that
credit unions, trust companies and other
financial institutions will be the subject of
their studies. It is my infonnation that the
importance of the matter before us, I think, is
reflected in the fact that in Ontario today, it
is estimated that there are some $900 million
under administration by credit unions.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 stand as part
of the bill? The hon. member for Oshawa.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Cliairman, may I ask the Minister-
Mr. Chairman: I have called the hon. mem-
ber for Oshawa as having the floor first. I
recognized him first, I will recognize the hon.
member next.
Mr. Pilkey: I just wanted to ask a question
under this section to the Minister. Maybe I
can ask a series of questions.
Could a credit union make loans to another
credit union?
No. 2, if a co-op was started in, let us say,
a grocery co-op, could they borrow from a
credit union?
No. 3, what about a trade union, could they
borrow from tlie credit union if they were
members?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, I would
have to seek some specific advice on those
specialized questions and I shall now do so.
Mr. MacDonald: From the technocrats and
bureaucrats?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Certain of these
organizations are not legally regarded as cor-
porations within the intention of this legisla-
tion. That type of borrowing, I am instructed,
is done through the credit union league,
rather tlian through a specific credit union.
Mr. Pilkey: Not necessarily. I go to the
credit union in Oshawa and any one of those
three instances that I raised could very well
happen. The auitoworkers belong to the auto-
workers ciedit union, could they borrow?
There is the question of attempting to start a
co-op in Oshawa, which could very well be
supported by moneys from the credit union
initially and paid back tlirough its growth,
and you could very well find one credit union
supporting the other credit union. This would
not destroy this very theory or criteria that
you talked about initially, about members
helping one another within the scope of the
co-operative movement.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Look at each case on
its own merits and see where it fits into the
formula. But in the case of a co-op, co-ops
normally are incorporated bodies and I would
assume that there is no problem of their
being members of that cretlit union and there-
fore, the co-op being in a position to make
or negotiate a loan. I do not see any problem
tliere at all.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Dovercourt.
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, the corpora-
tion that joins the credit union, does it have
to have— I notice there is no mention of a
bond here. The corporation tliat joins the
credit union, must there be a common bond
with the credit union it is joining?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The common bond
must exist for the individuals to belong to
the credit union.
Mr. De Monte: No, but what about the
corporations?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Whatever that com-
mon bond and the range of it may be— it
might be the employees of a certain com-
pany, of a small company— if 51 per cent of
those employees l>elong to a certain credit
union then that credit union is authorized
to lend to the limited company of which the
members involved, the qualifying members,
are employees.
MAY 5, 1969
3973
Mr. De Monte: In other words then, Mr.
Chairman, I understand that if it is a cor-
poration incorporated for some purpose within
the common bond, they can join the credit
union.
I am wondering about the common bond
with the corporation and the members of the
credit union.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Sometimes the com-
mon bond is on fairly easily described lines
and there are other situations which bear
some historical background which are on a
somewhat broader basis. I can think of one
in particular where the word "diocese" was
used and of a certain church, and the term
"diocese of London" was taken on the face
of it to mean the general district of London,
Ontario. But within the church definition—
and that is what the word "diocese" involved
—the "diocese of London" meant the whole
of southern Ontario.
I think we would have to look at the
specific definition or situation with respect to
that common bond.
I think that the question here is that you
are getting into an act of commercial lend-
ing to an incorporated commercial operation.
Probably the illustration that you are citing
differs substantially from the examples of the
trade union or a co-op which was cited by
the hon. member for Oshawa.
Mr. De Monte: The only thing that might
bother me, Mr. Chairman, is that you might
have a corporation where there is really no
bond with the credit union and thereby, you
are in a sense, really broadening the scope
of the credit union by having the members
of the corporation completely outside the
bond.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: If the employee of the
company qualifies within the common bond
of the credit union then the company is—
Mr. De Monte: Fine. That is the answer I
wanted, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 stand as part
of the bill?
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Stokes: On section 2, Mr. Chairman,
about a year ago I had correspondence with
the Minister with regard to the limitation as
outlined in section 2. It has been increased, I
think from $500 to $1,250 and the credit
union league, I think, at the time were dis-
cussing the wage assignment bill, and asked
for that amount to be increased to $2,500
rather than the $500 which was the case
until this bill has been introduced. And I
think the Minister will well understand that
where a member of the credit union dies
intestate, it means that the estate could be
tied up for a considerable length of time.
When you consider that the survivors may
be Hving on the amount in the credit union
until the whole estate is cleared up one way
or another, by the time you pay funeral ex-
penses, $1,250 is not a great deal of money.
I was wondering why he chose that figure
rather than the $2,500 that was recom-
mended by the credit union themselves in
their representations to the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, it is
my understanding that the net result of the
amendment in section 2, is that the $1,250 to
which he refers and which is specified in this
amendment plus insurance, the two items
have a total value of $2,500. In making this
amendment, the sum total payable, and in
the hands of whoever is entitled, does become
$2,500.
Mr. Stokes: Do I understand that $1,250 is
in addition to any moneys they might get
from insurance, that they have through the
credit union—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We are talking about
money on deposit and to the credit of the
deceased.
Mr. Stokes: But in any event, the maximum
they could get would be $1,250.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No, there is insurance
as well.
Mr. Stokes: Plus insurance?
Mr. Trotter: All deposits are insured.
Mr. Stokes: Yes, but subsection 2 (b) says,
"an amount not exceeding $1,250 of any
money that is received by the credit union
under any policy of insurance on the life of
the deceased". So am I wrong in saying that
that is the maximum?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Let us just look at the
section. On the first page of the bill under
(a) we will start at the section of the Act en-
titled 40 and this is the proposed reading of
the amendment, if it is passed.
(1) Where a member of a credit union
dies, the directors may pay (a) an amount
not exceeding $1,250 out of the amount
on deposit in the name of the deceased or
for the shares of the deceased.
3974
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
That is the item to which reference is made.
Then note the word "and". We go on to (b):
—and an amount not exceeding $1,250 out
of any money that is received by the credit
union under any policy of insurance on the
hfe of the deceased.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Hum-
ber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Yes, Mr. Chainnan,
I am saying to the hon. Minister that he is
going to find beyond a shadow of a doubt,
great inequities arising out of this section,
and many frauds being perpetrated on inno-
cent beneficiaries who are not around to pro-
tect their interests. The thought that a credit
union, 31 days after death, on a statutory
declaration can pay out $2,500 of a man's
estate, thereby deprixing his lawful heirs of
that money, and not be answerable for it,
because they acted on a statutory declaration,
is sublimely asinine and ridiculous. And this
is the effect of that, Mr. Chairman. I just
cannot comprehend this Minister suggesting
such an amendment.
In 31 days, especially where many credit
union depositors, especially among the ethnic
credit unions, have their relatives in Europe,
their wives— they were what we called dis-
placed persons; they fled the communist per-
secution and they find themselves, in this
countr>', but their wives and children are still
in Europe. And there is no one here to act for
them within 31 days, because they can act
after 30 days. There is no one here to act for
them. So what happens, by the time the
widow is apprised of the fact that her hus-
band died, and they over there have to act
through regular channels and they have to
get in touch with their local commune, the
military, who in turn get in touch with Mos-
cow, who in turn get in touch with the De-
partment of Internal Affairs, who in turn get
in touch with the Russian ambassador in Ot-
tawa, who in turn engages a lawyer such as
they have in Winnipeg to investigate the
matter, the $2,500 has gone.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am not sure that
the hon. member has read the wording of the
section which is on—
Mr. Ben: This is what it says:
To any person who, the directors are
satisfied, by statutory declaration, attested
to not sooner than 30 days after the death,
is entitled.
I am suggesting that this—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Just a moment. Let
us go on— "may pay those two amounts to
any person who the directors are satisfied, by
statutory declaration attested to, not sooner
than thirty days". In other words, there is a
period of waiting for the management of the
credit union to establish the rightful benefi-
ciary.
There are two problems or situations that
exist. Either the man dies having left a will,
or he dies intestate. These are the facts of
the death which may be determined by any
bank or any insurance company which has
funds payable under a policy which is pay-
able to an estate, and there is no named
beneficiary, or money deposited in a bank.
There is no rush.
Mr. Ben: I wish the Minister would have
the courtesy to sit down and let me finish.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes.
Mr. Ben: First of all, I made the statement
31 days, because the section reads "not sooner
than thirty days" so that the earliest that
they could act is 31 days. It is on the strength
of a statutory declaration. A man who has
come here and left his wife in Europe could
take up what is called a common law union,
and to all intents and purposes the credit
union knows that woman as his wife. But,
she is not his wife, and he dies intestate. His
lawful wife, who is still in another country,
is the person entitled to that $2,500 and the
insurance.
However, the woman we call his common
law wife, or his mistress, applies after 30
days stating, "I am the lawful wife", and
she receives the $2,500. Sixty days or 90 days
later, the real wife applies and the credit
union says, "We are sorry but we paid out
the money to the other woman". The lawyer
says, "Wait a minute, that was an improper
person to pay it to". The credit union says,
"Sorry, but the Legislature of the province of
Ontario says that if we are satisfied by statu-
tory declaration we can pay it out and you
cannot sue us. Sue the other woman if you
can find her."
Interjection l)y an hon. member.
Mr. Ben: I do not care what you do, I am
just telling you, you are wrong. You do not
listen, the man next to you does not listen,
and he has to amend the legislation after-
wards because he did not make it an offence.
This happens all the time. The Attorney
General is a prime example, so just sit there.
I know you are not going to do anything
about it, but sit and listen.
MAY 5, 1969
3975
When a bank pays out money, they do
not pay out money on the strength of a
statutory declaration. You have to apply and
obtain letters of administration, or letters
probate, and you also have to obtain succes-
sion duty releases. Then, they require you to
put up a bond if they pay without letters of
administration. If it is a small estate, $500
or $600, they often will pay out without let-
ters of administration, but the person to
whom they pay it has to supply them with
the bond of indemnity. This is not being
required here.
Why should the heirs of people who leave
their money in credit unions not be entitled
to the same protection as far as their estate
is concerned as they would have by deposit-
ing the money in a bank? Why the special
privileges here? You do not have to answer
it because I know you will not give it any
consideration, you are bom to that situation.
The people to the left here, they do not care,
they just act for the credit union so go ahead,
do what you want but it is on the record
that you were warned this would happen.
Mr. Lewis: No wonder the Liberal leader
stayed away tonight.
Mr. Lawlor: When I hear the hon. mem-
ber for Humber speak on these matters I
know he is invariably wrong, and if the Min-
ister will forgive me, I will proceed to come
to his rescue. I am sure he does not really
need it. The business here is presently under
section 40, where there is a nomination
which would bear just as much weight as
anything else that is executed by a person
while he is living. Two things are being done;
the amount is being increased, because of the
inflationary costs of living, and the inflation-
ary costs of dying and burying people. It is
often necessary to be able to get hold of
$1,250 within a very short time after the
death.
It seems to me eminently sensible that this
money should be obtained. This is irrespective
of whether it is under an intestacy or a
testacy, under a will or not. It does not
really matter. There are two sums, the basic
sum is the $1,250 in the credit union if he
has that much. If he has more he has to
come along at a subsequent date and file, if
it is the case of the man being testate, then
the will will be filed I suppose, and the pro-
bate will have to be handed over.
I even question when that should be neces-
say, if the sum does not exceed a very sub-
stantial amount. You are forcing, very often,
a widow or some close relative to go through
the probate process in order to satisfy some
debtor of the deceased, such as a banking
institution, or a credit union. I take it that
the Minister, in this regard, is seeking to
bring the relations of a credit union to a
nominee, in line with what the banks pres-
ently practice in the form of their basic
releases.
They will not release any more than $1,250
and the member for Humber would be
the first to howl if you made the terms
more restrictive and constrictive. He would
be claiming then, that the widow would not
be able to claim the necessary amounts in
order to consummate the burial arrangements.
That is a little enough money, and doing it
on a statutory declaration basis, abolishing
the nomination concept, seems to me to be
eminently sensible. I think that is what the
effect of this legislation is.
True, the second $1,250 can be released at
the same time and on the same basis of a
declaration, if he has insurance. I would
take it that most loans and most sums of
money are covered by insurance these days,
and so it gives a certain amount of money
for a close relative, particularly a widow, to
carry on while a somewhat often prolonged
probate, or even more prolonged moves in
the court, the surrogate court, to get the let-
ters of administration through, are taking
place. You cannot even apply for ten days
after the death, and then to bring in the
assets of the estate, to gamer them, to de-
termine them and to make sure that your
list is complete, both for succession duty pur-
poses, estate taxes, and the surrogate court,
requires time. How else are you going to
release money, and make people solvent dur-
ing this interim period, except by the way
tliat the Minister is doing; otherwise it seems
to me to miss the whole practicality of the
issue.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. Gaunt: On section 4, Mr. Chairman, I
am wondering, as a matter of interest, if this
has been a problem in the past. Has it been
a problem for these credit unions to file
annual statements?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Frankly, there was no
penalty in the legislation heretofore, and
many of the offices of the credit union are
occupied by part-time volunteers or workers
who do not put quite the emphasis on these
matters as we think they should. It is not
very helpful to the department to have these
retums filed with delay, and we suggest this
penalty as a nominal penalty only as a means
3976
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of expediting the filing of the returns, which
is a very important matter.
It comes about in this way, it is a prob-
lem of neglect really by inexperienced staff.
I do not suggest that it is deliberate in any
way at all, but if we are going to keep our
records straight, it is therefore a matter that
we think must be handled in a business-like
way. As I pointed out earlier in total, it is
estimated that there are some $900 millions
on deposit with credit unions in Ontario.
Mr. Gaunt: The Minister earlier indicated
that the Ontario Credit Union League sub-
scribed to all of the sections contained in tlie
bill; it seems to me that the $5 per day rate
is rather steep insofar as some of the smaller
credit unions are concerned. As you have
indicated, many of the smaller credit unions
employ part-time people and I am just won-
dering if in fact some accommodation could
not be made, or some distinction made, be-
tween the larger credit unions which employ
full-time people and the smaller credit unions
which perhaps just hire one or two people
on a part-time basis?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I think that involves a
rather larger question tlian we have before
us, and the question really that is being ad-
vanced by the hon. member is one as to
whether the larger credit unions, which are
really financial institutions, should be treated
on a different basis than those which are
smaller ones.
I would think that that point is one which
will be considered in some depth by the
select committee when it deals with this
matter. I do not think that the department's
attitude toward credit unions has been other
tlian one of co-operation and assistance. I
would hope that we would never have to levy
a fine.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 85 reported.
THE LOAN AND TRUST
CORPORATIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill 86, An Act to
amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.
On section 1:
Mr. Lawlor: A short question, if the Min-
ister will permit, Mr. Chairman. Why would
corporations desire to raise additional issues
of shares when their previous issues have not
been fully issued and paid for?
In thinking it over, the only thing that
struck me was this: that maybe corporations
in some instances— and the evil to be cured
here is tliat they have issued tlie wrong type
of share— found they are only marketable up
to a point, or not marketable at all. And in
substitution therefore, they want to add cer-
tain features to say, no par value stock; or
something which makes it more i>alatable to
tlie general public, and simply forget about
the previous issue which did not sell. Is that
the kind of thing they are after?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: This area the hon.
member for Lakeshore is touching on is the
core of the matter.
The situation is this: that the corporation
itself, by using certain legal processes, by the
reduction of its own capital, by supple-
mentary letters patent, could, and subse-
quently by the increase of its capital arrange-
ments stnicture, accomplish these things, at
quite a legal cost to themselves, and really
all to no practical avail.
The point, I think, in trying to facilitate
this, and eliminate what we think is a fiction,
and unnecessarily expensive fiction, is that
we, as a department, and the department of
the registrar of loan and trust corporations,
desires to have some say over these corporate
changes. And the effective control is not
lessened, because the provisions requiring
shareholders ratification, and the assent of the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is still re-
tained.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 86 reported.
THE ONTARIO PRODUCERS,
PROCESSORS, DISTRIBUTORS, AND
CONSUMERS FOOD COUNCIL ACT,
1962-63
House in committee on Bill 87, An Act
to amend The Ontario Producers, Processors,
Distributors and Consumers Food Council
Act, 1962-63.
On section 1:
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, would the in-
tent of this bill mean that tlie chairman who
is presently, or was, conducting the enquiry
into the regularities in the food business— if
I may put it that way— be getting a per diem
rate while that enquiry was going on?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture
and Food): Mr. Chairman, the chairman of
the fo(xl council, because he is a full-time
MAY 5, 1969
3977
civil servant, does not qualify for remunera-
tion under this bill, or under The Food Coun-
cil Act, other than for normal out-of-pocket
expenses that vv^ould be associated with any-
civil servant travelling around tlie province,
and where normal expenses would be paid.
This bill is intended to amend The Food
Council Act, which previously only paid for
out-of-pocket expenses by providing to the
members of tlie food council a certain remun-
eration, plus their out-of-pocket-expenses— and
this just pertains to the members of the public
who are members of the food council.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman will the
Minister indicate the extent of the remunera-
tion which he has given consideration to in
bringing this amendment?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I believe it is something
in the neighbourhood of $50.00 a day, plus
expenses.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 87 reported.
THE HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTES
ARBITRATION ACT, 1965
House in committee on Bill 90, An Act to
amend The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitra-
tion Act, 1965.
On section 1:
Mr. Pilkey: Mr. Chainnan, I would like to
propose an amendment to Bill 90:
That subsection 1 of section 1 of Bill
90, The Hospital Labour Disputes Act,
1965, be amended by deleting "nursing
home" in the second line, and deleting all
words "private gain" in the ninth and
tendi lines.
Mr. Chairman: An amendment as stated;
is there any discussion on it?
Mr. Pilkey: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to
me that it is radier ludicrous to extend com-
pulsory arbitration to the homes for the aged
and the nursing homes without providing
some formula that would provide equity for
the people that will have compulsory arliitra-
tion, or find themselves in the area of com-
pulsory arbitration.
Now many of the workers that have the
opportunity to free collective bargaining, find
it is possible to make gains in tenns of in-
creasing tlieir standard of living.
In addition to that, to better the working
conditions.
Yet we find this government bringing in a
bill that would put these people into com-
pulsory arbitration, which, in eflFe<5t, would
destroy the right to free collective bargaining
as far as these workers are concerned.
In addition to that, I suggest to the Min-
ister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the
workers in nursing homes and homes for the
aged find themselves well down the economic
ladder, in terms of wages in this province.
Without some constructive formula that will
provide them with tlie same equity that the
industrial workers have in this province— to
free collective bargaining— I do not think that
this bill should be supported. As a matter of
fact, I would hope that this bill would be
rejected by this House. Although I know that,
at the second reading, it was supported by the
members to the right as well.
If we are going to provide some equity
for those workers in the lower wage areas,
then we are going to have to do something for
these people as well. To impose compulsory
arbitration on workers who received little
rights up to now, seems to me a backward
step in this province, and I would hope tliat
tliis amendment would be carried in this
House.
Mr. Trotter: I oppose this amendment. We
supported the government on the second
reading, and we have no reason to change the
side we took at that time. And it is simply
this, and I do not intend to dwell on the
matter because the amendment really deals
with tlie principle of the bill. And because we
support the principle, we must oppose the
amendment. The people who are patients in
the homes for die aged or in the nursing
homes have to be tended all the time; tliey
are completely at the mercy of either manage-
ment or the labour union if tiiere is a strike.
As I have pointed out previously in some
of these industrial disputes, whether they be
in a nursing home or any other place, so
often the innocent parties are people such as
the aged in the hospitals. I bear in mind,
and I underline this point, Mr. Chairman, that
we well realize that many of the people who
are employed in the nursing homes and in the
homes for the aged are not receiving satis-
factory wages. We have here a hard choice
to make, but I think that in all tliese institu-
tions, where ill people or old people are
kept, the patients must be of the first concern.
This is the point that weighs our decision
in supporting the government on tliis bill and
we will oppose the amendment.
3978
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to
comment briefly because of what the member
for Parkdale has said. The principle of the bill
has been debated on second reading but this
bill, in fact, is extending compulsory arbitra-
tion to an area where there is no present
threat of any kind, either to persons in the
nursing homes at the present time or in the
forseeable future. None of the nursing homes
are organized in the sense of having a certi-
fied bargaining agent that can bargain collec-
tively for them. That is going to take some
time before they collectively organize, let
alone whether or not, having regard to the
responsible attitude of the trade union
throughout the whole of the events leading up
to the introduction of this bill from the
Trenton Hospital dispute, they would ever
then be such a threat.
I do not want to verge on the principle of
the bill. I want to make it abundantly clear
that the extension of the principle of com-
pulsory arbitration to persons in the employ
of nursing homes or homes for the aged can-
not be supported because compulsory arbitra-
tion, as such, should only be introduced for
consideration of the public interest where
there is a present threat. There is no con-
ceivable present threiit at this time, and that
is the reason we have introduced the amend-
ment and why we will divide the House.
Mr. Pilkey: Hear, hear!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is this a good time to
do it?
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the introduction
of the bill-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Lewis: The introduction of the original
bill, Mr. Chairman, was rooted in tlie par-
ticular dispute to which my colleague referred
and arose from conditions which excited the
populace and which worried a great many,
including tliosc of us in this party and on this
side of the House. I asstune, therefore, that
every amendment that is made to the bill has
some kind of rationale.
This being a debate on it, clause by clause,
I would ask the Minister, because I cannot
think of an instance in which nursing homes
latterly, have exercised the right or the
intention to strike, or in which the homes for
the aged have residents who have been put in
danger by virtue of the behaviour of their
uttendants— you must have some specific in-
cidence to have brought in a bill which
imposes compulsory arbitration. Could the
Minister answer the question? I think it is an
appropriate time to answer it, on this clause.
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer
tlie question. If tliere are any others who wish
to speak on the matter, I would deal with it
at that point.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any other mem-
bers who wish to speak before the Minister
answers the questions? I must point out there
is no rule prohibiting the member from
speaking again but if the hon. Minister wishes
to answer any of the questions at this point,
he may do so.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Chairman, I was
going to deal with all the matters at once,
but I would be glad, if there are other ques-
tions, to deal with them now. Nevertheless,
the point behind this bill is simply to protect
those who are patients or residents of these
institutions. Specific questions have been
asked in reference to the amendment we are
proposing under section 1, and in this in-
stance, we have had an application— or there
was an application— before the labour rela-
tions board by a union on behalf of the
employees tliat a home for the aged fell
within the definition of hospital under the
Act. This was a case before the board and it
was so found in that particular instance, be-
cause of the existence of section 3 of the
bill in reference to section 89 which is now
out.
Again, in reference to a nursing home
there was an application, or a request, that
nursing homes fell within the definition of
hospital under the Act. We obtained a legal
opinion in reference to that particular institu-
tion. The opinion was that it did fall within
the definition of hospital. In those instances
that opinion was not challenged in the court
by the nursing home itself.
We have felt, because of those views and
because of changes in the pattern and form
of these institutions in recent years, particu-
larly the larger ones, that we should now act
and include them within the definition of the
Act for clarity's sake. For that reason, we
have brought forward this amendment the
way it is now before us.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West.
Mr. Lewis: To pursue this a moment fur-
ther, Mr. Chairman. Is the Minister not con-
cerned about the possibilities of difficulty in
the bargaining process, given the fact that
MAY 5, 1969
3979
the nursing homes, as an example, operate
within the particular per diem laid down by
The Department of Health? I take you back
to what is occurring in some of the hospitals;
South Peel is the most recent example— the
supposed guidelines laid down by the OHSC
which, in fact, are not guidelines, as the
Minister of Health (Mr, Dymond) would
have us beheve but are specific constraints
within which the individual hospitals and the
individual unions must operate.
At least in that instance, one could imagine
a guideline placed by an outside agency or a
disaffiUated agency like the OHSC. But in
the case of nursing homes, the per diem rates
are specified by The Department of Health
and are expended by The Department of
Health, which means that when you speak
of compulsory arbitration you fiercely delimit
the area within which any negotiation can
take place. Does the Minister think it fair,
when bringing in a bill of this kind, that the
employees, who have shown no present
danger to their charges and who in many in-
stances are not organized at all, should have,
as a group of people in this society, abso-
lutely no manoeuvrability at all? Does he
think that legislation of that kind is fair, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member is putting it, I think, in the wrong
way. For exaimple, the case that he referred
to is that of South Peel. He is well aware of
the award in that instaaice, just as I am, by
the arbitrators. Certainly, in this provision, it
does not exclude oolleotive bargaining— and
this we thoroughly support.
If they cannoit agree, it goes to arbitration
if necessary. But I think the employees have
much protection imder the Act with reference
to collective bargaining. Certairuly I would
never interfere until I really had to. I would
not impose coin/pulsory arbitration or appoint
an arbitrator until I really felt it absolutely
necessary. But I would encourage them to
bargain and try to reach an agreement as long
as they could.
Mr. Lewis: My colleague, the member for
Oshawa, wants to get in, but I want to follow
it up because an interesting point is raised.
Maybe it is so; maybe the decision in the
South Peel case is an interesting one. I dare-
say, Mr. Chairman, that those who are ap-
pointed as anbitrators in these areas, those
who dare to transgress the guidelines will not
be heard of as arbitrators very often in the
future.
Indeed, there will be much to be said about
what has happened in The Department of
Labour when we come to the estimates— over
the last number of months, to men of courage,
and how the board has been emasculated in
order to achieve certain government aim;s.
What we are concerned about in this piece
of legislation, Mr. Chairman, is that when the
point of arbitration comes, if need be at the
end of the collective bargaining process and
that process is delimited, as I said, by the
per diem, placed by the department, when the
arbitration is arranged by the Minister, all
the arbiters who would have any generous
interpretation or who would not be boimd by
government, will then have been weeded out.
They will have been discarded and all those
who will find in favour of the employer will
be available for the Minister. That is really
what is happening under this compulsory
arbitration legislation. That is something that
one has to take a close look at because we
now have some experience during the last
■bwo or three years. We see the nature of the
decisions, and we see what is happening to
those who make those decisions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that why employers
do not want it either?
Mr. Pilkey: I want to say, Mr. Chairman,
that the Minister really cannot use the Peel
arbitration decision in speaking to Bill 90,
because the Peel situation was this: The man-
agement of that hospital and the union that
was representing the employees agreed to a
settlement prior to the arbitration hearing.
It was because of the guidelines set down by
the Ontario Hospital Services Commistsion and
because it refused to accept the negotiated
agreement between the parties that the deci-
sion was sent back and forced not only the
union to arbitration but forced the employers
and the management of the Peel hospital to
anbitration as well. From that point a Pro-
fessor Wyler, as I understand it, then handed
down the decision as per what was agreed on
prior to the arbitration case.
Now, that being the situation, and a very
unusual one, let me remind you that no
arbitration decision subsequent to that has
revealed anything like 25 per cent. The em-
ployees in the nursing hoanes and the homes
for the aged will as my colleague, the mem-
ber for Scarborough West says— have the
area of collective bargaining narrowed to the
amount of per diem allowance made to the
nursing homes and maybe the homes for the
aged.
3980
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
T^at will be tlie area that they will be
able to negotiate, and no more. And even
when they get to the area of compulsory
arbitration, I submit to the Minister through
you, Mr. Chairman, that the arbitrator will
have to take cognizance of the per diem
allowance that is made to nursing homes. As
the member for Scarborough West pointed
out, if he does not recognize those criteria
in termis of the wage increases that he may
allow then, very frankly, he will not be
arbitrating any cases after that. I submit that
to you.
This is what is being foisted on employees
in the homes for die aged and those em-
ployees in the nursing homes. This is why the
compulsory arbitration in this case makes it
incredible for these specific employees versus
those employees who have a right to free
collective bargaining. This is what it is all
about.
You have not provided any foi-mula that
would give these employees any equity; you
make the argument that you want to protect
the patients in these nursing homes. I submit
to you that you have not illustrated a case to
us where any of those patients in nursing
homes or in homes for die aged have been
placed in jeopardy because of lack of attend-
ants in these homes. And, I submit that the
Minister has the opportunity to take care of
those situations where public health and
safety is in jeopardy. This government has the
right to legislate in those areas at a time
of a crisis—or maybe even before a crisis.
You have that authority in this Legislature
without placing these people in the area of
compulsory arbitration prior to any crisis or
any situation that might break down the col-
lective bargaining process in any of these
situations.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. meml)er for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I want to make
a couple of brief personal comments about
extending arl^itration any further. I have had
some reasonable experience with arbitration;
in my previous occupation we were forced
into arbitration on many occasions and I must
confess that it destroys the bargaining pro-
cess. There is no question in my mind that
the very threat, or the "out", of being able to
go to arbitration— particularly where public
service is involved and where the people who
are making the decisions are answerable in
some way to the public— destroys any initiative
to bargain in good faith.
Now, whether or not the Minister belie\es
that is something that really can be resolved
I cannot tell, but it is my own personal ex-
perience in this field and my belief that it
definitely does destroy the initiative of man-
agement—and maybe even in some instances
of the trade imion. I cannot speak for that.
The initiative to bargain in good faith is
definitely destroyed by the fact that one can
resort to this body to whom you cannot be
held responsible.
Now, enough of that. I suggest to the Min-
ister that arbitration should not be extended
to any persons other than those who are cur-
rently within its scope. Indeed, in those very
areas, it should be reviewed very carefully
to see whether it is absolutely necessary that
those persons even come within the scope
arbitration.
The other thing I would suggest to the
Minister is this: In more occasions than I
care to count, the arbitrator who has been
appointed to do the job has had absolutely no
knowledge of the occupation of the people
whose jobs he was arbitrating. He has been
unable to properly assess the evidence pre-
sented to him. I agree he had ample oppor-
tunity and could quite easily have asked for
additional assistance and additional infonna-
tion, but generally speaking he does not.
I am convinced after having read many of
the awards and after having sat in on the
arbitrations, that a great many of those per-
sons who are appointed to arbitrate do not
understand the functions of the job that they
are arbitrating and therefore cannot come to
a reasonable and sensible conclusion.
This may well be overcome at some point
when the Minister does decide to train proper
arbitrators, as he said last year was going to
happen. I do not see it happening at the
moment. I do not see it, and because I do not,
I hesitate to support any move to put people
under the present persons who have been
doing the arbitrating in this province.
As I say, there are two things. The first is
that there are many who are currently within
the scope of our arbitration who have no
right to be there; they should not be there;
they should be free for collective bargaining;
they should be free to take the proper col-
lective bargaining process and I think that
should be reviewed. I do not think the Min-
ister should extend this arbitration Act until
such time as he has satisfied this House that
even those who are presently under it ought
to be under it now.
MAY 5, 1969
3981
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Eiverdale.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the Min-
ister cited the two apphcations, one in the
case of a home for the aged and one in the
case of a nursing home, to the labour relations
board and the decision that in those particular
instances they were included under the Hos-
pital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.
I think it was at that point that the Minister
had then a decision to make. He could easily
have amended the Act to remove the ambi-
guity by expressly excluding nursing homes
and homes for the aged, until such time as
there was in fact the degree of organization
and certification of the unions that were in-
^olved. And if there then appeared to be
some present threat— and bearing in mind
that throughout the whole of the history of
the hospital dispute there was no present
threat posed by the trade imions involved
against the hospitals.
Bearing that in mind I think the Minister
should have amended the Act to specifically
exclude the nursing homes and the homes for
the aged, on the principle that we should not
be dealing with compulsoiy arbitration unless
there is a present threat to people as a result
of the exercise of the right to strike or the
likelihood of the exercise of that right. It is
only in those circumstances that it should be
taken away.
However, we have made that point. As I do
not, Mr. Chairman, really anticipate that the
amendment proposed by the member for
Oshawa is going to carry, I do want to com-
ment on one other aspect of this section be-
fore it is put to the vote, and that is on the
sub-clause 2, which deals with the central
laundry or central heating plant, or central
power plant.
I am not all that familiar as to how many
of those there are in the province and I won-
der whether the Minister, in dealing with
this section, would give us the statistical in-
formation about it, and then again answer
in respect of the central laundry, the central
heating plant, or the central power plant, the
same questions: What is the extent to which
they are organized and what is the extent to
which there was a present threat as a result
of any activity on the part of the certified
bargaining units in those plants to the patients
in the hospitals that have the benefit of these
centralized facilities?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Chairman, at the
present time there are, I believe, two central
laundries in Toronto; there are some under
construction, I think, in North Bay and in
Ottawa. Certainly the central power plant
is under construction here in Toronto, I
understand, for some of the hospitals.
This is a natural situation in that in the
hospitals today, the laundry or the power
plant is covered under this existing Act and
it is the same principle, because we cannot
see the hospital shut down by reason of its
power or its laundry being struck and we
should not wait in my view for a crisis to
develop in these matters; we should act in
a natural and proper way ahead of time when
necessary.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I
might ask the Minister. He says that a
laundry— now surely there are other ways of
acquiring the necessary clothing and bed
clothing or whatever it is that is laundered
other than through that laundry. I mean the
whole point is that it is not necessary that
they be under arbitration.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Chairman, when there
is a central laundry established then the
laundry in the hospital ceases operation.
Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. Chairman, it simply
reinforces the pattern; that is what we are
saying, that without any evidence of present
threat at all you are prepared to extend
compulsory arbitration into areas which, let
us face it, the Treasury Board fancies be-
cause it has a basic antithesis to the trade
union movement and to what it is hoping to
achieve.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Chairman, may I
make this clear. I do not extend compulsory
arbitration unless it is a proper system to do.
It is a principle we have already developed
and accepted; and this is not an extension
beyond those normal situations that are there
at the present time for laundries or power
plants and again in the nursing homes or
the homes for the aged.
We are not, and I am not, embarking into
compulsory arbitration in any wider field and
I would want the hon. members opposite to
understand that.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is
now specifically spelling out nursing homes
and specifically spelling out homes for the
aged and specifically adding another sub-
clause, and he does so for some reason. The
initial legislation did not give him the sense
of security he had about extending compul-
sory arbitration to those areas, so he now re-
defines it more explicitly and the reason for
its definition is the gradual extension of
3982
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
compulsory arbitration. There is nothing par-
ticularly sinister about it, I suppose, but it
is a pretty insidious process and it sits well
in the Tory mind-
Mr. T. Reid: Sinister or insidious?
Mr. Lewis: "Insidious" I said, not "sin-
ister", and it sits well in the Tory mind. The
Minister finds it fairly congenial and he does
it at will without any present threat what-
soever. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, on
this clause, that the memorandum of agree-
ment that was signed in the South Peel dis-
pute prior to Professor Wyler entering the
scene, could never be signed in a situation
like this because there is no room for collec-
tive bargaining, under this Act, in nursing
homes and homes for the aged. You have
left no room at all except in the most abstract
and theoretical sense. And when, Mr. Chair-
man, will Professor \Vvler be appointed again,
let us ask, when will Professor Arthurs be
appointed again? How quickly will this gov-
ernment weed out those who do not accept
the perversity of its economic guidelines? Oh
yes, oh yes, and then bring in this kind of
legislation which gradually enmeshes the Tory
views of labour with the destruction of the
collective bargaining process.
Mr. Chairman, what might not be realized
in some parts of this section— accepting the
argument, and one accepts it, of having to
defend those who are defenceless amongst
the aged— what is not indicated in this clause
is that the Minister of Health was asked by
the operators of nursing homes for $12 per
diem in order to operate at all. The Minister
of Health granted them, in his beneficence,
$9.50 per diem.
Now, two things might be said about that,
Mr. Chairman. First, that the Minister of
Health granted $9.50 to the nursing homes
because he wants to encourage the large
conglomerate nursing homes being developed
by American capital in Ontario, Tliat is the
pattern that is now emerging and you can
always run custodial institutions at lower
per diem rates. Let it be added, Mr. Chair-
man, at pretty low wages for your employees.
But what about the difference which the
nursing homes themselves felt they needed in
order to Ik* viable. The fact of the matter is
that the Minister of Health, by forcing nurs-
ing homes into a straightjacket, where the
care that is provided is not much better than
institutional jails in this province, where the
care that is provided at $9.50 a day cannot
Ixj better— there is not a service in this prov-
ince that can run in human terms at the level
of $9.50 a day. So wliat the Minister is actu-
ally saying is this: In order to provide any
level of quality at all for those who are in
nursing homes or homes for the aged, the
wages of the employees will have to be at a
subsistence level.
That is really what you are saying. You
are saying that the workers in these homes
have no equity in their job whatsoever and
you are dictating it as part of that friendly
little Cabinet cabal around these issues, which
always emerges; in this instance, between the
Minister of Health and the Minister of
Labour. Tlie Minister of Health is almost
always evident in cabal. He just chooses dif-
ferent partners each time, and this time you
are the partner.
Now, Mr. Chaimian, that is why we are
oposing this section. We are not opposing it
because of any misplaced unconcern about
the recipients, about the people in the nursing
home and homes for the aged.
We understand their predicament. But what
generosity, what feeling, what concern, does
this Minister show for any employees? Are
they not also human beings? Have they not
also some rights which should be vested and
which should be adhered to?
The point is, Mr. Chairman, one must not
introduce this piece of legislation without at
the same time, giving any concurrent support
to the rights of these people. One would
deplore it even more vigorously if there were
hope, in this instance, that this kind of clause
could be amended at all. BcK:ause, as my col-
league for Riverdale says, and my colleague
for Oshawa emphasized: there has never been
an excuse, not even in the original bill, for
bringing in compulsory arbitration; and, cer-
tainly now, to extend it, is merely an exten-
sion of mentality, not an extension of need.
Mr. MacDonald: The original bill was a
breach of faith on the part of this govern-
ment.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr.
Pilkey's motion will please say "aye"; those
opposed will please say "nay".
In my opinion tlie "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr.
Pilkey's motion will please rise. Those
opposed to the motion will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, tlie
"ayes" are 14, the "nays" 61.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.
Section 1 agreed to.
MAY 5, 1969
3983
Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 90 reported.
THE INSURANCE ACT
House in committee on Bill 92, An Act to
amend The Insurance Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, on
section 3, in the committee there was a
discussion with respect to the proposed
amendment. There were certain discussions
held and, accordingly, I now wish to propose
an amendment which I am told meets the
situation. The discussions were held with the
hon. member for Downsview representing the
official Opposition, and the hon. member for
Riverdale representing the New Democratic
Party.
The purpose of the amendment was to put
it— the situation and declaration, or settling
of the rate of interest— in such a way that,
when the rate was settled by the super-
intendent and the insurance branch, immedi-
ate knowledge of that decision should be
made public.
So, the wording of the proposed amend-
ment is that it will be: "Proclaimed that any
such decision will be proclaimed by order-in-
council, and then published, and be deemed
to be a regulation requiring publication
immediately thereafter in the Ontario Gazette,
as within tlie meaning of a regulation".
Now I will, just so that the record will be
clear, try to state the case.
When certain types of pohcies of insur-
ance are proposed for sale by the insurance
companies, a reserve has to be set up, and
aii arithmetic computation arrived at, to
determine the amount of reserve that must
be related to the sale of that type of policy.
And that involves the settling of a raise of
interest.
Heretofore, the rate had been three per
cent, and was so stated in the legislation itself.
This was a pretty unsatisfactory situation,
and I think it was agreed by all the members
of the legal bills committee and all parties,
that there was too much rigidity to accom-
plish this.
For instance, the rate in one ty-pe of con-
tract might be six and a half per cent, on
another it may be six or seven per cent. In
any event, it is to set the rate of interest
against which is to be taken into account in
arriving at the reserves to be established by
the issuing company.
So I move, Mr. Chairman, that section 3
of Bill 92 be deleted, anid the following sub-
stituted therefore, so that section 3 of bill 92
as before the House will read as follows:
(3) Paragraph 1 of subsection 2 of section
80 of The Insurance Act as re-enacted by
section 4 of The Insurance Amendment Act
of 1962-63 is repealed and the following
substituted, therefore:
(1) the rate of interest assumed shall not
exceed the rate precribed in Schedule "D",
except that where upon the application of
a company and upon the recommendation
of the superintendent, the Lieutenant-Gov-
emor-in-Council is satisfied thait a higher
rate is appropriate for a particular class of
policy, issued by the connpany. The Lieu-
tenant-Governor-in-Council may, by order,
authorize the assumption of such higher
rate of interest as the Lieutenant-Govemor-
in-Council specifies in the order and the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by
order, withdraw his authorization at any
time, and an order of the Lieutenant-Gov-
emor-in-Council under tliis paragraph shall
be deemed to be a regulation within the
meaning of The Regulations Act.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
Shall section 3, as amended, form part of
the bill?
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 92, as amended, reported
THE HOMES FOR SPECIAL CARE
ACT, 1964
House in committee on Bill 93, An Act to
amend The Homes for Special Care Act, 1964.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 93 reported.
THE PHARMACY ACT
House in committee on Bill 94, An Act to
amend The Pharmacy Act.
On section 1:
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, would the
Minister just explain what prompted him to
bring in this particular amendment? What
5984
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was the motivation behind it? It is a redun-
dant clause. I just wonder why we are being
so fastidious.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are a fastidious
government.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Heidth):
Mr. Chairman, I think I have to put it down
to the assiduity of his own profession. They
advised me tliat it was redundant, and they
are cleaning up the legislation. They felt that
the section should be repealed.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 94 reported.
THE NURSING HOMES ACT, 1966
House in committee on Bill 95, An Act to
amend The Nursing Homes Act, 1966.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusi\e, agreed to.
Bill 95 reported.
THE PESTICIDES ACT, 1967
House in committee on Bill 96, An Act to
amend The Pesticides Act, 1967.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Chairman, in section 2, I am wondering
whether this reflects increasing concern over
the increasing harm being reported from the
increasing use of pesticides? Is this the moti-
\ ation for the section?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, this
really has nothing to do with that at all. The
main function of the pesticides advisor)'
board is to examine candidates or applicants
for licences in the various categories of pest
control and certain members of the board
felt that they might be liable to suit because
of dieir finding it necessaiy on the basis of
examination to refuse to grant a licence or
probably because of having to revoke or
recommend the revocation of a licence. We
do not believe that this is ever likely to come
up or that there would be any likelihood of
it coming up. But there was this fear and
because this protection apparently is given
under many jjieces of legislation, they felt
they wanted to be in the same situation.
advisory board that they are exempt from
personal liability, is it the Minister's intention
to mo\e forward and give them some sub-
stance of work to do, so they will not be
complaining about being cait off by civil serv-
ants when they intervene in other areas
that might come within their jurisdiction?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: As I stated at the time
when the bill got second reading, Mr. Chair-
man, if the need arises we will refer matters
to the board. But so far I do not believe that
the real problem has been any difficulty with
the civil servants interfering. I stated then
that the information I needed to administer
the Act was adequate and, I believe, well
based, as it came from my staff and I have not
yet found it necessary to refer any particular
subject to the pesticides advisory board. But
I have that right and responsibility under the
Act and if and when the need arises I cer-
tainly shall refer it to them.
Mr. MacDonald: You may even get a few
more resignations.
Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 96 reported.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
House in committee on Bill 97, An Act
respecting The Department of Healtli.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive, agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chaimian, as I said at an
earlier time, two can play at any particular
game. I consider that the Minister of Health
is being obtuse and arrogant with respect to
the treatment meted out to me and another
member of this House and to all the members
of the House who are desirous of carrying
out the full range of what they might consider
their responsibilities. My intentions are and I
will imnounce them now, to continue to harass
this Minister and any other Minister who
denies us the privilege and freedom to carry
out these responsibilities which we, in good
conscience, deem necessary.
I am going to move an amendment to sec-
tion 4 and Mr. Chairman, which—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Out of order!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Lawlor: Not in the least out of order,
the Minister another question? Now that we My amendment, to place myself completely
have assured the members of the pesticides in order, is as follows:
MAY 5, 1969
3985
That subclause 2 of clause 4 of Bill 97
be amended by adding thereto the following
proviso:
"Provided, however, that the Minister in
exercising his powers in carrying out his
duties and functions under this Act, shall
permit the members of the Legislative
Assembly to inspect all institutions under
his supervision without prior notice."
You know there are a great many things that
have been carried on traditionally, that are
not down in black and white, and can be
pointed to, that should accrue to members of
this body, where we are denied on the pre-
text of preserving the internal harmony of
institutions— we had no intention, and cer-
tainly I did not have any intention in any
way, of dislocating or of causing any dis-
harmony.
On the contrary, but since this matter has
arisen and appeared in the press I have had
numerous telephone calls and numerous
letters indicating in places tliroughout this
province within the demesne of the Minister
of Health, various irritations, various disloca-
tions, all kinds of matters inside these institu-
tions which bear investigation. And now, due
to the arbitrary will of a single Minister, we
are apparently not to be given access. If such
is the case, then I say I shall continue to
raise my voice against this particular form of
imposition, arrogance and failure.
If he has not anything to hide then why
on earth take this position? May I also say,
under this head, Mr. Chairman, in pursuit of
the general objective that I intend to bring
this whole matter before the committee of
privileges and elections of this body. We
shall test tliis matter to its conclusion, and
if it emerges at the end of the day that the
will of this government prevails, then it will
be known, I suspect, to the people of On-
tario that this particular kind of obtuseness,
this form of liigh-liandedness will be an
index and symptom to a general disease of the
mentality that prevails over there. Let tli^
people of the province, as tlie election ap-
proaches, judge it accordingly. That is the
price to pay. This, as I say, will be the
index of their state of mind.
With that in mind, I bring forward tliis
amendment to the particular sections touch-
ing the duties and the range and powers of
the Minister, and would ask tlie Minister to
accede in this particular regard, as I know
he is well disposed to do, and to bend to
the needs of tlie people of tliis province, and
to his own ultimate benefit too, because to
bring to light what may otherwise be hidden
under how many bushels will do his de-
partment a good deal of good along with aid-
ing the people who are being, if such is tlie
case, kept in questionable or miserable con-
ditions.
Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Minister
wish to comment on this particular motion?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I think
first of all the matter is entirely out of order
and tlie amendment is not at all well put. I
would answer the lion, member and point
out very clearly again that at no time have
we denied anyone the right to visit the hos-
pital. We have only asked that they observe
courtesies, if you will, that are observed even
by a body such as tlie grand jury. Our hos-
pitals are visited by grand juries periodically,
and even they do us the courtesy— or die
sheriff on their behalf I presume, does the
director of the hospital the courtesy— of
asking if the time when they propose to be
there will be convenient to him and to the
staff. Now, it seems to me, sir, that a body
so august as this finds it within their power,
—I feel, sir, it is their responsibility to ask
for this privilege. Surely we as individual
members, at a better time, at a more appro-
priate time will go into this whole matter.
And it is rather interesting, and my col-
leagues on my left were just reminding me
that within the last few days tlie parents of
one of our children wrote a very clear-cut
letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail
pointing out that she, for one, the parent of
a patient in our hospitals, did not want every
Tom, Dick and Morton going through the
institution, spying on her child, or inspecting
things.
You see, the parents of the patients, and
the patients' relatives are satisfied that we
are doing the right job. But this quite apart,
sir, there will be a more appropriate and
more adequate time to discuss this in far
more depth than we can on an occasion
when, I repeat, sir, in my view it is entirely
out of order.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, I had some doubts about what I might
say on this amendment as I heard it read. I
had some reservations about whether or not
it was being in order, and what the reaction
of the government might be. But listening to
the Minister of Health has made up my
mind. We are going to support the amend-
ment. We are going to support the amend-
ment for several reasons, which I think are
more clear than when the amendment
was originally proposed by tiie member for
3986
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Lakeshore. The government, in tlieir wisdom
or lack of it, have not challenged tlie pro-
IDricty of this as being a motion in order.
Now, had that challenge . been made I would
have been interested to see what ruling the
Chairman would have made in that regard.
That was not done so I am presuming
that the government is accepting this as
being in order. Now, this having been done,
I would say, sir, tliat the time is always here
when our rights should be asserted, and we
are not prepared, in this party, to be fobbed
off with the excuse that an appropriate time
shall come later. The appropriate time is now.
I regret that this is one of the very few
ways that we—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman,
First of all the hon. member is not correct
when he says I did not challenge whether or
jiot this motion was in order. I did; those
were my opening remarks. I did, and I do
again challenge it, but it is not a case of
being fobbed off, and therefore I rise on this
point of order to emphasize that the hon.
member is misleading the House when he
states that I fobbed the members off on this
matter.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister did—
Mr. Deans: It is not a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Order, may I speak to this
point of order?
Mr. Singer: Will the hon. Minister accept
a ruling from you?
Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member will be
seated I will deal with the point of order.
1 must point out that the hon. Minister did
not rise on a point of order. He made a
statement and he suggested in his opinion it
was out of order. The chair did not deal
with the suggestion of the hon. Minister.
However, it seems to me that Section 4 recites
what shall be the duties of the Minister in
connection with the health of the people of
Ontario. Subsection 2 goes on to recite the
areas in which the powers of the Minister
shall be exercised in carrying out his duties.
This amendment would purport to add para-
graph E to subsection 2.
Mr. Singer: No, a proviso.
Mr. Chairman: Proviso, all right! It would
add a proviso at the end of paragraph (d)
of subsection 2.
Mr. J. Ren wick: Qualifying the whole of
the clause.
Mr. Chairman: That the Minister will do
certain things in connection with the health
and welfare of the citizens by virtue of per-
mitting the members of the Legislature to do
certain things. In my opinion I can find no
reason for ruling the motion out of order.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
differ with you, sir, because—
Mr. Singer: Are you challenging his ruling?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have never needed
anyone to speak for me, Mr. Chairman, and
I do not think that day is going to come so
long as I sit in this House.
Mr. Singer: It is not debatable.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I want to say to you,
sir, that this proviso undennines the power
that the Act seeks to put in the hands of the
Minister, and it would mean that the Minister
would have no authority or power to carry
out those duties he seeks if this proviso is
inserted in the Act.
Mr. Chainnan: Order. I have suggested to
the committee that in my opinion, I can find
no basis for ruling it out of order. I have
not made a ruling, but I will make a ruling
at this time. I rule that the motion is in
order.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chainuan, we are quite
happy to accept your ruling. As I started to
say, the Minister is attempting to fob us off,
the government is attempting to fob us off,
bit by bit, to deny us our rights and our
privileges. It is entirely in keeping with the
remark that we had a few days ago from the
hon. Minister of Mines when he said it is
none of our business, that we ha\'e no right
to know.
Now it is my humble suggestion, Mr.
Chairman, that we have a right to know and
we ha\'e a right to make these tours of
inspection and we ha\e a right to inform our-
selves. I am not impressed by a single letter
to the editor which the Minister says pur-
ports to give the opinion of all the parents of
all the children in all of the institutions run
by this government.
It is the opinion of one parent, and it
would be my suggestion, Mr. Chainnan— and
I have listened to many parents who have
been unhappy about the treatment that their
children have had— it would be my suggestion
that should the particular parent who wrote
that particular letter have occasion to make
MAY 5, 1969
enquiries when she was dissatisfied, or might
have been dissatisfied or unsure, or unable to
get the necessary information, she would only
have been too happy to have a member of
this Legislature in a position to attend at
that institution in order that the complete
story could be ascertained and relayed to her.
So the red herring that the Minister attempts
to drag across the trail really has no rele-
vance at all. Who the particular lady was
who wrote the letter I ha\e no idea, I am
sure she wrote it with the utmost of sincerity.
But I do not think that represents the opinion
of anyone other than herself.
No, sir, it is unfortimate that we are put
in the position in this House, of having to
move, on an occasion like this, or having to
support a motion on an occasion like this,
whereby we are attempting to assert a right
that should be obvious to the government; a
right that every member of this Legislature
should have without question. And it should
not have to be put, or attempted to be put
into a bill such as this one.
Mr. Lawlor: Hear, hear!
Mr. Singer: It is my great regret that when
this debate took place the other day, that
whatever else happened, the Premier of the
province sloughed off his responsibility. The
best he could do was to prevail upon the
Speaker to withdraw an unfortunate opinion
and that is as far as he went. He did not
say as Premier of this pro\ince, "I believe
that every one of the 117 members has a
right to inform himself about everything that
goes on under the aegis of this government
and under the aegis of e\ery department and
throughout all of the go\emmental institu-
tions."
Had he said this he would ha\ e gained the
respect, the increased respect, of all the
members of this House and the people of the
province. So it is unfortunate, sir, that this
particular method of proce<lure has to be
resorted to. It is unfortimate that the Min-
ister did not stand up and say that at least
as far as his department was concerned, this
was the way he would conduct the affairs of
those institutions that come under his control.
In view of that, sir, we ha\e no alternative
but to support this amendment and to con-
tinue to put forward amendments ourselves,
or to support similar amendments, at every
opportunity that presents itself in order that
this very important principle can be estab-
lished as a principle that governs the conduct
of all of the members of this Legislature.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chainnan, this
amendment was originally put because I
think this House is faced with an extraordinary
situation. We tried to cope with the extra-
ordinary situation last week, and the longer
we debated it the other day we realized that
we were getting into a rather difficult area.
Has the Speaker, for example, the right to
order the conduct and the movement of mem-
bers of the Legislature outside the House
and that is now being considered by the
Sipeaker. We wanted to draw to the attention
of the Minister and to the House that there
are other ways of coping with it. They are
extraordinary ways.
We are going to have to resort to them. In
short, there are other ways of coping with
it if a Minister is going to act in the fashion
that he has.
Our original intention was to put this
amendment as part of the whole examination
of this problem. But, quite frankly, the Min-
ister lea\'es us no intention but to "man the
barricades" and fight this. The hon. member
for Lakeshore referred to the Minister as
being arrogant. Now some people might
have thought that that was a little strong;
but what does the Minister do? He gets up
and he reads one letter, and dismisses the
members of the Legislature as any Tom,
Dick and Harry, or Morton.
Now if the members of the Legislature are
any Tom, Dick and Harry to the Minister,
then obviously this Minister has got to have
his position circumscribed, because it is
supreme arrogance.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of privilege, the hon. member is mis-
leading the House. I quoted, and I did not
state that those were my own words, nor did
I say "Tom, Dick and Harry". I quoted the
author of the letter as saying "Tom, Dick and
Morton", and surely we cannot be denied the
right, sir, to quote one letter when this group
over there takes up hours and hours and
hours of the time of this House quoting
letters.
Mr. Chairman: On speaking to the point
of privilege raised by the hon. Minister I
distinctly heard him quote from a letter and
he did not say "Tom, Dick or Harry", he
said "Tom, Dick or Morton".
Mr. MacDonald: All right, I am finished.
All I was saying was that the Minister, in
quoting from that letter— and obviously that
letter suppoii:ed his position— revealed a sup-
reme arrogance. Not just an arrogance, a
3988
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
supreme arrogance. And obviously it has got
to be circumscribed for our protection to
begin with, and for the protection of the
people in his institutions.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister of Cor-
rectional Services.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I think
both the hon. memlx^r for Lakeshore, and the
hon. member for Downsview, have both given
a very good reason why this should not be
handled in this fashion.
The hon. member for Lakeshore said, at
the beginning of his remarks in speaking to
his own motion, that this should be a matter
for the privileges and electioas committee.
And I think, if there should be any decision
made, perhaps it should start at that level, so
we are not picking on a particular depart-
ment and a particular bill at a particular time.
Then the hon. member for Downsview also
pointed out that it was unfortvmate, in his
\'iew, that it should have to be handled in
this way. But it does not, Mr. Chairman, have
to be handled in this way.
I think a policy should be laid down, and
that policy should concern itself with all de-
partments of the government.
May I point out that one of the objections
that I would have, sir, in respect of this
amendment, is tliat it really does not lay
down any kind of conditions in respect of
possible— let me put it that way— possible
irresponsibility of a member at a particular
institution.
Tliere is a vague possibility, at least, Mr.
Chairman, that some particular member, at
some particular time, may, in an irresponsible
fashion, conduct himself in such a way as to
create havoc at a particular instittition. Under
legislation, if it is put on the books this way,
tliere would be no way of controlling such a
member.
Mr. Lawlor: What kind of people do you
think we are?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
think the best way to handle it would be to
bring it up at the privileges and elections
committee, and have it thrashed out thorough-
ly there. On that account, sir, I do not think
we can possibly do other than vote against
this amendment, because it is dealing with a
particular department and a particular bill.
Mr. MacDonald: Now Mr. Chairman, the
Ministers of the Crown are being more pro-
vocative tonight than they know.
An hon. member: It has to be a point of
order before—
Mr. MacDonald: In the committee you can
speak any number of times. If the Minister
wants to be reminded of it let me put it in
blunt terms. The committee on elections and
privileges, as I have seen it operated, and I
have also been the victim of, is a whitewash
directed by the niajority on tlie government
side, and tlierefore—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You could say the
same thing about the Legislature.
Mr. MacDonald: And therefore, if you
think that we expect to get anything other
than an airing, rather tlian a settlement, of this
issue; if you think you are going to sidetrack
us with a consideration of that being the
appropriate place, you are kidding yourself,
sir. Let me put it as blimtly as that.
We are putting this matter before the
House again, because the last time we put it
before the House— and we were going to have
imposed upon us a situation which even the
government recognized, after an hour's de-
bate to be intolerable—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not so.
Mr. MacDonald: And so the Prime Minister
beat a retreat, and we are now having it re-
considered by the Speaker. But I do not think
it can be dealt with at that level, because it
deals widi the conduct of the members out-
side of the House. And there is serious doubt
as to whether the Speaker has jurisdiction
over the conduct of the members outside of
the House.
We are dealing with the most arrogant of
Ministers, who provoked die whole thing, and
we will deal with it in the legislation regard-
ing his department, that will circumscribe
him to some extent.
Mr. Chairman: 'J he hon. msmber for Hum-
ber.
Mr. Ben: First of all, Mr. Chairman, there
is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the
Speaker has no jurisdiction to tell me how I
shall conduct myself outside of the House.
I would not pay heed to him and I would go
on record as so saying.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I said before, if a
person acts irresponsibly then the proper
thing to do is to cite him before the com-
mittee on elections and privileges, and there
deal with him, and—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You cannot do that
with this.
MAY 5, 1969
3989
Mr. Ben: —and, if a member is irresponsible,
I would point out to you that, in a democracy,
a member has a right to be irresponsible, sub-
ject to the sanctions that would be imposed
by the body of which he is a member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You could not do it
with this in the statutes.
Mr. Ben: Look, the hon. Minister of Cor-
rectional Institutions, in trying to deprive 117
members of their democratic right— in fact
their responsibility to their electors to investi-
gate—is being as asinine as the Minister of
Health when he suggests that by reading
one letter— as the hon. member for Downs-
view pointed out— he purports to speak for
every mother who has a child in every hospi-
tal in this province.
He uses one way-out example-^nd it was
probably written by his secretary to boot—
and it suggests that this is speaking for every
mother, and is representative of every mother
in this province. What about the mothers who
have children up in Smith's Falls and Orillia?
I do not recall them writing such letters.
Mr. Chairman: Well I think the hon. mem-
ber should stick to the motion before us.
Mr. Ben: I am sticking to the motion. I am
sticking to the motion. They are not. They
are dragging across what we would describe
as a red herring— and I think it is probably
some of tliose herrings tlmt they must have
got from the polluted waters at Newfotmd-
land there.
At any rate, all this government does is tell
the Opposition, day after day that, in due
course, in the fullness of time, they are
going to do something. But they have not
done anything. As a matter of fact, when the
Opposition members cry for some rights or
privileges here, tliey treat them like little
Oliver was treated when he went and asked
for some more.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is stray-
ing, surely, from this motion. I would ask him
to confine his remarks to this motion before
the committee.
Mr. Ben: I am, sir. I am confining myself—
Mr. Chairman: In the opinion of the chair,
the member is straying.
Mr. Ben: Two members who spoke for the
government side are giving reasons why this
amendment should not be voted for, and I
am giving reasons why their arguments do not
hold water.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is stray-
ing too far from the subject matter of this
particular motion.
Mr. Ben: All riglit. So Oliver Twist was in
England, and the red herrings were in New-
foundland. But I am still speaking to the bill.
We may not like the particular form of the
amendment. The fact is that such an amend-
ment is needed and, until such time as this
government does introduce a rule in this
House that the members have these rights, I
suggest that it will be proper to bring forth
such ajuendment in every bill that is brought
up in tliis House.
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
What kind of rule would you obey?
Mr. Ben: And we will support it.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Chair-
man, it is not very often I rise to take part
in a debate of this kind, but I feel that I must
this evening.
I dislike the idea, though members have
spoken before me, of putting legislation or
an amendment into the legislation, that would
protect the rights and privileges of the mem-
bers of this House. It is a very sad state of
affairs when we have to spend the time of this
Legislature, as we had the other day and
tonight, debating the privileges and the rights
of the members of this Legislature. It is un-
fortunate that the government over there, in
their myopia have felt that they must treat
the members of the Legislature in the way
they do because of the possible irrespon-
sibility of one member.
I would liken the government opposite to a
jackass who is being bothered by a mosquito.
The mosquito cannot really bother the jackass
unless it allows it to. In this case, the mos-
quito has pestered the jackass so much that
it has driven itself over a deep cliff and into
an abyss.
But I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair-
man, that this whole problem would never
have arisen and should not have arisen; this
amendment would not have been necessary
and should not be necessary, althou^ it is, if
the Premier of the province and the leader of
the government side in this Legislature, had
stood in his place the other day when this
matter was first brought up and said clearly,
for all to understand and to hear, that it was
the government's belief that as a matter of
principle, each and every one of the membeirs
of this Legislature, as a responsible person.
3990
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
had the right and the privilege to visit and
investigate every institution in this province.
We are now faced, tonight, with an amend-
ment to this Act and there will be more, but
this amendment will be a precedent that will
be set for similar amendments to be made in
each department of government. Each time
this bill is brought up, we will consume more
time of tliis House when this whole matter
should never have arisen if the Premier had
accepted his responsibility, stood in his place
and said, "we will not restrict tlie movements
of the members of this Legislature around this
province or into any institution that is gov-
erned by this Legislature." It is his respon-
sibility. It was his responsibility and he
sloughed that responsibility off and tonight,
we are forced into the position by this gov-
ernment of setting a ridiculous but neces-
sary precedent.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, the latinity of
the disease from which the Minister of Health
suffers is in tenns of stnitheo cameline tactics.
The latin of strutheo cameline has to do with
ostriches, in placing one's head in the sand.
That is the way Cicero would have put it.
It is the way that this Minister responds to
his responsibilities and the way he abnegates
them in this particular area. I said during
second reading that, the way Ministers mature
affects the whole purpose of the legislation, it
is the designation and orientation and direc-
tion of his department that is at stake here.
As some Ministers mature they achieve suav-
ity, serenity, peace of mind and a certain
mellowness in tlieir latter years. What have
we got here? A sourness and a wilfulness and
a recalcitrance. His own Prime Minster can-
not control him. Rather than run counter to
this particular wilfulness, to this particulai
kind of whimsicality which besets the Scot, in
his determination not to yield in this parti-
cular issue-
Mr. Chairman: The hon. meml>er is again
straying from his own motion.
Mr. Lawlor: Well surely, I only worded,
Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Has to be—
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, surely it is
obvious to thf> whole world, but apparently
not to this Minister, that the efficacy of the
exercise of attending upon institutions is
rendered useless and valueless, if notice is
given in advance.
Surely, that must be the most obvious thing.
I imagine it is obvious to everybody else but
tlie Minister. How he then can have the per-
tinacity and the radical gall to stand up here
and with honey tones and platitudes mixed
in his phrases, seek to avoid the full impact
of what our obligations are over here, strikes
me as a sheer piece of hypocrisy.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The hon. member
for Scarborough East.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
remind the govemment members of a section
in Tlie Public Schools Act, section 8, subsec-
tions 1 and 2, concerning the principle of
members of the Legislature visiting public
institutions in this province. Since the prov-
ince pays so much of the cost of the public
schools, I think it is highly relevant and I
would like to simply suggest, Mr. Chairman,
that I put this in the record. It shows that
since institutions called public schools can be
visited by members of the assembly, perhaps
other institutions should also be able to be
visited by tlie members. The section reads as
follows, Mr. Chairman:
Judges, members of the assembly and
members of municipal councils are school
visitors in the municipalities where they
respectively reside and every clergyman is
a school visitor in the municipality where
has pastoral charge. School visitors may
visit public schools, may attend any school
exercise and at the time of a visit may
examine the progress of the pupils and the
state and management of the schools and
give such advice to the teachers and pupils
and any others present, as they deem
expedient.
I would suggest, sir, that the principle of
members of the Legislature being able to
visit schools is not only condoned in fact, but
is spelled out Aer>' explicitly in The Public
Schools Act.
Mr. Kerr: Only in their own towns, not
their own riding!
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to urge therefore,
Mr. Chairman, that members of the govern-
ment vote for this amendment so that they
too will be able to visit public institutions in
order that they can see, at the time of their
visits, the progress of the inmates of those
institutions, the state and management of
those institutions and to give such advice to
the people in those institutions and any
others present, perhaps some Cabinet Minis-
ters, as they, the private members, deem
expedient.
MAY 5, 1969
3991
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister of Cor-
rectional Services.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
brought up a very bad example and I was
wondering when he was going to. I tried this
once and happened to go there when the
principal was not there. I guess it was the
vice-principal who said to me, "If 3'ou do not
mind, Mr. Grossman, I would like very much
for the principal to be here when you are
coming." I think he said, "About 3 o'clock
this afternoon. Would you mind coming back
then?" That is precisely what happened.
Mr. MacDonald: They knew with whom
tliey were dealing.
Mr. Lewis: He denied you your rights.
They knew about the irresponsibility of the
Cabinet Minister and they—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Lewis: —if one can imagine a more
divisive and disruptive force than the Minis-
ter of Correctional Services cutting a swatli
through the schools of our province. A veri-
table nemesis, Mr. Chairman, you would not
have him anywhere near the schools of this
province.
I simply wanted to rise, sir, as always,
directly on the clause to say this, that we in
this caucus take exception to the occasional
inference that is raised in this House, that
everything is due to the irresponsibility of a
given member. I say to the House, Mr.
Chairman, that the need for the amendment
arose in this case because of the irrespon-
sibility of a given Cabinet Minister, and for
no other reason.
We come back to the characteristic which
distinguishes this Cabinet Minister, and always
isolates him from his confreres, and that is
that he alone adopts policies which others,
even Tories, even high Tories, have es-
chewed. There are ver>' few others on the
Cabinet l>enches, even the Minister of Cor-
rectional Services on occasion is generous
enough to allow members of this House into
some of his precincts without prior notice.
I can recall back in 1965, Mr. Chairman,
making a review of the Ontario Hospital sys-
tem, hospital by hospital. I do not think it
caused any particular disruption. It may have
caused some nicU-ginal discomfort in the
House thereafter, but it certainly did not
topple the institutions or the government or,
I am ashamed and embarrassed to say, tlie
Minister. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that tliat
is precisely the point we are getting at. The
right of members to visit, at will, institutions
in the province.
There is not the slightest reason in the
world why this should be withstood by the
Cabinet, not at all. The Cabinet has been
boxed in by a typically intransigent stand on
the part of their Minister of Health. They
regret it enormously, they flagellate him at
Cabinet meetings, but he has taken the stand
publicly, and there is nothing they can do
with him. They have now to suixport him,
and one knows what happened in the dark
recesses of the Cabinet session last week,
when the entire Cabinet turned its v/rath and
fury on tlie Minister of Health, and asked,
"Why have you put us in this untenable
position again?" And the Minister says, 'T
am predisposed. That is my political procliv-
ity."
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I never said that, he
has had a nightmare.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chaimian, coming right
back directly on the clause, I will not be
diverted from this clause, no matter what you
say. I will not be put off by these ruses and
devices.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the
matter is we are dealing with a state of
paranoia on the part of the Minister of
Health.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Boy, it takes one to
know one.
Mr. Chairman: I suggest the hon. member
should stick to the motion instead of express-
ing his opinion about the hon. Minister.
Mr. Lewis: Let me say, Mr. Chainnan,
that even if by some mischance this amend-
ment does not carry, we will continue to
\ isit the institutions in the flower of the day,
in the dead of the night, we will visit your
institutions, and if there are any heinous
acts therein, we will expose them in the
Legislature. But let it be known, Mr. Chair-
man—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is the flower of
the day?
Mr. MacDonald: Full bloom!
Mr. Lewis: —without any reservation that
there is only one Minister of the government
who, again and again, compromises his col-
leagues and impugns the rights of members
3992
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the Legislature. It is this Minister. That
is why we are in this unhappy predicament
of having to put an amendment which every-
one in the House would like to support, but
which the Tory part>% dri\en to the ex-
tremity by its own Minister of Health, will
have to oppose, and that is unfortvmate.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr.
Lawlor's motion will please say, "aye."
Those opposed will please say, "nay."
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr.
Lawlor's motion will please rise.
Those opposed will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 27, the "nays" 42.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.
Section 4 will stand as part of the bill.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 97 reported.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves that the committee
of the whole House rise and report certain
bills without amendment and one bill with
certain amendments, and ask for leave to
sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendment and one bill with
certain amendments, and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Sx>eaker, tomorrow we will return to the
consideration of the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:30 o'clock, p.m.
No. 107
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
Beiiatesi
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, May 6, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Trice per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Fatliammt Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 6, 1969
Housing advisory committee, statement by Mr. Randall 3995
Ontario Human Rights Code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 3996
Pickering Hydro project, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Nixon 3996
Cabinet documents, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Knight 3997
Housing crisis, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Peacock 3997
Ontario housing corporation, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Peacock and Mr. De Monte 3998
City of Hamilton agreement, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Deans 3999
Health conditions at Armstrong, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Stokes and
Mr. T. P. Reid 4000
Meeting with Indian representatives, questions to Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Stokes 4000
United Community Fund, questions to Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Braithwaite 4000
Population of Ontario, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Young 4000
Positions for elementary teachers, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Pitman 4001
Newspaper strike in Peterborough, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. Pitman 4003
Mr. Peter G. Bowers, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 4003
Grants to students, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 4004
Public support for separate schools, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Lawlor 4004
District library facilities and boards, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. R. S. Smith 4004
Metro high school teachers, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Martel 4004
Agricultural specialists, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Makarchuk 4004
Farm income report, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Makarchuk 4004
Shooting of Angelo Nobrega, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. De Monte 4005
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 4005
Recess, 6 o'clock 4036
3995
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'dock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today we are pleased to have
many guests with us: in the east gallery, stu-
dents from Colchester North Public Schooil,
R.R. 2, Essex, and from Barrie District North
Collegiate, Barrie; in the west gallery, stu-
dents from Upper Canada College in Toronto;
Bay view Junior High School, Willowdale;
Burlington Central High School in Burling-
ton, and from Toronto Teachers' College, 951
Carlaw Avenue, Toronto.
Later tliis afternoon there will be, in the
east gallery, students from Main Street School
for New Canadians in Toronto, and this
evening some Scout troops from Toronto and
Bramalea and students from the Cayuga Tech-
nical School in Cayuga.
Today we also have with us a distinguished
visitor from the United States, Mr. Richard
M. Scammon, director of elections research
centre of the Government Affairs Institute in
Washington, D.C., who is in Mr. Speaker's
gallery.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
The lion. Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment has a statement.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of T]rade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like at
this time to announce the government's inten-
tion to establish a housing advisory comnut-
tee to bring together senior representatives
from the construction industry and a numlber
of government departments for the purpose
of collecting and evaluating information and
advising government on this important matter.
The proposal that an advisory group of
some type be formed was first raised in a
brief to the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) by
the Ontario coimcil of the National House
Builders' Association. The brief dealt with a
vamiety of matters which the NHBA believes
Tuesday, May 6, 1969
have an effect upon the productivity of the
residential construction industry and the cost
of housing.
Following the presentation of the brief my
colleagues, the Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. McKeough), and the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management (Mr. Simonett)
and I, met with the house builders to discuss
the matter further.
We felt there was a great deal of merit
in this suggestion and it is the government's
intention to estabhsih a committee which
would look at -the construction industry as a
whole, recommend where research needs to
be carried out and make periodic reports.
Topics would range from a review of the
industry and its present capabilities, new
techniques such as industrialized building, the
economics of housing, and other considerations
pertaining to social and physical development
in the province.
We see this group as a continiiing body
performing an important advisory function to
government rather than as a committee or
task force given a specific job to perform, after
which it ceases to exist.
Among the organizations being invited to
participate are the Ontario council of the
NHBA, the Urban Development Institute (On-
tario), the Ontario Association of Architects,
tlie Ontario Association of Professional Engi-
neers, the Ontario Construction Association
and the Ontario Association of Real Estate
Boards. Government departments and agencies
that will, in all probability be represented,
include The Department of Municipal Affairs,
The Department of Energy and Resources
Management, The Department of Treasury
and Economics, and the Ontario Housing Cor-
poration.
Precise terms of reference will be worked
out in collaboration with the organizations
involved.
In conclusion, we believe that such a com-
mittee, on which representatives of private
industry and of government departments can
jointly investigate matters of mutual concern,
will result in many worthwhile recommenda-
tions that will help keep Ontario in the lead
in the construction field.
)996
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
for clarification, would the Minister indicate
whether he intends to have any representa-
tives from social planning agencies throughout
the province involved in this, or is this strictly
going to be a no-people operation?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No. I would say this is
the beginning of a committee that perhaps
would include other people, and would em-
brace other organizations as we go along.
T(his is to get us started. We will take a look
iit anybody else who wants representation.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, if the advisory committee is to deal
with productivity in the building industry,
can the Minister say why representatives of
the building trade unions in the province have
not been invited to participate?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I said to the member's
colleague that we are prepared to look at any
groups that wash to participate. This is the
beginning of a new group.
Mr. Peacock: Do they have to indicate to
the Minister that they wish to be included,
or does the Minister intend to extend an
invitation to them?
Hon. Mr. Randall: They are invited.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I might ask
if the terms of reference will include a look
at land costs as part of the overall picture.
Mr. Speaker: Tlhe hon. member is not asking
for clarification of the statement; he is asking
for something else to be included in it and
the question is not in order.
The hon. Minister of Labour has requested
that the House return to the order of intro-
duction of bills. Have I the approval of the
House for this?
Introduction of bills.
THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
1961-1962
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Ontario Human Rights Code,
1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, may I outline
briefly the three areas in which this bill will
amend The Ontario Human Rights Code. Up
to the present the prohibitions in the code
against discrimination in connection with em-
ployment have not applied to:
An exclusively religious, philanthropic,
educational, fraternal, or social organization
that is not operated for private profit, or to
any organization that is operated primarily
to foster the welfare of a reHgious or
ethnic group and it is not operated for
private profit.
I am sure the members will agree with our
proposal to limit it to those circumstances
where the factors of race and religion will
constitute a reasonable occupational qualifi-
cation.
With tliis amendment we are not respond-
ing to the pressure of a group problem for no
such problem exists. Most organizations in
this category are exemplary in their respect
for an observance of the principles of human
rights. Rather, we are introducing the amend-
ment in the belief that human rights are
indivisible.
The second change will provide specific
protection against repirisal, both for any
person who exercised his rights under the
Code, or for any person who testifies in a
proceeding under the Code. Finally, the
penalties for violation of the code are estab-
lished at more realistic and meaningful levels.
They are increased from $100 to $500 for an
individual who contravenes the legislation,
and from $50 to $2,000 maximum for a cor-
poration or trade union.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Minister of Energy and
Resources Management.
1. Has there been damage to the heat
exchangers at the Pickering Hydro project?
2. Will this damage, if in fact there has
been any, hold up construction of the facility?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
some of the heat exchangers at the Pickering
project were received from the suppliers in
a damaged condition. The company's staff is
proceeding to repair the damage. It is not
expected that the repairs will adversely affect
the planned in-service date.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Minister can
tell me, Mr. Speaker, if the heat exchangers
will have to be returned to the factory where
they were manufactured or if the repairs can
take place at Pickering?
MAY 6, 1969
3997
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I said, Mr. Speaker,
the company staff is proceeding to repair the
damage on the site.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
S(peaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Education.
What percentage of educational costs in
1968 were paid by provincial grants to each
of the 13 municipalities with populations
over 60,000, namely: Metropolitan Toronto,
Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Brant-
ford, Burlington, Kitchener, Mississauga,
Oshawa, St. Catharines, Sudbury and Sault
Ste. Marie?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, I xmderstand that it would be
agreeable to put this on the order paper. We
have one report in, I think from the 13
areas so far. I think it will be several weeks
before we have the financial statements in
from these boards so that it will take a period
of time to get this answer.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port
Arthur has a question.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Premier of Ontario.
For what period of time are Cabinet docu-
ments available to the public?
Is there a regular programme consistent
with other jurisdictions to make classified
material available to the public?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, there is no laid down period of time.
By Cabinet documents, I might take it that
the member meant any papers at all that may
be dealt with in the Cabinet. Of course,
most of that material is classified. On bal-
ance, our archivist recommends that prob-
ably a period between 25 and 30 years is
considered reasonable to keep confidential
documents from the public. He points out
that any shorter periods of time might very
well result in these documents not being
prepared or perhaps being destroyed im-
mediately and never being available for the
j records.
^ I presume that this question arises from
one that was asked the Prime Minister of
Canada in the House of Commons when he
was dealing with documents that might be
made public. I would point out that there
is a great deal of departmental discussion
in this matter as well. From an operational
point of view there are probably some rec-
ords that the departments could make avail-
able in lesser periods of time. And, it might
very well be that there would be some that
the departments would consider wise to keep
from public view for a period longer than
30 years.
But as a rough rule of thumb, I would
say some place between 25 and 30 years. I
might say in answer to the second part of the
question: Our practice here is more or less in
line with that of other jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor West has questions.
Mr. Peacock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a
question of the Prime Minister, to whom I
will have to refer to as the Premier in my
question in order to distinguish them.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I beg pardon?
Mr. Peacock: Courteously. Mr. Speaker,
from Ontario's viewpoint, does the Premier
agree with the Prime Minister of Canada's
statement in Montreal, Sunday, that the na-
tion does not have a housing crisis?
In view of Mr. Trudeau's insistence that
housing is essentially a provincial matter,
does the Premier now intend to establish an
Ontario department of housing?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, one can
put several interpretations on the words of
the Prime Minister of Canada. I would not
agree that we do not have a housing crisis.
On the other hand, I believe Mr. Trudeau
said that there were plenty of houses avail-
able and this perhaps is true; but they are
not available necessarily to those people who
need them most— and this is where the crisis
lies in the approach that this government is
taking to housing. There are lots of—
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The Pre-
mier must tell us about that—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I think we tell the mem-
bers pretty frequently, but they do not care
to listen most of the time. I am quite certain
that the Minister would be more than happy
to make an hour and a half statement on
what we have done. As a matter of fact we
have done more in this province-
Mr. Singer: Seems to be a backing-up ap-
proach rather than—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Now the member has
got me started, I will just have to tell him
that we have done more in this province than
in all the rest of Canada put together. I
3998
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
might say that this has been recognized and
acknowledged by the federal government.
So you see Mr. Speaker, the minute we
attempt to point out all the good things this
government has done, we run into this bar-
rage of shouting. Terrible, I think it is just
terrible.
But in any event, the members will see I
agree with the Prime Minister in one respect,
and I disagree with him in another respect
—if he means that there is, indeed, no crisis.
I think we would all admit that there is a
crisis in housing for certain income levels of
our population in Canada.
In answer to the second part of the ques-
tion: We are satisfied that the present admin-
istrative arrangements dealing with housing
in the province are adequate. The Minister
has just made a statement on another step
we are taking to try and see if we cannot
create housing for those people who require
it most. That is what our HOME programme
is about. That is why we are interested in
condominiiun housing, and promoting it, in
order to put housing into the hands of those
who need it most; and I am quite certain
that-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
I missed the interjection. Perhaps it did not
mean much anyway.
Mr. Nixon: The government is still calling
that Home Ownership Made Easy?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Home Ownership Made
Easy, the HOME programme; that is exactly
what I am referring to.
Mr. Singer: When are they going to make
it easy?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: So, Mr. Speaker, the
answer, in essence, to the second part of the
question, is no,
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a
further question?
Mr. Peacock: I have a question of the
Minister of Trade and Development to test
his answer against that of the Prime Minister,
Does the Minister agree with Dr. Albert
Rose, director of the Ontario Housing Cor-
poration, that there will be a crisis as long as
only two per cent of the total starts are public
housing units?
Part 2: will the Ontario Housing Corpora-
tion account for two per cent or more of the
total housing starts in the province of Ontario
for 1969-70?
Part 3: if not, is the Minister prepared to
revise Ontario Housing Corporation's pro-
gramme of new construction, so that the two
per cent target will be achieved?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I did not
read Dr. Rose's announcement. I presume he
is talking about Canadian-
Mr. Singer: I wonder what happened to
that hour and a half?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I presume he is talking
about a national average when he is talking
about two per cent.
The proportion of total starts in Ontario,
represented by the Ontario housing pro-
gramme, was 10.4 per cent for 1967, and 6.1
per cent for 1968. The proposed programme
for 1969 would have represented a propor-
tion of approximately ten per cent. How-
ever, a substantial part of our programme has
been held up for several months due to our
inability to obtain lending approval through
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation,
pending establishment of federal guidelines
for public housing. I have written to the Hon.
Paul T. Hellyer on a number of occasions
concerning this, the last occasion being on
April 23. To date no guidelines have been
forthcoming. I am now attempting to contact
Mr. Andras, who has assumed this respon-
sibility. I might say I tried to contact Mr.
Richardson, who I thought had the job, but
I found I could not get the right guy.
While I agree in essence with the views
expressed by Dr, Albert Rose, it is my firm
belief that a—
Mr. Singer: How could he agree with them
when he did not read them?
Hon. Mr. Randall: —massive public housing
programme will not in itself provide the
solution of the housing needs of this prov-
ince. It is for this reason that the Ontario
housing programme, which is operated
through Ontario Housing Corporation, is an
example of flexibility and diversification which
most other provinces of Canada are now
attempting to follow.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): I ha\e
a question for the Minister of Trade and
Development, Mr. Speaker.
How is it that Ontario Housing Corporation
is refusing families with children of school
age in its new development at Bedford and
Avenue Road because of an alleged shortage
of school space, when in fact a school in the
immediate area is being closed at the end
of this school term for lack of students?
MAY 6, 1969
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, when the
Ontario Housing Corporation was created and
assumed responsibihty for the development of
rent-to-income housing in MetropoHtan
Toronto, arrangements were made with the
municipaHty of MetropoHtan Toronto to
create a co-ordinating committee which would
give Metropolitan Toronto a voice in the
location of developments throughout the
municipality. This committee, which is
known as the metropolitan housing advisory
committee, comprises a representative of
Ontario Housing Corporation, the commis-
sioners of planning and housing for Metro-
politan Toronto, and representatives of the
Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the
Metropolitan Separate School Board. All pro-
posed sites for the development of Ontario
Housing in Metropolitan Toronto are brought
before this committee and no development
takes place until the approval of the com-
mittee has been received.
In the case of the Ontario Housing Cor-
poration development at Davenport and Bed-
ford, the one referred to in the hon. mem-
ber's question, the commissioner of planning
for Metropolitan Toronto reported to the
Metropolitan Toronto housing advisory com-
mittee on June 8, 1967, as follows:
Further to our report of June 5, 1967,
this site was examined by members of the
committee on June 7.
It has been noted that the relative in-
accessibility of the site generally makes it
unsuitable for family housing, which fact
is emphasized by the remoteness and over-
crowded conditions prevailing at Huron
Street public school, and the relatively poor
community services available in the neigh-
bourhood. In addition, it is understood
that the public school's present require-
ments will make it necessary to reduce the
classroom size to 30 pupils which again
will reduce the total amount of pupil
accommodation available.
If the site is to be used for residential
purposes, therefore, its designed occupancy
should be restricted to adult families and
non-family households. The site can be
recommended to the Ontario Housing
Corporation only to meet this sector of
the demand for public housing.
It is recorded in the minutes of the com-
mittee, dated Wednesday, June 7, 1967, that
the committee inspected the site and approved
of it with OHC agreeing to use the develop-
ment for adult tenants only.
As the hon. member will appreciate, I am
sure, we look upon tlie municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto as our partner in the devel-
opment of housing to meet the needs of the
municipality. If, in the considered opinion of
Metro or its appointed representatives, a site
is unsuitable for family accommodation, then
OHC complies in accordance v^dth the spirit
and arrangements under which the Metro-
politan housing advisory committee was
created.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has an-
other question of this Minister?
Mr. De Monte: No.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, he has placed the
same question twice.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Does he want me to
answer it twice?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth is on his feet.
Mr. Deans: I have a question for the
Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Is the Minister aware of the terms and
conditions of the proposed agreement be-
tween the corporation of the city of Hamilton
and First Wentworth Development Company?
Is the Minister convinced that the city can
financially meet the accelerated vacant occu-
pancy proposal?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first
part of the question, I do not believe we
have received the agreement yet, so I am not
aware, and therefore I am not able to answer
the second part of the question.
Mr. Deans: If I might, Mr. Speaker, just
by way of a supplementary question, ask the
Minister if he would make himself aware that
the signing date is June 3, which is quite
close.
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, the question
of the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr.
Gaunt) has not reached Mr. Speaker's office.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps before the hon. mem-
ber for Wentworth completes liis question, he
might advise me whether a question of the
Minister of Education, which I have since
early in April, is still on the books or has it
been withdrawn?
Mr. Deans: I believe probably it—
4000
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: It had to do with county
boards and I think probably it has been
answered one way or another.
Mr. Deans: I tliink it was answered by tlie
Minister's general statement.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member
for Thunder Bay:
Mr. Stokes: A question of the Minister of
Healtli:
What action does the Minister plan to take
as a result of a letter sent to him and all
other members by Hector King of Armstrong,
regarding inadequate water supply and evi-
dence of hepatitis?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps tlie hon. member for
Rainy River might place his question of the
same Minister?
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Thank you,
Mr, Speaker.
How many cases of infectious hepatitis have
been reported in the Armstrong area this
year?
Has the Minister replied to the letter of
Hector C. King, president of the Armstrong
Indian Association in connection with health
facihties at Armstrong?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the chief public health inspector
for northern Ontario pubhc health services
visited Armstrong with the pubhc health in-
spector for this portion of northern Ontario on
April 30 and May 1, 1969. They investigated
environmental conditions and took samples of
a number of the wells. They interviewed the
local nurse, officials of Lands and Forests, the
armed forces base, and other citizens of Arm-
strong. They tried to interview Mr. King but
he was not in Armstrong at that time. The
field sanitary survey is being carried out and
recommendations will be made. There is one
proven case of infectious hepatitis and five
probables have been rejxjrted. I have not yet
answered Mr. King's letter because it only
came to my desk yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thun-
day Bay has another question?
Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Min-
ister of Social and Family Services:
Does the Minister plan to meet representa-
tives of Indian people in northwestern Ontario
on May 9? If not, when?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, arrangements
have been made for the director of Indian
development to meet with representatives of
Indian people in northwestern Ontario at an
early date and for me to meet with the
representatives at a subsequent date.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobi-
coke.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Social and Family Services:
Is the government prepared to assist the
United Community Fund of Toronto or its
agencies through grants that would be suffi-
cient to meet family counselling programmes
planned by voluntary service agencies?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, the gov-
ernment has not received the formal request
for grants for famdlly counselling programmes
from the United Community Fund of Toronto.
If and when such a request is received, it
will be given due consideration,
Mr. Braithwaite: As a supplementary, could
the Minister say whether any moneys would
be available, if such a request was made?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know of no provision
at the present time, but I would assume that
tliis would be a long-term proposition.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. Minister of
Municipal AfiFairs.
As of June 1, 1968, the Dominion Bureau
of Statistics estimated the population of On-
tario at 7,306,000 persons. The current
"Municipal Directory" Usts Ontario's 1968
population at 6,905000. AUowdng for the
115,000 people specifically excluded in the
directory figure which the Minister gave
us yesterday, how does the Minister account
for the remaining discrepancy of 286,000
persons?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the
directory reports the population residing in
municipalities in Ontario, and this, of course,
would exclude any persons residing outside
municipalities and unorganized territories. The
document is referred to as the "Municipal
Directory" for this very reason because it does
exclude the unorganized territories.
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics figure,
of course, is an estimate calculated as of June
1, which is based on a sampling technique.
The figure in the directory is based on the
actual census figure compiled by the local
MAY 6, 1969
4001
assessor over the period in which the assess-
ment is made, which would probaibly be any-
where from March or April through to Sep-
tember.
Under the circumstances, a diflFerence of
three per cent, rather than proving the in-
accuracy of the directory, to me seems to
verify its accuracy.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the
Minister, through you, a supplementary ques-
tion?
Has the Minister any idea how mjany people
there would be in the unorganized territories?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I was afraid the
member was going to ask that. I would think
there are something less than 208,000. I do
not know that; we did not know it. But there
is still an error and I think, from our point
of view, we would suspect perhaps the DBS
sample is a little high.
Mr. Speaker: TJie hon. member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a ques-
tion to the hon. Minister of Education.
In view of the events of the past few days,
can the Minister assure the House that there
are sufficient positions for elementary teachers
now enrolled in the province's colleges?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, recent
reports in the press and on TV have indicated
an oversupply of elementary school teachers
for 1969-70. But 1 would suggest at the
present time that it is stiU too early to state
precisely what balance exists between supply
and demand. As the member for Peterborough
and others know, the teachers' contracts
provide they may resign up until May 31,
that is the end of this month. So it is pre-
imature to make any accurate guess at this
particular moment.
The formal reports from the principals of
our teachers' colleges are not due until the
end of next week. But, in an informal survey
they indicate that with the exception of
Metropolitan Toronto, the hiring rate is
comparable to other years. In Metro, it is
below this. I think it should also be pointed
out that when one looks at the total prov-
ince and recognizes the need for teachers in
many other areas of the province beside the
large urban centres, 1 do not believe there
will be a large problem of oversupply of
elementary school teachers— if you look at it
in the entire provincial context.
I must say this, Mr. Speaker, that when I
look back a few years, I really did not
think I would be asked a question in this
House about an oversupply of elementary
sdiool teachers.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I might ask a
supplementary question.
In view of the fact that last fall there was
something like a 30 per cent increase in the
expectations of enrobnent in the teachers'
colleges, I would wonder whether anyone in
the department is making any kind of pro-
jections in the whole area of teacher need
in trying to relate enrolment in teachers'
colleges to that need.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is a
process of an on-going study, and of course,
it relates as well to the plans for future
teacher education that may result in the
beginning of a two- or three-year programme
and, of course, this has to be taken into
account as well. I would just emphasize, Mr.
Speaker, that one does not want to discourage
prospective teachers, who are thinking this
year of entering teachers' colleges, and that
we should not, at this moment, emphasize any
great oversupply when one looks at the total
province and the need for teachers.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I might ask an-
otlier question, Mr. Speaker. This is a ques-
tion from some days ago.
What body represents the Minister in
negotiations for terms, conditions and
remuneration for those who are employed
as faculty in the colleges of apphed arts and
technology in Ontario?
Secondly, has the council of regents any
committee with responsibility for negotiating
salaries for the faculty members of colleges
of applied arts and technology?
Tliirdly, if so, with whom is the committee
dealing?
Finally, how were salary decisions made for
those who were members of the colleges of
applied arts and technology during the aca-
demic year, 1968-69?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, section 6(1)
of tlie regulations under section 14(a) of The
Department of Education Act directs that
each colleges' boards of governors shall
appoint faculty members, at salaries and wage
rates according to the terms and conditions of
employment estabhshed by the council of
regents and approved by the Minister.
Because of the dual involvement of boards
of governors and the council of regents in
the employing and establishing of salaries
and conditions, the council of regents estab-
lished a standing committee on which there
4002
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are representatives from members of the
council, members of the boiircl of governors
plus the chairman, who is a member, of
course, of the council of regents, and the
staff relations committee has the necessary
authority to negotiate with the appropriate
staflf associations. This is a fairly involved
area, Mr. Speaker, as tlie member is well
aware. The staff relations committee recog-
nizes, of course, the ruling of the Ontario
Labour Relations Board, that the CAATs are
Crown agencies and that, as such, the Civil
Service Association of Ontario has the right to
represent all Crown employees imder The
Ontario PubHc Service Act.
Since an injunction issued by the Supreme
Court of Ontario restrains the Civil Service
Association of Ontario from representing those
faculty members who sought the injunction,
the staff relations committee is not able to
negotiate conditions of employment with any
faculty association at the present time. This
whole question is under review at the
moment, Mr. Speaker.
Lacking any faculty association which can
be legally recognized, the staff relations com-
mittee requested that the council of regents
establish salary rates for the 1968-69 academic
year according to the provisions of section 6,
subsection 1 of the regulations at a level
compatible with salaries for other teaching
positions in the province.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
might ask another question.
Is there any possibility of ending this legal
hang-up which we have in regard to the
faculties of the colleges of applied arts and
technology?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot say just what
the solution will be, Mr. Speaker, but we are
studying this very carefully at the moment.
Mr. Pitman: May I ask another question,
then?
Have there been briefs requesting some
changes in the legislation designating the
powers of the council of regents for the
colleges of applied arts and technology-
changes in the legislation governing the re-
sponsibilities and powers of the council of
regents being planned— and why have mem-
bers of the council of regents not received
any honorarium at present? Perhaps I might
withdraw the fourth question on that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the council
of regents and the association, composed of
the chairmen, and vice-chairmen of the boards
of governors and their presidents, liave dis-
cussed the suggestion for amendments in tlie
legislation with myself and officials of the
department, fairly recently. We are in the
process of studying some amendments to
section 14(a) of The Department of Educa-
tion Act and the regulations made under
section 14(a) at the present moment. Section
14(a) of the Act in its present form does not
permit payments legally of honoraria to mem-
bers of the council of regents— although the
feeling is that, of course, they should be paid,
we will be making amendments to see that
this can be legally done.
Mr. Pitman: Will this be in the present
session, is it expected?
These are other questions going back a bit
further, Mr. Speaker. Has the Mitchell Con-
struction Company been awarded a manage-
ment contract to revamp the old O'Keefe
warehouse on behalf of Ryerson Polytechnical
Institute? Why was this system of construc-
tion elected? What will the total cost be? Is
the firm of Crang and Boake to be the
architects? Is any present or past employee
of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute associated
with this firm?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the
contract to renovate the old O'Keefe ware-
house was given to the Mitchell Constmction
Company on the basis of the lowest tender
submitted— the project was advertised in three
newspapers for three days and also in the
Daily Commercial News. In the recommenda-
tion of the Ryerson Polytechnical administra-
tion, time was given, of course, as the critical
factor, and in order to complete the work in
time to equip and furnish the building, the
management-type contract was used. This is
being used by a number of post-secondary
institutions. The total cost was $1,674,000
for the renovations. Crang and Boake are
the architects for the project. I am not aware
of any past employees but I do not have a
complete list of all the employees of the
Crang and Boake firm.
Mr. Pitman: A final question, Mr. Speaker.
Were tenders called for the renovations of
the T. Eaton Company garage on the corner
of Bay and Teraulay Streets on behalf of
the George Brown College of AppHed Arts
and Technology? To whom was the contract
awarded? What was the bid of the company
to whom the contract was awarded? What
other general contractors made a bid on this
project amd what were the bids of each of
these contractors?
MAY 6, 1969
4003
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the George
Brown College of Applied Arts and Tech-
nology occupies space in tlie Teraulay Street
property; of wliich the T. Eaton Company is
the owner. Matters arising out of the renova-
tions to the building are the concern of tlie
owners of tlie property, that is, the T. Eaton
Company, and consequently, the details of the
contracts, etc., are not available to the board
of governors of George Brown. They are the
tenants. The landlord did the renovations and
any contracts were let by the owner.
Mr. Pitman: A question to tlie Minister of
Labour, Mr. Speaker.
What is the formal status of the dispute be-
tween the Toronto Newspaper Guild and the
Peterborough Examiner insofar as The De-
partment of Labour is concerned at tiie pres-
ent time?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the question, as the hon. member knows,
during the strike against the newspaper. The
Department of Labour took a number of
initiatives to assist the parties to resolve tlie
dispute. More than that, other persons, in-
cluding the hon. member himself, and the
president of Trent University, for example,
did many things to try to assist the parties.
I am advised an arrangement has been
worked out whereby employees will return
to work without a collective agreement but
I have had no formal notification of tliat
situation.
Mr. Pitman: May I ask die Minister, will
the final agreement be filed wdth The De-
partment of Labour in view of the role the
department lias played over the past few
months?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, as I indi-
cated, they may be returning to work but I
do not think there is an collective agreement.
If there is a collective agreement in the
future it will be filed in our library.
Mr. Pitman: If I might ask another ques-
tion, is there any responsibility for the com-
pany to take on workers who went on strike,
or is it possible for them to refuse to take
someone who went on strike during that
dispute?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, there is
nothing to force them at this time, but I
think the hon. member is as aware as I am
that there were certain employees who went
back and otliers who chose not to go back.
Mr. Pitman: And others were not told that
they could not come back?
Hon. Mr. Bales: That may be, I am not
aware of it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. Pitman: A final question, if I might
ask one more supplementary?
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member has
pursued tliis further than supplementary ques-
tions. If the Minister is vidlling to answer it
then I have no objection, but there must be
a hmit.
Mr. Pitman: It is a very formal question,
Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to know whether
there had been any move to decertify the
newspaper guild on the part of the—
Mr. Speaker: I would rule that that was
not supplementary to the question asked, but
the Minister may answer if he wishes.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware of any at the moment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): A question
for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.
Why is Mr. Peter G. Bowers, P.Eng., assist-
ant superintendent engineering, educational
television branch, of the Ontario Department
of Education, and a full-time employee in
receipt of a salary of $17,793 per annum:
(a) displaying a professional card in the
broadcast consultant list in the April, 1969,
directory issue of the Canadian Broadcaster
magazine?
(b) using the ETV branch, Bayview Ave-
nue address as his private consultant address?
(c) using the Ontario government tele-
phone number as his consultant telephone
number?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the name of
Peter G. Bowers appears in Canadian Broad-
caster magazine in a listing of broadcast con-
sultants who are recognized by the federal
Department of Transport.
Mr. Bowers' name appears solely for the
benefits accruing to The Department of Edu-
cation. He has not, is not, and does not intend
to offer his services for personal gain while
an employee of The Department of Educa-
tion.
The listing itself is not a professional card
in the sense tiiat the listing is free of charge
and quite distinct from professional cards for
advertising purposes which appear elsewhere
in the magazine.
4004
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. Reid: If I could ask the Minister a
supplementary. Is Mr. Bovvers receiving any
outside income?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Not to my know^ledge,
Mr. Speaker,
Mr. T. Reid: The second question to the
Minister: What percentage of the university
students who received an Ontario govern-
ment grant as part of their student avi^ard in
the current academic year failed their year
last year, 1967-1968?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, The Depart-
ment of University Affairs cannot provide
this specific information. It would have to
come from each individual university. The
student aid committee is in the process of
getting some general information related to
this for its own and my consumption.
The application form for 1968-1969 asked
for a listing of successful years completed in
order to determine the eligibility of the appli-
cant for independent status. It does not spe-
cifically ask for an accounting of years in
which the student might have failed. In
other words, the philosophy has been, Mr.
Speaker, that if a student is admitted, or
readmitted, into a university, he is entitled
to whatever support is available under the
general programme.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
a question for the Minister of Education.
1. Has the Minister estimated the cost of
full public support for Separate School grades
up to and including grade 13?
2. If so, what is the additional cost over
what is now being paid?
3. If not, will the Minister undertake that
such a study be made?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, neither the
department, nor the Minister, has made an
estimate of No. 1 so we cannot answer No. 2
and we are not contemplating a study at the
present time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipis-
sing.
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): A question of
the Minister of Education from the other day:
Will the Minister advise if it is his inten-
tion to have the administration of district
library facilities taken over by district boards
of education?
Will grants to the district library boards
be provided on the same monthly basis as
tliose to be made to the district school boards
announced last week by the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no acceleration
in grants for the library boards. I answered
the first part of the question last Thursday
for another hon. member when I indicated
that we had meetings with several library
groups in the past few weeks. There has
been no decision made as to just what direc-
tion will be given or what direction we wall
take with respect to the library service. I
indicated that I doubted whether there would
be any legislation in this current session.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, there
was a question presented recently by the
member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). I
indicated that I required certain information
from the Metro school board. I now have this
information available. It is question 1366:
How many people employed in Metro
Toronto high schools as teachers do not
hold teacher certificates? How many are
teaching on letters of permission and how
many are teaching on letters of standing?
The total number of secondary school teach-
ers employed in Metro Toronto as of Sep-
tember 30, 1968, was 7,129. The number
who do not hold an Ontario basic teaching
certificate, including those teaching on let-
ters of standing, is 312. The number wdthout
an Ontario basic teaching certificate or a
letter of standing who are teaching on a let-
ter of permission is 188. The number who
are teaching on a letter of standing is 124.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brant-
ford.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr.
Speaker, I have two questions of the Min-
ister of Agriculture and Food.
How many agricultural specialists have
been hired by the department in the recent
cross-country recruiting campaign conducted
by the department?
2. Is the Minister planning to implement
some of the recommendations of the farm
income report before the general vote on
the General Farm Organization?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the
first question, the campaign is just under way
and it is impossible to say how many have
been hired. We are hoping to hire a suflB-
cient number to carry out the programme
which I announced would be carried out
at the time that the junior farmer loan was
withdrawn in the province of Ontario.
MAY 6, 1969
4005
In reply to the second question, we have
already implemented some of the recom-
mendations of the farm income report per-
taining to administrative procedures within
the department. The consolidation, or at
least the avoidance of competition in the
farm credit field, first of all by our trying
to work out an arrangement with the federal
government throught the Farm Credit Cor-
poration in co-ordination with the Junior
Farmer Loan Board. That was not possible,
so we withdrew from the field of actually
providing credit and are concentrating on
the recommendations of the report where it
proposes that there should be a vastly ex-
panded system of farm management consult-
ing services provided.
This includes accounting, budgeting, book-
keeping—all of the necessities that are re-
quired to make management decisions. These
management decisions might include leaving
farming in certain areas, and, the services
would help them make that adjustment out
of farming where it is deemed to be in the
best interests of the farmers involved.
Those matters are already under way and
there may be others that come along that
are possible for us to implement. But, the
matters pertaining to public consideration of
the farmers themselves will be, of course,
left to the General Farm Organization if and
when it is established.
Mr. Makarchuk: By way of a supplemen-
tary question, Mr. Speaker, the Minister
said: "sufficient number." What is a "suffi-
cient number"? How many do you plan to
hire? And, the second part, would you have
bilingual Kcperts as well or are you looking
for any bilingual experts?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we
have always had bilingual people wherever
we could hire them. As a matter of fact, they
are so very difficult to obtain that we have
tried to make arrangements on a reciprocal
basis with the province of Quebec whereby
we might be able to get some of their bi-
lingual people to work for us and vice versa.
We have been able to make some exchanges
in students there. It is most difficult to obtain
quahfied bilingual personnel for either The
Department of Agriculture and Food exten-
sion service or for the home economics service
of The Department of Agriculture and Food.
Of coiu^e, it is most difficult to determine
what is a "sufficient number". We are trying
to hire as many quahfied people as we can.
Here again, I am afraid the numbers that we
will hire will perhaps be limited by the
number of quahfied people that are obtain-
able.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Dover-
court.
Mr. De Monte: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Attorney General.
Is the Attorney General considering a
thorough investigation of the shooting by
Detective Kevin Boyd of Angelo Nobrega oi
FoUis Avenue, Toronto? Have criminal
charges been laid against the detective in-
volved?
What was the type of the investigation that
the detective was pursuing when he shot Mr.
Nobrega? If no inquest is held, is the Attorney
General considering a full-scale investigation?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, an investigation is being carried
on now. It will be a very thorough investiga-
tion headed by Mr. Lloyd Grabum, Crown
attorney for York county. If it should turn out
that the decision is that criminal charges are
not laid, there will definitely be an inquest.
As to the part of the question— What were the
officers investigating?— that will appear during
the investigation. I am sure it will be complete
and thorough. I will be able to give that
information when that is received.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 41st order. House
in committee of supply; Mr. R. D. Rowe in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL AND FAMILY SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 2003:
Mr. Chairman: The hon. leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : I do not want to deal with this particu-
lar vote but it includes the allocation for the
Indian committee and the community devel-
opment projects. I would think there will be
several members who want to question the
Minister on changes in these matters and if
you want to proceed with it now—
Mr. Chairman: I think we will keep to the
format we have been using, and that is pro-
gramme by programme. The rehabihtation
services wiU be the first general progamme.
The hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville.
4006
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, referring to the bottom of
page 155—
Mr. Chairman: We are at 154 to start with
and the top of 155.
Mr. B. Newman: Right. May I ask of the
Minister if he is making continual grants to
organizations in the city of Windsor, that is
the Inn, and the second is the Leone House.
The Inn, by the way, is the female counter-
part of the St. Leonard's House, the institu-
tion devoted to the rehabilitation of indi-
viduals who get into trouble.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Chairman, the particu-
lar grant that the hon. member is referring
to does not come under this programme. It
would come under programme 4, vote 2004.
Mr. B. Newman: Vote 2004, Mr. Chair-
man?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, that is quite all
right, thank you.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is rehabilitation.
I am not going to take the time of the House
because I hope some day that we will have an
adequate brochure to give the details of this
particular programme, which in the past dec-
ade has become one of the outstanding but
Httle-known and unsung programmes within
the department. They have achieved a
tremendous success in rehabilitation, primarily
of the physically handicapped persons, and
some of the stories of the return to normal
life that have taken place in recent years
and the tremendous amount of work that is
done in this field through agencies that we are
in partnership with is a great story to be
told at some time.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
I wish tlie Minister would take a little bit of
time, and I would Hke the Minister to com-
ment specifically on the arrangements that
flow from my remarks, because one of the
problems which is a recurring one and which
is of urgent concern is the relationship be-
tween the rehabilitation branch of the work-
men's compensation lx)ard— which comes
under, or at least Ls reported on by the Min-
ister of Labour (Mr. Bales), to this assembly
—die rehabilitation programme of tliis de-
partment and tlie manpower retraining pro-
grammes of The Department of Manpower
of the federal government. My colleague, the
member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis),
refers to tlie rehabiUtation services in The
Department of Health.
One of the major problems that is involved
in tlie question of tlie return of persons into
tlie economic Hfe of the province derives from
the workmen's compensation board— the whole
question of persons discharged from compen-
sation or reduced to 50 per cent of comx)en-
sation, fit for modified employment or light
work. In many cases diey do not have the
background of skills or training whidi will
enable them to accept light work, if there
were light work, or the kind of hght work
which is available is not tlie kind for which
tliey are qualified.
I would like to have a clear statement from
tlie Minister of what plans are available to
co-ordinate the work of rehabilitation within
the province. I am somewhat aware, but not in
any detail, of the rehabilitation programme for
those persons who are physically handicapped
in the accepted sense, that is, an actual visible
physical handicap. But in the area where men
and women require retraining in order to
re-enter the economic life of the province,
either because of injuries which they suflFered
during the course of their employment or be-
cause they have lost their place in the eco-
nomic life of the society, I would like to
know what a person does in order to be
retrained in the province. What is the proce-
dure which he follows and what does this
department do in terms of the rehabilitation
work through the workmen's compensation
board and The Department of Manpower and
Retraining?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, our
programme is separate and apart from tlie
programme of the workmen's compensation
board. I would think that within our pro-
gramme we cover everybody who is not
within the workmen's compensation sector,
and our work relates to the handicapped in
all respects— the visibly physically handi-
capped and the mentally retarded handi-
capped, who may or may not be physically
so. That encompasses persons of all ages, from
the very young to perhaps even senior people.
We have our own programme, but we use all
the other facihties which are available within
government departments at all government
levels, and community facilities. We are an
agency and we take whatever facilities we
need to carry out our programme.
If somebody comes to our attention, a
mentally retarded or a physically handicapped
person, either directly or through some
agency, there is an assessment miade of
whether that person, that human being, can
MAY 6, 1969
4007
be assisted within our programme. My own
direct contact leads me to believe that
always, if there is the slightest hope, the
tendency is to assume that there is a possi-
bility of rehabilitation. There is the assess-
ment at all levels— tlie mental assessment and
the physical assessment. Then there is the
counselling that takes place, the guidance.
Then comes the rehabilitation process in the
provision or orthopaedic equipment, I be-
lieve, or whatever equipment may be neces-
sary to make the person equipped to take the
training. And then in the training, the person
is channelled into his level of intelligence.
I had ocasion to visit, last week, the work-
shop on Beverley Street under the retarded
associations of Metropolitan Toronto. They
literally had the four floors divided. There
was one person who was being assessed, and
it was very interesting for one who has his
full capabilities to see this machine where a
person did a very simple repetitive motion in
order that he be assessed to see how much of
the stress and strain of this thing he could
take. Then there was the lowest level to
which a subject could be sent. At the main
level, the persons there were making an
economic contribution beyond the mere sub-
sidy that would be taking place in such a
workshop.
All the time we are using the Health and
Welfare facihties, and medical facihties, all
the equipment and counselling that is avail-
able sociologically within a community to
make the person re-establish. I have, for
example, without getting the details, a men-
tally retarded young man who never got
l>eyond grade two. He was taught special
skills so he is now a cabinet refinisher, which
is a fairly highly skilled undertaking. A polio
victim who had discontinued school at the
age of 12 completed post-graduate studies
and is now a history professor. Then there is
a paraplegic injured in a driving accident who
languished in a wheelchair for many years,
and he has been provided with saw-filing
equipment and has his own saw-filing business.
I know that dollars and cents are not an
adequate yardstick but they are a significant
yardstick. We took one group of retrainees
and discovered that it had cost us $1 million
to retrain them and they were now returning
into tlie community $3 million worth of pro-
ductivity. The investment in that particular
group was very beneficial, not only to the in-
dividuals involved, for whom there was a
c"ompletely new lease on life, but also for die
community as a whole.
Of course, there are those who will ne\'er
achieve that economic independence. But I
may say that at this stage of our social de-
velopment, these young people have been
brought out of the comers and the dark areas
of the communities and homes where they
used to languish, into a community setting
where they are, in their way, playing a role.
When I say that our programme is separate
and apart from the workmen's compensation
board, this is not to say that we are not in
continuous contact with them directly and
through conferences, whereby there is an
exchange of ideas and a flow of information
back and forth.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to pursue this in as many specifics as I
can. Does the Minister receive from the work-
men's compensation board, into this branch,
any regular statement of the names of the
persons whose compensation has been cut
from total compensation to 50 per cent com-
pensation because the person has been con-
sidered to be fit for modified employment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. J. Renwick: What would his advice be
to a person who receives that information
from the workmen's compensation board, and
is now told that he is going to get $37.50 a
week, when he was formerly getting, on the
figures that I have used, $100 a week? What
is the Minister's advice to him as to the assist-
ance which he can obtain through this re-
habilitation and special services branch of
the department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Our Act excludes from
its operation those persons who are entitled
to goods and services under The Workmen's
Compensation Act and The Veterans Rehabili-
tation Act. Those two are, as I say, separate
programmes. The people coming under those
programmes are to be deaJt with within those
programmes.
Mr. J. Renwick: Apart from the rehabilita-
tion hospital operating at Downsview, which
I understand is a successful example of
rehabilitation work in the fields which it
covers, there is, for practical purposes, no
rehabilitation through the workmen's com-
pensation board in the sense of retraining of
persons. If they are not covered by the
government's programme, I take it then that
the only recourse for such a person is to go
to the manpower centre, to find out what is
available through that centre through the
federal government. Is that correct?
4008
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think that that would
be correct. I am not directly cognizant of
that, but I think that would be the procedure.
Incidentally, with our own placement pro-
grammes, we also work directly with the
manpower centres. I am advised that the
workmen's compensation board does have
over 50 counsellors in the rehabilitation field.
As to the specifics of the programme, I do not
have them with me. Perhaps this could be
directed to the Minister of Labour at the
right time.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chaimian, I do not
want to direct that to the Minister of Labour;
I do not know when we are going to reach
his estimates. I want to try and deal with
the social problem that we are faced with.
I am thinking, for example, of a man who
suffered a back injury during the course of
his employment. He was paid compensation
for about nine months at the full rate; then
he was reduced for the next three months to—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order— although this is rehabilitation
in general, I may say that it does not come
within the specific jurisdiction of the depart-
ment's rehabilitation services. We are now
discussing the rehabilitation ser\ace of The
Department of Social and Family Senaces. I
suggest that what the hon. member is re-
ferring to, quite properly belongs within the
discussion of The Department of Labour at
the appropriate time.
Mr. J. Renwick: Perhaps you would just
let me finish my example and the point that
I wanted to draw, and then decide whether
it falls within this branch. This particular
man was reduced to 50 per cent compensa-
tion which was something in the neighbour-
hood of $37.50 a week.
His former employer was finally able to
provide him with some kind of modified
employment after about three months and he
returned to work to do this modified employ-
ment. He did it for a period of a month and
then was put back on the original work in
the course of which he suffered his original
injury, despite the fact that he was only fit for
modified or light work. He wore his brace
for another several months doing this heavy
work and suffered a heart attack, which was
undoubtedly due to the strain. That matter
is now being dealt with by the board.
My point is that at the point at which a
person under the workmen's compensation
system has been told he is fit only for modi-
fied employment, is there any facility in this
branch of the Minister's department that
would permit him to be retrained or to obtain
retraining in order to qualify him for a
different form of economic activity, which
would not require the physical exertion that
many of the heavy duty jobs require?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, as I
pointed out to the hon. member, under the
regulations of The Vocational Rehabilitation
Services Act, there is a specific exclusion
from our programme of these individuals.
But I would assume that the rehabilitative
programme being so similar the services of
the rehabilitation counsellors in The Depart-
ment of Labour under the workmen's compen-
sation board would follow more or less the
same channels within the limits of the
physical disability. They deal with it as we
deal with it, although we are dealing with a
completely different type of person. I imagine,
however, that a paraplegic could evolve from
an employment accident, as he could in
private life.
But there is a distinction between the two
programimes.
Mr. J. Renwick: All right. Mr. Chaiiman, I
take that to mean that if a person is under
the workmen's compensation programme, apart
from extreme cases of physical disaibiiity
where the department may have some func-
tion to perform, there is no connection?
Now we look at it from the point of view
of The Department of Manpower— or the
manpower branch of The Department of Man-
power and Immigration of the federal govern-
ment. What is the relationship between the
work which is done through that branch and
through the branch of the Minister's depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They would refer to us
individuals for assistance under The Voca-
tional Rehabilitation Services Act. Our agree-
ment is with that department. Our cost-sharing
agreement in this instance is not under the
Canada Assistance Plan. It is with The De-
partment of Manpower in Ottawa and we
work together in this field. They would refer
persons to us and then, I would imagine,
we follow-up, process them and tlien try to
achieve certain placement back with them.
It is a continuous stream. A person coidd
start with us and end up with placement, or
he could start up with Manpower and come
to us and end up with placement. We use
the full circle in our programme.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chaimnan, at some
point, not during his estimates, would the
Minister make a note to be good enough either
MAY 6, 1969
4009
to let me have or table in the assembly, a
copy of the agreement between the govern-
ment of Ontario and the government of Can-
ada imder this Vocational Rehabilitation Serv-
ices Act?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, I would be pleased
to do it. As a matter of fact, it is an excel-
lent Act and our relationship under this
agreement, to my mind, is first rate. It has
been one of our best agreements.
Mr. J. Renwick: I would like to have a
copy of the agreement in due course.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to monopolize
the point. I do not think I can pursue it very
much further. What is the length of time, at
present, from tlie receipt of a request from
a person to this branch, and the time when
the facihties of this branch are then available,
to make the assessment which, I understand,
is the first step in the procedure to consider
the rehabilitation of the person? What is the
length of time which it now takes before the
assessment can be made?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have the
specifics of the individual times, because there
is a continuous flow of persons through the
programme.
Last year there were about 2,900 new re-
ferrals. There was an increase of ten per
cent, I beheve, in numbers, for a total case
load of upwards of 6,500 persons; which has
gone up from almost a handful of people in
the early stages.
I do know this, that this particular dep'art-
ment has a continuous flow of business, and
the better they do the job, the greater the
demands are, as more and more people be-
come aware of the programme.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I know
that there is a continuous flow through it. I
also think there is a back up in the system.
A year ago, there was a period of time, an
almost indefinite period before the assess-
ment was carried out, when an applicant or a
person applied to get into the stream of per-
sons through this branch.
I was wondering whether or not you could
tell me whether it was a week from the time
an application was received, a month, two
months, three months, six months? How long
does it take?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not think we can
give the hon. member an average time, be-
cause the cases vary greatly from a matter
of a few days to a matter of weeks, and
several months in some instances, before the
person is actually within a retraining pro-
gramme. In this area, there are really no hard
and fast rules, because the variable, in con-
junction with the individuals, is so great that
it covers the whole spectrum of mental and
physical disability.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think tbe Minister understands what I am
saying.
What is the period of time— tjhe likely
period of time— between the time that a per-
son applies to this branch for assistance, and
the time when the first interview takes place
leading to an assessment? Secondly, how many
assessment ofiioers are there in the brandi,
and what is the case load which each of those
assessment officers carry?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have the time
limits as referred to by the hon. member.
Actually, we do not have the land of classi-
fication that the hon. member refers to. We
do have a director, an assistant director, three
regional supervisors, six supervisors, one senior
rehabihtation coimsellor, 15 rehabilitation
counsellors, 45 rehabihtation case workers, and
there would be about 30 supporting person-
nel for a total complement of 115.
Mr. Chairman: Vote on rehabilitation. Tlw
hon. member for Riverdale.
Mr. J. Renwick: Forty-five case workers
and 15 rehabilitation officers— I believe those
are the terms that the Minister used— means
that there is a total of about 60 persons en-
gaged in the assessment, and the follow-up,
of the caseload of this department. Is that
right?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is correct.
Mr. J. Renwick: And the caseload is about
3,000 cases a year, at the present time?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I gave the figure a
moment ago.
Mr. J. Renwick: I think the Minister said
2,900.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, there were aibout
2,900 new referrals during the course of the
year. To grasp the picture, however, it must
be recognized that our staff here are using
all the facilities within the community and
I do not know how many personnel, but I
would imagine they are in the hundreds,
witliin all the agencies that we use in con-
junction with the work we do.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York
Centre.
4010
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, the agencies that the Minister
refers to, I suppose, are various volunteer
agencies, members of the United Appeal such
as the centres for crippled civilians and
crippled children— not crippled children but
that type of agency. They are the volunteer
agencies that the department works through,
or works in co-operation with. In what way
does the department co-oi>erate with these
agencies in tliis rehabilitation work, so there
is no overlap?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have a whole host
of agencies. I have here some three foolscap
pages listing all the agencies. Tbey come
imder the Ontario Association for the Men-
tally Retarded, Canadian Mental Health Asso-
ciation, the Rehabilitation Foundation for the
Disabled, the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind. And the hon. member is quite
right, we do have the Society for Crippled
Civilians and various adult training centres,
the sheltered workshops.
To summarize our work in a very general
way, we make grants to the individual
agencies— bo til capital and operating grants—
by way of a subsidy. Then we also provide
maintenance allowances for those who are
getting the training programme.
Then we also provide, I believe, subsidies
to pick up the deficits in respect of these
slieltered workshops— that is, a special grant
for operating costs to make up the difference
between what the persons working in the
sheltered workshops can bring in to the
agency, and what it costs to operate because
of the work that is done by the persons in the
sheltered workshop.
It is not really economically sound from a
strict business sense, but it is economically
sound that in the provision of finding employ-
ment there may be some contribution on the
part of the individuals, which may vary from
minor contribution, to somebody who attains
iull-fledged contribution.
Mr. Deacon: I understand, for example,
the crippled civihans centre looked after about
700 people last year— I tliink they had about
that number under tlicir aegis, so to speak.
And tlie revenue from the centre- the sale of
its repaired merchandise and other sale items
—brought in about 92 per cent of their total
l)iidget. But I had thought tliat the balance of
the budget came from the United Appeal.
I was wondering in what way the department
works into this. I do not understand the dis-
tinction between where the United Appeal
covers the deficits, and where the depart-
ment does. In this pirticular instance I
just cite this as an example. It is die same
situation I understand with other agencies
the Minister has mentioned, such as the
association for the mentally retarded.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Is it the mentally
retardefl the hon. member is taUdng about?
Mr. Deacon: I mentioned that, but I say
the crippled civilians centre at this moment.
They, I understood, last year earned about
92 per cent of their total cost out of their
sales and I tliought the eight per cerit deficit
was made up by the United Appeal receipts.
I had not realized that the department came
into this at all.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Society for
Crippled Civilians in Toronto, I tliink, is in
the neighbourhood of $90,000 for operating
costs.
Mr. Deacon: This would l>e paid to them
on the basis of certain individuals that the
department approved of for rehabilitation
work and out of that several hundred people
that are going through the department, or
how is it allocated?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am sorry, tliat $90,000
is for a capital grant. They received, I
believe about $50,000 imder the other be-
cause it works out to about $20 per person
per month that the shelter workshop is
enabled to take.
Mr. Deacon: How does the department
co-operate with The Department of Educa-
tion, which I understand also has these
retraining programmes, and co-operate with
The Department of ManiX)wer and Immigra-
tion of the federal government? What is tlie
differentiation here between the responsibility
of The Department of Social and Family
Services and tlie responsibility of The
Department of Education? How does the Min-
ister differentiate between tliat? How does
a person know which department to go to?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not tliink Ihttt
education is presently involved in that pro-
gramme. I think that in raspect of the
mentally and physically handicapped, tlie pro-
gramme presently is with our department.
Mr. Deacon: I see. Then the Minister is
dealing strictly with the mentally and physi-
cally handicapped where there are people
maybe who are needing retraining but have
their nonnal faculties?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is a c>orreot
appraisal.
MAY 6, 1969
4011
Mr. Chairman: Anything jfurther on re-
liabilitation? The hon. member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, earher in
the debate I made mention of the study
conducted in the city of Windsor from Janu-
ary 25, 1965, to June 24, 1965, a six-month
study, in which 102 individuals or families
on welfare had been studied. As a result of
this study it had clearly indicated that there
could have been savings by a fairly inten-
sive rehabilitation programme. In fact I think
the report indicates a saving of approximately
$60,000 a year by this type of programme.
What follow-up has been conducted by the
department since this study, because as I
look in the paper today, Mr. Chairman, I
find that there are more people on welfare
in the community today than there were one
year ago— well over 3,000 on welfare now.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That particular report
has yet to be evaluated within the confines
of our research. Is that the Windsor pro-
gramme? So far as I know that has yet to
be evaluated by our research and planning
branch in conjunction with the developments
which would be taking place through our
family counselling services. I do not think
the hon. member relates the number of un-
employed to this. I do not think there is
necessarily a valid connection between the
two because the unemployment factors may
be completely difFerent.
I do say that this rehabilitation programme
is basically in respect of those who are handi-
capped in some way, other than a handicap
which might exist from a lack of incentive,
or lack of initiative, to go to work, or any
other of the things which prevent a man
who is capable of working from doing so.
That is a completely different field, one in
which we will be taking more and more
action.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, what the
Minister says may be true, but we have never
had fewer than 1,900 who were receiving
public assistance. That means we must have
approximately 1,900 hard-core cases that
could stand rehabilitating.
The hon. Minister says that he has not
evaluated the study although he has had the
study now since March 15, 1966; that is well
over three years. Surely he has had suflBcient
time to evaluate it and to put into practice
some of the recommendations that are in it.
I do not think he should be waiting that
long. The government would be saving itself
money, as the study indicates it saved
$60,000 by this six-month study that it con-
ducted. It saved the municipality and itself
the sum of $60,000. Were the government to
continue with this and implement some of
the recommendations contained, it would be
to its advantage as well as to the community's
advantage.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister is a
little slow on the uptake here. His depart-
ment should have pursued this a little more.
There is no use having studies if he is not
going to follow them up. How many re-
habilitative officers has he in the community?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, actu-
ally this phase that the hon. member has
touched upon really relates back to the pre-
vious vote because it falls within the ambit
of working out the work activity pro-
grammes, which we will have going, in con-
junction with the federal government under
the Canada Assistance Plan. It is one aspect
of the plan in which agreements have not
as yet been worked out and signed with
the federal authorities. That particular pro-
gramme will come under the Canada Assis-
tance Plan programme and not the vocational
rehabilitation programme that we are dis-
cussing.
However, I may say that the thinking and
the experience in that has led us to start
taking action m regard to other spheres, that
is the development of county and district
welfare administration boards. Under that
setup rehabilitation officers, or those dodng
rehabilitation and preventative work, may
work at the municipal level. Our counsellors
will work in conjunction with the municipal
authorities.
That type of programme is separate and
apart from this type of rehabilitation pro-
gramme although it all comes under the
umbrella of rehabilitation.
Mr. B. Nevraian: Mr. Chairman, I will
drop it at that, but in spite of all of that,
the fact that he had the study for three
years, and still has not evaluated the study
with the implementation of some of the rec-
ommendations, shows some laxity on his part,
or on the part of his department, if only from
the point of view of saving the taxpayers'
dollars. How many rehabdJitation officers are
there in Essex county then, if there are none
in the city, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are two coun-
sellors and one supervisor in this programme.
Mr. B. Newman: The recommendation is
that a case-load of 35 would be sufficient for
4012
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
an officer. One can see that the department
would be terribly understaffed were it to
attempt to implement some of the recom-
mendations of the programme.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This particular re-
habilitation programme is separate from the
kind of programme emisaged by the recom-
mendations of that report.
Mr. B. Newman: May I ask of the Minister
if there are workshop grants for the retarded
children's schools in the community.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not for the schools but
for the workshops. The schools come imder
the board of education.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I was
simply going to ask if the workshop of the
association for retarded children, then, has
grants available?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. B. Newman: Are the grants increased
according to the cost of living increase or not?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am sorry, I did not
hear that.
Mr. B. Newman: Are the grants increased,
> ear by year, according to the cost of living
increase, according to a per capita increase,
or are they the same as they were last year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are the same as
they were last year.
Mr. B. Newman: Would the Minister con-
sider always increasing them according to a
cost-of-living increase, so that they could
always at least stay even, rather than fall
behind?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That, of course, is a
problem with which we are confronted in all
aspects of our department. It is something
that we will have in mind.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on re-
habilitation? The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre was trying to get the floor
previously.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Min-
ister, when the department works in co-
operation with the Canadian National Institute
for the Blind, and accepts responsibility for
financing a person in the rehabilitation train-
ing programme, what is done to help the
person find a job? That is my first question,
Mr. Chairman. I presume the person is with-
out funds when he comes for this service, and
therefore, after he is trained he has nothing
to live on for the next month. Is there any
sort of way that assistance is given to place
the person? Is a month's allowance made in
order to allow the person time to search for
a position?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know that assistance
is given during the course of training, but
not beyond the period of training. The CNIB
in this instance takes charge of the place-
ment, or exploring the possibility of place-
ment, and of course, if there is no place-
ment the person would return to our family
benefits programme.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask what
the hold-up or the hang-up is in the work
activity project. I believe the Minister spoke
a few minutes ago about the fact that the
agreements were not signed between the
province and the federal government.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that
matter came under the previous note in con-
junction with the Canada Assistance Plan, and
the work activity portion under the plan has
yet to be worked out between the province
of Ontario and the federal government.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Will the work activity
project, then, fall under this department of
rehabilitation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, it will work out
under general welfare assistance participa-
tion.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Am I wrong in assum-
ing that the purpose of a work activity project
is rehabilitation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is a different tyi)e
of programme. This programme is basically
designed to serve the mentally and physically
handicapped. The other programime is re-
habilitation designed to provide initiative and
incentive to get persons back to work who,
for some reason, are, to use a common phrase,
alienated from the desire to work. Structur-
ally they are fully capable, but they lack the
motivation to do work.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Under rehabilitation,
are the 15 rehabilitation officers the persons
who will determine what sort of rehabilitation
the recipient should take; or is that deter-
mined through the case interviewer; or is
the case interviewer just a monetary exercise,
and the officer of rehabilitation the one who
directs the course of action?
MAY 6, 1969
4013
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The counsellor will
have the direct contact with the applicant,
and based on the information gathered then,
there is a selection committee which will
evaluate the facts of the matter and make
the relevant decision.
Mrs. M. Renwick: They will make the de-
cision as to which type of rehabilitation will
be offered? This is made by the committee
rather than the case worker or the rehabilita-
tion officer? It is made by a committee, then?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The information on
assessment is as follows:
This initial step involves medical, social
and vocational diagnosis to determine the
nature and degree of disabihty, the indi-
vidual's potential and work capacity, the
need for medical and social and vocational
services. This assessment is made by coun-
sellors of the branch in consultation with
the client's attending physician and, if
necessary, in consultation with psycholo-
gists, teachers and employers. It may be
supplemented by the use of specialized re-
habilitation facilities and workshops.
The type of examination that I referred to
earlier.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, what I
iun trying to determine for certain is on whose
responsibility is the guidance given, which
will, in fact, either rehabihtate a person or
simply put him through six or eight weeks,
or two or three months, of some sort of semi-
productive semi-learning. I think from what
the Minister has read, it mentions the re-
habilitation officer will decide. If so, then I
would like to have him confirm that, please.
You see, Mr. Chairman, to put it very simply,
to start from the beginning when a person
needs this service, who is the first person that
that person sees? The case worker?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The counsellor.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Of wliich there are 45,
is that right?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, there are 60 alto-
gether, but their classffication is "rehjabilitation
case-worker" and "rehabilitation counsellor".
There are two classifications. The case worker
and counsellor carry out the same functions.
They make all the direct contacts, but the
selection committee as it is named, makes the
decision based upon the recommendations
and assessment of the case worker.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, is it cor-
rect to assume then, that the committee fin-
ally decides? I cannot really understand yet,
and I am sorry I want to know in whose
hands this responsibility lies. At one point
I thought the Minister was saying there were
15 people in the separate dassifioation. I see
now why tlie 60 people are divided— 45 are
workers and 15 are, perhaps, specially trained
people. Could I ask the Minister, is that the
difference between the two? This decision, of
course, is a very serious responsibility in the
hands of someone.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Both tlie rehabilitation
counsellors and the case workers are profes-
sionally trained. The selection committee that
makes the recommendation comprises a com-
mittee made up of representatives from our
department, from Manpower and from The
Department of Education. They work in con-
junction and report the facts as appraised by
the counsellor, who counsels and guides and
participates in the counselling, the guidance
and the placement— the actual execution of
the rehabilitative process.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The actual execution of
the process is done by the counsellor— one of
the 15 counsellors or one of the 45?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: One of the 60.
Mrs. M. Renwick: One of the 60. Could I
ask very clearly what the difference of quali-
fication is between the 45 and the 15?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are various classi-
fications. There is social work 2, social work
1, welfare field worker 2, welfare field
worker 1.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Wliich are we speaking
about?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of the 15 rehabilita-
tion counsellors, 14 are social worker 2, and
one is a social worker 1. Of the 45 rehabih-
tation case workers, 28 are field worker 2,
and 17 are welfare field worker 1.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is what I wanted
to find out, Mr. Chairman, thank you. The
majority of these people are field workers
rather than social workers, and of course we
have discovered to our sadness the problems
created by that, in other votes under general
welfare assistance.
I would like to read into the record two
pages from a law student's brief. In his con-
cern for ipeople in this plight, he wound up
wanting to rehabilitate them rather than con-
tinue the cash payment system of any assist-
ance:
Government interference and inter-med-
dling in the personal Hfe of a citizen is still
4014
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
■a noxious thing in our society. When the
involvement becomes so deHcate and intri-
cate, as it does in rehabilitation, the im-
regiilated and ungovernable ordering of a
citizen's life becomes unpalatable in the
extreme, no m-atter how vaunted the end
goal. The power in the hands of the re-
habilitative manager is dangerously great
when compared to the absolute powerless-
ness of the recipient. The situation is
remarkably analogous to the rehabilitation
some advocate for convicted criminals. In
this context, Lon Fuller noted, "We must
not imagine that the realization of this ideal
will in practice be entrusted to a few per-
ceptive—"
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I ask the hon.
member a question, please?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I please finish the
quote?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. We are discussing the esti-
mates of The Department of Social and
Family Services in the province of Ontario. I
suggest, if the hon. member is reaching into
the far comers of the world, that unless she
can relate it to a specific situation in the
province of Ontario, she is out of order.
Mr. Chairman: I am inchned to agree with
the hon. Minister on the reading of briefs,
law students' briefs or other briefs, not neces-
sarily relevant to these particular votes. The
material the hon. member is dealing with
should be related to these particular votes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, these are
four paragraphs on the dangers of the type of
rehabilitation that is going on because there
are no regulations governing the guidance of
the people who are left to administer the
rehabilitation. They can rehabihtate a person
one way one day and one way another, be-
cause there are no regulations governing those
actions.
This says it very clearly, and I think it is
very important, Mr. Chairman. I was one
person who always thought rehabilitation, any
kind, is wonderful. This is what I have been
begging the Minister to put his money into,
but I think this is a very important point to
raise with the Minister— that along with re-
habilitation has to go a conscious effort that it
is being administered the same way by statute
and by regulation. Of course, we do not have
this.
Mr. Chairman: What the hon. member is
suggesting is that the rehabilitation pro-
gramme of this department is not regulated
by statute or—
Mrs. M. Renwick: There is an Act covering
it— the blanket Act— but the regulations leave
sections of it imgovemable.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member
could proceed and we will determine whether
or not it is relevant.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I think, Mr. Chaimuan,
that if you will, you will see that it is; I
hope so. I think if the Minister had not
been quite so anxious to interrupt where he
did, what I was quoting would apply abso-
lutely anywhere with any person who has
these unregulated activities at government
expense. To quote from Mr. Lon Fuller:
We must not imagine tliat the realiza-
tion of this ideal will in practice be en-
trusted to a few perceptive and timely social
scientists. The person subjected to curative
measures will inevitably have his chief and
most intimate contact with attendants and
caretakers who will be ordinary human
beings subject to ordinary hmnan frailties.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, miless we
regulate what these people are to be guided
into and set it out, they will be treated one
way one day and another day the other,
maybe according to what the gentleman ate
the night before.
Lest it be thought that our relatively
mercenary welfare system is free from this
danger, it must be remembered first that our
system requires the recipient to integrate
with a number of workers in ways un-
regulated by statute.
Ungovernable rehabilitation is going to
increase. James S. Band, deputy Minister of
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices, indicates that in social insurance, as
security plans take over more of the main-
tenance function, welfare dejwrtments will
l->e increasingly involved with rehabilitation.
Moreover, jurisprudence in Ontario is pre-
dominantly positivist and to a great extent
still of the persuasion that laws and re-
course to the courts are universally operative
safeguards. Witness to this view is the
entire body of the Royal commission inquiry
into civil rights, in particular, section 3 of
volume 3, which deals with The Family
Benefits Act.
Serious consideration must be given to
the possibihty that we cannot, in a demo-
cratic society, rehabilitate our welfare
recipients through the department of wel-
fare. It may be necessary to retrench and
MAY 6. 1969
4015
reply on money assistance to a much
greater degree than appears to be planned.
This would pass the polycentric problem of
rehabilitation on to the recipient in con-
junction with newly-created opportunities
for self -improvement. Income support may
be the only safe course.
I think the hon. Attorney General may be
interested in that, if the hon. Minister of
Social and Family Services is, perhaps, finding
it a little unpalatable for his particular interest
in this department, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Anyone else on rehabilita-
tion?
Rehabilitation services agreed to.
The next section of the programme is
family counselling services. Is this programme
carried?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, family
counselling carried?
Mr. Chairman: Family counselling services
is what I called.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask the
Minister: how much family counselling is
being done? Is it being done with deserted
wives; the problem of placing the charge
against the husband? Is there family coun-
selling being involved in that deserted wives
unit— or what is the correct term— maybe the
Minister will put the correct name on it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That activity comes
under vote 2002, part of the field services
activities under The Family Benefits Act of
our department.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask the Minister
exactly what counselling comes under this
particular vote which is always so minimal?
I see it is $211,000 this year. What coun-
selling is this, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is to assist recipients
of the departmental income maintenance pro-
gramme in appropriate ways which are
designed to enable tliem to achieve economic
independence and more effective functioning
in society. The objectives are carried out
through the following activities: the provision
of a field staff of family counsellors who will
first select those persons who can benefit
from a counselling service; to assess the social
problems; and to provide counselling treat-
ment in such problems as marital discord,
poor financial management and conflicts with
employers.
The staff assists families to find improved
housing and employment, and to deal with
related problems, and refers famflies and in-
dividuals to appropriate community resources
when necessary. There is the assessment, in
co-operation with the relevant local organiza-
tions, of the need for family services in local
communities and the participation and devel-
opment of such needed services; the provision
of consultation to municipalities to assist them
in the development and utilization of special
services to recipients of general welfare assis-
tance.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, could I
ask the Minister if this is where the three men
on George Street fall— the three men who find
positions for people under general welfare
assistance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are working at
the municipal level. We participate with those
municipalities who have not yet reached that
level of their own development.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Where are these people
working, these people in this vote? Where
are they doing this counselling?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Presently in Toronto.
We are moving into London and Hamilton
and there has been a counsellor operating out
of Ottawa and Brampton.
Mrs. M. Renwick: They do not do any
family counselling, such as marital coun-
selling and that sort of thing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: With relationship to
our own programme, our own recipients.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Your own family bene-
fits?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I just ask the
Minister, does that mean that under that vote
for the deserted wives unit or deserted
husbands unit— whatever it is properly called—
is there no counselling from the govenmient
given there?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, there is coun-
selling given, but the hon. member was
talking about the placing of charges under
the deserted wives section. The technical
procedures are carried out by the field serv-
ice workers who are presently extended
throughout the length and breadth of the
province.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Brantford.
4016
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr. Chair-
man, on this same item, family counselUng
services, it would appear to me that possibly
this is the one service that could be extended.
I think that if the Minister looked in the
records of some of these families who have
been on welfare you would see that they go
back three, four or five generations— or go
back into the 1880s and 1890s. So, obviously,
from that point of view perhaps, the family
counselling service is successful. But, it cer-
tainly does not take care of the problem.
You are only spending $211,000— perhaps
this figure can be increased. Also your de-
partment should go and try to see if they
could work with local agencies and with
various family service bureaus to see if you
could co-ordinate some of their activities; and
get after these multi-problem families that
have been around for so many years and con-
tinue to create the same problem which you
never seem to take care of.
Perhaps the Minister is not too concerned
about the welfare of the people in this case
but I am sure that he is concerned strictly
in terms of dollars and cents. An increased
investment in family counselling services
would probably cut down your welfare costs
by a great amount— or by a great percentage
anyway.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know how
many times I will repeat for the hon. mem-
ber's benefit: we are interested in rehabili-
tation and preventative policies. Those are
the first two words that I used as Minister
of the department when the department was
already under way with this programme.
Family counselling and counselling in all
of its aspects is, I think, the great road to
solving a lot of our difficulties— not from the
point of view of the taxpayers' dollars and
cents but from the point of view of dignity
and independence and well-being of the re-
cipient. This is where our efforts will be.
However, building up a staff capable of
achieving and working under the very diffi-
cult circumstances is not an overnight propo-
sition. This is a long-term proposition and
we hope that this is where the basic gains
will be coming.
Mr. Makarchuk: I hope he is right, Mr.
Chairman. I believe in Brantford, as an
example, there are about 26 families that
have been around for many years— and we
still have 26 families. If you are taking care
of this particular problem we hope to see
the numbers of these families cut down in
the next few years. I will be looking at
these figures and looking forward to some
more action from your department.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
family counselling? The hon. member for
Hamilton East.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Yes, Mr.
Chairman, I agree with the member for
Brantford. This is an important facet of the
department and it is the key to future suc-
cess in the rehabilitation programme. I won-
der if the Minister would elaborate some-
what on this family counselling section.
I have noticed a great lack of this in the
Hamilton area. He mentioned briefly in an
answer to the member for Scarborough East
that something was taking place in Hamilton.
The Hamilton branch, of course, is very ac-
commodating in many cases. But, I found it
difficult to find someone to get information
for a family that needed this type of help.
How is this kind of service initiated from the
Hamilton branch? Do they pick their own
cases? Are there special officers in the Ham-
ilton branch or do we have to request,
through them, that a particular case be
looked into?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, we will be de-
veloping this work in the Hamilton regional
office. As I stated, all the cases will be
examined to see what potential cases there
are which can be rehabilitated. The work
will go on from there.
Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, regarding
the family services agencies— or the family
counselling agencies— and private agencies
that are in existence at the moment, is the
Minister planning or is he giving them any
financial assistance in order to hire more
people or better qualified people? Or, do you
have any plans in this direction, in the future?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not currently
supply any funds to private agencies within
the particular field.
Mr. Makarchuk: Do you intend to supply
funds at any time?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is a matter for
future consideration, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
family counselling? The hon. member for
Peterborough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): I won-
der if the Minister could indicate how many
are actually working in the area of family
counselling services in his department as
MAY 6, 1969
4017
compared to the private agencies of family
counselling across the province?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would think that the
total number in the private sector would be
greater than those specifically assigned from
our department. This is one area in which
there is.
I have begun to grasp, the overlap that
exists between private agencies in the various
fields. The children's aid society is moving
more and more into not just the work related
to children, but to the family as a unit. Then
there are the family service bureaus as they
existed through the years in which there was
assistance to needy families but at first with-
out the kind of counselling service that is
available today. Family service bureaus al-
ways provided in the early days the Christ-
mas baskets at Christmastime and camp in
the summer. They are all worthwhile objects
but not, at least at that time, of the highly
specialized professional kind of work.
One of the problems that will be confront-
ing the research and planning branch is to
take an inventory of all the services within
the province. As I have stated we will find
out who is doing what with whose dollar.
The use of the words "family service" is
something that we will have to examine
in detail before we come to any conclusions
as to where we will go from here.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if the Minister could
indicate whether there is anything specifically
or philosophically different in the kind of
services which the family counselhng agencies
are providing in the private sector and the
family counselhng which the Minister's
department is attempting to initiate and to
expand? It seems to me that you have, at
present, a great deal of family counselling
going on in the province of Ontario. This is
specifically what the Minister himself wants.
In other words, I think the Minister has
said on occasion here, during the discussion
of his estimates, that we have to look at
social services in a family setting. We have
a whole spectrum of services going at each
family and it seems to me that the family
counselling service are doing exactly this. It
is quite within the Minister's legislative possi-
bihties to provide full support for family
counselling agencies across this province.
What I find particularly disconcerting, to say
the least, is the fact that you have family
counselhng service agencies starved for funds
—trying to get along on pennies.
At the same time, the Minister— as I say I
tliink the Minister will agree it is the same
kind of service— is going ahead and launching
his own family counselling operation without
doing something about the existing services
which exist at the present time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not think there is
much difference basically or philosophicaly,
at least in the stated goals. I am not in a
position to give, at this point, a ministerial
evaluation of the individual form, but philoso-
phically they are the same. We are developing
our own programmes designed basically to
our own particular chentele. I can see where
the family service bureaus might have a
chentele outside of our own sphere because
their family counselhng can quite possibly
take place in famihes where there is no
welfare problem.
I do not know how the ultimate integration
of these two services will take place because
we have had the traditional family service
bureaus which have been in existence for a
considerable period of time. We have the
children's aid societies which, in deahng with
the children's problems, are dealing with the
family unit. We have om: own department
moving into this sphere in recent times and
there will come a time when there will have
to be evaluation and a meshing or an integra-
tion of all these programmes to make sure
that: 1. There is no overlapping; and 2. That
there are no areas in which there are people
falling through the mesh.
Mr. Pitman: To proceed just a bit further:
There are though, family counselling agencies
in the province of Ontario which are provid-
ing services for those who are receiving either
general welfare assistance or family benefits.
I think this is undoubtedly true. What I
would like to know is this: Does this Minis-
ter's department provide any recompense for
services rendered where his department can-
not provide the service which, under his own
legislation, he should be able to provide?
That is, the private agencies are providing
that service and receiving no help whatever
from the province.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The memlber's assess-
ment is quite correct; we have not reached
into that point of assistance as yet.
Mr. Pitman: I do not think any private
family counselling service would deny the
Minister's right to organize this service under
his department, particularly for those people
who are receiving general welfare assistance
and family benefits. At the present time when
these family counselling services are in dire
4018
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
need of help, they should be at least recom-
pensed for the services they are rendering
through the Minister's department.
I think this is something that all the family
counselling services across the province have
a right to demand. I think they have a right
particularly when legislation exists in this
country which would allow the Minister to
give full recompense to all these family
counseUing services— if the Minister wished
to put this legislation into effect in the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Brant-
ford.
Mr. Makarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It seems to me that the Minister says that his
philosophy is to go into preventive mainten-
ance, but when you look at this figure,
$211,000, this is about one- third of one per
cent of your total budget. To try to prevent
welfare, I suggest that you put your dollars
where your philosophy is supposed to be.
Perhaps we could get some action in this
particular welfare matter because family
counselling is a matter of very urgent impor-
tance as has been stressed by other people.
In every community, I am sure, there are
generations of families who have been on
welfare. They are the so-called multi-problem
families and really your department has done
very little with them. The private agencies,
of course, do not have the facilities. As an
example, in Brantford you have one qualified
social worker trying to handle the work in a
city of about 65,000 people. You realize that
this is hardly an adequate ratio to pro^'ide
the proper kind of service or counselling for
these families.
Mr. Chairman: We will move on to the
next programme, Indian community develop-
ment service.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the matter has
been raised already in the deliberations of
the Legislature since we began our work last
fall. But, I want to begin by telling the
Minister that I sense a general dissatisfaction
with his eff^orts and the eff^orts of the govern-
ment in co-ordinating provincial services for
the Indian people in the province.
I do not think it is necessary for us to
repeat the information that has been put
before the Legislature already this session—
particularly relating the Mitiister's action*
with the statement by his predecessor, Mr.
Cecile, in 1966. Predictions were made then
of massive expenditures, new initiatives in
the care and development of the Indian
people, assistance for the solutions of many
of the problems that have plagued them both
in the southern parts of the province and the
different problems that they face in the
northern part of Ontario.
I would like to assess some of the things
that are usually brought forward as specific
complaints as far as the Minister's leadership
in this regard is concerned. First, I would
say that the Cabinet committee chaired by
the Minister of Social and Family Services
carries with it the overtones of welfare which
have plagued our efforts to assist Indians for
too long. Most of the work that is carried
out under the direction of the department—
and I would say it is pitifully little— is asso-
ciated with the welfare responsibilities on the
reserves, or with the provincial welfare offices
off of the reserves. Because of this, it carries
with it a taint which is sometimes reflected
in the attitudes of those people employed by
the Minister's department and others asso-
ciated with it.
Now, when I use the word taint, I hope I
am not offending anyone particularly, because
I am simply referring to the fact that for
more than 100 years the approach that we
have taken in this Legislature and through
The Department of Indian Affairs federally,
has always been from the standpoint of
welfare. Sometimes it is just a handout to
tide the Indian people over a period of
difficulty. This has been the extent to which
we have been prepared to use our initiative
and the resources of the state— and specifically
this province.
I do not believe that the government's
approach can any longer be effective if it is
tied to any one department— and specifically
not the department that is usually thought
of as the department of welfare. I believe
that it must be government policy and that
the responsibility be removed from this Min-
ister and centred in the office of the Premier
(Mr. Robarts). So, if we are going to con-
tinue with a committee approach, it will not
be with any thought or policy which would
indicate that any one department— whether it
is Education, Health, or Welfare-will have
the predominant role to play in the solution
to problems plaguing the Indian communit>'—
particularly those problems plaguing the
white community and what their relationship
should be with Indian citizens.
Many complaints have been put forward
l:)y those in the Indian community, sometimes
working for government and sometimes not,
which have drawn public attention to the
inadequacies of the role played by the
MAY 6, 1969
4019
Minister and his department. Some of these
have been put on the record previously, but
I feel that I should bring to your attention,
Mr. Chairman, those which were specifically
listed by the president of the Indian-Eskimo
association in his report to that organization
in the fall of last year.
It will only take a moment, because it
refers specifically to the lack of enthusiasm
demonstrated by the Minister and his advisors
in acceding to Indian initiatives. I quote
from the report of the president to the third
annual meeting of the members of the Ontario
division of the Indian-Eskimo Association of
Canada. The report was delivered in London,
Ontario, on September 21, 1968, I quote:
Indian initiative has been expressed by
grant requests to support folk school pro-
jects, the Indian Hall of. Fame at the CNE,
the Union of Ontario Indian Field Work
Project on changes in The Indian Act, and
the Canadian Indian Youth Worksihop at
Waterloo.
1'his, of course, is a list that is already ten
months old and there are other requests, I
imderstand, that have been put to the com-
munity development programme that acts
under this branch, which have been turned
down for reasons which tiie Indians feel have
been inadequate. Their chief criticism is that
the government programme setting aside $1
milHon to finance it tends to bring forward
these initiatives. But, it appears that the gov-
ernment has not taken the time and has not
put forward the effort to develop tiie machin-
ery for the implementation of programmes
that depend on Indian initiative.
I suppose that there are some other ones
even among the three or four that I have
listed to you, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps
could have been replaced by programmes
that might have been more effective. But, still,
the record of the department is dismal and
extremely lacking in support for approaches
taken by the Indians to make use of these
community development fronts.
It appears to the Indians and others that
the Minister's role in this matter has been
aggressive. He is there to deliver the speeches,
indicating the continuing and growing interest
of, not only the people of Ontario but in his
words the government of Ontario. In fact,
little or nothing has l^een done to activate
government machinery which must, in the
long run, make available to the Indians— on
and off the resene— the complete range of
facilities that arc available to citizens in this
province.
The Minister has an advisory committee,
chaired by a very good friend of mine, a citi-
zen of the Six Nations Reserve, Elliot Moses.
I believe he is the chairman, is that correct?
Right. This advisory committee, as I under-
stand—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Hon. members, a clari-
fication. At my request, the Indian advisory
committee is present with us tliis afternoon.
Mr. Nixon: And I would say further that
the capacity of the committee to advise the
Minister in this regard, I feel has to be
emphasized far more than it has in the past.
This committee must be representative of the
aspirations of the Indian commimities in the
reserves and off the reserv^es, and it must be
made clear to Indians who are perhaps not
closely associated with those groups from
whom the advisory commimity has been
chosen. In fact their responsibiHties so far are
only adAdsory. They have been given by the
Minister under a provincial programme; there
are no particular resx>onsibiHties, let us say, to
extract from the Indian community what
their requirements are. Admittedly, these re-
quirements are frenquently in conflict, one
with the other, but the advisory committee,
I beUeve, must be a channel, a pipeline, so
that those in the Indian community, many of
whom are becoming increasingly active in
these matters, will have a clear channel to
the Minister and to the public in what I
hope would be a responsible way.
Too often the lack of this clear channel
has forced Indians, who perhaps have very
strong views on some matters that are not re-
flected by tlie advisory committee or by this
Minister or by his counterpart at the federal
level, to take public positions, whidi I sup-
pose are somewhat embarrassing to their fel-
low-Indians. This is something that the Min-
ister must be aware of. He has within liis
power and tlie prestige of his office, the re-
sponsibility to upgrade tliis advisory com-
mittee, to make it a clear channel for the
voice of the Indians in contacting govern-
ment so that they can use this vehicle to
express publicly so many of their views. They
are sometimes in conflict now and not al-
ways expressed in the general support of the
Indian cause.
The advisory committee, as I said, has no
power to make decisions. I feel tliat the
Minister has a tendency to relegate them to a
position where they perhaps cannot perform
their functions as effectively as they might
otherwise do. The net result is that in an
attempt to move into the areas of providing
provincial services, too frequently we are hung
4020
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
by the time-consuming problem of joint com-
mittees between those people representing
the appropriate branch of the administration
provincially, with tlieir counterparts in tlie
federal level. If we are always going to have
to move through the machinery of a joint
committee whenever there is a problem asso-
ciated with handling funds and expertise in
the development of Indian housing, or water
resources, or economic development, or the
provision of adequate medical ins\irance, or
the establishment of an ARDA programme on
an Indian reserve or even a new departure
in the provisions of education, eidier on the
reserve or integrated schools off the reserves,
in my view and in my experience, these joint
committees are often an excuse for postpone-
ment and procrastination. They usually result
in the public services at lx)th levels coming
into conflict not associated with personalities,
I trust, but associated with conflicting regula-
tions and perhaps views of what should be
the ultimate result in these important matters.
I have felt that this Minister, if he is going
to continue in the role of having a chief
governmental responsibility, should be meet-
ing on a regular basis with the top officials
or his counterparts at the federal level. Then
decisions can be arrived at which can be
implemented at the civil service level rather
than having the exploratory discussions among
the bureaucrats— I use the word I hope, in its
best sense— and waiting until some cominon
areas are exposed before the Ministers involve
themselves. Unfortunately the Ministers
reach a position where they can make a
decision far too infrequently. The net result
is tliat we find Ministers at both levels accus-
ing opposite numbers of, perhaps, obscuring
the issue.
This is particularly true in tlie provision of
medical insurance services for Indians on and
off the reserve. This Minister, while he has
the chief responsibility apparently for the
Cabinet, has not entered into the great debate
between his colleague, the Minister of Healtli
(Mr. Dymond), and the Minister of Healtli
and Welfare at Ottawa on just who does have
the prime responsibility for paying for the
OMSIP premium for indigent Indians. We
know who lias the responsibility for paying
the premium for citizens of Ontario in general
and it is our feeling on tliis side of tlie
House that this should be extended to all
citizens, Indians and otherwise. There can be
no doubt in the mind of anyone in this prov-
ince that if they hve in Ontario, they can
have equal and fair access to the facilities of
tlie medical services insurance programmes.
But this is an area where the Minister
of Social and Family Services, who has been
designated as the man who bears the continu-
ing responsibility, has failed not only his
colleagues, who surely do not want to be
involved in a continuing controversy on this
specific issue or any other, but has failed the
Indians in the province, who are partly in a
position where they can get OMSIP some-
times by subterfuge, but who apparently do
not have the same right to it as other citizens
in Ontario.
I do not know what tlie alternatives are.
I want to list a few of tlie alternatives to the
present impasse that the policy of this govern-
ment has arrived at in implementing what
have been well-spoken ideals, put forward by
the Premier and by this Minister. They simply
do not get past those stages. All of the fine
words that we remember over tlie years
specifically from 1966— have come to naught.
I would say that there is general dissatisfac-
tion with the government policy and with the
present Minister's inability to bring it to any
kind of fruition that will indicate that we are
moving in this important field.
In British Columbia, the Prime Minister
there, has set aside a fund of $1 million, the
interest from which is going to be used to
serve the needs of the Indian population. In
describing this, I thought the Prime Minister
of British Columbia used a very unfortunate
phrase indeed. I believe he said that it was
going to be recognized for 1,000 years as a
monument to Social Credit policy.
There is something about that that I fiml
extremely offensive but, nevertheless, this is
the way Mr. Bennett has coped with the
situation, which is a bit different in British
Columbia admittedly, but still has been a
continuing problem. For one thing, I do not
think the funds are sufficient. If he is going to
tie it to politics as tightly as he has, it is
obvious that it is going to l)e a failure before
it even gets imderway.
In Alberta, there has l^een a more sophisti-
cated approach culminating in the appoint-
ment of a liimian resources development
authority. This has gathered together the
various responsibilities provincially and, I
understand, dirough ARDA at least, a large
chunk of federal funds and federal responsi-
bility which co-ordinates welfare, health, edu-
cation, lands and forests and the broader
aspects of ARDA. In the province of Alberta,
tliere is this authority, which I suppose is
somewhat independent of the political direc-
tion of the government itself. But it is an
attempt to co-ordinate, not just under one
MAY 6, 1969
4021
department but under a broader purview,
the approach to the solution of the difficulties
as they are experienced in Alberta.
In Saskatchewan, Premier Thatcher has
taken a very direct approach. He has set
aside a substantial sum of money. I should
know what it is but he has simply created a
department of Indian and Metis affairs. Out
there, of course, the proportion of the com-
munity of Metis extraction is substantial and
the approach the government has taken over
the years has been considerably different from
the inaction characteristic of Ontario's policy.
I would say again, Mr. Chairman, that I
feel we must move away from the co-ordina-
tion or attempted co-ordination of Ontario's
policy by one Minister, because it tends to
give die whole policy the slant and shadow
of the a;pproach of that Minister's department.
I feel this is particularly bad when that
department happens to be the department
of welfare. There is no doubt that over the
years and in the future the facihties of this
department must be an important aspect of
our total Indian poHcy in the province. But
it cannot intrude itself into all of the matters
that are our concern.
I imderstand that the community develop-
ment officers already available work through
the welfare facilities or the welfare office on
the reserve, or the welfare offices in the oom-
mimities close to the reserves in those areas
where they are dealing with Indians who
are not reserve Indians.
I have also been informed that few, if any,
of these development officers are of Indian
extraction themselves, although I believe I
know of one who specifically is. I feel this is
an area for substantial improvement.
The result of our experience, I believe,
should be that if we are going to have a
Cabinet committee roughly corresponding to
the Alberta human resources development
authority, and close to the Cabinet. I have no
objection to this. As a matter of fact, it
appeals to me more than having a more in-
dependent authority. It should come directly
under the Premier so that it will have no
cast associated with any particular depart-
ment. I have tlie feeling, and maybe I am
unfair in this, that the Minister's reference
to the Cabinet committee of which he is the
chairman, is in essence a farce. Perhaps there
are certain messages going among the dif-
ferent members of the Cabinet that would
bring them into the effectiveness of certain
projects. There is no continuing conmiittee
tliat deals with this on a substantial basis
gathering to tliemselves the responsibility to
solve the problem, or at least make tlie
provincial involvement meaningful to the
Indians in this province.
I believe that the Minister should recom-
mend that he be removed from this respon-
sibility; that it go to the Prime Minister's office
and that it have its own secretariat which,
in fact, would be, let us say, roughly com-
parable to the human resources development
authority in Alberta.
I am not for a moment suggesting that
there be a separate department charged with
this responsibility. I think it is obvious that
the facilities, services and programmes of all
provincial departments must be made
uniformly available. While the Minister, for
some years now, has protested this is the
goal of government policy and that, in fact,
many of our programmes are available to
Indians, yet I do not think there has been a
sufficient deployment of personnel who arc
knowledgeable. I do not believe there has
been the thrust to take these programmes
out to the Indian reserves and those with the
responsibility for ordering Indian affairs
among the Indian community itself.
But while it may look good on paper, we
are still labouring along at about the same
level, as was characteristic of the govern-
ment's effort five, six, seven, even ten years
ago. There has been a number of studies
relating to this matter carried out by this
Legislature. I recall the members of the
select committee on Indian affairs visiting
the Six Nations Reserve back in the late
1950's. The report is available in the librar>'
and their emphasis on expanding provincial
responsibility and moving away from the
error in constitutional interpretation that so
often has been the reason for the province
to shirk its duties. These recommendations
are still there in the report of this select com-
mittee.
Still, I feel that the members of this Legis-
lature might be brought into the matters of
evolving Indian policy perhaps a little more
immediately than we are at present. There
were one or two occasions on private
members' motions and the voting of this
particular sum of money when we could dis-
cuss it quite freely. Yet we do not have an
opportunity to sit down with the representa-
tives of the Indian community, whether or
not it would be the members of the Minister's
advisory committee. We take this respon-
sibility on ourselves, particularly those of us
who come from constituencies where there
are significant Indian populations and where
4022
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we are in a position to avail ourselves of the
opinions that they would put forward.
I would make definite recommendation to
the Minister that he recommend to his
Cabinet colleagues that he be divested of his
specific responsibilities since over the years,
even though there have been many proud
announcements, in effect little or nothing has
been accomplished. I believe the only
possible way that go\ernment policy is going
to be implemented would be by a committee
responsible to the Prime Minister. It would
have associated with it a staff of people
interested and expert, taken from the Indian
community itself and from those in the com-
munity at large, who are capable of bringing
into effect the policies that have been
announced in the recent past and bringing
these policies up to date, particularly those
having to do with the provision of health
services.
In this way, if the committee is properly
funded from an appropriate vote in the Prime
Minister's department or elsewhere in the
estimates, we can move forward in meeting
the problems that have been such a difficulty
and, I submit, an embarrassment to us all
for so long. There was a time when Indian
affairs occupied very little of the interest of
the members of this House. There was a
general consensus that our colleagues in
Ottawa had the responsibihty and the where-
withal to deal with it. While we were pre-
pared to be critical of that still we now feel
that the load of responsibility is transferring
to us.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we
on this side are prepared to co-operate with
the government in a meaningful revision of
present policy and putting forward the funds
that will implement this policy in conjunction
with the advice that comes to us from the
Indian corrgnnnity.
This, as the Minister knows, is a ver>'
difficult thing to undertake. The advice that
comes from the Indian community is not
ulwa>s as coherent and easy to act upon as
we would hope.
The Minister's advisory committee, as I
have already said, must be strengthened so
that it can serve as a pipeline from the admin-
istration to the Indian community. We, as
pri\ate members must try to make oursches
a\ailable for this purpose as well.
Mr. Chainnan, I trust that this will be the
last time that the main arm of government
policy will be the Minister of welfare. I
believe we must move away from this and,
snvclv the Minister himself realizes that his
continuing position under the Prime Minister
in this regard is something that, of course,
will be of great importance.
But I would hope and tmst that during the
discussion of voting of $1.3 million for this
purpose, we can hear from the Minister, not
what he has accomplished in the past year—
because no amount of oratory or selling is
going to convince me that it has been effec-
tive—but that we are prepared to step away
from the entrapments of previous policy and
previous decisions— that we are prepared to
make a new approach and new decisions with
the acceptance of common goals at the pro-
vincial and federal level. I do not believe it
is worthwhile wasting the time of the House
recalling to the Minister the need for mean-
ingful consultation with the Indian commu-
nity and not moving in a policy area unless
it is going to be accepted by these people.
We are prepared, and must be seen to be
prepared, to make available all provincial
programmes, from OMSIP on up and down,
and that this is the area where practical
implementation of provincial programmes is
our chief responsibility.
Mr. Chainnan: The hon. member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Chairman, it is with a good deal of chagrin
that I enter this debate for the proper allo-
cation of funds to the Indian development
branch of The Department of Social and
Family Services. I remember quite vividly
about a year ago we voted $1,428,000 for
this purpose. It is very difficult to ascertain
in a real way just how much has been spent
in the past year because the 36th annual
report of The Department of Social and
Family Services brings us up to the fiscal year
1966-1967, wherein the Indian development
branch shows an expenditure of $111,370.
Out of $1,428,000, supposedly allocated for
the various programmes that this govern-
ment felt should be instituted by this depart-
ment, I am told that a little over $200,000
of those actual moneys was spent.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): How do
you explain that?
Mr. Stokes: This year, we are asked to
appropriate a sirni of $1,348,000. I do not
know how much of that is going to be spent,
but if the Minister is saying that he is ful-
filling his obligations towards the native
people of this province by spending about
one-fifth of total moneys allocated for this
purpose, I think he is wearing either blinders
or rose-coloured glasses. If he was repre-
MAY 6. 1969
4023
senting a constituency, such as I have the
privilege of representing, where we have
some 22 Indian reservations and Indian com-
munities, he would see that such is not the
case. I suppose I was a little bit naive,
taking the Minister at his word and sitting
back and waiting, all, or at least some of it,
would have been accomplished in the inter-
vening year.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He
can outsit you any day.
Mr. Stokes: I want to refer specifically to
what the Minister has said during the esti-
mates of this department. On May 27, 1968,
in Hansard, in response to some of the spe-
cific problems that we drew to his attention,
I quote:
I touch very briefly upon the Cabinet committee
and its counterpart in the civil service, the inter-
departmental committee. The interdepartmental com-
mittee is becoming an accepted vehicle throughout the
government in total for carrying out responsibilities
where there are overlapping jurisdictions. It has been
my conviction that no other departmental committee
is as imjwrtant in making eflFective our work as this
one is in order to come to grips with a problem. I
am delighted to say that at the meeting with the
sub-committee of Cabinet, I think that I can say
without any breach of my oath of secrecy, that never
have I attended a Cabinet committee meeting in
which there was such an out-and-out complete
endorsation of the necessity for interdepartmental
cooperation and enthusiasm.
I turn to my immediate colleagues here, the Min-
ister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and the
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), both of whom
have responsibilities with regard to the Indians and
both of whom have an intimate knowledge of Indians
because they have contact with them. The Minister
of Lands and Forests (Mr. Brunelle), who tradition-
ally has had this over a i)eriod of years, had a great
interest and I am delighted to say that he is going
to build upon his predecessor.
Mr. MacDonald: Words, words, words.
Mr. Lewis: He built upon his predecessor?
Mr. Stokes: Further he states:
We have the know-how and the resources, Mr,
Chairman. We set up our own organization, the
Cabinet sub-committee, and the interdepartmental
committees to be channelled through the newly-estab-
lished Indian developments branch, to be channelled
at the grass-roots level to the Indian development
oflBcer. And this is one place where I disagree with
the hon. member from York South; I believe that
the Indian development oflScer has a great contribu-
tion to make because he is at the end of this know-
how and resources.
Mr. Lewis: And he is usually right.
Mr. Stokes: Quoting:
We have set up with this vehicle, within the pro-
vincial sector, another very basic principle of the
involvement of the Indian himself.
Of course, he was dealing with tiie respon-
sibilities for certain phase of assistance to our
native people that fell witliin the purview of
the department of Indian affairs, at the fed-
eral level, and what he considered to be a
provincial responsibility. He says:
Without taking a hard and fast position on that,
we have gone further. We have provided $1 milUon
in the department branch to look after these things,
where before we had assumed that the money for
those things would be coming from Ottawa under an
Indian development agreement.
Again, let me reiterate about one-fifth of the
total money appropriated during last year's
budget were actually spent towards that end.
Further, Mr. Chairman, he says:
I point out that Item 24 is Indians and land
reserved for Indians, and that is the same listing as
such things as currency and coinage, naturalization
and ahenism, so that it is clear to me at least that
tliis is a matter I shall be discussing in more detail
with the Attorney General where the constitutional
responsibility lies.
My colleague, the hon. member for River-
dale, in speaking during the constitutional
debate about three weeks ago, outlined our
party's position with regard to the constitu-
tional responsibihty for the problems of our
native people. I recommend it to you; it is
excellent reading.
I have had an excellent response from the
Indian community on the position that our
party has taken with regard to the constitu-
tional question and, as I say once again, I
recommend it to the Minister. I could go on
and on about what the Minister says he is
doing; what his department is going to do in
tlie intervening year. Here we are, one year
later, right back in a worse position actually
than we were last year. Time is running out
for the white community according to the
dialogue that I have had with the Indian
people, whether it be the Canadian union or
the Canadian Indian brotherhood that met
recently in Ottawa.
I had occasion to speak to one of those
delegates just this morning. They came away
completely frustrated and they are looking to
the province for some kind of solution to their
problems. In speaking to the union of On-
tario Indians, the same kind of frustration has
manifested itself.
On August 14, 1967, a communication was
addressed to the Minister from the imion of
Ontario Indians, over the signature of Omar
Peters, who was the president at that time.
He made a request for fimds to The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services so that
they could identify the problems and concerns
of Indian people; to provide facilities for
joint planning and co-operative action among
4024
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Indians; and to assist in examining and evalu-
ating current services and to ensure that
needed services are extended to all Indians;
and to assist Indians to fully understand the
services that are available to them and the
procedures by which these services provide
an opportunity for Indian people to partici-
pate in the planning and conducting of ser-
vices. The union of Ontario Indians feels that
effective programmes must be accompanied
by participation by Indians in each region of
the province.
The leader of the Opposition alluded on
many occasions during his remarks to the
Indian advisory board. I can only echo the
sentiments that were expressed by the hon.
leader of the Opposition— that there is com-
plete and total fmstration among these people.
I have had the opportunity of reading many
of the recommendations that went to the
Minister and his department which emanated
from this board. About the only one of any
consequence, I am told, that was ever ini-
tiated or acted upon, was that this depart-
ment was able to bring two young Indian
boys from a northern reserve down to act as
page boys in this Legislature.
If this is the only kind of contribution that
this Indian advisory board is going to make,
or if this is the only kind of consultation that
the Minister is going to engage himself in
with this body, it is little wonder that this
board has become utterly and totally fnis-
trated with the Minister and his Indian de-
\ olopment branch.
In March of this year, the union of Ontario
Indians again came back and requested finan-
cial assistance to send an Indian fact-finding
team into every reserve and Indian settle-
ment to document existing conditions. This
documentation would be in the field of hous-
ing, employntient, education, recreation, sani-
tation, water supply, communication facilities,
food pricing as it relates to welfare payments,
social and cultural aspects, economic develop-
ment opportunities, and law enforcement,
along with religious involvement and political
in\'olvement.
Upon completion of this fact-finding tour,
they would submit recommendations to the
government in order that programmes be
instituted to alleviate the present problem
facing our native people. It is estimated that
fi\'e Indian field workers will be occupied for
nine months making this comprehensive sur-
vey at a cost in the neighbourhood of $54,000.
To date, they have had no assurance that
cither the federal or the provincial govern-
ment is interested in their plan or willing to
assist.
My leader, the member for York South, put
a question before tlie orders of the day to the
Minister, asking what action the Minister plans
to take as a result of this request. We got the
same time-honoured reply that he was con-
sulting with his counterparts in Ottawa and
in due course they would reach some kind of
decision. That was his reply.
As late as a week ago last Friday, the Min-
ister travelled to the Lakehead to open a
new health facility there. He was met by a
group of Indian people representing the Metis
association of Lake Nipigon, the Armstrong
Indian association and various other groups in
northwestern Ontario. He assured them that
they would be given a very close and sym-
pathetic hearing of their problems. I asked
the Minister a little earlier today when he
planned to meet them, as a result of three
urgent phone calls, two last night and one
this morning, wondering when they might get
on with the business of looking after the
people they happen to represent and for
whom they are the spokesmen.
He tells me the director of the Indian de-
velopment branch will be going up in the
near future and he will be travelling through
northwestern Ontario some time later. I want
to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister
that if he does not get with it, it is not
going to be too long before the Indians
are going to become much more militant. I
cannot say that I disagree with the position
they are taking, because when they find that
all their efforts through various organizations,
both at the federal and provincial levels, have
led to nothing but frustration, I can readily
see they wall be frustrated to the point where
they will have to take much more militant
action.
If you go back into the history of how we
have treated the Indians, I think it is safe to
say that the white man has stolen the Indians'
land. The white man has almost destroyed
the Indian culture and stripped him of his
pride. White men have forced their Indian
brothers to live in conditions that no white
man would want for himself. The average life
span for a Canadian Indian is 31 years, com-
pared with 64 for a white. Of all Indian
famihes, 88 per cent hve below the poverty
line of $3,000 per annxmi; 47 per cent of all
the Indian famihes earn less than $1,000; 90
per cent of the Indian homes on Canadian
reserves have no indoor toilets; almost as
many have no running water, and only a half
have electricity.
MAY 6, 1969
4025
In order to better themselves, many Indians
are moving to our cities but in the cities of
Canada, Indians have great difficulty in find-
ing employment, because only half the
Indians of school age attend school. They
lack the educational quahfications, the tech-
nical skills and the social skills to find em-
ployment. Many who want jobs do not know
how to go about finding them. One result has
been that many Indians are coming into con-
flict with white man's law and large numbers
of Indians are appearing in our courts and
jails.
Why has this happened? It has happened
because in his arrogance and pride, the white
man deliberately set out to destroy the
Indian's culture and tried to make the Indian
in his own image. The white man did not
even stop to see if there was anything he
could learn from the Indian and there is
much that can be learned. Indian society is
based on co-operation and sharing, not com-
petition and acquisitiveness. The Indian cul-
ture has a respect for nature, which the white
man is only now beginning to discover.
The Indian has a respect for the dignity
of his fellow-man, which is too often lacking
in our white society. Because the white man
did not respect the Indian culture, Indians
were not consulted before The Indian Act
was presented to Parliament in 1951. The
result was an Act totally unsuited to the
needs of the Indian people. The eflFect of the
Act is to sap initiative and to destroy self-
respect. The Act gives control of every facet
of the Indian life to those outside the com-
munity. The original Act even denied the
Indians the ri^t to vote.
The Indian aflFairs branch of The Depart-
ment of Indian Affairs and Northern De-
velopment and, indeed, the Indian develop-
ment branch of The Department of Social
and Family Services, determine the pattern
of Ufe for treaty Indians. Band elections can
be invahdated by the Minister at his dis-
cretion. I will not condemn this Minister for
anything he has done in a positive way be-
cause actually, as the leader of the Opposi-
tion has said, really he has not done anything.
So he stands condemned for his inaction
rather than his action.
On the reserve, Indians have no control
over their educational system; off the reserve,
Indians are never members of a local school
board and other representative bodies. One
result of this latter situation is the high
Indian drop-out rate from wliite urban
schools. An Indian child who is suspended
or expelled from school is automatically classi-
fied as a juvenile delinquent.
Finally, the composition of the staff of
The Department of Indian Affairs and the
Indian development branch of The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services reflects
the paternalistic attitude of the white man
towards the Indian— only 10 per cent of the
staff at the federal level, and I would say that
it is even less than that at the provincial
level, if indeed there are any at all of In-
dian origin. In discussing the problem of
recruitment for community development
officers with officials of this department, I
find tliat last year there were 13 short. I
understand now there is a shortage of up to
five. The union of Ontario Indians has agreed
to make native people available for these
surveys. They will go in, because they are
much more readily accepted, than people that
you could recruit, by our native people living
on reserves and in Indian settlements off re-
serves in many cases and on the fringes of
unorganized communities.
It would be much simpler for native people
and, in some cases, even they are not accepted
right off the bat. But it would be much
simpler to have native people going to these
reserves and Indian settlements where they
could communicate with their own people and
gain the confidence of them. I think that the
dialogue would be much more meaningful.
I think that we would be able to get to the
root of the problem and the social needs,
much more readily than anybody that you
could recruit for this type of work in your
department.
I am further given to understand that you
will not allow any recruitment outside the
province. It is quite possible that we may be
able to recruit a lot of these people from
other jurisdictions where they have had some
dialogue, some exchange with native people
in other areas. They might be willing to come
to Ontario and serve as community develop-
ment officers where they are needed.
But I think the union of Ontario Indians
has come up with the right answer: Send
their own people in where they can communi-
cate more effectively. They can seek out the
troubled areas and come back with a mean-
ingful approach to the problems that they
find in these reserves. I just simply cannot
imderstand the Minister's reluctance to accede
to wishes and accept the hand of co-operation
from these people. They will need the re-
sources, but certainly they will provide the
personnel and— for a modest sum of $54,000
which they have outlined— would look after
tlie problem. I think that the Minister and
4026
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
liis department is missing a golden oppor-
tunity in not accepting this and I would re-
commend tliis course of action to him and
insist that he get on witii the job.
Without consultation vvitii the Indian
people, where they have the confidence of
people in such dire social need, I do not know
how we are going to resolve tliis problem.
It is not a case of whether or not you should
do it. I do not think the Minister has any
option at all. I tliink it is just a case of
when you are going to get on with it.
Over tlie past year since I have had the
pleasure of representing Thunder Bay in this
Legislature, I have had occasion to bring to
the Minister's attention many cases of social
needs in small communities in the north. Ann-
strong, for example, where the social need is
so great for housing, or proper educational
facilities, for homemaker training courses, for
health nurses, for the kind of people who
would go into tliose communities and assist
these people to spend their money wisely.
I do not know how the Minister can pro-
crastinate to the extent that he has, certainly
over the past year, when I have been close
to the scene. The same conditions exist to a
lesser degree in places like MacDiarmid where
people are living oflF reserves. The crying need
is for housing and a good many of tlie social
services. The assistance that the Indian people
need is lacking in those settings where they
find tliemselves, a good many of them squat-
ting on Crown land where really the federal
authorities or die provincial authorities keep
sloughing tlie responsibihty for these needs
from one to the other. It is no wonder that
the native people have become completely
frustrated.
To try to pinpoint the problem, I became
aware just recently of a programme for oflF-
reserve housing for Indian people. Just to
show you how meaningless it is, I would
like to outiine briefly what it entails.
The Department of Indian Affairs, at the
federal level, in connection with Central
Mortgage and Housing, has made a housing
plan, similar to The Veterans Land Act
programme, available to Indians living oflF
reserves. It is not much known by the Indians
and it would not be much use to them if it
was. The programme provides for a first
mortgage under NHA for an Indian who can
qualify for an ordinary NHA mortgage loan.
This would cut out most of them. In addi-
tion, it provides a forgivable second mort-
gage for the entire down payment but Indians
must reside on the property for ten years to
get this. Otherwise, he pays the second mort-
gage at the usual rates.
So, it is no-down-payment housing with
grants for a second mortgage if he stays on
the property for ten years, and a first mort-
gage at regular NHA rates. I have known of
only one person who has qualified to date in
all of northwestern Ontario. As a matter of
fact, I had the pleasure of assisting him on
the negotiations for the only one, I think,
that has been provided— this is for new homes
in all of northwestern Ontario.
Now just recently in the Telegram of April
12, 1969, they make mention of a programme
that is being initiated by this level of govern-
ment. It says:
Two heartening progranmies of aid to
Ontario's northern Indians were described
in the Telegram's news colunms this week.
The first one talks about making doctors
available to isolated communities of the
north. The second one says an Ontario
government plan will provide low-cost loans
to Indian individuals and co-operatives to
allow them to build their own homes in
areas where Indians have been unable to
qualify for federal aid. Indians on reserves
have been eligible for substantial housing
assistance from the federal Department of
Indian Affairs. Indians in cities or other
organized municipalities have likewise been
able to receive special and generous fed-
eral housing aid through The Department
of Indian Affairs. Left between, and very
much on their own, have been the majority
of northern Ontario Indians who do not
live on reserves or in towns or organized
municipalities. They live on the fringes of
settlements like Moosonee where a few
jobs are available in tiny and isolated
camps where trapping and hunting can still
provide a minimal existence, but no more.
Indian citizens are constitutionally a fed-
eral responsibility. Logically, the federal
government should have recognized the
dire housing need of the off-reserve hinter-
land people and should have provided for
it. The Ontario government is to be con-
gratulated however, for attacking the prob-
lem on its own.
Now I sent a communication to this par-
ticular department a short while ago, and it
said, "The programme has not got off the
ground yet. We are still consulting with
various governmental agencies, particularly
the Ontario Housing Corporation, and in due
course we will announce this particular
plan," this department said. This seems to be
the way that this government and this depart-
ment acts with regard to aU of the social
needs and all of the problems that are con-
fronting the Indian people in this province.
MAY 6, 1969
4027
It is a disgrace, it is really a shame that
we should be treating our native people in
this way. One of the richest countries in the
world, and without a doubt the richest prov-
ince in the richest country in tlie world, it is
s'liameful that we should find it advisable to
treat our native people in this way.
I would like to say to the Minister that if
his programme, which he announced last
year, and the request for funds that he is
asking for in this estimate, is not spent in
a much more meaningful way— or at least
spent in some way; he did even spend it last
year— if it is not being spent in another way,
I would go along with the recommendation
made by the leader of the oflBcial Opposition
to have the responsibility for our native
people shifted to some other department of
government. It might even be The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests, where they are
much more aware of what the problems of
our native people are. I am not necessarily
recommending that, but at least they are
making some attempt to provide and act as
a liaison for, the Indian people. It does, to
a limited extent anyway, provide them with
employment.
I can only say to the Minister that if the
progranune of the Indian development branch
is not any more meaningful in the next 12
months than it has been in the last 12 months,
I can see there is no hope for the Indian
people living in Ontario insofar as this gov-
ernment is concerned, and I will await with
a great deal of interest to see what the Min-
ister has to say in reply to the various prob-
lems that I have brought to his attention—
and his complete disregard for the social
needs of our Indian people. I will have more
to say as we are discussing these things in
more detail later on.
Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Minister wish
to reply at this time, or does some other
member wish to speak?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman,
if any other member of the House wishes to
make some general remarks, this would be an
appropriate time.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): I would
certainly like to rise to support the very
forceful arguments of my leader earlier in
relation to the Indian problem. There is need
for action, for very definite action. I get the
feeling myself that this department is taking
a very delicate and careful approach to the
whole thing, and certainly there has got to
be caution, but there has got to be far more
action.
I think also, that if this department cannot
handle the matter as was suggested by my
leader, then it should be, in eflFect, handed
over to some other department. I certainly
endorse the statement of the member for
Thunder Bay that militancy is in the wind,
that the Indian people are getting organized,
especially up north and all across Canada,
and they are making their problems known.
One sees the considerable amount of organi-
zation; it has been especially evident in the
last year or two from the correspondence that
has been coming across the desks of the mem-
bers. I think we should commend the Indian
people for trying to do something about their
own problems, trying to convey their difficul-
ties and their needs, and their wishes to all
levels of government. And while I agree that
there is militancy in the wind, I cannot agree
that this should be encouraged or that it
should be condoned, or that it should even
be understood. I just simply cannot see the
need for militancy when so many people-
Mr. MacDonald: How is it possible that
you cannot understand it?
Mr. Knight: No. I cannot accept it.
Mr. MacDonald: You said you could not
understand it?
Mr. Knight: No, I cannot understand the
need for militancy.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh.
Mr. Knight: I can understand the inclin-
ation towards militancy, I can understand
that there may very well be non-Indian
trouble makers in the north who are trying
to stir a great deal of militancy, and I cer-
tainly would not encourage that—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Knight: I also think that it is a bad
reflection on the Indian people continually
saying that there is going to be trouble in five
or ten years, and that they are going to per-
haps become violent, without stating that
there are many Indian leaders in the north
who want a peaceful solution to their prob-
lems, who want this result in a democratic
manner. And that leads me up to my recom-
mendation. I think that this department, this
Minister, should seek out those Indian leaders
in the north who do seek a peaceful solution
to their problems, and a proper solution, and
subsidize those people to the hilt. I think
4028
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
everything possible should be done to head
off the dangers that those of us who live in
the north see coming for say five or ten years'
time from now.
Everything should be done to encourage
those leaders who do want to help. But I
know some, Mr. Chairman, who are getting
tired; there are some Indian individuals in
the north who have a good foothold in our
civilized world, and at the same time are
well respected by their own people, their
native people, who do all kinds of things.
They are in effect ombudsmen between this
department and The Indian Affairs Depart-
ment in Ottawa, and all the other various
agencies of government at both levels. They
are people who dig into their own pocket
continually, day after day, week after week,
month after month, to help their Indian
friends, and who keep wondering why they
are not getting any assistance to do this from
this department, or from Ottawa.
What is happening is that many of these
people are getting discouraged, and they
keep saying, "I am going to give it up one
of these days", but when they see one of
their brothers, one of their Indian brothers
come along with a problem, they just cannot
say no. So it is a question of what is going
to give out first, their finances or their health,
and I think that this department should—
well, this red tape is one of their big prob-
lems. The average Indian person finds diffi-
culty, the average resident of Ontario finds
difficulty in cutting the red tape necessary to
get something accomplished through a depart-
ment of this govemment or any govenmient
for that matter. You can imagine where the
native Indian stands when he is trying to cut
the red tape, and you will understand this
statement, Mr. Chairman, I am sure-
Mr. Nixon: He can, but he will not say so.
Mr. Knight: So the result is that the Indian
people, like anyone else, turn to anyone who
might be able to help them. And unfortun-
ately a lot of Indian people go without the
benefits that this govemment might be able
to offer them because they are ignorant of
those benefits as are many other people. But
the problems fall back on a handful of people,
and last year I can remember bringing up
the name of Mr. Xavier Michon. I bring it up
again. He is just one that I happen to know
of, a man who not only the Indian people
go to, but departments of govemment. The
agents of government who are situated at
the Lakehead will call up "Mish" and ask
him to help sort out a problem or to help
them in some manner with no recompense
to Mr. Michon. I think it is about time that
some department of govemment acknowl-
edged people like Mr. Michon, and gave
them not only encouragement and congratu-
lations but some financial assistance.
While the Minister is making his reply, Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if he could tell me what
the appropriation wiU be to the Indian Yomth
Friendship Centre in Port Arthur this year?
Whether it has increased over last year;
whether it matches the federal govemment
contribution?
I would also like to know whether the
Minister is prepared to consider this idea of
an ombudsman for the Indian people. Last
year on Michoai's initiative, the member for
Thimder Bay and the member for Soar-
borough Centre and myself looked into a
housing angle on behalf of tlie Indian people.
Mr. Michon had an idea that some kind of a
half-way housing project could be established
where those Indians coming off the reserve
and into the civilized city might be able to
stop by for a period of five or six months
and be prepared to enter the city, so that
rather than wind up in the silums somewhere,
they might be able to wind up in, possibly,
a better section of the city where they and
their children will have a better opportundty
to adapt to the civiHzed world, which is very
difficult for these people, I saw no action
along these hnes but I know that the idea
came from Mr, Michon because he saw the
problem; he saw people in this difficulty,
I would also hke to ask the Minister,
through you, Mr. Chairman, whether his de-
partment, inasjmuch as it deals with welfare
—if that is a mentionable word at this time—
or at least those families who must hve on
whatever they can obtain from his depart-
ment through the municipal department, is
keeping pace with the plans for urban renewal
in the city of Port Arthur?
There is an area slated for urban renewal
in the city wthich houses quite a few poor
families and many of them are Indian people.
The question around the city has been,
"Where will these people go?" What will hap-
pen to them?" I tliink tliat should very defi-
nitely be a matter of concem for this
department. As much as we are talking about
Indian affairs and assistance to them at this
time, I think I would like to hear the Minis-
ter's comments on what his department is
doing about famihes that are displaced or will
be displaced through this urban renewal pro-
gramme.
MAY 6, 1969
4029
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to hear from the Minister to what extent
this depaatment seeks to assist the nontreaty
Indians or at least Indians who no longer
live on reserves, but find themselves assimi-
lated in the city. Are they treated as just
another family in difficulty; another family on
welfare, you might say. Or are they treated
as a family on welfare with the added prob-
lem of having come from a reserve with the
disadvantages that many of our native people
have when they come into society. Are these
people in a si)ecial category, or are they
treated just Hke all the others? I would like
that point clarified.
Certainly, there is need for action. I must
say I was happy to learn recently that the
Minister was planning on going up into north-
western Ontario to confer personally \\dth the
people up there. It is a shade of what my
own federal member, Robert Andrews, has
been trying to do. He tried to do this in his
formal portfolio on behalf of the Indian
people; that is, dialogue consultation and I
thank the more of that the better. After a
while, that dialogue and consultation has got
to lead to action, and I think that what this
side has been asking for this afternoon has
been action.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister
will be able to have some very encouraging
remarks on those lines.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, may I
say at the outset that a good deal of what has
been said on former occasions in relationship
to general observations made by the hon.
leader of the Opposition, the leader of the
NDP, and the member for Riverdale. I a^o-
cdate myself with—
Mr. Stokes: You said that last year.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In relationship to the
member for Thunder Bay, he quoted quite
extensively from my remarks of a year ago.
I stand by those remarks today. They say this
—that there are two sides to a disagreement,
that is, in comments directed to the attitude
of this particular Minister, his colleagues in
the government, in relationship to the key
factor touched upon very Ughtly this after-
noon, and that is the constitutional factor.
My second interim remiarks are there;
the past more than two and half years, has
been, for me, a great period of education in
departmental activities as a whole, and in
reference to Indian matters specifically. I
must say that when I assumed this portfolio,
jmy knowledge of Indian matters was very
[limited. In fact, I had a personal picture
which related back to the days of my youth.
I may say that in all my personal experience,
both in the legal profession, in matters which
have come before this House, in all depart-
ments, there has been no single matter that
I have regarded as so complex as the Indian
matters. Now, the leader of the NDP may
make a wry face and disagree with me—
Mr. MacDonald: How long do you expect
Indians to wait while you are educated?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member and
I disagree. He says it is the most simple; I
say it is the most complex-
Mr. MacDonald: And you are overwhelmed
by its complexities.
Mr. Stokes: Just start listening to Indian
people.
Mr. Lewis: Nothing is as simple as break-
ing through the complexity.
Mr. MacDonald': Just get going— do some-
thing.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is the most complex
thing that I have been in contact with. As a
matter of fact, I am still in the process of
learning. I have learned from my predecessors
in a very general way, including the
•father of the leader of the Opposition,
who provided the very broad picture in rela-
tionship to attitude and cultures basically. I
have learned from members of this House on
all sides; members of the Opposition who
spoke this afternoon; the member for Kenora
(Mr. Bemier) who has spoken not only in
this House, but who has spent hours, side by
side outside this room and at my side.
Mr. Lewis: Why do you incriminate him?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have learned from
those members of our Indian population
with whom I had direct contact; with mem-
bers of the Indian advisory committee and
with those who are active outside the com-
mittee. I have read and now intend to
expand my knowledge by a visit to north-
western Ontario which will fulfill the specific
request of those who have communicated
with me in very recent days, as well as to
give me a much better picture. My visit
there is not going to be limited to this one
particular phase although it will be a very
important, and very integral part.
It is a very complex matter. Secondly, I
would say to hon. members— and to the
4030
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
leader of the Opposition in particular— that
nothing in my public focus as a private mem-
ber or as a member of Cabinet has disap-
pointed me more than the fact that the con-
dition of oiu" fellow Indian citizens is not
much different today in the total picture from
what it was ten years ago or two years ago.
The only hopeful aspect is that there has been
a tremendous, re-awakened interest on the
part of the general pubHc of Canada, and of
Ontario in particular, in communities which
have very direct contact with Indian citizens
in substantial numbers. In this Legislature I
can well recall that until the select com-
mittee referred to by the hon. member, which
resulted in an amendment, I think, a follow-
up to The Indian Act of that period, there
was hardly a word spoken because the as-
sumption had been that Indian affairs in
their totality was a federal matter.
Latterly, as a result, perhaps, of the select
committee, the province of Ontario has been
moving into various fields as individual de-
partments began to expand their programmes
within this sector. This did not evolve, I do
not think, as a result of any general govern-
ment policy or new direction at the gov-
ernment level. It was as each department
began. For example. The Department of
Lands and Forests began to take a more
active interest in certain affairs just as The
Department of Education began to move into
certain areas. Certain areas where there may
have been a vacuum and because of course,
as it often happens, the provincial level of
government and their representatives, in this
House are much more close to the people in
general in all aspects than Ottawa. This is a
common happening because we invariably
deal directly with the needs of the people.
I have examined in detail the propositions put
forth as to the vehicles through which the
services at the provincial level might be
brought to bear.
As of today I doubt whether anyone can
really determine what vehicle is the best
vehicle because no matter what vehicle is
chosen, the prime problem will still exist and
this is the constitutional problem-
Mr. MacDonald: Oh come, come.
Mr. Lewis: Have you ever thought of the
Indian vehicle ratlicr than the federal or
provincial vehicle?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Tliis is tlie constitu-
tional problem which must be resolved as to
the responsibility, tlie legal responsibility
and financial responsibility between the fed-
eral authority and the provincial authority.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I read with a great
deal of interest the comjnents of the member
for Riverdale. I have read them three times.
Tliere is very little of that speech which
I could not adopt myself and utter in this
House as a general principle.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, why do you not
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have examined the
remarks of the people who have written in
the field— Professor Lysyk, the Hawthom©-
Tremblay report— all of these matters as they
deal with this asx>ect of the federal-provincial
activity in the field. In my opinion— and the
speech of the member for Riverdale bears
this out completely— there is no legal bar to
tlie provinces being active in this field. It is
under the Constitution, section 91(24) of The
BNA Act, and it refers to Indians and lands
reserved for Indians, accurately quoted by the
member for Riverdale; inaccurately quoted,
however, by the leader of the NDP who has
spoken on previous occasions. On November
26, 1968, the member for York South stated:
There is a mythology regarding Indian
affairs which must be destroyed. It has
been widely beHeved precisely because gov-
ernmental authorities have propagated the
belief that Indian affairs are primarily a
federal matter. Constitutional and legal
experts have dismissed this contention as a
misreading of The BNA Act.
Listen carefully, I say to the hon. membex.
Tlie BNA Act states that the federal gov-
ernment shall be responsible for Indian
lands and treaties. It says nothing about
services to Indians.
The hon. leader of the Opposition has mis-
quoted—
Mr. Nixon: Careful, careful.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —misquoted the signifi-
cant portion of the Act which reads, "Indians
and lands reserved for Indians". Now, in
agreeing with the member for Riverdale and
with the other constitutional-
Mr. MacDonald: How have I misquoted it?
Mr. Lewis: The leader of the NDP-
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: "Tlie BNA Act states
that the federal government shall be respon-
sible for Indian lands and treaties". That is
not the way The BNA Act reads.
Mr. Pitman: He was not quoting the Act.
MAY 6, 1969
4031
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He was stating what
the Act says and—
Mr. Lewis: Well, it is right.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I completely disagree
with the i>osition of the leader of the NDP.
He is stating what The BNA Act says, and
I say to him that it is when words such
as this are used that the misapprehension
develops.
Mr. MacDonald: You are not just a failure,
you are a disaster.
Mr. Lewis: You are not just a disaster you
are a catastrophe.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: When I suggested that
I agree almost in total with the member for
Riverdale's interpretation of the constitutional
situation, it is true that the way the section
94(1) has been interpreted from the point of
view of constitutional lawyers means that the
federal authority has exclusive jurisdiction
when it wishes to exercise that jurisdiction.
If it occupies the field, it supersedes provincial
entry into the field. I think the term is: It
reigns supreme. If they are not in a field
it has been interpreted that the province can
move into the field.
Mr. MacDonald: Why do you not take the
other interpretation and get to work?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It has been interpreted
that the province can move into the field.
There is no legal bar, when the federal
government has not moved into the field, to
the province being in the field.
Mr. MacDonald: Right, there is not.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: And then there was
an amendment made in the early 1950s to
The Indian Act which more or less stated
this type of delegation of authority and this
has been accepted as saying that diere is no
bar to the province entering the field. The
one item in which the experts in tlie field dis-
agree and members of this House, particularly
of the Opposition, and the leader of the
Opposition may have touched upon this— the
leader of the NDP has overlooked that; the
member for Riverdale has, I tliink, if I recall
correctly, touched upon it— it is the financial
responsibility. This is the crunch of the
matter. Who is going to pay for the activity?
Mr. MacDonald: The crunch is to get the
job done.
Mr. J. Renwick: The province of Ontario is
going to pay.
Mr. MacDonald: Lack of a fiscal agreement
is a roadblock. Let's face the fact that the
Minister himself is the main roadblock.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Trea-
surer): This posturing is the worst— that is all
you do over there. You never stop.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is one of the fun-
damental matters which has to be resolved-
Mr. MacDonald: Go on.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Go on, yourself;
you never stop posturing.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is one of the fun-
damental matters which has to be resolved.
I may say— I say this again— if there is one
field of activity, one field of pohtical activity,
if I may even use that term, in which there
should be the minimum of pohtical attitudes,
it is in this field. It would endure to the bene-
fits, the credit and to the pride of all pohtical
parties when this problem is cleared up once
and for all, because I say this, as a citizen
of the province of Ontario, as a citizen of
Canada: I am not proud of the record over
any period of time of Canadians as a whole
in this particular field. And this is why I say,
until this specific point is cleared up, dehne-
ated, whatever it may be—
Mr. Makarchuk: We wiU let them starve.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —whatever it may be,
this will be a hurdle, a bar, to the exercise of
the provincial know-how that I touched upon.
I am convinced that we have within our
government activity, within the department,
within The Department of Health, we have
the facilities, the know-how necessary to cope
with the situation.
Mr. MacDonald: Except the will to do it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have in TTie De-
partment of Education, we have in all our
departments, in Trade and Development, we
have the know-how to come to grips with
the specific need of die housing-
Mr. Lewis: Well, why do you not do it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: When we come to the
critical bread and butter issues of health;
housing, education and training and econo-
mic development, it is the province of On-
tario in particular, that has this ability. The
question, of course, comes when this abihty
is going to be applied: Who is going to pay
for it?
4032
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): The Minister
is finally being truthful.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, will the
Minister permit just one comment to him?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member will
have an opportunity.
Mr. J. Renwick: No, one comment. The
Minister s^d the crux of the problem is who
is going to pay for it. It is about tliree years
ago tliat with great fanfare there was an-
nounced a joint programme of the federal
government and the government of the prov-
ince of Ontario. The amount was $500 mil-
lion. The joker in the pack, of course, was
that it was to be spread over 50 years. But
even on the basis of dividing $50 into $500
million, there was to be $10 million in one
year. This Minister cannot spend $1 million.
Now, does that agreement exist any longer?
Was there ever such an agreement or was it
just j)art of the general way in which the
government conducts its business by public
announcement, with no substance? Let us
answer that question first of all.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, this
province has entered into two agreements
with tlie federal authority through this depart-
ment. We have a welfare services agreement
and an Indian development agreement. Now,
the welfare services agreement is working out,
in my opinion, extremely well. There are
certain shortcomings which have been brought
to my attention in recent times but I do not
anticipate any great difficulty in deaUng the
welfare sources.
And if my full responsibility were in the
welfare field— I do not intend using tliat ex-
pression again and I am going to use the
expression "social services" because of a spe-
cific reason— if those were my only responsi-
bility as a Minister I would have no qualms.
I would be prepared to back up by and large
that specific programme in relationship to the
Indian citizens of Ontario, as I am to the
general citizenry as a whole. We did enter
into the other agreement, the Indian develop-
ment agreement, it was signed.
When it came to putting the agreement into
eff^ect, we then discovered that in tlie inter-
pretation which was put on the Indian de-
velopment agreement there was a difference
of opinion between the provincial point of
view and the federal point of view.
Mr. Nixon: The Indians did not tliink much
of it, either, at the time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will come to that
point in a moment. I do not think it was
really at the time, but I think it may not be
the issue that it is today, because the Indians
are looking to a resolution of these bread
and butter issues of the Indian development.
They are looking to see the results of the
Indian development agreement. We signed
that agreement, we were the only province
to sign either agreement. We signed both
agreements.
Mr. MacDonald: They are getting more
disillusioned every day while they look.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: When the other prov-
inces see the interpretation that was placed
upon the limitation of expenditure of funds,
at the federal level, they vdll find that they
only participate to the extent of salaries of
the Indian development ofiBcers and certain
related administrative portions which limit
the agreement to the point where it just has
not produced the results that we anticipated.
And this is where, I say to the hon. mem-
ber for Riverdale, the crunch of the matter
really is. That is one very fundamental issue:
The fiscal issue between the two levels of
government.
Now, the other issue, of course, in the
participation, is the presence of the third
party, the Indian.
Mr. Lewis: The first party.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, the first party,
one of the three parties in this tri-partite—
Mr. Lewis: It is not tri-partite, that is the
problem.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Because as I began to
learn, I found, being a lawyer and dealing
with the constitutional issues from a legal
point of view, an item which I had a ten-
dency to pass over very lighdy, but which I
have learned in recent days is of very great
significance— and that is the attitude of the
Indians towards the ancient Indian treaties.
The treaties, of course, are at the federal
level because they preceded the constitution.
This is where the hon. leader of the NDP
brought the Indian treaties into—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: From the Indian point
of view, there are the two main issues: the
Indian treaties and lands and what I will
refer to as the Indian status— the whole com-
plex of the maintenance of our Indian citizens
as a cultural entity. I for one completely
subscribe to the continuance and the preser-
vation of the Indian cultural entity. I am
less familiar with the Eskimo cultural entity,
MAY 6, 1969
4033
which is, of course, more prevelant at the
national level than it is within our province.
I am dedicated, completely, as a person and
in my political beliefs, to this. This aspect
is, I believe, properly at the federal and
national level and should continue there.
Now, I am going to use broad, general
terms. When it comes to the bread and but-
ter issues, I believe the provision of social
services— that the leader of the NDP touched
upon— is where the province has a role to
play. Currently we have the Minister of
Health, who deals with the federal Minister
of Health and Welfare in his health capacity;
we have the Minister of Agriculture and Food
(Mr. Stewart), who deals with the federal
Minister of Agriculture in the agricultural
field; and we perhaps have the Minister of
Lands and Forests dealing with resources
Ministers and their counterparts.
I deal with the Minister of Health and
Welfare in the social service field, but I
have the additional responsibility of the car-
riage of the matter on behalf of the province,
vis-d-vis, Mr. Chretien, whose sole respon-
sibility it is. Now, I envisage—
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): You
have all failed miserably.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I envisage a plan
whereby the federal and provincial authori-
ties, with the consent, consultation and agree-
ment of the Indian population— however that
agreement or rapport is established and
through whatever agency is used— will evolve
some sort of a blanket plan. This blanket
understanding between the federal and the
provincial authorities will delineate these
lines of responsibility— both legal and fiscal.
Then, there will be, perhaps, a blanket agree-
ment or understanding between the two levels
imder which we can work.
Last February at a meeting of the Minis-
ters of Health and Welfare m Ottawa, I put
forward the proposition that a full-scale pro-
vincial-federal gathering be held to deal with
only Indian matters. I outlined the kind of
an agenda I envisaged, where I would be—
Mr. MacDonald: Another excuse for delay-
ing action.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I outlined an agenda
whereby, for example, I would be present
continuously as the Minister heading the
Cabinet committee and Mr. Chretien would
be there continuously also on, say, a Monday
morning, the Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis) from the province of Ontario and the
other provinces, would be present to discuss
education matters; in the afternoon, the Min-
isters of Health— in conjunction with Mr.
Munro— would be there; and the provincial
Ministers and their federal counterparts would
meet to delineate these matters— by and with,
I say, their consent, before any decisions are
made, with relationship to the Indian com-
munity of Canada and of the province. Mr.
Chretien and his department have been in-
x'olved in discussions at the local and pro-
vincial level across Canada in respect to The
Indian Act. Last week there was a full-
fledged conference which I watched with a
great deal of interest. It is difficult to say
which should come first, how this complex
situation can be tackled in order that eventu-
ally the right solution will come forward.
Now, I know that until this matter is re-
solved, an Indian development corporation
as propounded by some persons and as
adopted by the leader of the NDP will not
work, although I think he modified his idea
somewhat in his remarks of last Sunday— I
was not present but I heard of them— I think
he has modified his position slightly.
The hon. leader of the Opposition suggests
a comparable committee, but directiy respon-
sible to the Prime Minister— which is not too
greatly different from the present vehicle.
Regardless of what vehicle is used, these
fundamental things must be cleared up and
must be delineated.
I am still convinced that if that is resolved,
the Cabinet committee and the inter-depart-
mental committee can work because I see
that it has the potential to set up another
agency— which would be a government in
miniature— does not appeal to me. One of
the things I learned was that the old structure
of the federal Department of Indian Affairs
was a government within a government and
the whole range of services which govern-
ments have for all their people. That attitude,
I think, has changed somewhat in recent
times. I, too, was a little hesitant about the
association-
Mr. Bullbrook: Are you going to answer
the question?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I, too, was a little con-
cerned about the association of the whole field
of Indian affairs within the particular depart-
ment, particularly when it was called Public
Welfare. My experience in this went back
to when I, as the Provincial Secretary, began
to talk in terms of the appoinitment of mar-
riage licence issuers and discovered that
people were thinking in terms of using the
4034
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
welfare oflScers for this particular role. I
queried it. I said, "What in the world has
a welfare oflBcer got to do with marriage
licence issuers?
Mr. Nixon: It was the only official you had
then. It is the same now.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know, but it did not
appeal to me. Now since we have a Depart-
ment of Social and Family Ser\dces, the idea
of an Indian development branch within this
context is not as distasteful, either to myself
or to the members of the department or, I
think, to the Indian citizens as a whole, as
they learn more and more of the fact that the
department is a social service department.
In relationship to the Indian advisory com-
mittee I may say that one of the great roles
they have played is the process of educating
the Minister. I hope that also, in this context,
there has been a two-way flow of information.
Their status has caused them concern them-
selves, and I have had discussions with them
along these lines. They do have a major role
to play and I still think that in this particular
role, the responsible Minister must have a
committee to which he must— and I still hold
to this belief— in private, and in confidence
turn; in which there can be a completely
frank exchange of ideas and thoughts within
the atmosphere of confidence and privacy as
people seek to find out what the right course
is. Within the community there is no doubt
there have been emerging very articulate ele-
ments. In the most recent times the Union of
Ontario Indians has come forward as a very
positive, stable, thoughtful authority, and I
look forward to working with them in the
days ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: Why do you not respond
to help them do their job?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They will have their
particular role to play. I have spoken to them,
to each of them, and they each have very
responsible roles to play because, as has been
pointed out by members, there is a militancy
which is emerging. I make no comment upon
that at this time but I say, militancy or no
militancy, there is required the stable influ-
ence of people who would know, who under-
stand and appreciate the difficulties of gov-
ernment evolving policies and programmes,
and who will have an understanding and have
direct contact. As I have been educated by
them, I have been sharing some of my prob-
lems with them as I share them with the
House today.
Mr. MacDonald: Why do you not make
$54,000 available to them to help them do
the job?
Mr. Lewis: Even Rudyard Kipling was not
as patronizing as you are.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That, Mr. Chairman,
was a completely unnecessary remark.
Mr. Lewis: Well. What is this condescend-
ing attitude?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is not condescend-
ing. The hon. member has a habit of injecting
what I call nasty words-
Mr. Lewis: Rudyard Kipling was a very
lovely poet,
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —just to muddy it up.
As I say, there is no group of men or women
that I have a greater regard and respect for
than members of our Indian community.
Mr. MacDonald: Your attitude belies your
words.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I say, it is the posi-
tion that I take.
Mr. Lewis: You have iiot even spent the
money. I repeat the words— you share the
white man's burden.
Mr. J. Renwick: Do you not understand
you have done nothing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, these
two are the basic problems.
Mr. MacDonald: You are the basic problem.
Mr. J. Renwick: The whole government is
the basic problem.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Two problems have to
be resolved. This is not to say that within
the province of Ontario we have not em-
barked on very extensive programmes for the
extension of services to our Indian citizens.
I will not make mention of the social services
within our department; we have been extend-
ing them over the years and we have been
providing the legislative vehicles through
which this may be done.
Each department has been playing a role.
Over the last two years I have been getting
an understanding of this; in the immediate
days ahead all this material will be put
together-
Mr. MacDonald: A little bit of knowledge
is a dangerous thing.
MAY 6, 1969
4035
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is not a little bit of
knowledge because of the scope of some of
the departmental programmes and the entries
that they have made into various areas, even
cost sharing programmes. For example, The
Department of Labour has one with its coun-
terpart, The Department of Lands and
Forests; The Department of Agriculture also.
They have been working out these individual
programmes. I do not think this is the proper
course. But I will be able to document for
the government and for our Indian citizens,
what is available for them through the pro-
vincial activities to date.
But what is necessary is this massive ap-
proach to the massive turning out of material
and personnel to cope with those two basic
problems that must be resolved.
Mr. Knight: Who ran the Ottawa survey?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member did
touch upon that in a question about the
urban renewal. One of the complexities of
the Indian challenge is the fact that there
are really no neat categories. There is a broad
spectrum. There is the Indian who is on the
reserve and always has been on the reserve.
There is the Indian who has lived ofiF the
reserve but in what is known as the un-
organized Indian communities, the franchised
and the disenfranchised; the treaty and the
non-treaty. There is the Indian who has
moved into the urban areas, whether they
be at the Lakehead or whether in the city
of Toronto. Then, those of our citizens who
have come to the highly urbanized develop-
ment, have available to them exactly the
same full range of services that are available
to any citizen. In turn, it has been pointed
out to me very forcibly by my Indian friends,
they, too, are paying taxes just as any other
cditizen of Toronto or any other urbanized
citizen. There is this role that they are
playing.
In that spectrum you have the one in
respect of whom there is no distinction what-
soever except that he might have, because of
the change of environment, certain problems
which are not common to the rest of the
population but which would be common to
somebody coming from the east coast— from
that rural type of setting into a highly urban-
ized area.
Mr. Knight: Does he get as much help as
a new immigrant coming from across the
Atlantic?
Mr. Yaremko: It is hard to evaluate because
we do have, as the hon. member touched
upon, the Indian friendship centres which are
one vehicle which have been used but are
only one type of possible vehicles which might
be evolved and used in order to assist in this
period of transition, when an Indian wishes
to take up full community life within an
urbanized society and has to undergo this
transition period. We have much to do in this
area.
This is why I say, when the hon. member
for Scarborough West talks about the sim-
plicity of the matter, I do not agree with him.
The spectrum of the type of person involved,
the spectnmi of the problems they face, the
spectrum of the responsibilities, all these
things have permutations and combinations
which take a lot of sorting out.
Mr. Lewis: There has not been a concrete
word in 45 minutes, since this Minister began.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, other
provinces have watched, I am sure, with a
great deal of interest, our activities in this
field-
Mr. Stokes: They are way ahead of you.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —vis-d-vis the federal
authorities. I have been watching with a
great deal of interest what has been going
on in other provinces. I am aware of in a
general way, of the activities in British
Columbia, and in the Western provinces. We
will be examining in detail and evaluating
the merits of their approaches and evaluating
what their positions are, vis-d-vis the federal
authorities.
For a long time there was a very hard
position taken by other provinces. They would
not move in this field at all because they took
the position it was exclusively a federal
matter. Now we will be taking an interest to
see what financial arrangements have been
mad in those provinces, and what vehicles
have been used, that is what federal-provincial
vehicles have been used in those provinces in
contradistinction to the vehicles we have used
in order to resolve one of these two problems.
Now in relationship to the expenditure of
tlie moneys that have been voted, it is obvi-
ous the writing is large, we have not spent
the money that we had been provided with.
The figures speak for themselves. We have
been getting into development projects, not
to the degree of our expectations, but we
have had experience in certain areas such as
the Amik Corporation, the Widjiitiwin. In
these specific instances, we see the merit of
it. This is where the disappointment lies from
4036
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a personal and from a ministerial view be-
cause you have high hopes that it can be
done; it is possible; it is not easy, it is
diflBcult, but it is not insoluble.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is not an insoluble
problem. In fact, I take the position that it is
not insoluble, and it will be solved, because
there is no alternative but to find a solution.
Tliat is the position I take in tliis, and that
of course is the difficult thing. It is related to
the point when this fundamental proposition
is resolved.
Now I want to touch on most of the points
that I have not touched upon. In relation to
the Indian advisory committee: first, they are
an advisory committee to the Minister, and
they play that unique role that advisory com-
mittees have played traditionally within the
government. They have played a major role
in delineating to me many aspects— they have
been part of my education process. I think
there is a great deal of merit in what one
hon. member— I forget which— touched upon:
that there should be some sort of a contact
between the Indian advisory committee and
the members of the Legislature.
It is my intent to have them meet with tlie
Cabinet committee in a formal way in order
that there be a general review of some of the
relationships. I think that it can be worked
out that this committee might appear— as was
suggested, before either the committee on
commissions, or perhaps even better the com-
mittee on social and family and correctional
services— or a select committee, because they
will have a role to play. Wlien the hon. mem-
ber for York South tries to delineate that
tliere is a simple solution to this matter,
and that these problems-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: I never said it was simple.
But don't let its complexities overwhelm you
into doing anything about it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I see that the advisory
committee, apart from their advisory role to
the Minister, could play, I believe, a role
in this; and I think there is great merit in
this aspect and this proposition.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the Hoiise took
recess.
No. 108
ONTARIO
%m^\atmt of (l^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, May 6, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs.y Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 6, 1969
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yairemlco, continued 4039
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 4073
4039
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Mr. J. N. Allan (Haldimand-Norfollc): Mr.
Chairman, I should like to draw the attention
of the hon. members to a class from the
Cayuga Technical School who are in the west
gallery tonight, and particularly to point out
that a great number of them are very fine
Indian youths from that area.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
( Continued )
On vote 2003:
Mr. Chairman: Indian community develop-
ments; the hon. member for Peterborough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): We
are still talking about Indians!
Mr. Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Pitman: Well Mr. Chairman, this after-
noon I think we saw one of the most in-
credible perfomances by a Minister that has
ever taken place in this House.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Depressing!
Mr. Pitman: First we were told the Min-
ister does not understand the problem, and
then we were told that he cannot do anything
because he cannot solve any of the con-
stitutional hang-uos. I would suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that if this country breaks apart,
it is going to be over that problem more than
any other problem. It is not going to be
because the French- or the English-speaking
people of this country cannot get along, but
because we have not got the wit to solve our
I own constitutional problems.
[ Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Or
[ the will!
Mr. Pitman: Or the will rather, as my
leader suggests.
Then he could not find a way to solve the
money difficulty.
I could not help thinking, as I sat here,
Mr. Chairman, that over the past few months
Tuesday, May 6, 1969
there have been planes going back and forth
between Ontario and the Caribbean Islands
and these planes have been filled with desks
and textbooks for the children of people in
the Caribbean Islands, and no one in this
Chamber would do anything but congratulate
the Minister of Education for his activities in
providing this kind of help to those people.
But how ironic that we can solve the problems
or help solve the problems of the native
peoples of the Caribbean, when we cannot do
anything about the native peoples of this
province.
Now I am going to present to the Min-
ister a difficulty, a problem; and it is simple.
It is almost simplistic, as though no com-
plexities were involved in it at all so far as
the constitutional issue is concerned.
It involves education; we in this province
have been dealing with education in regard
to Indian people for quite some time. Besides
that, the federal government is quite happy
to have the province of Ontario involved in
this particular experiment. Thirdly, in rela-
tion to money, the federal government has
already indicated its intentions and its willing-
ness to contribute money toward this particu-
lar project.
There should be no problem at all. So far
as the project itself is concerned, it involves
providing an experimental course during the
summer for teachers of Indian children in the
province of Ontario.
As I said, the federal government has
agreed. It is quite happy to support it, and
yet we cannot seem to get it through this
committee and through this department and
get something done in what seems to me the
most obvious kind of a problem.
I do not think the Minister would surely
agree with one fact, and that is that one of
the reasons for this poverty which we have
among the Indian people is the fact that they
have not been able to institute the skills, they
have not been able to institute the knowledge
either, to do their best within their own
heritage or to do something within the cul-
tural society in which they might move in
our western society.
In other words, they are unable to make
4040
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
either choice efFectively because of the situa-
tion.
We know the province already is dealing
with something like 21,000 Indian young
people in their schools. We know that so far
as the first two years are concerned in those
schools, Indian young people do rather well.
By the middle of their experience in the ele-
mentary schools they begin to slow down,
and we know that one of the most disgraceful
things about this entire country is the number
of Indian young people who have been able
to graduate from the secondary schools and
find themselves in post-secondary education
across this country and particularly, in this
province.
Now the purpose of this whole experi-
ment which has been planned for a couple of
years, and indeed was already involved in a
pilot project last summer, was to try and
develop a summer course which would in-
volve Indian young people; which would in-
volve some 24 teachers on an experimental
basis; would involve an experiment in curri-
culum which would include not only teaching
reading skills and mathematical skills, but
would also involve providing an opportunity
for these Indian young people to learn some-
thing of their own heritage.
What is even more important, would allow
the Indian teachers to become acquainted
with the Indian heritage; to become conscious
of the necessity of understanding themselves
and the community in which they were work-
ing. Also giving these Indian young people
a chance to understand themselves, and the
kind of culture in which they themselves are
a part and have been produced by, and the
kind of culture in which they are ready to
move.
Now, the total effect of this upon the whole
education system of Ontario could be really
very important. It has been assumed that
there are some 4,000 teachers across the prov-
ince who are in some kind of contact with
Indian young people with more or less effec-
tiveness, and largely with less effectiveness,
because unfortunately the drop-out rate
among the Indian young people is very high.
The reason I bring this up tonight is, as I
say, that here is a specific problem, a very
simple, specific problem. The federal govern-
ment is willing to support it, and it has al-
ready been planned. The amount of work
that has been done at the Ontario Institute
for Studies and Education in providing a
curriculum has been monumental. There has
been a great deal of expenditure already at
that institution by at least two very highly
trained speciahsts.
But as it stands right at this moment, Mr.
Chairman, there is no way in which this
course can go on this summer. The whole
thing is held up, the whole thing is stalled,
because no decision seems to be able to be
made by the committee of the Cabinet which
this Minister is responsible for, or the advisory
committee. The hang-up is somewhere in this
particular government, at this particular
point in that govermnent.
I asked the Minister of Education some
weeks ago when we were going to get some
action on this particular matter. Well, he
was not siu-e, but he did not think it could
go on this summer, and yet there has been
a committee working on this. The whole thing
is ready to go, it could be moved ahead, we
could make a real stride towards understand-
ing Indian young people, towards helping
them to understand themselves, and towards
doing something about this poverty cycle
which we find these Indian young people in.
Yet, this government cannot deal with that
specific problem.
This afternoon, the Minister ranged far and
wide over all the problems that the Indian
people have in this province, and described
in harrowing detail why this government
could deal with all these problems, and why
we had to stand back. Also, of course, the
degree to which he patronized these Indians
was absolutely astounding as we sat over here
and listened to him. But I would like to know
tonight, before this estimate goes by, why we
cannot get something like this done which
involves only 24 teachers, involves only one
Indian group, and involves an experiment
that has already been organized, a curriculum
that has already been written out and is in
the Minister's hands. Why can we not do
something about this? It would seem to me
that all we need to do is simply sign the order.
It involves far less money than the Minister
has left over from his budget in the last
estimates that he placed before this House.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that at least
in this specific instance, the Minister can
give us some indication tonight that action
can take place over there, that something can
be done by this committee— in other words,
that we are not going to have this world proj-
ect wrecked if the government does not go
ahead with this thing right now, because we
will cut off all the work we have done in the
last two years. We will have no idea as to
whether there is any possibiUty of going on
in the future, and this has already been
planned for the next two or three summers, in
MAY 6, 1969
4041
a very effective and organized way. So I ask
the Minister right now, in this House, Mr.
Chairman, to come up with an answer to
that specific Hmited problem which his de-
partment and his committee can deal with.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services ) : Actually, Mr. Chairman,
I do not have the details of the programme
that tlie hon. member has referred to. I know
that the department has been engaged, in its
curriculum section, in assessing the relevance
of programmes for the special needs of the
children. Now, with respect to the teacher
programme, the Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis), v^ll have to speak to that particular
topic.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, it is simply not
good enough. This whole thing is in the
hands of the committee of the Indian de-
velopment branch of The Department of
Social and Family Services. This whole mat-
ter is in that branch and it is not the respon-
sibility of the Minister of Education. There
is no reason why that committee cannot solve
this problem.
If the Minister does not know anything
about this, then to make it very specific,
this is a research proposal being carried out
by Dr. G. L. McDermott and Dr. H. L.
Narrow in the Ontario Institute for Studies
on Education. There has been a committee
set up on this and the people on this com-
mittee are well known to the Minister.
The members on this committee presented
a brief. They are: Dr. E. F. Rogers, curator
of the ethnology department, Royal Ontario
Museum; Mr. Currie, superintendent of super-
vision, Ontario Department of Education; a
number of Indian people; the chief super-
intendent of schools for Indian affairs at
Ottawa, and whole series of people, including
the professor of educational theories, Ontario
Institute for Studies on Education. I just
simply cannot fathom how the Minister
could say he does not know anything about
this when this is a matter which has been
dealt with by his Indian development branch.
I Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This matter is being
dealt with through The Department of Edu-
cation and the institute. And as for the
details of any hold-up on it, I am not too
familiar with why it has not moved ahead.
As I say, the Minister of Education will
have the specific answer for that specific
problem.
Mr. Pitman: Well, are these things not
discussed at this committee? How often does
this committee meet? What do they talk
about?
I am sure this is the kind of a matter which
involves not just education, it involves eco-
nomic development in that particular area.
It involves welfare services. In fact, it has
day-care nurseries involved in it to help
Indian mothers to upgrade children so that
they are ready for school. It is what the
Minister calls a spectrum of services which
involves, not just The Department of Educa-
tion, but a number of services involved in
this department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are involved in
the development of the day nurseries section,
both at the Moosonee project and locally. I
think Walpole Island was the first to have it.
And we will be moving gradually in this
area.
But in the field of education, there is no
policy decision that I am aware of to be
made— at least the Minister of Education has
not brought them forward— so I would assume
that things would take their natural course
of events. But, as I say, he will have the
specific answers.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the Min-
ister has illustrated a point.
May I just say it was fortunate that we
had the two-hour recess, from 6 p.m. to
8 p.m., so that we could sort of simmer
down after listening to the provocation which
was incredible and unwitting. That makes it
all the worse— the unwitting provocation of
the Minister whose attitude and whose in-
competence and whose lack of achievement
is such that it is almost impossible to rise
and to deal coherently with the kind of
situation with which he presents us.
But let us start with the point we are just
discussing. The Minister has indicated what
Professor Krueger said about interdepart-
mental committees a few years ago in another
context, namely, that they are useless. It is
impossible, unless he is superhuman, for any
Minister who is responsible for his own
department, to do a job in terms of an inter-
departmental committee involving many other
departments.
Here we are with an issue, a live issue-
in fact it is so live it has been on TV two
or three times in the last ten days. The
Minister speaks proudly— oh, he just oozes
pride, it drips— about this committee, this
wonderful committee—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let us stick to the
policies and the programmes. Let us leave
personalities out of this.
4042
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister oozes—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Deal with the plat-
forms and the policies.
Mr. MacDonald: And he drips about this
committee which he has worked with. He
has never seen a committee which is willing
to work in a more co-ordinated fashion than
this one— I am only quoting his words of this
afternoon. Here is an issue which at the
moment has, for example, the Indians in
Lambton county on TV asking why they
cannot have representation on the school
board and the Minister does not know any-
thing about it.
What is this committee? How often does
it meet? What advice does it give? And
when the Minister is given advice, does he
do anything about it? Has it got minutes
we can see, or is it, as the Minister inti-
mated when we were discussing it this after-
noon, that it is a secret committee, that is
not exposed to the public, that he can sit
down with and advance his self-education.
Mr. Chainnan, this afternoon— and perhaps
if we achieve nothing, we can convey a bit
of this to the Minister— the Minister proudly
said that he asked the advisory committee to
come down and watch this performance. If
the Minister had one small iota of an appreci-
ation of how completely frustrated the ad-
visory committee is, he would have made
certain that they were meeting in Moosonee,
instead of inviting them to come down and
see the spectacle of this afternoon.
But the Minister does not even realize it.
This is the incredible part of it. The Minister
gets up and spends a half an hour or more
elaborating. It was just absolutely appalling,
beyond description, that this whole thing has
been a self-education for him.
God help US-
Mr. Pitman: God help the Indians.
Mr. MacDonald: —that, after 100 years'
neglect in coping with Indian problems, that
the Minister should be so unappreciative of
the situation that he proudly says that it has
been a self-educating process for him. Mean-
while the Indians wait.
Why does the Minister not recognize that
he is the biggest obstacle in the way of doing
something about it, and get out? Leave it to
somebody else who has an appreciation of it,
who is not overwhelmed by the complexities
of the problem, who is not willing to use this
excuse, that excuse, the next excuse— and
when those three are used, you will dream
up another excuse— to persuade himself it is
a complex problem, and, at the end of 100
years, still do nothing more about it. It is
appalling beyond words.
Now let me try to simmer down, once
again, because I want to deal with two or
three specifics that the Minister raised this
afternoon.
He says the problem is a constitutional
problem. Constitutions are made to serve
man, man should not be the victim of the
the constitution. The whole approach of the
Minister, a lawyer who is preoccupied with
the legal aspect of the constitution, is that
we cannot do anything, because of the con-
stitution.
Has it e\er occurred to the Minister that
he should use that constitution, go around it,
change it, shape it, ride over it, but get at
the problem on which you have done nothing
for 100 years? You and your predecessors do
not use the constitution as an excuse. That is
point one.
Point two is, if you have got a choice as
to what interi:)retation of the constitution to
make, do not choose that interpretation which
provides you with an excuse to do nothing.
Choose that interpretation of the constitution
that places an obligation on you to get out
and do something.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, through you
to the Minister, that there is an interpretation
of the constitution which has been advanced
by Professor Lysyk which says that there is
a provincial responsibility, that there is no
obstacle the province cannot tackle. So for
heaven's sakes accept that interpretation and
get out and do something.
The most convincing proof that this Min-
ister is a total disastrous failure is that he
should come in and almost, with a bit of
bravado, say that we were not able to spend
the $1 million that we appropriated last year
to meet the needs of the Indians, and yet a
month or six weeks ago he speaks with pride
about the Ontario Union of Indians and the
job that the Ontario Unions of Indians could
do.
But the Ontario Union of Indians are the
only people who can get in, with tlie con-
fidence of die local Indians, and find out
some of the problems, and come back with
some of the solutions.
What have they asked the Minister for?
They asked him some time ago for assist-
ance to prepare briefs for presentation to
Ottawa but neither the federal government
nor the provincial government provided them
with the means to do that. But the Ontario
MAY 6, 1969
4043
Union of Indians, now established as a
viable independent organization watli Omer
Peters as a full-time person with it, came to
the government and said, "Will you provide
us with $54,000 to put field men in to get the
information that we seek, so that we C5an
shape a policy?"
This was a meaningful kind of advice, and
what has the Minister done? He is sitting on
$1 million of unexpected money, sir, but
he— or the Treasury Board, or who, I do not
know— cannot get agreement to give the On-
tario Union of Indians $54,000 to get out and
do the job.
I say to the Minister— cut out the hypocrisy
of praising the Ontario Union of Indians for
doing the job. Give them a few of the
resources so that they can get out to do the
job.
I am not going to quote at length from
Professor Lysyk. If die Minister is not
already persuaded, I invite him to go and
read him. Read, for example, the speech of
Martin O'Connell in the federal House of
Commons because—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have read it.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, you read it but you
have not understood it. Every important
speech the Minister gives us, he says," I have
read it three times." The only thing I can
conclude is that you read this only once, and
it is obvious you are a slow learner.
Read it t%vice more and get the import of
it, because the import is tliat there is no
obstacle,, there is no legal barrier, in terms
of the province moving to accept responsi-
bihty for services to Indians.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I accept that argument
and I have made it clear. I said to the hon.
member for Riverdale, that portion of his
speech I will accept it completely, with no
legal barrier.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): You do
not accept financial resEK)nsibility.
Mr. MacDonald: This afternoon you said
the problem was the constitution. Now you
have changed your mind—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not changed my
mind.
Mr. MacDonald: Why are you not moving
in some of these programmes?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have explained to you
that social responsibility involved natural
responsibility. It is very easy to delegate,
saying you do it, but then the question is
who is going to pay for it?
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): We are!
Mr. J. Renwick: You are.
Mr. MacDonald: You are sitting on $1
milHon that we, in this LegLslature, voted
for you to use. The Minister this afternoon
said that there was a constitutional barrier.
Now he has reversed his position.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not reversed
my position.
Mr. MacDonald: He has said there is no
constitutional barrier, we can move, but we
must get the money from Ottawa.
Mr. Chairman, by way of backing up the
proposition that there is no constitutional
barrier. May I say to the Minister that in
addition to there being no constitutional
barrier, there is a legal obligation on you in
terms of the statute of the province of On-
tario. Now we are getting back to funda-
mentals; obviously, in dealing with this Min-
ister, one has got to deal with fimdamentals.
But one of the things that is most often raised
in the province of Ontario, that the prov-
ince is most proud of, is the proposition that
we have a human rights code. May I quote to
the Minister the preamble to the Ontario
Human Rights Code?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I participated in draft-
ing that code.
Mr. MacDonald: Did you? Well once again,
you participated in drafting, but you did not
gross its significance. Because it said, "It is
public pohcy in Ontario that every person"
—all tliose persons, Mr. Chairman, and that
includes the Indians— every person is free and
equal in dignity and rights without regard
to race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry
and place of origin." All right, if you helped
to draft it, for heaven's sake understand what
you drafted. But does it mean that the Indians
are equal "in rights"? To be so, you cannot
sit and make excuses about Ottawa presenting
you with a constitutional barrier. Further,
Mr. Chairman, you do not use die excuse that
Ottawa is not providing you with the money.
I will tell you why. It has been documented
by the Hawthome-Tremblay Commission. The
amount of money spent by governments in
Canada, on Canadians as a whole, is $740
per capita. The amount of money that is spent
by government on Indians in Canada, Mr.
Chairman, is $300 per capita.
In short, governments in Canada today-
federal, provincial, and local governments-
are spending on Indians less than one-half
of what they are spending on other Cana-
4044
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dians. I would suggest to the Minister, since
that be the case, he does not need to sit and
make the excuse that Ottawa will not give
him the money. You have an obligation to
fulfil the human rights code. You have an
obligation, in the name of equity, to spend
our money even if we cannot get it from
Ottawa.
I want to emphasize that. Having said it,
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say to the
Minister, do not negotiate with Ottawa. Nego-
tiate in as tough a fashion as possible to get
as much money as possible for what you
choose to believe and Ottawa has chosen to
accept up till now as being their responsibility.
But do not use the fact that you have not got
an agreement with Ottawa to postpone the
expenditure of money, because we are spend-
ing less than half as much on Indians in
Canada, including the province of Ontario,
as we are spending on other Canadians. So
morally and financially, you simply do not
have a case.
You see, Mr. Chairman— and here I do not
blame just the Minister because, quite frankly,
the Minister only reflects the attitude of the
Prime Minister on this issue. This is the
tragedy of it. It is the governmient's attitude.
Last December 10, the Prime Minister of
this province seized the occasion of human
rights year to have a statement read in this
House by the Minister of Labour. In the
course of that statement, he picked the Indian
situation as an example of where we had
failed to do our duty to individuals in terms
of human rights. What did he say? Let me
read one or two paragraphs here, Mr. Chair-
man.
He quoted from Mr. McRuer with regard
to the way we have treated the Indians.
Indeed it is such a magnificently eloquent
paragraph I think it is well to quote it once
again. This is what Mr. McRuer said:
For 100 years we denied the native
people of this country a right to express
themselves in the government of the coun-
try, solemn treaties were entered into with
them and, if not broken by us with im-
punity, they were certainly circumvented
by the payment of a few beads, hoes and
the odd plough. Millions of acres of pro-
ductive land were bought for such trifles.
We did not massacre these native peoples
as was done in some other countries, but
we have undoubtedly starved thousands of
them to death.
This is not an exaggerated comment from the
Opposition. This is Mr. Justice McRuer.
We have undoubtedly starved thousands of
them to death. If all men are bom equal in
this country, we well know that they do not
stay equal long after they are bom. And the
comment of the Prime Minister was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, this is something for which
every Canadian must feel deep concern
and deep shame. As Canadians we must
all commit ourselves to ensure that justice
is done. It should be pointed out, of course,
that under our constitirtion the welfare of
oiu- Indians is the chief responsibility of
the federal government.
This is the leader of the government of On-
tario, flying in the face of a legitimate inter-
pretation of the constitution, shelving his
responsibilities, saying it is the federal gov-
ernment's responsibility.
So far as I know, no provincial govern-
ment has placed any obstacle or indeed
could place any obstacle in the path of
having these injustices removed. On the
contrary, on our part, the government of
Ontario stands ready today-
Yes, it stood for years, and it is still standing:
—to co-operate wholeheartedly with the
federal government in launching a massive
attack on this problem. There is no doubt
in my mind that other provinces are equally
prepared to play their part.
Mr. Chairman, if the Prime Minister thought
it was a constitutional responsibility— which
it is— and if he is certain it is a matter of
concern and shame to us, one would have
thought that when the Prime Minister went
to Ottawa for the constitutional conference
that the Indian issue would have been rather
high on the conference agenda.
But, Mr. Chairman, there was not a word
mentioned by the government of Ontario on
the Indian issue. It was not put on the
agenda. So it makes a mockery of all your
fine pretensions. Obviously you are willing to
use the constitution as an excuse for not
doing things and shelve the whole respon-
sibility to the federal government
I suggest that it is about time we quit
doing that, Mr Chairman, However, I want
to turn to one other aspect. I was fascinated
to hear the Minister's interjection this after-
noon when, apparently, he reported from one
of his spies who attended the panel disussion
I took part in at the Unitarian Church on
Sunday, and the Minister suggested that—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not think that that
is a very good term to use. It is a very
natural thing for me to take an interest in
MAY 6, 1969
4045
everything that goes on and, if I cannot be
present myself, I would imagine that it is a
very normal thing to have somebody give a
report to me.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, that is very interest-
ing-
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Would the hon. mem-
ber like me to ignore his attitudes in this?
I am very interested in what he has to say.
Mr. MacDonald: That is very interesting.
The Minister now frankly says that he sent
somebody to listen to me. Quite frankly, I am
flattered.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, I checked to see
whether somebody would be there and that
was the case, and I said I would be pleased
to find out what was said. You did not give
me the—
Mr. MacDonald: Well, okay.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You did not give me
the courtesy of sending me your remarks.
Mr. MacDonald: I am flattered that the
Minister took time out on a beautiful week-
end to make certain that somebody was there
to hear what I had to say. But he got mis-
information. He was misinformed with regard
to what he thought was a change in attitude,
and I come back now, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I said modified.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I will tell you how
it is modified and why it is modified. What
the Minister is referring to is the proposition
that I advanced with vigour last year— and
I am still firmly convinced that it is correct-
that if we are going to meet the needs of the
Indians, it can be done most quickly and
most effectively by an extensive, decentraliza-
tion of those responsibihties, traditionally ac-
cepted by Ottawa, to the provincial level.
If you are going to meet the needs of the
Indians, it must be through an integration
with affairs which are normally within the
provincial constitution, within provincial re-
sponsibility. Set up Crown corporations, or
whatever sort of agency, in which the Indians
have a majority decision, to work out the
kind of programmes with the Union of On-
tario Indians— hopefully, financed with some
money to get men into the field to get the
facts and to shape policies realistically.
I advanced that proposal last year because
it was a policy worked out in considerable
detail by the Indian-Eskimo Association. It
had the support of the Union of Ontario
Indians. I will concede— and here is where
the modification came in— that there were
some reservations among some Indians as to
whether or not they wanted— to use the
phraseology I have heard some people use on
occasion— to escape from the devil they knew
to accept a devil they did not know.
They were willing, perhaps, to live with
the federal government and that inclination
has become stronger because of the hopes,
as yet unrealized, that maybe in Ottawa they
are going to take a new look at this kind of a
situation.
Well, I will tell you why I have modified
my attitude slightly, without moving from
the basic conviction that it is correct. Another
reason why the Indians are having second
thoughts about the decentralization of respon-
sibility to the provincial level is because, as
the Minister reminded us this afternoon, you
have signed two agreements with Ottawa.
One is known as the welfare agreement,
which the Minister thinks has gone wonder-
fully, except for some information that was
brought to him recently— so he told us this
afternoon. The second one is the community
development programme and the province's
share in the community development pro-
gramme has been such a tragic failure that
the Indians once again are saying, "Obviously
we have no hope at the provincial level."
The Minister shakes his head. Does he
really deny tliat that is the case? Does he
really believe, for one moment, that there
is not a widespread, growing disillusionment
with regard to the provincial participation?
How, in heaven's name, can they believe
anything else because we voted $1 million,
and he did not spend it because he has got
some sort of hang-up in the negotiations with
Ottawa.
How can his programme be anything else
but a failure if you have not spent the money
that we made available to you? That is the
reason why the Indians are having second
thoughts with regard to whether or not they
want to throw in their lot with the provincial
government.
But, Mr. Chairman, if this Minister would
get out of the way, if he would permit the
setting up of an interdepartmental commit-
tee to co-ordinate the global approach of this
government to deal not just with the unful-
filled individual rights of the Indians but
with the unfulfilled community rights of the
Indians— this requires action by Lands and
Forests and Mines, The Department of Wel-
fare, The Department of Education and The
Department of Agriculture.
4046
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am inclined to agree with the leader of
the Opposition that if it is going to be done
effectively, it must be done by a committee
under the Prime Minister, with somebody, as
Professor Kruger said, as full-time executive
secretary with the equivalent of deputy min-
ister status responsible to the Prime Minister,
not to some Minister who is either unable or
incapable of doing the job as a head of an
interdepartmental committee.
Then, perhaps we have some possibility of
achieving our objective. Then, perhaps we
can willingly accept responsibilities from
Ottawa and integrate them into a programme,
whether it is of Lands and Forests, or Agri-
culture, or Mines, or The Department of
Welfare or The Department of Health or
The Department of Education here in the
province of Ontario. Then we will have the
possibility of moving with programmes that
the Indians themselves will shape.
But the Minister has not even a glimmer-
ing of this kind of approach yet. He has sat
and done nothing for the past year. That is
why he is a tragic failure. When he gets up
and gives us an orgy of words, explaining all
the reasons why things cannot be done, he
just proves that he is a tragic failure.
All I ask is that the government begin to
live up to some of the high professions that
they have made in connection with Indians—
specifically, getting over the constitutional
hurdle, spending the money that we have
appropriated, and appropriating more, and be
willing to spend it while you are negotiating
with Ottawa.
If ultimately you are getting money from
Ottawa, fine, but if you do not get money,
you will be only raising that $300 per capita
on Indians, maybe to $350, or $400 or $500
—within reaching distance of what we are
spending on non-Indians in the Canadian
population. That is the charge to this Minis-
ter, and I hope that sometime soon he is
going to accept it and do something about it.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for River-
dale.
Mr. J. Ren wick: Mr. Chairman, I know
that the vote on Indian affairs is one which
perhaps transgresses the limits of the tradi-
tional method of dealing with the estimates,
but I assume that each year we are given
some leeway to deal with the question of
Indians, and I intend, subject to your direc-
tion, to take advantage of it.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I think probably the
programme is fairly well defined, the pro-
gramme of activity under this particular de-
partment. In the community development
service, anything that falls vdthin that area
could be discussed.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if
I could just go on, and if the Chairman stops
me I—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Perhaps I may assist
the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. In the last
couple of years it has been the tradition of
the House, in order to have a comprehensive
and fairly orderly debate, that this is the
opportvmity in which hon. members of the
House have a pretty far-ranging opportunity
of discussing matters relating to Indian citi-
zens, whether it falls within the purvue of this
department or not.
This has been the tradition, and I think
the Prime Minister has accepted this on be-
half of the government. I see no reason why
we should not take the fullest opportunity for
this discussion.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr, Chairman, perhaps before the hon. mem-
ber continues, on a point of clarification, the
Minister has already indicated that questions
dealing with education should be saved until
the estimates of his colleague.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, I was not inferring
that.
Mr. Nixon: Well, that was my interpre-
tation.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, I think it can quite
properly be raised. It is unfortunate that all
the Ministers cannot be present here. My
inference was that the Minister of Education
could at some time give the particulars.
Mr. Nixon: I see. Well, just a further clari-
fication. May we expect the Minister, who is
chairman of the Cabinet committee, to have
the information available, for example, on the
matter of extending OMSIP to Indians. Does
he ha\'e the information on that? Or when
we get to the point when we can question in
detail, will we be told to wait for the Health
estimates?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Minister of Health
(Mr. Dymond) would have the detailed posi-
tion on that. All I can do is give the general
policy aspect of it, which I have attempted
to do with relationship to the broad picture.
Mr. Nixon: It is going to be pretty broad.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on this
point of order we are dealing with. Here is
MAY 6, 1969
4047
another proof of the fact that this inter-
departmental committee simply does not work.
The Minister is correct in stating that the
Prime Minister said that now is the occasion
when we discuss the full range of affairs in
relation to Indians. The Minister has told us
about the interdepartmental committee. If
this government is really interested in this
occasion for an over-all debate on Indian mat-
ters, where is the Minister of Health? Where
is the Minister of Education? Where is the
Minister of Mines?
All of those Ministers, I submit to you,
Mr. Chairman, should be here, and then when
we ask questions we would not get the broad
generality from the chairman of the inter-
departmental committee, we would get the
details. But the committee does not operate.
This is final and further proof that the com-
mittee does not operate.
I agree that this is the time when, accord-
ing to the Prime Minister, we should debate
it. Later, we will have to debate it again and
then we will be accused of wasting the time
of the House by repetition. We will have to
repeat it with each one of these departments.
The Ministers should be here now to answer
for their participation in the interdepart-
mental committee on Indians, but they are
not.
Mr. Chairman: May I say that I am not
aware of any such arrangement, although I
have no reason whatsoever to doubt that such
arrangement does exist. I take the word of
the hon. members who have said that this
arrangement was agreed upon.
However, in view of the fact that we do
have this estimate before us fairly specifically
outlined, and with the concurrence of the
committee, if the hon. members direct ques-
tions outside of the specific area on this pro-
gramme of activity, and the hon. Minister is
able to provide the answers, this I presume
would be acceptable.
However, if the hon. Minister does not have
the information we will have to bypass it for
another department. Is this agreeable to the
committee?
Then we will proceed.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not
intend to repeat any of the remarks made on
April 17, when I tried to deal with, and do
demolish once and for all, the constitutional
barrier that seems to hang up this province
in dealing with the questions of Indians. I
do not intend to repeat any part of what I
said on that occasion.
I am, however, going to repeat the remark
which I made earlier in the course of this
debate, that never in the short time that I
have been in this Assembly have I ever wit-
nessed such a depressing debate and dis-
cussion as has taken place in this Assembly
on the question of the Indians.
I am sorry that the Treasurer (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) is going to leave because he threw
across the floor today one of the most insult-
ing remarks that has ever been made in a
debate about Indian matters. I assume that he
will come back at some point, because it
bears heavily on the financial obligations of
this province. To remove my own depression
and to endeavour somehow or other to indi-
cate the areas within which this government
can provide policy with respect to their obli-
gations to the Indian community in the prov-
ince of Ontario, I want to make these remarks.
I want to make them perfectly clear.
The Minister and I are now in agreement,
he has told me so, so far as the constitutional
problem is concerned. I suggest at his leisure,
at some point in the near future, that he con-
sider the implications of that agreement with
respect to the constitutional responsibility of
the province of Ontario, because it is trite
constitutional law. If the constitutional re-
sponsibility in the ambit of legislative au-
tliority is as he and I agree, then the executive
authority to accomplish those ends follows
the legislative authority.
Let us be perfectly clear about that. If
you want any legal precedent for it, then you
need only refer to that man who has become
all things to the Tory government, Mr. Justice
McRuer, either to accept his views or to dis-
card them as they see fit. If you want to go
back further than that, I refer you to the
traditional constitutional law case of the
John Deer Plow Company which specifically
establishes, as a constitutional proposition in
this country, that if the legislative authority
and the ambit of the legislative authority falls
on the government of this province, then the
executive authority to carry out policies
within that ambit of authority follows as the
night follows the day.
Let us go to the third part of the con-
stitutional problem that this Minister now
throws up. I wish the Treasiu-er had remained
because this is where this government is doing
a great disservice to this country.
If the legislative authority is there and the
executive authority follows from it, then it is
the obhgation of this government to raise the
financial resources to carry out its legislative
responsibility and the executive policies that
4048
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are determined as a result of that legislative
authority.
I am not going to get diverted onto tliat
proposition, but the major taxation fields are
as fully available to this government as they
are to the federal govemment.
My purpose in dealing at some length on
April 17 with the question of constitutional
problems of the Indians was not to permit
them to continue to be used to hamstring
the obhgations of this govemment. It was for
the purpose of removing the hang-up,
demolishing the barrier and indicating to this
government that we have, in fact if we will
use it, a vibrant living constitution.
It may have the encrustations of a great
deal of archaic language, it may not be ideal
in the way in which many of its provisions
are expressed, there may be obsolete pro-
visions, but within the framework of the
language of the constitvition it is possible
through judicial decisions, through govern-
mental actions, through the exercise of in-
telligence, to adopt humane policies to accom-
plish anything that we wish to accomplish.
In the field of Indian affairs this govemment
until such time as it mns up against contrary
federal legislation, and until such time as the
federal legislation is thrown up in court to
obstruct diis govemment's policy, this govem-
ment has an obligation, Mr. Chairman, to go
ahead with all avenues related to the position
of the Indian in the province of Ontario.
Now let me move on to the next part of
this problem.
Back about 1965, as a result of the agita-
tion in the field of civil rights in the southern
part of the United States diere was an over-
flow into Canada of a certain consternation
in government circles. As a result of that
we had this joint programme, to which I
referred by interjection this afternoon, of $500
million announced as a joint programme of
the govemment of the province of Ontario
and of the federal govemment.
It is exactly as I said it was, it was part
of this government's programme, this govem-
ment policy, of conducting their business by
public announcement without any substance
to it. That it the end, that is the last we ever
heard of that policy or of that programme
where there was no financial hang-up of any
kind whatsoever.
What we are dealing with, Mr. Chairman,
is one of the major areas of abject poverty in
tlie province of Ontario. We are engaging in
a continuation of the policies of the cultural
destmction of the Indian people and of the
Eskimo people. You are charged with the
responsibility of arresting that cultural des-
tmction, that is your responsibility, and I
iun going to try to indicate in a few minutes
how I think that maybe perhaps you can
in fact cany out and discharge that responsi-
bility. Mr. Chairman, I tliink that tlie mem-
bers may carefully note that in what I have
to say there is no element of compulsion,
there is no element of paternalism, there is no
element of authoritarianism of any kind; so
let us get rid of this other hang-up of the
government which radier indicates tliat they
do not know to get together with the Indian
communities in the province of Ontario and
agree on what should be done.
Mr. Chairman, I simply say to the govem-
ment that if it carries out its responsibility,
then it is up to the Indian community itself
in the province of Ontario— provided it is
given the opportunities to do so— to accept its
place within the framework of the Ontario
society and bring to bear whatever pressures
it wants, and adopt whatever means it wants
to adopt, in order to achieve the kind of
life which it wants to acliieve. You are faced
with a dead end if you think that at this
time in the province of Ontario there is in
fact some method by which you can reach
agreement with the Indian community, with
all the diverse interests that are involved in
that community, as to what your policies are
going to be. You can no longer use that as
a reason for not accomplishing anything. I
say that in the time that I have been in the
Assembly we have voted substantial amounts,
of money to the Minister— substantial amounts
in terms of what the government proposed,
but minuscule amounts of money in terms of
what is reqnired-but little if any of that
money has been expended.
Let us l>e perfectly clear, the responsibility
in Indian affairs— which includes the Eskimo
community as well, and includes Indians
whether they are registered or not registered
under The Indian Act-is that that whole
community has to be treated by this govem-
ment in the identical way in which this gov-
ernment treats all the rest of the citizens of
the province of Ontario. I am speaking in an
idealistic sense, because, of course, they make
distinctions as to how they treat different
groups.
Ideally, the Indian and Eskimo communities
in the province of Ontario require that you
treat them as ordinary citizens of this pro\'-
ince, equal to any other citizen in line, as my
leader has said, with the declaration that
accompanies the Ontario Human Rights Code,
in line with the declaration of human rights
of the United Nations, in line with all tlie
MAY 6, 1969
4049
things whidh, in our more platitudinous
moonents, we pride ourselves about. That is
the first thing that the Minister has got to
get across to himself.
His first problem is to deal with everyone
in the society in the province of Ontario on
identical terms, so that there are no distinc-
tions, and there are no reasons why you
should set aside, in a particular class, certain
persons. If you discharge your responsibilities,
the federal government will look after, at
some point in time, the question as to whether
or not there are particular incidents of status
which are attached to the Indian under the
constitution, but tliat is a relatively small
area.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Get to the
point.
Mr. J. Renwick: If the member for Grey-
Bruce will leave the Chamber, he can come
back later on, or he can come back next week.
Mr. Sargent: If I come back next week you
will 'be saying the same thing over again.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if the mem-
ber for Grey-Bruce would have any concep-
tion of what is involved, the state of affairs
on the Cape Croker Indian Reserve would
not be the way it is today. Now that the
member has got the responsibility in thLs area,
either he should participate in the debate, or
he should keep out of it, one or the other.
Mr. Sargent: Do you make the rules here?
Mr. J. Renwick: Mayl>e after the next elec-
tion we will make the rules here.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. Renwick: And I might say they will
be a significant improvement over the rules
as they presently exist.
Mr. Stokes: If you have nothing to say, do
not say it.
An hon. member: What about a game of
poker?
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I will try
to keep track of tlie numbers, but I think
there are about a dozen policies which this
government can adopt, and which will go a
long way to provide the kind of cohesion that
the government is obligated to accomplish
for the Indian community in the province.
They are very simple, there is nothing difficult
aibout them, and I am going to try to com-
ment briefly about each one of them.
First of all, that the government must pro-
vide a policy for the identical treatment of
the Indian community on or off the reserve—
which is an irrelevant consideration— and
whetlier they are registered Indians or not
registered Indians, in the field of health serv-
ices, preventative health services, medical
care, hospital care and dental care. One of the
questions for which we want an answer from
the Minister is whether or not the Indians
in Ontario, if they fall within the categories
under which the government provides supple-
mental or total assistance under the OMSIP
plan, are automatically not only covered but
entitled to tlie benefit of the OMSIP pro-
gramme in terms of tlie number of milhons of
dollars which we voted earlier under the
first vote of this department? That is the
first point.
The second policy is that the government
must adopt a poHcy for the identical treat-
ment of the Indian and Eskimo community
under the programmes of The Department
of Social and Family Services, The Family
Benefits Act, The General Welfare Assistance
Act and The Vocational Rehabilitation Assist-
ance Act, regardless of whether the Indian
is on the reserve or off the reserve, whether or
not he is a registered Indian or ceases to be a
registered Indian. The identical availability
of those programmes to the Indian and
Eskimo community should be asserted by this
government as a policy.
The third policy is a policy of adequate
housing for the Indian community. I do not
happen to have the statistics available— I may
possibly have them, but if I do not, they are
readily available to all those who are inter-
ested in this. I cannot speak about the whole
of the province of Ontario specifically on tliis
question, but, so far as one can ascertain, one-
sixth of the Indian families live in one-room
shacks. While 99 per cent of Canadian homes
have electricity, only one-half of Indian
homes are so endowed. Only 15 per cent
claim such basic facilities as indoor toilets,
mnning water and telephones, as compared
to 90 per cent of the general population.
The provision of adequate housing as a
policy of this government in the Indian and
Eskimo community immediately runs up
against one of the mythologies of the Anglo-
Saxon society. That is— and you hear it all the
time— that the Indian communities do not
know how to take care of their houses. I am
saying if that is an important part of the
government's hang-up in the housing area, let
us get on with it.
4050
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I assert categorically I do not care whether
the cost of housing means the reconstruction,
year in and year out, of the houses in which
the Indian community lives. If they want to
dismantle tlie house or any part of it, that is
fine with me. Your obligation and our obliga-
tion is to continue to provide adequate hous-
ing until such time as the Indian community
choose to live in it in the way in which you
and I accept as nonnal.
I do not happen to believe that tliat is
going to be the case, but I have heard it so
often that I assert it in those relatively black
and white terms. There is definitely going to
be an element, a continuing element, of
wasteiige in the traditional sense, as we imder-
stand it, in Indian housing. But that should
not impede, in any way, the provision by all
this govermnent of adequate houses for all
the Indian population.
Policy number four, Mr. Chairman, is the
provision of identical primary and secondary
school educational facilities, teaching facili-
ties and curricula, with whatever is required
in order to use the languages and the tech-
niques and tlie tools that will provide tlie
avenue within wliich the Indian and Eskimo
community, be they children or adults, can
participate in the educational structure of the
province of Ontario.
Policy number five is a programme by this
government sr>ecifically undertaken to protect
the Indian and Eskimo handicraft industries
from commercial exploitation and misuse.
That should be a responsibility of tliis gov-
ernment, just as much as they accept the re-
sponsibility for the marketing and the con-
trol of the marketing of agricultural prod-
ucts, and now of fish products, in the
province.
Policy number six is that this government
—not in conjunction with the federal govern-
ment—this government should appoint a Royal
commission, chaired by a member of the In-
dian community and with a majority of its
members from the Indian community. This
would review all the treaty rights of the In-
dian people, from the time of the Royal
declaration in 1763, until the present time, in
order to assess what was done to the Indians
in that land grab which took place disguised
and cloaked under tlie aura of legality.
I am going to come back to that point
when I finish the completion of these items
alx)ut what could be the policy for the Indian
people.
Policy number seven is the cstabUshment,
on an cfjual basis as the centre of science and
technology, of a centre of Indian culture and
civilization at some appropriate place within
the province of Ontario. That will be a place
of pride for the Indian and Eskimo com-
munity and a place of pride for the people
of tlie province of Ontario, because we will
have been engaged in proliibiting the destruc-
tion and arresting the destruction of a culture
and a civihzation, many of the elements of
which are of great value to us.
Mr. Sargent: Now that is intelligent. For
the first time it is intelligent.
Mr. J. Renwick: Policy number eight— the
endowment at one of the universities in
Ontario of a department of Indian affairs—
the endowment of a professorship of Indian
affairs. This in order that, somewhere in this
province at the post-secondary level, there
will be a focal point for the research and
situdy and analysis of botli past and present-
day Indian cultural life and inheritance and
the present way in which the Indian coan-
munity live in Canada.
There should also be a similar establish-
ment of a similar department at one of the
colleges of applied arts and technology— and,
in all likelihood, at more than one. A place
where Indians coming through the educational
system, wanting to devote their time to the
scholarship of their own culture and of their
own civilization, will have a place where they
feel at home in the upper reaches of the
edticational system.
There are many of the applied arts which
are still used by the Indian community in
Canada which both should be preserved and
taught in the colleges of applied arts and
technology. Certainly if the member for Hum-
l:>er can point out that we are teaching some
form of study and scholarship in the field of
witchcraft, we can certainly, at the colleges
of applied arts and technology, teach some
of the highly skilled traditions and trades and
abilities of the Indian and Eskimo community
in Canada.
The next policy, policy number nine,
is, in my judgment, the provision by this
government of airl>orne servicing of the fish-
eries and of the traphnes in this province
where a great ninnbcr of the Indian and
Eskimo communities still earn their living.
It should ])e quite possible for a government
of this size and this wealth to provide the
airborne servicing of those traplines and of
the fisheries industiy.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbiiry): There is not
an Eskimo, vou know, in Ontario.
MAY 6, 1969
4051
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): He did not
know that. I am glad the member told him.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have known it for
many years.
Mr. Stokes: You had them all in wigwaans
up in the north a while ago.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am glad
the Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement interjected. I understand from what
he said that there are no Eskimos on the
west shore of the Hudson Bay area or in the
Moosonee area, is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There are no native
Eskimos in Ontario.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I ask the
Minister, are there any Eskimos living in the
Moosonee area?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are in schools or
in hospitals.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: They come into the
hospitals, but there are no native Eskimos in
Ontario.
Mr. J. Renwick: All right.
Mr. Sopha: Well, there are some in the
Belshaw Islands and we could seize those
islands.
Mr. J. Renwick: With that minor diversion,
one of the few small things which I do know
is that there are some Eskimos resident in
the province of Ontario. I would suggest that
they are just as much citizens of the province
of Ontario as anyone else is at the present
time.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You said native-
Mr. Lewis: From whence does your nativity
hail?
Mr. J. Ren>vick: The next policy — policy
number ten— Mr. Chairman, i^—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You have a lot to learn.
Mr. J. Renwick: —is for the government to
take over the whole of the trade in fur-bearing
animals on a monopoly basis for the benefit
of the Indian community and such of the
native Eskimo population as happened, from
time to time, to live in the province of
Ontario.
Let me reiterate that, just in case the Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management's
span of attention was exhausted by that last
interchange. Let me say that we must have a
monopoly operation of the fur-bearing animal
trade for the benefit of the Indian oomanunity
in the province of Ontario.
That is something which a study will show
is quite feasible and is a method by which
we can provide a portion of the funds which
can be used for the carrying out of these
other policies.
Mr. Cliairman, I am quite certain that
others can think up just as many policies as
I have. I happen to have listed about ten
pohcies which, if adopted by this government,
mean that there is a policy of choice avail-
able for these Indian communities. PoHcies of
choice, that is what it is all about. Not to
make somebody over into some other mould,
but to provide him with the range of choices
within which he can freely make his choices.
I reiterate what I said somewhat earher. I
reiterate what I said; that if you analyze what
I have said in the course of enunciating these
policies, there is no element of compulsion,
no element of authoritarianism, no element of
arbitrariness, in what is involved. It is simply
the continued elucidation of what the obliga-
tion of this government is constitutionally, as
the executive government, from a financial
point of view and from the cultural point of
view.
These are policies which this government
if it adopted them, could report on year by
year and says, 'y^s, we have acomplished
this, this and this'. The funds, Mr. Chairman,
let me reiterate, are available in this province
through the taxing authority of this govern-
ment, whatever is necessary to carry out those
policies.
Mr. Chairman, let me come back to the
area that I said I would return to a little
bit earlier in my remarks. The whole of the
treaty question— and I want to go back to
the pre-Confederation treaties and I am going
to read one of the treaties. There are many
of them; many of the pre-Confederation
treaties.
In the southern Ontario part of the land
grab, thousands and thousands of acres were
taken on the basis of an annuity, in the
major treaties, of two pounds and ten shil-
lings for such members of the Indian com-
munity who happened to inhabit those vast
tracts, carefully delimited. Do not let anyone
say to you that the annuity of two pounds
and ten shillings over a long period of time
—the lifetime of the particular persons who
4052
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
were living, not their heirs or successors-
was much greater in value at that time than
it appears to be on the surface. With the
two pounds, ten shillings, you could get one
pair of three-point blankets at 19 shillings
and sixpence. That is one pound of it. One
pound of the annuity for one pair of three-
point blankets. You could also get a piece
of calico; 18 yards for 42 shillings.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): Is the hon. member blaming
this government for that?
An hon. member: Yes, it is one of the areas
of neglect.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. Renwick: I am quite certain that the
Attorney General would not agree with it,
but you are certainly the successors to the
family compact if ever I saw it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I never even knew
any of them personally.
Mr. J. Renwick: All right, let me get to
the point. I am not blaming this govern-
ment, but I am suggesting to this govern-
ment that there is something which this
government must do to rectify the obvious
injustice which was done at that time. The
Minister of Correctional Services can shake
his head all he wants to. I am simply point-
ing out that two pounds, ten shillings in
goods at that time would buy a piece of
calico and a pair of blankets; that is what
it would buy on an annuity basis.
This is one particular treaty and there are
many that follow this pattern and I simply
use it as an example. If you were one of
the Indians of the Chippewa tribe in 1820
and if you could understand what was being
done to you by Mr. William Glaus, the
superintendent of Indian Affairs, then I would
be quite surprised.
I want to record this because I do not
know whether one of these has ever been
recorded in this House before. I want to
correct the total perspective of our outlook
on the question of these treaties. We tend
only to talk about those treaties related to
the Indians across northern Ontario and not
to deal with the Indian community which
was gradually shoved back into the northern
part of the province of Ontario because of
the constant and continuous encroachment of
the white man over many years, legalized by
documents such as this. I would—
Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. member going
to relate this material to any situation to
date that might concern this department?
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I had re-
lated it, I think. On any objective view,
there is a total vacuum in the Indian policy
of this government. I think that is the first
point. I endeavoured to fill that vacuum by
pointing out a dozen policies which could be
adopted which would go some way toward
filling up this vacuum. One of them I rec-
ommended was the appointment of a Royal
commission chaired by an Indian and with a
majority of the members from the Indian
community that would deal with the whole
range of the treaties.
If this is the Indian branch, I want to
relate this to the continuing legal problems
which are involved in what is commonly
known as Treaty Number 3 in the northwest
angle of the province. I want to deal with
that and I want to deal with this treaty as
an example of the kind of thing which has
to be done by this government, if it is going
to adopt the Indian policies which are
necessary.
Mr. Chairman: May I just say that in
view of the concurrence of the committee
quite a few minutes back, various matters
not specifically under this vote could be dis-
cussed. I do admit that I am experiencing
difficulty in determining what might be in
order and what might not be in order. The
committee did concur that we could range
on any topic, even though it were not dis-
cussed or covered in this vote. But I would
ask the hon. members if they would try to
relate their topics to something without going
way back over history to ancient treaties. I
do not know if this is, properly, something-
Mr. Stokes: This is part of the whole
problem.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, there are
outstanding legal problems in which this
government has been in substantial default,
in terms of dealing with them, since about
1873.
Mr. Chairman: And the hon. member is try-
ing to relate these breaches of the treaties in
this province to the present-day situation?
Mr. J. Renwick: I want to deal with that
particular aspect. Yes that is right.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do not help him out,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. J. Renwick: I think the Attorney Gen-
eral will agree with me that there are out-
standing legal problems in connection with
the Indian treaties in the province of Ontario.
MAY 6, 1969
4053
Mr. Chairman: I am sure the hon, member
is not going to go into to much detail to
relate this.
Mr. Sopha: I wonder if the Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Brunelle) agrees they
are.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ri\ er-
dale has the floor.
Mr. J. Renwick: This particular document
is couched in the terms of an English deed.
I will not read the whole of it; I will read
substantial parts of it. Then I simply ask the
members of the assembly, if you were a mem-
ber of the Chippewa nation, whether or not
you would have a clear understanding of
what you had signed when you signed this
particular document. Or whether, in legal
terms, an argument which, I belie\'e, in the
Latin phrase of non est factum, would have
perhaps been a defence against anybody tr>'-
ing to hold up this document against you if
you were asserting claims as the heir of one
of the persons who signed this treaty. This
language is quite quaint, you know; it is
quaint English language.
This indenture made the 8th day of July
in the year of our Lord 1822 between the
Indian chiefs—
whose names I cannot pronounce:
—the chiefs and principal men of the Chip-
pewa nation of Indians inhabiting and
claiming the tract of land hereinafter men-
tioned and described of the first part, His
Majesty George IV by the Grace of God of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, King, Defender of the Faitli, of
the second part and the Honourable Wil-
liam Claus of the town of Niagara in the
district of Niagara, Deputy Superintendent
General of Indian Affairs in the province
of Upper Canada, of the third part.
Whereas by a certain provisional agree-
ment entered into the ninth day of May in
the year of our Lord 1820 between George
Ironside, Superintendent of Indian Affairs
on behalf of His late Majesty King George
III of blessed memory of the one part and
the said principal chiefs—
and so on:
—of the other part, it was agreed that in
consideration of an annuity of two pounds
and ten shilh'ngs of lawful money of Upper
Canada to be paid in merchandise at the
Montreal price to each man, woman and
child of the said Chippewa nation of In-
dians, then inhabiting and claiming the said
tracts of land and who shall be li\ing at
the respective times appointed for the
delivery of the said merchandise during
their respective lives and to their posterity
forever provided the number of annuitants
should not at any time exceed 240, being
the number of persons then composing the
said nation claiming and inhabiting the
said tracts of land, they, the said—
and they list the Indian chiefs again:
-sm-render to His said late Majesty and his
successors without limitation or reservation
all that parcel or tract of land lying on the
northerly side of the River Thames in the
London and western districts of the prov-
ince aforesaid, containing about 580,000
acres and hereinafter more particularly
described.
And then, in the language of a traditional
deed, it goes on to convey that property— it
provides a meter and bounds description of
the 580,000 acres and goes on:
together with all the woods and water
thereon lying and being all and singular
the rights, privileges, easement benefits and
appurtenances thereto belonging and tlie
reversion and reversions, remainder and re-
mainders and all the estate right, title, in-
terest, trust, use, claim and demand what-
soever of them the said Tomago, Metch-
chuwin
and so on, the chiefs of the Chippewa Na-
tion. It goes on then to refer again to the
annuity of two pounds, ten shillings for the
240 people, and the signatures are signed,
sealed and delivered.
My only jwint, Mr. Chainnan, is that a
commission appointed by tiiis government to
review that kind of document would indicate
that in such instances it would be a fair
assumption that the terms under which those
lands were surrendered and granted should
be renegotiated. There are very serious legal
questions involved in many of tliese treaties as
to whether or not the Indian communities
surrendered, for example, the mineral rights
on vast tracts of land in this province.
Let me go on— that is one example of a
pre-Confederation treaty, and there are many
of tliem. The post-Confederation treaties
deal mainly with the upper part of the prov-
ince. In the province of Canada, there is the
Robinson-Superior treaty— others will be more
familiar with these treaties than I am— of
September 7, 1850, the area ceded was 16,700
square miles. And there was the Robinson-
Huron treaty of September 9, 1850, again
witli the Ojibway Indians and the area ceded
was 35,700 square miles.
4054
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It sets out in detail and on occasion we can
set out the specific terms and conditions
attaching to those treaties. Then there was
Treaty Number 3, which I beheve is known
commonly to those more familiar than I, as
the Northwest Anglo Treaty of October 3,
1873, in which there are outstanding legal
problems dealing with the rights of the
Indians, the rights of the government of Can-
ada and of the province O'f Ontario, dealing
with some 55,000 square miles.
The government obligation— and this was
the government of Canada and tlie govern-
ment of the province of Ontario has not
settled with the government of Canada about
these obligations in final form yet— was to
provide a reserve of one square mile per
family of five, subject to the government's
right to deal witli settlers on reserve land,
the right to sell or lease reserve lands with
the consent of the Indians and to appropriate
reserve lands for federal public purposes
subject to compensation for improvements,
schools, control of liquor trafficking, hunting
and fishing in the ceded area subject to
Dominion regulation. And again there is pro-
vision as to the consideration to be paid for it.
The last treaty, as I understand it, and
there are some supplementary treaties after
that, is the Treaty Number 9, which deals
with that part of Ontario draining into Hud-
son Bay, paid by the province, which is in-
cluded each year in the estimates of The
Department of Lands and Forests. There is
a provision for the payment of that annuity
under Treaty Number 9 of $4 per head for
an area which was ceded, of some 90,000
square miles.
I would hope that the Attorney General
will, at some point in his estimates or on some
other occasion in this House, deal with his
version of what the legal problems are, re-
lated to these Indian treaties. But, I revert
back to one of the policies which I suggested
for the government and that is: A policy
which would require the appointment of a
Royal commission by this province, which is
the owner of those lands; to review each and
every one of those treaties, whetlier they are
of the original province of Quebec, of the
I^rovince of Upper Canada, of the province
of Canada or of the Confederation, to ascer-
tain once and for all what the rights and
privileges of the Indian community are; to
find out whether or not there were any
vacuums in those treaties and; to suggest
whether or not, and to recommend whether
or not, there should be some adequate re-
negotiation of the terms and conditions under
which those parts of this particular province
were surrendered by the Indian commimity to
the province and are now part and parcel of
either the Crown lands or of title derivitive
from the Crown.
My last remarks, Mr. Chairman, are simply
that we have to have an enunciated policy
from diis government, not just a Ministerial
committee of an interdepartmental com-
mittee. We have to now get down to a public
statement in some detail of what the policies
of this government are so far as the Indian
community in the province is concerned.
I suggest the guidelines that I have pro-
posed provide some inkling of the way in
which this can be accomplished, and will
a\'oid on the one hand a hang-up about
the constitutional executive and financial re-
sponsibility of this government. On the other
hand it will avoid the hang-up of how you are
going to get total agreement about tliese
policies with the Indian community which is
now a very diverse community which will
find its own way in due course if this gov-
ernment will provide identical policies to
recognize the Indians in this province as
the same as every other citizen of the prov-
ince so far as all the programmes in the
educational field, social and family services,
health fields, post secondary education field,
cultural establishinents, monopoly practices
with respect to the marketing of fur bearing
and fishing-^the fishing industry for the bene-
fit of that communit)', discrimination in favour
of the Indian community so far as employ-
ment in the government is concerned, and a
plan for the availability of jobs throughout
private industry for those Indians who wish
to have it, coupled wdth the provision of
modem methods for servicing the trap-lines
and other parts of the traditional livelihood of
the Indian in order that there will be a policy
of choices available for the Indian comimimity.
That is what freedom is all about. That is
what is required, and it will be costly and
there will be wasteage in our traditional way
of looking at it, but that is a very small price
to pay for redoing and correcting the wrongs
wliich have been done over many years, and
for arresting the destruction of a culture which
is visibly taking place before our eyes and
must be stopped now.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West was on his feet before the hon.
member for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: Is there such a thing as party
alternation?
Mr. Chainrwin: Yes there is.
Mr. Sopha: Is there such a principle?
MAY 6, 1969
4055
Mr. Chairman: Yes there certainly is.
Mr. Sopha: We have had three speakers in
a row, and now, you are giving them the
fourth speaker in a row.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is the
second speaker to my knowledge, I was out
of my chair for a short while, there may have
been—
Mr. Lewis: I thought it was a simple
matter of catching your eye, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sopha: On the other hand, he is the
fourth speaker in a row.
Mr. Chairman: I was not in a position to
know what the hon. member has suggested
to me before I came back. The hon. member
for Scarborough West has the floor.
Mr. Lewis: Well, I shall oblige the mem-
ber for Sudbury, Mr. Chairman. I want to
ask the Minister a few brief questions, make
some observations and then add to the list
of solutions which my colleagues have given
to this Legislature tonight. Perhaps 1 may
put to the Minister some things which he may
regard as exceedingly extreme — which, I
hope, he might view as justifiably revolution-
aiy in terms of changing the entire situation
—surely the only conceivable response.
Before getting into tliat, I have a number
of short questions which I would like to ask
him. The first, deriving directly from his own
branch, and the statement of April 11. Mr.
Dufour— am 1 right— the head of the branch
which the Minister administers, who, in
response to the Opposition claim that a $1
milHon community development programme
fund had largely been unused since it was
established two years ago, suggested— die
director of the Minister's branch— that the
money could be used for mortgages for hous-
ing. Now, has tlie government taken any
decision on that? Is it their intention to use
the money in that fashion?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
matter of housing which I acknowledge as
one of the very pressing problems, highlights
the matter which I referred to earlier, the
necessity of resolving not the constitutional
responsibility, not any legal barrier but the
fiscal responsibility.
We are quite prepared to work out the
vehicle by which the knowledge and skill of
the province as exemplified, and I accept it,
by the Minister of Trade and Development.
He would be able to provide housing in the
northern part of Ontario basically of the kind
suitable for the residents of that area.
The problem arises, of course, as to the
costs. Who is going to pay for the very
substantial amounts of money because $1
million in conjunction with all th^ social
services programme would— as I think it is
referred to— only scratch the surface. It was
referred to as minuscule. Now, I would not
regard it as being minuscule, but certainly it
falls far short of what would be necessary in
the various social services field.
Mr. Lewis: Well, the amount we have
spent, the Minister will concede, is infinitesi-
mal—up until this point $200,000 over a two-
year period; $1 million would seem to be
reasonably appropriate. But for the moment,
I will accept his opinion and move to another
question.
What of the $54,000 requested by the
Ontario Union of Indians to place a number
of people in the field to assess precisely the
nature of the Indian condition, and to pro-
vide policy objectives thereon. Has the Min-
ister decided whether or not to grant that
money? And if not, why not?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the de-
cision has not yet been made. I met as
recently as yesterday morning with represen-
tatives of the union in order to get further
clarification of their position, and the propo-
sition is still under consideration.
Mr. Lewis: The Minister, Mr. Chairman,
recognizes, of course, that just last weekend
in Ottawa, Monsieur Chretien capitulated to
the demands— which he saw as irresistible—
of a large number of Indian bands who, in
order to amend The Indian Act, agreed that
those groups and those groups alone would
be entitled to provide the amendments. He
then said something about treaty rights as
well.
One might hope that in this branch, in
terms of what the Minister says, the same
policy could come forward, Mr. Chairman.
Can I then ask the Minister about the branch
itself, how many Indians do you have serv-
ing on the branch as part of the fuU-time
deployment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are five within
the branch.
Mr. Lewis: Five, and how large is the
complement of branch staflF, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is a comple-
ment of 22 with 17, I think, on staff at the
present time.
Mr. Lewis: Complement of 22 with 17 on
staff, so that it is safe for me to say that
4056
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
less than a third of those on the staff of the
Indian affairs branch are themselves Indians.
I do not know what—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would say approxi-
mately one-third.
Mr. Lewis: Well, five of 17 strikes me as
less than a third and if there are still five
vacant, Mr. Chairman, I suspect that they
may not be filled in the manner which we
would judge appropriate.
I think, Mr. Chairman, this again reveals
rather interestingly the intent of the Minis-
ter and the substance of some of the re-
marks which he made during the course of
the afternoon in relation to this subject when
he expressed undying fidelity to the Indian
body which advises him on Indian affairs
and on the value of the branch itself.
There were a number of projects, Mr.
Chairman, that had been put to the Minister
from time to time: a folk school project, the
Indian Hall of Fame at the CNE, the Union
of Ontario Indians field work project on
changes in The Indian Act, and the Cana-
dian-Indian youth workship at Waterloo.
All of those, I understand, were declined
support by the department. Can the Minis-
ter indicate why he declined support and
whether he might re-examine it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, each of
those requests were considered and there
appears to be some reason for their non-
acceptance. I must say that my attitude in
the overall picture is that instead of going
on the basis of some technical and perhaps
ordinary consideration of a grant that would
lead up to its refusal, I am inclined that in
this area, where the amounts of money in
the overall picture of either the provincial
activity or federal-provincial activity is so
small, that we should lean in favour of find-
ing n^asons for granting, rather than deter-
mining the basis why they do not fall within
the four comers of some policy.
Mr. Lewis: The Minister, Mr. Chairman,
will be aware that the Indian-Eskimo Asso-
ciation, the Ontario division said, and I am
quoting from their brief:
In declining support of these projects, we
feel the Ontario government has created
expectations which they are not prepared
to meet.
Page 7 of the brief.
Of course, the gap in rising expectations,
and the unwillingness to respond to those
rising expectations is what is igniting the fuse
in this province and in this country around
the question of the emancipation of the
Indian people.
Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks I want
to make. The Minister said to me this after-
noon when I threw a piece of "cut and
thrust" across the floor, that I was unkind.
His statements about the advisory committee
on Indians reminded me excruciatingly of
Rudyard Kipling, and in order to reinforce
my memory, I got hold from the library of
the definitive edition of Rudyard Kipling's
verse, and I would share with the Minister
the final verse of Gunga Din. He will recall-
Mr. Yakabuski: Is that in the estimates?
Mr. Lewis: It certainly is in the estimates.
It will be in the estimates tonight.
'E carried me away
To where a dooli lay,
An' a bullet come an' drilled the beggar
clean.
'E put me safe inside,
An' just before 'e died :
1 'ope you liked your drink,' sez
Gunga Din.
So I'll meet 'im later on
At the place where 'e is gone
Where it's always double drill and no
canteen
'E'll be squattin' on the coals
Givin' drink to poor damned souls,
An' I'll get a swig in hell from Gunga Din!
Yes: Din! Din! Din!
You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!
Though I've belted you and flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you.
You're a better man than I am,
Gunga Din!
You are a better man than I am, Indian
advisory council; you are a better man than
I am, Ontario Union of Indians; you are a
better man than I am, all of you who wish to
enter the twentieth century and for, whom I,
in my position as the deliverer of patronizing
observations about the Indian community,
inhabit The Department of Social and Family
Services. ,
Mr. Chairman, the Minister said this after-
noon that as a citizen he was not proud. The
Minister said this afternoon that he would
proclaim assertions of undying respect for the
Indians and their right to achieve a certain
status and citizenship in the province. I would
like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that a number
of things have been cleared away from the
rubble during tlic course of the debate this
afternoon and this evening.
One of tlie things which has been cleared
MAY 6, 1969
4057
away and needs to be reinforced again and
again in this House is that there are no con-
stitutional constraints whatsoever on the ques-
tion of deahng with Indians in the province
of Ontario. If I may put it quite simply, there
is no constitutional prohibition to the pro-
vision to the provinces treating Indians as full
citizens entitled to the entire range of pro-
vincial services. Mr. Chairman, on that, we
in this party, hang a great deal of our argu-
ment.
We would point out to the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, that even if his particular dialectic
will permit of raising the constitutional issue
in the ease of reserve Indians on occasion,
in all those areas of non-reserve Indians, the
government's position is paramount. They
need defer to no one, certainly not to the
federal government, Mr. Chairman, on no
account. One would ask this Minister, if that
is the case; what about Lake Helen and what
about Macdiarmid and what about Armstrong
and what about the whole litany of non-
reserve areas in this province which have
suffered from the Minister's neglect in the
two and a half years which he has held office
and for which there are no constitutional
fabrications whatsoever?
That is the question which we in this party
put to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, because,
of course, his argument then holds no water
at all. If the Minister has conceded the
legality of the provincial dominance in his
field in one area, then he has much to explain
when that legality was never in question in
all the other areas. One therefore finds his
motives suspect. If the Minister was not pre-
pared to move in two and half years in the
area of non-reserve Indians, what confidence
can the Opposition have in this Legislature
that at some point he will move in the area
of reserve Indians?
Let me go further, Mr. Chairman. The Min-
ister says on this brancli, his greatest single
problem is that of finances. Well, why, Mr.
Chairman? Why need there be any problem
in finances? In God's name, why need there
be a problem in finances? Is there no pro-
gramme in the province of Ontario which the
government undertakes without a compensat-
ing grant from the federal government? Is
there nothing you gentlemen do which does
not have some way of finding return from the
federal government?
Much of your Budget, Mr. Chairman, much
of the government Budget, is spent as it were,
in unilateral fashion, not waiting for any
handouts from Ottawa, in order to justify
programmes. To suggest that you can act as a
provincial government with impunity to hand
out money in all kinds of unjustified areas
without compensation from Ottawa; but can-
not move in the context of the Indians, well
-there is notoriety for you. There is an inde-
fensible position if ever there was one.
It is all right, Mr. Chairman, for this gov-
ernment to provide horse-racing revenues to
E. P. Taylor in sums of tens of thousands of
dollars. It is all right for this government, Mr.
Chainnan, to build a $13 million edifice out
in Lake Ontario; it is all right for this gov-
ernment to give a unilateral fee increase to
the highest-paid profession in the country.
And it is all right for this government to
spend only $200,000 of $1.3 million which it
has for tlie Indians. And this Minister says
there is a problem about finance. Claptrap!
There is no problem about finance, Mr.
Chairman. There is a problem about "will".
There is a problem about appreciating the
dimension of what the Minister has inherited
where the Indians are concerned— that is the
problem and there is not the slightest possi-
bility of insufficient funds. You have funds for
everything else, all of them of a lower priority
than rescuing Indians from the carnage which
we visited on the natives of this country;
sums of money to do for them what any
human being and what any Minister in this
Cabinet would do without hiding behind the
desperate subterfuges, the last refuge of a
drowning politician. No argument can be
made about inadequate financial responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, if the Minister were so
certain then he would not raise in this House
again the interminable argument between
Ottawa and Toronto around money, as well
as the constitiition.
Are the Indians to be sacrificed on the altar
of inadequate funds as they have been sacri-
ficed on the altar of the constitution for the
last 100 years? Why must the federal-provin-
cial fratricide always be fought over the
bodies of the Indian population in this prov-
ince? That is really the question we are
asking, and for that there is no obvious
answer.
Mr. Chairman, if the Minister was serious
tliis afternoon about going to bat for the In-
dian population, about feehng confident that
under this estimate he has certain rights and
was willing to take them up, then he could
confront the federal arena in every way. The
Prime Minister enters federal-provincial rela-
tionships and puts the proposals that come
from debate in this House or, indeed, the
objects of his government before the govern-
ment at Ottawa, thus attempting to effect
certain decisions. Why not from this Minister?
And one might ask, Mr. Chairman— as a
4058
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
measure of integrity on the part of the de-
partment toward the Indians— where is the
Minister's brief to the federal government,
supporting the Indians in their efforts to
change The Indian Act? A more nefarious
and iniquitous Act there is not among federal
statutes. Where is the provincial govern-
ment's brief in support of the Indian?
Where, Mr. Chairman, is the provincial
government's brief in support of the rights
of Indians in Cornwall; of the Mohawks at
St. Regis to cross the border with duty-free
goods as granted in treaties from 1794? Where
is the Minister's brief in support of that to
the federal government? Where is the Min-
isters brief, Mr. Chainnan, in support of the
original treaty on fishing and hunting rights
of the Indians, which was taken away from
them by a Supreme Court decision inappro-
priately proferred?
If the Minister is so serious about the way
in which he identifies with the Indian prob-
lems in this society, where are all the saib-
missions which he would make on behalf of
the Indian population?
No wonder there is a time bomb ticking,
Mr. Chairman. No wonder the Indian says,
"Get off my back, white man." No wonder
the Indian feels like a miner chained to the
company store. All of these things have now
become realities in tlie middle of the twentieth
century, because throoighout this province
there is evidence replete to demonstrate the
harassment and the penury within which the
native Indian population functions.
There came into my hands, if I can find it
at this point— and I will be most chagrined if
I cannot— a document prepared by the director
of the Lakeheiad Children's Aid Society, de-
scribing a visit he made to Gull Bay, Arm-
strong and Colhns on November 19 last and
extending a mmiber of days beyond that.
I want to read excerpts of it, Mr. Chairman,
to tlie House because if there was ever some-
thing which fell four-square within the Min-
ister's estimates, it is this particular document.
This is in Nipigon:
Several visits were made here, and some
rather deplorable conditions seen. In one
instance, a mother has eight children bom
out of wedlock. There are two bedrooms in
the home; one is used for wood storage and
in the other tliere is one bed witliout
springs. In the living room, there is a crib
without a mattress and an old, worn
chesterfield. The only chair in the house is
an oil drum. Tihere were no blankets, dishes
or towels and very little food.
In another home, there are two bedrooms
and 13 children, plus the mother and
father. One bedroom is used by a son and
the rest sleep in the other bedroom or on
worn, old couches in the living room. In
the bedroom .there is one bed, a square box
arrangement in the corner where the chil-
dren are placed until it is cold, a large
crib and a small crib. There is only one
cooking utensil, a pot, always on the stove
and jet black with smoke; no cups, four
plates, one bath towel and again no
blankets.
These conditions could be repeated in
home after home. Indian people are cer-
tainly oriented to people rather than to
things or possessions.
An interestinig aside by the director of the
Children's Aid Society.
There is one family in which we are par-
ticularly interested. The husband is 26 years
old and the wife 24 years old, and they
have eight children. Both husband and wife
are hard working and she is probably the
best homemaker on the reserve.
Unfortunately, he has developed a serious
drinking problem. He was rec^ndy in the
special section at St. Joseph's hospital at
the Lakehead, but one wonders if he can
stand the situation when e%'ery relative and
every friend he has drinks excessively.
It is unfortunate that, when the new
school was built in Gull Bay, provision was
not made for inside plumbing.
New schools by The Department of Educa-
tion—and provisions were not made for inside
plumibing.
Mr. Chairman, might the Minister rise in
his place and tell us which white schools in
Ontario do not have provisions for indoor
plumbing?
Next to tilie school are two teachers* resi-
dences and each has a modem fully
equipped bathroom. At the school, how-
ever, tlie toilets are a considerable length
away from the building itself. An arrange-
ment of showers in this building could
have meant a great deal, not only to the
children, but adults as well.
From there, Mr. Dawson proceeded to Collins:
My first home call was in the interests
of two boys, aged 5 and 7. The mother
had been mrurdered a few years ago and
they were residing with their grandmother,
who is reported to be a bootlegger.
Never have I seen a filthier hovel. The
floor was dirty, there were three beds in
MAY 6, 1969
4059
the room, each covered with filthy rags,
and on one an old woman sat looking more
hke a typical witch, with hair over her
face. On the stove v/as a pot filled with
black water. I thought it was scrub waiter
and then discovered fish were being boiled
in it. Certainly the boys could not be left
here.
This settlement is certainly remote and
lacking many facilities. For instance, the
only medical assistance comes from the
teacher, who only has a knowledge of first
aid. Recently one of the men had his head
split open; stitches really should have been
used but, of course, were not possible. And,
in another instance, a man was very
severely burned. It was several hours before
the train came through and in the meantime
he suffered while the teacher gave first aid
and removed dead skin.
Is this what the Minister talks about when he
discusses his interdepartmental committee and
his close relationship with the Minister of
Health in the provision of health services for
Indians in reserves in the north? Gull Bay,
Mr. Chairman:
Here we discovered a very serious situ-
ation. At the first home we called on—
where, by the way, there had been tremen-
dous improvement in family relationships,
care of the children and housekeeping— it
was learned that there were five children
left in the home while the parents were
away.
The chief and police were away, so we
conferred with the senior counsellor. We
went to the home, looked in the window
and saw no sign of life. However, Mr. X
obtained a key and on entering found three
small children huddled under an old wet
blanket in a bedroom, and a baby in a crib.
They had been alone since the previous
evening and were in a bad condition as
there was no heat or food.
At first, we thought the baby was dead.
Never have I felt a colder body, not even
a corpse. Efforts were made to have the
grandmother living across the street take
at least the baby, but she not only refused,
but also refused to give us one stick of
wood although she had a large pile in the
woodshed.
We found another child who may be
seriously neglected. This is in a house
where the mother was not capable and
there were three or four children bom out
of wedlock. Three, including the baby,
were not bad, but we heard crying in a
back room. When we went in, we found
a tsvo-year-old boy, filthy and lacking care,
sitting on top of an old stove. If we had a
picture of this boy, you would have thought
it was a child in Biafra. Mr. Smith carried
him out and strong instructions were given
to the mother.
Mr. Chairman, I could quote even more ex-
tensively.
I say to the Minister that this is a director
of the Children's Aid Society at the Lakehead.
I say to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, that this
is directly within his department. In fact, it
encompasses two of the four branches which
have come before us on these estimates.
I say to him, Mr. Chairman, that this re-
duces his guarantee to the House this after-
noon, to the emptiest, shabbiest and most
depressing of rhetoric.
Mr. MacDonald: Hear. Hear.
Mr. Lewis: Within his own department,
conditions are revealed which would make a
heart of stone crumble, but not the Minister
and not the Cabinet. I say, Mr. Chairman,
that in respect to the native Indian popula-
tion, the situation has reached the point of
cataclysm.
The director of the Children's Aid Society
says, in his summary:
One cannot repeatedly visit the Gull Bay
and Armstrong areas without wondering,
"are we achieving anything at all"? Cer-
tainly family conditions have not improved
on the reser\'e and, in several instances,
have deteriorated. At the present, we have
a total of 21 active cases in the area, the
majority in Armstrong. What can be done?
The mournful director of the Children's Aid
Society at the Lakehead asks what can be
done?
Mr. Chairman, from this department there
is no succour, or comfort, in terms of what
can be done.
I remind the House, Mr. Chairman, when
talking about the extremity to which the
Indians are gradually being driven, that
across this province, 53 per cent of the Indian
population does not have Grade VI education;
61 per cent does not have Grade VIII; 97 per
cent have not reached Grade XII, and only a
handful have reached university.
I remind you, Mr. Chairman, it was recently
docimiented that of all tlie Indian bands, the
average annual income is $1,361, compared
to a similar income in neighbouring white
communities of $4,000 per year, and that 90
per cent of the Indian population is below
that standard of living in their own areas.
4060
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the death
rate among pre-school age Indian children is
eight times that of white children— eight
times. Perhaps that, too, is part of the col-
laboration with the Minister and The Depart-
ment of Health— a collaboration in eflecting
a death rate of that level.
One hears much about the interdepart-
mental committee, Mr. Chairman, but one
hears very little from it. I trust that the Min-
ister read, as I am sure he did, the articles in
the Toronto Telegram which documented, as
few have documented, the state of conditions
in Moosonee, and in many of the outlying
communities.
One talks, Mr. Chairman, in the effortless
jargon of the House, about a blot on the
conscience of the province. Well, there is no
department of go\'ernment and no branch in
go\'emment which has been so scorned, so
abused, so derided as has this branch and
this department in this area of the Indian
question.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there
are certain pretty elemental basics which
flow from any kind of analysis which is made
and I would like to suggest four of them to
the Minister. As I say, I suppose in putting
them forward into the arena for discussion,
he may regard them with a jaimdiced eye,
^out I do not know of anything less than a
revolution in Indian policy which can now be
considered bearable.
First, Mr. Chairman, we must think about
giving the Indian equal— no, not equal; par-
allel that is the word I want— parallel repre-
sentation on eveiy single elected body in this
province, including this sacrosanct Legis-
lature. Parallel representation; be it municipal
councils, regional councils, provincial coun-
cils. And as a matter of policy that is worth
discussing, and discussing pretty seriously.
The second thing I want to suggest, Mr.
Chairman, is that somehow we have to give
to the Indians land in perpetuity. And, in-
deed, a scheme whereby it can be granted to
individual families in perpetuity, so that one
can somehow redeem the nature of the con-
([uest visited on the Indian by the white man
on this part of the North American continent.
There has seldom been a case of a more
crude \ iolation of treaty rights than we have
evidenced in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I see that the hour is right,
all the adolescents have departed. Here are
a couple of paragraphs in an article from
Rampart's, the article is entitled— the Chair-
man will forgive me— "The Royal Screwing of
the Pasamaquadia". The body of the article
is an excellent analysis of what was done to
one tril>e in the United States which aroused
the ire of large gi^oups of citizenry in that
country to respond. The article says:
Swindled out of their land, deprived of
gainful employment, cheated in countless
ways, humiliated and progressively pauper-
ized, the once proud Indians have been
reduced to begging at the coattail of the
master thieves.
It has been proposed that the govern-
ment, which concluded international
treaties with most Indian nations, should
dispense foreign aid to the victims of our
colonial expansion. But not only will this
perpetuate the dependency of the Indians
on the white government, but it begs the
central (luestion of reservation control. All
the Indians are asking is total control of
all the lands granted to them by treaty.
I think tlie point is well made on both fronts
—the need for parallel electoral representation
and the right to land in perpetuity. That
leads to the third point, Mr. Chairman, ami
perhaps the most contentious of all — the
possibility that the department transfer all its
funds, every last penny, holus bolus into
Indian hands for Indian decision and Indian
distribution and Indian policy formation.
Never again should a white bureaucrat in-
trude on the decisions that are made about
the Indian community. And, conscious of the
fact that even if such funds were misemployed
for 100 years, I say it would only repeat
the effects of the last century where we, in
our collectivity, quite consciously, abused
those similar funds.
I am suggesting that instead of discussing
which constitutional rights to preserve, in-
stead of discussing who has the power— the
federal or the provincial government— instead
of discussing which of the programmes we
will effect, we will take the entire budget,
multiply it tenfold, have an advisory com-
mission or an agency entirely composed of the
Indian people and give to them the funds to
do with as they please. I daresay, Mr. Chair-
man, they coidd utilize those funds in ways
vastly more appropriate, humane and utili-
tarian than has any white government in this
province. And I admit, sir, in the way in
which we view these things that that is a
rather unusual proposition. But I daresay, that
given the accountability which presently exists
within the Indian nations themselves and the
accoimtability which exists between various
Indian bands and the Legislature, money
could not be better spent. Mr. Chairman, it
would be a brave and noble experiment.
Tliere is not a thing-not a single thing-
MAY 6, 1969
4061
which we have done in the last 100 years
which has reinforced our right to continue so
doing.
Even the Minister stood in this House this
afternoon and said that in the two and a half
years he had occupied his office, very little
had changed. I say to you, sir, that if we
allocate the funds, much will change.
The fourth area I want to throw out for
dLscussion is the confirmation of the special
status of the culture of the Indian. As my
colleague from Riverdale put to the Minister
a Httle earlier this evening, something has to
be done to preserve the culture and the
identity of the Indian people; the perfidy
visited upon them by this government has to
stop. Even in your Indian Welfare Services
Act you have clause 5, which reads:
The Lieutenant-Governor may appoint
an advisory committee on matters which
may encourage Indians in the development
of their independence and promote their
integration with the rest of the community.
The Indians say to you, "Who wants integra-
tion?" and "What right have you to suggest
my integration with white society?" Mr.
Chairman, we are not talking about the
aculturation of European groups who share a
common Western heritage. In this instance,
we are speaking of a group which was
savagely denuded of culture over the last
several hundred years, and which, in order
to maintain some semblance of dignity and
self-respect as a viable people, requires an
absolute guarantee of that cultural inherit-
ance.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that
in the education provided in tlie various
schools of this province for Indian children,
very httle is provided by way of education in
the indigenous language, and then in the
English language. Why does tliis department
not embark on a programme to support edu-
cation in the indigenous language, and then,
time and society permitting or requiring, the
English language, in order that some part of
the heritage be somehow preserved? What we
are talking about is nothing less than the
death of a people. Tliat is what we are dis-
cussing. And the willingness of the Minister
to slide by in some frivolous proposition about
identifying with the Indian Advisory Council,
or paying heed to their words, or spending a
few dollars more here than there is unaccept-
able when we are talking about the death
of a people. And there comes a point where
we, in this Legislature, have a right to a
certain redemption by a complete revolution
in social pohcy. I admit it is an act of con-
science; I admit it is an act of will, unheard
of by this government, but it is worth con-
templating.
So I repeat the four points, Mr. Chair-
man. First, parallel representation at every
political level of government. Second, land in
perpetuity for every Indian family. Third, a
complete turning-over of all the funds to the
Indians themselves for their own allocation
and utilization, as they see fit, not as some
bureaucrat dictates to them, however good
the intention. Fourth, the integrity of the
culture by whatever means are available,
whether it be the proposition put to you by
the hon. member for Riverdale or the propo-
sition of doing it through education, which
I have suggested tonight, or any number of
ways.
We are not talking about a picayune
branch of some department; we are not even
talking about an interdepartmental committee
or something that fits under the Prime Min-
ister's aegis. We are talking about a total
alteration of government policy, such a com-
plete rupture with the past that it will be
unrecognizable. That is what we are talking
about, and we are not prepared to settle for
anything less than that.
Frederick Plain, the Indian chief, speaking
in Samia not so long ago, quoted in the
London Free Press, said, and I quote:
Over the years of my living in Samia
as both a student of the Samia school
system and my years on the Samia reserve,
I have observed the hidden and open
prejudices. The ill-conceived bigotry, the
white superiority complex, the relegation
of the native people to second-class citizens,
and the ill-fated attempts to reculture and
civilize me, an Indian. All the things I
have mentioned have resulted in the pov-
erty and disease-stricken condition of the
Indian to the point where it is a blot on
the Canadian social structure.
Do you really think, Mr. Chairman, does any
member of the Treasury Board really think,
that one will eradicate that depth of feeling
by an occasional palliative from this branch.
A root and branch policy perhaps, but noth-
ing short of that, Mr. Chairman, nothing
short of that. Because there is so much at
stake here that it really cannot be measured.
Mr. Chairman, in this coimtry and in this
province, if I can say to the Minister, we
did not have a colonial impulse— we never
indulged our whims in Africa or Asia or Latin
America. What remnants of colonialism we
have, the distortions and perversions of men-
tality that colonialism brings, were borne by
4062
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the native Indian in this continent, and we
have never once tried to redress the balance
in any significant way. We have all been
trapped by what we have done, and all of
us have slid easily into the comfortable
assumption that by doing nothing problems
disappear, or by stressing complexity, prob-
lems are somehow denuded.
Well, I say to you, sir, that 100 years
later there is no change in the level of deg-
radation. Every single part of government—
and this Minister's branch— has to cohere in
order to alter the situation. That, sir, is the
only dignity left. I say to you that there is
no other conceivable way. Let us go through
the terrifying humiliation of next year having
the Minister stand up and for an hour— and
I guess all of us have spoken at some length
on this — discuss in the most vague of dis-
cursiveness and the most discursive of vag-
aries all kinds of propositions which have
no bearing on this problem and which say
nothing concrete of it at all.
There is a revolution in the offing, Mr.
Chairman. It requires an equal response
from government. It is a response we are
prepared to do battle for unto the breach
on the assumption that at some point the
Minister and the Treasury Board will agree
with what we on this side are putting.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to—
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sud-
bury had been trying desperately to get the
floor previously—
Mr. Sopha: I am acceding. I am acceding
my place.
Mr. Chairman: Right, the hon. member for
Parkdale.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
say a few words in regard to Indian affairs
and particularly as to the situation regarding
the siipply of housing for Indians.
Almost all housing for Indians all across
Canada, Mr. Cbainnan, is below the standards
under The National Housing Act. In other
words, if you get an Indian on a reservation
or almost any place else, unless he has be-
come part of the white community, he and
his family are living in a house that is l)elow
the national housing standards. The province
of Ontario, despite the fact we are the
wealthiest province, has the second worst rec-
ord in all of Canada in the housing of the
Indians. It might be worthy of note, Mr.
Chiuirman, that although we have heard some
very good speeches from the members of the
NDP tonight, the province with the very
worst record in housing Indians is the prov-
ince of Saskatchewan, and this comes froim
the records I have of 1965 which are, by
far, the worst records of any province in
Canada.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): They are not hstening. You
had better repeat it.
Mr. Trotter: No, I do not think they heard
that.
Hon. Mr. Randall: After 17 years of sodahst
government in Saskatchewan tliey have the
worst housing problem-
Mr. Trotter: Well you had better keep quiet
because we are getting around to you in this
matter.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Seventeen years of
socialist govermnent—
Mr. Trotter: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want
to tell the hon. Minister of Trade and Devel-
opment, who is supposed to be in charge of
housing in this province, that he has got a
few things to think over.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will think about it.
Mr. Trotter: But there is one trend in the
housing of Indians in this cotmtr>', Mr. Chair-
man, and that is that if an assembly is
dominated by French-speaking Canadians, or
there is a large proportion of French-speaking
Canadians, the Indian is apt to get a far
better deal than he is from Enghsh-speaking
citizens of this country, and particularly in
housing. I could go into detail but I do not
want to make a long speech at this hour,
Mr. Chairman. I just want to give you an
example of how it works in housing and what
some areas can do in assisting Indians and
where it can succeed it proves two points.
One is that this constitutional hang-up that
the Minister of Social and Family Services
talks alx)ut is nonsense. If the province wants
to help a housing situation it can, regardless
of any so-called constitutional problem. As
the hon. Minister does, when he talks about
tliat in this House, he is just unloading con-
versation.
The second point is that so often they say,
"Well even if you do something for the
Indians they do not care." Certainly this, I
do not think, is borne out in areas of Can-
ada where a serious effort has been made.
For example, in the type of homes that
Indians live in, in the province of Quebec, 75
per cent of the homes that Indians live in
MAY 6, 1969
4063
have eleotricity. In northern Ontario it is 34
per cent. The one thing we are reasonably
good ait, with Indians, is sui>plying eleotricity
in their homes in southern Ontario. It is one
item in which we are close to the province
of Quebec, but in such things as indoor
plumbing, things that we take for granted, in
the province of Quebec 34 per cent of the
Indian homes have septic tanks. In southern
Ontario 7 per cent, a tremendous drop, and
in northern Ontario you are almost as bad
as Saskatchewan, it is only 1 per cent, and
in the province of Sa&kaitahewan it is less than
1 per cent.
When we bear in mind, Mr. Chairman,
that the standards of housing that people
have, affect in so many ways their ways of
life, how they conduct themselves, their
quality of living, their opportunity for edu-
cation. Poor housing so often fosters poor
social conditions, not only among people as
children, but throughout all their lives. It
is going to affect their entire standard of life,
and when you even use housing as an
example, it is easily understood that 90 per
cent of the Indian working force earns less
than $3,000 a year. How can we expect people
who have poor housing standards to make
their way in wliat is becoming a competitive
world?
In the province of Quebec--and again I use
this as an example— 32 per cent of the Indian
homes in the province of Quebec have indoor
toilets. In southern Ontario 7 per cent, and
in northern Ontario tlie Indian homes have
only 1 per cent. This is an indication when
you compare it, for example, with Canada.
In Canada the average white man's home—
99 per cent of our homes have electric lights,
we have 92 per cent with running water, we
have indoor toilets in 90 per cent of our
homes in Canada, indoor baths 84 per cent,
and yet among Indians only 7 per cent
indoor baths, except of course in Ontario we
are again below the national average. In
southern Ontario at 6 per cent and in north-
em Ontario again only 1 per cent.
I have had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman,
with some of the members of this Legislature,
to see what efforts by what is now called The
Department of Trade and Development has
done in Indian housing. In the days under
tlie former Minister, Mr. Robert Macaulay,
up in the area of Red Lake some homes were
purchased for Indians and I think they were
prefabricated homes. They were purchased
in Montreal and moved to Red Lake. When
I was up in Red Lake I took movies of this
Indian housing development and if a lousy
deal were ever made it was made when the
old Department of Economics and Develop-
ment bought those houses because they are
almost a ready-made slum.
They had little in the way of conveniences,
they had little in the way of planning what-
soever around their homes, and I often think
of the lousy deal tliat the provincial govern-
ment made, I think they cost nearly $6,000 a
unit, or a little more than that, and where
the $6,000 went to I do not know. Somebody
in Montreal I think made a good profit at
the expense of the taxpayers of the province
of Ontario.
I often think of them every time I play tlie
movies that I made of the so called great
Indian home development that some of us
members were told about that we would see
when we got to Red Lake.
Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that we
have made many criticisms of how the Indians
have been treated insofar as the conditions
of health, we are faced with the problem that
the Indian— the North American Indian par-
ticularly, the Indian population in Canada in-
creases at the rate of nine per cent a year.
I think it is a faster increase than any group
of people in North America and probably
faster than any group of people in the world.
This is a recent development, the fact that
Indians in Canada and, of course, a large
proportion of those Indians are in the prov-
ince of Ontario are increasing at the rate of
nine per cent a year. Because of this we are
falling behind in the supply of housing for
Indians at a rate of about 21 per cent. In
other words, of all the new family formations
among the Indians, we are still increasing the
backlog of what is needed by about 21 per
cent each year and, of course, making no
effort whatsoever to replace the tremendous
amount of substandard housing that does
exist.
When some of the members were on \he
northern tour in 1965, they may recall our
visit to Fort Severn on James Bay. One of the
amusing incidents that I managed to photo-
graph was our handing the three flags to tlie
Indians. I remember it was the former
member for Beaches (Jack Harris), who was
given the job by the then Minister of Lands
and Forests, Kelso Roberts, to present the
Indian band up there with the three flags.
One, of course, was the Union Jack, to explain
it was the Queen's flag and then, there was
the Ontario flag and then there was the
Maple Leaf flag. We took our political con-
fusion up to James Bay and I am sure they
did not know, or probably did not care,
about the three flags. But, there is one thing
4064
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that I remember, Mr. Chairman, about the
Indians of Fort Severn. As I wandered among
them, n>any of them were in siich a poor con-
dition of healtli that they had running sores
on their faces. The Indian situation in this
province and in tliis country is becoming a
ninning sore. So often we, in Canada, lecture
some of the people in otlier parts of the world
about their native problems, about their
Indian problems. I have been down to some
islands of tlie British West Indies. I remember
two or three years ago, telling certain people,
"You are bound to have riots; tliere is bound
to be trouble," and they would assure me,
well they have never had any trouble before
after so many years— 100 years, 200 years,
why is it going to be happening now?
What applies in the islands of the British
West Indies applies witli our own Indians
and it is this; you have a populaition explo-
sion, you have more and more people ill-
educated, ill-housed vv'ith nothing to do. They
see the white man with his privileges, cer-
tainly, they see some of the magazines, they
see some of the good things of life that they
cannot have and they are bound to explode.
They are bound to explode whether they are
on tlie Island of Aguilla or whetlier they are
in northern Ontario. It is going to happen
sooner or later unless we do sometliing.
We, particularly in the province of Ontario,
with the resources that we have, have far
more opportunity than most jurisdictions to
do something for the native population. Not
only are they entitled to it as human beings,
and whether you want to argue about tlie
past, you really cannot change history. I
know many want to argue, now, what a bad
deal the Indians have had. Certainly, they
have not had a good deal but I will say in
fairness to tlie people that have settled in
this country, despite the mistakes that have
been made; often all we have is the advan-
tage of hindsight, if you compare how the
Indians have been treated in this country
with treatment in some other jurisdictions,
we have not done as bad as most others.
We have done badly, but the thing for us
to do in this day and generation, rather than
sit and complain about how bad we may have
l>een in the past, is to decide what good we
are going to do in the future. This Minister,
I do not think, ha,s given this any thought
at all. How can you vote a milHon dollars
for Indian community affairs, as we have done
in the past and fail to spend $828,000 of it.
With the enormity of the problem, a million
dollars is little enough. But to fail to spend
over 80 per cent of it, just shows that this
government has little or no interest whatso-
ever. And I say, time and time again, tliere
is no point in talking about the constitution
or tlie federal government— the responsibility
is certainly, in part, with the federal govern-
ment—but a heavy responsibility lies witli this
government and with this particular depart-
ment.
I do wish that the Minister would take
advantage of some of the opportunities that
he has. This Minister has so many oppor-
timities in his department to initiate long
overdue changes and one of those particular
areas has to do with the Indian problem. I
cannot understand his attitude toward his
own department, or his manner in handling
his department when he lets the whole mat-
ter just drag instead of giving the leadership
that is required. He has more or less just
talked around so many of the major points
that have been brought forward by both the
Opposition parties in this House.
There is no indication at all of any Indian
programme, whether it be in housing or in
treatment of how they should be integrated
in our society or if they should be integrated.
As far as I know, the people up in Fort
Severn are still walking around with running
sores on their faces.
The treatment of the Indians by this ad-
ministration is a scandal and the tragedy
of it is, the mistreatment of the Indians con-
tinues day in and day out. And when I find
that the province of Ontario is among the
very worst— as I said earlier, it is only out-
done by Saskatchewan — in this particular
endeavour and we have less reason than
Saskatchewan simply because we have far
more resources with which to deal with the
problem.
So I would ask the Minister to take a leaf
from the province of Quebec, or in some
cases from the province of Alberta, or even
from the Maritimes; in all these areas they
are doing a far better job than the province
of Ontario is doing. And, it is time that this
Minister applied himself to the problem that
is at hand.
Mr. Sopha: I must say, Mr. Chairman,
that the thing that fascinated me at that
reserve at the mouth of the Severn River,
to which my colleague from Parkdale re-
ferred, was the observation of several blue-
eyed Indians. I do not think anywhere else
in the province you will see an Indian with
blue eyes, in fact most of them are browm-
eyed, and upon enquiry they informed us
quite unreservedly that the origin of the
blue eyes is from the fact of yester-year of
the running aground on the shore of Hudson
MAY 6, 1969
4065
Bay of a Norwegian sailing vessel, I think it
was in the eighteenth century.
T;he survivors got as'hore and that is where
the blue eyes came from and they are quite
proud of that historical event and its impact
on the life of their community.
It is quite a remarkable thing of course to
see them in those canoes, in that wintry
weather that extends well into July, and being
told that none of them can swim. Upon
enquiry from, I think his name is Cam Curry
—the Minister of Lands and Forests nods
assent— who can speak the Cree language as
well as the Ojibway, as to why in the world
they would put up with such adverse and
hostile conditions as that environment sup-
plies, his answer is a shrug of the shoulders
and a laconic comment that they put up with
it because they always have. They have
always been there and they would not want
to live anywhere else on God's green earth.
Over the weekend, a member of one of the
Jacko families of the Wekwimekong reserve
came to my office. That is a very common
name on the Wekwimekong, or the Manitoulin
Reserve, as it is called more properly, the
oldest reserve in Manitoulin Island which is
unceded, is still not part of Canada, though
they accept the citizenship of Canada, and
as I say, is the oldest on the island, the largest
and the most heavily populated.
Jacko is a. very common name— pronounced
"Jocko", but spelled J-A-C-K-O. There are
many families of them. It is interesting to note
two other common names in that reserve.
There are many families of Trudeaus, many
families, some who may claim to be related
and some who deny relationship to other
people of the same name. There are many
families of Pelletiers.
Now we have two members of the federal
Cabinet whose names are reproduced in many
of the members of the two or three thousand
people that form the band that occupies those
unceded lands on the eastern end of the
island. Which, of course, testifies to the pas-
sage of the coureurs-de-hois on the routes
west in the eighteenth century— more the
eighteenth than the seventeenth— when the
fur trade really got going.
Returning to the member of the Jacko
family who came to speak to me about that
tragic event that occurred down in Ottawa,
when the boy— I think his first name was
Vernon, I may be wrong.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Fine name.
Mr. Sopha: The body had been found in
the Ottawa River. The nature of his enquiry
is not important, really, except he and his
family were terribly upset about the event as
they should be. He showed me the material
which he brought with him and his enquiry
was about whether recompense could be had
by the family, as a matter of law, and it met
with a negative answer from myself.
Imagine my surprise when on Sunday night
I turned on the tail-end of that programme
that starts at 10 o'clock on that joyless tele-
vision network which we support in this
country at such large public expense. We in
Sudbury— I do not think there is another com-
munity of our size, 120,000 people or more,
maybe 140,000 people— in Ontario, there must
be very few in Canada, who are still captives
to one network.
Mr. Sargent: Owen Sound.
Mr. Sopha: If it is that size-
Mr. G. Demers (Nickel Belt): It has only
about 12,000.
Mr. Sopha: There must be few who are
captives; we have no choice. I turned on the
tail-end of that joyless programme and saw
that they were dealing witli the tragic hap-
penings to that Jacko boy.
If any member is not familiar with the
circumstances, the gist of it was that the
boy was in high school in Ottawa. It was
unknown to the staff of the high school that
he could not read or write English. Nobody
had ever, for some reason or other, ascertained
that fact and he rested at the bottom of his
class, consistently failing his examinations,
until the time he, somehow or other, came to
his tragic end.
I could only tell that member of tlie family
that it is an event in living and they must
adjust themselves to the sorrow which they
no doubt feel at the loss of their son. As
someone said in this party tonight, there are
few Indians in the secondary schools really.
It is one of the great tragedies that so few of
them get to a secondary school. It really is,
I say with all humbleness, a matter of great
embarrassment to me, being the legal counsel,
the advocate, for six Indian bands: the Ser-
pent River— my good friend, the chief of the
Seipent River band. Bill Meawasige, was in
the gallery tonight-the West Bay, the Mani-
toulin, the Sucker Creek, the Sheshekawaning,
and the Shejuindah bands, five of which are
on Manitoulin Island and one is along the
north shore.
May I just interpolate by saying I feel I
owe it to myself that after I made that un-
fortunate speech a year ago, I added two
4066
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
bands to my clientele. That was a matter of
great encouragement to me that, though I
made the speech, there was forgiveness in
the heart of the Indian and I got two more
bands for which to act.
Mr. MacDonald: It shows how long-suller-
ing they are.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, indeed, I suppose it does.
Someone over here tonight, it was the mem-
ber for Riverdale, advocated the establish-
ment of an institution at some university. He
was not too clear about what this institution
would do or what its responsibilities or its
area of study would be, I do not condemn
him or criticize him for that.
I am afraid that the establishment of such
an institution at the university would engage
itself in the study of the Indian, because the
Indian is the most studied object, I am sure,
that exists in this country. He is so studied
that he reminds me of the systems in an
Apollo space-craft.
They tell me that one of the greatest fears
of the astronauts is that they will test those
systems so many times that they will wear
them out. Finally, when they get into orbit
and are relying upon the systems, they may be
worn out from testing and pose a danger to
the occupants of the space capsule. The In-
dian, by analogy, is somewhat in that position
(to me because the white man, who is the
harbourer of all the egocentricities and easily
adopts a superior attitude, is a very studious
person and really feels that he confers a
benefit on those whom he assumes to be in-
ferior. He most often does not articulate to
himself that they are inferior; he just assumes
that and believes that he confers a benefit by
studying the other person as if he is some
kind of unusual phenomenon.
I said at a meeting of the Indian-Eskimo
Association, much to the chagrin of a lot of
the people— some of them do-gooders that
Ijelong to that association— that I wish some
times I could train a couple of Indians to
become anthropologists or sociologists, to go
throTigh university and get the qualifications,
I would like to take those Indians, turn them
loose in these troglodytic establishments in
downtown Toronto— any one of those huge,
highrise apartment buildings. Send them in
and let them do what those who study the
Indians do.
If they copied their antics, they would go
into one of those apartment buildings, take
any apartment at random, knock on the door
and when the door opened, they would rush
right in without being asked. They would
rush right in, go into the kitchen, open the
door to the fridge, and then one of them
would make a list of what is in the fridge.
Yes, to see what they have in the way of
provender. Make a list because that is a very
important statistic. They would then ask the
mother of the house— let us assume this is a
family— they would ask the mother to assemble
the children. Let us say they had four. They
trot out the four children and then the Indian
anthropologist, assisted by the sociologist,
would say to the mother, "Now, wliich is your
oldest child?" She woidd point out that one,
"How old is she?" "She is nine," "Who is her
father?" "Who is the second child?" "Who is
the fatlier of that child" and so on, right
down. That would equate what the studious
people of the white community do when they
study the native Indian.
A tremendous amoimt of information has
been amassed by this method, I think there
is not an indigenous people in the world
about which there is more infonnation on
file than our nati\'e Indians. We know every-
thing there is to know about them. For one
thing, they are a tremendous embarrassment
to us. The embarrassment stems from the
method in which they live, the fact of their
existence and the way we have treated them.
Our American cousins were far more
merciful, if I may put it that way, to their
Indians than we have been to ours. The
Americans killed all theirs off and they are
still doing it in the movies. You can select a
movie and they are still killing the Indians
in the movies. They never get tired of killing
them. The story is told about the two Indian
boys who went to the movies to an Indian
picture. After 20 minutes one of them rushed
out. The other one followed him and said,
"Where are you going, the movie just started?"
He replied, "Well, we won the first battle
and I am leaving while we are ahead." Be-
cause at the end, you see, all the Indians
always get slaughtered.
The story is told about an Indian jockey
who got especially bad treatment from an-
other jockey at the racetrack who just seemed
to pick on him in a totally unreasonable way.
Finally, the Indian jockey went up to the
white jockey and said, "why do you treat me
tliat way?" And he repUed, "well, I am get-
ting even with you for what you did to
Custer."
We, of course, did not kill ours ofiF. We
left ours on a reservation. We set them aside
on reservations so they would die the slow
death, over several generations of decay that
we have permitted to exist.
MAY 6, 1969
4067
It all began, of course— and I do not know
why over here tonight so many times ref-
erence was made to 100 years. I do not know
why that 100 years was selected as being the
arbitrary beginning of the ill-treatment of
the Indians— it began a long time before 100
years ago. It began right after the first
separatist province in this country, Ontario
—which was the first one— was established in
1791 to accommodate the influx of the United
Empire Loyalists, including Joseph Brant,
who came over from New York state among
the first Loyalists established down in my
leader's own riding down there.
To accommodate the demand for land, the
covetousness of land of the white settlers in
Upper Canada was the beginning of the
problem. Right after the establishment of
Upper Canada, they began to push the Indian
around, because they wanted his land and he
inconveniently occupied it. He had to be
got off it.
There is the very famous meeting, of
course, of Governor Bondhead— you know
him, old Bondhead, old Bonehead as we
used to call him. Not one of our more bril-
liant governors, among the long line of sorry
specimens that George III and that even
worse Hanoverian, George IV, sent out here.
He came under William IV— the famous
meeting at Niagara in 1837 where he sum-
moned his "children of the forest", as he
called them, to meet. He offered them the
deal of land around the upper lakes, in
exchange for that choice pasturage, arable
land in lower central Ontario. Eventually,
they were successful in divesting the Indians
of the whole of central Ontario and pushing
a good many of them, Chippewas, the Ojib-
ways, up along the less attractive shores of
the upper lakes.
That is when it began and it began for
economic reasons— the demand for land and
the desire of the white man to arrogate to
himself the best land of the province. He
has not stopped. The white man, of course,
has never stopped.
That leads me to make reference to treaties.
But I am not going to say very much about
the treaties because The Department of Lands
and Forests and myself, on behalf of six
Indian bands are now in a series of negotia-
tions respecting a treaty. This is one of the
more important treaties and one not men-
tioned by my friend from Riverdale— the Mani-
touhn treaty of October 4, 1862.
I am not dealing with the Minister of
Lands and Forests; I have not got to him,
but his senior officials are negotiating with
me respecting that treaty. I am not going to
say very much about them, but I am going
to make reference first to that case cited by
my friend from Riverdale on April 17, the case
of Regina against Calvin William George.
That was tlie Kettle Point Indian who shot
two or six ducks, I forget which, for food
down in the Kettle Point reservation and was
charged with a contravention of The Migra-
tory Birds Convention Act. At the trial level,
Chief Justice McRuer— can one ever escape
that name? One can never escape it; a great
Canadian. I just want to remind the House in
alluding to him that the J. C. in McRuer
stands for James Chalmers-
Mr. T. P. Raid (Rainy River): Instead of
something else.
Mr. Sopha: I did not even want to add
that because that is—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Now at the trial of that case,
he referred to the inviolability of the treaties.
He said they were documents, the result of
negotiations between two sovereign peoples—
ti-eaty in the true sense of the word. The
sovereign Indian nation on the one hand and
the sovereign province of Canada on the
other. As such he said they must be respected
as being documents executed between states
of the highest order of sanctity. The highest
order.
And he said, if the descendants— I am para-
phrasing him— if the descendants violate tlie
treaties they cannot classify themselves as
honourable men. If we, the descendants,
violate those solemn treaties we cannot call
ourselves honourable men.
Of course, in the negotiation of the treaties,
the thing the Indians were most concerned
about— almost exclusively concerned about—
was tiieir access to provender, that is to say,
fishing and hunting rights. That was the
most material and important thing to them.
They wanted to secure their fishing and hunt-
ing rights and, indeed, continue the declara-
tion of George III of 1763.
Then, as I said a little earher, out of grati-
tude for their assistance in the Seven Years'
War, he had declared in the Royal proclama-
tion Uiat, forever, in respect of all rivers that
empty into Hudson Bay or into the Great
Lakes— all waters that empty into the great
watershed in the centre of the continent—
they would have inalienable protected rights
to hunt and fish in perpetuity. When diey
negotiated the treaties— the 19th centmy was
the great treaty-making era — you can see
from reading the documents, that they were
4068
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
most concerned about securing the access to
provender.
Now his judgment, of coui-se, as is well
known, was overruled. Oh, it was sustained
in the court of appeal, with a dissenting
judgment, overruled in the Supreme Court
of Canada. It seemed that the basis of tlie
case, and the judgment that overruled it,
was that there we were dealing witli an
international treaty. The Migratory Birds
Convention Act. It had a special quality
about it, and that was that it was a contract
between nations, and an Indian's rights could
not be pre-eminent to that pact between the
sovereign nations, the United States and
Canada.
It is interesting to note that at the time
they were deciding the George case in the
Supreme Court of Canada— the case of Regina
against Bob and White, two Indians charged
with killing deer on Vancouver Island, came
before the Supreme Court of Canada. That
great judge from B.C., Justice Norris, had
upheld the rights of the Indians to take deer.
In the court of appeal, he wrote the judg-
ment for the court; he had upheld the rights,
and that is an interesting story in itself.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed
the appeal by tlie Crown in the case of Bob
and White without reasons. They gave no
reasons, just dismissed it.
That was a very interesting thing. You
had two inconsistent cases standing side by
side.
But unfortunately since— and that is the
point I wanted to make— the Supreme Court
of Canada has said that the Parliament of
Canada, in its sovereign jurisdiction, may
alter the treaties by simple legislation. In the
light of what Mr. McRuer said in the trial
side, or the initial stages of Regina and
George, in the light of that— the inviolability
of the treaties, the solemn contract, the
honour of people dealing at anns' length, and
the sanctity of the covenant they entered
into— that is a very distressing statement for
the Supreme Court of Canada to make, that
they may imilaterally alter the treaties. I
think, my own opinion is, that they having
said that, that stains us all, we are all stained
by that statement. I am saddened.
The Globe and Mail, very courageously,
from time to time states the opposite side,
and on many occasions the Globe and Mail
has pointed out that if we are honourable
men, we should abide by the letter of the
treaties, even at the expense of incon-
venience and cost to ourselves, in order to
show tlie first citizens of our country that
we esteem the high value of covenant
entered into by people negotiating at anus'
length.
The day is long past, of course, and one
sees in the presence of such members as the
member for Scarborough West, and what he
says, and the member for Riverdale- the day
is long past when intelligent white men will
put a bottle of whisky in the hands of the
Indian and, by proffering it to him, mulct
him out of his heritage.
I remember, if I may be permitted. Bill
Meawasige, and if he were here he would not
mind me telling the story. When we were
dealing witli the possible sale of 1,000 acres
of Serpent River Reserve— and I was the
worst person for them to hire to try to sell the
land; he would not mind me saying this,
because I did not want to sell the land at
any price. I would rather the Indians kept
the land than any amount of money they
might get.
The Minister of Lands and Forests will
smile when he hears that, but I was the worst
bargainer they could hire, because I told
them that never again in the history of Can-
ada will the Canadian people ever give you
any land. They will never give you any more;
you have all you will get. And when you
alienate what you have got, you have divested
yourself and all those to follow you, from the
usage and enjoyment of that land.
So I said, "Bill, go up on the highest hill
of the reserve and take a look at that 1,000
acres." Beautiful land, surrounding the best
harbour left on the north shore of Lake
Huron. The very best harbour. I think it is
27 feet of draft in all parts. I said, "Take a
look at that 1,000 acres, and say, Tt is ours,
we own it. We do not have the money, but
we own the land, and I will be able to pass
that land on to the people tliat follow me.' "
Well, the happy ending of the story was, as
the Minister of Lands and Forests well knows,
that they did not sell die land. The Indians
never let me down. The price I put on it was
pretty high. A thousand acres for $1.75 mil-
lion. The shrewd Yankee from New York— and
my, he was gold-plated individual too— when
he heard that figure, he said, "What? We can
get land in New Brunswick at $50 an acre."
And right in the same breath I said, "Go and
get it. Go and buy it. If you can get it, that is
where you should l>e, because you are not
getting this land for $50 an acre. The price
is one and three-quarter million dollars for
that thousand acres."
Well, I am happy to say we still have the
land, and I hope that the next generation.
MAY 6, 1969
4069
and the one after that, still has that beautifiil
site adjacent to Cutler, jutting out into the
lake.
It moves me to say that I cannot under-
stand why the Minister of Lands and Forests
is not on that Cabinet committee. Is he on
that Cabinet committee? So I take it that
that it consists of the Minister of Social and
Family Services, chainnan, the Minister of
Lands and Forests, the Minister of Mines, the
Minister of Health, the Minister of Agricul-
ture, the Minister of Education, the Minister
of Trade and Development. Is there anybody
left who is not on the committee?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Everybody that has an
interest.
Mr. Nixon: The Treasurer does not know it
exists.
Mr. Sopha: Well, the presence of the Minis-
ter of Lands and Forests, of course, is essen-
tial, because he is the man most on the firing
line with the Indians. No Minister of the
government has more contact with the Indian
people, I would think, than the Minister of
Lands and Forests. He deals with them in so
many ways, and of course, he has the singular
advantage of having lived— I do not know if
he was born there— in an area of the country
where his contacts with the Indians have
been continuous and numerous beyond
telling—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Christian Island, Pene-
tanguiishene.
Mr. Sopha: —and I say in all humility, it
is difficult to imderstand the extent of the
Indian problem without intimate contact with
them. They are a culture apart, there is no
question about it. The Indian does not think
in the same processes and achieve the same
results as members of the white culture, and
to be in communication with them reveals
that at an early time. And one of the most
notable qualities of the Indian— I would not
call it distrust— is what I would call a latent
fear of the unknown, of the uncertain, of
what is beyond the next turning in the road.
And if my friend from York South modified
his attitude at the Unitarian Church on Sun-
day about the desire of the Indians to come
under the complete jurisdiction of this govern-
ment, then, may I say to him in the most
friendly fashion, his modification is in line
with a speech I made last year from this place,
or the year before, I forget which, in which
I tried to indicate— and I say this with all
respect to my friend from Scarborough West—
that if we in Ontario intend to be more
dynamic and thrusting and forward in our
approach to the Indians, we must take pause
to consider that they are accustomed to the
paternalism of the federal government. That
is a vital fact in their culture. For approach-
ing tv\'^o centuries now they have been dealing
with the central government. In the northern
reserves, in the northern part of the province,
those where they live still more or less in a
state of nature, the blue suit is still a cultural
syndrome. The blue suit is given by Her
Majesty the Queen in the same way as her
great-great-grandmother gave— yes I am right,
her great-great-grandmother— and the prac-
tice was initiated imder her suzerainty.
They have to this day in their cultiu-al Hfe
a mistrust of changing the old order, and
we have an obligation in Ontario— and 1
adopt entirely the attitude of the member for
Riverdale in this regard— to only profiler what-
ever we have to give with their complete and
total co-operation. Only in the event of their
willing acceptance of substitution— if it is to
be that— of those incidents of statism and
the welfare state, and anything else that the
state is concerned with, will we make the
substitution. It will come only with their
complete willing consent, and it must ooone
as a result of persuasion.
Well I recall a couple of months ago godng
over to the imiceded band on a Sunday to
meet %vith the council there, and sitting
around the table, having gone first to watch
a hockey game at the arena— or at least a
period of it— and then coming up and meet-
ing with the coomcil. We were sitting around
and I was the only white man in the room—
I am not so white myself— and, you know, I
remind myself, I never forget that doctor— be
careful now to whom I ascribe this. There is
a French doctor, a French-Canadian doctor,
in Ottawa; I forget his name, but I can dig
it out. He is a son of French Canada, who
claims that more than 70 per cent.— hsten,
my friend from Nickel Belt— more than 70
per cent— will the Minister of Lands and
Forests listen?^more than 70 per cent of
French-Canadians in this coamtry have Indian
blood. We never know, you see, from the
17th century on, what went on behind the
tepee in the dark of the moon.
Mr. MacDonald: No wonder Trudeau wants
to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the
nation.
Mr. Sopha: I went to that Sunday after-
noon—<and they would not mind me saying
this— and we had a Httle chat around the
council table. 1 said— you know, someday it
4070
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has got to end. This has got to stop, tliis
living on the reservation; it has got to stop.
Because you recognize that this is a degrading
way of life to be set apart from the large
society that surrounds you and, really, by
your occupancy of this area which you claim
as your own, you are denoting yourselves to
be different. This, to a large extent, is self-
enforced segregation. That Sunday afternoon,
a nice sunny day, tliey readily acceded, "You
are right; we recognize tliat." The chief said
to me, "I do not think this will do for my
cliildren and certainly not for my great grand-
children. I do not want my grandchildren
or my great grandchildren to live in segre-
grated fashion like this."
That is our goal, to stop this denotation of
difference and to encourage integration.
Having said that and on this note I am going
to end. This is the journey of 1,000 miles,
that is how far we have to go. I am not
sure that we have taken the first step yet;
we have to take the first step on that journey
to elicit the trust, the faith and the under-
standing, and God knows, to correct all the
wrongs and all the hurts that we have in-
flicted on the first citizens of this country.
They are many. We ought to take this to
bed at night with an uneasy conscience as
we conjure up the enormity of what we have
done to them. Where do we begin?
I am not going to start tonight, but I know
where we will end because a week or so
later I was over at West Bay, that is the
second largest reserve in ManitouHn. It was
the same matter as on the unceded reserve
but this time we had a general meeting of
the band in a beautiful new scliool that some-
body has put up. Maybe the federal govern-
ment has put it up there. We had a meeting
on a Saturday morning and a lady, Mrs.
Nellie Fox, she is a school teacher— she would
not mind me saying tliis— during the dis-
cussion she went off the track, as I am
accustomed to do, and she started to parade
the grievances, you know the historic griev-
ances. The Indian, at the slightest stimulation,
will start to tell you about the grievances
over the decades and over the centuries, and
she started to parade them to me.
She called upon me to answer for those
grievances and I said with the greatest respect,
"They are not relevant to what we are dis-
cussing here today, and I must say to you
that I find your repetition of them tiresome.
And I say that in the tenderest fashion I can,
l)eeause, Mrs. Fox, the answer ultimately and
finally to these grievances is that in the
advocacy for redress of them, you do not
have a white lawyer standing at the front
here talking on your behalf, you have an
Indian lawyer." I said, "It is a matter of
embarrassment to me as a white man that
I take up your cause and that you have not
got, of your own people and your own blood,
those trained in the art of law and advocacy
to advance your own cause. You have to go
and hire somebody ahen to your culture."
I said, "We begin to redress the balance
toward the Indian people of this province
and this nation— 50,000 in Ontario— when
finally you put enough of them through
uni\'ersity so that they speak to the white
man nose-to-nose and on even terms. They
vv'ill look him in the eye."
Not by revolution and insurrection spoken
of by the member for Scarborough West;
not that at all, that is not the Canadian way,
it is not the Indian way, it is not the democra-
tic way. But the way is the looking of the
white man in the eye and saying to him
"This is the way it has got to be. This much
is coming to us, the first citizens of this
country."
Our first test is that we owe it to om: Indian
brothers to stimulate and encourage him to
keep his children in school. Get them into
school. Mr. Chainnan, it grieves me when
each year I ask Gus Debassige of West Bay,
"How many have we got this year, Gus, in
tlie high school?" He says, "We have got 24,"
or, "we have got 30."
How many families are there? Something
over 400 families on that reserve and we
have 24 in the high school. The numbers are
not increasing. At none of the other reserves
is it any better although I think that best
record along the north shore of Manitoulin
is with Bill Meawasige of Serpent River. I
think he has got more than any of them,
I have said to the chiefs when I was asked
to address the Ontario Council of Chiefs a
number of years ago, "Some day you have got
to get somebody trained in pschology or those
arts, and identify the best and brightest chil-
dren by whatever tests they use; point them
out, those with the aptitudes and the native
abilit)'; those who have it, identify them finst
and then take steps to keep those in school.
"You get those into the school in the hope that
someday they will lead their people. Tliat is
the only way they arc going to do it. They are
not going to do it through my rhetoric or the
oratory, which cannot be matched, of the
member for Scarborough West, or the declara-
tions of the 12 points of the member for
Riverdale. Tliere is only one route and that
is through education.
MAY 6, 1969
4071
That is really our obligation here. That
high-falutin committee over there, that is
really the object of our efforts. Then maybe,
some time in the distant future, in two or
three generations, the last reserve will be
gone. These people, the first citizens, have
been on the increase; there are far more than
there were at the time of the coming of the
French. Far more than there were when
Wolfe won on the Plains of Abraham.
They are increasing and it is a matter of joy
to us that they have increased in numbers
and some day, some day to be part of the
society; you will not be able to discern them
until somebody points them out. There is only
one way and that is education. All your nos-
triuns and panaceas, your potions and lotions,
these things come to nought, come to nought,
until through the stimulus, the we-given
bona-fide sympathetic understanding, we help
them to lift themselves. That is what he wants
to do, and I do not sit down without saying,
they have come a long way, they have come
a long way. Many, many areas but as every-
body here says, and I endorse the phrase,
here in 1969 they remain second-class citi-
zens in our midst. Canada's first citizens are in
a second-class state. There is no problem
there is simply no problem that we face that
equals the enormity of this one and the
burden that it poses on our consciences, that
we have not done right by those who earned
this country and from whom it was taken by
our ancestors.
Mi". Chairman: The hon. member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, there are some
specific questions that I would like to put to
the Minister. He has had it rather easy to-
night, he has sat and listened witliout giving
anything of a concrete nature with regard to
what he proposes in tlie forthcoming year.
I would like to ask the Minister specifically
what recommendations have been made to
him by the Indian advisory board? I under-
stand they have had several meetings. The
Minister has said that those meetings have
been very useful. I would like to know specif-
ically what recommendations were made to
the Minister and to the interdepartmental
committee by the Indian advisory board.
I want to know why, using tlie words of the
members of the board, the Minister has not
seen fit to accept or to implement any of those
recommendations.
I want to know why— and I hope tlie Minis-
ter is paying attention— I want to know why
the Minister has not prevailed upon his col-
league, the Minister of Lands and Forests, to
assure the Indian people that they will have
the right to hunt and fish.
I want to know why The Department of
Lands and Forests have made it mandatory
for Indians to buy a $3 fishing Hcense.
I want to know why the Minister has not
paid close attention to the remarks of the hon.
member for Kenora in this House last year
during these estimates. I thought he had
some very, very useful suggestions to offer.
Obviously the Minister has not paid heed to
them, no action has been taken.
I want to know why the department and
the Minister have not prevailed upon the
municipalities who have seen fit to charge
municipal or township taxes to reservations
because they happened to have leased some
of their property to people wishing to build
summer cottages on the reserves. The munic-
ipalities offer no services to the reserve yet
they are forcing the Indians to pay taxes.
About twenty-six hours ago, I brought tlie
Minister's attention to a situation that had
arisen in the town of Armstrong where an
Indian family was on welfare with ten chil-
dren. A 15 V2 year old girl broke her hand
and she went to the medic, not medical officer,
but a medic for treatment. The medic said,
"In all probabihty the hand is broken, you
must get attention from a doctor, have it
X-rayed and have it set."
I got a long distance phone call late yester-
day afternoon from Armstrong, the person on
the otlier end of the line said:
Won't you please do something? I have
tried to contact The Department of Social
and Family Services at the Lakehead. They
will not accept a collect call. I have no
money to make one myself. I have no
money to transport my daughter to the
nearest hospital in Sioux Lookout to get the
necessary medical attention. The train
leaves at 2.30 tomorrow afternoon. I am
fearful that if we delay much longer, the
hand might begin to set in the wrong posi-
tion and she may be maimed for the rest
of her life. Wont' you please do something?
I brought it to the Minister's attention, he
promised me he would get right on to it.
I spoke to him early this morning, he assured
me again that he would do something about
it. Nothing has happened. I can only assiune
that the same conditions still prevail with
regard to the little Indian girl of ISVz years
in Armstrong.
Here is a series of specdfic questions that
I put to the Minister right now and I hope
he will be able to give me answers.
4072
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member has hsted the questions bait I could
not possibly begin to take tlieni down, but
I shall try to deal with them.
With reference to the latter specific situa-
tion in Armstrong. The matter was referred
by me to the director at the first, earliest
opi>ortumty. He was to check into the matter
and the situation is that he, of course, has
been in committee meetings with the advisory
committee continuously. I have not been able
to get a report from him diu-ing the supper
hour, as to whether he was able to make his
direct connections or not. I have been, of
course, preparing myself for the estimates
and I hope that he will have the memo to
me because I left the matter with him. I am
advised that the matter was referred to Dr.
Williams of our general welfare assistance
branch who has been following it up. I have
not seen Dr. Williams all day but I will check
with him first thing in tlie morning.
With reference to the matter of municipal
taxation on reserves. It is what I call a very
fundamental matter which was raised by the
Indian advisory committee and I took the
matter up with the Minister of Municipal
Afi^airs. They initiated studies in this regard.
THhis, of course, was a field in which we could
quite readily act and it comes within the
scope of our provincial authority. To a
certain degree, the legal ramifications of it,
I have not gone into, because we had to
ascertain the extent of it and the ramifications
of this. Here again, this matter was brought
to my attention and on the face of it— when
I just saw the problem placed before me I
readily recognized that there seemed to be
something wrong, it just did not seem right.
But, it is a matter of intensive study by The
Department of Municipal Affairs at my re-
quest and I believe they made an interim
report, but it is not of any significance. We
are waiting the results of the long term study
and then, of course, when the study is de-
termined then there will be an evaluation
both by the advisory committee and by our-
selves with relationship to what action is in
the best interest of the Indians.
I know that one of the h.on. members very
lightly passed upon the significance of the
two page l)oys within this Legislature, I do
not pass that off as being a light thing. I think
it was—
Mr. Stokes: I said the only recommendation
of any significance—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well I thought that
some member— I am not referring to tlie hon.
member— but I think there was a comment
by someone as if it was an insignificant thing.
Although in the total picture it certainly can-
not be evaluated in dollar and cents, I con-
sider it a very significant incident that may be
some day, an historic, moment. Indeed, it is
one of the significant things that the hon.
Speaker will have done in the course of his
career. I tliink- his action in this regard
and I think the member for Kenora was actu-
ally the vehicle through which this came
about— is a very significant tiling.
Mr. Lewis: What is significant about it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The significant thing is
that in 1969, we as citizens of Ontario finally
took a sitep to bring them in, at least permit
them; and I subscribed wholly to the position
as stated by the hon. member for Riverdale
and I believe supported by the member for
Sudbury because I have taken exactly the
same position, the right of choice. We make
available-
Mr. Lewis: The member for Riverdale did
not talk about that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, he talked about
giving a choice and I said— one of the earliest
expressions that I used— that when this is a
province of opportunity, we should make
available the opportunity. It is then incum-
bent upon the person at the other side to
determine, with or without persuasion, with
or without guidance, to make the choice
himself.
The choice of what course-
Mr. Lewis: Some significance. Two adoles-
cent Indians crash this private club and the
Minister deems it of importance.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think it is significant.
The hon. member may disagree, but I think
it is significant.
There are a lot of things with which I
agree, as they have been uttered by other
members of the House. I will not take the
time to repeat them. There are some points on
which I disagree. There are some points upon
which I have a completely open mind whether
they are, in terms of the hon. member, radical
or revolutionary. I discoimt nothing in this
field because the record of the past certainly
has not proven that our experience there has
been any too good.
With reference to the recommendations of
the Indian advisory committee. In those
recommendations which entail an expenditure
of funds, we again run into, as I say, this
situation that must be resolved, as to who is
MAY 6, 1969
4073
going to supply the dollars. The hon. mem-
bers know that in the course of my estimates
alone, I have been, as a Minister of a
department and of the government, cas-
tigated for not providing sufficient dollars for
programmes which clearly and immistakably
are provincial responsibility.
Mr. MacDonald: And this is clear too.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No ifs and buts or
doubts about it at all. Now this is a situation
in which there is a grey area both as to the
dollar-spending and, also, to the movement,
the speed which the province will move into
the field. Some of our Indian fellow citizens
wonder how the province ever got into this
field and what we are doing in it to the extent
that we are involved. This is one of the situa-
tions that has to be resolved and in which I
enlist the good offices of the Indian advisory
committee as well as the outside agencies, the
Ontario Union, to bring out a better under-
standing of these factors in both directions.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we
rise to report.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, before
you put that motion, could I ask for your
indulgence to rise on a matter of personal
privilege? I may not be here tomorrow and
I would hke, with your indulgence and the
irxlulgence of the House, to make a correction
of an error that was in the daily paper today,
in the hope that it will get in tomorrow after-
noon. I do not normally rise on these ques-
tions and I would normally as I say, rise and
report the orders, but I will not be here
tomorrow.
The Toronto Daily Star today carried an
article which is headed "Grossman says
Training School Wouldn't Admit Him Either".
In the text, it states:
Allan Grossman, Minister of Correotioiial
Services said he was turned away from a
provincial training school for boys recently
because he arrived unannounced.
I would not want the training school people
to feel that this was a correct version of what
I said. The hon. members will remember that
the hon. member for Scarborough East had
referred, I think, to a clause in The Schools
Administration Act in which he was pointing
out the rights of the members to visit public
schools. I had said that I had visited a
public school and this occurrence took place
in a public school, not in a training sdiool.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves that tiie committee
of supply rise and report progress and ask for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): May I ask
what the order of business will be tomorrow
afternoon?
Mr. Chairman: After the committee has
reported to Mr. Speaker would be an appro-
priate time.
The House resumied; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress, and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will return to legis-
lation and carry on with our working com-
mittee of the whole House.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:30 o'clock, p.m.
No. 109
ONTARIO
legisilaturc of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, May 7, 1969
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 7, 1969
Presenting report, Mr. Welch 4077
Industrial Safety Act, 1964, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, agreed to 4077
Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, bill to amend, Mr. Pitman, first reading 4077
Pesticides Act, 1967, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 4078
Mafia and ofiF-track betting, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon 4078
OflE-track betting, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Lawlor 4079
Collection of mining revenues, questions to Mr. White, Mr. Lawlor 4080
Banning of certain steering wheels, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. B. Newman 4080
Borgia redevelopment area, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Sopha 4080
Decision of Mr. Justice Haines, questions to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Sopha 4081
Collection of local education taxes, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Pitman 4081
Sentencing by provincial judges, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Ben 4082
Lakeview Hydro station, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Ben 4083
Alleged abuses of legal aid, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Good 4083
Council members as commissioners, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Ruston 4084
Third readings 4084
Registry Act, bill to amend, reported 4085
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, reported 4085
Land Titles Act, bill to amend, reported 4085
Public Vehicles Act, bill to amend, reported 4085
Marketing of fresh water fish, bill to regulate, reported 4086
F'ish Inspection Act, bill to amend, reported 4088
Medical Services Insurance Act, bill to amend, reported 4088
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, reported 4106
Regulations Act, bill to amend, in committee 4106
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 4116
4077
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Our guests today, in the east
gallery, are students from Ridge public school
in Leamington; and Dougall Avenue public
school in Windsor; and in the west gallery,
from Earl Beatty public school in Toronto;
from Seneca central township school, RR 1,
York; and members of the trade and industry
branch of The Department of Trade and
Industry. Later tliis afternoon in the west
gallery we will have students from Park
Street collegiate institute in Ortllia.
Petitions.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
five minutes ago I was notified by Chief Nad-
jiwan, the president of the Union of Ontario
Indians, that he had resigned because of the
indifference of this government-
Mr. Speaker: May I just ask the hon. mem-
ber to await the appropriate time. This is not
the appropriate time for remjurks unless they
be points of order or points of personal privi-
lege. When the orders-of-the-day period
comes, the hon. member will have an oppor-
tunity.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the armual report of The Ontario De-
partment of Highways for the first fiscal year
ending March 31, 1968.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACT, 1964
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
to amend The Industrial Safety Act, 1964.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, this amend-
ment will eliminate the formal certificate of
registration that has been issued in respect
Wednesday, May 7, 1969
of all factories covered by The Industrial
Safety Act. The certificate is no longer
necessary, because of the introduction of
automatic data processing into the depart-
ment's record-keeping and inspection assign-
ment system.
I would add, Mr. Speaker, that this will
save both ourselves and employers a certain
amount of costly paper work. At the same
time, it will in no way impair the accident
prevention system.
THE ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC
SITES PROTECTION ACT
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough) moves
first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend
The Archeological and Historic Sites Protec-
tion Act.
Mr. Speaker: Until I ascertain when notice
was given for this bill I will withhoM the
placing of the order.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, notice was given
April 30.
Mr. Speaker: I have asked that before bills
are presented to me for the first reading that
they bear a note indicating when notice was
given, and in that way we have no difficulty
with them. It was not on this one.
Mr. Pitman: It was attached to the first
copy. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: That is the copy, perhaps,
that Mr. Speaker should have had.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this amendment to The Archeological and
Historical Sites Protection Act is an attempt
to prevent the wanton destruction of our old
liistoric buildings. The bill specifically states
that a permit must be obtained from the
Minister before any building over 100 years
old can be destroyed or altered, and that the
Minister vi^ll consult with the local historical
society or municipal council before making
a decision.
4078
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The one thing the bill does not do is to
provide for full compensation for persons or
organizations who own these buildings and
wish to sell them. Obviously they cannot be
expected to be keepers of provincial and muni-
cipal monunoents, and obviously are entitled
to a just price for their property.
Recent amendments to The Heritage Foun-
dation Act would make this possible.
THE PESTICIDES ACT, 1967
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves fiirst
reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend
The Pesticides Act, 1967.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to
prevent the use of DDT in this province.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bmce.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As
I mentioned five minutes ago, I was informed
by Chief Nadjiwan, the president of the Union
of Ontario Indians, that he had resigned be-
cause of the plight of the Indians in this
province and the apathy of the Minister in his
estimates last night.
I would, therefore, ask, Mr. Speaker, that
you most earnestly accede to the request that
you grant them the sum of $54,000 to at least
put in six field operators in northern Ontario.
This seems to be the least you can do when
you have $1 million unexpended last year.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member, I presume,
was bringing to the attention of the House
the resignation of a member of the committee,
and at this time as far as—
Mr. Sargent: They need a great deal of
protection, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Therefore the balance of the
hon. member's remarks are not properly
directed to Mr. Speaker and they are not in
order. I am sure that in the appropriate
manner and at the appropriate time he can
direct the balance of his remarks to the
member of the government responsible.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, if I may speak briefly to this, I have
so been informed, too. I am delighted to
learn that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is
now interested in this matter.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order—
Mr. MacDonald: I have the floor, I think,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Sargent: On a point of personal
privilege-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has risen on
the same point; he will complete his state-
ment.
Mr. MacDonald: Last night we were
attempting to detail all the ramifications of
this problem, and one of our main obstacles
was to cope with the road-blocking efi^orts of
the hon. member. But he is now strongly in
support of this.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think the point
should be made that Chief Nadjiwan has re-
signed because of his lack of confidence in
the programme of Indian development branch.
I am not pointing my finger at the depart-
ment, I am pointing it at the Minister and
the government, because there is no one
more frustrated than the actual branch itself.
And this we will have an opportunity to
pursue tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. memlx^r for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: For the record, Mr. Speaker,
I take objection to the hon. member's remarks,
in view of the fact that this chief is the chief
of the Cape Croker Reserve in my area. I
have two bands in my riding, and I take pride
that I serve my Indians well up there. It
ill-behooves this group on the left to take
credit. When anything comes along they use
this as a springboard. It is not going to work.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
An hon. member: It did not work last timt;.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorne>
General.
Was the Attorney General correctly quoted
on radio news reports this morning as indi-
cating that Mafia elements are already in
control of off^traok betting shops in Ontario?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the radio broad-
cast this morning, but I am quite certain that
in any report I gave I never used the word
"Mafia". I reported quite fully on this matter
in the House on May 5 in response to a ques-
tion by the hon. leader of the Opposition. At
that time I said that we had evidence that
MAY 7, 1969
4079
l^ersons with criminal records were engaged
in operating certain of these messenger serv-
ices. That is the same language I used in
talking to the press.
Mr. Nixon: I do not know, Mr. Speaker,
but surely supplementary to that, there has
been another indication made publicly that
perhaps the lack of activity on the part of
the Attorney General in this matter was de-
signed to allow the situation in the betting
shops to get out of hand so that there would
he no alternative at the federal level but to
outlaw the whole set-up. Is this true?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Is this a question, Mr.
Speaker?
Mr. Nixon: Well, is that true?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think it behooves the
Minister of Justice, whose Act it is— The
Criminal Code— and who has been fully in-
formed by all the Attorneys General of
Canada, and he has indicated, I think, that
he proposes to take some action.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the
Attorney General, does he not understand
that since it has been, at the present time,
made legal, or judged to be legal in tiie
province of Ontario, that his responsibility
to license and inspect it is obvious, and
rather than to sit back and wait for another
jurisdiction to impose the sort of legislation
that he recommends he should accept the
reqxMisibility himself?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is simply a matter
of opinion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Will the
Minister follow the precedent of Paul
HeUyer?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr.
Speaker, I have a similar question; perhaps
this would be the time to put it.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member
would, and then follow with the other
questions for those Ministers who are here.
Mr. Lawlor: A two-part question.
Has the argument for the maintenance of
betting shops— on the basis of keeping these
operations out in the open, supervised and
publicly hcensed and not driving gambling
under ground, thereby enriching the Treasury
through proper income tax collections, with
official control over what has been, until
recently, a necessarily surreptitious operation
—been objectively and fairly presented to,
and considered by, the Attorney General?
Why are we not given an opportunity to
argue the merits pro and con, prior to a final
determination by the Attorney General flying
in solo?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The hon. member must
be thinking of that contest flying over the
Atlantic.
I am not sure whetiber these things have
been objectively and fairly presented to me or
not. It would be very difficult to say whether
the persons who make representations are
always objective and fair. But certainly we
have considered tiie matter, Mr. Speaker.
Many representations have been made. There
has been no debate in this House for tiie
same reason that I gave in my answer to the
hon. leader of tiie Opposition, that in my
opinion the law governing gaming and bet-
ting so far has been contained in the Criminal
Code. All of it.
This is a matter of betting, and representa-
tions by all the Attorney Gaierals of all tiie
provinces of Canada have been made to the
Minister of Justice at Ottawa.
Mr. Lawlor: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister will.
Surely, the Attorney General must consider
that at least a case can be made, on the basis
of my remarks, in the question of licensing
these shops and placing them under control?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am
quite agreeable and quite prepared to admit
that a case could be made. In the answer
which I gave on May 5 in answer to a
question of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion, I indicated, that if the action which we
felt should be taken was not taken at the
federal level, it would be necessary for the
province, I thought, to license and control
and have a system of inspection which would
be extremely difficult to impose and to carry
out.
But that would become certainly a respon-
sibility of the province, and I have that in
mind. But we are hoping there will be
federal legislation in this area of betting
which will govern the type of messenger
service which has been established as legal.
I indicated on May 5 that in any event,
the amendments to the Criminal Code which
are now before the House of Commons and
the Senate will necessitate the province set-
ting up some sort of administration to deal
with lotteries and betting in a number of
4080
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
forms which is being permitted by tiiese
amendments.
So we have quite an awareness of the
responsibility which will devolve upon us,
and perhaps when those amendments are
through we will have an opportunity to
debate the whole thing.
Mr. Lawlor: A series of questions to the
Minister of Revenue.
When does the Minister's department an-
ticipate taking over the collection of mining
revenues?
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of the
Smith committee and select committee rec-
ommendation, but to the present time, has not
adopted the recommendation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor-Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Transport.
Is the Minister prepared to consider the
banning of certain steering wheels, where
there is a possibility of fingers being caught
in the steering wheel, as indicated by the
difficulties in freeing a finger from a sports
car steering wheel, as reported in today's
Toronto Telegram?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, yes.
Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the Minister a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker?
Was the use of this steering wheel as in-
dicated in the press, submitted for approval
to his department?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury.
Mr. Sopha: I have a question of the Minis-
ter of Municipal AflFairs.
Is it the intention of the government, so
far as it has the power, to approve the offer
of purchase submitted to the urban renewal
commission of the city of Sudbury and to
the city council of some ten acres more or less
of commercial property in the Borgia rede-
velopment area, according to the terms and
conditions set out in the offer, and especially
in regard to the price for the land to be paid
by Marchland Holdings Limited?
It is within the power of the council of
the city of Sudbury to engage in transactions
of sale of land to the Marchland Holdings
Limited which would involve the payment of
a percentage of gross income obtained from
the tenants of Marchland Holdings Limited
to the city of Sudbury?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, perhaps if I gave
a little bit of background to this it would
help us to understand the question. Under
the authority of The Planning Act, the Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs entered into an
agreement with the city of Sudbury relating
to the redevelopment of the Borgia Street
area in May, 1967. About the same time,
Sudbury entered into a parallel agreement
with the federal government, represented by
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The agreement between the province and the
municipality sets out, among other things, the
extent of provincial financial contributions,
the conditions to be met by Sudbury to
secure provincial assistance, and the extent
of participation in revenues derived from the
project. Under the agreement, reference is
made to the fact that the disposition of land
in the project shall be consistent with the
development plan approved by the Ontario
Municipal Board, and that the time, terms
and other conditions of sale, or lease, shall
be established to the mutual satisfaction of the
city and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
My department has been in continual con-
tact with the municipality during the process
of establishing the redevelopment plan, and
in its negotiations with the developer, March-
lands Holdings Limited. The department met
as recently as last week with representatives
of the city in considering the terms of the
agreement between the city and Marchland
Holdings Limited.
The city council is formally to consider
the agreement to dispose of the lands in-
volved, I believe tomorrow evening, Thursday
night. If the agreement is satisfactory to the
municipality, they will pass a resolution to
that effect and deliver it to me for my con-
currence, or otherwise.
Now, until I have examined the agreement
approved by the council, it is of course not
possible at this time to indicate conclusively
whether it shall be concurred in by me or
not. If, however, the agreement is the same
as those submitted to us very recently by
the city, it is highly probable that concur-
rence shall be secured.
Now, with regard to the second part of
the question, I think that this question is a
legal one and I would prefer to leave it to
the lawyers involved. I will pursue it. I do
MAY 7, 1969
4081
not have an immediate answer for the mem-
ber for this. I think it is a legal question,
and so far as I can say my answer would be
yes, but I am not sure of this.
Mr. Sopha: Might I ask by way of sup-
plementary for a further part of ihe Minis-
ter's answer, which is left in some degree of
obscurity, when he says if it is an agree-
ment that was submitted recently. I wonder
if the Minister could tell me to which agree-
ment he refers?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, I assume that
when the staff were there last week they
probably went over a draft agreement with
the city and discussed this, and I assume— I
do not know this, but I assume— that this is
the agreement that the officials will present
to the city council tomorrow night who in
turn will go over it.
Then I am assuming that whatever they
approve will come to me and it will be the
same, or substantially the same, as what my
staff loiOked at last week. If that is so, then
the staff I think would be prepared to recom-
mend it to me for approval, but I have not
looked at it at this point.
Mr. Sopha: I have a question of the Treas-
urer of Ontario:
What steps does the government intend to
take in the light of the admonitioins of Mr.
Justice Haines in the case of Morrissey against
the Ontario Racing Commission, to require
the racing commission to conduct hearings in-
volving the rights of a person to carry on his
occupation in accordance witii the principles
of natural justice, and especially to require
that a transcript of the hearings ibe mode?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): Mr. Speaker, in the light of the decision
of Mr. Justice Haines in this matter, a meet-
inig has been arranged with the Attorney Gen-
eral, the chairman of the racing commission
and myself in the next few days so that we
can address ourselves to this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, may I address my
questions to the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs?
What action does the Minister contemplate
to force the councils of Mono and Melancthon
townships to co-operate in the collection of
taxes for the Dufferin county board of edu-
cation?
Secondly, will tlie municipahties that must
delay the collection of local taxes as a result
of the delay in determining educational levies
and, thereby, have to borrow money to meet
their current expenses, he recompensed by the
province?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I indi-
cated last Thursday to the House in reply to
a somewhat similar question from the hon.
member for Samia (Mr. Bullbrook) that there
is no specific legislative provision which allows
me to intervene directly on this problem.
On the assumption that the required legali-
ties have all been met by the school board,
a statutory duty has been placed on the
municipality to pay over the amount of the
requisition of the school board, and we under-
stand that this could be enforced by writ of
mandamus.
However, as I indicated in my earlier an-
swer, we now get into questions of law which
are best left to the lawyers for the parties
concerned to settle. I suggested to the mem-
ber for Samia that perhaps three such eminent
lawyers as the Attorney General, the member
for Samia and the Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis), could perhaps discuss this without
the benefit of the Minister of Mimicipal
Affairs, who is not a lawyer, being there.
I may say that I realize there has perhaps
been more disturbance this year in the year
of om- Lord 1969 than perhaps there has
been in other years, but there have been in
the past, and undoubtedly will be in the
future, disputes between municipahties and
school boards. It is nothing new, it is not a
new phenomenon. They have been resolved
satisfactorily in the past and I think they will
be resolved satisfactorily this year and in the
future.
I think the staff— and even I in my year-
and-a-half in this office and some years in
municipal politics— have come to accept to a
certain degree some of the position-taking
which goes on starting about Febraary 1, and
goes through imtil the warm summer days are
ui>on us.
Our friends in the media make the most
of this phenomenon which goes on every
year, and lo and behold, about May 1 or Jtme
1, the tax bills are issued and things settle
back down to normal. I do not want to indi-
cate that some of these things are not serious,
but I do think we should keep them in per-
sopeotive and not consider them only in the
heat of the moment, if I can put it tiiat way.
Regarding the second part of the question,
I think that section 294(a) of The Mimicipal
Act permits a munidpality to make a levy on
its taxpayers before the estimates for the year
4082
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are adopted, A municipality could do this
and presumably save borrowing costs.
Mr. Pitman: It will cost money to do it.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: To make an interim
levy? Yes, but even in Peterborough there
has been an interim levy for a number of
years, and I think many municipalities have
recognized the cost of making the interim
levy is more than comi)ensiated by the saving
in interest costs. I think many municipalities
have fek this has been a coinvenienoe to their
ratepayers, because instead of getting one
rather large bill, they get two or three bills.
It is a convenience, I think, to the ratepayers.
We are all on a monthly charge system, if
I can put it that way, and I think the
tendency will be to pay taxes on a monthly,
or perhaps every two-months rather than in
one fell swoop.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
might just ask a short supplementary ques-
tion. In spite of the Minister's expectations
of sweetness and light, I wonder if he feels
it might be useful for his department to
contact municipalities and indicate to them
what their responsibilities are. In view of the
resolutions that are being passed by county
councils and township councils across this
province, there seems to be a great deal of
confusion as to what they beheve those
responsibilities to be.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would have to say,
Mr. Speaker, that I do not really think there
is as much confusion as perhaps one would
believe if one reads the press. I think muni-
cipal oflBcials, municipal coimcils in the prov-
ince and the school boards generally know
what the responsibility of each is.
Mr. Pitman: This is posturing.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: If they are coming to
us for advice, they are getting it. We are
receiving copies of a great number of letters
and thoughts, thoughtful letters which are
being directed to the Minister of Education.
The councils, very thoughtfully, are sending
us copies. Some of them end up in the Prime
Minister's (Mr. Robarts) office and some in
the Treasurer's office, and they are being
answered.
Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member for
Lakeshore wish to place his question of the
Minister of Public Works about a matter that
concerns us all?
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, a very vital question,
Mr. Speaker.
Wliy, when one takes an elevator from tiie
central section of the main building from the
main floor does it proceed to the basement
before it comes up again? Is this descent
into hades part of Tory policy?
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, that is a rather in-
volved question and I shall take it as notice.
Mr. MacDonald: If the Minister is going to
hell, he wants to do it in a carefully con-
sidered way.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): There are no depths
to which he will not go, that is all.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the
Attorney General.
Is the Attorney General going to take any
action against provincial Judge P. E. D.
Baker in exceeding his authority in the
sentencing of Michael C. Hallam of Kingston
to a penalty not prescribed by law, which
requires him, as part of his suspended
sentence, to spend four hours for each of four
weekends in the next two years, watching the
arrival of traffic accident victims in the emer-
gency ward at a hospital?
Second, will the Attorney General caU a
meeting of all provincial judges to impress
upon them that the legislators pass laws and
set forth penalties, and that judges must
impose penalties within the limits of these
laws?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I do not
propose to interfere with the sentence. If
Mr. Hallam has some objection to it, he has
the right of appeal. I have always main-
tained the policy that I will not interfere
with the disposition of a case by the judge of
a court, particularly when there is the right
of appeal in the Act.
As to the second part of the question;
whether a meeting will be called to instruct
judges, I do not think a meeting of this kind
would serve any useful purpose. The judges,
I think, are quite well aware of their responsi-
bilities and of their duties. They do have,
from time to time, meetings and seminars
where matters of sentencing, and the prin-
ciples of sentencing, are discussed. But to call
a meeting particularly on this occasion I
think would not be a useful act.
Mr. Ben: Would the Minister accept a sup-
plementary question?
If as the Minister alleges, these seminars
are held, would he please tell this House why
then do judges— now provincial judges, but
formerly magistrates— continue to exceed their
MAY 7, 1969
4083
jurisdiction by sentencing people to out-
landish penalties which are not prescribed by
law, and in fact, are ultra vires power of the
magistrate?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have not noticed any
incidents of this kind, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ben: Another supplementary question,
if the Minister will.
Would he please refer this speaker to the
section in either a provincial statute or federal
statute that imposes as a penalty for any
misdemeanour, spending four weekends of
four hours' duration in some hospital watch-
ing accident victims being brought in?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a
further question?
Mr. Ben: He has not finished mulling that
one over yet.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General
is not answering it and tliat is his right. The
lion, member has a further question of an-
other Minister?
Mr. Ben: Would the Speaker be kind
enough to refer me to the number of that
question?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy and
Resources Management, May 1, 1378; "Will
the Minister inform the House why there
were great black blobs, etc."
Mr. Ben: Of the Minister of Energy and
Resources Management.
Will the Minister inform the House why
there were great black blobs of lung searing,
eye watering, nose irritating, smoke emitted
from the Hydro plant at Lakeview on May 1?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, the
question refers to the morning of May 1,
1969, although no time of the morning is
mentioned at which the incident described is
inferred to have taken place. From informa-
tion gathered by Ontario Hydro so far, it has
not been possible to identify any time at
which operating conditions at their Lakeview
station were such as to have produced the
results mentioned by the hon. member.
On his way to work before 8 a.m., the
plant manager, Mr. Jack Savory had taken
note and recalled that a slight emission was
visible from the number four unit, but it was
light grey in colour. No member of the Lake-
view staff saw anything that anywhere
approached the condition mentioned in the
question and could report nothing unusual.
Two members of this staff were engaged in
work at a distance, one at the canal and
another out on the lake, and they saw noth-
ing unusual, and they say nothing unusual
was observed by them during the morning.
The local pollution control authorities, who
keep a close watch on emissions from the
stacks and immediately relay any complaints
received, have advised that they had nothing
at all to report on the morning of May 1.
The hon. member has not actually stated
in his question that black blobs of smoke from
the Lakeview stacks were observed by him,
nor that they did in fact occur. I asked for a
complete report of the matter, but nothing
I have learned so far indicates that conditions
were as described.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Waterloo North.
Mr. Ben: Well, will the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes.
Mr. Ben: Is the Minister aware that there
were reports that the smoke was dense enough
to obscure the waterfront to people using the
highway?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not ask-
ing a supplementary question. That informa-
tion has already been given in the Minister's
answer. If the member has something that
was not covered by the answer, by way of
supplementary question, he is entitled to the
floor.
The hon. member for Waterloo North.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney
General.
Why is the investigation into alleged abuses
of legal aid being held in camera when public
money is involved?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this in-
vestigation which is being carried on now, I
believe is an investigation by the law society
into the activities and the actions of a mem-
ber of the society. This is the usual way
under The Law Society Act in a matter of
investigation of misconduct or unethical con-
duct, even of the misuse of trust funds and
that sort of thing.
That type of investigation under The Law
Society Act is done in camera and one of
the reasons is that the reputation of the pro-
fessional member would be protected in case
the offence is found not to have been per-
petrated.
4084
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, if this investigation should turn up
misconduct such as indicate that criminal
charges should be laid, the hon. member may
be sure that we will proceed then with
criminal proceedings and they will be fully
open and public.
Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supple-
mentary question.
What part is the director of legal aid play-
ing in the investigation that is going on now?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know exactly,
Mr. Speaker. I have not made enquiries, nor
have I been informed and I have not been
in touch with the director of legal aid. I can
only say this, that I think all hon. members
are aware the legal aid programme is carried
on under the administration of the Law
Society of Upper Canada. That is, the legal
profession in this province and is subject to
the supervision of the government, through
The Department of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General is the Minister re-
sponsible who reports to the House. I do no*
know, in answer to the supplementary ques-
tion, just what part the director is playing,
but I assume that he is quite active in the
matter, and I am sure that the disciplinary
agencies and features of the law society are
in full play in this investigation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, a question for
the Attorney General,
When may I expect a reply to my letter of
February 10 concerning the plight of Mr.
Iverson Handke?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know, Mr,
Speaker. I must confess to the hon. member
that my investigation, which I had time to
make for a few moments before I came in
the House, indicated that I had handed the
letter to a member of my stafF. I was not
able to reach him to find out why I have not
got a reply. I shall follow it up.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-
Kent.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker,
a question for the Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
Would the Minister consider raising the
amount of population a municipality may
have to allow councillors to act as commis-
sioners on drains?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, follow-
ing the coming into force on January 1, 1968,
of the amendment to section 409 of The
Municipal Act, wherein the appointment of a
member of council as commissioner of any
work was restricted to villages and townships
whose population was 3,000 or less, the ques-
tion of extending the privilege to the muni-
cipalities with larger populations arose, and I
may say I think the reverse is true.
There is some doubt in my mind as to why
there was any minimum popidation, why
municipalities scmaller than 3,000 should have
this privilege. I have never been able to
understand fully the rationale of that break-
even point of 3,000.
However, it was decided to give the amend-
ment a trial period before considering any
further change. Approximately, a year and a
quarter has now expired during which time
we have had the opportunity of observing the
application of this amendment and evaluating
its effect, and the hon. member for Essex-
Kent and the hon. member for Kent (Mr.
Spence) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs
have had the opportimity, I suppose, as
much as any members in the House, to see
this first hand. At this time I know of no valid
reason for introducing a further amendment to
this section of the Act, particularly wi\h
respect to extending the privilege to larger
municipalities as requested by the member.
The amendment to the Act-and I think it
is important to remember this— was introduced
because it was felt desiralble that the respon-
sibilities of commissdonens, where practicable,
should be placed in the hands of persons
other than the elected miuiicipal officials. As
I say, that was the department's view, and in
thinking about it I wonder about that some-
what. The larger miunicipalities would haive
the manpower resources to draw on qualified
independent persons to fulfill this function
either on a full- or part-time basis, and the
means to pay for this service.
However, if in the future, after a reason-
able trial period of two or three years, there
appears to be a justification for a further
amendment to the section I will be only too
pleased to give it consideration.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motion:
Bill 76, An Act to amend The Pension
Benefits Act, 1965.
MAY 7, 1969
4085
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Yesterday I
had certain remarks to make on third reading.
I just want to inform the Minister, throu^gh
you, sir, that I will retain those for the
estimates.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Bill 81, An Act to amend The Residential
Property T^x Reduction Act, 1968.
Bill 84, An Act to repeal The Public
Finance Companies Investments Act, 1966.
Bill 85, An Act to amend The Credit Unions
Act.
Bill 86, An Act to amend The Loan and
Trust Corporations Act.
Bill 87, An Act to amend The Ontario
Producers, Processors, Distributors, and Con-
sumers Food Council Act, 1962-1963.
Bill 90, An Act to amend The Hospital
Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, 1965.
Bill 92, An Act to amend The Insurance
Act.
Bill 93, An Act to amend The Homes for
Special Care Act, 1964.
Bill 94, An Act to amend The Pharmacy
Act.
Bill 95, An Act to amend The Nursing
Homes Act, 1966.
Bill 96, An Act to amend The Pesticides
Act, 1967.
Bill 97, An Act respecting Tlie Department
of Health.
Bill 118, An Act respecting the city of the
Lakehead.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; com-
mittee of the whole House, Mr. A. E. Renter
in the chair.
THE REGISTRY ACT
House m committee on Bill 102, An Act to
amend The Registry Act.
On section 1:
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I questioned
the Attorney General, Mr. Chairman, the otlier
day on the reference here. Is it correct? It
strikes me that "the director means the direc-
tor of land registration appointed under
section 3", should be "section 4".
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
It should l)e, Mr. Chairman, section 6(a),
and I would so move if a motion is necessary
that the figure 3 become 6(a). It is really
something we could do on reprinting, but the
change should be made.
Section 4 would appear to be from the
proposed amending bill, but when it appears
in the Act it will be 6(a).
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Wishart moves
that paragraph (aa) of section 1 of the ball
be amended to read luider section 6(a) instead
of section 3.
Motion agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 8.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I
would like to move the first of a series of
three amendments-
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): No, this is not
that Act.
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Wrong
Act; try it later!
Sections 8 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 102, as amended, reported.
THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
CLAIMS ACT
House in committee on Bill 101, An Act to
amend The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
Act, 1961-1962.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 101 reported.
THE LAND TITLES ACT
House in committee on Bill 103, An Act
to amend The Land Titles Act.
Sections 1 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 103 reported.
THE PUBLIC VEHICLES ACT
House in committee on Bill 106, An Act to
amend The Public Vehicles Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 106 reported.
4086
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
MARKETING OF FRESH WATER FISH
House in committe on Bill 116, An Act to
regulate the marketing of fresh water fish.
On section 1.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Min-
ister if the people in his department par-
ticipated in any way in the taking of a vote of
the fishermen concerned, or was this done
exclusively under federal auspices?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Yes, Mr. Chairman, for that desig-
nated area to which this Act applies, the
vote was taken and it had to be a majority
vote of the fishermen in that area. This ap-
plies to northwestern Ontario, with the excep-
tion of Rainy Lake and Namakan Lake.
Mr. Nixon: It is an application, actually,
of the federal marketing plan, it is not? Did
The Department of Lands and Forests of
Ontario actually take the vote?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well the vote was
taken, Mr. Chairman, by the fishermen of that
area under the supervision of the federal
authorities and ourselves, in co-operation wdth
both the federal and provincial authorities.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Minister could
explain how the ramifications of the market-
ing board were explained to the fishermen.
Were there public meetings held?
Last summer when I was in the area, I was
talking to some fishermen who were very up-
set about the possibility of being forced into
a marketing board. I was quite impressed
with the fact that they had not had access
to any particular information that would help
them make up their mind, other than that
they would not want to come under the direc-
tion of either level of govenmient in the
marketing of their products. I feel that event-
ually their views changed. I was wondering
if you did undertake, through your own de-
partment, a method of putting the pros and
cons, the possibilities and advantages of a
marketing board, before the fishermen, or
whether they were left to their own devices
in making this decision.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, this
marketing board came as a result of a report
by Mr. Geo. H. Mclvor in 1965, and there
were many wide discussions held and many
meetings were held I am advised, in north-
western Ontario with the fishermen con-
cerned. As the prime purpose of this mar-
keting board is to help the fishermen a large
number of these commercial fishermen are
Indians— and in order that they can get a
better price for their products, I am told
that many meetings were held, as I said, by
both our people and by the federal authori-
ties to explain this to them.
Mr. Nixon: The vote has been taken; it
has been approved, is that so?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is right.
Mr. Nixon: Well, the marketing board that
is going to have responsibility is, in essence
a federal board. It is not under the direction
of this Minister.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The federal Act was
passed at the end of February, I believe it
was February 27— Bill C148 established a fish
marketing board. We are passing provincial
legislation to complement the federal. The
federal legislation deals with interprovincial
matters, and also matters of export trade.
Our legislation is intraprovincial, wdthin the
province, and it parallels the federal, it
complements the federal legislation.
Mr. Nixon: Members of the marketing
board are appointed rather than elected, as
I understand.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: They are appointed,
that is right. We will have one director, the
director for Ontario vdll be a gentleman in
our department, Mr. Brubacker, John Bru-
backer, who is the supervisor of the com-
mercial fisheries in the fish and wildlife
branch. We will have three members on the
advisory conunittee. The names have been
submitted to Ottawa, and I would think
Ottawa would make the announcement in the
near future. One is an Indian, another one
is a businessman and the third one is a
person who is knowledgeable in the market-
ing of fish.
Mr. Nixon: These recommendations were
made over the Minister's name only, is that
so? The Minister made the recommendations?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: These recommenda-
tions were made to me. Many names were
submitted, and we selected what we thought
were tlie three most suitable persons in view
of their experience and background in
fisheries. These names have been submitted
to Ottawa for approval.
Mr. Nixon: There are a few otlier ques-
tions. This is certainly the only possible
time of getting the information. The length
of time of these appointments, I suppose, is
ifixed in the federal statute, that is our
lappointment to the advisory committee and
MAY 7, 1969
4087
tlie supervisor for Ontario under tlie federal
legislation? The appointment period would be
fixed by statute or is it at pleasure?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am not too sure, Mr.
Chairman, of the length of the term of the
appointments. I think it is in agreement with
the federal people, and I would think it
would be on an annual basis. They would be
appointed for one year.
Mr. Nixon: There was no thought of
attempting to elect the representatives of the
fishermen themselves as is attempted at least
in most agricultural marketing boards?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, I do not believe
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, during second reading I brought to the
Minister's attention that section (d) of clause
1 only related to the edible or the fine fish,
and when I suggested that perhaps it might
be a good idea if it was extended to include
coarse fish, he indicated that he thought it
was a good idea and worthy of consideration.
I was wondering if the Minister had taken
that into consideration and was prepared to
amend that section to include coarse fish?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, as I
mentioned to the hon. member, I think it is
u very good suggestion and I have mentioned
it to my people. But I would like to say that
this legislation is parallel to the federal legis-
lation and there is a sort of mutual co-opera-
tion with them. I think at this stage it would
not be proper for us to include legislation
which may not agree with the federal legisla-
tion. But I think it is a good point and I see
no reason why coarse fish should not be in-
cluded. I think this could be done without
amending the legislation.
Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister think it
would be possible to deal witli that kind of
fish, particularly on behalf of the Indians
without commercial licences, without amend-
ing the legislation?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, this
would be my understanding, that the coarse
fish could be included without amending the
legislation.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Nixon: Is there any thought, Mr.
Chairman, that the jurisdiction of the market-
ing board might be extended to include a
larger area? Why is the area selected fairly
limited to the northwestern part?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, it is not
limited just to nortihwestem Ontario.
Mr. Nixon: It does not include the Great
Lakes fishing,
Mr. Stokes: They voted against it.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is quite true, Mr.
Chairman. However, once the legislation Ls
passed, if the commercial fishermen of the
Great Lakes area wish to be included, they
may apply. But I think at this stage many
of them felt they wanted to see how this
would work out. The great advantage of this
legislation at the present time in northwestern
Ontario is that the fishermen there have been
dealing mainly witli the Winnipeg markets. I
am told that the markets for the fishermen
in the Lake Erie area are mainly in the
soutliem cities, and they have a very good
market, but at die same time if they want to
enter into the marketing board they are
perfectly at liberty to do so as long as the
majority vote in favour. If a group of fisher-
men from die Lake Erie area wish to enter
into this, they can do so after this has been
passed.
Mr. Nixon: Have they already voted not to
be included?
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: I am told that some
meetings have been held and that there were
quite a number of fishermen who were against
entering into this plan at this time. They
wanted first to assess its merits, its advantages
and disadvantages.
Mr. Nixon: But no vote was taken?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Not to my knowledge.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I presume the
inspectors can enter into premises without
benefit of a warrant?
Mr. Singer: And arrest a fish, notwith-
standing McRuer's chapter on fish.
Mr. Chairman: Has the hon. Minister any
answer?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The answer is yes.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
4088
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On section 9 :
Hon. Mr. Bninelle: Mr. Chairman, on
section 9 I move that clause (a) of section
9 of the bill be struck out and the following
substituted therefor:
(a) the sharing by Ontario with the
government of Canada of initial operating
and estabhshing expenses of the corpor-
ation, and of any losses incurred as a
result of;
(i) the guarantee of repayment of loans
and interest thereon, made by any
bank to the corporation, and
(ii) loans made by Canada to the corpor-
ation, under subsection 1 of section
17 of the federal Act.
I further move that clause (c) of the said
section 9 be amended by striking out "under
this Act" in the seventh line.
Motion agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 116, as amended, reported.
THE FISH INSPECTION ACT
House in committee on Bill 117, An Act
to amend The Fish Inspection Act.
On section 1:
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I just have one
brief comment to make. On section 1, I
wonder if the Minister could answer imder
whose jurisdiction would these inspectors be?
Would they be paid by the federal Depart-
ment of Fisheries or the provincial Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests, or it a joint
responsibility? Whose responsibility will it
be, after this legislation becomes effective, to
dictate policy or regulations having regard to
this Act?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, in reply
to the hon. member, these inspectors will be
paid by the federal government, as they are
now, and this will give them authority to act
as provincial inspectors for the inspection of
fish within the province. Up until now, the
federal inspectors' main responsibihty was to
inspect fish which was exported out and in
between provinces. This will give them
authority to inspect fish within our province,
but they will continue to be paid by the
federal government and we do not intend to
appoint any inspectors of our own. No addi-
tional inspectors will be required. The exist-
ing inspectors who are inspecting under the
federal Fish Inspection Act will have author-
ity to inspect under the provincial Fisheries
Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 117 reported.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES
INSURANCE ACT
House in committee on BiU 121, An Act
to amend The Medical Services Insurance
Act.
On section 1:
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chair-
man, I was wondering if the Minister, in any
of his discussions with the Ontario Medical
Association, has ever discussed the possibility
of paying 100 per cent of the fees instead of
90. Of course, my reason in asking this is
there are a number of people who are billed
for services rendered and a number who are
not. Did he discuss witli the Ontario Medical
Association at any time paying 100 per cent
of tlie 1967 rates, and if they then would
have considered not raising the rates to the
1969 schedule?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
No, Mr. Chairman, I have always discussed
the payment on the basis of 90 per cent of
the fee schedule. The association, of course,
has always pressed me to accept 100 per cent
of the fee schedule as is paid by the great
majority of insurance carriers now in opera-
tion, but we have continued to base our pay-
ments on 90 per cent.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, one
of the reasons that was given by the hon.
Minister at the previous reading of this bill,
or the attempted introduction of this bill— my
memory does not serve me that well, but it
was on one of those two occasions; or the
introduction of this bill— was that if the sec-
tion was not changed, doctors who presently
bill direct and forego the ten per cent would
cease doing so if the difi^erence was 20 per
cent, and would start billing their patients
directly, or in the alternative, woxild bill both
OMSIP and their patients because there was
a 20 per cent spread.
I think if we accept that argument, wo
should perhaps go a little further, since the
Minister would lead us to believe that the
majority of doctors bill OMSIP directly. I
MAY 7, 1969
4089
would not deny such an allegation because
I would think that most of them do. Is it
not time to do what was once suggested by
the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter),
and include in this bill an amendment such
as was proposed by the hon. member for
Parkdale when the bill first came before this
House— not Bill 121, but The Medical Services
Insurance Act, which would: (a) require
doctors to bill OMSIP directly; (b) accept
ten per cent of this tariff in full satisfaction
of their claims?
An hon. member: Ninety per cent.
Mr. Ben: I am sorry, 90 per cent, yes— ten
per cent may be more what they deserve.
But at any rate, that we now give considera-
tion to the amendment that was passed the
night that the bill was given its second read-
ing and provide that: (a) all doctors be
required to bill OMSIP directly if they are
rendering services on behalf of a subscriber
to the plan; and (b) that they accept 90
per cent of their tariff as being approved by
Bill 121 in full satisfaction of their services.
Would the Minister please give us his com-
ments?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, this of
course, was one of the points very much at
issue throughout all of our discussions, from
the time we began to discuss the possibility
of the province getting into a medical insur-
ance scheme. These were two points upon
which we simply could not reach a compro-
mise. We can write it into the Act, but if it
does not work then we have not really gained
anything. Our discussions were lengtliy, not
only between the association and myself, but
between the association and the Prime Min-
ister ( Mr. Robarts ) , and myself. We were
agreed that there was no sense of writing
this into the Act.
We tried to get the doctors to enter into a
contractual arrangement with us as they do
now vdth PSI and Windsor Medical Services,
and they would not have any part of that.
They steadfastly refused, and continue to
refuse, to accept the stated fee schedule as
payment in full of the claims levied against
us. There is not any question that we could
write it into the Act. But what is the sense
of writing something into the Act which all
the discussions we have had would lead us to
beheve simply would not work?
It is rather interesting though, Mr. Chair-
man, that this hon, member was one who I
think in one of the first divisions after he
came into this House, voted against his own
party and urged me then to pay 100 per cent
of the fee schedule. He has done an about
face. That, of course, is his right. But it is
rather interesting to note his arguments now
vis-d-vis his arguments in the first instance.
Mr. Chairman: I think this sort of discus-
sion is dealing witli the general principle of
the bill— that we were deahng with this in
committee, and that this is dealing with the
principle of the bill, surely.
Mr. Ben: Well, it might be in purpose to
propose an amendment.
I would point out to the hon. Minister that
when I opposed the bill the first time, I said
if you do not pay them 100 per cent of this
bill they are going to jack up their fees and
try to circumvent you, and in fact they did so.
The other day, Mr, Chairman, I referred
to the doctors as perhaps being hypocrites. I
was criticized in some quarters for making
such a statement, but let us, in answer to
what the hon. Minister has said, point this out.
Doctors who are members of Physicians Serv-
ices Incorporated are quite right to accept
90 per cent— wait a minute, let me finish
please before thou wavest that finger at me—
90 per cent of the tariff on the basis that
the other ten per cent goes to pay for the
services of collecting.
In other words, one could argue the other
way— that the doctors of PSI receive 100 per
cent of the tariff for their services, but if
they contribute ten per cent of that tariff
to Physicians Services Incorporated to pay for
the administration of collecting their fee— I
will yield so that the doctor can correct me.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. I think the hon. mefmber has
been led astray. This was the understanding
when PSI first came into operation, that the
10 per cent would be relinquished, vw>uld
be left in the organization to help meet
administrative costs, and so on. Actually this
was never really spelled out. But two years
aigo they increased the fee schedule to 100
per cent and none of it is retained by PSI.
The physician gets 100 per cent of the
Ontario Medical Association fee schedule for
the services he renders.
Mr. Ben: If tliat is the case, Mr. Chairman
—and I am not going to, in this instance, oon-
trajddot the good doctor's word— it would mean
that subscribers to PSI are paying to PSI the
cost of the service that the doctors render,
plus X per cent for administration costs.
So I would suggest that perhajjs they could
give consideration to leaving PSI aaid coaning
over to our side, because we only pay out
4090
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
90 per cent. We are only charging tliem
90 per cent, plus admindstration costs and in
many oases the doctors, according to the
Minister, do not bill for the extra ten per
cent, so they are better off belonging to
OMSIP than they are to PSI.
At any rate, the doctors, until t%vo years
ago— and two years ago was when tliis Act
came into being, The Medical Services Insur-
ance Act— were quite willing to accept 90 per
cent of their schedule of fees in full pay-
ment for their services. Why should the pas-
sage of The Medical Services Insurance Act
have changed that philosophy?
So, why can they not act the way they did
prior to— die doctor says 1967— two years back,
before 1967, and accept the 90 per cent volun-
tarily as they did with PSI?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to pursue this line of argument at this
point. I think it becomes relevant to some
later comments that I want to make, but I was
most intrigued at the Minister's observation
that he had negotiated with the doctors and
could not reach agreement.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Not even
with the Prime Minister in—
Mr. MacDonald: Not even with the Prime
Minister involved. And therefore he had no
alternative but to come in here and do
exiactly what the doctors wanted. Mr. Chair-
man, I suppose, for the Minister, he was pre-
sented with a real dilemma. There was another
answer to the dilemma. That is to come to a
conclusion as to what was in the public
interest and then come in here and pass legis-
lation, whether or not the doctors liked it.
Mr. Chairman, it is not just New Demo-
crats who are making this proposal. In British
Columbia— and I will not repeat the details—
they have worked out a procedure whereby
they cope with the unilateral increase in fees
so that it is not unilateral. It is now by con-
sultation. Interestingly enough, being faced
with the fact that they have to, the doctors
go along and they are relatively happy, not-
withstanding the Minister's contention that
they are increasingly unhappy.
Furthermore, in Manitoba a Tory party
has taken some steps. They have said, in
effect, that doctors must accept a certain
amount in payment, and cannot make extra
charges; they will accept it as full payment.
The doctors are not happy about it, but a
Tory party, quite rightly, came to the con-
clusion that tlie public interest— in view of
the levels of doctors' incomes— was such that
they should be protected from an extra charge
at the present time.
I want to make an amendment, Mr. Chair-
man. There are two or three things that haive
to be achieved here. Basically, what we have
got to acliieve is a freezing of the situation
until we can estabhsh machinery and make
it possible for the Minister, or the govern-
ment, on behalf of the people of the province
of Ontario, to sit down, strengthened by statu-
tory powers and work out some sort of agree-
ment so that they too will not be the victims
of these unilateral decisions.
The Act has been amended to pay 90 per
cent of the 1969 schedule. If that 90 per cent
were chaoged to 80 per cent, it would be the
equivalent of what they were getting back
in 90 per cent of the 1967 schedule. I do not
know whether you follow that, but I think
it is accurate, yes it is roughly equivalent. So
I think we must freeze the situation— the pay-
ments which the doctors were getting, inci-
dentally netting them an average income in
excess of $28,000, and one part of our amend-
ment proposes to do that.
Secondly, I think we have got to avoid
deterrent fees because everybody— the Globe
and Mail editorial writers, spokesmen for the
people who had the contracts and a great
many people in this House— has been pointing
out that if you did not raise the figure— and
this is the argument the Minister has used—
to 90 per cent, that if it were down to 80
per cent, that the doctors would double-bill
since double billing is the equivalent of a
deterrent fee, it would hit those who are least
able to pay.
I think we ha^'e got to avoid the double
billing, and that can be done by statute. That,
in effect, is what has been done by a Tory
government in Manitoba which has the
intestinal fortitude to protect the public
interest and not kowtow to the medical pro-
fession.
Thirdly, we have got to establish some
machinery— and I am almost tempted to say
that this machinery is needed not only for
the protection of the people of Ontario but
for the protection of the Minister— because
the Minister is a helpless victim in face of
this situation. May I remind the House, as
we reminded it at second reading, that after
the 1967 increase the Minister stated in
Hansard on page 1801, in the 1967 session:
In order to ensure that this situation does not
occTir in the future, I recently wrote again to the
OMA and to the Ontario College of Physicians and
MAY 7, 1969
4091
Surgeons inviting them to participate in an arrange-
ment which would offer prior consultation and joint
agreement on these matters.
Well, he wrote and he wrote and he wrote.
He met with them, and he negotiated, and he
brought in the most prestigious political figure
in the province, the Prime Minister, to meet
with them, and he got nowhere. So at this
point, the question is, who is boss— the
Minister or the OMA? I suggest it is time
the Minister became the boss in terms of
protecting the public interest of the province
of Ontario.
If you go back to the original bill, Mr.
Chairman, you wall find that in the bill
there was established what is known as the
Medical Services Insurance Council. It is a
council to assess issues that may arise in the
implementation of the bill and may require
some degree of adjudication.
That council is made up of seven people,
two of whom are representative of doctors,
five of whom are representative of the public,
appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
Council, and one of those five is designated
as the chairman. So, we have what I think
is a fair balance in terms of the government
and the public vis-d-vis the medical pro-
fession, r suggest that that council could be
used for the purposes of the necessary adjudi-
cation—by public hearings, if necessary— to
decide when the doctors wish to make any
increase in their fees.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I want to move
that clause 1 of Bill 121, be amended by
deleting therefrom the figure "90" and sub-
stituting therefor the figure "80"— if I may
interject, that means the payments will re-
main as they now are approximately— and
adding thereto, sub-clauses 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and
1(d) as follows:
1(a) No physician shall bill or accept
any amount from any covered person from
medical-surgical or obstetrical care or serv-
ices in excess of such percentage of such
schedule of fees until such time as the
council establishes a schedule of fees as
hereinafter provided.
1(b) Proposals for changes in the schedule
of fees shall be submitted in writing by
the Ontario Medical Association to the
council in the first instance, not later than
July 1, 1969, and thereafter, bi-annually
not later than February 1 in such year.
1(c) The council shall consider the pro-
posals, and after a hearing, shall determine
what changes, if any, shall be made in
the schedule of fees.
1(d) The schedule of fees so determined
by the council shall become effective for
the purposes of this Act on April 1 in the
year in which the determination is made.
Now, Mr. Chairman, just one final comment.
In this amendment we have not attempted to
deal with the yardstick, if you will, the
formula for deciding on any increase in fees.
I think we have the experience in British
Columbia as a guide, and it merits some
study. There are alternative methods, but
this is something that could be decided at a
later date and be handed to the council, if
you wish it to operate in accordance with
specific guidelines. But we are achieving a
number of objectives here, one of which is
to protect the public at the moment, another
to establish the machinery, sir, so that we
are not victimized by unilateral increases in
fees in the future, to establish the land of
machinery that exists in at least two or three
other provinces, and in which other prov-
inces, including Conservative governments,
have already taken the lead.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Humber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, we will support
the principle annunciated in this particular
amendment, although we are not satisfied
with the wording because it is going to be
open to much misinterpretation. We do
believe that the council-
Mr. MacDonald: What is open to mis-
interpretation?
Mr. Ben: Well, since the member asked
for examples, sub-clause 1(d) states:
The schedules of fees so determined by
the council shall become effective for the
purposes of this Act on April 1 in the year
in which the determination is made.
Let us say that the determination is made on
September 1, 1969. How shall we go back
to April 1 of this year?
Mr. MacDonald: You have not read the
amendment. You will note that the amend-
ment, apart from this year, states that the
representations will be made as of February
1, so that you have two months to make the
decision and it will become effective April 1.
Mr. Ben: I am sorry. I did not read it
wrongly. It says.
Proposals for change in the schedule of
fees shall be submitted in writing by the
Ontario Medical Association to the council
4092
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the first instance not later than July 1,
1969-
Mr. MacDonald: That is this year.
Mr. Ben: Still quoting:
—and thereafter by-annually not later than
February 1 in such year.
Mr. MacDonald: Right!
Mr. Ben: All right, now they must submit
their schedule of fees by July 1, 1969.
Mr. MacDonald: Right!
Mr. Ben: It could take two months, three
months, five months to make a decision.
Obviously it would be silly to make that
decision efi^ective as of April 1 of this year.
How are you going to pay the doctors who
ha\e already rendered services on the basis
of the old bill? Are you going to make the
payment retroactive? If you are, it is going to
be enormously expensive,
Mr. J. Renwick: Why do you not just
move an amendment to the amendment and
clarify that—
Mr. Ben: You cannot move an amendment
to an amendment.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, move the amend-
ment to the amendment, and we will support
you.
Mr. Ben: I do not believe you can make
an amendment to the amendment. I was
just pointing out that weakness.
Secondly, the amendment here does not
require the council, as it should, to bring
down a new schedule within a prescribed
time limit. I do not think that we would
want this council to take months, perhaps
years, to arrive at a new schedule of fees.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, move the amend-
ment to the amendment and we will support
you.
Mr. Ben: It would be self-defeating. But
we do believe in the principle that the
council should have a say in how these fees
are determined. Surely somebody from the
public ought to be asked their opinion.
Surely the public ought to be considered
insofar as the cost of all services paid for by
government are concerned, and in this respect
we find it right that the fees should not be
unilaterally raised, and that the council
should be considered. We say we are support-
ing the amendment, even though these weak-
nesses are there, because we cannot see the
government pass this. We do want to estab-
lish the principle. The wording of the amend-
ment itself was made in haste, obviously was
not given very much consideration; it was
more a political manoeuvre than assistance
to the government.
Mr. J. Renwick: We have done nothing
else since the beginning of the session.
Mr. Ben: That is right. You have done
nothing else since the beginning of the
session except put in redundant, asinine,
half-baked amendments.
Mr. J. Renwick: You are going to have a
lireak with your party again if you are not
careful.
Mr. Ben: And this is another example, and
unfortunately you have a principle here, and
it is the principle that we will support.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
make one brief word of explanation. One
could include all of the detail in and then
the hon. member would have a field day
arguing about the detail. If one annunciates
the principle, and has to cope with the
kind of situation we are faced with this year
because of this government's action, then we
get this alternative kind of criticism. I am not
going to spend time in answering it. There
may be diflBculties involved in retroactivity
to April 1 this year; in fact there may be
difficulties with this Act as it stands now.
It is going to be interesting to see how the
government copes with diflBculties if this
bill does not become law for a few more
days, or a few weeks. We will have had six
weeks in which the new schedule of fees
has been in effect since April. But that is
irrelevant to the basic proposition. The diflB-
culties we Mdll have to cope with— because
of the situation created by the Minister this
year in bringing in this bill after April 1,
after the new schedule of fees had gone
into eflFect— are not of our creation. But the
procedure for the future is that the represen-
tations would have to be made by February
1 and there would be two months for a
decision before April 1, before they would go
into eflFect.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to say a few words on this
subject. When the principle of the bill was
being discussed, this party expressed its
sentiments about the cost of medical insur-
ance getting out of hand. This amendment,
in some cases, is repetitive of what we had
to say but at the same time, it gives us an
MAY 7, 1969
4093
opportunity of underlining and emphasizing
the fact that the fee schedules for OMSIP
are completely out of control and the govern-
ment is doing virtually nothing in order to
put a stop to the situation.
I think we are all in favour in this House
of machinery being established to control the
costs. In my view, the majority of doctors
practising in the province of Ontario would
not object to the proper machinery being set
up. I believe now, Mr. Chairman, that ap-
proximately 80 per cent of the doctors in
Ontario bill OMSIP directly. I may be wrong
in that figure, and maybe the Minister will
correct me, but I think it is approximately
80 per cent. So that despite the eflForts of
the Ontario Medical Association, when they
urge the doctors to bill their patients, despite
that organized effort of OMA, the doctors
themselves bill the scheme directly.
I think the government should bear this
in mind, that the majority of doctors are
willing to co-operate. I think the majority of
doctors have learned that a medical scheme
for making payments of doctors' bills does
not interfere with the doctor-patient rela-
tionship. I think it is nonsense. Whether the
cheque comes directly from the patient, from
PS I, from AMS, from a private insurance
company or from OMSIP, the doctor is free
to help his patient.
But I want to cite a practical example of
this new increase that we have, because I
beheve it really amounts to more than ten
per cent. When the Minister comes to reply,
I wish he woidd, if he can, give me an answer
to this. The OMA have changed their set-up
of fees and we are told it is an increase of
ten per cent. But suppose I was going to have
a toe nail or a wart removed, and I was given
a local anaesthetic. I think, under the old
scheme, it would cost $15 for the anaesthetic;
it would be a flat fee. Now the OMA be-
cause, I think, they think they are going after
government money, and when I say the OMA
I want to emphasize that it is the OMA
executive that do these things. So many of
the doctors are busy, they do not pay that
much attention, but here is what is happen-
ing.
Instead of paying $15 for a local anaes-
tlietic, they are now going to charge a flat fee
of $14.25, plus the time variable. I think
that the minimum fee now for a local
anaesthetic is going to come in the neigh-
bourhood of $28, instead of $15. This is
what is going to happen and I use that as an
example. I think they charge approximately
$3.45 for every 15 minutes, and by the time
they get ready and give the anaesthetic it
comes to close on three-quarters of an hour.
So it is three-quarters of an hour, at about
$3.45 for 15 minutes, plus the $14.25.
I think there is no excuse for that. There is
no control because it is a relatively small
matter, as I said, having a toe nail or a wart
removed. Government is simply going to have
to step in to control the costs. Many times I
criticize insurance companies, but even when
it comes to the cost of paying doctors, the
insurance companies are concerned.
When OMSIP starts to pay these exorbitant
fees, the insurance companies in turn have to
pay the fees, and this is all going to be
reflected in the premiums, either through
private enterprise or through government
costs; either through the premiums of OMSIP
or out of the consolidated revenue fund.
There simply must be control somewhere
and I think, by supporting this amendment,
we, in principle, try to emphasize to the
medical profession and to the general public
that action must be taken on the ridiculous
costs. We have completely failed to take
advantage of die improvements in medical
science. At die last sitting of this Legislature
I emphasize the multiple analyzer— perhaps
they call it the auto-analyzer— where, instead
of taking a series of blood tests, they can now
take a number of blood tests with a machine
and it costs 50 cents for all the tests. Yet the
trutli of it is the cost of testing blood has
gone up, despite the fact that we have
new machines.
I would point out to the Minister, and
perhaps he would make a note and see if he
could reply to me, that the laboratory costs
under OMSIP have become so high that even
the Ontario Medical Association, believe it
or not, is concerned about laboratory costs
and that pathologists are lending their name
to laboratories. I am told, and maybe the
Minister would know more about this than
I— in fact I am sure he would— that one
pathologist in Toronto has lent his name to
eight laboratories.
Now, he is supposed to be supervising
these laboratories and because he lends his
name to a laboratory, these costs can be
added on. It is supposed to be a super-
vised laboratory and therefore qualifies under
OMSIP, and for the insurance companies;
therefore the Treasury pays out. There is no
control over this and I would venture to
suggest that even the Ontario Medical Associ-
ation has drawn up regulations for some type
of control. But from this government there
is no control, not even a voluntary control.
4094
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would ask the Minister, when we look at
these costs, why is it that in 1966— and again
I am going by memory, but I think I am right
—the average cost per patient imder OMSIP
was $60. And even though PSI was starting to
lose money, its average cost was $38 per
patient. Why these tremendous differences
between OMSIP and PSI? I know, Mr.
Chairman, that one of the differences is that
OMSIP voluntarily took on all the sick and
left the healthier patients to some of the
other schemes; this in part explains it.
It does not explain it all, but it shows
you how inefficient OMSIP is. I make these
criticisms with the best of intentions, be-
cause I beliexe that a go\'emment-operated
medical scheme must succeed; that if it is
done across the province for 2^k million
people, it can operate efficiently. But it must
have leadership, it must have direction. And
this, the government fails to do. Tliis govern-
ment is simply trying to avoid a confrontation
with the medical profession.
I cannot blame them in many ways for
trying to avoid a confrontation, but I say in
conclusion, and I emphasize this, Mr. Chair-
man, that already 80 per cent of the practis-
ing medical men in this province want to
co-operate, regardless of what officialdom
in their profession says. I think that the gov-
ernment should keep in mind that many of
these men in the medical profession probably
want the control. Because why should the
medical profession get the bad name it is
getting of being greedy?
This is the reputation it has— of being a
greedy group of people who have been edu-
cated largely at public expense and, in many
ways, giving the impression they are avoid-
ing their public responsibility. They must
measure up in this day and age that they
have a public responsibility. And I say
through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister,
that I think doctors themselves are looking
for leadership from the government. If we
approach them in a reasonable and proper
manner, they will be helpful, because they
themselves know that doctors know if they
analyze their books, it is far cheaper even
under our present rules, it saves them money,
to accept 90 per cent of the fee when they
know it is guaranteed. There are no collec-
tion costs, no legal costs, no letters to write.
Today in a modern business in the city of
Toronto, Mr. Chairman, it costs $2 to write a
letter, and if the doctor has to go around
chasing people who have not paid, all this
costs him money, and as well it is costing him
a lot of ill will, or a lot of good will.
I have made these suggestions before on
another occasion, Mr. Chairman, and so I
have no diflBculty, in principle, in supporting
the amendments put forward. Perhaps there
is little hope under the present circum-
stances of them being accepted, but they
should be accepted. We are going to have
an economic crisis in medical services and in
hospital services unless the government takes
strong determined action, not only to pro-
tect the patients but to protect the public
purse.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has
indicated that he has the support of the
Premier of Ontario in his confrontation or
his negotiations with the Ontario Medical
Association. It is obvious from the section
that we are discussing right now that he was
unsuccessful in achieving—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, may I
correct the hon. leader. If he understands
that I meant now, this is not correct. I was
referring to a statement made by the hon.
member for Humber, from 1966, from the
time we started, and in answering him I said
from the time we started discussing the prov-
ince's involvement in medical services, I as
well as the Prime Minister had been in dis-
cussion with them, but not on this occasion.
Mr. Nixon: The point is that the Minister,
as the only negotiator for the government,
was unsuccessful in persuading the Ontario
Medical Association to change its original
demands in any way, and his indication in
previous debates in this House has been that
really when it gets to the last analysis, the
policy of the government is that this House
must trust the Minister.
I suppose there are sufficient members here
who accede to that policy, so that in fact for
the time being the House must continue by
majority vote to trust the Minister. But surely
he realizes that many of the speeches that
have been made to the section that is before
us and the amendment that is before us, in-
dicate that we are prepared to assist him in
the difficult job that he has really failed in
in the last few years. We have offered an
alternative from the Liberal Party, that he
might make use of the standing committee of
the Legislature in at least an attempt to
justify the changes that are put before us.
As a last resort, the amendment that is
before the House now freezes the situation
as it presently pertains, and puts forward at
least some structure that the Minister might
use in order to have more formal negotia-
tions with the doctors, rather than the secret
MAY 7, 1969
4095
meetings that have characterized the carrying
out of his responsibilities up until this time.
If the amendment fails— and I suppose it will
—then as of April 1 we must increase the
payment through OMSIP by ten per cent. I
have attempted to have some calculations
done as to what this would amount to, be-
cause it is not just strictly a ten per cent
increase in our payments over last year. It
is ten per cent on the average, but there is
every indication that OMSIP will have to
find between $10 and $12 million to meet
the requirements that are contained in sec-
tion 1.
The Minister has never at any time indi-
cated how the passage of this section will be
met from funds other than leaving it to the
board of OMSIP to raise them. They have
access to the public funds, and I suppose
the Minister, who has said he is not pre-
pared to recommend an increase in premiums,
will simply go to the Treasurer (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) and get further subvention from
the funds of the province in order to meet
these increased demands.
I am no expert in the rules of the House,
other than this, that when legislation is be-
fore us which requires an increase in the
commitment of the public Treasury, the legis-
lation is usually accompanied by a resolution
to that effect. There is perhaps a legal way
out by turning to the original bill itself, which
gives the responsibility for raising the funds
to the board of OMSIP, and under the orig-
inal legislation, it has access to the Treasurer
or to the Minister of Health for these pur-
poses.
But really tliere is much more involved
in this section than is just there in the print-
ing before us. The Minister has said little
or nothing about the increased financing
which must go along with his decision to
accede to the doctors' demands and pay them
a further ten per cent based on their new
schedule. Surely it is incumbent upon the
Minister, in the Terasurer's absence, to indi-
cate to us how this will affect the financing
for the coming year of OMSIP and how he
intends to meet it. We, of course, on this side
are prepared to predict that the Minister is
also recommending the inclusion of Ontario
in federal Medicare and that from this source
we will be able to meet this increase. I
would submit we would be able to go much
further in reducing the costs to the sub-
scribers to OMSIP if the federal funds were
used entirely for this purpose, which I believe
is the purpose for which they were intended.
However, there has been no statement of
policy in this regard, other than that we are
going to increase our payments by ten per
cent, which I say amounts to more than $10
million, and no indication from any respon-
sible Minister where this money is going to
come from, other than that it will not come
from premiums.
So the amendment is simply a stop-gap
proposal which is going to have the result
of dividing tlie House once again on this
important matter. It emphasizes that the
Opposition parties are prepared to assist the
Minister if he will take a strong stand and,
in fact, are demanding a strong stand in
negotiations with the professional organiza-
tions of the doctors. As far as setting their
fee schedule is concerned, this is their re-
sponsibility, but we can, by legislation, pro-
vide what part of that schedule we are going
to meet and also provide that there will not
be second billing. We certainly cannot permit
that in a government-sponsored programme
such as OMSIP, which is going to come into
far more importance in the months that lie
immediately ahead.
I hope the Minister will perhaps enter into
the debate rather than waiting for all the
statements to be made in this connection, so
that we can have the advantage of further
information as normally is the case when we
are discussing a bill in the committee. Rather
tlian just talking about the principle of the
amendment, which is a very important prin-
ciple indeed, we can also gain from the Min-
ister further information about the mechanics
of the implementation of this particular sec-
tion, which is going to be a very costly new
charge on the Treasury.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York-
view.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
in supporting this amendment I would point
out to the House that it is not many years
since all of us heard from the medical pro-
fession that— some of them used various fig-
ures—sometimes a quarter to a third of their
work was being done in charity work, at
chnics, for people who could not possibly pay.
In other words, they were writing off, in
many cases, up to a third of the potential
income in charity work, as impossible of
collection.
Now this has passed. Along with that came
the costly business of collection, which we
have heard about this afternoon, where doc-
tors had to keep their books with regular
billing, and go after their patients time after
time in many cases until the bills were paid
4096
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
or written off. And part of that write-off
would be the third that I have just mentioned.
Those two things were matters which the
medical profession faced and said, "AU
right, we are willing to accept this hazard of
the occupation and we are willing to live
with it." But then we came into the era when
we had medical plans of all kinds, through
tlie trade unions, PSI and other plans, which
made it possible for doctors to bill the plans
directly and get their money. With the coming
of these plans, this old idea of charity work
taking up a large proportion of the work they
had to do, and for which they were not being
paid, simply went by the board. It was no
longer true, and as plans increased, tliis
amount of so-called charity work, work that
had to be written off, diminished propor-
tionately.
In Ontario, with the coming of OMSIP, one
of these gaps which existed was filled, because
one of the great gaps— and doctors made no
bones of this— was the indigent patient; the
person who was too poor; who ran into hard
luck; whose income was low. The doctor
just could not chase him to get the bill paid
but he had to provide the medical service
free to that kind of person.
But OMSIP has filled that gap, and so
the person on low income now is a sure-fire
pay proposition as far as the medical pro-
fession is concerned. Along with the other
plans, he is facing a situation where almost
100 per cent of his income is now guar-
anteed. What the medical profession said a
few years ago was true, that they were
writing off a large proportion of possible in-
come, then that income today has gone up
rather markedly because of the elimination
of bad debts and of indigent patients.
Now, Mr, Chairman, because this is true it
seems to many of us that there is no reason
why, with the present schedule of fees, a
guarantee of 80 per cent is not adequate for
the medical profession. I was talking to a
medical man not long ago and the words he
used to me were, "yes, I will take 80 per
cent, it is sure money."
There was a time, and I do not know
whether this has been entirely redressed, Mr.
Chairman, but there was a time when OMSIP
first came into being that the doctors had to
wait a long time for their money. There was
a great deal of grumbling. I have not heard
that lately. As I understand it, that problem
has been largely eliminated and now the
cheques come with some real degree of
regularity.
So, the medical man getting 80 per cent,
on time, with no indigent patients, and sure
of his money, is quite happy. Certainly the
executive of the medical association is bound
to complain as we have heard this afternoon.
But the rank and file medical man I think,
is satisfied and would be satisfied with this
amendment.
When I look at the average income of the
person in Ontario, I realize that the medical
income is pretty high in comparison. Then
we asked the question, how can we justify
this legislation. The Dominion Bureau of
Statistics says that in Ontario only 20 per cent
of our people get an income of $6,000 or
more, that only nine per cent get an income
of over $8,000 and four per cent get an in-
come of over $10,000. When the average
income of the medical profession today is
approximately three times that last figure I
have mentioned, then we face the fact that
this legislation, even though it does not, at
this time, raise rates in OMSIP, must eventu-
ally raise either the rates or the tax load of
the people of Ontario. It must come out of
the productivity of our people in the long
run. While the Minister assures us that
OMSIP rates may not be raised immediately,
eventually they must go up, or else we have
to dip farther into the tax revenue from our
people. So that $10 to $12 million has to be
provided, and it will be provided in the future
in one of these two ways.
Mr. Chairman, one other thing: For the
life of me I cannot understand why it is that
the medical profession is so afraid of this
word "negotiation". They want to make their
decisions unilaterally and then impose them
upon the government and upon the people of
Ontario. Almost all the people of this prov-
ince negotiate in some way or other as far
as income is concerned. It is an accepted
pattern in our civilization. Why doctors are
not willing to accept this accepted pattern is
beyond mc. We just cannot quite understand
and grasp their point of view in this regard.
Because of these reasons, because it does
assure the medical profession of a very
adequate income, because unless this amend-
ment is passed, it means a greater burden
upon the people who already have relatively
lower incomes than the profession itself, much
lower, and because we believe that negotia-
tion can be and should be a vital part of the
whole wage setting process, of our civiliza-
tion, I support this amendment.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, I want to say only a word or two
on this amendment. I think it is rather sur-
MAY 7, 1969
4097
prising, in fact rather noteworthy, to what
extent this Legislature reacts whenever the
medical profession is involved. But how slow
it is to react when other people are involved,
other wage earners in this province.
A day or so ago I asked the Minister of
Education (Mr. Davis) about the plight— and
I call it that— of the teachers who are at
present employed by the colleges of applied
arts and technology across this province. For
two years they have been unable to negoti-
ate with anybody because of the legal mess
which we found ourselves in when the
colleges were declared to be Crown agencies.
Mr. Young: They would like to negotiate.
Mr. Pitman: They would like to be able
to negotiate. But they cannot negotiate with
anyone. One would well wonder why it is
that this Legislature can be so slow, so lacking
in concern about one profession, and yet so
quick when it comes to the slightest indica-
tion on the part of the doctors that they are
somewhat unhappy with their lot in life.
I want to suggest to the Minister at this
point that he is far too concerned and far
too fearful about the doctors in this province.
I want to suggest to him that the doctors with
whom he deals day by day and week by
week are what one might call the professional
organizers, the doctors' representatives. These
are the people who invariably end up in the
upper echelons of any organization, and I
say any organization, whether it be a legal
organization, whether it is an organization of
lawyers, of teachers, of workmen of any kind-
Mr. MacDonald: Medical pork choppers.
Mr. Pitman: —and particularly seem to end
up in the upper echelons of the medical pro-
fessional organizations. Very often these doc-
tors do not represent in the slightest the
view^s of a day-to-day working doctor in his
office who is seeing people and looking after
his patients. These are, on the whole, I think,
pretty happy with the fact that they are in
the upper group of earners across this prov-
ince. They have done rather well by the
fact that they are no longer a part of the
miarket place, but rather they are part of the
social services of this province.
As the hon. member for Yorkview has
pointed out, they no longer have to go in
and dig to get their bills paid. They no longer
have to go and virtually find patieots, be-
cause now most of the people of this province
are able to secure medical services. The prob-
lem is to look after the nmnber of people who
are looking for those services.
So I think the Minister is completely off
base when he thinks that just becaiise the
medical profession indicates a concern, that
immediately this Legislature should jump, that
we should raise it to 90 per cent, that we
should virtually accept whatever demands
they make.
I think it is time that the doctors of this
province realized that they axe part of a fabric
of society. They live in a society which is
inter-dependent; a society which is providing
services, or at least that they are providing
services to society. They have a responsibility
to realize that there must be some degree of
negotiation on their part; indeed, some re-
straints on their part if, indeed, the Treasurer
of this province is right when he talks about
the fiscal problems that we face at the present
time.
It is pretty hard to go out and talk to trade
unionists and say that they should restrain
themselves in their wage demands. Or to go
to a small businessman and say he should
restrain himself in his desire to secure further
capital and so on when he reads in the news-
paper the degree to which the medical pro-
fession is able to raise its fees. They decide
exactly not what they want but what the
professional organizer wants. Of course, for
the professional organizer, to a large extent,
his job depends on what he is able to con^
vince himself and a few of his colleagues
that the medical profession wants in this
province.
I would suggest that it would be a good
thing, a very good thng, for the doctors of
this province to come to this Legislature, and
the committee of this Legislature, and talk to
the people who are elected by their patients
and find out what those people are saying. I
am sure the hon. members on the other side,
Mr. Chairman, receive letters as I do indicat-
ing the concern of people across this province
who are receiving double billing. They are
people who realize to what extent the whole
business of medical costs has got out of hand
and the extent to which this government has
done nothing to stop this.
I think it would be a very good thing for
the image of the medical profession, because
that is one profession whose image has been
severely damaged over the past few years.
One would think from reading the letters I
receive and the articles I have read, that greed
and almost an obsession with fees is the hall-
mark of the medical profession, and I do not
believe that is true. I think it would be a
very good thing if we found out from the
working doctors what they feel about what is
4098
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
going on here in this House and what has
been presented to this Minister and what has
appeared to us in this piece of legislation.
I appeal to tlie Minister to think very care-
fully as we go through the reading of this
bill; look very carefully at this amendnieiut.
I think it would be to the entire advantage
of the medical profession if they recognized
their role in society as providing a service
jis a part of a whole fabric of services. And
most of all that tliey realize that they have
social responsibility as it is expressed in this
Legislature.
Mr. Chairman: Does anyone eJse want to
speak before the hon. Minister?
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairmian, I have a couple
of questions for the Minister but I think I
would like to hear his answer first.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to get into a philosophical discussion
because this was already done when the bill
was discussed in principle.
There are some erroneous statements which
should be pointetl up, I believe, I suppose it
might be a matter of interpretation of certain
things that are happening in other provinces.
One hon. member's interpretation may very
well differ from mine, and vice-versa of
course. But I would like to point out to the
hon. member for York South that his informa-
tion about British Columbia and Manitoba is
not exactly as I read it. First of all, the gov-
ernment of British Columbia did not impose
a formula upon the medical profession. For-
tunately, at that time, the medical profession
there proiX)sed the fonnula to the government
of BritLsh Columbia on the eve of their bring-
ing in their medical services insurance bill.
I may say that I was rather impressed with
it and did everything in my power to per-
suade the Ontario association to make the
same gesture toward us and—
Mr. MacDonald: Why did you not impose
it on them?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I did so. Just wait a
minute now, my friend. When they were not
disposed to approach me with the proposition,
I made a proposition to them which they
found totally unacceptable, and I asked for
the same kind of proposition as in B.C.
Secondly, in Manitoba, the hard-nosed
Tory goverrmnent— and, of course, all our
governments are reasonably hard-nosed— did
not, my friend, legislate as you have tried to
indicate to this House, They wrote in that
every doctor would be considered to be in
the plan unless he opted out. As soon as the
fee schedule was announced, I am advised,
and I have no proof of this except the reports
I read, that more than 50 per cent of the doc-
tors opted out of the plan, tiierefore giving
them die right to bill their patients directly
at whatever fee schedule they propose.
Those who stay in do, by that very act,
enter into a contractual agreement. Once
again, Mr. Chainnan, since we began our
earliest discussions with OMSIP, I have tried
to persuade the doctors to enter into a
contractual relationship with the goverrmient,
just as they did with PSI, Indeed, I thought
using tlie precedent of their own organization
was a sound basis from which to start. They
would have no part of this, either.
It is all very easy to say pass the legislation
and make them do it, but how? I need not
remind my hon, friend from York South that
one of his fellow-travellers did this in Sas-
katchewan, He passed legislation and he tried
to do exactly what the hon, member would
like me to do here, but it did not succeed.
An hon. member: Yes, it did.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No. Mr. Chairman, for
the first time in the history of Canada the
doctors withdraw their services. The only
people who suffered, Mr. Chairman, were
the people who needed the servdces. It is
very easy to argue who is boss.
Mr. J. Renwick: You can impose compul-
sory arbitration on the nursing homes, but
not on the medical profession?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, may I
have the floor? I kept absolutely quiet when
they were all speaking; it was difficult for me
to do, but I did.
It is very easy to argue who is boss and it
rankles that I cannot say that I am boss, but
I have to face the real hard fact of hfe— who
provides the service? If my hon. friends can
tell me how the government of Ontario can
provide medical services for our people who
need them, then we can do all of the tilings.
We can accept all of the suggestions they
make, but I would have to add, too, that the
same kind of legislation should apply to
everybody throughout every stratum of our
society. But that would come along in due
course, too, I am sure.
The hon, member for York South did make
a proposal that the council be involved in
this, I would have to say to you, sir, that the
council did devise a formula as a basis upon
which to negotiate fees, but again the profes-
sion refused to accept it. The profession told
MAY 7, 1969
4099
us very clearly, as I said when we debated the
bill in principle, "We will set our own fee
schedule and if you do not want to pay all
of it, state what part of it you are going to
pay and that is it. We will look after our own
collections."
The hon. member for Parkdale pointed out
that 80 per cent of the doctors bill us directly;
another ten per cent use our forms and they
may send the bill directly to us but ask us
to pay the patients. So, in effect, 90 per cent
of the doctors who are deahng with OMSIP
deal directly with the organization, except
that ten per cent ask that the money go to the
patients.
We want to maintain this because we can
live with the ten per cent who do not have
anything to do with us and who often will not
use our forms. They send the bills on their
own personal letterhead creating a very great
deal of additional organizational work, as
you will understand. We want to maintain
this.
The ten per cent increase could quite easily
be interpreted in an entirely different light,
as the hon. member for Parkdale again
pointed out. I say, with respect, he used a
bad example because there is no charge for a
local anaesthetic; the surgeon provides that
himself. However, tiiat is quite by the way.
Anaesthesia rates have not been raised for a
very long time until now, and some of them
have gone up, as I believe the hon. member
for Humber pointed out the other day, very,
very markedly. But the 9.7 per cent that we
believe this will cost us is based on the kind
of services which we have been billed for
over the past year. While, in some instances,
we are going to be paying a great deal more
than ten per cent in otliers we are going to
be paying a great deal less. The net balance
the net result is that our total costs should
be increased by something of the order of
9.7 per cent.
I agree with my hon. friend, while it is
quite apart from the discussion of this sec-
tion, that all of us are very concerned
about lab fees. But the fee being charged
now and the fee being paid by OMSIP to a
lab which uses the auto-analyzer, is markedly
reduced because a fee schedule has been
arrived at, or an understanding has been
arrived at, that where an auto-analyzer is
used, and multiple tests are done on one spei-
men, then the fee is very markedly reduced.
A fee which for individual tests would be
something in the order of $50 or $60, is
down to about $5 now. This has been done
by agreement. But tliis does not alter the
fact that both the profession and ourselves
are very much concerned about marked in-
creases in certain phases of health care costs.
We are watching those very closely.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the Minister would accept a question. It is
this. Has the Ontario Medical Association,
even on a voluntary basis, made any attempt
to control the cost of laboratories, because
I understand that even the OMA are con-
cerned with the excessive charges.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Chairman, I
do not think they have reached the place
yet where they are in the position to do
that. They are involved in a very extensive
and expensive study of laboratory services,
and we are joined wdth them in this because
it is being done in some measure through
the liaison committee between ourselves and
the association. They are concerned with the
accreditation of laboratories. All this is part
and parcel of the same thing.
The hon. leader of the Opposition spoke
about his willingness to assist us. I appreci-
ate this. I do not speak facetiously, but I
would have to say to my hon. friend that
every time we have a debate of this kind, I
particularly pick out Hansard, mark every
section that has anything to do with it, or
contains the words of any hon. member in
this House, and send a copy to every member
of the board of the OMA. They laiow your
views and they know what you beheve about
them, so I do not know what more assistance
or in what better way you can help me than
through that means. I can say to you that it
has not had any impact on them, obviously,
as I am quite sure you realize.
Mr. Nixon: We will support you if you
take a strong stand.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I cannot tell you
anything about the costs at the present time,
but all of those things will come up during
my estimates, there is no doubt about that.
Mr. Nixon: Why can you not?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Because I do not have
them, for one thing. Our premium was set
on a two-year basis, just as we do with the
hospital services premium. I would expect
that from the first year's operation there
would be a balance carried over to buttress
the second year's or the third year's or how-
ever many years our premium spreads across.
But the OMSIP premiimi was set on the basis
of two-year projected costs and I would be
4100
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
very disappointed if we do not have a sub-
stantial balance to take care of that. Tliat is
what we did, but this was not done-
Mr. Nixon: Not to accommodate a ten per
cent increase?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not know and I
will not know until my estimates come before
die House. We do this in the hospital insur-
ance; there is a carry-over each-
Mr. Nixon: You could not have been fight-
ing very hard to hold the doctors from an
increase of ten per cent if you had money
in your sock to pay them.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Chairman.
This is the way we finance the insurance
programme. We have not had the experience
in OMSIP yet, but we have done this with
the hospital insurance programme ever since
it started. We set a premium — and that
premium is good for a period of time— know-
ing full well that tliere will be a surplus in
the first year which will be reduced in the
second and so on, until it is wiped out. Then
the premium has to be readjusted.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask the Minister if,
in his negotiations with the doctors, any par-
ticular sum of money associated with OMSIP
was arrived at for what it would cost us
if we acceded to their demands? Surely the
Minister must have considered what it would
cost overall?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes. We have it from
the highlights report that we spent $84
million last year. So a ten per cent increase
would be $8.4 million; a 9.7 per cent
increase would be something in the order
of $8 million. I can anticipate now what
the increase is likely to be, but how we
are going to finance it, I cannot tell you until
my estimates are before the House. I will
be in a position to tell you, then.
I would say this, too, Mr. Chairman, that
we are losing sight of the fact that OMSIP—
and it is to OMSIP only that this amend-
ment applies — covers two million of our
people. The great majority of the rest of our
people are covered by programmes that are,
with one exception, paying 100 per cent of
the 1969 fee schedule. Now if we want to
destroy OMSIP, I can think of no better
way of doing it than supporting this amend-
ment, because that is exactly what will
happen to it.
I say to my hon. friend from York South
that in spite of his fears, this measure is in
the public interest. I am quite certain that if
we do not take this step, reluctant as I may
be to take it, the doctors who are now billing
us will stop billing us in spite of all my hon.
friends say. It is very nice to hear that the
majority of doctors are opposed to the execu-
tive, but I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that
the action of the executive is all ratified by
the membership.
The tariff committee, for example, is not
drawn from the executive. It comprises a
group of practising physicians who have
taken on this responsibility, and this is their
job. The committee's job is to deal with the
tariffs and the changes, and their recom-
mendations go to the board and from the
board must be ratified by the general mem-
bership. If the general membership are not
in favour of what the board does, they will
vote it down. Unfortunately, the general
membership, at least from my standpoint,
have ratified the action of the board in these
matters. I say to you, sir, that in my view
the doctors will stop billing OMSIP and
start billing the patient. The cost to the
patient will go up. The change in the fees
will become a deterrent, and a very real
deterrent. Unfortunately, deterrent fees cause
hardship to those people who most need the
services. Therefore, I say to you, Mr. Chair-
man, tlie only satisfactory way to protect the
public interest in this particular matter is
to defeat the amendment and support the bill
before us.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey: (Oshawa): Mr. Chair-
man, it seems to me that what the Minister
is saying is that whenever the doctors increase
their fees then we, the people of the prov-
ince of Ontario, and the government should
completely capitulate to the doctors. Now,
this is—
Mr. J. Renwick: They will withdraw their
Mr. Pilkey: Right. Obviously, in many
facets of our society where there is free
collective bargaining, make no mistake about
it; the employers do not just cave in, as
this government is caving in although they
have some jurisdiction over this fee increase.
Let me remind the Minister that even under
The Labour Relations Act, the medical pro-
fession is excluded, and rightly so. I want to
suggest to the hon. Minister that if we tried
to include the medical profession in The
Labour Relations Act, they would fight as
they have never fought before, because they
MAY 7, 1969
4101
have the best collective bargaining rights in
the whole province. They make unilateral
decisions as to what their fees are going to
be.
Let us find out exactly what has happened.
You are talking about ten per cent for
OMSIP, but the PSI, which is governed by
the doctors, increased its fees 46 per cent.
That was a good ploy, too. You see, they do
not have to negotiate there either. They have
got themselves a pot built and when they
need some more, they just go back and get it.
They do not have to justify it—
An hon. member: A pot?
Mr. Pilkey: Well, it is a barrel then. It is
bigger than a pot. They have got a barrel
of money and they just go back and pick it
up whenever they need some more; they
just increase it— the premiums 46 per cent and
ten per cent to OMSIP.
As was pointed out previously, sir, this
government introduced compulsory arbitra-
tion for the nursing homes and homes for
the aged, and as far as hospital workers were
concerned they set up guidehnes. If the
govenmient has the power to make that kind
of adjudication and those guidelines, surely
it has the power to suggest what the fee
schedule should be for doctors, or even lay
down the fee schedule, if necessary.
Obviously, if the government is going to
continue to take the position it is taking, then
there is no barrier. There is no barrier to the
doctors' tariff because they know that this
government will completely capitulate to their
demands. They will completely cave in to
their demands. It seems to me that we have
just got to stand up.
Mr. Chairman: I beheve the hon. member
is speaking somewhat apart from the motion
before us. I do not see anything in that
respect in this particular motion.
Mr. Pilkey: I want to conclude, then, by
asking the Minister a question.
Mr. Chairman: We have a motion here.
Mr. Pilkey: Can I not ask a question? All
right. This Minister said that this tariff was
set up and approved by the general member-
ship of the medical profession. I want to
know from him how they justify the increase.
Every worker in this province has to justify
his demands to his employer and I want to
know, from this Minister, if he had meetings
with the medical profession, how they justi-
fied the increase.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, we are
getting completely away from the point. The
government is not the employer of the medi-
cal profession. The government, in this in-
stance, is an insurance carrier. We carry an
insurance contract which purports to provide
certain things. The doctor is a self-employed
individual usually, and therefore has the right,
or claims the right, to set the fee which he
believes his services merit.
Mr. J. Renwick: You are also the govern-
ment of the province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Actually, he enters
into a contract with his patient.
Mr. J. Renwick: He has reduced himself
to the same status as London Life.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, London Life is
an insurance carrier and it provides contracts
which purport to pay certain claims. London
Life pays 100 per cent of the claim. This is
the difference. But I would like to ask my
hon. friend from Oshawa why it is that the
UAW is very much concerned because I am
only going to pay 90 per cent? They feel that,
in their belief, we are on the eve of Medi-
care; what is going to happen to the other
ten per cent which is written into your con-
tract? So it is a good contract. But you have,
as you know, written into your contract that
100 per cent of the cost of the services shall
be paid.
Mr. Pilkey: By the company.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Suppose UAW came to
OMSIP and I signed them up. How do I
get them to accept the fact that I wall only
pay 90 per cent of the fee schedule, when
you have written into your contract that 100
per cent shall be paid?
Mr. Pilkey: No, no. There is nothing in
the collective agreement which says that the
UAW will pay 100 per cent.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Indeed, I—
Mr. Chairman: Order! Most of this dis-
cussion has already taken place at second
reading. We have a motion before us and
we are straying considerably from it.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I would
like to speak on the motion, Mr. Chairman,
and to just take a moment to deal with the
Minister's reply and his refusal to support the
amendment.
I can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that there
are many reasons which the Minister could
4102
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
adduce to oppose the amendment. Some of
us would take issue with them on this side
of the House, but they would at least be a
basis for debate. I want to suggest to you,
sir, that the reason which the Minister has
given to oppose the amendment in this case
is of such a specious mythology that we have
to rise to protest. It is simply an absurd
proposition to put to the Legislature, Mr.
Chairman, that the doctors in the province of
Ontario would withdraw their services if this
Legislature—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I rise
on a point of privilege. At no time did I
state that the doctors in Ontario would with-
draw their services. I drew an analogy stat-
ing what had happened in Saskatchewan. I
did not— and I repeat, sir, I did not— at any
time, state, or threaten, or imply, that the
doctors in Ontario would withdraw their
Mr. Lewis: I submit to the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, one does not use analogies with
the province of Saskatchewan for no reason
at all. The implication is clear.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Only because it suits
you.
Mr. Lewis: The implications are clear to
the members of this House, Mr. Chairman.
What the Minister bases his argument on is
that if this amendment is carried, the doctors
will somehow refuse to be paid at the 80
per cent level and will double-bill. The fact
of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that it is just
simply, totally, unacceptable.
I think one can say categorically that the
doctors in this province would not withdraw
their services; that the doctors in this prov-
ince have never suggested they would with-
draw their services; that the Minister is
playing into the hands of the worst kind of
irresponsibility when he poses that as a
possible argument for defeating the amend-
ment.
I put it to you, Mr, Chairman, that if we
say to the medical profession under the
public scheme— and there are some qualita-
tive differences between the responsibility to
the public Treasury as distinct from, say, a
United Auto Workers contract— that under
the public scheme we will pay 80 per cent
of the fee schedule, it would be entirely
acceptable to the medical profession and
there would be no revolt whatsoever in their
ranks.
The Minister has erected an argument for
the medical profession. It is beyond me why
he feels constrained to do so. He deals, as
colleagues have pointed out, with the poli-
ticians in the medical profession. He does
not deal with the profession as a whole and
that perhaps, is where we reach our impasse.
Mr. Chairman, I point out to the Minister
that doctors seldom receive 80 per cent of
what they bill; that is a gilt-edged security
for the medical profession. Most doctors in
the past have written off much more than 20
per cent of what they bill— to be assured of
the 80 per cent would be something which
doctors would happily concur in. Many of
them have had great difficulty' collecting up
to 80 per cent of their bills.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman,
that I suspect that if the Minister were to
accept this amendment— I do not suspect, I
feel confident— that if the Minister were to
accept this amendment, which reinforces the
public interest by indicating that double bill-
ing is not acceptable, then the medical pro-
fession would gladly concur and the public
sector, at least, would have indicated its
interest in providing some restraint.
I might say as well, Mr. Chairman, that it
is not the role of this House to drive a wedge
into the medical profession. That is also what
we are doing when we pass this clause. The
Minister knows full well that all the successive
increases in the fee schedule have served
primarily the specialists in the medical pro-
fession at the expense of the general prac-
titioner—even within this increase, the 9.7
per cent increase.
The lavish percentage increments relate to
the specialties. The very modest percentage
increases relate to general practice. What we
are doing by constantly affirming the uni-
lateral fee increase for the medical profession
is to continue to drive that wedge between
general practice and specialization which has
harassed that profession and for which there
is much ill-feeling within the medical pro-
fession.
It is not within the purview of this Legis-
lature to reinforce that kind of irresponsible
behaviour which the politicians of the OMA
ha\'e seen fit to impose on their own pro-
fession. So we are playing politics with the
politicians of the medical profession.
But there is no recourse, just some hope
that the Minister publicly might not comply.
I would urge the Minister to reconsider, Mr.
Chairman. This amendment is a very reason-
able guideline. He has said to us that it
rankles him; that he is not the master of his
own house. Well, I say to him, Mr. Chair-
man, that he can retain some sense of
MAY 7, 1969
4103
mastery if he does not succumb in entirety.
There is no reason at all why he should not
suggest a compromise.
He need not be dictated to by fiat. He can
accept a reasonable man's compromise, and
surely this amendment means precisely that.
Eighty per cent of the fee schedule will satisfy
the doctors of this province. It will save $8
milhon of the public money, and it vdll set
a precedent arnd guideline for future negotia-
tions to follow. Now, what more reasonable
amendment could be made?
No one on this side, surely not the Minister
himself on that side, would pretend that will
jeopardize the OMSIP scheme. The doctors
will flook to accept it, because the OMSIP
scheme, in its guarantee of payment, was the
finest thing that ever happened to the medical
profession in this province.
Mr. Trotter: I would just Hke to ask the
Minister a question, Mr. Chairman. I imder-
stand that whenever there is a change in
premdums or in, say, fees paid by doctors, that
the computer programme of OMSIP would
change. In other words, all of this comes out
of the computers. I was wondering if the new
computer programme has been set up, be-
cause this fee change is retroactive to April 1
of this year. Has the Minister changed his
compyuters at this point?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, we
cannot imtll we have the legal right to pay
the schedule. If the bill were defeated and
we had had the computer programme
changed, then we would have to change it all
back. No, the computers are waiting the
pleasure of the House.
Mr. Trotter: How long will that be?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not know. They
assured me they can diange it very qmckly.
Mr. Trotter: I hope you do not have the
chaos you had when the scheme first went
into effect.
Mr. Pilkey: Was there any discussion, Mr.
Chairman, with the medical profession on
the basis of accepting the 80 per cent?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I think
I have made it eminently clear that it was
quite impossible to get the profession to
accept. Indeed, they have not told me they
would accept 90 per cent. We are telling
them that that is what we are going to pay.
They will not agree to accept anything less
than 100 per cent of the fee schedule. I
repeat that they have said, "We'll set our fee
schedule; you pay whatever percentage of it
you determine, and we'll do the rest." Now,
I feel quite certain, in spite of what the hon.
member for Scarborough West says, that this
would destroy OMSIP.
Mr. Lewis: How?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Surely, the hon. mem-
l^er for Scarborough West has been listening.
The answer is: Because the great majority of
people insured in Ontario are under contract
to pay 100 per cent. We would be left only
with those who are subsidized in whole or
in part. Why would our paying sut«cribers
stay with us when they can go to another
contract and pay perhaps little more for it,
but get 100 per cent of their fees paid?
This is a constant bone of contention be-
tween our claimants and us, this is the most
common complaint I get from subscribers,
that we have told them we have insured them
against the costs of medical care and we only
pay 90 per cent.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
Minister a question? In any of the negotia-
tions with the doctors, did the OMA at any
time say that they would withdraw their
services if payment was less than 100 per
cent?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Never, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis: All right.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is what I empha-
sized. I would not want to construe that
anything I have said indicated that the
doctors of Ontario had ever theatened that
they would withdraw their services.
Mr. Lewis: Did the OMA at any time, just
taking it in progression, say that they would
stop billing imder OMSIP if you set it at
something less than 100 per cent?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, they did not say,
because OMA has no authority to say that.
Mr. Lewis: Was that implied in the Min-
ister's negotiations?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, not at all. But
that is my belief, out of the negotiations,
out of our dealings with the physicians. It
has taken us a long time, and it has been a
laborious process, to build up to the poin*
where 90 per cent are bilhng us. Frankly,
I do not care very much what happens, I
do not believe we will ever be able to get
more than 90 per cent of the doctors unless
we write it into law somehow or other.
4104
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I frankly state that I do not believe that
legislation of that kind would be in the
public interest. Believe me, Mr. Chairman,
when I present this to you, it is not by any
stretch of the imagination or as an apologist
for my profession that I repeat that I am
doing what I believe is in the best interests
of the public of Ontario. They are looking to
us and looking to OMSIP, and for three years
have been looking to OMSIP, to cover those
needs which sometimes can be catastrophic
to them. Through OMSIP we have given a
great deal of peace of mind to a great num-
ber of people who would have been without
it had we not introduced OMSIP.
Mr. Lewis: I simply want to follow the
progression because we only have the Min-
ister to rely on about the negotiations. Was
it ever discussed in your negotiations with
them what precise percentage you would in-
corporate? As I understand it, they said to
you, "We want 100 per cent, take it or leave
it, you decide on what you want to i>ay."
Did you feel them out about how they
would respond to 70 per cent, 80 per cent,
90 per cent, was that a factor in the negotia-
tions?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Not in the more recent
negotiation. Again, I have to answer that by
repeating that they said, "We'll set our fee
schedule and you determine how much you
will pay, and then we will do what we think
we have to do from then on." Again I say
that out of my dealings and out of some
knowledge of the mentality of my profes-
sion, I feel quite certain that if, by law, we
were to say we would pay 80 per cent of
the fee schedule, the great majority of
patients would get billed to schedule and get
a bill for the 20 per cent.
Mr. Lewis: Unless you prohibit it by law.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I think that is very
(limgerous.
Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. Cliairman, can I
just make the obvious point? If the Minister
will forgive me, I think it is worth making.
In his negotiations it has been established
( 1 ) that the profession never suggested they
would withdraw their services; (2) that they
never suggested they would leave the OMSIP
scheme were the financial conditions unsatis-
factory in terms of what the Minister is
putting; (3) that they never said they would
not support 80 per cent.
In other words, the Minister came to the
conclusion on the basis of what he called his
"feeling" for, or understanding of tlie minds
of tlie profession. At no time during tlie course
of the negotiations, did the doctors require
that to which the Minister has acceded.
Now, we take exception to that on this side
of the House, Mr. Chairman, and we say tliat
we, too, have a right to read the mind of the
medical profession. I suggest to the hon.
Minister that a profession which has already
committed 90 per cent of its members to
the OMSIP scheme would not have deserted
that scheme had the Minister set the level
at 80 per cent.
He succumbed without reason, he misread
the mentality of the profession, he capitulated
before there was any need to. He reinforced
all the prejudices for no reason whatsoever.
That is not his job as Minister of Health. His
job is to negotiate, and if he receives no
undue belabouring from the medical profes-
sion, as he has indicated he did not receive,
then let him set it at 80 per cent and say
no double billing and see then what happens.
He need not be a clairvoyant looking into the
crystal ball.
Mr. Pilkey: Mr, Chairman, could I just
ask this question then, in this same regard?
On the basis of the negotiations that took
place— I never had tiiis question answered—
how did the doctors justify the new tariff in
these negotiations? Did they say that it was
X number of years since they had had a
tariff increase?
Was it because of the cost of living increase
in this inflationary period that we may be
going through, or we are going through?
What were the criteria tliey used to determine
their justification for a fee increase in the
province of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It was, as the hon.
member has suggested, Mr. Chairman, based
on the increase in the cost of living, inflation,
or whatever you want to call it. But they
l:>elieved that the increase that they proposed
was justified on the basis of increasing costs.
Mr. Trotter: I have one final item on this
matter, Mr. Chairman, and then I shall, for
a short time, be quiet. The problem is this;
this section just puts so much more gravy on
the medical gravy train, on the one place
where the government could do something,
and it is this, it has to do with the payment
of out-patient services.
Before OMSIP, OHSC used to pay $2.25
to the hospital for each out-patient service.
The government through OHSC still do that.
Along comes OMSIP and they pay an extra
MAY 7, 1969
4105
$4.50. I think they pay 90 per cent of the
$5 fee for the out-patient service.
In other words, they used to pay $2.25,
now they pay $6.75, which comes from OHSC
and OMSIP. If a patient had gone straight
to the doctor, even though the doctor has to
pay for his own office and his own secretary,
they would still pay $4.50. But that doctor
sees the patient at a hospital and it then costs
the government $6.75, under the old rates.
Now, in come tlie new rates, and this com-
pounds the legahzed robbery on the public
Treasury. I feel that either through OHSC,
but more particularly through OMSIP, that
this cost could be controlled, and it could only
be controlled by the government through
OMSIP setting up the regulations.
I have gone through this problem before.
The doctors had even formed an out-patients
association in a great number of the large
hospitals in the city of Toronto, and I believe
elsewhere. All this is public expense. I com-
plained about this and the doctors came and
said, "Well, our association often makes
donations to the building fund of the hospital
or does this or does that." But in large part,
it is simply coming out of the taxpayers' funds,
out of our tax funds with no control whatso-
ever.
The tragedy of it is that we are perpetuat-
ing this evil with this legislation, and no
matter what we say about the high standards
of medical services in this province, and this
I do not deny whatsoever, a medical econom-
ics appraisal is just stupid. It is time that the
government stood firm instead of its leaves
waving firmly in the breeze. That is what is
happening to date, and so I again plead with
the Minister to take some action.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chainnan, I only regret
that we are not negotiating with the Minister
over the indemnity of the members of this
Legislature.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
I have two questions for the Minister, Mr.
Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister,
when he said that the doctors believe that
their fee increase is justifiable, were the doc-
tors required to prove this to the Minister?
Does the Minister have material proving this
fee increase that we can examine at any time,
that would be open to us?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Chairman,
apparently I am not getting through to the
hon. member. The medical profession has
told me, "They will set out their own fee
schedule; you as an insurance carrier can
determine what part of that fee you are going
to pay, but the rest is up to us." It is their
belief that they do not have to justify a
change in the fee schedule.
The argument comes about when I say
that I am not going to pay for that or I am
not going to pay that 100 per cent, but we
will propose that we will pay X percentage.
That is all right, but it is what happens after
that worries me. It is quite true, as the mem-
ber from Scarborough West says, of course
I have to conjecture. I do not look in a crys-
tal ball, but I have to come to certain con-
clusions on the basis of various things I know,
just as my hon. friend does.
If I am asked to document my argument,
chapter and verse, of course I cannot do it,
because I point out to you that the profession
tells me, "We are not going to discuss a fee
schedule." I have asked this; I have urged
them to sit dovm with us and let us jointly
draw up a fee schedule that will be mutually
satisfactory. This, in my view, would be the
best way. Then periodically, as they or we
see the need for change, we continue to dis-
cuss it mutually. But I got nowhere. They
just simply say, "We will set our fee schedule,
and you tell us how much of it you are going
to pay."
Mr. Lewis: Well, then, if there were no
negotiations at all, let us be frank and say so.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We tried to nego-
tiate—
An hon. member: The Minister has no
power to negotiate, that is the problem.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We tried to negotiate.
I would hke to tell you gentlemen here
that you hon. members are far better skilled
in this than I am. To negotiate you must
have at least two parties. If one does not
talk, you come to an impasse. This is where
we arrived, and this is why I believe in the
pubHc interest this kind of an amendment
is essential.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre was on her feet.
Mr. Lewis: If the Minister will forgive us,
it seems to me that is an incredible abdica-
tion of the public interest-that there was no
negotiation at all. It is interesting that months
4106
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
later we should leam it is a fact that there
was no negotiation within the meaning of
that term. You say, in order to have nego-
tiations, you must have two parties, and
there was only one party. In other words,
the government views the OMSIP scheme as
a scheme that will pay doctors without any
negotiation at all. That is the principle tfie
Minister has laid down. I suspect, Mr. Chair-
man, that we are now verging on serious
repetition, and I will take my place, but I
think that an instructive fact has emerged
this afternoon: that all of this was a facade.
There was never the slightest discussion with
the medical profession at all; they just
presented their demands, and those demands
were taken back to Cabinet.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I must protest that.
In the exact meaning of the word— if we are
going to break it down in semantics— there
were no negotiations in that light; there
were lengthy and frequent discussions. Now
what the diflFerence is between negotiation
and discussion is a matter of one's inter-
pretation. Again, in my view, there were
negotiations, and my hon. friend points out—
and rightly so, according to the dictionary
definition— it was not real negotiation in the
sense that we talked, but in my view we did
negotiate.
An hon. member: What is the difference?
Mr. Lewis: The difference is easy: an
equal negotiates; a vassal discusses.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the
Minister has answered a part of the second
question, but I would like to ask him if he
does not realize that by not taking a stand to
protect the general public, or the public
purse, he has left in the minds of hundreds
of people the question of whether we should
have a doctor at the head of The Depart-
ment of Health at all, because he has not
protected the interests of the public?
Mr. Chairman: As a part of discussion on
this motion, that is not in order.
Those in favour of Mr. MacDonald's
motion will please say "aye"; those opposed
please say "nay".
In my opinion, the "nays" have it— quite
obviously have it.
Call in the members.
Those in favour of Mr. MacDonald's
motion will please rise.
Those opposed will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 37, the "nays" are 52.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.
Section 1 will stand as part of the bill.
Section 1 agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill 121 reported.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
House in committee on Bill 123, An Act
to amend The Division Courts Act.
Sections 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 123 reported.
THE REGULATIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill 125, An Act to
amend The Regulations Act.
On section 1:
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Mr. Chair-
man, in connection with this bill, on second
reading I had made some comments, and
might I enquire of you, sir, when you refer
to section 1, are you referring to subsection
1, or are you entertaining comments in con-
nection with, the entire section?
Mr. Chairman: Section 1 of the bill.
Mr. Bullbrook: Of the bill. Thank you, sir.
I had made reference to what I considered
offensive words in subsection 3 and in sub-
section 4. I would like to draw your atten-
tion to subsection 4 and the words, "desig-
nated by him". The total subsection presently
reads:
The special committee on regulations
may examine any member of the execu-
tive council, or any public servant desig-
nated by him respecting any regulation
made under an Act that is under his
administration.
It will be my intention subsequently to lodge
with you an amendment requesting that this
House delete the words "designated by him".
I see nothing in Mr. McRuer's report— per-
haps I have missed it— which requires that
the special committee on regulations should
be restricted in that way. It would seem to
me, sir, that the entire purpose of establish-
ing this legislative body was to have it rela-
tively unrestricted so that they may look at
the executive branch of government and
make sure that they are carrying out the
MAY 7, 1969
4107
intention, as it is expressed in the legislation
passed by us.
I do not know, perhaps the Attorney Gen-
eral can explain to me more adequately than
he has thus far, why this committee should
be restricted in summoning before it any
public servant which it wishes so to sum-
mon? I do not see at all why any Minister
of the Crown must first of all pass his ap-
proval upon such summons.
The main burden of my argument and
discussion of section 1 has to do with the
subsection 3.
The special committee on regulations
shall examine the regulations with particu-
lar reference to the scope and method of
the exercise of delegated legislative power—
And now come, Mr. Chairman, the words
which I am not attracted to:
—but without reference to the merits of the
policy or objectives to be e£Fected by the
regulations or enabling statutes—
These are the words which I do not like. I
will continue to read:
—and shall deal with such other matters
as are referred to it from time to time by
the assembly.
It is therefore my intention, sir, to move,
seconded by the member for Downsview, that
subsection 3 of section 12, be amended by
deleting the words, "but without reference
to the merits of the policy or objectives to
be efiFected by the regulations or enabling
statutes". Secondly, to move that subsection
4, of section 12, be amended by deleting the
words "designated by him". If you could
clarify for me, sir, before I lodge this motion
formally with you, that by lodging the mo-
tion, I take it, I do not disentitle myself to
continue to speak in support of the motion
that I lodged?
Mr. Chairman: Well, if the motion is lost
this section will carry.
Mr. Bullbrook: No, but I can continue to
discuss what I consider the merits of my
motion, is that correct?
Mr. Chairman: Prior to the putting of the
question.
Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, thank you. I want to
be frank in saying this to you, Mr. Chair-
man, and to the Attorney General through
you, that I see some purpose and some merit
in the words that are placed in the statute.
It has not been my modus operandi in dis-
cussing matters in the House, or to read at
length from Mr. McRuer, but I feel obliged
to do so, so that the members of the House
will fully understand and digest his position
in connection with this. I try, essentially, to
put it this way.
Basically, what causes me concern, if I
might be permitted, and causes concern to
the hon. member for Lakeshore who has been
kind enough to discuss this matter with me
at length, is the question as to whether we
should restrict this committee in assessing the
policy aspects of regulations. It goes with-
out saying that when legislation is enacted
by us, we do not invite necessarily a com-
plete regurgitation of the policy background
in connection with such legislation. This is
what Mr. McRuer wishes to avoid. I, to a
certain extent, wish to avoid that. But I really
find that I cannot accept Mr. McRuer's atti-
tude in connection with a complete abandon-
ment, through legislative enactment herein,
of the right of that committee to look at
matters of policy.
It just is not enough that the committee
be established to consider the administra-
tive function in connection with regulations.
I think that they have to show, as a matter
of fact, or they must have the power to
enquire into, whether the regulations really
flow from the policy in the Act.
To digest that properly, they must look at
the policy as exemplified in the regulation.
Now my friend from Lakeshore has been Idnd
enough to put to me some thoughts of bis
that he intends to bring to tlie floor of the
House in connection with amendment. As I
read them over— and I do not mean to pre-
judge them— but as I read them over I would
draw the attention to the House at this
time, for example, to certain words that I
think he hopes to use to support in his mind
and in the minds of the other members of
this House my position.
On page 372 of the McRuer report, the
autiior discusses the standing committee on
regulations and ordinances established by the
Senate in Australia and I read:
The basis adopted for its examination
was, amongst other othings, to scrutinize
regulations to ascertain (1) that they are in
accord with the statute.
Now, I think those words "that they are in
accord with the statute" are attractive to
other jurisdictions— perhaps also attractive to
the hon. member for Lakeshore. But I suggest
to you that those very words convey what I
want to convey in connection with this
statute. That is, that when you say that they
are in accord with the statute, when you are
suggesting that any evaluation of the efficacy
4108
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of a regulation must be in accordiance with
the statute, then I do not see how you can
do so, if you do not evaluate the policy that
comes from the regulation, and not purely
the evaluation of the administrative aspects
of the regulation.
So, when you look at these words: "with-
out reference to the merits of the policy or
objectives to be efiFected by the regulations";
I say in effect thait what you are doing by
putting those words in the statute is directly
negating any ability on the part of the com-
mittee to scrutinize any policy aspect in the
regulations.
My point is this. If you consider these
words in the subsection, "The special com-
mittee on regulations shall examine the
regulations with particular reference to the
scope and method of tlie exercise of dele-
gated legislative power"; and let that be the
end of it, you are saying in eflEect that you
are establishing the committee. And what
are their duties? You give them broad duties.
At the end you say, "and shall deal with
such other matters as are referred to it from
time to time by the assembly". So in estab-
lishing the committee you give them broad
responsibilities. Then you say in the statute:
Aside from the broad responsibilities that we
give you, we particularly direct you to this,
we particularly direct you to the scope and
method of the exercise.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I intend
to reply of course, to the hon. member, but
I am wondering, while he is speaking, if he
will be good enough to explain to me how
you could permit a policy in regulations that
would be different from the poHcy of the
Act, of which the regulations are a part or an
appendix? Either you pursue the policy of the
Act with your regulations or the regulations
iu-e not carrying out the purpose and intent
of the Act.
If you go on to say that you may pursue a
question of policy in the regulations, apart
from the Act, then I think you are allowing
a committee of the House to make policies.
I do not know how you can give policy to a
committee to deal with separate policy and
regulations. The policy must foUow the Act,
and that is the policy of the government— not
to be delegated to a committee.
Mr. Bullbrook: I appreciate the comments
of the Attorney General, Mr. Ghairman. Let
me say this to you. We understand each other
fully, this is exactly what I want that com-
mittee to do. I, as one member of this House;
I as a member of the legislative body want
to make sure that the executive body not
just the Ministers of the Grown decide.
Because if you recall, on second reading I
read the definition of regulations under The
Regulations Act and it does not just refer
to Ministers of the Grown. So you are quite
right in assuming from my remarks, that I
am very much concerned that the policy as
established in the regulations properly flows
from the policy as established in the statute.
You are quite right in that respect becaiLse
I want this committee to be able to come
back to this House and say, as they are
entitled to imder subsection 5, "That we find
as a matter of fact that in particular in-
stances, that the regulation does not, as a
matter of policy, flow from this statute."
I want them to be able to do that. I am
very much concerned that you are restricting
them, that they cannot do that.
Now, I want, if you will permit me, Mr.
Ghairman, to read from Mr. McRuer in con-
nection with this whole question of delegate<l
legislative responsibility. I will try to make it
somewhat brief, but I read from page 376:
A committee of the legislative assembly
should be established imder an appropriate
name to scrutinize subordinate legislation.
It should consist of a small number of
members. A small committee tends to
eliminate political partisanship from its
deliberations.
In the United Kingdom, the committee
consists of 11 members with a quorum of
three. We suggest a committee of seven
with a quorum of three.
We reject the suggestion that a single
person, either the Attorney General or any
specified oflBcial, be charged with the
review of regulations. The supervision of
subordinate legislation is a function of the
Legislatiue.
Mr. McRuer goes further and says:
The proposed committee with power to
sit during recess and report periodically,
should serve three purposes:
(a) More care will be given to the
form and contents of the regulations.
I invite the consideration of the Attorney
General to the word "contents". I attempt
here, Mr. Ghairman, to use Mr. McRuer's
words, resist his own attitude. He says:
More care will be given to the form
and contents of the regulations.
So, we have the great man saying that tliis
conuuittee should be clothed with that re-
sponsibility to look at the contents of the
regulations. It seems to me entirely illogical
MAY 7, 1969
4109
that if you are going to look at the contents
of regulations you do not consider the policy.
You must consider the policy as annunciated
in those contents.
(b) The requirement that the committee
consult with the department before making
an adverse report should lead to the im-
mediate rectification of any ill-considered
provisions.
(c) When the committee reports, de-
bate on the report should have a salutary
effect on the process of legislation by regu-
lation.
Again, this reinforces my position. This is
exactly what it is, "legislation by regulation".
This is the entire purpose of establishing this
committee. In the broad concept of the
peoples' individual rights and really, the
rights of this body— tliis legislative assembly
must make sure that the policy is annunciated
by us in effect, albeit it is government policy
and albeit there are divisions in the House, is
stiU a policy annunciated by this assembly.
Perhaps I make a rudimentary remark when
I say a statute is not passed by the govern-
ment per se, it is passed by this body, and so
the policy flows from this body in eflFect.
Now, Mr. McRuer, in connection with his
position goes on to say, and this is important:
The terms of reference for tlie commit-
tee should exclude from review any con-
sideration of the policy of tlie parent Act
or of the merits of tlie regulation.
If I might again be permitted to interject,
Mr. Chairman, I see his purpose there. We
do not want, as I say, a complete rediges-
tion of the debate in connection with the
policy. If you are going to have a strong
chairman, even a weak chairman for that
matter, he does not need the restriction and
fettering of those words which I invite this
House to remove from section 3.
Mr. McRuer continues:
The policy of the Act, having been
settled by the Legislature after full debate
and discussion ought not to be reopened
for the discussion in tlie committee.
I take issue with that. I see no reason why
it cannot. Surely if our committee finds that
the regulations are not concurrent with the
policy established in this House, they cer-
tainly have an obligation to report back to
this House and advise us so. I turn the page
to page 378, and I read:
The following principles should be laid
down to guide tlie committee in its exami-
nation of the regulations.
(a) They should not contain provisions
initiating new policy.
Again, to the Attorney General through you
Mr. Chairman, I invite his consideration of
those words. "They should not contain provi-
sions initiating new policy." Now, how in
heaven's name is the committee going to
assess whether new jDolicy has been estab-
lished in the regulation if you put in this
enabhng legislation the words which prohibit
looking at the policies?
Perhaps I belabour the point, but I think
I could go on, frankly, in reading additional
quotes from Mr. McRuer. Let me read one
more before I sit down. On page 379, No. 10:
The rules of the legislative assembly
should be amended to provide some spe-
cific procedure under which a private
member can initiate a debate on the merits
of any particular regulation.
I invite your consideration of this, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Do not for-
get section 8.
Mr. Bullbrook: I will read the whole thing
if you want. Does the member for Halton
want me to read the whole thing?
I am not trying to be unfair; I think you
will agree. I have read some of those parts
of the report that support Mr. McRuer's posi-
tion, but I am pointing out that there are
other assertions he makes that I say, most
respectfully, can be vigorously put forward
as contrary to his position.
What he says under No. 10 here is, in
effect tliat a private member should be
able to initiate a debate on the merits of
any particular regulation. Now, if then he
is saying any private member can initiate
a debate on the merits of a regulation, then
surely to goodness that committee that we
established should have the right to look at
tlie merits, and should have the right to look
at the policy, therefore. If you are going to
look at merits, they are not just administrative
merits, but they are substantive merits that we
are concerned vvdth.
Basically my position is tliis. I have
wrestled vidth this at some length, and I
know the Attorney General is vitally con-
cerned. I am not sure whether— and I say
this most respectfully to him, Mr. Chairman
—I am not sure whether he has the same
concern for this particular legislation as I
have. I think it is— perhaps monumental is a
pretty extravagant term to use, but it is a
significant piece of legislation.
4110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think it might well have gone to the
committee on legal bills. I think there we
could have got, I suppose, into the legahstic
gynmastics of what really Mr. McRuer is
saying, but my position is this. I am con-
cerned, as I say. I believe tliat my friend from
Lakeshore intends to come forward with
an amendment which I have had tlie oppor-
tunity of looking at. I will perhaps speak to
it afterwards but it attempts to codify the
terms of reference that Mr. McRuer would
like to see. I compliment the hon. member
for Lakeshore in this connection, but I am
vitally worried that, in a word, we restrict
unduly. I see nothing that is unattractive in
saying, "All right committee, go out and look
at the administration, and look at the sub-
stance of the regulation." But, really, what we
would like you to do is with particular refer-
ence to the scope and method of the exercise
of administrative responsibility. I therefore
invite consideration by the hon. Attorney
General and the members of this House to
tliis amendment.
Much more can be said, and the hon. mem-
ber for Halton is quite correct, much more
can be read from McRuer, but I find at
times, reading from Mr. McRuer, interesting
as it is, really is to a great extent, time
wasting. I have tried to pick out, with some
degree of fairness, substance for his position.
I have tried to say, in effect, that we in this
party see the intent and the background of
his position. But I think we do a disservice
to ourselves. We, who really have the ultimate
legislative resix>nsibility, do ourselves a great
disservice in taking the step forward that we
must restrict this committee in the analysis
of policy in the regulations.
Just before I sit down, I want to suggest
that in subsection 4, as far as I am concerned
there should be no dialogue. I just cannot
for the life of me see why the committee does
not have power of summons not subject to
the right of the individual Minister to inter-
vene.
Mr. Singer: We have got it in—
Mr. Bullbrook: Well, I have included both
amendments in—
Mr. Singer: They should be separate.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I bow to you
and your knowledge of the proper procedures
of this Chamber. I wanted to say this to the
Attorney General, through you, Mr. Chairman.
I spent 20 minutes saying to you I see some
merit in Mr. McRuer's position with regard
to subsection 3. I see absolutely no merit
about subsection 4. Why do we establish a
non-partisan committee to look into what is
essentially the rights of the individual citizen
in this province, and say to them: "You can
summon people as long as the Minister
agrees." There is no substance to that at all.
I do not know why it is there.
I say, Mr. Chairman, as one member of this
Legislature, if I sat on that committee and
wanted to summon the Deputy Attorney Gen-
eral, then I would feel I have every right to
do so. I do not think the Attorney General,
notwithstanding the prestige of his position,
which I respect, has any right to say that the
committee cannot summon the Deputy Attor-
ney General, or the inspector of legal oflBces,
or anybody who administers any statute, and
I suppose what one could call a sub-statute,
as defined under The Regulations Act.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, before the hon. member for Lakeshore
gets started. My colleague from Samoa was
in a little doubt, and I suppose I am too,
about the moving of his dual amendment. It
would be my thought, and we have done this
before, that since the Act really only has
one operative section, which is section 1, but
since there are, in fact, five subsections, that
we could deal with each of them separately,
because there may be difference of opinion
and tliere may be a different kind of debate.
It is my understanding the hon. member for
Lakeshore wants to move an amendment
dealing with subsection 3. I think it would
make more sense and we could get at it in
a more orderly fashion if we dealt with the
subsections one at a time.
Mr. Chairman: I may say that I have be-
fore me an amendment to subsections 3 and
4. Now, I recall that there have been occa-
sions when we have dealt with various
sections of a specific clause, or items within
the clause. This was not placed before the
committee in this manner, and I would put it
to the committee-
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to
interrupt, but if it is appropriate, within the
rules of tliis House, I would prefer to have
them dealt with separately.
Mr. Chairman: I would ask for the con-
currence of the committee in dealing with
section 1 on this basis. That is that section 1
of Bill 125 would be dealt with by taking
the five paragraphs in the section in sequence.
Do I have that concurrence?
MAY 7, 1969
4111
Would the hon. member like to proceed
with this particular motion, then we will per-
mit a return to subsections 1, 2, and 5?
Mr. Singer: Four and five?
Mr. Chairman: No, the motion covers sub-
section 4.
Mr. Singer: He wanted to separate them.
Mr. Chairman: He wants to make two
motions?
Mr. Bullbrook: I wanted to separate them
if I might, sir.
Mr. Chairman: Then we will delete the
reference to subsection 4. We are dealing now
with an amendment to paragraph 3. The hon.
member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: My remarks, Mr. Chairman,
are going to be directed almost solely to 3.
As far as 4 is concerned, I and this party
are wholly in favour of what the member
for Samia has said touching that subsection.
As far as this Act is concerned, I want to
join also in agreeing that, while it appears to
be somewhat superficial and procedural and
secondary perhaps, being a regulation under
The Regulations Act, the impact of this—
Mr. Chairman: Tlhe hon, member— if I may
be excused for interrupting him— is speaking
to the motion on paragraph 3?
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I am kind of winding into
it in my serpentining way.
Mr. Chairman: That is what I perceived.
Mr. Lawlor: As I say, I was commenting
upon the importance of the legislation. The
impact of this legislation, as this committee
gets into it, is quite likely to be as profound
in its effect as what the analysis of many
statutes are. You know people tend to, in the
municipal area, think of bylaws as something
tertiary. Really they have as much binding
force and as much coercive power as the
regular law itself has. The same thing holds
with these regulations, which are all lights
hidden under bushels, or the contrary. As we
ferret them out and sift them through I am
sure you are going to find many breaches of
civil liberty which are going to have to be
changed; at least initially, it is going to take
a good deal of time.
Directing my remarks specifically, while
there is agreement on paragraph 4 between
myself and the member for Samia, we diverge
on 3. It is a question of weighing human
values. He says the less talk the better, al-
though he talks as long as I do usually. I do
not say necessarily the more talk, the better,
but perhaps we would have to reach a com-
promise and we would find the Attorney
General somewhere in between. We have
words enough. No doubt he feels this way
and has indicated the same, but I do not. I
feel that it is too tight and too succinct, espe-
cially when you have other jurisdictions which
have done so,
I am in a procedural quandary, Mr. Chair-
man, because I feel that there are no pro-
cedures or rules governing this House, with
you having an amendment before you, that I
can move any further amendment, I know of
no rule where I can amend the amendment
in order to bring about what I want to; but
if I had that authority then this is what I
would do. I would say that section 1 of Bill
125 be amended by adding—
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the hon.
member that we are not now dealing with
anything other than paragraph 3 of section 1.
The member understands that?
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, if Mr. Chairman will
bear with me.
Mr. Chairman: All right.
Mr. Lawlor: It be amended by adding
after subsection 3 of section 12, the following
subsection 3(a): "without restricting the fore-
going". I think that phrase is terribly impor-
tant in this context:
The special committee on regulations
shall scrutinize regulations to ascertain
that:
(1) They are in accord with the statute.
That is where the whole problem of policy
arises. I mean I disagree with the member
for Samia at least in the emphasis of his
argument. He is off on second base in this
particular one. We must not and cannot re-
thresh or rehash the policy of the legislation.
There is such a thing as a second kind of
policy-the regulation itself may have an aura
of policy. It is inevitable, you know, in the
course of discussions that policy will be dis-
cussed, of course, but I would do it rather
covertly-pretend you are not discussing it
and actually discuss it then try to embody it
in actual words, whereby we are given the
authority to discuss it, which mns directly
against the grain.
Mr. Bullbrook: Would it not be illegal to
do so?
4112
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lawlor: I do not think so; I think we
are going to do it and do it naturally,
Mr. Bullbrook: With regard to the statutes?
"^r. Lawlor: Who is to supervise the delib-
erations of this committee? Who is to scrut-
inize tlie scrutineers, so to speak? Custodies
custodiet. I am not anticipating any watch-
dogs on this particularly, so we are quite
certain to discuss policy; one cannot help it.
I think it is intrinsic to the conversation that
we first of all know what the policy is. If
we disagree with the policy, we can use the
regulation, if we are so minded, and the
chairman is not adroit enough, to do a little
attacking on the legislation. In any of our
legislation, or in any of our committees we do
that, and some of us have a greater skill in
this regard than others. As you develop in
this House you come to have a consummate
prowess in this particular regard— pretending
you are talking about something and not
talking about it at all.
I do take exception to and diverge from
the position of the amendment before you so
far, as it seeks to open the possibility of a
deliberate way of re-discussing actual policy.
The second matter which the special com-
mittee will scrutinize is regulations to ascer-
tain that they do not contain substantive
legislation but are confined to administrative
matters.
Number 3, that they do not trespass un-
duly, or without justification, on personal
rights and liberties.
Number 4, that they do not exclude the
jurisdiction of the courts except where the
governing statute explicitly does so.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney
General will notice that I have worked in
some wording that you will not find in Mc-
Ruer in some of these sections in order to
obviate certain difficulties. In other words,
one comes back and says "you cannot do that
because that is not the wording in McRuer."
But the fact is that he is not letter perfect
either, and working on his goodly base you
can develop an argument and develop posi-
tions.
This is particularly the case in section 4,
"except where the governing statute explicitly
does so." There are statutes, of course, which
do exclude the courts and therefore the regu-
lations would do so similarly.
Number 5, that they do not impose a fine,
imprisonment, or other penalty, or shift the
onus of proof of innocence on to a person
accused in an offence, or impose a tax as
distinct from fixing the amount of a licence
fee or the like.
Number 6, that they are expressed in pre-
cise and unambiguous language.
I think that covers the waterfront pretty
well. Garnering up from the various jurisdic-
tions the various headings that they have
used, sometimes written right into it, some-
times adopted by way of external guidelines,
apart from the legislation as such. This gives
the direction that we want this committee to
move in; it gives the guidelines. I see no
harm in spelling them out; the Attorney Gen-
eral may see no good in doing so. He may
say we are going to adopt McRuer surrepti-
tiously anyhow; that the committee all know
this and will draw up for private circulation
among the members a little leaflet that we
will hand out to each other in which we say,
"These are our guidelines; this gives us our
general picture, these are the self-imposed
boundaries upon which we intend to operate,
in line with McRuer."
My first reservation on that is whether it
is quite legitimate that a regulations com-
mittee would be so irregular as all that? I
think the committee is perfectly free to con-
stitute its own guidelines. I think those guide-
lines have to be made; the Legislature has to
be made aware of what those guidelines
really are. We certainly are not self-con-
stituting in the sense that we set whatever
guidelines we please, far from it.
Therefore, since these guidelines are re-
strictive, since they have a certain universal
significance— in other words many jurisdic-
tions have adopted the same guidelines— I
see no reason why they should not say so
right from the word go and set them out in
the statute. The wording here, my friend
from Samia feels, is restrictive. He is afraid
of pulling back die ambit and scope of the
committee. I suggest that with the initial
wording and the very way in which they are
set up this does not occur; that it does give
concreteness and balance and purpose and
spells meaning into an otherwise fairly vague
designation of our powers which is causing
some debate in this House— the use of the
words "the scope" and "method" of exer-
cising delegate legislation.
As I say, mine is not a formal amendment
before this House, nor can it be, but I would
sincerely ask the Attorney General to take
these remarks into consideration and to see
whether they do not add some initiative and
scope to his legislation and put some flesh
on the bare bones of those clauses, to simply
MAY 7, 1969
4113
leave it as it stands is delusory, so far as the
discussions of policy that are likely to take
place in any case.
I would just wind up by saying my hon.
friend from Samia seems to me to lack what
Cardinal Newman called the illative sense-
that you just do not make conscious logical
deductions. You know; you must also have
the feeling of the thing in your bowels, so
to speak, and as you come into areas of dis-
cussion, you know illatively when you are on
policy and when you are not, deliberately or
otherwise. It is a question of developing this
sense that will guide our deliberations. If
this sense is not too highly developed, we
will trespass upon the rules: therefore to
have the rules set forth, at least, in some
measure in the legislation itself wiU be a
positive good and benefit to the members
sitting on that committee as to what their
guidehnes are.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Halton West.
Mr. Kerr: Regarding the amendment pro-
posed for subsection 3, I think, as the hon.
members who have spoken have indicated,
the McRuer report deals quite extensively in
chapter 26 with what has flowed to iins bill.
Mr. McRuer has indicated that the private
member's opportunity, certainly, until now to
review regulations or really have any in-
fluence over regulations is very limited if not
almost to the point of being nil. However, I
think that if one reads through chapter 26,
you cannot help but conclude that there is a
very solid argument for the present wording
of subsection 3. As the McRuer report says:
The primary function of the Legislature
is to make the laws, and is responsible for
all laws it makes or authorizes to be made.
And he reviews in chapter 26 the various
jurisdictions that have similar legislation. He
refers to the United Kingdom where they
also set up a committee— and its terms of
reference indicate that the committee would
not report on the merits of the regulations—
and then lists the various functions of that
committee. Australia indicates that its com-
mittee is only to scrutinize regulations to
ascertain certain things. Again there is no
consideration of the merits of policy or of
objectives, as is referred to in this bill and
is excluded from the power of the committee.
South Africa implies the same thing as
Australia. India indicates that the committee
would scrutinize and report to the House
whether the powers to make regulations,
rules, sub-rules, bylaws, etc., are being prop-
erly exercised within such delegation. Mani-
toba is similar in many respects to what we
are proposing here in Bill 125.
I think that in McRuer's recommendations
this is the main argument for not supporting
the hon. member's amendment. The report
says that a small committee tends to elimi-
nate political partisanship from its delibera-
tions. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, if the
committee considers the merits of the policy
or objectives to be affected by the regula-
tions, that there will indeed be political
partisanship and you might get three dif-
ferent philosophies— at least three different
philosophies— which, in my opinion, will seri-
ously dilute the effectiveness of the committee.
Now, on page 377, chapter 26 of the Mc-
Ruer report, it really deals quite definitively
with the reasons why we should not support
this amendment:
The policy of the Act, having been
settled by the Legislature after full debate
and discussion, ought not to be reopened
for discussion in the committee. The merits
of the regulations, i.e., an evaluation of
the need for them and their e£Bcacy within
the framework of the policy approved and
provided for by the Act, are matters for
which the government is responsible to
the Legislature.
Then he goes on to say why this should not
in any way be changed. Page 378, recom-
mendation 4(a):
They should not contain provisions initi-
ating new policy, but should be confined to
details to give effect to the policy estab-
lished by the statute.
Sub-paragraph 8:
The committee should not have power
to make changes in regulations. It should
not be a drafting body, but a reporting
body. If changes are to be made they
should be made by the appropriate author-
ity under the power conferred by the
relevant statute.
I think, Mr. Chairman, one thing that we
should remember is that this committee,
which is being set up to scrutinize regula-
tions, is not the same as a standing com-
mittee of the Legislature, which scrutinizes
legislation or bills. The standing committees,
of course, have partisan debate; we propose
amendments and sometimes the legislation
4114
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that is considered comes back to this Legis-
lature amended. However, a committee con-
sidering regulations may be more like a select
committee, and the actual opinion or obser-
vation as to policy or objective should not
be part of its terms of reference or functions.
In my opinion, if it were, it would seriously
impede the effectiveness of this proposed
committee.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I do not know
whether the Attorney General is going to
outwait me or I am going to outwait him,
but since we are in committee, if he draws
me back in, I will get in after he finishes
speaking once more.
I support the amendment, and it is in
line. It goes a litde farther than the argu-
ment I presented when this bill had second
reading, but it is along the same line. My
colleague, the member for Samia, has con-
vinced me that my argument at the time
of second reading perhaps did not go far
enough.
What concerns me very much is if we keep
in the Act the words "restricting the ability
of the committee to examine the policy and
the objective of the regulation", that the
natural English reading of that phrase would
exclude the conmaittee from an ability to
determine whether or not the regulation
comes within the four walls of the enabling
statute. We have had this kind of discussion
on other matters before.
The hon. Attorney General will remember
our agreement about The Law Enforcement
Compensation Act, and we were concerned
at that time that the wording as it appeared
to be— if you applied the logical English
meaning to it— would seem to be very restric-
tive, and we expressed our concern about that
at some length. The Attorney General did
not share our concern at that time. He said
certainly it is the intent of the government
that where someone is injured— perhaps not
quite before the policeman arrives but where
the policeman is on his way— that probably
compensation can be arranged at that time.
Now, the Attorney General and I differed at
that time on whether or not the Act could be
interpreted in that way. Subsequently, the
board said, "Well, we are not too interested
really in what the Attorney General said in
the debate. All we can do is pick up the
statute, and look at what it says. That is
what the Legislatirre did; we are restricted
by that, and unfortunately we are unable to
give compensation to— I have forgotten the
man's name— a taxi driver."
It is my same concern, Mr. Chairman, if
this statute is passed in the form in which it
is presently presented, I have a real fear that
tlie committee will be iwthing more than a
rubber stamp committee. A government
majority very easily can say, "You cannot
examine the purpose or the objective of the
regulation. Well, that is what the statute
says. You cannot look into the purpose or the
objective of the regulation." Okay, now that
is what the statute says, and if a majority
of tlie committee says that you have to look
at the regulation but you oannot look to the
policy or objective of it, what then is the
committee going to do. The committee is
going to look and see if it is drafted in proper
English, if it does not break any rules of
statutory draftsmanship.
Surely, if the committee wants to take that
kind of an attitude, it really is not worth
the while of seven members of this House—
if that is going to be the size of the com-
mittee, and that was the figure I think
McRuer suggested— to sit down and check on
the work of a parliamentary draftsman. If
the parliamentary draftsman's work is so bad
that you need a seven-man committee just to
see that he is a good draftsman, then the
obvious thing to do is to get a better drafts-
man. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman,
that with the present wording there is a real
danger that this committee is not going to be
able to do anything more than say, "Yes, it
is drafted properly. We put our seal on it."
Or, "No, it is improperly done."
Tliis is our worry. I cannot imagine if you
take those words out, what the committee
is going to say for in.stance, in relation
to a power to fix hcence fees by regulation.
The Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council says the
licence fees should be $10. I just oannot
imagine that it would make any sense for the
committee to come back and say, "No it
should not, it should be $5 or $50."
I do not think that is the purpose and
thrust of the argument that we are making
or the amendment that my colleague from
Samia has put forward. V/hat he says now
and what I attempted to say on second read-
ing was, if you are going to tie us in with
the kind of restriction and witli the language
that you now have in this section 3, then the
committee can be rendered nothing more
than a rubber stamp committee. In which
case you might just as well not go throu^
the exercise at all.
MAY 7, 1969
4115
The Attorney General agreed with my col-
league from Samia— that this, if it works, it is
going to be a significant piece of legislation
and I agree with that. If it is going to be
really meaningful then surely the committee
has to have the abihty to say, if the regula-
tion does not piuport to fit within the walls
of the statute, that the committee has the
right, duty and responsibility to come back
to the House and say that this regulation just
does not seem to bek)ng within this Act.
You see what concerns me so much, Mr.
Chairman, and what concerns McRuer, and
not just in this section, is that nK)re and more
of the powers that belonged to Legislature
are being taken up by the Lieuten ant-Go v-
emor-in-Council luider the very broadest
possible wording that now finds its way into
the regulatory provisions of statute that we
see.
I have argued for a number of years about
"the powers giveai to make regulations and
any other matters that are pertinent and ap-
plicable". The legislative counsel and I dis-
agreed on what that mdlght mean, and Mr,
Stone at one stage thoughtfully prepared a
three-page memo for me on what his inter-
pretation of it was, and he cited some cases.
However, I just wander if you get a Lieu-
tenant-Govemor-in-Council who wanted to
extend his powers and if he wanted to seize
on a generally worded power to regulate
of that kind, and if we are excluded from dis-
cussing policy or objectives, whether the com-
mittee is going to be able to do anything in
a meaningful way.
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think
that we have got to support the amendment
put forward by my colleague from Samia.
Hopefully the Attorney General will accept
this, because I know it is not his intention, in
bringing this legislation forward, that we
accept in principle this recommendation as
approved, and then set irp a oammittee that
is not going to be able to do the job that we
all would like it to be able to do.
If we are going to try and reverse govern-
ment pohcy— as I say, the licence fee being
$10 rather than $5-^thajt is hardly likely to
happen, nor is a minority of the committee
going to be able to get away with that, but
the other thing is right within the fom- walls
of the statute, and this is why we object. Let
me just say a word about—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Chairman, might
I just say that in view of the time it would
be appropriate to move that the committee
rise and report.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee of the whole House rise and report
progress and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendmenit, and certain bills
with certain amendments, and asks for leave
to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, to-
morrow we will consider certain third read-
ings, some second readings; and I imderstand
that His Honour will be available to give
Royal assent to certain bills. Thereafter we
will continue with estimates.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Before that
motion is put, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minis-
ter said third readings and second readings,
but did not mention committee of the whole
House. Was that dehberate or did he mean—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We will include the
possibility of committee of the whole House
tomorrow as well. We will be prepared to go
to the order paper tomorrow,
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Gives
us a wider chodoe.
Mr. Singer: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I raised this
before. There are certain matters that concern
some of us. I have a deskful of reference
material here that I have been holding for
three weeks in relation to one bill and two
weeks in relation to another one, and you
just never know when they are going to be
called.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: This appHes to the
rest of us. Some of us have been waiting to
get on with the—
Mr. Singer: I just wish there was some way
that some of us could know, Mr. Speaker,
what the hkely older of business is going to
be. Unfortunately, from the remarks of the
hon. Minister there is very Httle real clue
given.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I tfeink there is a very
real clue, Mr, Speaker. I have said— and I wiU
4116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
repeat what I have said— there will be third
readings and second readings and estimates.
That is what I said originally.
Mr. MacDonald: I take it that is Social and
Family Services?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Social and Family
Services.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Wliat about
Bills 73 and 74?
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the
members, of course, that the order in setting
government matters is up to the govermnent
and the government House leader, and I
think that he has given everyone suflBdent
indication today of tomorrow's work.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.05 o'dock, p.m.
No. 110
ONTARIO
Hegifilature of Ontario
Betiatcfi
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, May 8, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 8, 1969
Tabling report, GO-transit service, Mr. Gomme 4119
Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Welch, first reading 4119
Corporations Information Act, bill to amend, Mr. Welch, first reading 4120
Corporations Securities Registration Act, bill to amend, Mr. Welch, first reading 4120
Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, bill to amend, Mr. Welch, first reading 4120
Workmen's Compensation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 4120
Highway TrafiBc Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 4120
GO-transit and financial aid to municipalities, statement by Mr. Robarts 4121
Death of Angelo Nobrega, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Shulman . 4129
Ontario Union of Indians and Indian advisory committee, questions to Mr. Robarts,
Mr. MacDonald 4129
Joso Wieder of Blue Mountain Winter Park, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. MacDonald 4129
Explanation of tax increases, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Ben 4129
Hair sprays containing lacquers, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 4130
Eating chickens and viriHty of men, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 4130
Birth control pill containers, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 4130
Death of Beryl Higgins, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 4130
Section 20 of Bill 130, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 4131
Charges against Burwash prisoners, questions to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Shulman 4131
Strike in the Lakehead, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Bemier 4132
Expanded farm programme, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Gaunt 4132
Students studying treatment of mentally retarded, questions to Mr. Dymond,
Mr. Trotter 4133
Development proposals for housing projects, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Trotter . 4133
Building restrictions affecting land values, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Burr 4133
Course, residential councillor — mental retardation, questions to Mr. Dymond,
Mrs. M. Renwick 4134
Psychiatrists at Ontario Hospitals, questions to Mr. Dymond', Mrs. M. Renwick 4134
OMB and restricting building permits, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Sargent 4134
Dispute between Metro and local municipahties, question to Mr. McKeough,
Mr. Sargent 4135
Fishing licence regulations, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Sargent 4135
Indian friendship centres, question to Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Stokes 4135
Reduced transportation fares to senior citizens, question to Mr. Haskett,
Mr. B. Newman 4136
Royal assent to certain bills, the honourable the Lieutenant-Governor 4136
Establishment, upon an opinion poll by secret ballot of the farmers in Ontario, of a
General Farm Organization, bill to provide for, Mr. Stewart, second reading 4136
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 4155
Recess, 6 o'clock 4156
4119
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Our visitors today in the east
gallery are students from the Ivan Chandler
Public School in Windsor, York Humber High
School in Toronto; and in the west gallery
from Preston High School in Preston. Later
this afternoon we will be joined by stu-
dents from Park Street Collegiate Institute
in Orillia.
As has been my custom when one group
of legislative pages is about to leave us, I
wish to draw to the attention of the mem-
bers of the House the names and home rid-
ings of those pages who now serve us.
Many of these boys will be leaving us
tomorrow. On Monday, we will welcome a
new group of pages constituting some boys
from the first group who were in last fall and
winter and some boys from the group now
leaving, together with a considerable num-
ber of new boys.
Those who are now completing their tour
of duty are as follows: Ronald Bujould, To-
ronto, from the riding of St. Davids; Ollie
Bush, Scarborough, from the riding of Scar-
borough Centre; Brian Cook, Toronto, from
the riding of Eglinton; Richard Dadd, Glen-
coe, from the riding of Middlesex South;
Richard Deacon, Unionville, from the riding
of York Centre; David Donnan, Toronto,
from the riding of Humber; David DuflFus,
Wallaceburg, from the riding of Chatham-
Kent; Brian Elliot, Puslinch, from the riding
of Wellington South; David Ginther, Scar-
borough, from the riding of Scarborough
Centre; Brian Green, Toronto, from the riding
of Eglinton; Paul Harbridge, Gravenhurst,
from the riding of Muskoka; David Hooke,
Peterborough, from the riding of Peterbor-
ough; Bruce MacTavish, Willowdale, from
the riding of York Mills; Neil MacDonald,
Willowdale, from the riding of York Mills;
David Newton, Islington, from the riding of
York West; Stephen Pape, Belleville, from
the riding of Quinte; Marc Pariser, Port Col-
borne, from the riding of Welland South;
Thomas Sawyer, Weston, from the riding of
Etobicoke; Douglas Thomson, North Bay,
from the riding of Nipissing; Rodney Walker,
Thursday, May 8, 1939
Kempville, from the riding of Grenville-
Dundas; Seth Walker, Peterborough, from
the riding of Peterborough; Harold Weigeldt,
North Bay, from the riding of Nipissing.
I am sure that the members will join me
in expressing their appreciation to these boys.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a report
on the evaluation of the GO Transit rail com-
muter service. This report also contains con-
siderations of the alternatives for future
expansion.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) will
be delivering a statement on transportation
matters within a few minutes, I shall not
deal with the report's contents. Members who
wish a copy of the report may obtain it by
contacting my oflBce.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
to amend The Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this bill
amends The Corporations Act in three main
aspects. First, it is complementary to pro-
visions in The Securities Act, 1966. Secondly,
it is complementary to amendments to The
Insurance Act contained in Bill 92: An Act
to amend The Insurance Act and thirdly; it
changes the references to the Provincial Sec-
retary in the Act to the Minister designated
by the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council, to
administer the Act.
Section 75(d) of The Corporations Act is
brought into line with section 103 of TJie
Securities Act, 1966. A new section which is
complementary to section 141(a) of The Secu-
rities Act, 1966, provides a procedure for
applying to a judge for an order compeUing
4120
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
compliance of the requirement for furnishing
insider reports and for furnishing proxy forms
and information circulars respecting proxies.
The amendments complementing Bill 92,
An Act to amend The Insurance Act, extend
the powers of Fire Mutual Insurance Cor-
porations to undertake liability insurance in
respect of persons and property insured against
fire and provisions are made for re-insurance.
An amendment to section 224 of The Cor-
porations Act will clarify the intent that the
payment for the qualifying shares for a direc-
tor of a joint stock insurance company is paid
into the capital account of the corporation.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, would the Minister permit a question
before he introduces the second bill? Does
section 1 imply that the government is aban-
doning its role in corporations?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the question-
Mr. Speaker: I would point out that we
agreed on Mr. Speaker's ruling some time
ago that there would be no questions or de-
bate of statements on the introduction of bills.
The hon. Provincial Secretary has the floor.
THE CORPORATIONS INFORMATION
ACT
Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of biU
intituled, An Act to amend The Corporations
Information Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the biU.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have two
other Acts for which the same explanation will
apply.
THE CORPORATIONS SECURITIES
REGISTRATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of biU
intituled, An Act to amend The Corporations
Securities Registration Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE
USES ACT
Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Mortmain and
Charitable Uses Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the last
three bills introduced are complementary to
the references made to The Corporations Act.
These amendments have changed the refer-
ences to the Provincial Secretary to the
Minister designated by the Lieutenant-Gov-
emor-in-Council for the pmposes of their
administratian.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
to amend The Workmen's Compensation Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, this biU
raises the minimum payments made under
The Workmen's Compensation Act to workers
who have suflFered total or partial disability
as a result of occupational accidents. It will
establish a minimum pension of $175 a month
for all workers who are permanently and
totally disabled. At present the minimimi is
$100 a month.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce); Thanks to
the Opposition.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Related to this, minimum
pensions for permanent partial disability will
be paid on a directly proportionate basis. In
addition, the bill raises the minimiun payment
basis to workers who sufiFer temporary total
disability from $30 to $40 a week, or actual
earnings at the time of the accident if these
are less than $40 weekly. These minimums,
Mr. Speaker, will be the highest in Canada
and they will apply to existing pensions as
well as those which will be paid in the future.
I am advised that this amendment will mean
increases for more than 7,400 pensioners at a
cost to industry of more than $1,200,000
annually for the next ten years.
The other provision of the bill is designed
to give statutory protection to those providing
reports and communications of a medical
nature to the board insofar as any proceedings
outside of the board may be concerned.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): You can still get
more from unemployment insurance. You are
still cheapskates I
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend
The Highway TraflBc Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
MAY 8, 1969
4121
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this bill is to require motor buses used on
highways to have safety belts.
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister has a
statement.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in connection with the report dealing
with the commuter railway service, GO
Transit, which the hon. Minister of Highways
has tabled, I should like to make several com-
ments. I should also like to refer to provincial
financial assistance to municipalities for the
provision of local road systems and subway
construction.
This is a rather long statement and perforce
I will have to read it; I beg your indulgence
when I do so, but it is a matter of some im-
portance I think to the members of the House
and to the public.
The hon. members will recall that when
the government undertook the experimental,
demonstration commuter project along the
lakeshore corridor, it was understood that it
would take between two and three years of
full operation before a comprehensive evalua-
tion could be completed. However, the imme-
diate public acceptance of GO Transit and
the widespread publicity attached to it stimu-
lated demands for its early expansion to other
communities. This prompted the government
to carry out an exaluation on the basis of the
first year of full service rather than the
original longer period. This one-year evalua-
tion has now been concluded.
The evaluation has resulted in a number
of important conclusions which will be valu-
able as we move toward a balanced trans-
portation system in this and other densely
populated regions of Ontario.
GO Transit was designed to test the effec-
tiveness of a rail commuter service in reducing
congestion on parallel highway facilities. It
was felt that measurable reductions in the
use of adjacent highways, brought about by
efficient and attractive public transportation
service, could result in large savings in con-
struction and maintenance of expensive high-
ways. During the 12-month period of the
evaluation, a total of 4.5 million trips were
made on GO Transit. Weekday trips aver-
aged 15,100, Saturday trips 5,300, and Sunday
trips 2,500.
In measuring the effectiveness of GO
Transit, it was estimated that an additional
450 vehicles would have used the Queen
Elizabeth Way at the peak of the rush hour
had there been no such service. To put it
another way, these cars represented nine per
cent of the measured volume of 4,700 vehicles
which passed Etobicoke Creek at the even-
ing rush hour in April, 1968. At this point
the Queen Elizabeth Way has a theoretical
capacity maximum of 5,300 vehicles an hour
and has experienced an annual growth rate in
traffic of six per cent in recent years. There-
fore, the conclusion suggested is that the
operation of GO Transit delayed by between
one and two years the point at which the
capacity of the Queen Elizabeth Way would
have been reached.
To the east of Toronto it was estimated
that GO Transit has reduced the volume of
traffic moving into the city during the heaviest
part of the morning rush hour by approxi-
mately 750 vehicles. This would represent 17
per cent of the measured peak volume of
4,300 vehicles using Danforth Avenue, St.
Clair Avenue East and Kingston Road. How-
ever, unlike the Queen Elizabeth Way, it is
not possible to measure with any degree of
accuracy the normal increase in traffic that
would have occurred on any one of these
streets.
In evaluating the effectiveness of GO
Transit, it must be taken into account that
20 per cent of the riders indicated in a
survey that they had moved into the lake-
shore corridor because the commuter service
would be available. Surveys also showed
that the convenience of access of home and
work locations to GO Transit stations is an
important factor in determining whether the
service is used. As many as two-thirds of
GO passengers live and work within a short
walk of their origin and destination stations.
The share of the market by GO Transit de-
creases proportionately as this convenience
factor decreases.
Another factor that surveys revealed was
that the GO Transit share of all trips in the
lakeshore area tended to increase as the
distance from Toronto increased. It is con-
cluded that the increasing availability of
alternative public transportation in the Metro-
politan Toronto area has a pronounced effect
on the volume of rail commuter passengers.
Mr. Speaker, the results of the surveys I
have just mentioned are highly significant in
the consideration and planning of any medium
—or long-range commuter services. The neces-
sary interaction of all parts of the transit
package is evident from these results, and
therefore the government will be seeking the
co-operation of all local agencies in providing
as co-ordinated a public transit ser\ice as
possible within this region.
4122
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Before turning to the possibilities for ex-
pansion of the GO Transit service, I should
like to review briefly the financial aspects of
establishing and operating the present serv-
ice. The total capital cost amounted to $24.1
million. This included $8 million, which was
the government's share of the total cost of
adapting the track and signal system to
accommodate the service; $4.6 million for
installing stations and parking lots, platfonns
and underpasses; and $11.5 million for the
purchase of rolling stock, including an addi-
tional 14 cars delivered last Fall.
The operating costs for the first year of
full operation ending on August 31, 1968, was
$5,128,000. Ixe venue totalled $2,524,000,
leaving an operating deficit of $2,604,000
which was covered by the government of
Ontario.
While there is no doubt that the cost of
operating and subsidizing the GO Transit
system along the lake shore corridor is sub-
stantial, I should like to assure the House—
and I would like to assure the users of the
ser\ice— that the government considers GO
Transit to be a success insofar as the public
acceptance is concerned. The service will be
continued, and we are looking at methods by
wliich we shall meet future passenger
volumes.
The report which the Minister of Highways
tabled today estimates that with continued
residential development along the lake shore
route, the peak riding capacity of the present
service could be reached within three years.
A furtlier increase in capacity could be
achieved in either of two ways: by operating
more trains, which might require additional
capital expenditure for track modification and
certainly funds for additional equipment; or,
by iiicreasinLT the capacity of the present
trains through the introduction of doubledeck
coaches for use in periods of peak demand.
The extension of the service eastward from
Pickering to Oshawa, according to Canadian
National Railways estimates, would require
an expenditure of $12 milhon for track and
signals. A furtlier investment of approxi-
mately $2 million would be required for con-
struction of station facilities and additional
trains. An alternative that would not require
large capital investment would be the intro-
duction of a shuttle bus service between
Pickering, Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa. This
is being explored.
The financial asi>ects of extending full serv-
ice westward from Oakville to Hamilton are
even more disheartening. At present about
250 weekday trips are being made on the
four trains serving Bronte, Burhngton and
Hamilton. It is estimated that anotlier 700 to
800 trips would be made if the service were
extended. However, the Canadian National
Railways estimates that an additional capital
expenditure of $30 million would be required
for tracks, bridges and signals between Bur-
lington and Hamilton.
Tliat is almost four times the capital ex-
penditure on track and signals required to
begin operating the present service. A further
expenditure would be required for extra
rolling stock. Operating costs would be in-
creased significantly. Here again a bus shuttle
service between Oakville, Bronte, Burlington
and Hamilton may provide a feasible solution.
Mr. Speaker, since GO Transit began to
operate, we have had many requests for
extension of the service to other areas of the
Metropolitan region. An inventory of all the
rail lines in the Metro region was carried out
in 1963. It was stated at that time that certain
levels of service could be introduced on lines
other than the lake shore without substantial
alterations to track and signals. This inven-
tory has been brought up to date. Traffic
conditions on several of these lines have
changed substantially since the original 1963
study.
I should like to present to the hon. mem-
bers details of the appraisals of these lines.
In doing so, I should like to emphasize that
the evaluations were made on the basis of
information from several sources. For example,
the costs of necessary alterations to track
and signals were provided by the railway
companies.
Operating costs were estimated from the
experience gained with the lake shore service.
Revenues were based on the existing GO
Transit fare structure. The estimated numbers
of weekday trips were obtained from home
interview siuveys carried out as part of the
Metropohtan Toronto and Region Transporta-
tion Study and updated to reflect present-day
demands.
The estimates included in the following
six alternatives are based on the provision of
a full service of trains every 20 minutes in
peak periods and hourly at other times. This
would be similar to the service in the lake
shore system.
1. It is estimated that the 29-milc CNR
line serving Weston, Malton, Bramalea,
Brampton and Georgetown would attract in
excess of 8,700 trips each weekday. The capi-
tal costs would amount to an estimated $30
million for track and signals and a further
$10 million of rolling stock. The estimated
MAY 8, 1969
4123
operating deficit would be $1.4 million
annually.
2. The CNR line serving a 34-mile route
linking Maple, King City, Aurora and New-
market would require a capital expenditiire
of $26 million on track and signals and
$9.6 million for station facilities and rolling
stock. It is estimated that the number of
weekday trips would be more than 7,200.
There would be an annual operating deficit
of $2 million.
3. Another possibility for serving the area
north of Toronto is a combination of Cana-
dian National and Canadian Pacific track to
serve Leaside, Oriole, Thornhill, Richmond
Hill, Gormley and terminate at Wesley
Corners, east of Aurora. The estimated cost
for signals and adapting 30 miles of track is
$16 million. An additional $9 million would
be needed for station facilities and rolling
stock. It was estimated that this line would
attract 6,500 weekday trips. The annual oper-
ating deficit would be $1.7 million.
Mr. Ben: It sounds as if the railroads are
trying to take the government for a ride.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We have investigated
this pretty thoroughly, Mr. Speaker, and I
can assure tlie hon. member that we are
aware of the suspicion or the fear tliat he
might have, but we have been working with
the railway on GO Transit for some years
and all these matters have been taken into
consideration.
4. A further possibility is the linking of
these two lines by building five miles of
track between Gormley and Aurora. This 36-
mile line would provide service to Thomlea,
Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Aurora and New-
market. However, soutli of Thomlea this Hne
would compete with the extended Yonge
Street subway. It is estimated that this route
would attract 6,700 weekday trips, have an
annual operating deficit of $2.2 million and
require a capital expenditure of $27 million.
Mr. Sargent: Where is the government
going to get the money?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member obviously does not understand what
I am trying to present to the House. These
are investigations-
Mr. Sargent: I understand that this drain
has got to stop.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: This is a report, Mr.
Speaker, of certain investigations we have
made and we are presenting them to the
House and to the people so that they may
see for themselves what is involved in these
various alternatives that I have presented.
5. A fifth route that was investigated was
a section of CPR line between Milton and a
terminus at Islington near the end of the
Bloor Street subway line. This 24-mile route
would provide direct subway access to resi-
dents of Erindale, Streetsville and Milton.
The estimated number of weekday trips
would be about 4,400. The annual operating
deficit would be $1.6 million. Capital costs
are estimated at $5 miUion for tracks and
signals and $6.6 million for station facilities
and rolling stock.
The 1963 inventory indicated that limited
service could be introduced along the George-
town and Newmarket lines with little modifi-
cation of existing facilities. The CNR now
advises that due to changing circumstances
even a limited service could not be accom-
modated without substantial reconstruction of
the track.
An evaluation was also made on the other
three lines with a view of providing a limited
service of three trains in the peak periods
during the working week with no service on
weekends. Because such a service would not
provide much flexibility, the estimates of
patronage were considerably reduced. In the
case of tlie Newmarket line, via Richmond
Hill, the number of weekday trips was esti-
mated at 2,800. Capital costs would involve
$2 million for tracks and signals and $7
million for equipment and station facilities.
Such an operation would have an estimated
operating deficit of $210,000 per year.
Limited service on the line which would
terminate at Wesley Comers would involve
a capital expenditure of $7.4 million and an
annual operating deficit of $130,000 based
on approximately 2,750 trips per weekday.
Limited service on the Streetsville line
would require $5.3 million in capital costs.
The annual operating deficit on 1,900 week-
day trips was estimated at $170,000.
6. An evaluation of limited service was also
made on two other lines: the CNR line to
StoufiFville and the CPR line to Locust Hill,
east of Markham. These lines were consid-
ered only for limited service because pas-
senger estimates were low. It was estimated
that a total of $4 million would be required
to provide a limited service on the Stouffville
hne. A total of $2.8 million would be required
on the CPR hne if service terminated at
Malvern or $3.2 million if it terminated at
Locust Hill. While the patronage estimates
4124
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
do not justify service at this time, proposed
future development in both tlie Stouffville
and Malvern areas could alter this.
Mr. Speaker, the evaluation of tlie various
routes for possible expansion of GO Transit
to other areas of the Metropolitan Toronto
region is contained in the report which was
tabled today and is available to those mem-
bers who choose to read it. I should like to
draw to the attention of the hon. members
three main points which should be con-
sidered in any plans for future expansion.
These are:
1. GO Transit should be planned as part
of the overall future transportation require-
ments of the region;
2. This comprehensive transportation plan
should be an integrated part of an overall
development plan for the region and for
the province; and
3. Accepting the need for long-term plan-
ning, consideration should be given to public
transportation modes other than those oper-
ating on existing railway rights-of-way.
In amplifying the third point, the report
notes that the use of existing rail lines for
expansion has certain disadvantages. All the
possibilities for full GO Transit type service
contained in the report require a total govern-
ment expenditure for right-of-way improve-
ments totalling $94 milUon, Yet the right-of-
way would still be owned by the railways. All
decisions regarding the scheduling of trains
would have to be approved by the railways
and would, of course, have to fit in with the
other trafiBc they are carrying.
One alternative would be the purchase of
new rights-of-way for rail commuter services.
This would be extremely expensive. As an-
other alternative, the report recommends that
an investigation be made into tlie possibility
of making use of highways and Ontario
Hydro rights-of-way as possible routes for
public transit.
The potential choices of mode include
conventional rail service, express bus service
on an exclusive right of way, monorail, and
an air cushioned train system now under
development.
Some of the routes listed in the report as
worthy of consideration are the proposed
extension of the Don Valley Parkway, to be
known as Highway 404, which will nm to
the east of Newmarket, and the proposed
Highway 407 which will extend from High-
way 27 to Markham. Any plan to enlarge
Highway 400 would provide a third possible
route. In time, service could be routed
directly to the downtown area via an exten-
sion of Highway 400 or through the Don
Valley, or a combination of the two.
As an example of possible use of Ontario
Hydro property, the report suggests the
right of way just north of Finch Avenue
which, it says, could be used in conjunction
with one or more highway routes, to link a
transit system with the Toronto Transit Com-
mission's Yonge Street subway.
Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with the GO
Transit evaluation and expansion report in
some detail so that there can be no misun-
derstanding of what is involved in develop-
ing and extending rail commuter services.
While subscribing to the proposition that
efficient forms of public transportation are an
integral component of a balanced transpor-
tation system, and while each of these sug-
gested routes for expansion of GO Transit
remain under consideration as possible solu-
tions, tlie government cannot accept a pro-
gramme of such extremely high initial and
continuing cost without first examining alter-
native routes and modes. This we are now
doing and will be doing in a concerted
manner in the months ahead.
As an example, we are vigorously investi-
gating the possible multiple use and joint
development of transportation and service
corridors. The concept of concentrating dif-
ferent forms of transportation and tlie major
public utility systems such as water, sewage,
power and communications, within the same
land corridors, holds great i>ossibilitie6. If
feasible, it could mean a reduction in the
publicly held land required for the future
and greater economic use of lands that have
already been acquired.
Both tlie GO Transit project and the
MTARTS Study, as well as the current
evaluation of MTARTS proposals, have
demonstrated that there is a need for long-
term, comprehensive planning of the trans-
portation requirements for the total province
and, in piuticular, the major urban areas.
This transportation planning must encom-
pass the movement of both people and goods.
And, while the report tabled today deals
primarily with tlie movement of people, the
government of Ontario is no less concerned
about the emerging problems facing the
movement of goods within and between our
population centres.
The full-<sco(pe studies that are being
carried out as a result of the MTARTS report
and the planning studies required by regional
governments will be analyzed on the basis of
desirable development. Recommendations will
MAY 8, 1969
4125
be made to accomplish the overall result from
the standpoint of transportation.
To assist local authorities to evaluate
immediate and long-term transportation
requirements within the planning objective of
regions, the government of Ontario, through
The Department of Highways, will provide
financial assistance to cover a generous por-
tion of costs of studies. The present 75 per
cent subsidy that has been available for
studies of roads, streets and highways at the
local level will be extended to cover all
aspects of transportation.
In the course of its review of transporta-
tion, Mr. Speaker, the government examined
another problem that has contributed to some
degree to the transportation congestion that
is being experienced by some urban areas.
That, of course, is the financing of local road
construction.
The matter of subsidy for approved muni-
cipal projects has been under study from
various aspects in an attempt to devise a
more equitable subsidy framework that would
meet changing conditions. The present sub-
sidy rate from The Department of Highways
is 33V3 per cent for cities and separated
towns.
The government has recognized for some
time that this formula as applicable to cities
and separated towns has grown deficient in
the light of increasingly higher costs that
have been experienced in road construction.
In order to maintain our road transportation
facilities at a continuing high level of efiici-
ency, the government proposes to increase the
subsidy rate to 50 per cent. Therefore, half
the cost of approved municipal road projects
will be financed by the province and the other
half by the municipal authority.
This new rate will also apply to the sub-
sidy that the province has made available
for subway construction in Metropolitan
Toronto. In recognition of the need for public
transportation in this densely-populated area,
by amending The Highway Improvement Act
in 1963, the government stipulated that a
number of items involving construction of the
subway roadbed would be eligible for the
one-third subsidy. The additional funds this
change will make available will further
encourage expansion of this form of public
transit.
The necessary legislation will be introduced
to bring this new rate into effect in the next
fiscal year. The additional funds required vdll
be made available in the budget of The
Department of Highways. Thus, a consider-
able sum of money will be available to muni-
cipalities across the province to assist them in
meeting their transportation problems.
Mr, Speaker, the government of Ontario
recognizes the need for an integrated, total
approach to the emerging problems of trans-
portation in our heavily-populated urban
centres. I use the word emerging because
transportation experts agree that in our early
recognition we have the capability of dealing
with them before they grow to overwhelm
our expanding communities.
We can take advantage of the lessons of
the experiences of the great cities of the
world. We are prepared to take the bold
approach to find the right answers while we
still have time on our side. We have done this
in the GO Transit experiment, and it was,
believe me, an experiment. But the experi-
ence in this service has not satisfied us that
this is any more than one element in the
ultimate solution.
The high level of investment required for
mass transportation systems of any kind
necessitate that the fullest investigation be
carried out to prove their economy and effec-
tiveness. The money that we are prepared
to make available in our search for acceptable
solutions will, we are confident, be a wise in-
vestment that will ensure greater value for
our transportation dollar.
The approach we have adopted in Ontario
is a logical approach we think to bring about
orderly development of the province and, in
particular, our highly populated areas.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker,
could I ask a question, for clarification, of the
Prime Minister? In the paper which the Prime
Minister has just read, he mentioned that the
new subsidies for highway and for subway
construction within cities would be available
next year.
Does that mean that the present construc-
tion going on in the north Yonge subway, for
example, and the Spadina Expressway, would
not be eligible now? In other words, if it is
not paid now it might pay these municipalities
to defer action and therefore, slow the whole
thing down for a period of time.
Is it possible that this can apply to present
construction?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: One has to pick a time
somewhere in any plan such as this and you
have to be arbitrary. You have to have a
plan when it starts. This might affect the
planning in some areas differently than in
some other areas but when the expenses are
incurred, they will be eligible for the subsidy
beginning witli the next fiscal year.
4126
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We will leave this to the ingenuity of those
who are planning these facilities. As I say,
however, one of the great difficulties, of
course, in this province is the great diversity
we liave from one border to the next, east and
west and north and south.
We do not have comparable conditions in
all our urban centres. Tliey all have to be
dealt with in a different way and have to be
dealt with by the local authorities who are
best fitted to see the requirements and needs
t)f that particular area.
Therefore, we must pick a certain date and
say from that date on we will meet this, as
I have said here. But, generally speaking, I
would say that the planning for most of these
facilities takes sufficient amount of time and
knowing that this is coming next year the
planning will be done now, because very few
of these things are accomplished without, in
uTany cases, several years of forward planning.
We make this announcement now, so that as
the munacipalities plan ahead they will know
that this additional financial assistance will
be available to them.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the problem that
I am not sure the Prime Minister met, was
the fact that—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is trying
to make a statement. If he has a question he
can ask for clarification.
Mr. Young: Then if I could phrase it in
the form of a question:
Does the Prime Minister not fear that this
matter of deferring until the first of next
year will slow down, in fact frustrate, some
of the construction which might go forward
now, and that, if the present date were set,
the date of the announcement would speed
up construction, and solve some of the prob-
lem?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I suppose,
if we carried that argument to a logical con-
clusion, we would just say we will pay 100
per cent and everything will be done at once.
But the point really is that planning is
going ahead, and I would have to check into
the precise period of where the present facility
is that the hon. member is speaking about in
tenns of planning. But the months go by.
There are only ten months left in this fiscal
I>eriod, and I think— as a matter of fact, I
would be of the opinion that this will encour-
age forward planning— will encourage greater
development in the future. If you start to
plan now, you will be ready to do your
construction when the additional subsidy is
availing.
Now I know what the hon. member means.
I understand precisely what the hon. member
means. He would like us to say-
Mr. Singer: They are constructing the sub-
way right now.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: He would like us to
say, as of today we will pick up whatever
the expenses are. Well it is difficult to do
that.
Mr. Singer: More than just him, a lot of us
would!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It is difficult to do that
in the total planning of government expendi-
tures.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Prime Minister care
to clarify— before we take a bite into this
projected $100 million programme, looped
around Metro here— he has always been saying
he would give like treatment to the rest of
the province in rapid transit, or a like amount
of money-
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member going to
ask a question?
Mr. Sargent: Will the Prime Minister clarify
for me, sir, for one who does not understand
the equalizing factor to the rest of the prov-
ince, in view of the fact you ha\ e spent "X"
millions of dollars here. We do not know how
much. What is the equalizing factor to the
rest of us across the province in this pro-
gramme?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, what is this pro-
jected increase to 50 per cent? What is it
going to cost next year to raise the subsidy
from one-third to 50 per cent?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. memiber's second
question is not a question for clarification.
Mr. Sargent: All right. Tjie question is very
important.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, you have
to look at the philosophic approach which is
how one goes about governing a province as
large as Ontario which has within its-
Mr. Sargent: Well, sir, the Prime Minister
lias always said-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
MAY 8, 1969
4127
Hon. Mr. Robarts: —within its boundaries
such a great diversification of structure, con-
centrations of pofpulation, needs, and require-
ments; and what we atteonpt to do is to see
tliat each area of the province is developed
according to its particular needs.
Now the hon. member must realize that it
would be impossible for us to attempt to
separate out, all the tax revenue that is raised
in the Toronto area, and to make sure that
all that was spent right in the Toronto area;
and none used any place eke.
We will look after each area in the province
as we see its needs, and, if we are to have
a province, we use an equalizing, not a for-
mula such as we use in the federal-
Mr. Sargent: The government is doing those
15,000 to 25,000 people out of millions of
dollars-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We have, at the federal-
provincial level, an equalizing formula de-
veloped by which this province contributes
sums of money to other parts of Canada that
are not as wealthy as Ontario may be. Now
we practice the same form-
Mr. Sargent: Just stick at it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: —same form of equaliza-
tion within the province because we—
Mr. Ben: The government does not give
half enough to Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, fight that out with
him! I would like to see these two, prefer-
ably not in this chamber, but some place—
An hon. member: In a dark room!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr, Speaker, the hon.
member raises this question periodically and
I am quite happy to answer it. The changes
that we are making in the subsidy rates will
benefit his municipality, and, I realize, his
mind does not get much beyond the munici-
pality he represents, and that is the proper
thing.
He sees the problem that way but when
you govern, as I say, a province as diverse as
this one is, you cannot of course, treat every
section of the province in precisely the same
way.
I will just give you an example. When we
were building Highway 401, for instance,
there was a great outcry in the Chatham area,
similar to the remarks made by the hon.
member, that all the money was being spent
in Toronto and none down there. So the
Minister of Highways of that day went to
Chatham and he made a speech, and he dug
out the statistics, which proved rather con-
clusively that there was more money being
spent per capita by the province on highway
construction in the Chatham area than there
was in Toronto.
Interjection by an hon member.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Just a minute, it only
needed the amount of time it took for him
to get from Chatham to Toronto when he had
to face that question here. Why do you not
equalize Toronto with Chatham?
I use this simply to illustrate the futility of
attempting to think that you can finance the
development of a province on the basis
suggested. If you did, you would have to
divide the province, I suppose, into "X"
number of regions and then take all the tax
revenue— provincial tax revenue produced in
that area— and make sure it was spent there
and have no overflow.
Of course, the whole thing would be com-
pletely ridiculous. We have to govern the
province as a whole. We attempt to do so.
We think that the formulas we devise are fair
to all the people in the province. This is
one of the problems involved and I will have
a question here, when we get to questions.
But these are the problems involved in
attempting to administer a government, and
a wonderfully-magnificent diverse province
such as this is.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oshawa
has the floor.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Could I ask a
question on one point? The Prime Minister
indicated that the cost of extending the GO
system from Oshawa to Pickering would cost
something in the neighbourhood of $12
million, and an additional $2 million for
stations. Then, he pointed out that an alter-
native could be a bus shuttle system-
Mr. Ben: CM buses?
Mr. Pilkey: General Motors buses, thank
you, a shuttle system taking in Oshawa,
Whitby and Ajax. He also pointed out that
this alternative would not require a large
capital expenditure. If that being the case,
and the alternative looked like the logical-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Pilkey: I am asking a question.
4128
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I was just going to en-
quire when the hon. member was going to
come to his question.
Mr. Pilkey: Well, I am coming to the ques-
tion right now, if you will just wait a moment.
If the alternative is the logical one— in view
of the fact that it is not a large capital
expenditure— would this be given a priority?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not ask-
ing a question for clarification of the Prime
Minister's statement. He is merely asking for
an elaboration on the statement, and I rule
that question is out of order.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, if the
House would consent, I realize that these
matters are important, and—
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the House is agree-
able.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If the House is agree-
able, I would simply say to the hon. member
that in this report we are trying to present
the \arious alternatives, and, of course, the
shuttle bus service has a great appeal because
it is not as expensive. But, once again, it has
to be investigated. Because the real secret to
public transport, as we found out with GO
Transit, is to develop a service that is attrac-
tive to the public.
If they will not use it, then it does not
matter how efficient it may be in terms of the
simple movement of people. We want to go
into this bus proposal very, very carefully.
For instance, you might have to have express
buses that simply would not stop all along
the way: you get on at one spot, and you get
a fast ride to connect with the rapid transit.
These are some of the things that we are
looking at; and we are looking at them be-
cause we are anxious to extend this service,
but we think there is more than one way of
doing it.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Since the Prime Minister is interested in
giving further information on his statement, I
wonder if he could clarify his remarks having
to do with a 75 per cent level assistance for
any municipality that is concerned with mak-
ing a transportation study as the matter affects
their own locality.
I thought he indicated that he was pre-
pared to go beyond 75 per cent. I forget the
phrase he used— "and I could perhaps turn it
up", something like that almost— in answer
to a criticism that the Prime Minister felt
might have come to him from one part of
the House, that he was not considering the
problems elsewhere in the province, that he
was prepared to substantially finance studies
in other parts where these problems were
obviously of great and growing importance.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No. That is why we are
increasing this 75 per cent subsidy. What we
are doing is to extend it. The present 75
per cent has been available for studies of
roads, streets and highways.
Mr. Nixon: The government is extending
that?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We are extending it to
all aspects of transportation. This would
mean, in other centres, the study of what
might be done to develop mass public trans-
portation, as opposed to deciding where you
are going to put roads and streets. In other
words we lead in to wider studies right across
the province of tranportation studies per se,
instead of just, as it presently is, roads and
streets.
Mr. Nixon: This of course would leave 25
per cent responsibility at the local level,
which may be necessary, but I wonder if it
would not be possible for a study similar to
this but with the emphasis on the different
aspects of problems that are found, not
in the metropolis concerning three million
people, but in a city like Ottawa, where they
have a continuing problem. Why could the
province not undertake a study that would
have, let us say, a general application to
problems of that t\'pe, and I guess there are
probably eight or ten of them across the
province.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I think I understand
what the leader of the Opposition means
and this, frankly, I would say, would be
the next step that we would get into. But
you learn as you go along in many of these
things. We started with the MTARTS study,
and from that we learned a great deal. We
went from there to the development of GO
Transit, as an experiment and we have
learned a great deal from it. Now, we have
gone this far at this precise moment in time,
and I do not doubt for a moment that we
will be into the type of study that the hon.
member is indicating, but not at this stage of
the game.
Mr. Nixon: But the study that was tabled
by the Minister of Highways was 100 per
cent a provincial study, I understand.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the Op-
position has a question of the Attorney Gen-
eral, I understand.
MAY 8, 1969
4129
Mr. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask the Attorney General if he would explain
why there is a delay in calling an inquest
into the death of Angelo Nobrega.
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the hon. mem-
ber for High Park could place his similar
question at this time.
Mr. Shulman: To the Attorney General,
Mr. Speaker. In view of the extreme anxiety
among the Portuguese community and others,
will the Attorney General arrange an earlier
date for the inquest into the death of Angelo
Nobrega?
(2) Why is it now taking so much longer
to arrange inquests than it was under the
former management?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
The second part of the question is based on
a false premise. It is not so. Mr. Speaker, I
had already taken this matter under con-
sideration. New dates have been arranged,
May 22 and 23.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I
have two questions, the first to the Prime
Minister. In view of Chief Nadjiwon's resig-
nation from the advisory committee, will the
Prime Minister move immediately: 1. To
meet the request of the Ontario Union of
Indians for $54,000 to finance field oflBcers
who can gather the necessary information for
shaping realistic policies, with Indians play-
ing a critical role in the decision making?
2. To reconstitute the Indian Advisory
Committee on a more meaningful basis?
3. To reconstitute the interdepartmental
committee as a Cabinet committee, respon-
sible directly to the Prime Minister, operat-
ing with a full-time executive oflBcer who will
have the status of a deputy Minister?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the first part of the question, the request
of the Ontario Union of Indians for $54,000,
that is presently under consideration by the
government and this consideration will con-
tinue. And I might say that the decision of
the government will not be influenced in
any way by the resignation which the hon.
member mentions. The resignation is the
kind of thing that happens and it will not
have any effect on the decision of the govern-
ment.
The reconstitution of the advisory commit-
tee on a more meaningful basis— we think it
is presently functioning on a meaningful basis.
There has been a resignation from it but that
does not mean that the committee itself is
not functioning.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): They
almost resigned en masse.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I have no intention of
reconstituting the interdepartmental commit-
tee on the basis as set out in the third part
of the question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has not
completed his questions yet.
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
To the Minister of Lands and Forests: Has
the government been approached by Joso
Wieder, owner of the Blue Mountain Winter
Park eight miles from Thombury, with re-
gard to this well-developed facility being
established as a public park? If so, what has
been the government's response?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member for York South; yes we have been
approached by Mr. Wieder. This matter was
recently discussed at one of the last meetings
of the Ontario Parks Integration Board, who
agreed that as long as the establishment was
operated in a satisfactory manner and re-
mains open to the general public the province
should not purchase the interests.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Himi-
ber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of the hon. Prime Minister. Does the Premier
—I apologize— does the Prime Minister plan
to send out his own explanation of tax in-
creases if the Metro Toronto Council or city
council sends out a pamphlet to metro tax-
payers blaming the provincial government
for the increase?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member does not need to apologize when he
calls me the Premier. He might get together
with his leader and then they could have a
common approach.
Mr. Sargent: He should enjoy it while he
can, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not think that I
have my own personal explanation, indeed I
do not know who would be interested in it.
I have not seen this pamphlet but I read
about it in the paper this morning. We will
look at it, of course. We are used to having
the blame for all sorts of things put on our
4130
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
shoulders and we will see what this particular
statement says when I have an opportunity
to read the pamphlet and then decide how
we might deal with.
Mr. Ben: Thanks, Mr. Prime Minister.
I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Min-
ister of Health. Will the Minister set up a
body to study the eflFects on the lungs of the
constant use in closed spaces of hair sprays
containing lacquers? I dare say it could apply
to other spray items.
Hon. M. B. Dymond ( Minister of Health ) :
Mr. Speaker, I do not think such a study
group is necessary, because much work is
being done in this area already and all the
results are available to us.
There has been a good deal of clinical
observation of people exposed to fairly heavy
concentration of tliese various aids to beauty
—I presume they are— and there has been
nothing to indicate they were suffering un-
usual respiratory infections or diseases.
Mr. Ben: Will the Minister accept a sup-
plementary question? This question has just
occurred to me after watching some of this
stu£F used. Could the Minister make available
to the members that desire it this body of
information that the Minister indicates is
available?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I suppose I could, Mr.
Speaker, but it is available in any medical
library to anyone who wants to read it.
Mr. Ben: Well why not make it available
to us?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I will hunt up some
of the papers and give them to the hon.
member.
Mr. Ben: I have another question, Mr.
Speaker. Has the Minister given any con-
sideration to the report of May 5 in many of
the Toronto newspapers tliat the eating of
chickens which have received chemicals used
to fatten tliom may adversely effect the
virility of men?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not sure, Mr,
Speaker, if he is referring to chicken man
or not. But really, sir, I have not noted that
there was any decline in the virility of men
in Ontario or in Canada.
Seriously, if the hon. member had read
a little further down in the article, he would
have found that the hormone that is used in
the United States and to which this report
referred is not permitted in Canada. Implan-
tation of estrogens is not allowed in Canada
under The Department of Agriculture and,
I believe, tlie food and drug directorate.
However, we are concerned and have been
concerned for some time with residues of
various substances possibly carried over in
flesh of animals used for human consumption,
and we have on-going studies in this; the
department of nutrition at the University of
Toronto and others are keeping watch over
this for us and have undertaken to alert us
should there be any cause for alarm.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. mem-
ber begins to feel any symptoms, I would be
delighted to look into it.
Mr. Ben: I am gratified to know, Mr.
Speaker, that the Minister is not going to
permit American chickens to turn Ontario
men chicken.
I have one more question, Mr. Speaker,
again of the Minister.
Will the Minister of Health request his
counterpart in Ottawa to introduce legislation
which would require birth control pill con-
tainers to be labelled to the effect that the
use of such pills could have hamiful side
effects?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, these
substances are not available by over-the-
counter purchase. They are sold only on
prescription, and I have no doubt the prac-
titioner explains all the possibilities to his
patients when lie prescribes these substances.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member . . .
Mr. Ben: On a point of order, on behalf
of the hon. member for Kenora (Mr.
Bernier), will tlie boxes be labelled that the
non-use of the pills may also lead to com-
plications?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question for the
Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. When will
the transcript of the inquest into the death of
Beryl Higgins arrive? The Attorney General
said it was mailed last week.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am ad-
vised it was mailed the day the hon. member
asked the question. If it has not got there
>'et, he will have to take it up with the post
office department.
Mr. Shulman: Can tlie Attorney General
check and make sure it was actually mailed?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have already checked.
MAY 8, 1969
4131
Mr. Shulman: Thanks. I have another ques-
tion for the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Attorney General believe that
an appointed official should l)e allowed to
overrule Acts of the Legislature, and is this
not the result tliat will occur if section 20
of Bill 130 is enacted?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the an-
swer to both parts of that question is no.
The hon. member is misconstruing the effect
of that section, which in so many words says
tliat where the procedures, as laid down by
the proposed Act, are in conflict with the
terms of any other Act, rule or regulation,
then the new Act which is proposed will
prevail.
In other words, the procedures for agencies
and tribunals created by statute— the way
they shall try hearings, appeals, etc.— shall
be determined under tliis Act which I intro-
duced a few days ago and the other Act
will give way to it, so it is not allowing an
individual to overrule the Legislature. The
Legislature is saying these procedures which
we estabUsh shall apply to all tribunals once
this bill is passed and, of course, I would re-
mind the House that that bill was introduced
and given first reading with the intention it
will lay on the table and be studied by the
public, by the members of the Legislature,
and by all bodies who may be affected, so
that we will have full opportimity to debate
it. I would think we would not deal with it
in this session certainly, but perhaps in the
next session of this House. In any event, it
does not have the effect which the hon.
member fears.
Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister accept
a supplementary question? Is the Minister
assured that the meaning of the bill could
not be misconstrued to say that persons ap-
pointed under the bill would then have tlie
power under this particular section to over-
ride other Acts?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am quite certain that
what die section says— and I have looked at
it— is that the provisions of this Act, of this
proposed Act, shall govern, notwithstanding
what any otlier Act says. The whole purpose
is that if we establish procedures for tri-
bunals to follow in hearings, in appeals,
hcensing reviews, and that sort of thing. The
Statutory Power Procedures Act— and I think
this is a very monumental piece of legislation,
frankly— shall lay down procedures which
shall be followed.
There shall be such things as records kept,
notice given, and all these things shall be
followed, and notwithstanding what any other
Act says, they shall govern— and it is this
Act. Again I say it has not the efiFect the
hon. member seems to anticipate, but in any
event we shall have the fullest opportunity
to debate that bill as it goes through the
processes of legislation.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services ) : That is the short title of the bill
anyway, wait until hon. members get the
full title.
Mr. Shulman: Thanks. I have a question of
the Minister of Correctional Services. It is in
three parts.
1. Were the charges involving homosexu-
ality, laid against several Burwash prisoners,
all dismissed?
2. Did the complainant admit in court that
the charges were fabricated?
3. Has a charge of perjury been laid against
the complainant?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the an-
swer to the first part of the question is "yes".
Insofar as parts two and three are con-
cerned, I am advised that the Crovra attor-
ney has the matter under consideration, and
therefore will take such action as he deems
warranted under the circumstances.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: So long as tbe hon.
member keeps in mind that it may be
sub judicc.
Mr. Shulman: In view of the outcome of
this unfortunate event, will the Minister make
some amends to the prisoners who have been
subjected to this unfortunate series of events
so far as their sentence is concerned?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
am speaking from memory again, but it seems
to me we dealt with this in a previous ques-
tion-and-answer period. If it is the same
case— and I think it is— I made it quite clear
at tiiat time that it was not our department,
nor our officials, who laid the charge. The
charge was laid by a certain other inmate
and it was turned over to the police, and tliey
dealt with it accordingly. I do not know
what we can do about that.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
further supplementary?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I tliink, Mr.
Speaker, we are getting a little more deeply
involved here, and it may just be wise not to
4132
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
deal with it at this time and wait until it is
dealt with by the Crown attorney.
Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister saying no?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what I am
saying, yes.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kenora.
Mr. L. Bemier (Kenora): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Attorney General.
Is the Minister aware of the large amount
of violence and vandahsm which to date has
included possible loss of life and arson at a
.strike in the Lakehead between the Teamsters
Union Local 990 and the Lakehead Freight-
ways Limited.
If so, what action is being taken by this
department to attempt to bring this violence
to an end?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am
aware of the strike which began in early
February at the Lakehead; I am aware of
incidents of violence which have occurred.
We have had no request from the local
police authoritievS for assistance in any way,
and our policy is that the provincial police
would go in only when requested. Notwith-
standing that we have not had a request,
assistance has been given in that the provin-
cial police escort trucks of this company from
the city to a considerable distance outside
and keep a general watch on the routes over
which the trucks go. Gertainly there has been
investigation of the incidents which have
occurred. Actually, an investigator of the
criminal investigation branch has been in the
area since May 1, and investigation of the
fires and of the shooting and other incidents
has been carried on very thoroughly. It gives
us all concern that this sort of violence seems
to appear and be related to a strike of this
kind, but truckers seem to have l)een noted
for this sort of thing. Perhaps we may have
something further to report as the investiga-
tion continues.
Mr. Bemier: Would the Minister permit a
further question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes.
Mr. Bernier: Have there been any charges
laid at all to date?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Not so far as I am
aware at the moment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-
Biuce.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I had this question for the Minister yesterday,
and I was not able to put it. However, the
question reads:
1. Why did the department find it neces-
sary to go across Canada in recruiting needed
personnel in view of the major reorganization
of the extension branch, particularly when
many will have to be retrained at the Und-
\ ersity of Guelph?
2. How much will this programme cost?
3. Has the department drawn the boun-
daries for the ten regions which will be set
up for extension purposes?
4. What will happen to the county offices,
and does the Minister intend that the farm
income report be debated before the estimates
of his department are before the House?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the
question: First of all, as a department, we
have found it necessary to explore all possi-
bilities of finding suitable employees to carry
out this expanded programme of farm business
management, budgeting, aocomitinig and all
matters associated with decision making in
farming. Not all the graduates of the Uni-
versity of Guelph, the Ontario College of
Agriculture are qualified in this particular
regard, so we have attempted to find them
wherever we can in Canada.
As far as the retraining at the University
of Guelph is concerned, all of our own stafF
from time to time go there, that is, the
oxitension branch staff go there for retraining
and updating in farm management techniques.
It is assumed that the new members of the
staff when they are engaged, will go through
this in-service training course as well.
It is difficult to say how much the pro-
gramme will cost because it will depend
entirely on the number of properly qualified
stafi^ that we are able to acquire.
The boundary lines have not been drawn
as yet for the respective regions and we do
not know how this will work out yet. We are
taking a good look at this.
Tliere will be no change as far as the
present county extension branch offices are
concerned, other than to say there will be
increasing emphasis on farm business man-
agement and accounting. As far as the farm
income committee report is concerned, it is
not our intention to have a wholesale del>ate
on this in the House. If you wish to refer to
the report in matters concerning the Budget
Debate and my estimates, that is fine with
me.
MAY 8, 1969
4133
Mr. Gaunt: May I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker? I am wondering if the
Minister is in a position in indicate when
he expects the boundaries to be drawn? Will
this be done very shortly or will it be some
while yet?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well it is under con-
sideration now, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Park-
dale.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): It is a ques-
tion I had yesterday, Mr. Speaker, of the
Minister of Health. What is the status of the
students from Humber College who are on
the course studying the treatment of the
mentally retarded and who are supposed to
be employed this spring and siunmer at the
Ontario Plospital School at Orillia? Secondly,
what does the government intend to pay these
students?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, those
students enrolled at Humber Memorial Col-
lege are at the Ontario Hospital School in
Orillia as a required part of their training
and will spend the summer there prior to
completion of their course. During the period
of practical instruction, they will hold the
same status and receive die same salary
as trainees on the course provided by our
own facilities and that is $2.44 per hour.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister
would accept a supplementary question: I
understand there has been a considerable
amount of misunderstanding. At tlie present
time they are up at Orillia, but not in the
hospital. Some of them are staying at motels
and private homes. Is there not an argument
over the amount of pay they are receiving?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Tliere is no argument
of which I am aware, Mr. Speaker. Since this
is part of their course of instruction, the
arrangement will be made by their school,
between the school and the hospital. So far as
I am aware, there have been no difficulties.
I will check again and make sure.
Mr. Trotter: I am sure Dr. Zarfas told
them they would be getting $100 a week.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister said he
would check into it.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, $2.44 an hour,
Mr. Speaker, is $97.60 a week.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a ques-
tion of another Minister?
Mr. Trotter: Yes, a question of the Min-
ister of Trade and Development. This is from
yesterday, too. What builders have been
invited to attend the meeting to outline
development proposals for housing projects
south of Flemingdon Park on May 16?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, an advertisement
inviting proposals for the development of
1,472 condominium housing units on 24.7
acres of land owned by Ontario Housing Cor-
poration in Flemingdon Park was placed in
the Toronto Daihj Star, the Telegram, the
Globe and Mail, and the Daily Commercial
News on Wednesday, May 7, 1969. The
same advertisement will api^ear on May 9
and 10, 1969. In addition, proposal docu-
ments were sent to the Metropolitan Toronto
Home Builders Association and the National
House Builders Association for the informa-
tion of their members. A further supply of
50 copies of the proposal documents were
sent directly to builders who have asked to
receive copies of all proposal documents for
developments in the Metropolitan Toronto
area.
The advertisement clearly states that pro-
posal forms and specifications are available
upon request at the offices of the corporation
and that a general information meeting will
be held in the offices of the corporation on
May 16, 1969, at 10.00 a.m.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Sandwich-Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Muni-
cipal Aff^airs: Are any provisions made for
reducing the assessment on building lots for
which building permits cannot be secured?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Afi^airs): Mr. Speaker, in the normal
course of his duties, an assessor would take
cognizance of zoning or building restrictions
which affect the value of land. He pre-
sumably therefore would reduce the assess-
ment by reason of a change in the market
value.
Mr. Burr: Well, by way of a supplementary
question, would the Minister agree that where
a health permit cannot be secured for a
septic tank, because of the number of septic
tanks already in the neighbourhood, that this
would be a factor that the assessor might not
observe and that might be subject to appeal?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, to the court of
revision.
4134
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborouiih Centre):
Mr. Speaker, these are questions from yester-
day of the Minister of Health: What job
classification has the department arrixed at
ior students who have graduated from the
course "Residential Councillor— Mental Re-
tardation"? Will they be paid as monthly,
weekly or as hourly rated employees I be-
liexe the Minister just answered that to the
hon. member for Parkdale, Mr. Speaker. How
many hours per week are they expected to
work during a normal work week?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The course to which
the hon. member makes reference, sir, is
prepared in collaboration with the officers of
my department. On graduation, the student
is eligible for the classification of councillor,
group 1, within the ci\il ser\'ice. The salary
has already been noted and the employees
work 40 hours per week.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would the Minister
accept a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Is that part-time employ-
ment, Mr. Speaker then, for these students?
Did the Minister say 20 hours a week?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Fort> hours.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Forty; sorry! A question
also to the Minister of Health: Is it the
intention that the graduates from courses
"Residential Coimsellor— Mental Retardation"
assist psychiatrists in Ontario Hospitals, as
the course outline in community colleges
suggests, or are they to be employed as glori-
fied ward aids?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The new training pro-
gramme for mental retardation counsellors
has been designed to provide staff with the
required skills to carry out the special pro-
grammes provided for these children. They
are identified with each of the four units
within the facilities of the retarded. The
course, in this case again, offered by Humber
College was prepared as I stated already, in
consultation with my staff. It is equivalent
to the first of a two year training programme.
It is a much more modem, much more up-
dated course of training than that followed by
ward aides. The requirement for entry into
the course is Grade 12 at least.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the Minister would accept a supplementary
question? I wonder if the Minister would
keep his eye on what is actually happening
to these first graduates from this course
inasmuch as I have had reports that some-
times they have been assigned to—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member asked to
ask a supplementary question. She is not
doing so. She is making a statement. If she
wishes to ask a supplementary question she
may do so.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I was ask-
ing the Minister first of all if he would keep
his eye on it? Does the Minister know that
these students have been assigned washing
diapers for instance?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would point out, Mr.
Speaker, that in my view washing diapers
when one is looking after children is a per-
fectly nonnal part of the duty.
Mrs. M. Renwick: A question of the Minis-
ter of Health, Mr. Speaker. How many quali-
fied psychiatrists are on staff of Ontario
Hospitals and where are they located?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: There are 118 full-
time qualified psychiatrists and 18 part-time
psychiatrists on our staff. Four full-time at
Brockville; two full-time, Goderich; 14 full-
time and two part-time, Hamilton; 14 full-
time and two part-time, Kingston; nine
full-time, one part-time, London; 12 full-
time and five part-time, Lakeshore; three
full-time, North Bay; Owen Sound, two;
Penetang, four; Northeastern, one full-time,
two part-time; Port Arthur, three full-time
and one part-time; St. Thomas, nine full-
time; Thistletown, six full-time; Toronto, 10
full-time and two part-time; Whitby, eight
full-time; Woodstock, two full-time; Aurora,
one part-time; CPRI, seven full-time; Co-
bourg, one full-time; Palmerston, one full-
time; Smiths Falls, two full-time and one
part-time; Mental Retardation Centre, four
full-time and one part-time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question for
the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
In view of the press report in the Globe
and Mail this morning that the Ontario
Municipal Board is restricting the issuance
of building permits to 100 this year for
80,000 acres of land in the township of
Pickering, will the Minister advise why he
permits such restrictive policies?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Of course, this is
nothing new. It has been in effect for sev-
MAY 8, 1969
4135
eral years. I gather the hon. member has just
become aware of it.
But it is one of the duties of the Ontario
Municipal Board to ensure that a munici-
paHty does not incur obligations that are
beyond its financial capability. The township
of Pickering has been under financial stress
in recent years because of the necessity to
finance the cost of services required by indi-
vidual residential developments in the muni-
cipality. The limit of 100 building permits
imposed by the Ontario Municipal Board is
related to the financial ability of the munici-
pality to cope with the residential develop-
ments that it already has, and to avoid an
even greater financial burden being placed
on the present taxpayers in the province.
Mr. Sargent: Well, in view of the need for
housing, I think the government policy is
wrong.
Another question to the Minister.
Will the Minister advise why he thinks the
hands-off attitude in the dispute between
Metropolitan Toronto and local municipalities,
as reported in today's Toronto Telegram,
under the heading "Sailboat Roulette". Will
the Minister advise how he can pick and
choose the municipal areas where he will
interfere?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have
not seen the article in today's Telegram.
The letter which I wrote to the mayor of
Toronto was a somewhat lengthy one; rather
than read it, I will table it.
Mr. Sargent: Thanks. Mr. Speaker, a ques-
tion to the Minister of Lands and Forests.
Will the Minister advise if he has any
plans to amend the fishing licence regula-
tions, and will the Minister advise why a
farmer must buy a licence to fish in his own
stream?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, I would
like to say that the fishing regulations are
presently under review.
An hon. member: Even the one about the
farmer?
Mr. Sargent: By way of a supplementary,
I asked two questions. Why should he buy
a licence to fish on his own farm, and would
you consider the issuance of free fishing
licences to senior citizens and people on
welfare?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Firstly, in reply to the
second question, this matter has been given
very careful consideration and we have found
that it would not be advisable to give an
exemption to senior citizens. If we do it for
senior citizens, we have other classes of
people— people with disabled pensions, blind
pensions and so forth— who are just as deserv-
ing of consideration. With reference to this—
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): What is the
matter with that?
Mr. Sargent: There is nothing wrong with
that.
An hon. member: Not at all!
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In reference to farm-
ers being exempted, I would say that it is
very difficult to define what are private
waters. For instance, a permanent stream
going through a farmer's farm, that stream,
the water and fish belong to the Crown.
Mr. Sargent: Pay taxes on it!
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: However, I would say
that I believe, in my own opinion, that we
are looking into such a question, for instance,
as a pond on private land. I believe that
should be exempted, and this is a matter that
is under review. Maybe at the next sitting
of the Legislature we could have an amend-
ment.
Mr. Sargent: Then the government would
not prosecute now?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Pardon?
Mr. Sargent: Then the Minister would not
prosecute now?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, I would say-
Mr. Sargent: I have to know, I have to
know!
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It will depend on the
circumstances.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thun-
der Bay.
Hon. Mr. Randall: There is a new way.
Feed them with baking soda and when they
come up to burp, hit them with a stick.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minis-
ter of Social and Family Services.
Will the Minister assist the Indian friend-
ship centres of northwestern Ontario in their
efforts to hold a convention as outlined in
their letter to Mr. Dufour, director of the
Indian development branch of his depart-
ment?
4136
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Monica
A. Turner, director of the Thunderbird
Friendship Centre, has been advised that the
request has been granted.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor-Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Transport.
Has the Minister undertaken any studies
respecting reduced transportation fares to
senior citizens, and if so, will the Minister
name the municipalities in the province that
give reduced fares to these citizens?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, the subsidizing of senior citizens
is not a responsibility of The Department of
Transport. Our department has no jurisdic-
tion in the matter of fares charged to pas-
sengers on buses operating within a mimi-
cipality.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr, Speaker, before the
orders of the day, with your permission, I
will ask the Lieutenant-Governor if he will
come into the Chamber and give Royal assent
to-
Mr. Nixon: What about the other Third
readings?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I believe some of
them might be debated and I know His
Honour has another engagement, so we will
leave those for another day.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
of Ontario entered the Chamber of the legis-
lative assembly and took his seat upon the
Throne.
Hon. W. Ross Macdonald (Lieutenant-
Governor): Pray be seated.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour,
the legislative assembly of the province has,
at its present sittings thereof, passed several
bills to which, in the name and on behalf of
the said legislative assembly, I respectfully
request Your Honour's assent.
The Clerk Assistant: The following are the
titles of bills to which Your Honour's assent
is prayed:
Bill 76, An Act to amend The Pension
Benefits Act, 1965.
Bill 81, An Act to amend The Residential
Property Tax Reduction Act, 1968.
Bill 84, An Act to repeal The Public
Finance Companies' Investments Act, 1966.
Bill 85, An Act to amend The Credit
Unions Act.
Bill 86, An Act to amend The Loan and
Trust Corporations Act.
Bill 87, An Act to amend The Ontario
Producers, Processors, Distributors and Con-
sumers Food Council Act, 1962-1963.
Bill 90, An Act to amend Tlie Hospital
Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, 1965.
Bill 92, An Act to amend The Insurance
Act.
Bill 93, An Act to amend The Homes for
Special Care Act, 1964.
Bill 94, An Act to amend The Phannacy
Act.
Bill 95, An Act to amend The Nursing
Homes Act, 1966.
Bill 96, An Act to amend The Pesticides
Act, 1967.
Bill 97, An Act respecting The Depart-
ment of Health.
Bill 118, An Act respecting the City of the
Lakehead.
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name,
the Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor
doth assent to these bills.
The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor
was pleased to retire from the Chamber.
GENERAL FARM ORGANIZATION
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
tm-e and Food) moves second reading of Bill
140, An Act to provide for the establishment,
upon an opinion poll by secret ballot of the
farmers in Ontario, of a General Farm
Organization,
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, we have followed with
a great deal of interest the development of
this bill following the publishing of the report
of the committee on farm income.
The committee report itself is not under
debate but I think most of us who read it
and have listened to the reaction to it, not
only from the agriculture community but
from other segments of the economy of On-
tario, reahze that the committee set itself
very broad goals indeed. They undertook not
only to advise the government and others
on what might be done to improve farm in-
come, but they also laid out the most amaz-
ing blueprint, I felt, to solve almost all of the
social and economic ills of the province, rang-
ing at one stage into the establishment of a
guaranteed minimum income.
MAY 8, 1969
4137
But the main area of concern had to do
with the farmers themselves. The problem
that has been very apparent to those of us
who are farmers and also members of the
Legislature is that while our organizations
have to some extent been strengthened, not
only through consolidation but through a
new approach to their responsibilities, still
we can come nowhere near representing the
needs of farmers as effectively as so many
other organizations in other pursuits in the
community have been able to do.
I sit between two lawyers here and I have
often, in private conversation with them, con-
gratulated them on their good fortune and
success in establishing an organization— I
suppose you could call it "a closed shop"—
which has rules and regulations which are
the envy of many working men in tliis prov-
ince who rely on trade unions and other sets
of laws that regulate them.
I think the same is true of school teachers,
I was a school teacher myself for nine years,
and tliere is a possibility I might be again.
The Ontario Teachers' Federation requires
membership, by Act of this Legislature, and
certainly the members of that organization
have been very effective in promoting, the
pay levels for teachers. I think they are mov-
ing quite effectively beyond that in promoting
the general professional levels in tlie teaching
profession.
This is true certainly of doctors, and we
have had extensive debate on those matters
just in the last few days. I feel that many
groups in the community have been particu-
larly successful in making their fellow citizens
reahze the importance of the contributions
they make to the fabric of our life. But the
farmers have been unsuccessful in doing this.
They have in years gone by had a great
power, politically and otherwise, and there is
every reason to see that their ability to influ-
ence public policy has decreased, I suppose
begining about 1912, certainly after the
first war.
I am sure Mr. Speaker would agree with
me, the result perhaps to the reaction in rural
communities to the fact that they had less to
say about the course of events in this prov-
ince and in this nation led to the formation
of specific political parties which dealt in
public policies from the standpoint of farmers
and the rural community.
While I think this experiment was success-
ful in some regard, I do not think it would
have any place at all in the efforts of, influ-
encing public policy as we know it today.
The lesson taught by the farmers' parties, the
Progressive Party— the United Farmers of
Ontario, of course, is a case in point that I
would not want to pass without mentioning.
The lessons are there to be learned. And
while they may have had their role in the
politics of the times, certainly they have no
comparable role today and I do not suppose
the farmers would want such a role in our
changing community.
But there is a feeling, and it has been
expressed politically, as well as in every other
forum for the years, particularly since 1955-
56 when the down grade of farm economy
became so apparent to so many farmers pres-
ently in the business, that something had to
be done in order to improve the powers of
farmers in the market place.
I would like to talk at length about what
this administration has done in order to
improve that situation. I think they have
been guilty of serious failure in not having
the power or taking the initiative in control-
ling vertical integration, but they must be
congratulated— and I believe the whole Legis-
lature can be congratulated— on the estab-
lishment of marketing boards, which I submit
have been a success. They cannot be main-
tained for ever in their present status, and
their usefulness for farmers and for the com-
munity at large has got to be changing. It
may be that more and more of these will have
tiieir centre of operation transferred from the
provincial jurisdiction to a federal jurisdiction.
I would tliink that this is very much a possi-
bility in specific products.
But the farmers have felt that not sujffici-
ent power was granted to them as an
economic unit within Ontario, to order their
own affairs and to put their own case in a
way that was substantiated and enforced and
made powerful by the research that must be
a part of any kind of a modem organization
which would have as its aim tlie promotion
of the interests of one group. I think we must
reahze that the organization that is going to
be put forward in this bill, at least for the
approval or rejection by the farmers, has as
its main purpose the promotion of the in-
terests of farmers.
Frankly, I have never approved of the
Minister's attitude that his responsibilities are
other than to deal with the farming com-
munity. He, in the expansion of his organiza-
tion, has changed the name of the depart-
ment which emphasizes that he represents
all parts of the community and I know he
likes to put it this way, or he likes to think
4138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of it this way, that is, representing the con-
sumers' interests as well. Certainly, the gov-
ernment as a whole must represent the con-
sumers' interests. But I have often felt that
the efficiency and tlie usefulness of the Min-
ister of Agriculture has depreciated some-
what by the change in his own attitude, and
the change in public policy which reflected
in the name change a couple of years ago.
So, more than anything else, the farmers,
because of these changing economic pressures,
have felt that they have not had a vehicle in
which their views can be expressly put to the
government. First, the community at large.
Second, that they have not had an organiza-
tion which was strong enough to command
the financial support that is needed, if they
are going to have the background and depth
that will make a farmers' organization appre-
ciated and respected in the community.
We have two very potent, very competent
farm organizations now. I suppose, by virtue
of the fact that I am a taxpayer in the county
of Brant, which extends a levy tc the federa-
tion of agriculture, that I am to that extent
a supporter of the federation of agriculture.
I have never joined, personall}', the farmers'
imion, because a part of membership in the
farmers' union requires rejection of member-
ship in all other farm organizations, which I
was not prepared to undertake.
But as a farmer, and as a legislator, it has
become apparent to me that the thrust of
farmers' needs has been blunted, and reduced
in its power by the division between these two
organizations.
This is apparent in the farming community,
where I have a great and continuing interest
as a member of the Legislature. I have been
gratified, as leader of the Opposition, that
both these organizations— when they prei>are
briefs to be presented to the Cabinet, to have
some efi^ect on public policy— unlike some
other organizations, which should take a letter
and direction, I beheve, from these farm
organizations, should come to the Oppositioo.
I know they have come to the NDP, and
taken time to present their brief and their
reasons and arguments associated with it. It
is quite apparent that the two organizations
frequently work at cross purposes. There is
a tremendous rivalry between them, which
we have seen grow since the inception of the
farmers' union a few years ago, an inception
based, I believe, on the feeling that the
federation was simply not effective in statiixg
the needs of the farmers to the govemmeoit
and to the community.
In this, frankly, I would agree with the
farmers' imion. I felt that the federation has
been inadequate, that it became complacent,
that its briefs year by year tended more and
more to praise the government for what they
had done; rather than pointing out courses of
action which might have been entered into.
I always remember— and I do not believe I
am revealing a caucus secret— one of the
occasions when the federation presented their
\iews to our caucus when the hon. member,
the former member for Grey South, Farquhar
Oliver, was there. He undertook to chastise
them, to some extent, for saying they spent
altogether too much time complimenting tiie
Minister of Agriculture and Food and the
administration, and trying to hide— deeply
imbedded in their brief— some small criticisms.
He felt, and I agreed with him, that the
time had come when the farmers' organiza-
tions had to quit pussyfooting; that they
did not always have to be on a first-name,
back-slapping basis with the Minister of Agri-
culture and Food in order to state the needs
of an important and separate section of the
economy.
Well, the Bill that is before us sets up
machinery which will place before the farmers
of Ontario, and those closely associated with
the hirm community, an opportunity to indi-
cate whether or not they want to free them-
selves from their allegiance to present
organizations; and opt for the formation of
a general farm organization.
This has been opposed, strongly, by the
Ontario Farmers' Union, because I think they
very correctly see, in it, a reaction to their
attitudes and policies— or reaction to the way
they present their views, which has offended
fanners, politicians, and I suppose Ministers
of Agriculture. There is a feeling among those
who strongly support farmers' union policy
that, in fact, this Bill and the plebiscite which
it will put before the fanners— ^particularly if
it is accepted— will try to abolish the farmers'
union. And certainly, if ax>proved, will reduce
the force and supxK)rt of that organization.
I would say that there is more than a
grain of truth in what has been put forward
by the president of the farmers' union so
strongly in this connection.
I must say that I feel the effectiveness of
a farm organization is going to be based,
in the future, on its abiUty to speak with a
concerted voice.
For that reason, I would say that, while
the farmers may not agree with me in this,
I srtdll think that many of them want the
MAY 8, 1969
4139
opportunity to express their views. I think
that they are very anxious that the ballot
which will he presented to them does have
something more than just the proposition: will
you accept a new organization? Yes or no, you
either vote in favour, or in fact, you are not
taking part.
I think that there is a possibility, through
this legislation, that we may be unfairly ap-
proaching this situation, and this is why
certain questions put to the Minister of Agri-
culture and Food in recent weeks have
attempted to draw from him how he is con-
sulting with tlie two main farm organizations
in preparing for the ballot that will be put
to the farmers if this bill is approved.
I have had representations, pubHc and pri-
vate, on both sides of the principle of the
bill. We believe, as Liberals, that the bill
should be supported in that it does crystallize
the feeling that is found in all parts of the
farm community- that we can no longer con-
tinue as we have; that we must take definite
steps to coalesce either in one organization—
or with strong support behind two— and do
away, once and for all, with the internal strife
that I think has reduced the effectiveness of
the pubhc presentation of farm pohcy on
behalf of farmers.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that
I will tell you that when the motion for
second reading is presented to us, we intend
to support it.
We have a number of difficulties with
certain sections of the bill, and particularly
with the Minister's efforts to co-ordinate farm
policy and farm attitudes in a build-up to
the presentation of the bill. This eventually
may be a referendum presented to the
farmers themselves: that an independent
committee has been active across the prov-
ince, closely associated with the federation
of agriculture-although not directly associ-
ated with them-and that this committee has
been fairly heavily funded from sources that
have been objected to by the farmers' union.
I must say in some instances I object myself;
since it tends to be the use of public funds
for what, in this particular case, is at least
a semi-private project.
Nevertheless, I think the concept of the
bill is one that is essential. It is one that we
will support. Our attitudes on the ballot
itself I will be glad to make clear when we
have had a chance to see it. I understand
there is a draft ballot presently in circula-
tion, although I have not received one myself.
I feel that a good many problems associ-
ated with this are bound to come forward
in this debate, but in general I am convinced
that we must support any sincere effort to
unify the farmers' approach to government
and the public in the light of the impossibi-
lity of farmers doing this under present
circumstances.
So for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we will
support the bill on second reading.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-
Bruce.
Mr. M. Gaunt ( Huron-Bruce ) : Mr.
Speaker, as my leader has indicated we will
support the bill on second reading. It seems
to me tliat this bill is an admission by the
government and by farm leaders generally
that the past system of organization has not
been effective in coping with the needs and
the aspirations of farmers.
That recognition is underhned by the fact
that agriculture in the province of Ontario is
in trouble, agriculture in Canada is in
trouble, indeed, agriculture in the United
States is in trouble from the standpoint of
getting a very low return on labour and
money invested.
However, the bill is also an indication on
the part of all those concerned of a desire to
move ahead and to a considerable degree
break new ground in attempting to set up
a single structure which will, it is hoped,
reflect the views and needs of the farm com-
munity.
Mr. Speaker, we support the bill, and I
want to, for a moment, counter some of the
arguments I have heard that have indicated
opposition not only to the GFO, but also to
the holding of a plebiscite. Let us take the
latter one first.
The argument goes something like this.
We should not have a vote on this question
because it will divide the farmers. Well if
divide means to separate numerically those
who have differing opinions, then I say why
not? After all that is a fundamental principle
of democracy. The same Line of reasoning
could be used to argue that we should not
hold a provinical election every three or four
or five years because it would divide our
people. Well really, if we have to wait for
all 7.5 million people in this province to come
around to the position where they are in
favour of tossing this government out, for
instance, before we have an election then
I am afraid we are stuck with you for a long
time.
Mr. Nixon: They are almost all of that
opinion now.
4140
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Gaunt: The vast majority indeed are.
Democracy is the rule by the majority and
if the majority of farmers want a GEO so be
it; if they do not, so be it, but at least they
should have the right to vote and to voice
an opinion one way or the other. Essentially
the no vote argument has no basis in logic
or in common sense in my view.
The other argument that arises runs along
the lines that if there is a vote then Plan A
must be on the ballot. Now let us analyze
that. Plan A consists of a number of points,
the most important of which are—
1. A plebiscite be held, and that is coming.
2. A call for financing by commodity
check-off, and apparently that has been met.
3. A call for a voluntary membership with
payment of dues over and above the check-
off, and this is apparently going to be met.
4. Plan A proposed an eventual integra-
tion of marketing boards into the master
organization, or the GEO itself.
This is the only point in Plan A that has
not been met. As far as I am concerned I
urge the Minister, who has the ultimate
responsibility for drawing up the ballot, to
place that question on the ballot in a form
similar to what I have indicated. That is to
say, the ballot should contain a question:
"Are you in favour of eventual integration
of marketing boards into the GEO, or some-
thing similiar to it?"
I have seen the ballot that has been cir-
culated and I do not believe that that
particular ballot contains that question. Per-
haps there is a question similar to it. It says:
"Should each marketing board have a vote
on the provincial council of the General
Farm Organization?" I do not think that is
quite the same thing and I would ask the
Minister to give \ery serious consideration to
that point because I think that having done
that then no farmer in the province of Ontario
can sa\' with any degree of accuracy that
Plan A was not put to the farmers, because I
think it will have l:>een put provided that
particular condition is met.
This, in my opinion, would be much
superior to putting Plan A on the ballot be-
cause many farmers do not understand Plan A
and it would be confusing to have it placed
in that way. On the other hand if the ques-
tion to which I ha\ e made reference is put on
all of the points, all of the points contained in
Plan A will have been put to the farmers of
tliis province for a judgment.
I hope the Minister will see fit to indicate
to the House what he does intend to put on
the ballot so that the members will ha\e an
opportunity to express their views and
opinions in this very important matter. I do
not think it is good enough for the Minister
to draw up a ballot in the dark recesses of
his office and submit it to the farmers because
this type of action will only confirm the
suggestions that the new organization is go-
ing to be a pawn of the government and these
are suspicions and grapevine gossip that reach
all of our ears from time to time.
That feeling, however justified, was
le\ elled from time to time against the federa-
tion of agriculture, because they did not get
the power for their so called deduction or
check-off from the government, and so it was
felt by some people that they were in some
way beholden to the government for that
favour. That type of thing should be avoided
at all costs, Mr. Speaker, because fanners
resent the government even having the
appearance of meddling in any way.
Having said that, I realize the government
is the only body which can provide enabling
legislation for farmers to do the things they
have to do and construct the organization
they wish to represent them.
One of the secret fears of farmers is the
fact that in the event the organization is not
effective, they will be stuck with it whether
they like it or not. The bill provides for an
opinion poll on dissolution upon receipt of a
petition containing 15,000 names which
means that it is going to be harder and harder
to dump the organization as the years go
by because the number of farmers is con-
stantly decreasing.
It would make much more sense, in my
opinion, if the bill had specified a percentage
rather than a constant number. I leave it at
that. Perhaps it would be more properly
dealt with under a clause by clause scrutiny.
This bill and its draftsmanship and scope
follow very closely the recommendations of
the Farm Income Report and the farm in-
come committee laid it right on the line. They
pointed out that the present organizations,
the Ontario Farmers Union and the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture have not been able
to discov er common ground and this has be-
come a matter of extreme frustration for
farmers when unity is so important to them.
What the farm income committee was say-
ing is simply this: it has been too easy for
gov ernments, at all levels, to play one organ-
ization against the other, sort of Roman
Empire divide and nile theory. The results
are obvious, an economic crisis of major pro-
portions. This is the crucial issue in agricul-
MAY 8, 1969
4141
ture today and this we will have to tackle
immediately with resolve and determination
that has not been heretofore employed, if this
country is to avoid a serious upheaval that
could destroy the social and economic struc-
ture of rural Ontario.
I do not think I overstated; I think it is
that serious. Farmers have precious little time
left to be quarreling among themselves. This
is a monumental problem that can only be
tackled by a strong unified voice on the part
of agriculture.
Of course, this situation is aggravated, as
the income committee pointed out, by the so-
called challenge of abundance. Farmers in
this country have always been able to produce
far more than market requirements at any
given time, although this does fluctuate from
time to time. The point is that farmers could
produce twice as much as they now produce
and do so, and would do so, at the drop of
a hat, given a reasonably attractive price in
the course of market.
I do not subscribe to the theory that we
will ever be short of food in this country. At
least, not during my lifetime. It has always
been a source of embarrassment and remorse
to me that millions of people in the world go
hungry every day while we sit on the bread
basket of the world and talk about supply
management, tailoring our production to fit
the market. Meanwhile, in India and Japan
and China, millions of people do not know
where the next meal is coming from.
India, for instance, fell ten per cent behind
in meeting their basic food needs last year.
They have 38,000 new mouths to feed every
24 hours. The world population at the
moment is roughly three and a half billion.
By 2000 AD, it will be seven and a half
billion— over double what it is now.
The problem of starvation will not subside;
it will increase— not because of our lack of
food, but because of poor distribution. That
has always been our problem. Farni organiza-
tions, governments, indeed, society cannot
afford to stay on the sidelines any longer. If
these peoples' food needs are not met, they
will not ask us, they will take it.
I agree, I must say, with the moderator
of the United Church of Canada, Dr.
McClure. These are Dr. McClure's words:
If we were as interested in saving lives
as we are in killing people, we could find
the answer to the world starvation prob-
lem.
According to Dr. McClure, it requires
$360,000 to kill one Viet Cong, but $1,500
to provide sustenance for one starving per-
S'on.
A farm organization has a role to play
here, along with the government, and I hope
this new organization— if and when it is
formed— will assume a posture of greater
outreach than has been witnessed up until
now.
The government, of course, has to play the
major role, insofar as financing is concerned.
It has to play the major role simply because
it acts on behalf of society whose responsi-
bility it is.
The Canadian government is presently
setting aside .46 per cent of our gross national
product to assist the starving world. We are
going to have to do much better than that.
We could feed two-thirds of the world's
population from this continent if we cared to
do so.
But let me leave that point. This party
believes in the principle of a general farm
organization. It beheves even stronger in the
principle of farm self-determination. The
farmers have the right to make the decisions
which effect their future and, having said
that, let me hasten to add that I am per-
suaded that they will make the right deci-
sions.
The bill is not perfect. There are things
that should be changed. We can talk about
that in greater detail at a later stage. Many
of the farmers complain that the checkoff is
too much, that this new organization is going
to have substantial sums of money at its
disposal and at its command, and they have
no guarantee that this money will be used
in a wise way.
Farmers, I suppose, are suspicious by
nature mainly because of past experience.
One Minister of Agriculture ago— in other
words, during the reign of the Minister's
predecessor— the government made a deliber-
ate attempt at encouraging, promoting and
forcing party hacks to take leading roles in
the federation of agriculture. As a result,
Tory ward heelers used to trot around the
back concessions promoting the Tory line,
and it was obvious that it was the Tory
interest first and the farmer interest second.
This government sowed to the wind and is
now reaping the whirlwind. That, Mr.
Speaker, was the beginning of the end for the
federation. That is when it really began to
erode within.
Surely we can take a lesson from that.
This is why I am so concerned about the
interim management committee, as provided
for in the bill. This committee has tremendous
4142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
power— and more important— would be in a
position to influence votes in substantial
blocks. It is appointed by the government,
and this committee could be a real tool of
the government in the election of delegates to
the founding convention, as well as the mem-
bers of the interim provincial council and
the executive of that council. The interim
management committee is responsible for the
founding convention and the election by the
delegates of the members of the executive
committee. I suppose the Minister will not
be appointing this interim management com-
mittee until after the vote.
But I would feel much happier about this
bill if I knew who was going to be appointed
to the interim management committee. Let
us now serve notice on the Minister, that we
intend to watch \'ery carefully who he
appoints to the management committee. If it
is going to be a repository for party hacks,
the GFO is doomed before it ever gets
started.
I would make a suggestion, Mr. Speaker,
that the Minister of Agriculture and Food
should pick a well-known and respected farm
leader from the federation of agriculture,
one from the farm union and the others from
the general farm population. However, I
point out that I do not think these people
should be too closely associated with the
govemmcnt party or any party for that
matter, but who have the capacity to initiate
and direct the gestation period of the organi-
zation.
I cannot stress this enough. On this com-
mittee rides the succe&s or failure of the
whole plan, presuming the vote carries, of
course. Well, as I indicated, we support the
principle of the bill, notwithstanding a linger-
ing reservation about what role the govern-
ment intends to play in this whole affair.
When one gets down to the crux of the
matter it becomes a question of alterna-
tives and we feel that we will support the
bill in view of the alternatives that are now
open to the farm community to improve their
economic lot; to have a real voice in the
direction and formation of the long term
goals and objectives of agriculture that are
so urgently needed.
This bill is not an end-all or be-all, a
panacea for all farm ills, but it is a step, at
l(\ist hopefully it is a ste^p forward, and on
this basis we will vote for a second reading.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. ni( mber for Brant-
ford.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr.
S^x^iker, on rising to speak to tliis bill I
would like to say that this ixirty will support
the bill in principle, for second reading any-
way, with certain reservations which I will
deal with later. The prime concern, however,
in the agricultural field right now, is that
there is a need for a general farm organiza-
tion. If you examine the coriX)rate setup or
the lack of economic power in the hands of
the farmers, you start realizing that there has
to be a strong countervailing force available
to the farmers in their battie with the cor-
porate sector of our economy and this is
something that the GFO can provide the
farmers. Certainly there are many services
that can be carried out by a well financed
GFO organization; services such as research,
in terms of market research; they can carry
out production planning; they can carry out
otlier plans, integration of agriculture into
other activities, sort of foreseeing the develop-
ing economic problems in agriculture and so
on.
Tliese are the things that can be carried
out by the GFO, and in a sense these are the
same tools that are being used by the cor-
porate segments of our society and I think
they should be available to the farmers. Up
to now these have not been available to the
farmers and this is something that the GFO
can pro\'ide.
Tlie reservations about the bill, of course,
stem from two things. In the first place it
is what is going to be on the ballot. As the
previous tv\'o speakers have indicated I think
there should be on the ballot an opportunity
for the farmers union to present their views.
The options on tlie ballot should be such that
members of the farmers union and other
farmers, of course, can vote for the kind of
a GFO or general farm organization they
want. To a great extent the type of organiza-
tion that will evolve from tiiis bill will de-
pend from the sort of straw vote that will be
carried out by the ballot.
I have a feeling, although there are argu-
ments contrary to this, that it .should be a
fairly comprehensive ballot in terms of in-
cluding whether we will go with Plant A. in
terms of whether the GFO should look into
integrating itself with a national farmers
organization. It should possibly consider
whether the marketing board should after a
period of time be tied in with the GFO or
whether the marketing board should be con-
solidated under GFO. I think these are some
of the things that can be included on the
ballot to give the Minister and the farming
convention, an indication of the feeling in the
farm field.
MAY 8, 1969
4143
The other problem of course is the interim
committee, Vv'^hich was pointed out by the
previous speaker, that if the government de-
cides to put on party hacks or faithfuls or
individuals who do not have tlie trust of the
farmers, it could cause a good deal of dis-
sension and continue the battles that are in
agriculture right now. I would suggest that
I agree with the previous speaker that there
should be a representative from the farmers
union. There should also be a representative
from the federation of agriculture, and I
think the third person should be a neutral
party, possibly selected from some field of
activity that perhaps is not related to agri-
culture. He would be the arbitrator between
the two of them, perhaps, when plans are
being made for the founding convention.
I think some of the other things in the bill
that are of some concern are that there is
nothing in the bill to indicate tliat one of the
roles of the GFO would be to bargain in tlie
marketplace; to bargain in terms of acquiring
the inputs that go into agriculture. I think
that this possibly should be included in the
bill; that this should be stressed. I think this
is one of the important functions that the
GFO will have to carry on.
Secondly, of course, the idea that tliere
should be 15,000 votes in the future if some-
body wants to upset some decision of the
GFO or change the setup of the organization,
that it should be a percentage figure as sug-
gested earlier, in view of the fact that there
will be fewer and fewer farmers in Ontario—
and trying to get 15,000 votes when your
farming population is going down— will be-
come a very difficult task.
I would hope that the Minister would cer-
tainly permit— and he has assured the House
that this bill will be examined in committee
—I hope that there is enough time given to
the farm organizations so they can present
their briefs. I hope the Minister is open
to amendments which I think will be intro-
duced by the various groups who wall be
appearing at the committee. I tliink it is only
fair that serious consideration should be
given to these amendments from tlie represen-
tations that will be made by the farm organ-
izations.
In conclusion I feel, Mr. Speaker, that
there is a great need for a farm organization,
a strong farm organizaitiooi to represent the
farmer in a corporate setup and the GFO
can be that kind of a vehicle for the fanners.
The responsibihty of how it turns out, of
course, will rest on the Minister's shoulders.
I think, if anything, the Minister should try
to stress his impartiality in this and listen to
the farmers and to their representations. In
the end when the organization is in operation,
it should be a farmer controlled organization.
To a great extent this Legislature should
try to stay out of the deliberations or steer
from trying to influence the decisions of the
GFO.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex
South.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (E»sex South): Mr.
Speaker, a bill of this importance certainly
cannot go by any member in this Legislature
who represents a basic farming riding. I can
only underline some of the points that were
brought out by my leader and our critic for
tliis department, and possibly add a few com-
ments of my own which might assist the
Minister and those who are hoping to imple-
ment this bill very smoothly.
This bill is in two parts. The principle of
the first part, as I see it, is, in fact, the
creation of an opinion poll. To me an opinion
poll must have alternatives on the ballot, and
the wording of this bill, I think, must be
very clear, very explicit, so that the average
person in a rural community can understand
it. We know that many of the people in the
rural are:is have had good educations, they
are very progressive, but there are numbers
of the older ones who, through economic cir-
cumstances, may have had to forego formal
education. I think therefore that the wording
on this ballot must be of such a nature that
they can clearly understand the questions
and implications in the referendum, or tlie
opinion poll that is going to be put to them.
On this section I note a clause that the
people who have the vote are the man, the
wife and those over 21 who are engaged in
the agricailture operation. I think that this is
a point we cannot underline too strongly, that
the women, in these farm homes and farm
communities, should play a ver>' active role
and that the whole family should participate
and be sure to get out and vote on this ques-
tion. It is not just for the men who seem
to attend most of the meetings, but everyone
in the household connected with agriculture.
Part two gets into the larger area of dis-
cussion and for this purpose is broken into
various sections. The principle, as I see it,
if this vote carries, is to enable the general
farm organization to delve into research and
production costs, capital equipment costs,
and marketing procedures, that affect the
farming community. I have some reservations
here as I feel there might be a duplication of
4144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the agricultural industries in relation to re-
search in particular. This has been expressed
to me by farmers. I know that research is
\ ery essential and that possibly in the wisdom
of those directing the general farm organiza-
tion they can pinpoint the areas where they
are going to exert their pressures while the
agricultural industn' can fend for itself in the
market place.
I think, possibly, tribute at this time should
l)e paid to the fann union. I beliexe they were
the people who have changed their thinking,
and I have felt, in the past few years, re-
directed their thoughts from increased produc-
tivity into the area of input costs. Certainly,
as a small merchant, I must be aware of miy
input costs, and I feel that direction of agri-
culture in Ontario is increasingly more and
more concerned with the input, and no doubt
nuich of the research as continuing in this
principle will be devoted to that area.
I think that underliniu'g this whole pur-
ix)se and the structure of the general farm
organization is that this group must have the
finances to hire the very best people, to hire
the proper equipment— maybe computers— and
to get the top people, the top equipment to
really do a job for the farming community.
And, more essential, that they communicate
back to the individual farms and farmers their
findings. Here, again, these should be in
explicit and simple terms so that the average
man can understand the total nature of the
problem as the hired experts find this.
Now, a further principle contained in the
section is that the general farm organization
is to make a representation on behalf of
farmers to any level of government. It is to
help de\elop programmes, to make recom-
mendations of any level of government. This
is a very noble purpose, but I would like
to underline, today, that the government does
not necessarily have to accept what the gen-
eral farm organiziition asks. It does not matter
what party is in power, they do not have
to accept this— and I think the farming com-
munity should realize this. We hope the
general fann organization may l>e a cure-all,
but in fact it will not be because other prob-
lems will c"t)me along. It may not be so by the
group.
I am concerned here too, that basically, to
succeed, the government must pay attention
to the general farm organization to the detri-
ment of any other group, because if they
shoidd enact thoughts that are expressed by
an outside group, it basically would under-
mine the full structure and principle of the
general farm organization.
So I would hope at the founding convention
that the terms of reference for the structuring
of the general farm organization will allow
for enough divergence of opinion within the
stnicture of the elected executive of the fanm
organization before any one particular policy
is settled and brought forth to the various
levels of government. As I feel, in a demo-
cracy there must be room for divergence of
opinions and allowance— hopefully within the
structure^whereby directors can be replaced
on a continuing basis, and that this will not
become a family compact. Also tha;t there will
be free discussion within the ranks of the
farm organization before a policy is resolved.
Certainly, too, there must be an opportunity
for those who dissent with the thoughts of
the general farm organization to approach the
members of the Legislature and their federal
MPs to put forth individual thoughts and
personal thoughts to the government in power,
at either level.
Now, a third principle that I would like to
comment upon is that the general farm organ-
ization is to assist in the establishment of a
single general farm organization for Canada.
I believe this is contained in the latter part
of the bill. To me, this is essential in the
marketing of farm products; it is essential in
the regulating of production, and it is essen-
tial in making representation for tariff changes
such as apply through GATT. And I think,
somewhere along the line, this Minister must
be willing to abdicate certain powers to
Ottawa in this field; I realize the problem
that there are nine other pro\ inces that must
do likewise at relatively the same time and
give this undertaking to the federal Minister
of Agriculture to embody a comprehensixe
programme of marketing for the Dominion
of Canada.
So, with these thoughts, Mr. Speaker, I
would indicate that I certainly will support
this bill along with my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker: The lion, member for Prince
Edward-Lennox.
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the
remarks that were made this afternoon. I
might say that the proposed \ote on the
general farm organization has been a matter
of considerable interest in my own riding.
There have been some letters which have
appeared in the newspaper, and I thought
this one might be of particular interest, be-
cause it was written in reply to a previous
letter which objected to the formation of a
MAY 8, 1969
4145
general farm organization. This person said,
and it appears in yesterday's Picton Gazette:
Dear Mary:
At a GFO workshop only two months
ago, you told an audience: "It is better to
have one poor farm organization than to
have two good ones pulling in opposite
directions."
While your letter in Wednesday's Gazette
raises some interesting points, you suddenly
reversed the above theory, attacking the
concept of a GFO on a very broad front.
Your loyalty to the farmers' union is
commendable, and their goals to work
towards a national farmer organization are
the best— in the long run. But, unfortun-
ately, Mr. Miller's foot-in-mouth politics
have failed to inspire farmers on a local,
district or provincial level. Let's not be
childish and believe that he can suddenly
do it on a national level. By trying to go
national first, is he not putting the cart
before the ass?
Surely, Mary, a strong provincial organ-
ization with adequate financial resources
has a better chance to work towards a
national organization than the half-starved
creatures we have now peddling this idea.
The farm union executive works dili-
gently against the GFO because it is
initiated by the government. OK, let us be
suspicious. What else could the govern-
ment do?
Picture the Minister of Agriculture sit-
ting in his office. In comes one delegation
petitioning for a beef marketing board. But
the other organization says it does not want
it, they want a com marketing board. And
the first delegation says they do not want
any part of it. Then one proposes to lower
the bank interest rate for farmers, arguing
that this would lower the expenses of the
farmer and with it increase profits.
In come the other groups saying they
want the interest rates raised. This way,
they argue, it will discourage farmers from
going into over-production, and as a result,
prices will improve. And you could go on
and on.
All these theories sound wonderful de-
pending which way you look at them. The
politician sits in the middle, listens to it
all, tries to smile politely, and as soon as
the delegation leaves his office, he will
mumble, "If the so-and-so's could really
agree on what they really wanted, we
could try to help them". So he does nothing.
At election time he gets hell from both
organizations, and the Opposition as well,
because he did nothing for the farmers. But
what can he do? If he introduces legisla-
tion to help the farmers out of the tax-
payers' funds, the Opposition will jump up
and shout, "Why waste the taxpayers'
money on a programme designed to help
the farmer if half the farmers do not even
want it?" By half the farmers they mean
the one farm organization which is inevi-
tably in opposition.
As you can see, under the present mess
the government can do nothing for you
until farmers speak with one voice only.
The farmers' union is trying to wreck the
GFO. If they succeed, what then? Suppos-
ing the vote is 57 per cent for and 43 per
cent against. Legislation needs a 60 per
cent majority. Two months later a union
organizer calls on fanner Giles who had
great hopes that the GFO would be
adopted.
The organizer— "W^e want to unite all
farmers into one single organization to
speak with a unified voice, to be recognized
by the government as the official spokes-
man for farmers," tra, la, la.
Farmer Giles-"That is what the GFO
wanted to do but you guys wrecked it.
Get out of here you lying hound before I
call the cops."
Obviously the rift between farmers
would be greater than ever before. If you
like the present state of farming, by all
means wreck the GFO. Unity will be im-
possible for several years to come.
It is very easy to come up with phrases
such as "the same old gang with a lot
more money and a new name." By the
same token the federation guys could wail
"the government has only made up the
kind of organization that the Union wanted,
having given them a lot more money and
a new name." Surely you must realize that
there has to be a compromise.
You go on to say that Mr. Stewart could
easily legislate the GFO out of existence.
Is not that argument a bit hollow? The
government has always had the power to
legislate any organization out of existence.
I cannot see the trade unions, the teach-
ers' federations, the medical association,
and so on, ever getting all steamed up
over this power. Why do they try to work
up the farmers over it?
I think that many fanners could make
a heck of a lot more money if they would
only stop bickering and fighting among
4146
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
themselves, but organize and get them-
selves somebody at the top who knows
what he is doing, instead of having all
these two-bit politicians who talk out of
both comers of their mouths.
Your president. Miller, has for some time
now labelled the proposed GFO as being
government controlled. He did this long
before he ever saw the legislation and
long before a founding convention was be-
ing called. Yet he told tliis to his followers
as an already established fact. Many believ-
ing him started to whistle his time and
began to work against the GFO in good
faith.
In my opinion, if a leader starts this sort
of smear campaign he is not even fit to
take a group of boy scouts for an after-
noon stroll. In your letter you blame
federal and provincial governments for
dividing farmers. Even an idiot must see
that this time it is the farm union leaders
who want to keep farmers divided. I can-
not help wondering whether they are doing
it from malice, selfishness, or just plain
stupidity.
The GFO is being initiated to bring all
farmers into one organization and let the
majority rule. This in my view, is the
proper democratic thing to do. If this is
not what the farm union wants, then tell
us please, what they do want? A dictator-
ship? You say: "national farm unity". Come
now Mary, you go after national unity by
first wrecking provincial unity. Let us be
sensible.
Fraternally yours,
Fred Hassenbach
Former member of the
Ontario Farmers Union.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would not choose en-
tirely the language that Mr. Hassenbach has
used but nevertheless I do feel that his opin-
ions are worth while considering at the time
when this matter of great importance to all
those engaged in agriculture in Ontario is
being debated.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make a few brief com-
ments with regard to this bill, on second
reading, in support of it. I am not going to
repeat the general ]>ackground out of which
tills bill has emerged, nor the basic statement
with regard to the attitude of the New Demo-
cratic Party which my colleague from Brant-
tord has already put on the record. But I
do want to underline a few points which I
think are of particular importance and per-
haps in underlining them, stress them suffici-
ently with the Minister tliat we can get some-
thing more than normal consideration.
As the leader of the Opposition indicated,
this whole proposal emerged out of the report
of the income committee. In my view that
report generally was quite good. I think some-
body from tlie federation of agriculture made
the comment that there was nothing in it
that they had not proposed themselves some
time during the last five years, but when they
saw it all set down in a comprehensive docu-
ment, even they were a little startled by the
far reaching and radical nature of the pro-
posals. Indeed, it was so radical that there
were rumours and rumblings of it having been
written either in Moscow or some such
distant place as that, and these solid men of
the soil whom the Minister had chosen to
make the study found themselves described in
terms that normally are attributed to x>olitical
radicals in distant fields.
However, the thing that disappointed me
most about the Farm Income Report was that
it grew out of an urgent need to tackle farm
income immediately. Indeed, as every mem-
ber of the House will know, and the Minister
himself will be painfully aware, it grew out
of the tractor demonstrations and the vari-
ous activities of 1967. The Minister took the
usual way out of calling a conference which
resulted in a committee, which in turn re-
sulted in interim reports and another con-
ference, and anotlier year or two of study.
Now, one would have thought that since
the specific objective in the first instance was
a farm income incentive programme, which
was something of a variation of deficiency
payments, or guaranteed floor prices, or other
techniques that have been used down tlirough
the years, that a specific proposal for meeting
the fundamental problem of farm income
would have emerged, yet it did not. There
have been some suggestions in the report.
What the committee did, for better or for
worse, was to come to the conclusion that
one can never move towards giving agricul-
ture the kind of strength in tlie market place
that it needs, the kind of strength in terms
of relationship to a government that it must
have, unless there is a strong general farm
organization and so they put this ahead of
everything else.
Again, whether one agrees v/ith that or not,
we are stuck v/ith this set of priorities, and
the basic issue of farm income has tended
to be shelved to some degree in this pre-
MAY 8, 1969
4147
occupation of the whole issue of tlie general
farm organization. I hope to high heaven
that when we have gone through this pro-
cess we will not have gone through a process,
essentially a mechanical process and still be
as far away from coming to grips with the
basic problem of farm income. Because if
we do not tackle and solve that, sometime
soon there is not going to be a lot of farmers
around who are struggling for survival at the
moment.
Now the problem that has plagued agricul-
ture, down through the years— apart from
Income— is divisions in the agricultural com-
munity. What disturbs me most about the
developments of the last four or five months,
since the income report came out, and as we
have moved towards the proposition of a
plebiscite or an opinion poll, is the grave
danger that those divisions are going to be
perpetuated and ev.en deepened. I do not
think anybody can deny the reality of that
danger. Now part of it— and let us be frank
—has emerged because of the fundamentally
different ai>proach between the two farm
organizations, the federation of agriculture
and the farm union. I am not going to repeat
the critical remarks that have been made by
almost every speaker in the Opposition side,
since we entered this debate with regard to
the weaknesses in tlie federation which in
effect provoke emergence of the farmers
union.
It was a federation of farm organizations
that got away from the grass roots. It
was an organization, to use that harsh epithet
that is sometimes used, that became in effect
"a company union" of the government. There
is no doubt about it: it was an organization
that was manipulated by the government.
Well, the Minister may shake his head,
but just let me say this: If the Minister does
not realize that what I have said is reality,
then I am deeply disturbed about the pros-
pect of him healing some of these divisions
so that we might be able to solve this
problem.
And I say to the Minister quietly, and as
persuasively as I can, that if he does not
realize now that one of the realities in rural
Ontario is the belief that farm organizations
—and particularly the federation— have been
controlled and manipulated and used by the
government for its political purposes, then
he just is not in touch with reality.
Furthermore, if he does not recognize
that, he is incapable of trying to bridge
some of these gaps that have emerged and
even deepened as we have moved towards
the prospect of holding it. This is a fact.
The Minister shakes his head again. Let
me put it this way, Mr. Speaker, so I will
not need to argue with the Minister. Whether
or not he thinks it is true, there are an
awful lot of farmers who are convinced it
is true.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: That may be,
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, let us move on
to ground which we can share. If there are
a lot of farmers who believe it is true, then
whether the Minister thinks it is or not, is
irrelevant, because the reality we have to
live with is what farmers think at the mom-
ent. That is the reason why farm union
came into being; that is the reason why the
farm union has deep suspicions with regard
to the extent to which the federation and
indeed, even the plebiscite committee, is in
effect a front for the government that it still
being manipulated by the government in the
fashion that the government has manipulated
farm organization down through the years
for its own purposes.
Now I repeat all tliis-because I think the
Minister in the next few weeks, has got to
reach heights of statesmanship, that he has
never achieved in die past, if we are going
to be aible to make this whole exercise a
successful one.
At the moment, the reality is— how wide-
spread, frankly, it is diflRcult to judge— that
people who were staunch supporters of the
farm imion, and who are supporters of the
GFO, have left the farm union. In fact, two
or three top officials have come out in favour
of the GFO and therefore have been e:ipelled
from the top councils of the farm union. But
the net result of all this, Mr. Speaker, is
that those who have remained are even more
bitter. That is the reason why I say to the
Minister, that the divisions are even deeper
now than they were foiu: months ago.
Quite frankly, if a significant proportion of
people vote against the GFO, even if it is not
a proportion big enough to deny the possi-
bility of the GFO coming into existence. In
other words, it can be upwards of 40 per
cent, and the GFO could still come into
existence, because your requirement, I under-
s>tant, is going to be some 60 per cent— if
nearly 40 per cent of the farmers of the
province of Ontario are persuaded that any
farm organization is just a tool manipulated by
the government, they will be made even more
bitter because of the passions that are being
aroused in this campaign. Quite frankly, I
4148
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fear for the prospects of a successful farm
organization in this province, because the net
result will be organized opposition to the
GFO. It will have all of the rights and
privileges that the Act is going to give it in
terms of economic security. I am not opposed
to that, because I have always supported
basic security for the economic organizations
of the people. That is why I think that the
checkoff of union dues, and other union
security items are a very necessary part, for
example of trade unions; and I am a little
intrigued sometimes to see the schizophrenia
among Conservatives, who are now pre-
sumably in support of this for farm organi-
zations, and bursting out with antagonism
widi regard to it on the trade union side.
However, I will not go any further off on
that tangent.
I do not know whether it is wise— but I
think it is rather relevant— but it leaves people
wondering exactly where the Conservative
Party stands with regard to this issue.
The basic point that I wanted to make is
that we have got to strive— and when I say
we, I think the Minister has to lead in striv-
ing—to make certain tliat every sizeable group
which has a particular point of view not re-
flected on the ballot shall get an attentive
hearing.
Otherwise, he is going to drive them into
opposition; and in driving them into opposi-
tion, he is going to end up with something
approaching 40 per cent or more opposed.
This is going to bede\ il the successful oper-
ation of the general farm organization in the
future.
Therefore, I rather look forward to the
meetings of the standing committee so that
we can listen to the objections that are raised
by those that are opposed to the GFO or
opposed to what appears to be emerging in
the ballot.
I imderstand that draft copies of something
are now floating around.
I asked the Minister, a week or so ago,
who was going to have the final say as to
what was going to be on the ballot. He was a
little reluctant to gi\e me a definitive answer
on that. But with one or two supplementary
questions he had to concede, finally, that he
will have to make the final decision. And I
think this is correct, so at least it is within
our power to influence the man who is going
to have the final decisicm. And I reiterate:
the Minister has got to examine, with an open
mind, every proposal that is represented by
a significant number of people; and seek a
means for getting it onto the ballot. Only in
that way can we create the unity we desper-
ately need, as we move to gi\'ing farmers an
opportunity to express their views. That is the
whole purpose of this exercise.
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Re\enue):
The deputy leader is spellbound.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, as a matter of fact,
at least he is in the House, and listening—
and most of that Tory party representative of
rural Ontario is not even in the House.
I invite the Minister, instead of internipting
me, to count, and then make a calculation as
to the percentage in attendance-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: I am willing to bet that
there is a larger percentage of our members
here than yours. Figure it out and remain
quiet, then I can finish my speech-
Interjections by hon. members.
An hon. member: He'll ha\'e to take off his
shoes?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I was
just about finished before I was rudely inter-
rupted and, in any case, I have lost the train
of m\- thoughts-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: I reiterate a point which
I think I was on, that the farmers should be
gi\ en a choice. And that is the whole purpose
of this exercise. Our challenge now, more par-
ticularly the Minister's challenge by the man
who has the final say— is to make certain that
the questions on the ballot will reflect e\ery
\iew that a sizeable group of fanners think
should be put to their fellow farmers.
Now, as a result, we might come up with
the kind of ballot that will be complicated.
But, quite frankly, I would prefer to sec a
ballot a bit more complicated by an issue
that is an important issue in the minds of a
significant number of farmers, rather than
having a neat and tidy ballot that exclu(l(\s
them, and therefore drives them into oppo-
sition.
But, I reiterate, we will support second
reading of this Bill, and seek to improve it at
the standing committee level.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to participate? The hon. member for Kent.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to add a few words on this
bill.
MAY 8, 1969
4149
I might say my leader has stated that we
are going to support this Bill, and I might
also say that the farmers of this province, as
the Minister well knows— are facing a ver>^
difficult situation at the present time. Ever
since the farm income report came out, two
farm organizations such as the Ontario fed-
eration and the farm union group, ha\'e had
their differences widened considerably, and
they are working in opposite directions.
As we farmers do not like to see this, both
these farm organizations have done a great
deal for different segments of the agricultural
industry.
Now, I might say, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to warn the Minister that, on this Bill
setting up an opinion poll for one general
farm organization here in the province, we
must be very careful with what is put on the
ballot. The ballot must be clear so everyone
may understand— because there will be con-
fusion over the next few weeks. And we hear
rumbling in the rural areas, at the present
time, on account of the inputs that are used
for agriculture, the findings that those in
agriculture have been locating, and which
has the farmers in such a state that they
wonder if they have been misled for many
years.
And they are critical of the government
and of some of these inputs which the Min-
ister or the department has not informed the
farmers about— of those conditions in other
provinces; and what tlie farmers have had
to pay for inputs in this province.
I think the Minister of Agriculture and
Food has a staff of experts who could have
been telling the farmers in this province about
these conditions long ago. Of course I sup-
port one general farm organization and I
hope that we can bring about a good feehng,
a better feeling, and bring these two great
farm organizations together, the farm union
and tlie federation.
^ I hope if they do vote in favour of one
general farm organization, that this organ-
ization wdll not be oriented, or will not be
controlled, by any pohtical party. This will
speak for the times. I think it is time w©
had one, and I think one organization would
be the best for the agriculture industry under
these very difficult times.
I hope the Minister will heed my warning
of a very simple ballot; a ballot where there
will be no confusion, a ballot that will satisfy
the farmers which he v^dll present to them
when this vote on one general farm organ-
ization takes place.
So with these few remarks, I am going to
leave anything else I have to say until this
Bill goes to committee, and I will have more
to say then.
Mr. W. G. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to join with the other members
of my party in supporting the principle of
tliis bill. Certainly the dwindling interest in
the Ontario fanners' union, and the federa-
tion, has necessitated without doubt that a
GFO organization is essential for the survival
of the farmers, not only in Ontario. But cer-
tainly with the view in mind that national,
international marketing boards will be the
outcome.
For many years, the general farm organ-
ization has been talked about, and I hope
that the bill that is about to be implemented
by the Minister will have the desired effect.
And I hope that the interest will grow, and
will not dwindle, as has happened in the
other organizations. I hope they will make it
a success that this is their prerogative and
not tlie prerogative of the government.
In tlie second part of the bill, mention is
made about the facilities that the GFO will
have in implementing certain research facili-
ties. It would be my hope that the govern-
ment would not slacken up on its rightful
duty in providing research in all aspects of
agriculture. Certainly the Minister speaking
recently to the graduating group in Centralia
mentioned that he comphmented the farmers
in that area for supplying facilities to the
students to carry out certain experimental
projects for them.
I hope that the department will co-operate
with the federal Department of Agriculture
and continue to do their rightful amount of
research; and that they will not say, "Well
we'll let the GFO do it, we have an Act that
will provide for them to collect funds, and
they can do their own research. I would hope
that they would continue to do their rightful
share in this particular field.
Mention has been made by the party to the
left, that they would like to see this ballot
become quite extensive in different areas of
farming and marketing, so they could vote on
them. I would hope it would be simple so that
the farmers will know what they are voting
for; tliey will know whether they want one
GFO; they will know if they want repre-
sentation by certain marketing groups as such,
or they do not want it by certain marketing
groups.
Certainly with the amount of specialization
that is currently taking place in agriculture,
4150
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I feel that those groups which are especially
interested in one type of farming can, to a
greater extent, talk about their commodity
better than somebody who has a general
knowledge of all aspects of agriculture. I
hope that they will be given that opportunity.
I notice that marketing boards, at their
annual meetings, receive more interest from
participants than do the federation or the
farmers' union— and we can look to our beef
marketing board, and milk marketing board,
and others as examples.
So with these few remarks, I hope the
GFO vote will carry, and that the farmers
will get out and support it, that the govern-
ment will not interfere to the extent that they
will be directing the GFO, and I hope the
Minister will take this into account.
Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to take a moment and join
with my colleagues, and particularly our
critic, the member for Huron-Bruce, in sup-
porting this bill.
I also, of course, come from an area which
is well known for its agriculture. 1 was
please to see in this particular Act the fact
that anyone engaged in farming over the age
of 21, particularly the female part of this
group, would be eligible, or have the right, to
vote for or against the general farm organi-
zation.
As we are all aware, farming is one of the
best examples of working together as a unit—
probably one of the best examples we vdll
ever see. These people seem to put all the
efforts diey have into reaching a goal to-
gether. Now this goal, of course, is to make a
satisfying living, but also to produce the
food which we all need.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister's
main interest is to help the farmer to improve
his income, not to bring the farmers under
one head.
1 look forward to seeing this bill going
througli the standing committee, where we
can further hear the views and opinions of
the farmers.
Also, as I have not seen the ballot, I hope
that this will be given much serious con-
sideration before a final decision is made.
Again, I wish to say I support this bill
and look forward to further discussion in
committee.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr.
Speaker, I wish at this time to speak on this
bill. I, too, come from an area that is largely
rural, and I believe that since the farm in-
come report has come out, it brought to the
attention of many people— other than rural
people— some of the problems facing the farm
community. Perhaps this is what a report does
in some cases, because I believe that this
government and other governments in all
areas have made a number of reports, some
of which are never acted upon, and some
which are acted upon in bits and pieces
—some take two pieces out that the govern-
ment likes, and the things that the other
people like they do not act upon. Anyway,
tliis report has brought to the attention of the
public at large some of the problems facing
tlie agricultural industry. And, of course, if
it is a problem facing the agricultural indus-
try, I am sure it is a problem that eventually
is going to face urban people as well.
One thing with regard to the problems
of the federation of agriculture— I do not
think that it could continue. As we see, it had
not been able to carry on, for one reason,
because of the way it was financed. I do not
think that you can expect an organization to
properly represent the people it looks after
by having funds paid by groups of organiza-
tions and areas; tliey really have no say
actually in it.
In other words, I do not think a man is
going to be interested in it unless he himself
is involved in it in some way. And when he
sells something under this new bill, of course,
he will certainly be involved in it, because
of the checkoff. That is what my boys say
when they come home from work with their
pay— every month there is $5 or $6, I think it
is $6.50, taken off for union dues. They know
then that they are a member of the union,
and they expect some assistance from the
union at some time. And, of course, this is
what the union is there for— to assist them.
Of course, this really is not a union we
are talking on here in the general farm
organization, because it is not stnictured that
way. However, probably that is all right
too. I think, a farmer is not actually the same
as a man who works by the hour, because a
farmer is a business man, a salesman, he is
his own work force, so really he belongs to
the chamber of commerce. He could belong
to the union, and he could belong to almost
every organization and be a part of it.
I do not think, though, that the forming of
one general farm organization is going to
necessarily solve the problem of the agricul-
tural industry, and I think this has been men-
tioned before. I think that governments
should have been aware that we had some
problems in the past. Apparently they were
not willing to act upon them, because I think
MAY 8, 1969
4151
that these problems that we are facing in
agriculture today had been coming upon us
for the last few years. Governments on this
level— and also on the federal level— prob-
ably have been reluctant to take action as
they should to help the situation.
Now, I think that since the farmers' union
was formed a couple of years ago, we can
give a lot of credit to that organization. This
got people involved personally. People went
up and down the roads to get membership
and so forth in it, and paid their membership
dues. This brou^t the x>eople out, and this
was one of the things that did and will im-
prove the farm industry in the coming years,
because it certainly did bring our problems
to the attention of the government and the
people.
There are a number of things that will
come up vmder the committee clause by
clause, and one of them is designating a
farmer and so forth. Our government today
—and all of us— have trouble at times finding
out what is a farmer and what is a farm.
In our province, for a fanner's son or a
farmer's daughter to vote on a municipal
election, the farmer must own 20 acres of
land, according to The Assessment Act. And
yet, imder The Drainage Act, if he has got
five acres of land, and it is used for farm
purposes, he is entitled to one-third aid for
drainage. So we have not got uniformity as
far as the actual definition of a farmer, but
we can probably have an opportunity during
the committee meeting, or clause by clause,
to try and perhaps iron out that problem.
I do want to comment a moment on the
ballot— and I tliink this is very essential. It
has been brought up a number of times, but
I think there should be a form of alternate,
whether it be Plan A or something similar,
but we should definitely have an opportunity
for the people to choose more than one sys-
tem. This is going to be very important, as
has been mentioned before.
I beheve, Mr. Speaker, that coA'ers all 1
have to add at this time.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Mr. Speaker,
as you probably know, every time 1 rise in
this House it is usually on a mining problem
or a problem of northern Ontario that has
nothing to do with farming. And when the
government committee on farm income put
forth their report, they wrote off northern
Ontario as a viable farming area.
However, anyone who has travelled in
northern Ontario will know that the New
Liskeard and Earlton districts support a very
viable farming area in the Great Clay Belt.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we in northern Ontario
—'and the farmers, I think, specifically— have a
great s-uspicion of any organization that this
government brings forth, and today-
Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): The hon. mem-
ber is the only one.
Mr. Jackson: —when the govern'ment has
brought forth their proposal for a general
farm organization, that suspicion has come
forward again.
My colleague from Brantford has stated
that we are going to support this bill, but I
can assure you that the farmers in my area
will be looking with a jaundiced eye up)on
the operations of tlie government's actions
before the vote is taken. And only if we can
be assured through participation of the local
farmer in the vote, and only if we can be
assured that it will not be a government-
controlled organization, will we be happy.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: What does the member
see in this bill that makes him think that this
is a government-controlled organization?
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): It was brought
in by the government.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, there has always
been suspicion amongst farmers that the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been
government - controlled — that suspicion has
never lessened. In fact over the past few years
it has grown in our area, and unless the Min-
ister brings the final vote forward and he
does so in a way which removes that suspi-
cion, then the farmers in my area will not be
happy. All I can say to him now is that I
hope that when he finally does put it to a
vote, he does so in a way that will assiu-e
the farmers that it is a fair vote— then we
will accept it.
Mr. Speaker: Is tliere any member who
wishes to engage in this debate?
Does the hon. Minister wish to reply?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I appre-
ciate very much the support which has been
so readily indicated by the various members
who have spoken concerning this bill, and
I can appreciate the concern which some of
them have regarding the content of the bill.
I suppose that when it comes to the committee
on agriculture and food that there will be
representations made by the various farm
organizations and individuals as well.
4152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There are several suggestions that have
been made and I want to deal with one or
two of them because I think they are quite
important. If I may, I would like to come
to what the hon. member for Oxford has
said first of all, because to me he hit right
on the crux of this whole matter, and that is
the concern that is being expressed by a
great many farm people across this province
who have special interest in various com-
modities.
The hon. member for Oxford referred to
this special interest and he said that there—
I do not want to put words in his mouth but
as I recall what he said it was— that there is
difficulty in many farm people who have
those special commodity interests conceding
those policy decisions that must be made con-
cerning those particular commodities to a
general farm organization. I hope I have
interpreted what he said, and I have his
assurance that this was it.
This really has come to us in so many,
many ways from so many farm people across
this province. I appreciate what my hon.
friend from York South has said concerning
the feeling of some members of the farmers
union when he mentioned the bitterness
which they are expressing concerning the
fact that Plan A will not be on the ballot.
Now, really, what is Plan A? I think that
when one really looks at Plan A, and then
what is proposed on the ballot— 1 saw it over
there this afternoon; it has not reached my
desk yet, but there has been a proposed bal-
lot that I have seen— and in this there is an
expression of opinion asked for as to whether
farmers want a general farm organization
with compulsory check-off.
Then the second question is, if a general
farm organization is established your answers
to the following questions will direct the dele-
gates at the founding convention respecting
the structure of the organization, and that
second question would read: Should each
marketing board have a vote on the provin-
cial council of the general farm organization?
The connotation on that second question,
it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, would
be that there is a continuing position that all
commodity boards should maintain. Whether
or not they should have the right to vote in
the central council of the general farm organ-
ization as proposed in this bill will be left
to the farmers to decide. But there is noth-
ing in this ballot that would say that those
marketing boards as we know them now
should disappear, save and except that under
The Farm Products Marketing Act today
every commodity marketing board in this
province can of their own free will and voli-
tion vote themselves out of existence.
They can vote themselves in with another
commodity board or group of commodity
boards, or they can, if they so desire, vote to
make the general farm organization, if and
when one is established, their marketing
vehicle for their particular commodity. That
right already exists. They have the right to
do that now on a producer vote. But as many
farmers who have interests in particular com-
modities point out to us that the problem
with Plan A is that the commodity board
virtually disappears. Plan A as has been pre-
sented to me reads as follows:
The transfer in our opinion of commodity
boards to the general farm organization would
take place when 51 per cent of the pro-
ducers of the said commodity or— and I want
hon. members to note that word "or"— the
majority of delegates voting at a meeting
representing producers of the said commodity
vote in favour of the function of their board
being integrated into the general organiza-
tion. Once the producers have made this
decision the marketing board policy function
on marketing will pass to the general organ-
ization.
Herein lies one of the great difficulties
which we have come up against, I must
confess. And while I appreciate and recog-
nize the intimation of my hon. friend from
York South that I must become some sort of
a superstatesman to bring together these
opposing viewpoints, I tell you it is extremely
difficult to do this because we have very
firmly held opinions of men who have spent
a lifetime in developing the commodity board
structure that we have in this province today.
The Farm Products Marketing Act, I be-
lieve, Mr. Speaker, was brought in in the
days of the Hepburn government if I am not
mistaken— in 1935 I am prompted to say—
and developed since those days on, by people
who were dedicated to the interests of their
particular commodity. The Marketing Act has
been amended, it has been strengthened, we
have improved it, we have gone so far as
to work out with the government of Canada
arrangements whereby national marketing
boards or commissions can come about. This
surely is in the interests of Ontario farmers,
in fact in the interests of all Canadian
farmers.
But these men and women and the young
people whose future is tied up in the agri-
culture industry of this province are very
much concerned that someone is going to
determine policy on their particular com-
modity who may not even have anything to
MAY 8, 1969
4153
do with the production of that commodity.
How we get these two opposing viewpoints
together I just do not know. We have tried.
There has been a continuing committee that
has worked on this for many months. They
simply could not arrive at a satisfactory
answer and ceased negotiations.
Now, the farm income committee— charged
with the responsibility and terms of reference
which we all know— brought in their report,
and in this, and the member for York South
is quite right about the central theme, cer-
tainly it came out very clearly to us at the
conference on agriculture held in mid-
January, that the one thing that seemed to
supersede all else in that report was the
establishment of a general farm organization.
Hon. members who were there will recall
very well that I was asked to draft the legis-
lation and present it at this session of the
House so that such an opinion poll could
be held. This bill is the result.
It may not be all things to all people, but,
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we can be
all things to all people. We have suggested
this afternoon that our ballot should be, even
if complicated, large enough to include all of
these various ideas that have been presented,
and this on the surface would have great
merit, it would seem. On the other hand, I
just received this afternoon a petition from
a particular commodity organization which
demands that there should be a separate or
different type of organization entirely to that
proposed either in this ballot or in Plan A.
If this is to be on the ballot, then surely
it confuses the issue, as was pointed out by
the member for Kent and by others who have
sjwken this afternoon on the necessity for
keeping the ballot separate. It is difficult on
such a complex question to prepare a ballot
that is both all-inclusive and yet at the same
time reasonably simple.
So we have taken these various things into
consideration and I must confess that they
will have to get continuing consideration, but
it is not going to be easy to do that. I feel
that there is validity in the argument that
has been advanced quite eloquently by the
farm community that there should be an
opportunity to vote on a ballot that is as
simple as possible and yet would allow the
farmers to determine whether or not they
want the general farm organization financed
on a compulsory check-o£F, whether or not
the marketing board should have a vote or
whether they should be just there, not even
ex officio, and whether or not the member-
ship that would be necessary should be ob-
tained in varying ways. These are surely
important points.
My hon. friend from Huron-Bruce referred
to the interim committee among other matters,
and he hoped that that interim committee
would not become a tool of the government.
And I think he went on to say that he wanted
no party hacks— whatever they are— appointed
to that interim committee.
Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker. This govern-
ment is not guilty of that kind of thing, be-
cause, as a member of the Ontario Food
Council today, sits Mr. Donald Baxter, who
once sat in the Opposition party of this
House— is that the kind of a party hack the
member was referring to?
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West);
but we will name a few others-
No,
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, sure you can
name a few, but I tell you that this govern-
ment has not been guilty of that kind of an
accusation, and I do not like that aspersion
being thrown at us quite frankly.
I would hke to say this: that when we, in
this government, appoint members to a com-
mittee, they are men who are appointed be-
cause of their wisdom and ability, and if they
happen to be wise enough to be Conservative
so much the better.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now having got that
little point out of the way-
Mr. MacDonald: Does the Minister feel
better now?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I would not say I
feel better. But I just wanted to put that on
the record as fact because there have been
opinions expressed that are not always per-
tinent to the facts.
The bill, as the hon. member for Huron-
Bruce suggested, should have provided for a
percentage of the farmers to sign a petition
for a vote. I think I would be inclined on
the surface to agree with that suggestion but
it is most difficult to determine, as the mem-
ber for Essex-Kent suggested, who is a farmer
really.
At the 1966 census, I beheve, the indica-
tions are that there were about 102,000
farmers in this province. We considered put-
ting in a percentage factor here, but, on
reflection, we began to think that perhaps it
might be wiser to say 15,000 farmers, and
that would be the figure.
4154
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As was mentioned here earlier today, if, as
history seems to indicate and the future ap-
pears to indicate, there might be a lessening
number of farmers and that 15,000 figure was
too great. Then, I suppose, we would have
to take a look at that and change it. But surely
that would be a reasonable figure today, and
so this was the reason it was arrived at.
There has been concern expressed by sev-
eral members who have spoken today, par-
ticularly the member for Brantford (Mr.
Makarchuk), who referred to this interim
committee, expressing concern about the re-
lationship of the committee to the success or
failure of the general fann organization.
I would call attention to the fact that the
interim committee is simply charged with the
responsibility after the vote is held; and, if
it is a successful \'ote and the organization
has been voted in, or at least an indication
has been given that it should come about,
then this interim committee would simply
be charged with going out to each county or
district of this province. They would be
charged with the responsibility of seeing that
three delegates per 1,000, or part thereof, of
farmers within that county or district, would
go to the founding convention. And, the one
who had the largest number of votes in that
democratic election, to choose those delegates,
would be the representative to the first pro-
vincial council of that founding convention.
Take the county of Middlesex, for instance,
where I believe there are about 4,000 farmers:
that would mean about 12 delegates, four of
whom would be delegates to the provincial
council, and it would be done the same way
in all other counties and districts.
This is for the first convention. At that con-
\'ention this interim committee would be
charged with drafting bylaws that would as-
sist in carr>ing on the convention, choosing
for the place of the convention, making ar-
rangements for accommodations and all the
r(\st of it.
But, more particularly, I refer to the by-
laws, which would not come into force until
they were confirmed by a majority of the
delegates at that founding convention. So
while I appreciate the reference that has
been made to the interim committee, I do
not wish that there be over-emphasis placed
on this committee, because really all they will
be doing is organizing the first convention
and from there on it will be a completely
organized operation by the farmers of this
pro\incc.
I was pleased to note the reference that
has been made by speakers this afternoon to
the fact that women in the farm communities
of this province have been given the oppor-
tunity to vote on this farm organization, also
those who are 21 years or over, because we
feel very definitely that farm women of this
province— and I refer to the women's insti-
tutes as an illustration, and many other
women's organizations throughout rural On-
tario—have contributed a very great deal to
the benefit and welfare and the betterment
of Ontario.
There are no group of people who have a
greater stake in the welfare of the commun-
ity, than the farm women of the province;
and we feel very definitely, and I am pleased
to know that members who have spoken to-
day, support the idea that farm women
should be given the opportunity to vote.
We also feel that those who are 21 years
of age or over, and who are associated in the
farm business, should have that opportimity
to vote as well. This is a new departure in
farm organization voting. This is really not
a farm marketing vote but, in the past, on
farm marketing votes, those associated with
it who are 21 or over, have not been given
that opportunity. This is something new. We
think it is unique. Well, it is unique; and
certainly it is a very great step forward.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Many of
them are Liberal.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, indeed, they are—
in many cases. In mine particularly, as the
hon. member for Niagara suggests. We will
look forward to the agriculture and food com-
mittee, when the bill will come before that
committee, and when we will have further
representations on it. I thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for the support that has been given
to this bill, and I am pleased to note that all
ttnembers of the House will give it second
reading.
Ml*. Speaker: The motion is for second
reading of Bill 140.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order right now, is the Minister in a posi-
tion to indicate when this will come before
the standing committee?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, I am sorry, I thought
it was understood. Next Tuesday— and I
thank the Premier (Mr. Robarts) and leader
of the House for having brought this bill
forward today because we want to advance
it for next Tuesday's agricultural committee
MAY 8, 1969
4155
meeting, and word has gone out to the vari-
(ous fann organizations that the bill will be
there.
Clerk of the House: The 37th order; House
in committee of supply; Mr. R. D. Rowe in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
On vote 2003:
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, at 11.20 p.m. the night before
last, I was rising to present to the House an
amendment. To my utter astonishment the
Provincial Secretary (Mr. Welch) rose aaid
cut me oflF by adjourning the debate, and so
we all went home and had a good night's
sleep. But the vahdity of that amendment has
been proven very conclusively by events in
the last 36 hours. Therefore I want to present
it to the House and deal witfi a few basic
issues related to it, and in the course of my
remarks to ask some questions that I think
become very important in light of the devel-
opments of the last 24 hours.
In my view, the resignation of Chief
Wilmer Nadjiwon is evidence of the kind of
thing that we are trying to say in this House
and that the Minister, in his so well-developed
fashion, was dismissing as being without any
real substance. Indeed, I was even more
prophetic than I knew when I said to him that
he revealed his insensitivity to exactly what
was happening when he invited the whole
of the advisory committee to come down and
watch the spectacle which imfolded in this
House.
The fact of the matter is that when they
did come down they found out, at least in
the mind of one of them, that the cause was
really a pretty hopeless one.
The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman,
is this, that the resignation of Chief Wilmer
Nadjiwon is only the tip of the iceberg. If
the Minister, for one moment, tried to kid
himself, or kid the public, that this kind of
feeling, this widespread disillusionment, is
isolated to this one individual who saw fit
to resign, then he is so badly mistaken that,
once again, he is out of touch with reality.
For the moment, you have only one resig-
nation, but even tliat one is important be-
cause it happens to be the man who today
is the leading spokesman for Indians in the
province of Ontario. He is president of the
Ontario Union of Indians.
His reasons, I think, are pretty interesting
ones, Mr. Chairman. He said that this gov-
ernment's attitude and policy were "inade-
quate, ineflFeotive and insincere." One does
not need to argue the proposition that the
government's policy was inadequate, because
it is inadequate even on the government's
own standards.
The government had appropriated $1.4 mil-
lion for this past year's expenditure and, at
the end of the year, $1 million had not been
used at all. So, by the government's own
standards, their policies and their programme
was inadequate.
It was ineffective, obviously ineffective.
Indeed, the Minister himself says that one of
the greate&t disappointments that he has ex-
perienced in the last ten years is the fact
that we have made so little, if any, progress
on this vital issue in relation to our native
people. It was a rather revealing comment
that he made in the course of his reply on
Tuesday evening between five and six o'clock.
But most important of all-and this is a
matter of some delicacy— was the accusation
of Wilmer Nadjiwon that the government was
insincere, that the Minister was insincere.
This is a difficult thing to pin down. But
I want to try to suggest to the House why,
not only Chief Nadjiwon, but many Indians
have come to this conclusion. I have in my
hand the Ontario Human Rights Code— that
document which the Minister contends he
had something to do with producing— that was
a revelation to me, but I do not want to
dispute his word. This booklet which the gov-
ernment has put out on the human rights
code, has an introduction by the Premier
(Mr. Robarts) of the province, entitled
"Human Rights Are Indivisible". I want to
read one paragraph from it:
We must never lose sight of the fact that
the Ontario Human Rights Code is much
more than a number of laws designed to
deal with a prejudiced minority; it is rather
a set of inviolable principles to be practised
and lived from day to day by all of us,
not just because the law requires it, but
rather because enlightened social behaviour
demands it.
Mr. Chairman, in face of that, what we have
to listen to from the Minister by way of a
rationahzation as to why they could not go
ahead and implement his programme just
makes a mockery of the matter.
To appropriate $1.4 miUion, and then to
use constitutional arguments, on the fact that
you do not have a fiscal agreement with the
4156
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
federal government, or tlie fact that the
problem is so complex the Minister is trying
to wrestle with this and get on top of it.
We have tlie shocking, enraging, infuriating
proposition of a Minister getting up and
saying that he hiis found tlie whole advisory
committee a self-education!
God help us that we have to sit around
here, and wait for liim to get at problems
that have been neglected for decades while
the Minister gets educated to them.
Now, that all this has taken place at a
time when the Prime Minister of the province
has made some conmients about the human
rights code, which is being violated by this
Minister day in and day out. This Minister
says the constitution is— in liis way: "I can't
get the money from Ottawa" and he is violat-
ing die Ontario Human Rights Code by his
inaction, because the Ontario Human Rights
Code says that you are going to make no
divisions between those who live in the
province of Ontario.
We simply cannot continue to go on, Mr.
Chairman. We simply cannot continue to go
on using tliis or tliat excuse. I am persuaded
—and this where the feeling of insincerity
creeps in with Cliief Nadjiwon and others—
that when tlie Minister uses those excuses he
will dream up another one, because the white
man has dreamed up excuses for 100 years
and nobody is more capable of dreaming
tlieni up than this Minister.
We simply cannot procrastinate any longer
in coming up with a programme that is
going to be a constructive programme, a
programme that is going to have resources,
a programme that is going to be worked
out primarily by the Indians and not be
the product of an uneducated Minister—
who some day presumably might become an
educated Minister. Such a programme has
to be worked out by the Indians. I simply
cannot understand why the Minister would
have the temerity to come into the House
without responding to the request of the
Ontario Union of Indians for $54,000 in face
of an unexpended $1 million voted to him
last year. What are you sitting on it for?
What are you waiting for?
You cannot go out and find out what the
Indians want because the Indians have lost
so much confidence in the white man. As
one of them put it to me the other day. In
fact it was Chief Nadjiwon, and I think I
shonkl identify him because he is president
of the Ontario Union of Indians. He said
when even one of our people goes out on
to an Indian reserve he has to spend a day or
so to win the confidence of that reserve before
he can find out the facts upon which you
can realistically base poUcy.
Do you suppose that somebody, a white
man from this government's department with
its record, is going to be able to flit into an
Indiim reserve for a day and come out with
the conlidence of the Indians and the infor-
mation upon which to shape a policy? Of
course you cannot. You are the victim of a
record of bad relations wdth the Indians.
That is the reason why, Mr. Chairman, I
would have thought that this government
would have responded with alacrity to the
suggestion that the Ontario Union of Indians
is willing to make their new and growing
organization— now put on a much more viable
basis— with field officers available to go in
and to dig out this information and to begin
to shape policies and then come back and
hand them to the Minister so that he would
have some idea as to what exactly he is going
to do. But the Minister apparentiy does not
want that. He is satisfied with his own poli-
cies, which are inadequate.
I want to present this amendment so that
you can take a look at it over the supper
hour. But I shall have a few more com-
ments to make, Mr. Chairman, before I con-
clude my remarks. My amendment Js jJus^
that estimate 2003 be stood dovvni, in order
that the Minister may return to the Treasury
Board for consideration of a realistic budget
for the Indian development services, includ-
ing a restoration of the unexpended $1 mil-
lion from last year's appropriation which
reverted to the consolidated revenue fund, so
that the financial means will be available for
a constructive programme in the health, wel-
fare, education and economic development
•fields.
Further, that a portion of such expendi-
tures should be made available to meet the
request of the Ontario Union of Indians for
field officers who can gather the necessary
information to make it possible for the In-
dians to have a paramount role in shaping
the policies to meet their urgent needs.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The
Minister has to support that amendment.
There is no alternative.
Mr. MacDonald: I assume by the hour, Mr.
Chairman, that it would be appropriate if I
move the adjournment; or do you simply
send us out for supper?
It being 6.00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. Ill
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, May 8, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
I Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 8, 1969
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 4159
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 4189
4159
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resiuned at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
\ ho
On vote 2003:
Mr. Chairman: Immediately prior to supper
hour the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) had presented the ohair with
a motion pertaining to the total vote 2003.
During the supper hour I have had the
opportunity to review the motion completely,
and I must point out that if this motion were
accepted and put to the committee and were
_defeated^_Jt would have the effect of carry-
ing the entire vote. Considering the discus-
sion that has taken place I would be tempted
to do just that; however I do find that the
motion itself is not a proper motion at this
time, and I quote for the committee the
reasons for that opinion.
In "Lewis" on rules and procedure of
this House, on page 71, he says "that neither
can a motion to postpone a proposed resolu-
non be ^nTferTamed. Now diis partioular
motion h'ds llm efftibt of postponing the esti-
mates in this effect. "May's" 13th edition
recites as follows:
Each resolution for a grant-
That is a vote:
—forms a distinct motion which can only
be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced,
negatived or superseded, or by leave with-
drawn.
Now "Lewis" proceeds as follows:
Nor may an amendment propose that a
proposed appropriation be devoted to
something other than the purpose desig-
nated in the estimates, as submitted. Such
an action would constitute an initiation of
an expenditure and as such is a prerogative
of the Crown.
Now on an amendment proposed for the pur-
pose of reducing the amount of the appropri-
ation as estimated, this last proposition is
succinctly stated in "May" at page 730:
Hence the well known rule of supply
that no amendment is in order except the
simple reduction of the amount demanded.
Thursday, May 8, 1969
As the proposed amendment by the hon.
member for York South offends all of the
principles enunciated it is manifestly out of
order; and I so rule that the motion is not a
proper motiSlT! ~ "" "
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Well
Mr. Chairman, I shall have to confess to you
that I think you are quoting "May" correctly,
but "May's" rules were created to deal witii
estimates some 150 years ago. While I con-
cede that it is an accturate statement of
"May", I think it is inadequate to cope with
modern estimates.
However, I will not argue the point. I
think that is another point that should be
looked at in the modernizing and stream-
lining of our rules.
I accept your ruling, but I would like to
proceed with some comments which are even
more important in view of the fact that we
cannot have a motion to focus attention on
the situation.
Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member pro-
pose to continue the discussion on the Indian
affairs programme?
Mr. MacDonald: Right.
Mr. Chairman: That is quite in order.
Mr. MacDonald: I think we have reached
an historic turning point in Canada in our
relationship with our native peoples. Either
we are going to grasp this occasion to create
the opportunity for a new relationship which
will be satisfying and meaningful to them,
or we are going to invite increasingly serious
difficulties with them.
Now I know that when one tended to
use that phraseology a day or so ago the
hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Knight),
and others in the Liberal group and on tiie
other side, said "You are fomenting trouble."
[But let me paraphrase Chief Nadjiwon.
Either this government proves that it is
sincere, and comes up with a meaningful
programme, or you are going to have trouble
with the Indians of the north.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Helped by the
NDP.
4160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: They do not need any
help. In fact they do not need any help
because of the failures of this government. Do
not blame others for what rests squarely with
this government and its failures.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You are helping them
all the time!
Mr. W. FeiTicr (Cochrane South): If the
government would do something for them
they would not be in the state they are.
Mr. MacDonald: At Ottawa, in a somewhat
reluctant, somewhat fumbling fashion they
are recognizing that an historic turning point
has been reached. I say somewhat reluctant
and somewhat fumbling, because just this
past week they had a meeting at tlie end of
which there was a massive confrontation be-
tween the 44 Indian tribes who were repre-
sented at tliis gathering and the federal
Minister, Mr. Chretien, which was described
in the news stories as being a complete
capitulation by Mr, Chretien.
Tlie Indians, in effect, said to him, "Go
ahead and change your Indian Act if you
want. We don't care, but we are not going to
participate because as far as we are con-
cerned item one on the agenda is that you
must finally sit down and face up to the un-
resolved problems in i-elation to the treaties
and our rights tliat flow from those treaties.
When you have done that, fine, we will then
play a role in reshaping the Indian Act which
is in turn going to reshape our lives."
The news interpretation of it was not only
as a capitidation by Mr. Chretien, but the
final acknowledgement that it is the Indians
who are going to make the decision and are
going to decide on the priorities. In other
words, we have just about reached the end of
the road, when patronizing white peoples, in
bureaucratic patronizing governments, are go-
ing to shape the lives of Indians and they are
going to take it without protest. From this
point on there is not only going to be pro-
test, there is going to be a refusal to cooper-
ate.
I would hope that here too we would rec-
ognize that we have reached a turning point.
Indeed there is one aspect of the turning
point, the profound significance of which the
Minister seems to have missed. One of the
problems in dealing with the Indians up until
now is that they had no authoritative voice
among themselves; they were so divided that
it was difficult to get a consensus. In fact
that problem has not been completely solved.
But across this nation the Indians are
building their own organization, the National
Brotherhood. They are developing a voice,
which is a voice for all of them, and they
have achieved it in the province of Ontario
in recent months to a degree that I would
have hoped this government would have
heaved a sigh of relief at and said, "Thank
God, now we have somebody to work with,
who are authoritative spokesmen for the
Indians."
We have had for some years the Ontario
Union of Indians, but it has been a very
loose-knit organization that I thmk the
Indians themselves would agree was not a
very effective or autlioritative voice for the
Indian community as a whole. In the last
year or two there have been some very sig-
nificant developments, culminating in the last
two or three months.
Men like Omer Peters, in whom I think
one can say this government has confidence
because they have worked closely with him
when he was president of the Ontario Union
of Indians, when he gradually worked through
the various organizations that were partly in
the white community and partly in the Indian
community, such as the Indian Eskimo Asso-
ciation, until last year, he was elected as the
national president— the first Indian native
president of the Indian Eskimo Association—
and Omer Peters has resigned from both of
those positions to take a post as a full-time
secretary of the Ontario Union of Indians.
His place has been taken as president of the
Ontario Union of Indians by Chief Wilmer
Nad ji won.
So you have an organization now which is
emerging as the voice of Ontario Indians,
which is seeking to be able to do a job on
behalf of Ontario Indians. As yet, they have
no adequate resources. In fact, Mr. Chair-
man, there is another aspect of this develop-
ment that the Minister may or may not be
aware of, and in case he is not— in case other
members of the House are not— I would like
to detail it.
The Indian Eskimo Association for years
has in effect been giving voice to Indian
needs because there was no authoritative
voice for the Indians themselves. But the
Indian Eskimo Association has publicly stated
its policy down through the years as being a
body which would seek to help the Indians
develop their own organization, and at an
appropriate time the Indian Eskimo organ-
ization will eliminate itself and hand the job
over to the Indians.
I would say there are a few more credit-
able records in terms of an organization
assisting a native peoples, and stating that at
an appropriate time they would get out of
MAY 8, 1969
4161
the picture and hand the responsibility over
to the Indian organization.
In fact last fall the Indian Eskimo Asso-
ciation at a meeting of its top body— I think
it is called the provincial council— made the
proposal that at this time— somebody made
the motion at the meeting— the Indian Eskimo
Association should in eflFect pass out of the
picture. And it was Chief Nadjiwon himself
who said, in effect, "Well let us not rush
into this. Let us not eliminate an organiza-
tion that is assisting us at a time when we
are struggling to establish ourselves; at a
time when we may not yet have achieved
viable independence."
In short, it was the Indians themselves who
asked the lEA to stay in the picture for some
further time. The Indian Eskimo Association
agreed that they would increasingly drop
into the background, assist the Ontario Union
of Indians with research work, with finances
to keep their office, and with the staff that
they need to put into the field to do tlie
obvious job that has to be done.
Now the Ontario Union of Indians comes
to this government. What they want to do
is to go out and to establish that relation-
ship of confidence on the Indian reserves, to
get the necessary information, to bring it
back, to assess it in conjunction with the
Indians, and out of that would emerge, I
trust, policies that would not only be the
creation of the Indians but policies that this
government would welcome so that then they
would have a more constructive programme
to move forward on.
That is the reason they ask for $54,000, to
put six field officers out across the province
to gather this information for the policy-
shaping purposes. I am mystified why a
department which is sitting on a million
dollars unexpended money would not have
automatically responded, would not have
recognized that here is an historic turning
I point, a legitimate place to spend a small
- fraction of the unexpended one million
dollars. And yet the Prime Minister confirmed
when I put a question to him before the
orders of the day, that the matter is still
under consideration. How much longer are
you going to consider it before we move?
If we have reached an historic turning
point, Mr. Chairman, I think there are two
or three important parts of the machinery
that have got to be re-examined because the
record indicates clearly that that machinery
has not been effective. I want to address my
remarks to them now. I touched on this
before but in the new context of yesterday's
developments I think we have to do it once
again.
In my opinion the interdepartmental com-
mittee has been a failure. The Minister may
argue otherwise but Chief Nadjiwon, along
with the voices that have come from this side
of the House for the last two or three days,
are urging the Minister to resign from the
chairmanship of the interdepartmental com-
mittee. If the Minister will not resign I sug-
gest to the Prime Minister that he should
ask for the Minister's resignation, or more
appropriately, he should reconstitute the
committee. Because here let me say, in all
fairness, the responsibility is not only the
Minister's, it is an unworkable structure.
I go back once again to what I shall hence-
forth describe as the Kruger model for an
interdepartmental committee. When Professor
Kruger made his comments with regard to
the interdepartmental committee that was
established some years ago to deal with
regional development, I suggest that his
observations were entirely pertinent with re-
gard to the operation of this committee. Some
of his comments were these: if you bring
together a half a dozen Cabinet Ministers,
all of whom have the responsibilities of their
own department, and you choose from those
Cabinet Ministers one person as chairman of
the committee, it is unworkable because the
man is already preoccupied with his own
department.
It is unworkable for a second reason-
cabinet Ministers are human beings and
instincti\'ely protect their empire. They are
hesitant to have their empire reduced. They
do not react sympathetically and spontan-
eously to the proposition that comes from
another Cabinet Minister that there should
be serious reshuffling. One Cabinet Minister
is not the appropriate person to be giving
directions to another Cabinet Minister. If
you are going to have an effective inter-
departmental committee, says Professor
Kruger, it must be a Cabinet committee under
the direction of the Prime Minister, and not
with one member of the Cabinet assuming
burdens in addition to his departmental bur-
dens, but with an executive officer whose full
time responsibilities will be to see that that
committee operates.
If he is going to be working with Cabinet
Ministers— in this instance the Ministers of
Agriculture, of Education, of Lands and
Forests, of Mines, of Trade and Development
—then he has to have a person who speaks
with a degree of authority. His line of
4162
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
authority must be directly to the Prime Min-
ister, His relationship to the Prime Minister
should be essentially that of a Deputy Min-
ister so that when he speaks, and seeks co-
ordination from all the various members in
the Cabinet, he will be al:)le to do it because
the Cabinet Ministers will know that he is
speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister and
that he has the support of the Prime Minister,
that is the only way you are going to get
an effective Cabinet committee that will
achieve a global approach to a problem which
invobes the participation of many depart-
ments.
Unwittingly the Minister has re\ealed the
inadequacy of the interdepartmental commit-
tee; unwittingly the government has revealed
its inadequacies and its ineffectiveness. We
asked a question with regard to a live issue
in the educational field— my colleague from
Peterborough dealt with it at some length.
Under the statute it states clearly that where
Indian children are being taught in a certain
s>stcm, Indians have a right to have repre-
sentation on the county board. In Lambton
Coimty they have refused. As of the day be-
fore yesterday the Lambton County board
finally said they cannot have representation.
I put this question to the Minister. He did
not know anything about it. "You will have
to go to the Minister of Education," he said.
Well, I am critical of the Minister but I re-
peat, it is the ineffectiveness of the machinery.
The Minister cannot do his job in the depart-
ment and be on top of all the other depart-
ments in their involvement in his committee;
only somebody full-time can do it.
But a second revelation as to the ineffective-
ness of the committee has been in the whole
consideration of these estimates. If you
wanted further proof of the fact that we have
retrogressed, instead of progressed, in coming
to grips with this problem, I ask you to
recall what happened three or four years
ago in this House when a full debate was
initiated on this estimate.
The Prime Minister said that this would
be the occasion in which we would debate
all Indian aflFairs— at one time, in a tidy
package— and we would have sitting in the
House not only the Prime Minister and the
Minister who happened to be chairman of the
inter-departmental committee, but all the
Ministers of other departments involved. If
anybody on the Opposition side of the House
asked a question that the chairman of the
interdepartmental committee could not an-
swer, the Minister of Education was there to
answer it.
But tonight, where is the Minister of Edu-
cation? Where is the Minister of Agriculture?
Where is the Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment? Where is the Minister of Mines?
Where is the Prime Minister? As far as I can
see, the only member— apart from the chair-
man, who has to be here because of the
estimates— is the Minister of Lands and
Forests. This committee has collapsed.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services ) : Mr. Chairman, on a point
of order. I know that the hon. member will
be interested in knowing that I discussed
this matter with those of my colleagues he
has referred to, and the statements I made
yesterday in the House were accepted— that
the generalities we will discuss as we have,
and then as each Minister presents his esti-
mates, tlie specific situations relating to his
department may be discussed in intimate
detail.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, this shows
how nonsensical is our approach— to deal with
it in generalities. I do not blame the Cabinet
Ministers for asking this Minister to deal
with the generalities because he is a master
at doing that, but the generalities are mean-
ingless.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The member has been
doing the same thing very well so far.
Mr. MacDonald: Well if mine are gen-
eralities I have been dealing with a lot more
specifics than we have heard from the Min-
ister. That has been our problem through the
consideration of these estimates.
However, I have made the case that you
cannot get an effective inter-departmental
committee on the basis on which this one is
set up. I reiterate my plea, in the hope that
some time soon, in the interests of tackling
Indian affairs effectively, at this turning point
in the history of our relations with the natives,
the Prime Minister will respond and re-
organize this committee.
Now, let me turn to the advisory com-
mittee, which presumably is the other im-
portant agency. As one listens to the Min-
ister, he stressed it as being a very important
agency. But his description of its operations
left me increasingly puzzled. It is a body that
meets in private— indeed, we have not yet got
the Hansard, so I cannot go back to the
Minister's inimitable phraseology about its
meetings being more effective because it was
in private where you could be informal. It
was in the context of his saying that it had
MAY 8, 1969
4163
played a very important role in educating
him.
I suggest to you that the advisory com-
mittee should be something more than a
body to educate the Minister. Because we are
spending $14,000 in public moneys, it should
become an effective body.
I want to ask the Minister a nimiber of
questions and I hope he will be willing to
answer these questions specifically, so that
we can get some clearer idea of this advisory
committee.
For example, am I correct that the news
story in this morning's Globe and Mail lists
the membership of the committee correctly?
Or need we haggle over that point, as my
colleague says? It claims that in addition to
Wilmer Nadjiwon, the other members were:
Lorenzo Big Canoe, a Chippewa from the
Georgian reserve; Alf Bruyere of Fort Fran-
ces; Chief William Meawasige, an Ojibway
from the Serpent River reserve; Chief Flora
Tobodondug, from Parry Island; Melville Hill
from Desoronto, and Chief Fred Greene of
the Shoal Lake Reserve. Is that complete
membership?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, it is.
Mr. MacDonald: Well may I ask, how many
times did that committee meet in the last
fiscal year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Four times, I believe.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Five, to
be exact.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It all depends on what
you mean by a year, because they met yester-
day and the day before.
Mr. MacDonald: I said the last fiscal year.
Four times during the fiscal year from April
1, 1968, to March 31, 1969? Now, may I ask
the Minister, what recommendations did the
advisory committee make to him during the
course of the last 13 months, since the be-
ginning of the fiscal year of April 1, 1968?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, this
Indian advisory committee is, as I have stated
both in this House and elsewhere, an advisory
committee to the Minister. It meets in private.
Its recommendations, its discussions, of neces-
sity—and I have accepted it up until now—
have been of a confidential nature. In all my
discussions with the committee, and I have
attempted to attend within the limits of the
time available to me as often and as long as
I can.
I have accepted the fact that I have spoken
to them in all frankness, in all confidence, as
any other Minister would speak to any ad-
visory committee. If I have asked them to
respect my confidence I must respect the
confidence of all. As the committee has been
acting and constituted in the last period of
time since I became aware of it, I have
treated it as a confidential committee.
If there is to be any change in the struc-
ture, in the work, in the procedures of the
committee, that will have to be decided for
the future.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
this question. Is the committee private a.t
the request of the Indians who are on it, or at
the dictate of the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This was a basic as-
sumption that I had with respect to this
committee- as I have with all other commit-
tees that have been in an advisory capacity to
me. There are several committees within this
department and in other departments, and I
just made that basic assumption. It was never
ever discussed until recently, and I proceeded
right from the very beginning believing that
the exchanges of ideas and thoughts that I
was to have with this committee were to be
open and frank. Because I have used the
expression "educating"— and educating is
nothing anybody need be ashamed of— 1 was
trying to get their ideas, their feehngs into
my system.
This is one of the fundamental things that
has to take place, that the non-Indian must
begin to understand the Indian and I have
discovered that the Indian must also begin
to understand the non Indian and his ways.
If a Minister is to have an advisory committee
I must speak frankly and completely witliout
concern that, because I explore a line of
thought, make an expression of opinion,
this cannot be treated as in confidence. I
asked the Indian advisory committee to attend
upon this to listen.
This was no impulsive naive gesture on
my part. I asked them to sit here and listen
and to tell me; they have listened and they
will read and they will advise me in con-
fidence. They will examine my utterances and
they will say, "Mr. Minister, you strayed from
this point or that point." They will say to me
that the position of tlie Opposition was either
right or wrong. I am going to be interested in
knowing how much of what was said by
members of the Opposition of both parties
had any validity to the advisory committee.
Mr. Lewis: Oh, he has said it too often.
4164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will ask their judg-
ment of your opinions too.
Mr. Lewis: That is fine, you will hear from
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): You
had better ask them about mine, too.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am very much in-
terested in the summation that the member
for Riverdale made. He made up with con-
crete points one after anotlier.
Mr. Chairman: Tlie hon. member for Etobi-
coke just shouted an interjection that he did
not believe the hon. Minister. I do not think
this is proper at all. It is on the record. I
think the hon. member should withdraw it.
Mr. Braithwaite: I said they did not!
An hon. member: He should be made to
withdraw it.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member said he
does not believe the Minister. I do not tiiink
that is a proper comment at all.
Mr. Braithwaite: I did not want to get
into this, but I must say this: I do not know
for how many years now we have sat here
and we have heard this very Minister talk
about Indians. I have sat through a good part
of this debate, Mr. Chairman, and I have
listened. I have come to the conclusion, just
like my good friend who has resigned, that
there is a great deal to be said on behalf of
these people. I wonder if this is not the time
for the Minister to resign, Mr. Chairman.
I say this because I do not think that this
Minister is at all competent. I do not think
he cares at all about diese people-
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order please.
Mr. Braithwaite: —and as far as I am
concerned-
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order! The Chair-
man has suggested to the hon, member that
he uttered words in these Chambers inferring
that he did not believe the Minister, and I
do not think this is proper.
Mr. MacDonald: Well let me interrupt— I
do not believe the Minister. So let us not
get hung-up on a technicality. I do not
believe the Minister, because I have got to
make a choice between his record, or his
word in view of his record in this House,
and the Indians. At this point I will choose
the Indians, and I do not believe the Min-
ister.
Mr. G. Demers (Nickel Belt): Very dra-
matic.
Mr. MacDonald: Right. You bet it is dra-
matic, because the Minister says he is
anxious to find out what the advisory com-
mittee thinks. Well, the Minister does not
need to wait. He has found out from Chief
Nadjiwon, and if the Minister is kidding him-
self for one moment, let me tell him again
he came within an ace of the whole of his
advisory committee resigning en masse, and
he knows it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Must we suffer the inane
comments of the hon. Minister of Energy?
I wish you would silence him, so that we
can go on with the debate. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Order! order, please! It
seems to me, in listening to those remarks,
that perhaps they conveyed a different view
than I may have taken at the beginning.
In the context which the hon. members have
placed their remarks, I will accept them.
The hon. member for York South has the
floor.
Mr. MacDonald: Right. Well, my whole
problem is the longer these debates go on,
the less I believe the Minister. That is my
problem. He says he wants to do well, he is
the most well intentioned and do-gooding
Minister I have ever seen, but he is simply
not doing the job.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have done a lot of
good too.
Mr. MacDonald: Right Well, that-he
smuggly says, "I have done a lot of good."
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is a lie!
Interjec-tions by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, as somebody says it
is getting more and more unbelievable every
minute.
You see, Mr. Chairman, this matter is too
serious to wa.ste our time arguing with the
Minister. I am pleading with this government
to "get with it"— to get with the Indian
problem.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You are pleading for
votes.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): You take
it down to the lowest point.
Interjections by hon. members.
MAY 8, 1969
4165
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That is
your whole hang-up. You do not want any-
thing to do with it.
Mr. Chainnan: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: That may be the point,
because there are only 50,000 Indians in the
province. They are going to wait for another
100 years before they get anything from a
Tory government.
The hon. Minister from Energy and Re-
sources has maybe revealed the basic motiva-
tion, and the basic problem with this govern-
ment.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can get back
to the estimates.
Mr. MacDonald: This government, at this
point in time, must seize the opportunity of
building a new relationship, because hence-
forth he is going to be faced by Indians with
a voice, with an authoritative organization.
And, if he is not astute enough to recognize
that that kind of a development is one that
we should welcome with open arms and be-
gin to work with it, instead of putting off—
instead of postponing decisions for making
$54,000 available, when they are sitting on
$1 million of unexpended money— then the
Minister is merely underlining his incapacity
to do the job as chairman as this interdepart-
mental committee.
However, let me get back to the advisory
committee; we got side-tracked here. The
Minister, in effect, has said that he will not
tell me what the recommendations were—
that were given to him by the committee, this
is private, it is for his education.
May I ask the Minister this question: what
recommendations were given which have
since been put into effect? In short, what
things that were done during the last year
were done on the recommendation of the
advisory committee of the Indians?
An hon. member: They accepted two page
boys.
Mr. MacDonald: Somebody said two page
boys were brought dowTi from northwestern
Ontario. It is the Speaker of the House who
chooses the page boys, not this Minister.
Therefore, if all this Minister has done from
the recommendations of the committee is to
see that two page boys got their place among
young people who are doing this job in the
Legislature, then it just underlines the fact
that the Minister has done nothing, becau«e
it was either the hon. member for Kenora
or the advisorv committee or somebody else.
I repeat my question: name the things that
were done in the last 13 months, since the
beginning of the fiscal year April 1, 1968, as
a result of recommendations from the advisory
committee?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not got that
list in front of me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pitman: Just one. Just one.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order.
One of the great factors that will have to
be determined is the relationship of the
advisory committee to the Minister. We are
going to have to decide, and Chief Wilmer
Nadjiwon is an outstanding example. He has
been, until recently, a member of the ad-
visory board for a long period of time. On
that advisory board he played a certain role,
like all citizens do on advisory boards.
Now he is president of the Union of On-
tario Indians. He is playing a different role.
Now I suggest to you that one of the funda-
mental differences is that the Union of
Ontario Indians and its personnel have very
unique roles to play and the Indian advisory
committee have their role to play.
Now one of the things that is going to have
to take place is whether, following the reason-
ing of the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald), the Indian advisory committee
—as he has suggested— play a different role.
It would be interesting to find out what kind
of a role it would play other than advisory
without supplementing or supplanting the
kind of role that the Ontario Union of Indians
is to play.
Chief Nadjiwon has for himself a role and
a field of activity which will be completely
different from his role as a member of the
Indian advisory committee, and surely the
hon. member for York South sees that.
Mr. Stokes: Unless it is meaningful it will
not be any different.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, you see I
would think that if the Minister wanted an
advisory committee to perform the role it has
been performing up until now, one of the
people he would want to have on that ad-
visory committee would be the man who held
the presidency of the Ontario Union of
Indians.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not—
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute, let me
finish.
4166
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will be interested in
listening to the hon. meml^ers' rationale be-
hind this procedure.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute. I would
think that in a meeting that is confidential,
where the Minister can level with its mem-
bers and they can level with him, I would
think that the man above everybody else that
the Minister would want on that advisory
committee is the president of the Ontario
Union of Indians. By virtue of his position,
by \irtue of his activity as president, he
would be the most knowledgeable person
with regard to Indian affairs.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: But how could you
talk in confidence when his position as presi-
dent of a union ipso facto necessities that he
express his opinions on the public platform?
Mr. Lewis: Why talk in confidence at all?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Because that is a good
way of doing business.
Mr. Pitman: If you do anything— there is
the point.
Mr. MacDonald: Now you see the Minister
unwittingly— just a minute now— the Minister
unwittingly has revealed the purpose of the
advisory committee. And what is it? To shut
tlie mouths of a group of leading Indians.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not so!
Mr. MacDonald: Well, just listen.
Mr. Pitman: That is exactly what you said.
Mr. MacDonald: What you have said— and
it is in Hansard— is that if you have talked
it over with them in confidence they cannot
go out on the public platfonn and discuss it,
because if they cannot then Chief Nadjiwon
cannot.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is right. Then the
whole purpose of confidentiality— I am not
endowed with the kind of wisdom that
evidently all members of the NDP are— I do
not know whether I am right or wrong. I
will take advice, and I have been educated,
I have been learning. As a matter of fact, I
Vv-ent to the very man who resigned, and I
discussed with him one of the most important
pieces of advice I would ever ask of any
Indian and he expressed an opinion that had
nodiing to do with policies or platforms. I
wanted to know how an Indian would react
if I were to behave in a certain fashion, and
he told me.
Mr. Pitman: Good!
Mr. Lewis: The imperialist of the Cabinet.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister's childlike
naivety! That he should have gotten up a
day or two ago and told us in such detail
what a wonderful experience it was being
educated by members of tlie advisory com-
mittee and now he gets up and he tells us
that he goes to these men and says, "If I do
this or if I say that, how will the Indian
react?" The Minister unwittingly reveals his
incapacity to do a job. He should be man
enough and have enough capacity to be able
to come to the conclusion himself. After all
this educative process in contact with the
Indian he is so insensitive and so incapable
of learning how the Indians are going to react.
I do not know what Chief Nadjiwon said— he
must have gone away and laughed that the
Minister should have come and asked him
that kind of a question.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is
that this committee is a committee which
the Minister unwdttingly indicated is drawn
in for confidential talks, and because things
are talked over confidentially members can-
not go out and discuss tliem on the public
platform because it would breach their con-
fidence with the Minister.
Tliat is the reason why, I suspect, Chief
Nadjiwon resigned. And I suspect that is tlie
reason why— not because the Minister has
learned, but because the Minister has failed
to learn— that the whole committee came
within an ace of resigning. Only because of
the patience of the gods diat the Indians
have, were they willing to give him one
more chance, to see whether he is willing to
come up with a programme that really re-
flects their needs and their wants. But at
the moment the Mim'ster is really on trial.
He should quit kidding himself if he does not
think that we are at the breaking point in
terms of our relationships with the Indians
at the present time.
Well, I was going to ask whether or not
we could get the minutes of this meeting but
obviously it is not possible to get tlie minutes
because of the nature of the meeting as he
has described it.
Let me try to wrap this up, Mr. Chairman.
This is a critical turning jwint at which I
think we have to be willing to make money
available, from the $1 million of last year
and the $1 million we are voting for this
year, to assist the Ontario Union of Indians
to do a job.
Now, it may well be tliat these estimates
were drawn up before it became obvious that
MAY 8, 1969
4167
tlie Ontario Union of Indians was emerging
as a viable, independent organization, capable
and willing to do that kind of a job. That is
the only reason why I can understand that
the government would appropriate only
$4,000 measly dollars, as the money available
for the Indians to do the job.
Just think of tlie grants that they have
made available to the horse breeders' associa-
tion, to umpteen different organizations, in so
many departments. Here we have, finally,
an organization which is our greatest hope
in terms of solving the problem of the In-
dians in the province of Ontario, and this
government makes $4,000 available to them.
This is the reason why I want you to take
tliis back to the Treasury Board and come up
with a programme that will meet the needs
for the coming year. That is the reason why,
even if you put that in at an earlier stage
when you did not realize the potentiality, I
thought you would have spontaneously re-
sponded to the request for $54,000 to put
organizers, survey men and field men out
across the province to get the information to
shape these new policies. But you are still
sitting and considering that $54,000.
My basic propostition, Mr. Chairman, is
that this issue should go back to the Treasury
Board and it should be reconsidered be-
cause of the government failure to meet tlie
needs of people.
You have gone back now and you are
rewriting your whole budget to deal with
the extra milhons of dollars necessary for
education, to make the covmty boards a viable
unit. You have gone back to get $9 million,
to bow to the unilateral dictate of tlie doctors
of the province. I suggest you should go
back to the Treasury Board and get them to
accept a realistic budget including the $1
million that reverted to the consolidated
revenue because you did not spend it last
year.
That is the reason for my amendment that
was put, and has been ruled out of order.
But if it has been ruled out of order, there
are otliers, Mr. Chairman. So I move,
seconded by the member for Thunder Bay
(Mr. Stokes)-
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Before the hon. mem-
ber moves the amendment.
Mr. MacDonald: No, no, I am moving this
and then I am sitting down.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Are you not going to
give me an opportunity—? Well, all right, go
ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: I move, seconded by the
member for Thunder Bay: "That the item re
lating to travelling expenses in the amount
of $46,000 within the Indian Conraiunity
Development Services Branch of vote 2003,
be reduced to one dollar." We would then be
able to immethately^- get'the money for the
union of Indians so that it can do a job and
restore some confidence in us.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, just to
touch upon the matters that the hon. mem-
ber has touched upon. First of all, let us
make it unmistakably clear— and this has been
the position of this government now going
back, not just within the term of this Indian
Community Development Branch but prior
to that— that nothing will be done without
the consent or the acceptance of the Indians
themselves.
This is a basic fundamental principle, and
I say to the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr.
J. Renwick) that he used a very proper ex-
pression. The choice, the opportunity must
be there for them. Whether they will sup at
that table of opportunity will be up to them,
that is a basic fundamental-
Mr. Lewis: Sup at the table of opportunity!
Boy, oh boy, oh boy!
Mr. Stokes: You have thwarted them at
every move.
Mr. Levvds: Sup at the table of opportunity!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is what I have
been doing all my life.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let us not waste time
with repetition. The hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Brunelle) was before the
Indian advisory committee because they had
to face some issue by reason of something
that had happened relating to a certain fish-
ing situation, and it was made unmistakably
clear to them that The Department of Lands
and Forests would not enter into the discus-
sions until they had been invited to attend,
and the hon. Minister also made it abundandy
clear. I do not think we need thrash that
one out any more.
Mr. Stokes: Why did the Minister of Lands
and Forests charge them $3 for a fishing
licence?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: With respect to the
Indian Eskimo Association, and the sincerity
of this Minister, one of the things, one of
the little things that I will always be proud
^1
4168
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of, is that about six or seven years back when
I had just become Provincial Secretary, the
original request for moneys from this govern-
ment for the Indian Eskimo Association, vi^as
channelled through the person of John
Yaremko.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, now you see,
three minutes ago the Indian Eskimo Asso-
ciation and its work was very worthwhile.
Now I bring out the fact that I was the
initial one to channel this, even though I
did not have the money; it went through the
Treasurer and ended up in The Department
of Education, who were prevailed upon to
provide the $10,000 which now, years later
is in the department that I have the privi-
lege of heading.
Mr. MacDonald: What did the Reverend
J. A. Mackenzie say?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let us not discuss the
Reverend J. Mackenzie.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, you know what he
said!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, I know him well
too.
Mr. MacDonald: Right!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Absolutely! So we will
just clear up who was the godfather of this
outstanding association.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out the chair
has a motion.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: With respect to the
grant. One of the things that will always
puzzle me and I am going to be working
with Chief Nadjiwon, as I have declared, is
at the time I met with Chief Nadjiwon and
Mr. Peters with respect to the grant on
Monday morning; I had wanted to meet with
them earlier for clarification and they could
not because they were in Ottawa. I met with
them at the first opportunity which was on
Monday morning.
Mr. Peters was in my oflBce, the executive
director was in my office discussing this grant
at a time when, unknown to me we spent a
considerable time talking in my office about
this grant, when unknown to me the presi-
dent of the union was calling, having already
submitted his resignation and was holding a
press conference. This to me will be one of
the great puzzles.
Mr. MacDonald: What day was that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yesterday. Yesterday at
3 o'clock Mr. Peters and I were discussing
this grant in all sincerity and I was attempt-
ing to communicate with Chief Nadjiwon and
Nadjiwon had called.
That is one of those things that happen
in human affairs and I doubt whether there
will ever be an answer because the chief is
now the president of the union and I will be
in contact with him in that capacity.
The last thing I say, and this is the only
time I will repeat it again, is that whether it—
this committee or any other committee, no
committee will be workable until that funda-
mental constitutional fiscal issue will be
resolved.
This money, this $1 million that is referred
to, has been placed to be available in the
event that the proper negotiations are
achieved with the federal authorities so tliat
we will have our portion available to show in
the massive approach.
Not the individual departmental work
which is going apace— every department is
carrying on its activities— but the work of all
the departments cannot be brought together in
this massive— to use the word of the hon.
member— global approach until this fimda-
mental issue is resolved.
Mr. Chairman: T|he chair has been pre-
sented with a motion. I have not placed the
motion before the committee, I have not read
it, but I would like to comment on this par-
ticular motion.
We are dealing with vote 2003 and it was
agreed in this department that we would deal
with votes, not by items but by programmes.
Now, I am suggesting this to the committee
that the motion itself would have the effect
of reducing one item within the programme.
We were dealing with the total programme,
not the items in the programme.
I
1 Mr. Lewis: We had a motion by the leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Nixon) in respect to
this department not many days ago when an
item was reduced by the equivalent of the
Minister's salary, an item within the pro-
gramme, and that motion was accepted. I
think it is understood that tlie vote taken at
the end of the estimate then if it is defeated
passes the section of that vote 2003, but the
precedent for amending an item was estab-
lished with these estimates very recently.
Mr. Chairman: I think the hon. member is
quite right and I accept the motion. The
MAY 8, 1969
4169
motion, of course— and I will not repeat it
now— the motion is debatable.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): May I
speak to the motion?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, the hon. member for
Downsview.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, this debate has
waxed on for a very considerable period of
time. Certainly there is no doubt in the
minds of my colleagues and myself the job
that this hon. Minister has done insofar as
looking after the affairs of the Indian com-
munity development services— and that is the
formal title of tliis vote— not only is inade-
quate, it is an embarrassment to all the
people of the province of Ontario.
We will support this motion, sir, because
this is the only way in which we can express
our complete and utter dissatisfaction with
the approach of the government to this very,
very serious problem.
I have sat in this House for a number of
years now and I have listened to a variety
of patronizing phrases and they range from
the phrase that we heard a few years ago
from the hon. Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management who said, "Let them
live in wigwams". I remember that very
vividly.
Mr. Lewis: He said it again tonight.
Mr. Singer: Did he say it again tonight? I
am sorry, I missed that. I did not hear him
tonight.
To the very patronizing and supercilious
approach taken by the hon. Minister tonight,
to let them sup at the table of opportunity.
I just do not under5?tand. Here is a Minister,
and I know this gentleman well, I have great
personal respect for him, I have known him
for a great nmnber of years, who comes from
what he chooses to describe on occasiions as
the third force. If that definition has any—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, I have never used that expres-
sion. I have used the honoured expression of
"the third element", and I say further, Mr.
Chairman, I am one of those, I have supped
at the table of opportimity,
Mr. Singer: If I have misquoted the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chairman, let me assure you
it was not done deliberately. If he would
rather use the phrase "the third element" I
will accept that. I was going to say I join
him in this.
I too come from whatever elusive phrase
or group that he chooses to describe, but I
do not like to describe it like that. I like
to call myself a Canadian who was bom
here, who likes this country, who wants to
be a part of what is going on. I do not want
to di sociate myself from the stream of
Ganadianism. I want to be a part of what is
going on.
Now, I do not want the Minister to inter-
rupt me. Just let me finish.
I say the Indian people of this country
have a right to everything that is going. They
are born here and they do not have to be
treated in a patronizing manner.
I suggest, sir, that this hon. Minister being
charged with this responsibility should not
be patronizing in his approach, should not
try to slough off his responsibility onto
another level of government. There is a big
job for him to do here in Ontario and he
is not doing it, and in his abuse of this posi-
tion of tnist then he must face the recrimina-
tions that are levelled at him from tlids
assembly.
Whatever logic he applies to the approach
of Chief Nadjiwon, all I know is what I read
in the paper today where the Chief says on
page 44 of the Toronto Telegram, similarly
in the Toronto Daily Star and similarly in
the Toronto Globe and Mail, "Chief quits
over inaction", and you read the story and it
goes on to say he has no confidence in the
Minister.
Now, how can the Minister in seriousness
tell us that he is going to enter into further
dialogue with this gentleman? Obviously the
gentleman does not want to talk to him any
more, he is unhappy with him, he does not
think he is doing a job. We share the Chiefs
views, sir.
For those reasons and without further
recrimination I am not particularly interested
in trading insults back and forth across the
floor. We do not believe the hon. Minister is
doing the job and we are going to support
this motion because we think he should get
out of the job and let someone else who can
do it get into it.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, we put this
motion because we feel it is rather more
critical than that. We not only believe that
the hon. Minister is not doing his job, but
we believe that he has betrayed the entire
confidence of the Indian people in the prov-
ince of Ontario and has no right to any
responsibility in this area hereafter.
4170
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We will find some way in his estimates of
demonstrating that, including cutting down
the travelling expenses of the apparently in-
consequential eflForts— and I do not demean
the members of the branch, I \N'ill come to
that in a moment— the apparently incon-
sequential efforts at reaching the Indians and
doing something in those communities be-
cause of the way people are hamstrung by
this Minister.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the
hon. Minister fully realizes the subconscious
or unconscious flavour that is communicated
in the phrase "sup at the table of oppor-
tunity" or the use of the word "godfather".
I do not know whether he realizes that
that is the phraseology of every benighted
colonial and every white southerner in the last
20 years, and that there is no distinction.
And a man who, with all the best intentions
in the world posits that kind of language
when discussing this kind of problem cannot
possibly grasp the problem.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, if I may be so
bold, and I do not wish to intrude on the
rights of hon. members of this House, but
there is such a striking anomaly about this
whole debate from our point of view, as
well as the hon. Minister's. There probably
is not a person in this House who can ap-
propriately discuss this estimate because there
is not an Indian in this chamber, and be-
cause it is very difficult indeed to begin to
fathom the context of what we are dealing
with. All we can do is sense it. All we can do
is try to articulate it as eflFectively as possible,
but we will never understand it until the
Minister himself recognizes that he has to get
out of the department and that he has to
use his money in alternative methods and
that he is participating in a crime, he is
participating in the continuing carnage of
Indian people in this province.
Mr. Chairman, nothing can indict that
policy vigorously enough. I remind you, sir,
imd I come back to the inter-departmental
conmiittee, that this is characteristic of the
'^I'or)' government. One is sorry to have to
say it, but it is characteristic, because it was
not so long ago in this House when the
member for Downsview was speaking in the
Legislature on the Indian affairs estimates.
I want to quote him in the House so that,
once and for all, it is on the record to those
who entered the House in 1967. The member
for Downsview— no, I am sorry, it was the
then leader of the Opposition, Mr. Andy
Thompson. He said:
What about housing? My hon. friend from Downs-
view asked about housing. No matter what the hon.
Minister says, the statisics show here are large
nimibers of Indians who are living in inadequate
housing.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy and
Resources Management): Wigwams!
Mr. Thompson: In wigwams. Probably. Is the
hon. Minister satisfied with that in the north at
40 degrees below or something?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It is the way they were
brought up. They love it.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you. I want that on the
record. The hon. Minister of Energy and Resources
Management speaks for the government and this is
the government's point of view, they are living in
wigwams and they love it.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Sure they do.
Mr. Thompson: Is that a way of life?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Sure.
Mr. MacDonald: Callous ignorance.
Mr. Lewis: Now we invite the interjections
of the hon. Minister of Energy and Resources
Management, or let him be silent for the
rest of this debate, Mr. Chairman.
And I say to tlie Minister that he has
inherited that particular mental attitude which
amounts to pathology. And it is no surprise
that he cannot mobilize within his inter-
departmental committee any kind of action
whatsoever. I want to move, in answer to
the Minister, to some of the specifics, so that
he is not able to find refuge in so-called
allegations of generality'.
The Indian advisory coimcil met four times
in the year, that is eight days. That is what
the Minister thinks of the advice of tlie
Indian community in the province of On-
tario, eight days of advice in an entire fiscal
year. That pretty well puts on the record the
extent of the Minister's concept of the table
of opportunity.
Mr. MacDonald: And he cannot remember
a single example.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, there is no
secretariat to that committee, no continuing
secretariat. He affords no substance to the
committee whatsoever; no wonder that the
Chief Nadjivvon resigned. We asked the Min-
ister to tell us what the context of the meet-
ings of the committee was and the Minister
said they were conducted in confidence be-
cause that is the way he likes to conduct
business in the province. That is revealing.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chainnan. The hon. member has a won-
derful knack of twisting words. That is not
MAY 8, 1969
4171
what I said. I said that is the way that a
confidential advisory committee does business.
Tihe hon. member knows the meaning of many
words but there is one word he has no
understanding of and that is confidentiaHty.
Mr. Lewis: Confidentiahty. Well, Mr.
Chairman, we on this side of the House charge
that the confidentiality imposed on the Min-
ister's advisory committee was to turn the
committee into a front for the Minister, and
that the committee was meant to be a fagade
behind which the Minister could hide a
policy so barren that it was embarrassing to
bring it before this Legislature. It was the
most denigrating act that that Minister could
have perpetrated in the context of the needs
of the Indian today— bringing them into a
confidential committee.
When the member for York South asked
what the nature of the committee meetings
was, the Minister knows full well what the
nature of the committee meetings was. And
when the meml^er for York South asked the
Minister what the recommendations were, the
Minister knows full well what the recom-
mendations were. And when the member for
York South asked what the recommendations
would cost, the Minister knows full well what
the recommendations would cost.
I challenge the Minister to table the minutes
of the meetings. There are minutes of the
meetings and I daresay the advisory commit-
tee would be delighted to have them tabled
in this House, and I challenge him to table
them. And he will hide behind confidentiality,
Mr. Chairman. Do you know why? Because,
I assert with confidence, tiiat the minutes of
the meetings show tlie following:
1. That in each successive meeting of the
four in the last year, the same items were
discussed, because each time they were frus-
trated by the department;
2. That in the course of tliose meetings,
members of the committee expressed serious
discontent about the committee's role. If you
go back 18 months to one of those meetings,
you will find that the whole advisory com-
mittee was questioned;
3. That specific recominendations were
made to the Minister which would have in-
volved the expenditure of exactly the required
sum in the estimates, and he turned down
every recommendation. He had nothing but
contempt for the recommendations which
came from the Minister's advisory committee;
4. That the Minister's advisory committee
was on the verge of a mass resignation yes-
terday, because it is fed to the teeth with
the Minister and bis whole fatuous depart-
ment.
It is to the e\erlasting credit of Chief
Nadjiwon that he finally brought it to light
with the explosiveness of the frustration that
a man must feel when dealing witli this kind
of government.
Mr. Chairman, may I say that if anything
I have said is incorrect about the meetings
of that committee, the Minister need only
table the minutes and I will stand corrected,
because they are all there and it is all docu-
mented. Every member of this House can see
what that committee discussed each time.
Every member of this House will know how
every single project was mutilated by this de-
partment and then discarded; that the Indian
advisory committee made a Herculean effort
to co-operate and the Minister showed them
nothing but disdain and arrogance.
And the fact that certain members of the
committee will continue to work with him
is simply a measure of the desperation which
the Indian community feels. Because it knows
not to what lengths or extremities the Min-
ister will go to sever the Indian from any
participation in the hfe of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask the Minister in
a different vein— does he believe the conditions
which were described by Mr. Dawson, the
director of the children's aid society at the
Lakehead reporting to the Minister, the con-
ditions in the various Indian reserves which
were visited by him? Does the Minister be-
lieve the report?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
an answer to that. This report is being re-
leased witli the authority of the children's aid
society of the district of Thunder Bay and
is autliorized by Mr. W. J. Griffis, president,
Mr. E. McClaid, chairman of the ad hoc
committee and Mr. N. J. Pustina, secretary,
I received it this evening.
The report in question was a report of Mr.
J. H. Dawson, formerly local director of our
society on a routine trip to the district. Copies
of this report were sent to each board mem-
ber as a normal procedure in November,
since Mr. Dawson was arranging to go on
a vacation. The report mentioned persons
and personalities and was obviously of an
extremely confidential nature.
We believe that Mr. Dawson issued the
report while preparing for his vacation and
did not anticipate that his report would go
beyond our board. The board recognized
that the report required immediate action.
The board did not attempt to hide the report
4172
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
at that time but obviously would not issue
it publicly merely as a report and Iea\e it at
that, recognizing that the report required
action.
An ad hoc committee from the board of
six members was immediately appointed and
we instructed the director to provide us with
as comprehensive as possible a survey of the
area and of the problems there as set out in
the report. It is important to remember that
the district of Thunder Bay is about 70,000
square miles in area and its boundaries nm
from the American border cm the south, north
to the Albany River, west to the English
River, east to the Rice White River.
Also, the area in question of Gull Bay,
Collins and Armstrong are at least 200 miles
from the Lakehead, north of Lake Nipigon,
and are generally inaccessible by road in
winter. A survey team was finally able to
fly into the area in early March and spent
the better part of the week making a detailed
survey. The above mentioned areas were
used as sample areas to reflect overall condi-
tions in other areas throughout the district.
The ad hoc committee immediately con-
sidered the survey and called a meeting of
all agencies and departments it felt were in
any way connected with the problems. The
meeting was held at Port Arthur on March
31, 1969. The following were invited and
appeared:
Mr. Farrow, Indian Affairs; Father Mau-
rice, Indian Development Officer; Mr. W.
Doherty, Department of Social and Family
Services, Ontario; Dr. R. Walker, district
health unit; Mrs. K. Louman, Department of
Health and Welfare nurse; Dr. E. R. Young,
Officer of Health, northern Ontario; Mr. A.
Moss, Alcohol and Drug Addiction Research
Foundation; Judge Greighton, provincial
judge, family court; Mr. A. Angus, proba-
tion services; Superintendent H. T. Garry,
Ontario Provincial Police; Mr. J. Dolph, Port
Arthur welfare department; Mr. D. McLeod,
Fort William welfare department; Mr. G.
Piper, Ontario Human Rights Gommission;
Mr. D. Linton, Ontario Human Rights Com-
mission; Mr. Hecter King, Indian Eskimo
Association, Armstrong; Mr. W. J. Grifiis,
president, Children's Aid Society, and also
superintendent of business and plant, Lake-
head Board of Education; Mr. H. Lang, local
director. Children's Aid Society, Thunder Bay;
Mr. L. Devereux, supervisor of protection
services, Children's Aid Societ>% Thunder
Bay. The Company of Young Canadians were
invited and did not attend.
The copy of the original report of the
survey and the minutes of the above meeting
were sent to Miss Betty G. Graham, director
of child welfare, Department of Social and
Family Services to keep the department
advised of the situation.
The format of the meeting was to bring
together agencies involved in the district to
seek ways of providing more rapid and im-
proved services to all areas in tlie district.
The first action taken was an agreement
by all persons present to provide a summa-
tion of their agencies' respective roles and
problems in the district to each other so that
they might review, analyze and be prepared
to suggest possible plans of action at the next
meeting scheduled for May 28, 1969. At the
present time these summations are being
circulated.
It is the aim of the children's aid society
of the district of Thunder Bay to be a cata-
lyst in order to bring all agencies and depart-
ments together to obtain maximum results
for our district.
At all times all agencies involved at the
meeting have fully co-operated and have in-
dicated their future co-operation. The prov-
ince of Ontario has also at all times provided
its full co-operation.
The propagation of Mr. Dawson's report
was without the consent and permission of
either the board or Mr. Dawson, and we can
only consider that it was released at this
time with the intention of causing embar-
rassment to the persons, agencies and depart-
ments involved with this issue. We have no
knowledge of how the report was released
publicly since we have always considered it
as a private report to this board only, upon
which we have acted.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That Mr. Chairman,
outlines what has been brought to bear on
this action. The hon. member was very care-
ful to read the report, of which I do not
know the date, but it got into his hands and
it must have been a considerable time ago. He
either did not know, or did not seek to find
out what had happened in the inter\'al. This
is the kind of community action in which I
think the global approach will have to be
taken to bring this about.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lewis: You are surely not silly. We
will get back to that in a moment, Mr. Chair-
man, I will simply say to you, sir, that if the
board of the society or the chairman of the
society feel that their confidentiality has been
violated in a description of a visit, then it is
their problem to hide a grievous social situ-
MAY 8, 1969
4173
ation in northern Ontario. That is not the
problem of the members of the Opposition..
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That was not the case.
Mr. Lewis: When I read the report into
the record, Mr. Chairman, I very carefully
excised names and I very carefully chose
those parts which were relevant. Indeed, the
Toronto Telegram today reprinted the whole
copy of the report. They obviously have their
copy as well, quite independent of mine, so
it is not that the report has somehow had a
\ery modest circulation. I did not receive it
until the last 72 hours, but it is not a modest
circulation.
But, Mr. Chairman, what has happened?
The report was made at the end of Novem-
ber, 1968, and on March 31, 1969, four
months later, a group of community agencies
got together to contemplate social action on
a global scale. Now there is something that
really boggles the mind.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Do not laugh at your
leader's words.
Mr. Lewis: Yes. Yes, four months later they
find out—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Is it a good word or a
bad word?
Mr. Lewis: —and they hold a meeting
where holy writ is issued about some social
action. One of the reasons for the delay, Mr.
Chairman, and I could read rather more fully
into the report, but I guess it is not-
Well, I will read it. I will explain one of
the delays. One of the paragraphs that was
not quoted anyway,
"I am concerned about service to the
area," said Mr. Dawson. Mr. Smith-
that is one of the workers.
Mr. Smith and I agreed this should be
given on a regular basis, but it is a real
problem how to work this in with other
responsibilities, e\'en with an additional
worker in this area, as demands for service
in Nipigon, Red Rock, and McDermott
are increasing and in the immediate future,
at least this office is assisting with work in
the Lakeshore area.
I am concerned that Marathon Office
must have office staff soon, as the work in
this area is not receiving adequate attention,
and the extei^ion of work from Geraldton
and Nipigon is afiFecting efficiency in these
areas.
And then the head of the Children's Aid
Society in that mournful way of his says,
"Are we achieving anything at all, what can
be done?" The fact of the matter is Mr.
Chairman, that the children's aid society in
northern Ontario has been so starved by this
Minister in respect of its services to Indians
that the Minister has largely precipitated the
crisis. That is the problem.
And the fact that they have to meet four
months later to try to plan some community
action is just an extension of the desperation
which they feel, because the department cuts
them off at every level. It does not only sever
its budget to the Indian affairs branch by $1
million it impedes the amounts that would go
to the children's aid society for service to the
Indian community. I am glad the Minister
disgorged that vital letter, and we can get on
to some other factors.
I want to come back to the question which
he refused to answer, Mr. Chairman. I want
to ask the Minister two questions.
First, does he doubt the content of the
report which was read in the House and
printed in the papers?
Second, was that report news to him? Were
the conditions described therein something
that was new to the Minister in the two and
a half years that he has looked after this
branch and this portfolio?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have no reason to
doubt that report, I accept it because it was
being dealt with within the department as I
have read, and I for one, hope that through
this approach of our community programme,
community resources action will be the answer
to the problem. Because if this kind of com-
mimity action is not good then the hon. mem-
ber must retract every position he has ever
taken in this House and elsewhere. I think
today is the first time I saw this report of
community action.
An hon. member: Oh, indeed.
Mr. Stokes: Was one member of your
Indian development branch at that meeting?
Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Stand up
and show a little respect.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The head of the de-
partment, Mr. Doherty, was present.
Mr. Stokes: But not one person from the
Indian development branch was there.
Mr. Lewis: Fine, would you answer the
second question? Were these conditions novel
to you?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The conditions?
4174
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lewis: The conditions described.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not think that
these conditions described are novel in respect
to Northern Ontario.
Mr. Lewis: All right.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The statistics which
have been read by hon. members in the
opposite side are known on this side. The
death rate, tlie illiteracy, the handicapped—
they are common knowledge. That is the very
basis for—
Mr. Lewis: The living conditions?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The li\ing conditions.
Mr. Lewis: The housing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The housing conditions,
the health conditions-
Mr. Lewis: Right.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Housing, health, edu-
cation and training and economic develop-
ment.
Mr. Lewis: Right. The death rate?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, the death rate-
Mr. Lewis: The infant mortality rate?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: These are all related
to health-
Mr. Lewis: The number of years of life the
Indians live?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: All related to health
conditions.
Mr. Lewis: Right, right. Well, Mr. Chair-
man, does—
lion. Mr. Yaremko: And one of the intents
and purposes of my visit to the north is
not only to meet but in tliat visit, time being
available, I expect to actually go and see—
although the figures speak for themselves.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Right.
Mr. Lewis: Then you really do not have to
visit, do you?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Lewis: Are you appalled by the con-
ditions?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Lewis: Are you concerned about the
conditions?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Lewis: Right, then will you tell me
why you did not use one solitary cent of that
milhon dollars. Explain it to tlie members of
this House?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I am
concerned about every old person; I am con-
cerned about every handicapped person; I am
concerned about every single person that
needs help-
Mr. Lewis: That is not what I am asking
you.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —and I have a consti-
tutional responsibility to discharge and I
will discharge that. I am not going to take
over anybody else's job when last week you
were critical of this department for certain
areas in which we have almost total respon-
sibility and then to assume that— this we will
do. We have been doing, within the limits of
our constitution, we have begun to move in
where really we could have taken the position
that was taken here 15 years ago and in all
the years prior to that that the province had
nothing to do-
Mr. Lewis: That is a perfidious argument.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It was this govern-
ment's attitude that brought us into the posi-
tion that v\'e are having this discussion today.
It was the Progressive Conservative adminis-
tration of the province of Ontario-
Mr. Lewis: I asked a question, Mr. Chair-
man, and I am going to keep at it. What is
the Minister saying? I do not know. It is
beyond me what all the applause is about.
An hon. member: It always is.
Mr. Lewis: After 25 years you have brought
the Indian community to a position of total
bankruptcy and deprivation and you are
proud that it can now be debated in the
House. That is what you are talking about,
is it?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borougli West has the floor I believe.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I
am not really interested in the Minister's dis-
charge—if I can put it that way, Mr. Chair-
man—I am rather more interested in the an-
swer to the question. I asked you since you
understand the infant mortality rate; since you
know that the Indian community is literally—
MAY 8, 1969
4175
not figuratively— but literally dying in northern
Ontario; since you know that the conditions
described are an assault to the emotional
psyche of every member of tiiis House and
every sensitive person who witnesses it; since
you know that health conditions are intoler-
able and tliat the economic conditions are
non-existent; and that the destitution for
families and for children cannot be counten-
anced; and that men die at the age of 31 on
the average as compared with 65 or there-
abouts for the rest of the country; and you
are appalled and you are concerned: When
one asks you why did you not spend a penny
of the million dollars why is your answer to
express a gratuitous concern for other ele-
ments in the society? And when finally you
are pinioned and it is necessary to explain,
you once again construct the most invidious
argument of all, the constitutional argument.
Hansard records that in this House through-
out Tuesday, the Minister said there were
no constitutional difficulties; he had all the
legality he required. Am I wrong, Mr. Chair-
man?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
members of the NDP keep twisting it. There
are no constitutional barriers in this field.
Mr. Lewis: Right. Exactly.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: But there is the ques-
tion of the fiscal responsibihty.
Mr. Lewis: Right. Okay, now we have got
it nicely neat and clean. There are no
constitutional problems; the Minister admits
the legality of his government to move into
the field of health, welfare, education and
economic development. Now, let us square
it off so we understand what we are talking
about, Mr. Chairman.
What you are then saying is that unless
and imtil the federal government gives you
50 cents on every dollar, the Indians of
northern Ontario can rot— that is what you
are saying. That is exactly what happens;
that is exactly and explicitly what you are
saying.
Interjections by hon. members.
I Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is
I perfectly willing to allow the death of a
society. That is what you are engaged in, the
death of a culture. That is what you are in-
volved in, and you are prepared to do it even
though you have the money. That is the
incredible factor that emerges during the
course of this estimate. It is not as though
there is some land of fiscal austerity operat-
ing by way of restraint, not at all. Budgeted
there, in dollars and cents, is $1 million in
the estimates. You are not taking from any
other department, you are not adding to the
provincial debt. You are not putting on new
taxes; you are not raiding another scheme.
You have got one million crisp dollars sitting
in your department, and you refuse to use a
one until you have a million back.
Well, we now understand what it means,
Mr. Chairman. We now know exactly what
it means. You have opted out entirely. As
far as you are concerned, the entire problem
can evaporate. It would not bother you for a
moment, not for a moment.
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
The Minister has more compassion in his
httle finger than your whole group put to-
gether.
Mr. MacDonald: I can understand yoxi
getting disturbed because it is intolerable
and shameful, but there it is.
Mr. Lewis: It is very good to have it on
the record, and I do not have to belabour
that aspect of it, Mr. Chairman. I am glad,
that from the Minister himself, in that
moment of painful honesty that emerges
from time to time—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, I have repeated in this House
time and time again last year and this year,
over and over again, let us not play reverse
upmanship or something like that. You have-
Mr. Lewis: I do not have reverse upman-
ship.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Hansard will make it
clear when and where I first uttered it when
the Prime Minister and this government
stated that as a policy.
Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Tee-
pee town.
Mr. Lewis: Teepee town, wigwam, let us
get it on the record. Where is the member
from?
An hon. member: St. Catharines.
Mr. Lewis: All right, all right. The inter-
jections of enlightenment. The Tory party
ravages an entire society and then talks
about wigwams when the debate comes be-
fore the House.
Mr. R. M. Johnston: You do not know
what ravaged means.
4176
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Henderson: He does not know what a
wigwam is.
Mr. Lewis: If I may say to the Minister
opposite and to those members who have
any use for the words of the Opposition dur-
ing the course of the debate, the white man
will never be able to redeem what he has
done to the Indian in North America. Never.
Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Those are
wonderful words.
Mr. Lewis: All right, if you accept that as
the premise, and I think it is the premise
which even the Minister would accept—
Mr. MacDonald: Tlie Prime Minister has
already enunciated it.
Mr. Lewis: —and which the Prime Min-
ister accepts, and which supposedly is em-
bodied in the Ontario Human Rights Code,
though a more obvious sham has seldom been
legislated in this House in terms of Indians—
if the Minister accepts that as a premise, then
all other things follow. You make an efFort—
pitiful though it may be, you make an effort.
And you do not only spend $1 milHon, I want
to suggest to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, you
spend $20 or $30 million in the first year, and
you do all the things that legally have a right
to be done.
Then you challenge the federal government
to participate, or you humiliate the federal
government into participation, or you lacerate
them publicly, but you do not let an entire
society go down the drain while you sit on
SI million. That is what what we are engaged
in and it would not be the first time that you
have done things independent of the federal
government.
It is all right for the citizenry of Ontario
or for the monoliths that we build out of
structural steel, but it is not all right for
thousands of people who live in tlie north.
Mr. Chairman, I have onJy one otlier obser-
vation I want to make. I want to come back
to the argmnent that we have l)een putting
to the Minister right through this piece— that
it is not only relinquishing the incredible
antedeluvialism which has characterized the
poUcy in the past, but is a matter of so
dramatically radicalizing your approach that
it will not be distinguishable again.
That means: (1) that you have to give the
Indian people some sort of electoral repre-
sentation in this chamber, in municipal covm-
cil and on regional councils. Whether they
choose to join political parties or to present
a certain view is something which is the
decision of the Indian community— but they
must have that voice. They are, Mr. Chair-
man, as a people, qualitatively different from
every other part of the Western heritage
which can be successfully integrated into
society. If the Minister believes in choices,
then he does not dictate the exclusion, he
offers the chance.
The second meaning, Mr. Chairman, is that
one must guarantee to that community land
ownership in perpetuity on a family basis.
Also, that a land commission is set up com-
posed of Indians themselves for that purpose,
and that it is worked both individually and
collectively in order to preserve those aspects
of the cultural tradition. Nothing less will do,
because what we have done to the Indian
under treaty parallels everything that was
done to tribes in Africa, in southeast Asia or
in Latin America. There are no differences.
Third, Mr. Chairman, the money which the
department has— and vastly greater sums-
must be turned over to the Indian community
itself, operating as an independent agency
through the Indian advisory council— or indeed
as a separate agency of government. It will
have accountability and will make the deci-
sions Ixised on their own priority and judg-
ments, and that never again will white
politicians and white bureaucrats impose pre-
determined value interests on those decisions,
with all the wreckage that we see and with
the impasse for the last two and half years.
T^e Minister stood in his place at the begin-
ning of the estimates and said— and he was
right to say— "I see no great progress in my
two and a half years." Surely, then, a case
for change is made.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, by some method one
creates the vehicle through which the cultural
inheritance is preserved intact, whether it is
by education in the vernacular language be-
fore education, or whether before education
in English, or whetlier it is through another
vehicle. I am setting the similar things, Mr.
Chairman, but trying to impose more detail
on tliem, because I see no other way out of
the impasse— no other way at all.
It can be done under the Prime Minister,
all of this, more effectively, but it can never
be done through this Legislature acting via
the Minister of Social and Family Services.
Mr. Chairman, as they have said of others,
nothing became his hfe so much as the depart-
ing of it. Nothing would so become this
Minister than to voluntarily resign his respon-
sibility for the Indian community. It would
be the single greatest contribution he could
make to thait community.
MAY 8, 1969
4177
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, I do
not know if I should start o£F where the
member left off, but I was under the impres-
sion the hon. Minister has resigned his respon-
sibihty for this Indian community. This is the
reason we are saying so many words.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the
Minister's plea that perhaps a lot of the
difficulty the Indians are experiencing may
arise from a health problem which would put
the matter into another jurisdiction. I am pre-
pared to accept, if the Minister wants that
perhaps the Indians are, to a certain degree,
the responsibiltiy of another jurisdiction.
But, Mr. Chairman, it has been pointed
out, time and time again, that 30 per cent
of Canadian Indians are so underweight at
birth there is a grave risk they will not
survive to be weaned. Seventeen per cent of
Indians are bom to mothers who have had
eight or more pregnancies. Sixty per cent of
the homes on Canadian Indian reser\'ations
have three rooms or less. Eighty-five per cent
of homes are without running water and
only fifty per cent have electricity. The article
has pointed out that there may be eight or
more children living in one or two bedrooms,
sleeping on bare floors, or on beds that have
no springs.
If white parents were to allow their chil-
dren to live in homes which had no elec-
tricity, no sanitary facihties, and keep five,
six or seven children in a three-room house,
the children's aid would be in there faster
than you could wink an eye.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister may not be
responsible for the lack of action of the Min-
ister of Health, but one thing is certain:
children's aid societies are this Minister's
responsibility! Therefore, if for no other rea-
son than the fact that this Minister is respon-
sible for the conduct and the activities of the
children's aid societies, and the children's aid
societies have not intervened to prevent these
situations because of (a) lack of personnel,
or (b) lack of money, or (c) lack of direction
from the Minister, this Minister must be
reprimanded. He has been absolutely negli-
gent and remiss in his responsibility to a
segment of society.
The thing that hurt, listening to the Min-
ister when he was answering the previous
speaker, was when he suggested that he had
responsibilities in his ov/n field for the aged
and the young, and so on, and so on. He
made the implication — the unnaistakeable
implication or innuendo— that Indians did not
fall in the class of either the aged or the
infirm or the young— that, in fact, they did
not fall within the class of human beings for
which the Minister was supposed to exercise
some responsibility.
This statement cannot be forgiven. He can
make all kinds of excuses, but in that one
aspect he has failed utterly. These are chil-
dren. Neglected children are the responsi-
bility of children's aid societies. Children's
aid societies are the responsibility of this
government. The Minister is the one who has
been designated by this government to look
after the children's aid societies.
All I can say is, the Minister has long ago
resigned his responsibility for looking after
Indian children. In fact, that he has in
essence denied that Indian children belong
to the hirnian race. And with that, all we
can do is ask, as the hon. member has
asked, tliat the Minister do the decent thing
and give his portfolio to someone else.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister, through you, whether his
department was contacted for a grant by the
Amik association in northwestern Ontario— a
grant of $25,000 to match part of a Ford
foundation grant— and how much, if any, the
Minister provided for the Amik association.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On January 16, a grant
of $24,000 was authorized for payment to the
Amik association. I may say, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. T. P. Reid: Is that in regard to the
Ford foundation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is our grant to
the Amik association— $24,000.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the Amik
association is one of tlie outstanding examples
of community development within this prov-
ince. I think that history will mark the activi-
ties of the Amik association as having set a
pattern— something new that will bring, we
all hope, the brighter horizons to the com-
munity.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
speak in this part of the debate with a great
feeling of futility, and a feeling of disgust.
I come from a riding in northwestern On-
tario, which contains some 12 Indian reserves.
I was raised in northwestern Ontario, in the
riding of Rainy River, amongst Indian people
and I attended school with them.
I do not pretend to be any kind of authority
on Indian affairs or Indians in this province.
I might say that it disgusts me, to some
extent, to hear some of the members in this
ChamlDcr get up and speak with the authority
4178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the person who sits on the left hand of
God.
I lia\e heard of Bay street lawyers, I have
heard of Bay street miners— the Minister of
Mines— and now we ha\'e a new category— a
Bay street Indian.
Mr. L. Bemier (Kenora): Hear, hear!
Mr. T. P. Reid: That came, Mr. Chairman,
from the member for Kenora, who also has
lived and lives, in an area where there are
a great many Indian people. I believe he and
I, and maybe some otliers, have felt, in the
debate on this Indian question, the feeling
that the Indians themselves surely feel— one
of frustration and one of disgust.
I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, most
respectfully, that the debate that has raged
with vituperation and charges of one kind
and another, has added absolutely nothing to
the understanding of the Indian problem in
this province. The oral perambulations and
obfuscations of some of the members of this
Chamber, and, I say, of members in every
party, including this one, has added little or
nothing to tlie solution of any of the prob-
lems facing the Indian people in this province
today. If anything, it has done nothing but
to smear the issues and cloud the solution.
I would suggest to you that the problem
of the Indians in Ontario today is a problem
that is not one of any easy solution. This
problem has existed for many years and it is
not going to be solved overnight. It is not
going to be solved by a 12-point programme
as suggested by one hon. member.
Basically what we have to have before we
can deal with the Indian situation in this
province is a basic change of attitude on the
part of the white people in this province. I
suggest a good place to start would be in
this Legislature.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): That is
what we have been saying for the last hour.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that some of those members have
suggested that this Conservative government
is presiding over the decimation of a culture.
This debate on the problem of the Indians in
Ontario has been obscured l)y the fact that
we in this Legislature have been presiding
over the decimation of a Minister. The affairs
of the problems of the Indians have been
forgotten and have been placed in second
position, if at all, by the lust for blood of
some members of this Legislature for the
head of the Minister of Social and Family
Services.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): That is a lot of
nonsense.
Mr. T. P. Reid: We have been engaged in
this debate on Indian affairs or this depart-
ment, rather, for some 40 hours. Time and
again, members of this party and that of tlie
left, ha\e pointed up the incompetence and
incapability of this Minister. But for some
hours tonight we have heard nothing but
the attempt of some people, both in this party
and in the one to the left, to have the blood
of this Minister before we leave here to-
night.
I think it is obvious that this Minister is in-
capable of handling this portfolio, this has
been stated. I suggest it is now an issue tliat
should be laid to rest. The Minister is clearly
incompetent, let us leave it at that. 'The re-
sponsibility is now with himself to either
resign or for the Prime Minister to demand his
resignation. I suggest that we do nothing
towards solving the problems of the Indians
in this province by pursuing the Minister like
hounds after a fox.
I would hke to state, Mr. Chairman, that
I do not pretend to be an expert on Indians.
It has never been explained to my satisfac-
tion just what the Indian problem is, but
there are certain factors that are apparent
to all. They do not enjoy a standard of living
that will allow them to grow in a healthy,
honourable and dignified manner. That, there-
fore, is our first problem. To provide the In-
dian people with those material and physical
benefits to ensure that they will be able to
grow and enjoy good health so that they will
be in a position where they can dictate and
enjoy the choices that are open to the rest
of us in this province.
The basic problem facing us in this prov-
ince, and here tonight is an attitude tliat we
have towards Indians. I tliink it has been
obvious in the statements by the hon. mem-
bers here tonight— and previously in tliis de-
bate—that tliere is a most arrogant and patron-
izing manner, towards the Indians. The Min-
ister opposite has been charged with being
patronizing. I say all of us have been patron-
izing in our attitude tliat we think that we
have a solution, to whatever we imagine the
problem to be.
There are certain things tliat, are clearly,
are needed to be done— such as good health,
good housing, good medical facilities. For
any of us to stand in our places and to sug-
gest with that righteous wrath that has been
so obviously expressed here, that tliey have
the word from on high as to how to solve
iMAY 8, 1969
4179
this problem, I say this is sheer hypocrisy
and political posturing. I accuse no one speci-
fically, I accuse this House as a whole.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Obviously
you were not Hstening to what was going on.
Mr. MacDonald: That is shirking responsi-
bility almost as much a the Minister.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, Mr. Chairman, I said
that I do not pretend to be an expert on
the Indian problems. I do not purport to
have any solutions other than that we must
improve the material and physical well-being
of these people, so that they are in a position
to make the choice as to whether they wiVL
join our society or remain in a pluralistic
society as Indians with their own native
culture.
Mr. Lewis: Surely, that is what we have
been saying.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would suggest, Mr. Chair-
man, once again, that all hon. members think
for a moment how they would feel if they
were an Indian person who had lived with
this sort of tiling all their lives. How they
would feel if they sat here in this chamber
tonighit and listened to various members of all
parties, and the kind of debate— if one can
call it that— that has taken place in this cham-
ber tonight. I suggest that all of us examine
our consciences carefully. I think that we wall
do no more for the Indian people by pur-
suing this kind of debate any further.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I suggest to
you that the last thing we need in this Legis-
lature, and indeed, in this debate, is ponti-
ficating.
Mr. MacDonald: Hear, hear.
Mr. Stokes: The last thing we need is for
someone to stand up and tell us that there
are no easy solutions to the problems facing
tlie Indian commimity in this province. I need
go no further than to quote the hon. member
for Kenora on February 17 in this Legislature
during a private members' hour when he
himself introduced a resolution. I would as-
sume it was his hope and his wish that his
colleagues on the government benches and
indeed this Minister would heed his words
and his warning.
Resolution No. 12 standing in tlie name of
the hon. member for Kenora says:
That the government of Ontario should
assiune full responsibihty for the Indians
and Eskimos resident in this province with
financial assistance from the federal gov-
ernment and, as a first step, an advisory
committee should be established to ooimsel
the government on problems and policies
affecting our Indians and Eskimos.
Mr. Ben: So?
Mr. Stokes: So he says:
I admit they are different from you and
me and all of the hon. members sitting in
this chamber. They are a small minority
group which make up only one per cent of
our population, but regardless of that fact,
these people are such a minority, they have
a special place among the minority groups
in Canada.
Firstly, they are governed by special laws
known as The Indian Act. Secondly, they
are the first inhabitants and the only true
natives of our great country. It is because
of these facts that I feel that the Canadian
Indian is entitled to special consideration
above all other minority groups.
Mr. Ben: So?
Mr. Stokes: He goes on to say:
The consensus in nortkwestern Ontario is
that too often policies and programmes are
based on ideas originating in the adminis-
trative centres of Toronto and Ottawa-
Mr. Ben: So?
Mr. Stokes: To continue:
—and lack the resident's insight into the
problem. The difficulties encountered and
the failure rate of such policies and pro-
grammes would attest to the validity of
these views.
Mr. Ben: So? He said the same thing
tonight.
Mr. Stokes: I quote:
Under the existing agreement very little
authority has been transferred from the
federal to the provincial governments.
Mr. Ben: He said the same thing again.
Mr. Stokes: For the edification of the
member for Humber, that man represents the
riding of Rainy River. I am quoting the hon.
memiber for Kenora. You have made that error
once before. Your colleague from Rainy River
corrected you. I wish you would pay heed to
what he has told you.
Mr. Ben: He said the same thing tonight.
Mr. Stokes: He did not say any such thing.
He said there were no easy solutions—
4180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
Mr. Stokes: The member for Kenora pro-
vided us with some sohitions and some guide-
hnes.
Mr. MacDonald: W^hich the j^ovemment has
ignored.
Mr. Stokes: To continue:
Under the existing agreement very Httle
authority has been transferred from the
federal to provincial governments. The
transition is difficult but one may question
if there is enough effort being made at
the provincial level to speed iip this process.
He goes on further:
As a suggestion, since the provindal gov-
ernment has instituted the Indian develop-
ment branch, why not use this vehicle more
extensively and centralize the maids of all
government services through one agency?
Another quotation:
How can a start be made to correct some
of these shortcomings? I would say to trans-
fer the obligations of looking after the
Indian x>€ople from the federal to the pro-
vincial government. There have been some
transfers already in the field of education
and welfare, but a complete transfer of all
obhgations and, of course, federal moneys
should be made to the province.
It has been asked on several occasions what
si>ecific recommendations have been made
by the Indian advisory committee to the gov-
ernment and, in particular, to this Minister
and, through him, to the interdepartmental
committee. I would like to suggest that pos-
sibly one of the recommendations that has
been made and that escapes the memory of
the Minister was one which was quoted in an
article in the Globe and Mail on April 30,
1968. It said:
Indian INCo^fE May Grow From Study
"A study of one Ojibway Band is ex-
pected to indiaite the means for solving
money problems common to Indians in
northwestern Ontario," Agriculture Minis-
ter W. A. Stewart, said yesterday. The
Ojibway Band is centred at Round Lake, a
community of 50 families in the bush 260
miles north of Sioux Lookout. Mr. Stewart
told the Legislature that The Department
of Lands and Forests will survey the natural
resources of the area. In adchtion, an ethno-
logical study will aim for an understanding
of the Indian's social and economic
structure.
"The economy traditionally has l>een
based on forests, fisheries and wildlife,"
Mr. Stewart said. "It is expected that more
diversified use of these resources can im-
prove the standard of living," The study is
part of an overall economic survey of the
Lakehead region, in co-operation witli the
federal government and financed under The
Agricultural and RehaBlitation Act. "The
result hopefully will be a massive pro-
gramme of opportunity for those living in
northwestern Ontario," Mr. Stewart said.
Now that is about one year and one week
ago.
The Minister has stated that he has taken
all of the recommendations placed before
him by the Indian advisory board under con-
sideration. He has said that they are under
active study, but when he was questioned here
earlier this evening, he could not recall any
of them that bad been acted upon or any of
them that struck him as being meaningful or
had stayed in his memory so that he was
able to relate some of them here to us tonight.
I suggest to him, and to the member for
Rainy River, that, in spite of their claims tliat
there are no easy solutions, the Indian com-
munity and, in particular, the Ontario Union
of Indians, have agreed to, and would dearly
love to, accept that responsibility. They would
like to send their own workers into the field
—whether it be on the reserve, or whether it
be in unorganized territory where commimi-
tics of Indian i^eople are living in an off-
reserve setting— where they could go in, assess
the need, and come up witli recommendations
and programmes that the Indian development
branch could enact.
I sugges.t to the Minister that all he has to
say and all we are asking him to do, is make
the necessary funds available. Tihe Indians
are not coming to you and asking you to solve
all of their problems. They are asking you to
provide the resources to help them to solve
their problems. That is all they ask.
We do not need to be too concerned about
going in and extending the paternalism th:it
we have had for so long from the federal
government. They want to solve their own
problems, but they need the resources with
which to do it.
You have the resources. It has been pointed
out on this side of the House on so many
occasions since we have been involved in
this particular estimate. You have already
indicated that you have the resources, but
for some constitutional hang-up you refuse
MAY 8, 1969
4181
to make them available unless you are fully
compensated by another jurisdiction.
I suggest to this Minister that the time for
delay, the time for procastination, has long
since passed. I think that the Minister is well
aavare of the militancy that has become so
apparent among die Indian communities in
northwestern Ontario; this will dictate that
he acts immediately.
You have the resources. You have the
people who are willing to go out into the
field to carry out these studies and come
back with specific recommendations. I suggest
to the Minister that he delay no further.
Make those funds available to the Indian
people to give them an opportimity to solve
their own problems.
Mr. MacDonald: Hear! Hear!
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Order! I
should like to suggest to the committee that
this debate has been continuing for many,
many hours on this particular topic. It seems
to the chair that the debate is now becoming
superfluous, to say the least. The debate is
approaching what, in my opinion, might con-
stitute obstruction of the business of this
House.
I just put this forward to the committee
for their consideration. We do have a motion
before us. The hon. member for Scarborough
West.
Mr. Lewis: I would say to you, sir, that
this is an exceedingly important subject. We
would not wish to obstruct. I respect what
the Chairman has said and I will be brief.
It may give the member for Rainy River
some succour to know that he has sparked me
to my feet momentarily to make an observa-
tion, Mr. Chairman, about the nature of the
position of this party, and perhaps, mem-
bers of his party in the debate.
While it may be, Mr. Chairman— and I
want to say these things carefully— while it
may be that heat and animus i» this debate
are not in themselves solutions, nor I submit
to you, is unction. And there is nothing
more patronizing than to patronize the
patronizers.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that to try to
intrude the sweet reasonableness of forth-
right right-thinking men into the the subject
is simply to consign the problems of the
Indian community to precisely the same
debate which has characterized discussions
of their future for the last 100 years and more
in this country.
Until very recently, I say to the Minister
and to my colleague, the member for Rainy
River — whom I know obviously feels as
deeply as anyone in this House about it—
the nature of the discussions and the sweet-
ness which has characteriaed them is, perhaps,
what has done most destruction to the cause
of the Indian community. There comes a
point in time, Mr. Chairman, when the nature
of debates is one to evoke the most impas-
sioned response, not simply from the Opposi-
tion, but from the government, because then
and then alone, will we break through.
I suppose it all depends on the point in
time when the decision is made that that is
the path which is followed. I would think
that 100 years after Confederation is a suf-
ficient length of time, and I recall the remarks
which the member has made on other occa-
sions which support that.
I may also say, Mr. Chairman, we are not
so much after the Minister— that is, in fact, a
discarded issue. We are after the money. And
we are perhaps above all after the allocation
of the money to tliose who make the decisions
on how it is spent in the interest of those for
whom it is spent, namely, the Indian com-
munity itself. That, we think, at this point in
time justifies some considerable feeling in
debates.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of tlie Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, there are one of t\vo
items specifically I want to put to the Min-
ister. Last year I enquired about the process
of developing some sort of a booklet or in-
formative piece which would put in the hands
of the Indians, particularly their elected coun-
cils or those who give leadership on the
reserves and in the Indian communities, in-
formation pertaining to all of the provincial
programmes that might be available, depend-
ing upon the decision of the Minister and
the Cabinet committee.
It has been said by this Minister and others
that all provincial programmes are available
to the Indian community. I think one of the
serious shortcomings is that the elected coun-
cils and others are unaware of the ramifica-
tions of their rights in this regard. And where
some of the piety and perhaps unction that
the hon. member has just been speaking
of shows in the statements from the Min-
ister and others about the availability of
these programmes.
The Indians cannot make use of them if
they are not familiar not only with what the
programmes are but how they can acquire
access to them. I feel that the time-honoured
procedure of having a joint federal-provincial
4182
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
committee to assi.st in the presentation of
these programmes is too time-consuming. I
know the Minister at one time undertook
a project to make information available in a
concise, orderly form to the Indian com-
munity and others, a list of all the provincial
programmes, the ramifications of the pro-
grammes, what the contact would be, either
at Queen's Park or elsewhere across Ontario.
Personally, I ver\' much regret that the
Minister has not decided to go forward with
such a publication or such a programme. I
would be glad to hear him report to the
House just the status it finds itself in at the
present time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, that type of
review was undertaken some time ago and
it became a summation of all of the prov-
ince of Ontario programmes, the whole lot.
It turned out not to be the type of thing
that I think anyone would have in mind in
order to put into the hands of tlie individual
Indian or group a concise summary in simple
language of the particular programme that
the Indian community would want to resort
to, because all our proxincial programmes are
available in their totality, really.
Mr. Nixon: Did the advisory committee not
suggest that in fact it was becoming too large
to be useful?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have seen it. It is
just completely unworkable. But one of the
economic councils of Ontario is making an
inventory of that and I look forward to
developing a type of booklet specifically
designed for that t>Tpe of thing. We will
have concluded by this session, I think, the
implementation of all the legislation which
will put on the statutes of the province all of
the programmes that are available to our
department and we will put that in pamphlet
form so they will be—
Mr. Nixon: Well, if a compendium of all
the provincial programmes would be un-
wieldy, there is no sense in giving that to the
Indians for their use. But I would suggest to
the Minister that he might, through his ad-
\isory committee and through discussions with
other organizations, arri\e at a list of those
programmes like those put forward by the
community programmes branch of The De-
partment of Education, some of the pro-
grammes under ARDA, particularly for
community pastures and the development of
the farming interests in those areas where it
is \ iable, their rights imder the grant system
for highways and for roads, so that some of
these relatively inaccessible areas—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Community centres.
Mr. Nixon: Right. I do not think you need
a compendium of all the programmes of the
province. I am not so sure that it would be
that stupendously large anyway, but there is
no sense in putting all of these programmes
forward. I would say to the Minister that the
Indian councils would \ ery much benefit from
this sort of leadership. I do not think it is
enough to stand in the House and say every-
thing is available to them, because—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I agree with the hon.
leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Well, is this one of the pro-
grammes that perhaps we can move forward
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr. Chair-
man, I rise to sound out again, the expression
of frustration and concern of my colleague,
the member for Rainy River, over some
aspects of this debate, especially the tremen-
dous number of arrows that have flown from
our left o\'er at the Minister.
Mr. Lewis: And from the member's party.
Mr. Knight: That does cause fmstration,
but from the point of view of one who comes
from the north, you can see although you may
not understand the full purport of the Indian
problem. At least you can see its effects in
very concrete ways, and one becomes con-
cerned just how much of this is politicking
and how much of it is sincere. But far be it
from me to question the sincerity of anybody
else because I feel I am on my feet now
because I am sincere, so I will give them the
benefit of that doubt.
I would like to add to this, though, that I
welcome this debate. I welcome its length,
its intensity, because I really believe that it
has given a new hope to the Indian people of
this province, when the word goes out from
Toronto across the north that in this impor-
tant Legislature we are spending valuable
and important time discussing the Indian
people.
I know they are passing the word from one
to the other. The word came back to me
today from an Indian citizen of the north
because of the words I had spoken about him
in this House a couple of nights ago. And
while speaking to him, I cotild detect the
new hope, the new confidence. However,
there is a very important warning to be made
at this time, Mr. Chairman. You know what
MAY 8, 1969
418J;
happens to people whose hopes you build up
and then without any follow- through what
happens? You are worse off than you were
before.
And what with the Indian task force from
the federal government going back and forth
across this country expressing all kinds of
good-will and interest, what with this debate,
what with the efforts of many individual
members of this Legislature to try and do
something positive and concrete for the Indian
people, if there is not the right kind of follow
through, there is going to be a fantastic let-
down and I fear very much that the danger
of militancy will then come.
And I want to point out that in speaking
to a gentleman I feel has been very, very
influential in programmes to assist his Indian
people in the north, Mr. Xavier Michon, he
said something to me on the telephone this
evening that worries me a great deal, Mr.
Chairman. He said: "The militants have been
asking me to help them. I would like to go
on trying to resolve these problems in a
peaceful way but I am afraid that if we are
let down by governments at both levels I
will have to join the militants."
I am talking about a fellow here who has
set up the Indian Youth Friendship Centre
which now assists and brings together some
125 young Indian people in the Port Arthur-
Fort William area, a centre which has greatly
improved the image of Indian young people,
that has brought a great deal of dignity and
respect back to the Indian people. This has
been accomplished through the young and
through the efforts of Mr. Michon.
And if it is important I point out that the
board of directors of that friendship centre
has such people as the deputy chief of police
of the city of Port Arthur on it. Magistrate
Cunningham sits on that, along with other
people of the community, including certainly
Indian people, and they turn the centre over
to Mr. Michon to run it as he sees fit.
Why does Mr. Michon at this point in
time, in the knowledge that I will have the
opportunity to speak here this evening, tell
me: "You may quote me, I too will become
a militant. First I will place my faith and my
confidence in you people down there in that
government, in that Minister, but if nothing
happens I will have to turn to the militants
because it will become a matter of economics.
The man has dug into his own pockets so
I deep to try to help his Indian friends that
there is no more in there, but he still wants
to help them some way because it is becom-
ing a matter of frustration for him.
More than that, it has become a matter
of dedication, for the man cannot say no,
even though he has spent considerable time
in the last few years in hospital himself be-
cause of his efforts.
So I say perhaps that is not important to
some members of this House, Mr. Chairman,
but it is a sign of how all this is coming to
a head and this is where the members to the
left are right in the urgency that they attach
to this whole problem when they try to bring
tliis debate to a head.
So I say Mr. Chairman, that I appeal to
the good will of this Minister, I appeal to
this education that he says he has undergone,
I appeal to all of that. I appeal to whatever
virtues have caused him to sit tliere patiently
for most of the time and try to listen and try
to hear. I would not want to be sitting in
his shoes, I would imagine it would be very
difficult to take that kind of a bombardment.
So I say to him, some time in the near future
would he please sit down and talk to Mr.
Xavier Michon again? We do not want to
lose him on the peaceful side, Mr. Chairman.
I would not want to see him become a mili-
tant after all of the efforts, all of the work,
all of the dedication this gentleman has put
into trying to solve some of the Indian prob-
lems up there. He has worked for three years
on an arts and craft programme to be centred
in the friendship centre, a centre from which
the young people can go back into their re-
serve and teach the people on the reserves the
arts and crafts. He has even gone to the
point of suggesting that each reserve spe-
cialize in a given product.
What is wrong with this idea that tliis
department cannot support this project finan-
cially? Can it not even bring some influence
to bear on the federal Department of Indian
Affairs to support Mr. Michon's programme?
The young people of that centre ha\'e
worked so hard to set up this programme.
They are all set to go and they have been
told: "No, we cannot support you." So the
tourists coming into northwestern Ontario
and the people who leave there have to be
content to go on buying little canoes and
other objects, so-called Indian objects that
are sold to tourists, that are made in Japan,
or made in some other part of Canada.
This is a worthwhile industry that could
be supported, something positive that can be
done, a positive programme, and I cannot
understand why the Minister cannot find some
way to help them directly or to appeal with
the higher level of government in order to
help these people out.
4184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now Mr. Michon tells me that he under-
stands not only last year did the youth
centre not receive a grant from tliis depart-
ment that matches the grant of the federal
department but now he understands there is
some question as to whether that grant will
l)e cut back, tiiat the contribution to Friend-
ship Centre may well be reduced and I
wonder if the Minister could clarify that point
tliis evening when he gets the opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that this Min-
ister spoke with Mr. Michon less than two
weeks ago and he spoke with some of the
Indians who are considered to be militants
at the Lakehead. So he has a knowledge of
what I am speaking about and he knows
about the person to whom I am referring,
Mr. Chairman. I just wonder if he could not
explore the background, the good intentions
and the qualifications as such of such people
as Mr. Michon to indeed consider establishing
u programme of ombudsman here in Ontario.
Perhaps he could do it through the Indian-
Eskimo Association, the Ontario Union of
Indians, and through these friendship centres.
Mr. Michon tells me that in tbe last six
months he has placed 20 Indian families. That
means he has found them homes, he has
found them jobs, he has had to get the chil-
dren into the schools. He has had to assist
them in whatever way families have to be
assisted when they are newly starting out
in a community.
Surely a man like this must be of some
value when so many of the rest of us are frus-
trated when we approach this Indian prob-
lem? Surely a man who is willing to give
freely of his time should not to spend his
own money to do these things? Surely tliis is
one of tlie responsibilities of society, one of
the responsibilities of tliis government, and
this department?
So I say, Mr. Chairman, that there are
iireat dangers obvious here and one of the
biggest is that so much concern is demon-
strated in political circles such as this one
and then nothing happens after, there is no
follow through. The Indian poople are made
to expect great things and then nothing
happens.
I am trying to indicate to the Minister,
Mr. Chairman, ways that something can
liappen. We are fortunate in Port Arthur that
the Indian people have gotten togetlier with
the help of people who believe in helping
Indian people to help themselves to build
their pride and to have been able to estabhsh
this Indian youth friendship centre.
The community has not turned around and
built them a great lavish building. The com-
munity would prefer to see the Indian people
do that themselves in whatever way they want
to do it, choose to do it, and the Indian
people are gradually doing it. But I think
that there could be greater assistance for that
centre from this department and this is the
point tliat I want to put across at this time
—great encouragement for Mr. Xavier Michon,
he is Mr. X., and he is the missing link be-
tween those of us who can do so little and
who have so little confidence from the Indian
community and the Indian community itself.
Mr. Michon is established as a white man
in the community but at the same time he is
believed in, he has credibility with most In-
dian people. Surely we should not lose this
kind of person. We should not allow these
people to become frustrated, to become ill,
to become no longer interested because then
we really lose something, because then there
is no longer any hope.
As a final word, Mr. Chairman, let us again
seek out those who want to settle this in a
peaceful way and subsidize those people as
a counter wave of those who are getting
ready to force their point through with vio-
lence or any other way. While there is still
time let us do it the right way, let us not
wait for violence.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member will be interested in knowing,
because of the remarks that he has made,
that earlier today I announced the making
of a grant to the Thunderbird Friendship
Centre through Mrs. Monica Turner in rela-
tionship to a request they made with respect
to holding a convention in Port Arthur, On-
tario, at the beginning of next month. It so
happened that Mr. Xavier Michon, whom I
did have the opportunity of meeting, was
mentioned in the letter and that was one of
the factors which enabled me to come to a
conclusion. I look forward to meeting with
Mr. Michon and I will also be meeting again
with the others that I had met at the Lake-
head.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Ren wick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, may I just for a
moment— the hon. member will be interested
that we are increasing the grant for the Indian
friendship centre, that is the centre itself, for
its continuing programme to $5,000.
MAY 8. 1969
4185
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chainnan, when I
asked the hon. Minister in the last year's
estimates how many centres we have, the
answer was seven— that they had grown from
two to begin with and then there were three
more and three more, two that year, and that
as each year goes by there are more and
more friendship centres being added. I would
like to ask the Minister if any new friendship
centres have been added since last May 1968?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Kenora and Sudbury
are being activated in this regard.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask the
Minister how many day nurseries there are in
reservations in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have that
figure. But I will have that figure when we
come to the day nurseries. I think there was
one opened in Walpole Island— the one in
Walpole Island was the initial one. It re-
ceived quite a write-up in one of the news-
papers and it is the beginning, I hope.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask the
Minister if there are any homes for the aged
on Indian reservations?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, there is no formal
one yet.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Are there any applica-
tions, Mr. Chairman, for homes for the aged
in the reservation areas?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, there are not.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The Minister, in answer
to various members last year, answered to the
member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Far-
quhar) that the member had touched on a
very difiBcult problem with the cost sharing
formula inasmuch as the municipalities were
not able to provide the 20 per cent, of any
80 per cent -20 per cent cost sharing formula.
What I would like to ask the Minister is, has
the Minister ever considered or will he con-
sider that if a municipality does not have the
20 per cent for any cost sharing programme,
that the Minister would see that from his
department there could be assumed the 100
per cent?
' Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think the hon. mem-
ber is referring to the 20 per cent that Indian
bands are required to make up the same as
municipalities are.
Mr. Singer: That is in the new legislation.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, no. That is the
federal government which has, as a matter
of policy, begun to pick up that 20 per cent
where the Indian band is not able to do so.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. Then, I would like to ask— the Minis-
ter said that with regard to the $1 million
that was budgeted for two years running and
not used, that the Minister expressed his per-
sonal disappointment that Ottawa picked up,
only eight per cent of the share of that money
which, was used. Now how much would
Ottawa have picked up then, Mr. Chairman,
of the money that was used last year out of
the $1 million?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would say it would
be approximately the same. There has been
no change, no fundamental change, that
would change those figures, in any signficant
amount.
Mrs. M. Renwick: No change in the initial
federal—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. No significant
change.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The Minister said dur-
ing the last estimates, "In fairness to the
Ottawa people, we have not yet had the
opportunity at the Prime Ministerial and Min-
isterial level of discussing this and of really
threshing this out or re-negotiating this."
I wonder if I could ask if that threshing
out at that level has taken place?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I indicated earlier in
this debate, Mr. Chairman, that I had
requested in February of this year, at the
health and welfare Ministers' conference,
that a full fledged federal-provincial discus-
sion take place related simply to the ques-
tion of Indian matters. I think I was sup-
ported at that time by all of the provinces
that concurred in this proposition which I
put forward.
Mrs. M. Renwick: When the Minister went
into this $1 million figure he seemed very
proud that we were the only province enter-
ing into that agreement. Did the Minister
enter into it believing that a larger share
would be picked up by the federal govern-
ment of that particular development branch?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask the Min-
ister what sort of dental care is given to
children on the reservations, what sort of
dental treatment is available?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That would be com-
pletely a federal matter.
4186
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask the hon.
Minister if I may, how many days in the last
year or how many nights he has spent on or
in, any of the reservation areas in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The occasion was the
members' trip to northwestern Ontario and,
of course, I have plans— as soon as these
estimates are through early in June, to pay
a visit to nortliwestem Ontario. Certain
specific things I have lined up and also, to
make whatever survey I can at that time.
Mr. Chairman: There is an amendment to
be voted on.
Mr. Pitman: Just for a moment, Mr. Chair-
man, I do not really apologize for taking an-
other moment or two on this particular topic
because I think it is extremely important.
I think it is one of the most disconcerting,
one of the most shameful problems that we
face as legislators in this province. It is one
which I think a debate of which has been
most enlightening. We have ranged far and
wide. There has been very little repetition
and we have not been dealing with specific
Indian problems.
We have been dealing with it on a broad
scale, on the full spectrum of this problem
and we have reached, after several hours, the
conclusion that there has been no progress,
over the past number of years and we also
have reached the conclusion that there is no
hope of progress in the coming years.
It seems, as we get right down to the
kernel of the problem, that we do not need
to talk about money because tlie money
is already there. It was granted last year. It
was passed by this House last year and then
was turned to the general re\'enues when it
was imspent. We are not talking about con-
stitutional matters essentially.
What we are really talking about is the
inability of we, as white people, to solve
the difficulty of who is going to pay for it.
This is what it really comes down to and
what the Ontario government has said is
this, "We realize that there are Indians
starving; we realize there are Indians who
are living in hovels which would be shame-
ful if they were in the jungles of Viet Nam;
we realize that the health problems of these
people are a monument to the callousness of
we, as Ontarians, but we will not spend this
money unless the federal government is will-
ing to put in their money as well.
That is what it really has come down to.
The fact that we are willing to allow these
conditions to continue to exist, because for
some reason or other, we cannot solve this
federal-provincial conflict. And how long is it
going to take before this conflict is solved?
It was not solved last year. It was not solved
tlie year before. It may be solved next year,
I doubt it. I do not see any likelihood of this
happening, two years from now, four years
from now, what Ls going to happen to the
estimate when it is passed?
Mr. MacDonald: The Indian issue was not
even raised by the Prime Minister at the
conference in February.
Mr. Pitman: What is going to happen
when tliis estimate is passed? Is the Minister
going to come back into this House, 12
months from now and tell us that he is not
going to spend that money either, because
the Prime Minister and Cabinet at Ottawa
hav(^ decided that they are not going to carry
out their responsibilities? Are we going to
go through this debate year, after year after
year?
Tills debate could have ended hours ago,
Mr. Chairman. It could have ended very
nmch as it ended two o'clock at night, after
two o'clock on Monday evening when the
Premier leaned across and said, okay, okay,
we will tell those who are general welfare
recipients that they can know what their
rights are and so, the notice did go out to
all those after we had spent many, many
hours in this Chamber. I think that is one
thing which can give us some hope, that
what happens here does give us some rele-
vance to the day by day life in the com-
munities in our province. It can happen here
tonight. This can be withdrawn. This motion,
this amendment can be withdrawn, the Min-
ister can simply stand at his place and admit
what is already so obvious, both to those on
tliis side of the House and to those on that
side of the House.
It is true that the advisory Indian com-
mittee has lost all faith in this department
and in this Minister. Tliey have nearly all
resigned— one has resigned and tlie rest arc
ready to resign. They have done nothing
over the four meetings and the eight hours
of dissertation that has gone on in that
advisory committee. Not one single thing
which has been discussed, has taken place,
has gone on, has alleviated tlie problem of
Indians that deals with the advisory com-
mittee. In other words, it has accomplished
nothing.
The inter-departmental committee. What
hope do we have of that? How many meet-
ings has that held? Do we have any feehngs
—and I have asked those to your right, Mr.
xVIAY 8, 1969
4187
Chairman. Does any one over there have any
feehng of confidence in anything that has
taken place in that committee which was
called to solve the problems o£ the Indians in
northwestern Ontario? I certainly have not.
These problems can be solved but they
will only be solved by a massive infusion of
capital. Mr. Chairman, there are a few
Indians in my particular riding and I have
seen witii my eyes what happens to an
Indian community when they see some hope,
when they see that there can be decent hous-
ing; when they see that their kids can receive
decent education. In other words, it is not
an insoluble problem if we will just have
tlie will.
I suggest, therefore, Mr. Chairman— and I
complete my remarks and the Legislature
can do as it will with this amendment— but
I say this, that it is time that the Minister
stands in his place, admits what is so obvious
that both the advisory committee, and what
my leader, the member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) has indicated with clarity and
precision, that the inter-departmental com-
mittee does nothing, does nothing effectively
and has done nothing effectively in the past.
If he would simply say to us here this
evening that he realizes he does not under-
stand the problems, that he does not have
control of the machinery to deal with the
problem and that it is insoluble within the
limitations of his frame of reference. Admit
this, it is so obvious to everybody in this
House. Admit it and say I will go to the
Prime Minister in the morning. I will tell
him to take this responsibility out of my
department, to take it into his department.
I will suggest to him that he takes the money
which we returned to the general revenue
last fall and place this money in the hands
of the Indians to carry out the suggestions
that the member for Scarborough West has
already stated in this House. I will suggest
that this money be given to the Indian
people, that they do have the machinery to
carry this out. They do know what they want,
they do know what their problems are and
we can get something done. This debate can
end, this amendment can be withdrawn and
we can get on with the business of this
department.
Mr. MacDonald: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. MacDonald has moved
that the item relating to travelling expenses
in the amount of $46,000 within the Indian
community development services branch vote
2003 be reduced to $1.
All those in favour of Mr. MacDonald's
motion please say "aye".
All those contrary please say "nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" 26, the "nays" 41.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.
Shall this programme carry? Carried. This
completes vote 2003.
On vote 2004: Child care. The hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the main
cry that I hear from the children's aid workers
is: no supportive programmes in the com-
munity, and non-adequate facilities in day
care, in nursery schools, and in homemaking.
The children's aid workers are asked to
meet the list of regulations under The Child
Welfare Act and are asked to meet them
without the resources. They are asked to meet
them without expanding school programmes
to rescue the youngest of the unfortunate. It
is the workers that have been in the field for
a number of years, dedicated and devoted
people, who tell me they are dealing with
generation after generation of the same family
in many cases.
Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the hon. mem-
ber would permit the chairman a slight inter-
ruption to discuss the matter of how we will
deal with this particular programme.
Mr. Nixon: We would permit the Premier
a slight interruption.
Mr. Chairman: This is divided into two-
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Time to adjourn.
Mr. Chairman: Order. This vote is divided
into two programmes of activity— the day
nursery service and the care, maintenance
and protection of doctors' services. However,
the items within the vote seem to be a little
more representative. I wonder ff the hon.
Minister would like to deal with this on the
basis of the programme or the items within
the vote.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would think, Mr.
Chairman, the item procedure would be better
if we discuss 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. That will pro-
vide a very orderly discussion: That is chil-
dren's aid societies, then the subsidies to
institutions for children, grants to agencies,
\\
''\
4188
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
other payments, and grants to clay nursery
services.
Mr. Chairman: Would the committee con-
cur that it would be more expedient to deal
with items 1, 2 and 3 together and then the
remaining items within the \'ote, item by
item? Do I have that concurrence?
Agreed.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre:
Items 1, 2 and 3, do they carry?
Mrs. M. Ren wick: No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Anything within items 1,
2 and 3?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Item 1: What numbers
of people and for what positions does this
salary item cover?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In the child welfare
branch, there is a total complement of 72. In
the day nurseries there is a total complement
for the coming year of 22.
Mr. R. Newman: I wonder if the Minister
could tell us if you have child welfare workers
working in the Thistletown project in Rex-
dale?
Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with salaries,
travelling expenses and maintenance as one
grouping.
Mr. R. Newman: That is salaries.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I did not hear the
hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The answer, Mr. Chair-
man, in any event, is none.
Mr. R. Newman: Does the Minister have
any plans for workers for that particular
project?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not at the present
time.
Mr. R. Newman: Has the Minister received
any representation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: From whom?
Mr. R. Newman: Social workers and other
interested people in the area of north Rex-
dale, asking for help with child workers for
the Thistletown, Bergemont and other OHC
projects where they have 5,000-6,000 people
with all sorts of child problems?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not that I can recall
at the moment.
Mr. R. Newman: You have heard nothing?
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
items 1, 2 and 3?
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, does the Min-
ister ha\e working in the department in this
branch any of the people who are trained in
the \arious social service worker courses or
child care courses in the Community College
system?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, in the day nurs-
eries.
Mr. Lewis: Day nursery part of the branch?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The only course in the
colleges that is working properly.
Mr. Lewis: Do you have any idea of the
number?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are 12 day nurs-
ery supervisors, all trained.
Mr. Lewis: All trained? Is there any reason
why they would not be working in the other
part of child care to do with children's aid
societies, children's institutions and related
agencies?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is a specialized
course of training especially for day care.
Mr. Lewis: Especially for day care. What
about all those who go through the two-year
course at Ryerson which was established in
conjunction with the department? What about
those who are doing the two-year courses at
the ^'arious— I think it is now 16 out of the
20 community colleges— social service worker
courses. Are they not fit for employment by
the department in this branch?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are trained and
being utilized in the day nurseries.
Mr. Lewis: In the day nursery part of this
branch?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not the day nursery
part of this branch, in the day nursery pro-
gramme throughout the province.
Mr. Lewis: I see, the day nursery pro-
gramme. Well, I am not sure I am getting
through. These people come out with a
degree or a certificate after two years, and
they are eligible for hiring by all kinds of
agencies in the field of services to people
right across the province, so I can well be-
lieve that they would be working in some
day nurseries. Rut I am wondering whether
the department, as a department, has hired
any of them.
MAY 8, 1969
4189
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I believe we have.
My understanding is that all of those who
were trained in this field have been placed.
Mr. Lewis: Well, I do not want to par-
ticularly disagree. I think the problem in the
field now— I can assert it with a little con-
fidence—is that the graduates do not have
placement, Mr. Chairman. Their most serious
problem is placement. They had a conven-
tion no more than one week ago of all the
workers from the social service worker
courses in the community colleges.
It was attended by Russell Joliffe at the
Ryerson Institute who sat at the head table
and a number of people like Al Kutcher,
who heads the course at Seneca. Others from
Centennial and from Humber colleges were
all at the convention, including representa-
tives of the social service course at the
community colleges in Ryerson. They came
from all over the province and they had one
consistent cry: They were not able to find
placement anywhere in the province. In all
the proliferation of agencies involving ser-
vices to people. It seems to me a rather
strange proposition. This was a new line of
social welfare work, a new category, and I
thought that at least the department might
set the pace here for integrating these people
into the work force, because after all, this
was viewed as a way in which we could fill
the gap of the desperate needs in personnel
in this particular field, and I was surprised to
hear that very few of them could find job
guarantees.
As a matter of fact, only the Ryerson course
is having any consistent success in finding
placement for these people. All the others
are coming on to the labour market and they
are having serious difficulty in all the private
agencies, whether they are Ontario hospitals
or Children's Aid Society.
One had hoped that the Minister's depart-
ment was the one which could absorb them,
particularly this kind of branch, because as
the Minister knows, many of them are in
their early twenties, or mid-twenties. To work
with children, or even in the supervision of
those who work with children or learning
from those who work with children, one
would hope that they would have an appro-
priate place in the branch.
I do not want to belabour it. I just say to
him that they feel a sense of great frustration.
They are a pretty committed people and they
would like to get involved and they do not
know why the doors are being closed on them
at the moment.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am aware of that
particular problem.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, when I
asked the Minister the original question of
the numbers of people in the salary item, I
also asked in what position.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there
are, in the child welfare branch, the director,
six child welfare supervisors, one child wel-
fare supervisor, one executive officer, four
field workers, four departmental accountants,
and the balance would be supporting staff.
There are presently a number of vacancies
within the welfare supervisors and the sup-
portive staff.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
items 1, 2 and 3?
Items 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves that the committee
of supply rise and report it has come to a
certain resolution and asks for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
a certain resolution and asks for leave to sit
again.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will go to the
order paper doing work in the committee of
the whole House, and, if time permits, some
second readings.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:20 o'clock, p.m.
No. 112
ONTARIO
Hegiglature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, May 9, 1969
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, May 9, 1969
Age Discrimination Act, 1966, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 4193
Farm Products Marketing Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 4193
Hiring of Teachers' college graduates, statement by Mr. Davis 4193
Commission on post-secondary education, statement by Mr. Davis 4194
Municipal taxation, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 4195
Taxes for educational purposes, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Nixon 4197
Grey county-Owen Sound board of health, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. MacDonald 4198
Sunnybrook Markets, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 4198
ETV staff, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 4199
School inspectors, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 4199
ERGO plant at Port Maitland, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Burr 4199
Student protesters, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Lawlor 4200
Preparing people to deal with mentally retarded, questions to Mr. Davis,
Mrs. M. Renwick 4200
Gutback in junior kindergartens, question to Mr. Davis, Mrs. M. Renwick 4200
Students leaving classrooms, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Sargent 4201
Legal definition of death, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Ben 4201
Mr. Iverson Handke, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 4201
Third! readings 4201
Ontario Heritage Foundation Act, 1967, bill to amend, reported 4202
St Lawrence Parks Gommission Act, bill to amend, in committee 4202
Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, in committee 4203
Separate Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Bemier, Mr. T. Reid, Mr. Ferrier,
Mr. R. S. Smith, Mr. J. Renwick, Mr. Deacon, Mr. T. P. Reid 4208
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 4217
4193
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, May 9, 1969
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This morning in the galleries
we have as guests, in the east gallery, stu-
dents from D'Arcy McGee Separate School,
Toronto and Prince Charles public school
in Brantford; in the west gallery, students
from St. Lucy's Separate School in Toronto;
later this morning we shall be joined by
students from Smithfield Public School in
Rexdale, from Sturgeon Falls High School,
in Sturgeon Falls, from Chedoke Public
School in Hamilton, and from Lambton-
Kingsway Public School in Toronto.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT, 1966
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
to amend The Age Discrimination Act, 1966.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, this bill
makes The Age Discrimination Act applicable
to the Crown and all its agencies. The intro-
duction of the bill at this time does not mean
that there is a problem. It does signify, how-
ever, that the government feels it must make
it unmistakably clear that it is opposed to
discrimination in employment based on age.
This message must be clear to all those in
the government service who are involved in
the hiring, promotion and supervision of stajff.
We know from experience there is no direct
relationship between chronological age and
ability to contribute to our economy and our
society and therefore, there should be no age
barriers erected against persons seeking em-
ployment.
So, Mr. Speaker, I repeat the bill is simply
a further reflection of the government's con-
victions on this matter and it reinforces what
we are already doing to cope with the prob-
lem of age discrimination.
THE FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING
ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food) moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Farm Prod-
ucts Marketing Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, are we going to have any ex-
planation of that bill?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this is
simply a housekeeping bill for The Farm
Products Marketing Act. There are no new
principles inculcated in the bill. It simply
brings up-to-date certain items in The Farm
Products Marketing Act.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): House-
keeping bills are the most suspicious.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, of course, one
with a suspicious mind might be so inclined.
Let me say that the hon. member's sus-
picions would be quite unfounded here. This
is a housekeeping bill.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Educa-
tion has a statement.
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, I have two relatively brief state-
ments. One is in the form of information
which I told the member for Peterborough
(Mr. Pitman) we would provide just as soon
as we had any more up-to-date information
relative to the hiring of our teachers' college
graduates. These figures are not 100 per cent
accurate. These are the results of a survey
as of yesterday.
I should point out that the hiring goes on,
of course, for some time yet, but related to
the information we presently have, from
the Lakeshore Teachers' College-and these
are just general observations— the picture ap-
pears to be more competitive than in other
years with 65 per cent hired; in London, 67
per cent hired, and this is a more competitive
situation; Ottawa 68 per cent, which is more
competitive than in 1968; Hamilton Teachers'
College is 82 per cent hired, which is the
same as 1968; Lakehead is 80 per cent hired.
4194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which is the same as 1968; North Bay 88 per
cent hired, which is the same as 1968; Peter-
borough 81 per cent, comparable to 1968;
St. Catharines 66 per cent, once again com-
parable to 1968; Stratford 75 per cent, same
as 1968; Sudbury is 60 per cent, which is the
same as 1968— and the information there is
that all should obtain jobs.
At Toronto, which is the same as Lake-
shore, between 59 and 60 per cent are hired,
which is more competitive. We cannot get the
information yet from the University of Ot-
tawa Teachers' College because they are in
the practice session, but the information there
is that the students should all get jobs. This
is a bilingual teachers' college. Windsor is
74 per cent, which is the same as 1968, and
as a total percentage of student teachers, we
are roughly at the 70 per cent hired as of
yesterday.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question
to clarify. I wonder if the Minister has heard
any rumours or indications that teachers on
green contracts are being relieved at a very
high rate this year because of the existence
of this overflow? Is he making any efforts to
discover whether some justice can be given
to some teachers on green contracts who may
very well be relieved just in order to get
a teacher at a lower price?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, one hears
a number of rumours. I had not heard that
particular one. I shall check into it.
The second statement, Mr. Speaker, relates
to the commission on post-secondary educa-
tion. I wish to announce today the appoint-
ment of a special commission to advise the
Minister and the government on the longterm
plans for post-secondary education in On-
tario.
The commission has been charged with
the responsibility of studying current antici-
pated provision for all post-secondary edu-
cational institutions in the province, and out-
lining the patterns require<l for the future
to ensure appropriate and orderly develop-
ment to meet the needs of the province over
the next few decades.
The commission will act under the chair-
manship of Dr. Douglas D. Wright, chair-
man of the committee on university affairs.
In addition to the chairman, the commission
is comx>osed of ten persons who will be
associated witli Dr. Wright in the study of
post-secondary education. These people in-
clude Professor J. M. Careless, professor of
liistory at the University of Toronto and
biographer of George Brown; Mr. D. O.
Davis— I should point out that he is not
related to me in any way— vice-president of
engineering at tlie Dominion Foundries and
Steel Company of Hamilton and member of
the council of regents of tlie colleges of
applied arts and technology; Dr. John
Dcutsch, principal of Queen's University and
former chairman of the Economic Council of
Canada; Dr. Reva Gerstein, member of the
committee on university affairs, also a former
member of the committee on aims and objec-
tives of education in the schools of Ontario;
Mr. John V. O. Kelly, legal counsel, whose
continuing interest in student affairs devel-
oped as former president of the SAC of the
University of Toronto, and who, as the mem-
bers opposite will recall, has acted on behalf
of a number of student organizations and
faculty groups in the field of education; Pro-
fessor John S. Kirkaldy, who occupies the
Steel Company of Canada chair of metal-
lurgical engineering at McMaster and is cur-
rently ending his term as chairman of tlie
Ontario Confederation of University Faculty
Associations; Mr. William Ladyman, inter-
national vice-president of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and a
member of the council of regents; Mr. Hugh
L. Macaulay, president of York Mills Motors
Limited, Toronto, and a member of the
board of governors of Rycrson Polytechnical
Institute; Mr. William Newnham, president of
Seneca College of applied arts and tech-
nology; Mrs. Edna Tietze, instructor in his-
tory at Conestoga College of applied arts
and technology.
Given the important strides that have been
made in Ontario in recent years in the
development of post-secondary education and
the continuing rapid growth in this field, it is
imperative that the preparation of longer
tenn plans be related as closely as possible
to the decision-making processes that are
currently established. The composition of the
commission as announced is intended to
ensure that this is the case.
I have asked the commission to hold its
initial meeting immediately and commence
this assignment in what it determines to be
the most expeditious fashion possible. To
facilitate the effective pursuit of the study,
I have encouraged the commission to engage
suitably qualified individuals and organiza-
tions to assist it in the execution of its work.
Tlie commission has also been requested to
issue pubhc reports and recommendations
from time to time as it may see fit, especially
in respect to matters in which early action
is appropriate.
MAY 9, 1969
4195
In announcing the appointment of this
commission on post-secondary education in
Ontario, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my
gratitude for the assistance and counsel
offered by the several individuals and bodies
witli whom I have consulted over a period of
time on this matter. It is anticipated that
these organizations will continue to co-oper-
ate with the commission so that it can carry
out its important assignment with the greatest
degree of efficiency and on the basis of the
best knowledge and advice available.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I was wondering if I could ask the
Minister a point of clarification. First of all,
in saying how pleased we are that this com-
mission-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
asking a question of clarification.
Mr. T. Reid: Could the Minister clarify
whether or not a representative from the
Ontario Union of Students or a university
student, a student from a college of applied
arts and technology or a student from the
college of art has been appointed to this
commission?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. member perhaps heard the list of those
appointed. As I suggested, in the list of
appointments, Mr. John Kelly has acted as
counsel to a number of these organizations
in his professional capacity.
Mr. T. Reid: Could I ask the Minister what
age Mr. Kelly is?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have not the foggiest
idea.
Mr. T. Reid: When was he president of
the student council?
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
now not asking a proper question of clarifica-
tion. The hon. member for Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: Just one question, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if the Minister has heard about the
concern of a number of people about Dr.
Wright's chairmanship in view of the fact
that he will be really looking at his own crea-
tion, since he is also chairman of the Min-
ister's advisory committee on university
affairs. There seems to be a degree of duality
here which makes one wonder whether, as
chairman-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member has
asked a question and now he is entitled to
receive an answer; he is not entitled to make
a statement.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter
was discussed with one or two groups which
had some specific suggestions to offer.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Premier which I know he will wel-
come because he will surely want an oppor-
tunity to clarify and expand the statement
he made to the press yesterday that he in-
tends to eliminate municipal grants, and plans
to replace them with a tax-sharing pro-
gramme.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, the remarks I made in this regard
were made at a press conference yesterday
which really was called to deal with the
statements I had made in the House dealing
with GO Transit. Inevitably the question
came up as to the notice of publication to be
made by the city of Toronto concerning taxes.
This led us into some discussion of muni-
cipal taxation.
I did not say that we, of course, would
eliminate municipal grants, because I do not
think that is practical or possible, but I did
say that in our examination of the financial
position of the municipalities we were investi-
gating the possibihty of the allocation of addi-
tional revenue sources to the municipalities
so tliat they would be in a position to levy
their own taxes and establish within their own
areas the priorities that they think are neces-
sary, and also relieve the burden of taxation
on real estate in tlie municipalities.
I also made it very clear at that pi ess con-
ference that I was not saying we were imme-
diately going to allocate the sales tax, or any
portion thereof, to the municipalities, but I
think the point really is this that—
Mr. Singer: And the Premier asked them
not to write headlines about—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, yes I did, of
course, because—
Mr. D. C. MacDonald: (York South): That
is a sure way to get a headhne.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Perhaps I am a little
naive. I did not think I was when I made
the statement but—
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): That is the
last thing he is— naive.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: One must take care that
one does not leave a false impression with
the press, and through the press with the
pubhc.
4196
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On the other hand, it is my opinion that as
the government studies these matters we have
not come to conclusions, but they are under
study. They stem from the Smith committee
report and it is my opinion that what we are
doing should be mentioned because they are
matters of pubhc interest and they should
be brought to the attention of the pubhc. No
doubt I shall receive certain opinions from
various people as a result of this and I think
that is sound and proper.
I would just simply say as far as the elim-
ination of municipal grants is concerned that
this of course is not possible. As I said in
answer to a series of supplementary questions
from the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr.
Sargent) yesterday, we practise a form of
equalization within the province which will
always be necessary. Of course the easy way,
and I think the only way, to deal with
equalization among the disparate regions of
the province would be through a system of
grants, so that system will always be with
us. On the other hand, that does not mean
that we cannot work out some method where-
by perhaps some proportion or percentage of
the sources of taxes would go back to the
municipalities, perhaps with some relation-
ship to the municipality itself, and the tax
raised there.
These are matters that are being con-
sidered. We do not have hard and fast
answers. I must say that I have had telephone
calls from various parts of the province al-
ready this morning asking me what this
means, if it means that the grant system is
going to be destroyed, and I think it is quite
proper that I should say that it is not.
On the other hand there is no reason why it
cannot be modified. We are looking for
similar changes in the relationship between
the federal government and the provincial
governments and we are prepared to look at
similar changes that we might effect between
tliis government and the municipalities.
Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask further, Mr.
Speaker, if—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It is all very interesting,
I think, to the members and to the general
public.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): Participatory democracy!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Participatory— it came
about through a press conference and it is
probably the way these matters should be
raised.
Mr. Nixon: It is almost as if by mistake
the Premier decided the province had a right
to know. When the Premier indicates that
we are studying it, that is pretty broad.
As a matter of fact, I have a question of
the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Mc-
Keough), asking him how closely he was con-
sulted in the statement of policy as it was
reported in the morning paper. What is the
programme of study? Is this in the Treasurer's
(Mr. MacNaughton) Department? Is it part
of a special task force to improve the effici-
ency of government?
When the Premier says it is an extension
of the Smith committee report, this is a very
thin thread indeed. That group has been out
of commission for some time. I think that
is the proper way to describe them. Their
recommendation was surely not that we
should set up another level of taxation associ-
ated with sales tax.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: What does the member
mean, other level?
Mr. Nixon: Precisely what I say. The
Premier has already indicated it with govern-
ment's policy, Mr. Speaker, to have our own
tax in the province of Ontario. Maybe he has
in mind to distribute this fairly, right to the
municipal level. There are those jurisdictions
which have municipal income tax, and I
would like to know if this is the sort of thing
he has in mind.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
only refer the hon. leader of the Opposition
to the white paper that was published in
conjunction with the Budget. It was one of
the Budget papers. It sets out areas in which
we are going. You cannot do everything at
once. We have task forces made up of those
parts of tlie administration of government
that are interested which are looking at the
feasibility. I think the member is quite wrong
when he says it is a thin thread back to the
Smith committee.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the Smith com-
mittee recommended it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Of course it did, and it
is not a thin thread, it is a matter of taking
those recommendations and seeing how they
can l>e applied.
It is one thing for an independent body to
say this is what you should do. It is another
thing for a government to work out the
administrati\'e arrangements and to examine
all these side effects from various recom-
mendations.
MAY 9, 1969
4197
This is being done by task forces within
the government, and these are the areas in
which the study is being made. I realize that
the hon. member thinks it is part of his
function to misinterpret what we say on the
government side.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, come on, this is what the
Premier said. We heard his voice on the
radio.
Mr. Singer: Please do not write headlines
about it.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: We are just trying to
keep the record clear and keep the members
informed and keep the people of the province
informed.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It must have been the
right thing to say; it got the members all
mad.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader has a further
question.
Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Min-
ister of Education. As a matter of fact there
are a couple of them.
Will the Minister comment on the legality
of resolutions refusing to collect school taxes
passed by the townships of Mono and
Melancthon and endorsed by the coimcil of
the county of Dufferin? And perhaps he
would like the other question as well; they
are related.
Can the Minister now inform the House
how many of the municipalities under 60,000
population will require assistance to the
normal grant structure, in order that their
increased taxes for educational purposes will
not exceed two mills on the adjusted basis;
and how many boards have asked for special
assistance from the department in reducing
their costs, so that they will not exceed 115
per cent of the costs of 1968, or 1967, which-
ever is higher?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in answer to
the first question, which is related, of course,
to the second: I would think that sections 85
and 88 of The Secondaiy Schools and Boards
of Education Act would indicate that the
township shall levy these figures.
I should point out, also, that in the dis-
cussion related to Mono and Melancthon, I
think part of the problem is related to the
board passing on to both those municipalities
u a levy which was not accurate in the first
I instance. The board is in the process of re-
calculating to see what amount of subsidy
would be available to the various townships
in the county of Duft'erin.
While we do not have the specific infor-
mation yet, it would appear to us that both
Mono and Melancthon would be eligible for
some subsidy, but 1 cannot at this stage
indicate the extent of it, because we do not
have the final information yet, and the board
has not finished its calculations.
Mr. Nixon: If I might just ask a supple-
mentary before he gets into the rest of his
answer.
We suppose that in the general order of
things the Minister's responsibility will be to
adjust the grant structure, as he already has,
so that these townships still feel that they can
carry on with the responsibility. What
happens, if in fact, they carry out their threat
and refuse to pass the tax bills on to their
ratepayers?
Who has the responsibility to act in this
regard? In fact, can they simply pass this
responsibility to The Department of Educa-
tion or The Department of Municipal Affairs?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is really asking me for a legal
opinion. My own interpretation of this would
be that it would be the responsibility of the
board, probably, to act under the legislation.
Relating to the second question, Mr.
Speaker. I cannot tell the hon. member how
many municipalities yet, because the boards
are still in the process— the majority of them—
of calculating the altered grant regulations.
Obviously there will be a large number of
them.
With respect to the question of how many
boards have required special assistance. I,
myself, have met with many in the past ten
days to two weeks. We had many phone calls
—we have not kept track of the total number
of phone calls— and, on some occasions, we
have had personnel leave our department and
go and \isit with the boards and sit down
with their officials to assist them in reducing
their budgets to the 115 per cent. But 1 can-
not tell the hon. member these figures yet,
and it will be some days yet before we know.
Mr. Nixon: I am sure that the hon. Minister
would agree that, in the minds of school
boards and municipal officials who are wait-
ing to strike their tax rates, they find them-
selves enmeshed in chaos and confusion.
Many of them, I would submit, are simply
putting the responsibilities off on their non-
elected officials, who are trying to wade
through the Minister's statements in this
matter.
4198
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, is he going to set a deadline? Is he
going to put out some sort of a special
directive to assist them? I, personally, as a
member of a constituency, have had calls
asking for assistance which I am not pre-
pared to give, of course. I do not believe the
Minister is either. But things are in a mess
and there are a good many of these boards
and councils who do not know how to pro-
ceed. If the Minister is waiting for them to
come up with their definite positions, he will
wait a long time. Some of them, I believe,
are not prepared to go through the complex
calculations, based on the Minister's state-
ment, that will even permit them to achiexe
what the Minister is waiting for. I think he
is going to have to be more definite.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, our informa-
tion is that not only are the boards in the
process, but they are doing it with enthu-
siasm, because I think almost without excep-
tion with every board that is doing this
calculation there will be some municipalities
within the board area that will receive some
relief, so that obviously the boards are in the
process. It is moving ahead in an orderly
fashion, and while it is creating some delay
with respect to the establishment of the mill
rate levies in some municipalities, it is moving
ahead at this point in a very orderly way.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the Minister of Health.
Has the Grey County council applied to
the Minister to dissolve the Grey County-
Owen Sound board of health?
Will the Minister intervene to ensure the
salary dispute between the board of health
and its nurses is settled?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to number one is no,
and we will intervene if we are invited. We
have ]et the board know that the resources of
our office are available to them if, as, and
when they are needed.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of the Minister of Edu-
cation.
Does the Minister consider it proper for
consultants of The Department of Education
to become involved in public controversy to
the extent of writing rude letters to the editor
as appeared in the Thursday, April 24 edition
of the Dryden Observer?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am in the
process of endeavouring to obtain the April
24 edition of the Dryden Observer. When I
have this, then I shall be in a position to
have the matter investigated.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I have— I am sorry, I would—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I shall take a look at this
over the weekend and give some comment
on Monday.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Sx)eaker,
I have a question of the Attorney General,
Did the Minister approve the prosecution
of Sunnybrook Markets under The Lord's
Day Act for remaining open on Sunday?
Why was Sunnybrook Markets singled out
for this persecution when numerous other
food chains are afforded immunity from the
law?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I approved
the prosecution; I consented to that prosecu-
tion, yes.
On the second part of the question— why
was Sunnybrook Markets singled out? These
things are generally decided, to some extent,
on the local attitude about the observance of
Sunday, and if there is a very strong feeling
locally that some industry or some activity
on Sunday is disturbing the local people, then
we take that into account.
Mr. Singer: It is a very good way to look
after the law.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: But I would say that no
place in Ontario is afforded immunity from
the law. This case was tested, as the hon.
memlxT knows, and the charge dismissed.
Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister accept a
supplementaiy?
Is the Minister suggesting that laws are
applied in certain parts of the province and
not in others, that we have some laws that
apply to one area and not to another?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, not at all. But there
are attitudes that are different, in different
parts of the province.
Mr. Singer: You can do the same thing in
the resort areas for what reason—
MAY 9, 1969
4199
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is a discretionary
matter. The federal law, The Lord's Day Act,
gives the discretion to the Attorney General
of the province.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the Minister of Education, in two
parts.
Is any full-time member of the production
staff of ETV branch also working part-time in
the production or direction of commercials or
sports programmes for a commercial sitation,
co-operative, group, network or private pro-
duction house?
Secondly, if so, what checks and balances
apply against the granting of reciprocal
favours which might operate against the public
interest?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr, Speaker, no civil
servant employed in the branch is, to my
knowledge, also working part-time in the
production or directing of commercials and
sports programmes for commercial stations,
co-operative groups, network or private pro-
duction house. Producers who are engaged on
contract to the branch sign a contract which
contains the following clause, and I quote:
You will faithfully, honestly and dili-
gently serve the Crown exclusively during
the term of your employment and you will
devote your labour and skill to said exclu-
sive service, and you shall not directly or
indirectly accept payment, bonus, gratuity
or salary from any person other than the
Crown; and it is further agreed, imless
expressly authorized in writing on behalf
of the Crown, that you will not engage in
any business, occupation, employment or
service with or without remuneration or
gain outside of the service of the Crowm.
This applies to those people working on
contract. There have been occasions in the
past when permission pursuant to the above
clause has been granted for specific under-
takings of a temporary and short-term nature.
At such times, the production staff super-
visors and senior reporting staff of the branch
have been fully aware of the demands of the
undertaking, and have ensured that the pro-
visions of the above clause have been
adhered to.
The checks and balances, if we may use
this term, are inherent in the normal pro-
cedures of the branch regarding the pro-
curement and use of services, facilities and
goods. Of course, in addition, these under-
takings and business arrangements entered
into by the ETV branch are subject to the
scrutiny of the Provincial Auditor.
Mr. T. Reid: A second question, Mr.
Speaker.
Has the position of Department of Edu-
cation school inspector been aboUshed? If so,
why are there still such inspectors on the
payroll of The Department of Education
and why are they still visiting schools in
the jurisdiction of the Northimiberland and
Durham county school board?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the
position per se still exists although we are
not using the term "inspector". It is "super-
intendent", "supervisor" or "programme con-
sultant". During the transitional i)eriod from
provincial supervision to that of the local
boards, the county boards have been ofiFered
the services, until July 31, 1969, of those
inspectors who are still in the employ of the
department. It is anticipated that the three
inspectors who are assisting in the supervisory
capacity in Northumberland and Durham will
be transferred to other duties as of July 31,
1969.
Mr. T. Reid: Would the Minister accept a
supplementary?
Would those men become employees of the
county school boards or would they remain
employees of The Department of Education?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
state at this point whether or not any will
find employment with any of the county
boards. At the present moment the three
who are involved come from the regional
office— one in Don MUls, one in Kingston,
and I believe, the third one is due to retire
in the next two or three months. I antici-
pate the other two will probably remain
with the department.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand-
wich-Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Rurr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, a question for the Minister of
Health.
Are any authorities monitoring the ERCO
plant near Port Maitland for phosphorus
compound emissions?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the ques-
tion I have is, "Are any authorities monitor-
ing the ERCO plant near Port Maitland for
phosphorus emissions?"
4200
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The answer is predicated upon tliat ques-
tion. The ERGO plant at Port Maitland pro-
duces phos;phate fertihzers and the danger of
elemental phosphorus being emitted is non-
existent.
Mr. Burr: A supplementary question. Since
tlie suspected pollutant at the ERGO plant
in Newfoundland is elemental phosphorus,
would it not be wise to monitor the Port
Maitland plant for any kind of phosphorus
emissions?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Speaker, the
plant in Newfoundland is serving an entirely
different function. It is producing elemental
phosphorus, whereas the plant at Port Mait-
land, again I repeat, is producing phosphate
fertilizer.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Question
for the Minister of Education.
Would the Minister tell the House whether
the remarks of the hon. George Drew, former
Premier of Ontario and federal leader of
the Progressive Gonservative Party, regarding
student protesters reflect departmental policy?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in that I
anticipated the hon. member already expects
what the answer will be to this particular
(luestion, I can only say tliat the Minister
enunciates the policies for The Department of
University Affairs, and if he wishes to get my
views at some length on that subject, I can
refer him to two or three addresses I have
made over the past couple of years. I would
like to send these to him, then he can make
his decision as to whether or not they are in
accord with what Mr. Drew says.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Gentre.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Gentre): A
(luestion from two days ago, Mr. Speaker,
to the Minister of Education.
Where in Ontario, in 1968-69, are courses
being taught to prepare people to deal with
the mentally retarded? How many students
are in each course? How many of them gradu-
ated and are seeking employment with the
Ontario Hospitals? Mr. Speaker, that last part
may not apply to this Minister.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must con-
fess I only have the first part of this ques-
tion.
There are two programmes available in the
colleges of applied arts and technology which
embrace social problems associated with
mental retardation. These are the social ser-
vice technician programme and the child care
worker programme. Students in these pro-
grammes take courses in behavioiural patterns
which include some consideration of tlie
effects of mental retardation.
In addition, a co-operative one-year course
with The Department of Health is given at
Humber Gollege of applied arts and tech-
nology. Humber provides the academic part
of the programme while the practical part is
handled by the staff of the Ontario Hospitals
at Thistletown and Orilha. Second year is
spent at one of the hospitals, after which the
students receive their certificates. There are
some 14 students enrolled in this particular
year.
In connection with the preparation of
teachers of mentally retarded children, a
summer course was conducted in 1968 at the
Ontario Hospital School in Orillia. There was
an enrolment of 125 teachers in the first sum-
mer course, that is the elementary section, and
68 in the second summer course, the inter-
mediate section. In 1969 the elementary and
the intermediate courses will be conducted at
the Beverley Street School for Retarded Ghil-
dren, Toronto, from July 7 to August 8 in-
clusive. It is expected that the enrolment
will be approximately the same as in 1968.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, the
hon. member for Scarborough Gentre asked a
question the other day. I must confess that
the infonnation we received from her own
office was that it was at Ryerson Polytechnical
Institute, not Ryerson Public School, where
she asked whether or not there is a cut-back
in junior kindergarten.
I have just received the infonnation from
the Toronto board. It must be pointed out
that kindergartens are not obligatory in
Ontario and this applies, of course— as the
hon. member is well aware— to junior kinder-
gartens. Most boards are attempting to intro-
duce kindergarten classes, and we believe in
September 1969, 90 to 95 per cent of the
children eligible for kindergarten will receive
this opportunity right across the province.
In Ryerson Public School, I am informed
that the enrolment is currently 1,608 pupils.
The Toronto board is striving to keep up with
the increased numlx^r of pupils in this area
by pro\iding portables. There are six on the
site. The school for years has operated one
junior kindergarten room and the enrolment
for that class has been kept at the maximum
of 40.
MAY 9, 1969
4201
Mrs. M. Renwick: It is very dijfficult for me
to hear the Minister this morning; the mike
is facing the other way. Could I ask if those
answers could be passed across the floor.
Would that be possible?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will endeavour to get
this information in even fuller form to the
hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister has
promised the information in an even fuller
form direct to the hon. member.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): I had a
question from a long time ago to the Minister
of Education in regard to a very hot issue.
He probably could handle this one all right.
In view of the fact that the Dennis report
states that making pupils put up their hands
to leave the room was very punitive and
dictatorial, will the Minister advise why we
cannot forego this formality so that the
students can be permitted to leave the class-
room without raising their hands to ask for
permission?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would suggest to the
hon. member that if he would visit some of
the classrooms in the province, he would find
that there are many ways for students to
indicate their necessity to leave the room.
They do not all put up their hands. Mr.
Speaker, perhaps he is suggesting that the
same freedom be allowed in classrooms that
he enjoys here in that he does not always
notify you when he—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, I have two questions
which were asked a little time ago. I would
like to give the answers.
One, asked on April 15 by the hon. member
for Humber (Mr. Ben) was question number
172:
Does the Attorney General agree with
Ontario supervising coroner. Dr. H. B.
Cotnam, that Ontario legislation should not
contain a legal definition of death-
Mr. Shulman: The member is not here.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Continuing the question:
—since death is a medical matter as re-
ported in the Toronto Star on April 1, 1969?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. leader of
the Opposition would advise whether he
wishes this answer given in view of the
absence of the member.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to hear it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: At the present time,
death is not defined. It is a question of
medical fact determined from the knowledge
and technology of medical science. Dr.
Cotnam, in the article referred to, stated his
belief that legislation should not contain a
definition of the moment of death but
that it should remain subject to the ad-
vancing, knowledge and technology. This
subject has come under intensive review but
I do not believe there has been sufficient
experience yet to determine what, if any,
legislative changes are required.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a divine matter,
not a legal one.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Agreed. I think the hon.
member can understand that to try to define
the moment of death in legislation would be
a quite difficult thing.
There is another question, Mr. Speaker,
asked on May 7 by the hon. member for High
Park. It is question number 1427 and I took
notice at that time.
When may I expect a reply to my letter
of February 10 concerning the plight of
Mr. Iverson Handke?
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that my officials
have been conducting a full investigation into
the matter. The investigation is near comple-
tion and I would expect it by perhaps Friday,
May 16.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motion:
Bill 101, An Act to amend The Motor
Vehicle Claims Act, 1961-1962.
Bill 102, An Act to amend The Registry
Act.
Bill 103, An Act to amend The Land Titles
Act.
Bill 106, An Act to amend The Public
Vehicles Act.
Bill 116, An Act to regulate The Marketing
of Fresh Water Fish.
Bill 117, An Act to amend The Fish In-
spection Act.
Bill 121, An Act to amend The Medical
Services Insurance Act, 1965.
Bill 123, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
4202
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Clerk of the House: The 10th order,
committee of the whole House, Mr. R. D.
Rowe in the Chair.
THE ONTARIO HERITAGE
FOUNDATION ACT, 1967
House in committee on Bill 91, An Act to
amend The Ontario Heritage Act, 1967.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 91 reported.
THE ST. LAWRENCE PARKS
COMMISSION ACT
House in committee on Bill 99, An Act to
amend The St. Lawrence Parks Commission
Act.
On section 1:
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chair-
man, on section 1 of the bill, would the Min-
ister perhaps explain succinctly just why this
transfer of jurisdiction is taking place?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Chairman, this will
permit a transfer of a King's Highway to the
commission directly rather than back to a
municipality which may have had jurisdiction
over all or part of it.
The primary purpose of this bill at the
moment is to turn over to the parks commis-
sion the jurisdiction of what is called high-
way 2S from Gananoque to west of Brock-
ville. This highway was originally constructed
in 1938 as a scenic highway. Over the years it
became part of highway 401 until the new
section of 401 from Gananoque to Brockville
was completed and the parks commission
presently operates Browns Bay park, and
Ivy Lea park on the highway. The federal
government operates the Thousand Islands
parks system from a shore base on this high-
way. And The Department of Highways, since
the construction of the highway, have owned
a great deal of waterfront or shore hne prop-
erty in the area.
The puropse of the bill is to allow the
parks commission to develop that area as a
scenic drive, to develop the other DHO sur-
plus properties, and working with The De-
partment of Lands and Forests, to set up a
game preserve and sanctuary in the area. Is
that the information the hon. member
wanted?
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. J. Renwick: On section 4, would the
Minister comment as to why the traditional
right of action for non-repair of the highway
is either eliminated or continued by this
section?
Hon. Mr. Auld: My understanding, Mr.
Chairman, is that the right of action is con-
tinued, but not against the parks commission.
The plan is, that, while the commission will
have jurisdiction over the road, Tlie Depart-
ment of Highways will continue to do the
maintenance.
The same rights would apply against The
Department of Highways, but not against the
parks commission. This is for the reason that
the parks commission is not directly involved
in the daily maintenance. So that if, for in-
stance, there is a hole in the road and there
is damage to a vehicle, it is not really within
the parks commission's immediate power to
repair that hole, where it would have been
in the power of The Department of High-
ways. But my vmderstanding is, from our
legal officers, that the same right of action
still applies, but not against the commis-
sion. I suppose in the final analysis it is the
same thing, it is just a different pocket.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 4 stand as
part of the bill?
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, just before
it passes. In fact, the language of the bill,
as I read it, does include the Crown in all
its aspects and including the Minister of the
Crown, as well as the commission. It is, in
fact, a severe restriction on the right of any
person who may possibly be injured, or suf-
fer damage, by reason of the construction,
maintenance, repair, or closing of such a
road.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, I find myself in complete agreement
with what the hon. member for Riverdale
has said. This is about as restrictive a section
related to protecting the Crown and all its
emanations as I have ever seen. It says:
No civil action shall be brought against
the Crown-
Surely that is Her Majesty the Queen in the
right of the province of Ontario—
—the commission—
And they are the people who are going to
have the power to deal with this road—
—or any of the servants or agents of the
Crown—
MAY 9. 1969
4203
I suppose that is anybody who gets money
from the Crown in relation to these roads—
—including a Minister of the Crown, or
any member, officer or employee of the
commission, in respect of misfeasance, non-
feasance or negligence in connection with
the construction, maintenance, repair or
closing, under the jurisdiction of the com-
mission of other than a highway designated
on subsection 1.
What do you need that for? It seems to me
you are surrounding these people with a fan-
tastic umbrella of protection and taking away
private citizens' rights in connection with mis-
feasance, nonfeasance, negligence and so on.
Hon. Mr. Auld: I am afraid, Mr. Chair-
man, I am at a bit of a disadvantage in
discussing this with my learned friends op-
posite. My understanding is, as I explained
a moment ago, I do not know whether the
last part of this proposed new section 11(a)
starting at—
But this section does not apply to an
action based on contracts between the par-
ties to the action for the construction,
maintenance or use of such road.
—sets out the situation, as I understand it.
It is my understanding presendy that an
action can be taken against the Crown for
certain things that may happen on a high-
way due to the unusual lack of maintenance,
although I know that it does not apply to
every situation. If there is a hole in the road
and there is a sign marking it and there is
damage to a vehicle, I presume that you
cannot take a successful action.
But I say, my understanding is that the
same liability, or lack thereof, that presendy
applies on King's Highways against The
Department of Highways, will continue as
a result of this section, or the various sec-
tions in the bill. But that action would have
to be taken against the Minister of Highways
(Mr. Gomme), rather than the Minister of
Tourism and Information or the chairman of
the St. Lawrence Parks Commission.
Mr. Singer: With great respect, Mr. Chair-
man, the section does not say that. This
section seems to deal with internal roads as
distinct from provincial highways.
The saving phrase, "other than a highway,"
I suppose preserves the right as against the
Minister of Highways, or whoever is respon-
sible for something on the highway. But sup-
pose you have an internal road that the com-
mission has taken over and they have a big
hole in it. Along comes our friendly tourist
and drives his car into the hole and all you
look at is section 4 and say, "That is too bad.
We welcome friendly tourists, but if you
have fallen into a hole and the commission
has dug the hole and they were negligent
and did not put up barriers, tough luck, we
have section 4."
It is my suggestion, Mr. Chairman— and I
recognize the Minister is under a disadvan-
tage—that we withdraw this bill temporarily
until the Minister can get himself properly
briefed from his officials. Because certainly—
the way it is, I think is a serious infringement
on the rights of people who might be affected
by his negligence.
Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I would be
delighted to agree to that because I do not
want there to be any misunderstanding. If I
am under a misapprehension then I would
like to have it cleared up, too. So I would
agree to that.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have just
a brief comment.
I think it is in contradiction to what the
Minister has said, particularly when you look
at the language of the explanatory note in the
biU. This says that the new provision permits
the commission to close roads and then goes
on and removes its liability for non-repair of
roads in its jurisdiction. I do think that it
would be wise to have it clarified.
Mr. Chairman: We will just hold this bill
down for clarification.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
Hooise in committee on Bill 105, An Act to
amend The Highway Traffic Act.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 8:
Mr. Singer: On section 8, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport): Mr.
Chairman, on section 8—
Mr. Singer: I think I had the floor first.
Mr. Chairman: There is going to be an
amendment.
Mr. Singer: Oh, is there going to be an
amendment? Well, maybe we had better hear
what the amendment is.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): It had better
be a good one.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: You can be sure it is.
4204
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, on section 8, I move that
subsection 2 of section 14 of the Act as re-
enacted by section 8 of the bill, l)e struck
out and the following substituted therefor:
2. Every person who is unable or refuses
to pr(xluce his licence in accordance with
subsection 1 shall, when requested by a
constable, give reasonable identification of
himself and for the purposes of this section
the correct name and address of such per-
son shall be deemed to be a reasonable
identification.
Mr. Chairman, when I introduced this bill,
I pointed out the very real need for the
enforcing officer being gi\en more power
than he noM' has in the public interest and
in drafting this particular section, I made it
abundantly clear that we were endeavouring
to carry out the suggestion and intent of the
McRuer report. In reading it over and in con-
sideration of some of the thoughts that were
expressed, I have endeavoured to clarify the
section to remove any possibility of misunder-
standing-
Mr. Singer: Possibility of misunderstanding?
The Minister has reversed himself in the face
of criticism.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: —and to keep within
the hmits of what the McRuer report had
spelled out was a necessary and proper power
to give a police officer.
As I have gone over that McRuer report
again in detail, I think the clarifying language
which is now presented in my amendment will
do exactly what I said we wanted to do and
yet will give no offence to those who will
agree with the purpose and the language of
the specific proposal in the McRuer report.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, it is veiy inter-
esting to hear the Minister try to weasel his
way out of a complete change in principle.
There is no qualification or explanation or
clarification at all, in fact he has completely
reversed the very obnoxious principle that he
introduced in the original section of the Act.
The original section in the Act, Mr. Chair-
man, dealt with the power of arrest on the
basis of the refusal of an individual to identify
himself to the satisfaction of a police con-
stable, of all people, to the satisfaction of a
police constable— thus giving to the police
probably more power than any other provin-
cial section has, and certainly more power
than a police officer is given by any section
in the Canadian Criminal Code. And now the
Minister comes in with a section which is
still objectionable— and I will tell him why
shortly— and he says he is clarifying a prin-
ciple.
He has completely changed the principle,
and I just do not understand, Mr. Chairman,
why, when a government agency has made a
mistake, when a Minister of the Crown has
made a mistake and when he recognizes it,
he is not a big enough man to get up in the
House and say, "We were misguided, we were
wrongfully advised and we misinterpreted
McRuer".
What he has done in fact- and I say he is
not going to get away with this glib phrase
about clarification— he has completely changed
the principle that he brought in, and he knows
that. We know that and I hope the public
is going to know, that the only time this gov-
ernment retreats from a position where they
seriously invade the civil rights of the citizens
of Ontario, is in the face of good criticism
emanating from this Legislature which is re-
peated in the press, so that the people of the
province can really see what his government
has in mind.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services ) : That is good government.
Mr. Singer: I do not know who it is over
there, Mr. Chairman, who every now and
then tries to sneak in some obscure clause to
a multi-part statute which nibbles away or
grabs away at our civil rights, who wants to
give to the police unusual, unorthodox and
unfair powers for which there is no demand
at all.
Mr. J. Renwick: Is the member in favour
of the amendment?
Mr. Singer: No, I am not in favour of the
amendment either. I do not think this section
is needed and I am going to come to that
very shortly.
I listened very carefully to the Minister on
second reading when he said, "What we are
doing is in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of Mr. Justice McRuer". He read
selectively— and I accuse him again— he read
selectively a part of one paragraph and
said, "This justifies what we are doing". Why,
Mr. Chairman, when a Minister wants to
rely on this book, even if it was the Bible,
even if everything that the eminent gentle-
man said, had to be done by it; why do they
attempt to mislead the members of this
House and the members of the public and
say this is what McRuer said?
It is not what McRuer said and the Minis-
ter must know, if he read the whole of what
McRuer said on this particular subject, that
MAY 9, 1969
4205
is not what McRuer said at all. I am going
to read it, because it goes on for a page and
a half or two pages, but I think it is import-
ant enough to catch the Minister up in the
misinformation that he laid before this House,
to put on the record in full what McRuer
said on this particular subject.
It starts on page 728 and it talks about
power to arrest without a warrant iinder
provincial statutes. The sub-head is, "The
Highway TraflBc Act," and this is what
McRuer says and listen well, Mr. Minister,
because you missed the point, or if you
caught the point then you deliberately mis-
led the House:
Under this Act, and certain other stat-
utes which we shall discuss, powers of
arrest without a warrant have been con-
ferred with abandoned liberahty—
Catch that phrase, "with abandoned hber-
ality, without regard for historic principles—"
The Minister should pay attention to that
one, "without regard for historic principles,
necessity or elementary safeguards of civil
rights or human dignity."
Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will make
sure that the Minister is listening to these
phrases that I am reading from what Mr.
McRuer said. I always want to be in order
as the Minister well knows.
Under The Highway TraflBc Act not
only are these powers conferred on con-
stables who may have some training in the
execution of their duties, but on every
oflRcer "appointed" by the Minister for
carrying out the provisions of the Act.
Now, that is the first point on which Mr.
McRuer makes his specific criticism, and look
as I may through the original Act, I had
not seen the amendments until this morning.
Look as I may through the provisions of the
Act I do not see that the Minister is taking
away any of those powers that Mr. McRuer
talks about. I wonder why. If the Minister is
applying the principles of McRuer, does he
just apply them restrictively and incorrectly,
does he just pick one out that appeals to him,
one out that gives the police an additional and
arbitrary and unusual power that they are
not given? I am going to be quite a while
yet, I am going to be quite a while, and I
am going to talk the next time this section
comes up, because I do not think I can
possibly finish before 12 o'clock, Mr. Chair-
man.
Under The Highway TraflBc Act not
only are these powers conferred on con-
stables who may have some training in the
execution of their duties, but on every
oflficer appointed by the Minister for carry-
ing out the provisions of the Act.
Section 159(1), and that is the section Mr.
McRuer refers to— and just to make sure that
the Minister has that, this is what section
159(1) says, Mr. Chairman:
The Minister may appoint one or more
persons on the staff of the department as
an oflBcer or oflBcers for the purpose of
carrying out all or any of the provisions
of this Act, and any person so appointed
has authority to act as a constable through-
out Ontario for such purpose.
So, let us go back to the original section that
he was clarifying. Anybody whom the Min-
ister wanted to appoint could ask for identifi-
cation—he did not have to be a policeman—
and if he, the person the Minister appointed,
was not satisfied with the kind of identification
produced, off^ the man goes to jail— arrested
without a warrant. And he says this is just a
clarification?
Mr. Chairman, we are not so stupid, nor
are the people of Ontario so stupid as to
believe that really what lies in the mind of so
many people on the government side, time
after time, is a complete lack of concern
about civil rights. It is a desire to clothe the
police with arbitrary powers, without any
resort to the courts, without any methods of
appeal; and I think this is just shameful. I
cannot think of anything more autocratic,
more dictatorial than is being attempted here
from time to time. Bill 99 was the same sort
of thing, paraded into the House under the
guise of a housekeeping bill. The bill comes
in— oh, it is a few sections where it is stiffen-
ing the penalties, and so on. The Minister
gets up and reads a selected phrase from
McRuer and says, "We are in favour of the
sentiments put forth by Mr. McRuer, and so
we are adopting them." He is not adopting
them at all and he knows it. Let me continue
with my reading here on page 729.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I think that the hon.
member is misleading the House.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I still have the
floor.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has a point of
order.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, the hon. member is missing
certain points in the bill.
4206
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: I am in the midst of a speech
and I am not going to yield the floor to the
hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Well, if he does not
want to know, that is his business.
Mr. Singer: In due course the Minister will
have a chance to reply. But I do not think
he is going to have a chance this morning.
It will be obserx^ed when section 156 to
the Act is read with section 71, the power
of arrest without a warrant extends to a
failure to comply with regulations passed
by the Lieutenant-Go vemor-in-Council. In
no case should the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council be given statutory power to confer
on anyone the power to arrest an individual
without a warrant. However, the pro-
visions of this Act go further in giving
powers to arrest without a warrant. For
example, a constable who, on reasonable
and probable grounds, believes that some-
one has knowingly made a false statement
of fact in filling in papers required—
And that still stays in, Mr. Chairman, that
still stays in. When you look at the Act as
revised and look at section 74, that still
stays in, and here is McRuer again saying that
you are wrong.
—required by the department may arrest
the person without a warrant. These
sections, in substance, give a departmental
clerk the power to create an offence for
which a person may be arrested without a
warrant.
Now that is the principle, Mr. Chairman, that
this Minister is espousing. We will come in a
moment or two to the one sentence he picked
out of McRuer which he says justifies his
unusual action, which he has clarified this
morning. At least if he had sufficient integrity
to tell us that in face of the criticism: "We
have changed, we realize we made a mis-
take", the remarks from this side of the
House would be tempered. But he did not
do that. He tries again to pull the wool over
our eyes: "We are clarifying the situation."
Let me go on in McRuer:
Little concern for the civil rights of the
individual was shown when police ofiicers
were given the power to arrest without a
warrant for the following offences- which
are only illustrations—
And most of them are still in, most of them
are still there, Mr. Chairman.
Failure to notify the department of a
change of address. Making a false state-
ment in an application or paper writing.
Failure to have licence plates attached.
Licence plate improperly placed. Failure
to notify department within six days of sale
of purchase of a motor vehicle. Exposing
a number on a motor vehicle so as to con-
fuse the identity of the number plates.
Interference with a notice placed on the
highway.
All of those offences, Mr. Chairman, allow
arrest without a warrant, and now he is
creating a couple more that are going to
allow arrest without a warrant. Surely, if
McRuer says anything, he says that this is an
abuse of civil rights. Surely this is the prin-
ciple that emerges from McRuer.
The Minister can clarify until he is blue
in the face, Mr. Chairman, but he is not
clarifying the fact that his approach to
running this province is as a police state and
giving these police ofiicers power to arrest
without a warrant for the most minor kind
of ofi^ence. And the fun will come in a little
while, Mr. Chairman, with the provisions of
The Criminal Code in this regard. Also with
what Mr. Justice Dal ton Wells, the chief
justice of the high court had to say in the
investigation concerning the arrest, without
a warrant, of Rabbi Norbert Leiner. I think
the Minister needs a lecture on civil rights,
and I am going to attempt to give it to him
before this section gets through.
The more serious offences, racing and
careless driving, carry fines up to $100 and
$500 respectively, together with penalties
of imprisonment up to six months and three
months respectively.
The penalties indicated are those for first
offenders.
In few of the offences under The High-
way Traffic Act can the power of immediate
arrest be justified on the ground that the
offences are so serious that it would be
dangerous to allow the offenders to be at
large.
Can there be anything more clear than that?
It is a specific statement, Mr. Chairman. Let
me repeat it.
In few of the offences under The High-
way Traffic Act can the power of imme-
diate arrest be justified on the ground that
the offences are so serious that it would be
dangerous to allow the offenders to be at
large.
Do we see the Minister clarifying that state-
ment? Do we see the Minister standing up as
the defender of civil rights and saying: "I
MAY 9, 1969
4207
have really paid attention to what McRuer
said; and I am cleaning up my Act in line
with tliose principles." No, we do not. We
heard him read a sentence— and I still
have not come to it— that he apparently jus-
tified in the introduction of the previous sec-
tion. Under these new sections he still was
going to allow arrest without a warrant. Let
me go on, again quoting McRuer:
These excessive powers may be useful in
assisting the police in the investigation of
crime, but the investigation of crime does
not justify the conferment of powers of
arrest and detention for trivial o£Fences.
Could anything be more clear than that, Mr.
Chairman? Where is the principle, and what
kind of clarification does the Minister purport
to give us this morning? It is utter nonsense
to believe that he can pull the wool over our
eyes in this way.
If the pohce require such powers, the
problem should be faced with legislative
honesty—
That is what McRuer says.
—with legislative honesty, and power
ought to be given for the purpose for
which it is intended to be used.
Mr. Chairman, if we have ever had an ex-
ample of legislative dishonesty in this House
we have it here this morning when the Min-
ister stands in his place and talks about
changing the law for the purposes of clarifi-
cation. I suggest to you, sir, that he has been
dishonest in introducing this legislation in this
way and giving this phony explanation as to
the basis on which he introduced it.
McRuer goes on to say:
It might be well that the police should
have greater powers to control and inves-
tigate the use of motor vehicles on the
highway. A motor vehicle is a dangerous
machine. If it is not carefully used, it is a
lethal one. It is a convenient vehicle for the
commission of crimes of all sorts. Those
who take motor vehicles on the highway
have no civil right to do so. They may do
so only if they hold a licence for that
purpose. That requirement is no invasion
of civil rights.
And to that point we agree and we are get-
ting close now to the little bit the Minister
drew out of McRuer to justify his unusual,
arbitrary and dictatorial action.
There is no reason why anyone driving
a motor vehicle while on the highway
should not be required to show an officer
of the law enforcement agencies that he
has a hcence to do so.
And I agree with that. That is no new prin-
ciple. I would refer the Minister to section
141 of the present Act, which he is now pur-
porting to amend, which says:
Every operator of a motor vehicle shall
carry his licence with him at all times while
he is in charge of the vehicle and shall
produce it when demanded by a constable
or an officer appointed for carrying out the
provisions of this Act.
The balance of the section deals with penal-
ties for failure to comply with this. What
more do you need? You have already com-
plied with what McRuer says. So you have it
there, what do you need a new section for?
What really are you clarifying?
If the police have the power to question
tlie driver of a vehicle for the purpose of veri-
fying his right to drive it and discovering the
owner of the vehicle, and the name and ad-
dress of the owner and the driver, there
would appear to be little or no need for all
the drastic powers of arrest that we have
been discussing.
Somewhere along there, Mr. Chairman, is
obviously where the Minister has not under-
stood what he has read, or has not under-
stood what his advisors have told him.
Let me read the last paragraph:
The necessities of the cases would appear
to be met if the power of arrest without a
warrant were restricted to those cases in
which the driver of a motor vehicle, with-
out showing reasonable cause, does not
identify himself and the owner of the
vehicle, and those cases in which the driver
does not appear to have any legal right to
have the vehicle on the highway.
Now that is the one sentence that the Min-
ister used, and with that sentence— with great
respect— I disagree wdth McRuer, because
it leads to the very kind of conclusion we are
faced vdth in this House. What does the Min-
ister want the people of Ontario to do? Does
he want them all to be fingerprinted? All to
carry pictures around when they get into
automobiles? Does he want them to wear
name tags around their necks? Better still,
maybe we should have tattoo marks on our
forearm. Is that what the Minister wants?
Well, if that is what the Minister wants, cer-
tainly we in this party, are not going to go
along with it.
It is 12 o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I will
iihove fhe adjournment of the debate.
4208
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Grossman moves that the com-
mittee of the whole House rise and report
certain bills without amendments and ask
for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendments and asks for leave
to sit again.
Report agreed to.
THE SEPARATE SCHOOLS ACT
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore), in the
absence of Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East),
moves second reading of Bill 75, An Act to
amend The Separate Schools Act.
Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The
matter before us today in private members'
hour concern a venal hangover in our assess-
ment procedures and in our allowances to
the separate school. It is a very narrow issue,
nor will I attempt even to begin a review of
certain, not mortal but venal, hangovers
within the granting system and within the
whole ambit of the treatment of separate
schools in this province.
On this particular matter, I tliink every
member of good will in this House, or even if
he had no will at all, would have to agreed,
and I have little doubt tliat the members of
the Conservative Party would agree in due
course, that this is an inequity written right
into tlie statute.
As things presently stand, section 47 of
The Separate Schools Act was amended in
1962-63, and reads as follows:
Every person paying rates in a separate
school zone on property that he occupies
as owner or tenant, or an unoccupied prop-
erty that he owns, why by himself or his
agent on or before September 30 in any
year, gives to the clerk of the municipality
notice in writing that he is a Roman
Catholic and that he wishes to be a separ-
ate school supporter, is exempt from the
payment of all rates imposed on such prop-
erty in the separate school zone for the
support of public schools or for the pur-
chase of lands or the erection of buildings
for public school purposes, and so on.
The bill drawn up by my colleague, the mem-
ber for Sudbury East, proposes to amend that
section as follows:
3(b) Any person paying rates in a
separate school zone who is not a Roman
Catholic but whose spouse is a Roman
Catholic may elect, by notice in writing,
given to the clerk of the municipality—
And the wording then is pretty much the
same as in the Act.
There are a number of things to be con-
sidered here, one of them having to do with
the morality and justice of the legislation,
and the second thing having to do with
human rights.
As to the first point, in cases of mLxed
marriages, these marriages, you know, are
hard enough— immixed ones we all know
about, and mixed ones have their own
peculiar vexations. A vexation has been
written into the law in these cases, where a
father who within his own conscience and
with full aversion, does not wish to be a
Roman Catholic, and quite legitimately, who
has a faith of his own or no faith at all,
which is his business, happens to be married
to a woman who is a Roman Catholic. They
send their children, tlie father with full con-
sent and being so desirous, to the separate
schools. They may have four or five children
in these schools, yet he cannot pay a dime
towards the support and maintenance of his
children in those schools under the existing
legislation, simply because he is not a Roman
Catholic.
The Catholics are not at all as backward as
that and they found numerous ways around
it. The particular way that is being utilized
at the present time and advised on a slip of
paper that is being disseminated through the
Catholic schools and to the Catholic popula-
tion at large from Sunday to Sunday at the
present time, is "Catholic School— Money
Talks", and it says:
If the father of a Catholic child attend-
ing a separate school is non-Catholic,
which school system receives the residen-
tial tax money?
The answer is:
The public school receives the tax
money. However, the father can rent the
house or property to the Catholic mother
who, as tenant, has the right to direct
the school taxes to the separate school
board.
Must the law encourage devious-ness? What is
the point in this kind of legislation? Is the
heritage in this province so dark as to
MAY 9, 1969
4209
require that sort of vexatious thing, setting up
antinomies between husband and wife on the
one side of the fence and forcing them to
sleight of hand on the other? What have we
come to at this time in our history? Whatever
members may think about the extension and
enlargement of the role of separate schools
in the province, surely on this narrow issue
the justice rankles. The Catholics have long
inveighed against it but without apparent
success, nor is tliere any indication that the
government, at this time, intends to alter this
basic inequity.
May I refer, Mr. Speaker, to a rather good
little pamphlet that has come into my mind,
and is concerned with the alliance of Chris-
tian schools, just to try and be as partisan on
an issue of this kind as possible. They do not
advert to this very point in question but they
do make mention of the superseding right of
parents with respect to the direction or the
control of the education of their children as
against the right of the state. This is written
indelibly into Catholic social philosophy.
They really do see written right into the
texture of any civilization that would remain
free, this paramount right on the part of
parents.
There are many reasons why a non-Catho-
lic father sends his children to a Catholic
school. I can remember at St. Mike's that
quite a number of non-Catholic parents, both
fathers and mothers, would send their chil-
dren to that school, because rightly or
wrongly, under an illusion of being quite
aware of the context to which they are send-
ing their children, they felt that a better
education was available. That is, they were
looking for some kind of scope and kind of
value, perhaps for some spiritual dimension,
which they really did not feel would be in-
culcated in their children through the system
in any other place. This, then, is the argu-
ment, which is strengthened in the case of
the non-Catholic father who desires to send
his children to a separate school. I think if
he desires, he should be able to allocate his
money as he sees fit, at the very least, in
this particular regard.
As far as human rights are concerned, the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Hu-
man Rights expresses the rights of the parents
under section 26, subsection 3:
Parents have a prior right to choose the
kind of education that should be given to
their children.
With that in mind— following from the dec-
laration which has been given universal val-
idity from San Francisco and elsewhere, as
a guiding principle upon which we should
base our whole education structure— in effect,
to surreptitiously deny that right by the back
door, by saying that, "Sure, you can do what
you like but you are going to be penalized
for it, or moneys are not going to be allo-
cated," is one of those devious ways in which
you can undermine a right. Rights without
the monetary wherewithal to make those
rights effective are empty mouthings. Too
often, governments throughout the world and
in this province are forever extending the
glad hand of right without voting the equiva-
lent in money. I think of Indians, of which
we hear rather a little these days. Without
the monetary equivalent, the rights are empty.
It is a piece of blandishment to talk on one
side of your mouth and not to give the sup-
port from the monetary point from the other
side.
There are a number of areas, Mr. Speaker,
in which down through the ages, and of more
recent vintage, the government has moved
towards equity in these matters. The edu-
cational tax foundation, while not having
achieved parity, is beginning to approach
somewhat close thereto. I notice that in a
paper handed to me and written up by
Father Carroll J. Matthews, SJ, he speaks of
the differentials that exist. He says that these
differentials are seriously and gratifyingly dis-
appearing as the years go on. In 1963, the
separate school per-pupil revenue was 70.2
per cent of the public school revenue; in
1967 this had risen to 88.2 and it is now, as
he says, revised upward to the extent that
last year per-pupil revenue in separate schools
was probably about 90.6 per cent of the pub-
lic school revenue. It still continues to fall
short.
Another area in which it continues to fall
short and where the device of the foundation
plan seeks to make some redress to an other-
wise inequitable situation is through the cor-
poration structure. As you probably know,
Mr. Speaker, corporations which are of a
public kind cannot and do not allocate their
taxes to the separate schools of the province.
It is only closely-held corporations where the
majority of shareholders designate themselves
as Roman Catholics where the municipal
taxes, the business taxes of the corporation,
may be so allocated.
Therefore, the great bulk of public cor-
porations of this province contribute not a
dime irrespective of what contribution the
Catholic population may even make to the
internal workings of those corporations, or to
the maintenance on the market of those cor-
porations, or even the role they play as
4210
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
directors and people who are instrumental in
the vital life of those corporations.
The government have again, through the
corporation plan, sought to outskirt that piece
of grossness and to take some measures, but
again it has not wholly been able— or has not
wholly perhaps, even tried— to bring this into
complete parity on a per pupil grant basis.
So there are a number of areas along with
this present one which reinforce the argu-
ment that there is not sufficient attention
paid to the needs of the separate schools and
that their conditions can be alleviated by a
simple instrumentality and without enormous
expenditures of money, even within the con-
fines of the existing legislation; and with the
existing attitude and deportment of the gov-
ernment towards these schools.
I would ask therefore that the members of
this House do give good consideration to
voting for this measure should it ever come
to that meritorious point, and would in any
case give their consent in this reading to the
request of the member for Sudbury East.
Mr. L. Bemier (Kenora): Mr. Speaker, be-
fore I get to the meat of my remarks as to
Bill 75, which is an Act to amend The Sep-
arate Schools Act, I would like to point out
that this bill merely makes provision which
would permit a family where one member, let
us say, is a Protestant and one a Catholic, to
become separate school supporters without
having to go into the involved procedure that
is necessary at the present moment. As the
Act now stands, there are certain inequities.
Allow me to explain what it is all about as
I know it.
The member for Lakeshore has made cer-
tain references to certain relevant Acts and
I would like to place on the record a few
observations in the same vein, of which I am
aware. First of all, Mr. Speaker, subsection 3
of section 47 of The Separate Schools Act
states, and I quote:
Any person who is a Roman Catholic and
resident on a parcel of land tliat is within
a separate school zone may be a separate
school supporter in that zone.
Please note, Mr. Speaker, that it states "may
be". In other words, a Catholic in Ontario
has the option of being a separate school sup-
porter or a public school supporter, at least
until such time as he is assessed as a separate
school supporter.
Then along came what has, in legal circles,
gained reputation as the township of Schreiber
vs. Beno case. This is the home of my col-
league from Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) and I
am sure if he is speaking on this particular
bill, he will be referring to this case. In this
case, Mr. Speaker, in October, 1961, a notice
of assessment was sent out indicating that Mrs.
Beno, a Roman Catholic, would be assessed
as owner, and her husiband, a Protestant,
would be assessed as tenant and, therefore,
the taxes would go to the public schools.
From this point, the case went through a
series of appeals until it finally came to the
court of appeal, and a judgment was handed
down which stated in part:
There can be no doubt on the facts be-
fore us. Mrs. Beno is both owner and
occupier and liable for the payment of
school rates. The p>osition of her husband
as joint occupier or, as has been suggested,
a licensee, does not create any liability upon
him to pay the taxes upon his wife's
property.
The judgment went on to state:
He is not in possession of the property
as a tenant under a lease nor as an occupier
under any right that authorizes him to
remain upon the property.
Mr. Speaker, this judgment was handed down
in April, 1966. Realizing the importance of
the part of the judgment which stipulated that
Mr. Beno was not a tenant under lease, legal
wheels began to go into motion. And this
resulted in another case before the courts in-
volving Mr. and Mrs. Lynch and the town-
ship of Nepean, which was argued in June,
1967.
Mr. and Mrs. Lynch are presented as joint
owners in joint tenancy of certain property.
By indenture of lease they leased to Mrs.
Lynch for a term. Mrs. Lynch in law, there-
fore, became the tenant in occupation of the
premises and, as a result, became the holder
of a reversion in fee by way of joint tenancy.
Tlie effect of this, of course, is that as such
tenant, she may designate the destination of
school taxes.
The ruling went even one step further to
strengthen its stand. It was pointed out that
under The Assessment Act, section 1, it is
stipulated that a tenant is an occupant and
a person in possession other than the owner.
Under subsection 3, it stipulates that land
owned by a resident and occupied by any
person other than the owner shall be assessed
against the owner and the tenant.
Having regard to the sections of The Assess-
ment Act and to sections of The Conveyanc-
ing and Law of Property Act, the appeals
court ruled that Mrs. Lynch may and should
be assessed as a tenant. Consequently, she is
MAY 9, 1969
4211
free under section 57, subsection 1, of The
Separate Schools Act, to designate the destina-
tion of the school taxes assessed against the
property of which she is tenant.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, this opened
up an entirely new avenue for families in
Ontario who are of mixed marriage to desig-
nate their taxes for separate school use if they
so agree. And until this date, great munbers
of such families have taken advantage of this.
However, I must admit that it is a cum-
bersome and tiring procedure on those families
wishing to do so. They must take upon them-
selves to go through a lot of effort to exercise
their right of choosing to direct their tax
money to separate school support. The
Catholic member must undertake to become
a tenant and be assessed as such and then
indicate the desire to designate the destination
of the taxes to sei>arate school support.
A great many people have taken advantage
of this, Mr. Speaker, despite the tedious in-
volvement. I cannot begin to give you the
figures for all of Ontario, but, as an example,
the St. Catharines Separate School Board
had 27 such cases in 1967. One of the sep-
arate school boards that existed in Scar-
borough had 30 cases in 1967. Consequently,
it would be logical to assume that there was
an average of 25 cases per separate school
board during that year.
In 1967, there were 365 separate school
boards in Ontario. This, of course, is before
the changeover to the larger units of adminis-
tration. Using the figures available, Mr.
Speaker, I arrive at a total of more than 9,000
cases in this province in that year. This is
only an estimated number, but it does give
us some idea of how many people of mixed
marriage are ready to go to a great deal of
trouble to become separate school supporters.
[ Private Bill 75, as submitted by the hon.
njember for Sudbury East, merely makes it
much simpler for these types of families, of
which they are many in our province, to exer-
cise their given right if they choose to do so.
Under this amendment, the only requirement
would be that there be one Roman Catholic,
either husband or wife.
It would make no matter who was property
owner. If the both agreed, they could desig-
nate the taxes to separate school support by
merely giving written notification to the clerk
of a municipality. In my opinion, it is an
excellent amendment. The m«nber for
Sudbury East is to be congratulated on his
initiative.
I am in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker—
and I support it because we already have this
right in our province. I see no reason why
our citizens need go through embarrassment
and unnecessary trouble to exercise it. This
bill eliminates both the trouble and the em-
barrassment.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak in support of
Bill 75, and I would like to do so as the
official Opposition critic for education.
We have, sir, in this province two branches
of the public school system— the public school
branch of the public school system and the
separate school branch of . the public school
system. It should be noted also both these
branches are large, both in terms of the
criterion of number of pupils and in terms of
the dollars spent in both the branches.
For example, Mr. Speaker, in 1968 the
public school branch of the public school
system had 1,021,000 young people in it. The
separate school branch of the public educa-
tion system had 408,914 young people in it.
In both systems, sir, this is a great many
people. Also in 1967, since the 1968 figures
are not available, the public school branch
expended over $455 million. The separate
school branch expended over $159 million.
So these are the facts, Mr. Speaker. We
have this system of education in the prov-
ince created by law. There are a lot of
children in both branches, and both branches
expend a great deal of money.
The issue as I see it in this debate is that
since the people of this province through the
Legislature have decided to have two
branches of the public school system, the
Legislature— which means the government-
must ensure that the children receiving edu-
cation in the two branches receive equal
learning opportunities. So it is the position of
our party, sir, that it is the responsibility of
the government to accept the consequences
of its laws.
A government that creates two branches in
its education system has the moral obligation
to maintain equality of educational quality in
each of those branches. And has this govern-
ment accepted this moral responsibility? The
answer is clearly no.
What this government, sir, has done is to
create separate, but not equal, branches of
education and here are the facts of that gross
inequality against the separate school branch
of the education system in this province. In
1967, sir, the per-pupil revenue of the public
school branch was $484. It was only $427 for
4212
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the separate school branch. The pubhc school
Ijranch received over 13 per cent more per
pupil than the separate school branch.
To put this inequality of financing another
way, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with
1967 figures again.
The separate school l^ranch per-pupil
vexenue was only 88.2 per cent of the per-
pupil revenue of the public school branch,
and what is particularly obnoxious, Mr.
Speaker, is that this percentage declined be-
tween 1966 and 1967. What we witnessed
lietween 1966 and 1967 is the fact that the
amount of money spent per pupil in the
separate school system as a proportion of
the amount of money spent per pupil in
the public school branch, was less. That is to
say, the gap of inequality as judged by
financing widened instead of narrowing. The
conclusion that we have on this side, in this
party, Mr. Speaker, is that the foundation
tax plan simply has failed to bring about
separate and equal educational opportunities
for the children of the separate school branch
of the public education system in this prov-
ince.
Let us look at other facts about the in-
equality that the children in the separate
school branch of the public education system
experience. I would like to repeat that if you
are a child in the separate school branch of
the Ontario educational system you are having
only 88 per cent of the funds being spent on
the child in the public school branch and
that, sir, is reflected in all sorts of things. I
believe it is reflected in the dropout rate
which is still higher, persistently higher, than
is the dropout rate in the public school
branch. One can look at that telling index,
the number of pupils per class, in the separate
school branch, compared with the public
school branch. It is higher, and anyone who
has done any teaching knows that the higher
the number of pupils in your class the more
difficult it is to maintain educational quality.
Well, what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is
to say two things: that the foundation tax
plan has not brought about educational
equality as judged in terms of financial
support, and that either that plan must be
revised to ensure that the same amount of
money is axailable to each child, so to speak,
in the separate school branch as is available
to a child in the public school branch, or
other steps must be taken. Bill 75 does say
that in those marriages which are mixed in
terms of the husband being a non-Roman
Catholic and the mother a Roman Catholic,
that the mother should be able to allocate
the property tax revenue to the separate
school system.
We are not dealing with peanuts here, Mr.
Speaker. I asked Mr. Power of the Metro-
politan Toronto Separate School Board, to
give me an estimate of the loss of revenue
to the metropolitan school system because of
inadequate legislation as reflected in The
Separate Schools Act. Mr. Power stated that
his board's estimated loss in assessment in
Metropolitan Toronto is from $10 million to
$20 million a year.
Even if we simply take his minimum esti-
jnate of $10 million, we find that that is a
very large sum of money when judged in
terms of the funds that are available to the
separate school grants from what is called
"other revenue," that is from sources of
revenue other than provincial grants.
So this bill is not simply a token bill. This
bill is significant. It would not only help to
bring about a separate and equal education
system in this province by narrowing the gap
of expenditures between the two branches—
but it would also result in, I think, a some-
what fairer allocation of funds. It is certainly
an allocation of funds which many people
would like to have.
I would like to close my remarks, Mr.
Speaker, by saying simply that we in this
party support this amendment. We think it is
long overdue, and we tliink it is significant.
Nevertheless, we will not be satisfied until we
have in this province in our education system
equality of educational opportunities for the
children in both the branches of that system
to ensure against a very bad type of discri-
mination.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to support this Bill 75 of my
colleague, the member for Sudbury East.
Obviously it affects a great number of the
citizens of this province, judging by the en-
dorsation of the bill my colleagues have re-
ceived on this subject. The hon. member for
Kenora said over 9,000 couples were affected
last year by this bill not being enacted. It is a
simple yet important amendment which will
remove an obvious and glaring case of in-
justice.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the amend-
ment will permit the non-Catholic ratepayer
in a mixed marriage to designate if he or
she wishes his or her school tax money to go
to the separate school, if his or her children
are attending the separate school. Simple
justice and common sense both dictate that
the school system in which his children are
MAY 9, 1969
4213
being educated is entitled to the taxation
revenue, since it is bearing the cost of the
education of the children. Yet, under the
present legislation, this is not the case. A
non-Catholic partner in a mixed marriage, if
he is a homeowner, must pay his taxes to
tlie public school. This is not just.
There is a way out— as has been mentioned
by my colleague, the member for Lakeshore
—whereby the non-Catholic may rent the
house to the spouse, so the Roman Catholic
tenant may direct his or her support to the
separate school system. To drive a family to
use this kind of technicality to get around bad
or unfair legislation is unreasonable, to say
the least. It forces honest people with prin-
ciples to practice a kind of deviousness in
order to achieve what is right and fair.
To require such behaviour by poor legisla-
tion is to undermine, in a small yet sure way,
the very fabric of our democratic society.
We must not forget that separate schools
are guaranteed as a right to the Roman
Catholic citizens of this province by The
BNA Act. The Legislature must be prepared
to see that their rights are granted and pro-
tected so that justice is done to their school
system. We must get rid of tliis piece of
legislation by enacting the amendment in the
bill before us, so that the present discrimina-
tory and harassing practice against a large
minority of the population is removed.
I must say that the present legislation is
an embarrassment to me as a public school
supporter and a United Church minister. It
smacks of bigotry and intolerance on the part
of the majority non-Catholics of this province.
It disturbs me to hear the WASP-the White
Anglo-Saxon Protestant — criticized for his
bigotry and narrow-mindedness, because, as
a member of this group, I do not feel it is
always warranted. Yet when legislation is on
the books that we are trying to amend by
this bill today, reinforcement is given to
those who seek to point out our intolerance
and prejudice.
Of course, I want to make the point that
no group of people or no individual is with-
out prejudice and bigotry. The question to
be faced is: do we yield to these unworthy
temptations, or do we resist them and act as
fair and magnanimous people? Surely the
latter must be the goal we seek to achieve
|, in our behaviour.
There is another aspect of this question
that bears comment. Mixed marriages between
Roman Catholics and Protestants in our plur-
alistic society are increasing. While clergymen
of all faiths discourage mixed marriages, if
possible, nevertheless young people are mix-
ing more freely in society today. There are
more young people of marriageable age today
than in past generations. Thus, more mixed
marriages are inevitable, even though research
statistics point out that there are often more
difficult adjustments to make in them than
when one marries a partner of liis or her own
faith.
However, today there is a growing toler-
ance by church leaders of mixed marriages.
Just before my election, I blessed a marriage
between a United Church young man and a
Roman CathoHc girl in a Roman Catholic
church in Timmins. Such practices are be-
coming more prevalent. Of course, the matter
of religion in a mixed marriage can cause
friction, if the couple have not faced the
problem ahead of time and resolved, as
mature adults, on what course they are to
follow in matters of religious practice and in
regard to the faith of the other. I suppose
the choice of schools can become a matter of
friction if there is not a good understanding
and sense of fair play in the couple's mar-
riage.
The present legislation confronts a couple
in a mixed marriage with a dilemma in their
choice of schools for their children. Shall we
send our children to a school which, by law,
we are not permitted to support financially?
Or shall we send our children to a school
which we do support financially by law, but
which will put one partner into a conflict with
his or her church, especially since at marriage
a commitment was made to raise the children
in that faith?
It appears to me that the present legisla-
tion places an unnecessary and uncalled-for
biurden and strain on parents in a mixed
marriage. It makes it more difiBcult for a
mixed marriage to survive than would be the
case if the amendment in Bill 75 were
enacted.
There has been a much better relationship
between Catholics and Protestants in this
province in recent years. While we do not
accept one another's doctrines any more than
we did before, we understand each other
better and we respect the honesty, sincerity
and Christian truth embodied in the other's
faith in a much more open and fair-minded
way. We are only at the beginning of the
ecumenical age but we have made progress
in even reaching this point.
Surely the time dictates that on this
matter before us, we act to correct the
obvious wrong that points to in our legisla-
tion. I can guess why this Conservative
4214
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government has kept the present statute on
the law books of this province for so long.
But, surely, Mr. Speaker, to be fair and just
to a number of citizens of this province, the
goverrmient must act in good faith to redress
the wrong and not be guided by prejudice.
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker,
I also rise to support the amendment put
forward by the member for Sudbury East.
I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker,
that up until now all the different party
representatives in this debate have indicated
their support for the amendment. They all
support the facts brought out by the member
for Scarborough East that equal opportunity
is the goal of the members on this side of
the House, as well as those in the government
benches.
But I would like to point out to you, too,
Mr. Speaker, that we are all aware that the
private members' hour is only a method by
which we present to the government the
feelings of the backbenchers in the Tory
party and at times the official positions of
the two Opposition parties. We are all aware
that this is not going to come to a vote. What
we are trying to do is to impress upon the
Minister concerned, and the Cabinet of that
party across there, that there is a necessity
for change in this legislation, so that equality
of opportunity can be provided to those with-
in the separate school system.
There is no doubt that the present legis-
lation is both unfair and discriminatory, not
only against those people who are concerned
in this type of marriage, where the father is
of the non-Catholic faith and they must pay
their taxes to the public system, but against
the other separate school supporters, who
must pick up the added costs, because of the
separate school system— educating those 40 or
50 students in my home town, whose parents
are paying the taxes to the other system. So
you see, it is unfair and discriminatory, both
against the parents particularly concerned, as
well as all the supporters of the separate
school system.
I would get back to my first point, how-
ever, that the person we have to impress with
the urgency of this matter is the Minister of
Education (Mr. Davis), and of course, he is
not here today. I would like to read into the
record an answer that he gave to a question
from the member for WeUington South (Mr.
Worton), in 1966. The member asked:
Would the Minister inform the House if his
department has taken any further steps for con-
sideration of a resohition put forward to him by
the Ontario separate sehools last February 28,
regarding the assessment of municipal taxes, which
does not allow a male parent of the mixed marriage,
who is non-Catholic and who is usually the owner
of the property, to have his taxes given in support
of separate schools, and yet wishes that liis children
be educated in them?
I think the answer of the Minister of Edu-
cation is indicative of the position he takes,
and this is where we have to impress upon
him the necessity for a change in his stand.
His answer was this:
In answer to a question asked by the hon.
member for Wellington South:
In order that a person may be a supporter of
separate schools in Ontario, he must be a i)erson
of the Roman Catholic faith. Where a non-Roman
Catholic is the owner of the property, he may not
direct that his taxes go to the support of the Roman
Catholic separate school, even though his wife may
be a Roman Catholic and he may wish his children
to attend the Roman Catholic separate school.
What he did there was just repeat the
question.
Mr. Lawlor: This is usually what he does.
Mr. R. S. Smith: This is usually what he
does, yes. This is a further part of his answer:
As I indicated earlier, this relates back to the
historical development of the separate schools where-
by the formation of a separate school has been
based on the action of the head of the family. It
is understood that the male parent is considered to
be the head, and there has been no alteration in
this basic principle.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Education supports, as my friend from
Scarborough East indicates, the inequality
that has been placed upon the shoulders of
the supporters of separate schools over the
past century, and he indicated in 1966 that
he had no intention of changing his con-
sidered opinion on this matter. I would indi-
cate to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is up to
the government and it is up to that Minister
to face reality in the latter part of the 20th
century, and to bring this legislation forward
imder the guidance of the Minister and as
government policy.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to support Bill 71, the bill introduced
by my colleague the member for Sudbury
East, for all the reasons which have been
given. There is ver>' little left to be said
about the principle embodied in the bill. I
would, however, simply confess that I was
not aware, until the member for Sudbury
East drew this particular anomaly to my
attention, of the problem which was posed
by the technical provisions of the Act relat-
ing to the support of one or other of the
puijlic school system in the province. I had
naturally assumed, and I think most people
in the province had assumed, that the taxes
raised for school purposes on real property
MAY 9, 1969
4215
would go to the support of that school that
the children of the family that owned or
occupied the property attended, and it was
with that view that I first looked at this bill.
I assumed that if there were children of
a Roman Catholic family attending the sepa-
rate school system, that the taxes raised for
school purposes on the property which they
occupied and which was rateable for school
purposes, would go toward the support of the
Roman Catholic school system. I am inclined
to believe that most people in the province
would accept the removal of this anomaly
from the statutes.
I think the compelling reason in my mind,
in addition to all the explanatory matter
which has been poxt before the assembly and
all the reasons which have been given for it,
is that as a matter of law the married parents
of children have a joint responsibility for their
care and their custody luitil such time as they
reach the majority age. Having that joint
resi>onsibiHty, and having decided with what-
ever ease or difficulty that particular family
may have in deciding a difficult question, that
their children were to attend a Roman
Catholic school, then I think the taxes should
just simply follow that particular decision.
It is a joint responsibiUty, and so long as it
is a joint responsibility then the mere accident
of the way in which property arrangements
are made by a husband and a wife— on
whether or not they are the sole owner of
the household property, whether they own the
property jointly, whether they are tenants of
the property, whether one of them is the
owner and the other is a tenant— s'hould be
an irrelevant consideration on the question of
the direction and designation of the funds
which are raised for school purposes.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the compelling argu-
ment in my mind as to why this anomaly
should be removed. We are all aware, and
of course we are becoming more aware be-
cause of the interest which is expressed in this
whole question of the two branches of the
public school system, that it was a funda-
mental and basic part of the Confederation
settlement.
The ramifications of that settlement are only
now being forcibly brought to the attention
of people throughout the province, in order
that there will be a pubhc debate and pubhc
consideration of where we now go, in terms
of modem needs, in recognition of the funda-
mental nature of the settlement which was
made on the public school system imder
Confederation.
The essential fact is that in our Confedera-
tion the public school system in the province
of Ontario is made up of two branches. It
would appear to me that the government
could very well introduce legislation as a
government bill to remove this particular
anomaly, which has been brought before the
assembly. I personally do not recall, in the
short time that I have been here, that this
particular matter has been debated before. I
realize that there have been questions, but I
have no recollection of an earlier debate about
it.
The background of it was placed by the
members who have spoken. I listened particu-
larly to the instructive details that were in-
cluded in the statement made by the one
member of the party which supports the
government, the member for Kenora. He
spoke of the background of it and the intri-
cacies and legal subterfuges which now have
to be entered into in order that the direction
and designation of school taxes can be made
to the Roman Catholic separate school sys-
tem. These will be situations where tlie
parents are in agreement but title to their
property or their relationship so far as their
real property is concerned, is at variance with
what the statute permits. I think that we are
at a time when this kind of legal friction
should be totally removed. I think tliat the
government could very well consider intro-
ducing the bill, which the member for Sud-
bury East has brought before the assembly,
as a public bill.
I may be conditioned in my thinking about
it, but I think that the accurate statement of
the principle on which legislation should fol-
low is this: The joint custody of the children
of a marriage, and the joint decision of the
parents as to which of the school systems the
children of that marriage are to be educated
within, should determine the system to which
their taxes go for the support of that edu-
cation.
If that Ls, in fact, the embodying principle
that this bill reflects, you will readily see
that not even in the way in which the bill
is framed is it an entirely accurate statement
to reflect that principle. Our law provides a
permissive right or, in other words, a privilege
for the Roman Catholic parents of children
to direct their taxes provided they are the
owners or the occupiers.
I doubt very much, whether or not in an
equal school system throughout the province,
that one party or one group of the community
should be endowed with privileges. It should
be the right of both parties, whether they are
4216
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Roman Catholic, Protestant, or of a mixed
marriage, to make their own decision and to
direct their taxes to whichever of the two
branches of the public school system their
children are in attendance at.
This, to my mind, is the ftmdamental prin-
ciple, the bill goes-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. meml:)er is now over
his time, perhaps he would conclude his
remarks as one further speaker-
Mr. J. Renwick: I will now conclude my
remarks, Mr. Si)eaker,
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I too rise to support this bill intro-
duced by the hon. member for Sudbury East.
I do not think that the bill goes quite far
enough but I am pleased to note that two
previous speakers, the hon. member for
Kenora, and the hon. member for Riverdale,
have referred to the subterfuge which is now
necessary for people to be able to select
one of the two public systems of education
available to them, if they want to send their
child to a Roman Catiiolic school and the
house is not owned by a Roman Catholic
parent.
This lease subterfuge has been quite com-
mon in our area. It is several years ago this
lease form was drafted. It has been made use
of by the parents in tlie separate schools up
there to quite an extent because, as has
been mentioned, there is an increasing number
of mixed marriages and an increasing number
of problems arising as a result of this very
inequitable drafting of the law as it now
stands.
One of the points that has bothered me in
rexicwing this situation is this: Each year,
the ratepayer must express in writing that he
wants to have his taxes go to the separate
school. If he does not happen to be at home
at the time the assessor comes around, it is
quite possible— and within the rights of the
assessor— to strike out that person's name
from the rolls of the separate school sup-
porters and put it down without any ifs, ands
or buts as a public school supporter. This is
within the right of the assessor. The owner
may be very surprised one time to find that
he is now listed as a public school supporter,
when he had wanted to continue to be a
separate school supporter, but did not happen
to be around when the assessor came to his
home.
The assessor has this right, and I think it
is an iniquitous power for him to have. What
would we think if the assessor had the reverse
power, that is to pvit our names on the
separate school roll if we are public school
supporters— and if we did not wish to do
that. I think this bill should have this addi-
tion to eliminate the tendency to be weighted
against the separate school supporters all the
way down the line.
There is another provision that I think
should be in tliis legislation. That is: Pro-
vide for those who are concerned about
the changes and the trends in education
which were recommended in the Mackay
report to remove the teaching of religion
within the public schools of the province—
certainly in its present form. In the Richmond
Hill area, there are a great many Jeho\ah's
Witnesses who are already sufficiently con-
cerned about the way their children are edu-
cated that they wish, Mr. Speaker, to have
their children go to a Roman Catholic
separate school. They cannot designate their
taxes for Roman Catholic separate school
support and therefore they pay an extra fee
to this separate school board for the educa-
tion of their children. Why is it that we
cannot— regardless of our faith and the fact
that we have two public school systems-
designate which one we wish to have our
children attend and where we therefore want
our taxes to be allocated?
I very strongly support the bill that the
hon. member has introduced but I am sony
that it does not also cover these two other
inequities that I have mentioned; they still
permit prejudice against a system which we
have agreed to provide in this country, that is,
two public systems of education.
I hope, therefore, that when the bill comes
forward, the go\'ernment will pro\'ide for the
elimination of such inequities.
Mr. T. P. Rcid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to support this resolution I am happy
to see that all members of all three parties
have supported this resolution. This, of
course, has been pointed out by the member
for Nipissing and was brought to the atten-
tion of the Minister of Education some two
or three years ago. The Minister of Educa-
tion refused— and that is all it can be called—
to allow this kind of unsavoury legislation to
exist because the legislation was based on the
historical argument that the father, or the
male member of the household, was the more
equal, shall we say, of the two partners.
Mr. Lawlor: The Tories certainly are not
out in force-
Mr. T. P. Reid: No, I would have thought
that there would have been other meml>ers
MAY 9, 1969
4217
from the Tory party who would have risen in
support of this resolution— perhaps even the
Minister of Education himself. In any case,
there is someone else who would like to speak
on this, Mr. Speaker. I would like to add my
support to this resolution. The only thing
standing in the way of this bad situation being
cleared up is the Minister of Education's atti-
tude towards this legislation. All he has to do
is present this Legislature with a bill to
amend the situation and I am sure it will
receive the support, certainly of this party,
and the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker: This concludes the private
members' hour.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday we will return to the
order paper, there are several bills, and then
I would like to go to second readings and
then to committee of the whole House. I think
there is enough there to keep us busy all day
Monday.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
The Premier says order paper, then com-
mittee—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, I would say we will
do second readings then committee of the
whole House— that is, those bills in com-
mittee. We will start with second readings
on Monday and then, when we have
exhausted what can be done in that part of
the order paper, we will go to committee of
the whole House. This should occupy the
afternoon and the evening.
Mr. Nixon: He is not prepared to tell us
what can be done.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would say it depends
really on which Ministers are here. Most of
these bills have been on the order paper for
a goodly number of weeks-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Includ-
ing 73 and 74?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Those dogs and cats
bills? No.
Hon, Mr. Robarts moves adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 113
ONTARIO
Hesisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT -DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, May 12, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per tession, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Farliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, May 12, 1969
St. Lawrence seaway, statement by Mr. Robarts 4221
Betting shops in Toronto area, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon 4222
Decision of Mr. Justice Charles Stewart, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon and
Mr. MacDonald 4223
Shopping plaza in Belleville, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 4225
Return of Hal Banks, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Gaunt 4225
Canadian Central Holdings Ltd., questions to Mr Rowntree, Mr. Shulman 4226
Lord's Day Act, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 4226
Jail facilities at Port Arthur, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Knight 4227
City of Hamilton, bill respecting, Mrs. Pritchard, second reading 4227
Law Enforcement Compensation Act, 1967, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 4228
Highway TraflBc Act, bill to amend, in committee 4229
On notice of motion No. 30, Mr. R. G. Hodgson, Mr. Knight, Mr. Peacock, Mr. Boyer,
Mr. T. P. Raid, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Bemier, Mr. R. S. Smith 4253
Recess, 6 o'clock 4263
4221
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: In the east gallery, as our
guests this afternoon, we have students from
Gravenhurst High School in Gravenhurst; and
in the west gallery from Bracebridge Public
School, hosting students from Moosonee
Public School; and then in both galleries we
have students from the A. K. Wigg Public
School, Fonthill. Later this afternoon,
students from Dennis Morris High School in
St. Catharines will be with us.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
The Prime Minister has a statement.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to a question on April 15, I
made a partial statement of our plans to
obser\'e the tenth anniversary of the St.
Lawrence Seaway. I indicated I would be
making a full statement at a later date. I
should like to do so today.
We in Ontario are extremely fortunate in
that we have at our doorstep one of the
greatest water transportation systems in the
world. For both the Indians and the Euro-
peans, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
system has historically been the highway
leading into the heart of the North American
continent. It was the route of exploration and
commerce long before our province was
created. Today it is our gateway and high-
way to world markets and a very important
element in our economy.
On June 26 we shall observe the tenth
anniversary of the St. Lawrence Seaway, one
of the great engineering achievements of our
time, much of which lies within the boun-
daries of Ontario. The government of Ontario
will suitably recognize the valuable and sub-
stantial contribution made by the seaway to
Ontario and Canada. Whether you live on
Monday, May 12, 1969
the seaway itself or whether you live in a
Great Lakes port city or in one of our manu-
facturing communities inland or in a northern
mining community, this very unique deep
water system has helped you in your day-to-
day life in this province.
The tenth aniversary will be commemor-
ated jointly by the governments of Canada,
Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba; and of the
eight states bordering the Great Lakes,
namely New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and
Minnesota. In addition, many of the com-
munities on both sides of the Great Lakes
will observe this event with local programmes.
The actual anniversary of the official open-
ing of the seaway on June 26, 1959, by
Queen Elizabeth and President Dwight
Eisenhower, will be commemorated by two
major ceremonies. The government of
Canada, through the St. Lawrence Seaway
Authority, will hold ceremonies on June 26
in Montreal. The United States observance
will be held the same day at Sault Ste. Marie,
Mich., where the new Poe Lock— which is the
largest lock in North America— will be offi-
cially opened. This government will be
represented at both these ceremonies.
We believe that the commemoration of this
anniversary merits the full support of our
people, and for this reason we have asked
the municipalities, the chambers of commerce
and service clubs to examine ways in which
they can bring to the attention of the people
of Ontario the benefits of the seaway system.
We have taken steps, through our inter-
national advertising programme and overseas
promotions at trade fairs, to bring to the
attention of shippers around the world the
l:>enefits of using the seaway to reach Ontario.
Included in our promotional material, which
is an adaptation of existing government litera-
ture, is an international symbol which has
been developed. Perhaps members might just
have a look at it.
This symbol was developed by the com-
mittee of governors who have been working
on the commemoration of this anniversary.
Another example is the folder we have here.
4222
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in which has been incorporated this inter-
national symbol, and which we are using to
promote the seaway abroad.
As part of the commeniorative programme,
an aerial inspection tour of the St. Lawrence
Seaway by the Governors of our neighbouring
states is planned, to precede the June 26
ceremonies by ten days. The government of
Ontario has issued invitations to the state
Governors, and the Prime Ministers of Quebec
and Manitoba to be our guests at the con-
clusion of the tour on Monday, June 16, at
Upper Canada Village. I might say the re-
sponse has been enthusiastic and we anti-
cipate a very stimulating day.
The governors' visit will include a visit to
the Eisenhower Lock at Massena, New York,
the Robert Saunders-Robert Moses power
dams, a public ceremony at Crysler Farm
Battlefield Park, a tour of Upper Canada
Village, and a reception and dinner at the
Upper Canada Village guest house overlook-
ing the St. Lawrence River. The Governors
will be accompanied by representatives of
their Legislatures and local press.
As I have communicated to the leaders of
both parties opposite iand members of my
own caucus, the Legislature will not sit on
Monday, June 16. Plans are now being com-
pleted to transport by train those members of
the Legislature wishing to participate in the
events at Upper Canada Village. We antici-
pate that the train will leave Toronto on
Sunday evening, June 15, with members
having overnight accommodation on board
and returning to Toronto on the Monday
evening. We will require, as soon as possible,
an indication of hon. members' interest in
order that we may make the desired arrange-
ments.
As we now see it, the visit of the mem-
bers to Upper Canada Village would indi-
cate a special tour of the village during the
forenoon, luncheon as guests of the St. Law-
rence Parks Commission, participation in the
ceremonies at Crysler Farm Battiefield Park
during the afternoon, a visit to the power
dams and participation with Governors and
our other guests in the reception in the eve-
ning. I can assure each hon. member that it
will be an interesting and rewarding day and
I would urge them to attend if they find it
possible.
The major commemorative events will con-
clude in Detroit on July 7 with a dinner for
government leaders and businessmen from
the St. Lawrence River-Great Lakes basin,
which will be hosted by the Governors of
the eight states and at which we will be
represented.
Mr. Speaker, this is the full programme,
plarmed to commemorate the tenth annivers-
ary of the St. LawTence Seaway. I would ask
the support^ of all the members in bringing
this to the attention of the people they rep-
resent.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attor-
ney General.
Is the Minister aware that at least seven
operators of betting shops in the Toronto
area have records that would make them
unemployable under the regulations of the
Ontario Racing Commission, according to in-
formation made public last night on the CTV
programme W5?
Under the circumstances, is some super-
vision and scrutiny of these betting opera-
tions to be undertaken pending possible
federal legislation?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I did not see the programme
the hon. member refers to and I do not have
the individual records of these particular
people, but I am sure the police are aware
of it.
As to the second part of the question, I
think I made my position known very fully
very recently in this House. In fact, in the
statements I made to the House I pointed
out we were aware of the criminal records
of a number of the people involved in this
activity. But our position was that we have
asked the federal govenament through the
Minister of Justice, to deal with this situa-
tion, which; we think is a matter of federal
legislation— betting, gaming, being all cov-
ered presently in The Criminal Code.
There is some very definite indication that
the matter is being studied. Representations
have been asked for by the federal Minister
of Justice from all the Attorneys General;
and all of them have replied. I understand
that the matter is being considered with a
view to taking action at the federal level.
As I said before, and I will say again, if
no action transpires there, nothing is done,
then certainly Ontario will have to move to
govern this situation.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask
the Attorney General: would it be correct to
say, then, that it is a federal responsibility
if it is going to be made illegal, biit it is a
provincial responsibility if it is going to be
regulated and licensed?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think that is a fair
way of putting it. If it is going to be illegal.
MAY 12, 1969
4223
as betting and gaming oflFences now are in
the code, it will be criminal jurisdiction and
therefore federal jurisdiction. If it is not
going to be §o dealt with, then it becomes a
legal activity and the licensing, supervision
and control of it would be provincial,
Mr. Nixon: Since it is a legal activity at
tlie present time, it would be true to say then
that the Attorney General's responsibihty
would be clear unless he had some indication
that it was going to be dealt with at the
federal level. Is there some sort of a time
limit in the Attorney General's mind in this
connection? He inust surely have a deadline
beyond which he could not wait.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Not exactly a time Umit.
I think I would wait for some indication from
the Minister of Justice at Ottawa that he
had abandoned any thought of dodng any-
thing—or that he was proceeding to drafting
and implementing legislation. But I do not
have a date in mind that I would hold him
to. As I say, he asked each Attorney General
of each of the provinces, when we were in
Ottawa in February of this year, to let him
have our views. Those views have all been
received, as I have learned directly from him.
The matter, I know, is indicated as receiving
study by his department, and if he should
inform me shortly that the legislation is under
way, of course I would wait for it. If he
should inform us that Ottawa plans nO action,
then— as I said last week, I think, in this
House— I realize the responsibility will rest
upon the province.
Mr. Nixon: Just one additional question,
Mr. Speaker. This programme, W5, last night,
appeared to be researched; it is a national
programme, and as the Minister knows, be-
sides the indication that I have already
brought forward, there was an indication that
the federal Justice Minister had said that he
would have legislation by the fall. That seems
to be a fairly distant time hmit, if in fact the
problems are growing as rapidly as they
appear to be.
Mr. Speaker: The question of the hon.
leader, if he would ask it.
t Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
Liberals are slow in Ottawa, that is true.
Mr. Nixon: Tfhe responsibility is here,
surely, for some action.
I have a further question, Mr. Speaker. Is
the Attorney General going to appeal the
decision of Mr. Justice Charles Stewart i)er-
taining to the civil rights hearing of Garl
McKay?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for
York South would place his similar questions.
Mr. MacDonald: I have a number of ques-
tions related to this, Mr. Speaker.
1. Was last week's case heard by Mr.
Justice Stewart the first time that the human
rights code has been challenged in the
courts?
2. If yes, why did the Minister, his deputy
or some senior counsel not appear to defend
this important legislation?
3. Has the Minister filed an appeal? If so,
when will it be heard, and will the Minis-
ter appear to defend it?
4. Was a full stenographic record taken of
the court deliberations in this instance?
Would the Minister make it available for
members of the Legislature?
5. Was it proper for a judge to grant an
interview with a newspaper, in advance of
preparing his written judgment, in which he
presented himself as a defender of one side
of the case?
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbiny): Which Minis-
ter is that directed to?
Mr. MacDonald: The Attorney General.
Mr. Sopha: He was not represented at the
hearing.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, in answer-
ing the series of questions presented by the
hon. member for York Soutli, I think we will
include the question offered by the leader
of the Opposition on the matter of appeal.
So, taking the first part of the question of
the member for York South: Was last week's
case the first time that the human rights
code has been challenged? To the best of
our knowledge, yes. This is the first time that
prohibition has been sought to prevent a
board of inquiry to hold a hearing into an
allegation of a discrimination against a citi-
zen of this province.
As to the second part, asking why the Min-
ister or his deputy or some senior coiuisel
did not appear, I would say this. The coun-
sel who appeaared is a man who has worked
for several years with the human rights com-
mission. He is admirably qualified to deal
with the case. He is as competent as any
man in the department, I think, to argue the
matter before the courts, or he woiild not
have been given the brief. I think he is very
capable and very eminent, and has had a lot
4224
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of experience in this work. He has been on
panels, he has written articles, he has worked
with the hon. Mr. McRuer for some two
years in this field, and I think no more com-
petent man could have been found. And, of
course, we could not anticipate this sort of
decision in the case.
Mr. Sopha: He said the Minister was going
to lose.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, this is only the
first round.
Mr. Sopha: The Minister ought to antici-
pate that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: On the third part of
the question, asking if the Minister has filed
a motion for appeal: Although the judge has
not yet given his written reasons, it is our
intention to appeal his order, if The Depart-
ment of Labour agrees with our recom-
mendation to do so, and I shall consult with
ray colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Bales), and I trust we will be appealing. I do
not intend to appear on the appeal and, of
course, am not aware yet as to when the
appeal will be heard.
As to the question of a stenographic record,
there is no stenographic record of proceedings
of this nature. The evidence is by affidavit.
This is not a question of viva voce evidence. It
is material filed by affidavit; the affidavits are,
of course, all on record in the court oflBce,
and they are open for anyone who vvashes to
read them. When the justice's reasons for
judgment are rendered they, I am sure, will
be in writing and also available for study.
As to the question of whether it is proper
for the judge to grant an interview with a
newspaper in advance of preparing his
written judgment, the question says, "in
which he presented himself as a defender
of one side of the case." I would say
he no doubt came to liis own conclusions
as to the propriety of whatever interviews he
gave, and I think perhaps I should not com-
ment on them at this time. I think I would go
so far as to say that if I were the judge, I
would not have done so.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the Minister's last observation. I admit this
is a matter of some delicacy, but by way of
a supplementary question that relates to parts
four and five, I am disturbed that there is
no transcript available. What is obviously
pertinent in this instance is the comments in
the court by the judge, among others for
example, at one point the comment of Mr.
Justice Stewart that this law was a law to
protect coloured people and the white man
did not get any protection under this law.
That seems to suggest a lack of under-
standing, if not prejudice, with regard to the
law. It seems to me that one should have
something other than just newspaper reports
in their inevitable piecemeal nature. Out of
an ignorance of actual court procedures—
because I am a layman in this field— may I
ask the Attorney General: am I correct in
my assumption that there is no record at all
of what was said other than what is in the
newspapers?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is right Mr.
Speaker. I have answered before that there
is no stenographic record, and I appreciate
the point raised by the hon. member, that
the comments from the bench are perhaps
not recorded. But when the matter comes to
be dealt with on appeal or in any further
review, I should not think the comments are
going to be relevant or play any part in any
event.
The reasons for judgment are going to
have to be the judge's logical reasons why he
reached the decision he did. The argument
is going to be on legal grounds. We will, no
doubt, say in our appeal that prohibition
does not lie here. This is a tribunal of enquiry
assessing no penalties, making no judgments,
furnishing a report from which the Minister
of Labour actually would act.
Mr. Sopha: Well, he was not a party—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, this would be what
I am—
Mr. Sopha: He was not a party to that
proceeding.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This inquiry, under the
human rights code, reports to the Minister
of Labour. This is all administered by the
Minister of Labour.
Mr. Sopha: On a point of order, my under-
standing is that only Walter Tamopolsky
was served, and the Minister of Labour, who
appointed this commission, was not a party
to the proceedings. I am further informed
that when the proceedings started, the justice
was under the impression that Marshall Pol-
lock appeared before the Attorney General
and he thought the Attorney General was a
party to the proceedings. Am I not right?
Strangely enough I am also told that Walter
Tamopolsky was ordered to pay the costs.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: What is the point of
order?
MAY 12, 1969
4225
Mr. Sopha: That is it. Is it not a fact-
Mr. Nixon: He does not want the Minister
to mislead the House.
Hon. Mr. Wisharl: T!he human rights code
has, in its proceedings, an inquiry procedure
which this was.
Mr. Sopha: Appointed by the Minister of
Labour.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Right. The report is
made to the Minister of Labour, as I was
pointing out in my reply to the hon. member
for York South. It is not a body which makes
a judicial decision— it makes a report. We will
argue on our appeal that prohibition does
not he here. What my answer was leading
to, was that I think the comments of the
judge made from the bench are really not
going to be relevant. They may show an
attitude of mind, but in the decision as to
whether there is a ri^tness or a wrongness
in his decision, whether he is right in law
or not, they will be largely irrelevant I think.
To continue on that point, perhaps there
may be some value in having a stenographic
record kept in these proceedings and I shall
give that consideration and discuss it with
my colleague, the Minister of Labour.
Mr. MacDonald: I appreciate the Attorney
General's assurance in the last instance be-
cause, as a layman, it looks as though the
judge had made up his mind before the court
dealt with the issue.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
on liis feet for a saipplementary—
Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask a supple-
mentary before the hon. member goes on, if
he will permit.
One thing caught my attention in the
Attorney General's answer. He said: "We
have lost the first battle" and it appears he is
going to appeal this situation as far as he
has to go in order to win. I sincerely hope
that he does and I would support him in this.
But as a supplementary question: Would
he consider an amendment to our present
statute if, in fact, he is not as successful as he
hopes to be in this matter? Surely the inten-
tion of our legislation is there and perhaps
this loophole— or perhaps it is not a loophole
—but this vacancy in the legislation would be
filled by this House if the Attorney General
saw fit to take the initiative.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate
to embark on a discussion at this point, I
would certainly say that we would be glad to
look at the legislation. The argument here
will be, that-^if I must explain it to the hon.
member— the judge is wrong, that his decision
is wrong, that prohibition does not lie-
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Yes, but that does
not touch on the justice of the decision.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That will be our posi-
tion. It may be that something may be found
to improve the legislation, but I think it is
a question of law and not of defects in the
legislation— a question of a judge making a
decision with which we take issue and we
shall appeal it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South has a further question.
Mr. MacDonald: I have a question of the
Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that Holiday Inn and
an oil company have taken out options for
development ia Thurlow township, just north
of Highway 401, instead of as part of the
proposed shopping plaza in north Belleville,
when can we expect a Cabinet decision on
OMB review of its order forbidding this plaza
development?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have
been unable to substantiate the fact that these
options have been taken, but I do not think
they are relevant in any event. The matter is
being processed, as I pointed out in answer
to a question last week or perhaps the week
before. Just as soon as the procediu-es of
appeal are followed, the decision will be
made.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be
glad to send over a clipping from the Belle-
ville Intelligencer of May 7 which will sub-
stantiate the first point on which the Prime
Minister is not certain.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): How would that substantiate—
Mr. MacDonald: I assume a front-page
story is not going to misrepresent a basic fact.
I have a question of the Provincial Treas-
urer (Mr. MacNaughton), but since he is not
here I assiune I will have to hold it.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member's
questions have been exhausted. The hon.
member for Huron-Bruce has a question?
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): My ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker, is of the Attorney General.
4226
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In view of the new commitment of State
Secretary William Rogers to pursue the
matter of the extradition of Hal Banks, and in
view of the fact that a request from Canada
lias to be received in order to reopen the
case, is the Attorney General going to pursue
this matter with the Minister of Justice in
Ottawa?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, we previ-
ously sought the return of Hal Banks at
length and most thoroughly, I think. The
question now of whether he is to be returned,
or whether this matter is to be opened up,
is one I believe which rests between the
federal government at Ottawa and tiie federal
government at Washington. We have made
our position known to Ottawa, in that we
sought to bring him back on extradition
proceedings. If Ottawa will bring him back we
will prosecute him,
Mr. Gaunt: Has tlie Attorney General made
any representation to Ottawa v^dthin the last
few days in view of this new development?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Not within the last few
days, but this development is not altogether
new, either.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
before my questions I have a point of order
which I would hke to raise before the orders
of the day. My point of order is that the
Minister of Mines (Mr. A. F. Lawrence) has
misled this House.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: Two weeks ago tomorrow,
during the debate on The Mining Tax Act,
I presented certain figures to the House, after
which the Minister of Mines spoke as follows
—I am reading from Hansard, sir:
When he [the member for High Park] indicated
that Texas Gulf, in their pre-production expenses in
relation to exploration here, is only $3 million, I can
say to him that I know to a man of his wealth, a
million here and a million there does not really
matter very much, l)ut he is out by approximately
$3 million. It is not $3 million; our information is
that it is double this.
The next morning I contacted Texas Gulf
Sulphur Company, and met with Mr. Devon
Smith of tliat company last Tuesday. I did
not raise the matter in the House at that
time because the Minister was not here. I
wanted to wait until he was here so he could
hear the matter,
Mr, Devon Smith of Texas Gulf informs me
of the fact that I was correct. The actual
figure was somewhat less tiian $3 million. He
has confirmed that in a memo which he has
sent to me.
Mr, Speaker, I am not suggesting the Min-
ister deliberately misled the House, I am
quite certain he would not do this, but I am
suggesting, sir, that his knowledge of his own
department is rather minimal.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): He is red-
faced now.
Mr. Shulman: I have two questions. The
first one is for the Minister of Financial and
Commercial Affairs: Will the Minister supply
me with a copy of the report of the investi-
gation of Canadian Central Holdings Limited,
which was made by the securities commis-
sion on March 9, 1967?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
am instructed that it is not in the public
interest to supply the information requested
by the hon. member.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question? It is: Why?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Because all investiga-
tions and reports conducted by the commis-
sion are not made public. In this case, as I
understand the situation, the matter has been
the subject of several civil actions which
have already been before the courts.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister inform me
why the charges were not laid that were
recommended in this secret report?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Certain information
was submitted to the oflBce of the Crown
attorney and I am instructed that the Crown
attorney's oflBce recommended against crim-
inal action.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General:
Is the Minister aware that a food market
directly opposite Sunnybrook Farms remains
open on Sunday and has not been prose-
cuted under The Lord's Day Act? Is this
because "local attitudes" change in the mid-
dle of the street? And finally, how can the
Minister justify spot prosecution of the law
on a basis of local attitudes?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the an-
swer to the first part of the question is, no.
The answer to the second part is, no. The
answer to the third part is, there is no spot
prosecution, it is handled evenly across the
board.
MAY 12, 1969
4227
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Oh, rot!
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: How can the Minister justify
a thing as evenly handled across the board
when he has picked out one food market to
prosecute when dozens of others are being
left open?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I will answer that, Mr.
Speaker. The Minister of Justice does not
pick them out at all. An application comes,
information is laid against someone operat-
ing on Sunday. The Lord's Day Act, the
federal Act, says the consent of the Attorney
General of the province is required before
any prosecution may commence. The Attor-
ney General looks at the information, ex-
amines it to see if the information appears to
be charging an oflFence and consents to the
prosecution.
Mr. Singer: Or does not.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Or does not. The point
is, he does not pick them out, to use the
language of the hon. member.
Mr. Singer: He picks out the ones he is
going to approve, though.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: In this store business,
only one came in— Sunnybrook. So there is
no picking and choosing, nothing this side
of the street or the other side— one only.
Mr. Singer: Is it not about time there was
a plan?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Perhaps. But bear in
mind that the federal government, in leaving
the matter to the discretion of provincial
Attorneys General—
s Mr. Singer: But the Attorney General can
refuse to exercise his discretion.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: In leaving the matter
to the discretion of the provincial Attorneys
General, it indicated that there was a field
I for discretion and perhaps attitudes; local or
provincial, whatever you call it.
Mr. Singer: But theatres are allowed to
stay open.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The Attorney General
does not pick those; they are presented by
the people who are concerned.
Mr. Shulman: Is there not some inequity
in this situation?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not think I can
express any opinion on that at this time.
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
What is the Liberal policy?
Mr. Singer: It has nothing to do with
Liberal policy.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for
Port Arthur has a question.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. I have a question JFor the Attor-
ney General.
In view of the recommendations on May 7
of the grand jury investigating the jail facili-
ties of the Port Arthur police station, what
responsibilities does the Attorney General
have for providing minimum standards at the
jail? And is the Attorney General prepared
to provide financial assistance to raise the
jail standards there?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, lockups
come under the jurisdiction of the Ontario
Police Commission. This matter has been re-
ferred to the Ontario Police Commission.
The second part of the question; no, it is
not my intention to furnish financial assist-
ance.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I have been asked several
times about Judge Walter Little's report. I
would just like to say that it was delivered
to me on Friday and I am having it printed.
It is at the printers now, and as soon as there
is a sufficient number of copies to make it
available for all members of the House, I
will table it.
Mr. MacDonald: It is not the printers who
are on strike, I hope.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, I do not think so.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, could I have an
answer to my questions?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister is not in the
House.
Orders of the day.
CITY OF HAMILTON
Mrs. A. Pritchard (Hamilton West) moves
second reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respect-
ing the city of Hamilton.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have just a few comments on this bill before
it goes through. One that comes quickly to
4228
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mind is that it is dealing with matters in the
Hamilton civic square which is due to go
l^efore the Ontario Municipal Roard some
time this month. There has been considerable
controversy in the city of Hamilton over the
last two months in regard to the entire civic
square project, not only the manner in which
it is being handled, but the financing of it. I
cannot help wondering if the government has
given sufficient consideration to the entire
area of whether or not the city of Hamilton
can afford the revised plans as have been put
forward during the last week.
Suice it comes within the scope of this
bill, part of it anyway, I want to register my
disapproval of the manner in which the gov-
ernment has handled the entire area of the
Hamilton civic square; the lack of concern
tliat they have shown; and their obvious lack
of concern for the financing of this and the
effect it will have on the people of the city
of Hamilton.
Mrs. Pritchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a comment on this bill. While the
bill does have a relationship to the civic
square, the farmers were represented— I par-
ticularly asked at the hearing that they speak
—confirm that they are in full accord with
the bill. It is the matter of releasing the city
market square back to the city instead of
being under an Act that gave it for the use
of farm market only. It will have no direct
bearing on what happens to the civic square.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): I
am rather interested to find that the hon.
member for Wentworth is concerned about
certain aspects of this bill in relation to the
city of Hamilton, especially since I am aware
that the members of the New Democratic
Party who happen to be members of the
Hamilton city council fully endorsed this at
the municipal level, and did not oppose it in
any way there or when the farmers' delega-
tion and the urban renewal people appeared
l>efore the private bills committee of this
Legislature.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): What
has that got to do with it?
Mr. Deans: What has that got to do with
this?
Mr. Speaker: Do the members wish to
engage in debate on this motion?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The 17th order, re-
suming the adjourned debate on the motion
for second reading of Rill 131, An Act to
amend The Law Enforcement Compensation
Act, 1967.
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMPENSATION ACT, 1967
(Continued)
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, as I recall it— I wonder if you would
bear with me until I get a book; we have
great difficulty in discerning what is going to
come next in this grab-bag, and it takes a
minute or two to find the spot. I think there
are three or four pending debates at the
moment.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): We are
patient!
Mr. Singer: Just bear with me for a
moment until I find the right piece of paper
and the right statute. Ah, there it is. Rill
125, am I right, Mr. Speaker? Is that the
one. The Law Enforcement Compensation
Act?
Mr. Speaker: Rill 131.
Mr. Singer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was
wrong. I had finished my speech on that. It
was my friend from Lakeshore who—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): Well, give it all over again.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure we would be glad
to have the hon. member for Lakeshore
carry on. He has had two or three big ones
already.
Mr. Singer: No, I made a very intelHgent
speech, I tiiought, about that; and I am sure
that the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart)
would have been convinced.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I am sure I
had the most acrimonious remarks to deliver
with the greatest acumen imaginable, but as
things stand at the moment, Mr. Speaker,
with this plethora of bills, as my friend says,
this is a picking out of the grab bag. I have
strewn before me various Acts and books and
notes to speak on a multitude of problems,
but not on this one, thank you.
Mr. Lewis: This is the most contentious
bill ever put before the House.
Mr. Speaker: Refore the Minister, is there
any other member who wishes to speak on
this bill? Perhai>s the Minister of Justice
might wish, then, to speak to this bill before
it is given second reading.
MAY 12, 1969
4229
Mr. Singer: What about retroactive effects?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, the comments offered with
respect to this legislation have again been
helpful and I think—
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): This is one of the Minister's kinder
days.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I indicated on first read-
ing that I would be prepared to consider the
matter of the retroactivity of the bill, which
I think is the only point really at issue in
this whole matter. I would be prepared, in
considering that feature, to have the bill
made retroactive to the date of the previous
bill's coming into force— the only legislation
we have in this area. I thought I had that
date on my file and I have an amendment, I
believe, relating to that, so that whatever that
date is, when that bill became effective I
would agree that this section should read that
it is effective on that date.
Mr. Singer: Well tbat is what we have
asked for all along.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think I need say no
more, Mr. Speaker. I have not got the actiial
wording of it in front of me.
fc Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister, I presume
^ then, will introduce the amendment when it
is in committee.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is right, Mr.
Speaker.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Mr. Singer: Try another one.
Clerk of the House: The third order, com-
mittee of the whole House; Mr. A. E. Renter
in the chair.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
(Continued)
House in committee on Bill 105, An Act
to amend The Highway TraflBc Act.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): This is the
one I was thinking of.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): Better get yourself in a
proper frame of mind; you were very irate.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, this
is another one of these adjourned debates
that I was speaking on at the time of the
adjournment. I had started to read, and had
almost completed reading, what Mr. McRuer
had to say about the powers of arrest without
a warrant. It is section 8.
Mr. Chairman: Does section 8 not deal
with the matter of identification?
Mr. Singer: That is right, that is right!
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything in that
section pertaining to arrest?
Mr. Singer: Oh yes, Mr. Chairman, because
we—
Mr. Chairman: I do not see it.
Mr. Singer: If you would refer, sir, to
section 74 of the same Act.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can wait until
we get to section 74.
Mr. Singer: Oh no, the two things tie in
together, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): This is
an arresting section.
Mr. Singer: Yes, the two things tie in com-
pletely together.
Mr. Chairman: Section 8 does not refer
to a—
Mr. Singer: No, it creates a new offence
for which power to arrest without a warrant
is given. The thrust of my argument is that
this section should not carry because we do
not need any more sections tiiat give power to
arrest without a warrant.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Section 8, an
amendment has been introduced to section 8.
Mr. Singer: That is right.
Mr. Chairman: Section 8, in my copy of
the Act, has nothing whatsoever to do with
arrest or powers of arrest. It has to do only
with the matter of identification. Arrest would
come later on in the bill.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, let me explain.
Section 8 creates a new offence which did
not exist heretofore. Are you with me up to
that point? Undear section 74, a peace officer
may arrest without a warrant for the offence
now created by section 8.
Mr. Chairman: Then the airrest portion
may properly be dealt with imder section 74?
Mr. Singer: The arresting power may be,
sir, but the argument about whether or not
we need one more offence has to be dealt
with here. The Minister in introducing this.
4230
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
read from Mr. McRuer's saying that this was
necessary because of his interpretation of
what Mr. McRuer said.
Mr. Chairman: Well, just-
Mr. Singer: I am in the process of trying
to-
Mr. Chairman: —just so tlie Chair can
imderstand the situation, section 8 of this
particular bill repeals subsections 2, 3, and
4 of section 14 of The Highway Traffic Act.
Mr. Singer: That is right.
Mr. Chairman: Does that section ha\e to do
with offences?
Mr. Singer: Oh yes, yes. This section
creates a new offence-
Mr. Chairman: And section 14—
Mr. Singer: —which, for the lack of a better
name, can be called the offence of failing to
identify yourself.
Mr. Chairman: Section 14 proceeds to—
Mr. Singer: 14(1) talks about not producing
your licence, and 14(2) creates a new offence
of not identifying yourself.
Mr. Chairman: But are they specifically
listed as offences?
Mr. Singer: Oh yes.
Mr. Chairman: Under section 14? I am not
familiar with that section.
Mr. Singer: Yes, yes. Let me read you
section 14.
Mr. Chairman: I would appreciate having
that read, if you have it before you.
Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Just to—
Mr. Singer: Section 14 says:
Every operator of a motor vehicle should
carry his licence at all times while he is
in charge of the vehicle and produce it
when demanded by a police constable—
And so on. Subsection 3 of 14; why it is
repealed:
A person convicted of an offence under
this Act shall produce his licence-
But go over to section 74 where it says:
Every constable who, on reasonable or
probable ground beheves that a contra-
vention of any of the provisions of—
So on and so, and it now includes 14(2).
—can arrest without a warrant.
The constable must believe that an offence
has been committed under 14(2) to arrest
without a warrant, so we are talking about
an offence— the creation of a new offence.
What the Minister proposes is a new offence.
Mr. Chairman: So what the hon.—
Mr. Singer: Failing to identify yourself.
Mr. Chairman: What the hon. member is
saying is that section 14 in the original Act
constitutes an enumeration of offences under
the Act.
Mr. Singer: T,hat is riglit.
Mr. Chairman: And that this new section 8
adds a further offence.
Mr. Singer: Thait is right. That is right.
Mr. Chairman: But there is no point, so
far, at which arrest is discussed. Is the hon.
member going to discuss the matter of arrest
or offence?
Mr. Singer: Oh yes, I am— both. Because, I
say-
Mr. Chairman: I still do not see-
Mr. Singer: I say I have to because when
the explanation was given by the hon. Min-
ister, when he introduced this, he said, "My
excuse is to be found in McRuer" and McRuer
says, in effect, "There are a whole bunch of
offences which allow arrest without a war-
rant which should be removed." However,
there is an argument which the Minister has
put forward and witli which I disagree,
that this kind of offence might allow arrest
without a warrant. You cannot have an arrest
without a warrant imless you have got an
offence. He is attempting now to create the
offence for wliidi, later on, there can be an
arrest without a warrant. You cannot separate
the two, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: What the hon. member is
going to do is discuss the matter of offence
in this section 8.
Mr. Singer: The offence and what flows
from it. I cannot separate the two.
Mr. Chairman: All right. Is this debate
going to be repeated at section 74?
Mr. Singer: No, no. I do not think so. I
am going to argue somewhat differently on
section 74.
MAY 12, 1969
4231
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): An
hour later!
Mr. Singer: But I say this, sir, that the
Minister has introduced it in this way, he
has introduced an amendment. I have already
debated this point for half an hour, and it
was found to be in order, and I am half way
through my speech and there is another half
hour of it yot to come.
Mr. Chairman: So, the hon. member is go-
ing to attempt to continue debating the
motion after half an hour without repetition?
Mr. Singer: Oh, yes, completely without
repetition.
Mr. Chairman: Then he may continue.
Mr. Singer: As I say, I carried through
reading and interpolating what Mr. McRuer
had to say on this matter, starting at the
bottom of page 728, running through pages
729, 730 and up to page 731. I had come, I
think, to the last paragraph in this section,
which is on page 731. Mr. McRuer concludes
his observations by saying:
The necessities of the cases would appear
to be met if the power of arrest without a
warrant were restricted to those cases in
which the driver of a motor vehicle, with-
out showing reasonable cause, does not
properly identify himself as the owner of
the vehicle, and those cases in which the
driver does not appear to have any legal
right to have the vehicle on the highway.
In all other cases, the powers of arrest
without a warrant, conferred under The
Criminal Code, should be sufficient as far
as highway traffic control is concerned.
This has been the legislative approach in
the province of Quebec, but we think that
even there the rights of arrest without a
warrant that are given are unnecessarily
wide.
Now, sir, to sum up what McRuer has said,
the thrust of his argument has been that there
are too many powers of arrest without a
warrant already contained in The Highway
Trafiic Act. He lists about ten, and there are
some more. He points out that not only are
these powers of arrest given to police officers,
but they are also given to anyone the Minister
may designate as his own official, so that
within The Highway Traffic Act, the Minister
can have his own army of arresting officers
who do not even have to be policemen.
McRuer decries this, and then reluctantly, in
his last paragraph from whence came the
sentence the hon. Minister of Transport seized
on. He says, "Well, maybe if you need any-
thing, you should perhaps have an offence of
failing to identify yourself."
An hon. member: He does not say that.
Mr. Singer: Yes he does; that is my inter-
pretation of it. The hon. member may dis-
agree with me and we can hear from him
later, but as I read it, that is the thrust. If
he says anything less than that, Mr. Chair-
man, then I disagree with him, and I disagree
with the basis on which the hon. Minister has
put this forward.
Now, let me point this out. In the Cana-
dian Criminal Code, there are a series of
offences created dealing with the operation
of motor vehicles. There is the offence of
criminal negligence; there is the offence of
drunken driving; there is the offence of
driving v^th ability impaired; there is the
offence of leaving the scene of an accident;
there is the offence of driving while your
licence is under suspension. There are all the
theft and fraud offences. If the Minister
wants specffic references to those sections in
The Criminal Code, I can give them to him.
Section 221, criminal negligence; section 222,
driving while intoxicated; section 223, driving
while ability is impaired; section 225, driving
when licence suspended; section 221, sub-
section 2, failing to stop after an accident,
and so on. All of these offences are indict-
able offences, and I know that the Minister
knows the provisions of sections 434 and 435
of The Criminal Code, which deal with the
power of arrest. Section 434 says anyone may
arrest, without a warrant, a person whom he
finds committing an indictable offence— and
section 435 says a peace officer may arrest,
without a warrant, a person who has com-
mitted an indictable offence or who, on
reasonable and probable grounds, he believes
has committed or is about to commit an
indictable offence, or is about to commit
suicide, or a person whom he finds com-
mitting a criminal offence.
There are the provisions. Why, then, is it
necessary to create a new offence of failing
to identify oneself? There are sufficient
powers in the code already. Why make that
offence an offence for which you can arrest
without a warrant? Surely there are sufficient
provisions in The Criminal Code which pro-
vide for a series of indictable offences which
would authorize arrest without a warrant
when the cases particularly indicate that that
should be done. If a police officer stops a
man who is driving at an excessive rate of
speed— excessive enough in the police officer's
mind to justify him to come to the conclusion
4232
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that the man is criminally negligent— he can
arrest him. If the police officer has reason-
able and probable cause to believe the auto-
mobile is stolen, he can arrest him without a
warrant under the provisions of The Criminal
Code. If he is driving while he is drunk, he
can arrest him without a warrant as The
Criminal Code provides. The same is true of
ability impaired, and all these things.
Why, then, does the Minister want to
create this new offence of failing to identify
>ourself to a police officer? Is there any
great demand for this? Has he received any
briefs from any police chief that says, "We
are in terrible trouble, l:>ecause we have been
refused identification by drivers of vehicles
when we requested it." Is there anything that
flows from this terrible failure to provide
identity? If there is, can the Minister tell us
from whom he has had complaints, and what
flows from that? Is there any reason why
this necessity of identification has to be
written into The Highway Traffic Act and
carry with it the burden of arrest without a
warrant if it is not done? What is the pur-
pose that lies behind this? On what basis
can he justify creating a new offence under
The Highway Traffic Act, which carries with
it the right to arrest without a warrant, par-
ticularly in view of what McRuer says, and
particularly in view of the fact, sir, that he
has not remo\ed from The Highway Traffic
Act a whole series of other offences which
can allow arrest without a warrant, that
McRuer says should be done away with com-
pletely. Why has he not done it?
He is still going to allow arrest without a
warrant under The Highway Traffic Act for
making a false statement, for someone who
defaces their licence plates, who exx>oses
other numbers, who has unlawful possession
of a i>ermit, who operates a vehicle when tlie
permit is suspended— the code provides for
that, as well as speeding 30 miles or more
over the Hmit, careless driving, racing on tlie
liighway, removing or defacing an obstruction,
and failing to remain. So he overlaps so mam'
sections of The Criminal Code. For what
reason does he want his private army to con-
tinue with tliis power of arrest? Why does he
not do what McRuer says, and why does he
suddenly invent the new offence?
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know if
many of us remember— I think we should—
the occa^sion on which a Royal commission
of inquiry was set up by this government
respecting the arrest and detention of Rabbi
Norbert Liener by the Metropolitan Toronto
police force. The lion. Attorney General com-
missioned Chief Justice Dalton Wells of the
high court of the province of Ontario to
conduct this inquiry, and Liener, you remem-
ber, was a gentleman airested without a
warrant by police officers who thought they
were carrying out their duty. As a result of
the public concern about this, the government
of Ontario saw fit to set up this commission
of inquiry, and Dalton Wells in due course,
produced his report. I am not sure of the
date of it, but he produced his report some
time after February 1, 1962, which is the
date on which he was appointed. Now, what
does Mr. Justice Dalton Wells say about
poUcemen, and about powers of arrest? Well,
I could read many sections from this report,
which I have here, but I think this section is
particularly pertinent and particularlv applic-
able:
I do not think that much is to be gained
by going into the evidence of Police Con-
stable Fast—
And I am reading from page 144.
-jwho was also associated in tlie arrest.
It agrees substantially with that of Mullen
and Sharp. It is, of course, perfectly clear
from the principles entmciated in the
judgment of Lord Simmonds, which I have
(juoted earher, that you are not entitled
to arrest a man for one offence wlien you
think he is guilty of something entirely
different.
And then he goes on to elaborate and say,
this is in fact what happened in this par-
ticular case.
There is another paragraph— it is tlie para-
graph immediately preceding the one I just
read, Mr. Chairman— starting at tlie bottom of
page 43, where Mr. Justice Wells says:
This again illustrates the curious lapse
in thinking which I noticed in the case of
Constable Sharp. All these young officers—
and I use "young" in the sense tliat they
have not been long on the force— knew
what tlie rules were, but they seemed to
have no conception that these rules gov-
erning arrest were actually the rules by
which they were to work.
It might be inferred by their condiict
that, in their opinion, the law governing
the right to arrest was siniply a pious state-
ment to which one paid lip service, but
which, of course, was not allowed to inter-
fere with tlie more effective and efficient
measures of their own devising.
That paragrajph of Mr. Justice Wells is the
paragraph which I diink best expresses the
argument that I have stated.
MAY 12, 1969
4233
I am concerned, Mr. Chaiirman, that the
government is going to introduce yet another
section into a statute which is going to give
power of arrest without a warrant as a result
of which the police will have just one more
opportunity to do something whioli is not
normally provided for in the Canadian Crimi-
nal Code.
On occasion, unfortimately, even the pro-
visions of the Canadian Criminal Code,
insofar as powers of arrest are applied, is
abused. Now why, Mr. Chairman? What
necessity is there for creating one more op-
portunity to do this? As I say, McRuer's
arguments are perfectly plain and perfectly
clear. He says there are just too many powers
of arrest in The Highway Traffic Act without
a wairant. He says most of them should be
done away with.
The Criminal Code has all of these pro-
visions relating to driving oflFences which
are serious oflFences, indictable oflFences, for
which there can be a power to arrest with-
out a warrant. Could anything be more clear,
Mr. Chairman, than Mr. Justice Wells' com-
ments in this report? Could there be any-
thing more clear than the warning sounded
by Chief Justice Dalton Wells? Finally, sir,
not one word on the necessity of creating
this new oflFence has come from the Minister.
Can he give us any example of how the
protection of our citizens on the roads has
been aflFected through all these years we
have not had the oflFence of failing to identify
oneself. Has any policeman ever come to him
and said: "I caimot enforce the law any
more because I have not got the right to
call upon a person to identify himself."
Suppose, Mr. Chairman, one afternoon you
are driving along the highway and there is
a police drive on for safety and they stop
you and ask you to identify yourself. You
produce your driver's licence— or do not. If
there is any reason to enquire further, surely
the police have a duty— before they arrest
you without a warrant or charge you— to
have some reasonable and probable ground
to believe you have committed some kind of
an oflFence.
If you are driving too fast, if you appear
to be under the influence of alcohol, if the
vehicle is stolen— any one of a dozen other
suspicious circumstances— they are all cov-
ered in the sections of the Criminal Code.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice): I
wonder if the hon. member will permit me
to ask a question?
Mr. Singer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: He has quoted McRuer
at great length, and on this particular point
I wonder why he does not continue with
McRuer's commentary at page 731 where
Mr. McRuer is talking about identification
of the driver of a vehicle and the power of
arrest without warrant. He says:
The necessities of the case would ap-
pear to be met if the power of arrest
without warrant were restricted to those
cases in which a driver of a motor vehicle,
without showing reasonable cause, does not
properly identify himself as the owner of
the vehicle—
Now is that not all my colleague, the Minis-
ter of Transport (Mr. Haskett) is doing? Say-
ing there is this power of arrest only if the
driver fails to identify himself as the owner
of the vehicle? That is all. As I imderstand
the legislation, it says that, where formerly
there was no right to arrest for exceeding the
speed limit, a driver may now be arrested
without a warrant if he fails to identify him-
self. Mr. McRuer says that is all right.
I do not always agree with Mr. McRuer
and I do not think my hon. friend does. But
it seems to me that he is making a pretty
strong and reasonable case here for the ex-
tension of the law, and I wondered if the
hon. member is disagreeing with him at this
point.
Mr. Singer: Well, to go back, I am not
sure whether or not the Attorney General
was here on Friday when I made the first
part of my argument—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I was here through
part of it.
Mr. Singer: Yes, I read the whole of what
McRuer said. I started back on page 728
from the heading "Power to Arrest without
a Warrant"—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have not heard you
touch that—
Mr. Singer: Oh yes, and I read that too.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Today?
Mr. Singer: Yes, today, the last paragraph.
I read the whole of the last paragraph to-
day. Apparently I was not communicating at
that point with the Attorney General so let
me repeat what I said about that.
I said the whole thrust of what McRuer
has had to say through pages 728, 729, 730
and 731, is that the powers contained in The
Highway Traflfic Act are too broad, that there
are too many powers of arresting without a
4234
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
warrant, and he would recommend doing
away with all of them— reluctantly, I said. In
the first sentence of the last paragraph he
comes up with one— but as I read the whole
thing together I certainly get the impression
that he would rather do away with the whole
bunch of them.
If he says anything more than that, then
I do disagree with him, because I accept the
first part of his argument, and if he says,
"Create one new one", then I just do not
understand it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is what I thought
you meant. Up to a certain point I agree,
but then you reject.
Mr. Singer: That is my point. Now I say
that he comes to this reluctant conclusion
that maybe there should be one— but even
if there is one, even if you accept that, you
do away with all the others. Now the hon.
Minister of Transport has not done away
with all the others. He has kept most of the
others. In addition we now have one more.
All right. I disagree with McRuer if that
is the only interpretation you can take out
of McRuer. Let us go now to The Criminal
Code, to all the sections dealing with indict-
able off^ences regarding the use of a motor
vehicle. We talk about what Chief Justice
Dalton Wells said about the occasional difiB-
culty of explaining to some police officers
what the power of arrest really means.
In addition, we talk about not only the
right of peace oflBcers— we talk about the
right of the Minister of Transport's private
army, if he wants to create one, to go around
and arrest without a warrant. The JEIighway
Traffic Act provides that:
The Minister of Transport can create
officials of hi.s own who have all the powers
of peace officers who can arrest without a
warrant.
I think this is shameful. I think it is danger-
ous. Finally I say since we are creating a
new offence which carries with it the right
to arrest witliout a warrant, surely the hon.
Minister must be required to stand up and
say for wliat reason he wants this power,
not just because he brings one sentence out
of McRuer in regard to it.
Is there any communication from the police
officials which would indicate and lead
reasonably to the conclusion that they are
having difficulty in enforcing our traffic laws
without this additional power? Can he give us
any instances of it? Because it is hard for me
to believe that a police officer is going to
be anxious to pursue this kind of enquiry
unless he is after some thing far more
serious. If he is concerned about theft,
surely he can hold the vehicle there long
enough to check on tlie registration. He has
a two-way radio. In a matter of minutes he
can find out in whose name it is registered.
He can find out if the car ha.s been reported
as stolen or not.
If the car is speeding at such a rate as to
amount to criminal negligence, he has power
to act. If tlie driver appears to be drunk,
he has power to act. If the driver appears
only to have his ability impaired, he has
power to act. All these provisions are already
in the code, why do we need one more section
which appears to give the poUce one more
power to arrest without a warrant— and not
only the police but Haskett's private army?
None of that has been brought before the
House. The only justification is one rather
obtuse sentence extracted from McRuer all by
itself. I say that is no excuse to create one
more offence, particularly when the govern-
ment has not been prepared to accept the
real tlirust of McRuer's argmxients.
McRuer says it is a terrible thing that
under a provincial statute you have a right
to arrest without a warrant for all these com-
paratively minor offences. And you do not
take them away at this time; all you do is
add one more.
So if you are doing anything about McRuer
at all, do it at least on the basis that McRuer
might recommend it. And even if that recom-
mendation can be read into McRuer's remarks
which I do not agree with, give us some
justification for it. Tell us why that police
officer said, "Because I cannot ask for identifi-
cation if there is no licence, then I am unable
to enforce the law of The Highway Traffic
Act or The Criminal Code."
I do not think it is there, Mr. Chairman.
There are alternative procedures available.
For these reasons, we cannot support your
section. We tiiink it is a dangerous section.
It is maliciously inspired, and it follows a
whole plan of erosion of our civil rights that
somehow creeps obscurely into government
legislation and is never properly explained.
The heat was on the Minister and so he
changed the wording. He has changed the
discretion. It was more malevolent in its
original form. As it is, it is bad enough. It
sliould not be tliere. There is no need for it
to be there, and I urge tlie Minister to with-
draw it so that we will not have to divide
the House. It is going to do no good for the
people of the province of Ontario. You do
not need that section; take it out.
MAY 12, 1969
4235
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for River-
dale.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
I am in a quandary about the section and
the correlative provision of section 74 which
includes these new offences — that is the
offences in sections 8 and 11— as offences for
which a person may be arrested without a
warrant.
I would like to clarify my thinking because
I cannot keep it straight in my head, and I
would like very much, in the course of this,
if we could at least clarify what we are talk-
ing about.
The Minister of Transport has said that
the public interest requires that in the circum-
stances where the operator of a motor vehicle,
be he the owner or a chauffeur, whoever that
person is, is obligated first of all to produce a
licence. If he does not produce the licence,
tlien he is guilty of an offence under the Act
and could be summonsed for it and charged
in the usual way.
The Minister obviously recognized, after
the remarks which were made on second
reading of the bill, that his clause had gone
much too far. It had left the question of the
decision about the identity of the person
driving the car to be, or the proof of the
identity to be, a matter for the decision of
the constable. That automatically would mean
that a constable, in fact, could carry out an
arbitrary arrest.
Now, part of my quandary is that the Min-
ister has amended the section to say that
when a person cannot produce his licence—
which is required by The Highway Traffic
Act and has been for a long time; he now
provides that you have to give evidence of
your identity to the constable. But it goes on
to say that if you give your name and address
correctly, that is sufficient. Now that is the
first problem.
If you are stopped, you are unable to
produce your license, but you give the con-
stable your correct name and address, then
you leave the constable and the operator of
the vehicle in a very difficult position. If the
police constable accepts the statement of the
operator that the name and address is cor-
rect, then no problem. If he does not accept
it as correct— and I am ruling out the case of
false statement, I think a false statement is
grounds for a charge of obstructing the police
anyway— if you vouchsafe a name and address
and give the wrong one, then I think you
are obstructing the police officer in the exe-
cution of his duties.
So what I am talking about is the situation
in which I have given the correct name and
address and the police constable does not
beheve me. He then goes on to pose the
next question. Either he is going to delay me
unduly in the progress of my journey, or he is
going to require me to go with him under
some form of detention to decide whether or
not I have, in fact, given the correct name
and address.
The rule is, and this amendment to the
statute does not improve it in any way, if I
give my correct name and address, assuming
for the moment that I accept the amendment
to the clause that the Minister has put in, if
I have given my correct name and address
and he detains me, restricts my movements,
or requires me or endeavoiurs to require me
to accompany him to some place where he
can check the accuracy of my statement,
then he has detained me without any power
to arrest me.
Now, if that is the situation in which we
are going to be in, he is going to be charged
with unlawful arrest. If I have given my cor-
rect name and address and he does not be-
lieve me he fails to exercise his power of
arrest under section 74, but nevertheless de-
tains me in the course of my journey, or
attempts to require me to go somewhere while
he has an opportunity to check upon my
address, then he has, in fact, subjected me
to an unlawful arrest.
So that is my first problem. My first prob-
lem, if I can state it distinctly, is that if you
vouchsafe a name and address to a pohce
officer when he asks you a question about
your name and address, if you give any,
you must give your correct one.
Now, if I have given the correct one under
this amended section, then I think you pose
serious problems for the police officer in terms
of any further detention of me in the course
of my journey, or any endeavour to take me
somewhere in order to check on my identffi-
cation; to substantiate the fact that I have
told him my correct name and address.
Again, ruling out the question whether I
have given an incorrect name and address,
and this amendment to this section is passed
the way it is, then there is no problem be-
cause in the case of a false name and address
I would have been obstructing him and he
would have to move to arrest me immediately
for obstructing him in the course of his
duty.
But merely with tliis section in the clause.
I as a citizen will now be required to give
my correct name and address. If I give it,
4236
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
then the constable himself, if he does not
arrest me and give the reason for my arrest,
is in serious difficulty. I do not think the
Minister, on reflection, wants to place the
police officer in tliat position.
To be perfectly clear about the position of
a citizen, whether he is a pedestrian or in a
vehicle, apart altogether from this question
of producing the licence which he is unable
to do, that is the only act that the statute
makes an oflFence, the failure to produce the
licence.
It does not require you to say anything,
you do not have to communicate with the
police constable at all. If he says to you, "I
want to see your licence," you do not have to
open your mouth. If you have your licence,
fine. If you have not got your licence, tlien
the police constable says to you, "What is
your name and address?" you are back in the
situation where you do not have to disclose
it. This is the problem the Minister is faced
with.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I just
want to ask the hon. member, if he sees it
the way I do. You are asked to produce your
licence. It is still an offence if you do not,
Ijut not arrestable.
Mr. Singer: That is right.
Mr. J. Renwick: That is the point.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, but I thought that
point was over-skipped a little bit. The mem-
ber said that if he was asked to produce his
licence he did not have to open his moudi
to identify himself. But if you produce your
licence, that is all you have to do. You are
identified.
Mr. J. Renwick: We are in complete agree-
ment that that is an offence and that the
policeman is then in the difficulty, if you
cannot produce your licence, of finding out
who it is who is driving that vehicle. This
is where tliere is merit in trying to cover the
gap which the Minister has recommended in
this amended section.
The first one was very poorly done. The
second one had some more merit in it, but I
still suggest it is, when you really try to
think the thing out, quite inadequate.
Let me go back to the fundamentals about
the obligation of a person so far as his name
and address are concerned, and accompany-
ing the poHce for the purposes of identifica-
tion. The latest case— and I think the authority
accepted in the Ontario courts at the present
time— is the English Court of Appeal decision
in 1966, reported in 1966 2 All England
Law Reports at page 649.
I want to give the facts of the case, the
decision which was made, and the arguments
which were made in order to point up very
clearly the fundamental right that a citizen
has not to disclose his identity. That must be
the starting point for any consideration of a
move by statute to curtail that right.
The case cited is Rice and Connolly. Rice
was the man who was stopped by the pohce
officer, and Connolly was the chief constable
of the particular borough. Baillie wias the con-
stable who stopped Mr. Rice on the street.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Was he
driving a oaar?
Mr. J. Renwick: No, he was not driving a
motor vehicle, but I am saying in the absence
of the-
Mr. Kerr: There is a big difference.
Mr. J. Renwick: In the absence of The
Highway Traffic Act, this would be the posi-
tion of a citizen, whether he was driving a
motor vehicle, a passenger in a motor ve-
hicle or a pedestrian on the street.
Mr. Singer: Or flying an airplane.
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, doing anything. I
think we have to deal with that principle
before we come on to the problem that the
member for Halton West raises, where he says
that makes all the difference in the world.
Well, I hope he will try and clarify for me
why I should accept the Minister's amend-
ment, because I do not think we can.
Mr. Singer: Tliere are always other pro-
\ isions in The Criminal Code.
Mr. J. Renwick: The facts of this case show
the extent to which you can, in fact, hide
your identity, maintain your privacy in such
circumstances. In the early hours of the
morning of March 8, 1965, Police Constable
Baillie was out on patrol duty in and around
Oxford Street, Grim&by. A number of break-
in offences had been committed that night
and the officer was looking out to see if he
he could see anyone behaving suspiciously.
One of these break-ins had been committed
quite close to where he was within the pre-
vious 45 minutes. He saw a man who turned
out to be the appellant behaving suspiciously
—looking into shop windows, looking around,
seeing the constable, moving up a side street,
coming back later from the side street, going
MAY 12, 1969
4237
along looking at further shops and keeping
a wary eye on the constable.
A time came when Police Constable Boilhe,
who had then been joined by another pohce
constable, went up and stopped the appellant.
Police Constable Bailhe asked where he
was going and the appellant ignored the
enquiry though he heard it. The pohce con-
stable aigain asked him where he was going,
where he had come from and for his name
and address. Whereupon the appellant re-
phed, "Give me a good reason why I should."
In due course, the appellant was allowed to
walk away and when he had got a little dis-
tance away he stopped to light his pipe. The
police officers then saw that he had got a out
on his finger. They went up to him and again
Police Constable Baillie asked for his name
and address. After being asked the second
time, he merely replied, "Rice, Convamore
Road". That, incidentally, was true as far as
it went.
The police constable said that he wanted
his full name and address, but the appellant
refused to give it. Finally, the police con-
stable asked the appellant to accompany him
to a pohce box to confirm his identity, where-
upon the appellant replied, "Look, son, I am
not moving from this spot. If you want me
you will have to arrest me."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He was asking for it.
Mr. J. Renwick: Thereupon the police con-
stable arrested him and gave as the ground
for arrest that he had obstructed him in the
execution of his duty in that he refused to say
w'here he was going, where he had come
from, had refused to give his full name and
address and had refused to accompany him
to the police box.
Tlhose were the facts as found by the
recorder, with these additions, that through-
out, the appellant's manner had been sar-
castic and awkward. When long after the
arrest he was seen by an inspector, the appel-
lant said, "I've been arrested. It might be
worth a bob or two to me. I've done nothing
wrong. I'm arrested. What are you going to
do?"
He was convicted in the first instance and
appealed to the court of appeal and the argu-
ments that were put were as follows:
For Mr. Rice, the appellant, it was con-
tended that although a police officer acting
in the execution of his duty was entitled to
ask a citizen questions, including questions
as to his name and address, there was no
legal duty on the citizen, in the absence of
some obligatibn imposed by statute— and
there was no such statute apphcable in the
present case— to answer such questions. Nor,
in the absence of some statutory duty, and
there was none in the present case, was there
any duty on a citizen to accompany a police
officer anywhere in order that his identit>'
might be investigated. The citizen had a
right to refuse to answer the questions put to
him by the constable, and to refuse to accom-
pany him to the poHce box.
It followed, so it was contended, that the
constable could not lawfully require answers
to his questions, and could not lawfully re-
quire the appellant to accompany him to the
pol icebox, and that the appellant's conduct
had not amounted to an obstruction of the
constable in the execution of his duty.
For the chief of police of Grimsby it was
argued that at common law the citizen had a
duty to assist the police in the investigation
of crime, and that there was, therefore, a
legal duty on the appellant to answer the
constable's questions and to accompany him
to the police box for the purpose stated; that
the appellant had not discharged that legal
duty and that he had, therefore, obstructed
the constable in the execution of his duty.
That is the point, Mr. Chairman— if I may
interrupt my comments about this particular
case— where I see the problem. I am almost
persuaded in my own mind that the actual
amendment of the section is a necessary
corollary of the law of the province under
The Highway Traffic Act. To operate a motor
vehicle you must have a licence; if you do
not have a licence that is an offence for which
you can be summonsed, not arrested, and on
failure to produce that licence the constable
should be able to require you to identif\'
yourself, and you identify yourself by giving
the correct name and address.
The constable then nms into the problem
that if he does not believe you he is going
either to have to arrest you, in which case
there is going to be an unlawful arrest be-
cause you have given a correct name and
address; if he does not arrest you for that
reason and asks you to accompany him to
identify yourself or corroborate that identffica-
tion and he detains you in the progress of
your journey, then he is subjecting himself
to a charge of unlawful arrest during that
period of time.
He will have curtailed and circumvented
you from carrying out what the purpose of
your journey was. That is the problem. That
is the very problem by a very close analogy
to that which Mr. Rice faced.
4238
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Did he have to go to the poHce box in
order that the poHce constable could corrob-
orate his identification? Remember, in this
case, while he had not given his whole
address, he had given his right surname and
he had given the correct name of the street
on which he lived.
Under this statute, presumably one could
say to give his correct name he would have
had to give his Christian name and his sur-
name and he would have had to give the
street on which he lived and the actual
number of the street.
Now, Chief Justice Parker, Lord Parker,
in giving his decision, Ixjcause the man was
charged with obstructing the police, has this
to say. I am not reading the whole of the
judgment:
What the prosecution have to prove is
that there was an obstructing of a con-
stable; that the constable was at the time
acting in the execution of his duty; and
that the person obstructing did so wilfully.
To obstruct is to do any act which makes
it more difficult for the police to carry out
their duties. It is also, in my judgment,
clear that it is part of the obligations and
duties of a police constable to take all steps
which appear to him necessary for keeping
the peace, for preventing crime or for
protecting property from criminal injury.
There is no exhaustive definition of the
powers of the police, but they are at least
those, and they would further include the
duties to detect crime and to bring an
offender to justice.
It is quite clear that the appellant was
making if more difficult for the police to
carry out their duties, and that the police
at the time and throughout were acting in
accordance with their duties. The only
remaining element of the alleged offence,
and the one in which my judgment this
case depends, is whether the obstnicting of
which the appellant was guilty was a wilful
obstruction.
Wilful, in this context, in my judgment,
means not only intentional, but also
connotes something which is done without
lawful excuse and that, indeed, is con-
ceded by counsel who appears for the
prosecution in this case. Accordingly, the
sole question here is whether the appellant
had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer
the questions put to him. In my judgment
he had. It seems to me quite clear that
though every citizen has a moral duty, or if
you like, a social duty to assist the police,
there is no legal dut\- to that effect, and
indeed the whole basis of the common law
is that right of the individual to refuse to
answer questions put to him by persons in
authority and to refuse to accompany those
in authority to any particular place, short,
of course, of arrest.
Counsel for the respondent has pointed
out that imdoubtedly an obstruction has
been so held for a person questioned by
the police to tell a cock and bull story, to
put the police off by giving them false
information, and so on. In my judgment
there is all the difference in the world be-
tween deliberately telling a false story,
something which on no view a citizen has
a right to do and preserving silence, or re-
fusing to answer something which he
has every right to do.
Accordingly, in my judgment looked on
in that perfectly general way, it was not
shown that the refusal of the appellant to
answer the questions or to acxx>mpany the
police officer in the first instance to the
police box was an obstruction without law-
ful excuse.
Mr. Singer: That is exactly what Chief
Justice Dalton Wells said too.
Mr. J. Renwick: That was a unanimous
decision of the court of appeal in England.
But my point, and where I would like to
have some clarificatian before we can support
the automatic arrest provision, contained in
section 74 of the Act, which directly relates
to the amendment of these two clauses, 8
and 11, providing for this method of proving
identity yourself. Before we can accept it I
do not think we can leave it open as to what
happens if the police officer does not believe
the person who has given his correct name
and address. I think you impose a position
on the poHce officer which is totally unten-
able. I do not think you can place him in
the position where he is arresting me under
the guise of exercising the power of arrest in
section 74, and then find that in fact I have
given my correct name and address. And if
he does not exercise the power to arrest
under that section, and simply calls in question
that he wants to detain me in some way
imtil he corroborates what I have told him,
then he is subject to a suit for unlawful
arrest because he cannot give the reason for
carrying out the arrest, even though he has
arrested me by simply detaining me.
Therefore, in the absence of some further
comment in the debate, I feel that we should
—much as I can see the merit of the two
amendments to clauses 8 and 11, as amended
MAY 12, 1969
4239
which the Minister has introduced— until
we solve the problem of arbitrary arrest—
which I think it hinges on this question of
what happens if the correct name and address
is given under the proposed amendment and
the constable does not believe it, and what
is the position of that constable— until that is
solved I think we will have to vote against
these particular amendments. However, I
hope in the course of the debate that we can
clarify this fundamental problem.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, if I may quote a little more of McRuer,
which seems to me to run against his con-
certed or advised opinion later on about the
whole picture of arrest involved, he says at
page 726:
An arrest is irreversible. The person
arrested must remain in custody until trial,
unless admitted to bail, and even if admit-
ted to bail he is not entirely free. He is
subject to further order of tiie court and
may be taken into custody if bail is can-
celled. Under our way of life, an arrest
always has some stigma attached to it.
He goes on to say:
The concept of the power of arrest is a
legacy from the common law when all
felons were arrested—
And just to depart from the text, felonies were
extremely grave crimes. They were crimes
like murder, and manslaughter, burglary and
what not. Not petty larceny and not petty
offences.
—when all felons were arrested and there
were hundreds of offences punishable by
execution. At that time everything criminal
was treated with such severity that the
means by which the proceedings were com-
menced were relative. The development of
civihzation has been measured to some
extent by the manner in which offenders
against the law have been treated, and
likewise by the manner in which powers to
put restraint on the liberty of the subject
have been dispensed by legislative bodies.
And then he goes on further down the page,
jumping a paragraph or two.
Where the power of arrest without a
warrant is given by statute, it confers on
police officers a power of decision affecting
the liberty of a subject. It is an adminis-
trative act, not a judicial one. If the power
of arrest is exercised, when a sxunmons
would be sufficient, the subject has no
redress. It is left entirely to the person
exercising the power to determine whether
the individual involved will be restrained
of his liberty with all the attendant per-
sonal consequences.
One of the outstanding Crown attorneys
in Ontario stated to the commission:
"Apparently officers only rarely exercise
any discretion as to whether it is necessary
to arrest a person rather than to summons
him. Some simply are not aware that the
discretion exists. Others view arrest as a
sort of pre-trial. Others still view it as more
convenient. Plainly there are too many un-
necessary arrests without a warrant."
Finally, McRuer comes down saying:
Before the Legislature confers a power
peremptorily to deprive an individual of
his liberty, two questions should always be
answered:
1. Is the power necessary?
2. Will the exercise of the power impose
a punishment out of all proportion to the
penalty that might be imposed by a judicial
officer if the person is found guilty of the
alleged offence?
And I think, taking these sweeping powers,
without the nice discriminations that should
be imposed on police officers under this bill,
that both questions must be answered in the
negative.
As has been pointed out by the hon. mem-
ber for Downsview, there is at the disposal
of the police officer numerous powers of
arrest arising directly out of the operation
of motor vehicles, and the possession of motor
vehicles. I mean, the whole business of driv-
ing with ability impaired, or if a constable
with good reason suspects that the vehicle
is being used for any foul purpose in the
forwarding or the commission of, or the
actual consummation of, any indictable
offence; if that vehicle is used for drug
smuggling or trafficking; if that vehicle is be-
ing used for purposes of theft, or has been; if
there are stolen goods aboard the vehicle; if
the vehicle itself is a stolen vehicle. This gives
to the officer, under The Criminal Code the
full powers to effect an arrest on the spot
with or without identification, or any other
tiling.
The whole tenor, as I said the other day,
of your legislation, bearing upon this par-
ticular point, if not quite Draconian in its
effects, is unquestionably severe. You have a
whole panoply of other instruments, you have
the demerit point system— whatever happened
to that, I have not heard it particularly
4240
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mentioned. You have all the fines and penal-
ties presently in your legislation, but you
bring to bear this extra strapping, this extra
piece of onerous penalty on the head of the
citizen. Far from being the protectors of
human liberties, as Tories sometimes vaunt
themselves to be, this kind of legislation runs
contrary to the grain.
This is not forwarding the cause of human
liberty. If the cx)nstable, as in most in-
stances they are, equipped with radios, he can
check immediately if he so wishes. They have
got to be careful about detaining a citizen
unnecessarily because however subtle the
action may be, that the detention very easily
could be construed as an arrest simply be-
cause the citizen, asserting his rights, tries to
be amenable at the same time and con-
veniences the police officer by standing in
attendance or accompanying him in some
direction. It may not be sufficient.
The law is fairly clear on that point and I
see no reason, with the instruments at the
officer's disposal to communicate and with the
added powers conferred already under the
criminal code, why you feel that this extra
step is necessary. It is already in your legis-
lation to say, "Well, we are going to get
tough." Drew is going to get tough with the
students; the Minister of Transport is going
to get tough with the citizenry and the drivers
of the province. This "getting tough" busi-
ness seems to be somewhat juvenile in the
face of other possibly more civilized pro-
cedures.
In any event I feel that we should oppose
this measure. It is a tricky point. If some-
body refuses to produce his licence he can,
of course, be smnmonsed on that. I would
have thought that that vrauld be adequate;
particularly with the fact that the car and the
licence are there and the checking can take
place. If necessary, pursuit can be radioed
through. Why place the extra restrictions
upon the ambit of our liberties? Why should
not this government and these terms be
reversed and resisted, to the best of our
ability? We fight the ongoing eroding influ-
ence of increased poHce powers and their
constant pressure to assert more powers over
the citizenry. Through your instrumentalities,
the year 1984 comes on apace.
Why we must throw our weight against
that; and why you should not be a martinet
in the doorway, preventing instead of for-
warding this sort of clause, escapes me.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chair-
man, it is apt to ask in relation to this sec-
tion just what is the compass of vice— to use
the lawyer's phrase— that is being sought to
be circumscribed by the government. Several
of my colleagues in the legal profession on
this side of the House have made remarks
that are very germane and apposite in rela-
tion to it.
They have said very aptly that what the
Minister of Transport is dealing with here
is not the citizen who has conunitted a
breach of the law. He is dealing with the
citizen who comes under the purview, the
ambit of the police officer's investigation in
some way or other and after a most search-
ing scrutiny that citizen has not given any
indication whatsoever that he has broken any
law. The policeman can resort to the veri-
table cornucopia of oflFences available to him
in the statutes to exercise the powers that
are sought to be exercised.
The most common point of contact of the
policeman with the motorist is when there
has been a collision. Until the new argot
was coined by the Minister of Transport, we
called them accidents. But they are not to
be called that anymore because he wants to
venture into the pejorative phrase and call
them collisions. If you are a defendant's
lawyer I suppose you call them accidents.
If you are a plaintiff's lawyer you want to
use a more extreme term.
But the moment the policeman comes upon
the motorist who has been involved in an
accident, however minor, the merest scraping
of the fenders, far short of any personal
damage, then we exercise the power granted
to him by section 2215 of The Criminal Code
and 143 of The Highway Traffic Act. Both
motorists are obliged to provide their names
and addresses.
And indeed, one of the sections— I forget
which one, probably The Highway Traffic
Act, because this government has far more
imagination in such matters than the Ottawa
government— requires that if the motorist him-
self is disabled, one of the surviving unin-
jured passengers who is compos mentis at
the time, must provide the information for
him. He must give the motorist's name and
address to the police officer. And I think
one of the statutes goes so far as to say that
if the policeman is not on the scene, you
are obliged to seek him out and give the
necessary details.
My friend from Downsview has mentioned
impaired driving, driving while intoxicated,
careless driving, all sorts of offences to which
this section is not relevant in many ways.
So here we have the motorist who has not
done anything. The policeman has leaned
in the window and with that acute nasal
MAY 12, 1969
4241
sense given only to policemen, he has not
detected the faintest smell of alcohol.
Mr. Worton: He should come around here
some time.
Mr. Sopha: That is a very apposite com-
ment, the most apposite comment in recent
months. I do not share the burden of that
aspersion.
There is nothing wrong with the car, every
thing appears to be absolutely hunky-dory
and the motorist might proceed on his way.
But, for some reason or other, the police-
man wants to see the motorist's licence, which
he has not got with him. This is a police-
man with a lot of time on his hands. Indeed,
he could be about the business of enforcing
the Queen's peace elsewhere, but he has a
ready ally in the Minister of Transport. The
Minister of Transport comes to his assistance
and requires that motorist to do something
else. And as my friend from Riverdale points
out, at his peril of giving the correct name
and address, the policeman has the right to
arrest him.
It is only too true that we, in the Opposi-
tion, have a tremendous responsibility on us,
in carrying out the fimction imposed upon
us by the system of resisting an encroach-
ment on the civil rights of individuals.
One notes that just over the weekend, the
Canadian Safety Council meeting somewhere
advocated that motorists be armed with a
card with their fingerprints and photograph
on it. That might please the Minister of
Transport and those who report to him, but
one of the participants in that discussion
adverted to the fact that such a suggestion
might cause the defenders of civil liberties to
become somewhat exercised. And if the pro-
ponent of that view means us, sitting in the
Opposition, then he or she is perfectly
correct—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He did not mean you.
Mr. Singer: He did not mean you, that is
for sure.
Mr. Sopha: As my friend from Downsview
very aptly says, he does not mean the Minis-
ter of Correctional Services, if he is to vote
for this bill.
Mr. Singer: That is right.
Mr. Sopha: If he votes for this bill he will
forever—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am a member of
the executive of a civil liberties organization.
Mr. Sopha: —he will forever damn him-
self by indicating the side that he is on in it—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am with the civil
liberties group, remember!
Mr. Sopha: Notwithstanding the interven-
tions of the Minister of Correctional Services,
this is a very important area of civil liberties.
In this cybernetic, nuclear, technotronic age,
I query whether it is really necessary, advis-
able, requisite, eflficient, for the citizen who
has done nothing, broken no statute, behaved
with entire propriety, to be required to fur-
nish to any person his driver's licence or his
name or address; such a citizen, upon whom
the most searching scrutiny of the police
force is fastened, is entitied to go about his
business and not be detained in any way.
What is the other side? I will give you a
recent illustration. Four youths are arrested
as a result of a crackdown initiated by the
local newspaper carrying what it thinks is its
function in the democratic process. Four
youths, two of whom happened to have
beards, and two of whom happened to have
long hair, are arrested, taken into the custody
of the police and photographed and finger-
printed, on an offence punishable on summary
conviction.
When it is drawn to the attention of the
police authorities that such procedures may
only take place upon arrest on indictable
offences, the chief of police replies: "Oh yes,
but you know that we always try to get the
fingerprints and photographs of anybody that
comes into the police station, anybody we get
at all."
If you go into report that your dog is lost,
you are in danger, I suppose! But it shows
the prochvity of people to encroach upon the
area of civil Hberties and it is a sad thing to
say that in many ways they are not deterred
by the chief law officer of the Crown, the
Attorney General, who should be telling the
Minister of Transport—
An hon. member: Take it easy!
Mr. Sopha: Take it easy, that is a good
phrase.
Mr. Singer: We do not need the section!
Mr. Sopha: We do not need that section. It
does not serve any useful purpose. In an age
that likes statistics, how many such people
are stopped by the police in the course of
a year? I would venture to say the niunber
is very minimal, whereas it might be hurled
at us by saying, "Well, what are you worried
about if there are only a few i^ople who
4242
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
come under tliis circumscription?" Then the
answer is obvious, because if it afFects only a
lew members of society, tlie section is not
needed at all. Tlie Minister of Transport does
not have to ami the Act with the teetli that
such a section gives.
I read in tiie press over the weekend— I was
not here Friday; I wish I had been to hear
that debate— the comments made by my
friend from Downsview, and diey were very
trenchant and pertinent. And it became clear
that the Minister of Transport, anticipating
the ire he would arouse in tliis House, beat
a retreat from the previous section, which was
absolutely reprehensible any way that you
look at it. It makes me wonder what respon-
sibility for supervision the Attorney General
is taking in respect of the statutes of this
province. Surely these statutes come to the
council table— the executive coimcil table. We
do not know tliat they do, that procedure
being held entirely in camera, but we have
the example of a statute of some years ago
that heralded the entry of the member for
Sault Ste. Marie into the jyost of chief law
officer of the Crown-
Mr. Singer: I remember that very well.
Mr. Sopha: —and what ought to have been
done at the council table on that occasion?
But this is the responsibility of the whole
Cabinet, and one wonders what arguments
the Minister of Transport made to his Cabi-
net colleagues. What vice— and that is a
lawyer's phrase— what vice is sought to be
eliminated? What were the proportions of
the damage done to the public weal in this
respect that he persuaded the Provincial
Secretary (Mr. Welch), a lawyer; the Min-
ister of Financial and Commercial Affairs
(Mr. Rowntree); the Attorney General— I do
not think there are any more members of the
Bar among their numbers— and the Prime
Minister.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. mem-
ber not think that non-lawyers are interested?
Mr. Sopha: Indeed, the Prime Minister
liimself. But the numbers of—
Mr. Singer: The civil lil:)erties member!
Mr. Sopha: The Minister of Correctional
Services?
Mr. Singer: Yes, I wonder if he raised the
question?
Mr. Sopha: The number of lavio'ers in that
Cabinet council is decreasing. The few that
remain are not exercising a good deal of
supervision over the legislation that is eman-
ating from it.
Speaking for myself and the law-abiding
people of Sudbury who will come within the
purview of this section— it is only the law-
abiding— I challenge anybody to get up in
the House and show us how any person who
is suspected of breaking the law— and it is
important to pause at that point and to
remind the Minister of Transport, through
you, Mr. Chairman, that a pohce officer's
rights to arrest a person are far greater than
that of the ordinary citizen. He does not have
to show subsequent to the arrest that a crime
was in fact committed; all he has to do is
go to the extent of showing that he had rea-
sonable and probable grounds to suspect the
commission of an offence. That serves to
underhne the fact that the police officer in
these circumstances has enough power with-
out needing reinforcement from the statutes
of the province, such as the Minister of
Transport seeks to give us.
Really, my challenge to the Minister of
Transport, to the chief law officer of the
Crown, is to show us where any activity is
so widespread in Ontario presently, through
the failure of citizens to produce their
driver's licence or to exhibit contumacious
response to police enquiry that it is needful
that tlie Legislature of Ontario come to the
assistance of the police in this regard. Now
this is a matter of great humour to the Min-
ister of Correctional Services. Throughout
the course of this debate, he has sat there
laughing and scratching himself about it-
reminiscent of someone you see in a—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I must
rise on a point of order. I was neither laugh-
ing nor scratching myself. I think the hon.
member is becoming so hypnotized with the
sound of his own voice he caimot even see
straight. I have been sitting here listening
patiently to every speaker, which is much
more than I can say for the hon. member.
When he is through, he wdll probably walk
out.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I merely report what my
eyes tell me, and I am sure my colleague from
Downsview will corroborate. During the
whole of the course of my remarks the
Minister of Correctional Services, the Attorney
General and the Provincial Secretary have
been sitting there regaling themselves with
some humorous communications.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We were really trying
to translate some of your language.
MAY 12, 1969
4243
Hon. Mr. Wishart: We were enjoying your
dissertation.
Mr. Sopha: I do not care what the Minis-
ter says; that in fact is what has occurred. It
is not that I ever seek to have an audience
or require or indicate that I want people to
Hsten to me. I merely call attention to the
fact that it is a serious business, and part of
my remarks I directed to two of the three
sitting there; indeed, I encompassed all three
of them at one point. I felt it appropriate to
call your attention to the behaviour of the
Minister of Correctional Services, a man who
has sat on important civil liberties organiza-
tions in this province previously.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have been sitting
here listening to you which you ought to
appreciate.
Mr. Sopha: And he so distracted the
Attorney General-
Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. member
please stick to the amendment?
Mr. Sopha: He so distracted the Attorney
General that the Attorney General perhaps
did not hear my challenge. I will repeat it.
I would like him to show us evidence of a
widespread abuse of the matter sought to be
prohibited here in Ontario, which has become
so rampant in our motoring population that
it is needful for the Legislature to fill the gap.
That is the type of thing we would like to
hear, because the work of the Legislature, of
course, is to pass legislation that attacks at
the very root, conduct or behaviour of
phenomena that exist in the province that
need a remedy and that demand a remedy.
The Attorney General, therefore, Mr. Chair-
man, should tell us where diflBculty has been
encountered in this area. It seems to me and
I call upon your own experience, Mr. Chair-
man, which I am sure will be similar in this
respect, that when a police officer stops a
motorist and parks his cruiser behind the car,
during the course of the time that the ofiicer
is walking from the cruiser up to the motorist's
car, the motorist has wound down the window
and is in the process of getting his hcence
out, and getting his insurance papers out so
that by the time the policeman gets there, the
motorist has them ready to hand to him. He
knows his responsibilities. It is ordinary con-
duct; he realizes the requirement to identify
himself and obligingly, voluntarily and
gratuitously has the papers ready for the
police officer.
If there are numbers of people that do
not do that and if their proportions are in-
creasing, then the Minister of Transport and
the Attorney General, who is responsible for
a police force numbering more, I think, than
4,000 people, should tell us about the experi-
ences that have been encountered that require
us now to act. If, as I suspect, on the other
hand, there is only a bare minimum, an
insignificant number of people who would be
contumacious enough not to produce their
licences, etc., then again, I ask, what is the
necessity for these far-ranging powers? May
the Lord forbid that we as a Legislature ever
attempt to expunge in entirety, the supreme
manifestation of individualism, of some indi-
vidual in this society who is prepared to sit
in the car, so taken up by the rights of the
individual, that seeing the policeman—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I point out to
the hon, member that his two colleagues are
laughing.
Mr. Sopha: That is about the measure of
your contribution.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well it is the measure
of theirs also.
Mr. Sopha: That the individual, so inured
with his conception of individual liberty, is
prepared to sit there and say, "The hell with
it, I will not tell him whom I am and I have
not got my driver's licence with me." A
Legislature of 117 people, the sovereign body
in the province, should not be called upon in
such circumstances to spend its time in pass-
ing legislation that arms the policeman with
powers of arrest because of that. We are
concerned with vices that are widespread
across the province and section 14 as it stood
was quite sufficient. It compels the motorist
to carry and produce his driver's licence.
The policeman may act in a summary
manner if he does not get it. I do not know
how he gets the identity. He follows him; he
follows him till he comes to roost somewhere
and he says, to someone who is there, "Well,
that is John Doe. Where does he live? He
lives on Chestnut Street." And he gets out a
summons and summons him before the pro-
vincial judge. I bet if you totalled up the
numbers that you had to do that to in a year,
the Attorney General would be able to count
them at the end of one year on the fingers of
one hand.
An hon. member: Right!
Mr. Sopha: The fingers of one hand, that
would be the niunber that would be en-
countered in the whole of Ontario. But
instead the Minister of Transport comes in
4244
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
here, indiscreetly in the face of the recom-
mendations made by Mr. McRuer, able jurist
that he was, who in one section of the report
said we should drastically reduce the number
of offences under which people may be
arrested without warrant. We should cut them
down to a bare minimum. The Attorney Gen-
eral agreed with that. The Attorney General
says, as a matter of policy, that I was quoting
to Judge Fowriezos only last week, I was
using the name of Arthur Wishart in the
courts and the Attorney General, as a matter
of policy said, on summary conviction
offences, people should be summoned, they
should not be arrested at all.
Mr. Singer: Well this shows how consistent
he is.
Mr. Sopha: I told Judge Fowriezos. Judge
Fowriezos nodded his assent. After all, the
Minister of Justice appointed him about three
months ago. He agrees with that. That is
the trend of the law, to keep people out of
jail, and Mr. McRuer recognized that trend.
Incidentally, I cannot resisit saying that Justice
Stewart, the other day in quoting— funny
Mr. McRuer means different things to differ-
ent people— in quoting Mr. McRuer, Justice
Stewart quoted the opposite of what he said.
The poor man, he has become such a
divining rod, and he has become such a
source of inspiration, like the Bible it is
possible to interpret various things from what
he says. But on this he is absolutely clear, he
wants to cut down the number of offences
under which people may be arrested and cait
down the powers of arrest under provincial
statutes.
Finally, the criminal law being within the
purview of the Parliament of Canada, it Ls
fit and proper that the powers of police to
arrest people should be consiunmate with the
crimes declared to be such by the Parliament
of Canada. This Legislature is not concerned
with crime. It is outside our jurisdiction. And
ultimately, in the provincial statutes to find
sections under which there is a power of
arrest, you should really have to scratch
hard. You should really have to scratch hard
because the moment that conduct becomes
widespread and offensive to the majority of
the citizenry, that it becomes a rebuff to
good taste and to vnse discretion, then the
Parliament of Canada is called upon to
declare it unlawful.
That is their function imder the power
of the crimiinal law. So really we should be
in a process of aibsolutely redudng the powers
of pohce to arrest people under provincial
statutes, but that as not whait the Minister of
Transport is doing.
He comes in with two more. Instead of re-
ducing them, he wants to add to them. We
would be divesting ourselves of our responsi-
bility on this side of the House if we acceded
to that trend. We cannot. We must resist it.
Indeed, we must stand up for the liberty of
the individual.
The crushing thing about the action of the
Minister of Transport is that now he is direct-
ing the powers of the police in the state
toward the law^biding individual, because
that one, that mythical person within the
four comers of that statute, is the person
who has done nothing to offend the law.
He may have done something to offend the
poUceman, but he has done nothing to offetid
the law. If he had, the Attorney General well
knows that the policeman has a plethora of
sections with which to take him down to the
station house for further investigation, and if
nothing else, in the reasonable and probable
grounds which is one of the most offensive
weapons in the poHceman's arsenal.
A niunber of points have been put in rela-
tion to it, and a number of challenges have
been thrown out. Let these Ministers of the
Crown get up and tell us. We will not have
the advantage of hearing from the Minister
of Correctiomal Services because he has
ducked out. He has copped out of it, the
way some of our youth do. He has gone,
flown the coop. He could not stand the gaff,
I guess, but we are left with three of the
high-priced help. We have Buddha in the
second row, and we have got the two that
are ultimately and immediately responsible.
The question is, which one gets up first to
defend these two foolish sections?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, it looks as if the Attorney
General is getting some advice from one of
his supporters that might very well be given
publicly for the edification of the House.
The thing that concerns me about the
amendment is to whom is this particular
amendment directed? There has been no indi-
cation from anyone on the government side
as to what particular crimes are going to be
controlled by giving this further power of
arrest. I doubt very much if a citizen of the
province, making his way over the King's
Highway in one of the black limousines that
we see from time to time leaving the parking
lot of the Parliament Buildings, would be
MAY 12, 1969
4245
stopped for the purposes of identification tliat
would be attriboita'ble to this amendment if
it were carried.
I think of the people who drive out from
the city of Hamilton to do a Mttle hunting out
rn the coxmtryside round about that city, and
particularly those of Italian extraction who
like to do this. It is of great interest to them.
I have had many of them come to my own
farm who perhaps know enough English to
get their driver's permit. But if they were
questioned by a police oflBcer, even though
they were very carefully going upon thedr
way, they might not be able to understand in
all detail what was required under this sec-
tion as far as the police officer was concerned.
The Attorney General said earlier in the
day, under another circumstance, that he
was anxious that the law be applied even-
handed here. It certainly is questionable, in
my mind, if the intent of this amendment is
even-handed justice. It is those perhaps who
would be less in a position to defend them-
selves as far as the police officer is concerned
who would be most in danger of the Idnd
of arrest that this section would make pos-
sible.
It is a real question if this power is neces-
sary. I think the previous speakers— certainly
the member for Sudbury, to whom I listened
with much attention— have brought before
the House a real question as to whether or
not the other sections of The Criminal Code
and The Highway Traffic Act do not cover
any possible eventuality for arrest, and that
this is designed to give the power of arrest
to that person who is stopped for reasons
that may not be justifiable in any extension
of the imagination.
I have a short quotation from the McRuer
report, from page 727, where he says:
Before the Legislature confers a power
peremptorily to deprive an individual of
his liberty, two questions should always be
asked.
The first, is the power necessary, and
the second, will the exercise of the power
impose a punishment out of all proportion
to the penalty that might be imposed by
a judicial officer if the person is found
guilty of the alleged offence.
I think those are two questions that the hon.
gentieman puts before us for our consider-
ation. I doubt very much if the Attorney
General or the Minister of Transport can give
satisfactory answers to that question in sup-
port of the amendment that they put before
us today.
The Minister of Transport has backed
down considerably from his requirements that
he put before the House when he introduced
the bill on first reading. Still, I think that
the need of the section is questionable in its
entirety, and that a sensible member of this
House in opposition or in support of the
government will simply vote against its being
given approval by the committee.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think it
would be appropriate at this time to propose
the amendment that all the words after the
word "repealed" in clause 8 of Bill 105 be
deleted.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. J. Renwick moves that
all the words after the word "repealed" in
clause 8 of Bill 105— now is that in the
amended clause?
Mr. Singer: He meant Bill 105, not clause
105.
Mr. Chairman: No, he said clause 8 of
Bill 105. Does the hon. member refer to the
amendment now before the committee?
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, that all the words
after the word "repealed" in clause 8 of
Bill 105 be deleted.
Mr. Chairman: Well, this amendment is
not an amendment to the motion before the
committee; it is an amendment to clause 8
as it appears in the bill.
Mr. Singer: Clause 8 as amended. The
Minister has moved an amendment; he is
moving it further. ^^"""^
Mr. Chairman: Well, I cannot accept two
separate motions at the same time. I mean
this is a separate motion and we already have
a motion before us. Only one motion may be
before the committee at one time,
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the motion
being offered by the member for Riverdale is
a separate motion and could be made after
we have dealt with the amendment to the
section and before passing the section, if he
is so minded.
Mr. Chairman: The only thing is that when
a motion to amend a particular section is de-
feated, that particular section carries. So if
the motion of the hon. Minister is defeated,
section 8 as it appears in the bill will carry.
Mr. Singer: No.
Mr. Chairman: Yes. If the motion of the
hon. Minister is carried, then further debate
4246
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
may be entertained, and I would accept the
motion from the hon. member for Riverdale
at that time.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, with that
clarification I will withdraw the motion.
Mr. Chairman: Right. We still have be-
fore us the amendment moved by the hon.
Minister. Is there any further debate or
does the hon. Minister wish to reply?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I feel
it rather incumbent upon me to say some-
thing after this rather edifying debate from
the time this bill was called on Friday. We
have heard a succession of orations from a
number of very learned members of the law,
and I have listened carefully to what has
been said by each one. I have tried to ap-
praise its significance and rationalize what
was offered and endeavoured to assess its
relevance to what we are discussing here now.
When I introduced this bill, I pointed out
very clearly what we were seeking to do at
that time, and I said that another important
change in the Act concerns powers of arrest.
In the section listing the offences for which
police officers may arrest without a warrant
—and perhaps some members should listen to
this, because they do not appear to have
heard it, nor to have read the bill— I pro-
posed deleting three offences, which seemed
inappropriate, concerning the position of the
licence plate on vehicles, notification of
change in vehicle ownership and notification
of change of address. I am proposing also
that two new offences be added to the list,
namely, failing to remain at the scene of a
collision, and the failure of a driver to prop-
erly identify himself to a police constable. I
think that is very clear in setting forth just
what I intended doing. The latter change is
part of a significant group of amendments
designed to facilitate reasonable enforcement
in the public interest.
In the past a driver has been required by
law-
Mr. Singer: You have 12 here, and McRuer
said you should not have any.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I was not giving any
trouble when I listened before. I listened to
the member, and he would not have any
interruptions when he was speaking, though
I tried to correct things he was saying where
I thought he was misleading the House.
In the past, a driver has been required by
law to produce his driver's licence at the
command of a police constable. But if he
failed to do so or displayed it so quickly
that it could not be read, a constable had no
power to act. The officer could find himself
in a position that he could not ascertain the
name of a driver he wished to charge and
therefore could not lay a charge.
I think the member for Downsview, after
he had divested himself of the lecture on civil
liberties that he thought the Minister of
Transport sorely needed, proceeded to base
his argument on the fact that there was no
reason why it had to be done; there was no
deficiency in the enforcement of the law
resulting from the inability of the police
officer to get this. Therefore, I am putting in
my story- and I used those words when I
introduced the bill— and I say to this House
now that year after year the chiefs of police
of Ontario have come to me and have com-
plained about the way their hands were tied
in dealing with situations on the highway
where they were dealing with what they con-
sidered were serious problems that could not
be resolved with the powers given them
under section 14 or other sections of the Act.
I suggest to you, sir, that it was basically
because of that, that the McRuer report
spelled out, after having dealt with the
powers of arrest that were added to the dis-
cussion by the member for Lakeshore.
In succeeding pages, sir, after he had said
those things about powers of arrest, he said
that he thought the matter could be dealt
with if there was that power of arrest given
for those refusing to identify themselves.
In my original bill, I dealt with the powers
of arrest for failing to identify, and the word-
ing was "to the reasonable satisfaction of the
constable." That was a part that I corrected,
because I think after listening to arguments
and having considered the full significance
of it, I was prepared to withdraw. I make
no apology for that; I want this bill to be a
good bill. I am interested in serving the
interests of the public, and so we changed
the wording of that.
The hon. member for Downsview tried to
point out, in his petulance, when he first
started on Friday morning, the whole prin-
ciple is changed now. He had a lecture for
the Minister on civil rights— and he was going
to delixer it— and now, of course, he says the
change is so minor, what difference does it
make. But I spell out for the House, sir, why
we have done that. The chiefs of police felt
they needed that to deal with the criminal
element and others that they encounter.
Now Mr. McRuer said— and we said— first
of all, a motor vehicle is a dangerous machine;
if it is not carefully used it is a lethal one.
MAY 12, 1969
4247
It is a convenient vehicle for the commission
of crimes of all sorts. Those who take motor
vehicles on the highways have no civil riglit
to do so; they may do so only if they hold a
licence for that purpose.
Let us look at this thing in proper sequence
and in proper perspective— and we begin with
section 14 of the Act, which says under
licensing in subsection 1: "Every operator of
a motor vehicle shall carry his licence with
him at all times." So, for the member for
Sudbury, there is the offence.
Every operator of a motor vehicle shall
carry his licence with him at all times while
he is in charge of a motor vehicle, and shall
produce it when demanded by a constable
or by an ofiBcer appointed for carrying out
provisions of this Act.
So there is the first offence, and then we went
on to reinforce that by saying that,
Every person who is unable or refuses
to produce his licence, in accordance with
subsection 1, shall when requested by a
constable give reasonable identification of
himself.
I think that is the language of Mr. McRuer
himself, and for purposes of this subsection,
the correct name and address of such person
shall be deemed to be a reasonable identifica-
tion.
I turn to what the member for Riverdale
had to say, and I think that his reasoned and
sound approach to the matter of identification
was helpful. However, he went on and dealt
with the situation that would evolve if a
policeman required the man to give his name
and address for identification purposes and
receives it, and it was a correct name and
address, and he doubted it. What would he
do? I think the hon. member for Riverdale
went ahead and answered his own question
very ably. Because, if the man were arrested
after having given his proper name and
address, then the policeman is in trouble. I
think that is what he said, and I think he
would be right. I think the courts will settle
that matter, and the police will know how
far their rights go. That answer was amplified
by the member for Lakeshore, when he said
the police have the facilities for \ery quickly
checking out a man's name and address, and
I think this is so. I look at the situation as
it confronts the enforcement officer on our
highways, and I think of the civil rights of
people— the civil rights of those who have
offended, the civil rights of those the police
may have reason to suspect have been in-
volved in commission of crimes, people who
may be driving without a licence while a
licence is suspended, or while it is prohibited
from driving; people who are driving stolen
vehicles— they have no right to. All he has to
give him, if he is an honest man, is his right
name and address. That is what the hon.
member for Riverdale was dealing with very
adequately, and the member for Lakeshore
amplified how the needs of that situation
would be met. I say to you that if we are
going to expect the police officer to protect
the law-abiding citizens, they have to have,
in my view, this further power.
We were talking about civil rights, and in
this case, we are looking at civil rights of
all people. But they seem to divide into two
cases— the civil rights of those who have
offended, by taking motor vehicles on the
liighway without the hcence that entitles
them to do so; already they are lawbreakers
in that sense. On the other hand, we have
the civil rights of the innocent, of the law-
abiding, the reasonable citizens who either
will have tlieir licence with them or, failing
that, will offer their correct name and address
without any difficulty. All we are asking for
here is that the police be given what I con-
sider is essential to them in carrying out their
duties to protect the general public and other
users of tlie highways. And I suggest to you
that tlie language of the amendment of this
subsection 8 in the bill is eminently sensible,
and I am sure that the reasonable members
will agree with that.
Mr. Singer: The explanation of the Min-
ister makes the case worse than it was when
it started. Not only does he not stand there
in any humbleness, he says what we did was
perfectly reasonaible and logical, and what
could be more logical than that it is lurged
by the chiefs of poHce.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, we do not come
here to pass only laws that are urged by the
chiefs of pohce. If there has been this kind
of a brief, would we not think that all mem-
bers would have had the advantage of seeing
it? I would like to know if the chiefs of
police— either collectively or through an indi-
vidual spokesman— Avould be prepared to tell
us how many criminals have escaped, because
there is not a power to arrest without war-
rants somebody who refuses to identify him-
self. I would like to have heard the Minister
say that; I would hke to have heard the
Minister tell us about what incidence of
crime has resulted because the police aue not
able to find out the identity of a driver.
The Minister sidestejxped that remark. In-
stead, he clothed himself in tlie mantle of
self-righteoTisness, and said that the member
4248
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for Dovvnsview was insulting him. Mr. Chair-
man, I was insulting him, and I will insult
any Minister who brings this kind of un-
realistic, unfair, autocratic, dictator-like legis-
lation before the House, because I beHeve it
is wrong and I believe it is an invasion of
the civil rights of the citizens of this province.
And that I will continue to do as long as I
am here.
Tlie Minister has given no justification for
this; he has not told us why the powers in
the Criminal Code that allow arrest witliout a
warrant are not enough. What is the evil, as
my colleague from Sudbiiry said, what is the
evil that exists that he is trying to circum-
scribe? What is he trying to prevent? What
wrongdoers are escaping because pohoe
officers and the Minister's personal army do
not have this power today— let him tell us
that. He has not. He mentioned something
about stolen vehicles. Is he familiar with the
sections in the code about theft, indictable
offences? The pohceman does his work, and
if he has reasonable and probable grounds to
beheve that an indictable offence has taken
place, he can arrest without a warrant. He
does not need the additional power that the
Minister is trying to give him now.
Mr. Sopha: Right, come down to the sta-
tion, he says.
Mr. Singer: Sure. "There is a stolen vehicle;
you have got it; I have reason to beheve
that you have stolen it; oflF we go." He does
not need this additional power. What con-
cerns me is what my leader mentioned, that
this is going to give the power to the police
to effect selectively a kind of enforcement
that we are not very happy about. It is
much more likely that three young men driv-
ing in a car on the Toronto streets— not a
new car, and driven by three young men who
perhaps do not understand our ways as well
as the people who drive an expensive Cadil-
lac—are going to be stopped by the police and
suddenly taken down to the station as the
police go on a fishing expedition. What
bothers me, and I will read the words again,
are the words used by Dalton Wells when
he examined this particular case, where Dal-
ton Wells says:
It might be inferred from the conduct
of tliese policemen that, in tlieir opinion,
the law governing the right to arrest was
simply a pious statement to which one
paid lip service, but which, of course, was
not allowed to interfere with the more
effective and efficient measures of their
own devising.
Surely that sums up tlie whole argument that
we have been making— and it is an argument
that has in it abundant good sense. We do
not want to give them more power; we do
not want to listen only to the words of the
chiefs of police. If the chiefs of poHce have
briefs to present, let tliem present them to
all members of the Legislature.
One of the latest presentiments made by
the chief of police of Metropolitan Toronto
was to the effect that nobody should wiretap
except him, and when he wants to use his
own discretion. I think that is a horrible sug-
gestion. If we only pass laws as suggested
by the chiefs of police, why not just move
the chiefs of police in here to this Legislature
and let them be the lawmakers, not the law
enforcers. That is something I cannot sub-
scribe to, Mr. Chairman, and any Minister
who suggests that is going to get this sort
of treatment in this House.
Finally, sir, I say this: The Minister says:
The hon. member for Downsview
neglected to remark that I have taken out
three offences from the statute which gives
power to arrest without a warrant, but I
put two back in.
In fact, there are 14 tliat he has left in— 14
powers within The Highway TraflBc Act to
arrest without a warrant, notwithstanding
what McRuer said; 14 powers are still there.
Surely, Mr. Chairman— and I recognize there
is no point in ajipealing to the Minister of
Transport — through you to the Attorney
General will prevail upon his ministerial
colleague to take this section back and not
to give us one more step towards this kind
of control being put in the hands of police
forces. I think it is wrong.
Are our memories so short that we do not
remember Bill 99 and all the public outcry
that came as a result of that? As my col-
league, the member for Sudbury stated, the
reason that the present occupant of that office
is there is because of Bill 99.
Why was the pubfic so horrified about Bill
99? Why were the members of the Legisla-
ture so horrified about it? Why were members
of the government party so horrified about it?
Because it gave to the pohoe powers of
arrest and imprisonment without a warrant.
That was the thing that nearly brought the
government down. Surely, Mr. Chairman, one
would expect that they would learn a lesson.
But without any justification, here we go
again.
Who is it over there who feels that the
police have to have more power? And why
does he feel so? If he cannot stand up and
MAY 12, 1969
4249
give reasons other than the chiefs of police
think it is a good idea, surely, Mr. Chairman,
he has no business as a memiber of tfie
Cabinet, of a democratic government, in this
province.
Mr. J. Renwick: I only want to make a
brief comment. It seems to have come down
in my mind to a very simple proposition, but
I think there is a real vice inherent in the
amendment which is proposed.
The Highway TraflBc Act has stood for
many years with the provision in it that to be
on the highway you must have a permit, and
a police officer can require you to produce the
permit. The reason why that has fulfilled its
purpose is that it was usually ancillary, as
other members have said, to the commission
of other offences.
The police constable operated on the
reasonable and probable groiuids and then, as
incidental to the arrest or the charging of a
person witli an oflFence, he would ask for
the permit, ask to be shown it. If a person
did not have it, he would summons him as an
additional offence, after having decided
whether or not to arrest on the grounds for
which he originally stopped the vehicle.
But when you extend it, as the Minister
has extended it, what you have done is to
move from that kind of operation of the
pohce officers under The Highway Traffic
Act to put the balance in favour of random
spot-checking on the highway without any
reason whatsoever.
This now means that police can spot-check.
This raises a separate and distinct problem
because, of course, during the Christmas and
holiday seasons spot-checking has been in-
stituted by the Toronto police for some
several years with very beneficial results and
very few complaints have been raised about
it.
But it is the spot-checking which will now
enable a police constable, where he did not
formerly have the right, to stop a vehicle
and if the person does not have his permit,
to go and subject the person to the possibility
of arrest. It is difficult for the driver of the
vehicle and it is difficult for the police
officer.
I question whether or not we should leave
it up to the courts to decide after the event
whether or not the power of arrest should
have been exercised. It will be extremely diffi-
cult for the motorist, it will be extremely
difficult for the police officer.
Therefore the vice of it, as I see it, is that
it tends to swing the balance in favour of
spot-checking automobiles on the highway.
And a spot-check, in a sense, is an arbitrary
use by the police of a power to stop a
vehicle solely for the purpose of demanding
the production of the licence.
They were entitied to do that before, but
if the driver had his licence that was the
end of it. If the driver did not have his
licence, the police officer was up against a
roadblock in getting the identity of the person
behind the wheel. But on balance I think
that was a wise protection for the public
against a misuse by the police of the arbitrary
power to spot-check vehicles.
That is the vice I see inherent in it, and
the vice to which the Minister has not ad-
dressed his remarks, and the reason why,
in due course, we will vote for the amend-
ment but against this clause in the bill.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Dovercourt.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): I was
going to ask the hon. Minister a question,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to know from
his conversations with the chiefs of police
what particular crimes the chiefs can pre-
vent by the passage of this section, other
than the fact that they think it is a good
idea?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I pointed
out to the House that situations in which the
police find themselves when they are trying
to make use of section 14, where a driver
either refuses to produce his licence or pro-
duces it and pulls it back so quickly that it
is not possible to read it. These are the
situations, I think, that give rise to the prob-
lem. The driver just closes his window and
drives off. It can result in a high-speed
chase with the ensuing dangers.
Mr. Singer: Oh dear, dear!
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, in my prac-
tice I have had quite a bit of experience in
the courts in connection with traffic offences.
I can see this very section causing a great
deal of trouble.
Firstly, if a policeman sees someone com-
mit an offence under The Highway Traffic
Act or The Criminal Code he stops that car,
tells the person he has committed the offence
or, in the opinion of the police officer, he has
conmiitted the offence, and he is arrested.
I worry about this aspect of the situation,
when a person is driving along in a spot-
check or just driving along and the police
4250
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
officer comes up, stops him and says, "pro-
duce your licence". If the man cannot pro-
duce his licence because he has forgotten it,
then he turns out to be a man like the hon.
member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R.
Smith), if the policeman does not believe his
name is John Smith he puts him in jail.
This is the whole point, it leaves an arbi-
trary power in the hands of police to decide
when there has been no offence committed,
other than the fact that the person had for-
gotten his driver's licence, the policeman can
make an arbitrary decision and arrest the
person. This, Mr. Chairman, I submit, is an
infringement of a person's civil rights in that
a person walking on the street is not subject
to this type of enactment, so there is a distinc-
tion between a person walking on the street
and a man driving his motor vehicle on the
highway.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I inter-
jected some remarks earlier in this debate
when the hon. member was speaking and I
have just one brief comment to add. I have
noted through all the discussion, the sugges-
tion taken from McRuer that there were per-
haps too many offences in The Highway
Traffic Act where arrests could be made by a
constable without warrant, and the argument
seems to run that they should be removed.
Mr. McRuer did mention those offences,
he gave examples of seven such offences. On
page 729 of his first volume, he outlines sev-
eral of those and said perhaps there were too
many of that type of offence in our present
Highway Traffic Act. My colleague, the hon.
Minister of Transport, has removed three-
Mr. Singer: And put two new ones back,
leaving a total of 14.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, I am coming to
that. He put two new ones back, and that is
the very point I wanted to make. Perhaps he
will come to look at son>e of those others one
day. I will leave that to him in our discus-
sions, but note this: Mr. McRuer at the end
of his discussion on this subject, at page 741—
and this is the important thing— this is one of
the two offences, of the two that he said
should 1x3 in this Act, and I read from his
report. That is recommendation 2, on page
741.
Powers of arresting without a warnint
under The Highway Traffic Act should be
restricted to those cases where there is a
failure on the part of a driver of a motor
\ehiclp to identify himself and the owner
of the vehicle, without reasonable cause be-
ing shown.
This is one of the two that Mr. McRuer said:
This is tlie tiling that should be in the Act,
and you could restrict it to that.
Mr. Singer: How would you interpret the
word "restricted"?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, he said— and those
are his words— "Powers of arresting without
a warrant under The Highway Traffic Act
should be restricted" to this.
Mr. Singer: Yes, so you are compromising
by keeping in force—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It is this which my col-
league is doing. Mr. McRuer says this is the
important one-
Mr. Singer: He says one and you say 14
and that is reasonable.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: He says this is the one
to which your power of arrest should be re-
stricted. In his mind, the hon. member for
Sudbury said, you should leave crimes to the
federal government. True. Mr. McRuer says
a motor vehicle is a dangerous weapon. It can
be lethal. It can be used in the commission
of crime, and you are touching, here, very
close to the criminal law, as the hon. Mr.
McRuer pointed out. But this is the one rec-
ommendation where he said: Put in the
power of arrest without warrant in this situ-
ation. That is his recommendation. That was
all I wanted to add to this discussion.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I just want one
more very brief word. As the Attorney Gen-
eral read recommendation number 2 on page
741, he read the word "restricted". As the
Attorney General uses the word "McRuer,"
it is almost as though he were referring to
holy writ. I do not quite accept it that way.
Even if this were the be all and the end all,
surely the word, restricted means limited.
The Attorney General says, "Let us restrict it
to the one power." But you have not. You
have 14. Look at section 74, count up the
powers of arrest v^dthout a warrant.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. The hon. member now is
away oflF base. He is talking about several
other sections, other powers of arrest, other
offences. I admit those are in the Act, but
the point of this discussion is this amend-
ment. Is this power of arrest to be left in this
Act? That is what we are talking about. Not
the others. Let us please adhere to order in
this debate.
MAY 12, 1969
4251
Mr. Singer: The Attorney General really
cannot have it both ways. He said, if all
others are taken out, this one should stay.
And now, when I want to answer that he
says I am out of order. I just do not accept
that, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to have heard from the At-
torney General the basic reason for this.
Does he agree that if the chiefs of police
complain, that is enough? Have the chiefs of
police complained to him about it? I would
like to have heard him say that. I would like
to have heard the Attorney General, who
after all, is a man learned in law, whose legal
ability I have great respect for, tell me, tell
the House, tell the people of Ontario, what
serious things you are going to prevent, if
you have this ix)wer.
What horrible crimes are going to be com-
mitted that cannot be dealt with under the
present provisions of The Criminal Code of
Canada? That was what I would like to have
heard the Attorney General address himself
to, because after all, he is the chief law
officer of Ontario.
From time to time, we read in the papers
about various thoughts that various chiefs of
police have. And I am glad to say, on most
occasions, since this honourable gentleman
has been occupying this important post, he
has paid very little attention to those recom-
mendations. I would like to know the extent
to which the chiefs of poHce feel this is
important and the arguments they put for-
ward to back this up.
What is the disease that you are trying to
cure? You are taking away a bit of the
liberty of the citizen of Ontario. I do not
think there is, but it may be tliat you have
a good reason for it. Can you tell us the
reason? Can your colleague, the Minister of
Transport, tell us the reason? Because up till
now there has not been one scintilla of evi-
dence addressed to the reason other than the
vagaries of a sentence from McRuer.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Halton West.
Mr. Kerr: I think it is important that if
the hon. members for Downsview or Sud-
biuy or any other hon. members are going
to quote at length from McRuer, and then
ignore the final recommendation which ap-
phes to the amendment with which we are
dealing today, they will give a false inter-
pretation of his recommendations and the
principles he lays down in this particular
chapter.
The hon. Minister has quoted at length
from McRuer, and the important thing that
he has said is that the requirement is no
invasion of civil rights. It is not a question
of civil rights. You are dealing with a motor
vehicle. That is what I was trying to get
across in my interjection when the hon.
member for Riverdale was speaking.
Mr. J. Renwick: You did not make it and
you are not making it now.
Mr. Kerr: Well, I am trying. It is different
from stopping a man on the street, and with-
out any justification, any cause whatsoever,
asking him for some identification or his
name and address. For the life of me, Mr.
Chairman, I cannot understand why it is an
invasion of civil rights when a person, a
citizen of this country, and I assume a
respossible citizen, is asked for his name and
address— particularly and only, I might say,
in this case when he is the operator of a
motor vehicle.
I think that, when there are so many
vehicles on the highway and so many offences
involving motor vehicles, this is a simple
question and a simple answer will satisfy the
police officer. I would suggest that, in a way,
this amendment goes to some length in re-
ducing the requirements of the operator of a
motor vehicle, because in many cases people
forget licences, forget wallets, misplace wal-
lets, and have no real means of identffication
whatsoever.
So, by simply having a co-operative atti-
tude, and saying my name is so and so, and
I live at such and such an address, should
satisfy the police officer.
Mr. J. Renwick: It is not a co-operative
attitude. It is going to be a matter of law.
Mr. Kerr: The hon. member says the amend-
ment reads "correct name and address". The
word correct is redundant. It implies that the
name and address should be a correct one.
Dealing with the point raised by the hon.
member for Riverdale, I think that if a motor-
ist gives his correct name and address and
the police officer does not accept it, and
arrests him, it could very well be an unlawful
arrest.
This imposes an extra responsibility on the
police officer. However, there may be reason-
able and probable grounds for not accepting
the motorist's information, requiring a police
officer to confirm that information. But cer-
tainly some responsibility should be given to
the police officer. I do not think they are all
unreasonable men, trying to push people
4252
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
around. There is the odd example of this, but
I still feel-
Mr. J. Renwick: You are not suggesting
that they are all reasonable either.
Mr. Kerr: No, I do not, Mr. Chairman. But
I suggest that to follow the recommendation
of some of the members opposite, that we
should rely on the charges that are now in
The Criminal Code, and not amend The High-
way TraflRc Act, this involves many more
serious charges. The whole process of laying
an indictable offence or issuing a summons or
information would be much more annoying
to the average citizen. But I think the hon.
member for Sudbury— when he made that re-
mark about telling the police officer to go fly
a kite or something like that— really this is
not a question of civil rights; whether I
should, as a citizen, be required to answer a
police officer's simple question, and it could
be a very reasonable question, I think, in the
operation of a motor vehicle. As McRuer
I)oints out, this is a place where there is an
exception. I think he should be required to
answer that, in our society today.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
l)orough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, could I ask the Minister of Transport
a few very simple questions? Would this
amendment apply to drivers of Sld-doos?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think it would apply to a driver of a motor-
ized snow vehicle because they are not in-
cluded under The Highway Traffic Act.
Mr. Sopha: They have got themselves in a
box about Ski-doos. You might as well lay
that one on the floor of the Legislature. They
are in a position now with an outdated defini-
tion of a motor vehicle in The Criminal Code,
passed in about 1952. I hope the Attorney
General listens too, and I hope the registrar
of vehicles also listens to this. They have the
definition of a motor vehicle in The Criminal
Code, which defines a motor vehicle to be
anything driven by other than muscular
power. The sec-tion in The Criminal Code
creates an offence of driving without a
license, as against the provision in The High-
way Traffic Act which stipulates that no
license is required to drive a Ski-doo.
This LegLslature has expressed its intent
that you can drive a Ski-doo without a
license. But The Criminal Code has not been
amended to conform with the intent of this
Legislature, so you have the anomalous situ-
ation of people going into the magistrates'
court charged with operating a motor vehicle
while their license is under suspension, and
being convicted under The Criminal Code;
this is a real irony. I want to point out to
you, Mr. Chairman, the real irony of it is that
the individual goes in and he tells the provin-
cial judge, "Look, I ask you to look only to
the intent of the Legislature of Ontario, which
has jurisdiction over these things. Look at
that, and bear with me that the Parliament
of Canada has not foimd time to catch up
with that intent of the arrival of a new device,
a new machine, a product of a technological
age". In his argument the strict reading of
the law must be rejected, and then the irony
arises. He could not look to The Highway
Traffic Act to rescue him, but when the judge
comes to impose the penalty, where does he
get the penalty from? From your old buddy,
the Minister of Transport, under The High-
way Traffic Act, then his license must be sus-
pended as a matter of law for six months.
On the one hand the statute could not
help him, but on tlie otlier, it certainly can
punish him. I hope it will not be many moons
before you will rectify that anomaly, or ask
the federal government to bring their statute
up to date with the intent of this Legislature
or on the other hand require people to have
a licence to have a Ski-doo. One or the
other, but you have to feel the injustice, as
the person is caught between two stools in
the provincial judges' court. I wish that court
had been left tlie name magistrates' court;
that was a lovely name.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, what are
we talking about, may I enquire, or are we
on this legislation at all? I fail to follow this
discussion. It is not in order.
Mr. Sopha: All right. I made the point.
The Attorney General is just slow. He is the
arbiter of points in order; it used to be Leslie
Frost, now it is the Attorney General who is
the arbiter.
The Attorney General and the Minister of
Transport did not tell us about what the
chiefs of police said to them; not a thing.
Mr. Singer: That is right. The Attorney
General did not even say that tlie chiefs
talked to him about it.
Mr. Sopha: The Minister of Transport had
a delegation of the chiefs of police, and it
must be said in all frankness, we have won-
derful people engaged in law enforcement in
this country and in this province, but it has
to be said in recognition of reality that they
MAY 12, 1969
4253
are not always on the side of civil liberty.
They are on the side of constricting them,
so it was obligatory on the part of the Min-
ister of Transport, Mr. Chairman, to tell us
what vices the chiefs of police mentioned to
him. He said he had the delegation. So what,
he gets lots of delegations, but we are deal-
ing with an important-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: If you will give me one min-
ute I will complete it. We are dealing vdth an
important deprivation of liberty. The Attor-
ney General— and I can say it in one minute
—left laying on the table, Mr. Chairman, a
gigantic non sequitur. He failed to realize that
Mr. McRuer was ready to sacrifice the power
of arrest for all of the offences, and Mr. Mc-
Ruer would settle for what? It may be that if
the Minister of Transport came in here witli
Bill 105 abolishing tiie power to arrest in
respect of all the offences save one, we might
agree. I cannot find the leader of the Opposi-
tion, the leader of the Liberal Party in On-
tario—we will talk about it— but it is con-
ceivable that we might agree. They do not
do that, so the Attorney General's argument
cannot wash, and we must vote against this
the next time it is called.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee
rise and report progress.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
Chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report pro-
gress and asks for leave to sit again.
Rei>ort agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Private notice of
Motion No. 30, by Mr. R. G. Hodgson.
Resolution: That in the opinion of this
House there is need to broaden the scope
of the Ontario Development Corporation
to cover financing for the modernization,
the expansion of accommodation, recrea-
tional and food facihties, in the tourist
industry.
Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Muskoka (Mr. Boyer), resolution
No. 30, standing in my name on the order
paper.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria-
Haliburton, seconded by the member for
Muskoka moves resolution No, 30 standing in
his name on the Ofder paper.
Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, this
province of Ontario is endowed with a
greater variety of tourist attractions than any
other comparable area on the continent. We
are aware of the benefits from the tourist
dollar. With that awareness we must not
overlook a constant need to provide for and
to keep an environment with clean, safe rivers
and lakes. An ever-active advertising and
publicity programme, good highways, and not
least of all, an up-to-date level of services for
om* visitors who create the vital part of the
industry as consumers. The tourist trade must
provide all the many needs of people for
travel, accommodation and enjoyment.
Such a task, for those involved in services
to our tourists, requires the provision of tools.
Because of this, and the approaches made
to me as a member for a tourist industry
endowed area, I found it most rewarding to
introduce this resolution. One that I hope will
encourage this government to enter a plan to
provide for needs within the tourist industry
on a more adequate basis to assist owners of
tourist operations.
The Ontario development agency's prime
responsibility is the function of providing
financial advice and last-resort working capital
to industry in this province. We now have
its enlargement into equal opportunity for an
industry grants programme that has proven
to be of value. It can, in my opinion, be the
vehicle to extend the terms of this resolution
to the need of our vital tourist industry in
development and updating.
Today the bulk of tourist industry financing
in Ontario comes through normal bank loans
and mortgages. Institutional and private.
Detailed statistics are not available due to
financial institutions not tabulating this lend-
ing by specific classification of industry.
Many opverators in this industry have not
always been in a position to present their
needs to financial institutions on a basis com-
parable with that of other phases of the
business community. Many are small business-
men and women, and keep their books in off
hours while working regular shifts with their
employers. While such records suffice for
necessary returns to government and general
operations, they are under great difficulties in
supporting long-term credit. Thus, they have
also found conventional financial institutions
reluctant to make sufficient money available.
4254
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There has been an understandable con-
sideration that this is a high risk element in
society because of its seasonal nature and
devotion to summer trade spread over a maxi-
mum occupancy or eight wrecks.
Most nations have introduced subsidies for
new resort accommodation, I believe we as
a province should devote resources to up-
grading an existing industry which finds dif-
ficulty in this time of competition for capital
tliat has so many opportunities of high rates
of interest. Otherwise an industry that should
advance benefit to the economy will be
hindered in providing help to our economic
problem areas.
I believe we see a trend today toward
greater and greater emphasis on motels and
campsites. This has run ahead while a hold-
their-owTi or decreasing emphasis is the trend
in major new resort developments. This could
be directly the result of diflBcuky in short
season operations obtaining capital in suffi-
cient quantity at a cost the trade can absorb.
This government must continue to look
closely at this part of tourism and develop
means of providing financing to such opera-
tions which will always form an important
part of the tourist industry as well. It is not
my immediate concern in extent as is the
existing industry and its services.
It has proven by experience in monetary
affairs that if governments wish to develop
a section of industry, a corresponding credit
institution should be organized. Most govern-
ments recognize the tourist industry as an
export industry and frequently they give
exemptions from taxation in order to en-
courage the export— in our case here— tourism.
I do not remember our people requesting
these features, but on many occasions re-
quests for adequate financing have been
made. General briefs were presented at the
standing committee of this House in this ses-
sion that contained sections on this problem.
I am not aware of financing special privi-
leges in Canada for recreation facilities today,
and I believe we must lead in this field in
order to keep a thriving industry such as
tourism advancing. Capital for modernization
at reasonable rates can do the job. Without
it we unbalance our potential development.
Lack of credit availability has been a
deterrent to more complete expansion for
some years. It is not a new problem arising
from current pressures on capital supply, but
is now enlarged with added emphasis. More
income can be the result of this capital need
being met. It would provide for a greater
variety of services and amenities within the
existing operations as well as enlargement of
the accommodation units.
It can meet the need of the industry for
improvement, replacement of established re-
sorts, restaurants, hotels, motels, camps and
attractions.
The abundance of scenic inland waterways
in Ontario has made this province a mecca
for boating and water sports. The marina
services are in need of finances, especially to
develop the services to handle the waste dis-
posal problem to meet the requirements of
pollution control. There is great need for
better boat-launching ramps, improved docks,
breakwater facilities and fueling provisions.
We know that our policies governing the
management of provincial parks is under
constant review and such an approach is
highly desirable to meet the needs of all cit-
izens and visitors. I believe it is also an
opportune time to review our methods of
providing adequate camping sites, and trailer
facilities by competitive enterprise of other
than government operation and direct involve-
ment.
There is today an industry that can expand
to meet the need, there is adequate land and
labour available to meet present forecasts
without too great a strain on such resources.
We should look carefully at Switzerland
and benefit from their experience in the
winter resort tourism development. There, in
the late forties and early fifties, assistance by
finances provided for modernizing established
hotels, chalets, motels and other forms of
accommodation. At this time they faced the
problem of reasonable summer accommo-
dation, but not nearly enough winterized
facilities. Today we have expanding winter
activity of skiing, skating, snowmobiling and
just plain walking in the snow and sunshine
of Ontario. Utilization of facilities over 100
days of winter, plus the summer eight weeks
mean we are reaching close to the accepted
minimum of 50 per cent occupancy rate over
the year suggested by some as necessary.
Steam baths and heated swimming pools arc
additions in many operations that operators
have mentioned as being requested more and
more by customers.
Skiing is a popular pastime, attracting
many tourists from not only our province but
from the USA. It needs additional funds for
installation of recreational equipment such
as tows and "T" bars, and a proper amount
of accommodation able to cater to this trade.
However, I must point out funds must not
be expended in only one area of this province
on these features, but we must devote a great
MAY 12, 1969
4255
measure to widespread development within
present summer areas in order to utilize more
fully the accommodation already available
over a longer term of time.
It must also provide finances in a way to
improve the opportunity to other resorts in
a given area within the plan of assistance.
Therefore, I believe one requirement is to
provide public facilities available to anyone
by this programme as a requirement of any
loan granted.
I would like to examine with you a most
interesting page from a submission of the
directors of the Canadian Tourist Associa-
tion to the members of the federal Cabinet
in July of 1966. It is page nine that covers
features of comment on balanced promotion
and development and examples of hotel loans
abroad. I quote:
The provision in many countries, alert
to the importance of tourist dollars, for
financial assistance in the development of
the "plant", and establishment of a suit-
able relationship between travel faciUties
development and tourist promotion.
A few examples of hotel loan funds may be
useful:
The French government has set up a
national tourism fund for financing tiie con-
stmction of new hotels and other facilities
in co-operation witih private investors. Loans
are made at 6% per cent for construction
purposes, and five per cent for moderniza-
tion and equipment.
In Greece, the public service grants loans
for hotel construction at six to eight per cent
interest rate up to 50 per cent of the cost of
the work to be done, loan period up to 15 to
20 years.
In the Netherlands, the government al-
lows credits for the construction, enlarge-
ment and renovation of hotels, provided the
owner furnishes one-third of the total invest-
ment. These credits are for a maximum of 15
years with 5% per cent interest rate. The
government guarantees 75 per cent of the
credit, and the National Reconstruction Bank
the remaining 25 per cent.
West Germany gives 15-year loans to
operators at four per cent interest. Eire has
recently established a 5-million-pound loan
fund. There are many other examples in the
Caribbean countries, Europe and the South
Pacific.
The question may arise, how far should
governments go in creating these advantages
in accommodation investment? The answer is
that they must go far enough to get the
private money moving into the kinds of
operations and in the areas where they are
needed. It is better to go slowly and slightly
farther than necessary than to fall short, as
is the case now.
We have a related field to finances in that
of adequate trained personnel which can
easily be met by this government encourag-
ing and developing the plans of Sir Sandford
Fleming Community College for its Lindsay
campus, now in proposed form. This can
easily be developed to provide the needs of
this industry in the management and food
service manpower.
The need becomes more evident, and
would add a necessary part to the develop-
ment of this industry of tourism. The whole
range of recreational personnel can easily be
developed at such a college. The industry
of the area would welcome The Department
of Education fulfilling the resource in
greater measure, and here is where to do it,
right in the middle of one of the largest
tourist areas.
What could be today and what should be
tomorrow have to be harmonized into one
unified course of action for the tourist in-
dustry in Ontario. I hope you will agree
with me that by utilizing what we already
know about the problems, we have an op-
portunity to do much better and to acquire
tomorrow a capacity of modem, adequate
facilities for tourism. Otherwise, we commit
an industry to regression through lack of
financial resources or cost Aat can never
bring desired results.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to support this resolution
of the member for Viotoria-Haliburton.
Strangely enough, the stars under Gemini
today indicate it would be a good day for me
to agree with people with whom I might
perhaps not be in the habit of agreeing with.
It is rather coincidental, but certainly I am
very anxious to support this resolution.
I only wish the Minister of Trade and
Development (Mr. Randall) were here to hear
this debate. However, I suppose urgent busi-
ness of the province calls him elsewhere. On
the other hand, I am sure that he will take
the opportunity to read Hansard at some
future time because I have a feeling that this
may very well be a sounding board for
extending the ODC grant further into the
tourist field.
My motives are twofold for supporting this.
First, we are looking for every opportunity
to expand the tourist industry in north,westem
4256
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ontario. Secondly, I tliink diat in tourism we
will probably find one of the major solutions
to the unemployment problem., the summer
unemployment problem of our high school
and university students.
It is interesting that tourism thrives exactly
at that time of the year when our yoimgest
need jobs. So the more we can do in the
field of tourism and the more we can expand
it, the more and better opportimities we give
to our young people. I just wonder in passing
whether we involve our young people suffi-
ciently in the affairs of this government, Mr.
Speaker. I have an idea there is a wealth of
suggestions, imagination and ideas in that
area that we are not exploring.
However, in northwestern Ontario, we
have benefited from this forgiveable loan pro-
gramme of The Ontario Department of Trade
and Development under ODC. But unfor-
tunately, while the programme has helped
us to expand some of our industries in
northwestern Ontario, it has not attracted any
new ones. And there is no indication that it
will; not in the immediate future in any
event. So I think what we have to do is
expand the base, expand the terms of refer-
ence of that part of the Act that permits
these forgiveable loans.
The member mentioned marinas. It is my
understanding that already under the ODC,
marinas under certain circumstances can be
subsidized by this department. The member
may correct me, but according to my
research, marinas are one of the types of
projects that can already be supported very
similarly to ski clubs.
The Act says something to the effect that
projects which encoiurage tourists to use local
accommodation and local facihties, are the
types of projects that can be supported. But
it does not include loans to motels or to the
places of accommodation themselves. So I
would be very anxious to see it develop in
that area.
We have had two studies in northwestern
Ontario recently which support this idea. One
of them is the five-year development pro-
gramme for northwestern Ontario, and it
states very clearly that there should be greater
incentives for toiu-ist development, and that
this particular type of loan under ODC
should also be extended to the aooomnKxla-
tion services.
The otlier report is a report that is high-
lighted in the recent progress edition of the
Port Arthur News Chronicle. In this item I
find the point that I would like to supjport
here, and I would like to read it. It is
from the Netcs Chronicle of April, 1969,
under the business review and it states,
referring to that report:
The report suggests that commercial
resort owners be encouraged through legis-
lation and financial assistance to expand
their summer facilities to attract family
vacation groups and achieve a higher
occupancy rate. Because of the seasonality
of demand, the need to develop winter
recreational attractions is noted.
Pointing out that cottages provide the
soundest economic base of any tourisni
facility, it recommends that cottage devel-
opment in the study area should be encour-
aged around specific growth centres for
their major effectiveness on the local
economy.
By way of special attractions, it proposes
establishment of a natural museum of the
type located in Algonquin Park, a logging
museum, reconstruction of old forts on the
voyageur routes, an Indian museum associ-
ated with the axcheological sites, a wildlife
happy-jack, an outdoor zoo, a potential bird
sanctuary on the Lake-of-the-Woods.
It recommends that training and incen-
tives be provided to encourage off-season
employment in the manufacture of special-
ized articles and handicrafts for the tourist
market, and to supplement merchandise not
manufactured in the region.
So there are two major reports which have
suggested that this type of loan incentive be
expanded to the accommodation phase of
the tourist industry. The reason I read a little
bit longer in this quote is to indicate that
there are all kinds of projects that have been
proposed that are slated for northwestern
Ontario, that could enjoy some financial assis-
tance. What they need are low interest loans
to get them started.
Mr. Speaker, we have fotuid that this gov-
ernment is coming to life, especially in the
current session, in the field of mining. We
passed a biU just recently that offers more
incentives to the mindnig industry. We find
that iin the area of general industry, under
the Minister of Trade and Development and
this forgiveable loan programme, we are aid-
ing general industry to go ahead.
But the third biggest industry in north-
western Ontario is the tourist indutry, and
I think it is the type of industry that offers
the greatest opportunity, especially for our
young people. This is why I join with the
member for Viotoria-HaUburton in support-
ing this resolution.
MAY 12, 1969
4257
I hope the Minister will read these com-
ments. I hope this will be a soimding board
for him, and that he will follow through and
extend these loans.
The other point that I would like to maike
now is that the more we can do as guardians
of the taxpayer's dollar in this province— to
have private industry assume responsibility
for tourist services— the better it is and the
more we can keep it in the private industry.
We find more and more travel trailers com-
ing into the province of Ontario. I think the
more private travel trailer parks there are the
better; the more that can operate on an
economical basis, rather than having The
Department of Lands and Forests having to
establish more and more of these travel
trailer parks. I think the private industry
should be aided to take over as much of that
as pvossible and keep it in their field. There
will be less burden that way, I feel, on the
taxpayers of this province.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to sup-
port this resolution of the member for Vic-
toria-Haliburton, and I commend him for it,
and I hope the Minister will act upon the
suggestions.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasiu«
to participate in this debate on the resolution
of the member for Victoria-Haliburton. Some
malicious pleasure, perhaps, I might say, in
that it highlights the lack of consideration
and concern of the government to which the
members on the other side of the House
belong, in respect to the operations of the
Ontario Development Corporation when they
have to rise to appeal to the government
that it give some view to the problems of a
major ranking industry in this province.
In going over some of the background
material in preparation for this debate, Mr.
Speaker, I came across a report referred to
in the Toronto Globe and Mail of a study by
the organization for economic co-operation
and development, based in another rather
attractive tourist centre in this world, Paris.
The OECD stated in that report of 1967
that:
Experience has shown that where the
initiative is left entirely to the private in-
dividual—speaking of the tourist industry-
facilities have consistently tended to lag
behind demand. Where large-scale invest-
ments are needed, direct government inter-
vention will be necessary.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that members oppo-
site who are speaking in this debate— the
member for Victoria-Haliburton, the member
for Muskoka and the member for Kenora (Mr.
Bemder)— feel much in the same regard as to
the conclusion of that report.
The Associated Tourist Resort Operators
of Ontario have expressed that concern. Tjhey
have pointed out the growing lag in the
supply of adequate tourist faciUties, And in
the report of The Department of Tourism and
Information, statistics can be found to show
the very, very slow growth in the establish-
ment of new facilities, and in the expansion
and renovation of existing tourist resort
facilities.
As the incoming president of the tourist
resort association of Ontario, Mr. David
CasweU, in April of last year, was quoted as
saying that if the 5,000 resorts in Ontario had
$1.5 million or $2 milHon available in loans
in each of the next five years, much could
be done to improve accommodation and draw
more business to the surrounding commiu-
nities. Ten-year loans at nine per cent can
be obtained, but operators need 20-year loans
at six per cent.
The board of the Ontario Travel Associa-
tion, in its brief to the natural resources and
tourism committee in February of this year,
requested Ontario to allocate $3 million per
year to ODC, specifically for investment in
the tourist industry at a maximum rate of
eight per cent at a term of 15 years, the
loan applications to be approved by The
Department of Tourism and Information. Tjhe
comments from the representatives of the
tourist industry, Mr. Speaker, are aU unan-
imous that lack of finance is one of the major
obstacles to the improvement and expansion
of the industry.
Interestingly enough, the Muskoka Tourist
Association, which covers the area represented
by the member for Muskoka, came in with a
brief recently, stating that the state of the
industry had become a cause celebre through-
out the district of Muskoka— and many of our
more vocal members air very strong views on
the subject. The sum total of their attitudes
is that the lack of available financing for
improvising existing tourist facilities or creat-
ing new ones has retarded the development
of our tourist industry.
They went on to say that in Ontario this
would mean that the Ontario Development
Corporation, the only available government
lending agency, would have to change its atti-
tudes to tourism from those of a conserva-
tive banking institution reluctant to accept
unconventional risks, to those of an organiza-
tion dedicated to improvement of existing
4258
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tourist facilities and the development of de-
sirable new ones, aggressively accepting the
investment challenges which as a develop-
ment corporation it was created to under-
take.
I just want to spend a moment, Mr.
Speaker, discussing the kinds of investments
and challenges that the Ontario Develop-
ment Corporation has undertaken in prefer-
ence to providing the assistance to the tourist
industry diat the members opposit,e ane
pleading for. I looked over tlie list of equal-
ization of industrial opportunity, non-repay-
able, non-interest bearing loans, which ODC
has been handing out in the last year, and
the kinds of aggressive investment oppor-
tunities that the ODC have been assisting
with, are loans of anywhere up to $500,000
to firms such as Allied Chemical Company of
Canada, Kraft Foods, Crane Canada Ltd.,
Black and Decker Manufacturing Company,
Courtaulds Canada, and so on.
One of the interesting contrasts between
the kind of investment opportunities for these
finns that ODC has been assisting vsdth, and
the kind of investment opportunities that are
available in the tourist industry, is that in the
study imdertaken by the Ontario Economic
Council's committee on the tourist industry,
entitled, "Its Potentials and Its Problems; An
Evaluation by the Ontario Economic Council,
1965," it was stated that each net addition
of $2,100 in direct foreign tourist expendi-
ture per annum appears likely to create a
new year-round job in the tourist industry
in Ontario. Compare that, Mr. Speaker, wdth
the investment per employee that Ontario
Development Corporation is making under
the equalization of industrial opportunity,
and you find that if this study by tlie Ontario
Economic Council is correct, we would be
getting a far better buy for the investment
dollar in this province in terms of increased
employment in the tourist industry, than we
are getting in the investments ODC is assist-
ing with so generously to major international
corporations establishing manufacturing and
other non-recreational or resort industries.
The firms that I mentioned in that list a
moment ago each received from the Ontario
Development Corporation something in the
order of a loan of $10,000 per new job
created, in contrast to the $2,100 of direct
tourist spending that results in the creation
of one new job on a year-round basis in the
tourist industry. Now there is a contrast that
the Ontario Development Corporation ought
to pay some attention to. Because with a little
bit of that aggressiveness that the Muskoka
Tourist Association spoke of, and somewhat
more regard for the elemental role that tour-
ism plays in the economy, investment in the
growth of that industry and the employment
opportunities that would go with it, and the
increase in spending and the resulting in-
crease in prosperity in the communities in
which the tourist industries are carried on,
would be handsomely paid back to tlie On-
tario government and the Ontario people.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): It is a privilege
to speak in support of the motion made by
my hon. friend from Victoria-HaUburton,
whose riding adjoins Muskoka. He is aware—
as I and many others are— of the importance
of the subject matter of this resolution to the
economy of Ontario. It may be thought by
some that there may be nwre important needs
in tliis province, but I would be willing to
argue that point. The tourist industry pro-
vides employment, it aids every part of com-
merce and industry in our country, including
agriculture, is of vital importance in attracting
foreign dollars to Canada and yields tax
revenue to all levels of government in several
ways. The chief problem of the tourist indus-
try has to do with capital financing.
Proposals to ease tlie problem of capital
financing for the tourist industry is not a new
subject in this House. I am one of a number
of members of the House who have taken part
over the years in discussing this matter. More
than ten years ago the urgency of the prob-
lem was stressed in this House. Then, how-
ever, through action by tlie Diefenbaker
government at Ottawa— and particularly be-
cause of the co-operation of the then Finance
Minister Hon. Donald Fleming— Tlie Small
Business Loans Act was passed and tourist
establishments were included. For a time
this proved to be of great value, but lately
few loans have been made under this legisla-
tion. Again, it was the policy laid down by
hon. Donald Fleming that resulted in loans
from the Industrial Development Bank being
made to tourist establishments. I regret to
say that there seems to have been, not a
disappearance, but a decline of interest by
IDB in this field.
Constitutionally, of course, matters oi
banking and lending institutions go to the
federal government. My colleague has in his
remarks spoken of the assistance given in
other countries in providing capital to con-
stmct or enlarge resort hotels and other
tourist establishments. It should be noted
that in every case these were the national
governments of those countries which were
undertaking such policies.
MAY 12, 1960
4259
In the absence then of a forthright policy
from Ottawa, we submit that Ontario provin-
cial policy should be formulated to assist our
tourist industry, along the lines that have
been proposed in this resolution.
It would be best, of course, if private cap-
ital were available to modernize existing
resort hotels or to establish new ones. I am
much gratified to note a movement in this
direction, which of course I hope— and I
believe all would hope— will gain momen-
tum. For example, one of the most outstand-
ing summer resorts in the province has been,
since 50 years ago, Bigwin Inn on the Lake
of Bays in Muskoka. This fine resort has
just been purchased by a new company,
formed of Toronto businessmen who are pre-
pared to spend some hundreds of thousands
of dollars to modernize this fine hotel so
that it may operate year-round. This an-
noimcement together with the establishment
of a Holiday Inn at Hidden Valley, on
Peninsula Lake nearby, will give a lift to
the tourist industry of my part of the prov-
ince. Holiday Inn is also a year-round opera-
tion. It is managed by the chain, but the
building is owned and was put up with pri-
vate capital plus a loan from the Ontario
Developmejit Corporation.
What is proposed in the resolution would
go further than this, however. Now I would
like to say that Bigwin Inn is not the only
excellent lakeshore site of an established
resort hotel which could be acquired by pri-
vate people for redevelopment, and I sincerely
trust that others will follow the example of
the new firm which is to modernize Bigwin
Inn.
It is with much regret, however, Mr.
Speaker, that I draw to your attention a
trend in the opposite direction over recent
years. Several resort hotels with formerly
quite popular names and good reputations
have been purchased by private persons, who
tore down the old buildings in order to erect
summer homes in their place. This has
resulted in portions of the lakeshores on the
Muskoka Lakes in particular— but I believe
in several other parts of the province— losing
their semi-public character and now becom-
ing entirely private property with access to
the water closed oflE to anyone other than
the families of the new owners. It must also
be noted that the tax revenue to the local
municipality from such properties will in
nearly all cases drop considerably.
I There are, however, still many locations on
these beautiful lakes where long-established
resort hotels have been losing popularity be-
cause their owners have not and could not
redevelop the properties. They could not
because of the lack of opportunity to raise
enough money to do the job. There are still
in Ontario numbers of the historic three-
storey wooden structures which might well
be replaced by modem ground level bed-
room units with a central building for meals
and other services. These properties now
have good beaches and like advantages.
These are attractive sites and should be re-
tained for tourist accommodation purposes.
The alternative to helping their owners to
realize their ambition of serving more patrons
from far distances and thereby adding to the
economy of the country— is as proposed in
the resolution before us— is to see a further
decline, and ultimately the loss of further
shoreline for public use.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to support the motion of the member
for Victoria-Haliburton. It is certainly a
good one and one that all members on all
sides of the House can support.
It recalls to mind the debate that took
place during the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Tourism and Information, at which
time I raised this very subject with the Min-
ister of Tourism and Information (Mr. Auld)
and pointed out to him the need for such a
fund. I asked him at that time if he would
set up such a fund as recommended by the
BOTA organization, the Board of Ontario
Tourist Associations, which submitted a brief
during the meetings of the committee on
tourism and natural resources. This has been
a priority with the tourist industry for ten
years, as one of the members opposite pointed
out. It is unfortunate that it has not been
acted upon before this.
It has been the number-one priority, as
pointed out by the member for Port Artiiur.
It was raised in the recent study of tourism
in northwestern Ontario. As mentioned, it
was raised in the BOTA brief and it has
been continually raised by those people who
are interested in the tourist business in
Ontario.
The tourist industry brings in much-
needed American dollars, American currency,
which adds substantially to the Canadian
balance-of -payments problem and which helps
us out a great deal in this regard. It is
therefore, an industry that should be stimu-
lated as much as possible.
By not stimulating the industry, by not
providing such funds, there are a certain
number of things that have been happening
to this industry. As pointed out by one
member opposite, certain tourist resorts are
4260
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
being bought up privately and are being
used as private resorts. This cuts the num-
ber of areas open to the pubhc to enjoy in
Ontario.
There is one particular aspect of this
problem that I would like to bring to the
attention of this House and it is not peculiar
to northwestern Ontario. But tourist operat-
ors who wish to expand face a great deal of
difficulty in raising money if they do not
live in the "Golden Horseshoe". Anyone for
that matter, anyone who tries to finance any
kind of project outside of the Toronto-Hamil-
ton-St. Catharines area runs into difficulty
with finance firms and banks.
This leads to another problem. Slowly but
surely, in northwestern Ontario in particular,
we have these private camps that are not
able to expand because they cannot get the
necessary funds. These private camps are
slowly but siurely being bought out by Ameri-
can operators.
The tourist industry in Ontario is going
the way of most of the industry that exists
in Ontario today, in that it is either American-
owned or American-controlled. The Ameri-
cans, as we all know, have much larger
capital pools. They have much easier access
to the capital pools. Their rates of interest
are often very much cheaper and the Cana-
dian operator cannot compete with this kind
of competition.
Therefore, the Canadian is at a disad-
vantage when he finds he cannot get the
necessary funds to expand his operation. He
then must sell his operation— and often it is
bought up by an American concern.
I do not mean to leave the impression with
this House that I am against Americans
operating tourist facilities in Ontario, or in
northwestern Ontario in particular. However,
T think there should be a balance struck here.
It should be maintained as a Canadian in-
dustry, as an Ontario industry and these
funds should be made available through the
Ontario Development Corporation so that the
Canadian operators can compete with their
American counterparts.
Now it seems only right and just that the
funds should be made available through the
Ontario Development Corix)ration, through
The Department of Trade and Development.
I have a publication of The Department of
Trade and Development, the Ontario De-
velopment Corporation. The title of this
booklet is "Motels— Building for tlie Future."
This pamphlet purports to provide informa-
tion to the tourist operator who wishes to
expand. It is a rather naive booklet in some
respects. I would quote one line from the
second or third page. "Obtaining finances"
is the tide and it says:
Few operators can finance the entire
cost from their own pockets. Decide how
much you can put in, the balance will
have to be borrowed. You must satisfy
prospective lenders that this is a sound
investment.
And it goes on to point out the cost of bor-
rowing and how much the interest rates will
be. It quotes eight per cent and rates of ten
to 12 per cent are more likely. Having told
the poor tourist operator things that he al-
ready knows, it offers very little help in the
way of real concrete finance.
So I would say that the Ontario Develop-
ment Corporation is already supposedly pro-
viding expertise and advice to this industry.
It should therefore, only logically supply tiie
concomitant resources, the capital, to go
along with the advice tiiat they are so free
to give out.
I trust that such a fund will be set up
through the pressure brought here today by
all members of the House and hopefully of
the pressure of the Minister of Tourism and
Information on the Minister of Trade and
Development.
But I would like to say one word in regard
to such a fund. To my mind, we have seen
the equality of industrial opportunity fund
in some cases being perverted. Sometimes, it
does not provide employment at all. But the
worst thing seems to be that those firms that
do not need these capital resources, that can
very easily raise the money either internally
from their own bank accounts or through the
bank, that are low-risk borrowers, are the
ones who are taking advantage of this pro-
gramme and are getting these loans that they
do not have to pay back. For instance, it is
ridiculous to have Holiday Inn or some other
large concern come in and get one of these
loans, that hopefully will be repaid at a
reasonable interest rate over a ten- or 20-
year period— using up the funds that hope-
fully would be in this capital pool.
I hope that the government has learned its
lesson in the equality of industrial opportimity
loans. It is the big firms that have taken ad-
\antage of this. I think that the tourist oper-
ators—most of them, for instance, particularly
in the north but a lot in the south— are pri-
vate, small individual concerns rather than
the large concern. I would like to see that
these individuals, who are some of the most
indi\'idualistic people in our province today.
MAY 12, 1969
4261
are enabled to continue on and to take
advantage of a programme that this govern-
ment should set up under the Ontario I>evel-
opment Corporation to provide low-interest
funds at a rather lengthy term of repayment.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
vSpeaker, I too, would like to join with other
members who have spoken in congratulating
the member for Victoria-Haliburton in bring-
ing forth this resolution this afternoon, and I
heartily endorse its contents. I find it kind of
ironic that the member for Muskoka said
that he had carried on a ten-year crusade of
this nature in this House, trying to prevail
upon his colleagues on that side to institute
the kind of programme that would give some
assistance to tourist operators. He also seemed
to take solace in the fact that Donald Flem-
ing's efforts in Ottawa, when he was Minister
of Finance, provided some assistance. Yet he
finds it necessary, along with the rest of us,
to speak in this Legislature on the very thing
that he claims one of his counterparts in
Ottawa had so much success with a number
of years ago.
An hon. member: That is playing Hong
Kong policy.
Mr. Stokes: 1 think that the very fact that
we are talking about this at this particular
time highlights the need for the kind of
assistance for what the Muskoka tourist oper-
ators call the "forgotten industry."
I find it kind of ironic that the Minister
who should be most concerned about the
implication of this bill has not seen fit to be
present here today— the Minister of Tourism
and Information. Indeed, the very Minister
whose aid we are seeking in this resolution,
the Minister of Trade and Development, has
not seen fit to concern himself with this de-
bate and the comments that have been made.
I would only hope that they will avail them-
selves of the opportunity of reading about it
in Hansard so that a lot of the very good
suggestions that have been made by previous
speakers will be noted and, hopefully, acted
upon. I mention the brief that was presented
to the committee on tourism and natural
resources by the Muskoka Tourist Association.
They mentioned that they have attempted to
enlist the aid of the Minister of Tourism and
Information and the Minister of Trade and
Development for a good many months.
They talked about the forgotten industiy,
particularly in the northern part of the prov-
ince, and, of course, I suppose we would have
to consider anything north of Richmond Hill
to be in the northern part of the provimce in
that context, when you consider that we only
have about three industries going for us in
the north, the mining industry, the forest
industry and the third one would have to be
the tourist industry.
So I think that if we are going to develop
the north, attract tourist dollars, it is not going
to be around the "Golden Horseshoe". It is
going to be in the northern two-thirds of the
province, and this is just one of the ways in
which this government could foster the kind
of development that is so badly needed in
many areas of the north by making the
necessary funds available.
The joint Board of Ontario Travel Associ-
ations submitted their brief to the committee
on natural resources and tourism and came
up with what I thought was a very good
resolution. I think it was the Minister of
Tourism and Information who happened to
be sitting during that day, and they did point
out the fact that the industrial development
bank acknowledges that funds are needed
but they have not come up with any kind of
programme that would assist the tourist oper-
ators and the outfitters in a meaningful way.
And, of course, they find under the present
policy of the Ontario Development Corpor-
ation for their industry, that the terms are far
too short and they have no capital for refin-
ancing and take a very traditional approach
to lending to the tourist industry. The small
business improvement loan administration has
a rate of 7^ per cent, which is most reason-
able by today's standards, but their limit of
$25,000 is just too low to be of any use to the
industry. They sent a resolution:
Resolved that this board request the
Ontario government to allocate $3 million
per annum to the Ontario Development
Corporation specifically for investment in
the tourist industry at a maximum rate of
interest of eight per cent over a 15-year
period, and loan applications to be ap-
proved upon the recommendation of The
Department of Tourism and Information.
I think another one that bears mentioning
was a resolution presented by the Timagami
Lakes Association, where they have asked for
assistance to the industry that would tend to
attract tourist dollars on a much longer term
throughout the tourist year than is presently
the case. In a good many areas of the north,
they are only able to attract tourists to their
particular area because of the fishing or the
himting or something of this nature. They
suggest winter sports should be promoted to
a much greater extent to attract the kind
of dollars that they might attract over a
4262
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
longer period of tune, by developing possibly
ski runs, or winter fishing, or Ski-dooing, or
any of the niunber of activities that people
are engaged in the northern part of the
province in the winter months. I think we
are missing the boat if we do not assist
northern operators to attract toiurist dollars
over a much longer term during the year than
is presently the case.
I think that, as was mentioned by the
member for Viotoria-Haliburton, if we are
going to compete for dollars on the interna-
tional market, we are going to have to get
a lot more participation by government-
even to the extent of getting some equity in
the industry, if necessary, if we carmot gener-
ate the kind of capital diat is needed through
the private sector. I think that this govern-
ment has a responsibihty to see that the
necessary funds are available even to the
extent of taking some equity in it.
I heartily endorse this resolution and hope
that the govenament will see fit to act upon it.
Mr. L. Bemier (Kenora): Mr. Spe^er, re-
viewing my participation in the Throne
Debate last February, I made the following
observations, and I would like to quote again.
I said at that time that growth exists on
capital.
We need money to further the development of
our north. This is why I feel it is time for the terms
of reference of the Chitario Development Corporation
to be expanded, whereby financial assistance can be
made available to the commercial resort operators
so that they can in turn expand and improve their
summer facilities to attract travelling vacation groups.
The present terms of the OE>C are not providing
financial assistance to the tourist industry whereby
the job can be properly tackled.
Since these remarks appear to be relevant
to all parts of Ontario, I am indeed pleased
to support the member for Victoria-Halibur-
ton and do want to compliment him on
bringing this important matter to the atten-
tion of the House again.
I am pleased that he has received the sup-
port of all sides of the House, and I am par-
ticularly pleased that all the northern Ontario
members have sui)ported him 100 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, we in this province have a
long history of tourist development. We have
a healthy, growing tourist industry. However,
the question before us is whether the pro-
vincial government can assist in increasing
this growth and, if so, how. For those who
have spoken before me in this debate, tliere
is good evidence that the provincial govern-
ment can assist through a well-directed pro-
gramme of financial action. The efficiency of
the tourist industry depends on its abilities to
attract tourists to an area and then to provide
them with places to stay, things to see, things
to do and things to buy.
Many tourist operations are outdated and
do not boast the quality or style of accom-
modation expected by today's traveller. In so
many cases, it would l)e feasible to up^ade
the facilities at a reasonable cost. In many
areas of our province the demand for accom-
modation exceeds the supply. It would be
desirable— and certainly feasible— to expand
these facilities in these areas, particularly
where the demand originates from outside the
Ixwders of Ontario.
This is particularly true in the northern
part of Ontario, where there is a need to
provide and to expand the hunting and fishing
camps which would attract a higher level of
business from the United States. At the
present, Mr. Speaker, a great many tourist
operations are constructed and equipped for
summer operations only, but they cannot be
profitable on such a short operating season.
With the growing importance of winter activi-
ties such as siding and snowmobiling, and so
on, there is an increasing opportunity for
year-round resort operations. Many of our
present camps are suitably located and could
be winterized for year-round operation.
Further to this, Mr. Speaker, many of our
present tourist operators are burdened with
large deficits and high interest rates an<l
short repayment terms.
It is general throughout the province that
tourist operators find it difficult if not impos-
sible—as many of the other speakers have
pointed this out— to obtain funds at reason-
able rates for expansion, modernizing, winter-
izing their facilities. The reasons of couirse
are obvious to us as they are and I would
point them out:
1. The tourist industry is below average
profitably.
2. Many lenders have suffered losses on
loans expended to this industry in the past.
Consequently they are hesitant to make new
loans.
3. We are aware the management abihty
is often limited in these organizations or these
operations.
4. The tourist facilities involve a very heavy
capital cost.
5. The tourist operation is generally
regarded by nature and by location as a
single-purpose business and cannot readily
l)e turned over to another use if it proves
unprofitable.
MAY 12, 1969
4263
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that I must
reemphasize the importance of this indiistry
to the province as a whole. Certainly if we
are to maintain our position in a world com-
petitive market, we must find ways to provide
long-term financing at reasonable rates to
enable these tourist operators to compete
properly in this world market.
As other si>eakers have pointed out, it was
diuring the regular meetings of the standing
committee on natural resources and tourism,
chaired by my colleague, the member for
Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) that we heard
pleas from practically every tourist associa-
tion in this province. They urged that both
the federal and the provincial governments
recognize the economic significance of tourism
as an industry and make capital available to
deserving operators on terms that they can
afford.
Further to this, Mr. Speaker, recommenda-
tion no. 18 of the northwestern Ontario
tourist industry study completed last year,
states that commercial resort owners be
encouraged through legislation and financial
assistance to expand their summer facilities
to attract travelling vacation groups.
Needless to say from all the other speakers
that have preceded me this is an excellent
resolution and is certainly worthy of govern-
ment action.
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker,
tlvere are only a couple of minutes left before
6 o'clock, but I would like to indicate my
support for the resolution. I would also like
to draw to the attention of tlie members that
what is asked in the resolution is only the
extension of the Ontario Development Cor-
poration loans that are available.
It does not indicate that the EIO pro-
gramme should also be extended to include
the tourist operators. Under the EIO pro-
gramme, I would like to point out to the
members, the Minister attempts to operate
tliis programme out of his back pocket. It
depends on where you come from, who you
are, what happens to your application.
I would like to point out that in my area
there was a group which came down and
made an application for a tourist attraction
which would provide further business to other
operators. They were tiuned down on the
grounds that our area was not considered to
be a tourist area by that agency.
When I asked the director of the agency
on what grounds they considered an area to
be a tourist area, he could not answer me.
Forty miles south of us, however, another
application was made and they were granted
the funds through ODC. Apparently their area
is considered a tourist area.
Now the power to decide what is a tourist
area and what is not apparently lies with the
Minister. That is why I say he operates the
programme out of his back pocket. I should
tliink the tourist operators in the province
would expect a Httle more from the govern-
ment at this time.
Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to beg the indulgence of the
members of the House and yoiursclf to sup-
port the resolution of the member for
Victoria-Haliburton, keeping in mind that the
tourist industry is the second largest industry
in the jwrovince. The tourist industry-
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the
hon. members that the private members' hour
is now complete, and much as we would like
to have heard about liis part of Ontario and
its needs, I am afraid time does not permit.
It being 6.00 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 114
ONTARIO
Hegisflature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, May 12, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, May 12, 1969
Highway TrafiBc Act, bill to amend, in committee 4267
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 4293
4267
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8.00 o'clock, p.m.
Clerk of the House: The third order, com-
mittee of the whole House; Mr. A. E. Reuter
in the chair.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
(Continued)
Mr. Chairman: Bill 105, An Act to amend
The Highway Traffic Act. We have a motion
before the committee.
All those in favour of Mr. Haskett's motion
will please say "aye"; those opposed will
please say "nay".
In my opinion the "ayes" have it.
Call in the members.
Those in favour of Mr. Haskett's motion
will please rise.
Those opposed to the motion will please
rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 47, the "nays" 19.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 8, as amended, form part of
the bill?
Mr. J. Ren wick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
I would move that all the words after the
word "repealed" in clause 8 of Bill 105 be
deleted.
Mr. Chairman: This is the same motion
the hon. member has presented before.
Mr. J. Renwick: The same motion that we
considered this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the hon.
member that this would appear to me to be
a simple negation of the spirit of the clause
itself, and as such would not be a proper
motion.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may
comment on that.
What the Minister did was simply amend
one portion of the proposed clause 8. Now
that amendment carried and therefore the
section is up again for consideration, as
amended. This is not a negation of that sec-
MoNDAY, May 12, 1969
tion. This is simply to say that that portion
of it after the word "repealed" would be
deleted. Now if this were to be a negation
of the clause, then the decision that a motion
which is carried does not carry this section,
but a motion that is defeated does carry the
section, would have no meaning. I submit
that this particular amendment is in order.
Mr. Chairman: I would say to the hon.
member that section 8 of Bill 105, on the
second line after the word "repealed", goes
on to say "and the following substituted
therefore", and it recites subsection 2 which
is to be amended. Now this amendment has
been put to a vote of the committee and it
has carried. Omission of that amended sub-
section 2 of section 8 is a simple negation of
the entire spirit of this section, and as such
would be entirely out of order.
Mr. J. Renwick: I would agree with you
had the motion been simply to delete clause
8, Mr. Chairman. It would have been a
simple negation of the section. In fact it
does not negate clause 8, it provides specific-
ally that subsections 2, 3 and 4 of section 14
of The Highway Traffic Act are repealed.
Now that is a substantive motion and does
not negate the section at all.
I would agree with you completely had we
moved simply the deletion of the whole
clause.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr. Chair-
man, may I speak to the point of order.
Mr. Chairman:
Downsview.
The hon. member for
Mr. Singer: I find the rather interesting
reasoning presented by the member for
Riverdale somewhat appealing. We are going
to support his contention against your ruling,
and mainly—
Mr. Chairman: I have not ruled yet.
Mr. Singer: I suspected, sir, from what you
said, that you were going to rule against
him— and substantially because we believe
that as many continued protests as we can
make against the iniquities of this section
should continue to be made.
4268
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now notwithstanding the interesting re-
mark of the Minister of Correctional Services
(Mr. Grossman), I think we have a duty
here to indicate to the people of Ontario how
obhorrent we find this approach of the gov-
ernment. We have said this, and I am not
going to repeat the arguments we made.
The one thing that puzzles me though, in
the approach of the member for Riverdale
and in the approach of the Minister, is that
as we delete subsections 2, 3 and 4 of sec-
tion 14 we are eliminating, interestingly
enough—
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
On a point of order. I understood the hon.
memljer to stand up and say he was speaking
with reference to your ruling, and you indi-
cated you had made no ruling.
Now are we debating this amendment? Is
it in order?
Mr. Chairman: I have suggested that it is
not in order; but I am wilHng to listen to
argument.
Hon. Mr. Wishai-t: If you had given a
ruling tlien I think the hon. member might be
in order, but I certainly do not think he is
in order now.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): He was not in order then. He was
not speaking to the rule.
Mr. Chairman: I was waiting momentarily
for the hon. member for Downsview to be-
come in order—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is what I wanted.
Mr. Chairman: —he was out of order.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Thank you for the deci-
sion. Let us now have the ruhng.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. meatnber for
Riverdale had risen on a point of order.
Mr. Singer: Yes, and I have risen on a
point of order.
Mr. Chairman: You were debating, you
were not raising a point. The hon. leader of
the Opposition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your thougihts in
this regard, but surely when you indicated
you thought it was out of order, you were
tacitly asking for advice or comment at least
from those who are interested in this particu-
lar matter; and that is precisely what the
memiber for Downsview was making avail-
able. I canont understand why the Attorney
General should object on that basis.
Mr. Singer: The Attorney General is
awfully sensitive.
May I continue my remarks to the point of
order, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: If you speak to the point
of order; in the opinion of the Chair you were
not doing so.
Mr. Singer: Oh, all right; lot me get back
to tlie point of order, Mr. Chairman. I was
on a point of order Ix^fore the Attorney Gen-
eral was on a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: With respect, sir, he had
not finished; I would prefer to hear him out
if I may.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I beheve that
the point made by the member for Riverdale
is in order by reason of the fact that the
amendment as presented having been carried,
there is a further opportiuiity to the members
of this House in indicate whether or not they
like the section as amended or whether they
like some variation of it. That surely is the
point the member for Riverdale was making.
I am sorry that the Attorney General was
embarrassed; he is taking an anti-civil-liber-
tarian approach and it is too bad!
Mr. Chairman: Well the hon. member for
Riverdale is out of order, if I may reply to
the hon. member for Dovraisview. I could
follow his reasoning up to a point, that once
this motion has been carried as presented by
the hon. Minister, section 8 still must be put
to the committee for approval to form part
of the bill.
Now I indicated (prior to the supper hour I
would entertain further motions if this motion
carried, which it did; however the motion
submitted is simply a motion which is a
direct negative of the spirit of this section of
the bill, and therefore I do rule it out of
0(rder.
Mr. Singer: Oh! With respect, sir, if I may
speak this just a moment, the motion of the
member for Riverdale, as I understand it,
deletes—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us get back to
some order!
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Downsview may challenge my ruling, but I
have moved that the motion is out of order.
MAY 12, 1969
4269
Mr. Singer: I will not challenge it, sir, I
have expressed my view. I think the member
for Riverdale is right; if he wants to challenge
it he can challenge it.
Mr. Chairman: I have ruled that the motion
is unacceptable, it is out of order.
Shall section 8 as amended form part of
the bill?
All those agreed that section 8 shall form
part of the bill will please say "aye".
Those opposed will please say "nay".
In my opinion the "ayes" have it.
Call in the members.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of section
8 as amended forming part of tlie bill will
please rise.
Those opposed will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 41, the "nays" are 26.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10:
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on section 10,
I make the same objections as I did without
repeating the remarks I made at some con-
siderable length. On the other hand, if some
of my friends over there want me to, I can
repeat exactly the same speech, which went
on for some considerable period of time, ex-
cept I think the point has been reasonably
well fixed in the minds of the government.
There is only one additional fact I would
want to add by reason of the somewhat
unusual wording that has put into this section
and was also put into section 8—
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not speak-
ing to section 10; he is speaking to section 11.
Mr. Singer: I am sorry, the hon. Minister
is right for a change and I bow.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 10 stand as
part of the bill?
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 11.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: On section 11, I move
that subsection 2 of section 17 of the Act, as
re-enacted by section 11 of the bill, be
struck out and the following substituted
tiierefor:
Every person who is unable or refuses
to produce his licence in accordance with
subsection 1 shall, when requested by a
constable, give reasonable identification of
himself and for the purposes of this sub-
section the correct name and address of
such person shall be deemed to be a rea-
sonable identification.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Downsview.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, all I said when
I thought I was talking about section 11,
when in fact I was talking to section 10,
should apply now, but there is one additional
point I want to make. By reason of the un-
usual and rather convoluted wording that the
Minister has brought before us, both in rela-
tion to section 17 which he now wants to
amend and in relation to section 14 which
he previously amended, he has eliminated
subsection 3 in both of those sections.
Now subsection 3 in section 17 of The
Highway Traffic Act, which he now deletes,
says this:
A person convicted of an offence under
this Act if he holds a chauffeur's licence
shall forthwith produce the licence for the
purpose of endorsement.
So we have got the rather unusual and
anomalous situation where all this weird and
wonderful procedure goes on. Under section
17 as the Minister suggests it should be
amended, once a provincial judge has said,
"You are convicted"; he then says to the
convicted person, "Give me your licence so I
can now endorse it." The person who has
been convicted can say to the provincial
judge, "I will not." And this would no longer
be an offence.
Previously— under the subsection the Min-
ister is repealing, subsection 3 in this Act-
it was an offence for the person convicted not
to produce his Hcence for endorsement. Now
in his zeal to change the Act and bring it
up to date, the Minister gives permission to
the convicted person to say to the provincial
court judge, once he has been convicted: "I
am sorry Mr. provincial court judge, but I
am not going to give you my hcence so yovi
can endorse it and you can go and jump in
the lake."
Now I am sure that the only answer to
this is inexpert and inefficient draftsman-
ship. I would be prepared, if the Minister
wants, to amend the amendment or intro-
duce an amendment, or to listen to him; but
this is the way it reads. I would like to
4270
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
know why he is deleting— even if he means
what he said earlier today— subsection 3 of
section 17.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: If the hon. member will
wait until we get to section 15 he can speak
to the subject matter he has brought up
improperly under section 11.
Mr. Singer: What does that mean? We do
not endorse any more, is that what the Min-
ister says?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That will come in sec-
tion 15 of the bill, sir.
Mr. Singer: Well is the Minister saying he
is eliminating the endorsement on the hcence?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is what section
15 says.
Mr. Singer: Why?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: We will come to that
in time.
Mr. Singer: Well do you not want to tell
us now, why you are taking out the right to
endorse? Is it a secret?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is under section
15 if you want it then.
Mr. Singer: Well tell us now, because you
are repealing it here! Why? Can you not tell
us that?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The section is being
deleted because we are not requiring the
endorsement.
Mr. Singer: Why?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think it is particularly germane to this section
that is being deleted. If he wants to know
why this specific section is being taken out,
this is because it is observed that there are
very few solicitors, I imagine like the mem-
ber for Downsview, who would try to go
into court with his driver's licence and have
it endorsed. They just have not got it; they
cannot find it; they cannot do anything about
it. They do not have the licence endorsed in
the first place; and in the second place we
do not require the endorsement on it now
for our purposes, because all drivers' offences
are on our computer and are immediately
a\'ailable. In the third place I suppose you
would regard the situation where an en-
dorsed hcence were brought into court as
evidence as prejudicing a fair trial.
I tliink those are very good reasons for
deleting section 23 of the Act, which section
15 of the bill intends to do.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, with great re-
spect, I do not follow the Minister's reason-
ing at all.
His first reason was that most people who
come there cannot find their licence to have
endorsed upon it a record of a conviction.
Well surely at that point, Mr. Chairman, he
defeats all the arguments he was presenting
to us earher in tlie day. It does not make any
sense at all. The presentation of an endorsed
licence is surely the first bit of evidence after
conviction and the words that are there are
"after conviction".
Mr. Chairman: Is that subsection 3 of sec-
tion 17?
Mr. Singer: Yes, subsection 3 of 17: "A
person convicted of an offence under this
Act, if he holds a licence, shall forthwith
produce the licence for the purpose of en-
dorsement," That is what it says. That is the
subsection the Minister purports to delete.
Now first of all the Minister says that
many people who appear and are convicted
cannot find their licence. Well if that is the
case, surely the people who charged him
with the offence in the first instance should
have been aware of that and they would
have charged him for failure to produce his
licence, or as it is now failure to identify
themselves.
The second thing tlie Minister says is that
it is going to prejudice a fair trial. Now how
cHDuld it possibly prejudice a fair trial?
The wording of the subsection he deletes
says a person convicted of an offence shall
produce his licence. The trial is over by the
time he has been convicted. Perhaps the
Minister does not understand the meaning of
those words. How can it possibly prejudice
a fair trial?
The third point rather escapes me, but if
there is some intelligence in the Minister de-
ciding tliat the licence shall no longer be
endorsed it has always been my thought, Mr.
Chairman, that the purpose of endorsing a
person's licence was to have some sort of
salutory effect on the person who had com-
mitted the crime— driving without a licence or
driving in contravention of any of these sec-
tions and having been convicted, before a
court, of such contravention. The fact that
something was endorsed on the licence would
deter him from doing it again in the future.
MAY 12, 1969
4271
If this restriction is removed, what is the
Minister's reasoning? I do not understand
him at all. Why has he changed his mind that
this is not longer a reasonable deterrent to
people who had in the past been convicted
of contravening a section of The Highway
Traffic Act.
The Attorney General will recall with me
that a few years ago I was concerned about
a magistrate, I think his name was McClevis
in Walkerton, who had, as I put the case,
improperly removed an endorsement on a
licence. I am still convinced I was correct
in it; the Attorney General did not agree
with me at the time. But at no time, Mr.
Chairman, up until this moment, have I heard
from anyone on the government side that
there was something harmful to the people
of Ontario, or to a person convicted, in
having the record of a conviction endorsed
on his licence.
What is the difference, Mr. Chairman, in
asking the Crown attorney, as the provincial
judge always does, has the man got a record?
The Crown attorney produces a yellow sheet
on which the record of convictions are en-
dorsed; or somebody writes, usually defence
counsel if he is concerned about making
representations insofar as sentences are con-
cerned, he writes to the Minister's depart-
ment.
I do not know whether the Minister is
aware of this, but for the payment of $1
or $2 you can get a certificate. I can write
to the Minister's department and ask him if
a fellow by the name of Irwin Haskett has
any record of traffic convictions or convictions
under The Highway Traffic Act against him.
On the payment of a fee, in the course of a
few days' time I will get a piece of paper
back that will give me the record of convic-
tions or non-convictions against Irwin Has-
kett. This is part of the evidence that is avail-
able in court and there are sections in the
code and there are sections in this Highway
Traffic Act that a certificate signed by the
proper official in the Minister's department
is evidence in court.
What is the purpose of deleting subsection
3 from the present section 17? The Minister
has given us no reasonable explanation for it
at all. Any one of the three criteria that he
has applied tonight make no sense. Could he
explain it a little further and justify it?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I could
repeat what I said in the hope the member
for Downsview might understand.
Mr. Singer: I am afraid I am dull.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: We have in the past
used the records on drivers' licenses in keep-
ing our records, but now all drivers' records
are on data processing equipment and we do
not need that help. If an endorsement is on
the license and the license is presented in
court for evidence, as I said, it could preju-
dice a fair trial.
Mr. Singer: How could it prejudice a fair
trial?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: By pointing out that the
man had a previous record.
Mr. Singer: But it said "after conviction"!
Hon. Mr. Haskett: He could have had a
previous conviction, if the member is not too
obtuse to recognize that a license that had
been endorsed is presented.
Mr. Chairman: We have the motion before
us on section 11.
Those in favour of the motion will please
say "aye"; those opposed will please say
"nay".
In my opinion the "ayes" have it.
I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 11, as amended, form part of
the bill.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, before you
carry section 11, rather than divide the
House, I would simply like to record that
each and every one of the arguments which
have been put during the course of the debate
on section 8, apply equally to section 11, and
reflect the position of this party on that
matter.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 16:
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman,
I was wondering if the Minister might be
able to tell me how he arrives at the figures
that he arrives at in the case of the $100 and
the $500? And if, in calculating the amount
of the fine, he took into consideration such
things as the need of a license to maintain a
livelihood.
I know that the argument can be put that
a person who requires his license in order to
earn a living must be more careful. But you
can also take the position that someone who
has driven for many years without any of-
fences being registered against him, and who,
in a moment of weakness, in a time when he
is not occupied in his nonnal pursuit, becomes
4272
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
intoxicated perhaps, or perhaps inadvertently
fails to renew his license, and is picked up
and subsequently is not permitted to renew it
for a period of time, or any number of things;
he loses his license and it then becomes a
double penalty on him. Not only is he fined,
and perhaps even imprisoned in some in-
stances, but in this instance he also loses the
opportunity to earn a living.
Now the arguments against it are many,
and I have heard them a number of times.
I wonder if the Minister has given consider-
ation, in drafting this particular part of the
bill, to making the necessary changes at some
subsequent time to enable a person who is
convicted of an offence which will cause him
to lose his license, to have this done in such
a manner so that he does not lose his liveli-
hood. In other words, he may then have his
license suspended at periods when he does
not use it normally for living purposes.
I wonder if the Minister has given consid-
eration to that particular argument and his
reaction to it would be— other than that you
must be more careful, which is the stock
answer to that argument and does not really
carry any weight, because it has varying
effects and differing effects on different classes
of society. There is no question that a person
who is more affluent than another, of course,
can find an alternative way in which to carry
on his business, perhaps by chauffeur or by
other means. Whereas the poorer person, who
may be a taxi driver, for example, or any
number of other things, who loses his license,
as I say, at a time when he is not operating
his business, then loses the business too.
I wonder if the Minister has given thought
to what might be done in those instances.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, this is a
part of the overhaul of the general penalties
sec-tions of the Act to bring them up to date
on today's dollar value and to assess them
with regard to their relative seriousness as
mild offences, ordinary offences and serious
offences; and this is regarded as one of the
serious offences.
Now in the change in the penalty from the
original figure of $25 to $100 on a first
conviction and from $100 to $500 on sub-
sequent convictions as part of the penalty,
this has been done in the elimination of the
cliarges for second and subsequent offences.
So the range is there but the lower level,
tlie minimal fine, has been raised, as the hon.
member will note, to $100.
But he is a little confused with respect to
this as relating to a driver's permit. This is
for every person who operates a motor
vehicle the permit for which is under susx)en-
sion or has been cancelled. They are guilty
of an offence, and upon conviction Hable to
the fine prescribed. This is in the operation of
a motor vehicle for which permit has been
cancelled.
Section 16 agreed to.
On section 17:
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): I would
like the hon. Minister to explain why, in this
section, the penalty is so low in view of the
fact of the onerous penalties that the ordinary
man faces when he drives a vehicle while its
permit is suspended. Why are operators of
garage businesses and parking lots subject to
such minor fines? I can see, Mr. Chairman,
some men paying the fine every three or four
months and still practicing without a Hcence,
with such a low penalty.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Section 17 deals with
subsection 3 of section 31, and it has to do
with garage and storage licences— the person
who stores motor vehicles or who conducts
a motor garage business, and we do not
think that the infraction here is a really seri-
ous offence comparable to the wilful taking
of a vehicle, for instance on the highway
when it has had its permit suspended.
Section 17 agreed to.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on the
second part of section 17. I am somewhat
concerned, perhaps the Minister can correct
me immediately. I do not have a copy of The
Highway Traffic Act here, but my understand-
ing is that on the initial offence, under sub-
section 5 of section 31, there is a fine only,
not a fine and imprisonment, if my under-
standing is correct. Then it goes right through
this bill, that what you are doing is reduc-
ing or eliminating the gradation of penalties
on offences and substituting fines or imprison-
ment, or both, whetlier they are first, second
or third offences, am I right in that, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in
our clean-up of the penalty section, we made
these changes. Either we raised the minimum
fine in most cases to the basic fine in the
general penalty section— and in the serious
offences it was raised— then we deleted the
provision for charges for second and sub-
sequent offences and put them all within
the one bundle, and so now the court has
the greater discretion. We still included, in
this case, the alternative or additional part
of the penalty. The Act read formerly in
section 31(5):
MAY 12, 1969
4273
Anyone who obstructs, molests or inter-
feres with any such constable or officer in
the performance of his duty under sub-
section 5 is liable for—
The old Act read-
— for the first offence a fine of not less
than $25 and not more than $100; for the
second offence, a fine of not less than $100
or more than $300, and for a subsequent
offence a fine of not less than $300 and not
more than $500, and is also liable to
imprisonment for a term of not more than
six months.
Now we have compressed that into the sec-
tion as it now reads, as the hon. member
points out:
Every person who obstructs or molests or
interferes is guilty of an offence on
summary conviction and is liable to a fine
of not less than $50 and not more than
$200.
It does not go up as far as the original $500
or for a subsequent offence, but still includes:
To imprisonment for a term of not more
than six months or—
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
On section 19.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I
can ask the Minister, on section 19— what was
the necessity for the change to subsection 8,
where you change it from $50 to $300 and
$100 to $500; were there some goings on
that necessitated this kind of change?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
it would be clear to the member that these
succeeding sections 19, 20, 21 and so on,
deal with manufacturers and dealers. We
think in these cases people are in the busi-
ness for profit and we think that it is neces-
sary that the deterent should be in this
Mr. Deans: That is not really the point.
You can make the deterent $50,000 if the
crime has never been committed. What I
want to know is, is the law being broken
and are you changing it in order to try and
stop it, or are you just changing it in order
to make it look good?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It will take me a mo-
ment or two sir, to find for the hon. member
the number of infractions or convictions we
may have had under that section. Mr. Chair-
man, my officers tell me that they do not
have records of convictions on this section.
it appears that the law is not being broken
blatently anyway.
Mr. Deans: One then wonders what the
necessity was for the change, other than just
to make the laws more stringent. It appears
that you are having no difficulty with it, that
you are only changing it so that you can
point to it and say, "In Ontario if the manu-
facturer breaks that law the fine is severe",
knowing full well, he does not break it any-
way, so it makes no difference.
Sections 19 to 27, inclusive agreed to.
On section 28:
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chair-
man, with regard to the signs to be on the
back of slow moving vehicles, every farm
tractor and self propelled implement. My
interpretation of this would mean that a sign
has to be on each vehicle, and not neces-
sarily just on the back vehicle; if there should
be more than one vehicle behind a tractor,
in other words if he had two wagons, it is
mandatory that he have a sign on each
wagon?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Do I understand the
question to apply to vehicles in tandam con-
nected?
Mr. Ruston: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No, in that case it
would not need two signs; but this deals with
the need for signs where a vehicle is merely
crossing the road-
Mr. Ruston: Yes I know.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: —because the approved
sign as the hon. member knows is a triangle,
and a thin one, and at right angles, it would
have no appearance, and would not be of
any use to traffic on the road.
Sections 28 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 33:
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, on
section 33. It says here that the fine for
failure to use safety devices in accordance
with the regulations, is increased from a gen-
eral penalty— under section 154, as amended
in the bill-from $20 to $100, and a fine of
from $100 to $500. Does that mean if you
are not using your safety belts when driving
a car that you could be fined from $100 to
$200?
Mr. Singer: $100 to $500!
4274
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Spence: $100 to $5001 What safety
devices?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This has to do with the
provision of safety equipment on the vehicle
by manufacturers.
Mr. Singer: How does the Minister arrive
at that? The section does not say manufac-
turers.
The section says, "The Lieutenant-Gov-
emor-in-Council may make any regulation
requiring the use or incorporation of any
device in or on any vehicle." There is no
mention of the word manufacturers there at
all; where does he get that interpretation?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I was one section ahead
of you— section 47.
Mr. Singer: Well surely 50 is dealt with by
itself? The Minister says that applies to the
manufacturers; where is the word manufac-
turers in section 58?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Does the member ask if
this would apply to not attaching seat belts?
Mr. Singer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No, because we have no
regulation requiring the use of seat belts.
Mr. Singer: No, but you could have. Mr.
Chaimian, as my colleague, the member for
Kent, so ably says, if the Minister wishes, he
can promulgate— through his colleagues, who
form a part of His Honour's council, the Lieu-
tenant-Governor-in-Council— the regulation to-
morrow morning, that everyone must wear
seat belts from here on in, and affix them.
And if they get into their vehicle and they
do not, then the conviction would result in a
minimal fine of $100 and a maximum fine of
$500.
Or, let us be a little more ludicrous about
it— he rejected this a long time ago— what
kind of a safety helmet people should wear
when driving a motorcycle. He told us very
seriously one day— I can remember his words
well, "Surely you would not expect us to
prescribe the kind of dress that people wear,
but he changed his mind about that. If he
suddenly wanted to prescribe that people
should wear driving helmets when driving
motorcycles, the minimum fine would be $100
and the maximum fine $500. Maybe it is a
good idea. Is that what the Minister means?
If it is, I think we should know, because the
wording is so loose, the wording is so vague.
You see, Mr. Chairman, section 58 says:
The Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Coimcil may
make regulations requiring the use or in-
corporation of any de\'ice in or on any
xehicle that may afi"ect the safe operation
of the vehicle on the highway, or may re-
duce or prevent the injury to persons in a
^ehicle on a highway, or to the person
upon a highway in prescribing the specifi-
cations thereof.
Now, in principle, Mr. Chairman, I am
certainly not against that. But what I am
against, Mr. Chairman, is the very loose
wording that gives the Minister the authority
—at the whim of any Minister, even of this
Minister— that a regulation can be passed,
requiring the use or incorporation of any
device in, or upon, any vehicle that in the
Minister's mind is going to produce greater
safety.
Not in the mind of the Legislature, just in
the mind of the Minister.
And, in the event the Minister has gone off
on a folly of his own— and I am sure this hon.
Minister would never do that— in the event
the Minister has gone off^ on some sort of an
unusual idea, and came to the conclusion that
it would be reasonable to wear safety helmets
when you are driving a motorcycle— and he
resisted that idea for years— and he wanted to
write it into this Act, and people did not
abide by it, there would be a conviction sub-
ject to a minimum fine of $100 and a maxi-
miuii fine of $500.
Now, the concern of my colleague, the
member for Kent, and I, is that we do not
Vnow what the Minister might have in his
mind. And the Legislature has no control
o\er this. Could the Minister tell us how this
is going to work?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I might
just read section 50(a) of the Act, to which
this section 33 of the bill applies. As I read
it, it says: "The Lieutenant-Go vemor-in-
council may make regulations requiring the
use or incorporation of any device in, or on,
any vehicle."
Mr. Singer: Yes, that is just what I said.
That is exacriy what I said. Is that the Min-
ister's answer? That is what I read.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It deals with the use, or
incorporation, of a device.
Mr. Singer: Ihat means if I get on a motor-
cycle, or into a vehicle, the Minister can by
regulation require me to use a device. It
could be a helmet, it could be a pair of shoes,
it could be a shirt, or a tie, or a suit. We do
not know in the Legislature what it is going
to be because the Minister does not have to
xMAY 12, 1969
4275
consult us about regulations. And, in the
event that we do not do it-
Mr. J. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman. Without discussing the merits or
otherwise of what the member for Downs-
view is saying, the Minister is not amending
that section of the Act he has just read. He
is adding a subsection to it. Therefore, the
matter which is the substance of section 50(a)
itself is not, in my submission, a matter for
debate at the present time.
Mr. Singer: Well, with great respect to my
colleague, the member for Riverdale, Mr.
Chairman, this assumes serious proportions
only when you read it with sections 1 and 2,
or 1(a), and 1(b), and 2, of the present exist-
ing section 50(a).
Now, when a minimal penalty existed, per-
haps it was not of such great consideration.
The Minister in his desire to get tough— which
has been applauded by everyone, including
himself— has increased the penalties very sub-
stantially. And now he is increasing them to
the point where they are going to be not less
than $100, and not more than $500.
My point is simply, Mr. Chairman, when
the Legislature has no way of knowing what
kind of use, or incorporation, of any de^'ice
in, or on, any vehicle, may be in the Minister's
mind, is it reasonable or logical that the
Legislature should give, to the persons en-
forcing this Act, authority to impose this kind
of a punitive fine. Because we do not know
what the Minister has in his mind.
It is all very well to say that we want
greater safety in, and about the use of, all
sorts of motor vehicles. But the Minister is
asking us to give him a blank cheque.
As I say, if the Minister goes off on a
folly of his own and says you need a pecuHar
kind of a shoe before you can drive an auto-
mobile and that is passed in a regulation,
then the minimal fine for not wearing that
peculiar kind of shoe is going to be $100
and not more than $500.
He multiplies the penalty by a substantial
amount, and I would think that, when has
this broad power of regulation, he should
explain to us how we get to the criterion that
the Minister is going to use when he applies
this kind of judgment in urging that the
regulations be passed.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
the fears expressed are unfounded. Section
50(a) calls for mandating equipment and its
use. That requires the use, or incorporation,
of any device in or on any vehicle— and pre-
scribing the specifications thereof. And this
applies to the manufacturer, or equipper, of
the material; and not the use by the person
riding in the vehicle.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's
interpretation just does not convince me. How
does he explain requiring the words: "requir-
ing use"? What is the meaning of that, if the
Minister's explanation is a valid one?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I think it is the use of it
in the construction or manufacturer of the
machine.
Mr. Singer: But it does not say so.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: "Requiring the use or
incorporation of any device in, or on, the
vehicle".
Mr. Singer: "Use in the vehicle". Surely
that is a nonnal, logical English interpreta-
tion; "use in the vehicle". It does not say
what tlie Minister says at all.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): The member
is out of order.
Mr. Singer: It is out of order to interpret
what the Minister says, I agree.
Sections 33 and 34, agreed to.
On section 35:
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the Minister would like to explain how he
arrives at the figures he has arrived at, in
tenns of the amount of fine per hundred-
weight, as it applies to certain weights of
vehicles and the weight that they carry? It
seems to me that all this is providing is an
additional licence for overloading. And, if you
are prepared to pay the additional amount,
then you can overload. I am curious to know
how the figures were arrived at.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
when I was introducing the bill, I pointed
out at that time the desire to employ fines
on a sliding scale for speeding, and for over-
loading, that would be deterrents. Especially
in the latter case, where there is a great
economic pressure to overload, because it is
possible to break the law by overloading
profitably. These are gauged, in our view
and from our experience in motor vehicle ad-
ministration and highway carriers, at a level
that should operate to deter the lawbreakers;
because it will take away the profit motive.
Section 35 agreed to.
4276
OxNTARIO LEGISLATURE
On section 36:
Mr. Singer: Section 36, Mr. Chairman.
Representations have been made to me, and
I know tlicy have been made to the hon.
Minister, concerning section 36, ])y the Auto-
moti\e Transport Association of Ontario.
I have, in front of me, a copy of a letter
addressed to the Minister, dated April 15,
wherein the president of that important
association, the ATA Highway Traffic Amend-
ment Act review committee, H. W. F.
Whiting— I am sure a gentleman known well
to the Minister— has this to say about an
amendment to section 36.
We-
and that is the Automotive Transport Associa-
tion of Ontario:
—are strongly opposed to this amendment
in its present form as it imposes a double
penalty on someone who ^^[olates a special
permit. In the interests of justice, particu-
larly when it is considered that the of-
fences of this nature may be committed in
innocence, we suggest that the subsection
be rewritten to provide that an offender be
liable to either the penalty for the breach
of a special permit, or for overloading, but
not both.
Then they go on to propose an amendment
to this subsection, which I have incorporated,
Mr Chairman, as an amendment tliat I am
going to move, and it is moved by myself,
and seconded by Mr. Gaunt: that section 36
of Bill 105 be further amended by deleting
therefrom, on the seventh line, the words
"and in addition", and substituting the word
"or"; and, in the second last line, and last
line, the words "that section as if no", and
substituting the word "the", and deleting the
words "has been issued".
Now, to allow that to make a little more
sense, Mr. Chairman, the section as amended,
with those deletions, section 36 of this Bill
105, would then read.
Every person to whom a permit has
been issued under this section who operates
or permits the operation of a vehicle or a
combination of vehicles contrary to any of
the conditions to such permit is guilty of
an offence, and on summary conviction is
liable to the fine of not less than $100 and
not more than $500. Gr-
and this is the key to the objection that has
been made and I tliink it makes abundant
gootl sense:
Or a fine shall be imposed as if he had
been convicted of an offence under sub-
section 7 of section 52 in respect of any
gross weight in excess of the gross weight
permitted under the special permit.
Now very simply, sir, the ATA makes the
representation that there should not be a dual
penalty, and the Minister has created an
offence which makes this kind of offender
liable to two penalties. It would seem to me
that the amendment suggested by Mr.
Whiting in his letter is eminently sensible
and that the Minister should seriously con-
sider amending his amendment in the manner
put forward by this very important and
responsible association.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, may I
just speak to the proposed amendment by
tlie hon. member for Downs view and explain,
perhaps, for the members of the House, just
what is occurring here. The section we have
just passed dealt with a schedule of fines and
penalties for exceeding a registered weight.
You will understand that in the operation of
these heavy vehicles on the highway, we have
to be concerned with the care of the high-
ways. You will understand also that the
maximum load allowed to any particular
vehicle is specified in the Act.
We get the maximum weights allowable
from our colleagues in The Department of
Highways who are able to tell us what the
maximum weight is that is reasonable to use
on the highways to prevent their destruc-
tion. Now, we have gone beyond that and
we have dealt vidth the penalties for exceed-
ing the registered gross weight. Then we
come to a place where there are special cir-
cumstances, where there is a particular piece
of equipment to be moved, or where there is
a job to be done by what we call the heavy
haulers. Some of them are carrying steel
beams; some of them are carrying these
large pre-stressed concrete beams; some of
them are moving giant pieces of machinery
such as transformers, parts of mills or manu-
facturing establishments. Under these circum-
stances, those people come to us and spell
out their particular need. And, if it is pos-
sible to accommodate them— having regard
for the particular kind of floats or other
equipment they use— then we issue them with
what we call a special permit. These special
permits for the heavy loads have to be dealt
with very carefully.
There has been a lot of interest in this,
this year since January 1 when the new
regulations that were announced by our
Treasurer a year ago in his Budget came into
effect.
MAY 12, 1969
4277
There is a special fee for a special permit.
So, the haulers have been particularly acute
to the situation. When this proposition came
along we were going to tighten down on the
issue of special permits, or rather on the
infraction of special permits. We deemed it
best to provide that the penalty imposed on
the violation of tlie term of the special permit
should not be in alternative to, but in addition
to, the penalty for overloading— and I grant
you, it makes a heavy penalty.
We met the representatives of the ATA
that came to me with what seems a reason-
able proposition, and we discussed it at
length. We had previously met with a large
deputation representing the Canadian Manu-
facturers Association, the Canadian Industrial
Traffic League and groups of the heavy
haulers. We had started ironing out problems
that confronted them, and I tliink they were
serious problems. But they had grown out of
the long-time practice of these people wanting
special permits just coming to us on the spur
of the moment and saying: We have to move
this piece of equipment and we want a spe-
cial licence. That was that, and they expected
to get it automatically.
We found, in the course of our research,
that there was considerable misrepresentation
being made to us on the occasion of applica-
tions for special permits. We discussed the
situation very frankly witli this representative
group of the heavy haulers and the shippers,
and I think we have come to some very useful
conclusions. Basically we decided when a
shipper or a hauler has a heavy load, a special
load, it may require not only a special permit
but perhaps a special routing because the
roads intended to be used would not bear
the weight, because overpasses would not
stand the oversize, because the load was such
that it would constitute a danger to other
users of the road, or because it was required
either at night or at special hours and with
a police escort. All of these things have to
be considered, and I think we have the ship-
pers and the heavy haulers working co-opera-
tively with us now. We are planning to work
co-operatively with them.
We want to get from them a complete dis-
closure of their need. If they will give us a
frank and true disclosure of what they need,
we can write the permit so that there should
be no need for an infraction of any of the
terms of the special permit. That is what we
are trying to avoid. We make the proposition
to them: Tell us exactly what your need is,
do not deceive us, do not try to confuse the
issue, and we will try to work out a permit
that will cover your need and leave you a
sufficient range of, or tolerance beyond, so
that you do not have to break any term of
the special permit.
Now, there are some places where they
cannot weigh a load in advance. The special
permit requires that tliey take the load to a
designated weigh scale first to have it
weighed. Then we can determine what shall
be done with it. But under the circumstances,
the care that is being given now to applica-
tions for special permits, and the care and
tolerances being used in the issue of special
permits, there should be no need for the
infraction of special permits. Bear in mind
that special permits permit carrying weights
far beyond the proper load that we believe
should be on the highway. We take care of
them when we can and we have to say "no"
when we cannot. We try to write the specifi-
cations in the permit in a way that will not
require any infraction. We believe that that
will best be enforced by having the one
penalty on top of the other, call it a double
penalty if you will. We think it is in the
interests of the public and the public's roads.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge
members to vote against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr.
Singer's amendment will please say "aye".
Those opposed will please say "nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Section 36 agreed to.
Sections 37 to 40 agreed to.
On section 41:
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, on this chang-
ing the length of vehicles, trucks from 60 feet
to 65 feet. I am just thinking about this,
after hearing what the hon. Minister had to
say with regard to special pennits and the
overloading of highways. Is this not defeat-
ing what he was just saying a few minutes
ago? I have grave doubts about increasing
the size of trucks that are going to be on
our highways today when 1 see the size that
some of them are now. I wonder if the
Minister would care to explain his reasoning
in lengthening them.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I
will speak to that question raised by the hon.
member. It might be a valid one from his
reading of the proposals.
The proposal is not to increase the size of
vehicles. It is to take account of, and make
possible, the use of the vehicle trains. We are
4278
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not changing the maximum length of semi-
trailers or public vehicles or other vehicles.
All of this lies within the certain prescribed
limits that are in the Act.
What we are doing is making it possible
to operate a train that will go, not 60 feet,
but an over-all of 65 feet. This has some
very real advantages. I tell you that it is in
use in surrounding jurisdictions and if the
traffic is to come into Ontario and through
it, we have to accommodate them if we can
and if it is reasonable. I had to give a very
hard look at this matter.
I recall the Prime Minister speaking to, I
think it was the ATA convention, some
months ago and saying that the government
was taking a very serious look at this 65-foot
over-all length for trains. This allows the
maximum of 65 rather than 60 feet for what
we call a tractor, trailer and a full trailer or
a pup. They can now be, I think, 9, 23
and 27 feet. This enables the use of an 11-
foot tractor and two 27-foot trailers. Now
the trailers can be separated, as you under-
stand, and in municipalities where they are
not allowed, one is dropped— or when half
the load is left in one location— the remain-
ing tank can be carried. But what I use to
justify it, is not necessarily or solely the com-
mercial implication of it, but rather the fact
that our investigations confirm that which the
engineers have told us— that these shorter
vehicles track better and are safer on the
highways.
I put it to you simply as that.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I would ques-
tion the Minister on the same matter. It
would seem to me that the longer and the
more split up the trailers are, the more they
sway on the highway. I have driven on the
Queen Elizabeth Highway behind them and
there is no question in my mind that the
semi-trailers are more stable than is the train.
The last portion of a three-phase truck cer-
tainly sways far more on the highway.
The question that I want to ask the Minis-
ter is whether he is prepared to regulate the
highways upon which they might travel;
whether he might keep them off the nar-
rower highways? There are certain sections,
for example, of the Queen Elizabeth High-
way—and at the moment they are working
on one of them— but one section that comes
quickly to mind was the section in Oakville,
where it was well nigh impossible to pass
these vehicles at their present length if the
weather was at all dirty. If it was raining,
snowing, windy, anything at all, it was im-
possible to pass them on that stretch.
I would suggest that the Minister should
give some consideration to banning their use
on certain highways in this province, and
keeping them to dual highways or else keep-
ing them to a shorter length. The longer
they are, the more difficult they are to control.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
not agree with the hon. member that they
tend to sway more than other vehicles. Be-
cause I think in our experience with them
the only available evidence is contrary to
that. But he makes the point with respect
to limiting their use. As he probably knows,
the municipalities can limit vehicles going
into them. I think it would be reasonable to
expect many municipalities would say, you
are not going to take the whole train into
our municipality. I think that would be
quite right. But he makes a suggestion with
respect to what roads they could be used on
and I think there is a point there. It may be
that they would be used primarily on the
main highways, anyway. But I will look into
his suggestion.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I listened with interest to the
Minister's rationalization of his acceptance of
this longer trailer arrangement. For the mo-
ment I am not going to object to it, except
to query him as to why he is willing to
accept this but is so adamant in condemning
the hauling of longer vehicles in another
context.
I do not happen to have the correspon-
dence with me, but I am sure the Minister
will recall that he has been approached quite
frequently in recent months by a lawyer, or
accountant I think he is, in the city of Belle-
ville with regard to the decision that was
made some time ago by his department
against a person drawing a trailer and a
boat. What has interested me about that
correspondence, a copy of which has come
to my attention, is that there is no instance
of an accident arising because of this.
We have had instances of trailer-tractors
jack-knifing and difficulties being created,
but there were no examples in the other
instance. The Minister is so very adamant
in terms of putting road blocks in the way
of families that want to go camping and take
their trailer and their boat. Yet he appar-
ently bows to the powerful pressures of the
truckers associations and others to extend,
by still a few more feet— until we get to
65 feet— the trailer combinations.
How does the Minister explain his willing-
ness in some instances and his unwillingness
in others?
MAY 12, 1969
4279
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, they are
two very different situations. The matter of
trailing a boat behind a trailer behind a car
was raised first for me by the chairman of
this committee. He sent me a picture of it
and I understood what the picture meant; it
was a passenger car and a trailer and a boat
and he just put "legal"? I shook my head and
then I began to wonder, and I found there
was no provision in the Act to bar them.
We went into it and considered the obvious
danger to the driver of the passenger car with
that combination behind it, and to other users
of the road and we decided that it should be
barred. So we took that action several years
ago. The hon. member may remember.
There is this to it, that these big combin-
ations heavily loaded with fuel or liquid car-
goes and that sort of thing are heavy and they
ride smoothly. They are driven by profession-
als and I think we all recognize that truck
drivers, in big fleets, are, for the most part,
pretty capable handlers of that kind of equip-
ment.
Anyone taking a trailer for the first time
will find that it changes the performance of
his vehicle considerably. And if behind the
trailer you put a boat on another trailer— with
another hitch and a boat on top of that trailer
—you get a situation that is, I think, beyond
the competence of most private motorists to
handle safely.
These would come out on the highways at
the time of the most crowded tourist and
summer traflBc. They would unduly compli-
cate the situation. The member said he had
never heard of an accident.
Mr. MacDonald: I was told that there had
been no such accident.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I had a personal friend
who was involved in a car that was hit by a
i swaying trailer without even a boat behind it.
I But when you consider that the vehicles are
not intended for multiple hitches of a series
of three vehicles; and not provided with
braking equipment for three vehicles; and
the driver is not accomplished in the handling
of that kind of equipment, I think he will
feel it is in the interest of safety that we retain
the present law with respect to that until we
Jiave some kind of hitch and some kind of
braking system and some kind of practice for
that kind of driver before we let them on the
highways in the crowded summer season with
what I think is an unsafe combination.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr. Chair-
man, I am interested in the Minister's reason-
ing for the amendment to increase the length
from 60 to 65 feet. In his opening remarks he
said one of the main reasons was that it would
convenience the trade between other juris-
dictions and I take it he means inter-provincial
trade with Manitoba on the west and Quebec
on the east. Is this what I understand-that in
those provinces they now are permitted to use
the length of 65 feet?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I understand all the sur-
rounding jurisdictions— Manitoba, Quebec and
the American states— allow the 65 ft.
Mr. Gisbom: I would think that might be
a good reason to consider the increase in
length in this province. How long has this
existed? Have there been presentations made?
Have we in Ontario had any convictions or
have we inconvenienced any particular freight
company by stopping them from using the
inter-provincial trafiic highways?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It has not been permit-
ted and we have no convictions on them until
now. We have had representations made on
behalf of the industry, I would think for about
a year and a half or more, and I think they
were expecting that we would deal with it
reasonably.
Mr. Gisbom: This being the case, it brings
to mind the need for an investigation of the
traific Acts of other provinces. It should be
done immediately because we might find that
we will run into a lot of conflict in difl^erent
lengths of trucks and many other various
necessities for highway traffic. I would think
that when we find this type of problem exists,
we should be investigating many of the traffic
Acts to standardize them to the effect that we
have a uniform Act.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: There has been in the
past a great discrepancy, I think. I say to the
hon. members that in Prince Edward Island
they allowed an overall length, I think, of 90
feet. We have been dealing with a great many
of these issues-
Mr. MacDonald: That is longer than the
island.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: They would not take
that kindly; but we have been getting har-
mony and uniformity in a great many issues
in our traffic Acts of the various provinces in
recent years.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Algoma.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): I
simply cannot let this section pass without
making a comment with respect to the
4280
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
possible lengthening of these tractors at least
on some of the roads. I think that there are
highways witli passing lanes and truck lanes
where this is all right, where passing is not a
real problem. But I am thinking about some
of the accidents that have been happening
between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie for
instance, on Highway 17, and that traffic
has been expanding at a tremendous rate.
The accidents that we are having there-
while cars are not being hit by tractors— are a
result in many cases of complete frustration
because of the motorist trying to get past, and
the long lines that build up on the long,
long hills, and the lack of vision in some of
those areas. Of course for miles and miles
there are no broken lines at all and a tractor
can control the traffic completely.
The Minister will know that when we, in
the course of business travel the 200 miles
and we have to regulate our pace down to
35 miles an hour because of this kind of a
situation, frustration sets in and you do take a
chance and that is what happens.
Now I will agree that the handlers of
these vehicles certainly know their business.
But this is beyond their control— they cannot
go any faster, and they have nowhere else
to go. There is only one other lane. And I,
certainly, would be very concerned if a real
good look were not taken at the idea before
it was extended to all liighways. There are
changes being made on that highway with
respect to the provision of passing lanes, and
when those things are completed, of course,
I think it will be a different situation. But
not in this day and age, at least not at this
point.
Mr. Chairman: The hon.
Hamilton East.
member for
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Chairman, I tliink the
changes recommended here seem reasonable
enough. I think it could be the act of estab-
lishing constniction zones and the provisions
of travel in those zones. It is necessary to
expedite it quickly and the Minister is in a
position to do that. But I do not know what
good it will do.
We have had a construction zone situation
on the QEW between here and Hamilton
for several months and the speed zones have
never been observed. Drivers ignore the 45
mph signs and they go through there at 50
and 60, cutting in and out. Questions have
been raised on the floor, I believe, during the
last few months as to when the Minister was
going to have those speed restrictions
enforced.
I have not seen any difi'erence while driving
them every day for the last two months. I
would think if we are going to have special
sections in The Traffic Act that provide for
the controlling of traffic in construction zones,
then we have to enforce them more or leave
them out.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, in regard to tlie
changes to the fines under the speeding
section, I would be most interested in know-
ing about this. Some years ago we introduced
the demerit point system in Ontario and this
was supposed to act as a deterrent for
people breaking the law. It would appear
to me now that tiie Minister does not feel
that the demerit system is working adequately
and that he is forced to impose even more
severe monetary penalties for breaking the
law.
I am not quarreling with what he has set
but I am curious to know how he arrives
again at what the figures ought to be and
whether he feels tliat this is justified in tak-
ing into consideration the demerit point sys-
tem which he presently has? Also, whether he
thinks that this system is not working prop-
erly?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
we are very happy with the results of the
demerit point system. Though it is not per-
fect, it is a very useful tool in checking up
on drivers' faults. Its main purpose is not to
suspend drivers but to check up on drivers
whose perfonnances are not up to scratch
and to help them improve tlieir driving in
the interests of all. There were several
thousand suspended last year, having reached
the 15-point level. But there were many,
many thousands more called in for interview
at the 9-point level and there were many,
many thousands more notffied at the 6-point
level.
The reducing number of those who get
demerit points, those that reach the 6-point
level, those at the 9, and the 15, indicate that
the interviews and the dealing with individual
drivers, discussing their driving habits with
them, really pays off. The reduced number
that reach 9, that had reached 6, is very
helpful. The number that come up for dis-
cussion and interview at 9 and proceed to
15, drops very sharply again and that con-
vinces us that the interview and examination
is very worthwhile.
The member for Wentworth asks why we
arrived at this greater scale of fines for speed-
MAY 12, 1969
4281
ing. I think it is easily understandable if you
think a driver in a 30 mile an hour zone first
finds himself going 35 or 38, is summoned
for sx>eeding and is charged with 35 or 37
mph, he will be fined at the rate of $2 per
mile in excess of the 30— which is perhaps a
little less than they are fining them in many
places now anyway. We are trying to put it
into a graduate scale.
A man who drives 60 in a city street is
not unintentionally but deliberately and wil-
fully risking his neck and the life and limb
of other users. That is where the penalty
gets heavy and that is the purpose of the
penalty. I think it makes sense.
Mr. Deans: I am not arguing with the
Minister, I am just trying to get some indica-
tion. At 20 mph over the limit in a 30 mile
zone this is a pretty excessive speeding,
whereas 20 mph over the limit in a 50 or 60
mile zone, perhaps is not as excessive. It
depends, of course, on how you calculate it.
But, it seems to me that the worst thing that
can hapipen to a person is that he can lose his
licence and that the demerit point system is
the ultimate answer to the reduction of
offences and no matter what you make the
fine, it is not going to have any real effect.
The only way you are going to effectively
cut down speeding and reduce accidents is
to get the people who are constantly breaking
the law off the road altogether. If you get
a person who is breaking the law at ten miles
over the limit consistently, it takes him quite
a while to get off the road— and yet he is just
consistently breaking the law— while some
other person may break it once going 30 miles
over the limit for some particular reason
known only to him, and he is that much
closer to losing his licence.
I think you still have to get the habitual
offender. Perhaps what is needed on this
point is to revise the demerit system to catch
the habitual law-breaker as opposed to just
fining him and by deducting three points
every time. Perhaps on the second offence
he should lose more than three points. Per-
haps on the third offence he should lose his
licence. Perhaps he should lose more than
three points on the second, third or fourth
offence, as opposed to just having the same
penalty every time if he just breaks it by the
same amount.
I think the answer to easing the burden on
the highways in the way of accidents is def-
initely to get those who are not driving
properly off the road, and I do not think this
should be used as a way of raising money.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I just
wish the hon. member would keep on. I
think he makes abundant sense.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ham-
ilton East.
Mr. Gisbom: I would like to ask the Min-
ister just how we envisage the enforcement of
these penalties for speeding? Would all of
these be judged by the radar clock record
system, or also by the assumption of the
pohce officer?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I did not
hear the member.
Mr. Gisbom: Would we enforce this section
strictly by the radar clock record system, or
also by the assumption on the word of a
police officer? The speed limit infractions.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, we would
have to proceed with just the practice that
is in force today.
Section 41 agreed to.
On section 42:
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Chairman, on section 43, I would like to ask
the Minister if a person could be asked to
pay $500 or six months?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The question was could
he be fined $500 or six months? Either or
both.
Mr. T. Reid: Would the Minister not think
that this discriminates against people of low
incomes who drive cars? For example: a rich
man who is told to pay $500 or take six
months, can dig up $500. A poor man who
might need the car to get to work might not
have the $500 and he goes to jail for six
months and loses his job at the same time.
Could the Minister justify this type of dis-
crimination against people on low incomes
who have to drive cars to get to work?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
this is a place for discrimination and the
magistrate's opinion to guide him. The dis-
cretion is there.
Mr. T. Reid: Does the Minister think that
one should be sent to jail for dangerous driv-
ing if it is bad enough— whether one is rich
or poor— rather than giving an option to a
rich man and no option to a poor man?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the exist-
ing section 60 provides the fine of from $10
to $500, or to imprisonment for a term of
4282
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not more than three months. In addition, the
licence may be suspended for a period of
not more than two years. We stiffened that
penalty because of the amount of public dis-
satisfaction with the penalties being imposed
by the courts. I use the particular instance
from Chitti/s Law Journal where the writer,
a judge, comi^lained of the public's dissatis-
faction with the leniency of courts in cases
like this where a fine of $50 was imposed
when a child was killed.
This is a section that we tliink is a very
serious one and I think the results have to
be recognized. I think the public takes a
very serious view of it. We leave this amount
of discretion to the judge who is present and
who can assess all the factors, including the
prisoner and his circumstances.
Mr. Nixon: Further to the point the hon.
member has raised. Surely in the case the
Minister has put before us, the quote from
Chitti/s Law Journal, this amendment makes
it possible after tlie same terrible offence,
for the person charged to be fined $100. Does
the Minister think that that is solving the
problem as he sees it, and not responding to
the problem that is brought to the House by
the member for Scarborough East?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The hon. leader of the
Opposition has a good point. It will have to
depend on the judge but we give the judge
a great deal more latitude than he had
formerly. I do not know if you remember the
editorial that followed in the Globe and Mail
after the introduction of the bill. It said that
the magistrates and provincial judges should
consult their consciences in these matters
because the only alternative if they failed to
bring out penalties commensurate with the
circumstances would be for the Minister to
make these maximum penalties— or these
penalties, I am not sure whether it was maxi-
mum—the larger penalties mandatory, to
deprive the magistrates of the discretion. I
think there has to be room for the magistrate
to assess the situation and apply what in his
mind is a suitable penalty.
Mr. T. Reid: The hon. Minister has not
answered my question. What I am asking is
this. If he wants equity in the courts, it
should have nothing to do with whether a
man has the money to pay the fine or not. If a
child has been killed, then the penalty should
be that that man goes to jail— if he is
guilty— for three months, whether he has
$1 million in the bank or whether he has
just got a jalopy to get to work with. It should
not be, surely, $500 or six months. If the
crime is serious, the man goes to jail. Why
tie crime to ability to pay? I suggest the
Minister go back and read some books on
philosophy instead of precedence in law.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: All penalties that have
a monetary value are unfair in that respect.
I think you have to agree with what the hon.
member said.
Mr. T. Reid: In that case, why does not
the Minister lead this government and change
this law which is within his jurisdiction to
do so?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Wentworth.
Mr. Deans: Yes, Mr. Charman, I would
like to say that I agree with the hon. member
for Scarborough East and his comments in
this particular matter. I made that point
earlier in the debate on another matter. This
is the one area where, as a layman, I become
quite confused, I must confess, and I may
differ in opinion from the lawyers in the
House. The whole matter of driving care-
lessly or without due care and attention is
pretty broad and permits charges for any
number of things, not the least of which
could be, perhaps, driving with your arm
around a girl, or something.
You have raised the fines considerably from
the point of $10 to a minimum of $100, and
it seems to me that this is a pretty drastic
change. I am not sure whether it reflects the
affluence of the society or reflects the magni-
tude of the crime committed in many in-
stances. I would be curious to hear from the
Minister how he arrived at the minimum fine
of $100, when I think it might be agreed— at
least by those who are not lawyers— that
without due care and attention, or without
reasonable consideration for other persons
using the highways, leaves a tremendous
amount of discretion.
Now, there are many other offences clearly
defined that a person can be charged with.
You can be charged with speeding, you can
be charged with going through stop signs,
with failing to yield the right of way, with
illegal turns or with any number of things.
And when the police ofiBcer finds himself in
a position of not knowing what to charge you
with, he charges you with careless driving.
He is not sure what crime you have com-
mitted. He knows you have committed one,
he does not know which one it is so he
charges you with careless driving. Now, that
is a pretty high fine under those conditions,
and I would much prefer, if at some time, we
MAY 12, 1969
4283
could define it more clearly, so that we know
exactly what offences one has to commit in
order to be fined $100. It is a lot of money.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, in the
beginning I pointed out that in overhauling
the penalties sections, we separated the of-
fences into what we consider were minor, the
whole normal run of them that went under
the general penalties section, and the serious
ones. We applied the heavier penalties to the
serious ones because we thought they merited
it. Now I do not say that is is perfect. I
think it is a very, very good approach to the
subject and I think we have made very real
progress. That is why we started with $100
in the careless driving. The member raises
the question of careless driving leaving some
leeway, and I agree with him.
Mr. Deans: Well, it is a real problem as I
see it. First of all, I do not happen to think
in most travelling offences that people in-
tentionally break the law. I may be naive,
but I happen to believe that with the possible
exception of speeding, there are not many
who intentionally drive through stop signs or
make illegal turns intentionally. Most people
do it in a moment of lapse of concentration.
No one driving up to a stop sign or up to a
yield sign consciously thinks to himself:
"Well the fine is only such and such and if I
drive through it and then get caught, it will
only cost me so and so and therefore, I will
not do it."
He drives carefully. Most people do drive
carefully, in my opinion, and this is reflected
in the numbers who do not have accidents,
and who do not break the law. I think that
you get someone who does this once, by mis-
take, and is involved in an accident and is
charged with careless driving. He drives
through a stop sign and if he is not involved
in an accident he is charged with failing to
stop. If he hits someone in the process he is
charged with careless driving. And yet, he
has really only broken the same law in each
case.
I am a little concerned that it can be used
this way. In the case of speeding there is
certainly room there for additional penalty.
But in the case of someone who breaks it in
error and who, because of circumstances, hap-
pens to become involved in an accident and
who injures someone else, it is unfortunate
that it is an accident. There are legitimate
accidents and yet careless driving is the
charge.
I think that the $100 fine in that instance
is severe. If he did not, as I say, hit anyone
after driving through the stop sign he would
be charged, and that would be the end of it.
A $20 fine, I guess, under the new fines and
that would be the end of it.
I think this has got to be taken into con-
sideration. I do believe that the fine is too
severe. I think if you had left it at $20 to
$500 with discretion in the hands of the
magistrate to judge the severity of the offence
and to set the penalties somewhere within
that range, taking into consideration what the
offence was, as I say, you would have
achieved the same result.
I do not think anyone intentionally thinks
what the fine is going to be and whether or
not he is going to break the law. I think that
the lower level in this particular instance is
too high; the upper level is fine. It could even
be higher if need be because there are some
offences and some crimes that warrant even
more than $500 fines. But there are many,
many times, I am sure, when the offence that
is committed does not warrant the $100 fine.
I would ask the Minister if he would not
think about leaving it, say, at $20 to $500;
he can make it $20 to a $1,000 for all I care.
The thing is that I think the lower level is
too high in this instance.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
that in many cases where there is a charge of
careless driving, it has been because there
have been two or more moving offences or
there has been a moving offence with injury.
Mr. Deans: With an accident?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: In this case I think that
the court would probably tend to level this
thing out and, if they think the i>enalty is
too severe in a case like that, to reduce the
charge to the moving offence, say the one
mentioned, going through a stop sign.
Mr. Deans: The point is it could well be
that. You have taken it to the point where
the court must make the decision what the
charge ought to be, too. The charge may well
be legitimate. Perhaps it was careless without
due attention to the conditions. It could well
be. But had someone else not been there at
that precise moment, no accident would have
occurred and therefore the $100 fine would
not be levied.
I honestly do not see why it is necessary
to make the lower fines so high in this case.
I think a broader range would be ample. I
think the magistrates or the provincial judges,
as they are now called, have exercised their
discretion, in most instances, to the benefit
4284
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the citizens at large. I think they would
continue to do so.
I do feel that you set the lower level far
too high, in this instance $20 to $1,000, you
can do it if you like, but I sense that $100
to $500 imposes a ver>^ very severe restric-
tion on the majority of working people and
those are the people we are talking about—
the one who earns $2 an hour. It really im-
poses upon him a penalty for which he must,
in many instances, go into debt in order to
pay. Quite often, it is for an offence which
his friend got away with, or perhaps did not
get away with but got fined $20 for, just the
day before; but because of circumstances he
was involved in an accident as a result of it.
I think the Minister should leave the lower
level much lower. The upper level he can
make it as high as he wants, but I think the
lower le\'el should be low enough that a
person can pay it and the magistrate can use
his good judgment and discretion.
Sections 43 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 49:
Mr. Gisbom: Mr. Chainnan, I see the
change in this section, the amendment, also
provides for recognition of the lamp or light
located on the roof of the vehicle. I have to
admit that this section, without that addition,
has been in the Highway Traffic Act for some
time but still raises my concern.
I take it that this section apphes to the
highways as well as municipalities, or at least
the highways not including the municipalities
where we have The Municipal Act.
How is this section put into effect? Many
times I have been driving on the highway
and the first thing I know is that the siren
of the police car comes up behind me and
he is gone. Maybe an ambulance will be
following 15 to 25 feet behind him; he has
gone past me two seconds after I recognize
that he was coming up the highway with his
light flashing and his siren sounding. By then,
as this section tells us, we have to pull off
the road immediately and stop. I would like
an explanation as to the implementation and
the practical use of this section in the past,
and how we should adjust ourselves to recog-
nize it in the future.
Mr. Deans: I wonder if I might follow up
on what my colleague has said. There has
been much discussion at length about the
matter of driving through stoplights as well,
which does not really fall within this, but it
is in the same general area. Having worked
and operated in this area for some time I
am more than a little concerned. What the
member for Hamilton East has said is very,
verA' true. It is almost impossible, fu-st of all,
to tell from which direction the siren is
travelling, and secondly, it is almost impos-
sible to hear it if your windows are up and
you happen to have a radio playing.
I do not know how you overcome this; they
haAC de\'clopcd penetrators which are much
better and perhaps ought to be mandatory on
all vehicles of an emergency nature. They
are much noisier and much better in terms
of being heard.
The other thing I would ask the Minister
to do, just in passing, is to give serious con-
sideration to speaking with his colleague, the
Minister of Municipal Affiiirs, to try and make
sure that emergency equipment is equipped
with the kind of transmitter that will change
stoplights as they approach them. There is
such a mechanism available today and it can
be made available for all emergency vehicles.
I would suggest to him that, partioularly in
the case of fire department vehicles, each
one should be equipped with the transmitter
that changes the stoplights as they approach
and thereby reduces the difficulty of travelling
through red lights and causing accidents at
street corners.
An hon. member: What happens if there
are two coming at the same spot?
Mr. Gisbom: Mr. Chairman, I would like
the Minister to answer my query on that
section— how has it been implemented in the
past because I have never seen it work. I
have ncA er seen anyone stop on the hi^way
when a police cruiser has sped by. It was just
brought to my attention, in seeing the amend-
ment and in checking the present Act, that
it just does not work in practice.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chainnan, the mem-
ber makes a very valid complaint about the
lack of enforcement. In most jurisdictions and
municipalities when ambulances and police
vehicles and fire equipment are moving, I
think most citizens just keep going. I think
that this section is breached more often than
it is observed. Yet I was driving here in the
city of Toronto about two weeks ago and I
was surprised to see, on the approach of
some fire equipment, all tlie cars did pull to
tlie side; I noticed that because it was so
different.
I quite agree witli the hon. member. All
tiiis section does is to add to the requirement
with respect to the siren that the same law
apply with respect to flashing Hghts. I suppose
if a collision occurred because one did not
MAY 12, 1969
4285
observe this law, then one is in breach of
this law.
Mr. Gisborn: I think the Minister should
take up this question with his officers. I am
not concerned about a municipality; I think
the stop and pull over immediately rule is
generally recognized in the city if at all
practicable, if they can get to the curb. But
I am talking about on the highway.
The police cruiser comes up behind you
and he is within a few feet before you hear
him and he has gone before you can make up
your mind who it is. The Act says that you
should immediately pull over and stop. This
just does not happen on our highways when
either an ambulance of a cruiser goes by with
the signals flashing and the sirens sounding.
I take it that there is a penalty if you do not
stop. If this happens and he has gone the
cruiser coming up behind you, without his
flasher on or his siren soimding, could stop
you and you would be subject to a penalty
for the offence of not pulling over and stop-
ping.
Mr. Kerr: Do you not agree with that?
Mr. Gisborn: It does not work.
Mr. Ghairman: Sections 49 to 59, inclusive,
agreed to.
On section 60:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister a few questions. I am
intrigued about his scale of values as to what
offences should cost the oflFender. In this
section, we are really dealing witli an issue
of pollution of the highways.
People who throw or deposit glass, nails,
tacks, scrap, refuse, waste, or litter upon, or
along, or adjacent to a highway, and so on,
is guilty of littering the highway, and the
fine for this is, under Section 154 as amended,
$20 to $100.
1 would like to ask the Minister why he
has a fine of $20 to $100 for this offence,
whereas section 33, which has to do with
the failure to use safety devices, has a fine
of $100 to $500. Another section, number 43,
careless driving, has a $100 minimum, or six
months, and so forth.
This is the question I am asking. Here is
the Minister of Transport, who has been
asked to make a judgment between a proper
traffic offence, such as dangerous driving,
failure to use safety devices, and so on, and
what is primarily a pollution problem.
I would say that you cannot apply tlie same
criteria at all. Failure to use safety devices is
very serious. Careless driving is very serious.
But how did he arrive at the fact that the
pollution of highways and property is less
serious? Because it is impossible to compare
these two things?
I would suggest tliis, sir, that he cannot
make a judgement on whether highway pollu-
tion is better or worse than these other things.
I would suggest, in my own scale of values,
that the pollution of a highway is very seri-
ous—and that I am appalled that the fine is
only a maximum of $100.
I was wondering if he could offer any
explanation here as to whether the pollution
part might propverly come under another Act,
where those who do pollute our highways
with garbage and litter can be seriously fined
-say $500 or $1,000?
Perhaps the Minister could offer an expla-
nation? I would suggest that, if he has the
jurisdiction for imposing a fine for highway
pollution, that he should seriously consider
making that a major offence.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
the aspect of pollution was not weighed
heavily with us. I think that it could be dealt
with elsewhere, but our determination here
would be basically on the bearing this offence
would have on highway safety. I must admit
that we are oriented that way.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, this is exactly
the point. I am delighted that the Minister is
so candid on this.
I think I would probably agree with his
scale of penalties for infractions if one looked
at highway pollution simply as a driving
hazard, or in creating hazards for other
drivers on the highways. I would probably
say, "Yes, that is true." It is much less serious
than say section 33, or section 43.
But if the Minister, as a member of the
Cabinet, could get the views of tliat Cabinet,
perhaps it would not make much difference.
If he could canvas more widely, say from
the Minister of Health, and some of the other
Ministers concerned with pollution problems
in this province, he might find that there
should be an additional weight attached to
this offence on grounds other than those
relating to making it more dangerous for
other people to drive by cluttering the high-
ways.
I simply say that if one attaches a value to
this offence, based on its pollution capability
of say $500, then the fine should reflect both
those criteria. It should be for making driving
more dangerous— $20 to $100 added to pollu-
tion of the environment of $300 to $500.
4286
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Thereby, bringing the minimum to $320 and
a maximum of $600.
I would hke the Minister to seriously con-
sider, either at the present moment, or
certainly after lie has had a chance to discuss
it with those of his colleagues in the Cabinet,
to say we are concerned with the problems
of pollution of our enviromnent.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I would like to discuss
this matter with my colleagues who have con-
cern for pollution as distinct from highway
safety.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 60 stand as
part of the bill? Sections 60 to 67 inclusi\c
agreed to.
On section 68:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to ask the Minister why there has been a
change in section 68? He must have had some
representations, or some pressures placed on
him to make this change. It says the present
fine for failing to remain at the scene of an
accident is a fine of up to $500. The amend-
ment provides a minimum fine of $100. Is
there some reasoning behind this or was it
just drawn out of a hat?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The language of the
prexious section "up to $500" places no mini-
mum on it, and now we do.
Mr. T. Reid: So it is just a housekeeping
thing? Or to make it consistent, or what?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Precisely. To make this
section consistent with what we call the seri-
ous sections where we have a minimum of
$100, and this incidentally was an arrestable
offence.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 68 stand as
part of the bill? Sections 68 and 69 agreed to.
On section 70:
Mr. Deans: On section 70. I wonder if I
might ask the Minister whether the fine pro-
visions of section 154 apply in this section 70.
If an optometrist does not make this report-
is he subject to the provisions of 154?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes, section 154— the
general penalty section.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 70 stand as
part of the bill?
Mr. T. Reid: I would just like to ask the
Minister one question on this.
The first part of the section ends by saying,
"the optometrist makes a personal judgment
on whether or not the person is suffering from
an eye condition that may make it dangerous
for such person to operate motor vehicle".
There must l)e tremendous variation in the
assessment by \arious optometrists about when
it is dangerous to operate a motor vehicle.
I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chair-
man, whether the optoinetrists, as a profes-
sion, ha\ e some code whereby they agree, or
would agree, what would constitute "danger-
ous" for such persons to operate a motor
vehicle?
If there is no such code, then there is no
basic minimum on which the optometrists can
work, and it would behoove the Minister, I
think, to make known to the profession the
criteria on which they would make such
judgment.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, we ha\e
hid xery excellent co-operation from the pro-
frssi-n. The vision standards are now unifonu
across Canada. All pro\inces have adopted
the same minimum safe vision standards for
dn\ ers.
These are clearly measurable, and some-
times the required vision can be met by
glasses, or it helps. And if we receive a report
from an optometrist to the effect that his
pati(Mit, or a certain drixer, does not have the
required minimum vision, we do not ipso facto
or automatically cancel the man's driving
permit.
We write him, and we ask him to let us
have one or more statements as to his vision.
And then, on the basis of such an assessment
we decide whether he should be called in
for examination, or whether he should be
suspended. And, if he is suspended because
of that, he has the right to appeal to us. It is
ver>' carefully, I think, worked out; and I
think that the operation of the corresponding
section already in the Act with respect to
medical doctors reporting, has been working
^ery satisfactorily.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The section
touching medical doctors, I suggest, is diverse
from the implications of this particular sec-
tion. I am not quarrelling with it, I think in
principle it is all right, but I just wonder if it
is worded the way the Minister truly intends
it to be. 145(a) of the medical section
requires,
A duly qualified medical practitioner to
report the name and address of every per-
MAY 12, 1969
428-i
son coming under his diagnosis, treatment,
care or charge who is suffering from a con-
dition that, in the opinion of the medical
doctor is such, as to make it dangerous for
such person to operate a motor vehicle.
That is fine but here it says.
Who, in the opinion of such optometrist,
is suffering from an eye condition that may
make it dangerous for such person to oper-
ate a motor vehicle.
One case I would take it, would be heart con-
dition, or something like that, which is intrin-
sically dangerous in the circumstances. In the
other case, the fellow may or may not be able
to see, with or without glasses, or without
corrective aids.
Does the Minister mean that everybody
who is myopic or astigmatic or whatever he
may be and without any type of aid, is to be
reported; or is a report to go in saying, "Yes,
this person is, without his glasses, physically
defective and ought not to drive a vehicle
because he cannot see but with his glasses or
with the aids that we have been able to pro-
vide, is perfectly competent to drive."?
Which way is this to be? You do not say.
It is not clear from the surface of this as it is
in the case, I suggest, of the medical prac-
titioner. It is not clear from what you say
here. He is suffering from an eye condition
that may make it dangerous for such person
to drive. No doubt, many individuals are
suffering from such eye conditions which,
taken by itself alone, would exclude them
from dri\'ing at all, but are perfectly safe
people with the condition corrected. Just
how does this stand?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: If the situation is cor-
rectable with glasses it is quite all right.
Mr. Lawlor: Well, why do you not say so?
I think the Minister will have to agree that
it does not make it that clear. It is in the
mind of the Minister but it is not in black
and white.
Sections 70 to 73, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 74:
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, on sec-
tion 74, I move that subsection 2 of section
156 of tlie Act, as re-enacted by section 74
of the bill, be amended by striking out clause
(d) of subsection 12 of section 59 in the
seventh line.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the
section together with the amendment as pro-
posed by the hon. Minister. Let me say for
the reasons we ennunciated on Friday, and
again this afternoon, we are going to oppose
this section even as amended.
Without reviewing everything that was
said in that debate, let me pose some new
thoughts, together with some that we have
already put forward, in connection with this
section. The section starts of with the words,
"every constable" and I am sure Mr. Chair-
man, the Minister knows that one of Mc-
Ruer's concerns was the power given not only
to constables but to other ix;rsons appointed
by the Minister for purpose of enforcing tliis
Act.
At first glance, as you look at the revision
to section 156(2), sir, note that he now
proposes to use the words, "every constable"
instead of, "every constable or oflBcer ap-
pointed for carrying out the provisions of
this Act". One would think as I say, at first
glance, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister has
made a substantial improvement. Except that
I have always been taught that it is a prin-
ciple of statutory interpretation that you look
within the enabling statute for the definition.
I therefore began to look through The
Highway Traffic Act for the definition of con-
stable and it is a very interesting chase one
gets led through, trying to determine this.
You look at the index— and this comes, I
think, from the Minister's office. It is printed
by the Queen's publisher, a fellow named
Frank Holt. On page 219 under index, where
you try to find the word "constable"— "con-
stable" is not, incidentally, in the interpreta-
tion section— it says, "constables— see police".
From page 219 you turn to page 229 and you
have, "police— see peace officers". Looking
back to "peace officers" you find there is a
definition of peace officers and peace officer is
defined, Mr. Chairman, in section 1, subsec-
tion 1, number 18— and listen to what a peace
officer is:
Peace officer includes mayor, warden,
reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer,
justice of the peace, jailer or keeper of a
prison and a police officer, constable, bai-
liff or other person employed for the preser-
vation and maintenance of public peace or
for the service or execution of civil process
or any officer appointed for enforcing or
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Member of
the Legislature?
Mr. Singer: Well not quite, it does not
include that, but it includes a motley crew
of people. I am sure the Minister, or the Min-
ister's advisors perhaps, thought they were
4288
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
grasping the germ of an idea sold by that
eminent gentleman, Mr. McRuer. But, what
in fact they have achieved, Mr. Chainnan, is
to extend these unusual and imwarranted
powers, as I read the statute in any event,
to all those jx^ople who are defined in sec-
tion 1, subsection 1, number 18.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Have you tried the other statutes?
Mr. Singer: Where else do you find it if
you cannot look within the statute for the
definition? We start with "constable", looking
in the index and "constable" says, "police
officer", police officer says, "peace officer".
Go back to the statute— and the Minister of
Mines shakes his head.
I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that even
the Minister of Mines as an expert is a better
parliamentary draftsman than any who advise
the hon. Minister of Transport.
If he means a police officer as defined in
The Police Act, why can he not say so? Why
can that not be made abundantly clear? Par-
ticularly, in face of what McRuer said.
One of McRuer's concerns was that the
powers of arrest without a warrant are too
widely extended and what I loosely referred
to as "Haskett's army" can begin to descend
and arrest under the old section; well, now it
is "Haskett's army" plus everyone else who
holds a public title, it would appear.
If he does not mean that, for goodness sake
let him change tlie definition and make it
meaningful. When >ou define the word "con-
stable" at least you relate it to the definition
of constable as set out in The Police Act, and
so you are not boinid within the four walls
of The Highway Traffic Act.
Mr. Sopha: It includes the Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Brunelle), also.
Mr. Singer: Oh, yes, it includes everybody,
a great group. I think just so we can let this
sink in, may]>e I should read that definition
section again.
A peace officer includes a mayor, a war-
den, a reeve, a sheriff, a deputy sheriff, a
sheriff's officer, justice of the peace, a
jailer—
I am sorr\" the Minister of Correctional Serv-
ices is not here because all his people are
put in this:
—a jailer, a keeper of a prison, police
officer, constable, bailiff or other person
employed in the preservation and mainte-
nance of the public peace or for the service
or execution of the civil process or any
officer appointed for enforcing or carrying
out the provisions of this Act.
And that last phrase covers, "Haskett's pri-
vate army". But, I think, Mr. Chairman, if the
intention is to bring ourselves within the
recommendations made by Mr. McRuer, that
we at least should say that when we refer
to "constable" in section 74 of Bill 105, that
we mean "constable" as defined in The Police
Act, whichever chapter that is. Now, then,
let that stand as it may.
It is interesting, notwithstanding the im-
portance and the self-obvious nature of Mc-
Ruer's recommendations, that we should do
away with the power of arrest v^dthout a
warrant. Here in section 74 of this Bill 105,
the Minister is preserving 14 separate in-
stances, 14 wherein arrest without a war-
rant can be made by a constable— however
you may want to define him— for offences set
out under this statute. Subsection 7(1), mak-
ing a false statement:
Every person who knowingly makes a
false statement of fact in any application,
declaration or affidavit or paper writing
required by this Act and so on, is guilty
of an offence and liable to a fine of $20.
Mr. Chairman, one would presume, be-
cause the Minister wanted to relate these to
offences that take place in the motor vehicle—
I am certain that my colleague from Sudbury
and I would certainly presume— that it would
be very difficult to make a false statement of
fact in any application, declaration and so on
while you are in a motor vehicle. One would
think that you would have to go to an
office somewhere and write it out to make
this false declaration.
Mr. Sopha: At least stop on the side of
the road.
Mr. Singer: Something like that, yes, at
least stop on the side of the road to do it.
But the Minister says this is a terrible thing.
Along should come this constable, whoever
he might be, who should be able to arrest
you without a warrant if you have commit-
ted this heinous crime. Well, it is wrong if
someone makes a false statement and tries
to mislead the Minister or his officials. I
agree, they should be subject to a penalty,
but really should they be subject to arrest
without a warrant? That is what the Minister
says.
The next one is section 9 (1), (a), (b), (c),
and (d):
Every person who defaces or alters any
number plate can be arrested without a
MAY 12, 1969
4289
warrant or uses or permits the use of a
defaced or altered number plate, or with-
out the authority of the owner removes the
number plate from a vehicle, or he uses
or permits the use of any number plate
upon a motor vehicle.
And so on. All those terrible people can be
arrested without a warrant.
I would think that the average constable
is going to find it very difficult to catch any
person in the act of defacing or altering a
number plate or doing all these other things
—but maybe there is some point in it. In any
event, I cannot see it. And, in any event,
McCruer could not see it— so why is it still
continued?
Section 10(1) relates to the exposing of
other numbers:
No number other than that number upon
the number plate furnished shall be ex-
posed on any part of a motor vehicle.
It would seem to me again, Mr. Chairman,
that the Minister is very desirous of making
the course of administration of justice where
a constable— as defined in The Police Act-
would think that something has gone wrong,
somebody is stealing a car, and making the
possibility of arrest of that person a little
easier. But surely we would believe, as does
Chief Justice Dalton Wells, that the police
should get out and do their studying, do
their research work, and do their investiga-
tions. If they believe that a theft has taken
place and somebody has altered a number
to ease their way in regard to that unusual
course of conduct, they should be dealt with
under the applicable provisions of the Crim-
inal Code, not this Minister.
Well then, sections 14(2) and 17(2) are
added and those are sections that we talked
about at some length on Friday and today.
Section 25, subsections 2 and 3, which he
continues with in this section, deal with the
unlawful possession of a permit or a licence.
Again the same reasoning applies.
Section 26, interestingly enough, is operat-
ing a vehicle while a permit is suspended.
Why does the Minister have to repeat what
section 225(3) of the Canadian Criminal Code
already says? Does it make it more serious
if the Minister keeps it in The Highway
Traffic Act while it is still in the Criminal
Code— because it is there twice? Section 225,
subsections 3 of the Canadian Criminal Code
says:
Everyone who drives a motor vehicle in
Canada while he is disqualffied or pro-
hibited from driving a motor vehicle by
reason (a) of the legal suspension or (b) an
order made pursuant to subsection 1 is
guilty of an indictable offence.
And as the Minister knows— we told him at
great length, I hope he knows by now— that
where a person has committed an indictable
offence or is believed to have committed an
indictable offence, a peace officer can arrest
on the basis of reasonable and probable cause
that the offence has been committed. So
why does the Minister need it again? Why
does the Minister have to say, in section 26,
where the offence is defined in not too dif-
ferent a matter:
Every person who operates a motor
vehicle the permit for which is under sus-
pension or has been cancelled, can be
arrested without a warrant.
Why is he not satisfied with 225(3) of the
code? And what does he really prove by
putting it in there twice?
Well then, Mr. Chairman, section 59(12)(d),
which he put in, speeding 30 miles over the
limit, and has now taken out, is the amend-
ment he introduced this evening. Speeding
30 miles over the limit perhaps has the most
merit for arrest without a warrant of any of
the ones that he has in there. That is the
one he chose to delete. Now, maybe if it
made any sense, he could have told us why.
But I would think that the same kind of
argument we have been putting forward re-
lating to the provisions of the Criminal Code,
would relate the offence of speeding 30 miles
over the speed limit. That is, being some-
thing akin to criminal negligence, maybe that
is the reason why he took it out. That is one
of the new ones he added and one of the
new ones he took out— but why he did it,
I do not know.
Section 60 is careless driving. Section 91
is racing on the highway. There are equiva-
lent sections in the code and I have already
dealt with those. Section 100, removing or
defacing an obstruction, and section 143(a),
failing to remain, and section 143(a) sub-
section (a) is the same as section 221, sub-
section 2 of the Canadian Criminal Code.
Again he repeats himself.
I am going to be very interested to hear
from the Minister why he has completely
ignored the recommenadtions of Mr. McRuer
in regard to all of these offences for which
there still can be an arrest without a warrant.
I would like to hear him explain to us also
just who the constable is that he refers to
in this proposed amendment. If, as I say, we
are forced to follow our tortuous way through
the definitions as set out in The Highway
4290
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
TraflBc Act, it would seem a constable is
almost everybody under the sun. If this is
what the Minister wants, well, it is quite
obvious what the Minister's approach is to
these serious matters.
He paraded this afternoon in self-righteous-
ness and beat his breast and said: "We're the
defenders of civil hberty". Well, this section,
surely, Mr. Chairman, is the complete nega-
tion of that false assertion. Surely, Mr. Chair-
man, the Minister should withdraw the section
and bring himself within the reasonable
bounds of the recommendations made by
McRuer. Let us hope that he will do so.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to try to speed this up a little bit. Could
the Minister take each one of the 14 retained
offences seriatum and deal with each one
of them and explain why he is retaining it in
the Act? That would be one convenient way
of doing it. The other one would be for me
to recite the particular retained offence and
ask the Minister that question.
Could the Minister agree to deal with each
one individually?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
be glad to say a few words about the remain-
ing sections if that is what the member means.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, let me do
it the other way, so that the Minister will-
Mr. Singer: Start back witli constable.
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, I will deal with some
other points. It takes a sort of feat of gym-
nastics to find just where the sections are at
the present time that have been retained with
the amending bill. First of all, I agree entirely
with the remarks of the member for Downs-
view on the question of the meaning of the
term constable in subsection 2 of section 156.
Briefly, as I understand it, it is that as peace
officer is defined, one of the persons included
in that definition is somebody called a con-
stable—but there is no further reference
whatsoever to the delimitation of the person
who is entitled to exercise this power of
arbitrary arrest.
I think it must, of necessity, be clarified
because that is the person and the only per-
son who is entitled to avail himself of the
right to conduct tliis arrest without a warrant.
Any citizen is entitled to know that the
person who is exercising that right is a con-
stalile, and not one of these other groupings
or classifications of i^eace officers that are
included in the definition. I think that, in
itself, is a proposed, fundamental vice in the
bill or in this section which is proposed.
The second point which completely defies
me is one of semantics. I am going to leave
out the sections about reasonable and prob-
able grounds at the moment, and I am going
to read the section the way it reads to me.
Every constable who believes that a con-
travention of any of the provisions of the
enumerated clauses has been committed—
and then it has these words, "whether it has
been committed or not", and then goes on:
—and who beheves that any person has
committed such contravention may arrest
such person without warrant whether such
person is guilty or not.
My question on the semantics is simply
whether or not this word, "such contraven-
tion" means, in fact, a contravention that has
been committed or whether it is sufficient to
include in it a contravention which the con-
stable believes on reasonable and probable
grounds to have been committed whether or
not it has been committed. Frankly, I do not
know what it means, and in terms of drafts-
manship, the semantics of the bill require
specific clarification.
Now on each of tlie retained offences— the
Minister can correct me if I have not found
the right clause, whether it is in the con-
solidation of that statute as it presently exists,
or whether it is in die proposed amendment
bill-^but the first one of the retained offences
for arrest without a warrant is subsection (1)
of section 7, which is, as the hon. member
for Downsview has stated, "every person who
knowiiDgly makes any false statement in any
application, declaration, affidavit or paper
writing required by this Act or by the regula-
tions, or by the departments, is guilty of an
offence". Would the Minister say why it is
necessary to retain the power of arrest with-
outa warrant in that case?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
I can start by explaining why I made the
amendment I did with respect to deleting
tlie-
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my under-
standing is that when we are dealing with a
bill in committee of the whole House on a
clause by clause basis, that the Minister, if
questions are put to him, can either not
answer them or answer them. But I think that
if, for the proper ordering of the business,
he could deal with this in tlie way in which I
have suggested we would make a great deal
MAY 12, 1969
4291
more progress. I have put a question to the
Minister. The Minister, as I understancl it,
can either not answer it or answer it.
Mr. Chairman: Surely the Minister has the
privilege of answering all the questions in
whatever order he chooses? I do not know
any rule which says the answers must be
given in any specific order as they were asked.
For example, we have often had many mem-
bers rise and speak to a particular section or
clause of a bill, and there are many ques-
tions. I think the Minister does his best to
answer them in the manner in which he can
recall them or in which he has made notes of
them. I am not sure what the hon. member
for Riverdiale is driving at.
Mr. J. Ren wick: I really do not want to pin
it down to some procedural question, Mr,
Chairman. There are 14 retained offences,
for which a constable can arrest without a
warrant under this provision. Now, what I
wanted to do was to ask in the case of each
specific one, what the reason was. It seems
to me that that is the simplest way in which
we can deal with the matter in an expeditious
manner. 1 suggest that is an expeditious man-
ner because even to state them properly is a
problem because part of them is in the con-
solidation and part of them in the Act that
we have been dealing with.
I have asked a specific question on the
first one. I will ask it again and then the
Minister can go on and then I will come
back if he has not answered it and ask my
next question. My first question to the Min-
ister is, why is it necessary to retain as an
offence for which a person can be arrested
without a warrant, the following offence:
Every person who knowingly makes any
false statement in any application, declar-
ation, affidavit or paper writing required
l)y this Act or by the regulations or by the
department is guilty of an offence.
Why does the power of arrest without a
warrant have to be retained in that case?
Why is it not suflBcient to summon a person
for such an offence?
Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. member dealing
with the questions now in the order in which
they appear in subsection (2) of clause 74?
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: That is subsection (1) of
section 7— is it the relevant one?
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I will try
to accommodate the hon. member for River-
dale. Though, having made an amendment to
the section, I thought it only fair that I should
explain why I made the amendment I did,
and then go on to answer his specific ques-
tions as well as I can.
I moved, as you will note, that reference to
clause d of section 12 of 59 be deleted and I
want to say that it was included without ray
knowledge, and the mistake was discovered
when the bill was being checked. It was
clearly indicated in my remarks when I intro-
duced the bill that it was not to be there. I
referred to the powers of arrest that were
being added as two new ones. They were,
namely—
Mr. Singer: Those civil servants "snuk up"
on you again.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: —leaving the scene, and
failing to identify. That is why I had the
motion I put to the House when we reached
this section to delete that unwanted section
which was there without my knowledge and
it was not found until the bill was checked.
Now to go ahead with the procedure re-
quested by the member for Riverdale. He
asks why we have to include or retain these
sections.
Mr. Sopha: You need a broom with the
bookkeeping.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It is quite a bill.
Mr. Singer: One would expect that the
Minister would read the Act he introduces
before he introduces it.
Mr. Sopha: One would expect somebody
to read it.
Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. Minister replying
to the question dealing with subsection (1) of
section 7?
Mr. Sopha: Apparently nobody in the Cab-
inet reads them.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The debate on the sec-
tions clearly demonstrates the difficulty facing
the government when considering the au-
thority of the police to act without a warrant.
I go back to say that the McRuer report on
civil rights is helpful in approaching the prob-
lem in general. It is a good guide to follow
when reviewing police powers.
In most instances the government agrees
with the report, and in recognition of this
agreement sectioa 156 is amended in section
74 of the bill by deleting from 156 four of
4292
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the specific illustrations referred to on pages
729 and 730 of Volume 2 of the McRuer
report. Namely, failure to notify the depart-
ment of change of address, failure to have
licence plates attached, improperly attached
licence plates and failure to notify the depart-
ment of a sale or purchase of a motor vehicle.
Now for the remaining ones, and the hon.
member for Riverdale wants to take them
piecemeal. He begins with section 7(1) of the
Act, namely, knowingly making a false state-
ment. The offence created by section 7(1) is
for the purjjose of penalizing a fraudulent
attempt of a cheat or confidence man for
applying for a driver's licence or vehicle
permit.
Mr. Singer: Why would you arrest him
without a warrant?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It is included among
those offences for which a constable may
arrest without a warrant for the obvious
reason of attempting to curb this type of
transaction. What type of a person is involved
in knowingly giving false information? It is
the type of person who, through falsification,
has applied for drivers' licences and obtained
numerous ones in different names and ad-
dresses, so that in the event of one or more
of such licences being suspended, he will
still have at least one current valid licence
issued to him in a different name.
The key in this section and the word that
protects the responsible citizen is the word
"knowingly". This section has been in the
Act for more than 40 years in almost the
identical form it is today and has been
during that time an arrestable offence without
a warrant ever being issued.
Mr. Chairman: W^ill that answer the hon.
member's first question? Does he wish to pro-
ceed with the next item?
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, how many
instances have there been of arrests under
that particular section without a warrant?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That, Mr. Chairman, I
cannot answer.
Mr. Singer: No, naturally not.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well I am going to make
a comment and move on to the second part
of it. The Minister has, quite rightly, said
that th(; key word in this section is the word
"knowingly". That is also the other side of
the coin by which the police constable exer-
cises his right to arrest, because the Act
says tliat all a constable has to do is to have
reasonable and probable grounds believing
that a false statement has knowingly been
made.
Whether or not it has been made, if he
believes on reasonable and probable grounds
that it has been made, then he can procee<l
to arrest. I simply say that I do not think
that there is sufficient justification for keep-
ing the section in the Act.
The next ones are clauses a, b, c and d of
subsection 1 of section 9 which says:
Every person who (a) defaces or alters
any number plate furnished by the depart-
ment; (b) uses or permits the use of a
defaced or altered number plate or a num-
ber plate issued by the department for
another motor vehicle, trailer or conversion
unit; (c) without the authority of the owner
removes a number plate from a motor
vehicle, trailer or conversion unit; and (d)
USPS or permits the use of any number plate
upon a motor vehicle, trailer or conversion
unit except the one issued by the depart-
ment for the motor vehicle, trailer or
conversion unit, is guilty of an offence.
Could the Minister answer why he has
retained the power of arrest in those in-
stances?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, in sec-
tion 9(1) a, b, c, and d, those powers are
retained, whereas section e of the same
subsection has been dropped. Let me now
deal with these offences under a, b, c and d,
which are included among the arrestable
offences and as such are objected to in the
McRuer report.
Mr. Singer: lie objects lo all those.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I just said which are
objected to in the McRuer report.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, they are all objected to.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I listed the four and
said they were objected to in the McRuer
report. The offences deal with the defacing
and altering of licence plates and the use of
such plates, removing of licence plates with-
out the authority of the owner, or the use of
a plate on a vehicle for which it was not
issued.
Now consider the sort of person who would
be involved in these—
Mr. Sopha: We should tlirow him in tlie
clink.
Mr. Singer: Off with his head.
MAY 12, 1969
4293
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Consider the sort of
person who would be involved in these sub-
terfuges and whether a constable, having
reasonable and probable cause to beheve that
a person has committed this type of oflEence,
should be able to arrest such person without
a warrant That is the question the hon. mem-
ber raises.
It is the car thief, the smuggler and the
person fleeing from the police, who would be
involved in these types of oflFences. These
offences have been in The Highway Traffic
Act, I might mention also, for more than 40
years and during that time they have been
offences for which a constable can arrest
without a warrant. There is no instance
known to me that there have been any abuses
of this power by the constables. There is the
history of it-
Mr. Sopha: Mr. McRuer said he would
take them out.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is right.
Mr. Sopha: Why do you not do it then?
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I assume
that there are no statistics about the extent
to which persons have been arrested without
a warrant for these offences.
The next one is similar to the first one of
the last group, and that is the offence in
subsection 1 of section 10 which states that
No number other than that upon the
number plate furnished by the department
shall be aqposed on any part of a motor
vehicle, trailer or conversion unit, in such
a position or manner as to confuse the
identity of the number plate.
Would the Minister comment on why that is
retained as an arrestable offence?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, as the
hon. member points out, it is very similar in
mis-use for the same purpose to which the
other sections are directed.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the
committee rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs leave to report
progress and asks for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Tomorrow we will return
to the estimates of The Department of Social
and Family Services and if by any chance
we complete them, we might start the esti-
mates of The Department of Mines.
Mr. Singer: No chance of getting back to
this exciting bill?
Hon. Mr. Weldi moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjoimied at 11.05 o'clock, p.m.
No. 115
ONTARIO
Hegisflature of Ontario
Betiatesf
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, May 13, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 13, 1969
Seventh report, standing legal and municipal committee, Mr. Demers 4297
Second report, standing agriculture and food committee, Mr. Hamilton 4297
Securities Act, 1966, bill to amend, Mr. Rowntree, first reading 4297
Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1968, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 4297
Trust companies and other financial institutions, question to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Nixon 4298
Damaging effects of Mace, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon 4300
Use of firearms by police, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. MacDonald 4301
Conduct of local police chief, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. MacDonald 4301
Alleged police brutality, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. De Monte 4301
Nanticoke power station, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Haggerty 4302
Age Discrimination Act, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. T. Reid 4302
Health education re venereal disease, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. T. Reid 4302
Collection of education taxes, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 4303
Public libraries in Ontario, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 4303
Separate Schools Act, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Lawlor 4304
Purchase of lots, question to Mr. Rovmtree, Mr. Burr 4305
Highway marking signs, questions to Mr. Comme, Mr, J. R. Smith 4305
Rear bumpers on commercial vehicles, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. B. Newman 4305
Consumer protection branch, question to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. B. Newman 4305
Sulphur dioxide in Sudbury area, question to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Martel 4306
Weight of loads on highways, question to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Martel 4306
GO transit, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Deacon 4307
Commercial fishing at Lake Nipigon, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Stokes 4307
Claremont Hill project, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Deans 4307
Death of Beryl Higgins, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 4308
Royal assent to certain bills, the honourable the Lieutenant-Governor 4308
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 4309
Recess, 6 o'clock 4338
4297
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met today at 2 o'clock.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today as our guests in Mr.
Speaker s gallery are members of the Pro-
gressive Conservative Women's Association
in Niagara Falls; in the east gallery students
from George Harvey Secondary School, To-
ronto, and Markham District High School,
Markham; in the west gallery students from
Richview Collegiate Institute in Islington and
Bayview Junior High School in Willowdale.
Later this afternoon we will have with us
students from King Edward Public School in
Barrie and Bayview Secondary School in
Richmond Hill.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Mr. Demers from tlie standing legal and
municipal committee presented the commit-
tee's seventh report which was read as fol-
lows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill 124, An Act to amend The Legal Aid
Act, 1966.
In the absence of Mr. Whitney, Mr. Ham-
ilton from tlie standing agriculture and food
committee, presented the committee's second
report which was read as follows and adopted :
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment:
Bill 98, An Act to amend The Dog Tax
and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill 140, An Act to provide for the Estab-
lishment, upon an Opinion Poll by Secret
Ballot of tlie Farmers in Ontario, of a General
Farm Organization.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE SECURITIES ACT, 1966
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial AflFairs) moves first
Tuesday, May 13, 1969
reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend
The Securities Act, 1966.
Motion agreed to; first reading of tlie bill.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this amending bill is to bring certain
sections up to date with the knowledge gained
over this past operating year.
It provides for a simplified method of de-
fining registrants under the Act. It makes
provision for implementing recommendations
of the Beatty report dealing with the form of
prospectus required for certain mining de-
velopment companies and the regulation of
the over-the-counter market.
Mr. Speaker, during the debate in the
House on the Toronto Stock Exchange bill,
some of the members expressed some doubt
with respect to the right of appeal from dis-
ciplinary action taken by the stock exdhange
against its members. It had been my view
that the existing legislation did cover Aat
point and that it was currendy eflFective.
However, in order that there might be no
doubt in the matter, this bill clarifies that the
specific riglit of appeal from such action to
the Ontario Securities Commission does exist.
THE MOTORIZED SNOW
VEHICLES ACT, 1968
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend
The Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1968.
Mr. Speaker: Until I ascertain when notice
was given of this bill's introduction, I shall
not put the motion.
Motion agreed to; first reading of tlie bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill is
modelled on similar bills in some eight or
nine other jurisdictions. The purpose of tliis
bill is to prevent the shooting, driving or
pursuing of deer or bear from motorized
snow vehicles. _„„»———_«,«__
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to call to the attention of the
members, as I mentioned in the House some
weeks ago, that when there is a division in
the House or in committee, the doors will be
4298
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
locked when the division bell ceases ringing
and will remain locked until the count has
been announced by tlie Clerk or the Assistant
Clerk. If there is any complaint from the
members with respect to the doors being
closed at an improper time, it will be made
to me. The door will not be forced, as un-
fortvmately happened last evening, and I
would not like to have another occasion
such as that.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Financial and Commercial Affairs.
Does the Minister intend to introduce legis-
lation at thif; session which will change the
situation of trust companies and other finan-
cial institutions in broadening their abihty to
lend money, as has been introduced in the
Parliament of Canada?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, it is my
view that in these matters tliere should be
conformity between the federal and provincial
legislation and that there should be a single
standard rather than a double standaid.
I am s-ure the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion will appreciate that the bill before the
House of Commons has been projected only
and has not been declared law as yet. I tliink
we must wait until it reaches its final stages
l)efore we initiate some steps of our own.
In the meantime I and my officials have
been personally in touch with the federal
authorities with respect to their legislation
over a period of many montlis. We are also,
at the moment, studying the details of the
l)ill as published by tiie federal authority
with a view to recommending legislation for
this Legislature at an early date,
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
])ury.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I
rise concerning the privileges of the House.
And the privilege that I wish to draw atten-
tion to, your honour, is the one which relates
to tlie clear and distinct separation between
the legislative function and the judicial. And
r refer to wliat I allege to be the extra-judicial
comments made by one of Her Majesty's
judges about certain legislation passed by this
House. That legislation, I might add, was
passed imauimously by the House and each
member of this Legislature takes responsibility
for its form, its wording and its operation.
Yesterday when the attention of the
Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) was directed
to the fact that the hon. Mr. Justice Stewart
made some extra-judicial comments by way
of some form of press conference following a
decision in the case of Bell against Tamo-
polsky, the Attorney General of Ontario quite
properly said, in very measured language,
that if he had been a judge he would not
have engaged in such communication with
the press.
Today, in die early edition of the Toronto
Star, the difference of opinion continues be-
tween the judge and one of the members
of this Legislature— and albeit a very senior
member, the Minister responsible for the
conduct of the government's business in
the courts. The judge, Mr. Justice Stewart,
rebukes the Attorney General by telling him
that rather than direct comments against he,
die judge, lie should rebuke the emiployee of
his dei)artment, one Marshall Pollock, whom
the judge alleges himself carried on some
form of communication with the press fol-
lowing the hearing of the application referred
to.
Now, sir, it is perfectly clear and indeed
the product of more than 1,000 years of evo-
lution in our system, that the form of legisla-
tion and the declared policy in regard to the
legislation is a matter exclusively within the
province of this Legislature. On the other
hand, Her Majesty's judges, of which Mr.
Justice Stewart is one, are called upon to
hear matters relating to the legislation, to
interpret it and to decide. It is perfectly
proper for a judge during the course of the
delivery of his judicial opinion— and I empha-
size only during the course of his delivery—
to make comments about the inadequacy or
the unsatisfactory nature of the legislation
for the purpose of allowing the Legislature
to adopt corrective measures.
It is extremely improper and, indeed, in-
judicious for the judge to use any other forum
to assail the policy of legislation which eman-
ates from this House. It follows that if he,
as a judge, does not like the legislation, then
it is incumbent upon him to remove liimself
from the sanctity of that area of the public
domain in which he serves and come into this
fonmi in order diat the legislation may be
changed to suit his own views. He did not
do that. Although the observation made here
yesterday by the Attorney General was a very
restrained one, the judge shows a procHvity
to carry on tlie warfare with the senior law
officer of the Crown.
Now, I call this to your attention, sir,
because tliere is a very vital, fundamental
principle involved. That principle is all the
more emphasized when we remember that
the Ontario Hiunan Rights Code was adopted
MAY 13. 1969
4299
unanimously in this Legislature. So I ask you,
sir, as one of the members of this House
who feels that a privilege of ours has been
invaded, whether some stops might be taken?
Indeed, they ought to emanate and be initi-
ated by the government or by the chief law
officer of the Crown himself. This would put
an end, once and for all, to these extra-
judicial comments made by this judge about
this legislation and indeed, to restrain hdm
from using his judicial office in whatever form
he chooses off the bench to engage in this
soap-box oratory about the policy of the
Legislature as discernible in this legislation.
And in order that the record will disclose
just what it is that has been offended, I want
to put this one comment of the judge in
Hansard. He says, as reported in the Toronto
Star of May 13, about the Ontario Human
Rights Code, and I quote:
One of the rights to discriminate that
surely must be maintained is the right to
say who shall sit at your table and who
shall sleep under your roof.
I say to you sir, that that is the most im-
proper comment for one of Her Majesty's
judges to make about the legislation. I urge
upon you, and indeed, upon the Attorney
General— who has now come into the House-
that a communication be made to the judicial
authorities asking that restraint in language
be employed and a recognition be made of
the clear separation between the respective
functions of the Legislature and the judicial
office.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add a few words in
support of this question of privilege with
regard to the rights of this House as a whole.
The hon. member for Sudbury has picked up
from what I introduced yesterday, only by
way of interjection, but I think he is com-
pletely on sound ground. It is a matter of
considerable delicacy but it is fundamental to
the division of powers between the executive,
the judiciary and the Legislature in the
operation of Parhament in the British tradi-
tion.
The thing that disturbs me, Mr. Speaker,
and leads me to underline the comment of
the hon. member for Sudbury that the Attor-
ney General should consider exactly what
should be done in face of this, is this: The
continuiag argument on the point by Mr.
Justice Stewart is really only an extension of
what took place in the hearing in chambers.
That hearing in chambers indicated a de-
cision on his part before he had even heard
the case.
The proposition of a judge entertaining a
case with a closed mind, strikes me as being
a little preposterous. He has imderlined that
closed mind by his willingness to take on, so
to speak, the Attorney General and the whole
of the Legislature. I think we have a very
serious situation, a matter of delicacy, but
fundamental, that the Attorney General
should look into. Exactly what he should
do, I shall look forward to hearing, because
I am a layman and I do not know how best
this should be handled, but something should
be said and done.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker; I see that the
hon. Premier wants to reply to this matter on
behalf of the government and the Attorney
General is now in his place, but I want to
assure the gentiemen sitting opposite that
they have the power and certainly the forum
here to undertake the action which would
set this right; not only in this specffic case
but as an example to other men on the bench
who may feel that it is their prerogative to
move into the field that is exclusively ours.
I can say, on behalf of the Opposition that
we vvdll support the government if they take
a strong stand at this time and in this par-
ticular position.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I would first say in regard to the
remarks of the hon. member for Sudbury that
he put the point very well and I am delighted
that he draws these distinctions. I think very
often that some of our privileges are abused,
advertently or inadvertently and I think we
should be alert to the protection of our own
position as legislators here. After all, we
carry the responsibility in one respect and
we should have the privileges that exist in
order that we may carry that responsibility.
As far as this specffic matter is concerned,
to date we are dealing with newspaper re-
ports. We will, of course, check into what
was said and what was reported to have been
said. The reasons for the order have not yet
been received by the registrar at Osgoode
Hall. We will want to look at those, but I
can assure my hon. friends opposite that we
do not intend to permit the privileges of the
members of this House to be impinged upon
in any way. On the other hand, in fairness to
all concerned, we had better be quite certain
that they have been impinged before we
make any comment.
Mr. MacDonald: How can the Prime Min-
ister do that without official records?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: There will be in due
course, that is the point.
4300
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: No there will not! None
was taken.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Why not?
Mr. MacDonald: That is the point I raised
yesterday.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If there is not going to
be an oflBcial record, we will find out why.
But these are the matters of which I would
like to assure myself before we take any
positive action in the matter one way or
another. However, I think it is a completely
proper matter for this House with which to
concern itself.
Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. member for
Sudbury that my response to his point of
privilege would have been very similar to
that of the Prime Minister, and that is that
I would wish to look into what actually did
transpire and not what was reported. I
would, therefore, now ask the Minister of
Justice, when he has made his inquiry, to
let Mr. Speaker have the facts of the case
as he ascertains them. And then, on behalf of
the House, Mr. Speaker will take such action
as the House may direct and will ensure that
there is a full report given to the House so
that we may all, as all leaders have agreed,
ensure that the judicial and legislative func-
tions of persons in this province are kept
separate and distinct as they should be.
The hon. leader of the Opposition might
wish now to place his question to the Min-
ister of Justice.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Sudbury has a question that follows
directly from the recent discussion and I
would ask him to put that question, if that
is permissible.
Mr. Sopha: Thank you, I am grateful for
the courtesy extended. A question of the
Attorney General. In view of the fact that
this Legislature unanimously passed and ac-
cepted responsibility for the Ontario Human
Rights Code, would the Attorney General
inform the House whether in the proceeding
brought by Bell before the hon. Mr. Justice
Stewart to prohibit Walter Tamopolsky from
holding a hearing into the alleged discrimi-
nation by Bell, the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Bales) was served with notice of the hearing?
Was the chairman of the human rights
commission served with notice?
Was the Attorney General served with
notice?
Two, would the Attorney General supply
each member of the House with a copy of
the response of counsel for Walter Tamopol-
sky to the affidavit made by Bell, or on his
behalf?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that ques-
tion as notice. A good deal is required in
answer. I will get it quickly and make an
answer in that way.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
on another matter for the Attorney General.
Did the Attorney General commission the
study on the eflFects of Mace by Doctors
W. G. Macrae and Michael Willinsky of the
department of ophthalmology at the Univer-
sity of Toronto?
Second, now that the department of
ophthalmology has completed studies on the
eye-damaging effects of Mace, is the Attorney
General considering regulations which will
control its use by the police forces of the
province?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the
Attorney General or the Ontario Police Com-
mission did not commission the study,
although I believe the Ontario Police Com-
mission had some part in it, perhaps furnished
some material in connection with the study.
I have indicated, I think previously in the
House, Mr. Speaker, that while we have no
legislation at the moment, this matter is under
discussion. It is under study with the police
forces in this province. While I would point
out to hon. members that I have not pre-
sented yet to this House the legislation which
would ordinarily be in the amendments to
The Police Act, I can assure them that the
matter is under very definite study and dis-
cussion at this time.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Attorney
General could tell the House if he knows
whether the study was initiated independently
or whether some other level of government
was perhaps involved?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know, Mr.
Speaker. We were aware of studies that
were being carried on. One was being carried
on by the National Research Council and, I
think, initiated perhaps— although I am not
certain of this-by the RCMP. That was the
study which I referred to previously, of
which we were awaiting the results.
It was in connection with our concern
about the effect of Mace that I had some
months ago strongly urged police forces not
to use it until the effects of it were known,
particularly the possibility of a permanent
MAY 13, 1969
4301
injurious eflFect. Those studies are now appear-
ing and, I think, indicating that Mace is a
substance which may have quite serious or
quite permanent effects, especially on the
eyes and other parts of the body.
But we did not initiate the study. We
have been aware of the studies that are go-
ing forward. We have received one, which
I mentioned to the House some time ago, and
discussions with the police forces have cer-
tainly been continuing steadily for some
months.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the Attorney General in two parts.
First, where does the jurisdiction rest for
change of the law and/or regulations regard-
ing the policeman's use of firearms during
the course of his duties— with the Ontario
Legislature, the Ontario Police Commission,
local police commissions, or some combination
of the three?
Secondly, with reference to the Nobrega
shooting, could the Minister ascertain, through
the government-appointed majority on the
Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, why
Chief Mackey refused to meet, even privately,
with responsible representatives of the Portu-
guese community?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for
Dovercourt would place his question about
the same incident at this time?
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Yes,
Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Has the Attorney
General taken cognizance of the allegations
made by Jose Raphael, president of the Portu-
guese Immigrant Aid Society of Canada, to
Ae eflFect that he has a file on the instances
of police brutality towards members of the
Portuguese community in Toronto?
Has the Attorney General requested that
the Ontario Police Commission investigate
these allegations? If not, why not?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, answering
the question asked by the hon. member for
York South, I would say that the jurisdiction
for the law or regulations regarding police-
men's use of firearms, and the change in
those, rests with the local board of police
commissioners. There is no law, no statute
law in Ontario, governing that area as yet.
This is one of the matters we are considering
in our approach to The Police Act in any
amendments we may make in the law or the
regulations.
The second part of that question: I do
not believe it is, perhaps, a proper matter for
the Attorney General to be asked to inquire
about the conduct of a local police chief. I
think persons inquiring as to why he does
not want to meet with certain persons should
inquire either directly of him or of his board
of police commissioners. I do not want to
appear abrupt about that, but I do not think
the Minister of this department can be asked
to check this type of conduct in the indi-
vidual police chief.
Mr. MacDonald: Could I ask a supple-
mental question on that?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, but let me con-
tinue, if I may.
With respect to the question asked by the
hon. member for Dovercourt, I have had no
knowledge of what Mr. Jose Rafael has
stated on his file as to police brutaUty, nor
has any complaint, that I am aware of, been
made to my department. I would certaiady be
ready, willing and anxious to investigate if
any complaints were brought to my attention.
We may look into the matter but I have just
heard of it at this time. I have only heard of
it through the hon. member's question and I
have not had an opportunity yet to see the
newspaper article that is referred to. But,
if complaints were made to the Attorney-
General, you may be sure tiiey would be
investigated.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
the Attorney General a supplementary ques-
tion? His reply is consistent with an earlier
reply when I asked him why he would not
inquire into the action of the police vis-d-vis
the visit of certain NDP members to Peter-
borough on a certain occasion. He said that
he did not think this was within his juris-
diction.
What is the purpose of the Lieutenant-
Govemor-in-Council appointing the majority
of the police commission if the Minister is
going to cut himself oflF from that police com-
mission in terms of finding out what it is
doing?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I do not take that
position, Mr. Speaker. We do establish under
our Police Act a board of police commis-
sioners which is one of the ways in which
police are governed at the local level— either
that way or by the committee of the council.
Just to refer to the board of police commis-
sioners, I am not even sure we appoint a
4302
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
majority, if you take it in this light that the
Act calls for the head of the municipality, a
judge of the district or county court— the Act
names him, he is an independent ofiBcial. We
pick out a judge, that is done through the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by Order-in-
Council. And there is one other person
appointed by the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council. I think it gives a rather independent
attitude to that board of police commis-
sioners, but I do not say that we should
exercise a control through that board. I say
that this type of—
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): They do
with everything else—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I say that the conduct
of a local chief of police, in a matter of this
kind, when he does not want to see anybody,
does not want to hold a press interview and
does not want to do certain things— I do not
think that necessarily comes back on the im-
mediate personal doorstep of the Minister of
Justice and the Attorney General. I do not
think that it was ever intended that it should.
I am simply suggesting and trying to be
courteous in saying this, that that request
should be made to his board of police com-
missioners for that inquiry to him, instead of
coming straight up to the Minister and say-
ing: Why does the chief not see the press,
why does he not see me?"
I do not think I can be expected— I should
not say I, I do not think a Minister can be
expected to follow that detail to that extent
in these situations.
Mr. De Monte: May I ask a supplementary
question of the Attorney General? Did the
Attorney General say that he is considering
legislation in connection with this matter in
his reply to my friend from York South or a
change of the regulations?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I said the matter had
been discussed for some time and that it was
still being discussed. I did draw the attention
of the members to the fact that amendments
to The Police Act had not yet been intro-
duced to the House.
Mr. De Monte: Would complaints against
the Attorney General then consider a civilian
review board for all complaints against acts
of the police?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am not
going to comment in reply to that. That
would be a matter of policy which I would
have to discuss with my colleagues and I am
not going to express an opinion at this time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wel-
land South.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the
Minister of Health. What will the eflFect of
the emission and dispersion of effluent gases
from the 750 foot stack of the Nanticoke
power station be on the health of my con-
stituents?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, ithis same question was also
asked by the hon. member for Niagara Falls
(Mr. Bukator) and one related was asked by
the hon. member for Humber (Mr. Ben).
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Niagara
Falls has withdrawn his question and the hon.
member for Himiber is not here. Perhaps the
Minister would—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The stack of the Nanti-
coke power plant has been designed to reduce
ground level concentrations of poUtrtants from
the plant to a level in line with the standards
set in Ontario Regulation 449-67, under Tlie
Air Pollution Control Act.
These standards were set to avoid hazards
to health, vegetation and property.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Soar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Labour.
Does old age discrimination by a univer-
sity in its admission practices constitute an
infringement of the Ontario Human Ri^ts
Code or The Age Discrimination Act; for
example, the practice of some medical facul-
ties not to accept academically qualified appli-
cants because they are over 30 years of age?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Si)eaker, in reply to the question of the hon.
member, the answer is no. The Age Discrimi-
nation Act relates to employment, and
university admission would not constitute em-
ployment.
Mr. T. Reid: Might I ask the Minister, Mr.
Speaker, if he would consider amending the
code to prohibit such discrimination in the
admissions policies of universities?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I think that
is a matter that I would want to consider
with my colleague, the Minister of Education.
Mr. T. Reid: I have a question for the
Minister of Education.
MAY 13, 1969
4303
Will the Minister of Education take note
of the recommendation of the Ontario Medi-
cal Association that the province should pre-
scribe an information programme for all high
school students on the growing incidence of
venereal disease and its prevention?
What provision is made in the current
health curriculum for such instruction, and
how many teachers are qualified to give it?
I would like to withdraw the final section
of the question.
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was going to comment on
the phraseology of the final part of the
question.
We have taken note of the recommenda-
tions of the OMA. The subject of venereal
disease is included as an area study in the
new curriculum guidelines. I have a draft
copy here. They have not been distributed
yet to the schools. As soon as they retium
from the printers— and they are being finally
edited now— I shall make a copy available to
the hon. member.
The age level at wliich this information
might be introduced— there is some flexibility
here— will depend upon the needs of the stu-
dents and, of course, related to the com-
munity.
Perhaps the maturity of the student should
be considered; the expressed interests of stu-
dents. These are some of the criteria. And I
think there should be some involvement of
the local board oflficials in making the deter-
mination as to when this type of information
should be made available.
There are programme consultants available
to the schools to assist the local curriculum
committees. And teachers who are involved
in health education programmes receive some
of this information in the colleges themselves.
I will get a copy of the new guidelines just
as soon as they are available from the printers.
Mr. T. Reid: Could I ask the Minister,
Mr. Si)eaker, whether the new ciurriculum
guideline will be for the coming school year,
or will it be a year from this September?
Hon. Mr. Davis: It will be, hopefully,
available, Mr. Speaker, within the next two
to three weeks, so the schools can then use
it for next September.
Mr. T. Reid: Another question to the Min-
ister of Education.
In view of the report in this morning's
Globe and Mail of the Minister's statement
last evening, that he might tell school boards
to levy and collect their own taxes, has the
Minister calculated the additional administra-
tive cost, and the corresponding additional
taxes, which would result for each of the 233
school boards in the province, if they should
be required to do this?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in fact
I really did not make a statement. I was
involved in some discussion at a meeting
in Oakville last evening, a very pleasant
meeting, when the question was raised with
respect to the dialogue that goes on at this
time of the year between local coimcils and
school boards, sometimes a continuing dia-
logue.
Actually, I think a question came from tlie
audience relating to a report in last evening's
Toronto S^ar— which, quite frankly, I have
not seen— where my colleague, the Minister
of Municipal Affairs, expressed the same
possibihty.
This has been discussed for two or three
years now— as to whether or not it would
make sense to have the school boards actually
levy their own taxes. We have done no study
relative to what the cost would be. I indi-
cated last night it was stricdy a thought as
to perhaps a possible solution and really
that is all that was said, and as far as it had
gone.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have three
further questions relating to the public
libraries in Ontario. Perhaps I should place
all three at once to the Minister.
Will the recently appointed ccanmission on
post-secondary education in Ontario examine
public libraries in Ontario in their role in
continuing education?
The second question on the public libraries:
Is the Minister intending to establish mini-
mum standards for public libraries in On-
tario, with regard to physical plant, accessi-
bility of library services, library materials,
numbers and qualifications of staff needed
for all levels of service?
Thirdly, what consultation, if any, has the
Minister had with the Ontario Library Asso-
ciation, the provincial library council and
representatives of the directors of the regional
Libraries of Ontario concerning changes in
the organization and financing of pubhc
libraries in Ontario? Has the Minister made
an undertaking to consult with these bodies
before any definite action is initiated by his
department?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to deal with
these questions in reverse order, I think I
4304
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
replied to a similar question from other mem-
bers on three or four occasions in the House.
It is true, I have met with various organiza-
tions in the library field. I have indicated to
them that before any changes are proposed
with respect to the structure of library service
in tlie province of Ontario we shall indeed
have consultation and seek out their thoughts
relevant to this and this has indeed been a
commitment made to them.
With respect to the second question as to
whether we intend to establish minimum
standards for public libraries with respect to
physical plant, accessibility and so on, we
are in the process of gathering a great deal
of statistical information relevant to this. But
I think the hon. member wiU agree, Mr.
Speaker, that the decision relevant to the
structure i>erhaps should be considered prior
to the establishment of standard service, and
so on. The two, I think, probably would have
to go hand in hand.
With respect to the question as to whether
the commission related to post secondary
education have been instructed or requested
to deal with this specifically, I think the hon.
member has probably read the terms of
reference in the order^in-council now fairly
carefully himself. They are very broad in
their scope.
I am not siu-e that this means they will get
into the library service as it exists in the
elementary and secondary system. They will
probably get into library service as it relates
to the universities and other post-secondary
institutions and, of course, this could flow
or evolve into the study related to the field
of continuing education although it is not
specifically set out in tlie order-in-council
itself.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake-
shore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): To the
Minister of Justice: How many complaints
have been filed with the Ontario Hmnan
Rights Commission since its inception?
How many of the complaints were formal
and how many informal?
How many were dismissed? How many
were settled direcdy by the commission? How
many were referred to boards of inquiry?
In how many cases did the board find in
favour of the complainant? In how many
cases did the board find ia favour of the
respondent? Did the respondents have the
benefit of counsel?
In how many cases was provision for Min-
isterial order of compliance exercised?
How many cases have come before the
courts? How many convictions were there?
How many appeals?
What is the procedure when a respondent
chooses not to comply with a Ministerial
order?
What are the names of those who have
served as chairmen of boards of inquiry and
what are their professions?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): Yes, but what information does
the member want?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, if I were
to answer this question, I would certainly
place it upon the notice paper because so
much is required by way of answer. But I
would suggest to the hon. member that since
the human rights commission and its admin-
istration comes within The Department of
Labour, that the question should be directed
to my colleague, the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Lawlor: If the Attorney General so
feels, may I read the rest of the question to
the Minister of Labour and ask liim to take
it under advisement?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I would ask
that it be put on the order paper and we
will be glad to deal with it.
Mr. Lawlor: A second question, to tlie
Minister of Education:
Since no dissenting voice was heard in the
Legislatmre during debate on section 47 of
The Separate Schools Act, seeking an amend-
ment to provide justice for non-Cathohc
fathers of children attending separate schools,
is the Minister prepared to introduce tiie
necessary amendments on behalf of the gov-
ernment during this session?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have been
studying this matter. It is not new, as the
hon. member is fully aware. It is doubtful
that there will be legislation this current
session dealing with the problem specifically.
The hon. member is aware, of course, of
the case in Middlesex— I believe it was the
MacDonald case in 1964— which I think pro-
vided a partial solution at least to this prob-
lem. But, as I say, it is doubtful that we will
be introducing legislation in this session.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): That is
a Machiavellian statement.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not Machiavellian, it
is a statement of fact.
MAY 13, 1969
4305
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand-
wich-Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs:
Is the pm-chaser of a building lot pro-
tected in any way by The Consumers Protec-
tion Act when it turns out that the necessary
building permit, for example for a septic
tank, cannot be secured from The Department
of Health?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, is that
the end of the question?
Mr. Burr: That is the end of the question.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I seem to have a fairly
lengthy question from the hon. member.
The example described by the hon. member
does not come under The Consumer Protec-
tion Act. However, Mr. Speaker, when a lot
is being purchased through a broker regis-
tered under The Real Estate and Business
Brokers Act, it is part of the broker's duty to
the purchaser either to make the necessary
inquiries beforehand or make the purchase
agreement conditional on the purchaser being
able to get the necessary permit or permits.
In the event that a prospective purchaser
does not use the services of a registered
broker, the normal practice would be to re-
tain a sohcitor who would make the required
investigation under Ontario law to protect the
interests of his client.
If neither of these situations prevails, then
the purchaser himself may obtain all the
necessary information simply by calling on
the municipahty involved to ascertain the
existence of any relevant building require-
ments for the purpose for which he intends
to use tihe realty in question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ham-
ilton Mountain.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Min-
ister of Highways:
When is The Department of Highways
going to erect an adequate number of signs
directing motorists to the Hamilton Municipal
Airport at Mount Hope?
An hon. member: Why?
Hon. G. E. Comme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, since the Hamilton Municipal
Airport is now served by commercial airlines.
The Department of Highways appreciates
that more adequate signing is required from
downtown Hamilton to the airport. These
signs are presently being designed and it is
expected that they will be erected within
three weeks.
Mr. J. R. Smith: Will the Minister accept
a supplementary question? Will the depart-
ment also investigate the possible need for
marking signs on the Queen Elizabeth Way
and Highway 403?
Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Transport.
When did the department undertake to
consider the desirability of legislation which
would require rear bumpers on commercial
vehicles as a safety feature?
When did the department receive the pro-
posals of the United States National Highway
Safety Bureau regarding this?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transiport): Mr.
Speaker, the problem of rear bumpers on
commercial vehicles has been under considera-
tion for some time and we have had discus-
sions with the automotive transport association
seeking practical criteria for all types of
commercial vehicles. The U.S. National High-
way Safety Bureau's proposed standards for
rear biunpers for new vehicles appeared in
the Federal Register of March 19, 1969, and
these have been distributed for study and
comment.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask
the Minister a supplementary question: May
we expect legislation during these sittings of
the Legislature regarding this topic?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No, I do not think there
will be legislation. If we were to take action,
it would be by way of regulation under a
section of the Act.
Mr. B. Newman: May I then rephrase my
question and ask if we can expect regulations
to cover this?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, I would
not want to promise a date on which we
could bring out suitable regulations.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor-Walkerville has a question of the hon.
Minister of Financial and Commerdal Affairs.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs. In view of the rei>ort in the Windsor
4306
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Star of Monday, May 5, 1969, that the con-
sumer protection division of the Michigan
Attorney's General's office is investigating a
cosmetic distribution system which has now
spread in to the Windsor area, what action
is being taken by officials of the consumer
protection branch to pursue complaints which
the Ontario Provincial Police say they have
receix-ed in cx)nnection with tliis scheme?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I take it that the ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker, is taken to suggest that
there is something basically and fundament-
ally wrong with that particular scheme?
Mr. B. Newman: Just to ensure the investor
in the local area.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, I am in-
formed that whde the Ontario Provincial
Pohce has received some enquiries on this
matter, it has not received any complaints of
the nature cited in the question.
However, I would like to assure tlie hon.
member that it is our intention in the con-
sumer protection branch of my department to
keep the matter under surveillance. The per-
sonnel in the consumer protection bureau
have established liaison with the necessmy
agencies in Windsor and in Michigan for this
purpose.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. meml:>er for Sudbury
East.
Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Min-
ister of Mines from last week.
Did an inspector from The Department of
Mines question a man or men in the lunch-
room on 6600 level at Creighton who over-
lieard the instmctions given by the jimior
shift boss to Mr. Jeffrey P. Moe shortly after
midnight in the morning he was killed?
Did Mr. Jeffrey P. Moe object to these
instructions? Was he instructed to go on a
muck pile with a scoop tram? Is this not
contrary to regulations? Was the man working
alone at the time of his death? Is it not time
that the practice of men working alone under-
ground be discontinued?
Did divisional foreman Roger Stabback find
the body? At what time? At what time were
the OPP and tlie mine inspectors notified of
the fatality? At what time did the OPP and
mine inspectors reach tlie scene of the acci-
dent? Was the body removed from the
accident site before the arrival of either the
OPP or mines official?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, we are gathering the informa-
tion ze<;piired for this question, but I think a
question like this really should be one that
should go on the order paper, if I may suggest
it.
Mr. Martel: It will get lost in the shuffle,
Mr. Speaker.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Nothing gets lost in
the shuffle.
Mr. MacDonald: Not unintentionally, any-
way.
Mr. Martel: Another question to the Min-
ister of Mines. Will copies of the report
"Sulphur Dioxide Levels and Resultant Injury
to Vegetation in the Sudbury Area during
the 1968 Season" by B. R. Dreisinger and
P. C. McGovem be made available to those
members who want copies before the start of
the Mines estimates?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I think
the House deserves an explanation of the
difficulties some of the members have been
having in respect to that particular report. I
gather that the first request was made about
Thursday of last week in my absence. I
think the hon. member for Sudbury also
requested a copy of the report. I knew noth-
ing of these requests until yesterday morning.
I must confess to the House that I have
not seen the report either and there has been
some mass confusion in the department about
it. The only available copies are in the hands
of Mr. Dreisinger in Sudbury. I immediately
despatched a signal to him yesterday morn-
ing to get six copies of it down here immedi-
ately. They have not arrived. Another signal
has gone oflF to him telling him to send an-
other six. Somewhere between Sudbury and
here there are twelve copies in transit. As
soon as they arrive I can make sure that the
hon. member, or any other member who
wants a copy, will get one.
Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of
Highways. Without weigh scales in the
Sudbury area how can we be assured that
our highways are not being subjected to
overloading? When will weigh scales be
installed in areas near Falconbridge and
INCO holdings to make sure that trucks
carrying ready-mix cement or gravel do not
carry excess loads, thereby damaging the
highways.
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, the control
of weights of loads on highways is provided
for in The Highway Traffic Act and this Act
is administered by The Department of Trans-
port. The location of weigh scales and their
MAY 13, 1969
4307
operation is the responsibility of the Minister
of that department.
Mr. Martel: Would the Minister of High-
ways then direct that question to the proper
Minister so I could ask it tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker will be pleased
to do so and since the Minister of Transport
is in the House at the moment he will ha^•e
knowledge that it is coming. The hon. mem-
ber for York Centre.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minis-
ter of Highways. Can the Minister inform
this House if his department was solely re-
sponsible for preparation of his report evaluat-
ing GO transit and its futune? If not, who
assisted?
Is the Minister prepared to commission
DeLeuw, Gather and Company to update his
1963 report on the track and signal modifica-
tion required to implement rush hour service
on each of the railway lines radiating out of
Toronto?
Does the Minister have an agreement with
the CNR, if not, when will one be concluded?
Will the Minister table a detailed financial
statement on the operation of GO for the
period covered in this report, showing a
breakdown of the CNR charges for operation
of the system?
When does the Minister consider that the
first models of the 190 mile-per-hour trains
referred to in press reports by the Deput>'
Minister can be placed in service?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, the answer
to question 1499, one, the department was
solely responsible for its preparation using
material from many sources and studies.
To number two, this report was prepared
for MTARTS from material provided by the
railroads. Since our use of the railroad line
is dependent upon the availability of track
and our compliance with railroad require-
ments, the material we have on which the
figures in the latest reports are based was
provided to us and approved by the rail-
road.
Yes, we have an agreement with the CNR;
yes, as soon as it can be prepared in the
proper form.
The answer to question 1513. The timing
of this depends on their development, our
investigation into their feasibility for our
conditions and their application in this area.
We are taking this into consideration along
with all other modes. The timing will be
determined by the results of these considera-
tions. The speed referred to in the question
is a maximum speed under most ideal condi-
tions and would not be an operational speed.
Mr. Deacon: I would like to ask him a
supplementary question in relation to that
same statement. Would super buses referred
to in that same article require a separate
right-of-way on some highways?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
tell the hon. member that I have not seen
the press report. I have had a lot of other
things to do today rather than read the news-
paper, but I think there are two avenues these
buses could be on— either on the ordinary
right-of-way or a special one.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the
hon. Minister of Lands and Forests. How
many commercial fishing licences have been
issued for Lake Nipigon? How many are
being fished at the present time, and how
many tons of fish are allowed on each licence?
Hon. R. Bnmelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member: question number one— in 1968, 16
fisheries operated under the authority of 23
licenses, 19 gill net licenses, two net licenses
and two pound net licenses.
Question number two— 13 fisheries have re-
newed 19 licenses to date and only five have
reported fishing up to April 15, 1969.
Question number three— annual quotas only
apply to sturgeon, whitefish, pickerel and
lake trout taken in gill nets and are as
follows:
(a) 24,000 yard gill net license— six licenses
are allowed, 50 tons each;
(b) 12,000 yard gill net license-five licenses
are allowed, 25 tons each;
(c) 6,000 yard gill net license-eight licenses
are allowed, 20 tons each.
No quotas are assigned to other species or
to the trap or pound net licenses. The total
quota of prime species is 585 tons.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, a
question for the Minister of Highways.
Will the Minister explain the position of
his department as reported in the press when
it said that the government will pay its ^are
4308
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to lower the Claremount access in Hamilton
while believing the work to be unnecessary?
Hon. Mr. Comme: Mr. Speaker, the city
of Hamilton made a proposal to the depart-
ment to change certain aspects of the Clare-
mount Hill project. This was originally ap-
proved by the department.
While the department, if this were its own
project, would not have made these changes,
it was felt that as the city indicated that these
changes— which were somewhat more costly
—were necessary to the proper completion
of this project, the department would sub-
sidize its share under normal subsidy arrange-
ments.
Mr. Deans: Miglit I ask a supplementary?
Is the Minister aware that this was initi-
ated by eight persons in the area who just
were about to lose part of their view and in
order to sustain the view that they had previ-
ously, it is going to cost them in excess of
$200,000? And that these people are wealthy
Tories? Does the Minister think this has any
influence on the decision?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, absolutely
not. The only contact that we have had is
with the city of Hamilton on this.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do they have to be
wealthy NDPs?
Mr. Deans: If this was an apartment build-
ing next to lower class homes, no considera-
tion would be given.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): It is an
abuse of public moneys; that is what it is.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the Attorney General.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): They
will not hold those seats anyway.
Mr. Shulman: Inasmuch as the transcript
of the inquest into the death of Beryl Hig-
gins has not arrived, in spite of the Minister's
assurance it had been mailed, would he
kindly supply me with a copy by hand?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I will not
do that but I have furthered this investiga-
tion and I am advised that the document was
mailed. I am sure it will arrive and I will
check to see why it has not.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I would request permis-
sion of the House to withdraw resolution
No. 8 standing in my name.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park requests the unanimous approval of the
House for the withdrawal of resolution No. 8
standing in his name on the order paper.
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, His Honour is standing by,
and with your permission I would ask him
to come in and give Royal assent to several
bills.
The Hon. the Lieutenant-Governor of On-
tario entered the Chamber of the legislative
assembly and took his seat upon the Throne.
Hon. W. Ross Macdonald (Lieutenant-
Governor): Pray be seated.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour,
the legislative assembly of the province has,
at its present sittings thereof, passed several
bills to which, in the name of and on behalf
of the said legislative assembly, I respect-
fully request Your Honour's assent.
The Clerk Assistant: The following are the
titles of the bills to which Your Honour's
assent is prayed:
Bill 101, An Act to amend The Motor
Vehicle Accident Claims Act, 1961-1962.
Bill 102, An Act to amend The Registry
Act.
Bill 103, An Act to amend The Land Titles
Act.
Bill 106, An Act to amend The Public Ve-
hicles Act.
Bill 116, An Act to regulate The Marketing
of Freshwater Fish.
Bill 117, An Act to amend The Fish In-
spection Act.
Bill 121, An Act to amend The Medical
Services Insurance Act, 1965.
Bill 123, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name,
the Hon. the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent
to these bills.
The Hon. the Lieutenant-Governor was
pleased to retire from the Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 35th order; House
in committee of supply, Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
MAY 13, 1969
43P9
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
( Continued )
On vote 2004:
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairman, very briefly I want to take the
House back to April 1, when this debate
started on this side. I want to point out to
the House that in my comments in reply to
the Minister's speech, I made reference to the
fact that, in the United States of America,
in certain states, they had already started a
plan whereby the children's aid societies were
assisted and moneys were made available for
the payment to meritorious families, or
couples. These moneys are to assist in the
adoption of so-called unadoptables and to
assist in cases where funds were needed by
the couple and where therefore adoptions
would not ordinarily occur.
The Minister did not pick this up or
reply. I am mentioning it at this time, Mr.
Chairman, because I noticed on Saturday,
May 10, 1969, in the Toronto Star an article
which states that the Ontario Association of
Children's Aid Societies is going to request
of the provincial government a system of
grants that would encourage more people to
adopt children.
Apparentiy the feeling is that the amount
of $270,000 in a year in welfare payments
could be saved if some sort of a plan were
put into eflFect, similar to the plan referred
to in my own comments at the beginning of
this debate.
Apparently, Mr. Chairman, at present there
are something like 12,000 children who are
boarded out by this department, and the
children's aid societies, and an amount of $80
a month is paid to foster parents. Joseph
Messner, the executive director of the Ottawa
Children's Aid Society, states that the over-
head costs could be cut to about $30 a child
under a plan of routine payments for adopted
children. He further states that if only five
per cent of the children in foster homes were
adopted, this would mean a saving of
$270,000 annually to the government.
Now the hon. Minister, Mr. Chairman,
when we talked about the guaranteed annual
wage and negative income tax and things
like that, was quick to point out that these
have not been proved; and that therefore
there is no definite proof that moneys could
be saved. But this suggestion, made by this
side, and buttressed by the Ontario Associa-
tion of Children's Aid Societies request, could
definitely save the department more than a
quarter of a million dollars a year.
If we look back, we will see that we have
had debates in this House over the fact that
children have been exjwrted from the prov-
ince of Ontario because they could not be
adopted— and I am quoting now, from an
article in the Toronto Telegram of February
1, 1969, which states: "Eighty Metro Child-
ren Were Exported."
Now, is it a known fact that most of the
children who are exported— and I think it is
a crime— were exported because they are
unadoptable because of their race. Or be-
cause of rehgion, or because of some physical
disability. These children could easily be
adopted, Mr. Chairman, by the people right
here in Ontario. And I am certain that many
people, who could give these children the
love that they require right here in this good
province of ours, would be glad to do so if
they could afford to.
Now in the light of tihe Ontario Association
of Children's Aid Societies request, I wonder
if the Minister has had an opportunity to
secure some information on this. I would like
to hear his comments on whether his depart-
ment thinks this is feasible; does he have any
plans to go about this?
I notice when we talk about anything
difficult, such as improving the situation of
Indians, or anything else that is really diffi-
cult, the Minister always claims: "Well it
cannot be changed in a day, or it is much too
difficult a problem, we would have to study
it".
I would like to iK>init out to the House,
Mr. Chairman, that when you are talking
about a child that is one or two years old,
a study lasting three or four years could
mean this child's ruination simply because he
would be denied the love of a home at the
very time when he needs it most.
So, I i>oinit out to the Minister, Mr. Chair-
man, that there is no question of the fact that
money could be saved— and we would not
like him to say that he has to study this,
that he cannot do anything about it.
I would like to hear if he has anything con-
structive to say about this most important
problem.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Chairman, it is not
my intent to continuously get into a harangue
with the hon. member.
The fact that a member of the Opposition
states something, gives it no more validity
4310
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
necessarily, than if anybody on this side states
it. And the fact that something is being re-
searched and studied is quite a proper atti-
tude. It is an attitude to which I have been
committed all of my Hfe. It is an attitude
which I intend continuing.
Now, with respect to the sugestion that has
been made about paying adoptive parents.
On tlie face of it, like so many ideas, it
appears to have some merit; and I do not
discount any of the merit that Mr. Messner
or anybody else would put forward in relation
to it.
Already, our director of the child welfare
branch is on record as to her observations
on the matter. Our department is committed
to this kind of an approach— we intend to use
all our facilities, upgrade them, streamline
them, pour in more resources by way of
money and people to make our present pro-
gramme work, to reduce the numlx^r of so-
called unadop table children.
I know the problem that the hon. memlber
raises in the House. We are attempting to
place the so-ca;lled unadoptable children. I
do not like some of the terms we are com-
pelled to use by way of trying to delineate
programmes.
I recall on February 15, tlie comment in
Today's Child that: "Bobby's Needs Are
Special".
It was the fact that we were placing Bobby
for adoption and he had cystic fibrosis. I do
not know whether Bobby was placed or not.
But I understand he was placed. The director
of the branch did prepare for me— and I have
it available to me— a list of children who,
years ago, would have been classified as the
hard core of unadop tables; and they have
been adopted.
So v^thout discounting any merits there
may be in paying adoptive parents, because
there are certain psychological aspects to
adoption which we have adopted on principle,
there is never any financial consideration
paid. I think one of the questions in relation-
ship to the forms asks: "Have you received
or will you receive financial coixsideration
from anybody for the adoption?" because we
try to place the adoptive parents, who legally
l>ecome entitled to all the riglits and pre-
requisites of lieing parents, as much as pos-
sible in the same status as a natural bom
parent.
Of course, with natural bom parents, there
are families that have children bom into them
who are not perhaps the same— who are handi-
capped, or disadvantaged, in relationship to
other natural bom families.
So far, I think the psychology appears to
be that if you can establish an adoption rela-
tionship between parent and child as close as
possible, in all legal and physiological and
psychological aspects, then that is the best
adoption tliat can take place.
In the immediate future, without discounrt:-
ing the problems faced by paying adoptive
parents, and the foster home that might
adopt, without discussing the pros and cons
of international placements, we intend to
place all our resources to adopting as many
children as possible in Ontario to bring that
number of unadoptables to an irreducible
minimum. And then, we wi'll take on from
there.
But we have a great deal to do yet, we feel,
even though our adoption programme has
been successful in this field, without going off
onto these new ventures.
Mr. Brailhwaite: Mr. Chairman, I appre-
ciate everything that the Minister has to say.
I give the workers in his department, particu-
lary, the graduate workers, a great deal of
credit for the attempts they are making to
adopt some of these difficult cases.
But 1 bring to the Minister's attention the
type of case where ordinary, and even extra-
ordinary, effort will not suffice. I am asking,
would the Minister not consider a pilot project
whereby some of the most unadoptables could
be, in some way, adopted out, even if the
province does have to pay?
I think we all reaHze the dangers of pay-
ing. I do feel that when you weigh these
dangers, Mr. Chairman, against the fact that
the particular child, or children, in question
are the very ones whose lives are going to
be harmed— irreparable damage will Ix'
caused. You are going to find that some of
tliese very cliildren, because they cannot be
adopted, are going to grow up in foster homes.
When they reach their majorities, I think they
are going to cost the province an awful lot
more money than it would have cost to put
them in a private home, even if there is a
chance— a gamble— in putting them there.
I do feel that the circle of a family and
the love of a family cannot be replaced. I
think that the Minister should reconsider. I
would like to hear whether or not he is
interested in considering a pilot project,
even on a few of the very worst and most
difficult cases, to see how it works. You can
always say: "We are doing this and we are
doing that"; but there are some cases which
stand outside the ordinary case with which
evervone is familiar. These cases will not be
MAY 13, 1969
4311
taken care of by the best efforts of the
department.
I suggest to the Minister that there is
nothing to be lost by trying a pilot project. I
think I speak for anyone who is interested in
children. It is much better for us to try a
pilot project, even if it fails, rather than to
have our children exported from this country.
I would like to hear what the Minister has
to say.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know whether a formal resolution will be
forthcoming from the Association of Chil-
dren's Aid Societies or not. No formal
resolution has yet been placed before me and
when it does, of course, I will pay attention
to it. It may be that further discussions will
be held with either individual children's aid
societies or with the association with regard
to this matter. But to make a commitment
with respect to this in a specific way, I do
not do so at the present time.
Mr. Braithwaite: One more question, then,
Mr. Chairman, before I yield the floor and
that is this; in my speech I have already
mentioned the difficulties that the average
children's aid society has and the fact that
not only do they get too little money, they
get the money too late. On top of that, they
are finding themselves in legal and financial
straitjackets. I wonder, in view of all these
facts that the Minister, I am sure, is aware
of, if his department is considering any new
method or any new way of financing and
assisting children's aid societies, not only in
their day-to-day operations but in their role
in preventive work.
I would like to hear what the Minister has
to say about this, because I think this is a
most crucial area.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I think
we have to look at this question in an historic
way. The Act came into being in 1966. There
was a very fundamental change in the
financing of societies in 1967 and 1968, when
it changed from an organization supported to
a great extent by private sources in the com-
munity to the one that exists today, I think,
100 per cent supported by government
moneys from all levels.
I think the percentages now are that the
municipalities pay an average of about 20 per
cent, and there is a payment from the pro-
vincial level of the balance of 80 per cent.
So, fundamental change took place in the
financing of societies. Now this change
brought about a fact that a new modus
Vivendi had to be developed between the
societies and the governments. These two
years have seen that transition take place. I
think there is a very good relationship
between the societies and the government that
developed in the last year in particular.
When, of course, there came this funda-
mental change in financing, we were con-
fronted with the implementation and some of
the administrative matters related thereto.
The question of timing of budgets, the
approval of budgets. When you move some-
thing along and there are various parties
involved, there is a time lag involved. We
believe that we have come to grips with that
problem to a degree.
We started a much closer consultation pro-
cess at the top level between the societies
and the department in the processing of
budgets. We issued guidelines and indicated
in advance what our own thinking was and
asked the societies to think in terms of that.
So we have reached the point where, I
believe, as of today, I have already approved
well over one-third of the budgets of the
children's aid societies. We are moving apace
on them. The approvals, I think, will be
coming forward very rapidly in this regard.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): How much
did you cut them back?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We did not cut them
back at all. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair-
man, I think one of the great significant
growths in our programmes has been the
allocation of moneys through child welfare.
I think it has more than doubled in three
years' time— the increase last year was about
80 per cent— but the growth of the moneys
available to children's aid societies has been
almost straight upward as a graph of grants
would show.
There is no doubt about it that when these
new finances became available every project
dear to the heart of every local director was
put forth immediately. Everybody had high
hopes for all of these projects. The rate of
growth has been nothing short of great, but
that still does not mean that everybody has
received every dollar that they perhaps would
like to have in this regard.
I can say that I am confident, by and large,
that the moneys made available under this
programme will adequately meet our commit-
ments to the societies.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, before we
get into the sums— let me ask the Minister, is
he telling us, then, that this year the chil-
dren's aid societies are receiving their moneys,
of their pledges of money, far enough in
4312
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
advance so that they can plan their own
operations reahstically throughout the prov-
ince? Is that what he is telling us, that he
has already sohed that problem?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Our procedure is that
we are paying them continuously on the basis
of last year's budget so that they are getting
moneys continuously. With regard to any-
thing new, above that, we have to have
final approval before we can pay the money
over but it is our intent and purpose to meet
those requirements as quickly as possible.
Mr. Braithwaite: Do I understand then that
this is the way the children's aid societies
would hke it and that they have no objection?
They are satisfied by the way the money is
dispersed by your department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Tliey have no objec-
tions at the present time.
Mr. Braithwaite: And they are receiving
their moneys far enough in advance or are
tliey receiving notification far enough ahead
so tliat they can make their plans reahstic-
idly, is this correct?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is correct.
Mr. Braithwaite: If the Minister says so
I accept it. Yet that, it is not what I under-
stood. In any event what about the sums of
moneys that these various societies have to
pay out to places like Browndale and the
Vanier institute, and so on, where they have
no control over the amount of moneys and
the rates that are going to be charged?
It is one thing for the Minister to talk
about the amount of moneys that are being
paid to these various societies being increased
threefold over the last few years, and so on,
when he puts the societies in the position
where they find that they have to, out of the
moneys that they get, pay out block sums
over which they have no control to outside
institutions.
The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is,
lias the Minister considered taking out from
under children's aid societies the responsi-
bility for paying for these institutions and
putting it under his own department, so that
the cliildren's aid societies could plan on
their own and for the preventive services for
which they were originally made responsible?
I would like to hear exactly what the Min-
ister lias to say on that ix)int. It makes no
sense for the Minister to stand here— it soimds
great and I know the Minister in his heart
is really trying to do what he considers to
be the best job, lie is all heart— but as far as
I am concerned when I look at tlie picture
it is not what you see at first blush. When
you start to analyze the figures and you see
that various institutions have rates and they
have to pay their own staff, and they have to
pay tlieir own help. You cannot blame them
for raising their rates. On the other hand we
find the children's aid societies which ask
for X dollars— and sometimes they get X
minus Y— but in any event they have to take
that money. Then they have to lop off three-
quarters of it sometimes and pour it in to
some institution over which they have no
cKjntrol. Therefore, I say the Minister is not
really answering our question.
I want to know when he is going to take
the control of these institutions and the
paynient of these institutions, from under the
children's aid societies and put them under
his own wing and let his department be
responsible for them?
I would like to hear the Minister's reply
to this l)ecause I tliink this is the key to the
matter. There is no sense in our talking about
how much money they get and when they
get it, if they do not really know what tiiey
are going to have left.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the esti-
mates are approved, and they are approved
on the basis of these factors that the hon.
member has toudied upon. Those factors are
taken into consideration in the developing
of the cost, and these figures, I think, are
deserving of putting on record. I will only
use round figures: In 1966 tiie total costs
were $25 milhon; in 1967 the total costs were
$32 million; in 1968 the total costs were $37
million; in 1969 the total costs will be $42
million. There is your graph on the chart of
the moneys being-
Mr. Braithwaite: I just finished saying
looking at the graph itself is deceptive.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Why is it deceptive?
Mr. Braithwaite: Because the graph is in
more than one dimension.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That is
right; because you are paying for institutional
care rather than preventive care.
Mr. Braithwaite: Not you, the children's
aid societies— this is the jwint I am making.
You should be paying for that so tliat when
we look at the curve we can look at a curve
and we can see truly what it says.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member for
Scarborough and the hon. member for Etobi-
coke are talking about two different things.
MAY 13, 1969
4313
Mr. Braithwaite: Oh, no, we are not. You
iire not answering my question, sir.
Mr. Lewis: You are making the children's
aid societies pay for what you should be
paying and—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not necessarily!
Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, sir.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are channelling our
funds through them, the total cost.
Mr. Braithwaite: Why does your depart-
ment not pay them itself?
, Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The total cost is being
ghannelled througli the children's aid
societies.
' ' Mr. Lewis: But you are destroying their
budgets in the process.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am not destroying
their budgets. As tlieir child care require-
ments have increased we have been providing
them with additional moneys, I think the
breakdown was roughly in 1966. But, the
moneys available to the children's aid
societies, which they are paying out, is being
given to them. As they have been paying out
niore with their right hand, we have been
giving them more into their left hand.
Mr. Braithwaite: No I do not think that is
so, Mr. Chairman. It may appear to be that
way but in fact it is not. The question is not
answered. I ask again, why does the Min-
ister's department not take over the payment
to these various outside institutions and let
the children's aid get on with looking after
the children for which it is responsible? Why
does the Minister not just answer that one
question? We do not want to hear about how
much money you spent, we do not want to
hear about tliat, we want to hear why.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Quite frankly because
there is no point in taking up the member's
suggestion. You just add to the administrative
costs. They are our agents, they are our
partners in the field, and they are doing the
job. As a matter of fact the relationship
between the children's aid society and the
department is becoming closer and closer
altogether.
Mr. Lewis: Not on this point it is not.
Mr. Braithwaite: No, I cannot agree with
the Minister there, Mr. Chairman. I wonder
if the Minister is saying that he will not do
it because the suggestion comes from this
side of the House.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not at all, I just do not
see the value in the point. I see no advan-
tage in changing the procedure.
Mr. Braithwaite: Has the Minister not
spoken to any one of the children's aid socie-
ties that have had to make these payments?
If so, I am certain he would get the same
reply that I have given him today. They
would tell him the same thing. They are not
able to plan and they are not able to look
ahead, because they do not know what is
going to be facing them as far as the money
they are going to get from his department is
concerned. They do not know what is going
to be facing them as far as tlie requests that
are going to be made to them from these
various institutions. The Minister has not
answered our questions— we really do not
know why his department will not take over
die payment of these outside institutions.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I want to
make a few remarks on this because I have
been listening to the Minister this afternoon
and on other occasions. On this particular
item— worse than the others— he is doing a
snow job and the answers just do not add up.
Insofar as the children's aid societies have
been able to plan ahead it is utterly impos-
sible for them. I have come upon instances
where the children's aid society has spent
money, planned ahead and had to cut back,
simply because of budgetary cuts by tliis
government. The children's aid societies, par-
ticularly the ones in Toronto, simply did not
know what they were going to be able to do.
In one instance in Toronto they spent a
year planning a community programme spon-
sored by the children's aid society where the
whole emphasis of the programme would be
on prevention and also things like supplemen-
tary supplies. The welfare grants given out
by the government are so low that in truth
the children's aid society stepped in and has
given extra clothing and given extra food.
This is even basically your policy, that you
are niggardly and callous, I think, in your
welfare grants.
However, in this one particular case, I
think it had to do with the area of the mem-
ber for Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick)— down in
the Trefann area— the children's aid society
had to simply cancel out a major programme.
The only reason why I happen to know about
it is that the children's aid society had to
go around looking to other charitable groups
in hope that they might get support to
carry on.
4314
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Voluntary organizations have only got so
much money and, believe me, it is impossible
for voluntary organizations to carry on so
many efforts that are now demanded in the
large urbanized society.
I think it is a major tragedy that the plans
of the cliildren's aid society in the Trefann
area are simply going to be cut back. When
I say it is being cut back, it has to do with
the preventive programme that has been
planned well ahead, in fact it was well
organized, and simply because the funds are
not there it is cut dead. The responsibility
lies directly with this Minister, and if he does
not know what is going on, then an awful
lot of people who are interested in this field
certainly do. I do not want to use names,
but I could direct—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Which society was
involved?
Mr. Trotter: The children's aid society.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Which one?
Mr. Trotter: Toronto, where it has been
cut back.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: And they cut out this
programme because of that?
Mr. Trotter: They had to cut it off.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They did?
Mr. Trotter: Well, it is either going or
it will go, I do not know in what stage it is.
I know they are looking for money because
they cannot carry on and they have just cut
it dead. And I just happen to know of one
group they went to. And it was caused by
die budget cut, that is my understanding. It
certainly tries my patience—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, there has been no budget cut.
People have not got as much money as they
would like to have, but my understanding is
that, by and large, they have continuously
been getting more.
Mr. Trotter: Of course, and they are going
to have to continue to get more v^dth the
growing population and growing demands
made upon them. Certainly, they are going
to demand more money. They are going to
have to have it with the people they have.
And if the Minister does not realize that these
services are going to need more money this
year and next year, he certainly has no con-
ception of his job. I do not know how a case-
worker or a civil servant in this department
can literally tolerate the political leadership
they have, because if the Minister sits there
and says they are not getting more, I am
telling him they are not going to be able to
carry on.
I used to believe that staff was not avail-
able. The one big excuse was: because there
was a shortage of staff, they could not carry
on many of the services they wanted to.
Well, no question, it is always diflBcult to get
trained staff. But today there is trained staff
around and they simply have to look for
other jobs— or they are going to be put in
different work within the children's aid
societies— simply because of the budgetary
programme— whether the Minister wants to
call it cuts or not. So, I must say to the
Minister that he is like his predecessor, com-
pletely ignoring the demands of social services
that are required in this growing province of
Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that
programme has not been cut out because of
lack of funds. My understanding is that the
programme is being evaluated.
Mr. Trotter: Evaluated? Oh, come on, I
have been around too long to get thrown off
by those weasel words. I am telling the
Minister right now: It is cut dead. And unless
some dramatic change has taken place in the
last 48 hours— I will tell the Minister right
now, he can use the word "evaluate" or any-
thing he likes— it is cut dead, unless the
money is found. I am quite certain the money
is not going to be found, certainly not under
private auspices. Do not use weasel words
with me.
One other thing disturbs me. It is a major
item that has gone on over and over again
through the years about the subsidies that are
given to the children's aid societies having to
do with the Browndale Camps— or any place
—in order to give some type of training or
treatment to emotionally disturbed children.
This is a direct responsibility of the pro-
vincial government and I think the children's
aid societies are being asked to carry too
great a load when they are being asked to
place the emotionally disturbed children in
what institutions there are in Ontario.
I probably disagree with many of the
policies of Brovmdale Camps, maybe they
are right and maybe they are wrong but I
do not want to get into that argument, I am
not an expert on the subject. But this I do
know: The situation has got out of control
in this province simply because the govern-
ment has provided no place whatsoever when
MAY 13, 1969
4315
you consider the number of children who
need treatment. There is no place for these
children to go.
To suddenly dump them into the lap of
the children's aid societies and say: "Aren't
we kind, we are giving you subsidies" is
just not good enough. One of the great con-
tributions the children's aid societies have
made over the years is in the field of pre-
vention and, as they have learned more, they
have attempted— at least in theory— to em-
phasize the importance of prevention.
But, how in the world can they carry out
any reasonable new advances in preventative
services as long as they are given the so-
called guidelines from this government. The
guidelines that you get from this government
are nothing but restrictions and, in some
cases, almost like a rope around their necks.
I feel that this Minister is still living in
the 19th century. The member for Etobicoke
was kind enough to say the Minister was all
heart, but being all heart just is not good
enough. I hope the Minister is all heart and
if he is all heart I wish he would apply both
his heart and mind to this problem much
more than he has in the past.
Now, I have been reasonably quiet on
these estimates throughout. Here and there
I have had something to say, and always have
been answered: "The Minister will look into
it". I really doubt that the Minister will. I do
not think he will take the time or I think he
will forget— but, I have made a note of two
or three things he says he is going to look
into and I am just going to keep asking
questions on the order paper.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have made a note of
every one.
Mr. Trotter: Well, but nothing is done, you
get no answers on his stufF. It wastes the
time of not only every member here, but of
every member of the civil service who sits
aiiound waiting. You have to put on the pro-
longed hearings that we have had in this
department. This department has set a record
on the estimates for time taken in this House
simply because the Minister does not know
his department. I do not think he knows
what the guidelines are for the children's aid
societies, other than: "Well, we are going to
have to cut back."
There is no question in my mind, Mr.
Chairman, that when the Treasurer (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) of this province bragged how
they cut $400 million off the budget, the
people who really are suffering are the chil-
dren under this particular estimate and our
old people in the hospitals. It is this depart-
ment that has suflFered and maybe the Min-
ister has been left with the unhappy political
job of defending a pretty sad state of affairs.
Again, I hope we may get a break, I think
the government found $50 million suddenly
for education and suddenly at least another
$12 million under the OMSIP payments. The
budget has already gone-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): They got it
out of the sock.
Mr. Trotter: The so-called balanced bud-
get. I think with some of the Tory socks
around here, you might find a little bit more
for this estimate to see to it that the cut-
backs in planned programmes in children's
aid societies do not happen. The Minister is
not kidding me; I am telling him that these
programmes are being cut from what was
planned sometime ahead for this year. The
unfortunate part about it, is this: It is al-
most completely in the field of prevention.
And the Minister, who has a tremendous op-
portunity to pioneer, is just sitting there like
some 19th century, old Tory seeming to do
everything he can to stop any change.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I just
want to add a word or two. Of course the
programme that the Mindster of Health and
The Department of Health are involved in
will have a very important bearing in the
future of this aspect. Some of the matters
that have been touched upon by ithe hon.
member for Etobicoke and the hon. member
for Parkdale will! be dealt with in that fashion.
I may say that.
Mr. Trotter: He is not dodng much either.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say, if the hon.
member for Parkdale will give me the oppor-
tunity to say it, that I am completely com-
mitted to the idea of prevention and rehabih-
tation in all its forms in all the departments,
in all the branches.
Mr. Lewis: I would like to help sort soone
of this out and to concur in what has been
said by my colleagues; odd though that may
seem. I concur in total with the proposition
that the moneys for insititutional placement
should not be filtered through the children's
aid societies, but should come through the
hands of government, for the reason I would
like to point out in a minute, just demon-
sitrates the fallacy in the Minister's argument.
But he has raised an interesting point with
respect to children's aid societies, Mr. Chair-
man, and perhaps we could clear it up at this
4316
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
stage. What does he mean when he says that
the Minister of Health's bill is going to have
some considerable efiPect in this area? Is he
saying that children who are subsequentiy
referred to these various treatment centres or
institutions of care will be paid for by the
Minister of Health? Or will, in fact, the chil-
dren's aid societies continue to pay for the
wards which they refer? Tjhis is a fairly im-
portant question.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I did
not use the words "Minister of Healtii's bill".
I talked about the Minister of Health's pro-
gramme, and when he is dealing with the
programme the Minister will then deal with
that aspect.
Now I can say, with respect to dealing
directly with institutions, with \he recipients,
the one advantage that I have always seen is
that when there is a direct relationship be-
tween the government and the recipient of the
tax dollar there is invariably far more control
and supervision and knowledge of how that
tax dollar is being disi)ersed, than when you
have a middle man.
Our financial relations with all the institu-
tions we deal with, with respect to audit
service and accounting, are much more inti-
mate than when tliere is a third party once
removed.
Mr. Lewis: Then why do you resist it on
this occasion? Perhaps out of your own mouth
has come one of the reasons why there might
be more value to it? Maybe there is more
value in govemmentt having an idea precisely
how the money is spent in these various insti-
tutions, because I think when members raise
the per diem rates they raise a very valid
question.
I am aware that the per diem rate at one
of the institutions that has been referred to—
Browndale— is at the level of $29.60 at the
moment. I am also aware that in the last
year the per diem rates of places like Sacred
Heart Children's Village and the Vanier In-
stitute have risen to $40 a day, and that in
Thistletown they are $55 to $60 a day, and
that in the Children's Psychiatric Research
Institute they are approximately $50 a day.
These are rates which, in terms of public
control over money expended, are worthy
of some analysis. I would be the first to recog-
nize that. I would not argue with that for a
moment. But I want to come back to the point
you were making earlier. I want to come
back to the programme of the Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond), because I think it
bears directly on the arguments that are being
put to you. Are you saying that the children's
aid societies will no longer pay for the direct
placement of children when the health pro-
gramme is implemented?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I made no such state-
ment. The details of that will of course be
given by the Minister of Health.
Mr. Lewis: Let us not play games, I beg
of you. WiU this department continue to fun-
nel money to the children's aid societies to
pay for their wards who are placed in resi-
dential treatment centres? Is that the pro-
gramme that you have for this year, and the
year after? Is there any change planned for
that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: These estimates which
we are in the process of discussing include
payments of that kind. There is no change in
these estimates.
Mr. Lewis: Right. Is there any change in
poHcy imminent in that regard? Will chil-
dren's aid societies still continue to pay for
tiieir wards?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have not discussed
any change.
Mr. Lewis: You have not? Well, is that not
the central point? Because if the Minister does
not know it, Mr. Chairman, let me tell him—
and it is a field I am reasonably familiar with
—that over 95 per cent of the children in the
various children's institutions which we are
discussing come from the children's aid
society. Over 95 per cent are paid for by the
cliildren's aid societies and the others, who
are paid for by The Department of Health—
or may be assumed imder the new legislation
on the basis of direct referral from a family to
an institution— amount to an infinitesimal
sector of the total referral load.
So you say no change is imminent— and
I knew no change was imminent. I knew
when the bill we will shortly be discussing in
the House came out that the great fraud in it
was the implication that The Department of
Health would assume costs. It has no inten-
tion of assuming costs. You will continue to
bear the costs; the children's aid societies will
continue to bear tlie costs. It has always been
the case, and I am glad it has been confirmed
this afternoon because I think it is important
that the members of this House know what is
planned.
Tlhe fact of the matter is that when you
load the children's aid society with that
burden, you are destroying the budgets of
the children's aid societies. You are making
MAY 13, 1969
4317
them take the rap. Mr. Minister, you say to
us on this side of the floor, "How is that?"
You asked the member for Etobiooke. Well,
Mr. Chairman, it is simply this: The one area
of a budget which it is absolutely impossible
for a children's aid society to control is when
a retarded child, or a physically disabled
child, or a severely disturbed child lands on
their doorstei>s and requires immediate place-
ment. And so the societies suddenly have an
annual cost ranging from $7,000 to $12,000
in any of the institutions; just with a snap
of the fingers.
There is no margin of flexibility there at
all, because they understand that these are
crisis situations over which they have no
control. And because they are not, after all,
Solomons and have not budgeted to the
dollar the cost of institutional placement,
when they need the additional dollars for such
children it comes out of the total budget.
And which part of the budget gets shafted
in the process? The preventive care part of
the budget. That is why Trefaim Court goes
down the drain and that is why all kinds of
other preventive programmes go down the
drain.
And that is why, Mr. Chairman, when you
take a look at the budget for the Catholic
Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan
Toronto, you find that something like ten
per cent is going towards what the Minister
says is his lifelong commitment— preventive
care. Ten per cent! The vast percentage of
the budget goes for institutional placement
so that the children's aid societies can take
the rap because the government does not
want to be in the position of having to pay
the extra money which it might get from the
consolidated revenue fund or from some
other source in order to fund such placement.
Mr. Chairman, what makes it even more
reprehensible— sir, I am really not in a mood
to be acrimonious or worked up this after-
noon, although I could be provoked— but
what makes it even more reprehensible is
that when we passed The Child Welfare Act
in 1965, the major qualitative change em-
bodied in that Act was a clause in the regula-
tions which made the provision of preventive
services mandatory. The children's aid society
had always had a permissive scope prior to
that, but they were then charged with a
mandatory responsibility.
I do not know which CAS directors the
Minister is speaking to, but the directors that
I speak to— and that obviously members of the
Opposition speak to— are consumed with
frustration, and indeed guilt, over the fact
that the parts of their programme which are
always severed are those "preventive services"
aspects.
If the Minister is to understand why one
argues for taking the residential treatment
and institutional placement costs into his own
hands, preventive service is really the basic
argument, Mr. Chairman.
If we have charged children's aid societies
with the responsibility for providing pre-
ventive services to the community as a whole
then in heaven's name let us allow them to do
so. That they should only be able to appro-
priate 10 or 15 per cent of their budget for
the purpose, when it should be well in excess
of 50 per cent, indicates that we are seriously
undermining the work that they can do in
society. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is a
legitimate argument that is being put from
this side. I do not think the Minister should
slough it off. I think that phone calls to
Lloyd Richardson or to Ward Markle or to
Joseph Messner or to any of the directors of
the larger children's aid societies in the prov-
ince of Ontario will elicit this immediate
reply: "Gentlemen, you are destroying our
budget because you insist on making us pay
the institutional costs over which there is
very little control."
Mark you, Mr. Chairman, there is this
control; tiiat if the children's aid society, a
reputable agency, does not believe that a
given centre is providing adequate service, I
assume they do not place the children there.
They have their social workers in the field
all the time, they are making their appraisals,
they are making their "evaluations" so they
do not place the child if they do not think it
is appropriate.
But once they have deemed the service to
be appropriate, they have (a) no control over
the per diem and (b) they have no control
over contingencies which, in any given year,
can completely destroy a budget.
If the Minister is faced, on his doorstep,
with the possibility of a preventive pro-
gramme in Trefann Court involving the reloca-
tion of families, on the one hand, and five
schizophrenic children on the other, which
does he choose as a priority? He knows very
well. He chooses the five schizophrenic chil-
dren and he gets them into the residential
centre which can somehow contain them and
perhaps provide treatment over a five- to
seven-year period.
Why, in the process, ^ould Trefann Court
have to be abandoned, because that is the
balance of choice which you leave to the
children's aid society? Why should they have
4318
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to cut savagely into their preventive care
budget in order to satisfy the false priorities
of government which, in a phrase, will simply
funnel the money to them so that they are
faced with the dilemma? We here are never
faced with that dilemma. And so when the
community is exercised about preventive care
for children, let them impugn the integrity of
the children's aid society! We will just reply
that we gave them $25 million in 1966, $32
million in 1967, $37 million in 1968, $42
million in 1969. We increased the absolute
amount.
Now if there was ever a more facile and
specious reply, it has not been given to mem-
bers of the Opposition. I do not know why
the Minister is so sanguine about it. I can
remember when I first entered the House,
in 1963-64, replete with all kinds of socialist
prejudices. I had certain anxieties and qualms
about the nature of children's aid societies
and what they were doing. I have learned
in five or six years of intense, close scrutiny
that they do an absolutely indispensable job
in this society, and without them the depart-
ment would just go to pot. They have saved
the department in more situations than one
can possibly describe and yet the Minister
(luite happily makes it impossible for them
to perform the function which he prescribed
by statute— mandatory preventive services.
The whole situation, Mr. Chairman, is so
unfair and yet has such an impact. We can-
not get tlie Minister to recognize it. The
Minister just does not seem to comprehend it.
I say to him again, let him sit down— if this
is not presumptuous of me— before the end of
the week for lunch with two of the most pre-
eminent men in the field who happen to be in
tlie Toronto community, Lloyd Richardson
and Ward Markle. I cannot think of two
better men. Let him sit down and ask them
about what is happening to their preventive
services because of the way in which their
budget is organized. If he can walk back into
this Legislature and say he sees no reason
for making an adjustment, then he is more
impervious to reason than any other man I
have ever met.
Mr. Chairman, I will not prolong it. I
think the case is, if I may say, collectively
made. We can discuss imder the next sub-
estimate the question of the institutions them-
selves and the numbers that were raised by
the member for Parkdale, and some of the
dilemmas. I simply would ask this, Mr. Chair-
man, of the Minister: How much of the
money, wihich is paid to children's aid
societies is recoverable from the federal gov-
ernment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is about 45 per
cent.
Mr, Lewis: Right. Mr. Chairman, can I
round off the argument, then, by indicating
this? Before The Canada Assistance Act,
there was no federal money at all. You have
received a 45 per cent bonanza in the last
three years and you still will not permit your-
self to reconstruct the children's aid society
budget so that they can function.
The question is why, Mr. Chairman, why?
What kind of concept is there in The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services when it
has received a windfall of tens of millions of
dollars in the last three years which it never
had before? It amends the Act, supposedly to
accommodate that windfall by re-emphasizing
preventive services, and in the process, it
emasculates the children's aid society by
refusing to allocate the money in an inteUi-
gent and reasonable way. You have got 55
societies in this province— or 54 societies in
this province— and they are doing a superb
job on balance. The biggest of them has had
enormous loads— as big as a government
department, in many ways.
You should not hold them to ransom, be-
cause that is what you are doing. You struc-
ture their budgets in such a fashion that
only 10 to 15 per cent can go to those areas
which this society most desperately needs and
all the rest to the immediate institutional
requirements which your department should
be picking up. If you ever want to cut the
oos't of services to children in Ontario, then
you have to start doing preventive work, Mr.
Minister, because it is killing the department
in terms of cost by not doing the preventive
work. But you cannot find the money; you
just will not give them the money for that.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Ask Herb
Dawson.
Mr. Lewis: Whether it is the northwestern
society, whose travels in the field of Indian
welfare this Legislature is now famiUar with,
or whether it is the Metro Toronto society or
the Catholic soicety in Toronto, or whether
it is Guelph or Peterborough or Hannilton,
it matters not, Mr. Chairman. Every one of
them would hke to get out in the community
and to close the dike before a whole new
generation of disturbed adolescents pours
through.
What happens, Mr. Chairman? The Min-
ister holds them to ransom and cross-sections
the budget in that kind of way. I do iK>t
have the most recent figures but, Mr. Chair-
man, it is worth pointing out that in 1968,
MAY 13, 1969
4319
7 per cent of the total number of diilclren in
caxe of children's aid societies— and that
amounted to 1,257 children, of whom 856
were disturbed; 1,257 children were in in-
aippropriate facilities because there were not
facilities available for tliem.
You are not solving it this way in any
event. This is not the solution. It is going to
require a major government expansion even if
you were to reconstruct the budget. Why do
you not reform the CAS budget, and then
turn your mind to the other related problems,
rather than sitting like the inscrutable sphinx
and saying in yoirr own cordial way, "I see
no reason for changing"— I say, if you want to
save the children's aid societies and the work
they do, then the Minister should see reason
for change.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the
Minister of a text which he deUvered to the
annual conference of the Ontario Association
of Children's Aid Societies on May 7, in
which he constantiy referred to the partner-
ship that exists between the government
of Ontario and the children's aid societies of
the province.
He avows that, like all partnerships, this
one is not without normal human aspects.
I can only presume from that that the Min-
ister means that he chooses to constantly
use the phrase that the societies will not get
the amount of money they want.
I would say to the Minister that it is not
nearly so much the amount that the societies
want but the amounts that they need to do
the job. Once again we heard this afternoon,
from each of the members in their contribu-
tions on this particular vote, the fact that
actually in Ontario we are shamefully neglect-
ing children, children who are dependent
children.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not so.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The Minister says it is
not so. But how else can it be, Mr. Chair-
man, if we have children in care of agencies
throughout the province where many of these
agencies are expressing their wishes— for
group homes, which they do not have, for
rehabilitation, where the Minister denied the
fact that prevention has not been cut back
but we have Mr. Richardson saying that a
basic programme tliat had to be abandoned
was the one that the province ordered in new
legislation two years ago and it was the
provincial order to the society to prevent cir-
cumstances of neglect by providing guidance,
counselling and other services to families for
protecting children and for die prevention of
circumstances requiring the protection of
children, and Mr. Richardson stated:
I estimate that, through this programme
last year, we prevented at least two thou-
sand children from becoming wards of the
society.
Now you know, he states that they were able
to get workers to deal with the families, be-
fore the breakdown took place, and correct
the condition.
Now this is no partnership, Mr. Chairman
—with Mr. Richardson saying this on the one
hand, and the Minister simply saying, no,
everything is fine, the children are not being
neglected.
I think if the Minister means they are not
being fed, then that is a diflFerent thing. But
they are not being cared for in the way that
people who have the responsibility of this
care want to take care of the dependent
children of this province.
This is a very serious omission on the part
of the goverimient, because these children
have no parents to fight for themselves, or
to fight them, and they are too young to
fight for themselves.
As the good parent of the children of this
province that are dependent, it is up to this
Minister to fight this Cabinet— if that is what
it is going to take in order to put proper
prevention services into children's aid.
The Minister referred in the text, on May
7, that all needs have a place in the develop-
ment of acceptable standards of service, in
relation to available budget resources.
Now available budget resources do not
mean, Mr. Chairman, what the Treasury
Board or the Treasurer tells this Minister is
available to him; and that was the battle we
sounded out this whole lengthy debate on.
The original inception was: did the Minister
get what he wanted to run this department
the way he would like to see it run?
He said: no, he met the Treasury Board.
Now this is no partnership arrangement for
the people at the otlier end charged with the
responsibility; and I do not think that the
Minister comprehends that if he will refuse
to accept the budget limitations from this
government— as certainly I would refuse to
accept them, and they would know that I re-
fused to accept them— that he might not
have to accept them.
If only he would make that joint partner-
ship with the children's aid, a partnership
between himself, his responsibilities, and the
responsibilities of the children's aid, and turn
4320
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that again to tlie Treasury benches, the Min-
ister may be able to do what the members
have been asking here today— that suddenly
some extra moneys uill come up from some-
where.
Because diere is something surely wrong;
and surely tlie Minister will take a good look
at it. We could be building a $40 million
science centre at tiie corner of Don Mills
road and Eghnton. Yet, we cannot somehow
look after dependent children in tlie province
in the way that workers who have dedicated
themselves to do tiiis job would like to do.
It is not that they want this money, Mr.
Chairman, it is tliat they need it. They need
it in order to do the sort of job that they
know, needs to be done.
You do not have to go very far to prove
this to your Cabinet. If you are in contact, as
I presiune you are, with tlie people through-
out the province, you would certainly know
from a man like Mr. H. H. Diamond, execu-
tive secretary of the Ontario Association of
Children's Aid Societies. He says: "That all
societies in Ontario were directed . by the
government in January ... .''—that would
be January, 1969—". . . not to increase staffs
above the 1968 levels".
And he said:
This will mean delay in development
of preventative services. As a result chil-
dren unable to obtain guidance could end
up in jail, in mental institutions or on
welfare, costing the public far more than
the services they are now denied.
Mr. Diamond told the association's annual
meeting in the King Edward Hotel:
This is the future for which we have
been asked to cut back.
At a press conference later, Mr. Diamond
said:
People in need of services, and children
in need of care, should not be asked to
wait. If we do not get into the preventative
area, there will be no answer to the family
problems we have had for the last 70
years.
Diamond said:
The 1965 Children's Welfare Act author-
ized societies to set up preventative services
but they could not develop these services
while subject to financial austerity.
He also said:
The children's aid societies— and not the
government— should decide what help is
needed by a child. Surely, it is not the
role of government to make this prescrip-
tion nor should government be allowed to
deny the prescription.
He suggested that the children's aid society
and other welfare services form an alliance,
or an organization, providing complete
service for troubled families and children.
"The patchwork quilt which is now offered
to the public will not cover the problems of
the 1970's," he commented.
Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Diamond is not
someone that is just casually making a public
statement like that. It would be with a great
deal of thought— and incidentally, in the fam-
ous Timbrell inquiry, it was Mr. Diamond
that Judge Waisberg brought in as a specialist
in the child development field. It was the very
person, a man appointed by this government
that he turned to for proper guidance.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has her
"Diamonds" mixed up. It was not Mr. H. H.
Diamond. It was Mr. Jerome Diamond.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The Minister is quite
right. I am sorry.
Mr. Lewis: Jerry Diamond would not agree
with you either.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Jerry Diamond would
agree with me on a great many things.
Mr. Lewis: Not a chance-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, you
know I am not speaking to an interjection—
this may be exactiy what the problem is, in
getting funds from this government for this
kind of programme; that it is a question as
to how many men there are really interested
in these unfortunate children; and I do not
think anybody could not be interested in
them, if they ever had to deal with them, or
were around them.
I feel perhaps that it might not have been
the Minister's own personal wishes— it may
have been a directive of some sort— but when
we had the last struggle for fighting for funds
for the children's aid society during the last
estimates in May, we were discussing the
budgets which had been presented to the
department in February.
Now, as late as September, a board of
review to arbitrate this had not yet met; and
I would like to ask the Minister: why did it
take six months, with still no date to be set,
for that board of review to discuss the appeals
MAY 13, 1969
4321
for additional funds to the children's aid
societies?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I will
not go into the details of that matter. There
is no doubt in my mind that regrettably the
chain of communications did not function as
readily as it had on previous occasions. Be-
cause of delays in returning telephone calls,
letters, and the time went by. And, there is
no doubt about it, the department, and tlie
societies, had reached a bit of an impasse. I
had that feeling— I definitely had the feeling,
as the Minister had— that th6re was a testing
period going on in this regard, as these new
relationships were being established.
However, I am not going to go into that.
I am just saying that the good outcome of
that incident was that we got together. We
have established a far better consultative
process, perhaps, not only with those two
societies, but with all societies— by reason of
that regrettable and unfortunate incident
which occurs in the hmnan affairs of people.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, I say to the Min-
ister: thank you for an explanation of a
communication hang-up. But that particular
debate was such an impassioned and flagrant
problem, that I do not understand anybody
having a delay.
I would ask the Minister: was he not
embarrassed when it flared up again iij the
press, and Mr. Guthrie was npt in Toronto?
When he was sort of saying: well, he did
not know when he was to sit with the people?
It just seemed like a very strange way to be
doing business, because on the other end of
this department, where the Minister does
have a partnership— the partnership between
the province of Ontario and the federal
government— things do not get into such an
inefficient state.
It is only in the last estimates that the
Minister points out very proudly, and prob-
ubly rightly so for a job well done, that his
administrative director had managed to get
"every penny" from the federal Minister to
the Ontario government, that they were
eligible for, on time. This is government
when it wants to be—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I wonder if the hon.
member would allow me to make an adden-
dum to that. The then very capable execu-
tive director, now the assistant deputy
Minister, not only saw to it that we got every
dollar that we could from Ottawa, but the
other aspect is, that she made sure that, as
far as humanly possible under the legislation,
we paid out every dollar too.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Yet, Mr. Chairman, the
children's aid society— and I made a note, in
September— was operating on a $750,000 bank
overdraft, and needed 12 case workers. It
got a go-ahead to hire secretaries from Miss
Betty Graham, but the secretaries were to
have worked in conjunction with the case
workers, so that was negated.
So I just ask the Minister: does he expect
organizations like this to operate on an over-
draft basis, when people in his own depart-
ment are working very hard to make sure
that they do not have to do that in this prov-
ince? Do you think it was fair to these agen-
cies to leave them like this for six months?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say, Mr. Chair-
man, that I guess the hon. member gets her
reports from the newspapers. That clerical
staff had already been hired, they were
already on staff; we did not say, you can
have them, or you must not have them. They
had already engaged the clerical staff and
we did nothing in respect to them.
So far as that $750,000 overdraft, I think
there must have been a relationship that
must have covered other matters beside this
particular situation. I may say that the society
ended up with a surplus of some $180,000.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it may
well be that the clerks were hired— and I do
not get all my reports from the newspapers,
although that particular one was— but the
point is that there was no point in having the
clerks without having the case workers. And
this just does not seem to be the way that
you are interested in operating your depart-
ment, when it concerns you.
When I called the department during the
estimates last May— the Minister's department
—I asked exactly what the member for Scar-
borough West asked today: what portion of
this money, in the budget at that time, would
come from the federal government? I was
told that, at that point, the department had
not received any money regarding children's
aid, because you were, in fact, still negotiating
mileage for case workers, the inter-problem
of health insurance, which of course comes
into their particular operation. So, I would
ask the Minister if, at this time, in this year,
has he taken into his department, from
Ottawa, all funds which are available to him
under this particular vote?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The answer is, yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask the Minister
what his view is on salaries to the children's
aid workers? I am taking a look at the salary
4322
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
survey, which was conducted by the Ontario
Association of Children's Aid for the 1968
survey, and looking at a random example:
salaries' schedules for social worker 3, social
worker 4, social worker 5, and others-
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Do you realize
the House is empty?
Mrs. M. Ren wick: Could I have order, Mr.
Chairman, please?
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mrs. M. Renwick: I am just not in the
mood to put up with that sort of nonsense
today.
The summary of actual salaries being paid
was higher than the actual salary recom-
mended for the supervisory position. In
master social work, plus three years of experi-
ence, the recommended range ran from $9,096
to $11,057.
Now the summar)' of actual salaries being
paid was a high of $12,000, and an average
hit, in between, of $10,000,
Does the Minister realize that, even in this
regard, the partners are bending over back-
wards not to ask for perhaps more money
than they feel you will approve from this
department, for such a class as this. But, on
the other hand, they are losing these people
because they can go out to, say, the board
of education, and begin at a salary of $12,000
a year, with no experience.
I would like to know if the Minister has
gi\en any thought to the salary survey that
is being done by the children's aid societies
in the last year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well I may say, Mr.
Chairman, that my own impression has been
—and I have taken a good deal of interest in
the status, both socially and economically, of
the workers in the social service field, and I
think that is carried out— that, over the years,
the salaries within the fields that we have
to deal with are on a competitive basis with
the other agencies.
Now, I have one type of a breakdown
which may not be exactly accurate in the
total picture, but I would like to give these
figures.
In 1966, the social work salaries and bene-
fits were approximately $6,500,000 for 1,100
employees; and that had risen to the 1969
estimate of $11 million with 1,300 and some
odd employees. So that the amounts approved
in the estimates has increased markedly in
this period of time. I believe that all the
salary increases recommended by the chil-
dren's aid societies have been approved for
the 1969 budgets, and we do not as a depart-
ment recommend what should be paid.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
would only say to the Minister that, as a
partner in this operation, it might be a very
good thing if there were salaries recom-
mended so that they are more realistic with
other government departments.
Could I ask the Minister what he would
comment with regard to the total number of
children in care; that 4.5 per cent are dis-
turbed children without appropriate facilities;
a number of those are under 12 years, 390;
12 years and over, 426?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think here again,
Mr, Chairman, that when the Minister of
Health develops his programme, and gives
the details to the House, this discussion would
be more appropriate.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would the Minister com-
ment on the children's aid society of Ottawa
where, up to the fall of 1968, they had com-
mitted 32 children out of 1,620-actually
two per cent— to Ontario hospitals?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would make a very
basic assumption that the society, in the dis-
charge of its responsibility, came to the
conclusion that that is the kind of service or
the kind of need that the child had, and the
referral was made accordingly.
Mr. Lewis: A pretty strange conclusion for
the society to make.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister if he would take a
look at those 32 cases of children being com-
mitted to an Ontario Hospital. There were
also 21 in a paid institution. But I think it
is very important that the Minister realize
that where societies are not using their
money towards institutional care, they may be
forced to put them into or they may be put-
ting them into an Ontario Hospital, I did not
come across this in any other correspondence;
only from Ottawa,
I would like to ask the Minister if he
would comment on the fact that in Lindsay,
Ontario, three-quarters of the children, up
to the fall of last year, were from unmarried
mothers. In Woodstock, Ontario, more than
one-half of the children in care are from
unmarried mothers; and in Metropolitan
Toronto more than one-half of the children
in care are from unmarried mothers,
I would be interested in the Minister's
tackling of this problem which seems to have
MAY 13, 1969
4323
now reached a proportion where we are
having a higher increase in illegitimate births
than we are in legitimate birthrates, by far;
not the kind of increase that really society
wants or needs.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say, Mr. Chair-
man, that there has been in the last couple
of years an increase in the number of children
of unmiarried mothers, beyond that of the
average growth, I think, in the province. In
fact, in the last couple of years, it was sur-
prisingly high. But it would appear that that
may have levelled off.
I have a figure that of the 18,000 in care,
some 7,000 are of unmarried mothers; that
is, about 50 per cent of those now admitted
are of unmarried mothers. But I believe that
that increase has sort of levelled off or is be-
ginning to drop off in recent times. I share—
and I think the community as a whole, the
province and individual commimities should
share a concern about this type of thing.
Whether we have better statistical reporting,
whether it is because we are providing better
care that these are more known, I do not
know; but the figures did concern me as I
saw them coming in.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Is there any discussion
in Cabinet, Mr. Chainnan, about this type of
problem? Working it out with the Minister of
Health, or working it out with the problems
of instigating a method of birth control in
a society where it is illegal to do so? But is
there any discussion, is there any concern?
Or will the Minister endeavour to get some
concern from the Cabinet diat 50 per cent
of these children— not all of them, because
nobody can make certain that somebody takes
a pill— but certainly a number of these chil-
dren might not be there if this government
instituted some sort of remedy against this
problem. And will he really take a good look
at what is happening and recognize the fact
that 50 per cent of these children stood some
chance of not coming into care. Is there any
feehng in the government about this problem,
outside of the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say that I think
the concern quite properly belongs with the
parents and in the home in this regard.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, those
words sound very familiar. I think I have
read where the Minister said those before.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): Why did the member ask then?
Mrs. M. Renwick: You know, this would be
a discussion which I will take on some other
time. But this is just like Hans Andersen to
me, to even give that answer, Mr. Chairman;
with all due respect, it is so far from the
true situation.
A number of the societies have written
asking for—
Mr. Sargent: Kind of a nightmare, too!
Mrs. M. Renwick: —units to look after
teen-agers, group homes, Mr. Chairman.
When we started this vote originally, I started
off by speaking about workers who were
explaining to me that one of the problemvs
that beset them is that they so often end up
with children back from treatment, when the
place of giving the treatment says "the
treatment is finished; he is not cured and
he is yours". The society is left to take
him and try to place that child, which is next
to impossible.
In the letters which have come forward
from the Catholic children's aid society of
Metropolitan Toronto, they state that they
need resources in all of these categories-
foster homes, adoption homes, out-patient and
in-patient resources for emotionally disturbed
children. In other words, we need a spectrum
of resources in order to make the appropriate
choices. No one source can be all things to
all people and, of course, the need for
skilled persoimel cannot be over-emphasized.
The isolated deprived children and teen-
agers. Group homes were isolated by the
children's aid society of Hamilton-Wentworth.
They were pointing out, and said they would
like to point out, there is a pronounced short-
age of resources for children throughout this
province; specifically, there is a need for
more adoption homes and group care settings.
I would like to ask the Minister, does he
know how many group homes there are in
the children's aid regional areas of the prov-
ince?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The number in 1967 of
children in group homes was 314; and 1968,
470.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That sounds unibeliev-
ably small, just looking through these letters
and seeing how many children are in group
homes in some areas. You see, Mr. Chairman,
what is happening is in small areas, or areas
where there are few children, such as the
county of Haldimand or Lennox and Adding-
ton, each of those societies has 16 children.
They are fine; they write they are using
Sunnyside in Kingston; they are using Beach
4324
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Grove for consultation, and they are not ex-
periencing any pressure for urgent resources,
they write from Haldiinand. But it does not
take much imagination to see that that is only
one area of the province that I know of. It
is the areas that we are talking about today
that are just being absolutely beaten by the
government's attitude towards their expansion.
To round this up, Mr. Chairman; in Kent
they refer to staff cutbacks due to the
directed cut in the budget from the province.
This letter was written in the fall of 1968:
We were imable to consider appointing
itnother social worker, whose position had
been approved by our board of directors
and whose responsibility largely would be
finding foster homes and organi2dng in-
service training for foster parents.
To pretend that somehow they want this
money for something other than their work—
you know, just that they want it— is certainly
not very valid.
Could I ask tlie Minister about a possible
construction cut that appeared in Walkerton
in October, 1968? They stated that no funds
appeared to be available for capital con-
stmc-tion during the years 1969 and 1970, and
that their agency had been planning rather
extensively to construct a group home for
Indian boys on the Cape Croker Reserve. But
it appears now that these plans cannot be
carried out. Were they carried out, Mr. Chair-
man, eventually when the budget was final-
ized?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Would the hon. leader
of the Opposition help me? Is Walkerton in
Bnice cxmnty?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Bruce peninsula.
Mr, R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): It is in Bruce.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think those plans
have been withdrawn. Now whether they
have been withdrawn for the moment or what
the circumstances were— I do not have the
details before me.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would the Minister be
kind enough to—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say with respect
to the child care, that is in group homes that
the hon. member is interested in, I think one
of the yardsticks we can use is it went up
from 90,000 child care days in 1966 to
150,000 child care days in 1968. That gives
an indication of the growth in two years'
tim<>.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Yes, except for the fact,
Mr. Chairman, that these are children the
workers tell me they cannot get adopted.
Those cliild care days are going to go up
imtil those children are adults and dis-
charged. These are the children that need the
hostels or need the group homes; the children
that the workers simply cannot place. I think
every agency that wants to provide a group
home or hostel, rather than an institution
for this type of care, must be listened to.
Because these children are never going to
get into a home setting any other way.
They are never going to get into a home
because the people in the areas where they
are found have already worked their hearts
and souls out to place children by the time
they are getting into school age, or they have
come to them at this age.
Would the Minister please let me know
about Cape Croker and about the group home
there? Thank you.
Two agencies specifically mention housing.
Will the Minister consider working out an
arrangement with the Minister of Trade and
Development so that when a family might be
saved from government care through housing,
somehow this is given some priority, rather
than watch the family disintegrate and end up
in various government departments?
Would the Minister even attempt to fight
with the Cabinet, if it takes that, to point
out that his department must have some
access to housing in order to prevent the sort
of thing that we see happening ever>' day as
legislators?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say the only
specific instance that I have in mind was
brought to my attention by the hon. mem-
ber for Oshawa (Mr. Pilkey). I understand
that that problem has been somewhat allevi-
ated. I do not know whether it is completely
cured but the number in that instance has
decreased. I know of no individual problem
in the Metropolitan Toronto area that has
arisen that is not being taken care of through
the Ontario Housing Cori^oration.
Mrs. M. Renwick: As far as children being
broken up from families? Is that what the
Minister speaks of?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes. My recollection
is that there may have been a short-term
separation from the father in relationship to
the placement at the hostel, but that is be-
cause of the circumstances of the type of
accommodation which is available. But my
MAY 13, 1969
4325
understanding is that the family has been
looked after from then and remiited.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, what I
was speaking of, even more than that, is the
sort of family that is drawn to the attention
pf children's aid, just like the families that
Mr. Richardson spoke of. They put in a
visiting homemaker, they get the family
operating as a family unit again after severe
family breakdown; not when they are not
housed.
I was speaking in terms of prevention; of
when you go to see a family where the
children's aid have been called in. You look
at the place where they live and you say, "My
God, how could anyone make a family success
in this particular environment?" The children
may be crowded; there may be all sorts of
strain on the family. This is what I am ask-
ing the Minister— if he will endeavour to get
into his department, somehow, an allocation
of housing for this kind of desperate need?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, but I think the
problem may be aggravated where there are
large families involved and the type of
accommodation necessary is either very ex-
pensive or unavailable. Here again, it is a
problem my colleague, the Minister of Trade
and Development, has to deal with at his
level and in conjunction with the municipality.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I guess I am asking the
Minister, Mr. Chairman, to be more aggres-
sive than perhaps he is by nature, because
what I am saying is that the Minister of
Trade and Development's assessment of a
family's need-
Mr. Lewis: He is a veritable tiger.
Mrs. M. Renwick: His assessment of need
is based primarily on the type of accommo-
dation they have, the size of the crowding
that is involved, the income and so on. There
is nowhere, on his list of points system, that
says this family is near desperate emotional
family breakdown and that a new place to
live and some counselling or day care or
homemaking care could at least attempt to
make this family operative before one or
two of its members, if not all of its members,
fall back into the hands of other government
branches.
I think in our time, Mr. Chairman, we will
^ see a time when housing— a certain amount
of it— is definitely allocated to the Minister's
department not only for persons in need but
persons who might otherwise become de-
pendent on government.
The Port Arthur area wrote and said:
I am of the opinion that there is a need
here for some type of home to be operated
by the juvenile and family court for the
purpose of assessment and study of child-
ren appearing before the court.
Does the Minister's department go into
juvenile and family covit?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not go directly.
That is the role the societies discharge by
going into court.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Once again, Mr. Chair-
man, when the society cannot afford to make
this type of home, of course, the home will
not be made.
Is this the appropriate spot to ask the
Minister about his view on the taking over of
juvenile training schools and detention homes
that is proposed by the federal government
on a cost-sharing basis with tiiis government,
providing it goes under The Department of
Social and Family Services?
An hon. member: We could retire the Min-
ister of Correctional Services.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If you could—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It does not make any
diiference, the member for Scarborough
West's colleague is proving what he says
about Parhament is irrelevant.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You can make the
comment at this time, if the member wishes,
if it comes within this—
Mrs. M. Renwick: My comments will be
brief, Mr. Chairman, simply because of the
lack of research that I have been able to do
or that is available to me. But I was struck
by one simple example. There is a lady police
inspector in Toronto, called Fern Alexander
and she spoke on two or three occasions
publicly in the last few months, saying that
sometimes they put juvenile delinquents into
coiu-t simply to get treatment for them;
simply to get service for them. But a lot of
juvenile delinquents do not have to go into
court and do not have to be charged.
I would say to the Minister that if some-
how we could accept that and look into the
Kilbranden report, some of the British reports
tliat have come out recently on juvenile
delinquency and see if perhaps we cannot
remove from juvenile offenders the whole
stigma. Besides the social problem, there is
a legal problem and perhaps the Minister
4326
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
should let us know how tlie negotiations be-
tween this government and the federal gov-
ernment go in that regard. In looking at it,
Mr. Minister, from the point of view of a
purely sociological improvement, psychologi-
cally it would help these children and at
the same time provide a service tliat will not
just be available to juvenile delinquents, but
that all children who need this kind of service
can come to this particular department for
and not have to go into a court in order
to get.
Has there been any discussion between the
provincial government and the federal gov-
ernment since the matter was raised by the
Minister of Health and Welfare at the Wel-
fare Minister's Conference, or the Prime Min-
ister's Conference, one or the other?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think there has been
direct communication, and I believe Mr.
Robarts made reference to that. There has
been cx)mmunication in a general way.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. Nixon: Much has been said about the
part played by Brown Camps in servicing the
needs of children's aid societies, in giving
treatment to disturbed children that come
under their care.
I wonder if the Minister can tell us what
alternatives are available? I understand that
Brown Camps facilities— Brown Camp In-
corporated and Browndale facilities— fill most
of the need. But what are the other alterna-
tives available to children's aid societies
across the province when they have brought
into their care young persons that require
assistance because the child is disturbed?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That would come
imder the next item, Mr. Chairman, The
Children's Institutions Act.
Mr. Nixon: Well then, might I ask the—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Nixon: I will ask it then, but I would
like to ask under this vote of $33 million, if
the Minister has any way of knowing how
much of this particular vote is allocated by
the children's aid societies as their responsi-
bility for the care of disturbed children?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not have a
detailed break^down.
Mr. Nixon: Would you have any idea?
How much of the money would be used for
the provision of services and treatment on a
private basis rather than through public in-
stitutions?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: About $5.5 miUion out
of $42 n>iUion.
Mr. Nixon: Where does the $42 million
come when we are talking about $33? Those
are additional funds that are made available
to the children's aid societies.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The $33 is our sihare,
the $42 is the total cost. We share with the
mimicipahties in this.
Mr. Nixon: Yes. Does $5 milhon go towards
the provision of care for these young people
in public institutions or does the $5 million
go the private care?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The $5 miUion goes
into private care.
Mr. Nixon: Are the services that are pro-
vided by Browndale, the only private facility
that is available to the disturbed young
people or are there other organizations and
institutions?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are a number
of institutions. When we say private we mean
they are private in the sense that they are
operated by an indei)endent agency but we
regard them as being in the pubhc sector.
Mr. Nixon: They are incorporated?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, incorporated, as
all our institutions are that act as autonomous
agencies, just as every individual children's
aid society is an incorporated body. It is a
private body, but it operates in the iniblic
spirit.
Mr. Nixon: This is almost exclusively public
funds?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: I think I made it clear when
these matters were discussed in the past that
we feel that the government should be moving
to provide public facilities in the sense that
we understand them as being public, that is,
institutions that come under tiie direct oontrtJ
of the Minister, or his colleague the Minister
of Health.
I wonder if the Minister of Social and Fam-
ily Services could indicate what the pohcy
of the government is? I know that they have
been caught in a very serious problem area
in the last six to ten years, because there was
no preplanning that would make facilities of
this natiire available in the public sector, and
MAY 13, 1969
4327
that the services rendered by these private
institutions— although they may be publicly
incorporated— have in fact been the only way
in which the government can turn in assisting
children's aid societies in this very heavy and
growing responsibility-.
Can the Minister indicate to the House if it
is his feeling that the present system is satis-
factory, and that he is prepared to see $5
million of public funds go into this direction?
Or if in fact he believes we should be moving
towards the establishment of institutions un-
der the control of a government agency for
this particular treatment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say, Mr. Chair-
man, that I think that these institutions, al-
though you call them private they were in a
public spirit, and I think they serve a very
useful purpose in the initial stages of provid-
ing this type of care.
I do not know what the rate of growth was
in this sector, but I imagine that over a period
of time they started with a number, and then
there were additions to it. Now we have
entered into a whole new era, if I may say,
with the white paper of the government which
sets out the overall policy and then the speci-
fic details with respect to any changes will
l)e dealt with by the Minister of Health with
regard to his bill and his programme.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Minister can
assure the House that it is his understanding
of the Minister of Health's white paper, and
the direction in which he would like to see
policy go, that we are moving toward the
establishment of this sort of care on a public
basis? Whether or not it means including
these private facilities in the public domain
or not? Is there a definite plan to do so?
I think the fact that of the funds we are
voting, $5 million is spent by the children's
aid society in providing, in a sense, an educa-
tional care that must be bought from the
private sector and this is a negation of our
public responsibilities and as we see them
here.
Is the Minister satisfied with the direction
things are going; and is he prepared to con-
tinue in the foreseeable future using the
facilities as they are now organized?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If I may say, Mr.
Chairman, in respect to the last remarks of
the hon. leader of the Opposition, there is
no negation of our responsibility in our whole
programme. A good deal of our programme
of the whole department is the utilization of
all these resources which have evolved within
the various programmes, and—
Mr. Nixon: If the Minister would be pre-
pared to agree that they evolve simply be-
cause he and the Minister of Health were not
providing them, for the citizens of the prov-
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Oh, no. In our overall
programmes. Half of our homes for the aged
programme is in the so-called private sector,
and they are doing an admirable job. And in
this vote, for example, here is a whole host
of facilities, a broad range, and here again,
I think the public will become more aware
of how all these organizations scattered across
tlie province, who do a worthwhile job, invari-
ably have a secret partner, secret not inten-
tionally from the point of view of the
department, but from tlie point of view of
the public.
Time and time again I see a half page news
story of some very worthwhile social service
being rendered, and I send a memo to the
branch and get back a memo saying pick up
one third of costs, 50 per cent of the cost,
80 per cent of the cost, but you can read the
whole half page of the newspaper or the
report and not see it.
It is the same in this emotionally disturbed
field. My honourable colleague the Minister
of Health is in a much better position to talk
about it than I am from a technical point of
view. Nobody is bom with a mark on his
forehead "emotionally disturbed", or a classi-
fication. So that as this whole programme has
been evolving, there will be some of these
agencies who will become partners with the
Minister of Health. And eventually, in the
purpose of the bill, there will be a shift to-
wards public facilities. Now as to the balance
between the so-called private/public facilities
and public/private facilities, the future will
bring that out.
Mr. Nixon: Well I do not think there is
any doubt that the phenomenal growth of
Browndale and its ancilliary organizations as
well as the 43 other organizations— which
could be considered minor compared with the
work that is being done by Browndale, and
its anciUiary organizations— was due only to
the fact that the pohcy of the government
was not such to provide these facihties. The
government did not even foresee that the
facihties might be used; they were prepared
to consign many of these people to the tender
mercies of some of the institutions that the
Minister of Health operates without provid-
ing them with the care and the improving
treatment— that is obviously a modem need—
which the government did not foresee.
4328
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, am I to take it from the Minister's
statement that he is prepared to accept the
status quo, and that for the foreseeable future
we will continue to be spending millions of
dollars for the care and assistance of dis-
turbed children who must be cared for and
assisted out of the public sector, and out of
the jurisdiction of this Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. I may say to the
hon. leader of the Opposition, there is no
status quo that has been accepted by me,
there is no status quo because we are in a
process of evolution and have been for the
last couple of years.
Mr. Nixon: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have been changing
the status quo.
Mr. Nixon: That is right. The evolution
has been that you are spending more and
more money in providing these services out-
side yoiu" responsibility and the resi)onsibility
of the Minister of Healdi.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, no!
Mr. Nixon: The only evolution is that you
are spending more.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. There has been a
change in emphasis and I may say that I
think one of the great phenomena of the
1960s is the discovery of the emotionally dis-
turbed child. Whether that is because of
urbanization, or whether it is because this
decade produces them, I am not in a position
to say.
Mr. Nixon: This decade recognizes they
could be assisted.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This decade certainly
saw the emergence of it.
Mr. Nixon: Certainly the children's aid
society people who are prepared to discuss
their budgets publicly indicate that one of
the most diflBcult situations they have is the
imperative need to pay for this sort of care
at Browndale and the 43 other institutions.
There it can be provided at rates over which
they and the government have no control. Do
we assume that they are designed to cover
the requirements and make a reasonable
profit? Do we assume that is why these par-
ticular organizations are in business?
Surely it is strange that the government
does not accept its responsibility and either
buy out those organizations— and the people
who have the know-how to operate them— or
to gradually bring them into the public
sphere so that there is no profit involved in
giving this treatment.
There are those here who can take another
point of view. They may be able to assure
me that there is no profit involved, but I can-
not see why Browndale and its board of
directors go to the effort of providing this
kind of treatment. On the expanding basis,
they are equipped with their own aircraft so
that they are co-ordinated across Canada.
They take the trouble to go into court to
defend themselves against zoning bylaws that
may or may not be unfair. All of this is built
into the cost that we are asked to pay out
of this $33 milHon.
Now the Minister is talking about the
status quo as not being something that he
establishes. He says he is running an evolu-
tionary department. I think he is evolving into
more and more of a mess year by year in
this circumstance. I think that the time has
come when he should be able to assure the
House and the people of Ontario, and the
parents who are concerned in the children's
aid society who have to pay the bill, that he
has a programme, and is going to put an end
to this mess.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Windsor- Walkerville had indicated previously;
the hon. member will be next.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville ) :
Mr. Chairman, talking on the same topic, I
would like to bring the Minister's attention
to an article recently pubhshed in my local
paper. The headline right across the top of
the page says:
Children's Aid Society Director Raps
Government— White Paper Termed a
Failure
Two years after an Ontario government
white paper outlined progressive steps to-
ward meeting the needs of emotionally
disturbed children in the province, little
has been accomplished from a children's
aid society point of view.
This was the opinion expressed by Mr.
Jack Bevin, executive director of Essex
county's Protestant Children's Aid Society.
Now Mr. Bevin mentions, and I am quoting:
an emotionally disturbed child is still be-
lieved to be quite synonymous with a
neglected child. At the present time, there
are 20 children in the care of our society
that are diagnosed as emotionally disturbed
in varying degrees for whom appropriate re-
sources are not available. This does not
MAY 13, 1969
4329
include disturbed children who are with
their own famihes. He said a survey of the
Ontario Association of Children's Aid
Societies in the summer of 1968 indicated
that there were 820 children in care who
were emotionally disturbed, and not placed
in appropriate facihties.
Now on the local area the society pur-
chases treatment from private institutions
for about 30 disturbed children at an an-
nual cost of $500,000. This is eating right
into the budget of the local children's aid
society and preventing them from going
into some type of preventive care.
I am quoting once again, Mr. Bevin's state-
ment:
But the incidence and complexity of
emotional illness appears to be increasing;
no one agency or branch of government
is able to meet this problem.
Programmes outiined in the white paper
two years ago would mean that hundreds
of children could have been saved, but
little has been accomphshed from a chil-
dren's aid society point of view.
Here, Mr. Chairman, you have the com-
ments of an individual, most learned on the
subject, one who has been operating the
Children's Aid Society for years, and one
who is most critical of your department's ap-
proach in an attempt to overcome this prob-
lem tliat we happen to be discussing.
So you can see Mr. Minister, you have a
long road to travel, you just are not meeting
with the problem at all.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, in a sense we
have come back in a full circle to some of
the issues that were raised at the outset of
this sub-estimate. I want to make a point or
two to follow the observations of the leader
of tlie Opposition. I want to say, Mr. Chair-
man, that in some very considerable measure,
I find myself in complete agreement— as pre-
cisely this party found itself in agreement
with the members for Etobicoke and Parkdale
—in advancing the proposition that money
should be coming direct from government
and sliould not be channelled through the
children's aid society, both as a point of
control—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I say that I under-
stood the hon. leader of the Opposition to
suggest that the money should not come from
the government to an outside agency, but
from the government to the government.
Mr. Lewis: Well, yes, I will get to that in
a moment. One should have some closer
Haison to the private/pubhc sector as well
as developing a pubHc/public sector.
I submit to the leader of the Opposition
that there is a variety of reasons for which
any given agency burgeons in number. It is
not simply a matter of fiUing the gap,
although one would concede that the gap is so
great that that is a very real factor. There
is also the simple reality of a particular treat-
ment approach which commends itself to
children's aid societies. There is also the
factor of economic efficiency, and that is a
matter which has to be raised in the Legisla-
ture too.
I alluded to it before. Browndale may be
receiving $30 a day. We should in this dis-
cussion, Mr. Chairman, be combining the two
items, because I would like to hear the Min-
ister read out some of the per diem rates of
some of the others, but as I stand here, and
as I am informed by children's aid societies,
the Vanier Centre and the Boys* Village, and
Sacred Heart Children's Village, and I
think, Maryvale are all approximating $40
a day.
Mr. Nixon: What is Browndale?
Mr. Lewis: It is $29.60. And indeed the
pubhc/public sector— I hear laudatory ap-
plause about private enterprise, well I think
there is a place Mr. Chairman, for a variety
of service in the private/pubhc sector, I
have always beheved that. But I come right
back to the proposition that the pubhc/public
sector— we are getting into a pecuhar sort of
phraseology— the public sector through gov-
ernment, is the most sorely neglected sector
in this whole field of treatment to emotion-
ally disturbed children.
There is not one of the agencies listed under
The Children's Institutions Act which would
not applaud a tremendous growth in this area;
there is not a children's aid society which
would not applaud a tremendous growth in
this area. Nothing is more frustrating for all
tlie agencies in the field than to have to recog-
nize the restrictions in which they are placed
on the basis of income and of size because
there is no development by government.
Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that the
costs in the so-called private sector for care
might be $20 to $40 a day. The costs in the
government area are between $50 and $60 a
day, and I may say, Mr. Chairman, that—
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Always less!
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It costs
more when mismanaged!
4330
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lewis: — Thistletown Children's Psy-
chiatric Institute for example and I may say,
Mr. Chairman, that in many of these instances
it does not even incUide capital expense. These
are operating per diem. If the leader of the
Opposition will allow me a comparison,
Browndale to which he refers also capitalizes
within the per diem rate, but all the govern-
ment agencies have capital allocations in addi-
tion to the operating allocations which are
between $50 and $60 a day.
So that when one says an examination of
some of the costs is in order, then I submit to
you, Mr. Chairman, that that is entirely true,
that is an entirely valid proposition.
And I would add that one of the things
which concerns me is the dissembling on the
part of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the two
Ministers, as they sit adjacent, in response to
the leader of the Opposition. It is absolute
fabrication to suggest that anything significant
has followed from the white paper.
The only thing that The Department of
Health has done in this field since the public
furore is to add a few beds to Ontario hospi-
tals, to add a few adolescent wings. That is
all. And from my own observation, Mr.
Chairman— and at least in this field it is
modestly considerable— there is no jurisdiction
in this country, or indeed on this continent,
which believes that by adding psychiatric
units to adult mental hospitals one provides
appropriate treatment facilities to children
and adolescents.
There is no one who would contend that,
except under the most extreme circumstances.
We can, as a committee or a Legislature,
solicit opinions from the Bettelheims, and the
Redls and the Herschal Aults: and all the
people in the treatment centre field across
this continent. They would say it is madness
to develop a programme in that direction.
If I may say to the official leader of the
Opposition, that is the only significant exten-
sion of services at all since the white paper
came down and it is a perfidious extension,
and if it was not for the herculean efforts of
the agencies— all of them, because there are
many of them that are very significant, par-
ticularly those that provide intensive treat-
ment—if it was not for their efiFort to extend
services and bail out the government, this
government would have faced a public scan-
dal in 1967-68 or 1969 which would have
humbled them. There is nothing more vulner-
able than neglect of emotionally disturbed
kids for whom no facilities can be found:
there is nothing more potentially explosive.
And it was these agencies that bailed you out.
If I may remind the leader of the Opposi-
tion—and I am speaking to him as colleague
to colleague— one of the most invidious budget
cuts, one of the things that hurt most when
the Provincial Treasurer spoke, was the quote:
"Additional capital grants for psychiatric hos-
pitals and institutions for emotionally disturbed
children". That was where the government
provided its budget cut. You have severed it
right to source, and all the agencies across the
province know it. The place that you have
decided to truncate services is in this area,
yet the place that it could have been devel-
oped was through the departments of govern-
ment, and everyone would support it.
Certainly we on this side of the House,
and I think one can speak for both parties,
would support it if The Department of Health
really went out and began to develop treat-
ment centres as one understands them on the
North American continent, run by govern-
ment. That kind of diversification would be
an excellent example. But there has been
nothing of that since the white paper came
down, and there is now a cutback in the
budget, formally and officially for this year.
The Minister's legislation which has just been
introduced makes no provision at all, other
than by regulation, of any extension of facility,
and we have already seen what that means
because the capital grants have been excised
for 1969-70.
So what are we talking of, Mr. Chairman?
How does the Minister stand in his place and
say to the leader of the Opposition: "The
plans are evolving, the plans are in progress"?
The only evolution is what the so-called pri-
vate public sector did in order to retrieve a
situation of desperation on the part of chil-
dren, children's aid society, and government.
The government's response has been either
negligible, non-existent, or indeed, downright
evil, because there is no other way of charac-
terizing this preoccupation with adult mental
hospitals as a repository for disturbed children.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need add
anything else. I think this is an area for some
considerable scnitiny and one would welcome
that scrutiny, of costs and expansion, and
methodology. Indeed, let us ask children's
aid societies what it is all about. It might be
useful for the welfare and corrections com-
mittee or the health committee to bring some
of the children's aid society directors. If
things are compromised by personal relation-
ships then let the committee bring Sister Mary
of the Cross of Sacred Heart's Children's
Village, or people from Maryvale, or from the
Vanier Centre— and let these people in the
MAY 13, 1969
4331
field tell the members of the Legislature what
they feel about the knotted noose around the
neck of those who would expand services and
the refusal of government to enter the field,
all the protestations notwithstanding.
Mr. Chainnan: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I have a question of the
Minister, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Js it on the same topic,
might I ask the hon. member?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Yes. The Minister, after
the Timbrel enquiry, through an order-in-
council appointed a committee to revise the
guidelines of the child welfare department.
Have those guidelines been revised, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Would the hon. mem-
ber repeat that question?
Mrs. M. Renwick: It seems to me that it
was shortly after the Timbrel enquiry or
during it, or during my comments on the
enquiry, which would be about March, 1968,
that the Minister said that he had, through an
order-in-council, made a committee to study
the guidelines of the child welfare depart-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The committee was
set up to review the procedures relating to
adoption and foster care.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I was not saying that,
I was saying child welfare department. The
department with regard to your relationship
with municipahties, with the children's aid
societies and their guidelines. Your guidelines,
which under testimony in the Timbrel
enquiry the gentleman in the Waterloo chil-
dren's aid said were verbal guidelines, they
had no guidelines in writing as to adoption
and separation of siblings, and I was urging
the Minister that he would put forth firm
recommendations on these particular points.
That I-
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the hon. member
is talking about something else. There are
guidelines, and I beheve there were guide-
lines at the time. Now, whether they were
redistributed again, I do not know.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is what I want to
know, if they were updated.
Mr. Trotter: Are they in writing?
Hon. Mr. Ytu^mko: Yes, they always were
in writing.
Mr. MacDonald: How do you redistribute
guidelines?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You issue them, as a
directive. I think the technical term is an
adoption policy manual, and it is a written
one not an oral one, and that is still being
used by the societies.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And that was in effect
tlien during the time that Mr. Hansberger
testified there were no written guidelines?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, it was in effect
at that time. I think perhaps there may have
been some doubt about clarification, but the
adoption manual has been out, and I remem-
ber reading the manual shortly thereafter. I
think it is appended to the Judge Waisberg
report.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask the Min-
ister if the manual covers the separation of
siblings for adoption purposes?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: My recollection is that
I do not think there was anything specifically
laid down with respect to the separation. I
think the whole question resolved itself into
what was best in the interest of the children^
I think that was the basic fundamental
principle.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, that is
what Jerome Diamond outlined very clearly at
that hearing but that was not what was
put forth in the first report on the separation
of the two children in the care of Mrs.
Timbrel. The first paper filed on those two
children said, "one may exist all right with-
out the other." That is not the purpose of the
Child Welfare League of America, saying a
guide in separation of siblings is not the
fact that one can siu^ive without the other,
it is that you only separate them when one is
detrimental to the other, where there is
some real conflict in the two children being
adopted together.
I had a particular interest in that section
of the hearing that this was not originally set
out from your department, Mr. Chairman.
And I would ask that after having paid
$50,000 for a Royal commission into the prob-
lem of separating two children, Peggy and
Valerie, we do set out from your depart-
ment a definite guideline so that this never
happens again,
I would hke to ask the Minister if in talk-
ing about children not being bom with emo-
tional disturbance— or you might even expand
that to saying slow learners, and so on, the
problems that the children's aid workers are
4332
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
faced with— is the Minister aware, and if he
is not would he please look into the fact, that
there is coming forth now some research on
the fact that pre-natal damage, or lack of
development of the brain in the pre-natal
state, is now being studied and proven due to
malnutrition, lack of proper diet? This, I
tlidnk, is something that the Minister could
well look into in as much as the huge num-
bers of children that come into the children's
aid from the one parent, or from the im-
married mother, that in the case of poor
circumstances that mother invariably is not
receiving the kind of diet that she requires.
I know as a legislator, Mr. Chairman, I
face this every few weeks, that a mother of
an infant caimot be given the kind of diet
that a doctor has prescribed. Would the
Minister look into the studies that might be
available? The Minister nods his head silently
but I would like to ask for a firm commit-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not nod my head
in silence. I am making the afiBrmative.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you because—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I check out everything.
I do not immediately embrace everything but
I check out everything. I do know this, that
malnutrition is not necessarily related to in-
come of families. There are a lot of families
with excellent incomes in which there are
children who sufiFer from malnutrition. There
are these fancy diets of carbohydrates that
reduce the amount of protein or something
that goes to the brain being used by people
who can well aflFord the finest of food.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, already
the Minister is beginning to argue that it is
not necessarily so but let us face it, the
income of an awful lot of the unmarried
mothers, whose children end up in children's
aid, is certainly not of the level that pro-
vides fresh vegetables and beef steaks and so
on during the prenatal period.
I do not know why the Minister asked me
to discuss the case of Carol Ann Young under
this particular vote. Carol Aim Young was
an infant whose mother declined to leave
her infant with children's aid and went to
general welfare assistance. I tried, Mr. Chair-
man, to discuss the death of Carol Ann Young
under vote 2002, but the Minister said he
would be prepared to discuss it here and I
would like to ask him first of all, why?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: At the time that the
mention was made I know that the mother
of Carol Ann Young was receiving full en-
titlement under the municipal welfare allow-
ances. It was pointed out to me that there
was no involvement by a children's aid
society in the matter. There is a letter on
file from Mr. Richardson to the supervising
coroner that Carol Ann Young never did
come to the attention of the society and
there was no record of her at all.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, when I
was shocked by this death and by the rec-
ommendation of the jury- and delighted to
see, I guess, such a strong recommendation,
I followed Carol Aim Young from her death
at 1316 Queen Street right back to where
the mother first came to welfare at Queen
and Coxwell. I did trace the case back to
the Catholic children's aid where the paren-
tal exercise that they go through for the
male involved, did not stand up under dose
scrutiny and, therefore, the mother of the
small child went away without any guidance
or assistance from that particular source be-
cause the parenting could not be proven.
Could it be that somehow I have the wrong
information, or perhaps the Minister has, be-
cause I followed this up personally right
down to the children's aid society until I got
a report on what had actually taken place
there.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have no note of the
Catholic children's aid society being involved
in it. I do have a note that the Metropolitan
Toronto Children's Aid Society was not
involved in it.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the jury
said:
We the jury protest the obvious lack of
complete communication and action, par-
ticularly in areas where the needs seem-
ingly fall outside the main jurisdiction of
the welfare agencies. We consider this
death unnecessary.
We urge that the administrative head
of the welfare agencies be instructed to
recommend and take whatever steps are
necessary to improve the communication
and resultant actions of the agencies to
achieve results more in keeping with the
true needs of the individual.
Did the Minister consider that this recom-
mendation was directed primarily to himself?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would think that that
recommendation was directed towards the
facilities within the community as a whole. I
would think that every agency in the field
would have made a note of this particular
MAY 13, 1969
4333
recommendation of the jury. It certainly
seems to have merit that this take place.
I know that conrnimiication is one of the
great administrative problems to make sure
that in a routine regular way there is con-
tinuous conmiunication and feed back of
information or that if someone comes to an
agency that he is not merely turned away.
The experience and the knowledge of the
person with whom communication is made
should realize that perhaps instead of just
turning somebody away there should be a
positive step and a communication made
further up the line, or down the line, or
laterally, so that the individual who seeks
help wQl not have to rely on his own infor-
mation as to the source of help. If he comes
to that particular source and it is wrong,
that is an indication in itself that the person
lacked that knowledge.
I, for one, am imposing the responsibility
on social welfare agencies, at least I make
the basic assiunption, that a social worker in
a field should have knowledge which is
beyond the limits of his own particular sector
of jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman: On item 4?
Mrs. M. Renwidc: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
would say to the Minister; I guess it is like
the three blind men and the elephant. I saw
this completely differently, because the only
agency with whidi the mother had contact
was a children's aid agency— I recall it as
being the Catholic children's aid, but it
might even have been the other one. But the
fact of the matter is that, when the decision
to assist this 18-year-old mother and her
infant was made, it was made in the munici-
pal welfare ofiice at Queen and Coxwell.
It is not enou^i for the Minister to ever
say— and he has not said it yet— but it has
been said in the past that this is made up to
the mimicipaKty. The municipality is presid-
ing over an Act of the Minister and the Act
of the Minister requires that municipality
to give to this mother ^id infant only $85 a
month allowance for rent and that mother
paid $22 a week for two rooms on Queen
Street, because her father and mother and
brothers and sisters lived in an Ontario Hous-
ing Corporation unit, where she would, in
fact, be another family in that imit if she
were to have tried to Hve there.
Mr. Chairman, it is not very difificult arith-
metic. The mother and the child received $88
for food, clothing, personal care and, in fact,
that included the money for utilities. It in-
cluded the maximum allowed to diem for
utilities and the maximami of $7 allowed for
cleaning equipment. When you take away
the $108 from the amount of money the
mother received whidh was $88 for herself
and infant to Hve on, and $85 for rent, making
$173, the mother and child had $65 for the
month to hve on completely.
T^e mother did not know that she could
have received, had the mtmicdpality deemed
it— and it is a rule of thumb, I understand, in
the Queen and Coxwell ofiRce, that a crib or
layette is all something wihich a mother could
have.
But, you know and I know, standing here
and you sitting there, that this child, the
child-mother of the infant, did not know she
could get a crib and nobody in the welfare
office is saying to people like this, "Do you
need a crib?" It is so obvious that the baby
shared a bed with the mother and the
mother's sister who had come along to the
new two-room suite to Hve.
I just ask the Minister that he take a real
good look at what is happening when you
make recipients like this eat out of their
food budget for rent, or when you do not
have firm guidelines in the municipal ofiBces,
and have people checking them.
I understand from the children's aid workers
that every once in a while, college graduates
descend upon them, oheckinig through their
files, making sure that they are living up to
the regulations of The Child Welfare Act. Is
that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, we do have
workers who visit the—
Mrs. M. Renwick: You see this is a form of
policing that your regulations are, in effect,
being carried out. Apparently, according to
what I hear, there are many times when
these graduates do not know enough about
children's aid work to understand what they
are about in those offices. I might draw your
attention to this.
But I would like to see someone going into
municipal offices to make certain that the
regulations are being adhered to in municipal
offices. Because this is unbeHevable. It is not
an isolated case. Today, I am dealing with
a case of a mother of three children Hving in
one room, because the welfare would not pay
$125 for a three-room flat. The Minister has
got to recognize the problem that we would
never have had this infant's death if his de-
partment had been able to poUce— that the
Act was being carried out the way it whs
intended.
4334
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I have a simple question to wind up, Mr.
Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister
the policy for adoption. Is it the policy that
a family may not adopt, for instance a four-
year-old, if they already have a four-year-old,
or a three-year-old if they have a four-year-
old? That liiey want that pre-school child to
be into school, and another pre-schooler
adopted in place of the other child?
I have got mothers asking me why they
cannot adopt a pre-schooler— as they would
have had them naturally— and have two or
three pre-schoolems in their house at one time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well I have never
lieard of that type of specific situation, be-
cause I have always gone on the basis that
it is the needs of the particular child that
are the guiding principle.
I do not think we look from tlie point of
view of the needs of the adoptive parent, but
from the needs of a child. And, if it is a suit-
able home, from the point of view of the
child, the child is placed. And I do not think
it bears relationship to the age factor or the
attitude of the parent. But rather does the
attitude of the adoptive parents meet the
needs of the child.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask the Minister
then, if he would take a look at the three
infant deaths. We discussed one here only
today. The other one was a child, a 20 month
old child, that had to give up his crib to a
younger child. This was, once again, the
shortage of a crib. The child strangled be-
cause the parents tied it into the crib. The
other was the infant death of the mentally
defective people, and it is very questionable
whether they should have had the care of a
child.
Would the Minister just take a look at
those three deaths, and somehow come out
with the conclusion that infants with parents
who really need parenting, do merit the
assistance of government, and are not to be
left out there floundering, like these three
cases were?
Mr. Chairman: Is item 4 carried? The
hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister if provision is being
made in the budget for assistance to the
organization known as the INN, in the city
of Windsor, one that is directed by a Miss
Irene Gerrard that has taken—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is under item 5.
Mr. B. Newman: Item 5. May I ask of the
Minister, at this time, if, in subsidies to chil-
dren's aid societies, there is any provision for
the hiring of imiversity and senior high school
students in an attempt to help the youngsters
education-wise? And, in any other fashion,
could they, at the same time, assist these
imiversity students and senior high school
students with summertime employment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Tlie societies establish
their own policies with this respect. They get
the staff wherever they see fit.
Mr. B. Newman: Is there anywhere, in this
total estimate, provision for assistance to
university and senior high school students
with regard to summertime employment?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Is item 4 carried? The hon.
member for Waterloo North.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I would
like to ask, Mr. Chairman, a few questions,
regarding the advisory committee, on adop-
tion and foster care. I enquired last fall
regarding this committee, when it was first
set up under the chairmanship of a professor
from Laurentian University— his name eludes
me at the moment.
Has this committee been meeting on a
regular basis? And what submissions have
been made to it? Do they report to you, or
will they be operating on a permanent basis?
Or are they just bringing in a report to yoiu:
social and family services department at the
conclusion of their work? What is the basis
of this committee at the present time? And
what have they accomplished up to now?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The committee has
been meeting on, quite a regular basis. It
was set up specifically to deal with adoptions
and foster home care, and they are studying
the whole realm of the activities and related
matters. It is on basis of the studies they
have been making in this field that the depart-
ment and myself will be looking forward to
bringing in either legislative amendments to
the Act itself, or to the regulations in this
regard.
But it is not a permanent thing. They
will do a job and then when the necessary
amendments are made for this period of
study, their activities will be concluded.
Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, have they sub-
mitted any interim report up to this time?
MAY 13, 1969
4335
Or when do you exi)ect them to submit a
report?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They have suibmdtted
an interim report to me.
Mr. Good: Will this rei)ort be made public
or will this report be tabled in the Legisla-
ture?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Actually, the report
is a report to the Minister but that decision
would be made when I have received their
final report and other related reports. There
is another study going on in the same field,
but in a differe«t direction. The Urwick
Currie firm was engaged to do a particular
study. When we get all the reports together,
we will be able to evaluate them, see what
should ibe done and take steps.
Mr. Good: Specifically, Mr. Chairman,
ooidd the Minister find out for me what
actually has been done or what the findings
of the committee have been in relation to a
submission made to them by W, R. Woods,
of Waterloo, last fall?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am not familiar with
the submission, but I will check into that.
Mr. Chairman: On item 4? The hon. mem-
l)er for Scarborough Centre was on her feet.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister if he receives a
report from each of the children's aid services
throughout the province; an annual report,
not from the combined areas but from each
individual operation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes. I know that across
my desk the reports come continuously and
I make the basic assumption which I think is
correct. The director would receive not only
the printed reports but the detailed reports
required under the Act. I am advised that
the reports are monthly reports. I do not see
those; I see the annual reports as they come
across my desk and it takes some doing to
keep up with aU the reading.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Yes, I can appreciate
that, Mr. Minister. I think what I am trying
to get at, too, is that, is this material segre-
gated into some form of research that might
be useful to the Minister?
I am looldBg, for instance, at Sault Ste.
Marie who say that they have a problem
particularly for school-age children.
The poor folks say that their need, like
those of other societies, especially for the
teen-age child, is, for group homes and for
the services of a mental health clinic. Is
there some serious attempt made to isolate
these needs into categories so that the prob-
lem can be dealt with?
From Bracebridge they write also for
school-age children— they have need for far
more foster homes. They do have two group
homes and psychiatric and psychological
services so their problem is different again.
In London they integrated with the fam-
ily service and they seem to have made some
real progress imder The Child Welfare Act
in the preventative programme. By this mer-
ger between children's aid and family service,
they seem to have brought in a range of ofiB-
cial resources, or agency resources, to the
But I would think that the areas where
they have the problems— the older child— are
so often the larger areas, and maybe there
a concentrated effort could be made to make
group homes. Even with all this smoothly-
operating assistance in London-Middlesex,
they say nevertheless there is still a need for
foster family care for the older child. Once
again, it is the older child. And if the Minis-
ter is getting this type of information every
year; if, from his programme, could emanate
some answer to it, it seems to me it can
fall into three or four categories.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Park-
dale.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, as I gather
from the estimates, the amount allowed for
new and required buildings, I total it $1,-
231,000; they are broken down to $600,000,
$160,000, $171,000 and $300,000. I wonder,
under this vote, is that the total amount al-
lowed for new and acquired buildings?
Mr. Chairman: Is that not the item on
page 156?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The $600,000 is the
new and acquired buildings for the children's
aid society.
Mr. Trotter: Children's aid; thea you come
down to subsidies to institutions.
Mr. Chairman: That is item 5.
Mr. Trotter: Not including that; that is
only $600,000.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: For the children's aid
society?
Mr. Trotter: What I am comparing it with
was in the estimates for the year ending
March, 1968. We voted $2,470,000. We
4336
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
spent less than that; we spent less than half
that, but is this the same item I am properly
comparing it with?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, it would be the
same item.
Mr. Trotter: In other words, it is $600,000
versus—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, you would have
to add the $600,000 to $160,000, to $171,000.
Mr. Trotter: And $300,000.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, $300,000.
Mr. Trotter: And it comes to $1,231,000.
That is the way I get it. So that when we
were passing estimates two years ago, the
government was recommending that they
spend $2,470,000 and you only spent half of
that. If I am reading these figures cor-
rectly, I am looking for the places where this
great cutback of $400 million came from. I
would say this is one major item right here.
I want to be corrected in case I am reading
these figures wrongly.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, as I stated at, I
think it was, the very beginning of the esti-
mates, it was in the capital expenditures that
we were not going to be expanding as much
as we had in previous years.
Mr. Trotter: It is just on this particular
item then, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
emphasize, I think, what has been said by
my leader here before, and it is particularly
in providing facilities for disturbed children.
I do not approve of the system, as other
speakers have said, of giving the children's
aid society the responsibility of having to
provide for these children.
I think it is unfair in particular to the
children's aid society and the role of govern-
ment must be in taking care of the emotion-
ally disturbed children. You are simply going
to have to invest in this field. There has
been a lot of acrimonious debate between the
government particularly; The Department of
Health on one side and the Brown Camps
on the other. I say to you quite frankly that
I do not believe that private enterprise
should, in the main, be in this field. I think
this is primarily of government concern and
that present government policy has been,
more or less, to let the private enterprise
take over.
Now I must say, in all due respect to the
Brown Camps or to the children's aid, there
is no other place for them to go under the
present circumstances. I am also well aware
of the debate; I know the hon. member for
Scarborough West quoted the diflFerence in
day rates and the Brown Camps are that
much lower. Some Tory over there, happily
said, "Well, of course, private enterprise is
more eflBcient." The question is, which is the
better system?
There is a great debate going on again as
to what Idnd of treatment the children get
at Brown Camps. If you are an advocator of
Brown Camps, they say it is excellent; if you
are not— and I assume that the Minister of
Health is not an advocate if Brown Camps—
they are not getting the proper treatment.
I do not beheve the salary of the staflF at
Brown Camps is nearly as high because they
use people who do not necessarily have
degrees or have the same amount of training.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They do not have a
union shop.
Mr. Trotter: They do not have a union
shop, that may be the
Mr. Sopha: Are you serious? They do not
have a union?
An hon. member: No-
Mr. Sopha: They do not have a unicHi!
Mr. Trotter: This is a situation—
An hon. member: You invited it.
Mr. Trotter: This is a situation involving a
good many hundred children, if you are to
believe it— and I am going by various refer-
ences I have heard the Minister of Health
make. You go by some of his references, or
maybe his attitude toward Brown Camps,
and this department is permitting a situation
to exist where the majority of the emo-
tionally distmrbed children are being treated
under a system which The Department of
Health disapproves of.
I think it is about time the two departments
got together to do something about it, and
with, the kind of budget that you have here,
even for new and acquired buildings, ob-
viously you do not have the slightest inten-
tion of doing anything. When we brought
this problem of the emotionally disturbed
children before the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Health on one occasion, the Minister
of Health was quite pleased that no money
from his department went to Brown Camps.
I think he was quite pleased about it. But
that does not solve the problem.
MAY 13, 1969
4337
The truth of it is the problem Hes both
with the Minister of Social and Family Ser-
vices and with the Minister of Health. Botli
of them are throwing the ball around and
nothing is being done in this particular situa-
tion. But I want to speak categorically here,
Mr. Chairman. The main principle involved in
treating emotionally disturbed children is
that it is essentially a government respon-
sibihty. It is the responsibility primarily of
this department, but certainly with the co-
operation of The Department of Health.
On this vote I want to register my protest
of the lack of interest and the lack of eflFort
on the part of this Minister in the treatment
of the emotionally disturbed children. It is
long overdue. This debate on how these chil-
dren should be treated has gone on now
literally for years. Strong and overt action by
this government is long overdue.
Mr. Lewis: What I think we are doing is
virtually removing the vote on item 5, so I
do not think it is proceeding quite as slowly
as it appears.
In terms of the references to children's aid
societies and what the member for Parkdale
has said, of course, the anomaly is much more
perplexing than that which he has indicated,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out to
him, sir, and to the Minister and to the House
that The Department of Health will not
accept the services which are provided by
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices, let alone an agency in the public/private
sector.
If it is anomalous in the one instance, how
much more anomalous is it in the other—
and what does it say about The Department
of Health? The fact of the matter is, Mr.
Chairman, that when the accreditation com-
mittee of The Department of Health, estab-
lished under The Mental Health Act visited
Boys' Village, the government's model treat-
ment centre imder The Department of Social
and Family Services, it refused accreditation!
It would not accept the standards provided
by Boys' Village.
I do not know what The Department of
Health asks of a treatment centre but I am
pleased to say, just to develop the paradox a
little further, that the accreditation committee
recommended Browndale favourably. So ap-
parently The Department of Health, in certain
areas, is approving. The director of child
welfare has to exercise judgments here, too,
and they are entirely appropriate. Children
pass through the director's hands and children
have to be approved before they go to various
agencies.
I do not know whether Mr. Borczak the
Deputy-Miuister just whispered to the Minis-
ter that things have been changed in the in-
terim, but it was an anomaly at the time, i.e.
that The Department of Health should not
approve the most senior facility provided
imder this department for disturbed children.
I really do not understand that. I would be
interested to know why, because it presented
children's aid societies with a certain dilemma.
I think they would also like to know.
Can the Minister tell us why The Depart-
ment of Health refused the accreditation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I cannot give the de-
tails of that. What I was taking a mental note
of was the fact that the hon. member was
using the expression, "model facility". I have
never regarded Boys' Village as being the
model facility. I know we were deahng with
them in certain areas on what I assmned was
an experimental basis in certain fields.
Mr. Lewis: Is there any other facility in
the entire province of Ontario with whom
you have entered into such a close arrange-
ment by way of a department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That was the one on
an experimental basis.
Mr. Lewis: Precisely. It was the experi-
ment in which this department invested hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars— and appropri-
ately, I agree. I would be inclined to think
this is an experiment which should be sup-
ported. I am simply saying, with the member
for Parkdale, that this whole attitude of The
Department of Health is very perplexing—
not only to some of the agencies in the public
sector that are privately incorporated, but
also to government agencies endowed with
government money and run by government
departments. The whole thing is a very, very
incomprehensible situation.
I hope the Minister has gone to bat for
Boys' Village, because many reputable agen-
cies, children's aid societies and several others
use Boys' Village. I see no reason why it
should be removed from the purview of pub-
lic approval given under the stamp of the
Minister of Health. That just does not make
sense. How much less an institution is Boys'
Village compared to the Vanier Institute or
Sacred Heart Children's Village, or any of
the others that have been approved by the
accreditation committee? And what does it
say of government, if it is of such a low
4338
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
standard? Does the Minister have the present
per diem rate for Boys' Village before we
adjourn?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do know this, Mr.
Chairman, we are now into the grants to
agencies, item 6, the comprehensive treatment
demonstration of Boys' Village. I do know
that this government made a commitment-
Mr. Lewis: Five years, was it not?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —it was a commitment
when I assumed the portfolio and had been
brought to my attention. There was a good
deal of discussion at that time and I said to
those who were operating it that this govern-
ment made a commitment and it will carry
out its commitment. This department has
done that with respect to this item.
Mr. Lewis: Well, the Minister should fight
for it. Does the Minister know how much the
commitment was before we rise, or what the
per diem costs now are?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The commitment was
$500,000 over a four-year period.
Mr. Lewis: $500,000-yes, $125,000 a year.
And does the Minister know the per diem
rate? Surely his aides have the Boys' Village
per diem rate.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is a complex prob-
lem because the per diem rate applies with
respect to residency. The $125,000 is a grant
to the demonstration project. The two things
are separate.
Mr. Lewis: Yes, that is the point I was
making, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no per diem
rate, so are not involved in a per diem rate.
Mr. Lewis: Well, in addition to the project,
the per diem rate is paid by agencies, so at
least $1 million of public money has been
invested here, and, I am inclined to think,
wisely invested. I am not sure that The
Department of Health should do Boys' Village
in, that is what I am putting to the Minister.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4 of vote 2004 agreed
to.
It being 6.00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 116
ONTARIO
Hegislaturc of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, May 13, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 13, 1969
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, concluded 4341
Estimates, Department of Mines, Mr. A. F. Lawrence 4359
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Grossman, agreed to 4371
4341
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8.00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Concluded)
On vote 2004:
Mr. Chairman: On item 5.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-WaiUcerviUe): Mr.
Chaiaman, I was directed by the Minister to
put under this portion of the vote the ques-
tion concerning financial assistance to the Inn
in the city of Windsor, an institution that
provides a oomimunity service to girls of title
ages of 16 and upward who are in need of
help. All the girl has to do is show ability
and the desire to work out her problem and
she is accepted by the association. Miss Irene
Gerard, who is the director of the organiza-
tion, makes mention that the Salvation Army
in the community have had to put up 60 girls
in hotels during the past year because of the
lack of facilities.
There were 48 in need who came to the
attention of police. Twenty wards of the
children's aid society who were in need of
interim housing were taken care of by her
organization. There were 13 referrals from
family service who required housing, and six
who were released from jail without a place
to go. About 10 per month need a half-way
house to bridge the gap between institutional
living and their return to society and they
are accommodated by the Inn.
The Inn originally cost about $45,000 to
set up, and it has an operational cost of
approximately $30,000 a year. I understand
they have asked the Minister for financial
assistance and were turned down.
Are there provisions in this year's budget
to assist the organization that acts as a half-
way house, and is sort of the female counter-
part of the St. Leonard's Association, that
originated in the city of Windsor and has
now spread throughout all parts of Canada.
May I ask of the Minister if there is provision
in this vote for assistance to the Inn?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Actually they have not been
turned down.
Tuesday, May 13, 1969
Mr. B. Newman: Well if they did not re-
ceive it, Mr. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know, but I can teU
you that it is surprising how often I am
pressed for an answer. They say, "Why did
you not give us an answer?" What they really
mean is why do you not give an answer "yes".
Not just why do you not give us an answer.
I understand that the Roman Catholic
diocese has just given them a structure which
is going to be used, and it is in the process.
Mr. B. Newman: It is having its official
opening Sunday, Mr. Minister, if you could
see your way to come down and—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I wish I could, but I
am otherwise committed.
Mr. B. Newman: I will bring the cheque
down, Mr. Minister!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We will be processing
these. As a matter of fact, my own thinking
is that we can do a lot with a lot of little
homes-
Mr. B. Newman: Right!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —scattered across the
province. In the coming time we can have
a real second look at a lot of these small
institutions that make a very worthwhile con-
tribution for the size of the institution.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, Mr. Minister, you
still did not answer the question. Is the finanr
cial aid going to be made available to them
this year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We expect to resolve
this shortly, but just when that will take
place I am in no i>osition to say.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister,
so I can report to them that your gracious
heart will bless them with that slip of paper.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You tell them that
when they thought they were turned down,
that somebody must have misread the letter!
Mr. B. Newman: It has not really been
turned down, it is forthcoming; and I hope
it is not in the fullness of time, Mr. Minister.
4342
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An hon. member: What they need is an
inteq^reter!
Mr. B. Newman: Ma>' 1 ask of the Minister,
Mr. Chairman, if the Leone residence, another
institution similar to the Inn but taking care
of girls in an older age, likewise is there
provision for financial assistance in the coming
budget?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That place is unknown
to me, I am not familiar witli it. What is the
name?
Mr. B. Newman: It is the Leone residence,
operated under the directorship of a Miss
Diane Hobbs. It is a home set up to give
emergency aid and short term care for girls
or women who have left tlieir homes as a
result of problems. The problems could be
drugs, alcoholism, or even a collapse of a
marriage.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The institution, I am
afraid, has slipped my mind for the moment.
It is not within this programme. What type
of care does it provide?
Mr. B. Newman: It is short term care for
girls and women have had miscellaneous
problems such as drug or alcohol addiction,
collapse of a marriage, miscellaneous social
problems. These are only a few of the prob-
lems.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That h a description of
the services to be provided by the Inn, but
I am not familiar with the owners.
Mr. B. Newman: I had asked you earlier
in the discussions of your department and you
suggested that I ask this question at this
time, and tliat is why I ask it at this time. You
can look it up and reply to me at some future
date by mail, it would be quite all right.
May I ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if
he is making provisions for a social worker
among the children in the Glengarry Court
development area? That is where the high
rise geared-to-income housing is situated in
the city of Windsor, in the downtowTi area.
There have been quite a few social problems,
and as a result one of the recommendations
made by the community service was that
there be a social worker in the area to pre-
^ent some of the social problems from becom-
ing more serious than they actually are.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have, I think, a
couple of social workers in the Windsor
area and it may be that they will turn their
attention to this area. No one has been
specifically assigned to this particular pro-
gramme.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of tl\e Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could
ask the Minister if he has a programme to
assist parents with emotionally disturbed
children to meet the costs of the care that is
necessar)' in order to assist these young
people.
In a previous item it was brought before
the House that the cost of this care ranges
from, I guess a low of $29 and some odd
cents at Browndale to a high of $50 a day
at some of the facilities operated by the
provincial government. I have always felt
that the tremendous financial responsibilities
lx>rne by an individual family which must
provide this care for a child is more than can
be borne, no matter what their income is.
There have been cases, and I am sure the
Minister is aware of them, where parents have
undertaken to have their children made wards
of the children's aid so that the young people
can get this care at no direct cost to them.
But this seems to be a veiy serious step
indeed, and in essence sidestepping the justice
of a situation, which should l)e patently
obvious.
Can tlie Minister report to us that he has a
programme to assist families under these
circumstances?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That will be part of
the Minister of Health's (Mr. Dymond's) over-
all programme. Presently we deal with the
children's aid societies. All the placements are
through them and the subsidies go to those
pubhc private institutions where children are
placed, we subsidize them. These are the only
two types of programmes in which we are
involved.
Mr. Nixon: Well perhaps this is a point
where we might discuss it a little more fully.
Is the Minister aware that the children who
re(iuire this treatment get assistance through
The Department of Health? Is there a pro-
gramme that he is aware of, or does he just
mean for me to ask the other Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I understand this m
part of the programme that is being ev^plyed
under the new bill.
Mr. Nixon: Under the bill that is before
the House now, but at the present time there
is no programme to assist these parents. In
fact their only recourse is to ante up the
$50 a day maximum, or to have their chil-
dren committed as a ward of the childrea's
aid by subterfuge.
MAY 13, 1969
4343
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Or arrange admittance
to one of the institutions which is subsidized
by our department.
Mr. Nixon: What institutions would those
be— like Thistletown?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Sacred Heart Village
is one that comes to mind here in the city
of Toronto. The Surmyside Children's Centre
in Kingston; Maryvale in Windsor; Boys'
Village of course; Mount St. Joseph in Ham-
ilton; and the Madame Vanier Children's
Services in London.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, one authorita-
tive source indicated that 95 per cent of the
children who are in these special schools and
institutions are, in fact, wards of the children's
aid. Surely this is not a direct reflection of
the statistical distribution of emotionally dis-
turbed children. I think it reflects the need
under this government's programme. If an
emotionally disturbed child is going to get
the treatment that is available— and certainly
that is inadequate, as we discussed in the
previous vote— the only recourse at the pres-
ent time is for the child to be committed as
a ward of the children's aid; otherwise,
except at the very top level of incomes, the
parents would simply go broke providing for
a few months of the care that would be
necessary. Can the Minister assure us that
the bill that is before the House corrects that
situation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is one of the in-
tentions of the bill, i may say that the
number of children that were placed in in-
stitutions last year decreased by five per cent.
Mr. Nixon: You mean the total number?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, that were placed
in the—
Mr. S. Levds {Scarborough West): Not in
these institutions!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, in the institutions
we are talking about.
Mr. Nixon: Well what ones are those; do
you mean the ones that are operated directly
by the government?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the ones that are
operated as public/private institutions.
Mr. Lewis: That is just not possible.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: And I may say that
the discussion the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion and I have had does not take into
account those ' children who, in the wisdom
of those responsible, are taken care of through
the mental hospitals.
Mr. Lewis: If you include retarded chil-
dren, the disabled children and the disturbed
children perhaps!
Mr. Chairman: Item 5, the hon. member
for Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman,
would the Minister please tell us the youth
organizations that are covered under the item
"subsidies to institutions for children and
youth". I understand the institutions for
children are under The Children's Institu-
tions Act; but what youth institutions are
covered, aside from the one in Ottawa, the
\outh hostel?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are quite a num-
ber here. The Boys Home in Toronto, the
Clifton House for Boys, the Loyal True Blue
and Orange Homes, the Merrimount Chil-
dren's Home, Notre Dame of St. Agatha,
Opportunity House in Toronto, Parkhill Girls'
Home, St. Joseph's Boarding Home, Salvation
Army Home in Toronto, Youville Home in
Sudbury, Yorklea Children's Lodges in To-
ronto; and then there are the Big Sister
Residence in Toronto, Cornwall Youth Resi-
dence in Cornwall, Craigwood, Ailsa Craig,
Craigwood Extension in London, Earlsoourt
Children's Home in Toronto, Jewish Family
and Child Service in Toronto, group homes in
Metro Toronto, Lynwood Hall Children's Cen-
tre in Hamilton, Salvation Army in London.
Mr. Ben: Yes, but would the Minister
please distinguish between children's homes
and youth services. By youth I anticipate
that they are over the age of 16.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not think we
have them broken down by that category.
We have the Beverley Lodge in Toronto, the
Ingles House in Toronto, the Salvation Army
House of Concord, the Sancta Maria House
in Toronto and Teen Challenge in Toronto.
These are for the 16-year-olds and over. I
assume that is the group. These are the
institutions.
Mr. Ben: Where will I find them in the
Social and Family Services 36th Annual
Report?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They have just been
developing in the last two years.
I wonder what information the hon. mem-
ber is seeking with respect to these institu-
tions? • > :
4344
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Ben: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the
answer is obvious. I see an allowance of
$2,732,000 for subsidies to institutions for
children and youth. I know from past experi-
ence that children's institutions are covered
under The Children's Institutions Act, 1962-63.
'But I am perplexed by the use of the word
"youth", since I can find no previous refer-
ence to it.
The explanation may be the one that the
Minister has given, that is a new programme.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, on page 14 of the
report, they are shown there as "homes for
older boys and girls". Actually, the correct
legal terminology is "Schedule 4"; we now
call them institutions for youth. At that time
they were shown as older boys and girls. As
you see, there is Beverley Lodge, Toronto;
Ingles House of Toronto and the Salvation
Army House of Concord in Concord. Since
that time there has been developed the Sancta
Maria House, Toronto; Teen Challenge To-
ronto; and I believe we are in the process of
dexeloping two more.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, you can under-
stand why members of the Opposition some-
times are confused by the methods used by
this government to try and transmit informa-
tion to the Opposition, if in fact they are
trying to transmit information.
In the 36th annual report the homes for
older boys and girls are listed under child
welfare. Now the item which we are discuss-
ing is listed under subsidies to institutions
for children and youth. It does not come
under child welfare in this particular vote.
Perhaps if the Minister will try to be con-
sistent we might be able to expedite matters.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the statistics that are
published in the 36th annual report show that
whereas in 1957 there were 31.8 illegitimate
births per 1,000 total births, in 1966 it was
64.2. That is, in a space of ten years, the
incidence more than doubled.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): You cannot blame the Minister for
that.
Mr. Ben: How do I know, I cannot blame
him? Wait until I ask him some questions-
it might be the Minister of Correctional Serv-
ice.
Mr. Nixon: He had some help all right.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that
although the pill may have cut down the
birth rate in certain areas, it certainly has not
helped in this. I do not know who should be
held responsible for trying to keep down the
birth rate, be it the Minister of Social and
Family Services or the Minister of Health
(Mr, Dymond), whom we welcome back in
the House. Obviously, somebody is falling
down in the education of these youngsters,
either in the provision of necessary services
or perhaps in the provision of birth control
pills. But when the incidence of illegitimate
births doubles in a space of ten years, I ask
myself which department is failing to carry
out its obligation. Perhaps—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Ben: Do not take credit there— the
Hon. Minister of Mines there (Mr. A. F.
Lawrence)— I said where the birth rate is
dropping. If the birth rate were rising then
perhaps you could try to take credit. But the
way things are I would not try to take credit.
Besides, if my memory serves me correctly
I do believe that "Lawrence" was one of the
saints that was struck off the list so—
An hon. member: The member and the
party.
Mr. Ben: Would the Minister please inform
this House of what, in his opinion, is the
cause of this fantastic increase in the rate of
illegitimate births? What is the Minister doing
to provide facilities for these youngsters be-
cause the majority of them are youngsters?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there
was a rather thorough discussion on that this
afternoon.
An hon. member: That is a big answer.
Mr. Chairman: On item 5.
Mr. B. Newman: I wish to ask a question
of the Minister, and it concerns the group
therapy project in my own community, in
which they are setting up a home for emotion-
ally disturbed children, boys, specifically, be-
tween the ages of eight and 12. This group
was to buy a facility and be able to accom-
modate nine boys in that facility. The project
was going to cost approximately $181,000. Is
there provision in the Minister's estimates for
a grant to this group?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I wonder if the hon.
member will give me the name of the group?
Mr. B. Newman: The Windsor group
therapy project.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They have had a fire
there, I believe, and it held up the—
MAY 13, 1969
4345
Mr. B. Newman: They qualified for a grant
under the Central Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, and they asked for assistance
from your department— and I understand there
should be. Is there going to be some assist-
ance forthcoming?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I understand they had
a fire, and that fire has somehow prevented
the request from coming forward.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Did they not ha\e a
fire there?
Mr. B. Newman: Not that I can recall,
Mr. Minister.
Mr. Ben: Mr, Chairman, I have just can-
vassed a number of members in this vicinity
and not one of them can recall a thorough
discussion of the topic I raised. Will the
Minister be kind enough—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have turned to the
expert in the field, the member for Scar-
borough. I thought we had a rather good
discussion.
Mr. Ben: Who is the expert?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know we discussed
the matter.
Mr. Ben: It was casually mentioned.
Mr. Lewis: No. You are fantasizing.
Mr. Chairman: Item 5.
Mr. Ben: Well, would you mind giving us
a summary of what this was about since
nobody can recall it except you? What was
this thorough discussion that you speak of?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, there was a
statement. There were questions and there
were statements by the Minister in which I
indicated my concern that of the 18,000 chil-
dren in care, almost 50 per cent were children
of unmarried mothers; that there has been a
startling increase in tfie last few years; but
that fortunately in the last period of time
there has been a levelling off, and that we
can hope to cope with it.
Now, I said as to the reason for it. I am
not too sure why there are so many. The
general philosophical reasons, if I may put it
that way. We are, for example, giving our
services in this field through facilities for
unmarried mothers, both in the prenatal
period and in the afterbirth period. They are
excellent. I think that perhaps that the young
women are coming out and are more visible
than they have been in the past.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Our statistics in this
field may be better kept, I may say.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Well what
are the guidelines?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: For the guidelines I
turn to the parents for assistance.
An hon. member: The birds and the bees!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not being a parent
myself except in the mass way, I think that
the parents have a very grave responsibility.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, if I may for a
moment become serious. We have some
10,000 illegitimate births in this province, and
the majority of them are girls of tender years.
Would the Minister please tell me of what
survey he has knowledge that has made an
empirical of this problem which we are
facing? Has he tried to determine how these
young girls get themselves into this position?
Is it that perhaps they do or do not know the
story about the birds and the bees? What
kind of stories are told to them by the boys?
Evidently a girl goes into a hospital and
the boy goes looking for another girl.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is generally the
case. The girl goes to the hospital to have
her baby.
Mr. Ben: All right then, the Minister of
Correctional Services. I guess he figures he
gets customers that way, and he does not
want to put a stop to it. But perhaps we
ought to get serious for a moment.
I asked if there has ever been a study.
Mr. C3iairman: This conversation took
place this afternoon with the hon. member
for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. M. Renwick).
Mr. Ben: Sir, this conversation did not
take place this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. member
direct his questions to the Minister?
An hon. member: Did the member for
Scarborough Centre indulge in this con-
versation?
Mr. Chairman: Not exactly.
Mr. Ben: Is anybody going to try to take
a survey and determine the wherefors and the
4346
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reasons? You said you do not know the
reasons. You know how it happened, but you
do not know why. Do you think it is a joke,
to have 10,000 illegitimate births in this
province every year? Are you going to get up
here and joke about it? Is that how you
exercise your responsibility?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
poir.it of order, the members of the Opposition
say, "Wipe that smile off your face, Mr. Min-
ister, take that grin off your face, do not sit
there joking about such a serious thing."
What kind of language is that they are using?
I am sitting here witli a very s?rious attitude
and you are putting expressions on my face
and words in my mouth that do not exist.
Tliat kind cf cut and thrust of a debate is
puerile and I do not intend to participate in
it.
Mr, Ben: Look, Mr. Chairman, if Hansard
indicates that I said an\ thing alxiut the coun-
tenance on your face, then I will apologize
for the next remark. If not, then everybody
who knocked over tliere is an ass because I
said nothing about the countenance on your
face. You are puerile wlien you get up and
suggest I did.
I said do not take tliis as a joke, we are
not talking in jest here. The fact is that there
are 10,000 illegitimate births in this province.
They are going up and up and up, and you
have the consummate gall to get up here and
say there is a levelling off. A levelling off for
what?
The statistics published by the Provincial
Secretary indicate that they went up again
last year, so what are we levelling off to, to
1(),()(')0 from 9,000? Stupid, idiotic, assinine
.statements and you come out here and talk
about puerile.
What are you doing to investigate the
causes of these things? We know what causes
girls to have children, l)ut we want to know
how they find themselves in this condition.
Mr. Chairman: Tlie Minister answered those
(luestion this afternoon.
Mr. Ben: He did not answer those questions
l>ecause he does not even know his own name
these days.
Mr. Chairman: I was sitting in the chair
when he answered the question.
Item 5, the hon. member for Windsor-
W alkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: I am still waiting for an
answer from the Minister concerning the
Windsor group therapy project.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There was a fitre there
and tlie original request was for rehabilitation.
I think the grant suggested was $1,200 a bed.
There was a fire and the building has heeia
toni down. Their request, of course, cannot
be for the rehabilitation at $1,200 a bed, it
will have to be an out-and-out grant of $5,000
a bed, which has changed the picture in die
inter\'al.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, I woidd like to ask the Minis-
ter if anywhere in this item, or in some other
item under this vote, will we find any moneys,
if there have been any appropriated, to after-
four centres, for instance to the YMCA where
they have been pioneering in the after-fonr
centres of schools?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. The care tliat we
are talking about now is purely residential!
care.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would it be under this
\ ote at all, Mr. Chairman? How about "other
payments" or "grants to agencies"?
Mr. Chairman: That is in the next item—
gi-ants to agencies. We are dealing with item 5.
Item 5 agreed to.
On item 6:
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, under
item 6, grants to agencies, is this where I
would find moneys allotted to the YMCA in
its pioneering of the after-four .school pro-
gramme?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, under
grants to agencies, the only two grants which
are covered are the ones that are specified
there-the $5,000 and the $125,000. We do
not make grants, at least we have no pro-
vision presently, for grants to agencies other
than those which provide residential care.
Mr. Chairman: Item 6 agreed to.
On item 7, the hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I was trying to locate
departmental publications for which we bud-
geted $30,000 last year and I could not find
them anywhere. The last resort would be
here under item 7, "other payments", and I
am wondering if they are buried somewhere
else or are they in here?
MAY 13, 1969
4347
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It would have been
under the main office vote, Mr. Chairman;
"communications services" would include the
maintenance vote there of $41,000. That is
where the money for publications is. Thus,
"adoption and sundry administrative costs" is
in this for the provision of specaal pubMca-
tions, or special communication services with
reject to adoption. I think our "Tjoday's
Child" programme is an important part of
this.
Mr. Chairman: Item 7 agreed to.
On item 8, tlie hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in the
metropolitan area of Toronto how many svib-
sidized day nurseries are there?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are five new nurs-
eries in Metropolitan Toronto, that is five
new ones operated by Metro Toronto, I be-
Heve. I will have the specific details in a
moment.
In Toronto there are 13 mimicipally oper-
ated, 16 agreement for services full-time,
two mimicipally operated, and four agreement
for services half-day, for a total of 15 munici-
pally operated, 20 agreement for services.
There are 48 other full-time and 84 other
half-time or half-day in Toronto.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I only
want the ones that are subsidized. Are the
13 muincipal day nurseries full-time day
nurseries that are subsidized.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of the municipal ones
in Metro there are 13 all-day fully subsidized,
and two half-day fully subsidized. There are
16 agreement— that is Metro is buying serv-
ices from 16 all-day centres— which are in
turn subsidized on our needs test, and four
half-day, so there are a total of 35 that are
directiy or indirectly subsidized, to some
degree.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And they care for how
many children, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have the
number of children.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, does the
Minister have some idea of the number of
working women in Metropolitan Toronto and
the number of one-parent families in Metro-
politan Toronto who may need these services?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have that par-
ticular statistic before me, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: These statistics are not
exactly what one would call up-to-date, be-
cause they are DBS statistics, but in the
1968 "Day-Care in Metropolitan Toronto
Study" of the social planning council, it was
estimated that among working women with
children under 16, and estimated single-par-
ent families with female breadwinners with
children that would need to be cared for,
in Metropolitan Toronto alone there are
80,700 working women with children under
16, and 24,339 single-parent families with
female breadwinners with children under 16
years of age.
Representing the riding of Scarborough
Centre, I looked particularly at the facilities
available when this study was done in 1968.
Under the social planning areas of Metro-
politan Toronto, under Area No. 30, Scar-
borough Centre— there are two areas for
Scarborough, Scarborough West and Scar-
borough Centre, so I presume that this would
certainly cover the area that I represent—
and under public day nursery services, none;
under United Appeal, day nursery services,
none; under church non-profit, none, and
under private, none.
We are reading from table 4 in the Metro-
politan Toronto Social Planning Council study
of day care. We have Mr. J. T. Weir, a
barrister in downtown Toronto, heading up
a national study on the day care facilities for
children of working mothers. But you know,
Mr. Chairman, it is really an exercise that
no one needs to go through in order to prove
what is happening. I think that everyone in
this assembly, in contrast to 1965 and 1966
when hooting and hollering took place then
over the discussion of why women work and
so on, now has had to accept that women
are working for monetary reasons by and
large.
Last year I pointed out, and now it is in
this public report, that the Ontario Depart-
ment of Labour stated that the average earn-
ings of a father of children under 15 years
of age, where the wife is in the labour force
in Ontario, is $4,088. And the average wage
of a father with children under 15 whose
wife is not forced out— it does not say
"forced out" here, but I say "forced out"— is
$5,162— which proves that women are out
working for that extra $1,000 a year.
The average income for the working
women in Canada is approximately $2,000 a
year. They have limped along for a long
time, Mr. Minister, waiting for proper day
care facilities— care for children before the
mothers go to work in the morning. Many
children are on the school grounds between
4348
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
8.00 and 9.00 in the morning because there
is no one left at home.
For a long time they have needed meals to
be served at school, for children of working
mothers. The board of education assured me
recently that they have been preparing some
meals for as low as 50 cents a meal, rather
than a catered meal in schools.
And after 4.30, where do the children go
until the parents come home? Now this is
no mystery.
I would say to the Minister that the
women who work in Ontario— 40 per cent of
all working Canadian women— should strike,
absolutely strike, and show the government,
once and for all, that you are dependent on
them. You are very much dependent on
the women who work in this province, for
the economy, to function in your own offices,
for people to go to stores, to go to hair-
dressers, to go to doctors.
If the women who had small children that
they have to leave at home, or in other
people's care, not necessarily consistent care,
pulled out of the working force, it might
bring the first full force to this government
that the women out there are in need. And
they are not being heard, Mr. Minister. We
gather up another nursery school, another
five, another seven-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mrs. M. Ren wick: We are not even be-
ginning to look after the children who need
care in the province of Ontario, while their
mothers work. And the Minister cannot
imagine, unless he ever has to leave some-
thing very precious with somebody else to
care for, how very hard this is emotionally
on women who go to work. They leave
keys with small children to come and go
from their home, which is absolutely wrong.
We have made ourselves a great big day
care study to come down now. All that study
is going to say, Mr. Minister, is that women
are needed in the work force. They should be
allowed to stay home.
If it is only going to be for $1,000 diat the
women are out in the province of Ontario—
$1,074 a year average— we should take those
women antl put them under The Mothers'
Allowance Act, which came in in 1920. Allow
the women, once and for all, to choose to
stay home with their children until they rear
tlieir children, and have a supplemented in-
come to do so. As it is now, we are forcing
them out with the high cost of living.
The children are receiving care just simply
wherever this can be found. We have not
yet got a detailed study in Ontario, as to
what is happening in the line of care for
children of working mothers. But when Mr.
Weir's study is finished, part of their ques-
tionnaire is exactly that: what arrangements
did you have for your children?
And the U.S. study, under the children's
bureau, Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, in 1965 come up with this
disturbing documentation. The study was
limited to women who worked full-time or
part-time, 27 weeks or more, as far back as
1964. And this is how it will come out in
Ontario, Mr. Minister, because one need
only to know an area and see it every day
of your life, to go door to door in any of our
communities.
Nearly half the children were cared for in
their own homes, usually by a father or other
relative, or, in too many cases, care for
smaller children was provided by a youngster
under 16 years of age. Fifteen per cent were
cared for in homes other than their own
homes, half of them with people not related
to them.
Now we have children being cared for in
homes in the day-care system. We do not
have legislation to guarantee what kinds of
homes, or how the children are cared for,
whether they stay in a room for the day, or
whether they have a balanced indoor and
outdoor day. We have nothing to assure a
mother, when she leaves a child with a baby-
sitter, that the child is being cared for.
In the U.S. study, 13 per cent of tlie chil-
dren were taken by the mother to her place
of work and over half a million pre-school
children were oared for in this way. And we
need only to look back to that case of the
infant death of a child whose mother took
her to a restaurant every day to work— the
Manelli child— to know that there are mothers
doing this. They are taking them where they
can take them. It says here that twice as
many low-income mothers use this form of
care as mothers in better circumstances.
Eight per cent of tlie more than 12 million
children who were surveyed were the latch-
key children and 38,000 were under the age
of six, and only 2 per cent of the children
studied were receiving group care.
I would say to the Minister that its the
head of this department, with 40 per cent of
all Canadian working women in his province,
he must— he absolutely must— come to recog-
nize tliat if we want these women in the
labour force, we have to provide services for
them. The Minister's department pioneered
with a day nursery school in the Riverdale
MAY 13, 1969
4349
hospital to bring nurses back to work—
an infant day nursery. We have never man-
aged to convince another hospital or another
institution to do this.
Our pubhc schools need mothers to come
back and teach. They could have day
nurseries attached right to the schools. Some-
body in this province has to fight for thh
whole programme, Mr. Chairman. I would
say that if you do not come up with some-
thing concrete for the women who have
children and are out working in Ontario,
they should have a good women's s.trike.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I
thought perhaps a figure or two might be
relevant to the point. The increases in nurs-
eries in the past five years— the increase
from 1964 to 1965 was an increase of five
per cent, to 423; to 1966 an increase to 476,
a 12 per cent increase. For 1967 the number
was 526, a 10 per cent increase. In 1968 it
was 627, 19 per cent. It is almost a 20 per
cent increase of licensed nurseries in the past
year.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): In Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is for Ontario.
The increase of those receiving public funds
has been from 45 to 114 in a two-year i)eriod,
I believe, which is a very large increase. I
may say that here, in Metropolitan Toronto,
a recent survey indicated that the facilities
were not overtaxed, the available facilities
there-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Oh yes, they can. Let
us not get into a discussion on that. I may
say that ouir subsidies of day nurseries is
about as fine as anywhere on the continent.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Whole
world?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, I have not had
the opportunity of making that comparison.
I may say that, with mimicipally operated
nurseries, we subsidize to 80 per cent of the
cost. I may say that one of the great advances
in this regard has been in Metropolitan Tp-
ronto. They, I think, have in the past year
set up five new ones that they operate and
they have got purchase agreements with 20.
This has all come about since our new pro-
gramme came into effect so that those facts
and figures speak for themselves. As a matter
of fact, a week ago I had the occasion to visit
the day nursery on EXovercourt Road. We saw
a fine example of care and attention and a
playgroimd, a penthouse playground on a
rooftop, for children.
The whole programme was an indiCatioin of
the direction that the programme was t^inig.
I may say that—
Mr. Bene St. Christopher's House had that—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say that tlie St.
Christopher House had their problems at the
beginning of the changeover.
Mr. Sopha: He was scrubbed last week.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I still carry him in my
EK>cket so ihe must be pretty good.
Mr. Sopha: He and the Minister of Mines
as well.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I say that the rate at
which the programme has grown in the last
few years— the last two in particular— bodes
well for the future.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I think the
programme is—
Mrt. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, we
waited patiently for the Minister to finish.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What right have you
got?
An hon. member: Yes, what right have you
got?
Mr. Chairman: The hon, member for Park-
dale was on his feet. He is entitled to—
An hon. member: That is right.
Mr. Trotter: I will be short.
Mr. Chairman: If the hon. menTber wishes
to yield the floor to the hon. member for
Scarborough Centre; however, he was up first.
Mr. Trotter: Ladies first!
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, to the mem-
ber for Parkdale.
Mr. Chairman, the figures tha* the Minister
has quoted in expansion were discussed even
in a question and answer period recently
across the floor of the House. That is an
irrelevant position to take when you cannot
say how great the need is.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I would
say that if the hon. member thinks that every
working mother is incapable of looking after
her children, I think she is away off base too.
If the hon. member wants to know how many
working mothers there are and ipso facto
4350
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
from that figure, is going to refer, Mr. Chair-
man, to the fact that every single child needs
public subsidized care; that is a sequitur
that does not really follow.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is not what I am
saying either, Mr. Chairman. I am saying
that in 1961, that far hack, there has been the
same steady increase of mothers into the work
force, as there has been in the Minister's ex-
pansion of day nurseries.
In Metro Toronto, in 1961, there have been
100,000 working mothers with children under
16. Children require some form of care, by
law, up to almost that age and they have not
got it in this city, be it infant care, be it day
care, be it nursery care or be it after-four
care.
Those mothers who camiot stay home to
look after their children have a right to have
facilities, or they do not have to be in the
work force, have it either way. Pay them to
stay home, Mr. Chairman, pay them that
$1,074 a year to stay home and raise their
children until they are of an age where they
can look after themselves.
Do not get into day nurseries in vast
expansion if that is what the problem is, but
face up to it one way or the other.
The Minister, I am glad, took an interest
in the Roof Top day care centre, or Roof Top
playground, but the Roof Top playground
at Davisville Nurser>' has laeen there for seven
or eight years that I know of. This is not a
move towards solving the problem of mothers
going out and sending children to school, of
the children coming home and getting their
own lunch, going back to school, or of coming
out of school and onto the street until parents
come home.
It is not solving the problem of mothers
taking infants to other houses and being left
while they go to work and coming back
and picking them up and taking them home.
I know that the Minister does not have any
children but if he has a dog or anything live,
you cannot just go away and leave it. It is
hke an anchor. You have got to place it
somewhere until you can come back or else
you let it go. That is what these studies are
showing and that is what Mr. John Weir's
study will reveal, should I still be here to
deliver it. It will be telling us the same thing,
that the children are in need and it is the
children, Mr. Chairman, that the means test
should be on, on how great is their need. If
The Department of Labour has shown—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think, if I may say,
that the hon. member has finally touched the
point. I am interested from the point of view
of the children-
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have
the floor and unless the Minister is on a point
of order-
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre has the floor, sir.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to say, Mr.
Chairman, that The Ontario Department of
Labour— gratefully, I was grateful that this
figure came down to me by telephone a year
ago— that the women in Ontario are working
for $1,074 a year on an average, to make up
the lower income of the man of the family,
to the average family income. That is from
the Minister's own government, so he cannot
escape it. Somewhere, something has to be
done.
The women are out working for that littie
amount and 40 per cent of the working
women are here. If they have grown children,
Mr. Chairman, it is no problem. If they have
smaller children it is a severe problem. It is
a hardship on the children, it is a hardship
on the mother. And there is ne need for it.
There is no need at all, Mr. Chairman. It is
simply a re-ordering of priorities and the
children in this province must have the gov-
ernment provide a supplementary care while
the mothers are at work. It is that simple, or
else, have the mothers stay home.
That is the only alternative, Mr. Chairman,
there is no way of escaping this now. When
you first used to talk about day nurseries, and
I have read back in the debates of the last
Parliament, the member for Woodbine had
to call out Kinder, Kueche, Kirche. The Ger-
man phrase in English is children, kitchen,
church, when the men were laughing about
women going out to work— the men on the
government benches. But, this has now come
to a point where the necessity of this can be
proven.
We have proven that one in three women
work. We are now about to prove what hap-
pens to the children of women who work.
The only way the Minister can be ahead of
John T. Weir's study is to get with it in the
province of Ontario. Either provide services
for the children of the mothers who work, or
pro\'ide money for the mothers to stay home
and look after the children. It is the children
that are being short-changed, Mr. Chairman,
and not just the mothers, with their worr>'.
It is the children that are being left.
Mr. Chairman: Item 8, the hon. member
for Parkdale.
MAY IS, 1969
4351
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I think one of
the great problems of supplying day nurseries
to the province of Ontario, and it really is a
problem despite what the Minister says and
how great the improvement has been, is
summed up in a paragraph numbered three,
put out by the Ontario Welfare Council in
June of 1968. One of the problems they said
was this:
Elected representatives who do not
understand the values of good day care
services are reluctant to spend tax money
on day care centres.
And that sums up, I think, the stmggle of
obtaining good day nurseries for the pro\'ince
of Ontario.
Your predecessor, Mr. Chainnan, was one
of those who did a great deal, by his entire
attitude, in trying to stop day nurseries. I
know of a group of prominent Torontonians
who went to see Mr. Cecile and he gave
them a lecture that a woman's place was in
the home. Any man or any individual who
talks like that today just has no conception
of the economic situation that we, in the
province of Ontario, find ourselves.
Whether or not a mother of children wants
to stay at home, economically they are driven
out into the work-a-day world. Quite frankly,
our economy, at this juncture would be in a
very sad state if the women were not out
working. I am not certain what percentage of
the work force they form— I think it is some-
thing like 35 per cent, and in not too many
years hence, the ways things are going, they
are going to be almost half our work force.
So that we simply have to assume that we are
going to require a great number of day nurs-
eries.
The Ontario Welfare Council has pointed
out that some of these grants that are given
to the day nurseries are not nearly as generous
as they appear and they lack a great number
of things. For example, you give a subsidy,
I know, to those day nurseries that are run by
the municipalities, I am glad to see it come.
Believe me, it took a long time in coming
because there are two of them in my riding
still not open yet, but they are under way
and they are glad to have them. Part of the
delay on the day nurseries on the new grant
system was that it took so long for the regu-
lations to come out.
You know, I kept phoning your department
and I started to bug one of your prominent
members of the civil service about once a
week, "When are the regulations coming?"—
they are always coming, and finally he said,
'We will phone you". Finally the regulatio*^'-
came and now we do have some of these
subsidized day nurseries open, but, as I said,
it is not quite to the number that the Minister
says. They are on their way, but I just know
that the two in my riding are not open as yet.
Now, one of the big weaknesses with your
nursery legislation, what is it called? The
Day Nurseries Act. I believe one of the big
weaknesses is that it does not give the sub-
sidy to the voluntary nurseries unless you
can prove that tliere are persons in need.
There are a great number of people— work-
ing mothers— that just will not apply to a
welfare department.
Despite the fact that they are called
Social and Family Services, we still have
this name welfare I would certainly agree
witli the social planning council and the
Ontario Welfare Council that the govern-
ment is going to have to assist the volimtary
agencies more than they do, because they
are missing out on a great number of people
tliat do need help.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just
read these five words in the Ontario council's
report. This refers to The Day Nurseries Act.
Am I calling it correctly, The Day Nurseries
Act? It says this:
The legislation appears to be generous,
because it oifers an 80 per cent subsidy to
the municipalities. In those municipalities
where day care would be a new service,
the initiative, in terms of human and
physical resources, to organize or to
operate a complex programme may not be
present.
Well, this is true. In many municipahties
throughout the province they simply are not
in a position, because they lack the personnel
and they lack the knowhow, to take even
those grants that are available.
I think, also, there is more opportunity for
grants under The Canada Assistance Act,
which this province fails to use. The federal
government under its own legislation can be
of more help.
Again— and my main source is the Ontario
Welfare Council— they pointed out where
voluntary agencies suffer— and I think there
are 48 of them in Toronto— that capital costs
for the establishment of a day-care service
and 20 per cent of the operational costs
must be provided by the sponsoring group.
If you have any conception of how difficult
it is for some of these private agencies and
private groups to try to help the working
mothers, it is becoming far more diflBcult to
raise the money for capital costs.
4352
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am certain in my own mind, Mr. Chair-
man, that those of us who are in government
ha\e to face up to the fact of growing
urbanization. I know so many of us use this
term again and again, but it is a fact that
we have to hve with, but have not faced up
to. With the growing urbanization of so many
of our large centres, the need for day nurs-
eries is going to become even greater.
It is so important that we have high
standards in our day nurseries, because it is
in these nurseries you find what cliildren
need to be treated, either because they are
tfK) bright, or because they are slow learners.
Ii >()u have trained people that can observe
tliese children, you can head off a lot of
trouble in the future.
It is obvious, and it should be obvious to
all of us, it is far better to help these chil-
dren when they are >'ovmg, than to wait
until they become i:)erpetual charges on the
taxpayer. It is the old idea tliat it is far
wiser to make these individuals, as they
grow up, taxpayers instead of tax eaters.
I know that in eases where there have
been many immigrants that have settled in
tlie city of Toronto, that day nurseries can
be a big help in helping them learn the
En<zHsh language and in helping them to
understand a new culture. Because, if they
do not learn in day nurseries and do not
ha\e the opportunity to go to day nurseries,
they are throvvn into the public school
system and, in so many cases they fall
behind. So developing our day nurseries
will, in the long run, assist our school
system, and most certainly will assist the
children that are growing up.
So I want to tell the Mini.ster, Mr. Chair-
man, through you, that I am not a bit
impressed by the facts and figures that he
throws out— by telling me that there are, I
think, 35 that are subsidized by the munici-
palities, and al30ut 48 that are privately
supported. I just am not a bit impressed,
Ix'canse I know for a fact what a struggle
some particular area.s have had in getting
day nurseries.
There is finally going to be one in tlie
north end of my riding, and it is long overdue
;md they had to fight tooth and nail to get
it. I just know, by the standard of life in that
area— you may not know it, but in the north
end of Parkdale, let us say in the Davenport-
Osier area, is the lowest income area in
Metropolitan Toronto. Many people are
immigrants, and they simply do not have the
means, the financial means, for a day nursery.
nor in many cases do they understand that
such things do exist, or could exist.
I feel that far more should be done in this
area of social development. It has been sadly
neglected, despite your Day Nurseries Act of
very recent date. This area is sadly neglected.
It is not being utilised to nearly the effect
that it could be utilised, and we in govern-
ment have got to face up to the fact that
we have to develop it.
I close my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by
repeating what the Ontario Welfare Council
said, because it applies to all of us, and in
particular to the present administration, the
prasent government, and it is this:
Elected representatives who do not
imderstand the values of good day care
services are reluctant to spend tax money
on day care centres.
Mr. Chaiiman: The hon. member for
Hun>ber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chainnan, I am glad that tlie
hon. member for Parkdale rose. He covered
some of the items I was going to cover. I
just want to add to them.
The reason I wanted to rise to discuss this
matter was that, in many minds, the need for
day oare centres Ls connected to working
mothers and mothers having to work out of
necessity. I feel that there are many other
cogent rea-sons why we need to have day care
centres and one of the last reasons for it, in
my mind, would be that a motlier is working.
True tliere are many mothers that have to
work, they are the sole breadwinner in the
family, and they need some place to leave
their children. There are, however, other
mothers who are working because they want
to add something to what they already have
and which has been supplied by a husband.
There are many husbands that keep a
family, but sometimes tlie wife wants a house
of her own, or she wants better furniture, or
she wants a freezer, or a new washing ma-
chine, or a new vacuum cleaner, or any of
the hundreds of thou-sands of things that
TV says is necessary to a happy existence.
These motliers take the attitude that they
are going to work for only a year or a couple
of years until tliey acquire this something and
they just would not pay to send a child to
a nursery.
To them it is only a short term deal. They
feel that there will be no adverse effect to
the child, and they would rather put the
money aside for that deep freezer or what-
ever they want to buy. The truth of the
matter is tlie child can suffer adversely, even
MAY 13, 1969
4353
if it is just one year or two years, so for
them, for the benefit of the children, you
should have child day care centres.
Then again, how about child day care
centres for mothers who do not have to
work? How about mothers who have six or
seven children and for whom it is just too
much? Why should they not be able to send
their children to day care centres so they
could have perhaps a day of rest; a week
of rest; a month of rest?
These people need day care centres just
as much as anybody else. Those children
could benefit from going to such a properly
supervised public centre and so could the
mothers.
The member for Parkdale mentioned chil-
dren who come from New Canadian homes-
immigrant children, he said.
How about children who are Canadian-
born of immigrant parents? Some of those
children up to the time that they go to
kindergarten do not hear a word of Enghsh.
The mother stays home to look after the
children, and all she speaks to those children
is her native tongue. The people who live
next door probably came from the same
village over in Europe and that is all they
speak— the same language. That child, until
the day he goes to kindergarten, hardly hears
a word spoken in other than his native
tongue.
These children would benefit from going to
these day care centres. At least they would
be able to get a head start on learning
English. They would not go to Canadian
schools and, being Canadian-born, feel that
they were aliens.
I have often said that in many instances
where mothers do not have large famihes,
but live in areas where they are depressed,
where they have minimum income, and can
never afford to have a vacation. For such
mothers, if they could just send their child
to a day care centre for two or three weeks
during the summer, would be a great vacation
for them.
So all these other reasons that I have
stated, aside from the financial reasons of
mothers going to work, for all these other
reasons, for the interest of the child, for the
interest of the mother, and for the interest of
the family, you ought to have these child
day care centres.
And they should not be tied to income
because income is not always a criterion.
This is the trouble with these Metropolitan
centres, they are geared to income and prob-
ably that is the last criterion you should
use. The criterion shouUl b? the need of a
child and the need of a mother and nothing
else.
If the child needs day care supervision,
(ir if the mother needs a rest from raising
these children, then it or she should have
facilities in which to place tliese children.
That and not the almighty dollar, should be
the criteria. What is considered today is the
almighty dollar. It is about time that you
started thinking about the children and the
mothers, and indirecdy the fathers loo, you
know, because a happy mother helps to make
a happy father.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
add a note of support to what has been said
on this side of the House. I cannot imagine
a more worthwhile expenditure of pubUc
funds than to subsidize a mass day nursery
programme across the province, and certainly
in the Metropolitan area.
If I can share with the Minister one par-
ticular problem with which I am currently
involved. A number of days ago— I guess it
was some two or three weeks ago— I was
phoned by a very distraught mother who lives
in the Malton-Rexdale area. She is a deserted
wife, she makes a monthly income of some-
where in the vicinity of $200. She has two
children, and if memory serves me, one of
them is about four or five and the other one
is six.
She has been unable to find the appro-
priate baby sitting or nursing care— using the
broadest sense of that tenn— at home. She
has gone through three or four people who
have looked after her children, and the chil-
dren in the process have suffered both
physical and psychological brutalization and,
of necessity, she has had to dismiss the
people.
I do not think she can be penalized for
wanting to maintain a job and the self
respect that goes with the job, but, as she
said on the phone with rather more emotion
than I can convey to the Minister, the fact
that her daughter inevitably leaves the mother
crying every morning suggests the degree of
emotional distraction already evident at a
>'0ung age. Pretty disheartening.
I turned to The Department of Social and
Family Services because I thought it was a
case of a pretty formidable gal, this woman
who simply did not want to cave in to social
assistance programmes. She had tried the
possibility of day nurseries, but on $200 a
month by way of income, I challenge the
Minister to find any day nursery in that part
4354
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of tlie city which would require so little
from the family that they could manage it.
She had tried a Red Cross worker or a
homemaker, but of course tliey are not
available under the (government programmes
for such situations.
So a mother's allowance visit was paid this
woman from the family benefits branch of
the department and I think she was in-
formed—again I am quoting the figures from
memory, but I think I am right about them
—that she would receive $137 during the
summer months and $167 during the winter
months.
Now, I should say, in order to be fair,
that she has marginal assets in a home and
that the total income she derived was en-
hanced by one roomer. But the department
said to her that according to the restrictions
on income which the department observes
when granting someone a mother's allowance,
it would be necessary for her to divest her-
self of both the home and the job in order
to be ehgible for mother's allowance because
there was simply too much equity held to
have family benefits available to her.
She wanted very hard to hold on to tlie
job, worked out some half-hearted baby
sitting arrangements, haphazard baby-sitting
arrangements I suppose is the most appro-
priate ternis, only to find about a week ago
that she had been slapped with a garnishee
relating to a purchase which she had ap-
parently jointly signed with her husband
when they were living together.
The sum owed was in the amount of $290
and the garnishee, as the Minister knows, is
for 30 per cent of income. There is no way
out, but for the employer to pay it because,
of course, th? original document had been
signed, and under the laws of this province
when it is signed, she becomes liable.
In addition, she was l^eset just this last
wcxikend with a very serious loss in the
family, specifically her father. Thus do the
conjunction of events and incidents pile in
upon people in this category. This seems to
be the plight, the particular situation.
I suppose, faced with the extremity that
what she will do is to give up her job, sell
the house, abandon the roomer, and go on
mother's allowance. She will receive— with
the extra number of hours per week she is
allowed to work under the mother's allowance
programme— she will probably receive about
$200 to $250 in total in any given month
receiving therefore, what she had earned in
the work force.
Now I do not know whether tliat is the
end which one pursues in situations like
this. I would have thought not. I would have
thought that when a woman, despite tlie ad-
versity, wants to maintain an income, wants
to have the sense of self-reliance that is
associated witli it, but by the same token
wants to keep the family from dismember-
ment which is how she felt about what was
happening to her children, I would have
thought that the state owes some supi>ort, at
least encouragement.
That encouragement can perhaps \ye
demonstrated in financial ways. I would think
that of the 25,000 single parent families witli
a mother as the bread-v.inner in the Metro-
politan Toronto area, albeit as the Minister
says, it does not follow that all the children
require day nurseries. A marginal percentage
—5, 10, 15 per cent— wcmld certainly benefit
from that kind of provision, and there is of
course no provision at all.
I would think tliat in a year or two or
three as these things accelerate, Mr. Chair-
man, the provision of day nursery facilities
for women, under all the circumstances out-
lined by the member for Humber, and, if I
may say, particularly the critical circum-
stance outhned by my colleague will become
a cause celebre in this province. The Minister
will be a man who is beset on all fronts, not
simply by the strike as advocated, but by the
social outcry which emerges when an in-
justice becomes so transparent that tlie state
has to respond to it.
And there is just no question that in the
field of care of children of working mothers,
or mothers who want tliat care, this province
has not begun to respond, it just does not
comprehend the problem.
I do not know exactly what the reasons
are, Mr. Chairman. I suspect that the primary
reason is because this is largely a male-
dominated society, and our responses tend to
be slow. One need only look at this Legis-
lature for evidence of that fact. One need
only look at the House of Commons where
only one woman sits among 265.
I am not raising it in a particularly jocular
\ein. One assumes that the sexes are divided
with approximate equality through this so-
ciety, but 115 of 117 members of this Legis-
lature are males. That is not necessarily the
culpability of political parties, although I
suspect that is partly true. But it does tend
to make it difficult to respond to problems of
working mothers and day nurseries, and home-
makers, and provision for children in the
society.
MAY 13, 1969
4355
It makes it very tough indeed, because the
males inevitably do not feel the sense of
perspective or urgency or emotion. There is
just no question about it, and I will go fur-
ther, Mr. Chairman, having been prompted
by the Minister of Correctional Services,
whose attitude barkens back to the Weimar
Republic at every opportunity. There used to
be the slogan, which the member from Wood-
bine quoted.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And to the same hon.
member there used to be in the 1920's and
30's, in that society, the same kind of attitude!
Mr. Lewis: The other factor which is
equally primary, Mr. Chairman, is that in
this kind of society, with the inequality which
is apparent, there is a very genuine reluctance
to move in ways which would undermine pre-
conceptions. And one of the preconceptions
which still exists is that there is something
basically wrong about women leaving the
home and working.
There is supposedly something still basic-
ally wrong about women generally involved
in pursuits other than tending to their chil-
dren and cultivating the kitchen. The argu-
ment has been enshrined for all time by
Simone de Beauvoir. It remains true in 1969,
as it was when the book was written, and it
has been reaffirmed on umpteen occasions in
the 1960's by other writers of equal percep-
tion.
Mr, Chairman, that is a particular prejudice
which I think is going to be very, very diffi-
cult to break through in this Legislature. I
do not think it is a matter of joshing. The
emotional anguish caused to the single parent
families in the Metropolitan Toronto area
around this question cannot be calculated,
cannot be estimated in the House.
I think the Minister realizes that, and I say
to him, with no acrimony, that the greatest
single move that his department might now
make in this whole field is in the care— the
day care— of kids who are otherwise neglected
by the economic or social requirements. One
would have a very enlightened society as a
result, and much less of the sense of grievance
that is everywhere felt.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, if I
might, facts and figures speak for themselves.
Now the Opposition has been very quick to
criticize. Wherever there has been the slight-
est decrease in our estimates they seized upon
it. Here, in this final estimate, the increase is
$818,000. It is up to $2.5 million over $1.7
million. This is in a year when I have been
criticized that in certain programmes, espe-
cially the capital grants, there has not been
an increase.
I say this. The legislation is there. The
money is in the vote. And we are not in a
universal programme. This is one thing we
have to clear. This department is not, at this
stage of the game, committed to a universal
programme of day care services for people.
That may come. It may not.
We are committed to a "needs test", the
needs test on the basis of this form, which I
have in my hand, form 7, which was dis-
cussed at great length almost a year ago. It
is one of the most generous needs tests avail-
able. In fact, as a Minister, it would please
me if this is the kind of a needs test that I
could apply across the board to most of our
programmes. It is probably the most generous
there is.
In fact, it is so generous that to use the
word "needs test" in regard to it is stretching
the point a bit because to estimate the need
we have been very, very generous indeed.
Mr. Trotter: Ontario Welfare Council does
not think so.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If the hon. member
would bring himself up to date and get out
of the 18th century that he sits in, or the
antediluvian age that is—
Mr. Trotter: That is the age you are in.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member for
Parkdale is just almost a year behind. That
was written in June, 1968. I am talking of a
programme which came into effect since.
I may say this, in respect to this needs test,
if we could only get two things: if we could
get, I say to the hon. member, the political
force at the municipal level— not at this level,
this level has already passed the legislation,
provided the funds— if you can get the interest
of people at the municipal level. That interest
is growing in Metropolitan Toronto apace and
in other municipalities, I hope and trust. We
are encouraging them to take an interest be-
cause all they have to do is become aware of
the fact of how generous our subsidy is, and
how generous our needs test is. There really
should be no problem except the community
spirit and the community interest in providing
these facilities.
Mr. Lewis: What is your subsidy?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is 80 per cent.
Mr. Lewis: Do you know a municipality
that will pick up the other 20 under the state
of municipal finances in Ontario today?
4356
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, I would say this,
it is 80 per cent from the Minister of Social
and Family Services, but the Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough) also gives
out the so-called unconditional grants which
are vmrelated to sidewalks and sewers, but
are given to initiate what we call self-services.
Some day, some Solomon with an electronic
machine will come to the conclusion that most
of the welfare services which 15 years ago
were being paid for to a large extent by the
municipal tax dollar, are, in this day and age,
lieing paid by the provincial tax dollar
through the left hand and to the right hand.
Mr. Lewis: So it should be.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: So it should. So it is.
Mrs. M. Renwick: There should not be a
municipal responsibility.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If the municipalities
will only become more aware of this, and
realize that the funds are very generously
provided. I disagree with the hon. member
for Scarborough West because a good deal
of this kind of administration quite properly
and quite effectively should operate at the
local level. I cannot run from the sixth floor
of the Hepburn block, this programme and
all the other programmes. I say to the hon.
member the legislation is there.
There is a great change of attitude in this
Legislature. It is the people at the local
level who have to take advantage of these
programmes. As these programmes are ex-
hausted, and these programmes still have a
lot to be explored, then we can turn our
eyes to other programmes.
Mr. Ben: Would the Minister please tell us
how much of that $2.5 million is given to
him by the federal department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Presently I think it is
about 50 per cent.
Mr. Ben: Fifty per cent.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, we are hopeful
of getting 50 per cent. We have not got it
in the pocket yet.
Mr. Ben: Now, Mr. Chairman, between the
years 1963 to and including the year 1966,
there were 581,000 children bom in this
province. Those children, taking it for granted
that the years 1967 and 1968 were the same,
would be in a class that would require day
care services, or could require day care serv-
ices. Now, if the Minister did not get a
penny from the federal government it would
indicate that his department was spending the
magnificent sum of less than $5 per child to
look after those children. Considering that
the federal government is giving 50 per cent,
it brings the amount that this government is
spending for those children down to $2 a
head. Big deal.
Now earlier, Mr. Chairman, we were dis-
cussing illegitimate births. I say there never
has been an empirical study to determine
how these children get themselves into these
difficulties. What I would like to see is a
study to determine if the lack of child day
care centres has any effect on creating dis-
turbed children. For instance, we could work
our way backwards to find out if children
presently recognized as being emotionally
disturbed were children who, while they
were young, were farmed out— and I use that
word loosely; palmed off, you might say— to
a well-wishing neighbour, to be looked after
while the mother went to work.
How about those girls and those boys who
gave rise to the 10,000 illegitimate births.
Were they, perhaps, emotionally disturbed
because they also were palmed off onto some
well-wishing neighbour or an aged grand-
mother, or somebody downstairs who received
free room for looking after the children? How
many of those children lacked proper day
care centres? Have you ever carried out a
study? The answer is no. Will the Minister,
as the last thing before these estimates are
finally passed, assure this House that he will
supply the funds to carry out an empirical
study to determine just what is the result of
lack of proper day care centres for these
children?
What is the emotional impact on children
being dressed and hurried in the morning and
taken down to some neighbour and dumped
there? What is the effect of having a mother
who is not a mother? How many of the
women who look after some of the neigh-
bours' children give a child an inferiority
complex because they look after their own
children better than they look after their
neighbours' children. Does that have a bad
effect on their future life? Do you know?
You do not, because you have never taken a
study. Why not spend some of your money
to find out what the price has been to the
people of Ontario and the mentally disturbed
children we have because you will not spend
a dollar? It might shock you into realizing
that it is about time you did something for
the young people of this province.
Mr. Chairman: Item 8. The hon. member
for Scarborough Centre.
MAY 13, 1969
4357
Mrs, M. Ren wick: Mr. Chairman, I would
ask that the Minister concern himself with a
children's bureau so that studies will be car-
ried on, so that the quality of life for chil-
dren in this new generation in Ontario— the
generation where the mothers are so numer-
ous in the areas of employment— and so that
you do have a bureau to draw proper infor-
mation from. Because the 1967 figures show
112,000 children under the age of 15 in
the families of parents who work.
Over 50 per cent of the women in the work
force in 1966 were engaged in only ten occu-
pations, and the percentage of males employed
in the same occupations was only six per cent.
So, there would be an extreme labour short-
age and a substantial drop in the standards
of living in Ontario if women were not avail-
able to fill these positions. And that is a
quote from Women in Ontario's Economy. I
would ask the Minister if he would take a
look at the amount of day care— private day
care— that is going on in Ontario. This is, of
course, not the day nursery care.
This means private arrangements, and I
would like to comment to the Minister from
the day care study of Metropolitan Toronto,
from item 6, private day care.
As was pointed out in section 3, private
arrangements between mothers and rela-
tives, neighbours, friends or people who
advertise and offer private day care for
profit, are the most prevalent form of day
care in our community. Hazardous arrange-
ments can be maintained, partly because
existing legislation does not offer adequate
protection to cover these situations. It is
difficult to enforce and the responsibility of
a number of different authorities.
Now, they go on to say, Mr. Chairman, that
it would be extremely difficult to license
everyone who performs a baby-sitting func-
tion or custodial day care. One advantage
might be, under the unified public healtli
departments that are proposed, that a set of
b>'laws could apply throughout the area.
However, if organized fainily day care were
recognized as a valuable service and licensed
imder law, this service— administered by
responsible community agencies— would pro-
\'ide at least a partial alternative.
They say in the study, Mr. Chairman:
It is our belief that if supervised day
care were available throughout Metro-
politan Toronto, many desperate mothers
would use the supervised service in prefer-
ence to some of the questionable private
arrangements.
In addition to providing the necessary
licensing legislation and subsidies for needy
families using supervised family day care
programmes, we believe it will also be
necessary to find some way to regulate the
practice of persons who offer their homes
for day care on a commercial basis.
However, we know that this is fraught
with difficulty. The Child Minders' Regis-
tration Act in the United Kingdom attempts
to establish soane control over persons who
offer child care for profit. There is a great
deal of dissatisfaction with it, since poten-
tial offenders fail to register, yet go un-
challenged unless the conditions are so
obviously bad that someone asks for an
investigation. Local authorities do not have
sufficient staff to go out looking for evaders
of the law.
We feel sure that the same situation
would apply here. It nevertheless disturbs
us that health departments do not have
enough staff to follow up, on the spot-check
basis, some of the homes which advertise.
It is therefore recommended that repre-
sentations be made to the appropriate pub-
lic bodies to strengthen the enforcement of
existing legislation applicable to private day
care arrangements and to provide such
information to small commercial proprietors
that will encourage them to attain or main-
tain an acceptable standard of care.
Now, it is very necessary that the Minister
take a look in the papers each night and
realize that there are homes advertising day
care to children, homes which do not receive
any form of inspection or any form of
guidance.
In the Windsor study of day care, in the
Greater Windsor area, in 1967, they stated:
In few cases did baby-sitting arrange-
ments prove helpful. The greatest com-
plaints were that the sitter was unreliable,
did not show up to work, had no patience
or understanding for children, wanted the
greatest amount of money for the least
amount of work. Teen-age sitters could not
be trusted and most sitters wished to care
for children in tlieir own homes, many of
which were not suited for health and other
reasons. In 95 per cent of the cases studied,
suitable arrangements were not made, and
depending upon the degree of necessity
for the mother to work, haphazard solu-
tions were found.
What was most evident to the researcher
was that, with the failure of baby-sitting
arrangements and dependence on relatives
4358
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
—many of which proved unsatisfactory-
tension, frustration and stress moiuited in
the home, affecting motlietr, father and child
and, in some cases, upset the already-
precarious family interrelations.
These remarks are close to home, Mr. Chair-
man. They are not from abroad, and I share
the question as to whether the problem is
that there are not more women involved in
decision-making government jobs. I would
hke to point out to the Minister that he might
well read the brief to the Royal Commission
on the Status of Women from the Victoria
Day Nurseries. And he might well take a look
at the statements made by a mother of five,
a professional child worker for 25 years, in a
hard-hitting brief to the Royal commission.
Pauly Hill, director of the children's creative
centre at Expo, said:
The status of women vitally affects the
status of children, and budgetary priorities
are not in proper proportion to the fact
that almost half of our population is aged
from infancy to 18. There are not nearly
enough programmes for children. T;he cry-
ing needs of a new generation are being
shockingly neglected.
And on day care, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Hill
said:
It is not parents who need day care
centres. It is children. High-rise apartments
are a child's straitjacket, streets their mur-
der strips and precious outdoor space caters
to adult aesthetics and not child develop-
ment. All housing projects, subsidized or
not, should be subject to regulations that
afiFect the emotional life of children as well
as their health and safety needs.
Mr. Chairman, if the Minister is going to
depend on the municipalities to expand the
care for the children of the 40 per cent of the
work force in this province that are women,
then it is a very unstable proposition to expect
that municipalities can pick up and carry this
kind of problem. This kind of problem, Mr.
Chairman, should not be totally under the
Minister's department. It should be under a
children's department of this government.
Mr. Chairman:
Essex-Kent.
The hon. member for
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chair-
man, with regard to day care nursery services.
Has the Minister given any consideration to
amending the Act to allow counties to oper-
ate day nursery services? In the counties that
I represent, the county of Essex, a very
aggressive county with a very wide awake
staff in the social services department, are
interested in forming this organization and I
would ask if the Minister has given any con-
sideration to amending the Act?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think that point is
very well taken. Yes, it is a good point. As a
matter of fact, if that is not the law now, I
would be surprised because our whole think-
ing has been based on the regional level. I
think Essex County is about the only one
that has been thinking in this direction which,
I think, has a good deal of merit and I—
Mr. Ruston: Well, we are way ahead of
most—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —and I will take up
the matter immediately.
Mr. Ruston: One other thing, then, Mr.
Chairman. Where these services are available
now, if they are in a town or city, would
adjoining people living in adjoining munici-
palities be able to use them or be able to pay
for the services there?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Arrangements could be
made to share the cost between municipalities.
Mr. Ruston: Between municipalities or, if
it was not municipalities, could individuals
outside of the city that had this service pay
for this service or be eligible for it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: My understanding is
that the answer to that is, yes.
Mr. Ruston: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Item 8 carried?
Vote 2004 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the esti-
mates for The Department of Social and
Family Services.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, you
ha\e been very generous with your time with
this department.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of privilege. This is an obser-
vation, an unofficial observation, of a member
of this Legislature. We have been sitting here
►since April 1 on this vote. We have passed
five votes in six weeks. And carrying this out
on a rational projection, we will be here in
this House until December of 1971.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Order!
The hon. member has not been here for a
quarter of the time.
MAY 13, 1969
4359
Mr. Sargent: And why should I be here a
quarter of the time to listen to this dribble.
Why should I be here? There are members
in this House, Mr. Chairman, whose time is
worth from $100 to $200 an hour, and we
have to listen to this repetition, the spring-
board of this party. I think it is time we were
intelligent men and stopped this floundering
around here.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: They should show respect to
some people in this House.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
You just do not care, that is all.
Mr. Sargent: I suggest, Mr. Chairman,
through you to the House-
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: —to the House, that we are
not properly giving members of the assembly
equal opportunity to speak on behalf of their
constituents. I am amazed at the 117 mem-
bers, supposedly intelligent men, who will sit
here and put up with this kind of nonsense.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member hardly
has a point of pri\ ilege.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, unless some-
thing is done, and you are floundering, unless
something is done we will be here until De-
cember 1971 on the basis of the same pro-
gress as we are making here now. It is high
time—
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: —high time that the leader of
the NDP party, you sir, that you have the
intelligence and—
Mr. MacDonakl: Mr. Chairman, how long
is this tirade going to go on?
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Put your people back in line
and say there should be a time limit on de-
bate.
Mr. Chairman: Order. I would—
Mr. Sargent: I think it is time that some-
one stood up and spoke for the individual
members of this House. It is time the leaders
of the three parties got together and said we
must have some intelligence in this House;
and it is not so today.
Mr. Chairman, The hon. member really
had no point of privilege.
Hon. A, Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): If the hon. member feels that way
all he has to do is get up and move that the
question be now put.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, in all respect,
that is a good idea, but I cannot in honesty
move that such important matters be voted
for $1; but I would have liked to have done
it. My leader would not let me do it. We
must have regard for the need for these
moneys. There must be, somewhere along the
line, a time limit, Mr. Chairman, because we
are getting no place fast.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF MINES
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
If the hon. member wants to move that all
tlie estimates be passed here tonight, it is
all right with me.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well it is sock-it-to-
me time anyway, I guess.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend making
any lengthy introductory remarks. Following
what the hon. member has just said, I do not
intend making any lengthy introductory
remarks to the estimates of The Department
of Mines.
We feel, in the department, rather proud of
our annual review and it is the first depart-
mental report, we like to think, published
every year. We hope that it is crammed full
of information and I really would be just
regurgitating a lot of the kernels of knowledge
that appear in that report every year, by
going through it. In any event, I hope that
we can get into a discussion about some of
these topics on the various items in the
estimates.
There is one point I would like to make,
Mr. Chairman, and that is that, if these esti-
mates are accepted by the House, included in
4360
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the plans of the department and in these
estimates is our plan to hold three regional
development conferences in northern Ontario
early this fall. One is to be held in Sudbury,
one in Timmins, and one at the Lakehead,
and we propose calling them northern devel-
opment conferences.
The conferences are designed to bring to-
gether responsible leaders in the north in
dialogues with people from Queen's Park— not
just from this department— to try to resolve
some of the long-term problems facing the
north. I look upon these conferences as an
exercise in participatory democracy in which
the people of the north will have the oppor-
tunity to propose solutions, as far as they can
without having to come to Queen's Park, cap
in hand, for an audience. I do not regard the
conferences as just another series of meetings
for the propagation of tired complaints and
worn-out views of what needs to be done.
The people of northern Ontario, in my
mind, have to face many unpleasant realities
of their economic and social position, their
distances from markets, their declining forest
and railroad employment, and the advent of
highly mechanized mining.
I recognize that some of the north's prob-
lems may appear to be incapable of solution,
but it seems to me that there are many
problems facing the people of the north that
could be solved, or at least alleviated, with
a bit more help and a bit more understanding
from the people who live in the south.
I feel the government here at Queen's
Park has a responsibility to do all that it can
to act as a catalyst in creating greater appre-
ciation of those problems of the north and
finding solutions to those matters that are
capable of solution.
The mining industry has a special role to
play in helping the people of the north get
ahead. Nearly every citizen of the north is
affected in some way by the fortness of the
mining industr>'. Needs must be found to
reduce for them the vagaries and the un-
certainties inherent in the development of
mining and resource communities, and one of
the topics that I hope will be discussed at
these conferences is the problem of attracting
young people into the mining industry.
Some of Ontario's mines at the moment
are not reaching their full production poten-
tial, partly because of the lack of trained
experienced personnel at all levels of employ-
ment, despite the generally higher pay rate
of the industry'. I hope the citizens of the
north, if I may use this forum to say so,
will write to me setting out their views on
what ought to be discussed at these meetings,
and what problems they feel are most in need
of solution.
As I say, sir, I hope that we will get into
a greater discussion of the activities or the
lack of them in this department as we hit the
various votes and the various items.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Algoma-Manitoulin.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Chairman, a little while ago I was advLsed
that the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kniglit)
was imavoidably detained and so I am
stuck with this. However, I appreciate that
the Minister has set an example of what he
calls a refusal to regurgitate, and I think
maybe I can even match him for brevity at
least, or maybe outdo him.
However, I take some pride in that so far
to date this party has been able to come up
with speakers of some kind on every and all
occasions, and we will try to do our best to
be sure that the estimates move along on this
occasion. If the content is lacking, the mem-
ber for Port Arthur will be able to use his
material later in the debate.
In any case, I do have some interest in
this field, and it would be a poor northern
member that did not have some interest in
this field. I confess perhaps to a rather more
than ordinary interest in this field because
of the fact that I moved into a mining town
in 1955 with the contractors and the prospec-
tors, and worked with them and among them
and for them for a period of years during the
boom and bust in that town. I know some-
thing about what happens to a mining mimici-
pality when it moves from 30,000 people
down to 5,000 people o\ ernight and back up
to 12,000 people in tlie next few years.
I can tell you that during that process a
good many of my good friends went down
Highway 108 with a lot of shattered illusions
and not much else. It is the kind of thing, of
course, that I hope this Minister is trying to
guard against.
It is the stor>' of many mining munici-
palities, of course, as many northern members
know. Perhaps a further interest in this de-
partment stems from the fact that my father,
when he was about 21 years old, went through
the whole procedure of riding tlie rods to
British Columbia and worked in the coal
mines out there for about 10 years— coal
mining in the winter, and prospecting in the
summertime.
When I was a boy he settled back in
Ontario. He had been deeply bitten by the
MAY 13, 1969
4361
bug by -tiien, so found a little place called
Goudreau up on the ACR, and did prospect-
ing there for several years. In fact, there is a
little hole there that is now called Farquhar
Mines Limited.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Is it worth
buying, the stock?
Mr. Farquhar: Well, any and all offers will
be readily accepted. I have been there and, in
fact, I will never forget the last time that
my brothesr found his way in through the
bush and found a few stakes to guide us to
that little hole.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Well,
Texas Gulf did it for $500.
Mr. Farquhar: Later I found myself in a
place called Kirkland Lake and went to work
in Wright-Hargreaves mine when I was 22
years old. I worked underground there for
a few months. I did not like it, but I know
something about the feeling of a miner when
he crawls off the skip and down in the dark
and scurries away for eight houi-s, and finds
himself back on it, and the wonderful feeling
it is to come into sunshine and fresh air
and society again.
It has often been said here and elsewhere
that miners are a special breed and I do not
deny it because I know if you stay long
enough in that game you do become a special
breed who has nothing to look forward to
buit that cheque, including a bonus cheque,
and the passage of time. That is all there is,
and that does something to you.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it was not my inten-
tion to deal with my life histoay. In fact, I
did not know what I was going to deal with
when I stood up here, but neither is" it my
intention, nor is it within my ability, to casti-
gate this Minister, or the officials of his
department. In fact, I find it simply impos-
sible to bitterly attack this Minister.
I have not done the research, of course,
which would help me to fortify any criticism
that I might launch. I only know that I find
it vetry refreshing on the occasions of my
dealings with him that he has an awareness at
least of the place of the working man, and
the economic troubles of mining munici-
palities, and the nerve to approach these
problems in a thoughtful and fearless way,
although I have no doubt he is subject to the
pressures that will normally be exerted by the
giants in the industry.
Whether his decisions will be right or
wrong, at least it iis pleas^ant to get something
besides political waffling and buck-pissing
and fence-riding. It remains for some of my
more discerning colleagues to develop his
sihorteomings.
Mr. Chairman, we have many farces at
work, all converging in the field of mines.
They are the forces of taxation, of interna-
tional trade at the primary versus the second-
ary level, and of conservation of our
enviromnent, and I intend to deal with each
of these matters in turn.
My colleague, the member for Sudbury,
has eloquently expressed the need for ade-
quate compensation by the public purse in
return for the right to use up irrevocably
the primary non-renewable resources of the
Pre-Cambrian shield. There is no doubt that
mining communities must be viable entities.
Both the Smith committee and the select com-
mittee of this Legislature recognize this. And
tocky, of all days, it is appropriate to make
reference to the untimely death of Kenneth
Le Mensier Carter, the author of the Carter
report, who recognized the place of mining
enterprises in the taxation structure.
As a northern member, I want to see a
more prosperous north. I recognize this in-
volves a delicate balance between taxation of
the industry and its encouragement. I am, of
course, aware of the recommendations of the
Smith and Carter commissions, and of our
own select committee to which Liberal mem-
bers made positive contributions to the
rationalization of the tax structure. But I also
know that the tax burden on the mining
community has to be sold in the most positive
way, and it must never become punitive.
The Northern Miner of Tuesday, March 6,
sets out the problem in its two front-page
headlines. One reads: Exploration in 1969
Sets to Break Records, Greatest Yet
Effort, Expenditures Forecast. The other
headline, still on the front page reads: Tax
Changes to Balance Budget in Ontario
Hit Mines the Most.
The editorial on page 4 includes the fol-
lowing comment, which I will read into the
record:
Significant, too, is the increasing em-
phasis that Canadian companies are putting
on exploitation in foreign lands. Whereas
Canada's mineral possibilities once was
their sole concern, now they are reaching
out to the four comers of the earth. Min-
ing is truly an international business, and
this is a sign of the coming age of this
country's mining industry.
One of the big factors that has drawn
Canadian interest overseas is that as lead-
ers in modem exploration techniques, Cana-
4362
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dian experts have been increasingly in
demand in foreign fields. Thus they have
become acquainted with the opportunities
elsewhere, and as this knowledge spreads,
more and more Canadian companies have
apportioned a part of their funds for over-
seas exploration.
And, of course, since nothing succeeds
like success, the parade has snowballed
since Canadians revived the dormant Irish
mining industry. Now Canadian know-how
is being tested in the Mediterranean area,
Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific
and elsewhere. Probably, too, there are
other more tangible reasons for the trek
overseas.
No doubt this evidences an awareness on
the part of the mining companies to spread
their bets. Perhaps, too, it is a recognition
of the desirability of having a foothold
elsewhere in the interest of protecting the
company's future against all eventualities.
Historically, mining capital is attracted to
those areas where it is made most welcome,
and if the welcome mat is out in other
lands, it is only natural that Canadian com-
panies should take advantage of the oppor-
tunity as well as their foreign competitors.
After all, given a certain minimum of
geographical evidence of potential for min-
eral deposits, which many countries possess,
the determining factor from then on is as to
where the exploration dollars will be spent
or such considerations as taxation, govern-
ment regulations of various kinds, the polit-
ical climate and public attitude generally.
But having said that, I have also to sound a
word of warning. I do not go all the way
with Sir Val Duncan who, in speaking in
London, England, at the Commonwealth
Mining and Metallurgical Congress on May 5
painted a picture of government as taking
more than its share of the mining companies'
enterprise and initiative. Nevertheless, he
made me think twice about the glib assump-
tions we have sometimes been making that
enterprise capital will necessarily continue to
flow into the north unless we are very careful
to balance encouragement incentives and
penalties or harassment.
We have a very good example in the polit-
ical situation in Quebec, which is frightening
capital and prosperity away. It is clear that
we do have a very real responsibility, par-
ticularly so far as international investment is
concerned, to balance it with local participa-
tion and shareholding which will enable us
to say, "You may have the know-how, but
you have not taken all the risks alone."
Sir Val Duncan is, of course, chaimian of
the Rio Pinto Zinc Corporation and is prob-
ably more concerned than I am that minerals
might temporarily lie dormant. I am the first
to recognize that, taken too far, his argument
can lead to conditions of economic colonial-
ism. Nor is Canada an emerging nation that
must balance its too fierce nationalism against
the hunger for foreign capital.
Nevertheless, I am again concerned that
we must strike the balance between usage
and conservation, and that rather than having
minerals lie unexplored, undiscovered and
unde\'eloped, we should at all times know
what we have, and thus have a clear policy
as to the rate and extent of the exploration
of our non-renewable resources.
Melville Watkins, in his report, may some-
times seem a little too chauvinistic for some
of us, but I think that we all instinctly feel
that a balance is to be sought in domestic
investments through the proposed northern
development plan advocated by the leader of
the Opposition, and through corporate in-
terest by a good deal of Canadian capital
that presently prefers to take wing and specu-
late in gold or in the Deutschmark.
It is against this background that I come
to comment on the Texas Gulf decision to
locate its smelter at Hoyle, 18 miles east of
Timmins.
Professor Edward Plcva of the University
of Western Ontario has said that there are
no roads to resources, but only roads from
resources, because of the magnetic pull of
the metropolis and of the grand tnmk cor-
ridor. To him, the deatli of Blind River is
perfectly explicable, if not excusable, in these
terms.
We, therefore, have to take the most
extraordinary steps to counterbalance the pull
of the south from the raw resources of the
shield. And one of these balancing steps is
taxation, fair and equitable- taxation. The use
of Canadian capital on tlie scale my leader
advocates will, of course, change this equa-
tion yet again. In fact, the equation will
always be changing. It is just that we must
always be aware of what the current situa-
tion, the current balance, is.
Mr. Chairman, as I ha\e said, the regular
critic of this department will take care of the
criticisms from here on, and thank you.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Mr. Chair-
man I too think the Minister is a nice guy.
However, if during my presentation I be-
come a little caustic I am sure you will
understand.
MAY IS, 1969
4363
-, My remarks of last year, Mr. Chairman,
could almost stand in their entirety. The
situation has not changed, our stand has not
changed. And I can assure you there has
been absolutely no change in government
policy. Maybe the Minister smiles a little
freer, he glad-hands a little bit gladder, but
there has been no change in mining policy.
I, for one, had hoped for better things from
this Minister, but he has not changed and he
has lived up to the expectations of this party
anyway.
Last year when I stood to speak on this
estimate I felt it was too soon to judge the
Minister on what little of his action we had
seen, and it might still be a little bit too
soon to judge on his actions because they
have been sadly lacking. I would say it is
too soon to judge his capabilities last year,
too soon to judge his resourcefulness, too
soon to judge his aggressiveness in doing
something. But above all, it was too soon to
judge his willingness to accept the change
that is needed in Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that he is
capable when he sets his mind to doing
things. He does them, although they are not
always what we think should be done. He is
resourceful, and we only have to look at the
answers he gives in this House to realize
that. He is quite resourceful, and if you look
at the footwork that he displayed in dumping
the sulphur fume arbitration onto the Minister
of Health (Mr. Dymond) you realize that he
is quite resourceful.
He is aggressive, and this is witnessed by
his angry outbursts in the last estimates at
my colleague, and at the unions who, he
claimed, harassed his inspectors when they
insisted on the right to have something to say
about their own safety.
He is also aggressive as witnessed by an
article in the Globe and Mail of April, 1969.
I do not have the exact date, but 1 am sure
Jie will recall the date when he stood and
said, "You have no right to know."
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I was sitting.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
That will go down in history.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, most important
is his willingness, and is he willing? Well, I
think he is. He is willing to live with a situ-
ation that has existed for 25 years in Ontario.
He is wiUing to hve with the status quo, and
he is extremely reluctant to change that status
quo.
I have an article that appeared in the
Financial Times of April 22, in which the
Minister is quoted as saying.
We must approach this cautiously. Min-
ing has developed into a major industry be-
cause of its stability. Some segments are
planning 20 years ahead. The decisions we
make now will have a profound impact on
the future.
Well, that statement could have been credited
to the Minister that held that job 20 years
ago, because both of them are moving very
cautiously and 20 years from now we will be
in the same position as we were in 20 years
ago. He is capable, resourceful, and aggres-
sive—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Handsome too!
Mr. Jackson: —but he lacks the will to do
anything.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Debonair and
suave.
Mr. Jackson: In the Financial Times, the
article goes on to say he has stirred political
ferment by continuing to be the champion
supporter of the status quo. His total con-
tribution to this portfolio has been a desperate
attempt to change nothing. His statement,
when he stood in this House was, "We make
deals". This government had been making
deals for 25 years, how had he changed
things? Nothing is changed.
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
The big wind out of the north!
Mr. Jackson: Listen to us, because we blow
cold and we blow warm, but mostly cold.
And it is going to be the cold rain that you
will feel in 1971.
Mr. Chairman, when this Minister took over
the portfolio he admitted that his department
was in a mess, and in his own words, "The
department shocked me". I do not know why
it should have shocked him because we had
no doubts that it would. It would shock any
thinking person and I give the Minister credit
for thinking. But this is nothing new.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Jackson: I cannot say that for all of
the party over there. I surely really carmot.
Hon. Mr. White: Another furious attack by
the NDP.
Mr. Jackson: Do you know this might de-
generate into the comic hour if we keep that
Minister there.
4364
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is he a
Minister or a straight man?
Mr. Jackson: To give him a little credit, he
seems to have brought order to a chaotic situ-
ation in his own department. At least the
department, for a change, is running a little
smoother. Whether they have changed their
policy or not has nothing to do with it. It
very definitely is running smoother. But I
would like to point out to the Minister that
a well run, efficient department, is no substi-
tute for a well thought out mining policy, and
that if he is going to have a well run, efficient
department, he must also have a well thought-
out mining policy to go with it.
Over the last year I have spent a great
fleal of time going over the mining Acts of
the provinces across Canada, and one of the
things that strikes me is the similarity of all
the Acts. There is really no difference. It is
like The Workmen's Compensation Act. It
seems that each prov ince copied the Act of
another province, and with very minor super-
ficial changes, and everyone of them say, let
us not rock the boat, let us not change things,
we will drive out the mining companies if we
change. If we tax too high we will drive out
the mining companies. If we put any restric-
tion at all on the mining companies we will
drive them out of Ontario, out of Canada.
Mr. Martel: Let us play Santa Claus.
Mr. Jackson: In my opinion, Mr. Chairman,
that is not very likely. The mining companies,
are here, as we said last year, they are here
f)ecause we have ore bodies to exploit. Mining
companies are not mining companies unless
they have ore bodies. They are not going
away.
Last session I used the Paley Report to
illustrate the great dependence of the United
States on foreign mineral supplies, and that
dependence is shared at this time by other
countries, Japan being one of the leading
ones. Their dependence has not lessened over
the last year, it has increased. It will not
lessen over this year, it will go on to increase.
Mr. Chairman, it is going to increase l:)ecause
even at this time the United States are still
using up their resources faster than they can
find new resources. They are being kicked out
of other countries, Peru being the latest one.
How many more we do not know in the
future. Surely it is time that one of our prov-
inces, preferably Ontario, took the bull by
the horns, and said to anyone wanting our
resources that they are here for the asking,
on our terms for a change. I hope that On-
tario will take the lead, but it is quite possible
that Quebec will be the one.
In a clipping from the Globe and Mail of
May 10, it says that the Quebec government
will launch a campaign to stimulate mining
exploration in the province. The government
will consider changes in The Quebec Mining
Act, and will amend the law which created
Soquem. Mr. Chairman, I hope that when
they amend that la,w they do so in a way
that will give Quebec a fair share of the
profits derived from their mining resources.
And if it does so happen that Quebec leads
the field, I hope that Canada, or Ontario, will
follow that lead, and insist on a fair share
from our mining resources.
In an article from the Globe and Mail of
January 16, 1968, Mr. Walter Hibljerd, Direc-
tor of the Bureau of Mines in the United
States, stated:
Emerging nations tliat have sizeable re-
sources are going to insist more and more
on controlling the destiny of these resources,
and such control cannot be expected to
he confined to such relatively simple
measures as a levying of taxes.
Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hibberd obviously
did not take into account the timorous and
easily frightened Canadian govermment and
the equally timorous provincial governments
of this Canada of ours.
If he had, he would not have worried. For
25 years under this government we have
given away our resources and I for one do not
see any change in the wind.
I have several areas in mining policy I
would like to deal with tonight. I am going
to try to be reasonably brief, to keep the
Minister of Revenue happy.
Mr. Martel: That is impossible.
Hon. Mr. White: You are too bte to keep
me happy.
Mr. Jackson: I think we would have been
too late if we had got > on 25 years ago too.
The first item that I would like to deal with
is the granting of patents for surface and
mineral rights in mining lands.
It has always been my belief that tlie
basic purpose of a mining company was to
mine and process ores. The present govern-
ment, however, with their i5<ylicy, has allowed
many mining companies to became land
speculators. And in many cases that is all
they are. Some municipalities in organized
areas of northern Ontario are now being
forced to purchase land from companies—
MAY 13, 1969
4365
mining companies— in order to hold their
municipalities together. They are forced to
purchase land that would normally be vested
in that municipality or in the province.
As a mineral in the groimd is depleted,
mined out, municipalities are becoaning bur-
dened with improperly planned town sites,
town sites that lack facilities basic to good
planning, such as sewage and water. In order
to provide those basic needs the residential
taxation of those municipalities must pick up
the total burden. I point out just two ex-
amples of that— the Master Met Cobalt Mining
Company, that recently tried to sell a great
portion of cobalt to residents who have lived
on it for 21 and 22 and 23 years, and the
Hollinger Town sites, where residents were
told to move after living many, many years
in that area.
Under the present policy of this govem-
ment, lands that were granted to these com-
panies by this government and by the people
of Ontario, are now being sold back to the
people of Ontario, and the moneys are
being added to the company profits.
The reason that the companies can do this,
and the reason that we are in the situation
where we have to buy back our own lands,
is because this government has given patents
for surface rights and mining rights for so
many years.
It is my proposal that we no longer give
patents for surface rights, and in turn we
substitute a long-term lease. By doing so we
prevent a company after mining out the land
from forcing us to buy it back.
However, if no patents are issued to mining
companies, then security of tenancy must be
conveyed in another way and we suggest, as
I say, a long-term lease, a renewable lease,
but subject to certain and sure conditions.
And for a change, conditions that are in
favour of the general public rather than in
favour of the mining companies.
We believe that any of these must contain
a reasonable degree of security for the mining
companies while, at the same time, protecting
the rights of the people. Most important, Mr.
Chairman, it should set out very clearly the
rights of the company, together with the
obligations of the company. Leases must also
contain adequate encouragement for the con-
tinuing development and exploration of the
mineral rights covered by the issued lease.
Well, Mar. Chairman, if that encouragement
has to take the form of incentives, we are
for incentives. If it has to take the form of
penalties, we are for penalties. Provision must
be made for the revoking of any lease either
at its expiry or at any time tiiat company
fails to live up to its obligations under the
terms of the lease or imder the terms of
The Mining Act. This would take into con-
sideration the company that sits on a known
ore body and does not exploit that known ore
body. There will be provisions to cancel their
lease and put it on the market for those that
will exploit it.
The prime concern of such a lease should
be that all mining lands are developed to the
greatest potential, either by the current lease-
holder or by any other individual or com-
pany should the current leaseholder not live
up to his obligations.
It should always be borne in mind, Mr.
Chairman, that mineral development should
be one part of the overall development of this
province. I will comment more on that a
little later. However, mining development
and exploitation should not be the prime
concern. I could suggest the terms of leas-
ing. However, I am only interested in, first,
development of mineral resources to the
greatest potential and in the best interest of
the people, and second, the retention of
mineral and land rights by the Crown to
facilitate my first stated objective.
The duration of a lease and terms of
tenancy will be dictated by the reasons that
I have already set out.
My next point, Mr. Chairman, concerns our
policy for The Department of Mines in the
exploration and development of the mining
industry. In the last session I set out in con-
siderable detail our proposal for a Crown
exploration and development agency, and I
would just like to read part of that back into
the record.
I propose, and this party proposes
through me, that incentives to private
enterprise no longer take the form of tax
concessions, or special depletion allow-
ances, whether federal or provincial. In-
stead, this government should estabhsh a
provincial Crown corporation to undertake
development work and to co-operate in that
endeavour with private business to pro-
vide such open financial assistance as may
be warranted and required in the forms of
grants to undertake enterprises of its own.
I propose that this assistance should be
reflected in some form of proportionate
equity holding by the Crown corporation
in the businesses involved, on the same
basis as any other shareholder, in such a
manner we can ensure the public interest as
voiced by the corporation will be an
4366
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
acknowledged factor in all future decisions
made by the companies.
I propose that initial capitalization of the
Crown corporation be held openly by this
Legislature, and that further funds, if and
when required, be voted on an annual basis
as part of the estimates. In this way, we in
the Legislature, who are the democratically
elected representatives of the people, will
know exactly how much is being spent each
year to bolster economic development in
the north.
I propose that the Crown corporation's
role not be limited to mining, although
obviously it will have a crucial role to play
in that industr> . It should be involved in
all new resources and enterprises in the
north requiring public assistance. Its opera-
tion should also include exploration and
development on its own wherever private
business is not prepared to do the necessary
job.
I have no regrets about proposing that
we abandon the old tax concession route
that has been used to stimulate private
enterprise. It is no secret to me or anyone
who has looked at the north, that the
mining municipalities have long suffered
financially from this approach. However, it
has proved difficult, if not impossible, for
members of the Legislatvire to calculate on
behalf of the electorate who put up the
money, just how much public fimds are
being diverted in this way.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that The
Department of Mines at this time is doing
quite a lot in the field of exploration. How-
ever, this is not enough. At this level the
department's whole policy seems to fall apart.
Up to the point of exploration the depart-
ment has spent vast sums of money, con-
tributed thousands of man-hours to the loca-
tion and the mapping out of ore bodies in
the province, in field surveys and air sur-
veys, and many other ways.
However, when we reach this level of
exploration, the predevelopment stage, from
this point on we seem to depend on the un-
certain whims of the business world. And
when I say the uncertain whims of the busi-
nes.s world I single out the so-called mining
promoters from the large established mining
corporations.
All too often, Mr. Chairman, the mining
promoters are interested in one thing, and
one thing only. They are interested in devfel-
opment only as long as the lure of a quick
buck draws them into the mining field. As
soon as that quick buck disappears, so do
most of tlie so-called mining promoters.
Several years ago the government com-
missioned a man by the name of Porter to
make a report on the stock markets and on
mining development, and I do not intend
to bore the House by reading into the record
tlie findings of that commission. However, it
is \ery interesting to note that only about 18
per cent of all of the money raised on Bay
Street ever reaches the development stage
in Ontario.
Dexelopment today in the mining field is
almost totally left to the large corporations
such as Noranda, Little Long Lac and Inco-
Falconbridge.
Before going farther, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to point out to the Minister that
I recognize, and we recognize, that there are
honest and sincere promoters, small pro-
moters. And that the honesty and sincerity
that motivates these promoters is just not
enough to make up for the insufficient funds
to carry out a proper development programme
in Ontario.
It means that we, as the people of On-
tario, depend on a few large corporations to
do all of the developing; large corporations
that tend to pick and choose their projects to
suit their own purpose, without considering
the purpose of the people. Large corporations
will often sit on a known ore body waiting
for an opportune moment to develop it.
Large corporations will hold back the de-
velopment of an ore body to support the
price of the mineral that they are already
mining, or to suit their international plans.
The problems and aspirations of the people
of Ontario are simply ignored if they do not
fit in with the corporate plans. A proposed
Crown development agency would not be
motivated by the urge for a quick buck; nor
would it be hindered by multi-national cor-
porate considerations. It would develop ore
bodies as rapidly as a market could be found
for the minerals; and, more important, as
rapidly as a viable community could be built
for the workers.
The Crown agency would be empowered,
and would have the financing, to develop an
ore body, either on its own or in partnership,
with interested private developers. Should a
partner not be available then this agency
would be empowered to enter into mining
and marketing on its own.
We have many marginal mines in Ontario,
or should I say at least many mines that are
claimed to be marginal by their management;
marginal because a profit large enough to
MAY 13, 1969
4367
satisfy the existing shareholders must be
realized, and we do not have anything against
a reasonable profit. Marginal, in many cases,
because the price of the ore is controlled by
the parent company. And, in the case of a
captive mine, this is all too true.
That problem would be not as severe for
a Crown agency, for the chief— and only
stockholder, in many cases— would be the
Crown. In such a situation the marginal mine
could be kept in operation should it be found
necessary to do so to support the work force
of an already existing community. Here is
where we differ drastically from the govern-
ment in saying that a marginal mine in an
outlying area, where a community has to be
built to support it, should be left untouched.
The Minister of Trade and Development
{Mr. Randall) might even consider giving this
proposed agency one of his over-generous
loans— these forgiveable loans, that he is so
handy at handing out to Allied Chemical and
Kraft Cheese.
The major concern of such an agency
would be to provide jobs in Ontario for the
citizens of Ontario, and to realize the full
potential from our natural resources. How-
ever, any Crown mining agency must be an
integral part of a larger northern develop-
ment agency carried on under public policy.
The total plan must involve a broad field
of economic and social planning with a goal
of a diversified northern economy— and I
speak of smelters, steel mills and manufac-
turing plants— and hold a future for the
northern two-thirds of the province of
Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, as I say, any mining cor-
poration must be part of a total northern
development policy. But, in the meantime,
there is no reason why this department can-
not move now to set up a Crown mining
corporation to lay the groundwork for north-
em development. The one stumbling block
we. now face, and a formidable block, is
this government's well known loyalty to the
private sector of our economy, and the loyalty
is shared by the Minister and most of the
back benchers of the Tory party.
The Minister, in his opening remarks, men-
tioned his concern for a northern develop-
ment conference. May I point out to him
that I am 100 per cent behind him. But, if
it turns out to be another sham, the same as
the recent regional development plan that
was put forth by the regional development
councils, then we will not only increase our
distrust, but we will carry that distrust with
us for many years.
I agree widi him when he says that min-
ing has a special role in the development of
northern Ontario. But mining, in its special
role, must support existing communities, not
create new communities, and create new
problems for northern Ontario in the future.
We have a good situation right now that
is taking place at the Sherman mines. Coward
was supposed to be the town site. The gov-
ernment has gone in and set up a new
town site. The people have refused to move
out of Temagami. The town of Latchford,
just 25 miles to the north, is dying; and yet
the government sees fit to set up a new
community.
Any nortliern development shared by The
Department of Mines must consider the exist-
ing communities first, and only when they
can show that there is a viable future for a
new community, should it be considered.
Well I have a few more things, Mr. Chair-
man, but I think I will leave them to remarks
as we go through the estimates.
Mr. Chairman: Before we proceed with the
actual estimates, perhaps the committee would
agree that vote 1301, being general expendi-
tures, should perhaps be dealt with as a
total vote.
Mr. Singer: If it does not carry, the Min-
ister resigns tonight.
Mr. Chairman: And the other three votes
in the estimate appear to be quite nicely
detailed under programmes of activity. Would
this be acceptable to the committee?
The first vote as a total vote, the remain-
ing three votes by programmes, rather than
items within the vote; and we will restrict
debate during the last three votes to pro-
gramme. Is this agreeable?
On vote 1301:
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Chainnan, I
would just like to make one comment on the
member for Timiskaming's remarks when he
said that the Minister indicated that the
department was in a mess the whole time. I
think had I said that—
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The Min-
ister was in a mess.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right, I have
indicated, on occasion, that in the past this
department has been neglected. Tliere is a
little bit of difference between that.
All right, now the first vote, Mr. Chairman,
I do not know how much detail you want
4368
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
here. You will see there is an increase in the
amount for salaries this year. The comple-
ment has been increased from 63 to 67, four
people, that is— there is one of these I would
like to say something about.
That is, that if this vote is carried there
will be an appointment of an economist to
the department. We feel that this is in line
with the government's acceptance of respon-
sibility both to the people of Ontario, and to
the mining industry and especially, of course,
it bears relation to this new question of
trjdng to do some in-depth research respecting
processing within the province and it deals
particularly with that. We feel that there are
many problems related only to the mining
industry which must be solved over the next
few years. These deal most directly with the
economy of both the industry and the people
of the country and therefore, it is essential
that the department be well versed in all
aspects of such matters.
If the vote is carried, our selection for this
position has already been made, Mr. E. E.
Matten, an economist who has had seven
years of experience in the Economic and
Planning Branch of The Treasury Depart-
ment and who has made a specialty of
mineral economics. We are taking him out
of there and he will be in our department
and there will be, eventually I hope, an
expansion in this area within the department.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr.
Chairman, as the official Opposition critic on
mining, of course, I would like to extend
my thanks to my hon. colleague from Algoma-
Manitoulin for speaking during the critique
portion when I was not here.
Mr. Chairman, this Minister has indicated
to the House in the past, a number of times
I think, about how he has taken over this
department with vigour and he has flown
from mining site to mining site, back and
forth across the province. I am sure we are
all glad to see that he is getting all these
trips and that like his colleague, the Minister
of Social and Family Services (Mr. Yaremko),
is undertaking his self education.
I am interested in knowing in what it is
costing the people of Ontario for this Min-
ister to carry out his self education. I would
like to know, for example, how he travels.
Does he travel by train, by plane, by car? I
would be very interested in knowing whether
he feels that all of this vigour and new
approach to mining— this youthful approach
to mining gives him a sort of carte blanchey
you know to— away we go, I do not think
that the way this particular vote is set up
makes it very clear just how much the Min-
ister is spending or how he is travelHng.
Does he have a special plane of his own
now that he is the Minister of Mines, that
permits him, at a moment's notice, to take
off and be at the mine site? I wonder if the
Minister could give us some explanation as to
how he carries out this exhaustive travel?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I would like very
much to have a special plane of the Lands
and Forests fleet allocated to the Minister of
Mines. But so far, I have been unable to
convince the government or the Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Bnmelle). I am tr>'-
ing though.
No, usually if it is up north, I take Air
Canada to Englehart, North Bay, Sudbury
etc., and then take off in Lands and Forests
aircraft from there on.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Take ofiF?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Take up, take off,
what's the difference? I have not got the
actual figures of what the travelling expenses
were last year. There is an increase though
in this year's estimates-
Mr. Nixon: It was cheaper with the former
Minister.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: There is more travel-
ling around by the departmental people. We
are doing our best, quite frankly, to get the
people here up into the north and also, vice
versa, our departmental people back down in
here, a little bit more often than we have
done in the past.
The estimates last year for travelling ex-
penses in the head office vote were $19,000.
This has increased this year to $24,000.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I would not
like the House to think that I would want to
discourage this Minister from going on the
site. We welcome him in the north and I
feel that he does need as much of his self
education or practical education as possible.
However, I also think I would be remiss in
my responsibilities, if I did not try to bring
out in the open just how much money is
being spent.
The Minister mentioned that he took Air
Canada. Would the Minister tell the com-
mittee whether he is in the habit of bringing
large numbers of assistants and advisors with
him when he goes on these field trips?
MAY 13, 1969
4369
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, but if we can
and it is more economical to— again presum-
ing that the Lands and Forests aircraft are
available we use them. Last year of course,
with the very good fire season they had, on
almost no occasion, I think, were we turned
down in our requests for aircraft from the
department. But, if we hit a bad fire season
this year then, of course, their first duty and
responsibility is to fight fires and not to trans-
port government personnel around the prov-
ince.
But last year we were very lucky and I do
not think tihe Minister and I had more than
three or four fights about the availability of
aircraft.
On a couple of occasions last year I did
requisition one of the Otters to take a number
of people from Malton or from the Island,
but I think this only happened three or four
times. Usually, we do use the commercial
aircraft to get into the north and then use
Lands and Forests aircraft from then on. Is
that what you want?
Mr. Knight: Yes, I think that answers the
question, Mr. Chairman. Within this same
vote I wonder if I could ask the hon. Minister
whether he has a more detailed breakdown in
dollars and cents on this $20,000. I believe
this was the figure he mentioned, in his ex-
penditures last year, so much for air travel,
so much for car, so much for train and so
forth, to make it just a little bit more factual.
While he is at it, I wonder if the Minister
could tell the committee, Mr. Chairman, what
the salary is of his executive assistant? I do
not see the salary of the Minister's executive
assistant listed as such in this particular break-
down.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We do not have the
breakdown of the travelling expenses into air
travel, train travel, car travel, if that is what
you mean.
It would take, I think, a lot of eftort to get
that over the last year. Quite frankly, I think
that is more a matter for public accounts than
it is for estimates The executive assistant's
salary is $12,100.
Mr. T. P. Reid: It is $12,000?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, $12,100.
An hon. member: Well that is better than
we do anyway.
Mr. Knight: Do I take it then, Mr. Chair-
man, that the $24,000 listed in item 2 in vote
1301, travelling expenses, would be strictly
for the Minister's purposes, the Minister's
travelling expenses?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, that covers the
whole of the head office.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Covers the executive assist-
ant too?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am sorry, I stand
corrected. That covers the Minister, the
Deputy Minister, the head of the information
branch and also the Minister's executive
assistant.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1301? The hon. mem-
ber for Rainy River.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would just like a point
of information from the Minister. Is the access
to resources, item 5 on page 111, is this the
much touted northern Ontario resources
transportation committee of which the Min-
ister is the chairman?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is the last vote.
Is that what you are talking about?
Mr. T. P. Reid: I wonder, Mr. Chairman,
if this would be the time to discuss such
things as strip mining and open pit mining
under this vote, or whether you would like
to discuss this under the geological survey,
part of the estimates, provincial geological
services. Would the mining recording offices
come under this vote?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, to both of those
questions. I think if you are talking about
strip mining regulations, it would be better
under the inspection branch, and mining
records would be under the mining lands
branch vote.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
made some rather drastic decisions in regard
to Texas Gulf Sulphur in order to have that
smelter located in the Timmins area. I wonder
whether that particular topic, in other words,
I would like to have the Minister acount for,
I would like him to tell the House how much
the people of Ontario have had to pay in
order to have that smelter not in Ontario,
not in Canada, but in Timmins. I know we
talk in terms of special concessions for Hydro,
and so forth, but this does not indicate any-
thing in dollars and cents.
Although I am not going to object to what
the Minister did or the manner, necessarily,
in which he handled it. I still think there are
unknown factors relating to what I would say
is the biggest news story of the mines depart-
ment in the past year. I think that while we
4370
ONTARIO 1.EGISLATURE
are talking about the Minister's salary and we
are discussing whether he will get it again
for the coming year or not, I think that
perhaps this is the time for the Minister to
account for his actions in his dealings with
Texas Gulph Sulphur. I would be very inter-
ested in knowing just how much he had to
concede and whether some of the charges of
some critics to the effect that the Minister
did not really have to make all these con-
cessions—that Texas Gulph Sulphur was going
to establish a smelter there anyway, and that
perhaps the Minister was too precipitous, or
did not do sufficient homework, and whether
these charges are true. We would like to
know really, how much the Minister has had
to gi\ e away in order to get that refineiy in
the Timmins area?
Mr. Chairman: I am not sure that this is a
proper line of questioning under this particu-
lar vote or under the estimates.
Mr. Knight: Well, we want the Minister
to account for his actions.
Mr. Chairman: Order. I am suggesting I
am not sure if it is proper. If it is the Min-
ister will reply.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I guess if it is
proper anywhere it is proper under this vote.
I cannot give you an estimate in dollars and
cents if that is what you mean, what Texas
Gulf Sulphur, or rather Ecstall Mining, is
getting by way of preferential treatment to
any other mining company. This is the root
of the thing that you are asking me really. I
cannot give you a dollars and cents estimate
on that at all, because a lot of the details
have not been worked out.
I will say, though, that as far as the com-
ments respecting the rate for the sulphuric
acid on the ONR, for instance, which the
company indicated was a factor in their selec-
tion, we did a study, or rather the ONR
people did a study on this, and we figure
what we would lose on the swings we would
gain on the roundabout anyway, inasmuch as
the added revenue to the ONR for transport-
ing the metal would certainly overcome any
loss— more than overcome any loss— that they
may incur on the sulphuric acid.
Mr. T. P. Reid: You do not have the con-
crete figures?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I do not have the
concrete figures no, I am sorry. These have
not yet even been worked out simply because
the company itself has not got them.
Mr. Knight: You mean you made a deal
not knowing: what it was going to cost?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We made a deal in
respect to the freight rates— for instance, the
sulphuric acid— knowing full well that with
the smelter being located there, the bene-
ficiary as far as transportation and costs were
concerned would be the ONR.
Now, the point I wanted to emphasize to
the company, though, was that with the whole
operation from their point of view being a
marginal operation, we would certainly do
our utmost to make sure that because of the
sulphuric acid operation, they would still be
in the competitive market for selling that
sulphuric acid.
Now, as far as their Hydro rate is con-
cerned, I do not know where they originally
got their information about the Hydro rate.
But the statement, the paragraph in that
letter, which I guess you are referring to,
which I made to them was merely a regurgi-
tation of the standard Hydro rate that would
be applicable to any company in the area.
What I was trying to do was to convince
them that the information they had previously
was wrong. They are really getting no special
deal on the Hydro rates at all. At least, that
was the impression that I had from them.
The one big concession provided in The
Mining Tax Act, as far as we were concerned,
was the pre-production expense allowance.
An hon. member: Buck to '65.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Back to '65. That is
right.
An hon member: Wh\
)t?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well we wanted
them to build in Timmins— it is as simple as
that.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Are
you sure they were not going to build there
anyway?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I am not sure
they were not. If there had been no inter-
ference in the matter by this government I
am convinced they would not have built the
smelter in Timmins.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thimder Bay): How do
you account for the fact that the power con-
nections were in six months ago?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Six months ago? I
cannot account for that. I do not know.
MAY 13, 1969
4371
Mr. Bullbrook: Did you hear what the
member for Downsview said? They would
have taken their ore and gone home. That
really makes more sense.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is what they
have been doing.
Mr. Bullbrook: It is our ore you know.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right. In any
event, the one big concession we made as far
as they were concerned was the pre-produc-
tion expense allowance going back to 1965.
Now, the member for High Park (Mr.
Shulman) is not in his seat, he was casti-
gating me the other day on a very dramatic
point of personal privilege— as to how I was
misleading the House unintentionally, but
misleading it just the same. What I was
referring to and what he was referring to the
other day is what we call pre-production
expense. He said-
Mr. Singer: You will have a better chance
of castigating when he is here tomorrow.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: He will be here
tomorrow, and I am sure he will get into the
dog fight then but we are talking about the
subject now. He was saying it is $3 million,
and somebody in the company told him it
was $3 million. We have to relate this to
the information in returns under The Mining
Tax Act that are given to us and sworn to
by the company; and it is an offence by the
company, presumably, if the information they
give is not correct, and the company has
informed us that it is a dam sight more— the
pre-production expenses— than $3 million.
I said when we were debating this that it
was neaer $6 million. Actually the amount
that we have come up with, based on the
information return, is over $5.75 million, so
I guess I am a little bit out. But, with all
due respect, I am not out as much as the
member for High Park.
Mr. Lewis: Is all of that recoverable?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: This $5.75 million
can be recovered in portions of 10 per cent
per year for ten years.
Mr. Martel: Is that coming out of the
Minister's salary?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I hope not.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the
Minister would recount to the House-
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Nixon: Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman,
I give way to the House leader.
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves that the com-
mittee of supply rise, and report progress,
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What
message has the Minister for us?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): I have a message from Garcia here.
Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, there will be second
readings and bills in committee of the whole
House.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Min-
ister is prepared to tell us what bills we might
be discussing tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Be prepared for any-
thing.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Second,
third and fourth readings, and the Lieutenant-
Govemer will be standing by. And, if we have
time, we will do estimates!
Hon. Mr. Grossman moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:15 o'clock, p.m.
No. 117
ONTARIO
l^egislaturc of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, May 14, 1969
speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1969
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Farliamervt Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 14, 1969
Labour-Management Arbitration Commission, statement by Mr. Bales 4375
Sault Ste. Marie and EIO, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Nixon and Mr. MacDonald 4376
Federal task force on sports, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 4378
Bell telephone rate increase application, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 4378
GO Transit, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Deacon 4379
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, questions to Mr. Robarts, xMr. Ben 4379
GO Transit, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sargent 4380
Discharge of sulphuric acid, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Martel 4381
Weight of truck loads in Sudbury area, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Martel 4382
Relocation of school, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. J. Renwick 4382
Effect of pollution on human health, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 4382
Phytotoxicants, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 4382
Smoke stack at Nanticoke, questions to Mr. Dymond and Mr. Simonett, Mr. Ben 4383
Sale of tires in Ontario, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Young 4384
OMB and Longlac, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Stokes 4384
Commercial fishing on Lake Nipigon, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Stokes 4384
GO North study, question to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Deacon 4385
Mowing contracts, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Innes 4385
Pollution of Lake Nipissing and Chippewa Creek, questions to Mr. Simonett,
Mr. R. S. Smith 4385
Fairbanks Morse (Canada) Limited, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Pilkey 4386
Muffler noise, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Worton 4386
City of Toronto (1), bill respecting, Mr. Reilly, second reading 4387
City of Toronto (2), bill respecting, Mr. Reilly, second reading 4388
Surveyors Act, 1968-1969, bill intituled, Mr. Brunelle, second reading 4390
Facilities for children suffering from mental or emotional disorders, bill respecting,
Mr. Dymond, second reading 4396
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 4420
4375
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This afternoon our guests in
the east gallery are students from West Park
Vocational School in Toronto, from York
Humber High School in Toronto, from Wid-
difield High School in North Bay; and in
both galleries we have students from Barton
Secondary School in Hamilton. Later this
afternoon we will have as visitors students
from Parry Sound High School in Parry
Sound and Riverside Secondary School in
Windsor.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
The hon. Minister of Labour has a state-
ment.
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be
able to announce that we are now in a
position to implement The Ontario Labour-
Management Arbitration Commission Act,
1968, which was passed at the last session
of the Legislature.
W^e have been fortunate in securing the
services of his honour. Judge Walter Little
of Parry Sound for the chairmanship of the
commission.
The three members representing employers
will be Mr. J. W. Henley, vice-president,
personnel, Canadian Westinghouse Company,
Limited; Mr. C. B. C. Scott, retired assistant
general manager, personnel, Ontario Hydro;
and Mr. C. A. Morley, a well-known labour
relations lawyer. The three representatives of
employees will be Mr. Herbert Gargrave, a
senior staflF member of the United Steel
Workers of America; Mr. Henry Kobryn,
secretary-treasurer of the provincial Building
and Construction Trades Council; and Mr.
Harry Simon, regional director of organiza-
tion for the Canadian Labour Congress.
Hon. members will recall that the functions
of the new commission are to recruit, train
Wednesday, May 14, 1969
and maintain a panel of acceptable arbitrat-
ors and arbitration board chairmen. The
legislation also authorizes the commission to
facilitate the arbitration process by offering
administrative services such as arranging
meeting dates and meeting rooms, producing
and distributing awards. The commission
will also sponsor research into the arbitration
process and it will publish awards and infor-
mation concerning arbitration.
I am sure hon. members will agree that
the personnel we have secured to begin this
most important step forward in industrial
relations in this province are knowledgeable
and respected and that we are fortunate in-
deed to have their services. Judge Little is
particularly well known as both an outstand-
ing mediator and arbitrator. I may say, Mr.
Speaker, that arrangements have been made
in such a way that his honour's appointment
to this vital post will in no way interfere
with his judicial responsibilities.
The members of the commission them-
selves have been selected from names sub-
mitted by the major representative organiza-
tions on both the labour and management
sides. The fact that persons of this calibre
are prepared to devote time to the work of
the commission indicates not only that labour
and management support this idea but are
prepared to work co-operatively to make it
a reality.
As hon. members are no doubt aware,
strikes and lockouts are prohibited during the
life of a collective agreement. All grievances
and disputes over the interpretation, applica-
tion or the alleged violation of an agreement,
if not settled directly by the parties, are
subject to final and binding adjudication
through arbitration. It will be appreciated
therefore, that the arbitration process is one
of the most important features of our indus-
trial relations system.
It will be the task of the commission to
ensure that competent and acceptable arbi-
trators are readily available for the work and
to give overall supervision to the process.
I beheve that the commission will be able to
eliminate delays and other difficulties that
have caused tension between labour and
management.
4376
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The parties will, of ecnirse, eontinue to be
free to agree mutually on the choice of an
arbitrator or an arbitration board chair-
nian. Where they cannot agree, they will con-
tinue to apply to The Department of Labour
for an appointment in accordance with The
Labour Relations Act. Where the new com-
mission will enter the picture is by being the
source of the arbitrators or arbitration board
chainnan, either selected by the parties jointly
or appointed by the department.
The cost of arbitration will continue to be
paid jointly by the parties. However, the
commission will be empowered to establish a
standard schedule of fees and expenses. It
may be that the commission will thus be in
a position to effect economies for the parties
in the cost of the process.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, could I ask the Minister a question
in relation to the statement?
Mr. Speaker: For clarification, yes.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Speaker, through you to
the Minister of Labour, it may go without
saying but I am not sure, will the function
of The Hospital Disputes Arbitration Act have
the use of facilities of this arbitration com-
Hon. Mr. Bales: Yes, it will serve through-
out the whole realm of arbitration.
Mr. Speaker: I may say for the information
of the members of tlie Opposition that the
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs is pre-
pared, I believe, to answer those questions
directed to his colleague, the Minister of
Trade and Development (Mr. Randall). The
leader of the Opposition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
I have questions of three Ministers, none of
whom is in the House, Mr. Speaker; so I
am glad that the hon. Minister is prepared to
give us some information.
How long has Sault Ste. Marie been
eligible to receive financial grants to aid and
■encourage industry under the EIO pro-
gramme?
How many grants or loans have been made
in the area?
When does the designation expire?
Why was the department unable to approve
an application for the expansion of facilities
at the Searchmount ski area while at the same
time it granted a loan to tlie Hidden Valley
ski area outside of Huntsville?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South has a somewhat similar question of the
same Minister.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Yes,
almost painfully similar.
How many apphcations for forgiveness
loans under the EIO programme have been
made for the Sault Ste. Marie area?
How many have been granted?
What explanation is diere for the apparent
discrimination against this area as alleged in
an article carried by the Sault Star of May 8
under the byline of Bob Burt entitled, "No
Industry Grants Given to tlie Sault Area".
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, replying to the
leader of the Opposition first; the answer is in
four parts:
1. Sault Ste. Marie has been an approved
area under the EIO programme since the in-
ception of the programme.
2. To date no forgivable loans have been
made in the area but two are under intensive
study. Two repayable loans and one guaran-
teed loan have been granted in the area.
3. In common with all municipalities in the
province the designation of Sault Ste. Marie
expiries on June 30, 1969.
4. The Ontario Development Corporation
did not give any financial assistance of any
kind to die ski facility in Hidden Valley near
Huntsville. The loan that was made to Hidden
Valley Inn Limited for the purpose of con-
structing a hotel is repayable in full with
interest.
In reply to the hon. member for York
South:
1. The Ontario Development Corporation
has been approached by 24 companies or
individuals, of which interviews five resulted
in applications.
2. To date no forgivable loans have been
made in the area but two are under intensive
study. Two repayable loans and one guaran-
teed loan have been granted in the area.
3. There is no discrimination against this
area, and applications for forgivable loans are
judged by exactly the same standards as are
applied in all municipalities designated under
the EIO programme.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
whether the hon. Minister is prepared to
entertain a supplementary question.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will try.
MAY 14, 1969
4377
Mr. Nixon: Actually it is a point of clari-
fication. My point in comparing the two
applications for the loans for tlie developnient
of ski enterprises was not that they should
both have been forgivable, but that the one
that applied on the same basis as the other
was turned down while the first was accepted.
I do not believe the Minister has given an
answer to that. He just said that it does not
apply. Perhaps there is some misunderstand-
ing that he could clear up.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Without knowing all
the details, I think there was some difference
inasmuch as the Huntsville area operation
was approved because it was felt it was going
to attract people from a very wide area, that
is for tourism.
I do not say this was the only reason but
this was one of the reasons. The requested
loan at Sault Ste. Marie was primarily aimed
at people in Sault Ste. Marie. There is not
tlie drawing area there, of course, that Hunts-
ville has. So in effect it was, as my colleague
says, a loan for a local purpose, which per-
haps cannot be described as encouraging the
tourist industry as well.
Mr. Nixon: They might want to argue with
the ■ Minister, at least the Minister of Trade
and Development, on this, since it is a fairly
well-established ski area.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the Op-
position also might clear the desk with re-
spect to a question of tliis Minister, the Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs, in connection with
municipal grants, placed May 9. I believe per-
haps it has been answered by die Prime Min-
ister's (Mr. Robarts), statements at various
times, but if it is not then perhaps he would
wish to place it.
Mr. Nixon: It really has a somewhat dif^
ferent aspect now, but I would like to ask
the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he was
consulted in the policy announced about a
week ago by the Premier that the govern-
ment plans to end all municipal grants and
instead allow local governments access to tax
fields where they can raise their own rev-
enues. Of course this source of information
was the Globe and Mail and they have since
been set right by a statement of the Premier.
■ What research and consultation with the
municipalities would lead to this change in
policy?
'. Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, refer-
ring to the second part first, I think it could
be; said that the discussions and the researcji
and the studies which went on by the Smitli
committee for some four years and on which
the municipalities were invited to make the
presentations, receive briefs; the very inten-
sive work done by the select committee over
the last summer months— I think that would
constitute consultation, research with the
municipalities, and as the Prime Minister
pointed out there are no definite conclusions
which have been drawn from any of this as
yet.
In reply to the first part of the question,
I can only say that the Prime Minister con-
sults with his Ministers at all times and we
do not have the problems which the members
have in the Liberal Party.
Mr. Nixon: We might take it for granted
then that the Minister of Mimicipal Affairs
approves of the policy of sharing taxes at the
municipal level, feels it is a viable one and
one that may be announced by him in due
course.
Mr. MacDonald: How can he answer other
than "y^s?"
Hon. Mr. McKeough: My colleague from
Halton says, "Say yes". But I think the mem-
ber wants something more than that. The
simple answer is "yes", but underlining the
thoughts of the Prime Minister when he
made the remarks which he did was the
point that the municipalities needed more
money, whether this should come in—
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): He does not
know what he said.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well perhaps the
hon. member would like to answer the
question.
Mr. Sargent: The Minister is pretty close
to it.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps the hon. Minister
would care to continue in his remarks be-
cause it certainly is of considerable impor-
tance. When this came up a week ago both
the Prime Minister and the member for York
South indicated that the Smith committee
had made certain recommendations along this
line. Actually the Smith committee had in-
vestigated this and—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The hon. leader
has merely asked the Minister if he wishes
to continue.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would be delighted
to try and answer this question, Mr. Speaker,
if the leader of the Opposition would seek
4378
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the co-operation of the member for Grey-
Bnice and let me answer the question rather
than have him answer the question.
Mr. Sargent: Why does the hon. Minister
not grow up?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: First of all we think
that municipalities should have more money.
I tliink inherent in what Smith said and
what the Prime Minister said the other day-
Mr. Sargent: The Minister is still a choir
boy.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: They need more
money on an unconditional basis. Whether
this is best done by assigning tax fields,
whether it is best done by an extension of the
unconditional grants, I do not know and we
do not know these answers at this point.
What they do need is more money as a
matter of right rather than a matter of some-
thing with strings attached.
If I could say so, Mr. Speaker, I think that
was a principle which was recognized by
Smith, by the select committee, by this Min-
ister, by the Prime Minister and by the gov-
ernment; and we hope hon. members opposite
get on the bandwagon.
Mr. Nixon: As a matter of fact, it will be
a shame if the hon. Mindster does not do
something about giving them more money.
I have a question for the Premier which
I had hoped to team up with the question
for the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart); but
to the Premier: I would ask him if he is
co-ordinating the policies of tlie govemiment
with regard to athletics with the findings of
the federal task force on sports.
If you will pennit me, the thing that
prompted this and that I was hoping that the
Attorney General might join in on, was the
feeling that had been expressed that actually
this "reserve" clause in a good many of the
contracts that are signed by professional
athletes is a matter of provincial rather than
fe<leral concern.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Yes.
Well, Mr. Si>eaker, I read tl>is report tiiis
momdn.g myself. It was of interest to me and
I knew it would be of interest to all mem-
bers of the House— the findings of the special
task foTce and also the comments that were
made by Mr. Campbell on the con.stitutional
issue,
I would not express my own opinion on
the constitutional issue quite so quickly from
the report in this morning's paper, but cer-
tainly we will take those remarks and examine
their validity.
In answer to the actual question here, the
federal task force report on sports is, of
c^ourse, of interest to us in the government.
It will be referred to in the interdepartmental
committee on youth in order that we can see
where implementation, where co-ordination
should take place in this govemsment on
those portions of their findings with which
we agree.
Until we have had an opportunity to study
the whole thing, we cannot just automatically
assume that we will take as read everything
that is in it, but we are always prepared
to co-ordinate what the federal government
does; we sometimes wish they would co-
ordinate a little more on what we do.
Mr. Sargent: Give the Premier more money!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: So we will set them an
example in this regard.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Prime Minister. Will the
Prime Minister table the brief of the gov-
ernment to the Canadian Transportation Com-
mission on the Bell Telephone rate increase
application and make a copy available to
each member of the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Robai'ts: Yes. I have a copy here,
Mr. Speaker, which I would be happy to
table.
This is entitled— "Appearance and Amended
Statement by the Attorney Genera! for On-
tario, An Intervener", which is our official
position in this matter.
I do not know how many are available. I
might suggest rather than putting copies of
this on everyone's desk— we will make t^em
available to those who want them. I cannot
believe tliat everybody in the House will be
interested in an examination, but however
many may Ix; needed for caucus we will make
available; the same applies to the Opposition.
There are four. This is the "Appearance and
Amended Statement", and is really a position
paper.
Then we have four detailed and highly
technical memoranda which have been filed
in support of this statement of position. Even
more so, I think that these might be of
limited interest; but we will make them
available too. I liave three of them whioh
probably I could table tomorrow; one will
have to wait until we have it reproduced, but
there is no reason why they should not be
made available. As soon as I have them I
MAY 14, 1969
4379
will table them here, and if you indicate
the number of copies you wish, I will make
them available.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
Centre has a question of the Premier.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.
Why did tlie Premier transfer the responsi-
bility for GO-Transit from The Department
of Transport to The Department of High-
ways?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it was
never transferred from The Department of
Transport to The Department of Highways
l^ecause the responsibility for GO-Transit
never rested within that department. At tlie
time the entire study was commenced it
involved several departments of government
and the study itself was placed under the
aegis or direction of The Department of
Transport. When we started to implement
that recommendation dealing with GO-Transit,
it was put in The Department of Highways
and has remained there ever since.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I know the
timing from the Premier, It is evident in this
report, but it-
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member wishes to
ask a supplementary question he may do so,
but he may not make a statement.
Mr. Deacon: I was going to ask the Premier
if he could answer the question of why it was
in The Department of Transport originally
and then the responsibility for operation was
placed in The Department of Highways?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Premier has already
answered the question,
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I can at least state that
MTARTS embodied a great deal more than
GO-Transit, and when various parts of the
implementation of the MTARTS study were
considered, GO-Transit was put into The
Department of Highways, it is that simple. It
was not the entire findings of all of the
MTARTS study, it was just that particular
item,
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have
a supplementary question? We are asking
questions of the Premier first so that every-
one will have an opportunity to get their
answers from him. The hon. member for
Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Yes, I have a ques-
tion of the Prime Minister, In view of the
report in the Globe and Mail of May 10 that
some members of the United States Congress
believe that the St. Lawrence Seaway De-
velopment Corporation, which showed a $2.7
million loss in 1967, is close to bankruptcy:
1. What is the financial position of the sea-
way corporation with reference to the Cana-
dian system? Are the revenues meeting
amortization charges?
2. Is an increase in fees anticipated? If so,
what is the expected effect on the use of the
seaway?
3. Has this government expressed its
opposition to such increases?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: This is a three-part
question, and in answer to the first two parts
I would say that these are matters for the
federal government. We are not in a posi-
tion to answer them, because we simply do
not have the information that would provide
a meaningful answer.
In regard to the third question, "has the
goverrmient expressed its opposition to such
increases," we understand that the entire fee
structure of the seaway will be reconsidered
at the end of the navigation season of 1970.
Until that time arrives, the present fee struc-
ture will remain in operation. To prepare
ourselves to take part in the discussions at
that time we are conducting studies now into
the whole operation of the seaway in order
that we may prepare a position that we can
present when the fee structure is re-examined
at that time.
Mr. Ben: May I ask a supplementary ques-
tion of the Prime Minister? Will the Prime
Minister admit that Ontario would be more
directiy affected by an increase in fees than
any other province in Canada?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would say, Mr.
Speaker, that this is a matter of great im-
portance to Ontario. I think it affects not
only those communities along the seaway it-
self, but it affects many of our inland cities
and our industrial cities because of the addi-
tional transportation costs, and because of
the fact that, for instance, the Welland Canal
itself is a block.
We object, and always have objected, to the
tolls on that canal and will continue to object.
It divides the industrial heartland of Ontario
in two, and we think it is a matter of great
importance, and we intend to devote a good
deal of time to preparing a position which we
will, of course, put on behalf of our province
and the industries and tho.se concerned widiin
the province.
4380
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Are there any more questions
of the Prime Minister? Yes, the hon. member
for Grey-Bnice has two questions of the
Premier.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier
explain to me on behalf of 100,000 people in
the Grey-Bruce area how he can spend
approximately $40 million on GO-Transit to
.ser\ice 15,000 riders, as per his statement, but
Highway 10, the worst highway in Ontario,
which services Grey-Bnice, cannot be re-
paired or replaced by a four-lane highway?
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Does
the Speaker allow this question?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I will re-
peat what I ha\ e said here many times before,
that we do not build highways for only those
people who happen to live within the area
in which the highway is. It is ridiculous to
say that GO-Transit, for instance, serves only
15,000 riders because that is 15,000 riders
for fi\ e days every week, plus those who use
it on weekends, and then one has to take
into consideration the fact-
Mr. Sargent: Same people all the time—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: —one has to take into
consideration the fact that it has had an
effect on other highways in the area that are
used by many hundreds of thousands of
people. As far as a four-lane highway to
Owen Sound-
Mr. Sargent: The Premier is not getting
through at all.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, of course, Mr.
Speaker, it is completely impossible to get
through to this particular member anyway, so
I am merely making my remarks for the
benefit of the other members of the House
who heard the question.
Mr. Lewis: You need not serve our benefit.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, if I really
thought that were possible I would not have
made the remark.
Mr. Lewis: The Premier does not have to
reply on our account.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: But it is just the same,
I suppose, in every community in Ontario.
Each wants a four-lane highway leading into
or out of it, but we have to construct
highways on the basis of providing the best
service on an overall basis throughout the
province.
As I explained to the hon. member in some
detail several times before, we do not limit
construction to the tax production of the area
in which the facility may be. I, of course,
would not subscribe to a statement that High-
way 10 is the worst highway in Ontario, and
1 am quite certain-
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): How about
Highway 17?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I was about to say, I
am quite certain some other members in this
House, including members of the hon. mem-
ber's own party, would not agree with this.
But let us face it. We cannot build four-lane
highways into and out of every municipality
in Ontario just because there happen to be
times in certain areas when the weight of
traffic warrants it.
I am aware of the feeling people have
when they leave their own municipality and
come and see highways in the Toronto area.
This is what seems to bother the hon. mem-
ber. I can only repeat that some years ago
we did a study on Highway 401 running
across the northern part of Toronto, and at
that time it was only a four-lane highway.
We estimated that the gasoline tax alone
generated by that highway would pay for
the entire highway in six years. But it has
a maximum life of 40 years, or perhaps more
than that, and so for the next 34 years it
would continue to generate the same amount
of tax which would be used to build high-
ways in other parts of the province.
So to get back to this argument the hon.
member keeps raising, I would simply say it
would be completely impossible to govern
this province in that particular way.
Mr. Sargent: To enlighten the House, sir,
why is not the capital cost of GO Transit
charged against the Toronto real estate-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member-
Mr. Sargent: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker,
this is important to my people.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
out of order; he is not asking a question
supplementary to his original question. If
he wishes to do so, he may do so, otherwise
he will place the other question which he has.
Mr. Sargent: Do I have a supplementary
question, sir?
Mr. Speaker: You have if it is supplement-
ary.
MAY 14, 1969
4381
Mr. Sargent: Well, this is supplementary,
I am talking about transit.
Will the Prime Minister enlighten the
House why-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member must
change his question because it is not sup-
plementary as he worded it before.
Mr. Sargent: You have not heard it yet.
I say, why do the capital costs levied against
the real estate-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member's
question is not supplementary. The hon.
member will take his seat when the Speaker
is on his feet.
The hon. member's question is not sup-
plementary, he is out of order, he will now
pass to his other question.
Mr. Sargent: You are not doing any better.
Mr. MacDonald: The member is not, that
is for sure.
Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact— this is to
the Prime Minister— that tracts of land com-
prising the Bruce Trail are being sold and
that officers of the Bruce Trail Association
fear that the Bruce Trail route will disap-
pear in many areas, will the Premier con-
sider the "string of beads" concept to acquire
tracts at key points to guarantee the continu-
ance of this great recreation and tourist asset?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the question. We some time ago com-
missioned a study to be made under the
direction of Professor Gertler of Waterloo
University and we have a copy of that report
now. It contains a good many recommenda-
tions which are presently under very close
study.
I would just point out to the hon. member
that we commissioned that study with a view
to preserving the Niagara escarpment. That
was our purpose, and that is why we have
the report. Like many reports of its kind, it
has recommendations which may take time
to implement. It may be beyond the capacity
of the government to implement all at once.
It may be necessary for us to establish certain
priorities in implementing its recommenda-
tions.
We do not want to spend a tremendous
amount of money in the Niagara area if we
do not spend an equal amount up in the
Owen Sound area, because, you see, the
Niagara escarpment passes through both
places.
But we have some decisions to make in this
regard. When our studies are complete and
we have a course of action lined up, we will
announce it to the House.
Mr. Nixon: Bruce Trail goes right past
Owen Soxmd.
Mr. Sargent: When is the government go-
ing to make Highway 10—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management.
Were 60 tons of sulphiiric acid discharged
from the GIL plant near tlie iron ore recovery
plant at Copper Cliff into Kelly Lake on
April 8 at about 10 p.m.?
Have similar incidents of discharge
occurred at this plant in the past? When?
What action will the Minister take against
CIL for its action?
What assurance can the Minister give the
House that this practice will be discontinued
as of now?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
the commission is unaware of such a dis-
charge of sulphuric acid from CIL on April
8 into Kelly Lake. There have been no
reported incidents of such discharges from
this plant in the past. No report has been
received by the Ontario Water Resources
Commission concerning any improper action
by CIL.
Any spill or industrial accident involving
pollutants should be immediately reported to
the Ontario Water Resources Commission for
investigation. It is the policy of the commis-
sion to enquire into the matter and take
appropriate action as quickly as possible.
Mr. MacDonald: Should be reported by
whom?
Mr. Martel: May I ask the Minister a sup-
plementary question? Was not a complaint of
this incident submitted to the Minister pos-
sibly two weeks ago?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, there was
no complaint submitted to me, nor was there
any to the commission.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has another
question transferred to the Minister of Trans-
port?
Mr. Martel: I will send the Minister a
carbon copy of the letter. : , .
4382
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
A question of the Minister of Transi>ort: has been made of Ontario Housing Cor-
W'itliout weigh scales in the Sudbury area, poration, tlie matter is still at the exploratory
how can we be assured that our highways are stage insofar as the board of education is
not being subjecttMi to overloading? concerned.
Mr. Lewis:
House?
the Minister miiileading the
Mr. Martel: He is deliberately misleading
the House,
Ml-. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
asking a question.
Mr. Martel: When will weigli scales be
installed in areas neiu" Falconbridge and
INCO holdings to n^ke sure that trucks
carrying ready-mix cement, ore and gravel do
not carry excess loads, thereby damaging the
highways?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport): Mr.
Speaker, because of the many alternate routes
in the Sudbury area, it is felt that permanent
scale locations would not be an effective
way of providing adequate control. Accord-
ingly, enforcement in the Sudbury-Falcon-
bridge area is carried out by the use of
portable scales, which work on a schedule
which is varied both as to location and
timing.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for River-
dale.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I
understand I can address my question of the
Minister of Trade and Development to the
Minister of Municipal AflFairs.
Will the Minister advise what negotiations
or discussions, formal or informal, have been
held between officials of the Ontario Hous-
ing Corporation and the Toronto board of
education about the possibility of relocating
the new public school, presently proposed for
the area bounded on the east side of River
Street, by Cornwall Street, Oak Street and
the Bay view extension, to the 27.1 acres of
vacant land owned by the Ontario Housing
Corporation in the Regent Park north devel-
opment, and what is the likelihood of an
early favourable decision about this?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am
advised the Ontario Housing Corporation has
been approached informally by senior officials
of the Toronto board of education concerning
the possibility of the new public school,
planned for the east side of River Street, be-
ing located instead on the ai>proximately two
acres of open space situated in the north
Regent Park development. The approach was
only of a tentative nature. No oflScial request
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may
address a supplementary question to the
Minister. Would tlie Minister advise Ontario
Housing Corporation tliat it bear in mind the
hazardous nature of the presently proposed
location of the school in any consideration
of transferring it to the new site on the
Regent Park north development?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hazardous loca-
tion of the present school?
Mr. J. Renwick: Of the present proposed
school.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
ber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of the Minister of Health- 1472, if it may
assist Your Honour:
Will the Minister of Health take advantage
of the new national health research branch
announced May 7 by the Minister of National
Health and Welfare to set up research pro-
grammes in relation to the effect on human
health of the following factors: 1. Noise
pollution; 2. Industrial effluents; 3. Solid
wastes disposal methods; 4. High-stack dis-
persal of effluent gases into the higher layers
of the atmosphere, where ultraviolet light
may transform the nature of the emissions?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I have not so far got the
particulars of this new grant that has been
announced, but all projects in these various
areas of health care have been financed in
the past out of national health grants. We
are continuing to finance them in that way,
augmented by moneys provided by this
province.
Mr. Ben: I trust that you will take advan-
tage of it. I take this answer as "yes".
The next question, Mr. Speaker— it is again
1496, to be of assistance:
What is the function of the health study
services of the environmental health branch?
Why does the Minister assume that phyto-
toxicants do not have human health effects
analogous to those observed in vegetation,
and why is human health not a concern of
the phytotoxicology section?
Will the Minister use his influence to
secure the declassification of as much liter-
MAY 14, 1969
4383
ature as possible originating with the U.S.
Air Force and NASA, in respect of the
phytotoxicology of the liOs Angeles smog?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the func-
tion of the health studies service in the en-
vironmental health branch is to undertake
inquiries into the possible health effect of
long term exposure to environmental con-
taminants, both in industry and the com-
munity.
The assumption in part 2 of the question
is, of course in error. Phytotoxicants are
chemicals injurious to vegetation under cer-
tain conditions and which, may, or may not,
be harmful to humans. The phytotoxicology
section deals specifically with the effects of
pollutants on vegetation, but the health
studies service of the environmental health
branch is direcdy concerned with possible
human health effects. We are seeking to get,
at all times, all the literature available. But
I would have to say, in honesty to this hon.
member, my influence in the matter of get-
ting classified material declassified is non-
existent. However, whatever is made avail-
able through the scientific journals is in our
hands in reasonable time.
Mr. Ben: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Minis-
ter is more influential than he diinks. If I
may phrase a supplementary question, would
the Minister give consideration to trying to
secure this classified information on the basis
that his department would keep secret that
aspect of it which is strictly classiified and
enable us to benefit from any knowledge that
they may be able to impart to us in this
classified infonmation?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to mislead the House, and I do not
want to be facetious. But there is not a
hope in the world of me being able to get
classified information made axailable to us.
We can go through the necessary channels,
but if such information is of value to the
health and welfare of humans, I am quite
sure it will not remain classified long and
would then be readily available to all scien-
tists in the field.
Mr. Ben: Well, I guess the second-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member has
another question.
Mr. Ben: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have another
question.
1. Is the Minister of Health aware that a
contract was signed last week for a 750-foot-
high stack, the tallest in North America, at
the Nanticoke hydro plant? Has he seen the
technical specifications?
2. What steps does he intend to take to
preserve human health in the metropolitan
regions of the Golden Horseshoe from amino
acids and viruses formed in the upper layers
of the atmosphere due to the action of ultra-
violet ra>'s on simple effluent gases from this
stack as per the Los Angeles experience?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I am quite
afware of the developments in the Nanticoke
project. I did not know the contract was
signed, but the departmental approval had
been given the project. We are satisfied it
mets the criteria laid down.
As to the action that we are taking, we
have established a very extensive air quality
monitoring network in the area that is likely
to come within the sphere of influence of this
plant so that the effect of the plant on air
quality can be determined. Vegetation sur-
veys are being carried out now, before the
plant is in operation, and they will also be
made after it is in operation to determine
if there has been any deleterious effect stem-
ming from the plant.
Mr. Ben: A supplementary question. As I
take the Minister's answer, he is saying that
the department approved the design of this
smoke stack. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is correct.
Mr. Ben: I have a question of the Minister
of Energy and Resources Management.
1. Will the Minister obtain and table a
copy of the contract signed last week between
Ontario Hydro and the contractors for the
construction of the tallest stack in North
America intended to widely disperse the
gases from the coal-fired Nanticoke hydro
generating station?
2. Is the Minister aware what if any air
pollution devices are included in the specifica-
tion? If none, what other contracts will cover
this necessity?
3. Will the Minister assure this House that
no amino acids will be released into the
upper layers of the atmosphere from this
750-foot stack, to be acted upon by ultra-
violet rays and possibly transformed into
viruses as Los Angeles' experience wouM
indicate?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, the an-
swer to the first part is, no. No anti-jpollution
devices are included in the Nanticoke ohimr
ney sx)eclfication other than its special mul-
tiple flue design and height, characteristics
4384
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which in themselves render the chimney a
most effective anti-pollution device. Other
anti-pollution devices in tlie station, such as
dust precipitators, will be covered under
separate contracts. The Minister assures this
House the best technical advice available in-
dicates that there will be no amino acids
present in the effluent from the Nanticoke
chimney.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the
Minister, but his two assistants to his left were
speaking while he started to answer the ques-
tion and I missed the first part of the first
answer. Would he please repeat it for me?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, it was, no.
Mr. Ben: No, the next one.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Oh— the second part.
No anti-pollution devices are included in the
Nanticoke chimney specifications other than
its special multiple flue design and height,
characteristics which in themselves render the
chimney a most effective anti-pollution device.
Other anti-pollution devices in this station,
such as dust precipitators, will be covered
under separate contracts.
Mr. Ben: I have a supplementary question.
Will the Minister accept it? Am I to under-
stand from lids answer that the Minister
equates dispersal at liigh altitudes as being
equivalent to scrubbing or the efimination of
pollution?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I did not
say tliat, but this answer was prepared by
the engineers of Hydro, and no doubt they
have worked with the air pollution people. So
I will have to take their word that this
chimney will meet our specifications in the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Ben: I guess I have to accept the
answer.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-
view.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkxiew): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. Minister of Trans-
port.
In view of the recently released results of
time tests by the United States transportation
department that 18 per cent of the tires
tested failed to meet requirements, is the
Minister satisfied that tires being sold in
Ontario are safe for the motoring public?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, all tires
now sold in Ontario are required to meet our
recently mandated CSA standards, and to date
we ha\'e had no complaints of violation of
these standards.
Mr. Young: Could I ask the Minister a
supplementary question? Has the Minister
any facilities to test these tires to make sure
that the tires sold in Ontario are, in fact,
meeting the specifications outlined?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, this is a
repetition of the exact question the member
put to me on, it was December 2, and in
reply to that question I answered, no.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the
Minister of Municipal Affairs.
When can the municipality of Longlac
expect to hear from the OMB regarding
applications for approval of expenditure for
water and sewage facilities and a paving pro-
gramme, which has to be decided on while
contractors are in the area?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the
question was referred to the Ontario Munici-
pal Board soon after it was received in my
office on Monday.
I am advised that letters were sent by the
board to the Ontario Water Resources Com-
mission on the water and sewer portion of
the application on May 7 and 8, and to the
clerk of the municipality on the paving por-
tion on May 7. Replies have not yet been
received by the board. I can assure the hon.
member on behalf of the municipal board
that the application is being processed as
expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Stokes: Another question— for the Min-
ister of Lands and Forests.
Why are commercial fishing licences, which
are not being used on Lake Nipigon, not re-
voked?
Will the Minister grant a fishing licence to
the Lake Nipigon Metis Association to pro-
vide employment for these people?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member:
1. We had 23 licences on Lake Nipigon,
anl all of these were operated in 1968.
2. We can consider applications for new
licences from the Metis association. However,
we established a Lake Nipigon fisheries man-
agement unit last year to begin a comprehen-
sive study of the fishery, and we have not
MAY 14, 1969
4385
planned to issue additional yardages or
licences until the long-term desirability of
extending the fishery can be seen.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
Centre.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Highways.
Will the Minister prepare and table a de-
tailed commentary on the GO-North study of
Canadian Facts Company Limited if the com-
plete documentation on which the report is
based is made available to him?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Transport):
The ansv/er is yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oxford.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): I ha\e a ques-
tion for the Minister of Highways.
Under what circumstances were mowing
contracts 69-541 and 69-587 not awarded?
In view of the fact that there have been a
number of mowing contracts not awarded by
the department this year, will the Minister
consider employing some of the university
students who are seeking jobs as operators of
the department's mowing equipment?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, the answer
to the first part: These contracts were bid at
considerably higher prices than those which
the department had estimated as being reason-
able for the work and, therefore, the contracts
were not awarded. It is our intention to do
the mowing in these areas with our own
equipment and forces.
The answer to the second part is that, due
to the many circumstances, we do not con-
sider it possible to employ university students
to operate department mowing equipment.
The department will be employing, during the
coming summer, a large number of university
students on department operations other than
maintenance.
Mr. Innes: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.
Apparently the Minister must have advertised
for these mowing contracts before. Now he
is saying that he is going to use his own
people. Is he not going to cut the grass, or
what?
Mr. Speaker: As I understood the hon.
Minister's answer, he said that the mowing
was going to be done by departmental forces.
The hon. member for Nipissing.
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management, from last week.
In hght of a letter of H. J. Christian, a
parks assistance officer within The Depart-
ment of Energy and Resources Management,
conservation branch, to tlie city of North
Bay, indicating that the sewage treatment
plant situated in the Monk Street area— and
built i.nd operated by the Ontario Water
Resources Commission— is contributing to the
pollution of Lake Nipissing, and is one reason
that precludes the city from developing a tent
and trailer park in the area under The Parks
Assistance Act, will the Minister direct the
Ontario Water Resources Commission to act
to expedite the expansion of the plant to
eliminate the pollution being caused by
the OWRC installation? Secondly, wall the
OWRC take action to clear up the pollution
of the Chippewa Creek so that the area may
be developed under The Parks Assistance
Act?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, the
sewage treatment plant in North Bay has
adequate capacity to treat present sewage
discharges and thus reduce pollution of Lake
Nipissing. A study has been commissioned by
die Ontario Water Resources Commission to
expand tlie plant and meet future demands
with the approval of the city of North Bay.
In regard to the question concerning Chip-
pewa Creek, no action is required by the
Ontario Water Resources Commission since
the city is engaged in sewer rehabilitation at
the request of the commission. Improvement
of Chippewa Creek will make the area more
attractive for park sites.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a supple-
mentary question. Why did Mr. Christian of
the parks assistance branch say that tlie
sewage treatment plant was contributing to
the pollution of the lake, when the OWRC
says it is not? I think that perhaps the Min-
ister should tell us what the difference is.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member has
asked his question.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr Speaker, I saw
Mr. Christian's report, and he did not say
that the sewage treatment plant was not large
enough to take care of the sewage in the
city of North Bay. He was talking about the
overall areas as far as parks were concerned.
I have read his report, and as I have already
stated, the commission and the city of North
Bay are working together to enlarge the
plant to take care of future expansion. There
is already a programme in effect to clean up
Chippewa Creek. I think if the hon. member
reads his report— I do not know whether he
4386
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has seen it or not— he will have a different
concept from what he put in his question.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I should
point out to the Minister that I did read the
letter that he sent to the city of North Bay,
and he did say in tlie letter that the OWRC
plant was contributing to the pollution of the
lake-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not
entitled to make a statement.
Mr. R. S. Smith: —regardless of what report
he gave to the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The h )n. member may
ask a supplementary question, but not make
a statement.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It is a letter that
went to the city of North Bay. I saw the
report, and I do not think Mr. Christian sent
the letter to the city of North Bay. I think
it was signed by Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member and
the Minister could get together and look at
the same letter at the same time.
The hon. member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): A question of
the Minister of Trade and Development
through the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Has the Minister taken any steps to have
Fairbanks Morse (Canada) Limited continue
its operations in Kingston, thus maintaining
the opportimity for employment for about
200 workers?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am
advised that The Department of Trade and
Development has investigated the matter of
tlie closing of the Fairbanks Morse (Canada)
Limited plant. The following information was
supplied by Mr. William Brown, industrial
relations officer of Fairbanks Morse Limited:
Plant areas of approximately 430,000
sqi;are feet-
Sounds a little high; I am wondering if tliat
should not be 43,000 square feet.
Employees, 80 on salary, 120 hourly paid.
Sales organization handles products of
other companies in the organization and
v/ill be maintained. The company has l>een
operating at a loss for some years in Can-
ada, and the decision to close the plant is
not a new concept. Buildings and facilities
are old. Consideration has been given by
the city of Kingston to make a park out of
the area occupied by Fairbanks Morse
Limited. The decision to close the plant is
final and irrevocable. A severance formula
is being worked out for salary employees.
As far as employment is concerned, it should
be noted that The Department of Trade and
Development has recently been working wtth
two cHjmpanies, resulting in their location at
Napanee; this is about 20 miles from King-
ston, and commuting between the two towns
is quite common. Tlie first of those industries
is Canron Limited (Canadian Iron Foun-
dries), which has already started to recruit
labour. They require 175 employees now,
with a gradual buildup to 600, mostly male.
Products will be electric motors. And tlie
second, a clothing manufacturer, is also start-
ing to build a new plant in Napanee which
will ultimately employ about 500 people, 90
per cent female.
The Department of Trade and Develop-
ment has also contacted the Canada Man-
power Centre at Kingston, who advise that
registering the company's employees was
started last week. The centre further advised
that the employment situation in Kingston is
fair and that many of the employees from
Fairbanks Morse Limited can find work in
Napanee, where there is demand for them.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a
further question?
Mr. Pilkey: Yes. Mr. Speaker, a question
to the Minister of Lands and Forests.
Would the Minister tell the House what
action has been taken regarding littering in
the Oshawa Creek area as outlined in a let-
ter from the Oshawa Fish and Wildlife
Advisory Board to the Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, may I
take this question as notice, please?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wel-
lington South.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Transport.
Is the Minister considering setting the
standard of muffler noise prior to sale of cars
to the public to avoid prosecution for exces-
sive noise?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, the meas-
urement of muffler noise, and the setting of
enforceable and technically valid standards,
have been making good progress. On Febru-
ary 18 last, I reported to the House that I
felt the time was fast approaching when
legislation could be effectively used. How-
ever, I expect the member is now aware that
the federal government is preparing to accept
MAY 14, 1969
4387
responsibility for setting motor vehicle stan-
dards at the point of manufacture.
Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a
supplementary question. Does the Minister,
through his facilities at The Department of
Transport, have any mechanical means of
registering noise rather than just by human
judgment?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, when I
spoke on this matter about two months ago,
I intimated that it was from the SAE labs
that the reports would be coming on these
new measurement devices that were reliable
and useful. Other than that, I do not think
that even the National Research Council has
been able to get a successful answer to this
problem.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carle-
ton East.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I would like to draw the attention of the
members of the House to a brochure upon
their desks entitled, "Ottawa". I asked that
this particular brochure be placed on the
members' desks, with the thought that, al-
though Ottawa is known as the capital and
it is a tourist and recreational centre, its
commercial and industrial aspects may be
less well known.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 91st order.
CITY OF TORONTO (1)
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton), in the absence
of Mr. H. J. Price (St. David), moves second
reading of Bill Prl2, An Act respecting the
city of Toronto (1).
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to speak on the principle of this bill,
I cannot but help draw this Legislature's
attention to the import of one of the sec-
tions of the bill— that which would give the
municipality the right to operate a means of
conveyance in a park. The park in this in-
stance, I think the members must know, is
Toronto Island, and I think the members
should be aware that in all probability the
operator of this so-called means of convey-
ance will probably be Beasley or Paddy
Conklin— more likely Paddy Conklin, who
runs almost every other amusement conces-
sion in this city.
An hon. member: Probably in the province.
Mr. Ben: There is an echo from my left,
here, "probably in the province", and I dare-
say that is true.
Mr. R. Cisbom (Hamilton East): To the
left in the member's own party.
Mr. Ben: All right, I am very happy that
we are corrected. It was the hon. member
for Essex South (Mr. Paterson) who drew my
attention to the fact that Mr. Conklin runs
almost every amusement concession in On-
tario with the exception of a few minor ones
that go from fair to fair. The fact is that
this amendment is asked specifically for the
benefit of this one gentleman, and it is in-
comprehensible to me that this Legislature
would countenance granting another mon-
opoly to one individual who already has a
monopoly on almost the whole of the amuse-
ment industry in this province.
Surely all the members must be aware that
Mr. Conklin controls the midway at the Cana-
dian National Exhibition— that part which the
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) of this province
said was going to be made into one of the
greatest shows on this earth. I do not know
whether or not the Prime Minister, in making
that statement, first got the by-your-leave of
Mr. Conklin, because I know that very little
is done at the Canadian National Exhibition
without his concurrence. I trust that perhaps
our Prime Minister did have enough back-
bone to make the statement on his own
without consulting that gentleman. The fact
is, as I say, that he does control the Cana-
dian National Exhibition as far as amuse-
ments are concerned, and will continue to
do so for many years.
I do not know how many members are
aware that the midway is almost a permanent
fixture, to the degree that at least 90 per cent
of it is owned and operated by Mr. Conklin,
and it just sits there from year to year be-
cause he has almost a perpetual franchise.
Where he lacks a contract to the perpetual
franchise, he has one to the degree that his
equipment has been there, most of it is al-
ready amortized or capitalized, and he can
outbid anybody who comes trying to get a
contract from the Canadian National Exhibi-
tion. Furthermore, if I might point out to
you, Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to
get such a concession, because the Canadian
National Exhibition refused to reveal how
much profit was taken in from any conces-
sion. In other words, if you wanted to bid
for a concession and desired to find out—
4388
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Might I enquire of the hon.
member what the Canadian National Exhibi-
tion has to do with the section he started to
discuss?
Mr. Ben: Sir, I imagine you could throw
a stone from the Canadian National Exhibition
over to the island where this railway is going
in.
Mr. Speaker: I would rule that any further
discussion by the hon. member with respect
to the Canadian National Exhibition would
be out of order.
Mr. Ben: Let me put it this way, Mr.
Speaker, that Conklin is gaining control of
the amusements at the island. He in fact
does have the franchise now for the Kiddy-
land that exists. This would further entrench
this franchise which is, in fact, a monopoly.
I cannot move an amendment, but the only
way I would support such a bill is if the
franchise to operate such a railroad remained
solely within the hands of the municipality,
as does the Toronto Transit Commission— in
other words, that a private, profit-making
body does not have the right to operate that
railroad, that it remain forever in the hands
and in the control of the municipality itself.
Otherwise I take strong exception to a bill
which contains such a repugnant principle.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to the bill?
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, the principle in the bill, in my view,
is wrong is connection with the way in which
the executive committee has selected it. It
would make more sense from the point of
view of getting a cohesive—
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): It is in the other bill, Mr.
Speaker. It has to do with the next bill.
Mr. Speaker: That is Bill 93.
The motion is for second reading of Bill
Prl2.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF TORONTO (2)
Mr. Reilly, in the absence of Mr. Price,
moves second reading of Bill Pr20, An Act
respecting the city of Toronto (2).
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I
was a little too eager on that, my mind was
on another matter. The question of the way
that an executive committee or a council is
structured and is elected by the members of
council strikes me as going to be the source
of many problems, and that if the whole
council selects the executixe committee it
could be a committee containing many of the
same problems a board of control does ha\e
today. There is no unifying direction to it.
If you have the mayor, who, after all, is
elected by all the people of the city, select
from the elected members of council his
executive committee, it would ensure that
those selected would work well with him and
get much more direction for the operation of
the city's affairs than if we have it as it is
now suggested, where there is a lot of politick-
ing among the members as to who is going to
support whom for these offices. This has
been the source of many of the problems
within the county councils where there is so
much politicking at the beginning of the
session as to who is going to be in the key
positions, instead of having it that the person
who, in this case, is elected by all the people,
has the right to select from among members
of council those who he believes will do the
best jol) on his executive committee.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, the board of control
has been in existence some 66 years, and
prior to that we had more or less the system
that is now being recommended or asked for
in this bill. I would like to read, for the
enlightenment of the members of this House,
some editorials which were printed some 67
years ago, touching on this particular system
of municipal government. The Globe, on
January 15, 1902, had an editorial captioned:
Board of Conti\ol
The Legislature would do well to note
the recommendations with reference to the
board of control adopted by the council of
the board of trade at its last meeting. The
council virtually endorses the application
of the city council for a change in the
method of electing the board of control. As
the reader already knows, the purpose is
to have the board elected by the citizens at
large just as the mayor is at present.
Experience has shown, and never so
glaringly as this year, that the aldermen
themselves cannot be depended upon to
select the strongest members of the council.
There may be a disposition on the part
of some of the members of the Legislature
to think that Toronto is restless and fickle,
always tinkering at her constitution.
MAY 14, 1969
4389
This could have been written last year or the
year before.
It must be remembered, however, that
all over the continent communities are
eagerly seeking for the ideal municipal form
of government. Toronto is fairly well satis-
fied with the type which the Legislature has
already fixed for it. The idea of a board
of control is a good one but we have found
that the method of selecting it is not the
best and we believe that with a change
asked for, it would be much improved.
It was under the Premiership of Mr.
Hardy that the board of control was made
a feature of civic government and the
council of the board of trade appeals con-
fidently to the progressive administration of
his successor for a change which will, it is
believed, greatly improve the personnel of
the board of control and of the city
council.
That was January 15, 1902. On December
15, 1902, preceding the municipal election.
The Globe wrote on the civic go\ernment.
A pretty general agreement exists among
the independent students of our municipal
system as to the activity of committees of
council, and a judgment is that it is mainly
evil.
The only boards that should survive are
the council itself, the board of health and
the board of control. Even the latter, it is
argued, should be elected by a different
method than is at present employed.
The board is at present selected by the
aldermen themselves. This had not been
found to work satisfactorily. The alder-
men seem to have come to an understand-
ing that the position of controller should
be passed around. Tliere are always mem-
bers of the council who show a greater
grasp of public aflFairs than the majority of
their fellows and when the board of control
was constituted it was fondly hoped that
the aldermen would select such men for
the chief board of a corporation.
Experience has shown that there is not
even a probability that they will do so.
Indeed, it would be difficult for the best
type of representative to be elected to the
board more than once. The alderman who
would stand aside from all the little catals
and cliques about the city hall, believing
that to belong to them would frequently
embarrass him in the performance of his
full duty, would have about the lowest
possible chance of being a controller.
There can be a little doubt that some
men work a whole previous year with a
single eye to the prize. There would not be
much complaint of this if the aspirant
eommended himself for the position by
loyal service to the city. But it is to be
feared that such is not the case.
Popularity among his fellow legislators
is more likely to be obtained by assiduity in
helping on their more furtive oi>erations.
We sometimes see, therefore, a 12-inonth
of this species of statesmanship crowned by
election to the board of control— just what
should exclude serves as a passport.
As a remedy for this state of affairs, it
has been proposed that the controller
should be elected directly by the citizens.
To this plan the objection will perhaps be
urged that in a city so strongly Conserva-
tive as Toronto is, a Liberal would not
have the ghost of a show of being elected,
and that this would impart to the council
a political tinge that would be better
avoided.
The municipal elections present two
aspects in this respect. In the aldermanic
elections, while doubtless politics are some-
times considered in weighing the merits of
two candidates, the fact remains that the
representatives of one party do not usually
predominate to any great extent over the
other.
In the mayoralty contests, on the other
hand, a Liberal, however capable he may
be, stands but small chance of election over
a Conservative opponent.
Whether the aldermanic rule or the
mayoralty rule would be applied to the
election of controllers cannot, of course, be
positively affirmed. The Conservative elec-
tors would, we should say, be open to an
appeal to their civic patriotism to vote for
the best man, irrespective of party. If they
did otherwise and elected their men on
strictly party grounds we could at least
hold the dominant party responsible if the
city's affairs were maladministered which,
in time they would be if men were selected
with reference to their x>olitics rather than
to their standing in the community in a
capacity for transacting public business.
And the editorial goes on in this vein, Mr.
Speaker. But the fact remains that we have
an identical pictm-e facing us today as this
Legislature had some 66 years ago.
In fact, the situation does not seem to
have changed much. I would still suggest
that tlie Conservative element would prevail
on the executive if it was elected by the
members of council themselves. And I dare
4390
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
suggest that this may be the reason why this
amendment is being sought.
On the other hand, if the government sup-
ports the proposition which is annunciated in
this bill, surely it should be prepared to say
that the Conservatives— the Progressive Con-
servatives as a party— are prepared to enter
municipal politics as have the other two major
political parties. Otherwise, we can rightfully
point an accusing finger at this government
and say that this bill is not in the interest of
good government for the city of Toronto, but
rather for a perpetuation of the Conservative
cause in municipal politics.
So under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I
do believe that the government should state
its position. Either it is prepared that the
party it represents— one does not say it repre-
sents the people in general— is prepared to
commit this party to municipal politics and,
thereby, make the council that would be
formed under such circumstances answerable
to a political party or make a political party
answerable for its conduct, or else maintain
the present system.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to this bill?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SURVEYORS ACT, 1968-1969
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves second reading of Bill 122,
The Surveyors Act, 1968-1969.
Mr. Speaker: Tlie Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr, Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make some remarks which will be of assist-
ance in understanding the principle of tliis
bill.
This bill revises and up-dates The Sur-
veyors Act, which was last revised in 1931.
This revision changes a number of principles
in the bill, and in addition, implements the
recommendations of the report of the Royal
commission into civil rights aflFecting self-
governing professions. I would like to take
this opportunity of explaining to the members
the various principles involved in this new
Act, arising from that report, and from the
other changes that are included in the bill.
I shall deal firstly with the recommendations
of the report and enlarge upon the explan-
atory notes contained in the front of the
bill.
Recommendation no. 1 of the McRuer
report was that a Statutory Powers Procedure
Act be enacted and apply to the exercise of
all judicial powers conferred upon self-
governing professions and occupations. This
proposed statute was recently introduced by
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Wishart) but,
as it will not be coming into force for some
time, the new bill contains detailed proce-
dures similar to those recommended by the
report, and designed for the protection of
persons whose conduct is under investigation
and who are subject to disciplinary proceed-
ings.
Recommendation no. 2 recommended that
two lay persons be appointed to the govern-
ing bodies. This bill implements this recom-
mendation and provides for the appointment
of a lay person and a lawyer of ten years'
standing by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
Council to the council of the Ontario Land
Surveyors Association.
Recommendation no. 3 of the report recom-
mended that the powers of self-government
should not be extended beyond present
limitations. This bill does not extend the
existing authority of the association.
Recommendation no. 4 recommended that
citizenship should not be a condition prece-
dent to admission to any self-governing body.
This new bill gives full effect to this principle,
by removing the obligation that all members
of the association must be British subjects;
and by, replacing this provision with require-
ments related to residence or places of em-
ployment in the province, and passing of
examinations establishing the competence of
the applicant to provide professional land
siurveying services.
Recommendation no. 5 recommended that
only British subjects might hold office in the
governing body. This bill complies with this
recommendation and will permit officers of
the association to be Canadian citizens, or
other British subjects.
The sixth recommendation was tliat mem-
bers of disciplinary bodies should be pro-
hibited from sitting on an appeal from de-
cisions in which they participated. Under this
bill, appeals from decisions respecting dis-
cipline are made to the Court of Appeal, and
there is no appeal within the association it-
self.
The seventh recommendation suggested
that a lawyer of ten years' standing should
be a member of discipline committees. This
bill will permit the implementation of this
recommendation. I mentioned earlier that
the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may
app>oint such a lawyer to the council, which
MAY 14, 1969
4391
is the body which deals with discipline under
the Act.
The eighth recommendation of the report
was based on the existing provisions of Tjhe
Surveyors' Act and recommended that the
term "professional misconduct" should be
adopted as a uniform term in describdng
conduct warranting disciplinary action. Of
course we have made no changes in this
respect.
The ninth recommendation of the commis-
sion was that a code of ethics should be
provided by each self-governing body, which
should lay down standards of conduct de-
signed primarily for the protection of the
public. The bill provides for such a code
of ethics and requires that it be sent to all
members and be available free of charge to
the public.
The tenth recommendation was that a mem-
ber who is subject to disciplinary proceedings
should have at least ten days notice of the
hearing. This principle has been incorporated
into the bill.
The eleventh recommendation was that a
disciplinary body should have power to pro-
ceed with the hearing where the member
involved has been duly notified, but does not
attend. This principle has been included in
the bill.
The members will note that the explanatory
note indicates the modification of recom-
mendation No. 12, This recommenidation sug-
gested that disciplinary hearings should not
be in public imless the member involved so
requests. This principle is adopted, but has
been modified so that the council has the
ultimate decision on whether or not a hearing
should be pubMc. There imdoubtedly will be
cases where it would not be advisable or
proper to hold such hearings in public.
I understand that the courts do not hold
public hearings where children are involved,
and similar situations could arise in disciplin-
ary hearings. Accordingly, there could be
situations where it would not be in the public
interest to hold the hearing in public even
though the member might so request and
to this extent, the recommendation has been
modified.
Recommendation No. 13 suggests that the
rules of evidence applicalble to civil cases
should apply to disciplinary hearings. This
principle has been adopted.
The fourteentii recommendation was that
the standard of proof on hearings for admis-
sion should be the standard commonly relied
on by reasonable and prudent men in the
conduct of their own affairs. This principle
has been adopted.
The fifteenth recommendation was that a
member against whom disciplinary action has
been taken should have a statutory right to
be representated by counsel or an agent
at the disciphnary hearing. Members will note
that this recommendation has been modified.
The modification is that this right exists
only where the member is present. The pur-
pose of the modification is to ensure that
members, whose conduct is questioned, ex-
hibit suffioient interest and concern in the
etliical standards of the profession by appear-
ing at such hearings. Of course in cases of
sickness or otherwise, adjournments can be
arranged.
The report recommended in its sixteenth
recommendation that disciplinary bodies
should have a right to impose a full range
of sanctions from reprimand to revocation of
the right to practice. This range of sanctions
has been provided.
Recommendation No. 17 was that no dis-
ciplinary body should have the right to
impose fines. This principle which was con-
tained in the existing Act has been removed.
Recommendation No. 18 suggested that no
fines for breach of the statute should be pay-
able to the self-governing body and that such
fines should be payable to the province.
Again, this principle, which was contained
in the existing Act, has been amended to
conform with the recommendation of the
commission.
Recommendation No. 19 recommended that
no disciplinary body should have pmvers to
award costs against a member, and that no
award by a disciplinary body should be en-
forcible by an execution issued out of court.
This bill does not give this type of authority
to the association.
The twentieth recommendation was that
self-governing bodies should have power to
reimburse for a member for costs incurred
through unwarranted disciplinary action
against him. This recommendation has been
implemented.
Recommendation No. 21 dealt with the
right to practise in the interval between an
order of suspension or disbarment and the
hearing of an appeal; and recommended that
a member is entitled to continue to practise
unless the charge is for incompetence. The
bill provides for this right.
Recommendation No. 22 recommended that
a formal hearing should be held before an
4392
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
application for registration is rejected. The
new bill provides for such a hearing.
Recommendation No. 23 was tliat there
should be a right of appeal from all dis-
ciplinary decisions and decisions refusing ad-
mission. The recommendation suggests that
this appeal be held by the appellate division
of the High Court of Justice. As tliis court
has not been created, these appeals will be
heard by the Court of Appeal.
Recommendation 24 was that there should
be uniform terminology respecting regulations,
rules and bylaws. This recommendation has
been observed.
Recommendation 25 recommended that all
matters of admission and discipline should be
dealt with by regulations made by the Lieu-
tenant-Go vemor-in-Council. This principle is
provided for in the bill.
In contrast with the last mentioned recom-
mendation, recommendation 26 recommended
that bylaws relating to administrative and
domestic affairs of self-governing associations
should be made by the association. This prin-
ciple has been observed.
Recommendation 27 recommends tliat no
self-governing body should have control over
others who are not members of the body. This
bill makes no provision for control over
employees of surveyors, and complies with the
recommendation.
Recommendation 28 was that there should
be a model Act to form the basis of all self-
governing Acts to provide uniformity. This
objective can be met through imiform provi-
sions, and the provisions of this bill are as
similar as possible to the provisions of the
only other statute yet dealt with by the Legis-
lature since the receipt of the report of the
commission, namely. The Professional Engi-
neers Act.
Recommendations 29, 30 and 31 dealt with
limitation periods and were designed to re-
lieve against the six-month and other periods
of limitations in some Acts. The recommenda-
tion was that no limitation period should be
less tlian 12 months.
The Surveyors Act does not now contain
a provision respecting limitations, and sur-
veyors are bound by the common law rules
which, I understand, provide that a surveyor
may be sued on contracts within j)eriods up
to six years, generally speaking. The associa-
tion is satisfied to have the present law con-
tinue and, accordingly, the bill has no provi-
sions respecting limitations. The result of this
is that the six-year-rule will continue.
Turning to the other general principles of
the existing Act which have been changed,
the present Act sets out a procedure for elec-
tion of officers and approval of bylaws which
is inconsistent with the concept of a secret
ballot. For instance, in the election of officers
of the association, the statute prescribes the
form of the ballot and requires the member's
signature thereon. The bill has been amended
to provide for secret ballots in such instances.
The present statute provides for tlie elec-
tion of administrative officials such as the
secretary, the treasurer, and the auditors of
the association. This procedure is completely
unworkable, particularly where full-time staff
is required. The position of secretary is a
full-time position. Also, in the appointment
of auditors, the present provisions are out-of-
date and the new bill provides for the ap-
pointment of such officials by the association.
Another unworkable principle of the exist-
ing Act is that a member cannot be suspended
for arrears of dues unless those arrears have
accumulated for a period of six years. This
period is being reduced to a terni of six
months.
It has been understood that surveyors have
not been permitted to incorporate their prac-
tices. This principle has been clarified and
modified to provide for such incorporation.
Of course, this new development is subject
to a number of controls designed to protect
the public by ensuring that a quafified sur-
veyor is responsible for the survey work per-
formed. A corporation wall be required to
obtain a licence and such licences will be
available only where it is one of the principal
or customary functions of the corporation to
engage in professional land surveying. Also,
such corporations will be required to conduct
the practice of professional land surveying
under the responsibifity and supervision of a
member of the association. In addition, a
corporation may be licenced only where a
majority of each class of shares is owned
by such association.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the members of
this House will find these remarks of assist-
ance in understanding the principles of this
new bill which have been designed to pro-
vide greater protection for tlie public, and
modernization of the association.
May I also add, Mr. Speaker, that all mem-
bers of the surveyors' association have been
provided with copies of tliis proposed legis-
lation, and that the projwsed legislation was
considered at the last annual meeting of the
association held about a month or so ago, and
MAY 14, 1969
4393
that they were in favour of this new legisla-
tion.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on
the principle of The Surveyors Act, 1968-
1969, I do so with great fears and trepida-
tion.
Mr. Speaker, the USSR is run on the prin-
ciples of Marxism as interpreted by Lenin;
China is run on the saying of Chaimnan
Mao Tse Tung, and I have a great fear that
henceforth the province of Ontario is going
to be run by the recjommendations of Mr.
Justice McRuer. I am not trying to criticize
Mr. Justice McRuer, but sitting here and
listening to recommendation after recom-
mendation being-
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): He is in
good company with Marx and Mao.
Mr. Ben: —being rhymed off— 29, 30, and
31—1 ask myself when was McRuer's head
anointed that made him infallible, that made
every one of his recommendations gospel, and
which no one dares to question?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What
is wrong with the recommendations?
Mr. Ben: All right, I am asked what is
wrong with the recommendations. Let me
point out some of tlie inconsistencies brought
out in this Act, as soon as the cackle to the
left dies out.
One of the recommendations that Mr.
Justice McRuer made was that the ethnic
background, race, religion, and so on, or
nationalit>', should not be a bar to joining an
association. Fine! I think we accept that. But
tell me, Mr. Speaker, do you think it is con-
sistent that at the same time you say that only
skill and ability should be a criterion for
membership, you say that a man's background
can be a bar to him being a member of the
council tliat governs that association. Where
is the consistency?
What makes a man better qualified to sit
on council because he had applied and
received his Canadian citizenship than he
was the day before, when he had only up to
that time expressed his desire to be a Cana-
dian citizen? Does he become that mueh more
qualified or eUgible? A man may be the best
qualified surveyor, the most dedicated mem-
ber of society, the most outstanding com-
munity worker-
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I think there
is a turkey out in the hallway.
Mr. Ben: Well, the member can go pluck
the turkey, if it is out in the hallway, other-
wise just listen.
What makes a man unqualified to be on
council? He has distinguished himself — he
could have distinguished himself as a com-
munity worker, as a philanthropist. He could
have expressed time and time again his love
for tliis country, both physically and orally.
He could have proven his qualifications over
and over again, to be a member of the
association— and, in fact, he could have been a
member of the association for a number of
years.
He was the best qualified to be a director,
a member of council, but they say to him:
"No, you cannot be a member of council,
because you are not a Canadian citizen or
other British subject".
Why not, if, as the NDP expressed through
the member for Lakeshore, there is nothing
iniquitous about this section, if there is not
prejudice? Why the wording "or other British
subject"? Why was not the criterion simply
that he be a Canadian citizen? I say to you
it stinks of discrimination. It stinks to high
heaven. And the NDP say that there is no
distinction. They say that Canadian citizens
and British subjects ought to be given pre-
ference over all the other hundreds of thous-
ands—and millions— who are in this country.
They say it through the mouthpiece of the
member for Lakeshore. Let them deny it.
Now, there is another inconsistency, Mr.
Sipeaker—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ben: Under The Solicitors Act, a
solicitor, a lawyer, cannot sit on a jury. He
is barred from sitting on a jury, because
juries are supposed to decide on the facts,
as distinguished from points of law. The
judge rules on the law, and the jury decide
on the facts.
Now, in this particular instance, because
McRuer suggested that there be two laymen
on these councils, it is written into the Act
that one of them be a barrister and a
sohoitor. I do not know why he just could not
be a barrister, or why he just could not be
a solicitor. Why does he have to be both a
barrister and a solicitor, unless perhaps the
hon. Minister did not recognize any distinc-
tion? Although I, as the member for Lake-
shore has interpected, am both— but there
are many members of the legal profession
who are not both, who are only solicitors.
Would a man have to be both? First of all,
why should there be a lawyer when it is
4394
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
almost an ingrained principle in our juris-
prudence that lawyers should not sit on
juries? Would not the disciplinary committee
be sitting as a jury to rule on the qualifica-
tions of the member before them, or to deter-
mine whether he had acted unprofessionally?
A lawyer is the last person you would want
on there because you are deciding facts.
Secondly, if so, why would he have to be
both a barrister and a solicitor? Why should
it not suffice that he be a solicitor, if he is
advising only on tiie law?
Thirdly, why does he have to be a member
of at least ten years' standing of the bar of
Ontario? If a person wants to specialize in
legislati\e law of the kind indicated in The
Suneyors Act and he spends three, or four,
or ri\e years specializing in this type of law,
is he less qualified than a member of the pro-
fession of at least 12 years' standing, or 15
years' standing, who has nexer stuck his nose
into The Surveyors Act? Why that distinction?
I do not see it.
Wh\' applaud all the reasons given by the
Minister for bringing in this bill? I applaud
the whole wide breadth of civil rights that
Mr. Justice McRuer has opened to the eyes
of the public, but the fact is that there are,
in this bill, a few inequities, a few injustices,
a few discriminations, which ought not to
exist in a piece of legislation passed by this
House.
I do beseech the hon. Minister to give con-
side ration to some of those points before this
bill is brought back into this House for clause
by clause consideration.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, having heard
those drippings of wisdom proceeding in
honeyed tones from the mouth of the member
for Humber, I then suppose we can proceed
to analyze the merits or demerits of the legis-
lation.
I would just say a word about what he said:
he perfomis the oddest mental somersaults
while swinging on his own homemade trapeze.
At one end of the scale he takes exception on
the point of British subjects; which on the
contrary I would think throws the net fairly
wide, to people as far away as Australia who
wish to come here in the surveying profession,
people in Malta, to a wide diversity of indi-
viduals in Jamaica, and elsewhere in the
world—
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): How about
Niagara Falls?
Mr. Lawlor: And then he swings to the
other end of the somersault. He says: "Why
not make it Canadian citizenship?" That ex-
cludes, does it n')t, the very people he wants
included. And, I would think that the reason
as set out by McRuer, as he sets out in his
book, that the board itself be composed of
British subjects, is a kind of guarantee that
they be acquainted with our traditions, laws,
and modes of government; and to know in an
habitual way, almost imconsciously, how we
go about these things. Until they are so
acquainted, it ma\' be somewhat of a question
as to whether they ought to be the go\ern-
ing members in any particular profession. I
mean, it is a moot point to say the least, but
to take such a strong stand on a matter of that
kind seems somewhat insensible.
May I say a word, from this side of the
House, of congratulations to the Minister. The
Minister presented this bill the way I ha\e
never heard a bill presented in the Flouse
previously in my term of office. He stood up
in a wa>' that I think is highly commendable,
and in the way a bill should be presented to
this House.
A Minister stands up, he does not lea\'e it
to us over here to give the ramifications, to
go through it point by point, to take the 31
points set forth in McRuer and see to what
extent they have been adhered to, given
cognizance. May I say, in passing, there is
no subservience, there is no excessive in-
tellectual humility involved, particularly in
affirming the points that the former Mr.
Justice McRuer makes. There need be noth-
ing like that.
What he says is, in most instances, eminent
common sense, and he says it in a very clear
and explicit way. He has the whole panoply
of British tradition and concepts of justice.
Whatever an Irishman may think about
Britain, at least he has that to commend it.
Whether they practise what they preach is a
different question. But the fact is that the
tradition is there and it is a goodly corpus. It
is something that ought to be given adherence
to. To simply stand up and say that this man
McRuer is considered as some Mosaic code,
or something like that, is just nonsense.
He is subject to critique? The whole first
volume of his work is subject to the gravest
kind of critique. We have not got around to
it yet, but we will do shortly. And in this
human rights area. It will all come out as to
where the tendencies, the biases and the false
emphases stand. He has the merit or the
demerit, such as you consider it, to be a
member of the legal profession, to be trained
in that rather arcane tradition which, while
broadening a man in some ways, narrows him
MAY 14, 1969
4395
down by inches in others, and he may end
up a pygmy rather than a god at the end of
the day, simply having been exposed to that
sort of thing.
But, on the whole, I think we can give
this man nothing but credit. We are the
most fortunate of people, that a man, at the
sunset of his life, be given a task of this
kind to which he is wholly equal. What
other jurisdiction that you know of has been
so gifted, so disposed, as to have a McRuer
to winnow through the legislation in this
province, having had the leisure, having had
the vast experience to be able to stand back
and look at these things objectively and to
show us which is the path into our future.
To attack him on that score seems to me to
do less than justice to the man himself and
to his cause.
But to get back to the bill. The Minister,
as I say, has saved us a good deal of trouble
by doing his job in a positive way and
going over it clause by clause. I have some
misgivings about the in-camera aspect and
the modification mentioned by the Minister,
the basic proposition in McRuer being that
the normal proceeding in our theory of law
is public hearings.
But if he wishes to have an in-camera
hearing then it may be done. To deputize
the further power over to the governing
body is questionable. But I cannot imagine
what conceivable subject would come up
under The Surveyors Act in contradistinction
to The Juvenile Delinquents Act, which the
Minister mentioned, which would require
this. What conceivable circumstance would
arise which would require hearings to be in
camera?
If we are subject to pillory, then so be it.
If it is a case of trying to hide dirty Hnen by
professional bodies under closets I do not
think that is in the cause of the openness
that our system dictates. In any event, it is
a minor point and I do not desire to dwell
upon it.
I notice that in the section having to do
with the definition of a surveyor, and the
offences arising out of that, if anybody uses
the title of "Ontario land surveyor", or uses
any additional abbreviation to it, or uses the
designation "surveyor", or any words, name
or designation that will lead to the belief that
he is a member of the association, he can
be subject to a very severe penalty.
I would have the Minister remember what
happened the other day in the House here
under The Land Titles Act, where we expli-
citly excluded surveyors, or at least we made
it no longer necessary that surveyors, under
any form of designation, would necessarily be
employed by the land titles office.
I think we all call them surveyors. I sup-
pose if they, in any way, hold themselves
out to be such, from now on, they could be
subject to the penalties of this proposed Act.
In other words, what I am saying is that
the definition of "surveyor", they are certainly
jealous of the use of the word. I would have
thought it was fairly common, but they want
to give it a very close definition, preserving
it to their own field.
I wonder how legitimate that is, when
people who are draftsmen and working in
the area of surveys would, by ordinary nom-
enclature, be called surveyor. But, again, I
suppose there could be some merit in this
particular verbal jealousy. I would like to
hear what the Minister has to say about it.
The trouble is, in a division of labour,
under a sociological theory of the division of
labour, that every group tends to gamer to
itself in a known and narrow fashion, the
terminology which is fairly common through-
out the population. I think we should resist
that possibility.
The other matter that I wanted to mention
is that while there is "aitided students" set
forth here, and the terms of their articling and
things of that kind, there is no provision made
for the representation, as such; for those who
are being so trained in the association. I
would think that in an association of this
kind it may not be necessary, but for any
surveyors, for any professional association that
may hear these words, I would ask them to
take that under advisement, and that the
articled students be given some role.
There is a problem of bonding. Not all
these professional Acts have mentioned bond-
ing, and it seems to be a fairly deep-rooted
thimg; to have been around a long time his-
torically in this particular Act. It is mentioned
in section 17, subsection 18, that to become
a recognized sur\^eyor you have to enter into
a depositive bond. For years this bond was
placed in the hands of the Treasurer of the
province of Ontario.
Under section 32 you have changed that
and the Treasurer is now going to release all
these bonds on deposit with him and they
will be turned over to the association itself.
What is the point in these bonds? What do
they affect, that each individual should be
bonded in this way? Again it does not apply
to my own profession. I suspect it is an
4396
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
anomolous thing within the 5mrveyors' pro-
fession. I have no recall that it is ever men-
tioned in the po-ofessional engineers proposed
bill either. I suspect it is a hangover from
the past, and should be scrutinized with a
view perhaps to taking it out.
I feel that these are the major items that
perhaps the Minister has not dwelled upon
as he went over the bill with a degree of
refinement, and on sitting down, 1 again
conunend him.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East):
Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult in a bill
of this type to figure out exactly what is
within order insofar as second reading is con-
cerned in principle, and what is very close
to dealing with the matter on a sietion-by-
section basis.
So today, if I nught, I would pose through
you to the Minister, a question as to whether
or not, in relation to section 7 and section
13, we will have an opportunity of discussing
their purport in some detail, without feehng
that in any way we are foreclosed from
debating them perhaps more thoroughly to-
day, on a section-by-section approach.
Hon. Mr. Bitinelle: I woidd think this
opportunity would be given. I would think,
this bill would go to the committee on legal
bills.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to this bill? Does the
Minister wish to .say anything further?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second
reading of Bill 122.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN
SUFFERING FROM MENTAL OR
EMOTIONAL DISORDERS
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves second reading of Bill 138, An Act
respecting facilities for children suffering frootn
mental or emotional disorders.
Mr. Lawlor: On a point of order in con-
nection with this bill, my first point is that
this bill largely embodies, almost word for
word throughout, the same words and clauses
contained in another bill. Bill 130, "An Act
to provide procedures governing the exercise
of statutory powers granted to tribunals by
the Legislature wherein the rights, duties or
privileges of persons are to be decided at
or following a hearing".
That bill was introduced by the hon. Attor-
ney General, and has, as you know, Mr.
Speaker, been placed over in this House for
consideration for hearings, for the attendance
of all interested people, for our perusal, to
being given diought to on this side of the
House, and for representation by the general
public. It has been placed over, we under-
stand, for the rest of this session.
Now, this other bill, which I say is almost
the embodiment of it, but applied to a par-
ticular Minister's department, comes before
us today. I would ask that the bill be put
over, at least until the Attorney General is
present in this HoiLse.
That is my point of order, that it does
affect, explicitly and directly, the role of the
chief law officer of the Crown in the province,
and he should be here during this debate, if
the debate goes on at all. I would ask that
it be stood down during the period of time
so that he may hear what is said on all
aspects of this legislation.
Mr. Lewis: If I may, on the point of order,
speaking both to you, sir, and to the leader
of the House, it is not very often that re-
quests of this kind are made and they are
frankly made in the hope of facilitating dis-
cussion. It is our feeling by way of the
clauses of the bill, and there are a number
under discussion, that they affect very directly
matters within the purview of the Attorney
General. We would be most appreciative,
sir, if the Attorney General could be in the
House when second reading was discussed-
much as the way the debate in this House
was facilitated by the Attorney General being
present on the second reading of The High-
way Traffic Act and its subsequent discussion
in committee. There is no hesitation about
discussing second reading; it is just a request
that we would make in terms of a much
more useful debate on the bill.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
ber. Is the hon. member going to speak to
this point, or the bill?
Mr. Ben: Both, the point first.
Mr. Speaker: Would he confine himself to
the point raised by the hon. member for
Lakeshore?
Mr. Ben: I am at a loss to understand
how the member for Lakeshore can say that
this bill is almost identical in wording to
Bill 130.
I
MAY 14, 1969
4397
Mr. Lawlor: The member has not read it.
He should read it.
Mr. Ben: I do wish the hon. Minister of
Health would give him a free pass to his
clinic.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 130 deals with tribunals
and administrative matters. Bill 138 starts
off by stating that the Minister may, with
the approval of the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council, establish and operate one or more
children's mental health centres. I do not
find in Bill 130 any empowering of the Attor-
ney General, either alone or with the approval
of the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council, to
establish any type of health centres whatso-
ever, mental or otherwise.
Mr. Lewis: We are not arguing that.
Mr. Ben: The other sections go on to deal
with the establishment of these types of
facilities. Simply because, subsequently in
the legislation, certain safeguards of indi-
vidual rights are considered, and are in line
with what may be suggested in Bill 130,
which is what should be done anyway, does
not mean that we ought not to discuss Bill
138.
Mr. Lewis: We did not say that; we would
like the Attorney General present.
Mr. Ben: I cannot see why the Attorney
General should be here, notwithstanding that
they may like him to be present, Mr. Speaker.
As you well know, I had a couple of ques-
tions of the Attorney General today. I too
would have liked him to be present. Un-
fortunately, he is not here and I do not
think that should preclude the discussion of
an Act that deals with matters that pertain
to The Department of Health.
Mr. Speaker: Of course, the order of gov-
ernment business in the House is the respon-
sibility of the House leader, and before I
make any ruling or express any opinion on
the present request of the hon. member for
Lakeshore, perhaps the Minister might have
something to say, or the leader of the govern-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to speak to this point of order. First of
all, it amazes me that there is such a blatant
show of inconsistency on the part of the hon.
member for Lakeshore. The hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests has just recited exactly
the same terms embodied in his Act. Indeed,
he made direct reference to Bill 130. May I
point out to you, sir, that the Attorney Gen-
eral is fully cognizant of what is in this bill^
indeed, it was drafted in close consultation
with him and with his deputy and the other
officers of the Crown by my own departmen-
tal solicitor. There is no need for a bill of
this kind to be set over, and I agree with
the hon. member for Humber that it should
be debated now.
Mr. Speaker: I, myself, would agree with
the submission of the hon. member for Hum-
ber, and the remarks of the hon. Minister,
and since it is within the power of the gov-
ernment House leader to order government
business, I would rule that we would proceed
with the second reading debate on Bill 138.
The hon. member for Lakeshore has thei
floor.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, to keep the
record straight in this particular regard, and
touching on the overall implications of the
bill, section 2 of this bill is a direct and
word-for-word reduplication of section 8,
section 3 is a reduplication of section 9, and
section 4 is a reduplication of section 10. We
can go through the whole bill in this par-
ticular way, Mr. Speaker. I accept your rul-
ing, but I want to point out that this whole
bill is in substantial part a reworking of a
bill which has been placed over for con-
sideration to a future time, at the request
of the Attorney General himself, so that it
may be given the full review it deserves. We
are in advance of the matter, so to speak, at
this time, in discussing this bUl, prejudging
the \vhole issue contained in Bill 130. There
is no point, if we pass this legislation, in
going on and reviewing Bill 130. Its import
is undercut by passing legislation which pre-
contains it. But if that is the way things
are to be, so be it. We will get on with the
bill. It is bad enough in itself.
May I say that the general principle of
the bill is wholly acceptable to us. There
should be facilities and a board in this prov-
ince to look after, care for, license, inspect
and give surveillance to the custody of men-
tally retarded children. There is no question
about it, it should have been here a long
time ago, and it is high time it was brought
into being. But there are other features of
the bill— other blatant, to use your term, sir,
features of the bill— which run directly coun-
ter to anything that either the Attorney Gen-
eral's bill, or McRuer, would countenance,
or has countenanced in express terms, as
being civil rights legislation of a high order.
I refer to the ex-parte injunction provisions
under this bill. I refer to running counter to
the provisions of The Expropriation Act
4398
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which we passed just before Christmas, ex-
empting and excepting yourself from that
particular area. And I refer to the last piece
of mockery that this Minister could design
in order to escape the full ramifications in
import of the so-called civil rights provisions
that he has incorporated in the bill, namely,
that the Minister has final and absolute
authority at the end of the day to wash out,
to nullify, to make meaningless everything
else he put in the bill, and I refer to section
14. How he can justify that piece of chican-
ery passes my limited imagination.
In any event, it is a thing Hke section 14
which brings into disrepute all pretensions of
seeking to safeguard the rights and liberties
of the subjects of this province. Just read tlie
section, the final clause in the section, "and
the decision of the Minister is final." They
may go through all the Acts, they may per-
form all the dances, they may rigorously
adhere to all the civil rights provisions that
have ever been designed by die mind of man,
but it all finally devolves upon the head of
one single creature— I almost said King Saul—
but in this case it is the Minister of Health.
Just what is the purpose of that? Just where
does he derive his authority, I mean in
terms of precedent, in terms of what McRuer
s-ays. From whence does he derive liis posi-
tion? Why did he insert that clause into the
bill? Why does he feel it is necessary?
Then, coming to the next clause 15, on the
business of ex-parte injunctions, I suppose
we see red when we hear about ex-parte in-
junctions. I think they are nefarious instni-
mentalities at best in the workings of the
law. There is a very narrow field in property
rights where a man may be seriously injured
in a very short period of time. One should be
able to go to court quickly to pick up an ex-
parte injunction. But then one does it under
very grave and severe terms. The law indemni-
fies that man against any ix)ssible injuries that
he may suffer as a result of your doing so.
But you do not indemnify anybody. You just
shut them up. This business of an ex-parte
injunction, what do you need it for? The
ex-parte injunction concept would only arise
in your department— and under the head of
tliis bill— in the event of a complete failure
and breakdown of the operation of your
department. In other words, your inspectors
could not have done their job, they would not
have done their job for a considerable period
of time, thereby forcing you to move in to
private property rights and to the operation
of the children's home with an injunction of
this kind— an ex-parte injunction.
I think >'ou tend to load yourself witli
prowesses and powers. I suppose as a Min-
ister of tlie Crown there is some effulgence
to be gained from all that. But your mind
grows intoxicated with the virulence of the
disease of power- if you are dam well going
to see that things are operated your way and
that Scotch finger— I hope that arouses his
ire— is placed on every forehead in this prov-
ince because you wish it to be so, why do
you not adhere to the standards, the criteria,
that have been set out explicitly at great cost
to this province in the conduct of your office,
or any office of the Crown, instead of con-
ferring upon yourself special graces, privileges
and immunities?
The Minister sliall occupy and operate
a centre, pending the outcome of the pro-
ceedings, and the judge may issue the
order when, in the opinion of the judge, it
is necessary for the best interests and pro-
tection of tlie children in the setting.
I think that ex-parte clause ought to be de-
leted from this bill.
The next point I wish to come to is your
opting out of the provisions of sections 25
and 40 of The Expropriations Act, tliat is the
sections having to do with notices and period
of time that have to elapse to give people
adequate opportunities for their hearing to
prepare themselves and so on. Here you
move in for the purposes of arranging alter-
native accommodations and treatment of chil-
dren under subsection 1:
The Minister may, notwithstanding sec-
tions 25 and 40 of The Expropriations Act,
1968-69, immediately occupy and operate
tire centre, or arrange for the centre to be
occupied and ojx?rated by a person or
organization designated by him for a period
not exceeding six months.
So you move in with a type of phalanx. I
mean the thing is almost Nazi.
Mr. Speaker, I feel a departure of breath
in tlie sort of splendid privileges tliis Min-
ister arrogates to himself. I therefore propose
to move— I move, seconded by Mr. S. Lewis
(Scarborough West), that the word "now"
in the motion before the House be delettxl,
and the words "this day six months" be
added so that the motion before the House
shall read that Bill 138, An Act Respecting
Facihties for Children Suffering from Mental
or Emotional Disorder, 1968-69, be read a
second time "this day six months".
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, naturally
I ask that this amendment be defeated.
MAY 14, 1969
4399
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
speak on tliis, but the amendment has jaot
been read yet.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the
hon. meml^er for Lakeshore and seconded by
the hon. member for Scarborough West, that
the word "now" in the motion before the
House be deleted, and the words, "this day
six months" be added so that the motion be-
fore the House shall read that Bill 138, An
Act Respecting Facilities for Children Suffer-
ing from Mental or Emotional Disorders,
1968-69, be read a second time "this day
si\ months".
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, we were discussing just yester-
day, under the estimates of The Department
of Social and Family Services, the crying need
for more facihties for emotionally disturbed
children. We were assured by the Minister of
that department that the problem that has
been called to his attention for so many
years was being solved. I would say it is
being solved in part by the provisions of this
bill that is before us. We have been con-
demning the government for their lack of
action and lack of policy in providing these
facihties and relying on the private sector-
or as some members choose to call it, the
pubhc private sector-to make available in
the community the facilities for emotionally
disturbed children which we, as Liberals, be-
lieve should be furnished by the government
in a series of public institutions.
I would agree with the member for Lake-
shore when he is specifically critical of some
provisions in this Act, particularly those pro-
visions that give unusual powers to the Min-
ister of Health to o\erride recommendations
made by the director and other boards men-
tioned in the Act. Surely this is a matter that
can be corrected in a democratic way in the
committee of this House or in the standing
committee which will deal with it, and receive
the views of those concerned from outside
the membership of the Legislature.
In my view, however, it is imperative that
the Legislature proceed with the considera-
tion of this particuhir bill. We believe that
one of the most glaring faults in government
policy-and particularly that part of policy
administered by the Minister of Health-is
that which is concerned with the subject
matter of this bill. I, for one, am disappointed
that it does not indicate that the government
is going to get into the business of providing
these facilities with more immediacy than I
am able to discern from the principle that is
contained herein. For these reasons, Mr.
Speaker, I think it is necessary that the bill
be supported and that the hoist motion that
has been put forward by the member for
Lakeshore on behalf of the NDP be defeated.
As I understand the rules, we do not vote
on the hoist but we simply vote whether or
not the bill shall now be read a second time.
When that motion is put before us we, as the
official Opposition, intend to vote for the
second reading of the bill. I believe that there
will be ample opportunity provided in the
committees, as I have already said, to be
critical of those individual areas which I
believe do not come up to the standards
which we must demand as we approach the
principle of the bill and its implementation,
as called for in the various sections.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak
on Bill 138, An Act respecting facilities for
children suffering from mental or emotional
disorders, I can only conclude that the hon.
member for Scarborough West seconded the
motion for a hoist out of courtesy in order
that the member might have a seconder.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, because when I
first came to this House in 1965, the first
thing I tried to do was familiarize myself with
what had occurred during the session which
had preceded my byelection.
In so doing, I was struck by the research
that had been carried out by the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough West and the speech he
had made touching on emotionally disturbed
and mentally ill children. If my memory
serves me correctiy, at that time it was he
who had first brought to the attention of this
House that it was estimated there were, in
the province of Ontario, between 250,000
and 500,000 emotionally disturbed and
mentally ill children.
The member, I am sure, will accept that
many of the arguments I presented at sub-
sequent dates for the provisions of services
for these children have perhaps been inspired
by him. In fact, when—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I just call it to
the hon. member's attention that while some
latitude is allowable, we are now debating
the amendment to the motion and not the
principle of the bill. We must try to stay
within reasons for either voting for, or oppos-
ing, the amendment which is now before the
House.
Mr. Ben: Will the Speaker permit me to
discuss both of tliem?
Mr. Speaker: No, just the amendment
4400
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Ben: Just the amemlment. Oh but,
Mr. Speaker, as has alrr;idy tx^en explained
by the—
\lr. Speaker: The hon. leader— and I was
listening very closely— did very nicely. He
started off to discuss the principle of the
bill, and then he came back to the amend-
ment to hoist the bill for six months. Now,
as I have explained, I will allow a certain
amount of latitude, but I will not allow this
to get into a debate on the principles of the
bill.
Mr. Ben: But, if I may, Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order. As I understand it, the
question that will be put to this Hou.se will
not be this motion. Tlie question will be:
Shall the bill now be read the second time?
Mr. Speaker: In actual practice, that is
what happens. But, in theory, the matter now
l>einp debated is whether the motion that the
bill be not now read a second time, but
read six months hence, as the case may be, is
the motion which is before the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order-
Mr. Nixon: Point of clarification. Surely, it
is not your intention to restrict the discus-
sion in the House on this \'erv important
piece of legislation, simply because an
amendment has been put forward that in fact
would hoist it for six months.
When, under other circumstances, could
we discuss the principle of the bill which
will probably, in the course of events, be
carried without discussion in principle, if we
were to accede to your direction?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I was on my feet
when the hon. leader took the floor. But
he said, in effect, what I wanted to say.
Does that appease your hurt feelings?
Mr. Nixon: What does it do to yours?
Mr. MacDonald: I suggest, Mr. Speaker,
for your consideration, that if you are going
to restrict debate on the substance of the
hoist amendment which presumably is
whether or not it should be done now or
later, in effect you are going to have no
debate on the second reading. But surely—
Mr. Speaker: I woidd agree entirely with
the leader of the Opposition and the leader
of the New Democratic Party; and I would
have thought that the members would have
considered this, and made their hoist motion
at a proper time, ratlier than endeavouring
to cut off debate on it because—
Order. I will give the members the oppor-
tunity to speak.
—because there is not any question that I
am urged by members, p;)rticularly on that
side of the House, to stick with the rules
of the House. The rules are there. A certain
amount of latitude is allowed on this dis-
cnission, but not a full discussion of the
principles of the bill be«iu^" that is not tlie
motion which is now before Mr. Speaker.
And, as far as I am concerned, one day I am
asked to enforce the rules, and the next day
I am told that it is going to cTit off debate
because I am enforcing the rules.
The rules are there, and everyone can read
them and interpret them how they wish,
whether it be the same way as Mr. Speaker
does or not.
So I agree entirely with the statement and
(submission of th-e hon. leiader of each
Ooposition party— that it would have the
effect of cutting off the debate on this
particular bill, so far as the principles of the
bill are concerned.
I have said, and I will maintain diat
position, that I will allow a reasonable amovmt
of reference to the original motion; but the
debate, at the moment, is not on that. The
debate is on the amendment to the motion.
Mr. Ben: On a point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Spe;iker, if I may
be-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South yielded me the floor, and I think
he is entitled to have it back.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, surely your
comment is a little precious. I take your
comments for what they are, a little lecture
that we have done it the wrong way. We
have made our bed, and we must now lie
in it. But I am not going to lie in it
widiout protest.
The practice in this Ho\ise. on many occa-
.sions, has been that this kind of amendment
is made, die piinciple of the bill and the
amendment are debated together. I am a Httle
puzzled as to why we have become so deter-
mined that the strici: letter of the law is going
to be lived up to on this particular occasion
when, in effect, you are going to rule out
any debate on second reading of the bill.
Many times in the past— I will have to go
back and search through the records— but
many times in the past, when such amend-
ments have been made, there has been a de-
bate on the principle of tlie bill and the
amendment; and when the debate ends, you
MAY 14, 1969
4401
vote on the main motion in the fashion that
has to be with this kind of an amendment.
Mr. Speaker: If I may just say, in answer
to the hon. member, that if he will also go
back through the records of the House, he
will find many records where, in tlie past
year or so, Mr. Speaker has been taken to
task for not enforcing the rules as they are.
There will be just as many of those references
as the ref(Tences to which he has spoken;
and therefore, at some time or other, Mr.
Speaker has to decide which of the pro-
cedures he will follow.
Mr. MacDonald: Why now?
Mr. Speaker: This is the first time that this
has come up in this session at least— when
there has been a debate of both. There was
one previous hoist motion, and it was con-
fined fairly well, to my recollection, to the
matter of the amendment.
Tihe hon. member for Humber.
Mr. Ben: Yes, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am
one of those at whom you could, in all justi-
fication, point a finger and say: He insists
that I follow ihe ]( ttcr of the law, or the rules
in this particular instance. And, Mr. Speaker,
being siuh a person, I am content to abide
by your ck cisicm in this matter, and I might
point out, in tliis particiilar instance, I am
on my feot on a point of order.
I do know, Mi. Speaker, that it is your
intention more to point out what the rules
are, than to r( strict debate; and that we
c^annot have our cake and eat it too.
Although I must say, Mr. Speaker, I regret
extremely that you should try to put me
into the NDP bttl. I am sure also that you,
and the members of this House, having had
brought to their attention, the rules as they
exist, would like to get out of this quan-
dary. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is it
permissil^le to ask the House for its unanimous
consent so that both the motion for the hoist
and the principles of the bill, on this occa-
sion, with imanimous consent of the House,
be discussed simultaneously?
Mr. Speaker: Well, there are two things
I would like to say to that. First of all, I
was going to suggest to the hon. member for
Humbi
er wiio was on
his feet at the time
Mr. Speaker rais( d the point, might continue
with his discussion. And, if Mr. Speaker felt
that he is straynig into far fields, he would
then again call Inm to order.
I thought that that might be a possible
way in this case of limiting the debate to a
reasonable debate under all the circiunstances.
But I have no objection, because the House
is supreme; if the House is agreed that we
should combine on this occasion, the two
debates, that is cjuite all right with Mr.
Speaker.
Is it so agreed?
Mr. Nixon: Certainly agreed over here.
Mr. Speaker: I can only hear with one ear
at the moment.
Mr. Ben: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member will
proceed.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, this is one of those questions. We
do not want to restrict debate and, on the
other hand, I do not want always to be put
in the position of bending the rules. We
either have rules, or we do not have rules. I
think your point is well taken, and I do not
propose to belabour this point; but surely
you must understand that you are trying to
get tiiis bill put off for six montlis which,
in effect, means removing it from the order
paper. You have veiy little interest in debat-
ing the principle, because you are trying to
remove it completely from the order paper.
But I do not care. I was not in the House
when the motion was made— but I think this
automatically follows from the procedure
composed.
I will agree to a wide open debate, if this
is what you want, but I do not do this in
the sense that we are establishing a precedent
that, each time this is done, we are going
to have to agree to a full debate when, in
fact, the whole puipose and intent of the
motion is to remove the bill from the order
paper. In which case you have no desire to
debate the principle, because you want to
get rid of it all.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon.
Prime Minister that earHer this afternoon the
leader of the official Opposition indicated
that he and his party would not support the
motion, as I understood at the time. Is that
correct? So that the remarks, as directed or
redirected, would not be to the hon, leader.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well whoever— I am
thinking more of principle.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say
that we, on this side, will agree to the
proposal you put before us, I have a fear
that is very similar to that expressed by the
Premier.
4402
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He is afraid that we are setting a prece-
dent; that, in the future, we will do this
each time.. And I am afraid that by asking
us to agree, which we are prepared to do
under these circumstances, we are setting a
precedent that, in fact, an amendment on
second reading must be discu.ssed, excluding
the principle in the bill.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That type of amend-
ment is only a hoist amendment.
Mr. Nixon: All right. I bring to your
attention sir, that the rules of the House were
changed even in my time here, and certainly
in yours. And there was a time when the
hoist amendment was considered as separate
from the actual motion for second reading.
If that were our method of procedure here,
I would well agree with you, sir, that, until
the amendment was dispensed with, or dis-
posed of in some way, that we should restrict
our discussions to that. But I believe it was
your predecessor who decided once, and an-
nounced from the Throne that we would not
do that in the future; that we would consider
that the amendment on second reading was,
in fact, not put as it was put by the hon.
member, but that decision as to whether the
bill would now be read a second time or not,
would be put to the House. And since that
change has taken place, I would hate you to
consider sir, that we were setting a special
precedent. Now in agreeing with your ruling,
sir, that, in fact, the one discussion pre-
cluded the other, this is my fear.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to speak to this. Surely the corollar\- of the
amendment for a hoist, since you ha\e your
vote on the main motion, is that you debate
the two of them at the same time.
Memory may be failing me, but m> re-
collection is that your predecessor indicated,
when we returned the regular parliamentary
tradition in handling this kind of an amend-
ment, namely that you vote on the main
motion, and in adopting it, you, in effect, kill
the amendment. But he indicated that both
would be dealt with at the same time.
However, I wonder as I listen to this
whether there is much point in arguing it
any further— because it would seem to me that
all the debate on the principle, if one is
opposed to the principle, will be an (indorsa-
tion in support of the hoist. So what is the
conflict?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have one
suggestion. Let us start with this premise;
we are not attempting to restrict debate in
the House, we are tn ing to find some way of
working within the rules. May I suggest, for
the purposes of this debate and this bill, that
we proceed with a wide-open debate.
In the meantime you might, sir, examine
the precedents established by your prede-
cessor that has been mentioned here, and we
will take a look at the situation. No doubt
we can come to some agreement, because
once we all understand the procedure, we will
not ha\e any difficulty.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, in the mo\ ing of a hoist motion, so
called in May under amendments to question
for second reading, there is the rather interest-
ing sentence— and I read it to the Prime
Minister:
The postponement of a bill in this
manner is regarded as the most courteous
method of dismissing the bill from further
consideration; as the House has already
ordered that the bill shall be read a second
time, and the amendment, instead of re-
\ ersing that order, merely appoints a more
distant day for second reading.
I think that sums up the position of our
hoist.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: But in fact it means it
is gone. You know that?
Mr. Lewis: Yes. But gone for re-drafting.
Mr. Speaker: May I sa\' that I think the
suggestions from all sides of the House are
sound. I will be most pleased, with the assist-
ance of the clerk, to look up the rulings. I
will not say that the nilings will commend
themsehes to the House at this time, because
circumstances do change cases; and this is
not the same House as there was in another
Parliament.
I would also suggest that we might pro-
ceed with the debate on this basis, perhaps
a little more restricted than has been
suggested. That is on the original basis that
T laid down to the hon. member for Humber:
that I would allow a reasonable latitude in
discussing the principle of the bill, while we
are discussing the hoist motion, or the amend-
ment. If tliat is agreeable the hon. member
for Humber has the floor.
Mr. Ben: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker,
T was trying to get your eye to say that I
think I can operate within the restriction set
by Your Honour, so that we would not put
ourselves in the embarrassing position of try-
ing to compromise oursebes.
MAY 14, 1969
4403
For instance, I can say that this House
ought to vote against the amendment, because
to do so— to vote in support of the amend-
ment—if it carried, would prechide us for the
next six months at least from discussing the
crying need for the proper licensing of the
operation of children's mental health centres,
for children who are mentally deficient or
emotionally disturbed. To support this amend-
ment would preclude us from doing that.
To support such an amendment, Mr.
Speaker, would preclude us from having the
Minister set up the necessary regulations for
governing the operation of these mental
health centres for mentally disturbed chil-
dren. And this would be a great setback
for any programme that the province might
wish to institute to look after, as the hon.
leader of the ofiRcial Opposition indicated,
the setting up of government-operated
mental health centres for children.
At the present time, these centres do not
exist; and they are needed very much. This
would also preclude us, Mr. Speaker, I
suggest, from disciissing in detail the sug-
gestion made by the hon. member for Lake-
shore that an ex-parte order involving the
mentally disturbed children and the condi-
tions under which they are raised or looked
after, would be out of order.
Surely we need some kind of a system
whereby the government can step in immedi-
ately to look after the children while the
lawyers earn their bread arguing for day after
day— whether or not the children have in fact
been properly looked after.
To give support to this amendment, Mr.
Speaker, would preclude us from doing that,
and would set back any programme for look-
ing after mentally disturbed or emotionally
disturbed children under proper circum-
stance.
I would think that is one of the crying
needs in this province — for some system
whereby the government can immediately
take action or to operate child health centres
while the litigation is going on. It is much
preferable to taking out the children com-
pletely, and having the centre fail as a com-
mercial enterprise, if we are going to have
them run as commercial enterprises, and then
find subsequently that the owner-operator of
this child health centre was completely
absolved.
I would much rather have an ex-parte order
go, having the government operate it tem-
porarily while the matter is pending before
the courts, than have the children removed
completely and the centre closed down.
I remember what happened in seme other
instances. So, if we support this amendment,
we just cannot discuss these points. I am
rather at a loss also, Mr. Speaker, to under-
stand why the hon. member would move this
amendment when he started off by saying
that he agreed with the principle of the bill.
He then started to give a lot of what in his
mind were shortcomings, or inequities in the
bill-
Mr. Lawlor: Do you agree they are?
Mr. Ben: —and if, in fact, tliey are, then
he should not agree with the principle. The
principle is lacking at any rate. There is one
thing thait I would charge, if I may use that
expression, your Honour, and thait is to note
the date and the time when the NDP tried
to impose closure on this House. So I would
recommend that this House oppose the
amendment.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
I support my leader in opposing a hoist to
this bill. I know there are a number of
things wrong with it— certainly section 15 and
section 21 are more or less illustrations of
the heavy hand of Tor>asm. There is too much
in this bill wrapped around the regulation;
and of course the ex-parte section that has
been mentioned in this debate is not a good
thing, but—
Mr. Lewis: It has just been applauded by
tlie member for Humber!
Mr. Trotter: —the essence of this bill is to
supply institutions for emotionally disturbed
children. We, on this side of the House, have
advocated this for a great length of time;
and to hoist this bill at this time, over some
of the things that are wrong with the bill,
would be throwing the baby out with the
bath water.
I am one of those who believe that govern-
ment should be the main participator in the
caring of emotionally disturbed children. And
just as we have advocated that the profit
should be taken out of health insurance, the
profit should be taken out of the care of
emotionally disturbed children.
Therefore this bill is the beginning, but it
does not go far enough. There are no indica-
tions that there is going to be immediate
action on the part of this government, and, if
the past is any indication of what is going to
be done in the future, progress is going to be
extremely slow, Mr. Speaker.
But in essence the bill is the beginning.
We certainly support the principle and as a
result, we will be opposed to the hoist.
4404
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lewis: VIr. Speaker, euriouslv enough,
some of the principles impintrini? on this bill
were covered during the estimates of The
Department of Social and Family Services
just yesterday afternoon, so I do not think it
is necessary to belabour it unduly.
I think that the position which this party
has taken is an eminently detensil)le one. We
ha\e said, sir. that we support the basic prin-
ciple that underlines the bill. We adxocate
a hoist, on second reading, in the hopes that
those principle's will be upheld, rather than
\iolated by certain pro\isions which the bill
contains. I think that is a reasonablx respon-
sible way of proceeding and I hardly think
one need be l)erated for it.
We support the principle of the bill, Mr.
Speaker, because it is useful and valid and
legitimate— and we have alreaciy said so— to
ha\e a regulatory function exercised by gov-
ernment in the field of residential treatment
centres or other children's facilities dealing
with those of mental illness and emotional
disturbance.
As the Sj^eaker knows, and the Minister
knows, and as members of this House know,
that object or function has been distributed—
almost proliferated— through a nimiber of
Acts, none of them exercised in a satisfactory
wa\', which has seriously hamstrung the field,
and had the total effect of inhibiting the
growth of sei-vices.
There is a Children's Boarding Homes Act
in this province which has exercised, or pre-
tended to exercise some control. There is a
Children's Institutions Act in this province,
which has done likewise, with c rtiiin sched-
ules under the regulations for certain institu-
tions. There is The Child Welfare Act, which
has its own area of jurisdiction and, when it
was scl up. established or allowed for estab-
lishment of an accreditation committee to
deal with these centres.
There are all of these Acts, one of them
o\erlapi)ing the other, and all of them having
the labyrinth (.liect, when- one sets up a
jungle of legislation which ultimately frus-
trated the purposes which were intended. So
that, when th(^ Minister comes in with an
Act of this kin.l, one is inclined to feel that
it th(i regulatory function is honourable, if
that is the intent, one can hardb' dispute its
worth.
1 would p >int out, Mr. Spi-akcr, that some
agencies in this pro\ incc-the Minister will
know of which I speak — not being able to find
succour or support from The Department of
Social and I-'amily Services, or The Depart-
ment of Health, or the two Ministers, have
had to go to the Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis) and the Provincial Secretaiy (Mr.
Welch) to be incorporated as a non-profit
pri\ate school, to find yet another avenue by
way of fimctioning appropriately in the field
of ser\ices to children.
One is frankly re1ie\ed to see that, in this
area, there is finally, perhaps, an indication
of feeling on the part of the government to
make some order out of the chaos which pre-
vailed. There are other members in my caucus
who, I hope, will participate and be rather
more explicit than I can on matters of legality.
There are certain aspects of the bill and
clauses which worry us very greatly.
I say to you, sir, that the provisions of the
bill which parallel the provisions of Bill 130
are to be questioned. Because, when the chief
of the judiciary in this province, the Attorney
General, introduces a bill which is to be a
model and then says to the public that it is
sufficiently contentious and controversial and
I want to hold it over for an entire year be-
fore I enshrine it in law, there is a certain
inconsistency when the Minister of Health
takes it upon himself to inconwrate similar
pro\'isions in his own bill.
The matter of the ex parte injunction is
something which is (luestionable. I agree with
the member for Parkdale in the Liberal
Party, not the member for Humber. The ex
parte injunction is an offensive feature of this
bill.
In other bills which the Minister has-for
instance, nursing homes, he makes provision
for the occupancy and operation, if circum-
stances warrant, without bringing in an ex
parte injunction. That seems to be an overly
defensive id ro position.
Thinking back to the fall of 1966, one
might ha\'e tliought it a moment of redemp-
tive guilt that puts this clause into the bill.
I do not know how else to account for it.
This Legi.slature also spent a considerable
period of time en.shrining the amendments to
The Expropriations Act, and thinking them
through with consideration, sees them as
having validity on a broad basis. Then the
Minister of Health sees fit to bring in a bill
which rides roughshod over the very heart
of The Expropriations Act and the provisions
which it embodies.
On top of that, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to point out, sir, that I do not think-I can
stand to be corrected— but I do not think
there is another bill in the entire legislative
process which establishes a board of review
with full authority and power to rule and
MAY 14, 1969
4405
once that ruling has been handed down,
allows the Minister to rescind the ruling. I do
not know of another piece of legislation, any-
where^ in any department, where that is true.
I say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker— I say
to him without any particular anger, but with
some feeling— that that is an exceedingly anti-
civil libertarian clause. All his colleagues
have eschewed such a clause. If the Minister
himself establishes a board of review for
legislation, and it fulfils that precise func-
tion, then to arrogate to himself a supreme
Olympian authority to overrule the decision
is to raise a great many questions about the
nature of the intent.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just point
out sir, that the regulations in this bill fair
boggle the mind. I would challenge the
Minister to produce another bill where the
regulations are so all-embracing in their
effect. Everything in this bill is contingent on
regulations. There is nothing-
Mr. Ben: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I tried to restrict myself from going into the
principles of this bill because of the closure
that was imposed by the NDP, and then
we find the party that imposed the closure
going into the principle of the bill. Not
absolutely kosher.
Mr. Lewis: I am trying to abide by the
Speaker's ruling. If I am not—
Mr. Ben: If I speak again I shall speak
to the principle of the bill.
Mr. J. Remvick (Riverdale): The hon.
member does not listen to him.
Mr. Lewis: Well, that is fair enough. The
member for Humber has his privileges as I
would like to exercise mine by finishing the
point I was making.
Mr. Speaker: I would say that the member
for Humber has a well taken point. I would
hope that the member for Scarborough West
would consider it as he continues with his
remarks.
Mr. Lewis: I am talking, Mr. Speaker, to
both the amendment and the principle, as
was agreed upon in this instance.
Mr. Ben: On a point of order, that was not
the agreement. No, Mr. Speaker said that we
were going to follow his suggestion to speak
to the amendment, and if we did not stray
too deeply into the principles he would not
rise.
Mr. Lewis: Well, I point out to you, sir,
that the amendment was put precisely be-
cause these features of the bill made us feel
that it was ncessary to put the amendment.
We would like to refine the bill to make it
operate in ways which are rather more effec-
tive, and one of those ways would be to
make the regulations rather more explicit.
It is seldom that one gets a bill which is as
denuded in content and is so contingent in
its expression on regulations, which this
House, of course, will not see until they are
promulgated, and which this House will
never have a chance to debate.
Basically, then, Mr. Speaker, our motives
for the amendment and our view of the bill
derives from a feeling that the bill is pre-
occupied with repressive features. If one looks
at all the clauses that are included in the
Act, only two or three of them are positive,
and one is necessarily, therefore, suspicious
of the motives. Not to the point where one
would say a regulatory function was not war-
ranted; but concerned about the motives that
underlie the bill— the dark alarums that lurk
in the mind of the Minister; even to the
imposition of fines.
I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that
even section 19, which was to portend so
much, upon which the press and media im-
mediately fastened when the biU came out,
a section which suggested that the Minister
would now begin to pay for services for
emotionally disturbed children, is also essen-
tially a fraudulent section. It merely en-
shrines in legislation a practice which has
now been followed for more than a year.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker,
that the vast majority of children in the
province who will be referred to centres for
the emotionally disturbed will continue to be
wards of children's aid societies and the
money will continue to come through The
Department of Social and Family Services.
The Minister of Social and Family Services
(Mr. Yaremko) confirmed that in this Legis-
lature yesterday afternoon.
So I suggest to you, sir, that if anything of
substance is portened in section 19 by way of
payment, the numbers concerned can be
counted on the fingers of both hands. Let me
assure you, Mr. Speaker, that section 19
will hardly be a drain on the public treasury.
And then, Mr. Speaker, I would have
wished a different kind of bill, if I may put
it that way to the Minister. I would have
wished for a bill, Mr. Speaker, which was
generous, creative, extending and co-opera-
tive with the agencies in the field. I would
4406
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have felt that a bill which was prompted
by generosity and the obvious intent to act,
would have been a far more significant con-
tribution to the needs of disturbed children
than a bill which is obsessed with boards of
review, ex-parte injunctions. The Expropria-
tion Procedures Act, and the generally repres-
sive features which characterize it.
It was said when the bill emerged on first
reading that there was a sense of vendetta
in the bill. I choose not to believe that, I
choose not to believe that, and that did not
particularly underlie the amendment. But I
do say to you, sir, that the bill has not lived
up to what the Minister's white paper sug-
gested many, many months ago— indeed I
guess it is some two years— ago now. Be-
cause, in the provision of services and facili-
ties for emotionally disturbed children in the
province of Ontario, there has been barely
niarginal evidence of progress in this Min-
ister's tenure— barely marginal evidence.
The only concrete evidence has been tlie
extension, as was indicated before, in the
field which a great many people regard as
pernicious, the concentration on the Ontario
hospital system. The great network of
regional diagnostic and treatment centres
which was supposed to characterize this
province by the years 1968 and 1969 is no-
where to be seen. So the children's aid
societies can still say, for the current year,
that between 800 and 1,000 children who
are disturbed are in inappropriate facilities
because there is no place for them.
Mr. Speaker, how can a bill of this kind
then make the pretense it has made? It is
indicated that most of the sections do not
deal with die expansion of services; the one
section that deals with financing will apply
to only a minority of individuals. I would
point out to you, sir, that the one section,
section 3, which says "The Minister with the
approval of the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council may establish, and operate, one or
more children's mental health centres" is an
ob\ious affront to the members of the House.
In the Budget statement of the Provincial
Treasurer, it was indicated that additional
capital grants for institutions for emotionally
disturbed children would be curtailed.
So there is no money going to be appro-
priated under that section anyway. So one
asks: what is left to the bill? What is left
of what amounts to an emasculated bill,
except for what one hopes and would like to
believe, is a basically well motivated principle
of providing for some regulation in tlie field.
Perhaps, Mr. S^x-aker, I can end the pro-
lX)sition this way: there are more agencies
than I can name who are faced wkh the
dilemma every day of the week of having to
turn away very severely disturbed children,
because there is no funding available from
government, other than through children's
aid societies.
I made some enquiries— if the House will
forgive me i>ersonal references, because I
tliink they are pertinent— to the bill. I note
with interest that in the case of Browndale,
which was mentioned yesterday, and men-
tioned on first reading of the bill, a referral
came from the Guelph social and family
.services to place a 15-year-old adolescent boy
who had already been to court, and was in
very serious difficulty with an extreme dis-
turbance. But there is no funding for him
anywhere.
And I have on file from the director of that
agency, who wrote to me about it, a letter
of extreme distraction on his part: that the
life of this boy should go down the drain
because there is no funding available any-
where in government.
As I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Speaker,
to the House, these private agencies in the
public sector have been taking the load off
government all along.
I am not exactly sure of the date when this
bill was introduced— maybe the Minister can
remind me— but I belie\e it was within 48
houi-s of it being introduced, on April 21, the
agency to which I referred received a sub-
mission, from The Department of the Attor-
ney General, no less, to take another 15-year-
old adolescent boy into treatment; and re-
quested the agency to take the boy at no
cost, because there were no funds available
from goxernment. This, from the Attorney
General, the Minister's colleague in the Cab-
inet, going to a pri\ate agency, in the public
sector, to seek serxices.
Mr. Speaker: I wcnild like to point out to
the hon. member that, whether there are
funds a\ailable from the government for fimd-
ing or not, has nothing whatsoever to do with
the principle of the bill. The principle of the
bill apparently would be tliat the government
would make it available, and that is some-
thing over which the hon. member has no
control.
So I rule his remarks, in that regard, en-
tirely out of order, and ask him to proceed
to try and relate what we are talking en now,
also to the amendment which is placed before
the House by his party.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there are two key
clauses in the bill; one of them referring to
MAY 14, 1969
4407
capital outlay for expansion and the other
referring to particular funding for services.
Direct clauses of the bill. And those clauses
of_the bill-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not dis-
cussing the clauses of the bill. He is discuss-
ing the Provincial Treasurers Budget and
various other things. And they do not, in my
opinion, refer properiy to the matter under
discussion. I would rule that that discussion
is out of order.
Mr. Lewis: I accept your stricture.
Mr. Ben: Do I understand you correctly,
Mr. Speaker, when you permitted me to
speak, you stated that I must speak only to
the amendment, that I could not speak on
the principle of the bill; but if I did not stray
too far from the amendment, you would not
interfere. Is that not correct?
Mr. Speaker: That is exacdy what Mr.
Speaker said.
Mr. Ben: Then why, I suggest, did Mr.
Speaker n :)t maintain this?
Mr. J. Renwick: Because it makes no sense.
Mr. Lewis: It is the first time in my mem-
ory in this Legislature, it goes back only to
1963, that second reading of a bill had been
so constricted.
Mr. Ben: The member did it. He was re-
sponsible for it.
Mr. MacDonald: The rules of the House
do not permit debate. It is simple as that
according to the Speaker.
Interjections by h )n. members.
Mr. Lewis: Well, we have debated many
hoist motions in this House in the past five or
six years, Mr. Speaker, and I can frankly never
remember this kind of stricture on second
reading of a bill when I am applying direcdy
to the principles that are contained, and
directly on point.
All right. I shall accept the Speaker's inter-
vention, and obviously, I have regard for the
Speaker's intervention. I shall not pursue it.
The basic point that I am trying to make
is that request for facilities continues to be
desperate— not only from individuals and
families, but from agencies and from depart-
ments of government.
Mr. Nixon: Your six months' hoist is going
to correct that.
Mr. Lewis: Yes, because I really do not
believe that in the content of the bill, as it is
presently drafted, any significant alterations
will be made in the situation. I am hoping
that if the regulatory function is honourable,
if that is the intent, then, in a re-drafting pro-
cess over the next three or four months, a
different kind of bill can be brought in. That
is what we are advancing, Mr. Speaker.
I came back to the point I made initially.
What should animate this field, and this bill,
is a spirit of generosity. I can say to the Min-
ister with confidence that I know that all the
groups in the field, who are profoundly in-
volved, would join with him in whatever he
wanted to do by way of government to ex-
pand the services, and to provide the funding,
and to initiate appropriate regulations. And if
that is what this bill does, then there can be
no cavilling. But the content of the bill, Mr.
Speaker, as it presently indicated, suggests
that there will be considerable qualification
en that. So one is put in the difficult dilemma
of recognizing the bare kernel of a principle,
but wondering about all the trappings which
surround it and ensnare it.
I hope, sir, that we are perhaps wrong in
our assessment and that what the bill will
do, of course, is to open up the flood gates to
services for children.
Mr. Bukator: I have sat and listened for
about 50 hours to the champions of the
people, because the individuals wanted sup-
ix)rt, wanted protection, wanted help, wanted
assistance. Finally a bill comes in by this
Minister, too little maybe, and too late, but
tlie facts are before us, and I have never
heard two arguments, Mr. Speaker, as sound
as the last two that I have heard. The member
for Scarborough West, and the member for
Lakeshore, both complimented sections of
this bill, and diey believe that if the principle
were the only thing that we were voting on,
then we would support this bill. They, the
champions of the poor, come here this after-
uoon and move an amendment to hoist. I have
never in my experience in this House heard
any individual-
Mr. J. Renwick: It has nothing to do with—
Mr. Bukator: I would keep my bassoon
shut if I Were you. I did not interfere when
they were talking.
I sat and listened and listened; and I tell
vou I was boiling within, because I have
never seen anybody take white and make it
look black as the last speaker did, never in
my experience in this House. The very sec-
tion that would make me support this bill is
4408
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
section 3, and he said tliat is the one tliat
ought to be ehminated. Let me read it be-
cause he did:
Mr. Lewis: No, no, I said the Budget con-
tradicted it.
Mr. Bukator: Oh, is that right? But the
section is excellent, and it is in this bill,
and it has to be voted on. I am sorry it was
not three years ago because this bill will
bring about the very thing that this province
needs. I have never seen anything like it.
The champions of the people all of a sudden
said hoist the bill, set it aside, as a matter
of fact, eliminate it. I have never seen any-
thing like it before.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: Well, I am going to tell you
that diere is a small institution taking care
of about 12 people in my riding-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: There is a small institution,
a group of people taking care of about 12
emotionally disturbed children in the sana-
torium in St. Catharines, and what a great
job tliose people are doing for those young-
sters. I was there when tlie Minister opened
that particular institution, and this bill is
going to bring around similar institutions for
other youngsters who need it, and need it
badly. The bill ought not to be debated
any further, but passed immediately and let
us get on with he job.
I must say again I have never in all my
experience in this House watched a group
of people who claim they are going to help-
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Your personal feelings are not what is import-
ant here.
Mr. Bukator: That was a good interjection
because I say to you that personal feelings
are the things that are involved here. The
mentally disturbed youngsters of our province
are affected here.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Why
has the government not looked after them?
Mr. Bukator: That is what they want to do
with this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: If any supposed hon. mem-
ber of this House can show me how by
hoisting this bill the Minister can bring about
the institutions they want, then I will go for
the hoist.
Mr. Lawlor: You can change some of these
clauses-
Mr. Bukator: I say this particular bill, I
can overlook certain sections tliat I do not
agree with. We are coming back to this sec-
tion by section, and some of tliese intelligent
beings who want these sections changed
may, Mr. Speaker, get them amended. So
we have anotlier chance at this bill.
But never have I had such an experience
as the one I have had. What a performance!
Talk about putting them through their paces,
and I wonder why.
Let me tell you that I think I know tlie
reason. Never have I seen this eloquent
speaker, the member for Scarborough West,
get up and compliment the Minister on some
of the sections, and say this is long overdue.
Nc\cr liave I seen him say to this House,
"We ought to have had it, but I do not like
the regulations that you have not as yet
drafted". I wonder how many times the
memhers of tliis House turned a bill down
because the regulations were not drafted.
Interjections by hon. members.
Never in my experience have
the press, but I would like
what was said here by these
s of the people, this great
think Socrates had a group
that away back when. Do
what happened to them? I
. Speaker, having established
Mr. Bukator:
I appealed to
them to publish
great champion
group of 20. I
something like
you remember
say to you, Mr
my opinion-
Mr. Gisbom: Now you are going to be
out of order.
Mr. Bukator: Well, I will tell you some-
thing, if I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, it
is because of the pattern that was set by the
others before me. I hardly know what is
right or wrong any more. When a thing is as
right as this bill is, and they claim it is as
wrong as it is, then I am wondering exactly
what direction we are heading in.
No, this bill is right.
Mr. MacDonald: That is a normal condi-
tion for the Liberals— wondering what direc-
tion you are heading.
Mr. Nixon: You are going right down the
spout.
Mr. Bukator: Can you imagine an im-
portant issue such as this, and they are
talking politics. I say to you, Mr. Speaker,
that this is an important issue—
MAY 14, 1969
4409
Mr. MacDonald: Polish your halo.
Mr. Bukator: Well, I am going to tell you
something. If I get there first I am going to
put in a word for you because you are not
going to make it. I said if I get there first.
Getting back to the emotionally disturbed,
I got a call yesterday from a mother of a
12-year-old boy and she wanted to know
what could be done about getting that boy
in an institution and she said London. I
referred her to Mrs. Costanzo and Mrs.
Sheppard in Niagara Falls who are working
very closely with the emotionally disturbed
in that area.
I know they only have 12 beds and they
need many more. Again, as I said when I
first got to my feet, if this bill will provide
anything within the next six months, then for
the life of me I could never see why people-
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): We will
check it a year from now.
Mr. Bukator: Well, at least we will have a
six months' start. I wonder, Mr. Speaker,
what more can be said beside what has been
said this day, except I must say in complete
amazement never have I seen anyone try to
make white look black. Never have I seen a
group of people try so hard to deprive the
emotionally disturbed people of this province
from getting what they need, and I say to
you the New Democratic Party has found a
new low.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to
deal at some length with the provisions of
this bill.
The bill in essence is fundamentally bad.
My colleagues have been much too lenient in
suggesting that there is some merit contained
within the framework of the bill. I am one
of the members on this side of the House
who over a period of time has been prepared
to give the Minister of Health some degree
of confidence in his capacity to administer
his department.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Really it has never
been noticeable.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, if the Minister had
heard many of the comments that have been
made about him both within this House and
outside he would understand that on occasion
it is very diflBcult to defend him.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. J. Renwick: I must remember that at
some ix)int.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly
want to engage in that kind of irrelevant
banter about tlie bill. There is some sugges-
tion being made that there is merit in the bill
because there is a provision in it that the
Minister can operate homes for emotionally
disturbed children.
I happen to be one of the persons who,
nnti] the Ministers change in this government,
would not rely on this Minister to operate
any kind of a home for any group of people.
That happens to be a personal remark about
the lack of confidence, and I want the Min-
ister to know that my lack of confidence in
him is now total. So far as I am concerned,
the sooner tliat this Minister departs this
government, then the area of health-
Mr. Speaker: Might I advise the hon. mem-
ber that at the very best, we are debating
the principle of a bill, and tlie bill does not
provide for the employment, or use of the
Minister, and he might please confine himself
to the motion which is before the House, the
amendment and, with a certain latitude, to
the bill, and not to go clause by clause in
the bill as he is suggesting he might. That is
oommittee procedure.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cer-
tainly intend to abide en/tirely by the rules of
the House in relation to this bill, and I object,
Mr. Speaker, to any intimation that what I
have to say before I have said it, is out of
order. Now let us get this—
Mr. Speaker: Order! I pointed out to the
hon. member that he had announced that he
was going to proceed to consider the sections
of the bill in his opening remarks and he did,
and Hansard will so support my contention.
Mr. MacDonald: This is the most restrictive
debate we have ever had in this House.
Mr. Speaker: It may well be that we should
have more restricted debates in this House
and get the business of the House done.
The hon. member has the floor.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Talk about restricted de-
bate, and it is supported by the Liberals!
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if anyone
thinks that the approval of this bill on sec-
ond reading is going to be any step toward
the founding of the kind of homes which are
required in this province in the near future,
he is quite mistaken. Because the whole of
the operation of this bill depends upon the
4410
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
regulatory power provided in the bill. Now
the whole question of the government estab-
lishing bodies and passing regulations is one
which is very uppermost in the public mind.
The guts of the bill depends on the regula-
tions.
I say to the Minister, either he tells us
that he has the regulations drafted and pre-
pared, which I doubt, or he will tell us that,
as is usual, he will pass this kind of a bill
and sometime— sometime, as we thumb
through the Ontario Gazette, four, jRve, or six
or seven months later— we will find in small
print, in double columns, the regulations
which provide the operative content of this
bill.
That is the first point. The bill is funda-
nientally flawed in the statement of a general
principle and then leaving the guts of that
principle to be determined in the regulatory
power. Anyone can cite any general principle
and fool people who are otherwise not aware
of what is going on, that that principle
—despite the procedural defects— is worth
supporting.
I am suggesting that the procedural devices
provided in legislation in this day and age
are the guts of the problem of the imple-
mentation of the general principle. And if the
procedural arrangements are not made in the
bill, there is a vice in the principle. That is
the first point that I want to make.
The second point is that if the members
of this House— and I draw the attention of
the House leader in the absence of the leader
of the government or other members of the
Cabinet, except the Minister of Revenue (Mr.
White)— I draw the attention of the House to
the fact that when we pass this bill, this bill
will override every other Act of the Legis-
lature of the province of Ontario where there
is any conflict with the exception of another
bill which is subject to the jurisdiction of
this Minister.
I am suggesting that if this Minister— and
I would certainly like to be privy, once in
my life, to what went on in Cabinet. Either
the Minister of Justice and Attorney General
was asleep or absent when he allowed this
Minister to present a bill to this House, which
has an omnibus clause in it, which says that
this bill overrides every other statute of tlie
Legislature of this province except for one
other Act. That is another Act which is in the
purview of this Minister.
That is my second point. My third point
is that the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General, after a gestation period which goes
on for about four or five years, introduced
a bill a short time ago to which my colleague
has referred, Bill 130, providing for a method
by which we can have appropriate appeal
procedures from the decision of boards and
commissions establis-hed by this government
and from Acts in the exercise of the executive
power of government.
That is today a fundamental issue, a fun-
damental issue. It is only yesterday-nand I
disassociate myself from those who feel that
their personal privileges were ruflBed in some
way and were overly sensditive to what Mr.
Justice Stewart had to say— 'but Mr. Justice
Stewart, despite tlie fact that—
Mr. Nixon: That includes your leader.
Mr. J. Renwick: —he broke decorum-
Mr. Nixon: You must have read the Globe
this mominig!
Mr. J. Renwick: —has raised for public dis-
cussion a most imiportant and fundamental
objection to the question of government
tribunals and the rights of persons before
those tribunals.
Now we have tiie Minister of Health in-
troducing a bill which transfers holuis-bolus
from the Bill 130— which the Minister of
Justice wants available for public discussion
and debate in the next year— all the pro-
cedures of that bill into his bill. And I say
again, I would like to know what the com-
ment of the Minister of Justice would be.
I am sorry he is absent from the House dur-
ing this debate, because to my mind the
Minister of Justice is in default if he allows
the Minister of Health to introduce a bill
which incorporates in it substantial provisions
of a bill which the Minister of Justice wants
to have subject to public debate. It is the
last part of a six-year concern and considera-
tion of the very problems which led to the
appointment of the McRuer commission in the
first place.
Now that is die third point. The fourth
point is that the Minister did just exactly, on
the far right, what Mr. Justice Stewart did
on the far left. The Minister provides that,
despite the board of review, either party to
it— and either party means the person against
whom the licence is going to be revoked or
there is a refusal to grant a licence— that
either the director of his department or the
person who is aggrieved can appeal the deci-
sion of the board of review to the Minister,
and the Minister's decision is final.
Now I want to make that perfectly clear.
What this Minister has done in this bill is
MAY 14, 1969
4411
to go directly contrary to the recommenda-
tions of the McRuer commission-
Mr. MacDonald: And the Liberals support
that.
Mr. J. Renwick: —disguised by the transfer
from the Attorney General's bill of the review
procedure— of the hearing, of the right to
have reasons given of the ofpen and public
discussion of the reasons why there is going
to be either the refusal to grant a licence
or the revocation of a licence— -that decision
being made, this Minister reserves to him-
self the right to overrule that hearing and
to restore the action of the executive as
being untouchable. That is directly contrary
to the fundamental principles which Mr.
Justice McRuer had been attempting to
enunciate and which the Attorney General is
attempting to put into law to protect people
in this province.
I am saying that this bill, and the reason
for the hoist is not for the purpose, of
course of destroying it entirely. It is to recall
the bill so that the government can rein-
troduce it at the point where the Minister of
Health and the Minister of Jusitice have
resolved the basic conflicts which this bill
shows. Because I cannot conceive for one
moment that the Minister of Justice, having
read the report of Mr. Justice McRuer, hav-
ing presented to this House Bill 130 for dis-
cussion and for public discussion over the
next year, would agree with the principle
which reserves to the executive— to this Min-
ister—the final decision as to whether or not
a licence will or not be granted or will or
will not be revoked. That is the exercise
of arbitrary power which this government
should not introduce into this House, and
which the party on my right, in my view, does
not either appreciate or understand if tliey
are voting in favour of the bill at the present
time.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, I would certainly
be dehghted. There is no indignation in what
is involved. I would certainly like to have
one of the legal piuidits of the party on my
right stand up and defend that proposition-
any one of them— and I would like any lawyer
on that side of the House to stand up and
vote and comment about that principle and
defend it. And I would Uke any member of
the government who is aware of what Mr.
Justice McRuer has done to stand up and
defend the inclusion in that bill of that
provision.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): In reply to
the suggestion put forth by the hon. member,
I would say that, in committee, if that section
14 is not amended I very well may vote
against it, but certainly I can very well vote
for the principle of this bill this afternoon.
Interjections by hon. members.
An hon. member: We are talking about
emotionally disturbed children. The member
is away off beam.
Mr. J. Renwick: On the next section of the
bill, Mr. Speaker, the next point which I
want to make in this debate is that there has
been a continuous concern in the province of
Ontario about an ex-parte injunction. For
those who may not, at this date in history,
be aware of what that means, it means that
one party to a dispute— and in this case it
is in the course of the hearing where there
are parties to it before a board of review set
up under this statute— permits the one party,
that is the director, to go to the court with-
out notice to the other party, to get an
order for the occupation of premises, occu-
pation of the premises.
Now let us be perfectly clear about this.
You have a board of review set up under this
Act, and if this is not part of the principle
of the bill, it certainly occupies a substantial
part of the provisions of the bill.
Mr. Nixon: It is called an amendable sec-
tion.
Mr. J. Renwick: Amendable section in any
way, shape or form, there has been no indica-
tion by the party on the right, other than
that they are going to support the whole
bill, not one.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. Renwick: No, no! This is an after-
thought.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Trotter: On a point of order. When I
was speaking to the principle of this bill, I
stated we objected to sections 15 and 21,
there is far too much in the regulations. We
try to go by-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Trotter: These are amendable sections,
and our friend, the member for Riverdale,
is getting completely off the principle of this
bill, but we certainly mentioned these sec-
tions.
4412
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. Renwick: I know, Mr. Speaker, that
you do not think that I have strayed from
the principle of the bill. As a matter of fact,
Mr. Speaker, we would be glad in this party
to give unanimous consent to allow the mem-
ber for Parkdale to speak a second time in
this debate, if he feels that the remarks which
I have made deserve his reconsideration, in
the hope and anticipation that the party
on my right would, for once, ojive this kind
of legislation the serious consideration which
it requires.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: If you get me to share
your views, you will be repeating the speech
the hon. member is giving.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, let me go
back to the point where I was interrupted
by my friends on the right.
We are talking about a board of review
provision in which the parties are before the
board. What the Minister has provided in his
bill is that one of the parties, sort of in the
quiet of night, can disappear from the hear-
ing without telling the other party, which is
right before it, and go to a judge and get an
ex-parte order on affidavit evidence which
will allow them to occupy the premises which
are owned or leased, or in the occupation of
the other party to the hearing. Now that is
a vicious principle. You cannot separate it
from the other principles of the bill.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, there is no
need to elaborate on the points that I make.
Those that have ears to hear will hear, and
those that are blind will not see the point
which I am making. Let me move on to
the next point.
Over many months, this Legislature was
exercised about The Expropriation Act, and
how it could be made to operate in an
equitable fashion. It was, both from the
point of view of procedure and from the
point of view of the basis of compensation,
a pre-eminent point of concern for this Leg-
islature and for the people of the province.
What does this bill contain? In one of
those cursory sentences, that, despite the pro-
visions of The Expropriation Procedures Act,
this property can be occupied. I take that to
mean that this Minister can occupy, without
any right— other than the statutory authority,
if we are so foolish as to pass it— property of
another person. And, indeed, if he causes
damage or is held responsible in any way
for what he has done, that there is no com-
pensation payable to the occupant or other
persons who own that property.
I am simply saying again, I wish the Min-
ister of Justice and the Attorney General was
here, so that he could explain why we over-
ride The Expropriation Procedures Act. In-
deed, there really is no need to specifically
refer to The Expropriation Procedures Act,
because, as I said, the bill already provides
that it takes precedence over every other
Act of the Legislature of the province of
Ontario, including, I may say, The Habeas
Corpus Act.
Mr. Lewis: And does nothing for children
in the process. That is what is wrong with the
bill.
Mr. J. Renwick: Let me go to the next
point.
The Minister of Health earlier this session
passed The Nursing Homes Act. And, when
we dealt with this question about a nursing
home being not licenced and the patients in
it not being treated properly, what did he do?
He passed a slight, innocuous section, which,
if I can find it, I would like to refer to the
House. It is a bill which, I think, has now
been given Royal Assent:
In the case of a nursing home—
And we had some horrendous examples given
of the kind of operation of nursing homes in
this province—
Where a nursing home is operating with-
out a licence, each resident therein shall
arrange to vacate the nursing home as soon
as it is practicable and the Minister shall
assist in finding appropriate alternative
accommodation.
That, apparently, is an adequate way to deal
with aged and invalid and chronic care
patients in nursing homes.
But of course, when he has to deal with this
field which he has neglected for so long, he
has very elaborate provision for seizing and
occupying private property. On an ex-parte
application to a judge for an order permitting
him to do so in total disregard of the pro-
visions of The Expropriation Act.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough
West has pointed out very clearly that the
so-called funds that are provided for the kind
of homes to be established under here are
illusory, to say the least. I want simply to say
to the government, Mr. Speaker, that this is
not a bill which will advance the care and
treatment of emotionally disturbed children.
Six months from now, when this House
will again be in session, it may well be that
MAY 14. 1969
4413
the government will have decided, by careful
consideration, to have money included in the
estimates for the next year. But this bill has
been drafted and prepared in such haste and
in such disregard of other fundamental prin-
ciples, that there is going to be no provision
placed in the estimates for this year, of this
Minister, to deal with this bill.
Mr. Nixon: Yet your colleague belie\es a
six months' stay kills the bill.
Mr. Pilkey: He did not say that. The Prime
Minister said that.
Mr. J. Renwick: Let me be perfectly clear
about this. There is no provision, as I under-
stand it, in the estimates of The Department
of Health for the current year to make any
provision whatsoever for the homes which the
Minister is either going to operate, or the
financial assistance which he is going to pro-
vide. There is included in this bill the nebu-
lous statement that money required up to
March 31, 1970, will be paid out of the Con-
solidated Revenue Fund.
Now, I am suggesting that when we do not
even have the estimates of his department
before us, and when even the Treasury Board
order is not adequate for his purpose, that
what we are, in fact, doing is giving him a
blank cheque on the Consolidated Revenue
Fund, not limited as to amount, no specifica-
tion whatsoever that the money for the oper-
ation of this bill will be charged against that
fund.
Why, Mr. Speaker, is it being done this
way? We know that there will be little, if
any, demand on the Consolidated Revenue
Fund for the purpose of making provision for
homes for emotionally disturbed children be-
fore March 31, 1970.
I am suggesting that there is also an addi-
tional vice in the bill. I do not think that is
the method by which this House appropriates
money, by statute of this province, isolated as
part of a bill which is supposed to be the
forenmner of a new programme. The way in
which it is done is to make provision in his
estimates for the money so that the matter
can be discussed at the time his estimates are
up for consideration.
My friends on the right, and I am quite
certain, members of the government, are going
to say, "Oh, yes, but the principle of the bill,
you see, is to provide the homes for emotion-
ally disturbed children." But you see, this
bill would be just as valid if the Minister had
brought in a bill and said, "I think we should
have homes for emotionally disturbed children
on the moon. It is a fine principle. It would
be a wonderful trip for the children," and so
on, and we adopt the principle. But it is
totally impossible for this Minister to imple-
ment the programme to deal with the prob-
lem.
The reason why I am opposed not only to
the principle of the bill in the hands of this
Minister, but am also in favour of the hoist
resolution, is not only in the hope that the
Minister of Health will have been changed
before this legislation is reintroduced, but
because fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, I have
no conception during the course of the short
time I have been in this Legislature, that
there is any fundamental or basic sympathy,
or understanding, or indeed mental capacity
within the Minister to understand the prob-
lem of emotionally disturbed children. He is
hung up and he has been hung up ever since
the illegal Act-
Mr. Speaker: I would point out tnat the
hon. member is not now talking about the
principle of the bill. He is talking about the
Minister's feelings and thoughts, and as far
as I am concerned I would rule that that
again is out of order. The hon. member has
had wide latitude to speak to the principle
of the bill, from which he has strayed not
too badly, and I would like to ask him to
stay with the principle of the bill, which, I
believe he has been doing.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree
that with those remarks I had strayed some-
what from the principle of the bill. I want to
come back to the fundamental point. The
fundamental point is that this bill is one in
total opposition to the whole of the prin-
ciples set out l>y Mr. Justice McRuer. The
whole of the principles in embryo form
adopted by the Minister of Justice and pre-
sented for public debate and discussion pro-
vides that tiiis Act will take precedence over
every other statute; provides authority by
which morieys will come out of the Con-
sblidated Revenue Fund without any account-
ability whatsoever; provides a back door
method by which this Minister, or those in
his department, engaged in a public hear-
ing can go surreptitiously to a court and get
an order ex-parte about the occupation of
private property in the province of Ontario
without notice to the very party who is with
him before the hearing.
And the bill reserves to the Minister the
right to alter and overrule the final decision
of that board of review as to whether or
not the initial act of the director in revoking
orri-efusingtd issue a licence was, in fact,
proper;
4414
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, as I say, if there were some clothes,
or even skin over the bare skeleton of a
principle which nobody could disagree with
that emotionally disturbed children require
infinitely more facilities for them in the
province than the province has at the present
time; if there were that kind of clotliing or
that kind of skin on the bare skeleton in the
fonn of the regulations which are all-embrac-
ing in the phraseology witliin which they
can be drafted; if there were thait kind of
substance to the bill, then the procedural
defects of the bill, the substantial procedural
defects to which I have referred might pos-
sibly be interrelated and some rational separ-
ation made of the principle from the rest of
the bill.
But I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that
the bill is additionally fundamentally bad, be-
cause if this Minister has the capacity to take
imto himself supervisory powers over any of
tile healtli institutions of this province, and
adequately to supervise them, never would
there be a home of any kind in the province
for the care of people who are not well
which would require the kind of drastic in-
vasion of the rights of people which this
Minister wants to have given to him in this
bill.
If his department was capable under his
direction of providing adequate supervision,
there would be no need for tliis kind of
drastic intervention by the Minister.
It is just not ix>ssible to isolate the pro-
cedural defects of this bill from this so-
called principle which we all adhere to and
say, "Goody goody, the Minister has finally
agreed". Mr. Speaker, a year from now,
when we are sitting here, there will not be
any further government operated homes for
emotionally disturbed children. There will
not be during this session any opportunity
to cxjnfront the Minister in terms of what he
has done up to date in this field, let alone
question liim about the expenditures of any
naoney which he may want to expend in this
next short while on this bill.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how
I can bring it home. I am sorry that the
members on the right jumped the gun so
(luickly. They are kind of hung up on this
Browndale proposition and have been Iot a
long time.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. Renwick: They have been hung up
so long on this prop>osition idia* they find it
difficult to take the time to read the bill. The
member for Scarborough West read a brief
quotation from May, and what we are say-
ing is a very courteous way of saying to the
government, take it back, rethink it, resolve
your own internal differences, those of your
Cabinet Ministers who were asleep or absent
when the bill was shoved through by this
rather aggressive Minister of Health, rethink
it, redraw it, reconsider it, and rCvSubmit it
when the clothes and the guts are there,
and indeed, Mr. Speaker, if you will forgive
me for departing from the principle of the
bill, vv^hen there is a new Minisiter of Health
in this government.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to support our party in this
bill and I ha\'e a letter from the Gouncil
for Exceptional Children, chapter 125, from
the city of Windsor, county of Essex. It
amazes me a little when I look back in
Hansard on page 1615, February 27, when
the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr.
Burr) to our left asked a ciuestion of the
Minister of Health:
Is the Minister giving favourable consideration to
tlie request of the Windsor and Essex Council for
Exceptional Children that modern facilities be pro-
vided locally for children who are emotionally and
mentally disturbed?
And now today they have a motion before
us to stop this progress that the Minister is
asking for, and it worries me considerably.
Mr. J. Renwick: This is what the Liberals
and Tories consider progress.
Mr. Ruston: The answer to tliat question,
of course, was given previously, Mr. Speaker,
to the hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville,
who was a little ahead, of course. It was on
page 978 that tlie Minister gave the answer
to that in Hansard, on February 4, 1969:
I have not made any decision to postpone the
development of a regional children's centre in Wind-
sor. My staff will continue to promote the develop-
ment and as.sist in the further development and
expansion of this service as rapidly as possible.
Well, of course, we have to take the Min-
ister at his word, Mr. Speaker, Maybe he is
not always as aggressive as he should be; we
will hope that he will be in this matter.
I am reading, of course, part 3 of the bill:
The Minister, with the approval of the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may estab-
lish and operate one or more children's
mental health centres.
And really, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to
prolong the debate; I know that we are
interested in more of these facilities, and I
just want to add that to it.
MAY 14, 1969
4415
Mr. Ben: What about the mechanics in
committees?
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor-Walkerville ) :
Mr. Speaker, I will not be lengthy at all in
supporting my leader on opposing the hoist
motion with respect to this bill.
I am going to speak primarily of the nuts
and bolts of the bill. That is, the bill
authorizes the establishment by the Minister
of Health of facilities for children suffering
from mental or emotional disorders, and it
carries on for three more lines.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may say
the Treasurer says money is not available.
Money likewise was not going to be available
to The Department of Education to increase
these grants, and all of a sudden money is
going to be available. And that will be $50
million or so, not the several million that
may be involved in setting up the centres for
the emotionally disturbed children.
Mr. Nixon: The money is tliere; we have
got to see that they spend it.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we could
come along and discuss the bill clause by
clause, but that is not the purpose of the
discussion at this time. And when it comes
to a clause-by-clause discussion, you can rest
assured there will be amendments suggested
to this bill by this party.
It is sort of disturbing to me, coming from
an area that has requested the type of an
institution as is being discussed here. We
happen to have a facility in the community
now that does take care of approximately 20,
but there is a clamour for extra facilities.
Last night, in the discussions on the debates
with the Minister of Social and Family Ser-
vices, I made mention of a Windsor group
therapy project, an organization that was
interested in setting up a facility to accom-
modate 12 emotionally disturbed children.
This was only 12. They were extremely con-
cerned. This organization had made mention
that approximately 20 are being taken care
of in the community today; they know of
85 who are waiting for facilities— that is, were
the facilities available, they could be taken
care of. This does not include the number of
families that quite often hide their children
and do not come out into the open and say
that they do have the children that need
facilities, the likes of which could be pro-
\ided by the passing of this bill at this time,
Mr. Speaker, a six-month hoist by the party
to my left simply means that, instead of
having the facilities within a given period of
time, they will come a year later. If they
were so seriously interested in facilities for
emotionally disturbed children, they would
put their action where their mouth is and let
us get it done now.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid I must rise, in the
interest of the riding that I represent and in
which many of these facilities are located, to
appeal to the Minister in much the same way
that the hon. memibers to my right have
appealed to liim— to launch the projects that
I assume are countenanced by clause 3 of the
bill. If you will forgive me for dwelling on
that particular clause when we are discussing
the principle of the bill, which is the estab-
hshment of residential treatment facilities for
emotionally disturbed children.
Mr. Speaker, I find perforce I am obliged
to deal with that particular clause 3, because
it is the only one in this bill which has any
application whatsoever to tlie provision by
this government of residential centres for
emotionally disturbed children. The rest of
the bill— virtually every clause— has, as the
member for Riverdale pointed out, a contra-
dictory element in it that should have caused
the Minister to hesitate before bringing it to
the House or to have checked it much more
carefully with his colleague, the Attorney
General,
In res.pect to the operation of clause 3, I
would like to join with those members to my
right in making the appeal for the establish-
ment of those residential treatment centres in
the commumty of Windsor. I have written
to the Minister, as I am sure these members
to the right have; I have listened to the Min-
ister's answer in respect to the question put
by the member for Sandwich-Riverside, who
was just quoted by the member for Essex-
Kent, I have read through the budget state-
ment of the Treasurer of this province and,
Mr. Speaker, I join in the appeal with these
members, because if they are blind to each
of those indications from the Minister that any
implementation of the principle of this bill,
as set out in clause 3, is forthcoming, then
I am completely misguided by them. And
something which I find most reprehensible in
colleagues from the very same part of the
country as I come from is that they should
suggest to me that those answers by the Min-
ister of Health in any way indicate the
implementation of this bill, as I understand
it in clause 3. This gives me a great deal
of concern, because like them, perhaps, I
was looking forward in those answers that
the Minister gave— nebulous though they
4416
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
were; non-committal though they were, so
vague, so indefinite— I was looking forward
nonetheless to the implementation of this
section of the bill, this principle of the bill.
For a time I may have shared their hopes.
But I do not share their hopes at this moment,
Mr. Speaker, about the implementation of the
principle of this bill because I have reviewed
the answers the Minister gave in the House
to the question of the member for Sandwicth-
Riverside. I have reviewed the letters that
the Minister sent in reply to the commundty
organizations in Windsor requesiing the estab-
lishment of residential treatment facilities. I
have looked through the budget statement,
and any suggestion from members to the
right that they can support the principle of
this bill as it is set out in one clause, in the
expectation that the Minister is going to fulfill
that principle, is completely without founda-
tion. Completely without foundation. And that
is why, even though it has been suggested on
the right, that I am one of a group of mem-
bers who has been bought— even though I am
one of those, who it has been suggested on
liie right, is a member of a group with a
particular vested interest— I am nonetheless
going to vote for the amendment, to remove
this bill from consideration now and postpone
it so that the recommendations and sugges-
tions of the member for Riverdale and the
member for Lakeshore can be taken into
account by this go\ernment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for King-
ston and the Islands.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to rise to oppose the
amendment that the NDP is making, trying
to kill the bill. I think, traditionally, this is
the method that has been used on many
occasions to kill a bill-not to postpone it, but
to kill it— and if the amendment were passed,
I think that would be the intention of it.
Interjection by an hon. memiber.
Mr. Apps: I rise to support the principle
of the bill for three reasons. First of all, sec-
tion 3 does give the Minister the authority to
establish and operate one or more children's
mental health centres. I think every member
in this Legislature must agree with that
autliority, whether they believe it will be
done or not. I think every member agrees
that t^is is a good thing.
I, for one, am willing to give the Minister
a chance to do what he wants to do in this
particular section. I think we all should do
that.
Second, I support the principle of the bill
because I think the licence issuing aurfiority
and inspectors as indicated in the various
sections of the bill are specifically designed
to make sure that the children are treated
in their best interests,
Mr. J. Renwick: Have you read the Attor-
ney General's remarks on Bill 130?
Mr. Apps: I am not ti/o particularly con-
cerned with the Attorney General's remarks
on Bill 130. I am concerned that, in this
particular bill, the licence issuing authority-
Mr. J. Renwick: That is all he has done-
Mr. Apps: —authority is so designed to
make sure that the children are treated
properly and—
An hon. member: No!
Mr. Apps: Well, that is my interpretation
of it, and that is one of the reasons why I
am going to support this bill.
Third, in the regulations in section (f) it
indicates that the government will provide
support— capital support, as I take it— for tliose
institutions that are already doing a fine job
in helping emotionally disturbed children.
I support that particularly, because we in
Kingston have one such institution, that is
the Sunnyside Centre in Kingston. They have
been endeavouring o\cr many, many years
to improve and expand their facilities, with
very little success— actually no success. I
feel that with the implementation of this Act,
that they have some hope now of getting
the financial resources that they need to ex-
pand the work that they are doing.
Mr. Lewis: Not in this Act.
Mr. Apps: Well my interpretation of the
Act indicates that to me. Again, I am willing
to give the Minister of Health a chance to do
what he says he is going to do in this parti-
cular bill. I think it is important-
Mr. J. L. Brown (Beaches- Woodbine): Give
liim a chance to put-
Mr. Apps: You know, it is amazing to me,
when I get up— and I do not get up that
often; I sit here for many, many hours, listen-
ing to people over there particularly, discuss-
ing various things and I do not interject very
often. But it seems to me that when any-
body ever gets up over here and says some-
thing that you do not like particularly, then
there are all sorts of inane interjections that
do not mean a blamed thing.
MAY 14, 1969
4417
As far as I am concerned, I think that this
bill is certainly a step in the right direction.
I think the principle of the bill is correct and
I for one, cannot understand why the NDP
will not support this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to the bill before the
Minister?
Does the hon. Minister wish to speak?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I say at
the outset that this must be a good bill be-
cause it certainly got through to the socialists.
One more time the government has invaded
what they have held out so long as their own
private preserve and it hurts.
I would say, first of all, to the hon. member
for Scarborough West-he said something
about those in the field who were deeply in-
\'olved— I cannot remember his exact words-
would not support it. I can say to him, sir,
without equivocation, that all those in the
field who are sincerely involved and highly
motivated and not moved by any selfish pre-
cepts whatsoever, will support this bill and
have already advised us of this. On many
sides we have been told that this is good
legislation that has been sorely needed for a
long time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been
made by the hon. member for Lakeshore con-
cerning the almost verbatim reproduction
within the body of this bill of an extract
from Bill 130, and this was done deliberately
and with very careful consideration.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond; Mr. Speaker, I kept en-
tirely quiet throughout the whole of their
discussions. When The Statutory Powers Pro-
cedures Act is passed, it will supersede all
provisions of this kind, I am assured of that.
But the whole process of government cannot
stand still waiting for that bill to be passed.
We will make the best possible use of the
tools available to us at the present time, and,
when that Act is— and I think it is a good
thing that the Minister of Justice suggest that
it be given good consideration and wide dis-
cussion—when it becomes law, as it will in
due course, then, of course, it will supersede
any legislation we have.
First of all, the principle of the bill is very
clearly set out. A brief explanation of it is
that it will permit the government to establish
such facilities, or to enter into agreement with
others who have already established facilities,
and to support them in every way we possibly
can.
A good deal has been made of certain sec-
tions. One almost had the impression that we
were discussing the bill in committee of the
whole House. The review by the Minister, for
instance, was belaboured ad nauseam, Mr.
Speaker. Yet certain members of that group
sat on the select committee and I am told
that they unanimously voted for the very
thing that we have put into this Act. Let me
quote, sir, from that report:
Furthermore, it is our opinion that rec-
ommendation 25(14) could be interpreted
to mean that the board of review would
have the jxjwer to review a Minister's de-
cision, to overrule his discretionary powers.
We reject this proposition.
This, sir, was supported by the socialist mem-
bers who sat on that select committee:
We reject this proposition because it is
contrary to the principle of responsible gov-
ernment.
If the review board stands between the pub-
lic and tlie government, or stands before the
Minister, the Minister comes to this House
and defends his action and the government
stands or falls on what its Ministers do. If
members have changed their minds about this
as they do with every wind of fancy that
happens to blow, all right, but here are the
words that you supported when you were
sitting on this committee.
Mr. J. Ren wick: Can the Minister tell me
that the Attorney General of this province
agrees with him?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: In the matter of ex-
parte injunctions, sir, this is to be used only
in the case of dire necessity.
All of us have fresh in our minds, thank
Heaven, sir— only twice in my ten and a half
year's experience as Minister, but twice is
twice too often— when a situation of this kind
arose and we were powerless to do anything
about it. We had to, in each case, go through
all kinds of devious paths to look after chil-
dren who were in sore need of care and pro-
tection.
We are now coming out forthrightly as a
government and stating we need this power.
When a facility is no longer able to look after
its duty as a board in charge did tell us they
could no longer guarantee the care and treat-
ment of the children on that basis, it was
taken over.
Now we have the power, if, on our inspec-
tion, we see reason to step in and take respon-
sibility for the children by means of the ex-
parte injunction. Of course, the due process
4418
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of law, about which the hon. member for
Riverdale and the hon. member for Lakeshore
know far more than I do, would take effect.
Mr. J. Renwick: Ask the Minister of Justice.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I discussed this fully
with the Minister of Justice and this has his
blessing. Indeed, it is written with his active
support— his active personal support.
An hon. member: Impossible!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Then the expropria-
tion, Mr. Speaker; again this is a pro tempore
situation. We ask for the authority, or we
take the authority, through this law— this
Act, when it becomes law— to step in and
nm the organization until such time as other
arrangements can be made. But tlien the
ordinary expropriation proceedings would
take place.
There is no defiance of the law in this
regard at all and I am quite sure that those
hon. members who are members of the bar
kno\v this, again, far better than I do. I
think, sir, they were striving very hard to
find something on which to make a good
argument.
Mr. Ben: Do not press your luck! Let's
vote.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The hon. member for
Scarborough West once said that this would
make no difference— that every child who
was in need of this kind of care must go
through the children's aid society.
Mr. Lewis: No, I did not say that.
Hon. Mj. Dymond: He did, sir, and
Hansard will show it, unless he has changed
it. This is one of the reasons why we intro-
duced this section into the Act— to make sure
that no one would stand between the child
and the care that could be provided for it.
The white paper specifically stated that the
government assumed responsibility for pay-
ment. We believe that this could be done
under the other methods that we have tried in
the interim. We found that it could not be
done. We found that accreditation did not
work because it is too permissive.
Mr. J. Renwick: The Minister has misled
the House in the quotation, intentionally or
otherwise. The Prime Minister can say what
he wants to, he fosters this bill, he is in
enough trouble as it is. The point of order
is that the quotation which the Minister of
Health read from a select committee report,
is the select committee dealing with the
Smith comniittee report? And the recom-
mendation is as follows:
The statutory board of review be con-
stituted within The Treasury Department
to hear objections to the assessment of
taxes, the lex'ying of other charges, and
any other administrative acts performed
under authority of the revenue statute.
That is the first point of my point of order-
that the matter to which the Minister refers
is to the revenue statute.
And the recommendation of the committee
is:
Furthermore, it is our opinion that the
recommendation could be interpreted to
mean that the board of reviev/ would have
the power to review a Minister's decision
or overrule his discretionary powers. We
reject this proposition l>ecause it is con-
trary to the principle of responsible govern-
ment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is merely
repeating what the hon. Minister has read
and adding something to it. He has not stated
his point or order.
Mr. J. Renwick: In our \iew therefore, Mr.
Speaker, this—
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member will
state his point of order, if he has one.
Mr. J. Renwick: To ministerial decisions-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will resume
his seat. When the hon. member is asked to
state a point of order, and he does not, and
persists in reading after Mr. Speaker has
asked him twice to state his point of order,
he is certainly in contempt of the Chair, if
such action should lie. I would now yield
him the floor and ask him u) state his point
of order.
Mr. J. Renwick: I had no intention of be-
ing in contempt of the Chair. The question
of the responsibility of the Ministers charged
with raising money by way of taxation-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not rais-
ing a point of order. He started out saying
that the hon. Minister had misled the House.
Now, he must support that and not go on
on some other trail as he is doing now. If he
has that point of order, will he please support
it by his argument.
Mr. J. Renwick: The point which I am
endeavouring to make, Mr. Speaker, is that
the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown
in matters of taxation has nothing whatsoever
to-
MAY 14, 1969
4419
Mr. Speaker: No! The point of order raised
was that the hon. Minister had misled the
House.
Mr. Lewis: Let him finish his point.
Mr. Ben: It is 6.00 o'clock!
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not any-
where near the point of order.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the point of
order is that the Minister had quoted the
report of the select committee studying the
thrift committee report to support the pro-
position dealing with his bill. It had nothing
to do with the question under consideration.
My point of order is that the Minister did
not quote the source of the statement which
he had made. He left the impression in the
House that there is some blanket rule by
which members of this party had supported
a proposition that the Minister's decision
should overrule that of a board of review.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
I did hear what the Minister of Health said
on the subject, and I did hear the extract
which he quoted from the select committee
on taxation.
I would like to offer my own considered
opinion that the Minister was entirely ac-
curate in portraying the position of tlie NDP
members, and indeed of all of the members
of the select committee, because all of the
members of the select committee, Mr. Speaker,
wanted the Minister responsible in the final
analysis, and did not want a board of review
standing behind the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Riv^rdale raised a point of order that the
hon. Minister had misled the House, and in
support of that he placed before the House
his interpretation of certain extracts from the
report of the select committee. The Minister
had given his interpretation and I think that
each, being a member of this House, is en-
titled to give his interpretation of what that
report of the select committee said.
If the hon. Minister has anything further
to say before the bill is put to the House, he
has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would like to say,
Mr. Speaker, again, this is good legislation, it
is sorely needed. Let us get it passed and let
us get on with the job.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
I have no intention of putting this vote
until I can have the attention of the members.
It is an important matter, and it is one that
should not be confused with a lot of noise
and inconsequential remarks.
The motion by Mr. Dymond was for the
second reading of Bill 138. It was then moved
by Mr. Lawlor, seconded by Mr, Lewis, that
the word "now" in the motion before the
House be deleted; and the word "this day six
months" be added, so that the motion before
the House shall read:
That Bill No. 138, An Act respecting
Facilities for Children suffering from
Mental or Emotional Disorders, 1968-69,
be read a second time this day, six months.
The question upon which we now vote, of
course, is whether the word "now" shall
remain as part of the motion.
All those who are in favour of the bill
being now read a second time, will please
say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the "ayes" have it.
Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not proceed to
call the vote until I have order in the House.
The original motion is for second reading
of Bill 138, to which an amendment was
moved by Mr. Lawlor, seconded by Mr.
Lewis, that the word "now" be deleted and
the words "this day six months" substituted.
We vote, as understood, on whether the
word "now" shall stand in the motion.
The House divided on the motion, which
was agreed to on the following vote.
Ayes Nays
Apps
Burr
Belanger
Gisborn
Ben
Jackson
Bemier
Lawlor
Boyer
Lewis
Brunelle
Martel
Bukator
Peacock
Carruthers
Pilkey
Connell
Renwick
Demers
(Riverdale)
Downer
Renwick (Mrs.)
Dymond
(Scarborough Centre)
Edighoffer
Stokes-11.
Evans
Farquhar
4420
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ayes
Gaunt
Gilbertson
Gomme
Good
Guindon
Haggerty
Haskett
Hodgson
(York North)
Jessiman
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Ken-
Knight
Lawrence
(Carleton East)
MacKenzie
Meen
Morrow
McKeough
McNeil
Newman
(Windsor-Walkerville)
Newman
(Ontario South)
Nixon
Paterson
Price
Reid
(Rainy River)
Reid
(Scarborough East)
Reilly
Robarts
Rollins
Root
Rowe
Rowntree
Ruston
Smith
(Hamilton Mountain)
Nays
Ayes Nays
Smith
(Nipissing)
Spence
Trotter
Villeneuve
Welch
White
Whitney
Winkler
Wortou
Yakabuski
Yaremko-60.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker the "ayes"
are 60, the "nays" 11.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjounmient
of the House, I would like to advise the
House that tomorrow we will consider esti-
mates.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment
of the House.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
before the adjournment. Do you intend to
continue with The Department of Mines
estimates?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, The Department of
Mines. If by chance we finish that quickly,
we will start The Department of Transport
estimates.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.20 o'clock, p.m.
No. 118
ONTARIO
Hegiglature of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, May 15, 1969
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs.y Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 15, 1969
Schools Administration Act, bill to amend, Mr. Pitman, first reading 4423
Citizenship day, statement by Mr. Welch 4423
OHC resale of private lots, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Singer 4424
Bramalea Consolidated Development Ltd., questions to Mr. McKeough,
Mr. MacDonald 4424
Ontario growers of Concord grapes, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. J. Renwick 4425
Trent waterway, questions to Mr. Auld, Mr. Knight 4426
Unsolicited credit cards, question to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. B. Newman 4426
Fluoridated water for hemodialysis, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Burr 4427
Oshawa Creek, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Pilkey 4427
Estimates, Department of Mines, Mr. A. F. Lawrence 4428
Recess, 6 o'clock 4467
4423
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always very pleased
to have visitors in our galleries during our
sessions.
Today in the east gallery we have students
from the Confederation Street Public School
in Samia, from the Whitney township school
area, Porcupine; and in the west gallery stu-
dents from West Park Vocational School in
Toronto and the 4th award winners from
Price Edward county. In both galleries we
have students from the Glenwood Public
School in Windsor.
A little later this afternoon, in both gal-
leries, there will be students from the Oshawa
Catholic High School of Oshawa; and in the
east gallery students from the Frank Begley
Public School of Windsor, and the Mount
Hope Public School of Mount Hope.
We are always pleased to have these visit-
ors and we extend our welcome to them.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions,
Introduction of bills.
THE SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION ACT
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Schools Administration Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, the present leg-
islation dealing with textbooks in the schools
of Ontario is narrow, anti-intellectual and
punitive. The particular section which this
bill seeks to delete runs in direct opposition
to the developments in education both within
this jurisdiction and throughout the world. It
reveals an attitude of distrust, both of the
integrity and judgment of teachers across the
province.
Finally, it enshrines the existence of singu-
lar truth in the guise of an approved text-
Thursday, May 15, 1969
book when in fact the search for truth de-
mands the accessibility of a variety of sources.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
the hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minis-
ter of Citizenship has a statement.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to call
to the attention of the hon. members that
tomorrow is Citizenship Day in Canada. In
this connection they will find at their desks
an English edition of the book entitled "The
Canadian Family Tree", or the French edi-
tion "Les Rameaux de la Famille Canad-
ienne", provided through the kind resources
of the citizenship branch of The Department
of the Secretary of State. Indeed I would
like to acknowledge the part played by Mr.
Glynn Allan, the representative of that depart-
ment who is presently in your gallery, Mr.
Speaker.
And while I am sure this announcement
comes as no surprise to the members of this
House, many of whom have already been
actively involved in Citizenship Week cele-
brations with their local constituents, it seems
to me, important, that some formal recogni-
tion be given this day by all of us together
as a symbol of our common concern and our
appreciation of this occasion.
I am certain that members will concur with
me when I say that there is more to citizen-
ship than a mere legal status: that it is more
than a national identity: even more than a
birth right. I believe I may speak for all of
us when I say that citizenship is an active
dynamic, and exciting process rather than a
static state or accomplished feat, and that
citizenship cannot be defined therefore in
terms other than action and involvement.
Citizenship then has no meaning except as
it exists in the actions, responses, and be-
haviour, of people.
And it is this particular behaviour which
forms the basis on which our democracy is
founded and feeds, today, with increasing
fervour.
Personal reflection, concern for the welfare
of others, active participation in community
life, meaningful involvement in decision-mak-
ing processes and continual openness to the
4424
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
values of others, and our world environment
—all of these activities and more are facets
of citizenship behaviour.
It is my wisli, as I am sure it is the wish
of all of the hon. members, that Citizenship
Day may be a time when we may focus our
attention on the process of citizenship, and
reflect on how we may achieve in the follow-
ing months, greater involvement in this pro-
cess by all the residents of Ontario. Citizen-
ship Day gives us an opportunity not only to
think about our rights and privileges but also
our duties and responsibilities as Canadian
citizens. It seems to me that each right carries
with it a corresjKjnding duty. I hope that a
year from today we can say with some
assurance, that we have made a contribution
to the process of citizenship, and in so doing
have strengthened our democracy, our com-
munities, our provmce and country.
Mr. Speaker: I have questions from the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nixon)
who is not in his seat.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I have his question here, but the
Minister to whom the question is addressed
is not in his seat either so we will let it go
Tintil they come back.
Mr. Speaker: Is that question 1541?
Mr. Singer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs has undertaken to answer that
question if the hon. member would like to
place it.
Mr. Singer: All right; then on behalf of tlie
leader of the Opposition the question is this.
What is the estimated profit to Ontario
Housing Corporation on the resale of 1,400
private lots which form part of the agree-
ment l^etween Ontario Housing Corporation
and Bramalea Consolidated Development
Limited?
Will the Minister table the details of this
agreement?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the
first part of the question: the 1,400 private
lots referred to remain in the ownership of
Bramalea Consolidated Developments Lim-
ited and do not form a part of the agreement
of purchase behveen Ontario Housing Cor-
poration and Bramalea. Hence Ontario Hous-
ing CorporatiDn has no interest and will
obtain no profit from the.se lands.
Tilie second part of tlie question: the agree-
ment between Ontario Housing Corporation
and Bramalea which was tabled on April 21,
1969, contains details of the entire transaction
in which Ontario Housing Corporation is
involved.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of a sup-
plementary question, could tlie Minister tell
us what profit Ontario Housing Corporation
is going to obtain from the resale of these
lots?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Ontario Housing
Corporation, as I understand it, is not in-
volved.
Mr. Singer: Are they not selling? Ontario
Housing bought some lots from Bramalea—
this question is related to the rest-^but On-
tario Housing bought a substantial portion of
lots from Bramalea and are going to resell by
a variety of methods.
If the procediu"es they have used in the
past apply here they would be making a
profit. My supplementary question is ad-
dressed to the amount of such profit that the
Ontario Housing Corporation will be making
out of the lots they have bought from
Bramalea.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The question re-
ferred, of course, to the 1,400 lots which are
now a part of that. If tlie member will re-ask
that question tomorrow, I will undertake to
get it.
Mr. Singer: We will.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I have
a question for the Prime Minister and for
die Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement.
Mr. Speaker: I am informed that the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs will answer
questions 1546 and 1547, both of which have
been placed by the hon. member for York
South.
Mr. Singer: He is a busy fellow today— pity
he does not know very much.
Mr. MacDonald: I would say he has be-
come a successor to Robert Macaulay. My
first question was originally addressed to the
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment.
Has Bramalea Consolidated Development
Limited been required to share in the $88
MAY 15, 1969
4425
million cost of extending sewage and water
services in Chinguacousy and Peel Townships,
in which the company has agreed to build
4,602 housing units for Ontario Housing
Ciorporation, and 1,400 private lots from
which the company predicts a $20 million
profit over the next five years?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the
answer to this really comes from the Ontario
Water Resources Commission. The agreement
is between the Ontario Water Resources
commission and tlie municipalities. The muni-
cipalities in turn make their own arrange-
ments with a variety of buyers of services,
including, I would assume, Bramalea Consoli-
dated. Insofar as we are aware, the answer
to the question is, "no".
Mr. MacDonald: The second question was
originally addressed, Mr. Speaker, to the
Prime Minister. What steps is the govern-
ment planning to take to fully inform the
Legislature of the role which the OWRC,
OHC and The Depailment of Municipal
Affairs have played, or will play, in the
housing development plans which Bramalea
Consolidated Development Limited predicts
will net that company a $20 million profit
over the next five years?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am pleased to give
the answer to this question on behalf of the
Prime Minister. These particular "steps", to
use tlie language in the question of the
member from York South, began with an
ofiicial plan amendment of the township of
Chinguacousy.
This is official plan amendment nimiber 19,
which paved tlie way for the residential
development in question. It was submitted to
me, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as
required under section 12 of The Planning
Act. Tliis amendment, as is the normal prac-
tice, was submitted by me to all departments
in the provincial government, and also to
local authorities deemed to have an interest
in the proposal. Among the agencies con-
sulted were the Ontario Water Resources
Commission; Ontario Housing Corporation;
The Department of Highways and The
federal Department of Transport— and be-
cause of the impHcations of the expansion of
Malton airport or otherwise— the council of
Chinguacousy, The Ontario Department of
Education, the local board of education.
The amendment was approved by me, I
think about three or four weeks ago— I am
sorry I do not have the exact date, it may
have been a little longer ago than that-
only after the proposal had been thoroughly
discussed as to the financial impact on the
municipality, the availability of water supply
and sewage disposal capacity, the relationship
to the airport and many other matters.
I think it is safe to say that when we sign
an official plan amendment when it is pre-
sented to me, and in this case I was a httle
bit involved, we are satisfied that the various
requirements and concerns of all the various
agencies which I have mentioned, and others,
have been met. As I say I think it was about
five or six weeks ago, tlie final plan of sub-
division was submitted by Bramalea. It was,
of course, widely circulated, as well, to the
various agencies and I approved the final
plan of subdivision, I believe two or three
weeks ago. Again I do not have the exact
dates but I will get them for the members.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
Soudi has a question to the Provincial Treas-
urer (Mr. MacNaughton). Is he not present?
Mr. Singer: Perhaps the Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs will answer!
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food. Is the Ontario government
assisting the Ontario growers of Concord
grapes, in the investigation by the U.S.
Tariff Commission dumping charges in con-
nection with the sale of $800,000 worth of
Ontario grapes in New York state about 18
months ago?
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member indi-
cate the number of that question? I do not
appear to have it here.
Mr. J. Renwick: Number 1526.
An hon. member: There is lots of time.
Mi: Speaker: That is on May 14?
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in answer to
the question: No, we are not directly aiding,
but there have been consultations between
the Concord Grape Growers' Marketing Board
and the Ontario Farm Products Marketing
Board; and I believe there were discussions
which took place between them. But we are
not actually in the field of assisting in any
such representations with the board at Wash-
ington. I believe some suggestions have been
made that Mr. Edge Harris, who is, I think,
one of the foremost authorities on marketing
legislation in Canada, and who also acts for
4426
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the grape growers' marketing board, is nego-
tiating with some of his colleagues in the
United States concerning the inquiry.
Mr. J. Renwick: Perhaps the Minister
would permit a brief supplementary question.
The indication which I have, is that this is
going to be an extensive investigation by the
U.S. tariff commission over a substantial
period of time, into this whole question. In
those circumstances does the Minister not
think that the assistance of the government of
Ontario should be more directly made avail-
able to the farm products marketing board or
to the grape marketing board, as well as to
the U.S. tariff commission— if necessary
through the federal government?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this is
news to us. We did not know that what the
hon. member has talked about here was a
fact. It must be; I have not heard that. But
we will be glad to keep an eye on the situ-
ation and do whatever we can to protect the
interest of tlie Ontario grape growers.
Mr. Speaker: I have a question from the
hon. member for Port Arthur to the Minister
of Tourism and Information.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, per-
haps you would just let me finish answering
my question of the hon. member for York
South. The date the oflBcial plan amendment
was approved which should have been given
in reply to that question, was April 3.
Approval was given to the draft plan of sub-
division on the same date, April 3, and on
April 18 final approval of a plan of sub-
division was given. There are three plans of
subdivision within the area encompassed by
official plan amendment 19. One third of that
lias had final approval.
Mr. MacDonald: Can the Minister indicate
when the amendment to the official plan was
first submitted to him?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: My guess would be
six months or a year ago. It was talked about
perhaps a year ago, and I think the paper
work started six months ago. I can remember
attending a couple of meetings with the
reeve and others three, four or five months
ago.
Mr. MacDonald: Would the Minister get
tliat date?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: When it was sub-
mitted to us? Yes, I would be glad to.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, my question No. 1478, from May
12, is of the hon. Minister of Tourism and
Information:
What plans have been made to promote
tourist attractions along the Trent canal near
Trenton this year? And will signs be placed
along Highway 401 to advertise the Trent
waterway?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information ) : Mr. Speaker, the Trent-
Severn waterway will be featured in a new
booklet "Cruising Ontario Waters" which will
be published by the department shortly. I
would remind the hon. member that in our
film library we have a 26-minute 16-milli-
meter coloured film on the Trent-Severn
waterway called "Adventure Trent-Severn
Style" and this year in conjunction witii the
CBC we made a one-minute TV filler on tiie
Trent which has been distributed across
Canada. The waterway is mentioned, I think,
in three other regional publications.
In answer to the second question, my
department will not be placing any signs
along 401.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Minister would indicate whether he has
consulted on this matter with the Minister of
Highways? Surely it is in the area of tourist
promotion. People in that area are con-
cerned as to whether the waterway is being
properly promoted along Highway 401, which
is the main access route in and out of the
Quinte and Peterborough tourist areas.
Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I can only
repeat that it is not the policy of my depart-
ment to advertise tourist attractions as such
along Highway 401 or 400.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, the Minister
obviously sees no-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
not asking a question. The hon. member for
Windsor- Walkerville has a question.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question of the Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs. In view of the
legislation being proposed in the state of
Michigan in connection with credit cards, is
the Minister prepared to make it a mis-
demeanor for a firm to mail a credit card
without an accompanying notice that the
MAY 15, 1969
4427
recipient is not liable for purchases until
he once uses the card or disposes of it
negligently?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
whole question of the issue of unsolicited
credit cards has been and is under study and
review by my department. I have nothing
to state on the subject at the moment, but I
may have something to say about it in the
days ahead.
Mr. B. Newman: Is it under active review,
Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes, it is.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Sandwich-Riverside has a question.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health:
are there any hospitals in Ontario still using
fluoridated water for long term hemodialysis?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
The answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is
yes.
Mr. Burr: Could the Minister tell me how
many?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Speaker, I
could not.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests has a reply for question number
1521 asked by the hon. member for Oshawa
(Mr. Pilkey). Is he in his seat?
Mr. MacDonald: There is no objection to
the Minister giving it today.
Mr. Speaker: I think it will be in order.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday
the hon. member for Oshawa asked this ques-
tion:
Would the Minister tell the House what
action is being taken regarding dipping in
the Oshawa Creek as outlined in a letter
from the Oshawa Fish and Wild Life
Advisory Board to the Minister's depart-
ment?
The department, Mr. Speaker, did not receive
any letter from the Oshawa Fish and Wild
Life Advisory Board respecting dipping in the
Oshawa Creek.
W^e did, however, receive a letter from
Mrs. Esther Earl, of Oshawa, a member of
the Oshawa Fish and Wild Life Advisory
Board, writing in the capacity of a private
citizen, respecting littering and pollution in
Oshawa Creek and other unrelated matters.
These matters have been referred to ofiicials
of the Ontario Water Resources Commission
for their attention.
Mr. Speaker: I have question No. 1018,
which was taken as notice, a question from
the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside to
the hon. Minister of Health. Does he have
that answer?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Pardon?
Mr. Speaker: Question No. 1018.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, it could not have
been very important that far back, sir, or he
would have called it again.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Correc-
tional Services.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of
personal privilege. I was very pleased to re-
cei\ e this book "The Canadian Family Tree."
It appears to be a well documented book,
but on page 208, I note that reference is made
to the fact that I have held a Cabinet post in
this province.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would hope, Mr.
Speaker, that that was not wishful thinking
on the part of the Secretary of State. I do
want to assure them that this government
does not have the quick turnover of Cabinet
Ministers that they have in Ottawa and it is
obvious that I still hold a Cabinet post here.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for
Scarborough West.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Just for
a moment, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privi-
lege. I seldom rise on such points, I want to
draw attention to a story in the Globe and
Mail this morning, on page WIO, regarding
the debate in the House yesterday with the
headline "NDP Loses Bid to Draw Up Bill
for Homes for Retarded Children."
I would first like to say, Mr. Speaker, that
at some stage someone should point out to
the headline writers of the Globe and Mail-
not the journalists, perhaps, but the headline
writers— that there is a distinction between
retarded children and emotionally disturbed
4428
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
children, and that neither group is served by
this continual confusion.
In the body of the story it says:
Steven Lewis (NDP, Scarborough West)
termed the legislation "vicious" and indi-
cated he felt that the government was
engaged in a vendetta.
I do not recall, sir, ever using the words
ascribed to me during the debate and; as to
the latter, I would like to read from the un-
corrected Hansard which is in front of me.
I quote:
It was said, when the bill emerged on first read-
ing, that there was a sense of vendetta in the bill. I
choose not to believe that.
Under the circumstances of the debate, I
wanted that on record.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Thirty-fourth order.
House in committee of supply; Mr. R. D.
Rowe in the chair.
ESTIMATES, THE DEPARTMENT
OF MINES
(Continued)
On vote 1301:
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday night we were, I
believe, indulging in a conversation in an-
swer to a question from the member for Port
Arthur (Mr. Knight) respecting Texas Gulf
and my letter to Texas Gulf, a copy of which
I do not seem to have with me here, but
which I think was dated April 21. I think
the meat of the question to me was just
what are the financial implications, respect-
ing the paragraphs of that letter directed to
Texas Gulf by me, on behalf of the govern-
ment.
If I may just recap for a moment. I sug-
gested to the House that the overall benefit
or revenue to the Ontario Northland Railway
in respect of the freight rates for the sul-
phuric acid would actually result, it was felt,
in an increased revenue to the railway if
the smelter was built in Timmins. Therefore,
it was well worth the while of the railway
to make a special ofiFer to Texas Gulf so that
they would be placed in a competitive basis
with other sulphuric acid byproducts from
other smelters in northern Ontario. That was
number one.
Number two, in relation to Hydro I indi-
cated, I think, to the House that there was
no special deal oflEered to Texas Gulf in
respect to the Hydro rates. What I was in-
dicating in my letter were the standard com-
mercial rates available to Texas Gulf as they
are available to anybody else.
I think just about at that point we broke
up. We got into a bit of a question respect-
ing the preproduction expenses allowance.
This certainly was a special concession made
to Texas Gulf.
The date in the legislation was put there
with Texas Gulf in mind, and in my letter
to them I indicated to them that we would
be prepared to recommend to this Legislature
that the legislation be passed if they built a
smelter in Timmins.
The question was asked of me— just what
is the monetary advantage to the company
for this particular concession?
If we use the Ecstall Mining Co. as an
example, let me make clear first of all, that
these figures I am about to give to the House
are not actual figures. They are estimated
figures on what would be the advantage to
Ecstall Mining, providing the smelter was
on-stream and working this year and bearing
in mind that the concentrate production
would be the same as this year.
In other words, these estimates are based
on the 1969 production as we now know it.
We cannot really tell what the figure will be
in 1971 or 1972 of course, when the smelter
comes on-stream. They are based on our
estimate of what the production is this year,
and the estimate that 51 per cent of the
zinc concentrate production would be going
through that smelter, which is one of the
requirements that we have laid down to
Texas Gulf.
So assuming that the company operated
the refinery in Timmins for the 1969 opera-
tions, the company would then have been
allowed to deduct from its profit 75 per cent
of 10 per cent of the preproduction expenses
of approximately $6 million. In other words,
the preproduction expenses were about $6
million, according to the books of the com-
pany itself, which our oflBcials have audited.
They would be allowed to deduct from
that 75 per cent of 10 per cent of the pre-
production expenses, or about $450,000. Be-
cause in that event, 75 per cent of the ore
would have been treated in Canada— that is,
50 per cent of it is for copper production
which goes to Noranda; and 25 per cent of
it is to be handled at the new refinery in
Timmins. The balance of it is exported.
In other words, if you take a look at the
100 per cent of concentrate produce, you
break this 50 per cent each way; 50 per cent
of this is copper which is already treated in
MAY 15, 1969
4429
Canada at Noranda, the other 50 per cent
being the zinc, lead and silver; we have indi-
cated to them that 51 per cent of that should
go through their new smelter. So that 25 per
cent, in eflPect, of the total concentrate pro-
duction should go through their new smelter;
that is, their zinc should go through their
new smelter. So that there is an advantage
to the company there of $450,000.
In addition— and one matter that we did
not get into the other night— there are the
new procedures which we have evolved in
respect of the profits assigned to processing.
Quite frarukly, the other night I was not pre-
pared to discuss it because it is included in
the provisions of the new Mining Tax Act
amendments which are before this House.
It does not matter to me whether we dis-
cuss it here or on that bill, and because the
matter has been raised here we might as
well discuss it. We are coming up with a
new method of assigning the profit in rela-
tion to processing in Canada. There will be
an advantage to this comipany in relation to
this particular matter.
As I am sure the hon. member appreciates,
the whole last six months for me, as far as
Texas Gulf has been concerned, have been
a little bit of a poker game in any event. I
did not want to tell the company that this
was going to be general legislation, that it
was going to apply across the board in any
event. I admit that to the House. But if you
will reread that letter very carefully, you
will see that I indicated to them that the
goverranent would be prepared to proceed
with this legislation if they built the smelter
in Timmins.
It is, however, general legislation. They
have indicated they are going to build the
smelter in Timmins. Therefore, we are pre-
pared to recommend to this House that this
general legislation be passed. However, I
would point out to the member that it is
general legislation and it is applicable ri^t
across the board. The policy decisdon by the
government had been made, in any event, to
make this legislation general so that actually
it would have applied to Texas Gulf or
Ecstall, whether or not they had built the
smelter in Timmins. But at the time that they
received our letter, they did not know this.
I do not think this is an underhanded way
of doing it. As I understand some of the
crossfire that is going on between the two
parties here in any event, we are being
damned on the one hand for giving too much
away. And I can well imagine that on the
other hand we would be damned if we did
not do our utmost to make sure that that
smelter was being built in Timmins.
But if you are interested in the procedure
in respect of the profit assigned to the pro-
cessing—and bear in mind that this is an
allowance or this is a method of computing
these profits only if they process in Canada-
then this company would have been allowed
to assign eight per cent of 75 per cent of
the value of its concentrating plant. I do
not want to get you too involved here but—
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): That is 51
per cent.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No. You see, in
effect, taking into account both the copper,
which is going to Noranda, and the 50 per
cent of the 50 per cent remainder which is
going through the new smelter, a total of
75 per cent of their overall ore production
then will be utilized in Canada through a
concentrator.
Then eight per cent of that 75 per cent
of the value of the ooncentrating plant which
is ailmost $59 million— that is the value of the
plant— that eight per cent of the 75 per cent
is about $3.5 milhon, a httle over, plus 20
per cent of the 25 per cent of the value of
the concentrator or $2,939,000. That is right,
20 per cent of the 25 per cent. These are the
percentage amounts assigned by our mines
assessor in respect of the profit. It is a pretty
compUcated thing and I am afraid I am not
making myself clear on it.
Mr. T. P. Reid: You are right!
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We are coming up
with this new procedure in resx)ect of these
profits assigned to processing. We are saying
to the companies if they build a concentrator
in Canada, then they get a special amount— I
cannot call it an allowance because we get
into legal and constitutional difficulties if
we call it an allowance. Therefore, we have
to use this cumbersome phrase "profit assigned
to processing". In respect of concentrators,
this special allowance amounts to eight per
cent of the value of the concentrator.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Concentrator?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Concentrator. If
they go the next step further and build a
smelter, tlien the percentage allowance is in-
creased to 16 per cent on both. If they move
to a refinery, they get a special allowance of
20 per cent on the whole three, so that as
they take each one of these processing steps
a degree further in Canada, then they get
an increased allowance in relation to the cost
4430
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of that processing facility as deducted from
their amounts. So that here— if I may go over
that again— the concentrating allowance of
eight per cent is utilized against 75 per cent
of the value of the concentrator plant which
is just over $3.5 million, plus 20 per cent of
25 per cent of the value of the concentrator
which is just under $3 million-$2,939,000.
Mr. T. P. Reid: May I ask the Minister at
this point, is this a new formula that you
have just come up with?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Could I ask why this for-
mula was not based on the amount of con-
centrate put through the concentrator, as
well as the capital cost of the concentrator, or
the smelter separately?
Hon. A. F. Lavn-ence: It is— it is based
exactly on that. It is based on a percentage
of allowance of the value of the concentrator,
plus the amount of ore put through the con-
centrator. And, as you go the next step
further on, it relates to the amount of con-
centrate put through the smelter.
The next step is the amount of smelter
product, whatever it is— I am not too sure
what the technical name is, quite frankly—
that goes through the refinery. The import-
ant point here— you are asking me what is
the special advantage to Texas Gulf because
of this. My answer to you is that even though
at the time the company did not know it,
there was no special advantage to them, be-
cause this is general legislation.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr.
Chairman, while we would certainly en-
courage the Minister to play poker on behalf
of the people of Ontario, I think the fact
that he has been able to swing this deal in
this matter before the legislation was put
through— he was in a bind, that is obvious—
is certainly to his credit.
I just wonder whether, from the manner in
which he has dealt with Texas Gulf Sulphur
in relation to this refinery, can we take this
as an idea as to how this department plans
to interpret the legislation contained in Bill
112 in die future? Is this a good demonstra-
tion of how the department plans to do
business?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, sir, it is. The
legislation itself places an extremely wdde dis-
cretion on the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Coun-
cil. As I have indicated on the second read-
ing of that bill, I do not think these wide
discretionary powers should necessarily be
given to a cabinet, but you have got to
appreciate that here we are dealing with an
international market.
Circumstances change— geology changed;
metallurgy changed; procedures and methods
change. We have got to be flexible enough,
quite frankly, to play poker with these large
multinational concerns who can look at ore
and transportation costs all around the world.
Our prime purpose is to promote the
development of northern Ontario and to pro-
mote the mining industry, and we feel that
this is the only way of attacking the prob-
lem. If somebody has a better idea, I would
be glad to hear it, because we are quite
flexibly minded about the whole thing.
But this is the way— with the permission of
the House, of course— this is the way in which
we intend to utilize this legislation for the
benefit of areas in northern Ontario.
Mr. Knight: It is obvious that the Minister
has, it would seem, to have won this particu-
lar poker game. But as poker games go, there
may be some in the future he may not be
so fortunate in, so there are certainly some
members of the House who might be in-
clined to hesitate on this particular kind of
approach. I think the industry of mining
being what it is, I would be in a position to
go along with this idea.
My main objection to the whole matter, of
course, is this. Where Texas Gulf Sulphur is
concerned it is all right. We have our smelter
up in the north. But where the legislation
applies to other companies in the future it
could very well be that the smelter will be
located somewhere else. Yet it is conceivable
that these other companies would get the
same concessions as Texas Gulf Sulphur have
for doing, in my opinion, far less.
We feel— those of us who come from tiie
north— that these refinery operations should
be located close to site, because this is where
we are trying to decentralize. We are trying
to get population into the north. We are try-
ing to get jobs into the north; it is obvious
they are needed.
I wonder if the Minister could tell me this,
if an industry should come along and want
to put another refiner>' down on Lake Erie,
which we know already is polluted and iB
threatened with greater pollution, now would
the Minister be willing to swing a similar
type of deal with such an industry^
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am sure the hon.
member is a better poker player than I am
and I am sure one of the cardinal rules of the
MAY 15, 1969
4431
game is not to show your hand ahead of
time.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Why
play poker at all with the resources of the
province?
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I would like
to ask, Mr. Chairman, through you to tlie
Minister, has the Minister met with any com-
panies other than Texas Gulf and given them
a blanket exemption from the new legisla-
tion?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, we have not
given a blanket exemption to anybody. For
the last 20 minutes I have just gone through
what we did grant there and the total cost
of those items that I indicated in that letter
amounts to $450,000 as far as the taxpayers
of this province are concerned. I defy any
member of this House to indicate to me
that that was not a gamble worth taking,
to make sure that that smelter would get in
the Timmins area.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I just want
to make sure there is no misunderstanding.
The Minister is saying that he has not met
with any company and given them a 10-
year exemption from the new Act?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I have not said
that at all. We are talking now about exemp-
tions?
Mr. Shulman: Yes.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, that is a horse
of a different feather.
Mr. Lewis: The devil it is!
Mr. Shulman: The question is, has the
Minister met with one or more mining com-
panies and given them let us say a ten year
exemption— blanket exemption— from diis new
legislation?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, the legislation is
not even in effect yet. It has not even been
through the House yet.
Over the last four weeks, both on this
continent and on another continent, I can tell
you I have spoken to the top management
of at least tw^o dozen companies in relation
to present facilities in Ontario, present facili-
ties in Canada, and perhaps potential facilities
in Canada, and in Ontario. Certainly this
legislation has caused a lot of disquiet and a
lot of unrest, perhaps justifiably so, in the
minds of certain international mining people.
It was designed exactly to do that, quite
frankly, but I have given no exemption to
anyone yet.
I have given a commitment to one pai-
ticular company that, if tlie legislation is
approved by this House, and if the certain
circumstances surrounding that particular
company do not change, and if— I am adding
"and ifs" all the way dovra the line here—
and if they make an application for an
exemption, that certainly I will recommend to
the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council at that
time that that particular company be given
a ten year exemption for their main pro-
duction. It will be a minimum ten year limit
—or the amoimt of time required to pay off
their main debenture debt, if they retire it
in less than ten years.
In o^er words, it is a very maximum time
of ten years— it could be less than ten years—
in relation to their company; their company
is a brand new one. Their company will be
producing something which, at the moment,
is not produced in Canada— there is no need
of it in Canada. It will be a glut on the
market in a few years and this particular
company will start mining operations in an
area wdiich very much needs a mining
operation.
I am sorry to be so mysterious about it, but
the company itself has not got its prospectus
through the Ontario Securities Commission,
although I have approved a paragraph for
inclusion in that prospectus relating to my
recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor-
in-Council— if, if, if.
But this is exactly one of the reasons why
we have written that legislation in the manner
in which we have so that there wall be
very wide discretion on it.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I hate to
embarrass the Minister and it always pains
me to find him in error in the House, espe-
cially as it happens so frequently. But per-
haps, on a point of order, I could point out
his error.
First of all, the name of tlie company is
Superior Acid and Iron. Second, the pros-
pectus has been approved by the Ontario
Securities Commission. Third, tlie prospectus
has been mailed out to some thousands of
people in Ontario. Fourth, the hon. Minister's
letter is included in the prospectus. I am
sorry to embarrass him in this way—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It is not embarrass-
ing to me— I gave them permission. If tliat
has happened, it has only happened— as you
may know, I have been away from the coun-
try for five days and if it has been approved
4432
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
by tlie commission and if it has been sent
out, then it has been done within that period
of time. I gave tliem permission to use my
letter on it, because it is quite a conditional
letter.
If the news is out, I am glad to use this
company as an example of why we need
discretionary powers in that legislation.
This is a Canadian company and the name
is Superior Acid and Iron Company Limited.
They propose re-working some old pyrite
formations in Goodrow, just north of Wawa.
They intend shipping the concentrates through
Michipicoten down to the United States in
the mid-Ohio area, where there is a very
stable but pyeculiar demand for sulphuric acid
of the very pure type which I understand
can only be obtained from this type of pyrite.
They come to me and say: "We do not
feel we can even go to an underwriter and
promote this company, in all honesty, now,
in view of your legislation, unless you can
indicate to us that you will grant us an
exemption."
My first question back to them was: "Why
should I give you an exemption?" Then:
"Why can you not process this pyrite here
in Canada, produce the sulphuric acid in
Canada, then ship the sulphuric acid down
there?"
They said : "First of all, it is a tight market
down there. Secondly, and I would not want
to jeopardize anyone's interests, but the
sulphuric market in Canada over the fore-
seeable future, there is going to be an awful
lot of sulphuric acid in Ontario." "Now,"
they said, "if we have to smelt the pyrite to
make the sulphuric acid in Ontario, or in
Canada, the whole thing is up the flue.
"If it is done here it creates, with tliis
type of pyrite and the type of metallurgy in-
volved a real pollution problem; also it is
extremely difficult and extremely expensive, to
ship sulphuric acid down in to the mid-west,
which simply cannot be done under economic
conditions. But," they said, "if you give us
permission to ship the pyrite concentrate
down then we can make a viable, economic
corporation doing some worthwhile business,
because we can ship that pyrite concentrate
very easily in ordinary railway cars.
"We can store it at Michipicoten over the
winter months when the .shipping season is
not on. They can move it very easily in the
United States, they can store it in the
United States, until it is necessary to smelt
it. Then when they do smelt it and produce
the sulphuric acid right there at the source
of demand, we can easily sell it— we caimot
easily sell it, but we can get a long term
contract to sell it there."
They said, "If you do not permit us to do
this, then the whole tiling is up the flue."
We went into it very carefully. We had
our economist look at it, our geologist look
at it, other people looked at it and, quite
frankly, I felt that this would be a potential
industry- that is very needed in that area,
north of Wawa, especially in view of certain
uncertainties regarding Algoma. The Wawa
thing, to me, was manna from heaven. They
can use the railway line, they can use the
harbour facilities, and they can also use per-
haps some of the surplus labour force that
might possibly be there over die next little
while.
I was very glad, quite frankly, to be able
to say to them then, "Okay, we will give
you an exemption." Unfortunately, they then
came back and said, "How long are you going
to give us the exemption for?" My feelings
are that no exception should be given over a
period of three, four or five years. Again,
they made the very logical argument that
they would not be able to sell the debentures
for any period of time less than ten years, or
when it retires.
This was the first case that came into me
within two days of the announcement in the
House. Since then, I have had indications
from other people that are going to be after
me for exemptions and in each case, we are
going to look at them on an individual basis.
In some cases, I can tell you right now, there
are going to be a few shocks given, because
we do not intend granting the exemptions, as
we think in some cases the processing can be
done in Canada. Nevertiieless—
Mr. T. P. Held: They won that poker hand.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: They won that poker
hand maybe, but maybe the people in the
Wawa-Goodrow area won; and that, after all,
is what we are after.
Mr. Lewis: You are not here to play poker,
you are not the Minister of poker in this
government. There are other matters for you
to attend to.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am sure there are.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I do not
entirely disagree with the Minister in this
matter. At this time, he is at the very least,
partially right.
But first of all, he is wrong on one of the
most important points. It is quite possible to
MAY 15, 1969
4433
smelt pyrite ore without pollution. He is
right on the economic aspect and let me make
my position very clear. I am a small share-
holder in this company, so no one will mis-
understand, that was why I was so delighted
to receive the Minister's letter about two days
after we were discussing exemptions. How-
ever, thank you, Mr. Minister.
But I think the Minister has a very serious
misapprehension about this company in that
there are no intentions at the present time of
doing anything with this ore. All the com-
pany is doing at the present time is raising
some $900,000 in order to decide whether or
not it is practical to smelt it and whether or
not it is practical to mine it and send it down
to the United States to sell. So he is away
ahead of himself in this.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If the opinions and
the evidence they have given to us now are
the same as at the time they start production,
then they will have to apply for an exemp-
tion. I have indicated that we will take a
look at it at that time. But in the interval,
so they can go ahead with their financing, I
certainly thought it was only fair, just and
equitable to indicate to them that if those
circumstances did not change, that I would
recommend it to the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council and that, of course, does not bind
anybody either. My record with the Cabinet
sometimes, is not very good.
Mr. Shulman: We know that. We are very
aware of that, Mr. Chairman. I am not dis-
agreeing with the Minister in this case,
obviously. The only thing that disturbs me
about it is that this is the first case. Will
the Minister assure us that all exemptions will
be made public?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is another
thing, Mr. Chainnan, this whole discussion
should be taking place in the committee stage
of these bills rather than now, but, as I say,
I am just as glad to get it out of the way.
But another section in the bill, The Mining
Tax Act, takes this discretion completely away
from the Minister of Mines at my insistence
because these discretions are pretty important
things, and I do not think it should be on any
single person's shoulders to make the final
decision.
Therefore, all of these discretions now will
be exercised by the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council. The Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council
acts only by virtue of an order-in-council and
orders-in-council are published. Therefore, in
short, the answer to the member's question is
yes, they will all be made public.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, before I
leave this matter— I am almost through— just
to make this quite clear. I would not want the
people to think through this discussion they
are going to have a huge mine up there.
They are nowhere near that stage and it may
never happen.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I agree with the
member. That is why I did not want to
mention the name, quite frankly, but the
member mentioned it first.
Mr. Shulman: I could not help embarrass-
ing the Minister under the circumstances.
I would like to ask the Minister through
you, Mr. Chairman, has Falconbridge mine
approached him for an exemption in relation
to the ore being shipped to Norway?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, they have. They
got caught right in the middle in that their
present exemption for their post- 19 17 land
mns out in August, 1969. And, therefore,
about three weeks before this change in policy
was made public, they did send an applica-
tion to me, actually to the Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts), asking for the exemption to be
continued.
No action was taken on that application
because, of course, we were well aware of
the armouncement and what was going to
happen. That was just shelved and, of course,
Falconbridge right now is busy changing
their application for one from the post- 19 17
land to all of their land. I assume the import
of the memiber's question is, has any deci-
sion yet been made? And the answer to that
is, no.
Mr. Shulman: May I suggest through you,
sir, to the Minister, that inasmuch as the
amount of money involved here is many,
many times that of the other matters we have
discussed until now, including Ticxas Gulf,
perhaps this is an opportrmity for the Min-
ister to show the strengtli of his spine in
relation to Falconbridge. We will be looking
forward with great interest to see the decision
he does make in this matter.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I do not want to
prejudge anything but again it is not just
a black and white question by any means.
For my money, Falconbridge has been a very
good Canadian corporate citizen as far as its
community affairs are concerned, perhaps
even more so than other companies in that
particular area. Most of their market is in
Europe.
In the first place, I am informed that the
Falconbridge Nickel Mines complex really
4434
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
would not have been put together if they
liad not had that refinery in Norway. As a
matter of fact, some time over the next
ten days, I hope to take a look at that re-
finery to see what they are doing over there.
They have just now developed a process
in Norway which they intend to apply in
Falconhridge for their new iron process.
These things really are a two-way street; it
is not a black and white matter by any
means. If there is any danger that Falcon-
]>ridge would have to become completely
subservient— let me put it bluntly to you, to
International Nickel, let us say— simply on
the basis that we indicated to them that
they could not export any more of their nickel
matter to Norway, this would be a very sad
day for the Canadian mineral economy. I cer-
tainly do not want tliat to happen. And
there may be danger of it happening, I do
not know. But we are still looking very closely
at the whole picture. They are looking very
closely at the whole picture. I cannot indicate
to you what the decision is because it simply
has not been made yet.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I also liave
looked closely at this particular picture and
I want to assure the Minister that there is
no danger of Falconbridge closing up shop
or ceasing to make a veiy reasonable profit
if they are forced to smelt their ore here
in Canada. Quite frankly, the matter that
disturbs me vitally—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Thoy do not smelt
it; they refine it.
Mr. Shulman: Refine it; yes, they should
refine their ore here in Canada. I would like
to receive the Minister's assurance that cer-
tain donations that Falconbridge has been
making on a regular basis will not affect the
decision that is made. But perhaps we can
discuss this later in the year?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, let us discuss it
right now, because the hon. member was
kind enough to send me a couple of pages of
a manuscript which he said was going to be
incorporated in a book in which there are
grave allegations made, I think, about the
integrity of the people belonging to the Pro-
gressive-Conservative Party in this country.
And there are snide comments made about
the reason-
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Shame! Off
with his head.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —the government
put the screws on Texas Gulf. I can just
imagine the snarl as he dictated it— the screws
on Texas Gulf because Texas Gulf did not
know enough to make a substantial donation
to the silush fund. Are these not the actual
words? I think they are the actual words. I
guess people can sell anything these days.
Of course, the words are fairly carefully
chosen, so that there are no individuals named
and therefore no possible danger of any libel
action or anything like that. But I can assure
the hon. member that I do not know of any
single donation made by any mining com-
pany anywhere to any so-called election
funds, slush funds or anything else.
Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that
steelworkers did not make any donation to
the NDP fund; or that International Nickel or
Falconbridge or anybody else did not make
any donation to any other election fund of
any other party. I am saying I do not know
and in not knowing, how can these matters
possibly enter into any decision made by me
in respect of what I recommend to the gov-
ernment? Nonsense!
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York Soutli): Mr.
Chairman, may I voice, just briefly, a thought
that went througli my mind? Just to show you
how confused this picture is, I am not so
certain that I would not prefer to have the
decision made with regard to smelting in
Ontario by this Minister, who professes his
ignorance, than by the Cabinet, some of
whom will know.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I do not tliink that
follows at all.
Mr. MacDonald: How naive can the Min-
ister be?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
let me make-
Mr. Chairman: The member for Port
Arthur has been trying to get the floor.
An hon. member: Rainy River.
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, the member
for Port Arthur had been up before. The
member for Rainy River.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would hke to ask the Minister— I understand
that Texas Gulf has to smelt 51 per cent of
their zinc ore. May I ask die Minister where
the rest of it is being smelted?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: At the moment their
zinc concentrate is mainly sold in the States;
some does go to Japan, I think, and some to
Europe. Where it will go after this require-
MAY 15, 1969
4435
menit is put into effect— in other words once
the smelter gets built— I do not know. I would
imagine most of it would go to the States.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Why 51 per cent?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We felt that the
majority of the zinc concentrate in the initial
instance should be smelted in Canada. It is
as simple as that.
The company, initially, was not prepared
to indicate that they would be doing this
amount. I suppose mainly it is my position
to defend the mining companies, I do not
know. But here is a company that has not
been in the metal market before. Here is a
company that is setting up something that,
for tliem, is a brand new venture, namely, a
smelter and a refinery. They are going to
be actively injected now into the metal
miarket.
Before, they have had things pretty easy
l>ecause they have been able to sell this
concentrate. For some strange reason it is
very easy to sell concentrate but, I am told,
as far as zinc is concerned, anyway, it is
particularly tough to break into the zinc
metal market.
I mean, it is not just a black and white
proposition. My understanding is that in the
North American Continent and, I suspect,
elsewhere in the western world, there has
never been a zinc smelter, refinery or acid
complex of the type that is going to be built
at Timmins, that was built at one fell swoop.
In otlier words, there are other zinc smelter
refineries which do exist which do process
a larger volume of concentrate and produce
a larger volume of metal.
However, none of them have been built
all at once. This is a pretty big bite for this
company to take off all at once. However, we
have said to them that it has got to be done
and they will do it. We have also indicated
to them that within five years of that smelter-
refinery complex coming on-stream they have
got to increase that percentage to at least
75 per cent.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if die
lion. Minister believes he has the support of
the Conservatives with him, when only five
members of the Conservative Party are in the
House while these debates are going on.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, they know that
the Minister of Mines can handle the whole
position-
Mr. Sinser: Five members.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, could I
ask the hon. Minister where INCO— the mine
that they are going to have at Shebandowan
—will be smelting ore?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: My understanding is
that this would be done at Copper CUff.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Now in relation to this
mine at Shebandowan, could the Minister
inform me if The Department of Mines and
the Minister have anything to do with the
development of the mine site and town site?
Where do you become involved in the town
site?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: There is an inter-
departmental committee which we call the
town site committee which does correlate
the various regulations and activities of the
various departments in respect to setting up
town sites. It also gives advice to groups who
may have the need for new town sites in the
future.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Who chairs that com-
mittee?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think the Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough)
does or someone out of The Department of
Municipal Affairs. I am sorry, I am not on
the committee. My Deputy Minister is on
the committee, so I suppose it is at the
Deputy Ministers' level. If it is not the
Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, I will
get the right man's designation to you.
But if you do not hear from me on it, assume
that it is the Deputy Minister of Municipal
Affairs who chairs that committee.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would like to point out
to you, as the responsible Minister of Mines,
that this government made a gross error in
setting up a new town site at Ear Falls, in
northwestern Ontario, when the town of Red
Lake and Balmertown, a distance of 10 or
12 miles by road, already had a town site,
and all the services necessary for a town.
Now for some reason, unknown to anyone.
The Departments of Municipal Affairs and
Mines agreed to have a town site set up at
Ear Falls. It would appear that this govern-
ment again is abrogating its responsibility and
is going to let a town site develop at Sheban-
dowan.
My information is that INCO themselves
are engaged in planning a town site at
Shebandowan, The community of Atikokan,
which is in the Rainy River riding is some
60 or 70 miles from Shebandowan. The Lake-
head cities are some 40 or 50 miles awav.
4436
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Surely we are not going to keep putting
isolated town sites in various parts of northern
Ontario, at huge distances from each other,
with all the concomitant costs.
I would like to put it to the Minister that
this is going to happen, and ask him if he is
prepared now to investigate the situation and
to recommend to The Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs that a town site not be estab-
lished at Shebandowan.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: First of all may I
say that I did not want to interrupt the hon.
member, but I really think that these matters
should be brought up during the discussion
of the estimates of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
We were not that invoh ed in the Ear Falls
problem and the decision to set up the Ear
Falls town site. In any event it happened
before I came into The Department of Mines.
But I really do feel that you would get far
more sensible, shorter answers out of the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and I think there
is an item in his vote that does deal with this.
May I correct myself— Mr. Don Taylor, the
executive director of The Department of
Municipal Affairs is the chairman of the town
site committee, not the Deputy Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
But I think if my hon. friend woitld not
mind bringing this matter up during the dis-
cussion of the estimates of the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, he will get far more
sensible answers out of him than he would
out of me because I am not that com ersant
with these problems.
Mr. T. P. Raid: Well, I do not want to
pat you on the back, but you have more
confidence in the Minister of Municipal Affairs
than I do. I would just like to make the
point that I think it behoves you and is in-
cumbent upon your responsibility as the
Minister of Mines to bring this situation to
the attention of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs. I have brought it to his attention in
this House before and he has just ignored it.
Meanwhile, a shacktown is going up in
Shebandowan, and it is partly the respon-
sibility of the Minister of Mines, surely.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, all right. If
you want to get into it I do not care but I
have gone up there. I have inspected all of
these sites and looked at them all and there
are conflicting interests involved. The people
in the Lakehead do not want to see a town
site at Shebandowan. On the other hand, I
would hate, quite frankly, to work in Sheban-
dowan knowing that I had to commute, what
is it— 60 miles?— back and forth.
Now you go up to Ear Falls, what is Ear
Falls from Balmertown— 45, 50 miles?—
Interjection by an hon. meml^er.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It is six of one and
half a dozen of another.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, surely the
Minister is not being sensible. Would you
rather have the miners commute or are you
going to have the children of school age,
either elementary- or high-school-age, com-
mute? Surely this is what it is going to come
down to.
Already in the north young children have
to spend anywhere from half an hour to two
hours or two-and-a-half hours a day on the
bus. Surely the men, the adults, are more
resilient or more flexible in this regard than
young children are.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am not going to
paint myself into the comer of defending the
Ear Falls decision, because I had no part of
it.
Mr. T. P. Reid: It is indefensible, you can-
not do it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think it is defen-
sible, but I think you should bear in mind
that again, it is not one of these black-and-
white issues of children commuting or workers
commuting.
Mr. Singer: But you are not going to de-
fend it.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Well no, but yours is a
specious argument.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to follow up this particular
point.
Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the hon. mem-
ber for Riverdale will yield the floor to the
hon. member for Thunder Bay? He has
attempted to get the floor on four previous
occasions.
Mr. J. Ren wick: Mr. Chairman, before we
depart too far, I only want to share one
thought with the Minister, which is that when
the Minister and his colleagues are making
the decision about exemptions under the pro-
posed Act, it would be much better if the
public knew what contributions had l^ecn
made by the companies which contribute to
the Progressive Conservative Party. This, of
course, would be the case if we were the
MAY 15, 1969
4437
government, in respect of the contributions
made by any interested organizations to this
party.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I suppose the
argument of the hon. member might have
some validity if these matters entered into
the decision in any event. My point is, to
you, that they do not. This has been indi-
cated to you before and you do not believe
it. So, there you are. You say we are wrong;
I say you are full of hot air; what is the
difference?
Mr. Chairman: Now the hon. member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To
get back to Shebandowan. It happens to be
in the riding of Thunder Bay. The member
for Rainy River seems bent on getting an
extension of industries in Atikokan. I am
interested in where the people are located
only to the extent that if you allow them to
locate in a particular area, their equity is
going to be looked after.
As you know, with a non-renewable re-
source—and this has happened in Geraldton,
it has happened in Beardmore— where towns
are allowed to spring up, you eventually have
thousands of miners and their families who
are forced to leave a certain area where the
small businesses have an equity, and where
the government has a tremendous equity in
services to that community. They walk off,
leave it, and duplicate the thing 50 or 100
miles away.
All I am interested in is that if you allow
a town to spring up any place, you be able
to justify it economically, so that when the
decision is made, you will say this area has
a life of 50 or 100 years, based on what is
known of the area and the resources of that
area. The town that is there as a result of
those resources will be able to survive for
longer than 15 or 20 years. Has the Minister
ever harboured the thought of establishing a
fund, say, in Manitouwadge, where the town
owes its existence to a base metal find which
could be exhausted in 25 years? It would be
completely unrealistic for this government to
say, "Well, let us walk away from that" in
that length of time and allow development to
take place in another location based on an-
other non-renewable resource.
Has the Minister ever thought of looking
ahead and, in the instance of Geraldton, look-
ing at the knowTi resources that are in that
area, rather than allow tens of millions of
dollars' worth of services in that area to die
while he is going to duplicate them some-
where else? Would you never consider form-
ing a corporation such as Soquem where you
go in and do a detailed survey of the area
where you know what the potential is? You
know what the market is, or project what the
market will be, over an extended period of
time, and before you allow an ore body to
be exploited, say 200 miles away where it
does not bother or is not going to affect an
existing community?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If you are going to
start talking about Soquem, that really should
be under another vote.
Mr. Stokes: I am talking about the overall
administrative policy. Do you not think it
would be far more advisable to have a com-
prehensive survey made of the area? It is
quite possible that you can justify a townsite
in Shebandowan, given all the information
about the resources in that area, whether
they be mining, or forest products. It is con-
ceivable that you could allow a townsite to
spring up that could support a community of
maybe 10,000 people.
But you must have this information in
advance in order to make that determination.
I am wondering, if you do not do that, would
you consider having a fund? From the min-
ute a mining company starts to exploit those
resources, a fund should be set aside to
make a detailed survey of the area. If you
find nothing, at least you can repay miners
who have established homes. You could
amortize it over a given period of years so
that when or if, in the final analysis, people
were forced to leave, there would be a fund,
at least, to compensate them for the loss or
the equities that they had in their homes, or
the cost of moving to a new location. I was
wondering if the Minister would like to com-
ment on those two aspects of it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: First of all, maybe
you have not been reading the terms of ref-
erence of the inter-departmental committee
but you were using a couple of phrases there
that are written right into the terms of ref-
erence of that committee, I can assure you.
In other words, what you are talking about
in respect of reserves is exactly what this
department is attempting to do and why we
have Department of Mines' technical staff on
that committee.
Obviously, our purpose in being there is to
advise the committee on just such matters as
reserves. However, the question of mining
reserves in a mine is a pretty nebulous thing
that can be kicked around between the
4438
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
judgment of a geologist and a mining engi-
neer and a Bay Street broker. It is a pretty
nebulous thing until you get it.
Mr. Stokes: I am not interested in pro-
motion; I am interested in development.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I know, but you
talk about reserves of a mine and until you
actually start digging the stuflF out, you
really do not know what is there in a lot of
cases. But that is neither here nor there. That
is a long argument that I hope we will not
get into on this particular vote, anyway. But
in respect of setting up funds, this is some-
thing that has been periodically considered
and periodically rejected as being imprac-
tical; the member has brought it up again. I
would certainly be quite willing to take a look
at it and I can assure them we will.
Mr. MacDonald: Why is it impractical?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: First of all, one's
equity in a place— this can have a pretty
deleterious effect sometimes, in being used as
a weapon to force somebody to stay in a
given occupation that he may not otherwise
want to. Like the old non-vesting pension
fund racket that used to be you know. There
are all sorts of things. The length of time the
people stay in the area; there are all sorts of—
Mr. Stokes: If he moves out voluntarily,
he just forfeits his equity.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Again, you vdll
admit that it is a pretty complicated thing
and it is something that has been considered,
I can assure you, because I have asked
questions myself about it. I have had certain
papers and opinions given to me about it. I
think it is something that the inter-depart-
mental committee has considered.
I will make sure that the matter is given
to them again and as well, within our own
department, we will take a look at it, because
this is a real problem. I agree with you. The
vagaries of the mineral market, the vagaries
of resources and reserves, is the big factor
in the north, I think, especially where you
get communities tied to a single resource or
a single industry. The north is covered with
examples of what should not have been per-
mitted to happen. You are perfectly right
there. How you attack the problem, I do not
know. There are many answers. Many an-
swers have been given and not too many of
them have been found practical but I would
certainly be willing to consider that.
Mr. Stokes: I would like to pursue this one
step further. Have you ever said to a mining
company: Now we do not think that it is in
the interests of the economy and the people
in the north that you should exploit this par-
ticular resource at this time, because we have
one over here that will suit our purposes
much better in tlie overall development of
ix)tential growth centres in the north? Do
you ever say, No, I do not tliink it is in our
interests that you develop this; I think we
have a responsibility to develop this and we
only have a market for so many million tons
or ounces; or whatever it happens to be.
You have a responsibility— at least, I think
the Minister of Mines and The Department
of Mines has a responsibility— to see that our
resources are developed in such a way that
you protect existing towns and allow new
towns to grow up that have some likelihood
of existing over a period of time. You can
justify their existence on that basis.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Let me make it clear
here. We do not have the power to prohibit
anybody from mining a viable economic ore
deposit, if they wish to do so and they fall
within our safety regulations. Quite frankly,
your philosophical-political outlook is com-
pletely different from mine in that respect,
because I do not want that type of paternal-
istic power. I do not think yet we have reached
the role of government where government it-
self can absolutely prohibit something on their
own views, or their own judgment, or their
own opinions in respect of that. However, we
do provide very wide consultative services to
industry.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Even though
it is detrimental to the people?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Who is going to
decide whether it is detrimental to the people?
Mr. E. W. Mattel (Sudbury East): That
should be an obvious thing.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right, let us not
get into these long philosophical arguments
on this. Let me merely say that we do provide
consultative services to industry and to people,
and we have certainly told people that if they
go ahead with that development they have
holes in their heads.
As a matter of fact I signed a letter just
today to a member in this House— he has not
got it yet and he is going to blow his top
when he does— telling him that if he advises
the people who have asked him for advice to
go ahead with this, that they have their
heads screwed on backwards. We do pro-
MAY 15, 1969
4439
vide these services; we do tell people where
we think it is not advisable, either in the
public interest or not economically viable,
but we do not have the power to prohibit
them. Quite frankly, I do not want that
power. I do not tliink, in government, that
we have reached that level of foreseeability
where we can tell anybody, really, what their
business is as far as something is concerned.
If it is economic and if it is viable and if it
is in the north and if they think they can
make a buck out of it and if they think that
they can provide a new industry, why should
they not go ahead with it?
Mr. Stokes: All right. Let me take Gerald-
ton, for instance. They have about two years
left. It is a community of about 3,500 and
their economy is based on a gold mine that is
being subsidized through The Emergency
Gold Mining Assistance Act. They have a low
grade iron ore deposit that is owned by the
Little Longlac group and I understand there
is either an option, or they are negotiating
with Algoma Steel for the exploitation of
that particular ore body.
TJtiey have got Anaconda, which is a reason-
able distance away and could be developed
to the advantage of the people of Geraldton.
You have Can-Fer where they have signed a
20-year lease with Algoma Steel for that
property. Woiild it not be infinitely more wise
to say to these people, "Now we are inter-
ested in maintaining Geraldton, which is the
service area for an area of 200 square miles.
They have the hospitals, they have the
churches, they have Lands and Forests, they
have got Hydro, they have the Bell Tele-
phone, they have the gas distribution centre
—all the services are located in Geraldton.
It seems that it should be in the interest of
all concerned to maintain that as a viable
service imit, and yet what are you, as a
department, doing to assure these people that
this will be done and that every avenue will
be explored, in order that a viable industrial
base for it to exist on will be maintained?
You just said, if there is a buck in it, you
do not care where it is located. I suggest this
Minister has a responsibility to ensure those
people that their area will be given top
priority with regard to the orderly develop-
ment of the natural resources in this province,
and I hope that you will agree with me, even
to that extent.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I do agree with you
in that we should provide the consultative
services and the advisory services and, per-
haps, be sometimes a little stronger in our
outlook than we certainly have been in
respect of the placing of these things. This
will be done. It is now being done.
We are strengthening our consultative
services. We are assisting industry to place
itself in areas where it is obviously needed—
not just through this department, but through
half a dozen departments over here in all
sorts of ways. Through this department, of
course, we are putting out geological bulletins
and specialized mapping, more intensive
work, in areas where we think exploration
and development should and could take place.
But to come along and force people into a
situation that in the long run may not be
economic is just creating even greater prob-
lems than the market place laws.
We have not yet reached that age of per-
fection—as a matter of fact, I do not think
anybody has— where we can peer into the
crystal ball that far ahead and say, "You
shall do that," or "you shall not do that," as
long as they themselves have the albility and
the means to make up their mind.
We are not yet in that type of a state,
thank God.
Mr. Stokes: No, but Anaconda spent $13
million. They know what they have-
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Fort
William,
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort WiUiam): Prior to
leaving, I would address a question to the
Minister of Mines and a reply possibly from
the member for Rainy River. This has to do
with the mine location at Shebandowan, the
new Inco development. Having been out there
on many occasions, and on two occasions with
the Minister himself, and knowing that the
Ontario Water Resources Commission are
doing a very tight control on all of the
development, and having had it explained to
me, I am quite satisfied vidth the work that
they are doing. They are also working very
closely with The Department of Municipal
Affairs, and I would hope that they would
not develop, like the member for Rainy River,
a townsate in its full capacity at Sheban-
dowan.
My question to the member for Rainy
River: I would hke him to qualify the loca-
tion of this "shack town" that he referred to
twice while he was on his feet. Is he re-
ferring to the 450 cottagers that are resident
at the lake, or is there an existing shack town
tliat I did not see when I was there three
weeks ago?
4440
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I
should reply to the member for Fort WilHam.
As the member is no doubt aware, a nimi-
l)er of these miners are buying the existing
cottages and winterizing them and you know
what liappens when you winterize a cottage
in a hurry. You are slapping siding on and,
let us say the aesthetics of the situation
leave something to be desired. This is what
has happened.
Rather than commute to the Lakehead as
they have to now, some of them have bought
these summer homes, summer cottages, and
have winterized them. They are turning the
cottages that were suited for summer time
into winter time shacks, in effect.
Mr. Jessiman: The people from the Lake-
head will enjoy reading that the member for
Rainy River is calling their cottages a shack:
town.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I just do not want the
same situation as in Ear Falls.
Mr. L. Bemier (Kenora): Mr. Chairman,
imder what vote do we discuss the—
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sud-
Iniry East was on the floor first, but I will
take the question from the hon. member.
Would he repeat his question?
Mr. Bemier: Under wliat vote do we dis-
cuss the regional development conferences
tliat the Minister announced?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Under this vote.
Mr. Bemier: Under this vote? Well, this is
fine.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East had the floor first. Perhaps the
hon. member for Kenora would save his ques-
tion until the next turn?
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, through you
to the Minister, tliis Minister has a little bit
on the ball, I might say— a little bit on the
ball. Unfortunately, I think this Minister has
been misinformed on many, many occasions.
Consequently, some of the replies that we
get in this House, or which I get in the
correspondence, or tlie replies that the Min-
ister puts on the record, are erroneous. Cer-
tainly I do not think it does this Minister any
good, nor does it do any good to the attitude
of the employees in the area that I am from.
I would like to go back— just to show you
a few examples— to last year's debates when
the Minister, in reply to three inquests that
J enquired about, made the following state-
ment—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder— so that I could have the proper
officials in front of me when he says I am
l^eing misinformed, I can then pierce the
proper officials with my hard glance, you see
—if he would mind bringing this up under
the proper vote, namely, mine safety, the
inspection branch.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I would not
mind doing that, but I think what I am
going to raise now comes under general
administration; it is an overall policy. I will
come to the mine safety under the appro-
priate vote.
When the Minister made the following
statement about the first man wIk) was
killed— one was the result of a dranken
driver running over somebody. I am quoting
from Hansard:
Good heavens, this can happen, and probably
does, right out here on Queen's Park Crescent more
often than it does in the mines.
The second one— and I quote again:
The man signalled the thing open. No more than
standing on any waste chute! Again, you can legislate
all you want.
The Minister indicated a man:
Requested a chute should be opened up and he
fell through.
And the third one, the tliird fatality—
I have forgotten the details of it, but it was
equally as stupid and inane as those other
two were, if not more so.
There is a complete lack of information,
Mr. Minister. I have the copy of the inquest-
Mr. Chairman: Surely this is under mine
safety?
Mr. Martel: No, I am talking-
Mr. Chairman: Order! Surely this is mine
safety and public protection and the hon.
member need not say no, because it certainly
is mine safety.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I just do not
like your attitude.
Mr. Chairman: I am not fussy about
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Martel: That is fine. But I am going
to come to the whole point of misinforma-
tion and this does not deal with mine safety,
it deals with a draeger meter which the Min-
ister replied to some time ago.
MAY 15, 1969
4441
Mr. Chairman: All right.
Mr. Martel: Now that has nothing to do
widi safety. I am talking about information.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member should
keep his remarks within this particular vote
and bring up matters pertaining to mine
safety in the proper vote.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I am not talk-
ing about mine safety. I am talking about
information tliat the Minister is repeating
that is wrong. It has nothing to do with mine
safety. I am not talking about safety.
Mr. Chairman: If the information has to do
with mine safety, the vote is 1303.
Mr. Martel: I will go to the next question
—I can come back to this—
Mr. MacDonald: He will too.
Mr. Martel: I will go on to misinforma-
tion and I would like to quote from a letter.
Sometime ago I questioned the Minister
about a draeger meter and the Minister—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The regulations and
the administration of matters relating to
draeger meters also falls within our mine
safety branch.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member
would bring up mine safety matters under
the proper vote. We are on vote 1301 which
is general. I am not trying to restrict the
hon. member in this debate but surely we
must keep some order.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I am trying
to relate the fact that it is not a piece of
mine safety that I am discussing. What I am
discussing is that information tibat the Min-
ister is receiving and passing on in this
House— receiving it from the admdnistrative
staff I presume—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Receiving it from
the mines safety branch. For heaven's sake,
if this is misinformation respecting mine
safety then why waste the time any longer,
let me get my proper official in front of me
during a proper vote and we will deal with
it then.
Mr. Chairman: I think this is a reasonable
attitude and the hon. member for Sudbury
East may recite the same instances and he
may bring up the same sort of debate at
the proper time. Vote 1301 general adminis-
tration. The hon. member for Timiskaming.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Two small
questions of this Minister, Mr. Chairman.
First of aU, he mentioned that copper is
going into Noranda; is there an on-going
caucus between the Minister and the com-
pany to try to convince them to smelt in
Ontario?
Secondly, he mentioned the fact as he
has mentioned many times, that iJiere was a
feasibility study done by the company. Did
The Department of Mines at the same time
do a feasibility study and, if they did not,
how do you play poker when you know the
other fellow does not have anything in his
hand?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We are waiting in
respect of the copper possibility, and for the
company to receive their feasibility study
first. We do not ask them for their feasibility
study, it is not our property. Following the
result of their study, they come to us with a
proposal. We are not completely without
experience, or without personnel, or without
staff, or without statistics, or without records
either, and we view their proposals in the
light of public policy. We make our decisions
in the view of what is good for the people of
this country and the people of this province.
In respect specifically to the copper thing
—the copper matter and Texas Gulf— it is
Texas Gulf you are talking about, is it not?
They have indicated to us that the feasibility
study would not be received by them until
the month of May 1969. As I say, I have not
been in my office during the last week and
I have not heard from them. I can only
assume that they have not yet received that
study or if they have, they are still evaluating
it. When I hear from them, then the game
starts I guess. So far, I have not heard from
them.
Mr. Jackson: To follow this up a little
further, in the case of Marmoraton mines
— Marmoraton Iron Mines— the Minister has
already stated that they will be required to
process their ores in Ontario or in Canada.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Which one?
Mr. Jackson: Marmoraton.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh no, I have not
said that.
Mr. Jackson: Are you referring to a very
general situation then?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No. You are refer-
ring to a very erroneous article that appeared
in the Toronto Daily Star about two days
after the announcement in this House was
made. It quoted an authoritative source in
4442
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Department of Mines who indicated that
all iron ore produced in the province would
have to be processed in the province, or some-
thing like that. That is the farthest— I have
not found out who that authoritative source
was, if I do, there will be a vacancy in the
stafiF of The Department of Mines because
that is simply not true. A very erroneous
article.
You want to know my general outlook on
iron mines and iron ore, is that what you
are really asking me for?
Mr. Jackson: No it is not really.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Okay. Sorry.
Mr. Jackson: What I am saying to the
Minister, Mr. Chairman, is how do you know
if it is not feasible, imless you do a feasibility
study? Do you accept the company's word?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh no.
Mr. Jackson: How do you then play this
game of poker that you talk about?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, no. No.
Mr. Jackson: That is in my opinion, dead-
shot poker, you cannot win.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We will see if we can
win or not. In any event, as I said, we do
have some experience, some persoimel, in
our department. It may well be, at some
time, that when one of these very complicated
situations does come into it, we may have to
go out and retain our own consulting firm.
The mining game is a pretty complicated
and a pretty unique one. I do not foresee
that this will happen because we now have
a mineral economist on the staflF, we have
some people on the staff who have spent most
of their adult years in the mining industry
or in this department in relation to financial
matters respecting companies. We have some
of the best geologists in the province of On-
tario on our staff. We have very experienced
mining engineers and others. I ask them for
their opinions on these things and in effect
their evaluation of other people's evaluations.
I do not think the cards are stacked against
us at all. If it is, then we will certainly take
steps at that time to correct it. So far, we
ha\'e only gotten into the game, but I would
not say we lost the first hand, would you?
Mr. Jackson: We never win the game until
it is over. As the Minister has mentioned, I
would like to hear what his general policy is
on iron in Ontario.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Quite frankly, I think
the iron ore-steel business in this province is
a \'ery viable one in which great strides have
been made over the last 10 or 15 years. The
emergence of the pelletizing process espe-
cially, has now made economic the mining
of our low grade iron ore deposits of which
we have many in this province. I am very
loathe to interfere in any manner, shape or
form in the iron ore-steel business. I say iron
ore-steel business because this is the trend in
the industry, complete integration in the
industry with about three— there are only
about three examples of mines at the moment
that are not fully integrated within a steel
business.
The economic forecasts that wc have are,
that over the next ten years the need of our
own existing blast furnaces and foreseeable
blast furnaces will require twice as much in
the way of our own domestic iron ore than
we now produce. This is a pretty healthy
situation and I do not want to upset the very
fine, delicate balance that now exists in the
iron ore business by coming along with any
heax'yhanded ruthless decisions here, that
would upset that balance.
We do export iron ore. At the moment, it is
my intention to permit those iron ore com-
panies to continue to export that iron ore
because we are utilizing most of the iron ore
of course that we do produce within the
province and as well we import iron ore. If
I can put it in layman's terms— and maybe
the hon. member knows more about it than I
do which would not be surprising— but the
mix that goes into a blast furnace is like
making beer or making whisky, you need a
blend, and there are some types of iron ore
that we do not have in this province. A great
deal of the iron ore that we now import goes
on the credit side of the ledger, or debit side,
it all depends on how you look at it, in re-
spect of the iron ore that we export. It is
not quite in balance but it is fairly close to it.
In short, I think the iron ore-steel business
is a pretty happy one and I do not want to
do anything to upset it right now. Therefore,
if they provide us with the proper evidence
and information which we are going to re-
quest of them, respecting their exports and
the capitalization of their companies and
what-not, I anticipate that any of the iron
ore companies right now who are exporting
will be permitted to continue to export. There
may be one or two examples of where this
may not be permitted but, as I say, until we
get the required information from them, that
is my general overall view at the moment.
MAY 15, 1969
4443
They will have to apply for exemption and
when they apply for exemption there is cer-
tainly going to be a lot more information re-
quired of them, which we do not have now in
respect of their operations, their reserves and
their ownership. But they are going to be
required to apply to us for an exemption just
like any other mineral producer in the prov-
ince.
Mr. Jackson: I have just one more ques-
tion, Mr. Chairman. The Minister stated that
the projected use of iron ore in Ontario is,
in the near future, going to be two and a half
or twice as great as it is now. What is The
Department of Mines doing to insure that
we will have that ore when we need it?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Any company at all.
This was what I was doing last week and this
is what I will be doing next week— talking to
some overseas people about this thing. I can
assure the member the Minister is spending
a lot of money travelling around, trying to
tell people that we do have very massive
amounts of low-grade ore in this province.
We are building roads to them. We will
build airfields; we will do anything. We will
give them very consultative opinions from a
geological point of view; from an economic
point of view; from a transportation point of
view, to interest these people in coming to
this province to exploit our low-grade iron ore
deposits. We have all sorts of them within
the province.
We want them to come in and to utilize
these deposits. This is the way the north is
going to get developed. Dr. Thomson points
out to me that at the moment— and it is a
very conservative estimate— we ha\'e over 8
billion tons of iron ore in Ontario which is
not being mined.
Mr. Chairman: In an effort to try to keep
order, may I point out that the hon. member
for Kenora has graciously yielded the floor
to the hon. member for Sudbury East when
he asked on a point of clarification. I think,
in fairness, the hon. member for Kenora
should be next; then the hon. member for
Port Arthur.
Mr. Beraier: Thank you Mr. Chairman,
through you I would like to compliment the
Minister on his announcement that we are
having thre regional development conferences
in the north this fall. I note that the plan is
to hold one in Sudbury, one in Timmins and
one at the Lakehead.
I think the Minister is aware of the dis-
tance that Kenora is from the Lakehead.
Through you Mr. Chairman I would like to
ask the Minister if he would consider the
suggestion or the possibility that perhaps a
satellite of this meeting at the Lakehead be
held either at Kenora or possibly in Dryden.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am indebted to
the hon. member for bringing that to my
attention. Our problem as in all things of
course is one of money. We have not tiiat
much money to throw around; we are operat-
ing under a pretty skeleton budget on these
regional conferences.
I would be glad to take it under considera-
tion. I do not want to establish any prece-
dent here though you know. If we do it for
Kenora why should we not do it for Moon-
beam or Sault Ste. Marie or a few places
like that? I do not know but, anyway, let me
take a look at it. I am indebted to ihe hon.
member for the suggestion.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I think the
Minister has demonstrated this afternoon that
he has some very progressive ideas about de-
veloping mining in the north, and being a
northerner it makes me very happy. I think
he has us reasonably convinced also that he
has the mighty mining industry of this prov-
ince standing at attention.
I wonder, while he has them there, if he
could bring in another aspect of his depart-
mental operation, that of conservation.
Thumbing through the table of contents of
the annual report, I see no mention of con-
servation, nor do I see any mention of it in
the estimates, Mr. Chairman. However, I
think-
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: May I help the hon.
member there? I think this is a very lively
topic within the department right now, but it
comes under the geological services vote.
Specifically, we do have industrial mineral
geologists. I can tell you something about
that when we get to that vote, if the member
would not mind. Geological services, that
would be vote 1302.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, while I have
the floor, I have a couple of other questions.
We know that tlie department has been in
tlie business of— what shall I say— centralizing
certain mine recording ofiices and the cost—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is a "no no"
word. We are not centralizing by any means.
Mr. Knight: You are not centralizing?
4444
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We are consolidat-
ing.
Mr. Knight: Consolidating— that is the word
that I want.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I wonder if that
could cx)me under vote 1304, when we have
the cliief of the mining land branch right in
front of us. Again, we will be able to pierce
him with an arrow if you do not Hke what
we are doing.
Mr. Knight: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have
a couple of other items. We were talking at
length under this vote about Texas Gulf
Sulphur and the Minister has given us a very
lengthy explanation. However, the depart-
ment's estimates for this year are up about a
couple of million— close to $7 milhon— and a
couple of million over last year. Is any part
of that increase attributable to the conces-
sions made to Texas Gulf Sulphur?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Not at all.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
it is difficult to keep a debate like this in
order because of the jumping from one sub-
ject to another. The question I wanted to ask
the Minister relates to a subject we were
discussing a moment ago, when he said that
in order for the exemptions to be granted
now to mines, they have to make the applica-
tion. Then at that time certain bargaining
can take place.
My question is—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No. That is not
liargaining, that is where we are going to
acquire information. In other words, we put
the onus on them for the first time to indicate
to us why they should exix)rt.
Mr. Young: Right.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Okay?
Mr. Young: Right. Then that has some re-
lationship to the pricing. This is my point.
Are you going to ask them about their pricing
policy at that particular juncture? For ex-
ample, we have mines that are captive mines
of United States companies. They are export-
ing the raw material at a certain price and
that price is likely set in the United States.
If a United States company wants to keep
the profit level of the Canadian subsidiary at
a certain level, they can do so by selling a
product to themselves at a lower price than
it might otherwise be sold. That has also a
bearing on independent mines. I think Steep
Rock is a case in point. It is an independent
mine. But Steep Rock, exporting its raw
material, has to meet the competition of the
captive mines and so its pricing policy has to
be in line with the pricing policy of the
captive mines which have their prices set in
United States by the parent company.
It seems to me that this is one of the key
points in this whole matter of whether or
not we are going to ask these companies to
set up the manufacturing or refining facilities
right here in Canada. At that point, it seems
to me, the Minister ought to be asking some
pertinent questions as to whether or not the
price of the material which is being exported
is an economic price or whether it is a
dictated price below, perhaps, the cost of
production or just on the cost of production
or just above it enough to keep the Canadian
profit at a minimum level.
Now I think the Minister understands what
I am getting at here, and I wonder if he
would comment on this problem.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: There are two
aspects of this. First of all, how this can
effect the taxability or otherwise of that
Canadian captive corporation? I will put it
to you that way. Of course, our taxation
policies are based not necessarily on what the
captive company, if I can use that term,
actually sells to the parent company or to a
holding company in relation to their product,
namely their ore.
Our taxation policy is based on the selling
price as indicated every day on the inter-
national metals market or tlie international
ore market and such a thing is in existence.
For instance, all iron ore in the Great Lakes
basin, as I understand it, is based on not a
day-to-day variable price— I am sure it is
a week-to-week, certainly a month-to-month
variable price— in relation to delivery in U.S.
funds to the lower lake ports.
I think that is the standard that is used. It
is something like the stock market. This thing
does vary but, of course, it does not have
great variances. This, in turn, is a factor in
relation to these prices paid. If you cannot
beat the tax people in respect of these matters,
then there is no sense in doctoring your
books by using phoney selling or purchase
prices. And my understanding is that it is
not done.
By the way, you picked the wrong example
because Steep Rock now does sell most of
their products in Ontario. But take Caland as
an example.
Of course, you cannot because Caland is
a captive company, but our experience has
MAY 15, 1969
4445
been that the selling price in relation to a
captive company, as contrasted to an inde-
pendent company, does not vary. The price
is so well known that there is no sense making
phoney purchase and sale prices and showing
them on your books because the only purpose,
presumably, of doing that is to attempt to fool
somebody. Either to fool the union, let us
say, so that you can come up with some
bleeding cry that you cannot pay the demand
on the next collective bargaining agreement
negotiation, or to fool the tax people. You
simply cannot do it because these prices are
well known. They are published; they are
available to everybody.
There is no angle in it as far as these
people are concerned. At least, that is the
information that I have and that is what we
base our inspection and perusal of the books
of these companies on.
Mr. Young: So there is no possibility in
Minister's mind that this sort of thing could
happen? That they could say that because
we have only made so much profit this year,
we cannot afford to smelt here in Ontario?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We would certainly
take a very good, hard, close look at that.
We would use their books in taking a hard
look at it but we would also compare the
selling price of their product with the pub-
lished market price which is available to any-
body and quite frankly, does appear in the
popular press every week as well. It is a
known price.
Mr. Young: So the method that has been
talked about, of the parent company bring-
ing raw material in at a lower price in order
to pay the dividends through the parent com-
pany, is not as prevalent as the device of
letting the dividends accrue at the Canadian
side of it and then bringing them into the
total corporate structure at that point?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We do not think that
situation applies. We are always on the look-
out for it though because it is a possibility.
But, as I say, because of the known pub-
lished prices in the metal market and in the
ore market, I do not think anybody who tried
it would get very far with anybody.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to make a couple of comments on this and
then have the Minister speak on my com-
ments.
Right at the moment, most of the iron ore
that is leaving Canada or that is mined in
Canada ends up in the United States steel
mills.
Is the Minister saying that because the tax
people look at the books—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is right.
Mr. Jackson: —because the tax people in-
spect the books that it makes no difference?
It is not profitable for the company to set a
false price on their ores, and that it would
be picked up by the tax inspectors if it was
done?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I am not lav-
ing that much-
Mr. Jackson: Let me—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —that much emphasis
on that part of it. I am saying because the
ore price-
Mr. Jackson: Let me finish and then-
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The ore price is a
known price, you cannot fool anybody that
way. You certainly would not fool us that
way.
Mr. Jackson: The situation does exist where
most of the ore is shipped to the United
States. The taxation that would be paid in
the United States would be on manufactured
goods. So it really means nothing to the
American tax department; in fact, it might
mean something if they were to set it too
high. The American tax people will collect
more money if the ore price is set low. I
suggest to you that that is just exactly what
has been done by the parent company, that
the ore—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If you want to make
these allegations and you want to name
names we will certainly investigate.
Mr. Jackson: I think we could name every
company.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Name a parent
company in the United States. Name a few.
Mr. Jackson: The investigation should be
made.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Name a few.
Mr. Jackson: Any of the companies that
are receiving ore from Canada.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Let me get you
straight now. Are you saying that there are
doctored or artificial price structures in rela-
tion to the ore that is shipped out of this
country, as far as the books of these com-
panies are concerned in Canada?
4446
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Jackson: You are putting it in a dif-
ferent way; it does not have to be a doctored
price.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Are you saying it
is an artificial price?
Mr. Jackson: If you are buying from your-
self you can set any price you like. This is
just what these companies do. They set an
artificial price that really has no relation to
the cost of taking the ore out of the ground,
and a reasonable profit which would be
charged by any other company.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It is the price that
emerges from the market place and there is a
very active market place in respect of iron
ore. I am sorry, you are leaving me way
behind. Your mental processes are far in
advance of mine obviously, because what I
am saying is that I can tell you though I
cannot tell you this afternoon because I did
not bring the material in here— but I can tell
you tomorrow what the published ore prices
are. They are published every week in the
Northern Miner.
These are well-known prices, just like a
stock market quotation, and as I imderstand
the situation there is no percentage in it for
anybody, from any point of view, to use any
other price, whether it is a subsidiary com-
pany of not, in their books in relation to
these matters. You do not fool anybody; you
would not fool shareholders, you would not
fool auditors, you would not fool tax people,
you woidd not fool customs agents, you
would not fool anybody. So why do it?
What I am saying to you is the information
that has been given to me is that there are
no artificial prices shown on these things to
our knowledge in any event. Now, if you
have information to the contraiy, then stand
up and give it.
Mr. Jackson: I am saying that I believe
it is happening and the Minister says it is
not happening. So it is a case of him saying
it is not, and—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: What companies are
you talking about? When? What type of iron
ore?
Mr. Jackson: All of the iron ore leaving
Canada.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Where? From
whom?
Mr. Jackson: The market price that is pub-
lished each week is artificially set, in my
opinion. I say this on the basis that most
of the iron ore liiat is shipped out of Canada
goes to parent companies from captive
mines. To parent companies that have full
rights to set any price they like, quite
right, but by setting that price they control
the market.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: And I am saying
to you tliat there are enough independent
producers on the North American and inter-
national market that—
Mr. Jackson: Would the Minister, to-
morrow if necessary, give us the figures on
how much ore leaves this country from
captive mines? And how much goes from in-
dependent producers?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I can, yes. But
I do not really know what relation this
bears to the estimates of this department.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Codirane South): Mr.
Chairman, there is a point that I think would
come under this vote. I am not sure of the
date, but quite a long time ago The Depart-
ment of Mines issued to Hollinger Mines a
licence of occupation permitting them to
dump tailings in Gdllis Lake, just outside of
Timmins. Of course, tbey filled in a great deal
of this lake and cut oflP the natural outlet on
the Porcupine River. A year ago the Hollinger
Mine ceased operations. Previously to ceasing
operations, the Hollinger Mine had been
pumping out the water into, I beilieve it was,
Pearl Lake, so that the lake did not flood.
Now since they ceased operations there
has been quite a to-do as to who should
bear the responsibility for keeping the level
of the lake as it was. In this licence of
occupation it said:
The Crown shall not be liable for any
damage done, or alleged to be done, by the
placing of such tailings upon the said
lands, or by the overflowing of the same
upon lands adjoining, or for any damage of
any other kind whatsoever done, or alleged
to be done by the said company, their
agents or workmen, but the said company
shall indemnify and save harmless the
Crown with respect thereto.
Now I hear that something like $70,000 is
going to be necessary to dredge a channel or
something to fix this up. They say now that
with a 24-hoin" rain there has been flooding.
There has been flooding this spring, and I
would like to know if the Minister can say
if the government has made a decision as
to who is responsible? Does the government
feel that it is the Hollinger mine—
MAY 15, 1969
4447
Mr. Knight: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman-
Mr. Ferrier: —or is it the province of
Ontario, or—
Mr. Knight: On a point of order-
Mr. Ferrier: I can hear you. You do not
need to shout your head off.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Why did you not
sit down then?
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, my point of
order is that when I attempted to open up
the subject of conservation a Uttle while ago,
the Minister indicated that this would come
under the next vote. It seems to me that this
pertains to conservation.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It really should
come under vote 1302, not this one.
Mr. Chairman: Anything else under 1301?
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, getting back to
the actual breakdown of the estimates. This
business of maintenance; the way it comes
up in these estimates all the time is cer-
tainly confusing, there is so much jammed
in under maintenance. There has been an
increase of some $53,000 in maintenance over
what we provided in the estimates last year
and this year.
I wonder if the Minister could tell us; this
maintenance surely cannot apply just to tilie
administration of mining in the province? It
must extend further than that. I wonder if
he could give us an explanaticMi?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, I am very glad
to.
Fiirst of all, we are setting up a Telex
communication network. This bears relation-
ship to what I call our consolidation of oiu:
offices, not oiir centralization of them. We
are trying to put the services all in one
building in each of the mining divisions, so
that we can link them by Telex communica-
tion.
We have not yet succeeded in being able to
get all of our services in one building in
each area where our services are available.
But as an experiment— and quite frankly, to
convince the Treasury Board that this will
be an economic operation— we are going to
set up this year a Telex communication link
between our Kirkland Lake, Sudbury, and
Toronto offices, and that accounts for $20,000
of the increase.
As well, we are increasing our publications
by $20,000. There will be, I hope, before
this session is over, the laying before you of
draft amendments to The Mining Act, part 9.
TJiis will be a complete revision of tlie safety
regulations within The Mining Act, and as
soon as these are passed by the House this
will have to be printed.
Therefore, we have put $100,000 of an
increase aside for that, because this is some-
thing that does not happen too often. We
will then have to repubhsh the remainder of
The Mining Act in consoHdated form. Again,
this does not happen very often, so we have
estimated this will cost $8,500.
There are as well other pu:blications, small
ones, which we hope to get out, which we
have estimated will cost about another $1,500.
This year, for the first time in seven years,
this province is host of the provincial Mines
Ministers— in the second week of September,
I think it is. This only happens once every
seven years and it is a very important meet-
ing of the Mines Ministers and their staffs
from right across the country. The cost of
this is estimated at $20,000. Again this does
not happen every year, so that is in there.
There are other minor miscellaneous items
whic'h we hope to do this year which we
have not done before and which may, or
may not, recur, which come to a total of
$10,300. I think if you total all of those up
they equal the increase this year over last
year.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, obviously the
cost of bureaucracy has reached The Depart-
ment of Mines as well. This idea of consoli-
dation, at least when it is in the hands of
this particular government, seems to increase
costs rather than reduce them.
However, we do find in the other estimate
pertaining to legal fees a fantastic reduction
and I wonder if the Minister could explain
that? It has gone down here from $81,000
last year to $1,000 in the estimates for the
coming year.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Gosh, I hope you are
not quoting from last year's estimates. My
understanding was that last year we did not
have any amount in for legal fees, even
though every year we are called upon to
retain outside counsel in the matter of appeals
from our mining commissioner and from the
municipal board to the courts. This year we
are estimating an amount of $1,000 for legal
fees, just as a nominal amount, to be put in.
Because, in other years, we have hit the
rather embarrassing situation where we have
had to go by way of warrant or Treasury
Board order to get this amount out.
4448
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We have been very successful in our
appeals in the past from the mines assessors'
decisions. We generally utilize— I should not
say generally utilize— but in the past we have
utilized a Toronto lawyer by the name of
Arnott on these Supreme Court of Canada
appeals. There is one that he has under his
wing for us now.
Mr. MacDonald: Who is he?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think he is a
Liberal actually, but I am not too sure about
that. But, in any event, we find him— in spite
of his political affihation— to be a very good
counsel on appeals to the Supreme Court of
Canada, because wherever there has been
this partnership, we have won.
Anyway, to really get down to it, we are
putting $1,000 in the estimates this time,
because we have not had one in in the past.
We have always been embarrassed by having
to go to get a Treasury Board warrant or
order in respect of these amounts when they
have not been in the estimates in the past.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I just could not
resist getting into this phase of this discussion.
I am sure the hon. Minister of Mines has
heard on many occasions the contention that
we on this side have put forward that the
legal advice of this government should come
from and through, the Attorney General, the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Wishart) of the
province of Ontario. I just wonder why you
have to go to outside counsel, as eminent as
they may be, unless the cases are so very
unusual that it is beyond the ability of those
people who work for the Minister of Justice
to handle.
It is rather interesting that the Minister of
Mines should mention Mr. Arnott and have
$1,000 in for anticipated fees. I do not think
you would get in the door in that firm to see
Mr. Arnott for $1,000, on the basis of taking
a case to the Supreme Court of Canada, so
really he is just sort of pulling the wool over
our eyes.
If there is a substantial amount of legal
work to be done, I wonder if the Minister
could tell us, in some detail, the extent of the
consultations he has had with The Attorney
General's Department of Ontario insofar as
setting up some facilities that would be
available to The Department of Mines, be-
cause surely that is the objective?
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines sat in
the Cabinet council when we had the new
Department of Justice Act and urged, when
the Minister of Justice and Attorney General
brought it into the House, what the objective
was. I am sure that the Minister of Mines is
a very able lawyer who has practiced law in
the province of Ontario and may some day
soon again subscribe to this view that the
Attorney General of Ontario should be all
of the law for the government of Ontario.
He has been with this Idnd of thinkinj?
over the several years and I am surprised that
he gives this explanation to my colleague from
Port Arthur.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, we have re-
quested the Attorney General for the services
of a full-time lawyer, but in the words of
government, this has been turned down on
the basis that there is a gentleman within
that department who can handle our prose-
cutions on a part-time basis. It requires a
pretty specialized knowledge of some of these
matters in respect of prosecutions.
I would very dearly like to have a lawyer
within the department, but this has not been
feasible.
Mr. Singer: Would the Minister mind tell-
ing us then, insofar as his department is con-
cerned, is the new Department of Justice Act
meaningless?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, no! I am saying
that we do not have a lawyer and therefore
we are following the provisions of The De-
partment of Justice Act that, when we want
one, we go to the Attorney General. He now
presumably has the duty and the respon«i-
bility of getting us one from his own depart-
ment. This has happened and this is happen-
ing. Since I have been in the department,
we have not retained any outside counsel,
that is, there has been no new retention of
any new outside counsel.
The one that we have retained, on this latest
Supreme Court of Canada appeal, is working
on the one that has been dragging on for
seven years. Each year, presumably, we get
a bill and this particular gentleman that I
inentioned was retained seven years ago on
tliis thing. Every year to pay the portion of
the bill that comes in, because there has not
been any item in tiie estimates for it, we
have had to go to Treasury Board to get pay-
ment. This year, I thought it was a lot more
honest and realistic to put the $1,000 in the
estimates so that we would have this type of
enlightenment and discussion witli the hon.
member for Downsview. The cards being right
on the table we can pay the bill when it
comes in without further nonsense or furor.
MAY 15, 1969
4449
Since I have been in the department, we
have not retained any new outside counsel.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
raised a very interesting point. Is he telhng
us that there has been one case pending be-
fore the Supreme Court of Canada for seven
years? And that there has not been a hearing
yet?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, it has been
worked all the way up to the Supreme Court
of Canada. I am not going to go through the
appeal procedure because I am sure the hon.
member for Downsview is more aware of the
provisions of the very wonderful appeal pro-
cedure respecting our mine accessory deci-
sions than I am.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Are you not? Oh,
well, in any event, this particular appeal, as
it relates to Rio Algom, has been going on
for seven years and judgment, I am informed,
is expected from the Supreme Court of Can-
ada in September. So this is the story.
Mr. Singer: Could I ask the Minister then
when it was argued before the Supreme
Court of Canada? How many days the
argument took?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am told that the
argument took six days and it was two weeks
ago? About two weeks ago.
Mr. Singer: Well.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: But this is some-
thing that hung on for a great length of time.
Mr. Singer: Well surely the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, does not expect us to be naive
enough to believe that Mr. Amott's bill for six
days in court, before the Supreme Court of
Canada in the year 1969 is going to be only
a thousand dollars?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, no, but I hope
the hon. member would believe that the
Minister of Mines was naive enough last
October, when these estimates were made up,
to not really know how much the bill was
going to be, or how long the argument was
going to be, or really even when it was going
to take place. So, I did honestly, really, sin-
cerely and humbly feel that there should be
an item in the estimate indicating these fees
just so that I would give the opportunity to
the hon. member for Downsview to stand up
and make his annual case about it.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, we will give the
Minister-
Mr. Knight: On a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Point of order.
Mr. Knight: If my hon. colleague from
Downsview will excuse me, the Minister keeps
repeating that there has been nothing in the
estimates for legal fees in the past and yet if
you look at the estimates for 1968-1969, page
90, number 4, fees, salaries and expenses,
legal, professional, miscellaneous— to the tune
of $81,000. It might have been appropriate
had the Minister explained that there has been
a new way this year in appropriating different
services and I think this is what is confusing.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You are perfectiy
correct. You will see there on items 3 and
4 that last year the item did include I think,
the terminology was professional and legal
fees.
Mr. Knight: How much is legal?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Nothing. Nothing
was spent for legal fees last year.
Mr. Knight: The case was going on for
seven years and nothing was spent?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No. There was just
nothing to pay for last year. We did not
receive an account actually.
Mr. Singer: I am quite prepared to give the
Minister one gold star for— what was that
string— "his honesty, forthright—"?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I did not say forth-
right.
Mr. Singer: Well, whatever he wants a gold
star for, we will send him one. I suggest
however, Mr. Chairman, that while the esti-
mates might have been prepared some time
ago, the Minister felt some pangs of con-
science and put in the $1,000 fee. But be-
fore the vote is passed, he has explained to
US that somewhere along the line, charged to
his department, will be the costs of the
supreme court action that took six days in
court to argue. The Minister, Mr. Chairman,
knows enough about the billing and the prac-
tice of law, to recognize that the figure of
$1,000 is completely unrealistic. So why do
you not change it before the vote goes
through?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Because I still do
not have any knowledge of what the bill is
going to be.
Mr. Singer: It is going to he a lot more
than $1,000.
4450
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It could well be,
but $1,000-
Mr. Singer: You know darn well it is go-
ing to be.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Again, if we are
going to get into a poker game, I am not
going to indicate to Mr. Arnup in advance
that his bill may be $75,000 when I-
Mr. Singer: Try to tell him it will be
$1,000, and see how far you will get.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Very well, next year,
we will put it in, if you want to play the
game that way.
Mr. MacDonald: Is $1,000 a suggesticm as
to what his bill should be?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Sure it may well be.
Mr. Chairman: Vote number 1301. The
hon. member for Welland South.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Does the
issuing of mining licences come under this
vote?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, that comes
under the mining lands branch vote which
is 1304.
Mr. Haggerty: I am particularly referring
to the moving of sand and gravel on lake-
shores.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That would be vote
1304.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1304 would be tiie
one. The hon. leader of the Opposition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
find out if the Minister has any responsibility
to his regulations for the control of gravel
pits, stone quarries in the southern part of
the province.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Vote 1304.
Mr. Chairman: We are on vote 1301. The
hon. member for Sudbury East.
Mr. Martel: Sir, a small point. My col-
league brought up a question, and the Min-
ister jiunped up and immediately asked that
names Ix^ named, with respect to people
reducing their prices so that they could go
across the border. That brought to mind an
article I just finished reading by Professor
Gary Levis, the associate professor of eco-
nomics at McGill University and co-director
of the West Indies industry project, and she
has something to say about this. I would like
to quote it, Mr. Minister, and ask for your
comments.
It is reported in the above statement that
the raw material supplied by the subsidiary
to its parent is under-valued as an export
from the hinterland. Indeed there are good
reasons why it serves the interest of an
integrated corporation to under-value raw
material.
One of these is that tlie output of small
independent producers can be purchased at
a depressed price. Another is that to show
unduly large profits might result in the
reduction or the withdrawal of concessions
or increases in taxation. Then again, low
valuation of exjwrt stables, reduces the
exchange risk to the companies where
hinterland government find themselves in
revenue or balance of i>ayinent difficulties
and might seek to prevent repatriation of
profits. Consideration of coiporate securities
bests points towards pricing policies which
provide the parent company with cheap
imports.
I would appreciate the Minister's comment.
This is from the commerce.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Very interesting. We
went all through that. You have my opinion
I think.
Mr. Martel: No.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I would say that is
\ery interesting.
Mr. Martel: Very interesting. But the Min-
ister also wanted my colleague to name names
that this was not going on and Professor Levis
says it is going on.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I can only repeat
that the infonnation gi\cn to me by people
in whose judgment I place great faith is
simply that in the Great Lakes basin there is
a well-known and published iron ore market
which truly reflects the \ alue of that iron ore
on the international metal market of the
world. And there are enough independent
producers or potential independent producers
in the Great Lakes basin that this market is a
true and reliable indication or indicator, really,
of what is or should be paid for the various
types of iron ore that ar(> utilized in the Great
Lakes basin.
Mr. Martel: Is this applicable to all min-
erals? Is the Minister aware of that?
MAY 15, 1969
4451
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, any we produce.
Vote 1301 agreed to.
On vote 1302:
Mr. Chairman: Provincial geological ser-
vices. The hon. member for Thunder Bay.
Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would be interested in getting the reaction of
the Minister to certain criticisms that have
been levelled at his department with regard
to the overall policy for geology, disseminating
of information and following up on bits of
information that have been given to him by
prospectors and people who are interested in
geological formations. I would like to read
excerpts from a letter which I received in
this connection:
Some years ago, a passing American
tourist reached my home town of Schreiber
and waved a newspaper article from his
home town in Minneapolis, showing that
the world's oldest fossils had been located
just two miles south of the town of Schrei-
ber and that these minute fossils were pre-
dating any earlier finds of fossil in a rock
by a billion and a half years. And also
proved a lot of theories regarding the evo-
lution in biology from single-plant cells to
the more complex life on earth.
Well, the townspeople knew nothing of
this and sent the prospector in to me. I
keep fairly well up on mining and geologi-
cal news but had nothing on this, but from
the description in his paper I located the
spot and satisfied him by sending him some
samples of the same rock, in which he
eventually found the micro-fossils.
I re-read my geological reports on this
area and sure enough the Ontario geologists
had stumbled on this same structure, taken
samples and declared no fossils found on
examination. This set me back as I do not
appreciate American tourists making ours
look silly.
Shortly after this, our postmaster called
me in and asked if I could procure the same
type of samples for an American in Cali-
fornia and he asked because his university
was very anxious to study these fossils. I
did so and made a good friend who re-
turned me blown-up prints showing the
fossils in the rock
What is the point here? Well, how come
the public is not made aware of these news
items? Does the bureaucracy of Toronto
believe that the natives are too ignorant
for this kind of information, or were they
just a little bit ashamed that the two Ameri-
can geologists outdid and corrected the
work of their own? If this occurred in the
U.S. it is quite possible their tourists or
other organizations would have had a
plaque or a road constructed as a tourist
attraction. But not in Ontario. Why?
Now, these fossils intrigued me so I kept
my eyes open and finally found a quite
similar type of rock located right on the
Trans-Canada Highway at Rossport. In
fact, there is a nice plaque there now, but
it is not there on that account. It was put
up to honour the George Wardrope one-
acre park which was cleared two years
ago-
Mr. Singer: The name has been changed
to the Allan Lawrence Park.
Mr. Stokes: To continue the letter:
—by The Department of Lands and Forests
to commend his great work as the Minister
of Mines.
Knowing from past experience that this
find would not evoke anything but a
"thank you" or a very dull technical reply
from the Ontario government, I sent
samples to my friend in California to test
for the bugs, as we call them; he went
right to work, received co-operation from
the aircraft company for whom he worked
and they made a blow-up.
In turn, Standard Oil took over and
finally the University of California finished
the work with perfect photographs of
about 3,000 magnitude showing the bugs
and several important features that were
different from the Schreiber bugs.
We were both very pleased with our-
selves. It occurred to me that here now is
a fine tourist attraction for Canadians and
Americans. So I took it to The Department
of Mines geologist. Well, he professed
ignorance of fossil knowledge and did not
think it worthwhile forwarding or asking
for a copy of it. Besides, he said, they are
so understaflFed they do not have time for
fossils of that type.
Mr. MacDonald: No time for the bugs.
Mr. Stokes: To continue:
He is also too busy to look over new
showings made by prospectors. He claims
this would interfere with the professional
geologists and so our mines department is
unaware of the mineral finds being made
in the area. Great co-operation by our
Department of Mines.
4452
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
However, I understand the University of
California is interested enough and will
likely publish a paper on these fossils.
We have sunk so low in this regard that
we accept this situation quite calmly. It
would be quite useless to approach the
tourism department; they would want some
information from The Department of
Mines, which would not be forthcoming.
So I suppose this interesting attraction
will remain like many others, unexploited
and ignored.
He goes on to say how he thinks that The
Department of Mines is not concerning itself
about disseminating the kind of information
that would popularize the geological structure
in northwestern Ontario and this area in
particular. He adds that he had found a quite
useful find of gemstones that were unique in
North America; in fact, I think there was
only one other find in the whole world and
that was a find of a particular kind of
spectrolyte or Labradoryte and the only other
source of this gemstone is in Finland.
He made application to the Ontario De-
velopment Corporation, through the North-
western Ontario Development Council, to try
and interest somebody in developing this.
Now it is not speculative, inasmuch as the
gemstones are there; they are quite visible. I
had the opportunity of showing some samples
of it to the Minister during the members*
northwestern Ontario tour and he was quite
impressed with them.
But any time he tries to get some assistance
from various governmental agencies and de-
partments, he always runs up against a blank
wall. I am wondering why the Minister of
Mines and his department do not have some-
body in the department who is interested in
gemstones and who is able to advise these
people as to where they can go to get the
necessary capital and the necessary consulta-
tion to bring a find such as this into produc-
tion.
I am sure that the Minister was very im-
pressed with the samples that I have given
him and everybody else that I have spoken
to, but this fellow just keeps running up
against a stone wall and really he does not
know where to turn. I am wondering if the
Minister— I do not want to take time with the
rest of the information in here. I think it is
an industry that could be developed to a
much greater extent than it is at the present
time, particularly in the north around the
Precambrian Shield. And I think it is incum-
bent upon the Minister to provide all the
assistance necessary to get this land of an
industry on the road, popularize it and make
it a viable industry; much more viable, at
least, than it is at the present time.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: First of all, if I can
boil them down, I think there are a number
of complaints there. No. 1, that our informa-
tion services are not good enough or big
enough in respect of these matters. This I
would dispute. I do not think there is any
Minister, of course, who would not hke to
lay his hands on more money for his depart-
ment, if he could see the need, and I can
certainly see the need.
But we are bound by certain strictures as
far as taxation potential is concerned, and
with the amount of money that we have,
we feel that we are giving pretty good value.
The hon. member may have a different view,
I would be glad to have his views.
I would be glad to have that letter so
that we could publicize these things a little
more fully than we have been able to in the
past. I would remind him that we have
embarked on a new series of booklets devoted
just to "rock hounds" and amateur prospect-
ing.
As a matter of fact, I think die hon. mem-
ber was quite impressed with that book by
Dr. Pye that was produced and distributed.
I thought he was one of the many northern
members who complimented us and Dr.
Pye on it. This is one of a series that we
had hoped we would get going.
I do not want to bring any personal
troubles of anybody into this, but die hon.
member may know that, over the last couple
of months, Dr. Pye lias had a heart attack.
And he was a man we were relying on; I
would say one of the best people in the
province, if not in the country, to do this
type of work. He embarked very enthusi-
astically on this work and it may be that
he has overworked ui)on it. We do want to
encourage amateur work; we do want to
encourage "rock hound" clubs; we do want
to encourage our publications people to get
more out on this and we have planned on
doing this.
However, now fossils. I tliink in a federal
system we are bedevilled sometimes with
duplication of services available to the public.
I do not think that this is applicable as much
in the mining services available out of Ottawa
and out of Queen's Park as it is in some other
fields of governmental endeavour.
My understanding is that there is an un-
written rule among the various geological
MAY 15, 1969
4453
staffs of the federal department and our
department that we have sawn-up reahns
of activity. We have left the fossil activity,
if I can put it that way, to Ottawa, quite
frankly. They do research work in fossiliza-
tion and fossil-bearing rock formations. We do
not; it is as simple as that. I think your
nman, if he had properly asked the resident
geologist— this is certainly within the knowl-
edge of our resident geologist— he would
have directed him to the proper services
available to that man out of Ottawa, in
respect of the fossil matters.
In respect of the gems— may I put it that
way— you are right. I was impressed with
the samples that I have seen. Other people
have been impressed with the samples they
have seen that this man has produced. It is
incorrect to say that they have not been
examined here; we have examined this
spectrolite deposit; we have given informa-
tion to this man; we have helped him in
every way we can. The facts of the matter
are that we are not going to finance out of
this department a private enterprise endeav-
our, or something that could or perhaps
should be a private enterprise endeavour.
There are people who earn their—
Mr. Stokes: Specifically, what help did you
give him? All you did was ask him for money
so it could be patented.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I do not think tiiat
is true at all. We had geologists there examin-
ing the thing, giving him advice. I cannot tell
him what the technical advice was that we
gave him. But advice was given to him, I
have been informed, and the deposit itself
was examined by our geologist for this man.
Mr. Stokes: Were you impressed with it?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I do not know. Were
we impressed with it? There is your answer.
Dr. Thompson is shaking his head. It is a
deposit. We examine all sorts of deposits for
people. In some cases we tell them that
they have got something worthwhile; in other
cases we tell them it is marginal; in other
cases we tell them, as I indicated before,
and which, I think, you indicated we should
indicate to them, that they have holes in
their head to go ahead with something.
I cannot tell you what the advice was in
respect of this particular deposit. It would
be rather unfair to the man anyway if I could
tell you because that is something that our
geologist may be right on; he might be
wrong. But I would not want to imfairly
prejudice the man's economic future if he
intends making this his life work, in getting
into it.
Anyway, I have never seen this letter nor
had any knowledge of it. If he would like to
write to me, I can assure you I will do my
utmost to make sure that he gets a worth-
while answer. I am surprised that he feels
she has been neglected by the resident
geologist there. If you would care to send
that letter over to us, I will certainly take a
look at it.
Dr. Thompson, the head of the geological
branch, I can tell you, is a very jealous man
when it comes to his people. He expects
great things of them and, so far, in my esti-
mation, he has got great things out of that
branch. It is a very good branch; we have
some very excellent geologists who work
under sometimes very trying circumstances in
the government service. If anybody has got
any complaints about the services we pro-
vide, we would like to hear about it.
If you would be good enough to send
that letter over to me, if you want to— you
may not want to— or parts of it, I woidd be
glad to take a look at it and go through it.
All right?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Coch-
rane South.
Mr. Ferrier: Am I to assume that this is the
thing about Gillies Lake? I thought it should
have been under the policy of the department,
but-
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right, the mem-
ber may raise it.
Mr. Ferrier: Have you decided who should
be responsible? Whether it is this province,
the town or the company?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The hon. member is
going to think I have pulled a sneaky one on
him. We had a meeting just this morning for
which his municipal people were down. We
had the engineering firm representatives avail-
able, who have been the consultants to the
water resources commission on this matter.
We had the water resources commission
themselves; we had the Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Brunelle) and his officials,
and we had the Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management (Mr, Simonett) and his
officials available.
It reaUy, honestiy, was not scheduled just
because it was coming in advance of the Min-
ister of Mines estimate, as it has been sched-
uled for some time. This is a real problem
4454
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and it is certainly a divided responsibility.
However, there have been all sorts of matters
floating around about it but, if I can sum-
marize the results of this meeting this morn-
ing—the mayor was here, along with the
secretary-treasurer, I do not know his full
title, Jules Bergeron, anyway, from the town-
it is simply this that we have now received
an engineering report. By "we", I mean the
conservation authority and the water re-
sources commission have received a report
on what they think would be the best course
of action to clear up this very unsatisfactory
condition respecting the flooding and the pol-
lution of Gillies Lake.
So far, this is supposed to be a confidential
report, although I noted with amusement that
the Timmins press the other day ran a story
on the front page about it. I am not going
to say whether that was right or not. In any
event, it was supposed to be a confidential
report to the department here. This, in turn,
has been turned over to the mayor for dis-
cussion with the municipal council.
The mayor himself indicated that this has
not be^n discussed yet in council. He indi-
cated some reservations about the recommen-
dation. So, from our point of view, certain
commitments were made to the mayor today
respecting certain percentages of cost of any
remedial measures that have to be taken. But
we said to them, "All right. This is the pro-
posal that we are now advancing on behalf
of the conservation authority and the water
resources commission; you think that this is
not right; you discuss this then with your
municipal council. Come back to us then with
>our coimter-proposal as to what you think is
the best way of solving this problem". We
will then look at it, and as Minister of Mines,
I wfll make sure that the mining companies
involved are brought into the picture. We
will go on then to working out the respon-
sibility of who should pay for what when
there is finally a decision with the concurrence
of the town council as to just what "what" is,
if you get what I mean. All right?
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, on the same
subject. I think if this Minister is going to
apply some vigour to some areas, this is one
area where it has got to be applied, not con-
scrsation. I think we must have an Act or a
bill regulating these mining companies be-
cause, as well as the type of incident that the
hon. member brought up, I can bring up an-
other relating to Loon Call Lake on which I
have an entire file here. It seems that a min-
ing company, for the sake of development is
allowed to go in and disturb any number of
people and there does not seem to be any-
thing to keep them out of that. I notice
through this correspondence that we have a
lake all surrounded by cottages; an island in
the middle. They are drilling there and
through that drilling they are disturbing all
of these people.
Perhaps there is not any danger of pollu-
tion in the lake, but there is constant annoy-
ance and there is concern. When people are
coming to a lake like this, which is obviously
a recreational area, to relax for a couple of
weeks, they have got a worry with this
noise. They have got to worry what effect
this mining development is going to have.
Obviously, it is a recreational area. What are
they doing there?
An organization, Loon Call Cottagers, get
together; they try to do something about it
and they get a runaround. They get good
intentions. I could go through the pile of
letters, but I do not want to take up the time
of the committee at this time with that.
Obviously, OWRC says, "Okay, your water
is all right. They are not polluting the water".
Lands and Forests says, "Well, we have given
them the okay to go ahead and do some ex-
plorations and so on". The Mining Depart-
ment says, "Well, it is more or less in the
hands of Lands and Forests".
I understand you have an inter-Cabinet
committee, or something, to handle things
like this. I think it is time for a definite policy
on conservation, because what is the use to
develop these resources, these minerals, if
people at some future date wfll have to go
around with oxygen masks on, unable to
drink the water; the land all marked and
gouged out because we have taken all the
riches out of the land? There has to be an
accompanying policy of conservation and it
has to be that has got some teeth in it. I
wonder if the Minister would bring the com-
mittee up to date at this time as to what
exactly his plans are along these lines, Mr.
Chairman.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, sir, and a lot
of what the hon. member says I agree with
completely. For too long, I think, we have
let our resources be exploited in this prov-
ince. They have left a great gaping hole for
unsafe conditions, certainly, conditions which,
to say the least, do not coincide with what
the hon. member's aesthetic views and my
aesthetic views might be. We certainly intend
stepping into this whole situation.
We do not call it conservation because
we nui into difficulties then with other de-
MAY 15, 1969
4455
partments. We call it environmental control,
and we do have an interdepartmental com-
mittee that has been handed the job of com-
ing up with a policy. I regret to say to the
hon. member— though I do not say this in
any criticism of the department because it is
an extremely tough nut to crack— we have
handed to this interdepartmental committee
the job of coming up with some recommen-
dations to the cabinet and to me and to the
government respecting control and regula-
tions for the future.
I must say to him though that our imme-
diate attention in this respect, we feel the
climax right now or the focus of our atten-
tion, is on the Niagara escarpment. Even
though there are some bad conditions in some
of the northern communities as well, down in
the Niagara escarpment— in respect of rock
quarrying operations and land and gravel pits
and so on— we feel that here, right now, is a
situation that is long past the day when we
should have stepped into it. I will be frank
and admit that. We are now groping toward
some sort of policy about this. I have hopes
that we might be able to make an announce-
ment about this in the not-too-distant future,
but so far we are still very actively consider-
ing the whole thing.
This is not just a problem here, of course;
it is a problem wherever there is resource
development going on right across this hemi-
sphere. We are looking at what other juris-
dictions are attempting to do. It is a very
lively issue in the province of British Colum-
bia right now, as you may know, and we
have taken a look at what they are attempt-
ing to do. We feel that conditions there may
be somewhat different from what they are
here and we do not feel that to translate
their activities here is necessarily the right
answer for Ontario.
But this mineral resources committee, if
you are interested, is composed of represen-
tatives of The Department of Mines, High-
ways, Municipal Affairs, Treasury and Eco-
nomics and we do have representatives of the
industries concerned on this matter. Regula-
tions have been drawn up already governing
the operation and rehabilitation of pits and
quarries. The only two matters which remain
under discussion right now are performance
deposits or bonds and the operation of The
Department of Highways wayside pits. This
is in relation to sand and gravel matters in
the rock quarries, more than anything else.
The committee will be recommending to
government shortly the adoption of a mineral
resources zoning policy for municipahties
which will assist in insuring the develop-
ment of deposits of essential construction raw
materials near urban areas. I made a speech
on this matter down in Woodstock about a
month or so ago. I have to send a copy over
to tlie hon. member.
The committee is also recommending the
publication of a rehabilitation manual for
pits and quarries which will guide the pit
and quarry oi)erators in the proper type of
reclamation and rehabilitation for tiieir land
after mineral extraction.
The study of stone resources of the Niagara
Escarpment is complete, and the maps and
report covering the survey of this area should
be available in a very few weeks.
Once we get this situation out of the way
in respect of southern Ontario and these
operations, we will be able to turn the at-
tention of this field of experts to the mining
operations in the north and what we should
do tliere about reclamation, rehabilitation and
environmental control in general.
It is my very earnest desire to come up
with a complete policy in respect of these
aesthetic matters and safety matters in the
north and in the soutli. I really cannot give
you a deadline on it because no deadline has
been set. It is a really mammoth job. The
deeper you get into it, the more you realize
what the problems are. Again, it will have to
be a series of policy statements that will
have to come out respecting these matters,
rather tlian any single line of regulations that
will cover everything. Because this simply is
not possible.
But we are working on it. I am sorry that
is the best I can say to the hon. member, but
I hope I have said enough to indicate to him
that we are working very hard on it.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the com-
mittee that it was agreed we would take
votes 1302, 3 and 4 by programme of activity.
In vote 1302 we have the geological services
and the laboratory services. I wonder, if we
entertain discussion on this matter, is there
any further discussion on this particular point.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minis-
ter did not make any specific reference to
the Loon Call Lake problem at all. I wonder
wliether he could offer those people any hope
at all.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I hate to admit my
ignorance. I may have heard of Loon Call
Lake before, but I do not remember it. If
the hon. member will leave it with me, obvi-
ously it is a pretty specific matter, I know
4456
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the officials under the gallery are scribbUng
it down right now. We will review the files
and I will be in touch witli the hon. member
about it.
Mr. Knight: One other point, Mr, Chair-
man, relating to conservation. I think this is a
point that could be brought up right now
and that is what the federal jurisdiction
might be. Now, any day of the week in the
cities of Port Arthur and Fort William, in
that area, if you see an ore train go by, you
will see that ore dust flying from that train.
If you look along the tracks you will see the
discolouration of the iron ore. One has to
say ore is probably about the only material
that is transported in open cars in this man-
ner. I do not know how the hon. Minister
would go about getting a railway, which is a
federal matter, to clean up its operation. It
is a very dirty operation the way they trans-
port ore, and I hope that in setting up the
investigations of this committee this is one
aspect that they will really look at.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You are perfectly
right. It is a rather divided jurisdiction as to
whether our pollution control— it is not really
pollution; it is a damn nuisance, that is what
it is. I do not know whether it is pollution or
not, but whether we have any control over
the federal railways or not-
All I can say to the hon. member is that
on the one railway we do have jurisdiction
over special cars were designed and utilized
for the transporting of the iron ore on that
particular line. They are covered cars. Quite
frankly, my information is that this is paying
for itself because obviously when they high-
ball it down the track, and all that stuff floats
all over God's creation, they are losing money.
That red dust is flying all over the place and
it is dollars and cents, but so far we have not
found a way of attacking this.
If tlie hon. member can bring pressure to
bear on some of his federal colleagues to get
the situation clarified or to turn control over
to us— certainly not this department— there is
a department of this government that is quite
involved in the thing, and would dearly love
to be able to exercise jurisdiction there.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
this topic of conservation?
Mr. Knight: I am glad the hon. Minister
brought it up because I would like to ask
him specifically if he is consulting with the
department of the hon. J. J. Greene, the
Minister of Energy and Resources at the
federal level? And whether the department is
being brought into what I call this environ-
mental conservation, because I want to ques-
tion the Minister somewhere along the way
about this department's proposals for ad-
vanced methods of discovery of ores. Here
again, I would suggest some co-operation
with the federal government.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That subject really
does fall right within the matter that we are
talking about now, but I must admit to him
that I have not discussed this with Mr.
Greene. I have not been able to discuss very
much with Mr. Greene over the last year due
to his illness, as you know.
I must admit that I do not know whether
this has been discussed by any of our oflBcials
with any of their officials— I rather doubt that
it has. But the hon. member has brought it
up now, and we shall certainly indicate to
the federal people that the subject matter has
been introduced here and see what their
comments or suggestions are in respect of the
matter.
But if you want to get into exploration, this
is the vote to get into it.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I have noticed
some other members may be interested in this
conservation thing, so perhaps I will hold
my question.
Mr. Chairman: I will see to it that this
particular topic on so-called conservation is
thoroughly covered so that we do not go back
to it again. There is a difference of opinion
as to the proper terminology.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I must apologize to the
Minister— I just came in on the tail end of
his remarks. I was going to enquire about his
policy on strip-mining. I realize that this
particular phrase pertains mostly to coal
mining, but would open-pit mining and
quarrying and gravel pits come under this
vote?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We have looked at
this mainly in relation to the safety aspect
of it, not the aesthetic aspect. As I indi-
cated to the member for Port Arthur, we
are devoting all of our attention right now
in respect of the aesthetics— may I use that
term?— to certain very immediate problems in
southern Ontario.
Once we get some sort of regulations, or
manual of guidelines published in respect of
these things, then perhaps we will get into
aesthetic or environmental control regarding
open mining.
MAY 15, 1969
4457
We do not have any strip-mining as such,
bttt we certainly do have of course a mam-
moth open-pit mine in the province.
Mr. T. P. Reid: That is one of the particu-
lar things I was interested in. Of course the
Minister is aware of what has taken place in
Kentucky, which of course is coal mining,
and in B.C. But you are talking about the
aesthetics of such things as gravel pits, and
I understand that Uxbridge has a problem
with this.
There is more than just the aesthetics in-
volved in this; there is the erosion of the
land, the danger of pollution, and there is a
safety factor that you mentioned. They fill
up with water and people swim in them or
drown in them, or whatever they do, and
there certainly is a responsibility in your
department to come up with some kind of
policy and rules and regulations in this re-
gard, and you tell me now you are involved
in this sort of thing.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I agree with you
that that is our responsibility. I agree with
you that so far we have not done it. What
I am telling you today is that we are pushing
this as fast as we can.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would like to ask about
the geological services.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on en-
viroimiental control or conservation before
we move to deal with the programme of
geological services? The hon. member for
Niagara Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): I heard
that the Minister mentioned the escarpment.
One sometimes wonders just what depart-
ment does take care of the individual prob-
lems. There is some overlapping and at times
there is an area that no one touches.
I was surprised to hear, and I should not
have been, that the Minister's department
takes care of the quarries and the rock that
is being taken out along the escarpment. I
suppose that would be mining all right.
You did say that there is a report coming
out: you are making a study of whether they
will continue or discontinue that?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: As the hon. member
knows, there is already an overall study of
the escarpment that has been done for us by
Professor Gerder of Waterloo, there are other
departmental reports available.
We feel that the Niagara escarpment area
is a real asset of this province that is in
danger right now of all sorts of commercial
interests. We have got to move, and we
have got to move very quickly. Balanced
against this however, is the fact, and again I
do not think the industry— the mining indus-
try, the sand and gravel industry, the rock
quarrying industry itself— has been forward
enough in presenting its point of view to the
public at large, that the Niagara escarpment
area is the reservoir of some unique building
material without which the economy of the
whole area of southern Ontario would suffer.
Material is available there that is available
almost nowhere else to us, and if we came
in with a heavy-handed programme of closing
up some of these things, not only would
there be an awful lot of people without a
job, but as well the construction industry in
this province would suffer greatly. We would
all be paying a lot more for construction work
at the moment than we are at present.
We are blessed in southern Ontario by
having these unique formations available to
us. Not too many areas in the world have
this, and if we had to ship it from a long
distance, it would affect our balance of pay-
ments. It would affect all sorts of things.
So we are in the ticklish position of having
to balance what we feel are certain aesthetic
values and certain God-given formations, such
as the Niagara escarpment, against the obvi-
ous need of industry and the economy for
some of the unique products available there.
I must say to the hon. member that it
just bums me every time I drive along High-
way 401 now, and I see those scars on that
hillside over there near Milton. I think it
is totally unnecessary, and I have said this
publicly on more than one occasion. Before
very long we hope to come up with guide-
lines and regulations that will prevent this,
because I do feel that what has gone on in
the past has been unnecessary. There are
ways of getting that stuff out of there with-
out scarring the hillside.
And in this respect, we have been dogged—
and I might as well indicate it here now today
—in that the municipalities have had quite a
control over this in the past as a result of
provincial legislation, there is no question
about it. But it may be that one of the recom-
mendations this committee will be making to
the government, which tlie government will
be acting on, will be to take the zoning
power away from the municipalities in respect
of some of these matters, so that the control
will either be placed directly in the hands
of the province, or put in the hands of the
regional government, I do not know.
4458
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: The Minister of Municipal
Affairs took that power last year.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The hon. member
has a couple of municipalities within his area
down there that are quite jealous, shall I
say, of their interest in this field. It may well
be that when the legislation does come along,
and a decision is made here, we shall have a
real dog-fight on our hands.
I would be interested in the views of the
hon. member as to whether this pofwer in
respect of outlawing by zoning procedures
certain mining operations in this province
should be taken away from the municipalities,
and should be vested either in the regional
government or in the province.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, I am well
acquainted with some of the areas of which
you speak. I did not know that a report was
being compiled by this province to see what
we will eventually do with it. I know that
there are many i)eople who depend on that
kind of work. They have even gone as far
as Italy for employees and did go to that
country to bring them back to cut the stone.
The limestone is some of the finest in the
world.
My concern was when you mentioned the
Niagara escarpment; there is a big gap back
of the sanatorium in St. Catharines that used
to be the Sagani Quarry, near the Brock
University. It is a big gaping hole there now.
It would appear to me— and I know something
of this work— that they take the top soil off,
remove it and pay contractors so much per
yard to take it away. There could be a pos-
sible chance of removing it in areas where
you would not interfere too much with the
beautiful escarpment. Let them provide the
necessary stone to a certain depth. In some
areas they could dig as far as they want but
I think l>y proper control you would have
the show on the road.
I think that the workers that are affected by
this should jealously defend their position as
labourers. I think the industry, by all means,
should continue because that rock is needed.
I do believe the government should have,
long before this— or someone should have-
stepped into that area. Because take it as
you will, near the Lewiston bridge, just
beyond the bouaidaries of my riding, where
the Provincial Secretary (Mr. Welch), I be-
lieve, represents that area— they have a mon-
strous development there, right close to the
new highway. I forget the number of the
highway but it leads to the bridge, the
Lewiston Imdge.
I would be the last to say that we ou'ght
not to continue the operation, but if the
government is going to get a survey and get
it completed within a very few weeks, that
particular report I will be interested in, be-
cause we must balance both sides of the
problem before we make a decision. I do
not want workers out of a job; I do not
want the industry discontinued; and I do not
want that rock that is necessary and wanted
by many i)eople to be done away witii,
because it means a lot to us.
I say the gravel, the stone they crush
beyond the fine plates that they make, or
whatever they call them, the carving the
good rook, the flagstone that they have and
send out over the country. The second prod-
uct, I think, is a result of the first and the
better one, but then the balance is crushed
into the finest base stone that your highways
can get, I believe. I see the Minister sitting
there like the poker game that we were talk-
ing about, and I do not see any expression for
or against, but we will get to him one day.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You are the better
poker player.
Mr. Bukator: I am very interested in know-
ing what this report will reveal. I am sure
that you are not going to cut ofiF that revenue.
I am sure that you are not going to put the
workers out of a job, but some control should
have come into existence long before this.
One of my colleagues tells me that some of
the Ministers on your side of the House have
had this control for some time, at least the
authority of the control and have done
nothing about it. That I would be interested
in hearing more about.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All I can say to the
hon. member is that we are moving now
into this whole field and perhaps he would
be interested in some of the considerations
that are taking place. First of all we did— I
do not know whether we did, but somebody
here did— commission Professor Goodler to
produce his report, it is a very worthwhile
report. It has been availal>le, I think now,
for a while.
Mr. Bukator: What is the second report
that you—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We are now having
this interdepartmental committee, made up
of the representatives of the various depart-
ments that were indicated a few minutes ago,
take a look at this and other things. We are
helping, or we are, I hope, providing the
MAY 15, 1969
4459
initiative in the thing, in that we are pro-
ducing maps and inventories of the area of
not only what is now in production but also
areas of these unique formations which we
feel must be preserved as mining areas, too.
You can imagine some of the conflicts that
we are going to hit here, where a town wants
to spread out a residential area and we say,
"No, sir, if you do that you are going to be
sitting on something that is only available
here." It is not going to be an easy thing
and we are going to have a few hassles be-
fore the thing is completed, but we are work-
ing on this inventory.
It is well along the road now to com-
pletion, as well as a complete geological
report of the whole area there. What we can
do about it, we can do all sorts of things
about it. We can provide better consultative
services to the i)eople who are in the business,
as to what they can do with these gaping pits
once they move off from it. You would be
interested to know that there is one out here,
just west of Toronto, south of iiie Queen
Elizabeth Way, I thirdc, or it may be north,
between there and the 401, in which the
owner of the thing, I am told, is making a
lot more dough out of it now, than he ever
did, when he extracted the rock out of it, by
using it as a sanitary garbage fill site. By the
time he gets this basic gaping hole fiiU of
sanitary fill, he will then have a very valuable
commercial building site on his hands.
These are some of the ideas that we want
to protect. Not all of these sites are, of course,
available for this. I am sure the hon. member,
when he goes up to Stratford every year and
stops in along with Mr. Trudeau for a
swim in the St. Mary's pools up there, reahzes
that there is a very good swimming facility
available to the town of St. Mary's up there
for things like that. We have another one
right close to the hon. member as a matter
of fact, who wants to do some work along
this line and he wants to guarantee to the
local mimicipaUty that when he is finished
with the extraction of the rock over there,
he will turn it into a golf course, which
is badly needed in the area.
So, there are all sorts of ways in which
the land itself can be utilized, and we want
to gather these things together to advise
these people what they are. The obvious
answer in some of them, of course, is to do
a lot of tree planting and a lot of tree
screening of some of these things. Some of
them may be available for all sorts of uses.
On top of it all, of course, is the problem
of the escarpment, and what we are reaching
for there, quite frankly, I diink— and it is
still under active consideration— is going to
be a set back rule of, I do not know, a
quarter of a mile, a hundred yards, I cannot
tell you what the details are as yet, where
they will be prevented from defacing the face
of the escarpment.
If they want to come up to and utilize
the formations, the deposits, near the face
of the escarpment they can come only so
far. Again, there is going to be a lot of
screaming from certain people who have got
an interest down there and have been hold-
ing on to some of these lands for years for
their economic values, but, nevertheless,
people might get hurt, I do not know, but
this is one way we are looking at to save the
face of the escarpment.
On top of it all we are going to try to
come up with some sort of a policy respect-
ing trust funds or bonding or some manner
such as that, so tliat when a company is ready
to move off it is not just an empty corporate
shell that is left. We have something to make
them, either rehabihtate the site, or reclaim
the site, or tm-n it into something useful, or at
least screen it or plan it. If they do not use
it we can use the money in the bonds or the
trust funds to do it ourselves.
These are some of the ideas we are look-
ing at but it certainly would be imfair of me
to indicate to the House that we have come
to any conclusions. We are still looking at
these thin^ very, very actively, and I hope
that before long we will be able to come out
with some sort of a policy. I hope it meets
with the approval of the hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: Then if you are working
closely with the different departments of your
government and you talked about the escarp-
ment, I must relate a bit of history to you.
When I was first elected to the House here,
one of my first speeches in the House was
about the escarpment drive. The tri-counties
of Lincoln, Welland and Haldimand were
talking about an escarpment drive into
Hamilton long before the houses were built
along the escarpment in Hamilton and we
were talking about preserving this trail that
they now speak of. The Prime Minister two
years ago made a statement in the House that
I was overjoyed to hear— the tri-county com-
mittee was working on this back in 1956 and
I was a member of ihat committee from the
coxmty council. Since that time much of it
has been taken from us by buildings. So, we
have not moved as quickly along this line
as we should have.
4460
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
You are now telling me you are working
with committees and I am wondering if you
are working with that particular group which
was set up with the Minister of Highways
plus two other Ministers, the Minister I
believe of Energy and Resources Management
and one other, about the escarpment drive.
The counties of Welland and Lincoln even
had pictiues, movies, "away back when"
of the drive that would come about to pre-
serve. You are now affected with your digging
of holes to bring about or preserve the area
that was rock on it, you have not made up
your minds.
Are you working with this committee?
Have you had a meeting with them to see
what can be done about expediting and
bringing along tliis escarpment drive soon,
so that you will know where your road is
going at least, and you will not be digging
there?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The hon. member
has put his finger on one of the very great
problems here.
As I understand it, the county set-up in this
province is made up of representatives of the
local municipalities, under our existing pro-
visions of The Municipal Act zoning. In other
words, the prohibition or regulation of the
use of land, under The Municipal Act, is in
the hands of the municipality.
Now here you have county organizations
set up, which are representatives of the muni-
cipalities. Yet, in some of the more flagrant
cases there have been either no zoning
regulations respecting these from the muni-
cipalities themselves, or in some cases there
have been overly restrictive zoning regulations
respecting these things. This is the situation
that has been permitted to be developed.
One of the things that I may be coming
forward to the House with, if not this session,
next session, will be a request to take this
power away from the municipalities, because
they have not been doing their job on it-
some of them, not all of them, but some of
them. I would like to hear the views of some
of the hon. members opposite as to whether
we should do this. I do not know of any
other way in which we can establish control
of it, other than doing this.
I dislike taking those powers away because
I think they are better handled at the local
level, quite frankly. But here we have a very
obvious example of where the local control
simply has not worked out. These are one
of the many problems and factors that we
have been grappling with in this inter-
departmental committee.
Mr. Bukator: This particular problem was
no problem in the area from the Niagara
River at Queenston to Hamilton. The three
counties had been waiting on this government
and had been here with committees over the
years since 1956, saying to them, "this has to
be preserved. We want you to help us with
it. How can we pursue this thing?" And
I want to tell you the hearings have been
excellent because I, too, was here.
But nothing has happened and I do not
see anything right now that would indicate
to me that you have made any further pro-
gress in that area since 1956. I think the
blame should fall on somebody's head and,
honestly, I believe these counties, three of
them, were so sincere about this and wanted
to assist, that the problem lies with the
government. You have come short of the
mark as the government because you have
not done your job.
They went more than half way, and I hope
that this Minister, v^dth his colleagues, who
have heard what I have had to say here this
afternoon, can say to me, "Yes, we will pre-
serve this particular strip for that reason,
and we will have this trail"— or whatever you
want to call it— "from here to Tobermory."
But you had it in 1956 from Niagara Falls
to Hamilton and nothing was done about it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: To say that there
are no problems south of Hamilton is simply
not true. There are as many problems south
of Hamilton as there are north of Hamilton.
But my point is that up until now— and maybe
the government is to blame for leaving it this
long with the municipalities— control has been
at the municipal level.
In any event, we are looking at the thing.
It may well be that we have been derelict
in not taking this away from the authority
of the municipalities before this, but I can
assure you that my understanding is that this
interdepartmental committee has been cor-
relating these reports. It has certainly,
through Municipal Affairs and Highways,
been hearing representatives of municipalities.
I do not want to indicate that there is any
great quarrel between the municipalities and
ourselves on this. All I am saying is that
when, and if, we do make the decision to
take it away from the municipalities, there
are going to be great screams of anguish
from certain quarters. I am glad to hear the
hon. member indicate that he will support
us on it.
Mr. Bukator: The Minister of Public Works
was at a meeting in Hamilton with these
MAY 15, 1969
4461
very people who said, "You are not taking
anything from us. We want you to take it
and go on with the job. We will assist; we
will even throw in some money to help the
government, so there is no taking." You
have had them approach you on many occa-
sions saying, "We would like you to go on
with it and we will assist financially," so it
is a one-sided proposition.
We have wanted to go on with the job,
but someone has been dragging their feet
and I do not know where to lay the blame.
If we bring it out in the open now maybe
something will be done in the near future.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, may I have
a clarification from the Minister? He says
"taken away"— what? Does not the Minister
of the department issue the licence for
mining, for quarrying, for removing sand
and gravel under The Mining Act?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Not completely, no.
There are certain sand provisions— we only
licence them when it is on Crown land, so
in southern Ontario there are a lot of these
operations that we have no knowledge of.
As a matter of fact, again I think this is a
discussion that should either take place on
the mining lands branch vote, or on the
provisions of the amendments to The Mining
Tax Act, because in our Act this year the
amendments are still before the House. We
are trying to clothe ourselves with the
authority to get more information in respect
of sand and gravel pit operation in this prov-
ince and rock quarries, industrial minerals.
Mr. Haggerty: Well—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In other words, we
do not have to grant a hcence, as I under-
stand it, if it is not on Crown land.
Mr Haggerty: Can I pursue this later on
then, in the—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, in vote 1304.
Mr. Haggerty: But to carry on what the
member for Niagara Falls has been discussing
here. I think in 1967, the Parker consultant
firm at Hamilton made a study of the Niagara
peninsula escarpment from Hamilton east to
the Niagara River. This report cost some-
where around $70,000 and I think it said that
they should not allow any more quarrying
within this area.
I think this was enough warning to the
Minister and perhaps to the government on
the other side that some control must be
implemented soon to preserve tiiis land as a
park site and tourist attraction.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You are making a
general statement and I will make a general
statement in return. Certainly, to attempt to
close down any quarrying operations in the
Niagara peninsula would be idiotic in the
extreme. Obviously there has got to be a
compromise position somewhere in between
where the best interests of the industry and
those of the people who work in the industry
are protected, but at the same time, these
natural, God-given formations are protected
as well.
This is what we are reaching for and, as
I say, we do have this interdepartmental
committee which I hope is on the verge of
coming up with very specific recommenda-
tions to us.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I did not
want to leave ihe impression that they could
close up all quarrying operations. There is
a compromise, I think, in this report that
they can extend over a planned programme
for a number of years.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, as I listen to
this discussion and the Minister's answers to
the points raised by my colleagues from
Welland South and from Niagara, I just
wonder really if the Minister has any idea
what he is talking about.
We have listened, Mr. Chairman, on this
side of the House to great plans like Designs
for Development. Every time they have a
nicely worded PR release they put the Prime
Minister up on his feet and he reads out
something that is going to revolutionize the
province of Ontario. But "Design for De-
velopment" still does not mean anything and
the Minister of Municipal AflFairs finds that
out day after day.
His second effort, or one of his later efforts
after "Design for Development," was the
great escarpment plan. The Prime Minister
read it and was surrounded with newspaper
headlines and PR work and on and on, and
there was a great escarpment plan. Now,
listening to the Minister this afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, the escarpment plan that Professor
Gertler is going to study—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We have got it-
Interjections by hon. members.
An hon. member: Well, what are you going
to do about it?
4462
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: Just read them. Well, all right,
that-
An hon. member: How can you read it if
you are sitting on it?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: My understanding
is that the Gertler report has been received
and is receiving the consideration of this
interdepartmental committee. I am sorry I
do not have the date when the thing was
received, but my vague understanding is that
it was received within the last month and a
half anyway.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): It is very complex.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I do not know
whether that is right or not.
Mr. Singer: May I continue?
We get the great pronouncements which
are supposedly full of greatness, fantastic
significance, it is going to revolutionize the
whole face of Ontario—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Who said that?
Mr. Singer: The Premier did in his an-
nouncement about what was going to be
done for the escarpment, now we still can-
not find out what that is.
What particularly concerns me this after-
noon, Mr. Chairman, are the sort of half
veiled threats about tfie lack of co-operation
that is coming from municipalities.
I would like to know if the Minister can
tell us what requests he has made to munici-
palities that have been refused and what
suggestions have come forward from his
department that the municipalities have dis-
carded? And why— because apparently he has
not— why he has not sat down with his col-
league the Minister of Municipal Affairs to
discuss these things?
I am sure the hon. Minister will recall
that, a year ago, this House gave to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs the most unique
power— over our violent objections. He can
now go into any municipality and without
a hearing, without notice, without anything,
do away with any existing zoning bylaw.
What is the purpose of the threat that you
are making this afternoon? Are you afraid to
use the power that you took over the violent
objections of the Opposition or the violent
objections of the press? Or do you mean
something more than that? Are you really
just covering up for lack of something better
to say?
Do you want the municipalities to do some-
thing that they are not doing? Are the zoning
bylaws preventing you from doing something?
If there are zoning bylaws you can repeal
them without notice, without hearing, just
with the Minister's signature, if they are to
be put in a new official plan.
Now what is it that you want? Are you
unhappy with county systems, local systems,
regional systems? You have all the control
right over there. This Minister said this after-
noon to us, Mr. Chairman, that it is all the
fault of those municipalities, and they had
better be careful over there, or we are going
to slap their wrist, or we are going to take
more powers.
What does he want from the municipalities?
What do his threats mean? Do they mean
something more than the Minister of Mimici-
pal Affairs meant when he brought in the
amendment for The Planning Act last year,
or do they mean something less?
If he has a complaint about tlie way the
heads of these municipal governments are
carrying on, the way their elective councils
are carrying on, surely this is the place to air
them? If he is concerned that he is not
getting co-oi)eration, tell us about them. If
he-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what he is
doing.
Mr. Singer: Oh no, he is not. He is saying
if they are not careful we are going to take
unusual action and perhaps some legislation
this year, or next year we might do some-
thing. Do you want more arbitrary legislation
tlian you have already taken? Tell us.
All right, elaborate on it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right. First of all,
I may be wrong about this because I have not
looked tliat carefully at it, but I tliink the
amendments to The Municipal Act last year
did not cover the one specific section of The
Municipal Act relating to the power of a
municipality to prohibit the operation of sand
and gravel pits and rock quarries. So that
the power last year which you indicate was
arbitrarily taken— what is your frotliing phrase?
I cannot quite repeat them all-
Mr. Singer: Arbitrary, dictatorial—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You forgot arrogant,
chd you not? Oh, you have not?
Mr. Singer: It takes one to know one.
MAY 15, 1969
4463
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, I know, I know
it does, and you are pretty quick in indicat-
ing what is arrogant.
In any event, my understanding is that
those amendments last year did not cover tliis
specific clause. I say this in aU seriousness.
The hon. member is much more conversant
with The Mimicipal Act than I am. I cannot
tell you what the—
Mr. Singer: The Planning Act.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, tihds is the
section of The Municipal Act. It is not really
in the zoning section either. This is a very
specific clause provision on its own which has
proved a thorn in the side of the public
policy of The Department of Mines.
I will say that to you because, under this,
the municipahties have been able to attempt
to regulate the operations of these things.
There is quite a jumble of conflicting regula-
tions and standards and rules and establish-
ments all down the picture. For the people
within the industry to attempt to Hve with
these varying standards and regulations has
been pretty tough, to say the least, for some
of the rather widespread operations that go
on.
There is no veiled tlireat to the munici-
palities. It has been, as I say, suggested to
them. I have puibhcly indicated that perhaps
it would be wise to take that out of The
Municipal Act, so that we ourselves have
the power of regulation of these things. It
has certainly been indicated to me by some
of the municipalities tliat this might not be a
wise thing, and certain indications from some
of them that they do not want us to take it
away.
Perhaps the information of the hon. mem-
ber for Niagara Falls is different to mine. I
am not saying that we are in any great hassle,
or that I am making any veiled threat. If I
wanted to make a threat, it would not be
veiled; I think the hon. member appreciates
that.
I try to call a spade a spade, and if I
thought we should take it away, then I would
say so. We have not come to that conclusion
yet, we are still groping here for that
answer. I do not know whether that satisfies
the hon. member or not.
All I can say to you is I think we are on
the verge of hav^ing a very experienced inter-
departmental committee report to us as to
what should be done. I have not yet received
that report.
We are moving on a number of fronts
this way, and when we get it, certainly there
will be a report to the House and to the
public about it, because obviously it will
require statutory action. It will certainly
require regulatory action, and I am assum-
ing it will require statutory action as well.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairaian, this is the very
thing about which I comiplaiii. We get a
series of Ministers— it starts from the Prime
Mmister and reflects its way all down
through the front benches of the government,
where every Minister goes off on his froUc
of his own without any concem-^without any
real understanding— of what is attempted to
be done by the legislation in other depart-
ments.
Hon. Mr. Grosman: Oh that is nonsense!
Mr. Singer: Now if the Minister had taken
the time, before he made the answers he did
today, to talk either with his colleague the
Minister of Municipal Affairs, or with the
officials of The Department of Municipal
Affairs, he would see that there lies in gov-
ernment all sorts of autocartic, dictatorial,
arrogant authority. It can do anything you
want in any municipahty in relation to zoning
or land use without a public hearing or
without anything else and the Minister of
Reforms can wave his hand and say "oh"
until he is blue in face, but that is in fact
the case.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where is tJie Minister
of Reforms?
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
know, again, what the Minister of Mines
really means. Because surely, when we are
going to get a programme, whether it is a
veiled threat or not— and certainly, as I have
listened to him twice, saying, "I am not
making a veiled threat, but unless we can do
something we are going to do it by legisla-
tion," that is a threat. All right, it is not a
veiled threat, but it is a threat— does that
please you more?— it is a threat. Certainly the
Minister, in threatening municipahties, unless
something happens, should make himself
abundantly clear.
This government has put all the munici-
palities in this province into fantastic turmoil
with their county boards of education, and
their regional government, and their lack of
consultation. No municipal council really
knows whether it is going to be here or there
tomorrow morning-
Interjections by hon. members.
4464
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Air. Singer: Now here we get another Min-
ister adding to the confusion, and surely to
goodness that is not what we need. You are
in enough trouble now—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Progress means tur-
moil.
Mr. Singer: Do not add to it. Gi\e the
municipal councils a break and tell them
what >ou need.
Are you going to take more power away
from them and put it in your department, or
in somebody else's department, or have you
taken enough? Are you going to change the
set-up of responsibilities? Are municipalities
going to continue to be responsible for plan-
ning and land use within their own area, or
not? Make yourself clear. No more threats,
now let us make the record clear—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence. One question at a
time. I am sorry I do not have the mental
ability to absorb 75 questions, but one.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He wants to know if
you are arrogant.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Just give me one
question at a time.
All I am saying is that this interdepart-
mental committee is considering, as one of the
remedial measures that we undertake, to take
away from The Municipal Act, the existing
power to the municipalities to prohibit and
regulate the operation of sand and gravel pits
and rock quarries.
There has already been an indication to
me by some municipalities that they would
not look kindly to this, and I am merely try-
ing to indicate to the hon. member that there
may be a conflict coming up. I would appre-
ciate having his ideas, one way or the other,
if he feels we are arrogant and we are moving
arbitrarily.
All right, I am saying to you that we are
groping for a decision along this line. How
can you say tliat we are moving arbitrarily or
we are moving arrogantly in this field when,
if he is going to paint himself and clothe him-
self in the guise of being the great defender of
the downtrodden municipality, here is his
chance.
Tell me, do >ou think we should do it, or
do you not think we should do it?
Mr. Singer: I am glad the Minister made
that valiant appeal for my opinion. I will give
it to you. I gave it to you last year and it
made no impression at all.
When your colleague, the Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs, brought in that new power and
put it into The Planning Act, even as strong
a critic of the government as John Bassett
was mo\ed to write an editorial saying that
it was arrogant and dictatorial and had no
place in the statutes of Ontario.
I am repeating again that, surely, the time
has come before you move in this way— that
all of you should get together and decide on
one policy. That you should consult with the
municipality, you should consult with the
boards of education and you should consult
with the people affected. Do not bring it
down on top and say, "tomorrow morning we
are taking over your jurisdiction". This is
what you are threatening to do.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No.
Mr. Singer: No, I am not saying yes or no.
I do not think the action is clear cut. But I
say that standing up and making idle threats
worsens the situation and does not improve
it at all. If the Minister has a policy that he
is going to enforce by legislation, say so or
consult. Who are you consulting witii? You
are not even consulting with the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Sure we are. If the
hon. member had been on his feet he would
have heard that we were. As I said, he was
right on the department. But anyway, this is
pretty-
Mr. T. P. Reid: That must be quite a con-
versation between the two of you.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1302 agreed to.
On vote 1303. The hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. Martel: Should I wait?
Mr. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Chair-
man, when I wanted to get back on the matter
investigating advanced methods of discovery
of ores and I had an opportimity to speak. I
bowed out, so you could go on with this.
Mr. Chairman: Are we back on vote 1302?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is right. I am
sorry, Dr. Thompson, do not go away. Would
you mind coming back?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member had risen
on a point of order. I thought vote 1302 had
carried. We were on vote 1303.
Mr. Nixon: Is this the matter of open pit?
Mr. Chairman: I recognize the hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury East who had risen in his
place and addressed the Chair.
MAY 15, 1969
4465
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am sorry. I thought
the hon. member wanted to talk about aid
to exploration and things like that which
clearly falls under—
Mr. Knight: I want to talk about advance
techniques of ore discovery, of geophysical
survey. That is what I want to talk about.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That takes place in
the vote we just passed, vote 1302. But if
you want to go back to it, it is all right with
me.
Mr. Chairman: I had called vote 1302
and it was carried. I called vote 1303, and
the hon. member for Sudbury East-
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: May I just finish my re-
marks, please?
Mr. Nixon: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Chairman: If the hon. members of
the committee feel that I had moved too
quickly, or if there was anything wrong with
the manner in which I dealt with the vote,
with the consent of the committee, we will
go back to vote 1302. Does anyone object?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: May I say, Mr.
Chairman, I think the whole committee ap-
preciates your leniency here, because these
things are confusing when they start dealing
with these things. Certainly there would be
no objection from this side to let the hon.
member have his say.
Mr. Chairman: If the committee agrees,
we will refer to vote 1302 for the hon.
member for Port Arthur.
Mr. Knight: My deepest appreciation to
you, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister and the
committee because I think the matter that I
wanted to bring up is very, very important.
We have a Minister here who all after-
noon has been expressing a willingness to go
at this fantastic, this magnificent industry of
mining with a forward view, thinking way
ahead. I am very, very fascinated with the
business of satellite exploration. I am anxious
to find out whether the Minister is investigat-
ing tliis field as an advanced method of
discovery of ores. I think the topic is certainly
timely, what with the Russians' latest rocket
arriving at Ventis tomorrow or Saturday and
the Apollo going up on Sunday, surely this
is a 1969 type of topic.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether
reading is permitted, really, in the estimates.
but I would like to read the following
material. It is kind of involved and I am no
authority on the subject I am introducing,
but then I will make it as quickly as I can.
These techniques— the advanced techniques
to which I have referred, Mr. Chairman—
initially involve satelhtes with advanced sens-
ing devices to detect magnetic, gravitational,
convectivity, gamma ray and even infrared
radiation and absorption patterns, all clues to
the presence of minerals and their charac-
teristics.
And now that the Defence Research Board
telecommunications estabhshment in Ottawa
has largely become declassified as it is passed
into The Department of Communications, I
should like to see a haison unit maintained
between The Department of Mines— this De-
partment of Mines, Mr. Chairman— and
Shirley Bay. Perhaps a team of two or three
speciaiists up there working on sensing
devices, transducers and telemetry systems
that would be included in a geophysical
sateUite in the near future.
Because such a sateUite would not need
to be in synchronous equatorial orbit, and,
because it could be small, it might even be
possible to fund this project entirely from
the resources of the mining industry. There
are now two very practical possibihties for
the launching device.
As revealed on the front page of the Globe
and Mail of Wednesday, March 19, the Cana-
dian Aeronautics and Space Institute sym-
posium was told by L. H. Ohman, of the
National Aeronautical Establishment, that a
cluster of Canadian-made Black Brant rockets
could put a 100-pound payload into orbit.
Using micro-electronic circuitry, such a
payload would be more than adequate to
carry out all the necessary mapping and ex-
ploration functions required to give the min-
ing industry a shot in the arm. It could be
fired from Churchill.
Another alternative is the Barbados HARP
project which is now back on its feet and
could, very cheaply indeed, loft a micro-
electronic package to do the necessary survey
job on a grand scale. I am told the present
airborne equipment used by The Depart-
ment of Mines is very old-fashioned and
inefficient and that the industry itself does
better with its more diverse and accurate
sensing devices. What I want to see now is a
partnership of government and industry to
orbit the most advanced equipment and help
Canadian mining and aerospace industries at
the same time.
4466
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This might be one way, Mr. Chairman, that
this department could get a jump ahead on
industry, if industry could not be talked into
a co-operative programme of financing such
a satellite.
Now, I am sure there may be some mem-
bers in tliis House who were not acquainted
with the subject, Mr. Chairman— or at least,
are acquainted with it less than I am— who
are not aware that the United States is plan-
ning to put up a geophysical satellite of the
kind I have just mentioned within three years
time. The Department of Energy and Re-
sources in Ottawa, which is headed up by
the Hon. J. J. Greene, is already communicat-
ing with the government of the United States.
It is already sending people out to keep
an eye on what they are doing in this field.
Because, obviously, whatever power is able
to put up a satellite that is capable of pene-
trating the earth's surface and discovering
what is below it— not only the anomalies
that are there, but the ore content, the
density, the quality, and so forth— would cer-
tainly be in a commanding position in the
world. I think, myself, Mr. Chairman, diat
the Minister should keep in step with what-
ever the federal department is doing.
I have already been in contact with at
least one person in The Department of
Energy and Resources and I have indicated
to him what my feelings would be on the
matter, and it occurs to me that the doors
are open. So I think that this would certainly
be advanced planning. This would certainly
be of a great benefit to this Minister, this
department and the people of Ontario. When
the first satellite goes up, Ontario's equipment
is on it.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could get
some comment from the Minister in relation
to tliis suggestion?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, Mr. Chairman,
I am glad to hear the hon. member bring
this subject in because it does show some-
times the almost unbelievably astounding and
fantastic things that are available to us now,
or will be very shortly in the future, in
respect of exploration and prospecting. They
are just changing whole concepts of industry
and, in turn, this will change the north.
The great thing about it is that we are
one of the blessed nations, or ihe blessed
parts of the world, in that we do have these
resources. And when these fantastic-sound-
ing methods of exploration and mapping and
surveying come into force, they can only
benefit us. They can benefit others, too, I
suppose, but primarily they will benefit us.
But we are involved in it. We are involved
in it in that this is a sharing agreement with
the federal government. The outfit that actu-
ally has control and administration over these
exciting prospects, of course, is the geophysics
section of the geological survey of Canada.
This is a share agency between the provincial
Department of Mines and the federal govern-
ment. We are involved in it. It is a shared
oost thing.
Naturally the federal government's con-
tribution to it is far more than ours, because
it is more imder their control, sir, than
ours, but I can assure tlie hon, memiber
that there is a very full and free and easy
exchange of information back and forth be-
tween the federal and the Ontario provincial
Department of Mines on this and related
subject matters.
We are involved; we helped to pay for it.
But again, it is a money matter and the
cost of the research and the development
work and experimental work in diis particular
field and one or two others, are almost as
fantastic as the visions that these researchers
are coming up with.
I cannot give you the exact amount of the
budget of The Department of Mines, Energy
and Resources at Ottawa, but the figure of
$108 million keeps cropping up in my mind
as the one. I may be wrong about it. Com-
pare however, a budget for a single depart-
ment in Ottawa of $108 miUion and then
look at the amount that we are presenting to
you for our budget, and you will see why we
could not possibly embark on these expensive
research progranmies on our own.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I would not
suggest that the province of Ontario attempt
to laimch a satellite all of its own, but I
would think that tliis department, this is
their bailiwick. I would not like to think
that Ottawa or Washington, for example, had
all kinds of knowledge about what is under
the surface of Ontario and tliat we would not
have some access to that information, or
would not be trying to get access to it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: As a matter of fact,
we published a map that came out of some
of these shared arrangements. I do not know
whether the hon. members are interested in
seeing one of these preliminary maps, for
instance that come out. There was a new one
out a few weeks ago. Have you got that
Patricia portion preliminary map? If anybody
wants one, there is a new map covering the
whole Patricia portion there that they can
have.
MAY 15, 1969
4467
I give this to you as an indication of the
rough work of a preliminary map. This is not
the coloured map, these are just the pre-
liminary maps that come out accompanied by
a report and we feel that, in The Department
of Mines, we have one of the best carto-
graphic units and geological staffs in exis-
tence in this country, as far as government
services are concerned in any event. This is
just an indication to you of some of the
work that is produced. That is a preliminary
map only, but that is the one that comes out
with the geological report. Later on, a glossy
coloured thing comes out that is much more
detailed.
Mr. Knight: This is a means of survey?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is right.
Mr. Knight: \Vhat are the means of
survey?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: What is the means
of survey? Groimd surveys, geophysical sur-
veys, a small portion of electromagnetic
surveys, but only where we gather this in
from private EM work. We do not do our
own EM work.
Vote 1302 agreed to.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 119
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT -DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, May 15, 1969
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00, Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs.y Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 15, 1969
Estimates, Department of Mines, Mr. A. F. Lawrence, continued 4471
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 4509
4471
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8.00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF MINES
(Continued)
On vote 1303:
Mr. Shulman (High Park): On a point of
order, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Mines
has misled the committee.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Unintentionally.
Mr. Shulman: Unintentionally, of course, I
would never accuse this Minister of mislead-
ing the House intentionally.
An hon. member: Do not commit yourself
now.
Mr. Shulman: Up to now, Mr. Chairman.
In the debate this afternoon there was
some discussion of Falconbridge Mines— and
I hope I wrote the Minister's words down
correctly, if I did not I am sure he will
correct me.
As I wrote it down, he said we must take
care not to take actions that will make this
fine Canadian company subservient to Inter-
national Nickel. Well, I thought at the time
that that was an odd comment, but I thought
before chastising the Minister I should make
sure of my facts— which I have done.
If this is a fine Canadian company, Mr.
Chairman, we are in very sad shape in this
province, and I was a little surprised that the
Minister used those words because this "fine
Canadian company", Falconbridge Mines, is
controlled by another "fine Canadian com-
pany", also in quotation marks, Maclntyre
Porcupine, and this "fine Canadian company"
is controlled by another "fine Canadian com-
pany", the Superior Oil Company of Canada,
and this "fine Canadian company" is con-
trolled by the Superior Oil Company of
Cahfomia, which, sad to say, has no Cana-
dian shareholders.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of order.
Mr. Shulman: May I complete my point of
order please?
Thursday, May 15, 1969
Mr. Chairman: I think we should—
Mr. Shulman: The point of order is that
the Minister has misled the committee. This
fine Canadian company is not a Canadian
company at all, it is an American company
which has some Canadian shareholders. Now,
we are aware that the Minister has—
Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member
who is making a point of order should not
make a speech. The hon. member for High
Park has pointed out that the Minister has
made certain Statements which were incor-
rect. Does the hon. Minister wish to com-
ment on that?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I would not.
Mr. Chairman: All right. Now, the hon.
member for Sudbury East had the floor just
before the supper recess.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman, I was in the process of saying
this afternoon that the Minister of Mines cer-
tainly displays some willingness to bring some
of the giants in the north to a point of being
able to talk to them, at least. For this I
give him credit. However, I was making the
point that I am afraid the Minister of Mines,
has frequently been misinformed and it must
be from his own staflF, unfortunately, cer-
tainly by the International Nickel Company.
I started out by pointing out the inquests
and I read from the debate last year, where
the Minister made the statement that one
man ran over another man while he was in
a drunken stupor, and this is certainly con-
trary to fact.
Oh yes, Mr. Minister, the first man in
question drove over the edge of a—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I did not say he
drove over another man.
Mr. Martel: Oh, yes, Mr. Minister.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You had better open
it up.
Mr. Martel: Better open it up and just get
it straightened out, and I read: "One was a
result of a drunken truck driver running over
somebody."
4472
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I stand corrected
there.
Mr. Martel: The second one was just about
as bad. Neither one of these is correct, and
I might say to the Minister that some of
the things he had attempted to do soured
the men on him considerably by the very
irrational statements in that they were com-
pletely erroneous.
I do not believe that the Minister did this
on his own, I think he was misled, and con-
sequently misled the House. But I do not
think he did so intentionally in all fairness
to him.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Do you want to deal
with them one by one?
Mr. Martel: If you would like.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think it would be
far better if we did not refer to the names of
the deceased.
Mr. Martel: Oh, fine.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: For obvious reasons.
But you may be perfectly right, maybe I
have misled the House, maybe I have been
misled, I do not know. But the information
I got in respect of the one individual, for
instance, was a truck driver X of X limited,
who was killed when the dump truck that he
was dumping went over the stop block tim-
bers and dropped with the deceased a dis-
tance of 100 feet to the bottom of the cliff.
Mr. Martel: That is right, I agree with that.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Right, an autopsy
was performed—
Mr. Martel: Right, he was full of booze.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —and a blood sample
analyzed and the tests revealed that his blood
contained 3.12 parts of alcohol per 1,000.
Mr. Martel: Right.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Upon questioning
the pathologist at the inquest, the pathologist
indicated that in liis opinion this level of
iTiipairment could be attained by taking 12
nhots of liquor in one hour.
Mr. Martel: Right, no objection. What I
am saying, Mr. Chairman, when I quoted,
was that the Minister stated last year tliat he
ran over another man, and this is erroneous.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, now listen, to
be perfectly honest, I did not check that
Hansard afterwards, but at no time did I
mean to indicate— and I am positive in my
own mind tiiat I did not indicate— that he
ran over another man, he ran over a cHfiF—
not a cliff, he went over the timbers at the
end.
Mr. Martel: Right!
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
That is probably where the confusion started.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I thought you were
objecting because I implied that the man had
been drinking.
Mr. Martel: No: I have—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, was not your
initial complaint that our safety regulations
were not enough? Was not this the meat of
the thing? Was I not saying to you at the
time that in some of these respects you can-
not legislate safety where somebody drinks
ahead of the job?
Mr. Martel: Right.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, what is your
point?
Mr. Martel: Well my point— I am making
my point, Mr. Chairman— firstly tlie man
should not have been drinking, I realize that.
The point I am making, though, is that in
that case for several months the timber in
that area was broken and the company saw
fit to put a piece of two by four and wrap
some wire around the two by four and I
objected to the fact tiiat the company had
never lx)thered to repair the broken guard
that was there.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, let us get into
that then. The site of the dump was fairly
level. I am referring here now to the engi-
neer's report.
The site of the dump was fairly level.
The edge was squared up by means of
long 10 by 10-inch B.C. fir timber trim-
ming,
Mr. Martel: Which was cracked.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: To continue:
The stop block consists of two 10 by
10-incli B.C. fir timbers, the bottom one
25 feet, 10 inches long, the top one 24
feet, 8 inches long. Tliese were held back
by three-quarter inch twisted cables, one
on each end, and a tightening twist was
held in place by means of a steel some
MAY 15, 1969
4473
4 feet long. The cables were 19 feet, two
inches apart.
And so on.
There is nothing that I have in any infor-
mation and I would like to know where you
indicated that this was a mere two by four
rather than 10 by 10.
Mr. Martel: I did not. I said it was cracked,
the 10 by 10. For some months there had
been complaints about the fact that one of
the 10 by lO's was broken and in order to
repair it the company simply put a two by
four up against the crack and wrapped some
wire around it. This is what I objected to,
that the company had not seen fit to replace
the broken timber. They simply put a two by
four up against the crack and wrapped some
cable around it, and this is what I was
objecting to.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, there is a ref-
erence to that in the engineer's report. It
says :
The ore dump had been built during the
latter part of December, 1967, and had
been used almost daily since the first of
the year. During the winter season a scoop
train had been used to clean the area and
in some manner the blade of the machine
had engaged and cracked the top of the
10 by 10-inch top block timber.
At that time it was rapaired by nailing
three by six inch spliced timbers over the
crack on the top and on either side. These
spliced timbers were heavily nailed in
place. The two remaining cables were
anchored by two large boulders, one on
each cable, weighing from five to seven
tons and secured in a wrap-around system
similar to that used on the two 10 by 10-
inch timbers.
Now are you indicating that the jury finding
was wrong where they said the truck went
over?
Mr. Martel: No, not at all.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Are you indicating
tiiat through some neghgence on the part of
the legislation or the inspection by the safety
engineer that the man went tlirough the
timbers instead of going over it?
Mr. Martel: All I am saying, Mr. Chair-
man, and the whole point I have been trying
to make for a year-and-a-half now, is that
when conditions are found to be faulty they
are not corrected, the company never rectifies
these situations. It is alwavs a battie to make
this company take the necessary steps to
repair the damage properly.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Did he go over the
timbers or did he go through tliem?
Mr. Martel: He went through them, he
went through them witii a truck.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The JMxy said he
went over.
Mr. Martel: How couM he go over the top
of timbers this high? The only point I am
making here, Mr. Chairman, is that you led
this House to believe that he ran over some-
one, and you will recall last September in
your visit to Sudbury—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, well then if I
left that impression I was wrong and I apolo-
gize. There was certainly no other person
injured as a result of this accident.
Mr. Martel: Well if the Minister will recsdl
visiting in Sudbury last fall they were very
upset about this particular set of statements
with respect to the two inquests that were
referred to.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh no, if I remember
rightly the complaints that oame to me were
why did I indicate he had been drinking.
And I said that the information I received
was that he had been drinking. That was the
ix>int that they were upset aibout in my mind.
Mr. Martel: No, I was not upset because
I do not think anyone should go to work
drinking at any time, even in here.
The next bit of information where I think
the Minister is being misled is with regard to
the monitor which I questioned him about
some weeks ago. I have a letter directed to
his predecessor. When the union in question
first oflFered to buy a monitor I asked the
Minister why The Department of Mines had
refused.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Never refused.
Mr. Martel: Well, he has a copy of the let-
ter from Mr. Falkowski some time ago on
this, but there is also—
Mr. G. Demers (Nickel Belt): Not him too.
Mr. Martel: But there is also a letter from
Mr. Valentine on this same thing and I will
quote just a little bit of it:
Once agdn on February 8, 1968, the
steelworkers have met with Cabinet Min-
isters and other representatives of the pro-
vincial government in an attempt to get
4474
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
them to take immediate action to clean up
the unsafe and unhealthy conditions at the
INCO operations in Sudbury.
The Steelworkers delegation, comprising
Ken Valentine and Paul Falkowski met
with tlie then Minister of Mines, Mr.
Brunelle; the Minister of Health, Dr.
Dymond; the Minister of Labour, Mr.
Bales, and their advisors. The steelworkers
were accompanied by a group of observers
including Jinmiie Keel, Henry Martin, Wilf
Reed and Jim Caster. The steelworkers'
presentation lasted for nearly four hours
and covered a variety of subjects ranging
from the inadequacy of The Mining Act to
the problem of heavy fog encountered
periodically between Sudbury and Copper
CliflF.
It was pointed out to the government
representatives that some employees, not-
ably the stationary engineers, cannot leave
their work position.
Then I go on to the paragraph I am talking
about:
In the past the government at least
acknowledged the tlv's did mean some-
thing, their position now seems to be that
tlv's do not really mean too much. Besides
that, the union's allegation of high gas
concentration was questioned. The union
in turn offered to purchase a monitor and
place it at the disposal of The Department
of Mines or Health within the INCO
operation so that government could satisfy
themselves as to the actual conditions our
people have to work with. Needless to
say, our offer was declined quickly.
So there is a second letter stating that The
Department of Mines objected or refused to
accept a monitor for gas— the point I am try-
ing to make is that frequently I think the
Minister means well but he is being misled.
He is not getting accurate information.
I could make reference to this last visit he
had in Sudbury when the Minister was ad-
\ ised that the company washed down the coal
plant CN ery Sunday. Yet people who work in
the coal plant who were at that meeting indi-
cated to the Minister this was not so, in fact
for the three previous Sundays prior to his
\isit the coal plant had not been washed
down.
So what I am simply trying to say here is
I think the Minister gives the impression to
the men that he is really interested in them
and yet somewhere along the line, Mr. Chair-
man, because of improper information getting
back to the Minister, the good that he does in
this respect is destroyed because some of the
information that is getting out is not what he
should be learning.
This is the point I am trying to make. The
accuracy of the information he is receiving
leaves quite a bit to be desired and it gives
this feeling of mistrust.
This is the point I am trying to make here
so I can relate it with other matters that I
feel are just as pertinent when and if we
decide to discuss the great number of prob-
lems I have raised wiUi the Minister in the
past year.
My argument has always l^een witli the
Minister that regardless of the number of
forms that are being signed— complaint form
after complaint form after complaint form—
the reply that comes back to us constantly is
that the inspectors never find anything wrong.
Really, the men who are making these com-
plaints cannot be wrong all the time. And
this is what I have said to the Minister on
many occasions, they have to be right some
time, they are working in these plants. And
yet the information that comes back to us
regularly is that the men are never right, the
company is always right.
You know, they work there, day in, day out.
They must know what they are complaining
about. They are willing to put their names
down on documents, complaint forms; they
sign these. They cannot be wrong all the
time, Mr. Minister.
But the reports that we get back, I would
say that 99 per cent show that the men are
wrong, and, you know, the company knows
this. And how can we ever expect conditions,
safety conditions, to be improved with thiit
company if they think that the Minister is
favouring them.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: At no time ha\'e I
ever said that the company is always right.
At no time have I ever said that the men are
always wrong, or vice-\ersa, in either respect.
Obviously, this is not so, and quite often the
company is wrong and the employees are 100
per cent right.
However, it is a very, very, very strange
thing that with Local 6500 at Sudbury, and
I am beginning to realize it more now, there
are a couple of divisions in there.
Now you bring up the question of the moni-
tor. Today is a very good example in respect
of the monitor. I received two letters from
Local 6500 respecting the nronitor— one signed
by a certain Falkowski dated May 14, one
signed by Homer Seguin, the president, dated
May 14. Mr. Falkowski says, in effect, you
MAY 15, 1969
4475
"blankedy-blank" Minister of mines, why
don't you get off your "blankedy-blank" and
do something, "blankedy-blank-blank-blank-
blank".
The monitor is a good question— "why have
we not heard back from you about the moni-
tor? We have offered you a monitor and rah-
rah-rah-rah-rah-rah!"
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How do you
get that in Hansard?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Really, really! J
could show you a fairly vituperative, nasty
letter. All right. May 14, same date, same
letterhead from Mr. Homer Seguin.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Minister, here is the
letter-
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, no, I agree
with you, it is not as vituperative as some
of the comments of the member for High
Park to me, but—
Mr. Shulman: Why do you mislead the
House?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Everybody
is a crook except Shulman. It is sickening.
Mr. Demers: That's right!
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I get a very reason-
able letter, and a very nice letter from the
president of the local, saying to me, "We are
glad to hear that you want to find out more
about our monitor, that we have offered to
the company". I have not got the letters
here, I am paraphrasing. In effect, "can I
come to see you to tell you what we have
got in mind?"
Both letters, both dated Sudbury, same
date and everything else, both arrived here
on my desk the same day. Now, somebody
somewhere along the line is getting their
signals crossed. I said it last year, and I will
repeat it here, this is tlie only local in which
I have these very grave politically-oriented
questions that get thrown.
Mr. Martel: It is the only local that is deal-
ing vvdth this company.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Homer said: "I am
the president of the local".
Mr. Nixon: Who was the other letter
from?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: A man by the name
of Falkowski who is an international repre-
sentative of local 6500, isn't he?
What is he then? He is what? He is on the
staff. He is not on the staff.
Mr. Demers: When he's not in Florida.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: He is the safety
director then, or on the safety committee,
rather.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order, the Minister has
just said that he got a vituperative letter, "rah-
rah-rah-rah-rah-rah-rah-rah-rah-rah". Now
just—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No. I had about
four more "rahs" in there.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay. I only put half
enough "rahs" in to satisfy the Minister and
he has objected, but that can be noted in
Hansard.
Let us, just for the fun of it, put this
letter in Hansard, and you can come to your
own judgment as to how vituperative and
"'rah-rali-rah" it was.
Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. member sjyeak-
ing on a point of order?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Well, in the debate
the point of order is—
Mr. Chairman: Well, perhaps, we should
state that I recognize the hon. member's—
Mr. MacDonald: To continue: "The Hon.
Allan F. Lawrence, Minister of Mines—"
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: Once again:
Parliament Bldgs.,
Toronto 5, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Re. crushing plant. Copper Cliff smelter
gas and dust concentrations.
To my dissatisfaction, the undesirable
environmental working conditions in the
crushing plant have not been corrected as
of this date, nor does your reply dated
April 17 deal with all the matters raised in
my letter dated April 15, 1969. In regard
to the information concerning the monitor,
I have requested Mr. Homer Seguin, Presi-
dent of local 6500 USWA, to contact you.
As I have mentioned earlier in my corres-
pondence with you, sir, that on February
8, 1968, our union offered to supply an
automaticaly operated monitor to detect
accurate readings of gas concentrations.
Our offer was rejected and valuable time
to collect accurate, acceptable readings to
4476
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
everyone concerned has been lost, but the
gas and dust concentrations in the crushing
plant ^vith prevailing winds are still present
and the men are not able to wear protective
devices while performing heavy manual
labour.
Therefore, I am asking to be advised;
one, for what reason was my offer to supply
the monitor to The Department of Mines
rejected; two, should the employees in-
volved leave their working area and go to
an acceptable location in the event the gas
concentrations exceed the threshold limit
\alue.
I hope to hear from you and remain,
\x)urs very truly, Paul Falkowski, USWA,
Local 6500.
lion. A. F. Lawrence: Now that is a vitup-
erative address. This Minister has become so
sensitive he is really in a bad way. I thought
that was vituperative bearing in mind that
under the very same date from the president
I get a very conciliatory letter saying to me,
acknowledging, that no rejection of the moni-
tor was made by any means.
I have written back to them, and I have
written to the hon. member, saying to him,
we are looking at the whole picture. We want
to know more aliout the monitor. How can
we find out what you have in mind about a
monitor?
I ha\e a letter here, April 30, to Mr. Martel,
asking Mr. Martel to inform them, no, I guess
they have not been asking him to inform
them, but indicating that we want to know
more about the monitor they have got in
mind. They know that I want to find out, and
this is really the first answer I have had from
them on it. Granted they have not had much
■time to digest it either, and my replies are
sometimes a lot slower than that, so I am not
indicating this. But this is the first reply I
have had from anyone saying, o.k., we will
be glad to come down and discuss it. I wel-
come this.
This is a partnership. We ha\e to work
hand-in-hand on it. but the tone of the letters
from a portion of these people is certainly
galling, I can tell you.
Mr. Martel: First of all, let's get this
straight.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: By the way, how
did the hon. member get a copy of that
letter?
Interjecticms by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. La^vrence: And is there a denial
now that there are political influences to bear
here too, where you people get-
Mr. Martel: No, we get money from—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: This letter was sent to vari-
ous members of this body, including one
Elmer Sopha, MPP for Sudbury. Unfortim-
ately, he has not been here to speak for his
constituency. I'll read the whole list if you like.
The Hon. Dalton Bales, Minister of Labour;
Doctor E. Mastrometal, director of the Envir-
omnental Health branch; Mr. A. F. McArthur,
executive assistant. Workmen's Compensation
Board; Elmer Sopha, and—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Will the hon, member for Sudbury East
please be seated. The hon. member for High
Park had risen on a point of order. He pro-
ceeded to read a letter to the hon. Minister
and the hon. Minister asked him a question
and that is the reason he read the list of
names to whom the letter was sent. The hon.
member for High Park was perfectly in
order. The hon. member for Sudbury East.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Minister, we are not criti-
cizing you. What I started out by saying-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Martel: The hon. members from the
right have nothing concrete to say. What I
am saying, Mr, Minister, is that you have
been misled too frequently. This is the point
we are making. And if you want to knOw why
United Steel in Sudbur>' seems to be so radi-
cal—if that is what you want to call it, well,
disturbing then—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Call it politicalh-
oriented.
Mr. Martel: No, I do not think so. We are
dealing with a company that refuses to move
on anything. It is the only union dealing with
INCO. Now, the Minister knows full well
what it is like to deal with the International
Nickel Company. They do not care about
anyone. All the decisions involving this com-
pany are not made by the staff in Copper
Cliff or in Toronto.
The decisions governing that august body
are made in New York. They do not even
sweep the floor without getting permission
from New York. They could not care less
about pollution. They could not care less
MAY 15, 1969
4477
about the men. The thing that they have in
their head is profit— and the more you can
make the better it is.
It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that last
year for the first time after we had so much
kerfuffal about the International Nickel Com-
pany, they saw fit to send the president from
New York to speak to the people who were
getting their 25-year pins. The president, for
the first time, spoke the whole evening on
safety. Then he went into the smelter and
told some of the shift-bosses.
They came back and told me what he said:
"Do not forget, safety is important. But pro-
ductivity comes first." That is the reason,
Mr. Minister, there are so many problems in
that company.
The only thing that counts is profit! People
do not count. The environment in the Sud-
bury area does not count. But profit does!
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am not going to
defend INCO. INCO can defend itself.
Mr. Martel: They do a pretty good job of
ignoring the government and everyone else.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: They do not ignore
the government.
Mr. Martel: So I can leave this, Mr. Chair-
man. You have been misinformed by this
talking about the coal plant. You are mis-
informed by the company.
I can give you all kinds of examples where
other Cabinet Ministers have been misin-
formed. You know you are not alone in deal-
ing with this company. They have misin-
formed every Cabinet Minister that has deal-
ings with them. The Minister of Energy and
Resources Management, I shall show you all
kinds of cases where there has been misinfor-
mation.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You might as well
listen.
Mr. Martel: It is high time that the govern-
ment took action against this bunch of birds,
and made them realize they have responsi-
bility to the people here.
I would like to get down to some of the
problems involving this company. I would
like to deal with points that I was contra-
dicted on last year by the member for Sud-
bury, who told me ihat this was the safest
company in Canada— the safest mining com-
pany.
They did not force the men back into work
after they break themselves, but the interest-
ing thing about this company, Mr. Chairman,
is that once they get injured they are coerced
into going back to work.
Mr. Knight: What would Sudbury do with-
out them?
Mr. Martel: Oh, do not give me that.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order, I think the
member from Sudbury is misleading the
House on many issues here tonight.
An hon. member: It is a fair argument.
Mr. Haggerty: I know, I happen to rep-
resent an area that has a smelter company.
International Nickel Company in Port Col-
borne. Men that are injured often do go
back to work, but they sit in the change
house and do nothing, but again I have in-
vestigated this, and this is an agreement with
the union. If the union does not want to
go to bat with these men, which they should
do-
Mr. Deans: Prove it.
Mr. Haggerty: I would not be standing
here tonight talking like I am if I had not
got proof.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The hon. member
for Oshawa has a point of order.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): I want to make
a comment on this point that the member
raises in terms of Port Colbome. When
people go back into the plant, even if they
sit around and do nothing-
Mr. Chairman: What is the point of order?
Mr. Pilkey: I want to talk to that point of
order. What happens is that the company
are the people that bring them in, and if
they refuse to come in, they would not get
any compensation-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Pilkey: That has nothing to do with
the union. Do not hand me that stuff.
An hon. member: What are you talking
about?
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East was speaking about mine inspec-
tion-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman:, We are speaking about
mine inspection now.
4478
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Martel: W'^ere we not dealing with
mine safety?
Mr. Chairman: Mine inspection. We are
deahng with vote 1303— order please— under
three separate programmes, the first of which
is mine inspection.
Mr. Martel: Mine inspection! Can we not
attend to all three Mr. Chairman? All in one?
Mr. Chairman here is a prime example. I
knew what I would get from that side of the
House, so I had some of the men write me
letters. I want to read into the records a
letter from a man who has never worked.
I know what to expect from you people.
Anybody who straddles the fence like the
Liberals do Mr. Chairman, who could flop
either way depending on the wind-
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Is tliere anytliing further
under tlie programme of mine inspection?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, because I
knew what to expect I had some of the
men who were injured write a letter. Here
is a typical letter: To whom it may concern:
I the undersigned was injured on No-
vember 8, 1963.
It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, this man has
not worked, since he got injured. The com-
pany that led the attack on him before the
compensation board, was the International
Nickel Company, and he had worked 21 years
for this company, "While working on the
2,200 foot level, at Carson, I was asked to
return to work, and I was advised I would
not have to work at all."
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I really do not want
to interrupt any plight of specific instances
that the hon. member may have, but I would
really suspect, sir, that these relate far more
to workmen's compensation board records
than they do in respect of mine safety. I
would respectfully suggest, sir, tiiat unless the
hon. mem]>er is indicating that these acci-
dents came about as a result of a flaw in the
mines safety legislation, that really they
would be far better discussed under the
appropriate vote in tlic estimates of the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Bales).
Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister is quite
right, we are dealing with mine inspection.
I do not believe that the reading of the
member's letters relating to compensation or
compensable accidents should have any rela-
tionship really. I have not heard the hon.
member so far read completely any letter
in this respec-t, so if he will proceed, and
bear in mind that we are not dealing with
workmen's compensation, but mine inspec-
tion.
Mr. Martel: I am not concerned about
the workmen's compensation bit at all, Mr.
Chairman. I am concerned that a company
who just last Tuesday put a full page spread
about how safety conscious they were to
keep its record intact, forces the men, coerces
the men, to go back to work. They broke
their leg, the day after they broke their
arm, the day after they had been seriously
injured— this is mine safety— it has nothing
to do with compensation.
Hon. A. F. Lavvrence: No. But, Mr.
Chairman, surely it has got something to do
witli compensation, the hon. member is talk-
ing about the company's safety record, this
is in relation to the safety record of the
company in respect of the rate payable under
the workmen's comi>ensation board. I mean,
he can bring out all sorts of letters and
statistics, sir, and individual cases he may
want, tliey may be perfectly correct, they
may be perfectly true, but there may be a
wrong emphasis placed on these matters by
the hon. member. We have got nothing to
do with these things. If someone is injured
and applies for comipensation or something
like tltat, we have no record of this.
I am sure that what the hon. member is
searching for here is a grain of truth in rela-
tion to these matters. He would like to have
the appropriate officials and the appropriate
Minister in front of him so that he can
either give him blue blazes, or tlie Minister
himself can turn around and give a corrected
version of the facts.
You have me at a real disadvantage. This
department has absolutely no jurisdiction or
records or facilities or i>eople when somebody
is injured in relation to them getting com-
pensation or being medically treated; or in
anything of that nature.
Mr. Martel: I am not concerned about
compensation but I am concerned about
safety. The safety records that this company
boasts about which, when I raise issues in this
House or through correspondence with you,
99 per cent of the time, I get the same reply.
Your inspectors have inspected and they
MAY 15, 1969
4479
have found nothing wrong and the safety
record that the company presents to them is
a beautiful safety record— a million hours here
with nobody injured. Yet we know that every
day men are being injured in that company
and it is being covered up. It is being covered
up by putting them in places like the one in
Garson, called "Hernando's Hideaway." They
bring them in in taxis and somebody punches
the clock for them even, and they are taken
over to "Hernando's Hideaway" and they are
hidden there so that the men do not see
them.
We know it is going on day in and day
out. This is why I just took seven or eight
from the union files of the type of injury that
is being sustained every day and there is
never a record showing it. It destroys this
whole fallacy that the International Nickel
Company has a good safety record. They do
not, and it is time your inspectors started to
find out what is going on in that ruddy
company. I have not been able to prove it
through a barrage of letters and the same
negative response I get all the time. There
is nothing wrong; everything is good up
there; but it is not and it is high time it
changed; it is high time your inspectors found
out what is going on from day to day in that
monster.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I have never said it
is all good.
Mr. Martel: I am not saying you have.
Again it comes back to my initial point. You
are constantly being advised that things are
being found in fairly good shape and this is
not true.
Mr. Knight: Where is the union?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I can just read
a couple of these to show the type of injury
that is going on.
Mr. Waslyenko, March 27, 1968, broken
left foot. Back to work on light duty on
March 29— two days later he was back to
work.
Mr. Chairman: Is this a point the hon.
member is making? Because this has nothing
to do with mine safety.
Mr. Martel: It has everything to do with
safety because you cannot find anything
wrong.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The hon. member
recited to this committee the fact that a
certain individual was off work and back to
work the next day— that has nothing to do
with mine safety. If it has he has not
related it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
I can convey it to you and to the Minister if
he has not got it. What the hon. member for
Sudbury East is saying is that men are being
hurt day in and day out because there is not
adequate inspection. We do not have a
record of the accident because the man is
sent back and back in Hernando's Hideaway
or somewhere else.
We are not going to argue about the work-
men's compensation board, because the
record is not in the workmen's compensation
board. What they want to do is to get at the
root of the trouble and the root of the trouble
is inadequate mine inspection.
While I am on my feet, let me make a
comment. The hon. member does not need
any help, but let me make a comment that
ties this debate with previous debates. The
mines inspection branch has been a kept
organization. We have plenty of evidence of
that down through the years.
Every time there was a complaint. Inter-
national Nickel knew the inspectors were
coming in. Indeed, we have faced your pre-
decessor—I am just telling you what it was
like before you got there— we have faced
your predecessor time and time again with
evidence of how suddenly something began
to happen, and it happened so consistently
that the men knew there was going to be an
inspection. They were obviously rolling out
the red carpet. In short, there has not been
an arm's length relationship.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: This has not been
happening lately.
Mr. MacDonald: Whether it has been hap-
pening lately or not I am not in a position to
vouch for, but I am willing to Hsten to the
hon. member for Sudbury East because what
he is doing is bringing a situation up to date.
Just let me conclude my intervention this
way. I agree with the hon. member for Sud-
bury East that this Minister is attempting to
do a job—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Flattery will get you
nowhere.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not trying to flatter
you. You are attempting to do a job, but
4480
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the record of the Mines Inspection Branch
has not been a record of doing their job be-
cause quite consistentiy the company knew
that they were coming in. There is just too
much documentation for that to be dismissed.
Whether that has changed it is a little too
early to say. Perhaps if we hit the issue and
hit it hard here it will change. Perhaps we
will persuade the Minister and he will see
that the whip is cracked and make some
changes, if necessary.
Mr. Chairman: If I may just speak to the
point raised by the hon. member for York
South, as the hon. member for Sudbury East
was on his feet speaking he simply read into
the record the fact that a certain individual
had an accident and he returned after a
period. But then the hon. member concluded
his remarks and went to go on to another
letter. Now he did not relate the fact that
the man went back to work with any matter.
If he would carry on his remarks to show
the relevancy perhaps he would be in order.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, he did it
before. He said he was not arguing com-
pensation, he was not interested in compensa-
tion, what he was trying to prove to this
Minister is that accident after accident takes
place but it is hidden because there is no
record of it. But the accident takes place
because we do not have adequate mines
inspection.
Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member for
Sudbury East will put it that way it will be
in order but he was not doing it.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to
the point of order raised by the hon. member
for York South?
Mr. Chairman: You are speaking to a point
of order?
Mr. Deans: There was no ijoint of order.
Mr. Knight: I would simply like to rise to
support the right of the hon. memlxjr for
Sudbury East to bring this matter up. The
facts that he states are-
Mr. Chairman: This is not a point of order.
1 did not dispute his right. I directed the
hon. member in the manner in which he
eould bring it out so it would be in order.
The lion, member for Sudbuiy East.
Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize if I did not put it as refined ns my
leader was able to do it.
I coiild go through a whole series, Mr.
Chairman, but I would like to read just one
more aixl we will leave that portion. Mr.
Joseph Campas— date of accident, March 17,
1968, injury broken left wrist— back to work
March 19, 1968.
These do not appear on the record against
the safety record that is there. This is my
complaint as it is with a great amount of
material the Minister knows I have before
me because he has the same file— I saw to it
that ho got it. The inspection leaves a great
deal to be desired.
I would move on to another field— and
the Minister was very helpful several weeks
ago when he suggested that his inspectors,
if notified, would come into the plant if the
men complained about excessive concentra-
tion of gas. The unfortunate part, Mr. Chair-
man, is that the second a man goes to phone
your inspector to ask him to come in and
inspect the quantity of gas that the men are
being subjected to, INCO immediately opens
the flues and then it is all gone by the time
he gets there.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In all fairness, I do
not believe it is that simple for them to get
rid of smelter gas. It is simply not that simple
to change those procediues so that the stuff
does not get produced, or to get rid of it
that quickly. You just simply cannot do it.
Mr. Martel: They can clear that plant of
gas in half an hour— and they do it. They do
it time after time.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I have mining engi-
neers that tell me that is not so, so—
Mr. Martel: Well I have the record of
16,000 employees who work there regularly
and who say it can be done and done ver>',
very quickly.
Mr. Shulman: Come in with me on my
next trip.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Do not make a
great fetish of this one trip you have made
up there, for heaven's sake. You come along
with me some time.
Mr. Shulman: I would be delighted. Is
that an invitation?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, it really is not.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I spent one
year of trips into the smelter. I know what it
is hke.
I would like to move on to a couple of
other points dealing with safety, and a couple
MAY 15, 1969
4481
of cases, because we have had the argument
again, Mr. Chairman, that the gases are not
injurious to the employees. Is it safe to talk
about this?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, if it has to do witli
mine inspection safety it will be in order.
Mr. Martel: It has to do with safety. Un-
fortiuiately they are compensation cases but
I iun not relating them to compensation, I
am relating them to the fact that the gas
does affect the men very adversely. Again
there has been a great denial. The Minister
of Health denied it. You know, there is real
knowledge of men suffering as a result of
excessive concentration of gas in the plant
and this certainly is safety.
I have two cases before me, one dealing
with a man by the name of Vic Akkanan,
who suffered poisoning as a result of working
too near it. I will just read it:
Mr. Akkanan was a fitter's helper—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Would you mind
telling us what it is you are reading from?
Mr. Martel: I am reading a statement from
tlie summary of information gathered by the
United Steelworkers and then I will read
some material from the workmen's compensa-
tion board and some of the doctors involved.
Mr. Akkanan, at the time of being
exposed to gas, was working the four to
12 shift. He was on the job of changing
blank about 8.30 in the evening and blank
had to be changed from the No. 2 scrub-
ber line to the No. 1 scrubber line. The
temperature of the gases in the hne at the
time was about 120 degrees and the pres-
sure on the Hne continuous.
The procedure for doing this is you
loosen the bolts on both flanges— and tiiey
are 16-inch bolts— and remove half of the
bolts from each one to enable the removal
and placing of blank. The job takes about
45 minutes under normal conditions, with
light and a blast of air blowing. On this
occasion, however, the conditions were
bad. There was no light and there was no
adequate supply of air. The kiln pressure
was one and a half kilos.
Mr. Akkanan had been assigned to be a
helper to a man by the name of Ignace.
Ignace went up on a platform and began
to work on the No. 2 line, loosening the
flanges, while Akkanan stayed below. After
about 15 to 20 minutes, gas began to
escape and Ignace came down and
Akkanan went up to restime. As a rule, the
workers have to alternate because of tlie
lack of space and because of the bad
conditions there and these conditions in-
clude heat, gas and so on.
Mr. Akkanan worked for about ten
minutes and all this time the gas was escap-
ing under pressure from the flanges. Ignace
stayed in the doorway holding a sheet of
plywood, trying to divert a stream of air on
Akkanan. He said he felt no air on him-
self. This is according to Akkanan's own
testimony. After about 10 minutes he came
down for fresh air and he knew there was
gas present, he could smell it; he went
outside to cool off and to get some fresh
air. But he felt very tired, slight dizziness
and weakness. After 10 minutes of expos-
ure, his breathing was very hard. He stayed
outside below tliis area for about 20
minutes and the gas continued to blow
out of both joints all this time.
Ignace also stayed below all this time
and finally went to get something. Akkanan
went to work again and probably worked
about another 15 minutes, but he does not
remember. He went down for more air.
Every time he went down for more air, he
got weaker, shakier and felt very bad.
He felt as though his supper wanted to
come up. His head began to ache, he
started to sweat, his heart was pounding
and he was extremely weak, his hands
and knees shaking and he started to breathe
faster than normal. And even the breath-
ing became painful. He does not remember
too much on how he finished up the job.
He figures he saw somebody with a
Scott airpack about five to ten minutes
before the job was finished. When he
finished, he thinks he brought the tools
down insofar as he can remember, but he
is not sure about that either. Then he went
outdoors for more fresh air. He did not
stay out too long because it was fairly near
quitting time, about ten o'clock, and it was
getting colder. He felt lousy and had a
great deal of pain in his head at this
time.
He wanted to go home and the shift
boss coaxed liim to say for another shift,
guaranteeing him there would be very Httle
work. The shift boss's name is immaterial.
Now, Connelly, the supervisor on the 12 to
eight shift, who knew how Akkanan felt,
sent him to the doctor right after shift in
the morning. At the end of the shift he
felt the same as before, lousy, headachy
and so on.
Finally, two days later he went to see
the doctor. Now, he was exposed to carbon
4482
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
monoxide in this case. It is very difficult
to establish a claim for this man because,
although he had 25 per cent carbon
monoxide hemoglobin, the doctor said he
got it somewhere else.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, this was not
a company doctor?
Mr. Mai-tel: Just a report of his physician.
This is die summary of information.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: They can and do go
to their own doctors or the union doctor.
Mr. Martel: Yes. He received some com-
pensation for tlie first little while, but there-
after none. But it is interesting that they
are so surprised at this high hemoglobin
count of carbon monoxide. But try to estab-
lish a compensation claim— the fact that the
man gave a report and so on.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, now we are
getting back on to the compensation. I can-
not deal with that.
Mr. Martel: All riglit. I am concerned
about the gas, forgetting the compensation
completely.
The next case is of Dominico Natali, who—
because of exposure to high concentrations
of gas— experienced severe nose bleeding. And
I read his statement to the compensation
board.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well what was the
decision of the compensation board first of
all?
Mr. Martel: He got paid. Because he had
to end up with blood transfusions and so on.
Again it is indicative of the sufi^ering these
men are going through— not just from SO2
but from carbon monoxide, ammonia— every-
thing that is in there. Everything in that
plant is terrible. What frustrates me, Mr.
Chairman, is that no one finds it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: What is the date on
that?
Mr. Martel: This is May 9, 1968. That is
not very long ago. The point is that nobody
ever finds anything wrong in there. But it is
there. I worked there for a year. I mean,
the Minister's inspectors can kid him— if he
does not mind the expression— until hell
freezes over. But I worked in that plant for
a year and I know that one of the reasons I
left was the filthy conditions and the fact
that I could not keep a lunch on my stomach.
This has to stop. It has to stop right away,
because there are maybe 10,000 employees
who are exposed to this. It is the same, Mr.
Chairman, as the argument about the crush-
ing plant. We know there is no gas in the
crushing plant. It is not produced there,
but it is all over this plant. If the wind is
from the south and it is a humid day, we
know that the conditions in that plant are
going to be deplorable. And this is not a
plant with a few men, as the Minister well
knows. This is a plant with thousands of men
in it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We went into all
this last year. I indicated to the member
that I am not happy about it, but what is
the alternative? We cannot come up with an
alternative at the moment. The member can-
not come up with an alternative at the mo-
ment. The company cannot come up with
an alternative. There is one alternative, all
right. There is one alternative— and surely
to goodness nobody in their right mind would
indicate to them that they have to close
down.
Mr. Mattel: Not close down.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right, if the hon.
member can give us a sensible alternative
right now for them to stop what they are
doing, I would be glad to hear it. I have
asked the member this before.
Mr. Martel: Well, I can name several. First
of all, I think the Minister agrees with me
that most of their equipment is obsolete.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I would not say
most of it.
Mr. Martel: A good portion of it, let us put
it that way then. That is one of the prob-
lems. Secondly— and more fundamental— I
have asked the Minister on more than one
occasion to instruct the company that, if the
men demand a gas test, if they feel the con-
centrations are too high, that a gas test be
taken right in front of the men. And if the
gas count is beyond five parts per million,
they do not work in that part of the plant
that day. And I guarantee the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, with this sort of move that com-
pany would clean up, because they could not
afford to go on in the way they have been
going on in the last 35 years— because parts
of the plant would be closed down all the
time, and the onus would be on them, then,
to find a replacement. They would find it in
a hurry if they knew that the men could
leave that portion of the plant where the gas
concentrations were beyond the safety level.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I think a far
better way of looking at that particular prob-
MAY 15, 1969
4483
lem is the one we hope to get going before
very long— and that is a constant monitor.
Mr. Martel: I certainly agree with the
Minister on that. That this is going to go a
long way to prove what type of gas concen-
trations are actually there— and I think once
you have this information, the company will
move without you saying a word to them.
This company is not going to move until
somebody says something, there are no two
ways about it. They continue to dmnp-
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I have indicated to
them— I have indicated right on the floor of
the House here— that I do not think the con-
ditions in that plant are as good as they
should be. I have said it right now, and I
say it again.
Certainly it should be cleaned up. The
question is whether it can be cleaned up,
and I do not have the technical knowledge
and background to indicate what changes
should be made in it. Quite frankly, I do
not think the union does either, and I do
not think the hon. member does. If he does,
let us hear it.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I would sug-
gest to the Minister that one of the first bits
of improvement has to be some new furnaces,
and I think the Minister agrees there. The
furnaces came over on the Mayflower.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Which plant are you
talking about?
Mr. Martel: At INCO, the ones that all the
gas escapes from. Not the new one. Not the
one that was put in two years ago.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, even that—
Mr. Martel: They cannot get that one to
work right. But if the Americans are going to
set a man on the moon in the next two
months, there is no reason why they cannot
clean up that plant if they really set their
mind to it. You know, if they spent more
money there instead of putting phony ad-
vertising about their safety record, and what
they are doing about pollution, and their
"rye on the rocks."
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh no, no. Do not
get on that please, because I am hitting them
every day to improve their public image too.
I do not know why they cannot do both.
Mr. Martel: I would like to go on now, Mr.
Chairman, to a point that I discussed with
Mr. Smith at some length some time ago.
He was, I think, in agreement with me
that we now have to come down with some
type of policy that is binding with respect to
safety glasses and helmets.
I have here a pair of safety glasses which
a constituent of mine was wearing. One lens
is full of scratches and the other lens is
missing, and so is the man's eye. Now, as I
understand it, every scratch on the surface of
this safety lens tears down the resistance, and
I think we have to come in with a very
tough policy, because men are not aware of
this, that every scratch breaks down the
resistance, and they are very sure of them-
selves when they have these glasses on.
They are also very careless with them. I
am not taking their side. They are very care-
less, they also throw them around, and un-
aware that by the time they reach this
number of scratches, the glass is virtually
useless.
The interesting thing about this pair of
glasses, Mr. Chairman, having taken them to
three different companies, is that the frames
belong to one company. The company says it
is not their lens, and the sides have been
added to them to make the glasses look good.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You are leaving me
behind. What is the point of that now?
Mr. Martel: Well, they try to make these
glasses appear very useful.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Who is "they"?
Mr. Martel: Well, the company, Buttazzoni
and Sons, who gave these to this Italian lad,
just out from Italy. He wore them for one
day and while hammering against a cement
wall they were breaking down, a chip flew
off the wall and pierced the glass and took
his eye out.
He had received these glasses one day. A
company was handing out a set of glasses in
this condition, Mr. Chairman, and we cannot
have men thinking that these are safe, or
having them built up to appear as though
they are new.
We have to come in with some type of
tough policy that men be educated to what
the dangers are, and to try to get them to
protect their own glasses, to wear them, and
to replace them, even if they have to pay for
them.
At this point I could bring in the safety
helmet aspect too. We must get a good deal
more pounding from the department that
after a certain period of time, they too lose
their safety factor, which most men are not
aware of.
4484
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The men tie them up with wire, and what-
not, and the mesh inside becomes rotten, and
they think they are wearing a safety helmet
and they are not.
I think we have to start to improve the
safety regulations with respect to safety
equipment so that the men who think they
are being protected become aware that after
a certain period of time there is really no
protection as was the case with this man, as
there is the case of many men wearing
helmets which are of really no value to them
any longer, I would hke to hear the Min-
ister's comments on this portion.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If the facts are as
the hon. member indicated I would agree
with him.
Mr. Martel: Would the hon. Minister be
willing to introduce legislation with respect
to safety glasses?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think the legisla-
tion is there now. I think we have the
standards there now, and it is a question
more of education than anything else. But
on the other hand if the company is handing
out glasses in a condition that are not safe,
then maybe there should be a few more
prosecutions.
Mr. Martel: Well, in the case of this man—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It is a two-barrelled
thing. It is not only educating the employees,
I think it is going after the company to make
sure tliat glasses in an unsafe condition Uke
that are not being handed out. Is that not
right?
Mr. Martel: Yes, I agree with the Minister,
because this Italian, I do not know where he
is going to work now. He has only one eye,
and has difficulty speaking English, and in-
terestingly enough, he cannot claim any
insurance. There is a $5,000 insurance policy
with glasses like this. But in the fine print, it
says if there are any scratches, then you
cannot collect. A company buys a blanket
policy and no one ever collects.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I suggest to
you that it is time the union negotiators got
busy on tliat one then, is it not?
Mr. Martel: Well, I have taken this to one
of the finest lawyers and he says there is just
no way of breaking this one.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am talking about
the future.
Mr. Martel: Well, there are a few other
points. I am wondering if the Chairman will
let me get down now oflF this for a moment,
and get to Mr. Dreisinger's report.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well I wonder,
could we not finish? Other members are
anxious to get into the mines inspection
thing, could we not finish and you sit down
and have a rest while we go on?
Mr. Martel: I will get a recharge here.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on mine
safety. The hon. Minister has suggested that
no one knew what the solution was to the
problem at the INCO plant.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I should have
corrected myself. I wonder if the member
for High Park knows what the answer is?
Mr. Shulman: Well, perhaps if the hon.
Minister had taken the trouble to ask me I
could have saved him a great deal of trouble
because there is a solution, and it is not just
me that knows the answer.
If you had taken the trouble when you
were having your little wresding match with
Texas Gulf Sulphur and asked them, they
could have told you. Because when I was
up going through the Texas Gulf Sulphur
concentrator two weeks ago, I was over-
whelmed by the cleanhness of this particular
plant, as compared with anything at INCO.
You could hterally run your hand across the
floor and not pick up any dirt. And this is a
great huge place.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): They
must have known you were coming.
Mr. Shulman: This could not have been
cleaned up for this one trip. The place is a
spotless plant, I do not think there is any
question about it.
I was reaching up in all sorts of remote
places to see if it was like that everywhere
and it is. I was a little disturbed at the various
implications of building the refinery in Tim-
mins and I was wondering if we were going
to have a pollution problem and a health
problem as at INCO, and they assured me
there would not be so such a problem if they
<lecided to build the refinery there. At that
time they had not made their announcement.
They said that these problems were solved
years ago. It is exactly the same as they have
no problem with fumes in the concentrators,
similarly they have no problems with fumes
in the refineries down in the States, and the
MAY 15, 1969
4485
reason why is very, very simple. Mechanical
and chemical means were developed way back
in the forties, right after the war, to take all
of these fumes out of the air and for the Min-
ister to get up here and suggest— I hope jocu-
larly—that nobody knows the answer is a little
disturbing because I would hope that he
knows the answer. If he does not I will be
happy to help-I have just taken the trouble
to invest $35 for suitable plans, Mr. Chairman,
and I sent down to the United States to the
company that builds refineries, the one in
Nevada is the one I sent to—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Not a sulphide?
Mr. Shulman: It is a copper sulphide prob-
lem. And I would be happy to—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Not nickel copper?
Mr. Shulman: There is nickel there also-
nickel and silver— that is where most of the
fumes come from the sulphide compound re-
gardless of what other metal is there.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Is it an electro pro-
cess or is it a roaster process?
Mr. Shulman: It is a combination of three
processes, but it cost me $35 and I wonder if
the Minister would be willing to go half and
half with me and we can go up to INCO and
l^erhaps we might persuade them to make
these changes which would—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I will do even better
than that. If this book is one that we feel we
should have in our library and we ha\'e not
got it, we will buy it.
Mr. Shulman: Well, Mr. Chairman, because
the Minister has indicated that no one knows
the problem, I have decided I am going to
make a donation to this department and I will
bring that book down here tomorrow and per-
haps we will get some action if the Minister
will take the trouble to read the plans.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right, but I
ishould point out to you again, I am com-
pletely unknowledgeable of the technical de-
tails. My understanding is that there is a great
wealth of difference in the processing methods
and procedures in respect of these various
ores. The process, of course, that Ecstall is
going to put into effect at Timmins is com-
pletely different. It is not even a roaster pro-
cess, and these things are quite different. You
cannot compare Trail with it. You cannot even
compare the Manitoba operations of INCO—
I am told. Now maybe again I am being mis-
led but-
Mr. Shulman: The Minister is not being
misled in this particular point. I am sure you
know Texas Gulf had a unique type of ore
and they did research for a period of a year
and a half to discover the best way to handle
that ore, but these are not difficult problems.
They are problems, but they are problems
that can be worked out l)v the engineers in
this field.
I find it disturbing— this is the only reason
I got into this— for the Minister to get up
and say nobody knows the answer. This is
just not true, because the answers are known.
The difference is that INCO does not want to
spend the money. That is where the problem
is and you are the one that has to put the
pressure on them and make them do it. No-
body else can. The union cannot do it and we
cannot do it. And all the publicity in the
world is not going to make any difference un-
less you put pressure on them. That is what
we are asking you to do.
On this ver>' same subject, the member for
Sudbury East mentioned cases of illness de-
\ eloping from air pollution. I would just like
to add one more to this because this indicates
the need for the Minister to take action.
This man's name is Bronco Tepuric and
he worked for some years at INCO and
developed, as a result of his work there,
emphysema. This is a condition in the lungs
where you cannot properly get your air. The
doctor in Sudbury gave him a certificate
stating that, in his opinion, this emphysema
had developed as a result of working in the
INCO plant.
Now I do not wish to go off on tlie com-
pensation side issue. The only point I wish
to make is that when this case came up
before the compensation board, INCO—
rather than pay this claim— sent three high-
priced lawyers down to spend days and days
in Toronto fighting this man's case.
This is INCO's attitude. Do not pay com-
pensation if you can possibly help it; do
not give these men the medical aids they
need; do not even admit the problem exists,
because if we admit that Bronco Tepuric
was poisoned by the fumes, we are going to
have to admit that all these other people are
being poisoned by the fumes.
Now the answer is not going to come from
INCO. And it is not going to come from the
Compensation Board, or the Minister of
Labour. We are well aware of that now.
There is only one place it can come from
and I do not mind giving a kudo when it is
desen^ed— yovi are the one who can do it.
4486
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Here we have one of the few intelligent
mem])ers in the Cabinet— we are aware of
that, you are one of the very few who are
willing to do their jobs.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: A couple of weeks
ago I thought you said I was one of the
worst mines Ministers Ontario has ever had.
Mr. Shulman: Oh I never said that.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: On the air? Oh golly
—because I was going to reply in similar
tones but I thought l)etter of it.
Mr. Shulman: No, as a matter of fact I do
not think I made that statement—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I have been told
I had better get ready to duck.
Mr. Shulman: No, I have no hesitation in
giving credit where it is deserved. He is doing
a better job than his predecessors. We are not
satisfied, of course, we want to go faster.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I thought I had
achieved a level of notoriety being the worst
Minister of Mines Ontario has ever had.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, there are
worse in that Cabinet, and there is no diffi-
culty in picking them out.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You must admit that
would have been an achievement?
Mr. Shulman: No, tlie Minister is doing a
good job, but we want you to do a better
job. There is so much more— and INCO is
the blot in this province. They are willing
to spend thousands of dollars to prevent men
from receiving the l^enefits they should re-
ceive as a result of their poisoning. You are
the only one who can force them to do it
and that is why we are pleading to you. We
know you have the ability. We know you
have the muscle. For goodness' sake, step in
there and do it.
Mr. Chairman: Tlie hoii. niember for Wel-
land South.
Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Tonight there were perhaps some unkind
remarks mentioned about International Nickel
Company and I do not want to give the im-
pression here that I am 100 per cent behind
any of your programmes, but—
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): You certaind)'
are leaving that impression.
Mr. Haggerty: This is a report by the
International Nickel Company— by the presi-
dent, Stanley Win gate, president of INCO:
We are concerned witli envii-onmental
pollution and we must do our job and still
meet witli what society expects of us.
Environmental pollution is an example.
Mining companies have been accused of
destroying lands, of poisoning the water
and spewing fumes into tlie air. While
those of us in the in<lusi:r>' can directly
point out that the effects of environmental
pollution have not been fully understood,
that there are numerous causes of pollution
l>eyond industry, that public expectations
change, that technology has not always
been and may not be available to solve the
problem, I think we must also concede
that the improvement of practices of tlie
mining industry has not always been suffi-
ciently rapid.
For the past decade for example our
agricultural department has been experi-
menting witli success, applying methods
for reclaiminig sterile mine tailings through
the use of techniques for growing plants
without soil. As a result, today hundreds
of acres of tailing areas have been con-
verted to pasture land and those who live
in the vicinity are no longer plagued with
dust storms—
So we can realize that INCO is concerned
about pollution. It goes on further:
We have recently announced plans to
build a 1,250-foot chimney— tallest in the
world, and approximately the same height
as the Empire State building in New York
—'to serve our Copper Cliff smelter com-
plex. Tlie chimney, by hiding effective dis-
persion, will assure that the air in the
Sudbury area will be clearer than that of
any other industrial community in Ontario.
Then we come to the report by tlie Ontario
Depaitment of Mines on sulphur dioxide
levels. It says on page 1, the introduction:
Now as a result of INCO's annoimce-
nient that they will construct a 1,250-foot
stack at their Copper Cliff smelter, injury
to vegetation from sulphur dioxide will
eventually become a rare occasion, rather
than a foregone conclusion.
To say that no injuries will ever occur
again from smoke emitted from the new
stack we think is premature.
Mr. J. Renwick: One sentence out of a
damning report about a future hope.
MAY 15, 1969
4487
Mr. Haggerty: Well they are trying-let us
put it that way.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, I was in
Port Colbome visiting my brother's place.
And looking across at International Nickel
Company at Port Colbome there was a low
cloud that hung— and I say it hung— about
a half a mile long and perhaps a half a mile
wide. But it travelled very slowly over the
ground.
I have seen on many occasions where trees
are burnt, crops are burnt, vegetables are
destroyed, but I am concerned about the
human part of it.
Mr. Martel: What have we been talking
about the last hour?
Mr. Haggerty: Nonsense as far as I am
concerned.
Mr. Martel: Yes, but you do not count.
Mr. Haggerty: I am concerned about the
human part of this. What eflPect has it on
persons outside the plant? What eflFect has it
on personnel, persons employed inside the
plant? Some 25 years ago I worked at INCO
too and I will tell you it was not the best
of conditions at that time—
An Hon. member: It has not improved
since.
Mr. Haggerty: But I will tell you this-it
has improved 100, maybe, perhaps, 200 per
cent.
Mr. Martel: Ask the Minister why they
cannot get enough men in Sudbury—
Mr. Haggerty: That is your problem up
there. But I am concerned about the human
environments. Now I know that you have
smudge pots, perhaps covering some seven
miles southwest of the plant at INCO. I
would like to know what the contamination
level is that you take from these smudge
pots. What damage do they have on human
health?
I know of one case in particular, a farmer
who used to farm east of Port Colbome. A
member of his family became ill and the
simple reason was that the contamination of
the air from INCO travelled to their farm.
His wife would come down with sores known
as INCO nickel itch— that is the word that
they use. Nickel itch, that is right. It is a
serious skin disease.
But I would like to know— what about the
checks you should be making on INCO in
Port Colbome, the checks that should be
made at INCO in Sudbury. When we go
back to the McGillivary report-I think that
came out in 1965-it was admitted that there
were no regulations or standards as to the
acceptable quantity of fresh air for ventila-
tion in The Department of Mines. It says:
"Periodical investigations are made" and then
down further it says, and I quote:
Counts are really spot checks taken at
a series of working places in the mines.
There is no standard practice as to how
or when or where to take the samples. The
government does not set any tolerable dust
levels. Though in the past, it has used the
standard of 500 particles per cubic centi-
meter set by the International Conference
of Industrial Hygienists. In practice, the
Mines Accident Prevention Association sets
a much higher standard.
I think this is what the member for Sudbury
East was trying to get through to the Minis-
ter, that there should be more checks, more
inspection made into these plants.
Mr. MacDonald: I thought you said that
what he said was nonsense?
An hon. member: Or the way he put it?
Mr. Haggerty: They way I put it, yes.
An hon. member: I did not say that.
Mr. Haggerty: But why are there not more
inspections made? I know that persons come
down with emphysema and other lung dis-
eases and it is hard to prove who is at fault.
But I know and perhaps you know, that the
company is at fault. That many of these men,
perhaps after 25 years' service, are put out
into pasture with a pension of $60 to $85
a month, with no other income, no other
income at all.
I know one of the first things— I have been
informed by a patient in the sanitarium in
St. Catharines— one of the very first things
the doctor says is: "Have you ever worked
at INCO?" There must be a reason for it.
"Have you ever worked at INCO?"
I would ask the Minister if he would con-
tinue with more inspections around the clock,
I think this is what is required, around the
clock monitoring whatever equipment that
you have. This is what is required in this
type of a smelting company, not only here
but perhaps other smelters throughout the
province of Ontario. These men must be
protected.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You have caught
us right in a state of transition. First of all,
this department has never been responsible
for fumes outside the plant affecting human
4488
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
life. This has always been, as I understand it
—certainly ever since I have been around
here anyway — the responsibility of The
Department of Health.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Oh, no.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Only for the past two
>ears.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In any event, it has
not been The Department of Mines.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: My understanding
was— and I stand to be corrected by my
senior colleague here— that we were respon-
sible for fumes affecting vegetation as far as
the sulphur fumes arbitrator is concerned.
Inside tlie plant, we are certainly responsible
for the safet>' and health of the men. There-
fore, we have interpreted this to mean look-
ing after the fumes. There may be some
question as to who is responsible for fxmies
outside the plant affecting human life. I
have only been in the portfolio for a year, as
m.y friend knows. If before that time there
was some jurisdiction in The Department of
Mines that may be, but certainly there has
not been in my time.
Mr. J. Renv^dck: Not under the Act there
is not. You are right.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I say quite honestly
to my colleague that I had always thought
tliat that fell under the jurisdiction of The
Department of Health, but I may be wrong.
In any event, I stand corrected. But at the
moment we have also divorced ourselves of
the outside plant vegetation matters as well,
because the Act was passed this session
changing the sulphur fumes arbitrator to The
Department of Health and this is going to be
in turn, transferred later on, according to
the statement made a few weeks ago by the
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts).
I too have seen these clouds. I can remem-
ber 15 years ago working in the Timagami
forest, up that far and seeing these clouds
come over and come down and biun the
evergreen, not the broad leaf plants, but the
evergreens. I think that the situation Ls a lot
better now than it used to be but again, it
is not something that anybody can be proud
of. I agree with this.
We have been talking here, for several
months about the question of monitoring and
how it is done. So when the hon. member
pleads with me for more monitoring, we have
been talking about this and as I said before
in this House, I have been putting a lot of
time over the last year, trying to find a
monitor that would be acceptable to our
standards and I hope at the same time, it
would be acceptable to the union standards.
So far we have not come up with one.
The union people are coming in to talk
to me about what they think should be the
standards and what they have in mind in
respect of the monitors. So that we are
progressing. It is pretty darn slow, granted
we are moving but not very quickly. But
believe me, the reason for it is the lack of
technical knowledge on the part of every-
body, as far as I know, as to how to really
combat these fumes and what it is we are
talking about.
The other things that I keep getting back
to me all the time, are medical opinions from
people— medical people within the govern-
ment and without government— saying that
so far there really is no statistical evidence
available and very little circumstantial evi-
dence available that these fumes ever, at any
time, reach the level where they do damage
to the human tissue, because the fumes-
Mr. Martel: What study has been done?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —because the fumes
themselves are— I do not know the medical
terms for it, I am sorry— but as I understand
it the fmnes themselves are so much of an
irritant that do not cause dam.age. They will
bring on nausea at a time, but tliey are still
not harmful enough to do damage. These
are some of the stories that have been told
to me. I am not capable enough, quite
frankly, of knowing whether they are true
or not. But as I say, these opinions have come
to us from both within and without gov-
ernment.
The hon. member I know, if he feels this
emotionally about it, must be aware, of
course, that there has been a medical sta-
tistical report commissioned within the gov-
ernment relating to this matter. So far, I have
not seen that report or the results of that
report. But we can find out just what the
past histories of these men are. Nobody is
trying, in government anyway, to keep any
lid on anything, sweep anything under the
rug, whitewiish anything. This is not in our
interest or anybody else's interest.
But just the same, sometimes a lot of very
loose allegations are made. We have heard
some of them tonight, quite frankly, that
are one-sided and biased opinions only. Some-
MAY 15, 1969
4489
times they come from ii>eople whose judge-
ments we really do not have that much
faith in.
Mr. Martel: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have
had my rest so I can start again, even though
the Minister is not going to believe it be-
cause it is too biased. I get the impression
that is what he is saying. I would just like to
straighten the member out on the tailings area.
Tailings. The rye on the rock was quite an
accomplishment. Give International Nickel
credit for doing it. Of course, the dust from
there entered the homes of the officials, and
the day they showed the rye on rocks I asked
them what they intended to do about Conis-
ton. And I can assure the Minister that the
answers I received were very vague.
Like, you know, there is a bad watershed
there, and a bad water table, and they do not
have a conservation authority, and it is pretty
hilly so you cannot plant grass and a whole
host of other reasons. I just want to straighten
the member from wherever he is, out. The
tailings is an accomplishment, but that was
not the purpose. The survey was not to rectify
the whole pollution problem in the area.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If you would permit
it, I really did not get the connection. Are you
indicating that there is a tailings problem in
Coniston?
Mr. Martel: No, it is a \'ast barren desert
where you could make the' best moon movie
in the world.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Right. You are talking
about the vegetation problem again?
Mr. Martel: Yes, well, before I get into the
vegetation problem I would like to ask the
Minister a couple of straight questions: (a)
What is he willing to do about helping with
respect to a good safety programme at INCO?
They are not going to mo\'e on their own,
Mr. Chairman.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: A good safety pro-
gramme where?
Mr. Martel: At INCO. You know. Falcon-
bridge, and I must compliment Falconbridge,
as a result of the battle that went on here
last year, have called in the Mine Mill and
Smelter Workers, and said to them: "We
might as well get you involved in safety be-
fore it becomes another political football in
the House".
Now, I am not particularly overjoyed at
their motive, but I must compliment them
that they saw fit at last to involve the union
in drafting a safety programme with both
union and company involved.
They have set up a committee where the
union could make its complaints, with respect
to conditions that are bad, and they will make
a report at the subsequent meeting indicating
what they have done to rectify those situ-
ations. I am sure, in talking to the union men,
they are very happy with this move, and I
think you are going to see the unions doing
what the Minister suggested here a year ago,
only he left a step out.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Can I interrupt you
again? This is one reason why before I said
I thought Falconbridge had a good Canadian
corporate image picture. Again, my words
were twisted by your friends sitting in front
jof you.
Mr. Shulman: You have twisted yours
again, now.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I said I thought
they were a good Canadian corporate citizen.
I think that is exactly what I said.
Mr. Martel: This, I think, will work, Mr.
Chairman, because it is a joint programme,
and this is where I disagree with the hon.
Minister on his INCO idea.
They are both drafting the policy together,
and they are both going to have to adhere to
it, and they are both going to have to work
to live up to it. But with INCO, they want
a single position where they make the rules,
and the union does not get involved in help-
ing to grasp the safety programme. You really
cannot expect the union to help police this
programme, can you, if they have no say in
its formation, and in its implementation? How
can you ask them to just become policemen
for the company?
It has to be a joint programme, and I am
wondering what influence the Minister could
exert on the International Nickel Company or
if he would be willing to exert some pressure
on them to attempt this same type of pro-
gramme with Local 6500 that Falconbridge
has introduced with the Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I had thought, from
both my union friends— and you will be sur-
prised to hear that I do have some in Sudbury
in Local 6500— as well as from management
people that this time there was a much better
spirit of co-operation and friendliness and
feeling of mutual trust between the two parties
in these current negotiations that are taking
place. Much better than before. Maybe you
4490
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
could classify this as a 1,000 per cent im-
provement, because maybe there was none.
I do not know.
Nevertheless, it sounds to me as though the
thing is perking along very well without any
interference from us. When you start talking
about joint duties, you know, this also means
joint responsibilities, and I had a talk with
the executive of Local 6500 not too long ago
about this point of responsibility. To be quite
frank, the Falconbridge people trust the Mine
Mill executive a damn sight more than the
INCO management trust the Steel workers
executive.
Now, I am not saying whether this is right
or this is wrong, but this may be a key to the
whole factor, and if there is more trust being
shown between the parties right now than has
been shown in the last decade between them,
then perhaps this might be a very good place
for government to keep its nose out of it, at
least until the negotiations are over and some-
thing mutually acceptable comes along to
them both and we can see what the situation
is.
Mr. Martel: I agree—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You do agree?
Mr. Marteh I agree that we cannot get
involved right now. I think I indicated this
to the Minister in a letter the other day, that
we cannot get involved right now because
there is a much better atmosphere than has
ever existed.
I think it is due to a combination of factors,
however. I think this Minister has, as I said
earlier, put some pressure on them. The fact
is that they do not like bad publicity. I think
the Minister has convinced them that bad
publicity is not good for them, and maybe
they are starting to see the light there.
This is my hope, anyway, but this great
unilateral policy just will not be tolerated. I
think the Minister agrees that it cannot be
imilateral, it must be jointly adopted and
jointly held responsible for seeing that it is
carried out properly. We agree on this now,
we disagreed last fall when it was a unilateral
policy that I was concerned about and so was
the union. That is the main objection.
I should like to get into the other aspect
if we can now, the pollution of the vegeta-
tion in the area, and the Dreisinger report.
This report, Mr. Chairman, last week, seemed
to be—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I do not want to get
unduly technical but; well no, I suppose the
estimate is here. I was going to say that you
are aware, of course, that we have trans-
ferred the jurisdiction of that to my col-
league.
Mr. D. Jackson ( Timiskaming ) : Shows
how fast you shuffle.
Mr. Martel: The price for research is in
the Minister's estimates, though.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, you are right.
Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Martel: This document—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am sure on behalf
of the Minister of Health, though, that I
should say I think it is only fair as far as the
duplication of debate in this House is con-
cerned, that if we debate this matter here
it will not be dragged all through again when
the Minister of Health comes in with his
estimates.
Mr. Martel: Well, I think the Minister of
Health will wake up in a few minutes after
he has a little rest there, and maybe he will
get involved in this, because this very hot
document was very difficult to get last week.
I tried Wednesday in the Minister's depart-
ment and I tried Thursday in the Minister of
Health's department, and your department
knew nothing of it and—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I thought I
did apologize for that.
Mr. Martel: The Minister of Health's de-
partment would not give it without the Min-
ister's consent, and I had difficulty. The only
thing I had to work with was this photostat
copy last Friday, and I had some difficulty.
The interesting part is that this is a con-
demnation of the government. I cannot use
any more drastic term, because there has
been denial all along of the knowledge of
what was causing the damage.
You know, people have been saying that
the damage resulted from 25 or 30 years ago,
when they first started to do heavy mining in
the Sudbury area. Everything has been at-
tributed to that and nothing since then really
has been bad, and this is not true.
This document indicates that there have
been readings going on in the Sudbury area
for 16 years now and I think the fact that
the government never moved against the com-
panies who were fumigating the area for the
last 16 years, has to be a condemnation of
the government.
MAY 15, 1969
4491
They were aware that this was going on;
the government was aware of the damage to
the vegetation and, needless to say, if it is
detrimental to vegetation, I am sure it is
detrimental to the health of the people.
The government always denied knowledge,
or certainty at least, that the damage being
racked on the vegetation was attributable to
the companies as they exist today. It was
blamed on the past, as I said.
Well, what does this document say? This
document tells us that last year alone, there
were 696 fumigations, 50 of which exceeded
the level, if you want to call it the safety
level, but 50 of these fumigations were be-
yond the level where vegetation was safe.
To me, it is rather difficult to understand
why the government did not move. Why did
the government see fit, for example, in the
Ontario Water Resources Commission, to fine
the CNR $500, and a fanner on Manitoulin
Island $500 for dumping a httle manure in
the water, and yet they knew full well that
the International Nickel Company in Falcon-
bridge were creating damage to vegetation,
and no fine, no nothing.
There must be a reason for this, Mr. Min-
ister. Why this refusal? You go against a
Crown Corporation, in one type of pollution
and yet you do not move against the company
we have known year after year after year
was damaging. Now, why not?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, because of the
legislation that was and is still in existence.
It is as simple as that.
Mr. Martel: But, could not the govern-
ment—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If there is SO^
damage to vegetation, then The Sulphur
Fumes Arbitration Act comes into play. It is
as simple as that. That is the only reason.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Minister, really, you know
what the farmers are getting from the Inter-
national Nickel Company. I talked to a farmer
last year who got the simi total of $60 for
the damage.
They were ravaging not just the farmers
though, what about the Crown land? Who
should have gone after them for the damage
done to the Crown land, or un-Crown land?
Should that have been the government?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All I can say to you
is that it has been the policy of this govern-
ment, and previous governments before it, to
follow the terms of The Sulphur Fumes
Arbitration Act in respect of SO^. I think
there will be some perhaps drastic changes to
this policy fairly shortly, but—
Mr. Martel: I hope so.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —until now this has
been the poHcy of the government; there
have been sulphur fumes and it has been
damage to vegetation in respect of private
lands; then the Arbitration Act applied, and
if it has not been private lands, there has
been nothing done about it whatsoever.
Mr. Martel: In other words, a licence to
pollute.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I would not say
that. I may not necessarily agree with tlie
underlying principle of the Act, but, never-
theless, it has been there and it has been
followed by previous governments, not only
this one, as I say, but previous ones.
Mr. Martel: Well, Mr. Minister, for ex-
ample, who goes into the Penage area where
28 per cent of the 100 trees tagged in 1968,
28 per cent of the white pine are dead?
Who brings action against the International
Nickel Company on some of tliat Crown
land? Or the 68 miles away from the city
of Sudbury which was damaged last year, in
other words, within seven miles of North
Bay. The International Nickel Company is
now fumigating and killing the vegetation to
within seven miles of North Bay.
If this is Cro'wn land, who really brings
the pressure to bear against the company to
stop this sort of procedure then?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I have already
indicated to the member that the policy has
been that, if it is private lands, you move
under The Arbitration Act and, if it is Crown
lands there has been no action.
Mr. Martel: Right!
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I mean, it is as
blunt as that. I am not saying tliat I agree
with that policy. As a matter of fact, I have
already indicated tliat I think there will
probably be some drastic changes to that
policy. But that has been the policy up imtil
now. Do not forget that all of these investi-
gations, of course, which are not particularly
cheap to undertake either, that the companies
themselves have been penalized to the extent,
although perhaps it has been a slight extent,
that they have been paying for the investiga-
tion.
4492
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Martel: Well, I hope, I really hope—
You see, the unfortunate part, Mr. Minister,
>ou are taking the brunt of an attack that
your senior colleagues in tlie Cabinet have
chosen to ignore for 24, for 25 years of
Toiy domination.
Hon, A. F. Lawrence: No, I do not think
that.
Mr. Martel: Oh yes, because there was a
licence, really, there was a licence for this
company to continue pollution despite the
fact that, for the last 16 years, you have
monitored. The Department of Mines has
known that the vegetation was Ix^ing ravaged
l)y the SO2, and the company was given a
licence to contiinic to do that to Crown
property.
For ex;unplc, what is the damage of SO^
to the wildlife, to the aquatic life where we
have the Wamipitei Lake, which is a vast
lake, and the Minister has seen it, where you
cannot catch a fish.
It is interesting, Mr. Minister, that during
the week that the tourist outfitters were in
and we met in committee over in the Mac-
Donald block, I guess it is, that the man who
owns Killamey Lake Lodge indicated to us
that, just as soon as he hit Parry Sound by
airplane, he could see this white smog. And
when he landed, he had before him all these
beautiful lakes, fresh lakes, with absolutely
no fish in them.
It goes beyond just vegetation, Mr. Minis-
ter, it hits every aspect of our life, and the
very refusal of the government, of the Min-
ister of Health, who for years have denied
such things as how it can be affecting the
health-
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, now, I do not
til ink that-
Mr. Martel: Oh yes, Mr. Minister. I have
l;een speaking to people who have been com-
ing making the— what should I call it— pil-
grimage to Toronto, year after year after year.
Even the studies being done now, as I under-
stand, on the health of people, is being done
from statistics in Toronto.
How many people are being examined in
the Sudbiiry area l)y a team of doctors? How
many people? None.
Well, if we want a report, a conclusive
report on the eff^ects on tlie body, on the
lungs, I am sure the best way— and I know
medical men— but I am sure the best ways to
conduct this study, would be on the men
working at the International Nickel ComjKmy
in Copper Cliff.
So, this report really— it is a very simple
report, it is very, I think, devastating— it indi-
cates that .25 parts per million can injure
vegetation. I am wondering what 200 parts
per million in the plant can do to the human
body.
These are the statistics tliat the men are
taking when they run the risk of taking
gas tests— because, you know, the Interna-
tional Nickel Company has threatened the
men with firing them if they are caught
taking readings with the draeger meter. They
have threatened to fire tliem. I wonder why?
This is a pretty terrible state of affairs
when the men are trying to protect their
health, trying to present facts to the gov-
ernment, and doing this under the threat of
being fired if they are caught with a draeger
meter in tlieir lunchpail, or if they are caught
taking a reading with the draeger meter.
Now, if, as I say, .25 parts per million will
kill vegetation, I wonder what 200 parts per
million does to the hmnan body.
It is a fairly lengthy document and is a
condemnation of this government's refusal to
do more on air pollution, towards vegetation.
The inaction of this government in the plants
is a further condemnation and an indication
that they just do not give a damn what is
happening to the men in those plants because
they would never tolerate it, never. Because
I am sure there is not one member on that
front bench who would go to work for a
year at the International Nickel Company
plant at Copper Cliff and last a year. In
fact, I would say that most of them would
not last five days.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Wait a minute. It
is rude to point, use everybody in the House.
Mr. Martel: Pardon?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The member would
not last either.
Mr. Martel: Oh, I spent a year in it. I
probably would not last now.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Martel: All right, I am just saying-
well, we could back to the "Air of Death"
or, not the "Air of Death" but the programme
that was filmed two years ago. Two of the
television crew, Mr. Chairman, two of the
crew were taken to the hospital within less
than eight hoiu"S.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: What poisoning was
that?
MAY 15, 1969
4493
Mr. Martel: SO^, I guess, some poisoning.
But in less than eight hours. Imagine the
men working there day after day for 30 or
35 years. And it is my hope that starting
with the Minister of Health, who is respon-
sible for the health of the people of this
province, to all of those involved in any way,
shape or form with sulphur dioxide and
pollution— I do not want to use too harsh a
term-but let us say, get up off their back-
sides and do something about the thing.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is The Depart-
ment of Mines.
Mr. Martel: Do not pass the buck, that has
being going on for 25 years.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Ask the Minister, we
offered to do it for him.
Mr. Martel: To do what for him?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We offered to take
over the care of the health.
Mr. Martel: Did you offer to take it?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Sure, we did. Ask him,
Mr. Martel: And you would not give it to
him? You offered it back to him and he would
not take it? It is hke a ping-pong game,
nobody wants the ball.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We do.
Mr. Martel: Would the Minister give it to
him, he would love to get rid of it, would he
not?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right, I might as
weU make this clear. We feel that the health
safety of the people in the mines and the
mining plants is a very specialized thing. We
feel it is specialized enough that— and we
have some plans — that there should be a
specialized department to look after it. If
not, there is no reason-
Mr. Martel: Do you have a medical staff?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I am talking
now about in-plant, I am not talking outside
the plant.
Mr. Martel: No, no, inside the plant. Does
the Minister have, say, three or four doctors
who conduct an on-the-site test or examina-
tion of tlie men who who are working there?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: One of our problems
at the moment is that we do not have medical
staff. We use as consultants medical people
from The Department of Healdi.
Mr. Martel: Would the Minister agree with
me that no satisfactory study on the effects of
SO^ can be made here in Toronto, but must
be made investigating the men who are
working under the conditions from day to
day, let us say, over the last ten years?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I understand from
the statistical study that has been made they
have been looking at the statistics and inter-
viewing people up there. They have been
collated and set in their computers, or what-
ever it is they are doing with them down
here, but the actual gathering of the informa-
tion is taking place up there.
Mr. Martel: Yes, but how many medical
examinations, for example, are taking place?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I cannot tell the
member, I have not seen the reports yet.
Mr. Martel: WeU, I understand from some
questioning of the Minister of Health last
year that most of this study was going to be
on data that was already on file down here
in Toronto. If I am wrong, would the Min-
ister of Health check me up on this, I dis-
agreed with him at that time and said the
tests should be conducted on the men in
the Sudbury area if we are going to get an
accurate picture of the effects of SO, and
other gases, in fact, and dust, on the men in
the Sudbury area, it would have to be con-
ducted there. Am I wrong?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, the member is
wrong.
Mr. Martel: Well, would the Minister
straighten me out then, if I am wrong?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, no, this is The
Department of Mines.
Mr. Martel: You see, Mr. Chairman, the
Minister of Health really does-
Mr. MacDonald: We will have to repeat it
when we get to each of the estimates.
Mr. Deans: I sense a little rift in the front
row.
Mr. Martel: I am kind of glad, Mr. Chair-
man, the Minister has kept that to himself
and maybe the Minister of Mines would
agree that this testing should be done on the
men who are actually involved in working at
the plant at the present time.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: My understanding is
that the statistical report is being prepared on
the basis of employment records and health
4494
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
records of people who have been employed
in the mines.
Mr. Marteh Does it involve actual examin-
ation of men?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: This I do not know.
Mr. Martel: I understand there are ways of
using a needle, for example, to find out what
is coating the lungs on the inside. Perhaps I
am wrong.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, no; the member is
way out of his depth.
Mr. Martel: Oh, I am a way out— now the
Minister is into the game. Either get in or
get out. If he is going to get in, he should get
in all the way.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Are we dealing with
mine inspection? Was the mine inspection
programme carried?
Mr. MacDonald: Pollution is the topic un-
der discussion.
Mr. Chairman: That comes under the re-
search programme.
Mr. Martel: But does the Minister think
there should be investigation-
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
The Chairman would like to know what we
are dealing with. Are we dealing vi^ith re-
search, or mine inspection?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I think, in all
fairness, Mr. Chairman, we have completed
the mines inspection. I suppose we are on
the research item.
Mr. Chairman: If there is nothing further
on mines inspection, then that is carried.
We are on research, item 4. It was agreed we
would deal with these estimates by pro-
gramme under vote 1303. How did we get on
to pollution? Anything further on mines in-
spection?
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Speak up.
Mr. MacDonald: This Minister has been
here for only five minutes.
Mr. Pilkey: We are going to be here all
summer anyway, what is the hurry now?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Speak for yourself, I
am not going to be here all summer.
Mr. J. Renwick: Speed it up!
Mr. Chairman: Mine inspection.
Mr. Pilkey: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk
about this question of safety and the whole
question of the application and who should
have this safety programme or the safety
statute in what department.
As I understand it, in Part IX of The Min-
ing Act, this is the whole section that relates
to mine safety and—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is the main
part.
Mr. Pilkey: Right. Part IX is the part that
governs, or the statute that allows this Min-
ister to perform or head up the safety factors
in The Mining Act. But in addition to that,
in the statute, or in The Industrial Act, it
says that this is an exclusion; it names a num-
ber of exclusions and for safety reasons The
Mining Act does not include this question of—
or the safety Act does not include the mines.
As I understand from my colleague, there
were a number of complaints and they have
been continually rejected by the safety engin-
eer. The Minister himself said that the safety
record could be improved. He did not say it
was the worst in the world but he said, as I
recall earlier in this debate, he said that the
safety record could be improved.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Is the member talk-
ing about a particular company or what?
Mr. Pilkey: No, I am talking in general
now. I think the point the Minister was mak-
ing was in relationship to INCO, but I make
this as—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The member means
in general? Any safety record can be im-
proved. The hon. member's safety record can
be improved.
Mr. Pilkey: The Minister also went on
to say that really in his department he had no
record of this question of safety and said that
he did not have the number of injured work-
men, as this was in The Department of
Labour.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I did not say
that at all.
Mr. Pilkey: You made reference to the
Department of Labour and you did not want
to talk about workmen's compensation—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I did not want to
talk about applications by claimants to work-
men's compensation because I assume the
hon. member was not only attempting to give
information but seek information. We are
in no position in this department to talk
MAY 15, 1969
4495
about claimants as far as the workmen's com-
pensation board is concerned. We are here to
talk about accidents in the mine and safety
regulations within the mine but this may be
a totally difFerent thing as to whether or not
they have got "Femando's Hideaway" where
somebody goes for two days. I do not see
what that, quite frankly, has to do with mine
safety unless the point which the hon. mem-
ber could not make but on which his leader
came to his rescue-
Mr. MacDonald: He made it before I came
to the rescue.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —was that this was
something that was not being recorded some-
where. Of course, as I understand it in which
there is an app'lication to the workmen's com-
pensation board, this eventually has to get
recorded before the board, as an accident.
Mr. Pilkey: No. No. I onl>'—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I did not under-
stand. If you are trying to clear up any
misconception in m>' mind about it, I am glad
you are here, go right to it. I did not under-
stand the point the man was trying to make.
Mr. Pilkey: I am only making the point
that you did say that this whole question
was in The Department of Labour.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, no! Well, if I
said tliat, I apologize to the House and to
the hon. memiber. I am, to use a phrase that
is current tonight, I am misleading the House
then, because I certainly did not mean to
say that. Obviously we keep safety records.
Mr. Pilkey: I only assume by those state-
ments that you were not in a position to
talk about this question of injured workmen,
and particularly the numbers of injured work-
men, because it was not in yoiu: department
when you made reference to The Department
of Labour.
I do want to say that there is an
answer to this question. In my opinion, the
whole question of safety should come under
The Department of Labour and under The
Industrial Safety Act. Now I know that most
Ministers are a little reluctant to let go of a
little of their empire—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am not.
Mr. Pilkey: —but if it is going to ser\^e the
people better in terms of providing a better
safety record, then I think we should agree
that this whole question should come under
that authority. I want to make a point in
that regard as far as safety committees are
concerned. Last year we passed— in The
Workmen's Compensation Act^a section that
should be adopted even in stronger terms in
The Industrial Safety Act so that it has some
meaning as far as the mines are concerned.
I just want to refresh your memories in that
regard. It stated:
Where the work injury frequency and
the accident cost to the employer are con-
siderably higher than that of the average
in the industry in which he is engaged, the
board— as provided by the regulations— may
increase the assessment for that employer
by such a percentage thereof the board
may deem just and may assess the levy
the same on the employer.
It goes on to say in addition to that—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is applicable
right now in the mining industries.
Mr. Pilkey: Right.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is The Work-
men's Ck>mpensation Act you are-
Mr. Pilkey: Yes. But it goes on to say that:
The board may deem just and may
assess and levy the same upon the em-
ployer—
And this was the point—
—and they require the employer to estab-
lish one or more safety committees at the
plant level.
Now it seems to me that there should be a
joint safety committee at the mine level and
at the plant level as well.
I want to make another observation before
I forget tiiat point. As I understand it, under
The Mines Act, part 9-and this not only
applies to the mine, but to certain sections
of the plant in Port Colbome and in Sudbury
—this could very well apply to some of the
basic steel plants in Hamilton. So what we
have in effect in these plants is your sectiooi
of The Mines Act in terms of safety applying
to part of the plant. Then you have The
Department of Labour's Industrial Safety Act
applying for the rest of the plant.
This seems to be utter nonsense and un-
necessary. It appears to me that it should
come under one department with the proper
enforcement. I also understand that The
Mining Act, in terms of safety, is totally
inadequate and in addition is frequently not
enforced. TTiis is the impression I get from
some of the i)eople that are working in this
industry.
4496
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am really saying two things: one, that
this Mining Act should come untler The
Industrial Safety Act; and two, that we
need to set up, once and for all, joint man-
agement-labour safety committees. Safety
should not be considered purely as a manage-
ment issue so that they have all the unilateral
lights to determine what is a safe condition
and what is not.
We are not going to get the real solution
or get to the crux of the problem until we
set up these joint management-labour safety
committees.
As I said, there was some recognition last
year by the workmen's compensation board
and The Department of Labour that there
could veiy well be instances where it was
necessary to set up such joint safety com-
mittees. But they only did it on the basis that
the incidence of injuries had gone beyond
some mythical ix)int. I do not know at what
point they are going to introduce them.
Nevertheless, this is the point I am mak-
ing. I am suggesting that if you are going to
get the solutions that are necessary, then
there will have to be this joint effort. You
are going to continue to get into a position
where the people who are working in the
industry are going to be continually making
representations to your department on the
various shortcomings of safety in that indus-
try until you do make them part of the whole
programme.
These are the fellows who are having to
work on the programme. True, management
have to run an efficient operation and they
have to have some managerial rights to de-
termine how that operation is going to pro-
ceed. Nevertheless, we have reached a point
where the employee who has to work in these
conditions should have some say as to how
those regulations are going to be enforced.
It is all right for these employers to walk
around in white shirt and tie and make those
determinations. They are not the guys who
are really doing the work in that specific
industry. They are not doing the work and
it is very simple for them to walk around,
half the time with eyes closed, and say
everything is all right, everything is fine.
But it is not fine! As my colleague from
Sudbury East has pointed out, it is not fine
in the INCO situation and it is not fine in
many industries across this province. I would
think— and I do not stand up and talk as
any expert in the mining industry because
I do not know that much about it— but I
do know the situation as it prevails here in
the industrial front.
In my opinion there just has to be someone
of importance to tell the mining industry—
and I am talking about the processing plants
as well— that you have to set up a joint safety
committee. I want to tell this Minister,
through you Mr, Chairman, very frankly that
these companies are not going to relinquish
that right without a great fight— make no
mistake about it.
And the unions are not going to win this
without very, very lengthy strike situations
at the collective bargaining table. This battle
has to be won at the legislative front. It is
not going to be won on the collective bar-
gaining front, and it is going to take a Minis-
ter with a little courage.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, it is going to
take a Minister who is convinced that what
you are saying is right.
Mr. Pilkey: Well, if he is convinced that
I am right-
Mr. MacDonald: Your government became
convinced and put this into an amendment to
The Workmen's Compensation Act.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right, now we
are dealing with mine safety. We are dealing
with human beings in a heck of a job. Let
us look at it. My friend from the back row
there says that the INCO safety record is
suspect. All right. Leave INCO out of it.
Take a look at the mining industry as a
whole. It has a dam sight better safety
record than any other comparable industry
in this province.
Mr. Martel: I disagree with you.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You talk about the
auto workers, in the assembly line business.
Mr. Martel: It is only because they do not
recognize an accident when they see one.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: A much better
record. The mining industry has got a bet-
ter record. You talk about construction— the
mining industr>' has got a better safety record.
And iiF what wc are reaching—
Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Point of order.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: He interrupted me
in full flight.
Mr. Martel: I did not interrupt. The point
of order, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that I
tried to relate a while ago are the same as
MAY 15, 1969
4497
the Minister is saying now that they have a
good record.
Mr. Chairman: That is no point of order.
Order. The Minister of Mines has the floor.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, on the point
of order.
Mr. Chairman: What is the point of order?
Mr. Martel: The Minister said that the
record of the company is good.
Mr. Chairman: That is the Minister's
opinion, the hon. member is simply arguing
with his opinion.
Mr. Martel: The hon. Minister is misleading
the House, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member has no
point of order. The hon. Minister of Mines
has the floor.
Mr. MacDonald: He is ignoring all the
statistics in Femando's Hideaway.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I said forget about
INCO and Femando's Hideaway, or what-
ever it is, if such a place exists.
I have been in the place, you know. I have
been in it, for heaven's sake, and you know
what it is. It is a place where they put these
fellows who are on part time and half time
and rehabilitative work. I have been in the
place. But in any event, where was I? I was
working myself up there. Just a minute, I
have got to crank here.
The industry— leave INCO aside then— you
are not making these allegations about the
whole industry are you? Are you making
these allegations that the whole safety record
and accident record as compiled in this
department and workmen's compensation
board and the industries safety management
thing— all of these records for the whole in-
dustry—are corrupt, wrong, falacious?
Mr. Martel: I never said corrupted. Mr.
Chairman—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, no. I am refer-
ring to this so-called point of order.
Mr. Martel: I do not think that just be-
cause—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right. All I am
saying is, the mining industry safety record
matches or exceeds any other comparable in-
dustry. And this is what we are reaching for,
is it not? We are reaching for good and
better safety records and the prevention of
accidents and circumstances that lead to acci-
dents. I am saying that certainly you have to
look at that. I do not give a dam, quite
frankly, whether unions have got any respon-
sibihty in the thing or whether we hold
management responsible for the thing or not.
I am not worried about these formulations of
procedures and who has more power over
anybody else. I am looking at the actual
safety conditions in the thing. And what the
hon. member is talking about in respect of
assembly line work and industrial concems
may not necessarily be apphcable to mine
work.
Mr. Pilkey: Let me say this, and obviously
I do not have the statistics broken down for
the mines in terms of injuries. But I think the
hon. Minister recognizes that the ratio of
injuries in the province of Ontario has in-
creased. In other words there were more
injuries in 1968 than there were in 1967.
Our record for safety in this province is
going backwards.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Not per capita in
the mining industry, it has not.
Mr. Pilkey: As I said, I do not have the
figures to break down the mining industry
per se. The point that I am trying to make
is that if we are going to get a solution to
this whole thing—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Let me just add
this one other restriction there. They have
increased by number, (a) because of the
increased number of people working in the
mines; but (b) also because the day-long
thing has gone from seven to five to three to
two, and now down to one day, as far as the
accident time. But if you go back and use
the same ratio as it used to be, at whatever
period of time, and you also look at the
number of people employed in the mining
industry, there has definitely been an im-
provement over the years in the mining in-
dustry.
This may not be true in industry as a
whole in Ontario, but that certainly is no
argimment— which, as I understand it, my
friend is trying to relate it to— for the mining
industry to join the same procedures that are
applicable in other industries. As a matter of
fact it may well be an argument the other
way round.
Mr. Pilkey: The other point that I am try-
ing to make in this regard is just to illustrate
the nimiber of man days lost in accidents.
You know, there is always a great hue and
4498
• ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cry about the man hours lost in terms of
strike situations in the province of Ontario,
but I want to remind the Minister that there
is twice as much time lost through accidents
as there is through strikes in this province. So
if we cut down 50 per cent of the lost time
of accidents, then obviously we have elimi-
nated all the lost time in terms of strikes. So
that-
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We would also like
to eliminate strikes.
Mr. Pilkey: Okay, you are right! But I just
make that observation.
A solution to this question of safety has to
be found, and from my experience I want to
say to the Minister that where the companies
have recognized joint labour-management
committees, their record is much better than
those industries that refuse to recognize them.
And let me tell you that there are more in-
dustries, obviously, that do not recognize the
joint committees than do. I make that ob-
servation, and that is why I say to this Min-
ister that this is a valid point— that we have
to have these joint safety committees which
will have some say in terms of the necessary
provisions to eliminate accidents to the very
minimum. I think that is a joint desire, not
only of the Opposition, but of the govern-
ment as well. I think we are all looking in
that direction.
The other observation I made was that I
think that this should come under The De-
partment of Labour, so that we can get some
uniformity in terms of safety legislation
throughout the province, and that obviously
our party has said in the fmal analysis that
there is a relationship between workmen's
compensation and safety, and therefore it
really should come under The Workmen's
Compensation Act as well. But at this point
in time the government have not seen fit
to do that.
The only other thing that I wanted to say
to the Minister, and I will be very brief, is
that he was talking about these Fernando
Hideaways. I want to say to the Minister that
this is happ<'ning, not only in the mining in-
dustry but in many industries, where the com-
panies hide these people for very obvious
reasons, because the incidents increase their
rates for compensation.
Tlicy do not want their rate increased, so
they tuck r>eople off in a corner some place.
Tliis is prevalent all through our industries
in the province of Ontario. Obviously, the
companies do not want the rates increased.
This really has nothing to do with the
unions at all. This is the companies' way of
keeping their rates down because of the inci-
dent figures.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on mine
inspection? Tlie hon. member for Port Arthur.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I am just
wondering about this business of uranium
mines and radioactivity. I see there is some
short mention made in the annual report, on
page 161, under the title, Radio Activity in
Uranium Mines, which covers a total area of
two paragraphs.
Mr. Chairman: Does this come under
research or mine inspection?
Mr. Knight: Yes, it is mine inspection. The
annual report, "Ontario Mineral Production
Reaches New Peak."
What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is
the value of these inspections. In the time
that uranium mines have been under devel-
opment in the province of Ontario, how many
cases of uranium disease or deaths from
diseases contracted from miners working in
uranium mines have been recorded? Have
there been any deaths or any unusual num-
ber of cases?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am speaking
strictly from memory here, but the danger
involved here was, if I can use a layman's
term, I think it is bone cancer. This was
initially the— am I correct in that? In the
lungs? I am sorry. I am corrected, it is
carcinoma in the lungs.
Tlie research tliat has been done, not
only by us but by others, shows that tiiis is
carried really by the dust within tlie mines.
The experience that we have come up with
now is simply: if there is decent good
ventilation, then there is no danger at all.
There were some unfortunate occurrences
very early in the uranium mining business,
years ago though, and my understanding is
that there has been less incidence since
then, once our rather strict regulations
respecting ventilation came into effect.
This is something, however, that we do
not know all the answers about yet. I do not
think the medical people do, but we are
keeping a good close look on it and in the
re-opening of these mines now and in the
expansion of these mines, we are very strictly
controlling the ventilation, looking at the
ventilation very, very strictly. We think and,
of course, we hope this is the answer to a
problem now that really has not been with
us for about a decade. We really have not
had very much incidence at all in ten years.
MAY 15, 1969
4499
Mr. Chairman: Mine inspection.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, what period of
time is the Minister referring to? He said very
much incidence at all. I do not think the
Minister has been really very specific—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I cannot give
you the statistics since '55, let us say but
my imderstanding is that there has been no
worthwhile incidence at all of this since
'55.
Mr. Knight: Well, I daresay then, the mines
at Elliot Lake would be far safer than the
INCO mines.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well it is a different
problem. But—
Mr. Knight: Different problem?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I mean you
are dealing with a completely different
medical problem here.
Mr. Knight: One more thing, Mr. Chair-
man. This afternoon we spoke about gravel
pits and quarries and so forth, quite at
length and from the point of view of the
aesthetic and from the point of view of con-
servation and we went into this area of whose
responsibility it would be to see to it that
companies restored the land area.
Now from the safety point of view, this
matter can be brought up again. We hear
many stories of children digging into some of
these abandoned sand pits and so on and
being buried alive—
An hon. member: Oh, not many stories-
Mr. Knight: —very tragic stories. We hear
about children being drowned in pools in
abandoned pits and quarries and so forth.
Now—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We will not try to
duck responsibility on that, that is our re-
sponsibility.
We fence these things, we inspect these
things. You say you hear many stories of chil-
dren falling into abandoned mine shafts. My
goodness, I hope you do not hear many stories
about it. We try to keep these things fenced—
Mr. Knight: Gravel pits.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It is a difficidt prob-
lem, though quite frankly and obviously we
put the onus first of all on the mining com-
pany itself. But in so many cases of these
things there is not any mining company or it
is an empty corporate shell and we ha\e no
comeback on them at all.
But we try to inspect these things periodi-
cally. We try to fence them. We first of all,
of course, try to get the company itself to do
it. But if they are not there, we do it.
Now this is something else that we are
looking at. This has got to be changed for
the future. The people who are getting the
earnings today from these things— we are
going to have to work out some scheme, some
arrangement whereby they pay for these
things in the future.
I think this is what the hon. member is get-
ting at and if it is, I agree with him. Again,
we have not worked these things out. There
is a lot of work to be done in relation to a
lot of these matters and as I say, there are
just seven days a week and 24 hours a day—
An hon. member: You have got a big job
ahead of you.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We are working on
it.
Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Chairman, I of
course appreciate the hon. Minister's attitude
and his reaction to what I have brought up
but the fact remains, he speaks about what he
proposes to do and—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, we are doing it
now.
Mr. Knight: —and I believe him, and I will
look, I will await earnestly for this action that
is going to come about. But I must take ad-
vantage and I would be remiss in my re-
sponsibility as critic over here if I did not
emphasize how important it is that he carry
out this responsibility. Because it seems to
me that this estimate does not only have to
do with mines safety but public protection.
Wherever you have any of these excavations
that are accessible to the public at large, even
when they are not in operation, then someone
has got to assume responsibility for them and
this underlines the need to speed it up and
get a policy, a very definite policy—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am not dodging any
responsibility right now. First of all, under
The Mining Act itself, section 168, responsi-
bility is put upon the owner or lessee of the
unused or abandoned mine. But in so many
of these cases as I say there is not anybody
and therefore, it is our responsibility', our
engineers' responsibility to see that these
things are fenced and protected as far as the
public is concerned.
It is a very diflScult job in respect of chil-
dren. No question about it. But the thing we
are working on, or hope to work on in the
4500
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fuhire, is to try to work out some scheme
whereby the earnings today help to pay for
these dangers tomorrow. This has ne\'er been
tackled in this province or in any jurisdiction
in this hemisphere. It has been tackled in
other places, in Europe I gather, and these
are some of the things we are looking at and
want to look at, find out how other people
do it.
But it is a real problem. But, I am not
dodging any responsibility today. We try to
obviously hang the responsibility on whoever
owns the place. But so often, this simply is
not possible because you cannot find them.
Therefore, it is our responsibility to see that
these things are fenced and are protected.
Mr. Chairman: Mine Inspection. The hon.
member for High Park had been attempting—
Mr. Haggerty: Yes, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wel-
land South.
Mr. Haggert)': Thank you. One more ques-
tion, the Minister mentioned something aboiit
carcinoma, that perhaps the only place you
can pick this up is in the uranium mines.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, I did not say
that.
Mr. Haggerty: Well, I am asking you a
question. Would you pick it up in any other
mine? Would you pick it up in the smeltering
operations of copper, nickel— rather, process-
ing of minerals?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Boy, you have got
me. My understanding is that the highest rate
oi incidence in the mining industry occurred,
as I say, in the early days of mining, radio
active materials in this province.
We were one of the first into the game and
there was a fairly high incidence of radon gas
at that time. I do not think there is any
higher incidence of that particular disease in
other mining operations than is nonnal in any
industrial concern.
Mr. Haggerty: There would not be any
more—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, no, asbestos is
silicotic, and us a matter of fact there is an
item here on it, where we an; bringing our
research up to date.
But there again, I think we ha\e come to
the conclusion that ventilati(m and proper
filtering is the answer to the thing and this
does hold it down. Mind vou, we have been
lucky— or imlucky, all depends on your point
of \ iew— in that we have not had any pro-
ducing asbestos mines for a couple of years.
But we have got a new one now into produc-
tion this last year. This is one reason why we
Jhave in the estimate here $23,000 for Dr.
John Patterson of Sunnybrook to bring his
ten-\ear study up to date.
Mr. Haggerty: Would these agents be
found in the process of mining?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No-
Mr. Haggerty: You are not aware of it?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I am not aware
of it.
Mr. Haggerty: Would any of your staff be
aware of it?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am told that this
is a result of radon gases in respect of
radioactivity only. This is the only above-
normal incident of this particular disease
that we have found in the mining industry.
Mr. Chairman: Mine Inspection. The hon.
member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to come back to the INCO problem. I see
under this vote that there is some $483,500
offered for salaries, and of this, how many
inspectors do you have?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We have a total com-
plement of 47 in these particular estimates.
Twenty-five inspectors, all of whom are min-
ing engineers— all of whom are professional
people, I should not say mining engineers
because a couple of them are electrical and
a couple are mechanical and a few things
like that.
Mr. Shulman: Well, I have a suggestion
which I would like to make through you, sir,
to the Minister. We have heard a great deal
of talk here about INCO, not just tonight but
over this past year and a half that I have
been here. I am sure that you would agree
with me that if the problems of INCO would
be solved, half of your problems or three-
quarters of your problems here would be
out of the way.
Certainly we hear many complaints about
pollution both within and without the plant
at INCO and if you took all of the INCO dis-
cussions out of Mine estimates, we would
have been through long ago. I agree with
you that the rest of the mining industry is
doing a reasonable job. There are improve-
ments that we want here and there, but
MAY 15, 1969
4501
INCO is the great criminal in this whole
matter.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, I would not say
that.
Mr. Shulman: Well anyway—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I just think there are
a couple of vociferous members around here
who keep referring to INCO, that is all.
Mr. Shulman: Well you may not agree. If
you do not agree we can start going into
some detail and we are going to be here for
some days. I think that a large number of
people on your staff would agree that INCO
has been somewhat less than progressive in
its attitude towards the various problems of
air pollution. You only have to go up to the
Sudbury region and look around there and
see what INCO has done over the years.
Laurentian University has done a study
and they found that people live five years less
in Sudbury than they do in the rest of On-
tario. This is INCO's doing. The pollution of
the rivers and of the lakes and of the vegeta-
tion is INCO's doing. I do not think there is
any question that INCO is really the major
problem and I am surprised that the Min-
ister would disagree with me on this.
However, the major problem as far as the
pollution within the plant has been that no-
body is exactly sure what is going on. We
have had two fairly distant interested ob-
servers sneak in there in this past year
bringing out certain—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In the form of
whom?
Mr. Shulman: One of them was a chap
named Starawicz from McGill University who
was hired my the Toronto Star to climb over
a slag heap holding his draeger meter bravely
in front of him. When he got inside, he got
his readings, but got caught by the INCO
police.
Fortunately, they were rather inept, be-
cause when they interviewed him, he told
them he was really coming there to work and
did not quite know where to go. They es-
corted him home by car. It was a "Keystone
cop" affair. By the time they figured out who
he was, he was on his way back to Toronto.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Let us say that that
might have been a qualified disinterested ob-
server. Who was the other guy?
Mr. Shulman: His name slips my mind at
the moment. In any case, these two indi-
viduals brought out some rather horrendous
readings regarding the sulphur dioxide level
at INCO, as they saw it and as they regis-
tered it on their draeger meters. Now in re-
turn for that, they were told, "Oh no, that
is not true, you could not have read it right,
it has all been a mistake," and your inspectors
have gone up there and your inspectors
could not find these readings.
Now the member for Sudbury East has
pointed out—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No. No. I would not
say that. Our inspectors can find those read-
ings at any time they want in certain places,
but not necessarily in the areas where the
men are working or—
Mr. Shulman: Well let me say to the Min-
inster that the readings were taken in areas
where men were working and this is what the
problem is. Apparently, when your inspectors
go there, the readings are nowhere near that
high.
Now the member for Sudbury East has
pointed out for many years that it was the
custom for INCO to find out ahead of time
when the inspectors were coming. Even now,
if they come without prior notice, it is a
rather large place and by the time the in-
spector arrives at the gate, announces him-
self and gets through into these areas, a
good hour can pass— plenty time for INCO
to open up the flue, get the fans going and
clean the place out.
There is a simple solution to this whole
problem that came to me in a stroke of
genius this evening as I was sitting here
listening to you elucidate on the problem.
Why in the world—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I wondered what
that roll of thunder was.
Mr. A. Camithers (Durham): Saw a flash
of lightning too!
Mr. Shulman: That is what it was. You
have 17,000 people working in INCO, you
have 90 per cent of your problems coming
out of INCO as far as we know. Complaint,
complaint, complaint. Why can you not take
one of those inspectors, say $8,000 of the
$480,000 we have in this particular vote—
and put him in INCO and let him stay there
all the time.
You have 17,000 men. It is not an unrea-
sonable request. Let him wander around the
plant at will with his little draeger meter.
Then you could forget about your monitors.
You could forget about your million com-
plaints. You would have a disinterested
4502
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
person on the spot all the time. It is going to
cost a lot less than monitoring.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I would say to the
hon. member that we must have at least one
inspector every day on the INCO grounds or
in the plant proper.
Mr. Martel: Why can they not find the
readings?
Mr. Demers: You would never believe him.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We have a total of
six engineers in the Sudbury area alone.
Mr. Martel: Why do they not get a 200
parts per million reading?
Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister telling me
that one of his inspectors is presently at
INCO daily?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, there is.
Mr. Shulman: And are they spending their
eight hours—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: But not necessarily a
mining engineer or one who takes draeger
meter readings every day. But every day,
unless something is wrong somewhere, there
is an inspector of The Department of Mines on
one or other of the INCO properties. This is
pretty obvious, because— as I say— there are
six engineers in there. I hope one of them is
out every day somewhere on the INCO plant.
I do not know what else they are doing if
they are not.
Mr. Shulman: Well, I hope the Minister
does find out what they are doing. But this is
exactly what I am suggesting. I am quite
sure your inspectors are visiting and getting
readings or getting information. But what I
am suggesting to you, and it is not a terribly
expensive suggestion, you do not even need a
trained engineer for this— put one man into
the INCO smelter, full time, just going around
with his draeger meter; nothing else, just
wandering around the plant with this machine.
It will cost you a very small amount of
money and think of all the aggravation it will
save you here in the House, because this will
stop the union complaints. If you have some-
one there on the spot who is neutral and
v/ho will be able to settle this problem once
and for all, if truly there are heavy readings
occurring. I believe there are because there
were when I was up there on a very brief
visit. You will clean it up because as long as
INCO knows someone is wandering around,
it will not be like that.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think we have had
a man in there taking these readings for con-
stant periods of time like two or three weeks
at a time.
Mr. Shulman: Well, would the Minister-
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: But if not, we will.
And if we can afford the staff to get in there—
you know it is a mammoth plant property and
there are all sorts of problems every day.
Mr. Martel: We will provide the guides for
him.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, tell Mr. Fal-
kowski to keep the heat off them for a little
while on some of these petty complaints, that
they have no business investigating anyway.
Leave them alone for a little while and maybe
we can get back to some of these root prob-
lems. I think we would all be more satisfied.
Mr. Shulman: I do not want to leave this
just yet. I think the suggestion I am making is
not unreasonable, but would the Minister
consider putting a man— he does not have to
be an engineer, some junior man from his
department— on a full-time basis, preferably
three shifts a day.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I get the meat and
the principle of what the hon. member is sug-
gesting. I am reasonably convinced— although
I cannot give you the dates— that this has been
tried in the past by the department with no
real difference in the conclusions that have
come through to us. But if it has not been
done lately, then maybe it is about time it
v/as done again.
Mr. Shulman: I do not want the Minister
to misunderstand what I am suggesting. I am
not suggesting he put someone in for two or
or three weeks, because we know that for
that two or three weeks everything is going
to be fine. But I am suggesting this on a
permanent basis that someone be in there.
You can put someone in for two weeks, and
for two or three weeks e\erything is going to
be lovely.
But would it not be reasonable to consider
putting someone there on a full-time basis.
This, I think, will solve your problem.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We will certainly
give it very serious consideration.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on mines
inspection?
Mr. Martel: One final question, Mr. Chair-
man, the question of Mr. Falkowski keeps
MAY 15, 1969
4503
arising, and of course his counterpart under-
ground, Mr. McGuire, whom the International
Nickel Company thinks are two real pests.
Is the Minister aware that International
Nickel does not allow Mr. McGuire to leave
a certain area, nor do they allow Mr. Falkow-
ski to leave a certain area on threat of their
job unless it is to go strictly to the washroom.
Is this allowable, that the company can, for
example, restrict Mr. McGuire all by himself
underground and advise the rest of the men
not to talk to him? He is the plague. He has
been reduced to a point where he has a shovel
and no one gets near him and this is company
instructions. And the same applies to Mr.
Falkowski. No one is to go around his area.
You know, it is like—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You are not going
to drag me into that argument.
Mr. Martel: Well, do I take it to the human
rights people?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No. The question
there is they obviously expect Mr. Falkowski
and Mr. McGuire to do a day's work for a
day's pay— I do not know, I assume that is the
position of the company. That is something
that the company and the union can work out
between themselves. It has been solved in
other industries in exactly the same way.
These special representatives— I am sorry, I
am not going to get into that one.
Mr. Martel: Then you are suggesting that
I take this to the human rights people?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am suggesting you
take it to whoever you want.
Mr. Martel: You say "a good days work".
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Falkowski does not have
five minutes work a day. That is one of the
things he cries about. What they have done
is they have simply restricted him to a comer
of the ball park and told him not to leave it
despite the fact that there is no work.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am not going to
cry over Mr. Falkowski's trouble.
Mr. Martel: I am not crying over it. I am
just saying that these are the two people who
are primarily concerned with safety in those
16,000 men at the International Nickel Com-
pany.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is nonsense.
Mr. Marteh That is not nonsense.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: There are a lot of
people concerned-
Mr. Martel: I am saying that these are the
two men who are primarily concerned with
keeping the health and safety committee
going. I have a little more knowledge on that
subject than the Minister does, I am afraid.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on Mines
Inspection?
Programme agreed to.
We move on to research; the second pro-
gramme under the vote. The hon. member
for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: The first item under research
is investigation of the effect of sulphur dioxide
fumes in the provincial forests. I believe my
colleague from Sudbury East is going to have
a great deal to say on this.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I thought we had
covered that.
Mr. Shulman: There is just one brief item
I wish to discuss under it, inasmuch as the
effect on vegetation does come under this
Minister, at least partially under this vote.
The thing that disturbs me is the recent an-
nouncement by his colleague, the rather inept
Minister of Health, and associated with INCO,
of the huge new stack which was to solve the
problem of pollution in Sudbury.
Mr. Chairman: May I interrupt the hon.
member for a moment? It was my under-
standing that the air pollution outside of the
plant was under a new department and it was
not, if I remember correctly, to be discussed
under these estimates.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We are in a difiicult
position here, Mr. Chairman, because since
these estimates were printed and made up
the decision has been made that this should
go over to a different department. The only
trouble is this item for the payment of this
matter does not appear in that other depart-
ment's estimates, so I think the understanding
is we discuss it here and then maybe the Min-
ister of Health can get off without discussion.
Mr. Chairman: Then the hon. Minister will
entertain discussion regarding pollution out-
side of the plant?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: As long as the hon.
members do not mind being here until 3 a.m.
or something, sure. Let us decide it now.
Mr. Chairman: And there will be no repe-
tition then when we come to the Minister of
Health?
4504
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Shulman: I assure you that I have so
much to say on The Department of Health I
could speak for a year without repetition.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Gorrectional
Services): We will bet on that too.
Mr. Shulman: I will be very brief. You will
])e delighted.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That we will not bet
Mr. Shulman: The thing that disturbs me is
that the Minister of Health rather proudly
announces a great huge new stack, which you
have heard discussed here today, which they
say, quite properly and quite truthfully, is
going to halve the amount of pollution falling
on Sudbury proper. But it is going to double
the area and the amount of pollution on the
provincial forests, which are under this par-
ticular vote.
I was sort of hoping that the Minister of
Mines in his somewhat more intelligent ap-
proach to this problem than his colleague,
would exert some pressure on INCO and the
other companies involved to put scrubbers in.
It is absolute insanity to take $13 million to
build a great big tower to double the area of
pollution. I see the Minister is nodding, he
obviously agrees with me. Everybody who has
any sense in this whole field across all of
North America— and I have taken the trouble
to get a number of opinions which I will be
happy to read into the record, if the Minister
wishes them— think that the Minister of Health
has slipped his marbles.
Now I am asking through you, sir, to the
Minister of Mines— who I think must be aware
of the problem— can you do something to per-
suade INCO to put scmbbers on their ex-
haling fumes?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: My understanding is
that not only are they building a larger stack
—and the theory of this is that it disseminates
it over a wider area granted— but also— again
if I may use layman's terms— a much thinner
concentration of it to the point where they
say it will not cause any damage at all over
this except in very exceptional circumstances.
On top of this, they are also doing what
amounts to extra filtering, or extra scmbbing.
There is going to be built into it new equip-
ment which will have the effect of eliminat-
ing a lot more of this from the stacks before
it even gets into the stacks.
This is one point that you will notice I
made no public announcement of whatever at
that time because I was highly suspicious of
the thing. And just again, from a layman's
point of view, it seems idiotic to me that we
are just spreading the stuff farther and wider.
I have since been convinced by other material
that I have read from other jurisdictions— not
necessarily a biased INCO point of view-
that this is a temporary measure and a very
worthwhile temporary measure. This is all
that the company is claiming it is going to
be, a temporary measure. In the meantime
they are still devoting an awful lot of money
and an awful lot of effort and time— really,
I am convinced of this— to research to find a
permanent long-term answer to this thing.
It really is not that simple, that you know
they can do it if they want to. It is no per-
centage to them to continue to have this stuff
spread around.
Mr. Shulman: Just money— dollars and
cents.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, no! If they could
find a way of doing this I am honestly con-
vinced that they would. I may be v^orong,
maybe they have pulled the wool over my
eyes, but I am convinced they are bending
every effort they can into research to try to
come up with a way to do it.
Our job in government, I think, quite
frankly, is to goad them until they do do
the thing and I can assure the hon. member
that as late as two weeks ago I had the chair-
man of the board of INCO up from New
York and I was doing my duty. If you think
the duty of the Minister of Mines is to goad
these people into these things, I was doing
my duty that day. But I am convinced that
they are spending an awful lot of time and an
awful lot of effort and I think they are doing
more research in this than almost any other
outfit in North America. They can well
afford to do it too, granted, but I am con-
vinced that they are doing it.
Mr. Shulman: This is the sad situation, Mr.
Chairman. They are doing the research, there
is no question about it, they are spending— I
would not be surprised if it was up over
$100,000 a year— on this particular problem
of research and they are going to keep on
doing this for some years. The sad thing is
this research has already been done and
INCO is willing to do it all over again over
a period of five years and spend half a
million dollars doing it if they ha\e to. Be-
cause every year they do this they save them-
selves two or three million dollars in the cost
of actually cleaning and scrubbing that air.
It is a pure matter of immoral dollars and
cents. Sure, they are doing the research. They
MAY 15, 1969
4505
will go to any lengths to save money, to pro-
duce extra dividends. This is their business.
Their business is in making money. Your
business is to make sure we have clean air
and the people who work in the industry are
not poisoned. This is the business of govern-
ment. And it is not being done.
You are being fooled time and time again
by INCO on this type of thing, and it bothers
me to see them coming up and saying, "We
are doing all this research"— sure they are,
completely unnecessary research, completely
unnecessary waste of time, when these prob-
lems have all been solved in the United
States of America. You do not find this type
of pollution anywhere in the United States
now. In California they went through a
similar episode back in—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: They do not have
the same type of sulphide ores.
Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon, they do
not have exactly the same percentages but
they certainly have sulphide ores. They went
through this in California in the 1950's. Sul-
phur dioxide was being poured into the air
by the oil companies and by the mines, and
the California legislators just passed a law
that said, "You can't do it," and they do not
do it any more. The research was carried out
and completed.
The fantastic thing is, there are firms now
in the United States, Monsanto is one that
I wrote to, and I have the research work
from the U.S. department of health and
welfare, who are prepared to come in right
now, today, and present International Nickel,
within a period of four months, with a com-
plete plan to clean up the whole sulphur
dioxide problem. INCO is not bringing these
people in who have done the research, they
are starting all over to do the research all
over again because it is saving them millions
of dollars. I can understand the Minister of
Health buying this, but I am surprised that
this Minister has bought it.
I am asking him now— perhaps I will send
some of this material to him— if he would at
least look into it; if he will have his experts
look into it, and I would be content to leave
it at that. Perhaps we can come back again
next year.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on re-
search? The hon. member for Timiskaming.
Mr. Jackson: I will be very brief. Under
this vote we have money allotted to investi-
gate the incidence of silicosis and I under-
stand it is carried out by a Dr. Patterson
from Sunnybrook Hospital. What worries me
with this vote is that silicosis is one of the
hardest diseases in the mining industry to
diagnose. When this doctor gets into the in-
vestigation, is he only going to consider the
facts and figures that are on file at the
workmen's compensation board, and the ob-
vious cases? Or will he take into considera-
tion the many thousands of cases of what we
think is silicosis that have been turned down
by the workmen's compensation board as not
being silicosis? In many cases we have proved
by an autopsy, after the man has finally died,
that he did, in fact, have silicosis. I am a
little worried that when this doctor does his
investigation that we will end up with a
whole set of figures that really do not give a
true picture of the incidence of silicosis in
miners.
I would just ask the Minister, perhaps as
a personal favour, that he make sure that this
does not happen. That when they investigate
the incidence of silicosis they actually take
into consideration the many miners who we
suspect have silicosis, but has never been
proven.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: My understanding
is that this is an updating and it is done
about every ten years, or rather, this is a ten-
year updating of a study of ten years ago by
Dr. Patterson, and that he goes right into the
cases of every person who has silicosis. Pre-
sumably it is an active medical examination
of people now who have silicosis, X-rays, and
what-not. Also, for that matter, people who
have not, I suppose, but who have been
working in comparable or similar working
conditions. That is my understanding of it.
Mr. MacDonald: On whose words? The
word of the workmen's compensation board?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, I see what you
mean. I do not know, I would imagine that
would be a very good place to start. Whether
that is also the end of it or not, I do not
know. But, there is no question, is there, as
to what silicosis is and I do not think they
start combing through the records as to
where he obtained it, I think this is the
doctor's job. His study is, the conditions of
where they think it was obtained. If you do
enough of these things, presumably you are
dealing with averages anyway. The mem-
ber's point is it should not be restricted only
to the decisions of silicosis from the mining
industry?
Mr. Jackson: My worry is that what they
are going to investigate and look into and
4506
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
compile a set of figures on, are proven cases
of silicosis, where it is our belief that there
are many thousands of cases of silicosis in this
province that have not been proven to be
silicosis. If you carry on an investigation into
this, we would like them to look into what
we say— that there are a lot of cases of
silicosis that have not been discovered be-
cause of the diflBculty in diagnosing silicosis.
We should look into new practices and pro-
cedures of diagnoses.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: What we are reach-
ing for here, is an effort to come up with
some preventative remedy in respect of sili-
cotic conditions in the mining industry. I
really do not think that this argument of the
member's stands up in that respect. We are
not out in this study to assist individuals who
claim one thing, while another thing has
been decided by some governmental agency.
We are looking at a statistical study, pre-
sumably of the people who have proven cases
of silicosis, and who got in the mining in-
dustry. Then, presumably the doctor goes
back to those areas where the proven cases
came from and the conditions there and he is
reporting to us on those matters.
If there is a certain percentage of cases, of
people who claim they have silicosis from
working in the mining industry, I would think
for purposes of this study, that would all be
gathered up in the final thing anyway. Do I
make myself clear or not?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, you do, and maybe I do
not make myself clear. What I see here is a
person sitting down with a bunch of records
and saying that the incidence of silicosis is
only one per thousand. Yet it is our belief
that the incidence is much higher than what
the figures actually show.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: As I understand it,
this study is not going to deal with incidence
or records and what-not. This is a study to
try to come up with preventative remedies
for conditions in the mines which breed
silicosis, if I can again use layman's terms. It
has nothing to do with this man dealing with
the incidence of silicosis in the mines. He is
out to try to remedy the conditions that
create it.
Mr. Jackson: The estimate is very mis-
leading.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, you are right, it
is misleading.
Mr. Haggerty: While we are on the subject
of silicosis, what happens in a case in north-
em Ontario where you have miners who
come in from the province of Quebec? They
have worked in mines there and have come
into the mines in Ontario and work and even-
tually come down with silicosis, who is
responsible? Have you any joint programme
between the two provinces? There is always
an argument as to who is responsible for the
silicosis, the province of Ontario or the prov-
ince of Quebec.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, there again it
depends on the investigation of the facts of
the matter, I would assume, as to what the
decision is as to where the silicosis was ob-
tained. I am not too sure. Presumably, the
medical science is a science that can deter-
mine that, if it is not, then I guess it is still
the art of healing. I cannot gi\e you the
answer to that.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, this is the
problem. I have a particular case here, be-
fore me, I do not want to get into detail with
it but here is a man that was caught between
two provinces, and he came down with sili-
cosis. He receives no benefits at all.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: How long had he
been working in Ontario?
Mr. Haggerty: I think he came to the
province of Ontario in 1943.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: When was the sili-
cosis condition diagnosed?
Mr. Haggerty: If I am not mistaken, 1958.
But here is just an example of what can
happen. Has the Minister any programme or
any—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Was an application
made to the workmen's compensation board?
Mr. Haggerty: The workmen's compensa-
tion board for the province of Quebec and
the province of Ontario.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: And he was turned
down?
Mr. Haggerty: Turned down, again this
Mr. Chairman: Surely this matter is for
workmen's compensation—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I really do think,
again, that this is a discussion that should
take— unless the member can indicate to me,
what preventative measures as far as silicosis
in the Ontario mines are concerned, again I
think the member is relating this to a particu-
lar matter that should fall within the juris-
diction of the Minister of Labour rather than
here.
MAY 15, 1969
4507
Mr. Haggerty: No. I am afraid, Mr. Chair-
man, I have to disagree with those remarks,
that when a man is employed into the mines
he has to have an X-ray examination. That is
when he begins employment. Now is it con-
tinued year after year? If not, why not?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am told it is.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, surely there is no
argument on the case raised by the hon. mem-
ber for Welland-South. He has worked for
the last two years with an Ontario firm, since
he came to Ontario in '43 and the incidence
came in '58. You have got enough leeway
there to cover two years.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If those are the facts,
then it sure would not sound black and white
to me.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1303 carried?
Mr. Jackson: I have one question of the
Minister. It is my understanding that there are
no levels of dust—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Dust control levels
you mean?
Mr. Jackson: —dust control levels.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, sure!
Mr. Jackson: There are no standards.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, somebody said
that. Was it you? If so, you are 100 per cent
wrong. Sure there are dust levels.
Mr. Jackson: Do you have set standards
for dust control?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Sure.
Mr. Jackson: Are they recent?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes.
Mr. Jackson: Well, were they put into effect
recently?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, no. We have
had them for a—
Mr. Jackson: I am sure that there are no
regulations.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —I do not know how
old they are, do not get me wrong. Also, these
things have undergone a review just in the
last year. We are coming up, as I think I told
the House, with a complete revision of the
safety section of The Mining Act. It will be
presented in the House later this session. So
we will all have another go at it again.
Mr. Jackson: I intend to do that.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: My understanding is
that there are certainly dust concentration
levels which we deem to be safe or unsafe, is
this what you mean?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, but are they set out in
solid terms or are they accepted without being
written into the regulations?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I am told that
they are not in the regulations. These are
guidelines set out for our inspectors, I assume.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 1303 carried?
Mr. Jackson: In the new regulations, will
the Minister set out these in solid terms
so that the company will be forced to—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I see the difficulty
you are reaching for here. If there are guide-
lines for our inspectors, how do people in the
industry know what those guidelines are,
right?
Mr. Jackson: That is correct.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Now that I have-
Mr. Jackson: Something to make sure the
companies obey those guidelines.
Mr. MacDonald: It is like our problem with
pollution, if you have not got standards, you
cannot set guidelines.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I am told they are
published. They are not in the regulations but
they are published.
Mr. Jackson: I accept they are published,
accept the fact that they are published and
most of the mines know what they are. But
there is nothing to force the company to obey
them or to keep their dust levels within those
guidelines.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, sure, there are-
Mr. Jackson: There are no regulations at
this moment that set down solid terms under
which the company must operate.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, sure.
Mr. Jackson: This is regulated?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, sure, again there
are sections of the Act that are pretty woolly,
I agree with you. But they are done that way
with a purpose just so our inspectors do have
this discretion of being able to say, because
of this, this is a dangerous condition, clean it
4508
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
up or else— bang, bang, bang. I mean he can
do that.
Mr. Martel: Cannot.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: He can, CAN— yes,
and there have been cases where it has hap-
pened. Sure and there have been cases where
we have closed mines up. Yes, and there have
been cases where we prosecuted them.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Eh? Prosecute.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1303 carried?
Mr. Pillcey: Mr. Chairman, are the same
standards set up for pollution then or do you
just have guidelines? If I could relate it to
the-
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, you mean that?
Well, let us talk about sulphur dioxide again.
Mr. Pilkey: Right.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, we have not yet
completely accepted the threshold value of
fixe parts per million, is this what you mean?
Mr. Pilkey: Right.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, that has not
quite yet been—
Mr. Martel: Well, how would you get 200—
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I am becom-
ing a little woolly on what the Minister is
saying. You say that you have guidelines but
there are no regulations.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You are talking now
about dust control.
Mr. Jackson: Just dust.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, no. We know
what they are and the industry knows what
they are and the—
Mr. Jackson: Well, if the Minister will give
me—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —the safety commit-
tees of the unions know what they are.
I do not know what they are. But they are
published. They are available. If you want
them, we will send them to you as soon as
the House rises.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I think the
Minister has not got my point clear yet.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You are right.
Mr. Jackson: What I am saying to him is
they are guidelines, but how do you enforce
those guidelines?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, but they are-
Mr. Jackson: How do you enforce a guide-
line? You tell a person that this is what we
would like, but you don't—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, no.
Mr. Jackson: —sit right down and tell him
that he must stay within those guidelines.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Sure, we tell him
that.
Mr. Jackson: There are no regulations to
say he must.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, he has the dis-
cretionary power. I am not getting through to
the member. I said he has the discretionary
power to say, within his discretion, almost
anything: "This is an unsafe condition, clean
it up".
Mr. MacDonald: The inspector, you are
talking about?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The inspector, yes.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 1303 carried?
The hon. member for Timiskaming.
Mr. Jackson: I accept that for now and
when it comes up in the new statutes I will
have more to say.
Vote 1303 agreed to.
On vote 1304:
An hon. member: Is this going to be a long
Another hon. member: Oh, no, this is going
to be a fast one.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, I am interested in this particular pro-
gramme of mining development for the
simple reason that it is vital to northern
Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: You think this is going to
1)6 fast?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Really, is this going
to be a long one?
Mr. Stokes: No, I do not intend to take
too much time.
Mr. Shulman: He will not be long, but I
may.
MAY 15, 1969
4509
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well is there any-
body who is going to take a longer whack
than a couple of minutes, at it really?
An hon. member: Yes.
Another hon. member: Do you want a
filibuster, that is what he is asking?
Mr. MacDonald: All right, do you really
believe that mining development will not be
long today?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: All right. Well then,
I would move that we report.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence moves that the com-
mittee of supply rise and report that it has
come to certain resolutions and ask for leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply rises and reports that it has come
to certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will consider
legislation.
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.20 o'clock, p.m.
No. 120
ONTARIO
Hegijilature of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, May 16, 1969
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, May 16, 1969
Tabling report "Collective Bargaining in the Ontario Government Service," Mr. Welch 4513
On motion to adjourn on matter of resignations from Indian development branch.
Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Deacon,
Mr. Lewis 4513
On motion to adjourn to give Mr. Speaker the opportunity to consider question of
privilege raised by Mr. J. Renvi^ick re approval of estimates, Department of Social
and Family Services, Mr. Pitman, Mr. Nixon, Mr. J. Renwick, Mr. Singer, Mr.
MacDonald, Mr. Ben, Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Lewis, Mr. T. Reid, Mr. Grossman, Mr.
White 4523
Cancer Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 4531
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Welch, agreed to 4532
4513
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This morning our guests in
the galleries are: in the east gallery, stu-
dents from D'Arcy McGee Separate School in
Toronto; in the west gallery, from Lambton-
Kingsway Public School in Toronto and Bick-
ford Park High School in Toronto; and in
both galleries. Parkway Vocational School in
Toronto.
Later today we will be joined by students
from Hillcrest Central School in Teeswater,
from Wexford Public School in Scarborough,
from Napanee District Secondary School in
Napanee and from Parkway Vocational School
in Toronto.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I have a matter of urgent public impor-
tance I would like to bring to your attention.
Your Honour, and the attention of the House
at the earliest possible moment. With your
permission I would like to proceed at this
time.
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member
would allow the presentation of a report. I
believe the Provincial Secretary has one
which all members will be anxious to have
in case the debate should go on. Would the
hon. leader allow that?
Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, I want to table the report
of His Honour, Judge Walter Little, entitied
"Collective Bargaining in the Ontario Govern-
ment Service".
Mr. Speaker: Now the hon. leader may
have the floor.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the hon. member for Downsview (Mr.
Singer) that this House do now adjourn to
consider a matter of urgent public impor-
tance, namely the matter of the resignation
of oflBcials of the Indian development branch
of The Department of Social and Family
Services which took place today.
Friday, May 16, 1969
Mr. Speaker: Of course I would draw to
the attention of the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition, and also to the hon. members of the
House, that rule 38 provides that such a
motion as this must be taken up previously
with Mr. Speaker. I would say to the House
that about 10.00 o'clock this morning, the
chief Opposition Whip called on me. He was
not sure exactly what had happened but he
gave notice that some sort of a motion would
be given and we could not discuss it.
At 10.24 this morning, the deputy Opposi-
tion leader called on me with this motion,
and I asked him, since I had heard nothing
of it, if he had proof of the definite matter,
as the rule calls it, about which the motion
was to be made, and at that time he had
none. About three minutes later, he received
and gave to me a copy of a press release,
purporting to have been issued by the Indian
development branch staff of the Ontario Gov-
ernment Services, dated May 16, 1969, in
which it is said that the entire staff had
resigned.
I have at the moment no further or other
evidence. I have had no time to check it. I
wonder if the hon. leader has further infor-
mation which would assist me in deciding
that it is a definite matter and not a matter
of conjecture.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It is
true, Mr. Speaker. The Minister knows they
have resigned.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand
a copy of the statement issued by the people
concerned. My colleague, the member for
York Centre (Mr. Deacon), was in attendance
and heard the statement. I am sure that the
Minister, who received the resignations yester-
day, perhaps could verify them.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I may say
that the statement to the press that I re-
ceived, I received upon my entry into this
Legislature. The copy that I have is not
signed, and I do not know whether the copy
that the hon. leader of the Opposition has
is signed, or who is alleged to be the "Indian
development branch staff".
4514
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lewis: The Minister knows they have
resigned.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lewis: The Minister is misleading the
House.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am not misleading
the House.
Mr. Lewis: There is a memorandum to that
effect. It amounts to a vote of confidence in
the government.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order-
Mr. Nixon: One of the members is present
and is prepared to give authority to it.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I attended at 10.00 o'clock a press
conference with Mr. Joe Dufour, Mr. Paul
Wilkinson, Mr. Ross McLellan, Mr. James
Schneider and Mr. Lightbown, all members
of the staff who stated that this morning they
had handed in their resignation to the Minis-
ter. They said they contacted by telephone
four others of the staff of ten, who stated
that they had mailed in today their resigna-
tions, and that they had not been able to
reach one man, Mr. Seymour of Kenora, but
that he had signed this document, and had
indicated before that he was going to be
resigning.
Five people definitely have resigned— have
handed the Minister their resignations, or
handed it in to this department— and four
other people have mailed their resignation.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Did the member find
out-
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): That is right.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, the hon. member for Scar-
borough West indicated that I had misled the
House. I had not misled the House; I had not
entered upon a statement with respect to
having received resignations. All I can say is
that I made reference to the fact that this
press release was headed "Indian develop^
ment branch staff" with no signatures.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order-
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have made no state-
ment with respect to any resignations received
by me; they may have been directed to the
department.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, I, too, was in touch this morning with
the executive-director of the Indian-Eskimo
association who was at the press conference,
who indicated that the entire branch— from
what the hon. member for York Centre says,
there is one person not yet contacted— but the
entire Indian development branch of The
Department of Social and Family Services
had resigned. The Minister has their resigna-
tions; a full memorandum expressing want of
confidence in the government has been sub-
mitted to the—
Mr. Speaker: What is the hon. member's
point of order? He is merely now making a
speech.
Mr. Lewis: My point of order, sir, is that
the motion which has been placed by the
leader of the Opposition is entirely credible
and valid and the government knows it.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask if the hon.
Minister would clarify for me on the point of
the resignations, as to whether any resigna-
tions had been received by him, and if so,
whether they were either of the entire staff
or a sizeable proportion of the staff of this
branch.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, upon
entry to my office this morning at approxi-
mately 10.00 a.m., my secretary handed me
letters of resignation, directed to the Associ-
ate Deputy Minister, of the director and of
four, I believe, of the personnel of the Indian
community development branch. My secretary
had brought the matter to the attention
at that time of the Associate Deputy Minister,
who had not received the resignations
although they had been directed to him. With
respect to others, I have received no com-
munication, and I believe there are four
others, at least, within the partictilar scope
of the Indian community development branch.
I may say it is a matter of interest to me
that these communications which have been
released, did not come directly to the Min-
ister's hands, except indirectly. That is the
fact.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I think there is no
doubt now in Mr. Speaker's mind, and I
presume, in the mind of any member here,
that there has been a resignation submitted
by a significant number of the oflBcials of this
branch of The Department of Social and
Family Services.
I am also of the opinion, however, that
the resignation of a number of so-called
public servants, normally called civil servants
or staff of a department of the provincial
administration, is not necessarily a matter
MAY 16, 1969
4515
of such general public importance as would—
until there were more and better facts avail-
able to the House, particularly after a very
lengthy debate in this House ending only a
few days ago— require the House again to
go into all the matters which had been dis-
cussed at that time. That is my first view with
respect to the matter.
Secondly, I would say that it is true that
a significant segment of the population of
Ontario, mainly our Indian fellow citizens and
those who are intensely interested in their
welfare, would be afi^ected by this matter, and
so perhaps it is of public importance. I am
not, however, convinced that it is of such
urgent public importance as to require debate
at this time and I so rule.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I must inform
you, sir, that it will be incumbent upon us to
appeal this ruling. So that my position is
abundantly clear, I would say to you, sir,
that we did have a full discussion of this
matter, but the matter in basis has completely
changed because the announcement has come
from the entire staff of the Indian develop-
ment branch.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence ( Minister of Mines ) :
On a point of order.
Mr. Nixon: I am speaking on this matter-
Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. member has
a point of order and has the floor.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, is your
ruling debatable?
Mr. Speaker: My ruhng is not debatable.
I will not allow a debate on it but I will allow
the hon. leader who places the motion to
speak if he wishes in explanation. Then the
motion must be placed.
Mr. Nixon: The matter certainly arose be-
cause of the feeling that these responsible
public citizens of Ontario have expressed the
view that the government policy is com-
pletely inept and not in keeping v.'ith the re-
quirements of the province. There is no doubt
in my mind that the resignation of these ten
senior officials must be followed by the resig-
nation of the Minister.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. leader, I
am afraid, is allowing his feelings to carry
him away. I had hoped he would speak to the
matter of my ruling and not the matter of—
Mr. Nixon: If your ruling is not debatable,
sir?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: I think I should put my posi-
tion-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The hon, leader will please
remember that when Mr. Speaker is on his
feet, there is no one else who is entitled to
the floor.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. members wish this
matter to be dealt v^dth, they will produce
some order in the House or I will take the
unusual step of suspending the sitting of this
House for a period to allow us to come back
and discuss it. It has not been done before but
I propose to do it when there is disorder in
this House in the future. I give the members
warning, I have that power as your repre-
sentative here. This House will meet and
consider things in proper order.
Mr. Speaker has ruled that the motion sub-
mitted by the leader of the Opposition,
seconded by Mr. Singer, that the House
adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public
importance— namely the matter of the resigna-
tion of officials of the Indian development
branch of The Department of Social and
Family Services which took place this morn-
ing—is not one to be considered proper under
the circumstances under the applicable rules.
As many as are in favour of the ruling of
Mr. Speaker will please say "aye". As many
as are opposed, please say "nay".
In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.
Call in the members.
The vote is on Mr. Speaker's ruling on the
motion by Mr. Nixon, seconded by Mr.
Singer, that this House do now adjourn to
consider a matter of urgent public importance
—namely the matter of the resignations of
officials of the Indian development branch of
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices which took place today. The Speaker's
ruling is that while it is a matter of public
importance, as I previously stated, it is not
a matter of urgent public importance.
The House divided on the ruhng by Mr,
Speaker, which was sustained on the follow-
ing vote:
Ayes Nays
Apps Ben
Auld Braithwaite
Bales Deacon
Brunelle De Monte
Carruthers Farquhar
4516
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ayes
Nays
Davis
Haggerty
Demers
Jackson
Downer
Lawlor
Dunlop
Lewis
Dymond
Martel
Evans
Newman
Gilbertson
(Windsor-Walkerville)
Gomme
Nixon
Grossman
Pilkey
Haskett
Pitman
Hodgson
Reid
(Victoria-
(Scarborough East)
Haliburton)
Renwick
Hodgson
( Riverdale )
(York North)
Renwick ( Mrs. )
Johnston
( Scarborough Centre)
(Parry Sound)
Ruston
Johnston
Shulman
( Carleton )
Singer
Kennedy
Spence
Kerr
Stokes
Lawrence
Trotter
(St. George)
Young-24.
MacNaughton
Meen
McKeough
Newman
(Ontario South)
Reuter
Root
Rowntree
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
(Hamihon
Mountain)
Snow
Stewart
Welch
Wells
White
Yaremko-37.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 37, the "nays" 24.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the appeal to Mr.
Speaker's ruling lost, and the ruling stands.
The next order of business is petitions.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, and, I
believe, privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would like
to draw your attention, sir, to matters which
are of exceeding importance and may have
had an effect on the ruling which you made
in response to the leader of the Opposition.
On May 11, Mr. Speaker, Sunday last, a
memorandum was prepared by the Indian
affairs development branch which was
delivered—
Mr. Speaker: May I enquire what the hon.
member's point of order is before he expands
on it?
Mr. Lewis: Yes, I would like to give to the
Speaker information which I think would have
affected his judgment on—
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion that is com-
pletely out of order. Mr. Speaker made his
ruling with the information available to him.
Now is not the time to discuss that. I rule
the hon. member's point of order is not one
that can be entertained.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on that ground
it is no doubt valid. I would therefore like
to rise on a point of privilege to suggest that
the Minister either inadvertently or deliber-
ately misled the House and I would like to
suggest why that was so.
On May 11, Mr. Speaker, the memorandum
was prepared, as I said, and on May 12,
Monday morning last, Mr. Dufour, head of
the Indian community development senaces
branch, delivered by hand, with witness, both
to the office of the Prime Minister and to the
office of the Minister of Social and Family
Services, a complete memorandum outlining
the position of the branch and its discomfort
with government policy. At the end of that
memorandum or, indeed, in the body of that
memorandum, it was stated:
As citizens of Ontario and public ser-
vants, our professional and personal com-
mitment makes it impossible for us to
continue on the present basis. We there-
fore respectfully request a definitive re-
sponse to this paper by May 15, 1969.
That was yesterday, Mr. Speaker. It there-
fore becomes perfectly apparent that the
Minister of Social and Family Services knew
precisely what was occurring.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lewis: I would like to finish my point
of order and then I shall sit down.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order-
Mr. Lewis: I am on a point of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. meml)er has
the floor to complete his point, and I think he
has made his point, that he is alleging to the
House that the hon. Minister has misled the
MAY 16, 1969
4517
House. When he completes that I will be
jj'ad to yield the floor to the hon. Minister on
the paint of order, or to allow the hon. Minis-
ter to explain the situation so far as he is
concerned.
Mr. Lewis: I shall complete m> p n'n' of
privilege, Mr. Speaker.
I would also point out to you, sir, that all
of this information was in the Minister's hands
during the course of time that this House was
debating his estimates but was never made
public. It seems to me that the Minister's
assertion this morning that the resignations
somehow found their way into his hands and
were a surprise to him, I suggest to you, sir,
was inadvertently or deliberately misleading
the House, because he knew precisely what
was in store, having receiv ed a memorandum
as recently as last Monday indicating the out-
come.
Hon, Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, attached
to the press release to which reference was
made earlier this morning, was a copy of that
memorandum. That memorandum was a
public document at the beginning of the
debate; it was in the hands, I assume, of—
Mr. Lewis: No.
Mr. Shulman: No one had it but the
Minister.
Mr. Nixon: We saw it for the first time
this morning.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbur>' East): Why
does the Minister not resign?
Mr. Speaker: Order! A considerable amount
of courtesy was extended to the hon. member
for Scarborough West as he made his point
of privilege, and I would ask that the same
courtesy be extended to the Minister when
he replies. He is entitled to that, and not to
be unceremoniously interrupted. The hon.
Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, in the
press release by the Indian development
branch— copies of which I assume the leader
of the Opposition had— the last two para-
graphs state as follows:
On Monday, May 12, a statement of
what we consider must be done was pre-
sented to Prime Minister John Robarts as
well as Social and Family Services Minis-
ter John Yaremko. A copy of that state-
ment is attached to this. Because no
response has been received, we have re-
signed.
So that document of Ma> 12 is in the public
realm.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): We did
mt have it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It was in the public
realm as of the time when I stood up and
the question arose as to the receipt of resigna-
tions by me. I indicated, regarding the resig-
nations and this statement to the press which
said "Indian development branch staff", that
I was unaware who purported to be the
Indian development branch staff because the
press release was not signed and I had not
been invited to the press conference. I indi-
cated to the House the resignations which I
had received, from the branch director and
four others. Then one of the hon. members,
who had been present at the press conference,
I do not know whether it was the member
for—
Mr. Nixon: York Centre.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —York Centre got up
and indicated that at the press conference
somebody had purported to speak on behalf
of the others in respect of whom I had not
received resignations, and then we proceeded
therewith. All the details of it have become
public knowledge now.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of
order raised by the hon. Minister, I would
refer to the fact that—
Mr. Speaker: Order! Surely the hon. leader
of the Opposition can observe the niceties of
the House.
Mr. Nixon: You talk aibout niceties.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I am about to rule, so far as
I am concerned, that the point of privilege
raised by the hon. member has been dealt
with by the hon. Minister's reply, and the
matter is closed. The next order of business
is petitions, as I called moments ago.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I must get up to
protest the ruling you have just made. Surely
the point of privilege that was raised by the
NDP a moment ago, which was responded to
by the hon. Minister, brought into contention
in this House whether or not the Minister
had in his hands before this morning the
indication that the people who had resigned
had ..intended to do so, unless in fact there
was some change in government policy by
4518
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
yesterday's deadline. The letter that the Min-
ister referred to, of which he said that surely
the leader of tlie Opposition had a copy,
came to me this morninj^—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Nixon: Addressed to the hon. John
Yaremko—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs): Well, did you not raise it
originally?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. leader of
the Opposition is quite correct that if this
matter proceeds we have circumvented the
nding of the Speaker upon which there was
a vote. Therefore, so far as I am concerned,
there is to be no more debate with respect to
this matter. The point of privilege raised by
tlie hon. member for Scarborough West, in
Mr. Speaker's opinion, was dealt with by the
Minister.
The next order of business is petitions.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of privilege. The privilege,
which I want to be precise and accurate
about, is that on Tuesday evening we com-
pleted the estimates of The Department of
Social and Family Services. The completion
of those estimates meant that this House
voted a total of some $264,777,000 plus the
Minister's salary of $12,000. We approved of
his estimates.
Included in those estimates, Mr. Speaker,
was a matter of $1,384,000 for the Indian
comnumity development branch of this de-
partment. The Minister had in his possession
matters which affected the vote by this
Legislature of the total amount of the esti-
mates of his department.
My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that
it was his obligation, and the Minister misled .
this House when he permitted his estimates
"Ito'lTe coTnipleted without fully apprising the
House about the matter, which was of con-
cern. Mr. Speaker, I make this point, not
heciuise we sat idly by during the dis-
cussions—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. deputy leader has
now made his point and the Speaker will take
it under consideration. We will now proceed
"Wnii tKe neXt— TrTdeF~of business which is
iitotions.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, what does that mean, "the Speaker
will take it under consideration"?
Mr. Speaker: Exactly what Mr. Speaker
said.
Mr. Lewis: Does that mean that the
Speaker will report ])ack on another occasion
in this House?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Seivices): If the hon. member does not like
it he should resign.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): We have
no rights at all.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. members have every
right to know, and as I know the hon. mem-
bers, they will find a way to deal with this
matter, I am quite sure.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
privilege, sir, the way of dealing with this
matter has been removed this morning.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully
submit that I have not completed the point
of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: I would advise the hon.
deputy leader that in order to emphasize his
point of privilege he was making a speech
on the matter which the House has ruled it
would not consider. Therefore if the hon.
member wishes to proceed with his point of
personal privilege, as he called it, he will do
so without bringing into discussion, matters
which have been decided already by a vote of
this House.
Mr. J. Renwick: My point of privilege, Mr.
Speaker, certainly does not deserve or require
any lengthy consideration on the part of Mr.
Speaker. At the time at which on Tuesday
evening. May 13 last, this House approved
the total estimates of the Minister of Social
and Family Scr\ ices, did he, or did he not,
have in his possession, following the lengthy
debate on the matters related to the Indian
community dexelopment branch, information
which seriously affected the consideration by
this House of the balance of his estimates and
the approval of that total amount? That is a
concise simple question of privilege, and I
ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rule at this point
on that question.
MAY 16, 1969
4519
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker has said that he
will take that point under consideration, that
is his ruling. The hon. member may deal with
it as he wishes. The next order of business
is motions.
Mr. J. Ren wick: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know what the procedures are in this House
at this point. It is ob\'ious that the rules are
not designed to expedite the business of this
province. What I am saying-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member now realizes
that first of all he has risen on a point of
privilege in an endea\our to have the House
debate something which the House has said
it will not debate. Mr. Speaker, as a serxant
of the House, has made a ruling which has
been upheld; the House has said properly
that it will not debate this. All these \ arious
points are, in Mr. Speaker's opinion, attempts
to debate something which the House has
said it will not debate. I shall not allow any
further discussion of the matter and I shall
so rule, and that ruling again is subject to
the opinion of this House.
I have advised the hon. member for Ri\'er-
dale that I shall look into the matter which
he has raised. It is something which no one
at the moment can decide because, as a
lawyer, he will know that there are many
connotations to what he has said. The proof
of it could perhaps lie in the House, and
could perhaps not lie in the House. So there-
fore, I have made a note of it and I will
proceed either, as someone asked me, to re-
port to the House, or have the hon. Minister
do so when I have had an opportunity of find-
ing out from Hansard exactly what was said
and what is required.
As far as Mr. Speaker is concerned there
shall be no more debate on the matter which
the House has said it will not debate.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to
raise this point with you—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I object to
the suggestion which you made specifically
that we were endeavouring to circumvent the
niling which you had just made.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh, oh.
Mr. J. Renwick: They can say "oh, oh, oh"
all they want to. I am simply saying-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. deputy leader has
heard Mr. Speaker's ruling. It is a ruling that
is not debatable, there will be no more debate.
If the hon. member wishes to challenge the
ruling which I have made he is at liberty to
do so.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am simply
saying-
Mr. Speaker: Order! Mr. Speaker has
pointed out to the hon. member the proceed-
ings he can take, if he wishes to deal with
this matter further.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I ha\e no
recourse— since you imputed to me, knowledge
which we did not have at the time at v/hich
you made your ruling— but to challenge the
decision which you made on the question of
privilege, only on the grounds that it requires
your immediate decision. This House should
stand recessed, if necessary, until such time
as you have had an opportunity to consider
and make your decision this morning on this
question of whether this Minister has, or has
not, misled the House at the time of the
voting on his estimates.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I find that ths hon. member
is occupying too much of the time of the
House in reiterating the same points which
have been dealt with by Mr. Speaker. Mr.
Speaker's view is still the same as it was
originally— he will take it under consideration,
he will report back to the House, or ensure
that the report is brought back by the Minis-
ter whose actions are being impugned at this
time. Further than that, Mr. Speaker will not
allow any discussion. If the hon. member
has another point of order or privilege, he is
entitled to the floor, otherwise the hon.
member for Humber has the floor.
Mr. Nixon: He obviously challenges the
ruling and I would—
Mr. Speaker: He has not yet.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, he has.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I challenge
the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Nixon: In the light of the challenge
that is now before the House, Mr. Speaker, I
must regret to infonn you that we will support
the challenge. I believe that your approach
to this important matter has not been in the
best interests of open and free discussion.
You have permitted the hon. Minister of
Social and Family Services to read a part of
this important press release into the record
this morning, and if the hon. Minister of
4520
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Municipal Affairs is prepared to say that black
is white, I submit to him that he is not con-
fident of doing that. With your permission,
sir, I would like to read-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon.
leader what I said a little while ago. If the
Speaker's ruling is appealed, it is not debat-
able and the last time I allowed the hon.
leader some leeway, he got into rather an
impassioned address to the Chair-
Mr. Singer: Because this is an important
matter and we want to debate it, that is why.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but, it being against the
rules, I rule there is no debate on this par-
ticular matter. It must be dealt with before
the point of order of the hon. member for
Humber.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will not
rise on a point of order when we already
have one.
Mr. T. Reid: The Minister without Port-
folio sitting there has no voice-
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He can sit where he
likes.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lewis: He has no voice whether he
is in his place or out of it.
Mr. Speaker: I would advise the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough East that he is correct
when he says that a member not in his place
has no voice in this House, and I would
expect that a member of this council would
realize that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker has ruled
that the attempts to debate the riding or the
motion which was turned down by the House
on a division earlier this morning, by other
means such as points of privilege or points
of order, are themselves out of order and
cannot be supported or allowed. This point
was made by the hon. member for Riverdale,
and he has challenged the Speaker's ruling.
The \ote is on the Speaker's ruling that
the point of privilege placed before the House
by the hon. member for Riverdale was merely
an effort to debate a matter which the House
had already declined on a division to debate.
The House divided on the Speaker's ruling,
which was sustained on the following vote:
Ayes Nays
Apps
Auld
Bales
Bnmelle
Carruthers
Davis
Demers
Downer
Dunlop
Dymond
Evans
Gilbertson
Gomme
Grossman
Haskett
Hodgson
(Victoria-
Haliburton)
Hodgson
(York North)
Johnston
(Parry Soimd)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Lawrence
(St. George)
MacNaughton
Meen
McKeough
Newman
(Ontario South)
Reuter
Root
Rowntree
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
(Hamilton Mountain)
Snow
Stewart
Welch
Wells
White
Whitney
Yaremko— 37.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker the "ayes"
are 37, the "nays" are 25.
Mr. Speaker: I declare Mr. Speaker's ruling
upheld.
Motions.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a motion, seconded by the member for
York South, that jjiis House adjournimme-
diately, to reconvene later this day~~oir
Ben
Braithwaite
Deacon
De Monte
Farquhar
Haggerty
Jackson
Lawlor
Lewis
MacDonald
Martel
Newman
(Windsor- Walkerville)
Nixon
Pilkey
Pitman
Reid
(Scarborough East)
Renwick
(Riverdale)
Renwick (Mrs.)
(Scarborough Centre)
Ruston
Shulman
Singer
Spence
Stokes
Trotter
Young-25.
MAY 16, 1969
4521
ringing of bells, to give Mr. Speaker the
opportunity to consider the question of privi-
lege raised by the member for Riverdale—
namely that the Minister of Social and Fam-
ily Services permitted his estimates in the
amount of $260,789,000 to be approved by
this House on Tuesday evening, May 13,
when he was fully aware— after the debate
in this House on a vote of the Indian com-
munity development branch and being in
receipt of a memorandum signed by the
director and eight members dated May 11,
delivered by hand on May 12-the imminent
resignations of tlie entire branch.
J Mr. Speaker: I have had the opportunity of
n looking at the motion as presented by the
V hon. member for Peterborough, seconded by
II the hon. member for York South, and it is
my opinion that this is no more dian an at-
tempt to circumvent the Speaker's rulings
which have been upheld twice—
Mr. Pitman: We wish to hear the Speaker's
ruling.
Mr. Speaker: Order: The Speaker's ruling
has been upheld twice in the House. I think
that is quite obvious. However, I do not
wish to have either the two members who
are moving it— or the House— feel that I take
these decisions too unilaterally. I have no
objection and I shall put the motion to the
House. I would caution the House that the
debate on this motion will be very strictly
confined to the motion and will not be
allowed to stray into the fields of debate
which the House has already stated it would
not allow this morning.
So, the motion is by the hon. member for
Peterborough, seconded by the hon. member
for York South, that this House adjourn
immediately, to reconvene later this day on
tlie ringing of the bells, to give Mr. Speaker
the opportimity to consider the question of
privilege raised by the member for Riverdale
—namely that the Minister of Social and
Family Services during his estimates, asked
t?hat the amount of $264,789,000 be approved
by this House on Tuesday evening, May 13,
when he was fully aware, after the debate in
this House on a vote of the motion of the
Indian community development branch and
being in receipt of a memorandum signed by
the director and eight mem'bers dated May
11, delivered by hand on May 12, indicating
the imminent resignations of the entire
branch.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to rise on a point of order-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. House leader has—
Hon. Mr. Welch: I would not want any-
thing I am about to say on this point of order
to have any reference to your consideration
of the motion but, more by way of direction.
It was my understanding that by unanimous
agreement of this House it was clearly under-
stood that at 12 o'clock, this House would
consider the resolutions of the private mem-
bers. It now being 12 o'clock, and now draw-
ing your attention to this procedure, should
we not now honour-
Mr. Shulman: That is a pretty weak ploy.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I am asking for some
direction. Since this has been the procedure
of the House by unanimous agreement, should
we not honour that unanimous agreement
and now, as a matter of courtesy to those
who have prepared, move into the private
members' hour of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member for
Peterborough-
Mr. Pitman: No, I am speaking on the
point of order which the hon. Provincial
Secretary has brought up. I do not think that
his point is well taken, in view of the fact
tliat this motion specifically indicates that the
House will reconvene on the ringing of the
bells by Mr. Speaker, and that there wiU
indeed be an opportunity for those who wish
to speak on that motion before this House at
12 o'clock to do so at a later time during
this day.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, first of
all I do believe that the deputy leader of the
House may have a ix)int. But I would also
point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the bill
for discussion during the private members*
hour is a bill that stands in my name and
which would be moved for second reading
by myself. Because of the urgency of the
matter that has been brought before this
House, I am quite willing to waive any rights
which I may have in some speakers' minds to
move this second reading and to permit this
debate to proceed.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it is my under-
standing that a motion for adjournment takes
precedence over all others. You have already
indicated you will permit some de^bate on
the usefulness of the suggestion, and I want
to inform yovi, sir, that when you put the
motion we will support the motion to adjourn
4522
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
until tlie bells ring, so that you can have an
opportunity to consider the matter that has
been placed before you.
A few moments ago you indicated that you
did not want further material read into the
record on this matter. Yet I think it would
be important that the memorandum that is
referred to, dated May 11, be put before you,
sir, so that you can consider whetlier or
not, under these circumstances, the adjourn-
ment would have some usefulness. The
memorandum is address to "Jf>lTii P- Hobarts,
Prime Minister, with a copy to the hon. John
Yaremko, Minister of Social and Family
Services," and it is from the staff of the
Indian development services branch of The
Department of Social and Family Services.
Mr. Speaker: Order. You see the pioblem
that we have— if the hon. leader will yield
me the floor— is that the House, by two votes,
already has declined to consider the matter
that the hon. leader is now trying to place
in debate again. I am rather dubious of the
propriety of that particular approach to this
motion that we have, which I think that the
Speaker is quite able to consider, because it
is for the Speaker to consider and not for
the House or the public to consider. The
Speaker has a copy of this particular state-
ment, and I think he is quite capable of
reading it and making his decision without
having it read to him by the hon. leader.
Therefore, I would suggest to the hon. leader
that that particular approach is not either in
order or suitable imder the circumstances.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, insofar as the point made by the hon.
Provincial Secretary about getting into the
43rd order, I would point out to you, sir,
that we have not, as yet, on the agenda
reached the point of orders of the day, so
that it will l>e impossible to call the 43rd
order until we reach the orders of the day.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
.speak on that point of order.
Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for
Scarborough East has the floor on a point
of order, I believe.
Mr. T. Reid: The point of order is raised
by the hon. House leader. I would like to
remind the Six^aker that several months ago
when I had a resolution on the order paper
I was not able to put that resolution until
12.30 p.m. during the memibers' hoiu-. I would
like to say, Mr. Si>eaker, that there certainly
is ample precedent for delaying the private
members' hour, and I would suggest that
now is another time to do it.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. For your consideration, I would like
to read rule 38 of our rules which says:
A motion to adjourn the House or the
debate shall always be in order except that
no such motion for the adjournment of the
House shall be made until the orders of the
day or notices of motion shall be entered
upon, without the leave of the House,
tmless a member of the House rising in
his place shall propose to move the adjourn-
ment of the House for the purpose of dis-
cussing a definite matter of urgent public
importance, which matter has previously
been submitted to and approved by the
Speaker.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would submit my
point of order is that this motion to adjourn
is out of order. The motion for adjournment
of the House on urgent public business was
handled by yourself, and according to this
rule, since we have not approached the
orders of the day yet, this motion to adjourn
is out of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, if I may slowly
read the exact section that the hon. member
who just sat down read, it might be worthy
of your consideration. The section reads:
A motion to adjourn the House or the
debate shall always be in order except that
no such motion for the adjournment of the
House shall be made until the orders of
the day or notices of motion have been
entered upon.
Mr. Speaker, on your statement, we entered
upon notices of motion. As a matter of fact,
the member rose upon that.
Interje<^'tionvS by hon. members.
Mr. Lewis: The first contribution from the
Minister without Portfolio and look what
happens.
Mr. Speaker: Dcxs the hon. member for
York South wish to speak?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, on a simple point of order. You
asked for debate on this motion and the
leader of the Opposition has contributed to
the debate on this motion. By what strange
MAY 16, 1969
4523
perversion of the rules have we now reverted
to some other point of order that has been
dealt with?
Mr. Speaker: Of course, I could also say
that the motion that is before the House is
to revert to something that I thought had
already been dealt with by the House. But
I would draw to the attention of the House
and the hon. Minister, that in tlie opinion
of myself, and in that I am substantiated, we
have not entered into either the orders of the
day or notices of motion. The order calling
motions is not the notice of motions on the
order paper and therefore the interpretation
urged upon me by the hon. Minister is quite
correct.
Therefore, even though Mr. Speaker has
attempted to put this motion to the House, he
is quite out of order and quite improper and
the motion is not in order until we reach
either of those two stages. Tliat is the way
the rule is properly interpreted. Therefore,
once again Mr. Speaker, having been in error,
apologizes to the House, but says that we
must as far as possible follow the rules of the
House, particularly when they are pointed out
on both sides of the House.
Motions.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be
going through the sequences rather strangely.
You made the statement "motions". I rose
on motions and made the motion which you
now have in your hands, Mr. Speaker.
An hon. member: He said upon the orders
of the day to rise.
Mr. Pitman: Would you like, Mr. Si>eaker,
that I retain my seat until you have started
orders of the day and then I might rise and
make my motion?
Mr. Ben: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough is on a point of order. A point of
order or personal privilege is always in order.
I am always glad to hear the members. The
routine business of the House and the busi-
ness covered by the rules must follow the
rules, and it has been pointed out to Mr.
Speaker that he was not following the rules.
Therefore any ordinary business of the House
or extraordinary business of the House not
provided by the rules to be dealt with before
the orders of the day, is at the moment out
of order because I have not yet called orders
of the day. Is the hon. member si)eakinig on
a point of order or on something that should
follow?
Mr. Pitman: I am ready to stand by your
rules, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order,
in that I am asking your guidance. You did
earlier, and have again, called for motions.
The motion which the hon. member for
Peterborough tried to put is an extraordinary
motion in that it does not fall under
the title "motion" in the ordinary course of
House business.
The question I ask of you, Your Honour, is
this: Should he not now be entertained, be-
cause this is not the motion contemplated by
the termiS "notices of motions" and "orders of
the day". Will Your Honour, after he calls
orders of the day, then preclude the hon.
member from putting the motion that he
wishes to put because he ought to have
brought it under the term "motions".
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I might help myself
and the House if I would say that the inter-
pretation of the rules which I accept is this,
that a motion to adjourn, such as the motion
which was presented to Mr. Speaker, is in
order at any time after the orders of the day
have been called, but it is not the type of
motion which is received under the heading
on the order paper, and the orders of this
House, as a motion. Therefore, at the moment,
we have not yet come to that point in the
orders of the day where this motion can be
entertained. Does that assist the hon. member
for Peterborough?
Motions.
Orders of the day.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Before
the orders of the day, I move, seconded by
the member for York South (Mr. MacDon-
ald), that this House adjourn immediately, to
reconvene later this day on the ringing of the
bells, to give Mr. Speaker the opportunity to
consider the question of privilege raised by
the member for Riverdale, namely, that the
Minister of Social and Family Services (Mr.
Yaremko ) .
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Mr. Speaker, I heard the House leader (Mr.
Rowntree), call the order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough had the floor. The hon. House leader
called an order of the day, but the rules state
that at any time after we have reached the
orders of the day a motion to adjourn is in
4524
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
order, and therefore the motion to adjourn
is now being placed before the House by the
member for Peterboroiigli. That is my vmder-
standing of the rule.
Mr. Pitman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May
I continue— namely that the Minister of Social
and Family Services-
Mr. Speaker: We have another point of
order.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate what you are trying to do is to
facilitate the business of the House, but I
would not want yoin- last statement to appear
on the journals of this House as a precedent.
You indicated in reply to the Minister of
Revenue that it is in order at any time to
place a motion to adjourn. I suggest it is
only when the Speaker has the floor. I would
suggest that the reason the member for
Peterborough has tlie Hoor is because you did
not recognize anybody on the right side of the
House.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out that the
hon. House leader did not rise in his place to
get the Speaker's attention to call the order
in the first place, although the custom, is that
the House leader does do that without rising.
In this instance he did follow normal custom,
and secondly—
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He has
called the order, wluit difference does it
make?
Mr. Speaker: —secondly, I would point out
to the hon. member for Humber that there is
quite a difference between what is known as
the journals of the House and Hansard. What
we say in this House in debate and on this
occasion is inscribed in Hansard, and when the
printing strike is over, will appear in print.
The journals of the House contain only the
business transacted by the House and formal
rulings as such given by Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, I would allay the fears of the
hon. member for Humber tliat any of these
inconscfiuential or conse(iuential matters to
which Mr. Speaker has referred will reach
the journals. They will be in Hansard so that
all may read that Mr. Speaker was not as well
acquainted witli rule 38A as he might have
been, and that the hon. Minister was quite
correct. Tliere is nothing in the journals of
the House, no formal ruling having been
made. Now the hon. member for Peterbor-
ough, having caught Mr. Speaker's eye and
having risen on an adjournment motion, is
entitled to continue.
Mr. Pitman: Thank you, Mr, Speaker. To
continue:
—Namely that the Minister of Social and
Family Services permitted his estimates in
the amount of $264,789,00 to be approved
by this House on Tuesday evening, May 13,
when he was fully aware after the debate
in this House and the vote on the Indian
communities development branch and being
in receipt of a memorandum signed by the
director and eight members dated May 11,
delivered by hand on May 12, that the
resignations of the entire branch were
imminent.
May I say, Mr. Six^aker, tfiat this motion
is not in any way an attempt to circumvent
the rules of this House-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has made
his motion, this is not the time to speak to
it. He will pass it up to the Speaker.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services ) : That is one of the reasons the hon.
member said he was glad to get away from
the House of Commons.
Mr. Pitman: I think the hon. Minister is
putting a lot of words in my mouth.
Interjections by hon. members,
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. men^bers on my
left wish to have their motion put, they will
give silence to the Chair and I trust that
the hon. members on my right will do like-
wise.
Moved by Mr. Pitman, seconded by Mr.
MacDonald, that this House adjourn immedi-
ately, to reconvene later this day on the
ringing of the bell, to give Mr, Speaker the
opportunity to consider the question of privi-
lege raised by the hon. member for River-
dale (Mr. J, Renwick), namely that the Min-
ister of Social and Family Services submitted
his estimates-
Mr, E, W, Martel (Sutlbury East): Resign,
Mr. Pitman: My apologies for my writing.
Mr. Speaker: My apologies for I do not
have my spectacles,
-Permitted his estimates of $264,789,000
to be approved by this House on Tuesday
evening, May 13, when lie was fully aware
after the debate in the House on the vote
of the Indian community development branch,
and being in receipt of a memorandum signed
by the director and eight members dated May
11, delivered by hand on May 12, that the
MAY 16, 1969
4525
resignation of the entire branch was
imminent.
I will state again to the House what I
stated earlier when this motion was received
by me improperly, that I am inclined to
believe that this is but an attempt on the
part of some members to debate something
which the House already, on two votes on
division, has declared it did not wish to
debate. I say again, as I said then, thiat I
am the servant of the House, and such a
ruling may or may not commend itself to
the House. Therefore, rather than have the
problem which we had earlier today over
the Speaker's ruling, I will put the motion
and we will endeavour to ensure that the
debate is confined and I would ask the hon.
members to confine themselves to the motion.
I would say again that I have been in for
previous discussions when this came up
improperly earlier this day, so that I do not
feel that the reading of any of the state-
ments referred to in this motion will be of
assistance to Mr. Speaker. The motion is to
allow Mr. Speaker to consider not to allow
the House or the public or anyone else to
consider this particular problem.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Welch:
good exercise in rule
fact I am finding it
this point of order,
whether or not any
word "adjourn" are
motion of adjoumme
motion to adjourn is
We are having a very
procedure today, and in
very helpful. I rise on
first of all, questioning
of the words after the
really in order in a
nt; secondly, whether a
debatable at all.
Mr. Speaker: There is no question about
the debatability, if that is a good word, of
the motion to adjourn. It is debatable and
always has been, but I will consider for a
moment now the other submission of the
hon. Minister.
I have already dealt with the matter of
debate on a motion for adjournment and I
am not persuaded that the motion as it is
worded is in order or out of order. Without
the opportunity to consult the precedents,
neither I nor my advisors can rule on that.
The matter being of urgent importance—
because the normal hour for conclusion of
tlie sitting of this House is approaching and
it may well be that the members would wish
to deal with this matter in that time, although
there is nothing that says that the House
cannot sit longer. Therefore I will accept the
motion, even with reservations, as it has been
placed.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say
at the outset that this motion is not in any
sense an affront to your previous ruling. It is
the opinion of myself and others, I think
in this House, that at the time of the placing
of the original motion that we should discuss
a matter of urgent public importance, the
Speaker was not in receipt of information
which would have allowed him to make a
decision about the urgency and the impor-
tance of this particular matter. Since that
motion has been voted on, this information
lias, I think, come to the Speaker and I think
at this time, tlie Speaker is in a better position
to decide. However, this is a matter which
should be debated in this House at this time.
The Speaker, throughout his years in the
Chair, has indicated the importance of mak-
ing this Legislature relevant. We feel that
this is a matter of extreme importance. I
think members must truly realize that the
resignation of an entire branch of a depart-
ment means that something of extreme impor-
tance is taking place. We have heard a great
deal about the fact that Indians in this
province have not received their proper con-
cern and interest in this Legislature. We in
this party wish to have an opportunity to
debate this matter, when it is important both
to the Indian people of this province and
to the Legislature. We would like you to
have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of
adjourning this House, and of being able at
your pleasure to meet with either your stafF
or leaders of the other political parties, and
take under advLsement the whole problem of
dealing with this debate at this time, in this
place— I should say, later this day in this
place. I hope that you can see fit to accept
thai: motion.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, this is really the second time I
have had an opportunity to advise you of
the position of the Liberal Party in this mat-
ter, and I cannot help but bring to your
attention that much of the information that
has been conveyed to Your Honour, in the
many points of order that he has entertained
in the last few minutes, could have been
entertained in a more orderly way under the
first motion. But I do want to say to you,
sir, that the proposition put forward by the
member for Peterborough is a solution to the
situation that we find ourselves in in this
Legislature— tliis Parfiament, in which it is
surely our right and our responsibility to dis-
cuss matters of this nature.
4526
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The responsibility of the Minister of Social
and Family Services is a very great one, and
there has been an indication put forward by
press releases and other publications that are
in Your Honour's hands that there are those
in important positions of the public service
who are not prepared to continue under this
leadership. It best falls upon Mr. Speaker
to find some means whereby this matter can
be properly discussed. The one before him,
at the present time, calling for an adjourn-
ment so that he can consider whether or not
the hon. Minister was directly and purposely
misleading the House, since information was
in his hands during the discussion of his esti-
mates last week, could be undertaken by Mr.
Speaker.
I submit that this is a matter of grave im-
portance. Mr. Speaker has said that it is not
urgent. I happen to disagree with him and I
have already indicated my disagreement in
the vote. But here is an opportunity where
Mr. Speaker can consider that this House be
reconvened later in the day, so that we can
get details from the Minister. As we under-
stand the information that has been provided
to us, as we discuss those matters leading to
the vote of considerable sums of money in
support of the Indian community, we will
know whether this debate and this vote was
undertaken without the information being
available to all members of the House— which
was our responsibility to have, and it was the
responsibility of the Minister to place before
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I
just have two comments to make. I think that
my colleague, the hon. member for Peter-
borough, would not have placed this motion
had the House been in a position to re-
assemble, for example, tomorrow. But we
are faced, at this particular point, with a
four-day adjournment before this House again
reassembles on May 20.
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that the
motion should be supported and that the
government benches should be prepared to
support this motion, because it is in the pub-
lic interest that this matter be dealt with
expeditiously and effectively by this Cham-
ber. I would suggest to the ministry that
they seriously consider voting in favour of
the motion, in order that the matter can be
dealt with and not left for speculation and
rumour and inadequate consideration outside
this Chamber, before next Tuesday.
Four days would do nothing but permit a
serious condition of turmoil in those persons
who are interested in this problem, not only
the persons who are members of this assem-
bly, but certainly within the Indian com-
munity in the province of Ontario. Four days
of speculation and mmour and turmoil as
the result of this matter, is not in the public
interest.
The second point that I would like to make
is that the information which the Speaker
would have available to him, in order to take
under consideration this serious question about
whether or not the Minister of Social and
Family Services has misled the House, is
available now. It can be placed in Mr.
Speaker's hands, and is a matter which can
be dealt with expeditiously by Mr. Speaker
along with his advisors and such others as
he may choose to consult. For that reason,
Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to per-
mit this motion to carry and the debate to
continue at a later point during the course
of the day.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak
to the motion. As my leader said, we are
going to support the motion. There have been
a lot of technical arguments backwards and
forwards this morning about the interpreta-
tions of your rulings, sir— two of which were
challenged and supported by the majority of
the House as to how one reads and properly
interprets rule 38, is a very difficult task for
anyone. I think, sir, when you whip away
all of the froth that has surrounded what has
happened this morning, we are really talking
about the right of thie Opposition to know
what has happened in a matter that is of very
serious concern.
Technically, the matter of urgent public
importance, which my leader wanted to raise,
has never l^een before the House. You ruled
it was not proper that it come before the
House and the majority of the House upheld
your ruling. Tlie vote revolving around the
position of the hon. member for Riverdale
again did not touch that problem. The closest
we c«n come to it— and I am satisfied that it
is quite in order, and you, sir, must be
because you are allowing this debate to go
on— is this motion on adjournment.
The motion relating to the adjournment of
this House, presently before us, surely relates
simply to a basic democratic right that we
as members of this Legislature must have. A
serious and an unusual event took place in
the province of Ontario this morning. We had
no other opportunity to get at it; no Minister
has seen fit, on behalf of the government,
to explain the government's position. Cer-
tainly, as far as we are concerned, if we
have to stay here for the balance of this day
MAY 16 1969
4527
thinking up other matters which are within
the rules, sir— because we would not want to
go outside the rules— we are going to con-
tinue to do this in order that we can hear
what the government's position is in relation
to this very urgent matter.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, the whole objective and purpose of
this amendment is to give you some time to
consider this matter, and I think that the need
for that is surely very obvious. If this is not
a matter of urgent public importance, what
conceivably can be within the framework of
the rules of this House?
Mr. Singer: No, we have not decided it
at all.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the purpose is to
permit the resumption of this debate and to
give Mr. Speaker time that this shall be
done— adjoummemt so that the Speaker can
consider this issue and, with the ringing of
the bells, we will resume to discuss this
matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon.
member that the motion is not for that pru*-
pose. The motion is for the purpose of
adjourning the House so that Mr. Speaker
may consider the point of privilege raised by
the member for Riverdale, which was directed
towards the actions of the hon. Minister of
Social and Family Services. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with the original motion.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the substan-
tive nature of the whole issue and the Min-
ister's part in it is what we want to debate
in this House. But the Minister's part in it
is the vital, important thing. The Minister
withheld information from this House.
Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, rule 38, subsection C, is very clear:
When a motion is made for the adjourn-
ment of a debate, the debate thereujxyn
shall be confined to the matter of such
motion.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the
leader of the NDP is embarking on quite a
different subject, and is very definitely out
of order in so doing.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that you need not give any particular credence
to the latter comment. I think that it is in
order and indeed—
Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister without Port-
folio): Oh, no more than is usual.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister has withheld
vital information from this House.
Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order, may
I ask for your ruling on this point. The rule
is very dear on—
Mr. Speaker: I must confess that when the
hon. member was speaking I only heard part
of his point of order, and I wonder if he
would place it again.
Hon. Mr. White: I should be very gkd to
do that, sir. I draw your attention to Lewis's
"Parliamentary Procedure in Ontario", page
111, section 38, subsection C, which reads:
When a motion is made for the adjourn-
ment of a debate, the debate thereupon
shall be confined to the matter of such
motion.
I listened with very great interest to the
hon. member for Riverdale and the hon.
member for Downsview, who did confine
themselves to the motion to adjourn. The hon.
member for York South, however, is depart-
ing from the confines of this debate, as clearly
set forth in the rules, and is embarking upon
a debate which earlier you yourself, sir, with
the support of the House, ruled to be out of
order.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, do you wish
time to consider your ruling?
Mr. Speaker: All I would say is that I was
on the point of rising to draw that to the
attention of the hon. member, because I felt
that he had strayed away from the point, but
at that particular time I was being inundated
by written aid from the left and spoken aid
from the right.
I apologize to the House. My attention was
not on what was in it. So I would suggest,
if the hon. member wishes to speak to the
point of order, that he continue his discussion
of the motion to adjourn, but confine himself
to that motion.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
can deal with this in very simple terms that
can be acceptable. This is a motion for the
House to recess so that the Speaker can con-
sider an earlier motion affecting the privileges
of this House. The privileges of this House
were that the Minister deliberately withheld
information from this House, information that
he had, information that he knew about, in-
formation that he could have presented to the
House, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, if I may. The hon. member does not
4528
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
understand the nature or the intent of this
particular motion, apparently. The intent of
the motion is to adjourn the House so that
you, sir, can consider the point of privilege
raised by the member for Riverdale. The de-
bate, according to the rules, clearly set forth,
must be confined to this motion to adjourn
The hon. member for York South is embark-
ing upon a debate on previous motions which
have been ruled out of order and those rulings
have been supported by the majority of the
House.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon.
members and to the member for York South
exactly what I said, when one other member
was speaking earlier, that tliis is a debate on
the motion to adjourn, that the gist of the
motion is that Mr. Speaker should have an
opportvmity to consider this matter, and there-
fore, it is not for debate in the House.
The reasons for adjournment, as stated in
the motion, are quite debatable, but not the
facts and figures and whatnot that go behind
the motion. Those are for consideration by
Mr. Speaker on the adjournment of the House,
as the motion says, and therefore, I would
say to the hon. member for York South that I
think that the course of debate upon which
he was embarking recently is out of order. I
would ask him to come back to the actual
motion for adjournment, which is an adjourn-
ment to allow Mr. Speaker to deal with the
matter.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think you
have stated the purpose so clearly that nobody
can mistake it. And I want to make three
points. The first one is that you did not have
the opportunity in your earlier consideration
to have all the information available, and I
would like to have sent up to you the memo-
randum released by the civil sen'ants who
resigned.
Hon. W. D. McKeough ( Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs ) : Because the member did not
give it to him earlier.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member for
York Centre ( Mr. Deacon ) , could have given
that to him and then-
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: The substance of it wc
cannot deal with, but you can examine it, sir.
The second point that I wanted to make, and
which requires further consideration, is the
point that the Minister has misled this House
and that affects the privileges of this House.
Hon. Mr. White: That is out of order, it is
out of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker,
my third and final point is that not only has
he misled this House but he has done nothing
since, so that the deadline—
Hon. Mr. White: It is out of order, out of
order.
Mr. MacDonald: —the deadline was reached
and the whole department resigned. That
is the reiison why this is a matter that must
be debated this day, in this House, and not
delayed by the obstructionism on the gov-
ernment side.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: A shameful contempt
of the Speaker's ruling.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Humber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I cannot under-
stand the obstruction and the opposition on
the part of the government members to the
resolution put forward by the hon. member
for Peterborough. Mr. Speaker, you have
never held yourself out to be infallible. You
have never tried to impress upon this House
that you are the last word on the rules of
procedure, and have many times shown your
humbleness as a servant of this House by
pointing out that you stand to be corrected
and are willing to seek advice.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Dictatorial.
Mr. Ben: I cannot understand, therefore,
Mr. Speaker, why the members of the govern-
ment and their backbench cacklers there
should try to impute to 3'ou that which you
yourself do not claim.
All the resolution asks for, all the motion
to adjourn asks for, is that this House adjourn
to give Your Honour an opportunity to con-
sider the propositions put. It does not say-
how you shall consider them. It does not say
what conclusion you shall arrive at, neither
does it say how long you shall consider the
proposition. All it is asking is that you be
given time to consider.
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that you have
already come to a conclusion. That is not for
me to say. I will not put myself in the posi-
tion of the government and try to read your
mind. However, surely in the interest of
proceeding with the business of the House
and with the business of the people of this
province— and I point out to Your Honour
MAY 16, 1969
4529
that the Opposition parties in this House
represent an overwhelming majority of the
people in this province: two-thirds— surely,
the business of the people should come first,
and for the members of the government to
spend two hours obstructing the affairs of the
House is beyond my comprehension.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member must speak
to the motion, which is a motion for adjourn-
ment, not a motion of obstruction.
Mr. Ben: Very well, Mr. Speaker, all I want
to say in closing is tiiis, I beseech this gov-
ernment and its followers and cohorts to have
consideration for the position of Mr. Speaker,
and support this resolution to give Mr.
Speaker the opportunity to consider the
proposition that has been put to him, without
all the interjections, the cackling, the hissing
and the noise making from over on the
Speaker's right.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister,
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, really this is
on a point of order, perhaps, more than
directly to the motion. The looseness of the
wording of the motion and the extreme lan-
guage of the leader of the NDP might lead
the-
Mr. MacDonald: What, for example?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will come to that.
They might lead to the inference on the part
of those listening to this debate, or as
recorded in today's proceedings, that the Min-
ister had this information at the time of the
discussion of the vote, in respect of which
these matters which we are discussing had
relevance. I bring to your attention, Mr.
Speaker, for the records of the House, that
the Indian community development branch
vote had been carried on May 8, 1969. The
government policy had been carried, the
position of the government had been stated,
in relationship to the matter, which had a
very full discussion.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That is
why they all resigned,
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This Legislature voted
the estimates, and the moneys are there in
tlie department and the work will be carried
on. The fact that changes take place in the
civil service during the course of any par-
ticular estimate or the course of the year, I
suggest to you, is of no relevance. The work
will be done.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on the motion
which is before the House, I would suggest
to you, sir, that the resignation of an entire
branch of government is without precedent
here in this Legislature-
Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon.
Minister to speak— and he stated it was per-
haps not on the motion— because I felt that
all of us, including Mr. Speaker, wished to
hear from the Minister. I would ask the
hon.—
Mr. MacDonald: He is out of order?
Mr. Speaker: I said that the hon. Minister
stated that he was rising perhaps on a point
of order, and his point of order was that he
had not misled the House, as had been
alleged, in that a statement was made on
May 8, or a vote was carried rather than on
May 11, as the motion reads. But in any
event, I would suggest to the hon. member,
who had the floor and will resume it, that he
confine himself again to this particular motion
which is for adjournment for Mr. Speaker's
consideration of it, not consideration now by
the House.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I too exercise the
patience of Job on occasion, I had one
sentence out of my mouth and I would Hke
to pursue it, to complete the thought I have,
which was to offer respectfully to the Speaker
—a submission in respect of this adjournment
motion, I was making the point, sir, as other
members have made, all of which you have
accepted, that tliis matter is of some urgent
impvortance and the privileges of the House
are therefore of urgent importance. It is with-
out precedent that an entire branch of gov-
ernment should resign—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it is not,
Mr. Lewis: Let a member rise and indicate
when else it has occurred.
I want to put to you, Mr. Speaker, that as
has been suggested earlier, certain informa-
tion was not privileged to you, sir, when you
you made your earlier rulings. I think that
information is worthy that it be presented
to you when you make this ruling. I am
pleased that the leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party has given you the memorandimi,
because I think you will see therein contained
why it is that the members of the Opposition
feel that their privileges have been seriously
violated by tlie Minister, and indeed, the
content of the memorandmn indicates facts
about the nature of the operation, on which
basis these civil servants resigned, which were
4530
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
never revealed to this House and are astonish-
ing in themselves.
Mr. Sxx^aker, I would point out to you,
sir— the Minister's intervention on a point of
order notwitlistanding— I would not want it
to unduly affect you. Our motion indicates
quite explicitly that we think the privileges
were offended by tliese matters not being
raised before the end of the Minister's esti-
mates.
Mr. E. Dunlop (York-Forest Hill): Why did
the member not ask a question about it?
Mr. Lewis: On Tuesday, May 13, there
was a full five hours of discussion on these
estimates, and when one passes the estimates
in total one votes the entire amount of money.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is
incumbent upon the part of any Minister to
rise in his place prior to the final passage
and say, "I have in my possession a document
threatening mass resignation on Thursday
next and I submit it to the House for dis-
cussion".
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is nonsense.
Mr. Lewis: And to not do that when it
affects his department is to violate the privi-
leges of the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Maybe this is preferable,
what happened.
Mr. Lewis: It may be that secrecy is viewed
as a fimction of government, but secrecy leads
to debates of this kind.
Mr. Speaker, I want to put one other point.
I want to suggest to you, sir, in consideration
of your ruling, that the Conservative majority
should give very serious consideration to sup-
porting the motion— not the usual simple
political consideration, but rather more than
that. I would think that the Conservative
majority would want an opportunity to ex-
plain pubhcly what has occurred, and this
motion gives them this right of reply and
affords them the opportunity to do so.
It may be, Mr. Speaker, if I can conclude
tliis way, that uneasy lies the head that wears
the crown. The crown already having fallen,
the head, however perilously placed on the
shoulders, might at least have an opportunity
to state its case. In your consideration of the
amendment, that is what we are trying to
afford- before the head falls as well.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I just have one comment to make
on this in support of the resolution and it is
this. In my opinion the Minister will have
to make some sort of statement on the resig-
nations of those who liave resigned, whether
or not it is a full branch or only part of that
branch. I suggest that the proper place for
him to make that would be this afternoon in
this House when he has had time over a
quiet lunch to think about it— to make it in
this House and not at a press conference
before this House reassembles next Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I just
want to make it quite clear that I think the
argument of the hon. memlx^r for Scarborough
West in respect of his proposition that if
someone is threatening to resign in any de-
partment that it is incumbent upon a Minister
to get up in this House and announce it.
Mr. Lewis: It was ten.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, even if ten do,
it is utter nonsense that I or any other Min-
ister should have the responsibility or duty
to get up in this House and announce to
this Legislature that X nimiber of people are
threatening to resign.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, further to
the motion to adjourn, the leader of the
Opposition did move at the beginning of
today's session that the regular proceedings
of the House be postponed and a de'bate l:>e
embarked upon.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, the leader of the Opposition made no
such motion. Mr. Speaker announced that
representations had been made to him and
he found them not to be in order, and the
only vote that was taken was whether his
ruling should be supported or not. I wish
the Minister would correct himself.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Wrong again
over there.
Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, the leader
of the Opposition, at the beginning of today's
session, moved a motion to debate a matter
of urgent public business-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to tlie hon.
Minister that the leader of the Opposition
presented a motion to tlie Speaker which was
not ac^cepted by the Speaker.
Hon. Mr. White: At any rate, Mr. Speaker,
you ruled that the motion was not in order
MAY 16, 1969
4531
and the House sustained that raling. The
subsequent motions which have come to us
have been a subterfuge to frustrate your
ruling and the will of the majority of this
House. This particular manoeuvre is the
second or third in this succession of parlia-
mentary tricks to circumvent the expressed
will of the House.
I would say, and I would hope, that the
thoughtful members of the House on each
side would defeat this motion now when the
question is put, it being recognized surely by
them that similar trickery could be used in
the future once again to circiunvent the will
of the majority. I hope that we can defeat
this motion unanimously.
Mr. Speaker: Having been aflForded the
opportunity of a newer edition of the rules
in the clerk's handwriting, and with my spec-
tacles on, I hope that I will be able to read,
and the hon. members will be able to under-
stand, the motion which I now place before
the House.
Mr. Pitman moves, seconded by Mr. Mac-
Donald, that this House adjourn immediately,
to reconvene later this day on the ringing of
the bells, to give Mr. Speaker the oppor-
tunity to consider the question of privilege
raised by the member for Riverdale— namely,
that the Minister of Social and Family Serv-
ices permitted his estimates in the amount of
$264,789,000 to be approved by this House
on Tuesday evening, May 13, when he was
fully aware after the debate in this House
on the vote of the Indian community develop-
ment branch, and being in receipt of a
memorandum signed by the director and
eight members, dated May 11, delivered by
hand on May 12, that the resignations of the
entire branch were imminent.
As many as are in favour of the motion
will please say "aye". As many as are opposed
will please say "nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker: The vote is on the motion by
Mr. Pitman, seconded by Mr. MacDonald, for
the adjournment of the House in accordance
with the terms of the motion previously read
by Mr. Speaker. I would remind the mem-
bers that this being a vote on adjournment,
it is a vote by numbers only.
All those in favour of the motion to ad-
journ, will please rise.
All those opposed, will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 24 and the "nays" 40.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Clerk of the House: The 20th order, sec-
ond reading of Bill 141, An Act to amend The
Cancer Act.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will state
his point of order.
Mr. J. Renwick: My point of order is that
my understanding now is tfiat the question
of privileges which I raised and which you
determined that you would take under con-
sideration now remains under consideration
by Mr. Speaker to be dealt with in due
course. I assmne, as a corollary of that, that
it would be unwise for the Minister or any
other member of the government, while it
is under your consideration, to make any
statement or otherwise about the matters
which—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is com-
pletely out of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I trust the members of the
House are well aware of the rules and pre-
cedents and rules of proper procedure, and
I am quite sure that the hon. member for
Riverdale does not need to elaborate upon
them. I am sure that the hon. members are
as well aware as he is, that his understanding
of what becomes of the point of privilege is ,,
quite correct. It is now under Mr. Speaker's
consideration to be dealt with in due course.
The hon. Minister was moving a bill?
THE CANCER ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves second reading of Bill 141, An Act to
amend The Cancer Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps by way of explanation,
on Tuesday when we reconvene we will be
carrying on with the consideration of the
estimates.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. leader wish to—
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
I was just going to bring to your attention,
sir, there has been nothing in the motion to
adjourn that took into account the fact that
4532
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Monday is a day that we would normally be
sitting.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader is quite cor-
rect.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, what happens to our
question period?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Ask your deputy leader.
Mr. Speaker: Orderl I would point out to
the hon. member for High Park that questions
are questions before the orders of the day,
and in order to entertain the motion from the
hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman),
we had to be in the order of orders of the
da>', so therefore the question period melted
away before the motion which was placed
before me.
I must say that that problem bothered me,
and you may have seen the Clerk of the
House and the House leader and Mr. Speaker
in consultation, and that is what we were
trying to decide— what had happened to the
questions. That is the advice I received and
I think it is quite correct.
Does the hon. House leader wish to indi-
cate in his motion the next sitting?
Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjourrmient of
the House until 2.00 o'clock on Tuesday
afternoon, May 20, 1969.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.10 o'clock, p.m.
JOURNALS AND PROCEDURAL RESEARCH BRANCH
DIRECTION DES J0URNAUXETDESBECHERCBBSENPRDCEDI3RE
ROOM 1640, WHITNEY BLOCK -^^*-«*««*i^ ir**.w-uuAx>
QUEEN'S PARK, TORCWTO, Oti M7A 1A2
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11