Skip to main content

Full text of "Official report of debates (Hansard) : Legislative Assembly of Ontario = Journal des débats (Hansard) : Assemblée législative de l'Ontario 1969"

See other formats


* 


No.  1 


ONTARIO 


legislature  of  Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  -  DAILY  EDITION 


Second  Session  of  the  Twenty-Eighth  Legislature 


Tuesday,  November  19,  1968 


Speaker:  Honourable  Fred  Mcintosh  Cass,  Q.C. 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  Q.C. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 


Price  per  session,  $5.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto. 


CONTENTS 


Tuesday,  November  19,  1968 


Speech  from  the  Throne,  His  Honour  the  Lieutenant-Governor 3 

Evidence  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Wishart,  first  reading  5 

Morion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Robarts,  agreed  to 6 


; 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


Tuesday,  November  19,  1968,  being  the  first  day  of  the  second  session  of  the  twenty-eighth 
Parliament  of  the  province  of  Ontario  for  the  despatch  of  business  pursuant  to  a  proclamation 
of  the  Honourable  W.  Ross  Macdonald,  Lieutenant-Governor  of  the  province. 

Tuesday,  November  19,  1968 


The  House  met  at  3  o'clock  p.m. 

The  Honourable,  the  Lieutenant-Governor, 
having  entered  the  House  and  being  seated 
upon  the  Throne,  was  pleased  to  open  the 
session   with   the   following   gracious   speech. 

Hon.  W.  Ross  Macdonald  (Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor): Mr.  Speaker  and  members  of  the 
Legislative  Assembly  of  Ontario,  I  extend 
warmest  greetings  and  a  sincere  welcome  to 
each  and  every  one  of  you. 

Each  session  of  the  Legislature  is  an  impor- 
tant and  memorable  event  in  the  life  of  our 
province.  This  occasion  is  made  particularly 
memorable  for  me  because,  for  the  first  time 
since  assuming  my  duties  as  the  representa- 
tive in  Ontario  of  our  beloved  Sovereign, 
Queen  Elizabeth  II,  I  have  the  privilege  of 
addressing  the  opening  of  a  session  of  the 
Legislature. 

As  my  government  convenes  this  second 
session  of  the  28th  Parliament  of  Ontario,  the 
people  of  our  province  continue  to  enjoy  a 
full  and  rich  life  almost  unmatched  in  the 
world  today.  Opportunities  for  human  better- 
ment abound  on  every  hand.  Dynamic  growth 
and  prosperity  are  apparent  at  every  turn. 
The  quality  of  the  social,  cultural  and  artistic 
life  of  our  people  improves  daily.  Ontario 
continues  to  be  a  predominant  choice  of  those 
who  seek  to  establish  new  homes  in  a  peace- 
ful, dependable,  stimulating  and  rewarding 
environment. 

While  we  enjoy  the  sum  of  the  labour  of 
past  years,  the  people  of  Ontario  accept  with 
confidence  the  substantial,  yet  exciting,  chal- 
lenges of  the  days  ahead.  Happily,  the  chal- 
lenges we  face  are  those  born  of  success, 
prosperity,  development  and  progress. 

Throughout  its  history,  and  especially  in 
recent  years,  my  government  has  been  privil- 
eged to  play  a  vital  and  significant  role  in 
constitutional  and  fiscal  discussions  involving 
the  federal  and  provincial  governments  of  this 


country.  My  government  has  always  viewed 
these  events  not  as  struggles  between  com- 
petitors but  as  joint,  cooperative  ventures  of 
sovereign  partners  building  on  the  wisdom 
of  the  Fathers  of  Confederation  with  one 
objective:  a  greater,  stronger,  more  unified 
Canada. 

My  government  has  always  sought  the  co- 
operation of  the  federal  government  in  our 
mutual  objective  of  assuring  that  the  people 
of  this  province  are  not  unduly  or  unfairly 
taxed.  While  our  endeavours  to  secure  such 
cooperation  have  met  with  little  constructive 
response  in  recent  months,  my  government 
expresses  the  hope  that,  in  the  interests  of 
equity,  fiscal  stability,  and  national  unity  a 
more  reasonable,  constructive  and  understand- 
ing attitude  toward  the  financial  needs  and 
constitutional  position  of  the  provinces  will 
be  recognized. 

In  my  government's  continuing  recognition 
of  its  responsibilities  to  the  people  of  this 
province,  it  will  advance  measures  and  propo- 
sitions in  the  session  now  beginning,  designed 
to  ensure  the  maintenance  of  a  vigorous  and 
dynamic  Ontario  in  the  context  of  the  broader 
interests  of  Canada. 

In  a  renewed  determination  to  hold  taxa- 
tion to  the  minimum  consistent  with  a  high 
level  of  service  to  the  people  of  Ontario,  and 
in  its  firm  resolve  to  maintain  the  enviable 
credit  rating  of  the  province,  my  government's 
comprehensive  programme  to  reduce  costs  and 
increase  efficiency  is  being  pursued  with  the 
utmost  vigour.  Included  in  the  programme 
are  increased  control  over  that  portion  of 
spending  within  the  direct  scope  of  the  prov- 
ince; tighter  scrutiny  by  Treasury  board  of 
all  matters  having  financial  implications;  re- 
evaluation  of  procedures,  methods,  forms  and 
equipment;  re-appraisal  of  existing  pro- 
grammes; re-scheduling  and  deferment  of  new 
programmes;  and  renewed  emphasis  on  effi- 
ciency and  economy  in  every  branch  and 
agency  of  the   Ontario   government. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


All  programmes  financed  in  whole  or  in 
part  by  provincial  taxpayers  but  administered 
by  other  public  authorities,  including  munici- 
palities, boards  of  education,  universities,  col- 
leges of  applied  arts  and  technology,  Crown 
corporations  and  other  boards  and  commis- 
sions, will  be  subject  to  intense  public  scrutiny 
to  ensure  that  maximum  efficiency  is  attained. 

In  the  session  of  the  Legislature  upon 
which  the  House  is  now  embarking,  my  gov- 
ernment will  submit  in  the  budget  statement 
and  in  other  legislative  proposals,  measures 
which  will  reflect  a  determination  to  achieve 
the  fullest  efficiency  of  government  and  the 
greatest  utilization  of  tax  revenues.  All  cur- 
rent programmes  that  contribute  to  the  public 
good  will  be  continued  with  undiminished 
vigour.  New  proposals  are  being  designed  to 
achieve  a  greater  equity  and  efficiency  in  the 
administration  of  government,  in  our  system 
of  taxation,  and  in  our  relationship  with  our 
municipal  partners. 

My  government  has  reviewed  in  substan- 
tial detail  the  constructive  and  definitive 
recommendations  of  the  Hon.  J.  C.  McRuer 
in  his  report  upon  civil  rights  in  our  province. 
Legislation  will  be  introduced  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  hon.  members  which  will 
implement  several  of  the  most  basic  recom- 
mendations contained  in  this  report.  In  par- 
ticular, a  bill  respecting  the  expropriation 
laws  of  Ontario  will  be  brought  forward  for 
your  consideration.  In  addition  to  including 
some  of  the  recommendations  made  by  the 
Hon.  Mr.  McRuer,  the  bill  will  also  reflect 
the  recommendations  of  the  Ontario  law 
reform  commission  in  its  report  upon  the  basis 
for  compensation  for  expropriation.  The  legis- 
lation will  be  designed  to  ensure  equity  and 
justice  for  all  whose  lands  may  be  expropri- 
ated or  affected  by  land  acquisition  pro- 
grammes necessary  in  the  public  interest. 

Among  the  measures  to  be  placed  before 
the  hon.  members  will  be  proposals  to  institute 
regional  government  in  various  areas  of  the 
province  where  sufficient  study  has  been 
completed. 

To  provide  further  equality  of  service 
throughout  the  province,  amendments  to  The 
Assessment  Act  will  improve  the  assessment 
function.  Included  will  be  the  implementation 
of  certain  recommendations  of  the  Ontario 
committee  on  taxation  and  the  select  com- 
mittee of  the  Legislature  on  the  report  of 
the  taxation  committee. 

During  the  session  an  opportunity  will  be 
afforded  hon.   members  to   give   serious   and 


responsible  attention  to  the  machinery  of 
collective  bargaining  and  related  labour  and 
management  matters  arising  out  of  the  recom- 
mendations contained  in  the  report  of  the 
Royal  commission  inquiry  into  labour  disputes. 

Hon.  members  will  be  asked  to  consider 
legislation  respecting  mechanics'  hens  and  the 
manner  in  which  they  are  dealt  with  in  the 
construction  industry  in  Ontario. 

To  further  ensure  that  every  person  in 
Ontario  is  free  and  equal  in  dignity  and 
rights,  hon.  members  will  be  asked  to  approve 
the  strengthening  of  the  Ontario  Human 
Rights   Code. 

Hon.  members  will  have  placed  before 
them  for  approval  revisions  of  the  hearings 
and  appeal  procedures  of  a  variety  of  sta- 
tutes which  give  protection  to  the  people  of 
Ontario  in  their  business  transactions  both  as 
buyers  and  sellers.  In  addition,  the  far-reach- 
ing and  important  legislation  relating  to  busi- 
ness corporations,  which  was  introduced 
during  the  first  session  of  the  28th  Legisla- 
ture, will  be  brought  before  the  House. 

The  availability  of  reasonably  priced  homes 
will  continue  to  be  vigorously  pursued  by  my 
government,  with  further  expansion  of  the 
highly  successful  Home  Ownership  Made 
Easy  programme.  As  further  encouragement 
to  individual  home  ownership  and  to  bring 
home  ownership  within  the  reach  of  an  even 
larger  segment  of  our  people,  you  will  be 
asked  to  approve  policies  which  will  facilitate 
the  construction  of  substantial  numbers  of 
condominium  dwellings. 

The  goal  of  equality  of  educational  oppor- 
tunity will  continue  to  be  a  prime  objective 
of  my  government.  During  this  session, 
implementation  of  the  legislation  creating 
larger  units  of  school  administration  will  be 
pursued,  together  with  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  provincial  committee  on  aims 
and  objectives  of  education  in  the  schools  of 
Ontario. 

Legislation  will  be  introduced  creating  an 
educational  communications  authority  and  to 
implement  certain  recommendations  of  the 
report  relating  to  the  Ontario  College  of  Art. 

My  government,  mindful  of  the  continuing 
requirements  of  social  services  for  the  people 
of  Ontario,  will  place  before  you  legislation 
which  will  allow  the  steady  development  of  a 
programme  to  assist  children  with  mental  and 
emotional  disorders. 

Your  approval  will  be  requested  for  a 
number  of  additional  progressive  programmes 


NOVEMBER  19,  1968 


within  the  field  of  correctional  services,  in- 
cluding the  establishment  of  a  fresh  approach 
to  the  counselling  of  families. 

Placed  before  you  for  consideration  will  l>e 
a  health  protection  Act,  embodying  the  most 
modern  concepts  in  public  health  legislation. 

My  government's  vigorous  programmes 
designed  to  prevent  and  reduce  abuses  of  our 
environment  in  the  Various  fields  of  pollution 
will  be  pressed  forward  with  the  utmost 
determination. 

The  policies  of  my  government  in  assisting 
the  agricultural  community  of  Ontario  to 
improve  both  the  production  of  food  and 
recompense  to  the  farmer  will  be  pursued 
with  continued  intensity. 

Among  the  continuing  programmes  ensur- 
ing the  steady  growth  and  development  of 
the  communities  and  industries  of  northern 
Ontario  will  l>e  legislation  to  create  a  Ixxly  to 
coordinate  all  northern  transportation  policies. 
Included  will  be  legislation  affecting  the  min- 
ing industry  through  important  changes  in 
The  Mining  Act  and  related  statutes  as  well 
as  a  thorough  overhauling  and  updating  of 
legislation  affecting  safety  requirements  in  the 
mining  industry. 

My  government  will  increase  its  efforts  to 
ensure  that  our  forest  industries  will  share  in 
the  predicted  increased  demand  for  wood 
and  wood  products.  The  programme  of 
acquisition  of  land  to  provide  additional 
recreational  areas,  provincial  parks  and  con- 
servation authority  facilities  will  be  pursued 
with  vigour. 

The  highly  successful  programme  to  equal- 
ize industrial  opportunity  will  continue  to 
extend  its  beneficial  effects  throughout  our 
province. 

To  fulfill  the  demands  of  the  motoring  pub- 
lic and  to  encourage  economic  development 
in  all  aspects  of  the  province's  industry,  the 
construction  and  maintenance  programmes  of 
The  Department  of  Highways  will  be  pressed 
forward  throughout  the  province.  Every 
region  of  Ontario  benefits  from  its  pro- 
grammes. 

Recognizing  not  only  the  increasing  com- 
plexity and  severity  of  municipal  problems, 
but  also  the  dynamic  opportunities  that  lie 
before  our  municipal  partners,  my  govern- 
ment will  propose  a  number  of  financial  and 
other  measures  designed  to  be  of  substantial 
assistance. 

In  summary,  you  will  have  placed  before 
you  an  extensive  legislative  programme.  This 
programme   is    designed   to    further   enhance 


and  enrich  the  lives  of  all  the  residents  of  our 
Ixjloved  province  and  our  beloved  country 
while  striving  for  attainment  of  the  greatest 
possible  efficiency. 

May  Divine  Providence  guide  you  in  your 
deliberations. 

God  save  the  Queen  and  Canada. 

The  Honourable,  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
was  then  pleased  to  retire  from  the  Chamber. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  beg  to  inform  the  House 
that,  to  prevent  mistakes,  I  have  obtained  a 
copy  of  I  lis  Honour's  speech,  which  I  will 
now  read. 

(Reading  dispensed  with.) 


THE  EVIDENCE  ACT 

Hon.  A.  A.  Wishart  (Attorney  General) 
moves  first  reading  of  bill  intituled,  An  Act 
to  amend  The  Evidence  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  (Prime  Minister):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  move,  seconded  by  the  hon.  Min- 
ister of  Financial  and  Commercial  Affairs  (Mr. 
Rowntree),  that  the  speech  of  the  Honourable 
the  Lieutenant-Governor  to  this  House  be 
taken  into  consideration  tomorrow. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Mr.  Speaker,  before  the  motion  is  put,  perhaps 
you  will  permit  me  a  moment  or  two  to 
make  some  comments  on  this,  the  first  day  of 
the  session,  when  the  opportunity  is  available 
without  the  intrusion  of  any  political  con- 
siderations to  mark  the  occasion. 

I  would  like  to  draw  to  your  attention,  sir, 
that  this  is  the  first  occasion  that  His  Honour 
the  Lieutenant-Governor  has  spoken  to  the 
opening  session  of  the  Legislature  and  we, 
as  residents  of  Ontario,  are  proud  of  this 
man,  and  I  speak,  of  course,  as  a  citizen  of 
Brant  county,  from  which  he  himself  comes; 
and  I  want  to  draw  your  attention,  sir,  to  the 
fact  that  he  is  considered  one  of  our  first 
citizens. 

As  I  look  around  the  House  I  am  glad  to 
see,  sir,  that  there  are  no  vacancies  resulting 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


from  our  recess  and  I  particularly  am  de- 
lighted to  see  that  our  good  friend,  the  hon. 
member  for  Middlesex  South  (Mr.  Olde),  has 
recovered  and  is  back  among  us. 

I  will  not  occupy  your  attention  unduly, 
sir,  but  I  feel  that,  since  this  is  the  first  occa- 
sion since  1961  when  we  have  had  the 
opportunity  to  discuss  public  affairs  this  early 
in   the   year,    we    look    forward   with    great 


anticipation  to  the  discussion  of  His  Honour's 
remarks  that  were  presented  to  us  this  after- 


noon. 


Hon.  Mr.  Robarts  moves  that  the  House  do 
now  adjourn. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  3:35  o'clock,  p.m. 


No.  2 


ONTARIO 


Hegtelature  of  Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  -DAILY  EDITION 


Second  Session  of  the  Twenty-Eighth  Legislature 


Wednesday,  November  20,  1968 


Speaker:  Honourable  Fred  Mcintosh  Cass,  Q.C. 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  Q.C. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 


Price  per  session,  $5.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto. 


CONTENTS 


Wednesday,  November  20,  1968. 

Reading  and  receiving  petitions  9 

Motion  for  provision  for  printing  reports,  Mr.  Robarts,  agreed  to  9 

Motion  to  appoint  standing  committees,  Mr.  Reilly,  agreed  to  10 

Motion  to  appoint  select  committee  re  standing  committees,  Mr.  Reilly,  agreed  to  21 

Federal-provincial    conferences    on    the    constitution    and    tax    matters,    questions    to 

Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.   Nixon   22 

Nuclear    power    generating    station    at    Douglas    point,    questions    to    Mr.    Simonett, 

Mr.   Nixon   22 

Report   of   investigation   into    air   pollution   at   Dunnville,    questions    to    Mr.    Dymond, 

Mr.   Nixon   23 

Peterborough  "Examiner"  strike,  questions  to  Mr.  Bales,  Mr.  Nixon  23 

Law   reform   commission   report   on   landlords   and   tenants,    question   to   Mr.    Wishart, 

Mr.    MacDonald    23 

Recreation   and  park  facilities   along  Lake   Erie   lakefront,   questions   to   Mr.   Brunelle, 

Mr.    MacDonald 24 

Cream  producers  marketing  board,  questions  to  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr.  MacDonald  24 

Ontario  hospital  services  commission,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Sargent  25 

Outside   audit   to   determine    Ontario   government   finances,    questions    to   Mr.    Robarts, 

Mr.    Sargent    25 

Ontario  Hydro  rates,  question  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Sargent  26 

Area  designation  by  the  OWRC,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Bullbrook  26 

Financial  losses  of  Mrs.  Janet  Gurman,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Shulman  26 

Compensation  re  Larry  Botrie,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Shulman  26 

Legal  expenses  of  Magistrate  Gardhouse,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Shulman  27 

Purchasing    policy    for    equipment    in    secondary    schools,    questions    to    Mr.    Davis, 

Mr.   T.   Reid   ,.  27 

Bargaining  procedures  for  teachers  and  trustees,  questions  to  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  T.  Reid  ....  28 

Crown  attorney  for  Sudbury  district,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Sopha  29 

Hall-Dennis  report,  question  to  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  Pitman  29 

Commission  on  religious  teaching  in  public  schools,  questions  to  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  Pitman  30 

Ontario  Provincial  Police,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Bullbrook  30 

Transfer  review  board,  question  to  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  Martel  31 

Severances  of  land  in  rural  areas,  questions  to  Mr.  McKeough,  Mr.  Paterson  31 

Acreage  control  of  agricultural  products,  question  to  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr.  Paterson  31 

Fertilizer  costs,  question  to  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr.  Gaunt  32 

Imports  of  tractors,  question  to  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr.  Gaunt  32 

Hardy  report,  question  to  Mr.  McKeough,  Mr.  Knight  32 

Nursing  personnel,  questions  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  Knight  32 

Wire-tapping  equipment,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Singer  33 

Aldermen  in  the  city  of  Toronto,  questions  to  Mr.  McKeough,  Mr.  Singer  34 

Lay-offs  in  Windsor,  questions  to  Mr.  Bales,  Mr.  B.  Newman  34 

Dominion  Forge  Company  strike,  questions  to  Mr.  Bales,  Mr.  B.  Newman  35 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Robarts,  agreed  to 35 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  3  o'clock,  p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  start  our  session  today 
with  the  following  guests  in  the  galleries:  In 
the  east  gallery  are  members  of  the  King 
City  women's  institute  and  students  from 
Appleby  college  in  Oakville.  I  am  sure  we 
welcome  these  people  here  on  the  first  work- 
ing day  of  this  session. 

Petitions. 

Mr.  R.  H.  Knight  (Port  Arthur):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  present  this  12,700- 
signature  petition  from  the  most  neglected 
part  of  Ontario,  northwestern  Ontario. 

While  I  recognize  the  petition  has  already 
done  its  good,  I  still  feel  that  I  have  been 
charged  with  the  responsibility  to  bring  it  to 
the  floor  of  the  Ontario  Legislature  which  I 
am  seeking  to  do  today.  I  would  like  to 
formally  turn  it  over  to  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Robarts)  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order! 

The  member  will  of  course  realize,  because 
he  has  now  had  some  experience  in  the 
House,  that  petitions  to  be  brought  before 
the  House  must  be  brought  in  the  proper  and 
normal  manner.  If  the  member  is  not  aware 
of  the  proper  procedure  I  am  sure  that  the 
Clerk  of  the  House  will  give  him  guidance 
and  tomorrow  it  may  perhaps  be  presented 
in  the  appropriate  manner. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  following  petitions 
have  been  received: 

Of  the  corporation  of  the  city  of  Ottawa 
praying  that  an  Act  may  pass  permitting  the 
corporation  to  establish  a   rental   authority. 

Of  the  Ontario  Co-operative  Credit  Society 
praying  that  an  Act  may  pass  authorizing  an 
increase  in  its  capital. 

Of  the  corporation  of  the  city  of  London 
praying  that  an  Act  may  pass  vesting  the 
management,  operation,  equipment  and  con- 
trol of  the  hospitals  of  the  city  of  London  in 
a  board  called  The  Board  of  Hospital  Trustees 
of  the  city  of  London. 

Of  the  corporation  of  the  borough  of  Scar- 
borough praying  that  an  Act  may  pass  author- 


Wednesday,  November  20,  1968 

izing  the  borough  to  pass  by-laws  respecting 
advertising  devices. 

Of  the  corporation  of  the  town  of  Burling- 
ton praying  that  an  Act  may  pass  establishing 
a  parking  area. 

Of  the  corporation  of  the  city  of  Niagara 
Falls  praying  that  an  Act  may  pass  authoriz- 
ing it  to  exempt,  by  agreement,  owners  and 
occupants  of  buildings  from  the  necessity  of 
supplying  parking  facilities. 

Of  the  corporation  of  the  village  of  Dutton 
and  the  corporation  of  the  township  of  Dun- 
wich  praying  that  an  Act  may  pass  permitting 
them  to  maintain  a  home  for  the  care  of  the 
sick  and  distressed  in  the  area. 

Of  the  corporation  of  the  town  of  Lindsay 
praying  that  an  Act  may  pass  authorizing  the 
removal  or  demolition  of  buildings  that  are 
in  a  ruinous  or  dilapidated  condition. 

Of  Cyril  W.  March,  Daniel  McLean  and 
Donald  Graff  praying  that  an  Act  may  pass 
reviving  March  Diamond  Drilling  Limited. 

Of  the  corporation  of  the  town  of  Parry 
Sound  praying  that  an  Act  may  pass  provid- 
ing that  the  time  limited  for  appealing  the 
1963  decision  of  The  Department  of  Muni- 
cipal Affairs  with  respect  to  the  equalization 
factors  for  that  year  may  be  extended  to 
allow  such  an  appeal  to  be  made. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  R.  S.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  and 
Minister  of  Citizenship):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  beg 
leave  to  present  to  the  House,  the  annual 
report  of  the  liquor  control  board  of  Ontario 
for  the  year  ending  March  31,  1968. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  (Prime  Minister)  moves, 
seconded  by  Hon.  C.  S.  MacNaughton  (Pro- 
vincial Treasurer)  that,  during  the  present 
session  of  the  legislative  assembly,  provision 
be  made  for  the  taking  and  printing  of  reports 
of  debates  and  speeches,  and  to  that  end  Mr. 
Speaker  be  authorized  to  employ  an  editor 
of  debates  and  speeches  and  the  necessary 
stenographers  at  such  rates  of  compensation 
as  may  be  agreed  to  by  him.  Also,  that  Mr. 
Speaker  be  authorized  to  arrange  for  the 
printing    of    the    reports    in   the    amount   of 


10 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


2,500  copies  daily,  copies  of  such  printed 
reports  to  be  supplied  to  the  Honourable  the 
Lieutenant-Governor,  to  Mr.  Speaker,  Clerk 
of  the  legislative  assembly,  to  the  legislative 
library,  each  hon.  member  of  the  assembly, 
to  the  reference  libraries  of  the  province,  to 
the  press  gallery,  to  the  newspapers  of  the 
province  approved  by  Mr.  Speaker,  and  the 
balance  to  be  distributed  by  the  Clerk  of  the 
assembly  as  directed  by  Mr.  Speaker. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts  moves  that  commenc- 
ing on  Friday  next  this  House  will  meet  at 
10:30  a.m.  each  Friday  until  further  order; 
and  that  commencing  on  Monday  next  we 
will  meet  at  2:30  p.m.  each  Monday,  Tues- 
day, Wednesday  and  Thursday  until  further 
order. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  L.  M.  Reilly  (Eglinton)  moves,  sec- 
onded by  Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  (Victoria),  that 
the  standing  committees  of  the  House  for  the 
present  session  be  appointed  as  follows: 
Agriculture  and  food  committee;  education 
and  university  affairs  committee;  govern- 
ment commissions  committee;  health  com- 
mittee; highways  and  transport  committee; 
legal  and  municipal  committee;  labour  com- 
mittee; natural  resources  and  tourism  com- 
mittee; private  bills  committee;  privileges 
and  elections  committee;  public  accounts 
committee;  social,  family  and  correctional 
services  committee;  standing  orders  and 
printing  committee;  which  said  committees 
shall  severally  be  empowered  to  examine  and 
inquire  into  all  such  matters  and  things  as 
may  be  referred  to  them  by  the  House,  and 
to  report  from  time  to  time  their  observations 
and  opinions  thereon  with  the  power  to  send 
for  persons,  papers  and  records. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): At  the  first  session  of  the  Legislature 
a  year  ago  I  drew  to  your  attention,  sir,  and 
to  the  attention  of  the  other  members  of  the 
House,  the  view  the  official  Opposition  has 
that  our  committee  system  is  entirely  inade- 
quate as  it  has  been  set  up  during  previous 
years. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  recount  to  you, 
sir,  the  arguments  that  have  been  put  before 
you  in  the  past  but  to  express  the  displeas- 
ure that  we  on  this  side  of  the  House  have 
that  the  leader  of  the  House  has  not  under- 
taken some  initiative  in  this  matter  to  im- 
prove the  situation  which  in  fact,  under  his 
jurisdiction,  has  been  deteriorating  since 
1961. 


There  have  been  honest  proposals  put  be- 
fore the  House  and  before  the  government, 
Mr.  Speaker,  which  in  fact  would  expedite 
the  work  of  this  Parliament.  It  would  in 
fact  make  the  deliberations  on  matters  that 
are  intended  to  come  before  these  commit- 
tees much  more  meaningful  than  they  can 
now  be  made  with  the  stylized  and  formal 
and  inadequate  approach  that  the  Premier 
of  this  province  takes. 

Now  there  are  many  examples  of  this  very 
matter  that  I  would  like  to  call  to  your  atten- 
tion. For  the  edification  of  the  barrackers 
in  the  back  row,  where  they  will  stay  for 
another  two  years,  surely  they  would  listen 
to  this  matter  and  give  it  their  full  attention, 
because  they  are  the  ones  who  are  driven 
out  of  the  back  rooms,  they  have  to  set 
down  their  euchre  hands- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 

Mr.  Nixon:  —so  that  they  can  come  and  be 
a  majority,  so  that  they  can  come  and  be  a 
majority- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 

Mr.  Nixon:  —and  maintain  the  position  that 
the  Premier  has  ordered  for  so  many  years. 

Now  let  us  look  at  this  reasonably  and  I 
ask  you,  Mr.  Speaker— 

Hon.  J.  H.  White  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Let  us  be  constructive. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  keep 
the  backbenchers  and  the  new  Minister  of  the 
Crown  silent  for  at  least  a  moment  until  we 
can- 
Is  the  Minister  getting  up  on  a  point  of 
order? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order! 

While  we  all  realize  that  this  is  the  opening 
of  a  new  session  and  that  there  are  many 
things  to  be  said  by  all  members,  I  would 
ask  that  the  members  give  the  leader  of  the 
Opposition  a  hearing,  and  thereafter  I  am 
sure  there  are  those  who  will  be  capable  of 
speaking  to  the  matter. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  appreciate  your 
interjection,  but  my  view  is  that  we  must  get 
on  with  the  business  of  the  House.  I  do  not 
intend  to  hold  it  up  at  this  time,  but  I  do 
propose  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  best 
suggestion  to  improve  the  committee  system 
in  many  years  has  come  from  this  side  with 
the  proposal  that  we  enact  the  facilities  for 
an  estimates'  committee  which  would  take 
much  of  the  discussion  on  the  detailed  spend- 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


11 


ing  procedures  of  this  government  into  a  com- 
mittee situation,  where  those  people  who  lead 
the  various  branches  of  the  civil  service 
would  be  prepared  to  give  their  views  on 
factual  matters  and  the  Ministers  would  be 
present  to  state  the  policies  as  they  are  con- 
cerned. 

There  are  many  definite  proposals  that 
should  be  considered.  The  most  important 
besides  an  estimates'  committee  would  be,  for 
example,  that  the  education  committee  would 
not  wait  for  the  tardy  Minister's  approach  to 
legislation,  which  usually  comes  on  in  April 
and  May,  but  that  we  in  fact  constitute  this 
standing  committee  as  a  continuing  one  to  in- 
vestigate the  situation  of  education  in  the 
province  of  Ontario. 

This  is  what  we  are  here  for  and  this  is 
what  I  propose,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  can 
undertake  if  we  have  a  proper  approach  to 
the  committees  that  would  be  constituted  by 
the  government  Whip's  motion. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  I  was  quite  surprised 
that  the  chief  government  Whip  made  this 
motion.  I  seem  to  recall  that  the  motion  is 
usually  the  prerogative  of  the  leader  of  the 
government,  but  it  has  been  put  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Eglinton— 

Mr.  Reilly:  I  am  quite  sure  the  hon.  mem- 
ber wants  to  be  correct,  and  if  he  checks 
Hansard  last  year  he  will  find  it  was  proposed 
by  the  government  Whip. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  glad  to 
see  that  the  Whip  is  here  almost  in  a  new 
identity.  I  understand  he  has  new  facilities 
and  is  building  an  empire  just  outside  the 
Legislature,  and  we  can  expect  a  much  better 
job  from  him  than  we  have  seen  in  the  past. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  It  has 
gone  to  his  head. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Perhaps  a  laurel  wreadi  would 
go  with  this! 

But  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  put  to  you  my 
serious  consideration  that  the  House  would 
be  well  served  by  the  addition  to  the  commit- 
tee list  that  has  been  put  before  us  just  a  few 
moments  ago,  by  the  addition  of  an  estimates' 
committee  which  would  expedite  the  business 
of  the  House. 

And  while  I  am  concerned  with  that,  it 
would  do  something  far  more  important.  It 
would  give  us  a  much  more  democratic  and 
efficient  means  to  examine  not  only  the  Min- 
ister but  his  chief  advisors  in  the  expendi- 
tures of  the  swollen  budgets  that  have  been 


put  before  us  in  the  last  two  years,  and  which 
no  doubt  will  be  put  before  us  in  the  near 
future. 

With  this  in  mind,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
move  an  amendment  to  the  motion  put  be- 
fore us  by  the  member  for  Eglinton,  moved 
by  myself  and  seconded  by  the  member  for 
Downsview  (Mr.  Singer),  that  to  the  list  of 
committees  proposed  be  added  an  estimates' 
committee. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  moved  by  Mr.  Nixon, 
seconded  by  Mr.  Singer,  that  to  the  list  of 
committees  proposed  be  added  an  estimates' 
committee. 

Mrs.  M.  Renwick  (Scarborough  Centre):  I 
move,  seconded  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Windsor  West  (Mr.  Peacock),  that  the  motion 
be  further  amended  by  adding  thereto  the 
following:  housing  and  urban  problems  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Mrs.  Renwick  moves,  sec- 
onded by  Mr.  Peacock,  that  the  motion  be 
further  amended  by  adding  thereto  the  fol- 
lowing: housing  and  urban  problems  com- 
mittee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
rise  to  say  that  I  find  it  necessary  to  vote 
against  both  these  amendments.  If  the  hon. 
member  wants  to  check  Hansard  for  the 
opening  day  or  the  second  day,  for  probably 
the  last  three  years,  the  government's  position 
will  be  found  as  far  as  an  estimates'  commit- 
tee is  concerned. 

As  far  as  the  committee  system  itself  is 
concerned,  as  I  said  last  year,  the  committee 
system,  its  efficiency  and  what  it  is  able  to 
achieve,  really  rests  in  the  hands  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  committees.  If  the  hon.  members 
read  and  listen  to  the  motion,  they  will  note 
it  says  the  committees  may  deal  with  any- 
thing referred  to  them  by  this  House.  There 
has  never  been  any  intent  on  the  part  of  the 
government  to  prevent  any  committee  from 
dealing  with  any  matter  it  wishes  to,  within 
its  terms  of  reference. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Oh,  non- 
sense! 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  I  might  say  the  member 
for  Downsview  said  "nonsense"  last  year  at 
precisely  the  same  juncture. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  is  the  same  nonsense. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  I  am  not  going  to  go 
into  the  question  of  attendance  at  committee 
meetings,  but  we  have  kept  attendance  rec- 
ords quite  carefully  and  it  has  been  said  in 


12 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


this  House  before  that  the  major  delinquents 
in  attendance  at  committees  are  the  official 
Opposition. 

I  am  greatly  interested  in  making  the  com- 
mittee system  work  better.  I  am  interested 
in  anything  that  will  make  the  deliberations 
of  this  House  and  committees  of  the  House 
more  meaningful. 

Last  year  I  undertook  to  provide  staff  if 
that  were  necessary  to  the  committees  in 
carrying  out  their  duties.  Now,  if  these  com- 
mittees wish  to  arrange  programmes  of  exam- 
ination of  various  matters  that  fall  within  the 
terms  of  reference  of  a  specific  committee, 
this  government  will  not  block  them  in  that 
attempt. 

I  would  suggest  to  the  leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition that,  instead  of  waving  his  arms  around, 
shouting  and  making  rude  remarks  across  the 
floor,  he  should  instruct  some  of  his  mem- 
bers on  the  committees  to  get  to  work  and 
make  some  concrete  proposals  as  to  what 
they  would  like  to  do  in  committee;  that 
would  be  a  good  deal  more  constructive  than 
this  same  speech  we  hear  every  year. 

The  whole  secret  of  this  lies  in  the  mem- 
bers' own  hands  so  do  not  thump  the  gov- 
ernment for  it,  just  activate  the  committees 
and  let  us  see  what  happens. 

As  far  as  the  estimates'  committee  is  con- 
cerned, the  estimates  are  very  thoroughly 
examined  in  this  House.  No  doubt  before  the 
Budget  comes  down  there  will  be  some  dis- 
cussion in  this  House  as  to  how  we  are  to 
handle  the  estimates  this  session. 

If,  in  our  examination  of  different  pro- 
cedures here,  we  can  come  to  an  agreement— 
I  do  not  object  to  an  estimates'  committee 
per  se— but  I  do  object  to  appointing  a  com- 
mittee which  is  simply  going  to  do  in  one 
form  what  then  will  be  repeated  in  this 
House.  And  that  is  precisely  what  would 
happen  at  the  present  time. 

Now,  if  we  can  work  out  some  form  of 
committee  that  would  not  simply  lead  to 
duplication,  I  would  be  quite  prepared  to 
look  at  it;  but  simply  to  establish  an  esti- 
mates' committee  at  this  stage  with  this 
amendment,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  very 
practical. 

I  really  do  not  think  it  is  necessary  to  have 
a  select  committee  of  the  House  to  deal  with 
housing  and  urban  problems.  I  might  say 
that  this  suggestion  has  not  been  made  to 
me  up  until  this  time.  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  Whips  met,  but  ordinarily  they  do  to  go 
over  the  list  of  committees  because  we  have 
changed  them  around  and  broadened  them. 


I  do  not  know  whether  this  suggestion  has 
ever  come  forward  but  I  think  there  are  all 
kinds  of  areas  in  which  housing  and  urban 
problems  can  be  considered,  and  I  do  not 
think  that  at  this  stage,  it  is  necessary  we 
establish  another  committee  of  the  House. 
We  have  enough  difficulties  in  getting  atten- 
dance and  getting  some  meaningful  work 
done  as  it  is. 

I  recall,  when  I  was  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion, that  I  got  hold  of  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  education  and,  over  a  period 
of  two  or  three  years,  we  examined  every  area 
of  that  department  and  how  it  functioned. 
We  brought  all  the  civil  servants  before  the 
committee  to  answer  any  questions  the  mem- 
bers might  have. 

That  went  on  very  nicely  for  about  two 
years  but  I  dropped  it  eventually  because 
the  attendance  faded  away  and  I  had  the 
officials  from  the  department  there  but  I 
really  did  not  have  much  attendance  from 
the  members.  But  however,  these  things- 
Mr.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  you  will  permit  me.  The  standing 
committee  on  education  to  which  the  Prime 
Minister  refers  was  chaired  by  the  present 
Minister  of  Revenue  and  I  must  say  that 
that  committee  has  not  functioned  properly 
since  he  gave  up  that  chairmanship.  Perhaps 
he  should  have  been  kept  there  rather  than 
given  his  new  responsibility. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Well,  I  accept  full  re- 
sponsibility for  the  appointments  to  this  gov- 
ernment but— 

Mr.  E.  W.  Sopha  (Sudbury):  The  Prime 
Minister  has  got  to  live  with  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  I  will  live  very  comfort- 
ably with  them  for  the  foreseeable  future. 

But  I  mention  this  simply  to  illustrate  my 
point  that  the  committees  contain  within 
themselves  the  ability  and  the  power  to 
accomplish  just  about  anything  the  members 
on  the  committees  want  to  accomplish.  There- 
fore, I  do  not  think  the  point  made  by  the 
leader  of  the  Opposition— is  well  taken  and  I 
propose  to  vote  against  these  two  amend- 
ments. 

Mr.  J.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  Let  them 
make  up  their  own  minds. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  Order!  Order! 

The  member  for  Riverdale  has  the  floor  if 
he  wishes  to  avail  himself  of  it. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


13 


Mr.  J.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  listened  to 
the  same  remarks  of  the  Prime  Minister  this 
year  as  we  heard  last  year  about  these  stand- 
ing committees  of  the  legislative  assembly. 

I  was  fascinated  by  the  paragraph  at  the 
bottom  of  page  three  of  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne  which  says  that  all  programmes 
financed,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  provincial 
taxpayers  but  administered  by  other  public 
authorities,  including  municipalities,  boards  of 
education,  universities,  colleges  of  applied 
arts  and  technology,  Crown  corporations  and 
other  boards  and  commissions,  will  be  subject 
to  intense  public  scrutiny  to  ensure  that  maxi- 
mum efficiency  is  attained. 

I  had  thought,  of  course,  that  the  intense 
public  scrutiny  would  be  carried  on  by  the 
standing  committees  of  this  Legislature.  I 
had  assumed  that  under  the  government  com- 
missions the  majority  of  the  boards  and  com- 
missions and  Crown  corporations  would 
appear  for  this  public  scrutiny,  which  has 
not  as  yet,  taken  place  before  that  committee. 

I    had    assumed    also,    that    the   boards  of 

education,    the    universities    and    colleges  of 

applied     arts     and     technology,     would  be 

appearing  before  the  standing  committee  on 
education  and  university  affairs. 

If  this  is  not  to  be  the  case  —  and  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne  seems  to  be  explicit 
on  the  matter— then  I  would  ask  in  what  way 
are  these  various  emanations— including  the 
municipalities  and  the  other  bodies  listed— 
in  what  way  are  they  going  to  be  subject  to 
intense  public  scrutiny? 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  would  be  my  opinion  that 
the  matter  raised  by  the  member  for  River- 
dale  is  extraneous  to  the  discussion  before 
the  House  at  the  moment. 

I  would  also  like  to  say  to  the  members 
that  I  have  had  a  note  from  the  press  gallery 
that  the  speaker  system  is  not  working  very 
well  and  they  would  request  that  the  mem- 
bers speak  up.  Perhaps  the  technicians  listen- 
ing might  check  on  it. 

The  member  for  Scarborough  Centre  now 
has  the  floor. 

Mrs.  M.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  surely  the 
concern  of  providing  a  place  for  the  public 
unrest  in  housing  and  urban  problems  to 
come,  rather  than  having  them  fester  out 
there,  as  they  are  at  this  present  time,  is 
an  overriding  consideration  as  to  whether 
this  government  could  bear  the  burden  of 
another  committee. 

The  unrest  that  is  in  our  society  in  the 
metropolitan  area  of  Toronto  right  now  has 
to  have  a  place  to  come.    The  reason  why 


the  Prime  Minister  has  not  heard  from  this 
side  of  the  House,  from  my  own  particular 
seat,  on  this  question  before  is  that  in  re- 
viewing our  committees  today,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  felt  that  it  was  urgent  that  we  provide  a 
place  where  the  people  of  this  province  can 
come  with  their  briefs,  with  their  complaints, 
with  their  unrest. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  comment  on  the 
two  ammendments  that  are  now  before  the 
House. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  There  is  no  doubt  as  to 
who  is  leader  of  the  party,  if  you  have  not 
heard.  News  travels  slowly  to  the  Tory 
benches  but  I  thought  I  would  help  them. 

Interjections   by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  Order! 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  do  not  wish  to  rehash 
the  debates  of  earlier  years,  but  apparently 
it  becomes  necessary  as  sometimes  rather 
serious  matters  get  lost. 

Let  me  deal  first  with  the  question  of  a 
committee  on  estimates.  There  would  be  one 
value  in  a  committee  on  estimates.  Some 
cabinet  ministers  on  that  side  of  the  House 
know  their  departments  and,  if  you  ask  them 
a  question,  they  can  reply.  Other  cabinet 
ministers  have  not  a  clue.  They  have  their 
ear  down,  trying  to  get  fed  the  information 
so  that  we  have  to  have  the  information  from 
the  people  in  the  department  who  do  know, 
strained  through  a  minister  who  is  nearly 
incompetent. 

Do  not  force  me  to  name  names  because 
I  will  if  I  have  to. 

There  will  be  one  value,  Mr.  Speaker,  in 
having  an  estimates'  committee  and  that 
would  be,  to  have  come  before  the  estimates' 
committee,  Deputy  Ministers  and  various 
other  experts  in  the  department  so  that  we 
could  quiz  them  directly. 

However,  there  are  two  factors  that  flow 
from  that.  The  first  is  that  some  people  think 
—and  this  is  really  the  important  point  I 
want  to  make— that  if  you  have  a  discussion 
of  the  estimates  before  the  estimates'  com- 
mittee, there  will  be  less  discussion  in  the 
House.    It  does  not  happen. 

In  Ottawa  they  discovered  that  the  repeti- 
tion does  not  reduce  the  consideration  in  the 
House.  If  I  have  to  choose  between  whether 
or  not  we  are  going  to  have  a  little  greater 
flexibility  out  in  a  committee  or  deal  here 
with  the  Minister,  who,  in  the  final  analysis, 


14 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is  responsible— if  he  is  incompetent  let  his 
incompetence  be  spread  before  the  world 
starting  with  this  House— that  is  the  important 
thing.  I  want  to  see  the  estimates  considered 
in  this  House  on  the  record  as  fully  as  this 
House  deems  necessary  so  that  we  know 
precisely  where  we  are.  The  reason  why  I 
have  some  hesitation  in  getting  drawn  into 
the  proposition  of  an  estimates'  committee  is 
because  I  foresee  the  prospect  that  it  will 
become  a  substitute  for  debate  in  this  House, 
and  in  my  view  that  is  the  top  priority. 

On  the  second  issue,  I  am  not  going  to 
repeat  what  the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre  has  said.  She  has  made  the  case  for 
a  committee,  but  unfortunately  the  Prime 
Minister  has  rather  a  closed  minded  approach 
to  it.  He  just  automatically  discards  it,  as 
is  the  usual  fashion  by  this  government. 

Housing  and  urban  problems— you  review 
them  and  where  will  they  come  up?  Housing 
will  come  up,  I  presume,  under  government 
commissions.  I  suspect  maybe  most  of  them 
may  be  brought  under  government  commis- 
sions, so  that  you  have  a  committee  that  deals 
with  literally  80  or  90  commissions  through- 
out the  whole  range  of  the  affairs  of  this 
province,  and  in  it  the  question  of  housing 
and  urban  affairs  gets  lost. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  this  government  does  not 
know  as  yet  that  it  is  sitting  on  a  time  bomb 
in  terms  of  unmet  housing  and  urban  prob- 
lems, then  it  will  find  out  in  the  next 
election.  Let  it  now  ignore  a  more  rational, 
sensible  approach  to  this  kind  of  problem, 
because  it  will  suffer  the  consequences  at  the 
next  election.  Maybe  that  is  the  appropriate 
way  to  do  it  them,  if  it  is  intent  on  being 
stubborn. 

Mr.  Singer:  In  the  second  session  of  the 
28th  Legislature,  we  are  again  embarking  on 
the  ritual  rain  dance  that  has  heralded  sessions 
of  this  Legislature  since  1867,  and  before 
that  when  it  was  the  Legislature  of  Upper 
Canada.  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
in  a  time  when  we  have  so  many  serious 
problems  to  face,  we  must  revise  our  pro- 
cedures in  order  to  deal  with  our  problems 
in  a  sensible  and  logical  way. 

If  we  listen  to  the  words  of  the  Treasurer, 
and  listen  to  the  words  of  the  Premier,  the 
province  is  on  the  verge  of  a  fiscal  night- 
mare, and  we  are  now  going  to  spend  four 
to  six  weeks  listening  to  the  debate  on  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne,  a  meaningless  docu- 
ment as  it  was  enunciated  yesterday.  We  are 
going  to  hear  the  speeches  about  "the  hills 
and  the  valleys  of  my  riding"  coming  from 
117  or  a  lesser  number  of  members,  and  we 


are  not  going  to  get  down  to  the  fiscal  prob- 
lems that  face  this  province,  Mr.  Speaker, 
until  we  have  sat  for  another  eight  or  ten 
weeks. 

It  would  seem  to  me  that  since  we  are 
forced  into  the  straitjacket  of  that  kind  of 
procedure,  perhaps  at  this  time  we  could 
depart  just  a  little  bit  so  that,  hopefully, 
members  of  this  House  can  get  down  to 
some  of  the  real  problems  that  face  it.  That 
is  why  the  resolution,  or  the  amendment, 
moved  by  my  leader,  makes  abundant  good 
sense,  and  the  reply  made  by  the  Premier 
makes  no  sense  at  all. 

The  Premier  says,  for  instance,  that  the 
committees  can  deal  with  anything  they  want. 
Now,  collectively  their  decisions  are  the  view 
of  the  government  majority,  and  as  the  gov- 
ernment majority  dictates,  and  as  the  gov- 
ernment chosen  chairman  dictates,  so  the 
committees  act. 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  That  is  not  so. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  is  not  what  the  members  of 
the  House  want  to  deal  with,  it  is  what  the 
government  ordains  that  the  committees  shall 
deal  with  that  is  considered.  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  have  hoped  that  the  elevation  of  the 
hon.  member  for  London  South  to  the  cabinet 
would  have  removed  him  from  the  position 
of  director  of  the  House,  but  apparently  it 
has  made  no  difference.  His  capacity  is  so 
great  that  apparently  he  can  run  the  House 
and  run  his  department  as  well.  I  wish  him 
good  luck  but  I  am  sure  he  is  going  to  need 
it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  an  example  occurs  to  me,  or 
a  very  obvious  example,  about  committees 
being  able  to  do  anything  they  want,  and 
that  is  the  committee  on  commissions.  For 
several  years  we  tried  to  find  out  what 
happened  in  the  Niagara  parks  commission. 
For  several  years  the  government  refused  us 
this  privilege  and  one  day  when  we  had  a 
couple  of  hours— and  that  is  all  that  was 
allocated  to  the  Niagara  parks  commission— a 
vote  was  forced  as  to  whether  or  not  that 
matter  could  be  discussed,  and  what 
happened? 

As  the  discussion  took  place  and  the  debate 
took  place  in  that  committee,  it  became 
obvious  to  the  deputy  whip,  the  member  for 
Durham,  that  his  party  was  outvoted,  so  as 
the  debate  progressed  and  it  was  obvious  that 
the  record,  the  tawdry  record,  of  the  Niagara 
parks  commission  was  going  to  be  made 
public,  what  did  the  deputy  government 
Whip  from  Durham  do?  He  ran  out  into  the 
corridors  and  just  in  time  as  the  vote  was 
being  called,  he  literally  marched  in— "go,  go, 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


15 


go,  go"— a  half  a  dozen  back  benchers  who 
did  not  know  what  was  under  discussion  so 
that  they  could  vote  against  the  matter  be- 
coming a  public  issue. 

Now  that  is  the  sort  of  thing  that  in  the 
Premier's  words,  means  that  "the  commit- 
tees can  do  anything  they  want".  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  is  a  denial  of  democracy. 

Let  us  get  on  with  this.  The  committees 
only  meet  when  the  chairman  calls  them  to 
meet  and  they  can  only  do  what  the  govern- 
ment majority  will  let  them  do. 

Surely  the  time  has  come  when  we  should 
become  practical  in  dealing  with  the  affairs 
of  this  province,  and  when  we  should  have 
more  time  and  more  ability  to  examine  the 
estimates,  and  to  bring  before  us  the  senior 
civil  servants  who  are  responsible  so  that 
they  can  be  asked  questions  and  there  can 
be  sufficient  time  to  do  it.  For  that  reason 
it  makes  good  sense  if  the  amendment  moved 
by  my  leader  be  supported. 

Let  me  comment  briefly  on  the  amendment 
moved  by  the  member  for  Scarborough 
Centre.  Surely  we  must  adapt  our  procedures 
to  the  problems  of  the  present  day  world,  and 
anyone  with  half  an  eye  can  see  that  there 
is  a  very  serious  problem  existing  in  the  big 
cities  here  in  Ontario. 

You  do  not  have  to  be  any  genius— you  do 
not  even  have  to  sit  in  the  government 
benches— to  discover  that  there  is  a  housing 
crisis  in  Ontario,  and  what  better  way  could 
there  be  to  deal  with  a  housing  crisis,  and 
with  urban  problems,  than  to  have  a  special 
committee  of  this  House  dealing  with  that  at 
regular  times  and  with  a  regular  agenda?  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  think  it  is  time  that  we  brought 
our  procedures  up  to  date  and  I  would  hope 
that  the  hon.  members  of  the  House  would 
support  both  of  these  amendments. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  last  session  was  my  first  experi- 
ence as  a  member  of  this  Legislature  and 
one  in  which  I  participated  with  interest 
because  it  was  the  first  time  that  I  had  had 
an  opportunity  to  compare  the  method  of 
reviewing  procedures  and  operations  of  gov- 
ernment versus  business.  I  was  a  member  of 
four  different  committees,  two  of  which  were 
quite  active— namely,  private  bills  and  the 
education  committee,  it  being  involved  with 
a  contentious  bill  that  required  a  lot  of  hear- 
ings. 

The  private  bills  committee,  of  course,  was 
on  the  regular  business  of  private  bills.  The 
other  two  were  municipal  affairs  and  trans- 
port, which  had  in  one  case,  two   or  three 


meetings,  and  in  the  other  one,  I  think  one 
meeting. 

In  each  case,  it  did  not  give  those  of  us 
on  that  committee  an  opportunity  to  look  into 
the  operation  of  the  department  concerned, 
or  question  people  about  it.  To  my  mind  we 
are,  in  effect,  directors  representing  the  share- 
holders or  people  of  this  province  and  instead 
of  a  few  thousand  shareholders  in  the  case 
of  companies  there  are— 

Hon.  Mr.  White:  That  is  the  C.  D.  Howe 
approach  to  government. 

Mr.  Deacon:  —millions  of  them  in  con- 
nection with  the  people  who  pay  the  taxes 
in  this  province.  They  are,  as  the  hon. 
Minister  from  London  South  knows,  terribly 
concerned  about  the  way  our  money  is  being 
spent— and  we  heard  that  more  than  we  heard 
anything  else  this  summer.  They  see  the 
amount  we  are  going  to  have  to  raise  and 
they  say,  "Surely  to  goodness,  can  we  not 
find  more  efficient  ways  of  spending  those 
dollars?"  As  it  now  stands,  each  Minister  is 
fully  occupied  with  his  own  department.  He 
is  speaking  for  his  own  department  in  the 
cabinet,  which  is  in  a  way,  the  inner  circle 
which  is  deciding  how  much  money  is  going 
to  be  spent  by  the  government.  There  is  no 
one  from  the  outside  looking  on,  as  is  the 
case  with  the  boards  of  directors  of  com- 
panies, where  shareholders  have  someone 
from  the  outside  looking  in  and  questioning 
the  way  departments  are  being  operated. 

I  think  that  we  must  take  a  new  look  at 
this  committee  system.  We  must  not  just  be 
called  when  there  is  a  bill  before  us  that  is 
contentious.  We  must  be  given  an  oppor- 
tunity to  discuss  with  members  of  the  depart- 
ment—with the  Minister  present,  of  course— 
what  the  procedures  are  and  the  policies  in 
each  of  the  various  branches  of  the  depart- 
ment. 

In  one  of  the  departments  for  which  I  was 
given  responsibility  last  year,  I  was  given,  by 
the  Minister,  an  absolute  open  hand  to  go 
in  and  ask  questions  and  find  out  what  I 
wanted.  In  the  other  case,  I  was  told  "hands 
off".  The  only  opportunity  I  had  to  speak  or 
question  the  department  was  when  it  came 
before  the  estimates  of  the  House.  This  is 
not  the  time  that  we  can  really  dig  in  and 
find  good  sound  reasons  and  facts,  because  it 
is  just  wasting  the  time  of  the  House.  Many 
of  these  things  are  detailed— things  that  you 
want  to  assemble  and  then  come  to  a  con- 
clusion as  to  how  wisely  the  administration 
is  being  handled. 

I  do  urge  that  the  Prime  Minister  recon- 
sider the  roles  of  the  committees  and  make 


16 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


much  more  use  of  them.  Perhaps  cutting  out 
our  evening  sessions  and  calling  committee 
meetings  then.  On  more  than  one  occasion 
I  had  two  or  three  committee  meetings  all 
at  the  same  time  and  if  our  attendance  was 
not  always  good,  I  suggest  that  this  is  one 
of  the  reasons. 

I  know  in  the  case  of  the  education  com- 
mittee that  many  times  the  Opposition  out- 
numbered members  of  the  government,  as  far 
as  representation  there— 

An  hon.  member:  Until  the  vote  came  and 
they  dragged  them  in  by  the  coat  collars. 

Mr.  Deacon:  But  those  of  us  who  are 
willing  to  find  out  how  departments  for 
which  we  have  concern  are  operated  should 
be  given  a  much  greater  opportunity  than 
now  is  available  to  us  in  the  open  sessions  of 
the  House. 

An  hon.  member:  Well  said. 

Mr.  H.  Peacock  (Windsor  West):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  just  want  very  briefly  and  as  vigor- 
ously as  I  can,  to  ask  the  Prime  Minister  to 
reconsider  his  opposition  to  the  establishment 
of  a  committee  on  housing  and  urban  prob- 
lems. 

He  cannot  offer  his  objections  that  this  will 
be  one  of  those  committees  which  will  not  be 
well  attended.  I  can  assure  him  that  the 
urban  members  from  both  sides  of  this  House 
will  be  in  full  attendance  at  such  a  commit- 
tee, if  the  scheduling  of  committee  sessions 
is  properly  drawn  up. 

He  has  now  had  an  opportunity  to  consider 
the  arguments  of  the  official  Opposition  in 
support  of  the  establishment  of  an  estimates' 
committee.  He  may  well  not  be  able  to  re- 
consider that  proposal.  But  I  urge  him  to 
reconsider,  if  he  cannot  do  so  at  this  moment, 
his  position  on  the  establishment  of  a  com- 
mittee on  housing  and  urban  affairs  and,  at  a 
subsequent  session,  at  his  pleasure,  introduce 
a  motion  for  the  establishment  of  such  a 
committee  after  he  has  reflected  as  to  who, 
among  his  members,  could  properly  be  ap- 
pointed to  this  chairmanship. 

I  appeal  to  the  Prime  Minister  to  do  this, 
Mr.  Speaker,  because  the  urgency  of  this  area 
of  our  provincial  affairs  is  so  great— and  de- 
spite the  progress  that  his  own  Minister 
asserts  the  government  is  making  with  it— I 
feel  that  the  Prime  Minister  himself  feels  it 
is  so  great  that  it  is  deserving  of  the  atten- 
tion that  only  a  committee  of  this  House  can 
give  to  that  problem. 


Mr.  Reilly:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all  I  would 
like  to  say  that  I  listened  to  the  hon.  leader 
of  the  Opposition  at  the  last  session  at  the 
same  time  introduce  the  same  thoughts  that  he 
repeated  here  today.  May  I  suggest  to  him 
that  as  far  as  the  estimates'  committee  is 
concerned  this  was  discussed  by  the  repre- 
sentative Whips  of  all  three  parties.  We,  as 
members  of  the  government,  were  not  op- 
posed to  an  estimates'  committee,  but  the 
members  of  the  Opposition  were  opposed  to 
an  estimates'  committee.  We  could  get  no 
unanimity  among  the  Whips  themselves  for 
an  estimates'  committee. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Nonsense! 

Mr.  Reilly:  This  is  not  nonsense.  This  is 
fact,  if  the  hon.  leader  of  the  Opposition 
wants  to  reflect  upon  it. 

To  hear  the  hon.  member  for  Downsview 
suggest  that  the  government  ordains  whatever 
committee  work  the  committee  is  going  to 
deal  with  is  nonsense.  This  is  nonsense,  be- 
cause I  was  the  chairman  of  a  committee  in 
this  House  and  I  was  never  instructed  by  the 
government  what  should  appear  before  this 
committee.  It  was  left  to  the  chairman  and  it 
was  left  to  the  members  of  the  committee  to 
deal  with  whatever  they  wanted  to  do. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Subject  to  the  majority  Tories 
who  are  notoriously  dull. 

Mr.  Reilly:  Well  let  us  not  deal  with 
absenteeism,  because  I  do  not  think,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  we  accomplish  anything  in  this 
House  by  dealing  with  who  attends  and  who 
is  absent  and  what  the  attendance  is. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  agree. 

Mr.  Reilly:  Because  if  you  want  to  deal 
with  this  I  have  facts  and  figures  that  might 
prove  a  little  embarrassing  to  the  Opposition, 
but  I  see  nothing  accomplished  to  bring  this 
up  every  time.    What  I  am  suggesting— 

Mr.  Singer:  The  hon.  member  left  his  toga 
off  today. 

Mr.  Reilly:  What  I  am  suggesting  to  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  as  far  as  the  estimates' 
committee  is  concerned,  the  members  of  the 
government  and  all  the  members  in  the 
House  are  rather  anxious  to  do  anything  that 
will  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  House.  So 
far  today,  I  have  heard  nothing  that  is  going 
to  help  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  House. 
Under  the  circumstances,  of  course,  I  would 
vote  against  both  amendments. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  Mr. 
Speaker— 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


17 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Lake- 
shore  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  speak  very 
briefly  on  this. 

As  far  as  the  question  of  attendance  is  con- 
cerned, I  noticed  last  year  that  very  often- 
one  being  on  a  committee— we  are  expected 
to  be  in  two  places  at  the  same  time.  The 
scheduling  of  these  things  in  part  accounts,  I 
suspect,  for  the  attendance  on  certain  occa- 
sions. 

Now  a  second  thing  touching  this  attend- 
ance situation.  I  can  well  recall,  Mr.  Speaker, 
two  or  three  occasions  in  the  education  com- 
mittee—which I  think  the  Opposition,  over 
here,  attended  assiduously  because  of  the 
importance  of  the  issues.  We  very  well  might 
have  scuttled  the  whole  of  Bill  44  in  it— and 
the  whole  set-up  of  education  that  went 
through  this  House  last  year.  We  used  to  sit 
around  and  joke  a  little  bit  about  it.  It  is  you 
people  over  there  that  are  ineffective  in  pro- 
ducing the  bodies,  not  to  speak  of  produc  fag 
the  minds— necessary  to  advert  to  these  mat- 
ters. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  third  point, 
why  cannot  the  hon.  Prime  Minister  give 
consideration  to  updating  these  committees 
anciently  contained  in  Alex  C.  Lewis's  book 
here?  When  pressing  problems  of  the  day 
arise  of  an  extraordinary  character,  why  can- 
not a  committee  be  set  to  work  such  as  in  this 
area  of  housing— which  is  a  major  concern  to 
all  of  us  at  this  time— so  the  public  may  have 
a  greater  access  to  us?  So  that  briefs  may  be 
heard,  so  that  a  voice  is  given  and  methods 
worked  out  that  are  directly  referable  to  the 
members  in  this  Chamber!  So  that  we  are 
made  thoroughly  cognizant,  not  that  we  are 
not  already  well  acquainted  with,  the  prob- 
lems involved! 

Again,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  ask  that  the 
hon.  Prime  Minister  reconsider,  update,  be 
open,  and  bring  this  Legislature  into  con- 
formity with  the  times. 

Mr.  T.  Reid  (Scarborough  East):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  just  make  one  or  two  com- 
ments, one  of  a  general  nature  and  another 
of  a  specific  one. 

The  first  is  really  in  the  form  of  a  question 
to  the  Premier  of  the  province.  It  is  a  con- 
tinuing question,  and  that  is,  when  are  we 
going  to  get  down  to  a  very  hard-headed 
look  at  the  total  reform  of  the  way  this  Legis- 
lature conducts  its  business?  I  would  have 
liked  to  have  seen  in  the  Premier's  state- 
ment at  least  an  indication  that  he  is  serious 


about  reforming  the  outdated  ways  of  doing 
business  in  this  province. 

You  are  running,  if  you  like,  a  very  large 
enterprise,  spending  a  lot  of  money,  and  I 
for  one  am  very  worried  that  we  cannot  cope 
with  the  social  problems,  housing  and  urban 
affairs,  along  the  same  lines  as  this  House  has 
tried  to  cope  with  other  problems  over  the 
past  25  years. 

I  think  this  year  is  the  time  to  reform  the 
procedures  of  the  House,  to  reform  the  way 
in  which  criticism  can  be  effective  from  Her 
Majesty's  Loyal  Opposition,  and  I  would  like 
to  see  that  started  this  year.  So,  I  would 
suggest  to  the  government,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
we  must  move  to  reform  the  procedures  of 
this  House,  to  update  them,  so  that  we  can 
better  provide  the  services  to  the  people  of 
this  province  than  we  have  in  the  past. 

I  am  worried  in  particular  that  all  mean- 
ingful democracy,  to  quote  the  member  for 
Port  Arthur  (Mr.  Knight),  must  move  out  of 
the  Legislature  onto  the  front  steps  of  the 
legislative  building.    I  believe— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  member  is 
speaking  to  a  motion  with  respect  to  an 
amendment  to  a  motion  with  respect  to  the 
creation  of  committees  of  this  Legislature. 
As  yet,  he  has  not  yet  reached  that  particular 
area  of  discussion  and  I  would  ask  him  that 
he  do  so. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  simply  say 
that  I  am  glad  at  least  that  we  have  a  com- 
mittee system.  I  would  like  to  see  it  part  of 
a  much  larger  programme  of  reform  in  this 
House. 

The  specific  suggestion  I  would  like  to 
make  to  the  government  is  that  the  commit- 
tees of  the  Legislature,  the  standing  commit- 
tees of  the  Legislature,  not  be  staffed  by 
departmental  officials.  I  think  these  com- 
mittees, since  they  are  legislative  committees, 
should  be  staffed  through  the  Clerk's  office. 
I  would  like  to  see  services  provided  not  by 
civil  servants  of  the  government  side  who  see 
their  role  as  providing  services  to  government 
members  only,  but  by  members  of  the  Clerk's 
staff. 

I  would  like  to  have  objective  secretaries 
of  those  committees  writing  objective  re- 
ports, instead  of  leaving  out  many  valuable 
comments  that  many  Opposition  members 
make  in  any  notes  they  take. 

And  finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  hope 
that  the  government  members  and  particu- 
larly, in  this  case  the  Minister  of  Education 
would    take    their    responsibilities    and    his 


18 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


responsibilities  more  seriously  and  show  up 
at  more  of  these  meetings  of  the  education 
committee. 

Mr.  C.  G.  Pilkey  (Oshawa):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  will  not  spend  any  time  on  the  question  of 
a  committee  for  the  estimates.  I  believe  that 
we  had  considerable  dialogue  on  that  mat- 
ter at  the  beginning  of  the  last  session,  and 
I  think  the  situation  has  not  differed  from 
that  time  and  so  I  think  our  position  is  very 
clear  in  that  regard. 

But  this  question  of  a  housing  and  urban 
problems  committee  is  a  new  suggestion  to 
this  House.  I  recall,  during  the  session,  that 
I  asked  this  government  to  initiate  a  special 
discussion  on  the  whole  question  of  housing. 
Obviously  this  fell  on  deaf  ears  and  this 
debate  never  really  took  place.  So  the  sug- 
gestion that  has  been  made  by  my  colleague 
is  that  we  do  provide  a  forum  to— 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
point  out  to  the  member  that  we  spent  days 
and  days  discussing  the  whole  problem  of 
housing  in  this  province  during  the  esti- 
mates of  the  hon.  Minister  who  is  in  charge 
of  the  housing  corporation.  So  it  really  is 
not  accurate  to  say  that  there  is  no  forum 
for  discussion  of  housing  in  this  Legislature, 
because,  of  course,  there  is. 

Mr.  Pilkey:  I  withdraw  those  remarks  on 
the  basis  that  I  recognize  there  was  some 
discussion  but  I  think  we  must  have  a  con- 
tinuing forum,  not  just  a  forum  where  we 
discuss  it  during  the  Minister's  estimates.  We 
must  have  a  continuing  forum,  because  this 
problem  has  not  been  met. 

It  is  not  only  in  the  Metro  area,  I  sug- 
gest, Mr.  Speaker;  it  is  right  across  the 
length  and  breadth  of  this  whole  province, 
this  question  of  housing.  And  it  is  critical. 
I  raised  it  because  I  experienced  problems 
in  my  own  area.  Now  do  not  tell  me  that 
the  backbenchers  of  the  Conservative  gov- 
ernment are  not  meeting  these  same  prob- 
lems in  their  areas. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Minister  of  Correc- 
tional Services):  All  right,  we  shall  not  tell 
the  member. 

Mr.  Pilkey:  Okay,  do  not  tell  me,  but  I 
suspect  very  strongly  that  you  do  meet  these 
problems  and  what  better  way  to  bring  those 
problems  to  the  attention  of  the  government 
than  through  a  committee  instead  of  raising 
them  continually  here  in  the  Legislature?  As 
a  matter  of  fact  as  I  pointed  out  earlier,  the 
forum  is  not  provided  on  a  continuous  basis. 
So   I  support  my   colleague's   motion   and   I 


think  the  government  should  give  this  sug- 
gestion top  priority  in  terms  of  its  imple- 
mentation. 

Mr.  N.  Whitney  (Prince  Edward-Lennox): 
Mr.  Speaker,  relative  to  the  discussions  that 
have  been  held,  I  would  like  to  refer  back 
to  two  years  ago,  the  1966  session  I  think  it 
was,  when  I  was  chairman  of  government 
commissions.  At  that  time,  at  our  first  meet- 
ing, the  committee  made  suggestions  as  to 
the  particular  commissions  it  would  like  to 
have  brought  before  the  committee. 

To  the  best  of  our  ability  we  followed 
the  suggestion  that  was  made  regardless  of 
the  party  or  the  politics  of  the  member 
making  the  suggestion.  During  that  session, 
I  believe  we  had  some  15  government  com- 
missions or  more  before  us,  and  I  might  say 
that  one  of  the  commissions  that  the  Opposi- 
tion members  were  most  desirous  to  deal 
with  was   the  water  resources   commission. 

Our  member  on  the  water  resources  com- 
mission was  kind  enough  to  make  arrange- 
ments to  take  us  out  to  their  laboratory  and 
to  have  a  detailed  discussion  with  key  offi- 
cials, describing  the  whole  situation.  We 
saw  the  testing  of  water,  and  they  made  a 
most  interesting  day  of  it.  Yet  on  that  occa- 
sion there  was  just  one  Opposition  member 
present.  So  consequently  I  do  feel  that  the 
Opposition  is  not  giving  credit  to  the  efforts 
made  by  the  government  to  make  informa- 
tion available.    That  concludes  my  remarks. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  wish  to  make  just  a  few  comments  on  the 
need  for  a  housing  and  urban  problems 
committee.  One  area  that  has  not  yet  been 
touched  and  one  that  is  creating  great  prob- 
lems throughout  this  province  is  the  matter 
of  tenancy.  This  would  be  a  committee 
where  tenants  throughout  the  province  could 
come  to  air  their  views  and  to  explain  to 
the  government  the  cruel  conditions  of  ten- 
ancy that  are  presently  being  forced  upon 
them. 

There  is  a  great  need  for  reform;  there 
is  a  need  for  a  place  where  people  of  this 
province  can  come  and  explain  to  this  gov- 
ernment—which is  obviously  so  far  out  of 
touch— the  great  problems  they  are  being 
confronted  with  at  this  time.  And  I  urge 
every  government  member,  and  especially 
those  who  come  from  urban  areas,  to  reflect 
for  a  moment  about  the  problems  of  ten- 
ancy in  the  areas  from  which  they  come  and 
to  support  the  formation  of  a  committee  on 
housing  and  urban  problems. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


19 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Scarborough 
West. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  the 
government  and  the  Prime  Minister  to  realize 
that  the  sub-amendment  placed  by  the  New 
Democratic  Party  today  springs  from  the 
overwhelming  magnanimity  which  we  have 
for  the  government  on  occasion.  It  is  the 
milk  of  human  kindness,  Mr.  Prime  Minister, 
which  charges  through  our  veins. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  one  must  exercise  a  little  compassion  for 
this  government  because  it  will  be  brought 
down  in  the  next  three  years  by  the  dis- 
integration in  its  ranks  around  urban  prob- 
lems and  housing— make  no  mistake  about  it. 

What  we  are  trying  to  do,  Mr.  Speaker, 
with  that  beneficence  which  is  characteristic 
of  social  democrats,  is  to  provide  a  certain 
funnel  for  the  obvious  public  discontent  which 
animates  this  area,  and  I  must  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  there  is  a  magnificent  obtuse- 
ness  on  the  part  of  the  government  in  this 
field. 

The  fact  that  the  Ontario  housing  corpora- 
tion no  longer  functions  in  any  meaningful 
way;  the  moment  this  committee  was  raised 
in  the  House  the  Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development  fled  for  his  very  life;  the— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  May  I  advise  the 
member  and  the  members  of  the  House  that 
I  had  a  note  from  the  Minister  who  had  an 
appointment  in  Trenton  which  he  had  to 
keep  and,  therefore,  had  to  leave. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  accept  that  and 
I  hope  that  he  is  building  a  house  in  Trenton. 
It  would  be  a  refreshing  turn  of  events. 

The  Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs  has 
busied  himself  frantically  with  paper  work 
in  order  to  avoid  joining  the  issue,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  the  Prime  Minister  himself 
trembles  quietly  in  his  seat  because  he 
knows,  as  all  of  us  know,  that  the  sands  of 
time  are  running  out  around  the  issue  of 
urban  problems. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Ontario  housing  corpora- 
tion no  longer  functions.  The  area  of  low 
rental  housing  has  not  been  adequately 
attended  to.  The  HOME  plan  is  exposed 
everywhere  through  the  province  of  Ontario 
as  a  ludicrous  fantasy  on  the  part  of  govern- 
ment. It  is  evident,  in  terms  of  the  tenant 
situation  here,  even  in  metropolitan  Toronto, 
that  that  is  reaching  an  explosive  ignition 
point 

For  its  own  sake,  let  alone  for  the  sake  of 
the  people  of  the  province,  the  government 


would  be  wise  to  allow  a  committee  on  hous- 
ing and  urban  problems  so  that  there  can  be 
some  frontal  coping  with  the  situation.  That 
is  what  we  are  asking  for,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
that  is  why  we  support  this  sub-amendment. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!    Orderl 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  rising  to  support  this  amendment,  I  think 
that  every  member  of  this  House  knows  of 
the  need  for  compassion  in  this  area  we  are 
talking  about.  I  want  to  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  if  I  ever  have  a  need  for  a  heart  trans- 
plant, I  hope  to  get  John  Robarts',  because 
it  has  never  been  used. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!    Order! 

Mr.  Sargent:  When  pay  day  comes  again 
next  election— 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Is  that  the  way  the  hon. 
member  is  going  to  get  my  heart? 

Mr.  Sargent:  —this  will  be  one  of  the  key 
points  in  the  re-election  or  defeat  of  the 
government.  Today  will  be  a  day  to  re- 
member if  you  vote  against  this  amendment. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  any  other  member 
who  wishes  to  speak  to  the  motion  or  the 
amendments?  Then  we  will  vote,  of  course 
first  on  the  second  amendment  moved  by 
Mrs.  Renwick,  seconded  by  Mr.  Peacock,  that 
the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Reilly  be  amended 
by  adding  thereto  the  following:  "housing 
and  urban  problems  committee". 

The  House  divided  on  the  further  amend- 
ment to  the  motion  made  by  Mrs.  Renwick, 
which  was  negatived  on  the  following 
division: 


Yeas 


Nays 


Braithwaite 

Allan 

Breithaupt 

Apps 

Brown 

Bales 

Bukator 

Bernier 

Bullbrook 

Boyer 

Burr 

Brunelle 

Davison 

Connell 

Deacon 

Davis 

Deans 

Demers 

De  Monte 

Downer 

Edighoffer 

Dunlop 

Farquhar 

Dymond 

Ferrier 

Evans 

Gaunt 

Gilbertson 

Gisborn 

Grossman 

Good 

Guindon 

20 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Yeas 

Haggerty 

Innes 

Jackson 

Knight 

Lawlor 

Lewis 

MacDonald 

MacKenzie 

Makarchuk 

Martel 

Newman 

(Windsor-Walkerville) 
Nixont 
Paterson 
Peacock 
Pilkey 
Pitman 
Reid 

(Scarborough  East) 
Renwick 

(Riverdale) 
Renwick  (Mrs.) 

(Scarborough  Centre) 
Ruston 
Sargent 
Shulman 
Singer 
Smith 

(Nipissing) 
Sopha 
Stokes 
Trotter 
Worton 
Young— 45 


Nays 

Hamilton 

Haskett 

Hodgson 

(Victoria-Haliburton) 
Hodgson 

(York  North) 
Jessiman 
Johnston 

(Parry  Sound) 
Johnston 

(St.  Cartharines) 
Johnston 

(Carleton) 
Kennedy 
Kerr 
Lawrence 

(Carleton  East) 
Lawrence 

(St.  George) 
MacNaughton 
Meen 

Morningstar 
Morrow 
McKeough 
Newman 

(Ontario  South) 
Olde 
Price 

Pritchard  (Mrs.) 
Reilly 
Reuter 
Robarts 
Rollins 
Root 
Simonett 
Smith 

(Simcoe  East) 
Smith 

(Hamilton  Mountain) 
Snow 
Stewart 
Villeneuve 
Welch 
White 
Whitney 
Winkler 
Wishart 
Yakabuski 
Yaremko— 55 


Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  "yeas" 
are  45,  the  "nays",  55. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  declare  the  amendment  lost. 

The  vote  will  now  be  on  the  first  amend- 
ment to  the  main  motion,  moved  by  Mr. 
Nixon,  seconded  by  Mr.  Singer,  to  the  list 
of  committees  proposed  be  added  an  esti- 
mates' committee. 


Mr.  Nixon:  In  the  interest  of  efficiency,  we 
will  accept  the  same  vote. 

Mr.  MacDonald:   Mr.   Speaker— 

An  hon.  member:  Nice  try,  Bob. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  Order! 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  in- 
terest of  accuracy  we  will  not. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Then  shall  we  start  this 
again?  The  vote  is  on  the  first  amendment  to 
the  main  motion.  The  amendment  moved  by 
Mr.  Nixon,  seconded  by  Mr.  Singer,  that  to 
the  list  of  committees  proposed  be  added  an 
estimates'  committee.  As  many  are  in  favour 
of  the  amendment  will  please  say  "aye,"  as 
many  are  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion,  the  "nays"  have  it. 

Mr  Nixon:  I  would  suggest  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  for  this  vote  we  could  do  without  ring- 
ing the  bell. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  it  agreeable  to  the  House 
that  the  official  Opposition  be  shown  as  vot- 
ing in  favour  and  all  the  other  members 
against  this  amendment? 

The  House  divided  on  the  amendment  by 
Mr.  Nixon  which  was  negatived  on  the  follow- 
ing division: 


Yeas 


Nays 


Braithwaite 

Allan 

Breithaupt 

Apps 

Bukator 

Bales 

Bullbrook 

Bernier 

Deacon 

Boyer 

De  Monte 

Brown 

Edighoffer 

Brunelle 

Farquhar 

Burr 

Gaunt 

Connell 

Good 

Davis 

Haggerty 

Davison 

Innes 

Deans 

Knight 

Demers 

MacKenzie 

Downer 

Newman 

Dunlop 

(Windsor-Walkerville)  Dymond 

Nixon 

Evans 

Paterson 

Ferrier 

Reid 

Gilbertson 

(Scarborough  East) 

Gisborn 

Ruston 

Grossman 

Sargent 

Guindon 

Singer 

Hamilton 

Smith 

Haskett 

(Nipissing) 

Hodgson 

Sopha 

(Victoria-Haliburton) 

Trotter 

Hodgson 

Worton-25. 

(York  North) 

NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


21 


Yeas 


Nays 
Jackson 
Jessiman 
Johnston 

(Parry  Sound) 
Johnston 

(St.  Catharines) 
Johnston 

(Carleton) 
Kennedy 
Kerr 
Lawlor 
Lawrence 

(Carleton  East) 
Lawrence 

(St.  George) 
Lewis 
MacDonald 
MacNaughton 
Makarchuk 
Martel 
Meen 

Morningstar 
Morrow 
McKeough 
Newman 

(Ontario  South) 
Olde 
Peacock 
Pilkey 
Pitman 
Price 
Pritchard  (Mrs.) 

Reilly 

Renwick 
(Riverdale) 

Renwick  (Mrs.) 
(Scarborough  Centre) 

Reuter 

Robarts 

Rollins 

Root 

Shulman 

Simonett 

Smith 
(Simcoe  East) 

Smith 
(Hamilton  Mountain) 

Snow 

Stewart 

Stokes 

Villeneuve 

Welch 

White 

Whitney 

Winkler 

Wishart 

Yakabuski 

Yaremko 

Young-75. 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  declare  the  amendment 
lost. 

We  now  come  to  the  main  motion. 

Mr.  Reilly  moves,  seconded  by  Mr.  Hodg- 
son (Victoria-Haliburton),  that  standing  com- 
mittees of  this  House  for  the  present  session 
be  appointed  as  follows: 

1.  Agriculture  and  food  committee. 

2.  Education  and  university  affairs  com- 
mittee. 

3.  Government  commissions  committee. 

4.  Health  committee. 

5.  Highways  and  transport  committee. 

6.  Legal  and  municipal  committee. 

7.  Labour  committee. 

8.  Natural    resources    and    tourism    com- 
mittee. 

9.  Private  bills  committee. 

10.  Privileges  and  elections  committee. 

11.  Public  accounts  committee. 

12.  Social,  family  and  correctional  services 
committee. 

13.  Standing  orders  and  printing  commit- 
tee, 

which  said  committees  shall  severally  be 
empowered  to  examine  and  enquire  into  all 
such  matters  and  things  as  may  be  referred 
to  them  by  the  House  and  to  report  from 
time  to  time  their  observations  and  opinions 
thereon  with  power  to  send  for  persons, 
papers  and  records. 

As  many  as  are  in  favour  of  the  motion 
will  please  say  "aye,"  as  many  as  are  opposed 
will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

I  declare  the  motion  carried. 

Mr.  Reilly:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  move,  seconded 
by  Mr.  Hodgson  (Victoria-Haliburton),  that 
a  select  committee  of  15  members  be 
appointed  to  prepare  and  report,  with  all 
convenient  despatch,  lists  of  the  members  to 
compose  the  standing  committees  ordered  by 
the  House,  such  committee  to  be  composed 
as  follows:  Mr.  Olde,  chairman;  Mrs.  Prit- 
chard; Messrs.  Carruthers,  Farquhar,  Gilbert- 
son,  Henderson,  Newman  (Ontario  South), 
Price,  Rollins,  Rowe,  Smith  (Nipissing),  Stokes, 
Winkler,  Yakabuski  and  Young. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 
Introduction  of  bills. 

Mr.  A.  E.  Reuter  (Waterloo  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  on  a  point  of  privilege.  My 
point,   sir,   has   to   do   with   an  issue   of   the 


22 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Globe  and  Mail  dated  today,  Wednesday, 
November  20,  and  a  picture  that  appears  on 
the  front  page  of  the  third  section  of  the 
issue  that  was  circulated  last  evening,  sir. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  member  has  never  been 
so  popular. 

Mr.  Reuter:  This  picture,  sir,  includes 
several  members  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party- 

An  hon.  member:  All  friends  of  yours. 

Mr.  Reuter:  It  includes  myself  having  a 
private  little  friendly  conversation  with  two 
members  of  the  New  Democratic  Party,  but 
my  point,  sir— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  will  teach  the 
hon.  member. 

Mr.  Reuter:  My  point,  sir,  has  to  do  with 
the  caption  that  appears  below  the  picture. 
I  want  to  set  the  records  straight,  sir,  that 
my  name  is  not  Jack  Stokes,  I  do  not  repre- 
sent the  people  of  Thunder  Bay,  nor  am  I 
a  member  of  the  New  Democratic  Party. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  may  well  be,  sir,  that  my 
point  of  privilege  is  expressed  to  the  House 
on  behalf  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  as 
well  as  myself,  because  I  am  sure,  sir,  that 
they  realize  full  well  that  I  am  a  true  blue 
Conservative,  one  of  those  tried  and  true 
fully  loyal  Tories.  I  doubt  very  much  that 
they  would  want  the  impression  that  has  been 
conveyed  by  the  picture  to  hold  true  that 
such  a  tried  and  true  Tory  is  in  fact,  sir,  a 
member  of  the  caucus.  I  simply  want  to  set 
that  record  straight. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  hon.  Prime  Minister. 

What  are  the  dates  for  the  federal-provincial 
conferences  on  the  constitution  and  on  tax 
matters?  Secondly,  can  arrangements  be  made 
for  me  to  attend  these  conferences  as  an 
observer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a 
constitutional  conference  which,  I  believe,  is 
on  December  17,  18  and  19.  There  is  an- 
other meeting  to  be  held  of  the  Ministers  of 
finance,  but  I  do  not  believe  any  date  has 
been  set  for  that. 

As  far  as  your  attendance  at  these  meet- 
ings as  an  observer  is  concerned— frankly,  I 
have  had  no  communications  from  Ottawa  as 
to  what  the  procedural  arrangements  will  be. 
I  can  assure  you  however  that  my  attitude 
in  these  matters  has  not  changed  from  the 
Confederation  of  Tomorrow  conference.  I 
will  be  proposing  to  the  federal  government 


that  these  conferences  be  open  to  the  press, 
open  to  the  television  cameras. 

We  have  nothing  to  hide  when  we  go  to 
these  conferences  and  I  would  like  to  see  the 
meeting  of  the  Ministers  of  finance  opened 
to  the  press  too,  so  that  we  are  going  to— 

An  hon.  member:  Let  the  people  see. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  I  do  not  have  the  re- 
sponsibility of  conferences  convened  by  the 
federal  authorities  but  if  it  can  be  arranged, 
I  would  be  delighted  to  have  you  there  as 
an  observer.  I  would  be  delighted  to  make 
the  same  arrangements  for  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party. 

We  will  be  discussing  matters  of  great 
moment  to  our  people  and  I  think  that  they 
deserve  the  fullest  attention  that  is  humanly 
possible  to  give  them.  I  would  like  to  think 
that  we  would  involve  the  people  of  the 
country  in  these  matters  to  the  greatest  extent 
we  can  and  all  my  efforts  will  be  directed 
to  that  end. 

Mr.  Nixon:  If  I  might  ask  a  supplementary 
question,  Mr.  Speaker. 

The  conference  on  fiscal  matters  is  attended 
only  by  Treasurers  and  not  by  the  Prime 
Ministers  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  so. 
In  some  provinces  the  leader  of  the  govern- 
ment is  also  the  Treasurer— I  believe  Mr. 
Bennett  is  his  own  finance  Minister,  but— 

Mr.  Nixon:  But  in  this  case  you  do  not 
expect  to  attend? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  No,  I  do  not,  really. 
Although  if  I  think  it  might  be  the  thing  to 
do— I  would  not  close  the  door  to  the  fact 
that  I  would  not  go,  but  it  is  really  called  as 
a  meeting  of  finance  Ministers. 

I  recall  when  we  set  up  the  tax  structure 
committee,  that  ill-fated  committee  that  is 
now  being  talked  about  to  be  reconstituted, 
I  hope  with  some  better  effect  than  last 
time.  At  that  time  I  asked,  I  believe,  to  be 
put  on  that  committee  as  well  as  the  Treas- 
urer, in  order  that  I  could  attend  the  meet- 
ings. I  do  not  think  there  would  be  any 
objection  to  the  leader  of  the  government 
going,  but  it  is  scheduled  as  a  meeting  of 
Ministers  of  finance. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Energy  and  Resources 
Management. 

Is  Ontario  Hydro's  atomic  generator  plant 
at  Douglas  Point  now  commissioned? 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


23 


Hon.  J.  R.  Simonett  (Minister  of  Energy 
and  Resources  Management):  Mr.  Speaker,  it 
has  frequently  been  explained  to  this  House 
that  it  is  misleading  to  refer  to  the  nuclear 
power  generation  station  at  Douglas  Point  as 
an  Ontario  Hydro  atomic  generator  plant.  It 
is  still  owned  for  the  federal  government  by 
Atomic  Energy  of  Canada  Limited  and  sup- 
plies power  to  the  Ontario  Hydro  system  at 
an  agreed  rate. 

The  answer  to  the  question  as  to  whether 
this  plant  is  commissioned  is  "yes". 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  Minister  might  give  us  the 
date  of  that  commissioning. 

Hon.  Mr.  Simonett:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  sta- 
tion was  commissioned  on  September  26. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Then  it  would  be  incorrect,  Mr. 
Speaker— if  I  may  be  permitted  another  sup- 
plementary question— to  refer  to  that  plant  as 
a  part  of  the  Ontario  Hydro  system? 

Hon.  Mr.  Simonett:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  plant 
is  not  a  part  of  the  Ontario  Hydro  system. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  may  have 
misled  you.  I  note  you  say  that  this  confer- 
ence is  on  December  16,  17  and  18.  I  may 
well  have  said  17,  18  and  19,  but  it  is  Decem- 
ber 16,  17  and  18. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question  for  the  hon. 
Minister  of  Health. 

When  did  the  Minister  receive  the  report 
of  the  investigation  into  air  pollution  at  Dunn- 
ville  and  when  will  that  report  be  tabled  in 
the  Legislature? 

Hon.  M.  B.  Dymond  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not  officially  received  the 
report  yet.  When  it  went  to  the  printers 
about  three  weeks  ago  I  was  given  a  draft 
copy— that  is  the  typewritten  copy,  not  com- 
pletely corrected.  I  expect  that  it  will  be 
tabled  in  the  House  either  the  last  week  of 
this  month  or  the  first  week  of  December. 
That  is  the  date  I  am  advised  the  printers  will 
have  it  finished. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  for  the 
hon.  Minister  of  Labour. 

Will  the  hon.  Minister  of  Labour  report 
to  the  House  on  the  state  of  the  strike 
between  the  Peterborough  Examiner  news- 
paper and  the  Toronto  Newspaper  Guild,  sir, 
and  advise  the  Legislature  when  he  will  bring 
the  parties  together  to  resume  negotiations? 

Secondly,  is  it  a  fact  that  the  guild's  request 
for  a  union  security  clause,  which  is  now 
standard  in  most  collective  agreements  of  this 


character,  is  proving  an  obstacle  to  negotia- 
tions? 

Hon.  D.  A.  Bales  (Minister  of  Labour):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  reply  to  the  question  from  the 
hon.  leader  of  the  Opposition,  it  is  the  prac- 
tice of  the  conciliation  branch  to  review  the 
strike  situations  throughout  the  province  al- 
most on  a  daily  basis,  in  order  that  we  may 
determine  what  assistance  can  be  given  to  the 
parties  to  help  them  resolve  their  disputes. 
This  has  been  done  in  reference  to  the  Peter- 
borough situation.  I  cannot  say  at  this  time 
when  the  parties  will  be  brought  directly 
together  again  to  resume  negotiations. 

In  reference  to  the  second  part,  there  are 
a  number  of  issues  outstanding  in  reference  to 
this  matter  between  the  parties.  It  would 
really  be  inappropriate  for  me  to  attempt  to 
judge  publicly  the  relative  importance  of 
those  particular  issues  because  they  concern 
the  parties  themselves. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if  the 
Minister  would  be  prepared  to  say  whether  or 
not  this  union  security  clause  is  one  of  the 
matters  at  variance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bales:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it  is 
fair  to  say  that  it  is  one  of  a  number  of 
issues. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  ask- 
ing my  question,  may  I  express  my  apprecia- 
tion to  the  Prime  Minister  for  indicating  that 
an  observer  status  can  be  granted  to  Opposi- 
tion leaders  and  that  it  will  be  accorded  to 
me  also.  He  answered  the  question  before 
I  had  an  opportunity  to  ask  it,  for  once. 

My  first  question  is  to  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral. Can  the  Attorney  General  advise  the 
House  whether  the  Ontario  Law  Reform 
Commission  report  with  regard  to  landlords 
and  tenants  will  be  made  available  during 
this  session  and,  if  so,  can  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral give  the  House  an  approximate  date  on 
which  such  a  report  might  be  expected? 

Hon.  A.  A.  Wishart  (Attorney  General): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  expect  the  report  in  the  im- 
mediate future— by  that  I  mean  very  shortly. 

I  know  that  the  research  and  study  lead- 
ing to  the  preparation  of  that  report  has  been 
done.  I  might  perhaps  let  the  hon.  member 
for  York  South  know  that  I  asked  the  law 
reform  commission  some  months  ago  to 
devote  special  attention  to  the  field  of  land- 
lord and  tenant  law  as  part  of  their  overall 
study  on  the  real  property— which  is  the 
study  they  are  doing— and  the  chairman 
agreed  to  that.  That  work  has  proceeded 
with  despatch. 


24 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  may  say  this— I  know  that  the  report  is 
now  in  the  course  of  preparation  and  I  would 
feel  it  can  be  prepared  in  a  matter  of  days, 
I  would  think.  To  say  that  we  might  get  it 
this  month,  I  am  not  sure,  but  very  shortly. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  My  second  question,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  to  the  Minister  of  Lands  and 
Forests. 

Has  the  government  instituted  expropria- 
tion procedures  to  increase  park  facilities 
along  the  Lake  Erie  lakefront? 

Secondly  will  the  government  take  steps  to 
open  the  Michael  road  in  Humberstone  town- 
ship, especially  at  this  time  when  the  Pro- 
vincial Gas  Company  is  laying  a  line  along  it? 

Third,  what  steps  has  the  government 
taken  to  avoid  repeated  violations  of  public 
rights  by  fencing  being  run  out  into  the 
water  by  adjoining  property  owners? 

Fourth,  is  the  government  giving  any  con- 
sideration to  the  development  of  the  east  Erie 
lakefront  into  a  continuous  green  belt  joining 
the  Niagara  River  and  Welland  Canal? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Lands  and 
Forests):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to  the  hon. 
member  for  York  South: 

Question  number  1— the  answer  is  "yes". 

Number  2— opening  of  road  allowances  is 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  municipalities. 

Number  3— the  government  is  not  aware  of 
any  violations  of  public  rights  by  fencing.  If 
unauthorized  occupation  of  Crown  land  is 
discovered,  remedial  action  is  taken. 

Number  4— although  mention  has  been 
made  of  such  a  development,  no  detailed  pro- 
posals are  under  consideration  at  this  time. 
The  greatest  need  would  seem  to  be  acquisi- 
tion and  development  of  land  for  parks  pur- 
poses in  that  area. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  regard 
to  point  three,  may  I  ask  the  Minister  a 
supplementary  question?  Since  it  is  widely 
alleged  that  this  goes  on  all  the  time,  is  it 
not  a  legitimate  proposition  for  the  law  en- 
forcement agencies  to  check  it  continuously 
— the  running  of  fences  out  into  the  water? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  I  would  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  this  matter  is  under  active 
consideration  and  we  should  have  some 
answers  on  this  matter  at  a  later  date. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  My  following  question, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food. 

1.  Are  only  two  of  the  nine  members  of 
the  cream  producers  marketing  board  actu- 
ally cream  producers  at  this  time? 


2.  Do  the  regulations  permit  of  such  mas- 
sive representation  by  non-producers? 

3.  If  not,  what  does  the  Minister  propose 
to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to  this 
question,  I  am  not  aware  as  to  the  number 
of  cream  producers  on  the  cream  producers 
marketing  board.  The  hon.  member  says  there 
are  only  two  of  them  who  are  actual  pro- 
ducers—this may  be  the  case—three,  the  hon. 
member  says,  as  of  elections  yesterday.  I  am 
not  worried  about  this. 

I  do  know  that  the  regulations  that  estab- 
lished the  cream  producers  marketing  board 
some  years  ago  intended  that  the  members 
should  be  actual  cream  producers. 

There  are  something  like  13,000  cream  pro- 
ducers in  the  province  of  Ontario.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  one  of  these  men,  quite  by  chance 
yesterday,  happened  to  be  seated  next  to  me 
at  the  cream  producers'  lunch  at  their  annual 
meeting.  He  mentioned  to  me  that  he  was 
no  longer  a  cream  producer  and  he  suggested 
to  his  board— that  is  to  the  producers  in  his 
zone— .that  he  should  be  relieved  of  his 
responsibilities,  but,  he  said,  "they  simply 
said  to  me,  Vou  have  the  time  now  to  attend 
these  meetings'." 

I  would  like  to  point  out  through  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  the  hon.  members  of  the  House, 
that  these  13,000  cream  producers  in  this 
province  generally  speaking  run  one-man 
farms.  They  do  not  have  a  lot  of  help  around 
them.  They  are  not  specialized  farms.  Cream 
production  really  is  sort  of  a  side  issue  to 
the  main  objective  of  the  farm. 

It  is  very  difficult  for  these  men  to  get 
away  to  meetings  either  in  their  own  county, 
their  own  zone,  or  in  the  provincial  organiza- 
tion. So  they  have,  of  their  own  volition,  sug- 
gested that  those  men,  who  have  contributed 
so  much  throughout  the  years  in  the  direction 
of  the  programme,  might  continue  in  their 
office  as  provincial  directors  on  the  marketing 
board. 

I  am  sure  the  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  would  not  want  The  Department 
of  Agriculture  and  Food  to  step  in  and  sug- 
gest to  these  men  that  they  were  no  longer 
competent.  They  are  competent,  because  they 
have  had,  in  many  instances,  a  lifetime  of 
experience,  not  only  in  the  production  of 
farm  separated  cream,  but  in  the  development 
cf  a  programme  which,  through  its  own  pro- 
motion, has  created  the  fact  that  butter  is 
perhaps  in  the  least  surplus  position  of  any 
of  the  dairy  products  in  Canada  today. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


25 


They  have  done  a  magnificent  job  of 
promotion  of  their  product.  I  would  say  that 
the  cream  producers  of  this  province  have 
not  only  promoted  the  use  of  butter  on  a 
very  large  scale,  but  they  have  held  of!  the 
market  sizeable  quantities  of  skim  milk  which 
could  have  gone  into  dry  powder  and  further 
aggravated  the  enormous  surplus  of  this 
which  we  have  in  Canada  today. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of 
a  supplementary  question.  Do  the  regula- 
tions permit  of  a  non-producer  sitting  as  a 
director? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  The  regulations,  as  I 
understand  them,  do  not  specifically  say  that 
it  must  be  a  producer.  They  imply  that  it 
should. 

Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  impending 
departure  of  the  Prime  Minister  on  an 
appointment,  I  would  ask  that  those  members 
who  have  questions  of  the  Prime  Minister, 
beginning  with  the  hon.  member  for  Sarnia, 
be  given  the  floor.  May  I  have  the  agree- 
ment of  the  other  members  for  that?  Thank 
you.    The  hon.  member  for  Sarnia. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Sarnia):  Mr.  Speaker, 
my  question  directed  to  the  hon.  Premier: 
Will  the  Premier  advise  if  he  will  permit  a 
delegation  from  the  council  of  the  city  of 
Sarnia  to  discuss  with  him  the  proposed 
designation  of  the  Sarnia  area  by  the  Ontario 
Water  Resources  Commission? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  wrote  me  about  this  on  October  30. 
It  so  happens,  I  have  a  reply  ready  for  him 
today,  which  I  will  send  across  the  floor 
to  him.  As  it  is  a  local  matter,  it  is  all 
explained  in  the  letter  and  I  will  not  take 
up  the  time  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Grey-Bruce  wish  to  ask  any  questions? 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  question  for  the  Prime 
Minister,  Mr.  Speaker:  ( 1 )  Would  the  Prime 
Minister  assure  me  and  the  people  of  Grey- 
Bruce  that  the  Ontario  Hospital  Services 
Commission,  will  not  close  any  hospitals  in 
our  area;  and  (2)  Will  the  Prime  Minister 
assure  me  that  in  the  future  the  OHSC  will 
let  the  people  decide  before  any  hospital 
changes  are  made  in  their  areas? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  I  would  say  the  answer 
to  both  questions  is  "no".  I  cannot  give  the 
member  any  assurance  of  what  the  Ontario 
Hospital  Services  Commission  might  do  in 
the    exercise   of    the   powers    and    discretions 


given   to    it    in    the    legislation   which    estab- 
lished it. 

Certainly,  as  far  as  the  second  question  is 
concerned,  ".  .  .  let  the  people  decide  before 
any  hospital  changes  are  made  in  their 
area?",  the  whole  concept  of  what  the 
member  is  getting  at  there,  I  assume,  is 
before  any  change  is  made  in  any  hospital, 
any  place  in  this  province,  you  would  have 
to    have    a    vote    of    the    people    concerned. 

Of  course,  that  idea  is  completely  ridicul- 
ous. I  would  have  to  say  in  answer  to  both 
the  questions  that  I  cannot  give  any  assur- 
ance that  the  Ontario  Hospital  Services 
Commission  will  not  order  the  closing  of 
hospitals  they  may  not  consider  adequate  to 
provide  health  care.  I  just  could  not  give 
such  an  assurance. 

Mr.  Sargent:  In  that  regard,  Mr.  Speaker, 
either  the  member  for  Grey  South,  or  the 
Prime  Minister,  will  have  to  eat  their  words 
then. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  If  the  hon.  member 
has  any  further  questions- 
Mr.  Sargent:  A  supplementary  question 
dien,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the  Prime  Minister: 
Will  the  Prime  Minister  agree  that  these 
people  pay  the  same  rates  for  hospitalization 
as  other  people;  that  they  have  to  drive  20 
or  30  miles  to  a  hospital  in  the  winter  time; 
and  that  the  OHSC  is  a  commission  not 
responsible  to  the  people?  The  Prime  Min- 
ister will  have  to  eat  those  words  some  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  wish 
to  ask  any  more  of  the  questions  he  has 
filed? 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  question  of  the  Prime  Min- 
ister: Will  the  government  agree  to  an  im- 
mediate outside  audit  to  determine  the  exact 
financial  position  of  the  affairs  of  the  Ontario 
government  because  of  the  financial  night- 
mare facing  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  do  not 
face  a  financial  nightmare.  I  have  no  inten- 
tion of  introducing  any  outside  auditors. 
There  will  be  an  interim  financial  statement 
furnished  in  the  normal  course  of  events, 
so  the  answer  is  "no". 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Mr.  Speaker  I  wonder  if 
the  hon.  Prime  Minister  would  permit  me  a 
supplementary  now  since  I  have  received  his 
epistle. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Not  until  after  the  hon.  mem- 
ber has  completed  his  series  of  questions  to 
the  Prime   Minister. 


26 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  am  sorry,  I  thought  my 
colleague  was  finished. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  Mu- 
nicipal Affairs):  The  hon.  member  was  wish- 
ful. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Supplementary  to  this,  in  the 
Throne  Speech  it  said  "full  disclosure".  We 
are  asking  for  a  full  disclosure  in  an  outside 
audit.  Will  the  Prime  Minister  go  along  and 
back  up  the  Throne  Speech  in  this  regard 
then? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Has  the  hon.  member  any 
further  questions? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Yes,  I  have,  but  he  should 
answer  the  supplementary  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  will  realize 
that  supplementary  questions  are  answered 
only  at  discretion. 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  has  no  heart. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon.  member 
would  go  on  to  his  next  question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Another  question  along  the 
same  line:  Will  the  government  then  call  an 
immediate  probe  into  the  ten  per  cent  in- 
crease of  the  Ontario  Hydro  this  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  No,  I  will  not. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That  is  all.  I  have  some  fur- 
ther questions  but— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Only  to  the  Prime  Minister. 
The  hon.  member  for  Sarnia. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
am  wondering  if  I  would  be  in  a  position  to 
advise  the  people  of  Sarnia  that  their  council 
will  be  permitted  a  delegation  before  the 
Prime  Minister  before  there  is  a  designation 
of  the  area  by  the  Ontario  Water  Resources 
Commission? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  a 
whole  series  of  meetings  going  on  at  the  pres- 
ent time  and  when  these  are  completed  and 
we  see  what  the  situation  is,  then  we  can 
decide  whether  there  would  be  any  point  in 
receiving  a  delegation  from  the  city.  Not  that 
I  do  not  want  to— if  it  would  do  any  good  I 
will— but  at  the  moment  there  have  been  no 
decisions  made,  so  it  would  be  simply  a  mat- 
ter of  presenting  a  point  of  view,  which  I 
believe  I  already  have. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  If  I  might,  would  the  Prime 
Minister  entertain  one  supplementary  ques- 
tion?   Does   he  recall  that  in   my   letter   of 


October  30  to  him,  I  gave  him  my  consid- 
ered opinion  that,  in  my  judgment,  the  dele- 
gation had  some  points  of  substance  to  bring 
to  the  attention  of  the  Prime  Minister  and 
his  Cabinet  colleagues? 

Now,  can  I  not  have  an  assurance  from  the 
government  that  before  there  is  a  designation 
—this  is  of  vital  importance  to  the  people  in 
my  area— that  they  will  at  least  have  the 
opportunity  of  meeting  with  the  Prime  Min- 
ister? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Yes,  certainly. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  All  right.  Thank  you  very 
much,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Except  for  the  hon.  member 
for  High  Park,  is  there  any  other  member  I 
have  missed  who  has  a  question  of  the  Prime 
Minister? 

The  hon.  member  for  High  Park  has  the 
floor  for  that,  and  for  two  other  questions,  so 
that  he  may  leave  the  House  also. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker.  To  the  Prime  Minister:  Does 
the  government  intend  to  reimburse  Mrs. 
Janet  Gurman  for  her  financial  losses  caused 
by  the  government's  closing  of  her  nursing 
home? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  No. 

Mr.  Shulman:  May  I  ask  a  supplementary? 
Is  the  government  giving  any  consideration  to 
any  help  in  re-establishing  Mrs.  Gurman? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  two  questions  for  the 
Attorney  General,  Mr.  Speaker.  Will  the 
Attorney  General  intervene  in  the  case  of 
Larry  Botrie,  whose  family  was  refused  com- 
pensation as  a  result  of  his  death  which 
occurred  while  he  was  attempting  to  aid  the 
police? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  no,  there 
is  no  intention  to  intervene  in  the  matter.  The 
application  was  heard  by  the  law  compensa- 
tion board  and  the  unanimous  judgment  was 
delivered  that  compensation  was  not  allow- 
able. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Attorney  General 
allow  a  supplementary  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Yes. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Does  the  Attorney  General 
feel  that  the  judgment  which  was  handed 
down  was  in  fine  with  the  remarks  and  the 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


27 


intentions  he  expressed  here  in  his  estimates 
last  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  welcome 
the  supplementary  question.  I  think  perhaps 
I  might  be  permitted  to  say  that  when  this 
legislation  establishing  the  compensation  board 
was  introduced  last  year,  I  believe,  I  did  indi- 
cate that,  in  our  consideration  of  it,  we  con- 
sidered it  perhaps  as  a  preliminary  step  in  this 
whole  matter  of  compensation  to  victims  of 
crime  or  those  assisting  in  the  enforcement  of 
law. 

I  am  aware,  of  course,  of  the  comments  of 
the  Hon.  Mr.  McRuer  in  his  report  on  civil 
rights.  I  did  say,  too,  I  believe,  and  I  think 
my  remarks  are  in  Hansard,  either  in  my 
estimates  or  at  the  time  the  board  was  set 
up,  to  the  effect  that  I  felt  the  language  of 
the  Act  as  it  stood  was  wide  enough  to  per- 
mit a  discretion  in  certain  cases  where  a 
policeman  was  not  actually  present,  but  this 
particular  case  I  think  went  beyond  that. 
There  was  no  assistance  to  the  policeman;  it 
was  an  attempt  to  get  to  a  phone  to  call 
police.  So  that  if  you  opened  it  to  that 
extent,  you  would  be  really  compensating  a 
victim  of  crime  where  many  cases  of  that 
kind  would  arise. 

I  think  I  am  at  liberty  to  say  that  the 
whole  matter  of  compensation  to  victims  of 
crime  is  still  being  reviewed  as  a  matter  of 
policy  of  government. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Now,  I  have  a  second  question,  sir:  Does  the 
government  intend  to  reimburse  Magistrate 
Gardhouse  for  legal  expenses  incurred  in  the 
hearing  into  his  conduct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  an- 
swer is  "no."  Application  was  made  by  coun- 
sel for  Magistrate  Gardhouse  after  the  hearing 
was  concluded  and  the  application  was 
refused. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Attorney  General 
accept   a   supplementary   question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Yes. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Why? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  would  say  this  was  a 
matter  of  involving  the  administration  of 
justice  in  which  with  respect  to  one  of  those 
persons  who  came  before  the  inquiry— his 
conduct  was  called  in  question— 

I  did  not  want  to  have  to  say  this  in  the 
House  because  I  well  realize  that  Magistrate 
Gardhouse  was  found  not  guilty  of  anything 
wrongful  in  his  conduct.    The  commissioner, 


nonetheless,  did  say  his  conduct  was  indis- 
creet. Notwithstanding  that,  he  was  immedi- 
ately re-instated  by  the  Attorney  General  to 
his  position.  But  in  the  circumstances,  it 
was  not  felt  that  he  should  be  entitled  to 
have  his  legal  costs  paid. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough East  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  ques- 
tions of  the  Minister  of  Education.  Does 
The  Department  of  Education  have  a  stan- 
dard purchasing  policy  for  equipment  that 
is  used  in  secondary  schools  which  have 
technical  programmes?  Is  there  a  policy  for 
tendering  for  all  such  equipment?  Do  schools 
require  a  course  of  study  outlined  before 
such  equipment  is  purchased? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  policies  with  respect  to 
purchasing  and  tendering  are  the  responsi- 
bility, of  course,  of  the  local  boards.  The 
way  we  do  this  is  that  the  department  pays 
a  grant  on  the  receipted  invoices  from  the 
boards  for  technical  equipment.  This  has 
been  basically  under  the  federal-provincial 
agreement  until,  I  guess,  about  a  year  ago 
last  October.  The  manual  of  school  business 
procedures  sets  out  the  maximum  approval 
which  the  department  will  give  for  equip- 
ment in  any  given  shop. 

For  example,  for  an  electrical  shop  the 
maximum  is  $40,000.  The  department  pays 
a  grant  of  75  per  cent  of  the  boards'  expen- 
ditures up  to  that  particular  limit  and  if  the 
boards  purchase  more  for  any  particular 
shop,  in  excess  of  this  limit,  they  pay  for 
the  total  amount  themselves. 

An  equipment  list  is  submitted  to  the 
department  for  this  approval  and  the  list  is 
examined  for  reasonable  consistency  with  the 
course  of  study  that  it  is  to  relate  to,  making 
some  allowance  for  special  local  needs  in 
some  parts  of  the  province.  The  suggested 
course  of  study  for  technical  schools  is  avail- 
able to  the  boards  and  is  used  as  a  reference 
in  purchasing  equipment. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  could  ask  a 
supplementary  question,  or  just  ask  the  Minis- 
ter if  he  would  respond  to  my  question— is 
there  a  policy  for  tendering  for  all  such  equip- 
ment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  tendering  is  done  by 
the  local  boards.  We  do  not  tender  for  the 
equipment.  The  local  boards  tender  for  the 
equipment  the  same  way  they  do  for  their 
other  procedures. 


28 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  then  I  am  correct 
—again  in  the  form  of  a  question.  Does  the 
department  not  require  proper  tendering  pro- 
cedures before  a  specific  board  can  get  a 
grant  from  The  Department  of  Education? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  re- 
quire the  board  to  carry  on  their  responsibili- 
ties in  the  way  they  would  for  any  purchase 
of  any  equipment  or  school  supplies,  or  for 
construction  of  the  facility.  It  is  done  in 
most  instances,  of  course,  by  way  of  tender 
and  this  policy  would  apply  throughout. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  another 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Education.  Is  it 
the  Minister's  intention  to  propose  (a)  an 
amendment  to  The  Labour  Relations  Act  so 
that  teachers  are  no  longer  excluded  from  the 
right  to  bargain  collectively  and,  (b)  to  intro- 
duce new  legislation  outlining  special  bargain- 
ing procedures  for  teachers  and  trustees,  in- 
cluding clauses  which  would  first,  compel 
both  parties  to  call  on  a  provincial  govern- 
ment mediator  if  negotiations  break  down; 
secondly,  have  the  dispute  settled  by  compul- 
sory arbitration  if  the  mediator  fails  to  settle 
the  dispute;  and  third,  forbid  both  strikes  and 
lockouts  in  this  specific  category? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  just 
going  by  memory  here.  I  do  not  believe  we 
have  had  any  specific  representations  on  these 
two  questions  and  the  Minister  is  not  consider- 
ing introduction  of  amendments  related  to 
these  two  questions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  still  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  third  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Education.  How  many 
school  trustee  candidates  have  been  nomi- 
nated for  the  new  school  boards  created  by 
Bill  44,  and  how  many  of  these  candidates 
attended  the  series  of  conferences  planned  for 
them  during  September,  October  and  the  first 
two  weeks  of  November  by  The  Department 
of  Education  to  outline  to  them  the  role  of 
the  new  boards? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not  in 
a  position  to  tell  the  hon.  member  how  many 
candidates  have  been  nominated  because  the 
election  is  to  be  held  on  December  2.  We 
have  no  way  of  knowing  this  at  this  stage.  I 
believe  that  the  majority  of  nominations  were 
held  perhaps  on  Monday  of  this  week. 

I  can  only  say  from  personal  experience  in 
attending  one  or  two  of  the  conferences  that 
were  held.  They  were  not  sponsored  really  by 
The  Department  of  Education  —  they  were 
sponsored  by  the  Ontario  trustees  council  with 


the  co-operation  of  The  Department  of  Edu- 
cation and  the  OTF. 

Really,  they  were  initiated  to  a  substantial 
degree  by  the  Ontario  trustees  council  and 
in  attending  those  gatherings  I  gained  the 
impression  that  a  number  of  the  trustees  who 
were  involved  in  the  conference,  and  this 
goes  back  some  two  to  three  months,  were 
interested  in  becoming  candidates.  Now, 
whether  in  fact  they  did,  I  do  not  know. 

To  give  the  hon.  member  some  indication, 
I  think  the  total  number  to  date  of  those 
who  attended  these  conferences  is  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  around  950  and  the  major- 
ity of  these  would  be  trustees.  But  to  try  and 
relate  how  many  of  the  950  actually  are  can- 
didates for  the  forthcoming  election,  I  do  not 
know.  But  I  hope,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  House 
will  permit  me  to  refer  to  these  elections. 

The  member  has  given  me  an  opportunity 
to  make  a  general  observation  that  we  are 
encouraged  to  date  by  the  numbers  of  people 
who  are  seeking  election  and,  more  import- 
antly, from  what  little  information  we  have, 
the  interest  of  these  people  in  running,  and 
I  want  to  make  this  further  point:  I  am  very 
anxious  that  the  people  of  this  province  re- 
spond on  December  2  and  vote  for  these 
candidates  because  I  think  it  is  in  their  own 
interests  to  see  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of 
interest  and  involvement  in  these  elections 
that  will  take  place  on  December  2. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  supple- 
mentary question  arising  out  of  what  the  Min- 
ister has  said.  Am  I  correct  in  understanding, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  only  persons  who  were 
already  school  trustees  could  get  into  these 
conferences,  or  were  they  open  to  someone 
who  was  thinking  of  the  possibility  of  becom- 
ing a  candidate  but  who  was  not,  at  that 
time,  a  school  trustee?  Were  these  open  to 
these  people  or  was  it  open  only  to  people 
who  were  already  school  trustees? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  say,  we 
did  not  organize  these  particular  seminars. 
The  invitations  as  I  recall,  and  I  am  only 
going  by  memory,  were  initiated  or  developed 
by  the  trustees  council  and  I  would  just 
assume  that  the  bulk  of  these  invitations 
would  go  to  people  who  were  members  of  the 
ISOC  committees,  and  who  were  active 
trustees.  I  just  do  not  know  how  you  would 
invite  them  to  a  conference  whether  they  have 
made  up  their  minds  to  run  or  not.  I  think  it 
would  be  impossible  to  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Sudbury  has 
the  floor. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


29 


Mr.  Sopha:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Attorney  General.  Would  the  Attorney 
General  advise  the  House  when  he  might  be 
expected  to  fill  the  office  of  Crown  attorney 
for  the  district  of  Sudbury,  which  office  has 
been  vacant  since  July  14?  When  such  ap- 
pointment is  made  will  the  Crown  attorney 
for  the  district  of  Sudbury  have  the  additional 
responsibilities  of  acting  as  Crown  attorney 
for  the  districts  of  Parry  Sound,  Temaskaming 
and  Manitoulin? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  thought 
the  hon.  member  might  have  been  aware  that 
Mr.  Spencer  Stewart  was  appointed  Crown 
attorney  for  Sudbury,  I  think  about  a  week 
ago.  He  is— 

Mr.  Sopha:  Nobody  in  Sudbury  knows. 
Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Well- 
Mr.  Sopha:   He  said  this  morning  that  he 
does  not  know  it.  How  do  you  like  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  am  sure  he  knows  and 
he,  of  course,  has  been  acting  there  and  is 
the  appointed  Crown  attorney  for  Sudbury. 
With  respect  to  the  other  part  of  the  ques- 
tion, for  the  time  being  at  least,  we  would 
expect  the  Crown  attorney  and  the  assistant 
Crown  attorney  in  Sudbury  to  serve  particu- 
larly Manitoulin,  at  least,  for  the  time  being 
and  Parry  Sound  and  some  of  the  Temiska- 
ming  area. 

Mr.  Sopha:  He  is  going  to  be  a  busy  fellow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  He  is  not  going  to  do  it 
all  alone  as  the  hon.  member  knows.  He  will 
have  sufficient  assistance  to  see  that  the  work 
is  done  and  I  think  that  I  should  point  out 
to  the  House  that  the  volume  of  criminal 
work  on  Manitoulin,  for  instance,  is  extremely 
small.  Likewise,  in  Parry  Sound— there  is  one 
day  a  week  perhaps  for  the  time  being.  But, 
these  matters  are  being  looked  at  and  re- 
viewed and  the  House  may  rest  assured  the 
Crown  attorney  will  have  sufficient  assistance 
to  see  that  the  work  is  done  properly. 

Mr.  Sopha:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  a  sup- 
plementary question?  May  I  invite  the  Attor- 
ney General  to  inform  the  Sudbury  Star,  a 
loyal  supporter  of  this  government,  forthwith 
that  the  Crown  attorney  has  been  appointed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  on 
that  point,  I  may  say  that  the  hon.  member 
for  Nickel  Belt  at  least  received  the  informa- 
tion and  I  know  that  the  Sudbury  Star  has 
been  informed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Peter- 
borough. 


Mr.  W.  G.  Pitman  (Peterborough):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  view  of  the  long  discussions  we 
have  had  here  about  committees  and  the 
mythology  of  the  Prime  Minister  in  regard 
to  what  motivates  them,  I  think,  possibly,  this 
question  should  be  addressed  to  the  member 
for  Carleton  East  (Mr.  A.  B.  R.  Lawrence). 

However,  I  shall  have  to  address  it  to  the 
Minister  of  Education.  Will  the  Minister  refer 
to  the  Hall-Dennis  report,  or  at  least  encour- 
age the  chairman  and  members  of  the  educa- 
tion committee,  to  refer  to  the  Hall-Dennis 
report  early  in  the  session  and  encourage  the 
committee  to  hear  witnesses  forthwith? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  hon. 
member  will  recall  in  the  Throne  Speech,  it 
was  suggested  that  there  should  be,  and  will 
be,  consideration  of  the  Hall-Dennis  report. 
I  personally  would  have  no  objection  whatso- 
ever to  the  committee  considering  the  report. 
I  am  not  sure,  however,  of  the  phraseology, 
"the  calling  of  witnesses".  I  am  sure  there 
are  many  people  who  would  like  to  appear 
and  give  their  views  and  so  on,  but  I  do 
not  know  that  one  would  wish  to  refer  to 
them  as  witnesses  per  se.  I  think  they  are 
people  wishing  to  make  a  contribution  and 
this,  perhaps,  could  be  a  very  excellent  way 
of  coming  to  grips  with  some  of  the  sugges- 
tions in  the  Hall-Dennis  report.  I  have  no 
objections  whatsoever. 

I  should  point  out  to  the  member  for 
Scarborough  East  while  I  am  on  my  feet— 
and  it  is  related  to  this,  Mr.  Speaker— when 
he  was  concerned  about  my  lack  of  appear- 
ance at  the  education  committee  during  the 
discussion  of  Bill  44.  This  was  mentioned  to 
one  or  two  of  his  colleagues  and  one  or  two 
other  members  opposite,  and  the  feeling  was 
that  the  Minister,  during  these  presentations, 
should  perhaps  absent  himself  so  that  they 
would  not  feel  at  all  inhibited,  as  some  of 
them  did. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  Minister  never  feels 
inhibited. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Oh,  well  I  did,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  recall  very  well  attending  all  those 
when  the  final  legislation  was  finished  and 
I  was  even  here  the  last  two  or  three  weeks 
of  the  session  when  I  was  going  to  discuss 
some  other  matters  with  the  member  for 
Scarborough  East,  but  I  could  not  find  him. 

I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  answers  the 
question. 

Mr.  Pitman:  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  more 
than  answers  the  question.  I  wonder  if  I 
could  ask  the  Minister  whether  he  would  be 
good  enough  to  send  a  copy  of  his  remarks 


30 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


to  the  member  for  Carleton  East  so  that  we 
might  get  this  education  committee  started, 
and  so  that  we  might  thereby  get  this  report 
before  the  Legislature. 

A  second  question  to  the  Minister,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Can  the  Minister  indicate  whether 
the  Keiller  Mackay  commission  on  religious 
teaching  in  public  schools  will  be  brought 
before  the  House  during  this  session? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
answer,  hopefully,  "yes"- 

Mr.  Pitman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  ask  a 
supplementary  question:  Perhaps  the  Minister 
will  not  remember,  but  this  was  the  first  ques- 
tion that  I  asked  him  the  first  day  of  the  last 
session,  and  I  am  wondering  whether  he  can 
explain  the  reason  why  there  is  such  a  long 
delay  on  this  matter  of  such  great  importance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
answer  to  the  question  is  rather  obvious.  The 
hon.  member  has  answered  it  himself;  it  is  a 
matter  of  great  importance  and  it  has  taken 
the  committee  a  great  deal  of  time  to  listen 
to  all  those  who  wish  to  make  representations. 
I  would  think,  not  being  a  member  of  the 
committee,  that  it  will  be  one  of  the  most 
difficult  reports  that  any  group  of  individuals 
have  been  asked  to  write  and  I  do  know  they 
have  been  working  very  diligently. 

As  I  related  to  the  House  at  the  last 
session,  they  did  run  into  delay  because  of 
the  passing  away  of  two  members  of  the 
committee  which  was  most  unfortunate,  and 
all  that  I  can  say  on  this  occasion  is  that, 
hopefully,  it  will  be  here  for  consideration 
in  this  session. 

Mr.  Pitman:  As  a  supplementary  question, 
will  the  Minister  have  this  report  passed  on 
once  again  to  the  education  committee?  I 
see  the  member  for  Carleton  East  is  now  in 
his  seat. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
what  we  do  with  the  report  really  should 
wait  until  we  get  the  report.  Then  we  can 
have  some  discussion  as  to  how  we  might 
treat  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sarnia. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  hon.  Attorney  General.  Will 
the  Attorney  General  advise  what  discip- 
linary action  or  corrective  measures  have 
been  taken  by  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police 
relevant  to  the  officer  or  officers  who  had 
issued  a  directive  establishing  a  quota  sys- 
tem of  summonses,  or  the  laying  of  a  certain 
number  of  charges? 


Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  you 
will  pardon  me  for  a  moment,  I  had  this 
question  before  me  and  I  have  been  occu- 
pied with  something  else.  I  had  considered 
it  of  considerable  importance  and  I  have 
prepared  an  answer  to  this  question. 

I  would  say  that  the  officer  who  issued  the 
particular  document  has  been  interviewed  by 
the  commissioner,  interviewed  immediately, 
and  I  am  sure  that  matter  has  been  made 
clear  to  him.  But,  Mr.  Speaker  I  must  dis- 
agree with  the  principles  stated  by  the  hon. 
member  for  Sarnia  which  he  attributes  to 
the  nature  of  that  directive.  The  document 
in  its  complete  context  is  based  upon  the 
Ontario  Provincial  Police  programme  of 
selective  traffic  enforcement,  which  is  not, 
and  never  has  been,  anything  like  a  so-called 
quota   system. 

It  is  a  programme  based  upon  accident 
statistics  designed  to  guide  policemen  in 
traffic  law  enforcement  so  that  appropriate 
attention  can  be  given  to  the  enforcement 
of  the  traffic  laws  that  appear  to  be  closely 
involved  with  traffic  fatalities  suffered  on 
our  highways. 

In  the  particular  case  that  generated  this 
question,  Mr.  Speaker,  little  publicity  has 
been  given  to  the  fact  that  the  Ontario  Pro- 
vincial Police  were  directing  their  minds  to 
the  local  and  difficult  situation  in  the  inter- 
ests of  the  travelling  public,  and  that  in  the 
area  concerned  in  1968,  from  the  date  of 
the  directive,  11  people  have  been  killed  in 
accidents.  Eleven  lives  in  those  violent 
traffic  accidents— that  was  against  the  statis- 
tic of  six  people  in  the  same  period  last 
year,  an  increase  of  almost  100  per  cent. 

In  the  light  of  those  facts,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  police  were  not  pursuing  a  quota  system 
and  all  that  that  suggests,  but  stressing  to 
the  police  officers  that  these  were  selective 
methods  of  law  enforcement  to  stop  the 
slaughter  on  the  highways.  I  think  they 
would  be  grossly  remiss,  I  may  say,  if  they 
did  not  stress  the  need  for  that  type  of  law 
enforcement. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  am  wondering,  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  the  hon.  Attorney  General  would 
entertain  a  supplementary  question  in  this 
connection?  Is  the  Attorney  General  aware 
of  a  statement  purportedly  made  by  the  OPP 
assistant  commissioner  Jack  Whitty,  and  re- 
ported in  the  Toronto  Star  of  November  12, 
1968,  as  follows: 

Whitty  said  one  detachment  officer, 
whom  he  refused  to  name,  issued  a  direc- 
tive that  more  charges  were  required 
from  his  staff. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


31 


Now,  sir,  my  first  supplementary:  Is  the 
Minister  familiar  with  this?  Second,  does  his 
department  agree  in  principle  with  directives 
of  that  nature? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  am  not  familiar  with 
it,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  may  have  seen  the  article 
but  I  do  not  recall  it.  As  I  take  it— as  it 
was  read  by  the  hon.  member— he  said  that 
one  detachment  superintendent  or  officer  had 
required  more  charges? 

I  think  this  still  goes  along  with  what  I 
pointed  out,  that  the  effort  of  the  Ontario 
Provincial  Police  was  directed  to  the  par- 
ticular area  of  traffic  law  enforcement  where 
they  were  concerned,  as  in  this  case,  with  the 
great  increase  in  fatalities.  It  is  not  a  case 
of  just  going  out  and  laying  any  kind  of  a 
charge,  but  of  seeing  to  the  enforcement  of 
the  law  where  it  relates  to  traffic  fatalities  on 
the  highway. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Is  the  Attorney  General 
assuring  this  House  that  the  Ontario  Provin- 
cial Police,  either  in  its  hierarchy  or  its 
officers,  at  no  time  directs  the  officers  of  that 
department  to  issue  more  charges  just  for 
the  sake  of  charges?  That  is  the  assurance 
I  am  interested  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  think  I  could  give 
that  assurance— that  is  as  I  understand  it 
from  the  commissioner  of  the  Ontario  Pro- 
vincial Police. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  has  other 
questions? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  do  not  have  any  further 
questions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
bury East. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  I  have 
a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Education. 
Does  the  Minister  intend  to  amend  The 
School  Administration  Act  to  include  a  pro- 
vision for  a  transfer  review  board  in  each 
jurisdiction? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  has 
been  no  decision  on  this  matter  as  yet.  The 
matter  is  still  being  discussed  and  will  be 
again  within  the  next  four  or  five  minutes. 
Some  members  of  the  OTF  have  been  wait- 
ing since  four  o'clock  to  see  the  Minister; 
they  are  now  in  the  gallery  and  I  am  sure 
on  your  behalf,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  would  like 
to  welcome  them  here.  This  is  just  how 
recent  the  discussions  are. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Essex 
South. 


Mr.  D.  A.  Paterson  (Essex  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  few  questions,  the  first  to 
the  hon.  Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs.  Does 
the  hon.  Minister  have,  under  review,  the 
policy  whereby  severances  of  land  in  rural 
areas  from  a  parent  to  a  member  of  the 
immediate  family  are  to  be  changed?  Will 
such  allowances  be  continued  if  the  party 
in  question  is  to  work  on  the  farm;  and 
further  will  this  policy  be  changed  if  the 
party  is  working  in  another  endeavour  and 
only  wishes  to  reside  on  the  lot  so  severed? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  ad- 
ministrative policies  are  always  under  review 
and,  because  of  the  importance  of  equity  in 
dealing  with  citizens  who  want  to  build 
homes  for  their  families,  the  policies  relating 
to  the  subdivision  of  land  and  the  granting  of 
consents  is  kept  under  particularly  careful 
review.  The  main  concerns  are  to  ensure  a 
good  living  environment,  to  avoid  unduly 
high  cost  of  services  and  to  prevent  urban 
sprawl  from  disfiguring  the  countryside,  in- 
terfering with  the  agricultural  economy  and 
reducing  the  efficiency  and  safety  of  our 
roads. 

In  carrying  out  these  policies,  leniency  has 
been  shown  where  a  single  new  lot  is  being 
created  to  accommodate  a  farmer  who  is 
retiring  and  whose  son  is  taking  over  the 
operation  of  the  farm.  The  same  applies 
where  a  farmer's  son  who  is  helping  to  run 
the  family  farm  decides  to  many  and  set  up 
his  own  home  on  the  farm.  There  is  no 
present  intention  of  departing  from  this  prac- 
tice in  bona  fide  cases. 

I  think  question  two  is  answered  in  that. 
Question  three:  As  indicated,  the  current 
policy  is  to  encourage  residential  development 
to  locate  in  an  area  best  suited  to  it  and  to 
avoid  urban  sprawl. 

A  family  relationship  in  itself  will  be  un- 
likely to  justify  departure  from  this  policy. 
However,  if  the  hon.  member  has  any  specific 
problems  in  this  connection,  I  would  be  glad 
to  have  a  look  at  them. 

Mr.  Paterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  hon.  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food.  Does  the  hon.  Minister  intend  to  intro- 
duce, in  this  session,  an  amendment  to  The 
Farm  Products  Marketing  Act  that  will  make 
permissive,  regulations  concerning  acreage 
control,  and  provisions  similar  to  those  now 
pertaining  to  tobacco  allowable  on  other  agri- 
cultural products? 

Second,  is  the  hon.  Minister  negotiating 
with  the  province  of  Quebec  and  the  federal 


32 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


government  to  minimize  the  imports  of  agri- 
cultural products  that  may  flow  into  our  prov- 
ince if  our  producers  place  voluntary  limita- 
tions on  the  volume  of  their  productions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all 
I  would  advise  the  hon.  member  that  he 
would  have  to  wait  and  see  in  reply  to  ques- 
tion (a).  With  regard  to  matter  (b)  it  is  a 
purely  hypothetical  situation.  I  would  say 
this,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  constant  concern 
to  our  department  and  to  myself  personally. 
I  have  had  many  discussions  with  the  Minis- 
ter of  Agriculture  in  the  province  of  Quebec 
as  well  as  with  the  federal  government's  De- 
partment of  Agriculture,  at  ministerial  level, 
concerning  the  problem  of  agricultural  com- 
modities flowing  into  the  province  of  Ontario 
where  there  are  now  types  of  mandatory  con- 
trol on  production  of  those  commodities. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Huron- 
Bruce;  does  he  need  copies  or  has  he  his 
copy? 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  No,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  think  I  have  the  wording  fairly- 
pretty  close  here.  I  have  two  questions,  both 
directed  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food. 

Why  is  the  cost  of  commercial  fertilizer  so 
high  in  Ontario  in  comparison  to  the  United 
States  prices,  as  reported  by  the  Federation 
of  Agriculture? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  not  had  time  to  look  into  this  matter 
entirely.  It  is  within  the  terms  of  reference 
of  the  farm .  income  committee  which,  I 
assume,  has  already  given  that  matter  con- 
sideration. It  is  certainly  within  the  terms  of 
reference  of  the  present  farm  income  commit- 
tee which  has  been  designated  to  investigate 
all  aspects  of  the  corn  industry. 

I  would  assume  it  to  be  likely  that  farmers 
will  avail  themselves  of  the  suggestion  made 
by  the  federal  Minister  of  Agriculture  when 
he  suggested  to  certain  people  that  they 
should  take  advantage  of  the  opportunities  to 
purchase  their  fertilizer  in  the  United  States 
cheaper  than  they  can  in  Canada  according 
to  their  figures.  There  is  no  import  restric- 
tion and  there  is  no  duty  involved. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  The  other  question,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Has  the  Minister  referred  the  speci- 
fic problem  of  the  high  cost  of  importing 
British  and  European  made  tractors  into  Can- 
ada, which  was  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  public  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  On- 
tario Federation  of  Agriculture,  to  the  farm 
machinery  committee? 


Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
Ontario  farm  machinery  committee  has  a 
great  deal  of  information  concerning  this 
price  differential  and  I  would  say  that,  as  well 
as  other  matters  pertaining  to  this  item  that 
have  been  brought  to  our  attention,  some 
Ontario  farmers,  I  understand,  have  already 
availed  themselves  of  the  opportunity  of 
bringing  in  tractors  from  the  United  Kingdom 
by  passing  the  normal  channels. 

I  understand  the  Ontario  Federation  of 
Agriculture  has  compiled  a  document  outlin- 
ing how  this  can  be  accomplished. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Port 
Arthur  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Knight:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  hon.  Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs.  Is 
the  Minister  prepared  to  review  his  decision 
that  a  plebiscite  should  not  be  held  at  the 
Lakehead  to  consider  the  Hardy  report  be- 
cause of  recent  developments  concerning  the 
future  of  Fort  William  city  and  Neebing 
township? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  The  answer,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  "no". 

Mr.  Knight:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might  be  per- 
mitted a  supplementary  question.  Does  this 
mean  that  the  door  is  completely  closed  on 
the  chance  for  the  people  in  the  Lakehead 
cities,  who  would  be  affected  by  amalgama- 
tion as  proposed  by  the  Hardy  report,  to  vote 
on  this  matter?    Is  the  door  closed? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  have  answered  the 
question. 

Mr.  Knight:    I  did  not  hear  the  Minister. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  is  not  accepting 
a  supplementary  question  on  the  basis  that 
he  has  already  answered  the  question. 

Mr.  Knight:  He  has  already  answered  it. 
The  door  is  closed.  Thank  you  very  much. 
I  have  a  question  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  for 
the  hon.    Minister  of  Health.    It  is  in  three 

parts. 

Part  one:  Is  there  a  shortage  of  qualified 
personnel  who  are  graduates  of  Bachelor 
of  Science  in  nursing  in  the  province?  Would 
the  Minister  like  all  three  questions,  Mr. 
Speaker? 

Part  two:  What  is  the  salary  cut  proposed 
for  1969  for  new  nursing  teachers  who  have 
completed  the  Bachelor  of.  Science  in  nurs- 
ing programmes? 

Part  three:  Is  the  Minister  prepared  to 
institute  an  attractive  bonus  system  to  encour- 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


33 


age  more  university  graduates  to  enter  nurs- 
ing service  as  recommended  by  the  Registered 
Xurses  Association  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
somewhat  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  first 
part  of  the  hon.  member's  question.  Any 
holder  of  the  Bachelor  of  Science  degree  in 
nursing  is,  I  presume,  automatically  qualified 
or  she  would  not  have  that  degree. 

However,  I  think  I  know  what  the  hon. 
member  is  getting  at.  There  is  a  shortage 
of  these  people;  5.4  per  cent  of  the  almost 
38,000  nurses  actively  engaged  in  nursing 
hold  a  Bachelor  of  Science  degree  in  nursing. 
This  amounts  to  just  a  little  over  2,000  and 
we  could  use  a  great  many  more  of  them. 

OHSC  till  the  present  time  has— in  reply 
to  part  two  of  the  question— approved  a 
salary  differential  or  educational  increment 
of  $80  per  month  in  recognition  of  the 
B.Sc.N.  degree,  and  this  is  being  provided  for 
teachers  in  nursing.  Nurses  in  nursing  ser- 
vices in  hospital  with  a  similar  degree,  how- 
ever, received  an  educational  increment  of 
only  $50  per  month  and  recently  these  two 
groups  were  equated  and  an  educational 
increment  of  $55  per  month  granted  to  both: 
that  is  reducing  those  who  were  engaged  in 
teaching  in  nursing  by  $25  per  month.  OHSC 
this  year  proposed  an  increase  in  the  educa- 
tional bonus  of  $5  per  month  for  the  nurse  in 
hospital  service  who  holds  the  bachelor  de- 
gree, thus  equating  the  increment  to  those  in 
teaching  positions  in  nursing.  Both  nurses 
hold  the  same  academic  qualifications  and  it 
has  been  believed,  for  some  time,  that  they 
should  both  be  paid  the  same  salary  incre- 
ment in  respect  of  this. 

To  number  three:  Two  years  ago,  The 
Department  of  Health  instituted  a  very 
attractive  bursary  system  to  encourage  more 
nurses  to  take  advanced  training  in  all 
branches  of  nursing,  but  with  particular 
emphasis  on  clinical  nursing.  We  believe  the 
educational  bonus  as  just  outlined  is  a  reason- 
ably attractive  system,  joined  to  the  bursary 
system  that  is  provided  for  in  preparation 
for  higher  responsibility. 

Mr.  Speaker:    The  member  for  Downsview. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Attorney  General.  What 
action  does  the  Attorney  General  intend  to 
take  with  respect  to  Chief  James  Mackey, 
the  chief  of  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  Police, 
and  his  admission  on  November  14,  that  his 
officers  have  seized  privately  owned  wire 
tapping  equipment  during  the  previous  two 
weeks— and    the   question    should    have    gone 


on    to    say,    that    he    admitted    he    had    no 
authority  to  so  act. 

Hon,  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
propose  to  take  any  action.  The  situation  is 
that  the  material  seized  was,  I  think,  four  or 
five  instances  over  a  recent  period  of  time 
where  the  Bell  Telephone  employees  reported 
to  the  chief,  or  police  authorities,  that  they 
had  found  electronic  devices  attached  to 
their  telephone  lines. 

They  turned  the  material  over  to  the 
police  and  reported  the  matter  to  them. 
There  is  no  evidence  and  no  way  of  finding 
out,  at  the  moment  at  least,  who  this  belonged 
to  and,  of  course,  nobody  is  coming  forward 
to  claim  it.  So  it  is  just  a  matter  of  these 
things  being  reported— equipment  which  has 
been  delivered  to  the  police.  I  think  there 
is  nothing  indicated  that  we  should  do  at 
the  moment. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary 
question.  Is  the  Attorney  General  not  shocked 
when  the  chief  of  police  of  the  largest  city  in 
this  province  says  "we  have  no  authority  to 
act  as  we  did?"  I  would  be  shocked  if  I  was 
thi'  Attorney  General. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  has  no  authority— 

Hon.   Mr.   Wishart:    I    do   not   know   as    I 
agree.  I  mean,  I  did  not  read  what  the  chief 
of  police  said.  There  is  a  Telephone  Act- 
Mr.  Singer:  I  am  talking  about  the  chief  of 
police. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  am  reciting  the  facts 
of  the  matter. 

This  was  equipment  found  attached  to 
telephone  lines— found  by  telephone  employ- 
ees. It  was  turned  over  to  the  police.  We 
do  not  know  whose  it  is.  Nobody  is  going 
to  come  forward  to  claim  it.  We  can  con- 
tinue to  investigate.  It  is  against  T,he  Tele- 
phone Act,  but  what  is  to  be  done? 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  prepared 
to  leave  it,  but  what  the  Attorney  General 
says  is  not  in  accordance  with  what  the 
chief  is  quoted  as  having  said:  "We  picked 
up  five  bugs  in  the  last  two  weeks." 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  must 
pursue  this. 

In  the  last  session,  in  public,  in  representa- 
tions made  to  Ottawa  we  have  requested,  we 
have  suggested,  we  have  urged  that  there  be 
a  law  against  electronic  eavesdropping,  and 
that  some  provision  be  made  for  the  police  to 
do  it  under  strict  control.  Now,  if  that  law 
were  passed— and  I   understand  the  Minister 


34 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  Justice  has  made  a  statement  he  will  pro- 
duce such  legislation,  which  I  had  also  sug- 
gested should  be  national  or  federal,  one  law 
across  the  country.  When  we  have  that,  then 
the  chief  of  police  will  have  the  law  he  is 
perhaps  looking  for.  But  in  the  circumstances 
I  recited,  I  do  not  know  there  is  anything  to 
be  done. 

Mr.  Singer:  One  can  only  conclude  the 
Attorney  General  is  not  concerned  about 
chiefs  of  police  breaking  the  law. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  another  question  for 
the  Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs. 

Would  the  Minister  state  the  position  of  his 
department  in  the  manner— this  question  is 
worded— of  the  vacancy,  the  anticipated  vac- 
ancy in  aldermanic  representation  of  ward  3 
in  the  city  of  Toronto? 

And  the  second  part  of  the  same  question: 
Has  the  Minister  received  any  resolution  from 
the  city  of  Toronto  council  to  suggest  that 
there  should  be  provision  in  The  Municipal 
Act  to  permit  a  by-election  to  be  held  in  this 
particular  case  and  in  any  similar  situation 
in  the  future  and,  if  so,  is  he  prepared  to 
take  any  action? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon.  member 
would  ask  his  question  in  the  terms  in  which 
he  submitted  it  and,  if  he  did  not  add  a 
further  question  when  he  submitted  it  this 
morning,  he  should  not  do  so  now,  except 
by  way  of  supplementary  question. 

The  last  question  should  not  be  taken  by 
the  Minister  except  as  a  supplementary  ques- 
tion. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  In  reply  to  the  first 
question,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  just  say  that 
as  far  as  I  am  aware  there  is  no  vacancy  for 
aldermen  in  the  city  of  Toronto  at  the  present 
time. 

As  far  as  the  second  question  is  concerned, 
the  answer  is  "yes". 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Windsor- 
Walkerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Labour- 
Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  apology  to 
my  colleague,  by  way  of  a  supplementary 
question,  what  action  is  the  Minister  pre- 
pared to  take  in  answer  to  the  resolution  that 
he  has  received? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  received  the  resolu- 
tion and  I  have  written  to  them. 


Mr.  Singer:  Is  the  Minister  prepared  to  act 
on  what  they  recommend? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  That  matter  is  public 
knowledge.  It  has  been  quoted  in  the  press. 

Mr.  Singer:  Well,  I  am  asking  the  Min- 
ister here. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Does  the  member 
want  me  to  put  it  on  record  here? 

Mr.  Singer:  Would  the  Minister  tell  us 
whether  he  is  prepared  to  act  or  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  am  prepared  to  act. 

Mr.  Singer:  Is  the  Minister  going  to  act  in 
this  session? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  have  indicated  so  to 
the  city  of  Toronto. 

Mr.  Singer:  Then  why  did  the  Minister  not 
say  so,  instead  of  shadow-boxing? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  It  is  in  the  paper. 
Does  the  member  want  everything  repeated 
ten  times? 

Mr.  Singer:  What  is  the  Minister  hiding? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  why 
does  he  not  answer  the  questions  intelligently 
and  then  we  would  not  get  into  this  mess. 

Mr.  Singer:  That  is  what  I  was  asking  for, 
Mr.  Speaker,  an  intelligent  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just 
wanted  to  know.  He  added  to  the  question 
all  the  way  through  it. 

The  second  question,  "Has  the  Minister 
received  any  resolution  from  Toronto?".  My 
answer  was  "yes". 

Why  does  not  the  member  ask  what  my 
answer  was,  instead  of  going  through  all  this 
gibberish  and  then  coming  up  with  innumer- 
able supplementary  questions? 

An  hon.  member:  And  then  he  accused  the 
Minister  of  shadow-boxing. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Yes,  who  is  shadow- 
boxing  who? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  Perhaps  the  members 
will  allow  the  member  for  Windsor- Walker- 
ville, who  has  been  very  patient,  to  ask  his 
questions  now. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour 
and  it  reads  as  follows: 

What  steps  is  his  department  taking  to 
assist  the  one  thousand  or  so  workers  of  the 


NOVEMBER  20,  1968 


35 


Ford  Motor  Company,  Windsor,  who  will  be 
on  a  temporary  lay-off,  which,  for  some,  may 
last  as  long  as  one  year?  And,  by  the  way, 
this  lay-off  will  affect  451  people  next  week. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bales:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer 
to  the  question  of  the  hon.  member  for 
Windsor- Walkerville : 

The  department,  through  its  training  serv- 
ices, will  be  supporting  and  co-operating  with 
the  federal  manpower  department  in  whatever 
steps  it  may  take  in  response  to  the  situation 
in  Windsor.  From  the  announcement  that  I 
received,  this  contemplated  conversion  will 
start  next  May. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  If  I  may  put  a  supple- 
mentary question,  is  not  the  department  at 
present  actively  working  on  some  type  of  pro- 
gramme for  the  451  that  will  be  laid  off  next 
week? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bales:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  matter  of 
451  people  had  not  come  to  my  attention 
previously.  I  received  notification  of  the  con- 
version two  days  ago. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  will  send  over  to  the 
Minister  the  newspaper  clipping  that  specific- 
ally indicates  the  numbers  that  will  be  laid 
off.  And  a  lot  of  these,  Mr.  Speaker,  do  not 
qualify  for  supplementary  unemployment  in- 
surance benefits,  so  they  may  find  themselves 
severely  handicapped. 

A  second  question  of  the  Minister:  What 
steps  is  his  department  taking  in  an  attempt 
to  settle  the  three-month-old  strike  at  the 
Dominion  Forge  Company  in  Windsor? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bales:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  officials 
are  keeping  in  close  touch  with  the  company 
so  that  we  can  render  all  assistance  possible 
to  them,  and  we  have  done  this  over  a  period 
of  time. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Has  the  Minister  not  been 
called  in  by  both  labour  and  management  in 
an  attempt  to  settle  this? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bales:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
indicated  that  to  you;  we  have  been  in  close 
touch  with  them  constantly  on  this. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Peacock:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  point 
of  order  which  I  have  been  holding  on  to  for 


some    time   until    the   end   of   the    question 
period,  but  I  would  like  to  put  it  to  you  now. 

I  felt  myself  to  have  been  somewhat  misled 
—and  perhaps  you  yourself  were— by  the  ex- 
planation given  during  our  earlier  discussion 
on  the  motion  to  establish  a  committee  on 
housing  and  urban  affairs,  to  the  effect  that 
the  absence  of  the  Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development  was  due  to  his  preparations  for 
a  trip  to  Trenton.  It  has  just  come  to  my 
attention,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  in  fact  he  is  on 
his  way  to  preside  over  the  inauguration  of 
the  Quaker  Oats  Company's  entry  into  the 
frozen  baked  goods  business.  He  will  be 
participating  in  the  enjoyment  of  cream  puffs 
from  a  plant  financed  perhaps  in  part  by  his 
agency,  instead  of  being  in  his  place  to  deal 
with  the  business  of  housing  when  we  were 
talking  about  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  unfortunate  that  the 
hon.  member  did  not  accept  the  explanation 
which  I  was  able  to  give  of  the  Minister's 
absence,  which  I  believe  was  quite  correct. 
It  has  been  elaborated  on,  of  course,  by  the 
hon.  member. 

At  this  time  I  would  like  to  recognize  a 
distinguished  member  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  Dominion  of  New  Zealand, 
Mr.  John  Luxton,  who  is  in  Mr.  Speaker's 
gallery,  who,  with  his  wife  is  returning  from 
the  Commonwealth  Parliamentary  Associa- 
tion gathering  held  in  Nassau  a  short  time 
ago. 

Orders  of  the  day. 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  (Prime  Minister):  Mr. 
Speaker,  tomorrow  we  will  call  the  first  order, 
the  motion  will  be  moved  by  the  member 
for  Prescott  and  Russell  (Mr.  Belanger)  and 
seconded  by  the  member  for  Fort  William 
(Mr.   Jessiman). 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 
Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  just  wish  to  explain  to  the 
members  that  I  did  not  wish  to  bring  them 
back  at  2:30  tomorrow,  and  I  had  forgotten 
the  exact  wording  of  the  Prime  Minister's 
motion. 

The  House  adjourned  at  5:40  o'clock,  p.m. 


No.  3 


ONTARIO 


legislature  of  (Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  -  DAILY  EDITION 


Second  Session  of  the  Twenty-Eighth  Legislature 


Thursday,  November  21,  1968 


Speaker:  Honourable  Fred  Mcintosh  Cass,  Q.C. 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  Q.C. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 


Price  per  session,  $5.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto. 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  November  21,  1968. 

Municipal  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  McKeough,  first  reading  39 

Head  office  for  Ontario  Hydro,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Nixon  39 

Ontario's  succession  duty  laws,  question  to  Mr.  White,  Mr.  Nixon  40 

Toronto  International  Airport  expansion,  questions  to  Mr.   Robarts,   Mr.   Kennedy  and 

Mr.  Ben  40 

International  bridges,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Bullbrook  41 

Minister's    committee    re   training   secondary    school    teachers,    questions   to    Mr.    Davis, 

Mr.  T.  Reid  43 

School  building  costs,  question  to  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  T.  Reid  44 

Control  of  sale  and  use  of  firearms,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Sargent  44 

Persons  arrested  for  minor  offences,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Sargent  45 

Justices  of  the  peace,  question  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Sargent  46 

Tenants'  rights,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Sargent  47 

Loans  by  Ontario  development  corporation,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Sargent  47 

Tenants  in  Green  Meadows  subdivision,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Worton  48 

Subsidizing  research  on  effects  of  noise,  questions  to  Mr.  Haskett,  Mr.  B.  Newman  48 

Decision  by  Magistrate  McMahon,  question  to  Mr.  Haskett,  Mr.  B.  Newman  48 

"Dimensions"  magazine,  questions  to  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  Innes  49 

Standard  form  of  OHC  lease,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Singer  49 

Larry  Botrie  case,  question  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Singer  49 

Public  beaches  on  Lake  Erie  shoreline,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Breithaupt  50 

Clerical  work  at  Perth  county  jail,  questions  to  Mr.  Grossman,  Mr.  Edighoffer  50 

Throne  Speech  debate,  Mr.  Belanger,  Mr.  Jessiman  51 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Jessiman,  agreed  to  66 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Robarts,  agreed  to  66 


39 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  3  o'clock,  p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  are  always  pleased  to 
have  visitors  to  the  Legislature  and  today  we 
welcome  guests  from  the  following  schools: 
In  the  east  gallery,  students  from  Wilcox 
public  school,  Toronto;  and  in  the  west  gal- 
lery from  Georgian  Bay  secondary  school, 
Meaford. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 

THE  MUNICIPAL  ACT 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  Munic- 
ipal Affairs)  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  to  amend  The  Municipal  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  section 
1  is  a  technical  change;  section  2  is  the  main 
reason  for  the  bill.  It  straightens  away  the 
hours  of  voting  on  December  2  next,  along 
with  Bill  44.  I  sent  a  memorandum  to  all 
members  of  the  Legislature,  or  a  copy  of  the 
memorandum  about  this,  and  our  notice  to 
bring  this  bill  in. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Mr.  Speaker,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  much 
competition  on  this  side  of  the  floor,  but  I  do 
have  a  question  for  the  Premier  (Mr.  Robarts). 

Does  Ontario  Hydro  status  require  it  to  get 
government  approval  before  proceeding  with 
its  announced  plan  to  build  a  $28  million 
head  office  to  be  located  on  the  corner  of 
University  Avenue  and  College  Street  and  to 
be  completed  in  1971?  And  if  so,  has  the 
government  granted,  or  is  it  considering,  such 
approval? 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  (Prime  Minister):  Mr. 
Speaker,  section  38,  subsection  1  of  The 
Power  Commission  Act  gives  the  Ontario 
Hydro  Electric  Power  Commission  authority' 
to   acquire   land  and   erect   any   buildings    it 


Thursday,  November  21,  1968 

may  deem  necessary  for  its  own  purposes, 
and  this  can  be  done  without  any  reference 
to  the  Lieutenant-Governor  in  council.  There- 
fore, the  answer  to  the  first  part  of  your  ques- 
tion is  "no".  No  sanction  of  this  government 
is  necessary  for  Hydro  to  proceed. 

However,  the  member  might  be  interested 
to  know  that  no  final  decision  has  yet  been 
reached  by  Hydro  to  go  ahead  with  the  build- 
ing. They  have  owned  the  property  since 
1963.  I  am  told  that  approval  has  been  given 
for  the  complete  design  and  working  draw- 
ings, and  no  approval  beyond  that  stage  has 
been  granted,  but  the  building  is  being 
planned. 

Hydro  is  presently  paying  out  about  $1.2 
million  a  year  in  rentals  for  accommodation 
for  their  headquarters  staff  and,  of  course, 
this  is  the  staff  they  propose  to  accommodate 
in  this  building.  Their  plans  are  related  to 
vvli.it  is  foreseen  as  the  expansion  of  Hydro 
up  until,  I  believe,  about  1990.  This  building, 
as  it  is  being  planned,  will  be  larger  than 
their  immediate  needs  and  the  surplus  space 
will  be  rented  out  until  it  is  required  by 
Hydro  itself. 

Members  will  know  that  our  power  require- 
ments from  Hydro  are  increasing  at  the  rate 
of  about  ten  per  cent  a  year,  which  means  in 
the  next  ten  years  they  have  to  reproduce 
everything  that  we  have  been  able  to  create 
in  the  history  of  Hydro  to  date.  They  fore- 
see the  need  for  this  expansion  and  that  is  the 
basis  of  the  planning  of  this  building. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  Premier 
would  permit  a  supplementary  question. 

Does  he  believe  that  that  particular  plot  of 
ground  in  the  heart  of  the  capital  city  should 
be  used  for  this  purpose  rather  than  directing 
the  head  office  to  be  located  outside  the 
Metropolitan  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think,  in 
the  first  place,  I  can  only  have  a  general 
opinion  on  the  subject  because  I  am  not  par- 
ticularly conversant  with  the  administrative 
problems.  I  do  know  however  that  they  have 
a  very  large  head  office  staff.  They  feel  that 
it  should  be  in  this  location,  close  to  govern- 
ment.   I  do  not  see  any  reason  why  this  site 


40 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


would  not  be  suitable  for  them.  This  prop- 
erty is  going  to  be  used  for  offices.  I  suppose, 
if  they  do  not  build  an  office  there,  somebody 
else  will  and  Hydro  has  installations  of  all 
kinds,  sorts,  sizes  and  shapes  scattered  all  over 
this  province  and— 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  In  other 
words,  the  Premier  was  going  to— 

Hon.  Mr.  Rob  arts:  There  is  that  great 
brain  at  work  again. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  find  it  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  hon.  member's  interjections,  but 
as  I  say,  Hydro  certainly  has  not  concen- 
trated its  building  in  the  city  of  Toronto.  I 
do  not  know  what  the  Toronto  members 
think  about  this  eternal  running  down  of 
the  capital  city  that  takes  place  here. 

Certainly,  Hydro  has  a  great  number  of 
installations  in  many,  many  different  parts 
of  the  city  and,  if  they  think,  in  the  interests 
of  the  efficiency  of  the  operation  of  Hydro, 
their  head  office  should  be  adjacent  to 
Queen's  Park,  the  centre  of  government  and 
to  the  financial  institutions  of  our  province, 
I  frankly  do  not  see  any  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  Premier 
would  permit  a  further  supplementary  ques- 
tion. 

I  can  see  the  validity  of  his  point  in  having 
them  close  to  the  financial  institutions  be- 
cause they  are  going  to  have  a  lot  to  do  with 
them,  but  they  are  autonomous  of  govern- 
ment based  on  the  Prime  Minister's  own 
comment.  So,  I  would  ask  the  Prime  Minister, 
if  in  fact  they  decide  to  go  ahead,  would  he 
use  his  authority,  through  the  vice-chairman, 
to  postpone  this  decision  until  the  present 
fiscal  nightmares  recede? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
that  is  inherent  in  what  Hydro  is  doing. 
What  they  are  doing  is  planning  the  build- 
ing. They  have  not  let  any  contracts.  But 
it  will  take  some  considerable  time  to  design 
it  and  the  only  control  we  have  as  a  govern- 
ment, over  the  operation  of  Hydro  is,  of 
course,  that  we  have  to  secure— we  have  to 
guarantee- 
Mr.  Nixon:  We  back  every  dollar  they 
borrow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  We  have  to  guarantee 
every  dollar  they  borrow.  And  while  we  are 
in  this  debate,  which  is  far  from  the  ques- 
tion, I  can  certainly  assure  the  hon.  members 
of  this  House  that  the  borrowing  policies, 
practices  and  the  timing  of  borrowing  by 
Hydro     is     very     closely     co-ordinated     and 


worked  out  with  the  Treasurer  and  Treasury 
officials  here.  Because,  if  we  are  to  have  an 
orderly  financing  of  the  needs  of  this  govern- 
ment and  of  Hydro,  we  need  a  high  degree 
of  co-operation. 

This  is  what  we  have  been  trying  to  get 
with  the  federal  government  but  have  been 
unable  to  do  so.  But  within  those  matters 
that  we  control,  I  can  assure  you  there  is 
a  very  high  degree  of  co-operation. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  hon.  Minister  of  Revenue  (Mr.  White). 

Is  the  Minister  reviewing  Ontario's  suc- 
cession duty  laws  with  a  view  to  implement- 
ing the  same  exemptions  to  spouses  as 
recently  granted  at  the  federal  level? 

Hon  J.  H.  White  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  all  tax  statutes  are  under  review 
in  the  light  of  the  Smith  committee  and  the 
select  committee  reports. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Oh,  he  is  going  to  be  a  great 
Minister;  he  qualifies! 

I  am  sure  that  such  intensive  review  is 
necessary  after  the  previous  jurisdiction 
under  the  Treasurer  has  just  been  accom- 
plished. We  have  to  think  of  something  to 
keep  the  new  Minister  busy  and  this  might 
perhaps  be  as  useful  as  anything  else. 

I  would  like  to  ask,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
Minister  of  Lands  and  Forests  (Mr.  Brunelle), 
who  is  now  in  his  seat  could  answer  this 
question:  Can  the  Minister  report  overall 
utilization  figures  for  the  provincial  parks 
for  1968  compared  to  those  figures  for  1967? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Lands  and 
Forests):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to  the  hon. 
leader  of  the  Opposition,  may  I  say  that  we 
are  in  the  process  of  completing  these  figures 
and  hope  to  have  them  available  soon.  We 
will  be  very  pleased  to  supply  a  copy  to 
his  office. 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  In  view 
of  the  disastrous  effects  on  people  and  prop- 
erty in  the  proximity  of  Malton  airport,  if 
the  presently  proposed  expansion  takes  place, 
would  the  Prime  Minister  inform  the  House 
if  the  province  can  do  anything  to  insure 
reconsideration  by  the  federal  government  of 
this  totally  unacceptable  scheme? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Hura- 
ber  has  a  similar  question,  which  perhaps  he 
will  now  place? 

Mr.  G.  Ben  (Humber):  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker. 
My  question  of  the  hon.   Prime  Minister  is: 

As  the  Ontario  spokesman  for  1.5  million 
people    who    will    be    adversely    affected    by 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


41 


the  extension  of  the  Toronto  International 
Airport,  what  is  the  Premier  doing  to  have 
such  an  extension  halted  and,  in  the  alterna- 
tive, sir,  promote  the  construction  of  a  new 
international  airport  at  Camp  Borden  with 
connecting  GO  transit  lines   to   Toronto? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  answer 
to  both  these  questions,  I  would  say  first  it 
is  my  understanding  that  the  federal  govern- 
ment is  not  bound  by  our  zoning  by-laws. 
Their  powers  of  expropriation  override  any 
provincial  power,  and  they  are  not  bound  by 
an  open  by-law.  Against  that  background 
and  the  fact  that  international  airports  are 
entirely  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal 
government,  anything  we  do  must  be  against 
that  background  of  facts. 

I  have  been  asked  to  meet  a  group  of 
ratepayers  who  will  be  affected  and  I  pro- 
pose to  meet  them.  In  the  meantime,  the 
government  is  looking  very  closely  at  all  the 
various  facts  being  produced  by  this  situa- 
tion. We  are  concerned  with  the  living  con- 
ditions of  the  people  who  reside  in  that  area. 
Land  values  would  be  affected,  as  well  as  the 
comfort  of  living.  I  can  assure  you  we  intend 
to  look  after  their  interests  in  the  best  way 
that  we  can. 

At  the  moment,  there  are  at  least  five  de- 
partments in  this  government  who  are  inter- 
ested in  this  whole  proposition:  The  Depart- 
ment of  Municipal  Affairs;  The  Department 
of  Highways;  The  Department  of  Health  as 
far  as  pollution  and  noise,  if  I  may  put  it 
that  way,  are  concerned;  The  Department  of 
Energy  and  Resources  Management;  and  The 
Department  of  Transport. 

We  have  been  approached  by  officials  of 
The  Department  of  Transport  of  the  federal 
government  and  we  are  in  consultation  with 
them.  We  are  in  the  position,  now,  of  trying 
to  sort  out  the  ramifications  of  the  proposals 
the  federal  government  has  made.  As  far  as 
I  am  aware  no  final  decisions  have  been 
made.  The  whole  matter  is  being  investigated 
and  we  are  gathering  up  all  the  information 
being  produced  from  various  sources,  and 
advanced  by  various  interested  groups. 

We  have  been  approached  by  the  federal 
government  and  we  intend  to  sit  down  with 
them  and  discuss  the  whole  matter.  Then  we 
will  decide  wrhat  position  we,  as  a  govern- 
ment, will  take.  I  make  these  comments 
against  the  background  of  the  fact  that  it  is 
a  federal  responsibility.  That  their  jurisdiction 
in  expropriation,  in  zoning  by-laws  and  in 
land-use  policies,  overrides  that  of  the  prov- 
ince  or  the  municipalities  involved. 


Mr.  Ben:  Will  the  Prime  Minister  accept  a 
supplementary  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Yes. 

Mr.  Ben:  Do  I  take  it  then  that,  aside  from 
the  concern  expressed  by  five  departments, 
the  Prime  Ministers  government  has  made 
no  statement  to  the  federal  government  ex- 
pressing its  objection  to  the  proposed  expan- 
sion of  the  Malton  International  Airport? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
repeat  what  I  have  said.  We  have  made  no 
positive  statement  that  we,  as  a  government, 
object  to  what  the  federal  government  is  pro- 
posing. What  we  are  doing  at  this  stage 
is  sitting  down  with  the  federal  government 
to  examine  all  the  ramifications  and  effects  of 
what  they  are  proposing.  Those  proposals 
may  be  changed;  they  may  be  altered;  we  do 
not  know.  Certainly,  I  am  informed  that  no 
final  decision  has  been  made  by  the  federal 
gavernment. 

In  other  words,  the  whole  proposition  is 
presently  being  examined  and  we  are  taking 
part  in  that  examination  to  see  how  it  affects 
the  interests  of  this  government  in  the  various 
departments  I  have  mentioned.  For  instance, 
The  Department  of  Highways  must,  of 
course,  be  very  interested  because  of  the 
highways  we  have  built  to  provide  service  to 
Malton.  We  do  not  know  whether  they  will 
be  adequate,  for  instance,  if  this  expansion 
takes  place. 

In  addition  to  that,  there  are  the  interests 
which  I  believe  the  two  hon.  members  who 
asked  the  questions  are  trying  to  put  forward, 
and  there  are  the  interests  of  the  residents 
about  the  area  who  will  be  affected,  and  of 
course  we  are  very  concerned  in  their  in- 
terests in  this  matter.  That  is  why  I  am  mak- 
ing arrangements  to  meet  with  them  so  that 
they  may  tell  this  government  their  exact 
points  of  view.  Every  time  you  pick  up  a 
newspaper  there  is  another  report  from  some- 
body dealing  with  this  matter.  I  do  not  think 
all  the  information  that  will  be  available 
about  the  matter  is  necessarily  before  us  at 
the  moment.  When  we  have  all  these  opinions 
—and  even  before  that— we  will  confer  with 
the  federal  government  and  then  decide  what 
our   position   is. 

Mr.  Ben:  The  Minister  is  saying  there  is 
no  foresight  on  the  part  of  the  government. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sarnia 
has  the  floor. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Sarnia):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  for  the  hon.  Premier. 


42 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Would  the  Premier  advise  whether  his 
government  has  established  a  policy  relative 
to  uniform  municipal  taxation  with  respect 
to  international  bridges,  as  mentioned  by  the 
Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs  (Mr.  McKeough) 
to  the  private  bills  committee  of  this  House 
during  the  first  session? 

If  the  answer  to  the  above  is  yes,  would 
the  Premier  advise  whether  his  government 
contemplates  proposing  legislation  in  this 
session  with  respect  thereto? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  I  do  not  know  that  I 
am  exactly  aware  of  what  the  Minister  of 
Municipal  Affairs  said  to  the  private  bills 
committee  of  the  House;  on  the  other  hand, 
I  can  tell  the  member  where  the  matter 
stands  at  the  moment. 

As  I  explained  to  the  House  last  year,  in 
Ontario  we  have  about  every  form  of  arrange- 
ment in  international  bridges  that  the  mind 
of  man  has  been  able  to  devise.  It  is  once 
again  a  split  jurisdiction.  The  federal  govern- 
ment is  involved  in  international  bridges  be- 
cause of  their  international  aspects.  We  are 
involved,  of  course,  because  the  Canadian 
end  of  the  bridge  will  be  in  some  munici- 
pality or  in  some  part  of  the  province  of 
Ontario.  I  have  been  in  communication  with 
the  former  Prime  Minister  of  Canada,  and 
the  present  Prime  Minister  of  Canada,  and 
we  are  in  the  process  of  instituting  studies 
which  will  cover  not  just  the  one  bridge  the 
hon.  member  who  asked  the  question  happens 
to  be  interested  in— and  I  know  the  problem 
in  his  riding— but  we  have  a  whole  series  of 
international  bridges  extending  across  the  St. 
Lawrence  River,  the  Niagara  River,  the  De- 
troit River  and  the  Fort  Frances— is  it  the 
St.  Mary's  River?  — and  the  river  at  Fort 
Frances,  in  any  event. 

So  we  find  it  necessary  to  take  a  rather 
broad  approach  to  this  problem.  These 
studies  are  not  complete,  and  therefore  I 
would  have  to  answer  the  member's  first 
question  in  the  negative.  We  have  not  yet 
established  a  policy  relative  to  uniform 
municipal  taxation.  On  the  other  hand,  I 
would  say  that  our  studies  in  this  regard  are 
proceeding  and  I  hope  that  we  will  have  a 
solution  which  will  be  satisfactory  to  all  the 
various  interests  involved. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  Premier 
would  permit,  recognizing  that  his  obligation 
is  a  broad  one— I  suggest  most  respectfully, 
would  he  not  agree  that  it  is  a  rather  lengthy 
one?  In  this  respect,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Min- 
ister of  Municipal  Affairs  at  the  time  of  the 
presentation  of  my  private  bill  last  year,  ad- 


vised that  the  government  had  this  under 
contemplation  at  that  time.  I  wrote  to  the 
Premier  some  three  months  ago— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  member  is  plac- 
ing a  supplementary  question,  not  making  a 
speech.  If  he  would  place  his  question 
please. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  thought  that  I  properly 
premised  this  speech,  sir,  would  you  not 
agree? 

In  essence,  Mr.  Speaker,  am  I  able  to 
assure  the  people  of  my  riding  that  there 
will  be  some  legislation  instituted  in  this 
session  relative  to  their  particular  problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  could 
not  possibly  give  him  such  an  undertaking. 
As  I  point  out,  this  government  does  not 
have  control  over  this  situation. 

It  took  30  or  40  years,  at  least,  to  build  up 
this  legal  tangle  involving  international 
bridges  and  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  expected 
to  be  solved  in  six  months. 

It  is  a  very  complex  matter  indeed  and  it 
involves  some  states  in  the  United  States. 
It  involves  the  federal  government  of  the 
United  States.  It  involves  the  government  of 
Canada.  It  involves  the  government  of  the 
province  of  Ontario.  It  involves  certain 
municipalities  and  it  involves  certain  private 
companies  that  were  given  permission  to 
operate  international  bridges  at  various  times 
in  the  distant  past.  I  have  no  magic  wand 
that  I  can  wave  to  cut  through  all  the  legal 
complexities  that  surround  the  issue. 

I  think  you  can  assure  the  people  of  your 
riding  that  we  are  very  aware  of  their  prob- 
lem and  we  will  look  after  their  interests  as 
this  matter  unfolds. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  have  a  question,  Mr. 
Speaker,  for  the  hon.  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
Wishart). 

Would  the  Attorney  General  advise  the 
term  of  appointment  of  one  Bruce  Goulet  as 
a  member  of  the  police  commission  of  the 
city  of  North  Bay? 

Two,  would  the  Attorney  General  advise 
whether  this  man's  appointment  is  the  begin- 
ning of  a  policy  by  the  department  of 
appointing  other  than  magistrates  and  judges 
to  the  police  commissions? 

Three,  would  the  Attorney  General  advise 
of  Mr.  Goulet's  qualifications  for  such  office? 

Hon.  A.  A.  Wishart  (Attorney  General): 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  question  comes  in  three 
parts,  making  actually  three  different  ques- 
tions. 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


43 


The  appointment  of  a  member  of  the  police 
commission— board  of  police  commissioners— is 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  Lieutenant-Governor  in 
council  and  they  may  serve  for  one  year,  two 
years,  three  years  or  longer. 

That  is  the  first  part  of  the  question. 

The  second  part  inquires,  Mr.  Speaker,  if 
this  is  the  beginning  of  a  policy  by  the  depart- 
ment of  appointing  other  than  magistrates.  I 
would  like  first,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  point  out  that 
the  Minister  is  not  called  upon  to  answer  a 
question  as  to  government  policy  in  my  view 
and  I  think  that  is  clear  in  the  rules.  How- 
ever, I  would  not  refuse  to  answer  it  on  that 
ground. 

Actually  there  have  been  a  number  of 
appointments  of  persons  other  than  magis- 
trates to  police  commissions.  In  particular, 
I  recall  in  my  own  city  of  Sault  Ste.  Marie 
four  years  ago,  in  addition  to  the  mayor  and 
the  district  judge,  a  citizen  who  happened  to 
be  an  ex-mayor  was  appointed.  He  is  still 
serving.  That  is  about  four  years  ago.  That 
ix)licy— if  it  is  a  policy— has  been  adopted  in 
a  number  of  other  municipalities. 

I  think  perhaps  I  might  enlarge  a  little  bit 
upon  that.  The  Police  Act  used  to  call  for  the 
appointment  of  the  head  of  a  municipality,  a 
district  or  county  judge  and  a  magistrate,  so 
that  there  were  three  persons.  I  just  do  nnt 
recall  the  date  of  the  amendment  which 
changed  the  requirement  that  it  be  a  magis- 
trate to  "one  other  person,"  but  it  was  four 
or  five  years  ago  at  least.  We  have  not  been 
bound,  therefore,  to  appoint  magistrates,  and 
have  l>een  exercising  the  latitude  which  that 
amendment  gave  to  appoint  other  citizens. 
Generally  in  that  regard  we  look  for  a  citizen 
who  has  had  experience  perhaps  in  municipal 
affairs  or  business  affairs,  a  citizen  of  char- 
acter, one  who  is  knowledgeable  and  who  has 
the  respect  of  the  citizenry. 

We  have  been  following  that  quite  gener- 
ally, but  I  would  not  say  that  we  have  aban- 
doned entirely  the  option  to  appoint  a 
magistrate.  In  many  commissions  magistrates 
have  served  for  years  and  have  served  with 
great  distinction  and  have  offered  great  serv- 
ice to  their  communities.  I  think  generally  we 
have  been  moving  from  the  magistrate  to  the 
citizen. 

As  to  the  third  question  about  the  qualifi- 
cations of  Mr.  Goulet,  I  have  not  had  time  to 
get  that  information  but  I  would  be  glad  to 
get  it  and  perhaps  I  might  present  it  to  the 
member.  I  take  it  it  is  for  his  own  informa- 
tion.   I  would  be  glad  to  do  that. 


Hon.  A.  F.  Lawrence  (Minister  of  Mines): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on  a  point  of  order,  or 
what  I  believe  is  a  point  of  order,  sir,  and  it 
involves  a  sort  of  two-pronged  question  to  you. 

1.  I  wonder  if  you  could  inform  the  House 
if  there  is  any  procedure  whereby  a  mem- 
ber's seat  could  be  declared  vacant  by  the 
House  due  to  a  rather  cavalier  attitude  re- 
specting the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  that 
member  in  attending  the  proceedings  of  this 
House? 

2.  I  was  wondering  if  you  had  given  the 
members  of  any  particular  group  of  this 
House  leave  of  absence  to  absent  themselves 
from  the  House,  because  I  draw  your  atten- 
tion, sir,  to  rule  23  of  the  rules  of  this  House, 
and  I  quote: 

Every  member  is  bound  to  attend  the 
service  of  the  House  unless  leave  of  ab- 
sence has  been  given  by  the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  be  most  pleased  to 
take  the  Minister's  first  point  under  consid- 
eration. With  respect  to  the  second  point  I 
am  quite  sure  that  the  reason  for  absence  of 
those  to  whom  undoubtedly  he  refers  is  prob- 
ably substantial,  and  probably  as  good  as  that 
reason  used  by  any  other  members  who  find 
it  expedient  to  absent  themselves  from  the 
proceedings  of  this  House  from  time  to  time. 

Hon.  A.  F.  Lawrence:  In  pressing  the  point, 
sir,  I  was  wondering  if  the  members  of  the 
NDP  group  in  this  House  had  received  your 
permission  to  absent  themselves  from  the 
House  today? 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  has  not  been  the  practice  in 
this  assembly  for  members  to  request  leave  of 
absence  from  the  Speaker.  That  is  usually 
done  through  the  party  Whip's  office  and  I 
would  anticipate  that  the  same  procedure 
was  followed  by  the  group  in  question  today. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  East. 

Mr.  T.  Reid  (Scarborough  East):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the  Minister 
of  Education. 

Who  are  the  members  of  the  Minister  of 
Education's  committee  which  has  been  meet- 
ing since  June,  1968,  to  examine  existing  con- 
cepts, standards,  methods  and  facilities  for 
training  secondary  school  teachers?  And  when 
will  the  committee's  report  be  tabled  in  the 
Legislature? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not  sure  whether  the 
phraseology  used  by  the  hon.  member  really 
is  quite  appropriate.  I  do  not  think  the  terms 
of   reference   for  the   committee   were  really 


44 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


quite  that  broad,  as  I  understand  it.  This 
committee  really  arose  out  of  the  decision  to 
discontinue  the  summer  courses  at  the  OCE 
and  is  composed  of  a  group  of  individuals 
who  are  recommending  to  us  ways  and  means 
of  keeping  a  flow  of  teachers  into  the  secon- 
dary schools  at  the  same  time  as  we  discon- 
tinue the  summer  school  programme. 

The  chairman  of  the  committee  is  Mr.  T. 
D.  Boone,  director  of  education,  Etobicoke; 
Mr.  J.  B.  Callan,  representative  of  the  Ontario 
secondary  school  headmasters'  council  and 
principal  of  Nepean  high  school;  D.  F.  Dad- 
son,  the  dean  of  the  OCE,  Toronto;  H.  B. 
Henderson,  regional  superintendent  of  The 
Department  of  Education;  St.  Catharines; 
N.  J.  Hill,  representative  of  the  Ontario 
teachers'  federation,  St.  Marys;  Mrs.  J.  Aceti, 
executive  officer,  Ontario  secondary  school 
teachers'  federation;  J.  F.  Kinlin,  superin- 
tendent of  curriculum,  The  Department  of 
Education;  R.  D.  MacDonald,  representative 
of  the  Ontario  school  trustees'  council,  Till- 
sonburg;  A.  H.  McKague,  superintendent  of 
supervision,  T,he  Department  of  Education; 
Vernon  Ready,  dean  of  McArthur  College  of 
Education,  Queen's  University,  Kingston;  J. 
W.  Singleton,  representative  of  the  associa- 
tion of  Ontario  directors  of  education  and  the 
director  of  education  for  the  Burlington 
board;  W.  S.  Turner,  dean  of  Althouse  Col- 
lege at  Western;  G.  L.  Woodruff,  director  of 
teacher  education,  The  Department  of  Edu- 
cation; and  David  Steinhauer,  secretary  and 
also  assistant  director  of  teacher  education 
in  the  department.  I  will  get  the  member  a 
list  if  he  would  like. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  wonder- 
ing if  the  Minister  might  answer  the  second 
part  of  my  question.  When  will  the  com- 
mittee's report  be  tabled  in  this  Legislature? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  not 
what  one  would  really  call  a  formal,  shall  we 
say,  committee;  it  has  been  a  group  working 
on  this  particular  problem.  I  really  had  not 
contemplated  tabling  it  as  such,  but  I  would 
certainly  consider  this,  or  making  it  available 
to  members  of  the  education  committee  or 
to  the  hon.  member— just  whatever  procedure 
would  be  appropriate.  It  is  apparent  that  it 
is  now  under  discussion  in  the  department  to 
see  just  what  steps  we  can  take  and  cer- 
tainly I  will  give  the  members  the  informa- 
tion contained  in  it. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
clarify  one  of  the  Minister's  remarks.  He 
mentioned  that  the  wording  in  the  question 
was   a  bit  strong.   I  would  let  the   Minister 


know  that  the  wording  is  taken  from  his 
own  report  of  September,  1968,  on  the  func- 
tions   of   that    committee. 

The  second  question  for  the  Minister  of 
Education,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  this.  What  justi- 
fication is  there  for  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion's decision  that  average  building  coits  per 
pupil  for  elementary  schools  for  new  projects 
should  be  allowed  to  increase  by  14  per  cent 
between  1967  and  the  first  half  of  1968? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  actual 
costs  of  construction  betwen  the  two  years 
has  increased  in  the  neighbourhod  of  from 
two  to  three  per  cent.  This  is  the  actual 
increase  in  the  average  building  cost.  The 
remaining  11  per  cent,  and  this  is  a  guessti- 
mate, results  from  a  number  of  elementary 
boards  that  constructed,  say,  a  five-  or  six- 
room  school  four  or  five  years  ago,  and 
have  added  library  facilities  or  resource  facili- 
ties, perhaps  gymnatoriums,  or  what  have 
you,  to  their  existing  facilities.  The  actual 
cost  of  construction  for  elementary  schools 
during  that  period  of  time  is  between  two 
and  three  per  cent.  The  additional  percentage 
that  will  reflect  itself,  perhaps,  in  the  infor- 
mation the  member  obtained  from  the  Min- 
ister's report,  reflects  the  addition  of  such 
items  as  libraries,  and  so  on,  to  what  had 
been   existing  units. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce.  The  hon.  member  for  Grev-Bruce  was 
on  his  feet  a  short  time  ago  and  he  is  next 
if  he  wishes  to  ask  a  question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  to 
the  Attorney  General.  I  know  I  have  the 
unanimous  support  of  the  NDP  on  this 
today. 

What  steps  are  being  taken  to  require 
owners  of  guns  to  possess  an  identification 
card  obtained   from   a  proper   authority? 

Second,  what  steps  are  being  taken  to 
forbid  the  sale  of  any  firearms  to  any  indi- 
vidual not  possessing  such  a  card? 

Third,  will  an  Ontario  gun  code  be  drawn 
up? 

Fourth,  will  the  government  consider  hav- 
ing a  firearms  amnesty  day  during  which  the 
owners  of  unregistered  hand  guns  would  be 
able  to  surrender  these  weapons  without 
criminal  charges  being  laid? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  on  April  23  and  on  June  7  of  this 
year  asked  the  same  question  of  me. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  will  bet  the  Minister  is  com- 
pletely wrong. 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


45 


Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Minister  of  Correctional 
Sen  ices):  I  will  bet  on  the  Attorney  General. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  The  question  on  June 

7  was: 

What  steps  does  the  gove-nment  plan  to  institute 
in  regard  t  >  a  gun  control  law,  such  as  prohibiting 
purchase  by  mail  and  making  guns  harder  to  get. 
and  would  the  government  consider  a  week  of 
amnesty  to  be  able  to  turn  in  illegally  held  weapons? 

I  answered  at  that  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  as 
I  answer  it  again  today,  that  the  matter  of 
control  of  guns— "offensive  weapons,"  as  they 
are  described— is  a  matter  for  federal  jurisdic- 
tion and  control.  There  are  numerous  sections 
in  The  Criminal  Code  starting  at  section  82 
and  running  some  10  sections  or  more,  under 
the  headings  of  Offensive  Weapons,  Posses- 
ion of  the  Weapons,  Carrying  of  the 
\\ 'capons,  Carrying  Concealed  Weapons,  the 
Registration  of  Weapons,  and  Firearms. 

This  whole  matter  is  in  the  code.  I  pointed 
out  in  my  answer  in  June  of  this  year  that  a 
bill  had  been  presented  in  the  federal  House, 
on  which  we  had  offered  some  advice  and 
comment  to  the  Minister  of  Justice  at  Ottawa. 
The  bill,  which  I  have  here,  was  Bill  C195. 
It  was  given  first  reading  in  the  federal  House 
on  December  21,  1967.  It  had  not  been  con- 
eluded  when  the  last  session  of  the  Parlia- 
ment at  Ottawa  prorogued,  but  I  understand 
it  is  again  before  the  House.  It  will  be  intro- 
duced again  and  it  has  wide  provisions  with 
respect  to  the  control  of  firearms.  As  to  the 
matter  of  amnesty,  that  is  not  within  our 
jurisdiction  either. 

This  question  has  really  been  asked  now 
three  times,  and  answered  the  same  way. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  Ontario  Junior  Chamber 
of  Commerce  wants  to  sponsor  an  amnesty 
day.  Would  the  Minister  suggest  to  me  that 
I  tell  them  that  it  is  "no  dice,"  that  he  does 
not  encourage  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  would  not  suggest 
that  the  member  tell  them  "no  dice."  I 
would  suggest  that  he  tell  them  that  it  is  a 
matter  within  federal  jurisdiction  of  this 
whole   area. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  same  thing  about  wire- 
tapping too? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Yes,  wiretapping  too. 
The  criminal  law  applies  to  the  whole  coun- 
try. These  laws  are  in  the  field  of  criminal 
law;  all  our  criminal  law  is  contained  in  The 
Criminal  Code  which  is  a  federal  statute. 
.  Anything  relating  to  criminal  offences  is 
federal. 


Mr.  Sargent:  Another  question  to  the 
Attorney  General,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Will  the  Attorney  General  consider  put- 
ting into  force,  in  Ontario,  a  programme 
whereby  persons  arrested  for  minor  offences 
be  given  summonses  at  station  houses,  in- 
stead of  being  taken  immediately  into  court? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  pro- 
cedure with  respect  to  arrests- 
Mr.   Sargent:   Of  minor  offences. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Yes,  I  will  come  to 
that,  just  give  me  an  opportunity. 

The  procedure  with  respect  to  the  issue  of 
summonses,  rather  than  arrests,  is,  again,  all 
laid  down  in  The  Criminal  Code  of  Canada 
and  those  are  the  procedural  rules,  which 
are  federal. 

Now  I  know  the  hon.  member  is  talking— 
if   he    will    give    me   his   attention— the   hon. 
member- 
Mr.  Sargent:  I  was— 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  The  hon.  member  refers 
to- 

Mr.  Sargent:  We  do  not  believe  all- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  Order! 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  When  you  do  not  hear 
it,  you  cannot  very  well  believe  it. 

The  hon.  member  speaks  of  minor  offences 
and  I  take  it  he  is  speaking  of  those  quasi- 
criminal  or  minor  matters  which  are  within 
Ontario  jurisdiction. 

With  respect  to  those,  we  did  make  pro- 
vision by  amending  our  Summary  Convic- 
tions Act  by  which  we  provide  that— with 
respect  to  those  things  which  lie  within 
Ontario  statutes,  such  as  The  Highway  Traf- 
fic Act,  The  Liquor  Act,  and  so  on— the 
officer  may,  in  a  sense,  arrest.  He  may  arrest 
and  bring  the  person  before  the  police  sta- 
tion or  to  such  premises  and  there,  the  senior 
officer  may  release  such  person  on  his  own 
recognizance.  We  have  that  with  respect  to 
Ontario  offences,  and  those,  I  think,  are  what 
the  hon.  member  means  by  minor  offences. 

We  have  no  authority  to  do  this  with 
respect  to  the  federal  offences  in  the  code. 
The  procedures  are  laid  down  in  the  code. 
I  would  say  this,  we  again  have  made  rep- 
resentation to  Ottawa,  through  the  Minister 
of  Justice  there,  sometime  back  that  this 
would  be  a  procedure  which  might  very  well 
be  adopted. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Thanks,  in  a  supplementary 
way. 


46 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  And  may  I  just  add 
this.  The  Criminal  Code,  I  think  the  hon. 
member  knows,  is  also  now  before  the  fed- 
eral Parliament.  I  am  not  sure  that  it  con- 
tains this  provision  but  the  criminal  code  is 
being  reviewed.  The  new  statute  we  expect 
will  appear  shortly. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  Minister 
aware  that  in  another  jurisdiction  in  147,000 
cases  of  summonses  issued  they  saved  $1 
million  in  court  appearances?  It  would  seem 
to  be  a  good  thing  to  try  in  all  minor  offences 
in  this  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  wish  you  would  make 
representation  to  Ottawa  and  support  us  in 
this. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  He  is  not  talking  to 
Ottawa. 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  question  to  the  Attorney 
General. 

Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  Attorney  General  aware 
that  Mr.  Justice  McRuer  recommends  that  in 
every  single  one  of  the  provinces,  500  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  should  be  fired  and  a  fresh 
start  should  be  made?  Does  the  Attorney 
General  agree,  and  if  so,  what  steps  are 
being  taken? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  quite 
aware  of  the  recommendations  made  by  the 
hon.  Mr.  McRuer  in  his  report  on  inquiry 
into  civil  rights.  I  did  make  some  previous 
comment  about  this. 

Mr.  McRuer  suggested,  as  the  hon.  member 
represents,  that  the  justice  of  the  peace  pro- 
cedures and  training,  their  approach,  and 
so  on,  left  a  great  deal  to  be  desired.  He 
said  that  they  perhaps  should  all  be  removed 
from  office  and,  I  think  he  said,  rehired. 

Mr.  Sargent:    Mr.  McRuer  did  not  say  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Well,  reviewed,  in  any 
event  and  sorted  out.  I  am  not  sure  just 
what  he  did  mean,  quite  frankly.  Certainly 
I  do  not  think  he  directed  his  mind  immedi- 
ately to  the  practical  consequences  of  such 
action. 

I  will  say  that  along  with  our  review  of  his 
other  recommendations,  this  is  one  that  we 
must  review  immediately.  Every  justice  of  the 
peace  in  the  province  has  been  asked  to 
furnish  us  with  the  material  showing  the  ex- 
tent of  his  work,  the  service  he  is  rendering 
and  we  are  reviewing  it  from  other  ap- 
proaches too.  This  is  one  of  those  recom- 
mendations which  we  are  reviewing.  But  to 
simply  dismiss  them  all  and  to  leave  the  gap 


which  would  then  exist  in  our  administration 
of  justice  is  not  a  practical  approach  at  all. 

We  are  reviewing  it  and  will  be  coming  to 
certain  conclusions  before  long. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  page  1114 
of  the  report  on  civil  rights,  Mr.  Justice  Mc- 
Ruer reveals  that  the  city  of  Toronto  is  in 
direct  contravention  of  its  general  licensing 
by-law  in  allowing  a  club  licence  for  $300— 

Mr.  Speaker:    Order! 

Mr.  Sargent:  Club  licence  for  $300  to  be 
sold  for  $13,500- 

Mr.  Speaker:    Order!    Order! 

The  member  may  not  place  a  question 
unless  it  be  supplementary  to  a  question 
which  has  been  submitted  to  the  Speaker's 
office.  The  member  cannot  as  far  as  I  can 
see,  relate  this  to  the  question  he  just  asked 
the- 

Mr.  Sargent:    This  is  another  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:    Is  it  a  new  question? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Yes,  better  sharpen  up.  He 
has  it  there  some  place. 

Mr.  Speaker:  What  number  is  on  the 
question  that  the  member  is  asking? 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  do  not  have  the  master  list 
here,  sir. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  that  the  mem- 
ber has  asked  has  not  been  given  Mr. 
Speaker.  That  question  has  never  been  sub- 
mitted as  far  as  I  can  recall. 

An  hon.  member:   Page  1114. 

Mr.  Sargent:  All  right.  A  question  to  the 
Prime  Minister.  He  has  it,  Mr.  Speaker, 
but- 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  has  not  been  submitted  to 
the  office. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  will  sit  down  but  I  want 
to  ask  this  question  of  the  Minister  of  Eco- 
nomics and  Development. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  if  it  would  be 
directed  to  the  Minister  of  Trade  and  De- 
velopment (Mr.  Randall)  it  might  be  more 
directly  answered. 

Mr.  Sargent:  You  change  them  so  often 
around  here,  how  are  we  supposed  to  know? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  still 
have  one  more  question  from  the  hon.  mem- 
ber which  was  submitted  yesterday,  but  the 
hon.  member  was  not  in  his  seat  to  read  it 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


47 


when  the  time  came.  I  wonder  if  I  could 
not  dispose  of  his  question  before  he  pro- 
ceeds to  question  other  Ministers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  I  also  have  that 
question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  You  probably  know  the  an- 
swer to  that  one. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  also  have  that  question. 
I  would  be  glad  to  give  it  to  the  member  in 
case  he  has  not  got  it  so  that  he  may  ask  this 
one— this  is  the  one  with  respect  to  tenants' 
rights. 

Mr.  Sargent:    What  steps  are  being  taken 

—that  is   to  the   Minister  of  Economics   and 

Development- 
Mr.  Speaker:    No,  your  office  was  advised 

that    that    was    redirected    to    the    Attorney 

General's  office. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  am  sorry.  What  steps  are 
being  taken  to  make  new  laws  giving  the 
tenants  such  rights  as  a  board  of  tenants' 
affairs,  a  law  to  enable  tenants  to  defend 
themselves  in  court  against  eviction,  and  un- 
fair leases? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  almost  a 
year  ago  I  think  it  is  now,  I  asked  the 
Ontario  law  reform  commission  in  its  study 
on  the  whole  field  of  property  law  to  devote 
special  attention  to  the  field  of  landlords  and 
tenants.  We  again  made  that  request  after 
checking  with  the  commission  just  toward 
the  latter  part  of  the  session  in  June  of  this 
year. 

The  work  has  been  pushed  forward.  The 
studies  are  complete.  The  report  is  being 
prepared.  I  understand  it  is  about  ready  for 
the  printer  and  I  am  awaiting  receipt  of  it. 
I  expect  it  will  contain  recommendations  on 
all  these  matters  relating  to  landlord  and 
tenant. 

I  might  mention  that  a  question  of  this 
nature  was  asked  yesterday  by  the  hon. 
member  for  York  South  (Mr.  MacDonald). 
I  gave  him  this  answer.  The  hon.  member 
was  not  here  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Minister  of  Trade  and  Development: 
Would  the  Minister  advise  if  a  loan  was 
granted  from  the  Ontario  development  cor- 
poration to  Caswell  Hotel  in  Sudbury;  how 
does  Caswell  fit  into  the  tenns  of  reference 
of  the  Ontario  development  corporation;  and 
how  much  was  the  loan? 

Hon.  S.  J.  Randall  (Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development):   Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  first  say 


I  am  very  delighted  that  the  hon.  member 
for  Grey-Bruce  has  included  me  again  this 
year  as  a  member  of  the  team  to  participate 
in   "Eddie's  happy  hour". 

The  answer  to  the  first  question  is  no,  not 
to  Caswell  Hotel  (Sudbury)  Limited.  A  con- 
ventional loan  was  approved  to  Caswell 
Management  of  Canada  Limited  operating 
Caswell's   Hotel   Bernard   at   Sundridge. 

The  second  answer:  Conventional  loans  are 
available  to  soundly  based  and  well  managed 
companies  in  a  resort  area  for  the  purpose 
of  providing  facilities  which  are  required 
and  which  do  not  now  exist  in  sufficient  quan- 
tity in  the  area. 

The  additional  facilities  include  an  increase 
in  conference  accommodation  and  an  im- 
provement in  the  ski  facilities,  both  of  which 
will  benefit  other  resorts  in  the  area. 

And,  three:  a  conventional  loan  of  $  100,000. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  a 
supplementary  question?  Would  the  Minister 
answer  me  these  three  points  then?  This 
man  is  a  top  Conservative,  he  gave  money  to 
the  funds  up  north- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 

Mr.  Sargent:  Are  the  terms  of  reference 
that  they  have  not  been  able  to  get  financing 
from  any  other  source?  Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sargent:  So,  the  Minister  is  suggesting 
that  the  millionaire  firm  of  Caswell  could  not 
get  loans  from  IDB,  or  anyone  else.  Holiday 
Inn  could  not  get  loans  from  IDB,  or  anyone 
else,  but  the  ODC- 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  Will  the  member 
place   his   supplementary   question? 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  has  answered  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  On  a  point  of  order, 
Mr.  Speaker.  I  have  not  answered  the  ques- 
tion, I  did  not  get  a  chance. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Let  us  get  an  answer  some- 
where. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Let  me  first  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  when  this  application  comes  in 
it  is  treated  as  any  other.  It  goes  before 
the  members  of  the  Ontario  development  cor- 
poration. It  goes  before  an  outside  board  of 
directors,  who  do  not  care  what  a  man's 
politics  are.  It  goes  before  the  Treasury 
board  and  is  approved  by  council.  I  might 
say  that  there  have  been  no  partisan  politics 
in  this  province  since  the  Hepburn  regime. 


48 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Would  the  Minister  answer 
another  supplementary  question? 

How  much  of  this  loan  is  completely  for- 
giveable?  Of  the  $100,000,  how  much  will 
he  pay  back? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  do  not  know:  I  would 
have  to  get  this  information— 

Mr,  Sargent:  The  Minister  knows  it  is 
nothing,  does  he  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  —and  I  will  be  glad  to 
answer  it  tomorrow. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Grey-Bruce  wish  to  place  any  more  questions 
of  his  that  I  hold? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
another  question  here  from  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  has  adopted 
the  procedure  of  filing  with  the  Speaker's 
office  a  great  number  of  questions  and  then 
asking  only  a  few  of  them  on  certain  days. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  may  not  be  hearing 
them  all  then. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Trade  and  Development. 

When  does  the  Minister  plan  to  announce 
the  sale  of  houses  to  the  tenants  in  the 
Green  Meadows  subdivision  which  is  man- 
aged by  OHG  in  the  city  of  Guelph? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer 
to  that  question  is:  Ontario  housing  corpora- 
tion will  today  be  writing  to  each  individual 
tenant  in  the  Green  Meadows  subdivision  in 
the  city  of  Guelph  advising  them  of  the  terms 
and  conditions  under  which  they  may  elect 
to  purchase  the  dwelling  which  they  now 
occupy. 

There  are  three  basic  conditions  which 
tenants  must  meet  in  order  to  qualify.  These 
are  as  follows: 

(a)  Their  financial  circumstances  must  be 
such  that  they  meet  the  gross  debt  service 
requirements  of  The  National  Housing  Act. 

(b)  They  must  have  been  tenants  in  good 
standing  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  twelve 
months. 

(c)  Their  family  size  must  be  such  as  to 
constitute  full  occupancy  of  the  dwelling. 

Mr.  Worton:  If  I  may  ask  a  supplementary 
question,  would  the  Minister  give  us  a  copy 
of  the  conditions  under  which  the  houses  are 
sold? 


Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Yes,  I  might  add  to 
that- 

Mr.  Worton:  Because  I  think  it  is  a  good 
deal  and  I  would  like  as  much  information 
as  possible. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  might  say  this,  that  the 
tenants  will  be  offered  five  different  purchase 
options  as  follows— and  I  will  see  that  you  get 
a  copy  of  this. 

First,  they  can  pay  cash  if  it  is  possible. 
Second,  a  five  per  cent  down  payment  on 
house  and  land,  with  balance  amortized  over 
a  period  up  to  35  years.  Down  payment  on 
dwelling  only,  with  repayment  of  balance  on 
dwelling  and  total  cost  of  land  over  a  period 
of  up  to  35  years.  Down  payment  on  dwell- 
ing only,  with  balance  on  dwelling  repayable 
over  a  period  up  to  35  years.  Land  on  a 
leasehold  basis,  with  option  to  purchase  at 
the  end  of  five  years. 

The  purchase  price  has  been  established  at 
$16,000  for  land  and  dwelling,  with  a  $2,000 
forgiveness  clause  effective  five  years  from 
the  date  of  purchase,  provided  the  dwelling 
is  not  resold  during  that  period. 

I  might  add  that  the  additional  $2,000  is  to 
prevent  speculation  on  resale  of  the  property 
for  at  least  the  first  five  years.  If  the  prop- 
erty is  sold  after  this  term  the  $2,000  is  for- 
given and  during  the  five-year  period  no  inter- 
est or  payments  on  the  principal  are  required 
on  that  $2,000. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Transport  (Mr.  Haskett). 

Will  the  Minister  consider  subsidizing  the 
research  of  Dr.  Pearl  Winesberger  at  the 
University  of  Ottawa  into  the  effect  of  sound 
on  living  cells  due  to  the  increasing  concern 
regarding  the  biological  effects  of  noise,  par- 
ticularly in  relationship  of  human  behaviour 
and  safety? 

Hon.  I.  Haskett  (Minister  of  Transport): 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  department  is  not  consider- 
ing subsidizing  this  project.  We  are  not  in- 
volved in  research  of  this  kind. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  If  I  may  ask  of  the  Min- 
ister a  supplementary  question:  Does  he  not 
consider  that  there  is  a  relationship  between 
the  effect  of  noise  and  behaviour  concerning 
specific  relation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  I  am  not  aware  of  this 
specific  relation. 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


49 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  Minis- 
ter is  not  aware,  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to 
have  some  research  done  on  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  If  the  hon.  member 
wishes  to  ask  a  supplementary  question,  he 
may  do  so,  but  he  may  not  comment  or  make 
a  comment  on— 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
another  question  of  the  Minister  of  Transport: 
Will  the  Minister  amend  The  Highway  Traffic 
Act  to  permit  a  wider  use  of  the  discretionary 
powers  as  a  result  of  the  question  of  the 
legality  of  the  wise  decision  of  Magistrate 
Joseph  P.  McMahon  in  giving  an  intermittent 
licence  suspension  to  a  man  who  pleaded 
guilty  to  an  impaired  driving  charge? 

Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  case 
involves  an  offence  under  The  Criminal  Code 
of  Canada,  Section  223,  and  not  The  High- 
way Traffic  Act  of  Ontario.  I  am  informed 
that  the  decision  by  Magistrate  McMahon  has 
be  en  appealed  to  a  higher  court. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Innes  (Oxford):  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Education. 

What  are  the  annual  publishing  and  distri- 
bution costs  of  the  magazine  Dimensions? 
What  is  the  intended  purpose  of  this  publi- 
cation? Does  the  Minister  believe  that  this 
purpose  has  been  fulfilled? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  dealing  with 
the  latter  part  of  the  question  first:  The  pur- 
pose of  Dimensions— I  have  copies  here,  I  am 
sure  the  hon.  member  reads  it  regularly— is  an 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  department  to  involve 
many  members  of  the  profession,  the  teachers, 
the  trustees,  the  home  and  school  groups,  the 
government  officials,  business  executives  and 
so  on  with,  shall  we  say,  some  of  the  new 
thoughts  on  education. 

They  do  not  relate  to  departmental  policy 
or  departmental  announcements.  They  relate 
basically  to  new  ideas  and  some  philosophy 
as  far  as  education  is  concerned.  This  was 
requested  from  some  of  the  organizations  two 
years  ago.  While  it  is  difficult  to  say  that  it 
is  in  fact  fulfilling  this  purpose  at  this  early 
stage,  I  can  only  say  that  the  requests  for  this 
material  exceed  the  supply  at  the  present 
moment.  I  think  this  is  one  indication  that  it 
is  being  relatively  well  received  in  the  com- 
munity that  it  serves. 

The  cost,  Mr.  Speaker,  just  to  use  round 
figures,  is  in  the  neighbourhood  of  $69,000 
per  year.  This  means  12  issues,  so  that  the 
average  cost  per  issue  would  be  approxi- 
mately $5,750. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 
view. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the  Minister 
of  Trade  and  Development. 

Has  the  Ontario  Housing  Corporation  re- 
vised his  standard  form  of  lease? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  A  revised  form  of  lease 
for  use  in  all  Ontario  Housing  Corporation 
developments  has  been  prepared  in  consul- 
tation with  The  Department  of  the  Attorney 
General.  This  document  has  been  prepared 
within  the  framework  of  our  existing  legisla- 
tion. It  is  now  at  the  final  draft  stage  and 
will  shortly  be  put  into  effect.  At  that  time  I 
will  be  pleased  to  make  a  copy  available  to 
the  hon.  member. 

I  might  say  also  that  the  Law  Reform 
Commission  is  currently  reviewing  The  Land- 
lord and  Tenant  Act,  as  he  probably  knows. 
Any  pertinent  revisions  to  the  Act  which  may 
arise  as  a  result  of  this  study  will  be  incor- 
porated into  future  Ontario  Housing  Cor- 
poration leases. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  a  sup- 
plementary, would  the  Minister  advise  when 
he  anticipates  the  new  form  of  lease  will 
likely  be? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  first 
told  it  was  going  to  print  today,  so  I  think  it 
is  almost  imminent.  I  would  think  we  would 
use  it  within  the  next  30  days  or  so. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  will  look  forward  to  receiv- 
ing a  copy. 

I  have  a  question  for  the  Attorney  General. 

In  view  of  the  decision  of  the  Ontario  Law 
Enforcement  Compensation  Board  in  the  case 
of  Larry  Botrie  and  in  view  of  the  Attorney 
General's  statement  to  the  first  session  of  the 
28th  Legislature  in  relation  to  the  meaning 
of  The  Law  Enforcement  Compensation  Act, 
does  the  government  intend  to  bring  in  ap- 
propriate amendments  to  make  meaningful 
the  government's  apparent  intent  when  it 
first  introduced  this  legislation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  again 
is  a  question  of  enquiring  as  to  government 
policy,  which  I  have  the  right  to  refuse  to 
answer.  I  am  prepared  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion but  I  draw  the  attention  of  the  House  to 
the  matter,  as  I  wish  to  preserve  my  right. 

Second,  I  would  like  to  say  that  this  same 
question,  in  almost  the  same  language,  was 
asked  as  a  supplementary  yesterday  by  the 
hon.  member  for  High  Park.    I  answered  at 


50 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  time,  and  I  am  going  to  read  part  of  that 
reply.    I  said: 

I  welcome  the  supplementary  question,  and  I 
think  perhaps  I  might  be  permitted  to  say  that 
when  this  legislation  establishing  the  compensation 
board  was  introduced  last  year,  I  did  indicate 
that,  in  our  consideration  of  it,  we  considered  it 
perhaps  as  a  preliminary  step  in  the  whole  matter 
of  compensation  to  victims  of  crime  or  those  assist- 
ing in  law  enforcement.  I  am,  of  course,  aware  of 
the  comments  of  the  hon.  Mr.  McRuer  in  his  report 
on  civil  rights.  I  am  at  liberty  to  say  that  the 
whole  matter  of  compensation  to  victims  of  crime 
is  still  being  reviewed  as  a  matter  of  policy  of 
government. 

We  did  indicate  last  year  that  the  bill  we 
introduced  was  to  compensate  those  injured 
or  killed  or  damaged  in  assisting  a  police 
officer  in  law  enforcement,  and  that  they 
would  be  compensated.  We  indicated  that, 
in  our  thinking,  that  was  perhaps  the  first 
step  and  that  the  matter  was  being  studied 
further.  As  to  what  the  policy  is,  I  am  not 
in  a  position,  at  this  moment,  to  announce. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kitch- 
ener. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  hon.  Prime 
Minister. 

Has  any  policy  been  decided  on  with  re- 
spect to  the  problems  of  public  beaches  on 
the  Lake  Erie  shoreline? 

Has  the  government  given  any  study  to  the 
report  made  by  Professor  John  N.  Jackson, 
head  of  the  geography  department  of  Brock 
University  on  the  request  to  the  Niagara 
regional  development  council  which  con- 
cluded that  the  beaches  are  public  now? 

Will  the  government  convene  a  conference 
to  hear  the  public  views  on  this  problem  so 
that  legislation  can  be  enacted  which  will 
balance  the  rights  of  the  cottagers  with  the 
recreational  needs  of  the  general  public? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
this  question  has  been  dealt  with  before  in 
the  House. 

It  is  a  very  complex  legal  matter  involving 
the  rights  of  the  owners  of  these  properties, 
and  how  far  they  extend.  It  has  been  neces- 
sary to  search  the  titles  to  a  great  many 
properties  in  order  to  determine  just  what 
the  legal  rights  of  the  owners  are.  The 
studies  involved  in  getting  answers  to  these 
questions,  we  hope  to  have  concluded  rela- 
tively soon.  At  that  time  we  will  decide,  and 
will  bring  to  the  House,  a  policy.  I  would 
hope  that  would  be  during  this  current 
session. 

As  far  as  Professor  Jackson's  report  is  con- 
cerned, it  has  been  studied.    It  is  part  of  the 


study  material  presently  being  examined.  I 
do  not  think  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  hold  a 
conference  to  get  public  views  in  this  matter. 
They  have  been  expressed  in  all  sorts  of 
ways.  They  are  before  us  now,  so  it  is  not 
the  intent  of  the  government  to  convene  a 
conference  because  we  do  not  think  it  is 
necessary. 

Mr.  Speaker:    The  member  for  Perth. 

Mr.  H.  Edighoffer  (Perth):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Correc- 
tional Services  (Mr.  Grossman).  There  are 
two  parts: 

1.  Why  did  the  department  not  consult 
the  Perth  county  council  before  it  advertised 
for  the  position  of  general  clerk  at  the  Perth 
county  jail,  due  to  the  work  already  done  in 
this  field  by  the  county  clerk  and  his  staff? 

2.  Is  the  Minister  aware  that  the  Perth 
county  clerk's  office  would  be  saving  the  pro- 
vincial government  $4,678  each  year  if  it  con- 
tinued to  administer  the  clerical  work  of  this 
jail? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  when 
the  department  took  over  the  operation  of 
the  county  jails,  it  did  so  in  the  knowledge 
that  many  improvements  were  necessary  in 
all  areas  of  the  operations.  Over  the  years 
there  have  been  problems  which  have  empha- 
sized that  efficiencies  in  all  aspects  and  sec- 
tions of  the  jails  were  most  necessary,  and 
that  no  phase  could  be  treated  as  a  part-time 
job;  particularly,  Mr.  Speaker,  when  one 
considers  the  security  needs  of  a  jail. 

There  have  been  instances  where  jail  staff 
have  been  severely  criticized  because  of  delay 
in  processing,  inaccuracies  in  recording,  and 
so  on.  In  fact  these  criticisms  have  some- 
times been  quite  valid.  The  jail  is  dealing 
with  people.  It  is  our  responsibility  to  ensure 
that  these  people  do  not  suffer  because  of 
inefficiencies  in  the  operation  of  the  institu- 
tions. 

In  this  particular  jail,  and  indeed  many 
more  jails,  correctional  officers  were  not  able 
to  devote  their  entire  working  day  to  their 
correctional  duties  but  shared  clerical  duties— 
that  is,  keeping  inmate,  admitting,  and  dis- 
charging records,  calculating  fines,  and  so  on. 
The  governor,  particularly,  was  frequently 
responsible  for  minor  clerical  duties.  When 
the  department  analyzed  the  total  work 
needed  to  be  done— not  just  the  work  that 
was  previously  carried  out  by  the  clerk- 
treasurer  and  his  staff,  but  all  the  clerical 
work,  including  that  previously  done  by  the 
governor    and    correctional    officers— we    de- 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


51 


cided  that  this  was  sufficient  to  warrant  the 
employment  of  a  full-time  clerk. 

In  the  light  of  this  background  it  is  obvi- 
ous why  we  would  not  consult  the  Perth 
county  council  before  advertising  the  post.  It 
was  our  own  responsibility  and  we  accepted 
it. 

In  answer  to  the  second  question,  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  received  a  letter  from  the  county 
council  offering  to  have  this  work  done  for 
us  for  $50  a  month,  and  we  wrote  back  ex- 
plaining the  full  duties  of  the  position  and 
detailing  'the  specifications.  We  said,  and  I 
quote  from  the  letter: 

I  feel  certain  that  the  council,  when 
reading  these  specifications,  will  realize 
that  we  cannot  presume  on  the  generosity 
of  the  office  of  the  clerk-treasurer  to  fulfil 
all  of  the  requirements  of  this  position. 

Since  receiving  these  specifications,  the  Perth 
county  council  have  not  renewed  their  offer, 
and,  in  my  opinion,  very  wisely.  If  they  do 
wish  to  do  so— if  they  wish  to  commit  their 
staff  to  carry  out  all  the  duties  that  are  re- 
quired by  this  position  to  our  complete  satis- 
faction, and  in  keeping  with  the  degrees  of 
efficiency  required— I  am  sure  that  we  would 
be  happy  to  accept  their  offer.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  it  is  a  most  generous  offer,  having 
regard  for  our  requirements. 

However,  the  hon.  members  Mr.  Speaker 
will  recognize  the  importance  of  correctional 
staff  working  entirely  at  their  own  responsi- 
bilities. They  will  remember  many  occasions 
in  the  past  when  we  have  had  problems  in 
the  local  jails— escapes,  and  so  on— when  cor- 
rectional staff  who  were  responsible  for  the 
security  of  the  public  had  been  distracted 
from  their  tasks  and  were  performing  as 
part-time  cooks,  part-time  record  clerks,  part- 
time  accountants,  part-time  telephone  oper- 
ators, part-time  typists,  and  so  on.  It  is  our 
view  we  can  no  longer  permit  correctional 
work  to  be  done  by  people  who  are  doing 
it  as  a  part-time  function,  and  particularly 
those  who  should  be  fully  engaged,  all  day, 
in  what  we  consider  vital  work. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  King- 
ston and  the  Islands. 

Mr.  S.  Apps  (Kingston  and  the  Islands): 
Mr.  Speaker,  with  your  permission  I  would 
like  to  announce  to  the  House  that  one  of 
my  constituents,  Mr.  Donald  MacDonald,  of 
Wolfe  Island— who  by  the  way  is  no  relation, 
I  understand,  to  the  leader  of  the  NDP— was 
awarded  the  world's  championship  prize  for 
forage  seed  at  the  Royal  winter  fair  this  year. 
His  entrv  was  for  birdsfoot  trefoil  seed  and 


was  the  best  of  all  forage  seeds  at  the  fair. 
Mr.  MacDonald  has  grown  this  type  of  seed 
for  a  number  of  years  and  this  achievement 
has  brought  honour  to  himself  and  to  all 
fanners  in  our  section  of  eastern  Ontraio. 

It  is  also  a  pleasure  for  me  to  announce 
that  Mr.  Harvey  Knox,  of  Glenburnie,  won 
the  world's  championship  for  barley  seed  at 
the  Royal  winter  fair.  Glenburnie  is  just  four 
miles  north  of  Kingston,  in  Frontenac  county. 

I  think  these  two  awards  are  indicative  of 
the  high  calibre  of  farms  and  farmers  in  our 
area  of  Frontenac  county  and  I  feel  sure  that 
you  will  join  me  in  congratulating  these  two 
gentlemen  on  their  success  this  year. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 


SPEECH  FROM  THE  THRONE 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  1st  order,  con- 
sideration of  the  Speech  of  the  Honourable, 
the  Lieutenant-Governor  at  the  opening  of 
the  session. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Belanger  (Prescott  and  Russell): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  beg  leave  to  move,  seconded 
by  the  member  for  Fort  William  (Mr.  Jessi- 
man),  that  a  humble  address  be  presented 
to  the  Honourable  W.  Ross  Macdonald, 
Lieutenant-Governor  of  the  province  of  On- 
tario.   May  it  please  your  honour: 

We,  Her  Majesty's  most  dutiful  and  loyal 
subjects  of  the  legislative  assembly  of  the 
province  of  Ontario  now  assembled,  beg 
leave  to  thank  Your  Honour  for  the  gracious 
speech  which  Your  Honour  has  addressed  to 
us. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  personal  pleasure  and 
a  great  honour  to  have  received  the  privilege 
of  addressing  this  House  on  this  occasion.  It 
is  also  a  privilege  for  me  to  be  in  this  House 
at  a  time  when  our  new  Lieutenant-Governor 
has  delivered  his  first  Speech  from  the  Throne. 
I  am  sure  I  speak  for  all  members  of  this 
House  when  I  say  he  is  a  welcome  guest  in 
our  Chamber.  Also  at  this  time  I  would  com- 
pliment Mr.  Speaker  on  his  excellent  work 
during  the  last  session. 

As  well,  my  congratulations  to  this  gov- 
ernment's newest  Cabinet  Minister,  the  Min- 
ister of  Revenue  (Mr.  White).  I  am  sure  his 
youthful  and  energetic  abilities  assure  an 
excellent  performance  in  the  demanding  post 
of  Minister  of  Revenue. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  present  occasion  is  the 
third  highlight  of  my  political  career  this 
year.  On  March  14  I  delivered  my  maiden 
speech  in  this  Chamber.  Earlier  this  month, 
I  took  part,  tor  the  first  time  as  a  member,  in 


52 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  annual  meeting  of  the  Ontario  Progressive 
Conservative  Party. 

I  count  our  annual  meeting  this  year  an 
historical  event.  Some  2,000  Progressive  Con- 
servatives gathered  from  every  corner  of  our 
vast  province  to  elect  new  association  officers 
and  to  honour  three  of  the  outstanding  leaders 
of  our  party. 

Observing  that  event,  with  its  throngs  of 
dedicated  and  enthusiastic  supporters,  listen- 
ing to  the  words  of  our  past  leaders,  Mr. 
Drew  and  Mr.  Frost,  and  particularly  to  the 
words  of  our  present  leader,  the  Prime  Min- 
ister (Mr.  Robarts),  I  was  easily  able  to 
understand  why  our  party  has  elected  the 
government  of  Ontario  for  50  of  the  68  years 
of  this  century. 

Interjections  by   hon.   members. 

Mr.  Belanger:  A  quality  product  is  always 
successful.  A  quality  product  will  continue  to 
be  successful  because  it  adapts  itself  with 
energy  and  imagination  to  the  needs  of  its 
customers.  When  our  customers,  the  Ontario 
electorate,  come  to  the  election  counter  they 
are  shrewd  buyers.  They  will  not  buy  pigs  in 
pokes.  They  are  not  shopping  for  impractical 
dreams  or  flashy  packages.  They  look  for  and 
buy  a  quality  political  product  and  expect 
to  be  served,  not  mastered,  by  their  gov- 
ernment. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  spoken  of  a  product 
because  I  am  a  small  businessman  from  a 
rural  riding— the  riding  of  Prescott  and  Rus- 
sell in  eastern  Ontario.  I  am  a  Franco-On- 
tarian.  Most  of  the  people  in  my  riding  are 
Franco-Ontarians  and  French-speaking.  I  am 
proud  to  represent  them.  I  am  equally  proud 
to  represent  the  Anglo-Saxons  of  my  riding. 
As  well,  I  consider  it  a  particular  point  of 
pride  to  represent  all  of  those  newer  Cana- 
dians from  overseas  who  have  chosen  to  add 
their  energies  and  culture  to  the  riding  of 
Prescott  and  Russell.  But,  old  or  new  citizens, 
they  are  shrewd  customers  in  the  political 
store  and  have  chosen— and  will  continue  to 
choose— the  Progressive  Conservative  brand— 
the  quality  product. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  fact  that  our  party  has 
formed  the  government  of  this  province  for 
more  than  50  years  of  this  century  is  a 
result  of  Progressive  Conservative  policies 
that  have  obviously  met  with  the  approval 
of  the  electors. 

Why  have  our  policies  met  with  approval? 
Because  they  have  been  progressive  policies 
—policies  of  reform— policies  that  have  placed 
Ontario  in  the  front  rank  of  the  world's 
most   advanced   jurisdictions.    Harnessing   the 


imagination,  enthusiasm  and  individual  ini- 
tiative of  its  people,  the  Progressive  Con- 
servative governments  of  Ontario  have  created 
a  community  where  there  is  more  oppor- 
tunity and  greater  prosperity  than  in  any 
other  province  of  this  country. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  also  want  to  point  out 
another  simple  but  fundamental  fact  of  our 
party's  policies  that  keeps  us  in  harmony 
with  Ontario  citizens.  That  is  our  respect 
and  guardianship  of  individual  freedom.  This 
has  been  a  cornerstone  of  our  political  philo- 
sophy. To  quote  a  few  examples:  in  1950, 
the  hon.  Leslie  Frost  said: 

We  maintain  that  the  government  should 
be  the  servant,  not  the  master,  of  the 
people.  We  hope  to  assist  the  initiative 
of  our  people  with  a  minimum  of  regula- 
tion and  interference  on  the  part  of  the 
government. 

At  a  later  date,  our  present  Premier,  who 
is  also  a  Canadian  statesman,  reinforced  the 
keystone  of  our  policies  when  he  said: 

It  is  our  belief  that  the  role  of  govern- 
ment is  to  create  economic  and  social  op- 
portunities for  its  people  so  that  they  can 
maintain  their  independence  from  the 
state. 

Mr.  Speaker,  these  statements  of  political 
philosophy  from  Progressive  Conservative 
leaders,  past  and  present,  are  keenly  appre- 
ciated by  the  people  of  my  riding  of  Prescott 
and  Russell.  The  riding  I  represent  is  mainly 
a  rural  riding,  though  a  portion  of  it— one 
township  in  fact— forms  part  of  the  new 
Ottawa-Carleton  metropolitan  area.  Because 
the  majority  of  the  citizens  I  proudly  repre- 
sent are  farmers,  I  have  a  deep  interest  in 
the  individual  initiative  and  freedom  that 
is  so  strongiy  encouraged  by  our  government. 
We  all  know  that  our  farming  population  has 
always  nourished  and  will  continue  to  sustain 
the  same  spirit  of  individual  enterprise. 

A  century  and  a  half  ago,  Ontario's  first 
settlers  were  farmers.  In  the  middle  of  the 
last  century  a  farmer  produced  enough  to 
feed  himself  and  his  family  with  a  little  left 
over  to  barter  for  those  few  items  that  he 
and  his  wife  could  not  create  by  hand.  Today, 
each  Ontario  farmer  produces  enough  food 
and  fibre  for  himself  and  40  other  people. 
If  technology  continues  to  advance  at  the 
same  pace,  each  farmer  will  be  supplying 
the  needs  of  150,  perhaps  200,  people  by  the 
year  2000. 

Mr.  Speaker,  although  agriculture  is  On- 
tario's oldest  industry,  it  is  not  by  any  means 
an  old-fashioned  industry.  Today,  there  is  a 
new  look  in  rural  Ontario.    Farms  are  larger, 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


53 


new  crops  are  being  grown,  mechanization  is 
filling  the  gap  created  by  the  migration  of 
rural  youth  to  urban  areas.  New  farm  struc- 
tures are  changing  the  very  skyline  of  the 
rural  community. 

Paved  roads  are  moving  back  the  com- 
munity boundaries.  The  one-room  school  has 
given  way  to  central  schools  which  offer 
educational  opportunities  equal  to  those  in 
urban  Ontario.  Much  of  this  progress  and 
improvement  is  the  result  of  the  creative 
policies  of  our  Progressive  Conservative 
governments. 

Of  course,  Mr.  Speaker,  our  agricultural 
community  is  not  without  its  problems.  In 
1966,  the  census  of  Ontario  revealed  that 
only  26  per  cent  of  our  farm  operators 
grossed  over  $10,000  a  year  and  only  7.5  per 
cent  grossed  over  $25,000  annually.  If  only 
a  quarter  of  Ontario  farmers  are  able  to  gen- 
erate gross  returns  of  $10,000,  what  is  the 
future  of  the  other  three  quarters?  This  is  a 
problem  that  must  be  solved. 

I  am  confident  that  solutions  will  be  found 
by  this  government  and  that  those  solutions 
will  also  protect  the  freedom  of  enterprise  so 
dear  to  our  farmers.  I  look  forward  with 
very  special  interest,  on  behalf  of  the  farmers 
(if  Prescott  and  Russell,  to  the  report  of  the 
special  committee  on  farm  income  which  is 
expected  in  the  next  few  weeks. 

I  am  proud  to  use  the  slogan,  "province  of 
opportunity"  when  I  speak  of  Ontario  be- 
cause it  is  a  slogan  that  is  literally  true.  It 
has  been  true  in  the  past,  it  is  true  today, 
and  I  am  confident  it  will  remain  true  in  the 
days  ahead.  I  am  confident  that  my  govern- 
ment is  accepting  the  challenge  to  ensure 
that  opportunity  exists  for  those  people  who 
live  in  rural  Ontario,  whether  or  not  they 
are  farmers. 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  "good  life" 
in  the  country— the  freedom,  the  indepen- 
dence, the  enjoyment  of  fresh  air  and  clean 
water.  But  space,  fresh  air  and  clean  water 
are  net  enough  to  keep  body  and  soul  to- 
gether. They  are  not  enough  to  finance  the 
family's  education  or  provide  the  necessities 
and  the  extras  that  make  life  worthwhile. 
Unless  rural  living  generates  an  income  that 
will  provide  the  "good  life,"  the  social  bene- 
fits will  be  few  and  the  pleasures  of  rural 
living  meaningless. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  specify  a  few  of  the 
problems  facing  the  farm  community,  not 
only  in  Prescott  and  Russell,  but  throughout 
the  farming  areas  of  our  province. 

New  disposal  methods  which  will  prevent 
air,    soil    and   water   pollution   must    be    de- 


veloped. It  may  be  that  zoning  or  planning 
restrictions  will  have  to  be  considered.  Vast 
amounts  of  chemical  fertilizers,  pesticides  and 
herbicides  are  being  used  in  rural  Ontario. 
We  must  develop  fool-proof  safeguards  and 
control  mechanisms  that  will  prevent  misuse, 
protect  the  user  and  the  public,  while  at  the 
same  time  permitting  the  farmer  to  benefit 
from  these  materials. 

In  any  industry  that  involves  considerable 
capital,  management  must  have  access  to 
adequate  credit  on  a  continuing  basis.  This 
is  especially  true  of  agriculture,  where  his- 
torically the  business  must  be  refinanced 
every  25  years  and  the  returns  are  seasonal. 
Our  policies,  I  am  sure,  will  ensure  sufficient 
capital  is  available  in  both  short-  and  long- 
term  forms. 

Specialized  training  must  be  provided  to 
those  who  will  manage  the  farms  of  the 
future.  Present  facilities  are  operating  to 
capacity  in  turning  out  400  diploma  gradu- 
ates each  year.  We  cannot  in  future  afford 
poorly  trained  farm  managers. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  detailed  some  of  the 
problems  facing  us  in  this  critical  area  of 
agriculture.  At  this  time  also  I  want  to  make 
quite  clear  the  fine  record  of  service  the  agri- 
cultural industry  has  received  from  the  Pro- 
gressive Conservative  governments  of  this 
province. 

Our  government  has  provided  agricultural 
representatives,  engineers,  home  economists, 
dairy  fieldmen,  rural  development  counsellors, 
and  farm  management  specialists.  Research 
facilities  of  every  kind  are  available  to  the 
farmer-businessman.  Colleges  of  agricultural 
technology  are  strategically  located  throughout 
the  province.  Marketing  legislation  provides 
our  farm  people  with  the  machinery  to  con- 
duct their  own  marketing  in  an  orderly 
fashion.  Twenty  marketing  boards  handling 
40  commodities  now  operate  under  authority 
of  The  Ontario  Farm  Prodults  Marketing  Act 
and  The  Milk  Act  of  Ontario.  Market  devel- 
opment officers  at  home  and  abroad  are  con- 
stantly in  search  of  new  markets  and  assist 
our  producers  and  processors  to  develop  these 
outlets.  Young  farmers  wishing  to  embark  in 
full-time  farming,  either  alone  or  in  partner- 
ship, can  arrange  first  mortgage  loans  through 
the  junior  farmer  establishment  loans  board. 
Capital  grants  are  available  to  assist  in  the 
expansion  of  farm  business  operations. 

A  specific  example  would  be  the  capital 
grants  made  by  The  Ontario  Department  of 
Agriculture  and  Food  for  farm  structures  and 
farm  drainage.    In  the  period  April  1,  1967, 


54 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


to  November  15,  1968,  the  counties  of  Pres- 
cott  and  Russell  generated  683  applications 
and  grants  totalling  more  than  $315,000  were 
paid.  Under  the  ARDA  programme  for  farm 
water  supplies  and  field  enlargement,  Prescott 
and  Russell  received  an  additional  265  grants 
totalling  nearly  $47,000. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  can  all  be  proud  of  On- 
tario's tremendous  progress  in  agriculture.  The 
productivity  of  our  better  farms  is  unequalled 
in  any  other  country.  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
face  a  constant  challenge  in  this  field.  We 
must  chart  a  continuing  course  of  progress 
for  rural  Ontario— a  course  that  will  provide 
a  rich,  a  pleasant,  and  a  rewarding  life  for 
those  who  choose  the  rural  life.  That  is  the 
challenge,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  am  certain  we 
intend  to  meet  that  challenge  by  providing 
the  economic  climate  necessary  to  a  healthy 
agricultural  industry. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  have  indicated,  agricul- 
ture is  the  primary  industry  of  my  riding  of 
Prescott  and  Russell.  But  that  industry  and 
our  urban  centres  cannot  transport  and  com- 
municate without  an  up-to-date  highway  sys- 
tem. You  can  therefore  imagine  with  what 
great  delight  the  people  of  my  riding  greeted 
the  Minister  of  Highways  (Mr.  Gomme's)  an- 
nouncement of  this  past  week.  On  November 
15,  1968,  the  Minister  announced  that  tenders 
will  be  called  this  month  for  the  first  con- 
tract on  the  $70  million  Highway  417,  a 
magnificent  new  four-lane  freeway  between 
Ottawa  and  the  Quebec  border. 

To  add  to  our  delight  the  Minister  dis- 
closed that  the  estimated  construction  time 
of  this  63-mile  freeway  has  been  cut  to  half 
the  original  estimate.  To  quote  the  Minister: 
"We  are  now  working  on  a  target  date  of  six 
years  for  completion."  The  first  contract  will 
call  for  clearing  a  4.8-mile  section  of  the 
right-of-way  between  the  Base  Line  Road  at 
Ramsayville  and  the  Eight  Line  Road  in 
Gloucester  township.  The  tender  closing  date 
has  been  set  for  December  18  and  the  con- 
tract will  be  awarded  shortly  so  that  work 
can  be  completed  in  May. 

At  this  point  I  would  like  to  congratulate 
the  Minister  and  the  government  also  on  the 
completion  of  Highway  401,  the  Macdonald- 
Cartier  freeway. 

The  Minister  has  also  stated  that  a  further 
contract  for  grading  of  Highway  417  will  be 
called  in  the  spring  and  additional  contracts 
will  be  scheduled  to  maintain  a  continuous 
sequence  of  construction. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  fact  of  modern  life 
that  new  and  improved  highways  bring  eco- 
nomic development  and  fresh  potential  to  the 


region  concerned.  Because  my  riding  of 
Prescott  and  Russell  is  not  among  the  most 
prosperous  ridings  in  Ontario,  you  may  be 
sure  Highway  417  is  regarded  as  proof  posi- 
tive of  this  government's  intention  to  do 
everything  possible  to  improve  the  economic 
circumstances  of  every  part  of  this  province. 

Further  proof  of  this  government's  con- 
cern for  the  less  favoured  areas  of  the  prov- 
ince is  evident  in  the  admirable  efforts  of 
the  Ontario  development  corporation.  Estab- 
lished for  the  specific  purpose  of  stimulating 
economic  development,  the  ODC  has  four 
specific  objectives: 

1.  To  provide  equalization  of  opportunity 
for  all  Ontario  municipalities  in  order  to 
attract  new  industry. 

2.  To  provide  for  an  expansion  of  industry 
and  employment,  particularly  in  areas  of 
slow  growth. 

3.  To  provide  opportunities  for  gainful 
employment  for  our  young  people  in  the 
smaller  centres  of  population. 

4.  To  provide  a  wider  base  of  industrial 
assessment  for  our  smaller  municipalities. 

A  recent  example  of  this  valuable  assistance 
in  Prescott  and  Russell  was  a  loan  to  North 
Craft  Industries  Ltd.,  of  Hawkesbury.  This 
loan  of  $62,000  will  help  greatly  in  the  im- 
mediate provision  of  30  new  jobs,  plus  ten 
more  new  jobs  within  two  years. 

In  addition  to  loans  of  various  kinds,  the 
ODC  programme  provides  extremely  helpful 
further  assistance  through  its  staff  of  con- 
sultants. This  assistance  includes  financial, 
business  and  technical  advice,  and  special 
help  on  engineering,  production  and  other 
technical  probems.  On-the-spot  advisory  serv- 
ices by  teams  of  consultants  sent  to  various 
centres  in  the  province,  and  management 
training  workshops  tailored  to  assist  the  small 
businessman. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  said,  my  riding  is  less 
favoured  with  prosperity  than  many  others. 

But,  the  people  of  Prescott  and  Russell 
are  not  seeking  handouts.  They  are  looking 
for  the  opportunities  and  circumstances  that 
make  it  possible  for  them  to  help  themselves. 
Because  their  basic  circumstances  are  not  as 
favourable  as  some  others,  they  must  look  to 
this  government  for  continuing  programmes 
that  tend  to  equalize  their  chances  with  the 
more  favoured  parts  of  the  province.  As  our 
leader,  the  Prime  Minister,  has  said,  "We 
must  always  recognize  the  need  for  the  state 
to  do  those  things  for  individuals  which  can- 
not be  done  by  the  individual." 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


55 


Mr.  Speaker,  up  to  this  point,  I  have  spoken 
of  my  pride  in  the  part  of  which  I  am  a  mem- 
ber: of  agriculture,  of  highway  development 
and  economic  development,  and  of  my  heart- 
felt pride  in  the  riding  of  Prescott-Russell.  I 
now  wish  to  speak  as  a  Franco-Ontarian. 

Au  debut  des  annees  1600,  au  temps  ou 
des  postes  de  traite  et  des  postes  de  mission- 
naire  existaient  le  long  des  cours  d'eau 
ontariens,  et  que  quelques  45,000  Indiens 
etaient  les  seuls  occupants  de  ce  qui  devait 
devenir  1'Ontario,  mes  ancetres,  les  Francais, 
fiuent  les  premiers  a  s'y  etablir.  lis  y  avaient 
efFcctivement  b&ti  des  communautes  qui 
s'etendaient  aussi  loin  vers  l'ouest  quel  le 
district  Windsor-Detroit,  et  ccla  pres  de  cin- 
quante  ans  avant  que  le  Canada  soit  sous  la 
domination  britannique. 

Un  plus  graml  noinbre  de  colons  vinrent 
s'y  installer  en  1784  au  temps  ou  plusieurs 
loyalistes  de  rEmpire  uni,  pourchasses  vers  le 
nord,  etaient  a  la  recherche  d'un  refuge  apres 
la  re  volte  amcricaine  contre  la  Grande  Bre- 
tagne.  A  eux,  se  joignirent  pour  le  defriche- 
ment  de  nouvelles  terres,  des  groupes 
d'ecossais,  d'irlandais,  de  hollandais,  de  suis- 
ses  et  d'allemands. 

Vers  1812,  quand  nous  etions  menaces  par 
la  guerre  anglo-americaine,  la  population  avait 
deja  atteint  le  chiffre  de  80,000.  A  la  Con- 
federation canadienne  en  1867,  elle  etait  de 
1.5  million.  Aujourd'hui,  nous  autres  Franco- 
ontariens  comptons  un  total  de  presque 
725,000  ames  .  .  .  ou  approximativement  10 
per  cent  de  la  population  totale  ontarienne. 
Apres  le  groupe  anglo-saxon  qui  forme  la 
majorite  de  la  population,  les  Franco-ontariens 
constituent  le  groupe  le  plus  nombreux  parmi 
les  nine  autres  origines  ethniques  principales 
de  la  province.  En  tant  que  citoyen  d'origin" 
franchise,  je  me  considere  privilegie  de  faire 
partie  de  cette  mosai'que  ontarienne  si  riche 
et  si  variee. 

Monsieur  l'Orateur,  e'est  avec  fierte  que  je 
vous  presente  les  donnees  des  groupes  eth- 
niques principaux  qui  enrichissent  dans  une 
grande  mesure,  la  vie  culturelle  de  notre 
province:  Anglo-Saxon  60  per  cent,  4,142,000; 
Francais  10  per  cent,  724,000;  Allemand- 
autrichien  7  per  cent,  487,000;  Italien  4  per 
cent,  306,000;  Hollandais  3  per  cent,  216,000; 
Polonais  2  per  cent,  167,000;  Ukrainien  2  per 
cent,  139,000;  Israelite  1  per  cent,  77,000; 
Scandinave  1  per  cent,  70,000;  Indien  Cana- 
dien  0.8  per  cent,  56,000. 


Nous  devons  nous  considerer  heureux  en 
Ontario,  de  partager  ce  riche  heritage. 

En  tant  que  Franco-ontarien,  j'ai  sincere- 
ment  apprecie  la  declaration  gouvernementale 
faite  en  aout  1967,  selon  laquelle  ce  gouver- 
nement  a  annonce  sa  ferme  intention  d'etablir 
un  systeme  d'ecoles  secondaires  de  langue 
francaise  finance  par  des  fonds  publics.  J'ai 
constate  avec  interet  les  pas  de  geant  accorn- 
plis  dans  ce  domaine  depuis  cette  declaration 
et  les  mesures  qui  ont  ete  adoptees  pour 
mettre  en  oeuvre  cette  importante  decision. 

Un  Comite  designe  pour  etudier  la  question 
des  Ecoles  Secondaires  Publiques  de  langue 
francaise  a  examine  les  methodes  visant  a 
etendre  l'instruction  en  francais  au  stage 
secondaire.  Une  recommandation  qui  resulto 
de  cette  etude  propose  que  les  cours  deja 
offerts  en  langue  francaise  dans  ces  ecoles 
soient  developpes  de  facon  a  pouvoir  inclure 
un  programme  d'etudes  complet  la  ou  le 
nombre  des  eleves  d'une  region  donnee  justifie 
une  telle  pratique. 

Les  lois  permettant  de  realiser  ces  mesures 
d'importance  historique  apporteront  certaine- 
ment  une  enorme  amelioration  dans  les  possi- 
bilites  educatives  des  Franco-ontariens.  Les 
Bills  qui  s'y  rapportent  prevoient  les  disposi- 
tions legales  pour  l'etabissement  d'ecoles  ele- 
mentaires  et  secondaires.  Bien  que  le  principe 
d'une  instruction  bilingue  avait  ete  reconnu 
precedemment,  jusqu'au  jour  ou  ces  bills 
furent  presentes  par  le  Ministere  de  l'Educa- 
tion  (M.  Davis),  il  n'evistait  point  de  statu t 
specifique  garantissant  des  ecoles  franchises 
en  Ontario. 

Quels  sont  les  buts  d'une  instruction  secon- 
dare de  langue  francaise?  Quels  sont  les 
besoins  formules  par  a  communaute  Franco- 
ontarienne  dans  ce  domaine?  Je  repondrai  a 
ces  questions  d'une  facon  aussi  breve  que 
possible. 

1.  Le  dipldme  bilingue  d'une  ecole  secon- 
daire de  langue  franchise  devrait  avoir  acquis 
une  connaissance  de  francais  qui  soit  aussi 
complete  que  le  permet  le  niveau  d'aptitudes 
intellectuelles  d'un  etudiant  moyen.  Le  Fran- 
cais est  sa  langue  maternelle  et  devrait  lui 
etre  enseigne  compte  tenu  des  besoins  cultu- 
rels  aussi  bien  que  pratiques.  Sa  connaissance 
et  son  aptitude  de  manipuler  la  langue  fran- 
caise doit  lui  permettre  de  vivre  une  vie 
pleine  en  tant  que  Canadien  d'origine  fran- 
caise et  doit  aussi  lui  permettre  de  beneficier 
et  de  participer  activement  a  la  vie  culturelle 
des  Canadiens  francophones  et  de  la,  commu- 
naute francophone  universelle. 


56 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


2.  Le  diplome  bilingue  devrait  avoir  une 
bonne  connaissance  de  l'anglais  pour  qu'il 
puisse: 

(a)  Communiquer  d'une  facon  adequate 
avec  ses  compatriotes  anglophones; 

(b)  faire  face  aux  conditions  competitives 
vis-a-vis  de  la  main-d'oeuvre  anglophone  pos- 
sedant  les   memes   aptitudes   professionnelles; 

(c)  prendre  part  aux  activites  politiques, 
civiques  et  sociales  au  sein  de  sa  communaute. 

3.  Apres  avoir  acquis  les  connaissances  lin- 
guistiques  fondamentales,  le  dipome  bilingue 
devrait  posseder  une  bonne  comprehension 
des  normes  devaluation  et  des  aspects  cultu- 
rels  de  ses  concitoyens  anglophones. 

Bref,  Monsieur  l'Orateur,  notre  ultime  objec- 
tif,  qui  est  actuellement  a  la  portee  de  notre 
main,  est  d'assurer  a  tout  etudiant  franco- 
phone de  l'Ontario  la  possibilite  de  recevoir 
une  education  dans  sa  langue  maternelle  a 
partir  du  jardin  d'enfants  jusqu'a  l'universite 
ct  plus. 

Parlant  d'education  francaise,  je  suis  par- 
ticulierement  heureux  de  constater  deja  des 
signes  de  cooperation  sinceres  entre  anglais 
et  francais  dans  le  domaine  de  l'instruction 
secondaire.  Je  desire  citer  l'exemple  de  la 
Commission  de  "l'Ottawa  Collegiate  Institute" 
qui  a  accepte  d'assumer  la  responsabilite,  a 
partir  de  cet  automne,  pour  les  sept  ecoles 
secondaires  privees  de  langue  francaise 
d'Ottawa.  II  faut  dire  que  ce  fut  la  une  de- 
cision admirable  prise  entierement  et  unique- 
ment  sur  l'initiative  des  autorites  locales 
d'Ottawa.  II  faut  ajouter  que  dans  d'autres 
regions  de  l'Ontario,  des  groupes  francophones 
et  anglophones  ont  aussi  mis  sur  pied  des 
comites  conjoints  dans  le  but  de  trouver  le 
meilleur  moyen  possible  d'administrer  des 
ecoles  secondaires  de  langue  francaise. 

Au  cours  des  dix-huit  derniers  mois,  ce 
gouvernement  a  fait  face  a  plusieurs  evene- 
ments  et  a  su  prendre  d'importantes  decisions 
qui  ont  pour  la  communaute  Franco-onta- 
rienne,  une  grande  signification.  Ces  evene- 
ments  et  ces  decisions  ont  contribue  a  faire 
disparaitre  les  anciennes  animosites  qui  ont 
affecte  plus  d'une  fois  les  relations  recipro- 
ques  dans  le  passe.  Cet  acte  magnifique  du 
grand  Homme  d'Etat  qu'est  le  Premier  (M. 
Robarts),  acte  qui  avait  institue  la  Confe- 
rence sur  la  Confederation  de  Demain  en 
novembre  1967,  mit  en  marche  le  processus 
d'un  progres  d'envergure  nationale. 

L'Ontario,  de  par  les  actes  et  les  inten- 
tions declares  de  son  gouvernement,  ainsi 
que  par  les  grandes  qualites  d'Homme  d'Etat 
de  son  Premier  est  devenu  le  symbole  et  le 


champion  des  interets  des  Canadiens  franco- 
phones residant  dans  toutes  les  provinces,  en 
dehors  du  Quebec. 

Comment  se  fait-il  done  que  tant  de  choses 
se  soient  accomplies  dans  cette  province?  La 
raison  en  est  simple,  mais  pourtant  extreme- 
ment  importante,  e'est  parce  que  bon  nombre 
d'ontariens  anglophones  veulent  et  aspirent  a 
ce  que  notre  province  reflete  plus  fidelement 
les  ideaux  que  nous  a  traces  notre  heritage 
historique. 

lis  reconnaissent  qu'il  existe  au  Canada 
deux  cultures  linguistiques  fondamentales.  lis 
comprennent  que  la  diversite  est  la  source 
mi'me  de  notre  force  et  de  la  richesse  de 
notre  vie. 

Le  mois  passe  a  Cornwall,  le  Premier  avait 
reitere  cette  attitude  en  disant  que  "Le  Gou- 
vernement de  cette  province  s'est  engage  a 
assurer  a  tous  nos  citoyens  une  citoyennete 
pleine  et  egale  quelle  que  soit  leur  origine 
linguistique  ou  nationale.  Ce  faisant,  nous 
avons  reconnu  les  aspirations  legitimes  de 
nos  residents  francophones  et  leur  droit  de 
pouvoir  s'exprimer  dans  leur  propre  langue. 
Nous  avons  prouve  de  plusieurs  facons  et 
dans  de  nombreuses  occasions,  a  tous  les 
Canadiens,  que  le  gouvernement  de  l'Ontario 
est  pret  a  adopter  comme  il  l'a  d'ailleurs  fait, 
des  mesures  constructives  a  cette  fin." 

Quelles  sont  certaines  de  ces  mesures?  Je 
citerai  comme  premier  exemple  la  Fonction 
Publique  de  l'Ontario. 

L'etablissement  par  le  Ministere  de  la 
Fonction  Publique  et  le  Ministere  de  l'Edu- 
cation  de  cours  de  langue  francaise  a  l'inten- 
tion  des  fonctionnaires  dont  les  fonctions  exi- 
gent une  connaissance  du  francais. 

Toutes  les  lettres  recues  en  francais  par  le 
gouvernement  seront  repondues  dans  cette 
langue. 

Tous  les  ministeres  gouvernementaux  seront 
encourages  a  fournir  des  services  bilingues 
dans  les  bureaux  regionaux  situes  dans  des 
zones  ou  il  existe  une  concentration  suffisante 
de  citoyens  francophones. 

Le  gouvernement  etendra  les  services  de 
son  bureau  de  traduction  dans  le  but  speci- 
fique  de  resoudre  le  probleme  de  communi- 
cation en  francais. 

Il  existe  encore  un  domaine  assez  serieux 
ou  le  gouvernement  ontarien  a  aussi  adopte 
des  politiques  saines  concernant  l'usage  du 
francais  et  de  l'anglais  dans  l'administration 
municipale.  II  preconise  l'emploi  des  deux 
langues  dans  les  communautes  qui  comptent 
un  nombre  suffisant  de  citoyens  franco- 
phones;  elles  se  situent  principalement  dans 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


57 


Test  et  le  nord-est  de  l'Ontario,  dans  les 
comtes  et  les  districts  de  Stormont,  Glen- 
garry, Prescott  et  Russell,  Carleton,  Nipis- 
sing,  Tem'skaming,  Cochrane,  Sudbury  et 
Algoma.  Cette  categorie  comprend  aussi  des 
communautes  etablies  au  sud-ouest  de  l'On- 
tario telles  que  Penetanguishene  sur  la  Baie 
Georgienne,  Welland  et  dans  certaines  parties 
du  comte  d'Essex. 

Les  municipalites  seront  appelees  a  adop- 
ter un  certain  nombre  de  mesures  speciales 
comme  l'emploi  d'un  personnel  bilingue  suffi- 
s:mt  pour  servir  le  public  d'une  facon  efficace 
dans  les  deux  langues,  oralement  et  par  ecrit. 
La  place  me  manque  pour  vous  donner  les 
details  des  nombreux  aspects  de  cette  poli- 
tique, mais  je  citerai  pourtant  un  exemple 
tynique  qui  est  la  preparation  de  formules 
officielles  locales  dans  les  deux  langues 
comme  par  exemple,  les  avis  de  cote  fon- 
ciere,  les  formules  d'imp6t,  les  factures  d'eau 
et  les  listes  des  electeurs. 

Ces  projets  representent  dans  une  certaine 
mesure  pour  les  autorites  municipales,  la 
reconnaissance  de  la  situation  existante  dans 
un  certain  nombre  de  municipalites.  Un  bon 
nombre  de  gouvernements  locaux  de  Test  de 
l'Ontario  ont  conduit  une  grande  partie  de 
leurs  affaires  en  francais,  pendant  plusieurs 
annees.  Les  municipalites  d'Eastview  et  de 
Hawkesbury  ont  servi  leur  public  dans  une 
tres  grande  mesure  dans  les  deux  langues. 
Dans  le  cadre  des  efforts  qui  se  poursuivent 
actuellement  et  qui  visent  a  assurer  des  possi- 
bility £ducatives  pleines  et  entieres  aux 
Franco-ontariens,  ces  nouvelles  mesures  dans 
le  domaine  municipal  s'accompliront  de  plus 
en  plus  aisement. 

Encore  un  domaine  d'importance  majeure 
est  l'administration  de  la  justice.  II  faut 
admettre  pourtant  que  l'usage  des  deux 
langues  dans  ce  domaine  pose  un  probleme 
assez  difficile.  Toutefois,  une  etude  appro- 
fondie  a  ete  entreprise  sur  trois  possibilites: 

1.  La  possibility  que  le  gouvernement 
s'engage  a  supporter  les  depenses  qu'il  faudra 
encourir  pour  des  interpretes  et  des  services 
de  traduction  qui  seront  necessaires  dans  tout 
procede  de  plaidoirie  ou  de  justice  dans  les 
tribunaux  qui  se  trouvent  sous  la  juridiction 
provinciale. 

2.  Des  documents  judiciaires  bilingues  dans 
certains  districts  judiciaires  comptant  une 
population  francophone  sufBsante. 

3.  L'encouragement  des  juges,  des  avocats, 
des  greffiers,  des  sherifs,  des  huissiers  et  des 
stenographies  juridiques  de  profiter  des  cours 
de  langue. 


Monsieur  l'Orateur,  je  me  permets  de  ter- 
miner cette  partie  de  mon  discours  en  citant 
de  nouveau  le  Premier  dans  son  adresse  a 
Cornwall,  l'ete  passe.  II  a  fait  le  resume  de 
notre  progres  avec  ces  quelques  mots  pleins 
de  sagesse: 

Beaucoup  a  ete  accompli  au  cours  de  la 
derniere  annee  pour  les  citoyens  franco- 
phones de  l'Ontario  et  du  Canada.  Quand 
les  programmes  et  les  politiques  adoptees 
par  tous  les  gouvernements  du  Canada 
auront  atteint  leur  pleine  maturite,  nous 
aurons  deja  traverse  une  immense  distance 
vers  l'elimination  des  inegalites  qui  ont 
e.xiste  pendant  de  si  longues  annees.  Ces 
changements  prennent  un  sens  encore  plus 
significatif  quand  on  considere  qu'ils  sont 
dus  a  la  bonne  volonte  d'un  peuple  tra- 
vaillant  a  l'unison,  dans  un  esprit  de  co- 
operation et  de  comprehension.  Nous  nous 
sommes  cherches  l'un  l'autre  et  nous  avons 
reconnu  nos  communes  aspirations.  En- 
semble done,  en  tant  que  residents  d'une 
grande  province,  nous  continuerons  tou- 
jours  a  consacrer  nos  efforts  pour  edifier 
un  Canada  plus  fort  et  plus  uni  que  jamais. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  repeat  in 
English  some  of  what  I  said  in  French.  I 
think  it  very  important  and  speaking  as  a 
Franco-Ontarian,  I  would  like  everybody  to 
hear  what  I  said  in  French. 

Back  in  the  early  1600's,  when  trading  and 
mission  posts  were  built  along  Ontario  water- 
ways, an  estimated  45,000  Indians  were  the 
sole  occupants  of  what  was  to  become 
Ontario. 

My  ancestors,  the  French  were  the  first 
permanent  white  settlers.  In  fact  they  had 
built  communities  as  far  west  as  the  Windsor- 
Detroit  district  some  50  years  before  Canada 
came  under  British  rule.  Further  settlement 
came  in  1784  when  large  numbers  of  United 
Empire  Loyalists  trekked  north  for  refuge 
after  the  American  revolt  against  Britain. 
Joining  them  in  breaking  new  land  were 
groups  of  Scots,  Irish,  Dutch,  Swiss  and 
Germans. 

By  1812,  when  we  were  threatened  by  the 
British-American  War,  the  population  had 
reached  80,000.  By  Confederation  in  1867 
it  had  grown  to  1.5  million.  Today,  we 
Franco-Ontarians  alone  total  some  725,000, 
or  roughly  ten  per  cent  of  the  Ontario  popu- 
lation. Following  the  majority  group  of 
Anglo-Saxon  origin,  we  Franco-Ontarians  are 
the  largest  of  Ontario's  nine  other  main  ethnic 
groups.  As  a  citizen  of  French  origin  I  con- 
sider myself  fortunate  to  be  a  part  of  the  rich 
and  varied  ethnic  mosaic  of  Ontario. 


58 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  matter  of  pride  to  me 
to  list  the  major  ethnic  groups  that  contribute 
so  importantly  to  our  province's  cultural 
scene.  Ontario  is  now  composed  of:  Anglo- 
Saxon  60  per  cent,  4,142,000;  French  10  per 
cent,  724,000;  German/Austrian  7  per  cent, 
487,000;  Italian  4  per  cent,  306,000;  Dutch 
3  per  cent,  216,000;  Polish  2  per  cent, 
167,000;  Ukrainian  2  per  cent,  139,000; 
Jewish  1  per  cent,  77,000;  Scandinavian 
1  per  cent,  70,000;  Native  Indian  0.8  per 
cent,  56,000. 

How  fortunate  we  all  are  in  Ontario  to 
share  in  the  richness  of  this  heritage. 

As  a  Franco-Ontarian  I  greeted  this  gov- 
ernment's announcement  of  August,  1967, 
with  sincere  appreciation.  I  refer  to  the 
announcement  that  it  is  this  government's 
firm  intention  to  establish  a  publicly  financed 
system  of  French-speaking  secondary  schools. 
Since  that  announcement  I  am  happy  to  note 
the  giant  strides  that  have  been  taken  to  carry 
out  the  intention. 

A  committee  on  French-language  public- 
secondary  schools  has  examined  the  methods 
of  expanding  secondary  school  instruction  in 
French.  A  major  recommendation  resulting, 
suggests  that  courses  already  offered  in  such 
schools  in  French,  be  extended  to  include  a 
complete  programme  where  the  number  of 
students  in  an  area  makes  such  a  move 
practical. 

The  legislation  to  accomplish  this  historic- 
step  forward  vastly  improves  the  Franco- 
Ontarian's  educational  opportunities.  The  bills 
set  out  the  legal  provisions  for  the  establish- 
ment of  both  public  and  secondary  schools. 
While  the  principle  of  bilingual  education 
had  been  previously  recognized,  until  these 
bills  were  presented  by  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation, no  specific  statutory  guarantee  had 
eve*  been  made  for  French-language  schools 
in  Ontario. 

What  will  be  the  objectives  of  French- 
language  secondary  schools?  Just  what  is  it 
that  the  Franco-Ontarian  community  itself 
has  said  is  needed?  I  will  answer  these  ques- 
tions as  briefly  as  I  can: 

1.  The  bilingual  graduate  of  a  French- 
language  secondary  school  should  have  gained 
a  knowledge  of  French  that  is  as  complete  as 
the  level  of  intellectual  abilities  of  the 
average  student  will  allow.  French  is  his 
mother  tongue  and  should  be  studied  with 
cultural  as  well  as  pragmatic  aims  in  view. 
His  knowledge  and  command  of  French  must 
allow  him  to  live  fully  as  a  Canadian  of 
French  descent  who  can  benefit  from,  and 
actively  take  part  in,  the  cultural  life  of  the 


French-speaking  Canadians  and  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  French  world  community. 

2.  The  bilingual  graduate  should  have  a 
sound  knowledge  of  English  which  will  allow 
him  to:  (a)  communicate  effectively  with  his 
English-speaking  compatriots;  (b)  meet  the 
competition  of  English-speaking  workers  of 
equal  occupational  skill;  (c)  take  part  in  the 
political,  civic  and  social  activities  of  his 
community. 

3.  The  bilingual  graduate  should  have 
gained  an  understanding,  after  having  gained 
the  basic  linguistic  skills,  of  the  value  systems 
and  cultural  patterns  of  his  English-speaking 
countrymen. 

To  sum  up,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  ultimate 
objective,  now  within  our  grasp,  is  to  assure 
every  French-speaking  student  in  Ontario  the 
opportunity  to  receive  his  education,  from 
kindergarten  through  university  and  beyond, 
in  his  mother  tongue. 

In  this  field  of  French-language  education 
it  is  particularly  gratifying  to  me  to  see 
already  examples  of  voluntary  co-operation 
between  English  and  French  in  the  area  of 
secondary  education.  I  refer  to  the  example 
of  the  Ottawa  Collegiate  Institute  board  in 
agreeing  to  assume  responsibility  as  of  this 
fall  for  Ottawa's  seven  French-language  pri- 
vate secondary  schools.  This  was  an  admir- 
able decision  taken  entirely  on  the  initiative 
of  the  local  Ottawa  authorities.  As  well,  in 
other  parts  of  Ontario,  groups  of  French  and 
English  have  set  up  joint  committees  to  find 
the  most  satisfactory  way  of  operating 
French-language    secondary   schools. 

In  the  past  18  months  there  have  been 
many  events  and  significant  decisions  taken 
by  Uiis  government  which  held  great  im- 
portance for  the  Franco-Ontarian  community. 
These  events  and  decisions  helped  to  wipe 
out  old  animosities  which  have  too  often 
tainted  relations  between  us  in  the  past.  Tjhat 
magnificent  act  of  statesmanship  by  the  hon. 
Prime  Minister,  when  he  instituted  the  Con- 
federation of  Tomorrow  conference  in  Novem- 
ber, 1967,  launched  the  process  on  a  national 
basis. 

Ontario,  through  the  acts  and  statements 
of  intent  of  this  government,  and  the  states- 
manlike concern  of  the  hon.  Prime  Minister, 
has  become  identified  as  the  champion  of 
French-speaking  Canadians  in  all  provinces 
outside  Quebec. 

Why  are  we  accomplishing  so  much  in 
this  province?  The  reason  is  simple  but  im- 
portant. Many  English-speaking  Ontarians  are 
ready  and  eager  to  have  our  province  more 


NOVEMBER  21,   1968 


59 


faithfully  reflect  the  mainstreams  of  our 
heritage. 

They  recognize  that  Canada  has  two  basic 
linguistic  cultures.  They  understand  that 
diversity  is  the  source  of  our  strength  and 
the  richness  of  our  life. 

In  Cornwall  this  past  summer  the  Prime 
Minister  reiterated  our  attitude  when  he 
said: 

The  government  of  this  province  has 
committed  itself  to  the  assurance  of  full 
and  equal  citizenship  for  all,  regardless 
of  national  or  linguistic  origin.  In  doing 
so,  we  have  recognized  the  aspirations  of 
our  French-speaking  residents  to  express 
themselves  in  their  own  language.  We 
have  demonstrated  in  many  ways  and  on 
many  occasions  before  all  Canadians,  that 
the  government  of  Ontario  is  prepared  to 
take  and  is  taking  constructive  steps  to 
achieve  this  end. 

What  are  some  of  the  steps  taken?  I  will 
take  the  Ontario  public  service  as  my  first 
example: 

The  establishment,  by  The  Department  of 
Civil  Service  and  The  Department  of  Edu- 
cation, of  language  courses  for  civil  servants 
whose  duties  require  a  knowledge  of  French. 

All  letters  received  in  French  by  this  gov- 
ernment will  be  answered  in  that  language. 

All  government  departments  will  be  en- 
couraged to  provide  bilingual  services  in 
those  field  offices  located  in  areas  where 
there  is  a  sufficient  concentration  of  French- 
speaking  people. 

The  government  will  expand  the  facilities 
of  its  translation  bureau,  particularly  to  deal 
with  French  communications. 

In  a  second  critical  area  the  government 
of  Ontario  has  instituted  sound  policies  with 
regard  to  the  use  of  French  and  English  in 
municipal  administration.  This  government  is 
encouraging  the  use  of  both  languages  in 
those  communities  having  a  concentration  of 
French-speaking  citizens.  In  the  main,  such 
places  are  in  eastern  and  northeastern  On- 
tario, within  the  counties  and  districts  of 
Stormont,  Glengarry,  Prescott,  Russell,  Carle- 
ton,  Nipissing,  Temiskaming,  Cochrane,  Sud- 
bury and  Algoma.  Also  in  this  category  are 
communities  in  southwestern  Ontario  such 
as  Penetanguishene  on  Georgian  Bay,  Wel- 
land  and  parts  of  the  county  of  Essex. 

Municipalities  will  be  urged  to  adopt  a 
number  of  specific  policies  such  as  the  em- 
ployment of  enough  bilingual  staff  to  deal 
effectively  with  the  public  in  both  languages 
in  oral   and  written  communications.    I   will 


not  detail  the  many  aspects  of  this  policy, 
but  a  helpful  example  is  the  provision  in  both 
languages  of  local  official  forms  and  notices 
such  as  assessment  notices,  tax  forms,  water 
bills  and  voters'  lists. 

To  some  extent  these  plans  for  the  munici- 
pal field  represent  recognition  of  existing 
situations  in  a  number  of  municipalities.  For 
many  years  several  local  governments  in 
eastern  Ontario  have  effectively  conducted 
much  of  their  business  in  French.  Eastview 
and  Hawkesbury  have  provided  most  munici- 
pal services  in  both  languages.  With  the 
efforts  underway  to  ensure  a  full  range  of 
educational  opportunities  to  Franco-Ontarians, 
these  new  policies  in  the  municipal  field  will 
become  easier  to  accomplish. 

Another  major  area  of  concern  is  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  Admittedly,  the  use 
of  two  languages  in  this  field  is  a  difficult 
problem.  However,  thorough  study  of  three 
possibilities  are  underway: 

1.  The  provision  that  the  government  shall 
meet  the  expenses  incurred  for  interpreters 
and  translation  services  in  any  pleading  or 
process  before  courts  of  provincial  jurisdic- 
tion. 

2.  The  provision  of  bilingual  court  docu- 
ments in  a  designated  judicial  district  having 
a  large  enough  French-speaking  population. 

3.  The  encouragement  of  judges,  lawyers, 
clerks,  sheriffs,  bailiffs  and  legal  stenogra- 
phers to  take  advantage  of  language  training 
facilities. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  close  this  section  of 
my  speech  with  a  further  quotation  from  the 
hon.  Prime  Minister,  again  from  his  address 
in  Cornwall  this  past  summer.  He  summed 
up  our  progress  with  these  wise  words: 

A  great  deal  has  been  achieved  during 
the  last  year  on  behalf  of  the  French- 
speaking  people  of  Ontario  and  Canada. 
When  the  programme  and  policies  of  all 
governments  in  Canada  reach  maturity,  we 
will  have  travelled  a  considerable  distance 
toward  removing  inequalities  which  have 
existed  for  many  years.  The  changes  are 
all  the  more  significant  because  we  have 
achieved  progress  through  people  of  good- 
will working  together  in  a  spirit  of  co- 
operation. We  have  sought  each  other  out 
and  recognized  the  aspirations  of  each 
other.  Together,  as  residents  of  a  great 
province,  we  are  working  for  a  stronger 
and  more  united  Canada. 

A  final  point,  Mr.  Speaker:  As  a  Progressive 
Conservative,  I  note  with  pride  the  fact  that 
among    the     government    members     of    this 


60 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


House,  there  are  more  French-speaking  mem- 
bers by  far  than  the  combined  total  among 
the  other  two  political  parties  represented. 
You  see,  Franco-Ontarians  are  very  shrewd 
customers  as  well.  They  also  know  and  obvi- 
ously appreciate  a  quality  product. 

Mr.  Speaker,  turning  from  the  particular 
concerns  of  a  Franco-Ontarian  to  the  more 
general  and  immediately  current  interest  of 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  I  wish  to  comp- 
liment this  government  on  the  wisdom  and 
economic  moderation  of  its  legislative  fore- 
cast. 

I  note  that  one  Toronto  newspaper,  the 
Star,  has  referred  to  the  forecast  as  an 
austerity  programme.  If  that  newspaper  be- 
lieves that  austerity  consists  of  not  attempting 
to  buy  more  than  one  can  immediately  afford, 
then  perhaps  its  description  is  correct.  But,  a 
more  accurate  assessment  came  from  the 
Globe  and  Mail  of  Wednesday,  November 
20,  1968,  when  its  lead  editorial  commented 
on  the  Throne  Speech  with  these  words: 

It  certainly  promised  full  speed  ahead 
with  a  number  of  costly  programmes  al- 
ready underway. 

The  Globe  and  Mail  also  pointed  out  that 
while  Ontario  is  going  through  a  difficult 
financial  period,  its  credit  position  is  excel- 
lent.   The  editorial  went  on  to  say: 

In  some  respects  its  (credit  position)  a 
good  deal  better  than  that  of  Ottawa,  which 
has  not  only  returned  to  the  trough  too 
often,  but  has  compromised  its  respecta- 
bility with  the  financial  community  by 
promising  .  .  .  and  failing  to  produce  .  .  . 
a  balanced  budget. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  see  nothing  austere  in  a  pro- 
gramme forecast  that  will  change  and  im- 
prove expropriation  laws;  expand  the  HOME 
programme;  amend  The  Assessment  Act  to 
secure  greater  efficiency;  increase  control  over 
spending  by  the  province,  the  municipalities, 
school  boards  and  universities;  review  of  the 
machinery  of  collective  bargaining;  establish 
a  plan  to  provide  a  basic  standard  of  services 
to  all  municipalities;  make  further  moves  to 
strengthen  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Code; 
establish  an  educational  communications  au- 
thority; assist  children  with  mental  and  emo- 
tional disorders;  propose  a  Health  Protection 
Act  to  prevent  and  reduce  abuses  of  our 
environment  in  the  various  fields  of  pollu- 
tion; legislate  to  improve  the  production  of 
food  and  increase  the  financial  return  to 
farmers;  co-ordinate  all  northern  transporta- 
tion policies;  revise  The  Mining  Act,  and 
offer  a  programme  to  provide  additional 
recreation  areas  and  more  parks. 


Mr.  Speaker,  if  this  is  austerity,  if  this  was, 
as  some  of  the  media  said,  a  "no-news" 
Throne  Speech,  I  question  the  news  judg- 
ments involved.  I  sometimes  feel  that  the 
media,  at  least  in  Metropolitan  Toronto,  are 
so  close  to  Queen's  Park  and  the  flood  of 
good  news  that  flows  from  this  government, 
that  they  have  become  jaded  with  riches  and 
in  their  frustration  are  often  reduced  to  nit- 
picking. In  this  respect  they  are  similar  in 
character  to  the  Liberals  and  NDP. 

Speaking  of  the  NDP,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  also 
offer  my  congratulations  to  their  leader,  the 
member  for  York  South  (Mr.  MacDonald),  on 
his   recent  survival   at  Kitchener. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Belanger:  We  would  have  missed  his 
lengthy  criticisms,  just  as  one  can  learn  to 
miss  a  nagging  wife. 

As    we    have    experienced    over    the    past 
quarter    century,    the    NDP's    bark    is    much 
more  impressive  than  its  bite- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.   Speaker:   Order!   Order! 

We  have  had  a  very  quiet  and  fruitful 
afternoon  and  I  would  like  it  to  continue  and 
let  this  member  make  his  speech  without  a 
continual  undertone  of  noise. 

Mr.  Belanger:  —especially  when  it  comes  to 
elections.  As  I  suggested,  we  would  have 
missed   the   bark. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  province  is  the  envy  of 
every  state  and  province  in  North  America 
when  it  comes  to  legal  aid.  This  humane  and 
socially  progressive  system  proves  this  gov- 
ernment's concern  for  the  well-being  of  the 
people  it  serves.  Naturally  enough  our  legal 
aid  programme  will  have  some  teething 
troubles.  One  cannot  expect  otherwise  of  such 
a  magnificent  and  far-reaching  programme. 

I  merely  wish  to  add  a  word  of  caution— 
a  word  of  caution  on  the  dangers  of  abuse. 
At  the  same  time,  I  am  sure  this  government 
is  aware  of  the  danger  of  abuse  and  will 
exercise  every  care  as  it  keeps  a  watchful 
eye   on   the   system. 

On  another  topic  I  warmly  welcomed  the 
announcement  by  the  hon.  Robert  Welch, 
Provincial  Secretary,  that  there  would  be  a 
full  review  of  Ontario  liquor  laws.  The  Min- 
ister indicated  his  desire  and  willingness  to 
seek  an  enlightened  policy  with  respect  to 
the  control,  sale  and  licensing  of  liquor.  The 
present  review  will,  I  am  confident,  bring 
progressive  new  proposals  and  recommenda- 
tions in  line  with  the  changing  requirements 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


61 


and  customs  of  the  people  of  Ontario.  In  this 
review  it  is  my  hope  the  matter  of  Saturday 
evening  closing  hours  will  receive  attention. 

As  many  of  us  unfortunately  know,  licensed 
premises  must  close  at  11.30  p.m.  Saturday 
night.  This  highly  annoying  regulation  leads 
me  to  slightly  change  the  words  to  an  old 
popular  song— Saturday  night  is  the  lousiest 
night  of  the  week. 

The  present  Saturday  night  closing  should 
be  extended  to  at  least  1.00  a.m.,  if  not  1.30 
a.m.  Perhaps  Saturday  evening  has  no  spe- 
cial significance  to  our  wealthier  citizens,  but 
I  can  assure  this  House  that  it  is  immensely 
significant  to  those  people  of  more  modest 
incomes  who  make  up  the  majority  of  our 
population.  It  is  particularly  significant  in  a 
riding  such  as  Prescott  and  Russell,  where 
much  of  our  rural  population  regard  Saturday 
night  as  a  time  of  social  communication  and 
good  fellowship.  They  do  not  enjoy  being 
sent  home  early  like  children  suffering  under 
parental  discipline. 

Another  particularly  annoying  matter  in 
this  area  is  the  fact  that  to  acquire  a  dining 
lounge  license  a  specific  portion  of  an  estab- 
lishment's gross  income  must  come  from  the 
sale  of  food.  As  I  understand  it  this  portion 
is  25  per  cent.  In  some  cases  it  may  bend 
to  allow  a  slightly  smaller  percentage  but, 
in  many  cases,  it  remains  an  unrealistic 
figure. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  simply  impossible  for 
many  otherwise  suitable  establishments  to 
meet  this  food-percentage  requirement.  It 
may  be  reasonable  in  highly  urban  areas.  In 
more  rural  areas  of  the  province,  such  as 
mine,  there  is  not  enough  trade  in  the  matter 
of  meals  to  ever  allow  otherwise  suitable 
premises  to  secure  a  dining  lounge  license. 
I  am  sure  the  hon.  Provincial  Secretary  (Mr. 
Welch)  will  give  his  most  serious  considera- 
tion to  these  two  annoying  items  I  have 
mentioned.  In  both  cases  the  regulations  are 
not  in  tune  with  the  times,  or  the  people, 
or  the  particular  social  and  geographic 
situation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  closing  my  speech  I  in- 
tended to  sum  up  the  many,  many  achieve- 
ments of  the  Progressive  Conservative  gov- 
ernments of  Ontario— accomplishments  that 
have  brought  this  province  to  its  number  one 
place  in  Canada. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Belanger:  But,  rather  than  toot  our 
own  horn,  I  will  end  with  a  simple  quotation 
from  our  sister  province  of  Quebec. 


On  July  17,  1966,  a  Montreal  periodical, 
Le  Petit  Journal,  had  this  to  say  about  our 
province: 

Without  Ontario,  Canada  would  be  an 
under-developed  country  and  our  standard 
of  living  in  Quebec  would  be  considerably 
lower.  Fortunately,  Ontario  does  exist  and 
no  customs  office  separates  Ontario  from 
Quebec.  Furthermore,  Ontario's  prosperity 
is  far  from  being  harmful  to  us. 

Mr.  J.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  Mr.  Speaker, 
it  is  a  great  honour  and  privilege  for  me, 
on  behalf  of  the  people  of  Fort  William 
riding,  to  second  the  motion  of  the  hon. 
member  for  Prescott  and  Russell  for  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  presented 
by  the  Honourable,  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
of  Ontario.  I  believe  this  is  the  first  occasion 
which  this  honour  has  been  given  to  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Legislature  from  Fort  William 
riding. 

First  of  all,  I  would  like  to  add  my  con- 
gratulations to  the  many  our  new  Lieutenant- 
Governor  has  already  received  upon  his 
appointment  as  Her  Majesty's  representative 
in  Ontario.  Despite  the  negative  attitude  from 
the  hon.  member  for  Sudbury  (Mr.  Sopha), 
I  think  that  the  office  of  Lieutenant-Governor 
is  one  that  is  worthy  of  maintaining.  Some 
members  opposite  feel  that  just  because 
something  is  old,  it  is  irrelevant,  and  they 
want  to  change  things  simply  for  the  sake 
of  change. 

Unkind  critics  of  the  member  for  Sud- 
bury have  suggested  to  me  that  maybe  he 
really  only  likes  to  read  about  himself  in 
the  press. 

Personally,  I  believe  that  the  office  of 
Lieutenant-Governor  gives  to  us  a  link  with 
our  past  traditions,  which  I  do  not  think  we 
have  any  reason  to  view  with  shame  or  mis- 
givings, and  in  fact  adds  a  great  deal  of 
colour,  interest  and  history  to  the  opening  of 
the  Legislature. 

Also,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  congratu- 
late the  hon.  member  for  London  South  (Mr. 
White)  on  his  appointment  as  Minister  of 
Revenue.  I  think  all  would  agree  that  he  is 
one  of  the  more  active  and  interesting  orators 
in  the  House  and  his  background  and  experi- 
ence in  economics  and  business  and  as  a 
writer  qualify  him  for  the  important  position 
he  now  holds  in  the  affairs  of  this  province. 

I  would  like,  too,  at  this  time,  to  say  to 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  in  this  chamber 
have  been  very  impressed  with  the  way  in 
which  you  have  carried  out  your  responsibili- 
ties.    Certainly   your   duties    require    a    great 


62 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


deal  of  patience  and  are  not  made  easier  by 
some  of  our  actions.  Nevertheless,  your  fair- 
ness in  rulings,  your  subtle  humour  and  your 
firmness  in  handling  the  operations  of  this 
House  all  characterize  a  broad  ability  which 
all  members  respect. 

While  it  is  not  always  customary  to  say 
nice  words  about  members  of  the  Opposition 
parties,  and  in  particular  the  leader  of  the 
Opposition,  I  would  on  this  occasion,  break 
with  that  custom  and  thank  the  hon.  member 
for  Brant  (Mr.  Nixon)  for  the  kind  words  he 
extended  to  our  colleague,  the  hon.  member 
for  Middlesex  South  (Mr.  Olde).  All  of  us,  I 
am  sure,  are  happy  to  see  him  up  and  around 
again,  in  good  health,  and  serving  his  con- 
stituents so  vigorously  and  well  as  he  has 
done  since  1963. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  comment  briefly  on 
those  events  which  took  place  at  a  roller 
skating  rink  in  Kitchener  last  weekend. 
Firstly,  let  me  congratulate  the  member  for 
York  South  (Mr.  MacDonald)  on  his  retention 
of  the  leadership  of  his  group.  While  we  in 
this  party  do  not  get  overly  excited  about 
things  that  take  place  in  minority  class  politi- 
cal groups— sprinkled  with  a  handful  of  op- 
portunists, some  of  them  absent  this  after- 
noon—most of  us  have  a  high  regard  for  the 
member  for  York  South  and  it  is  good  to  see 
him  return  to  his  same  place  at  the  opening 
of  this  Legislature  even  though  he  may  be 
missing  right  now.  However,  in  his  absence, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  think  that  it  should  be 
placed  on  the  record,  that  31  per  cent  of  the 
delegates,  or  almost  one  out  of  every  three, 
rejected  him  as  their  leader,  and  it  is  also 
significant  that  over  25  per  cent  of  his  own 
caucus,  or  one  of  every  four  socialist  members 
of  the  Legislature,  say  to  him,  "Donald,  go 
home,  we  do  not  need  you." 

Why  then,  do  his  own  people,  his  own 
friends,  rise  up  to  smite  him?  I  suggest,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  one  of  the  major  reasons  is  that 
the  hon.  member  for  York  South  has  created 
a  belie vability  gap  that  is  reaching  gigantic 
proportions.  We  remember  in  the  election 
campaign  of  1967  his  slogan-67  in  '67.  Well, 
he  got  20  seats— a  full  47  short  of  his  predic- 
tion. His  error  gap  or  believability  gap  was 
70  per  cent  off.  He  said  the  socialists  were 
going  to  win  in  1955,  in  1959,  in  1963  and  in 
1967.  In  fact,  the  socialists  won  none.  Thus, 
the  believability  gap  is  now  100  per  cent.  I 
will  send  the  member  for  York  South  a  copy. 

Now,  he  talks  about  winning  in  1971.  What 
nonsense!  No  wonder  his  friends  want  to  push 
him  out.   They  do  not  believe  him  and  neither 


do  the  people  of  Ontario  and  particularly  the 
people  of  Fort  William. 

Quite  frankly,  with  friends  like  the  ones  he 
normally  has  sitting  beside  him  and  behind 
him,  the  socialists  in  my  view  will  be  quite 
lucky  to  win  seven  seats  in  1971.  This  is  not 
my  own  view  or  the  view  of  our  side  of  the 
House,  but  this  is  what  31  per  cent  of  the 
delegates  to  his  convention  said  and  25  per 
cent  of  his  own  MPPs  say.  To  quote  the 
member  for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick),  "There 
is  no  will."  And  further,  as  the  member  for 
Riverdale  said  in  Toronto  on  November  12, 
"Face  up  to  the  fact  that  MacDonald's  lead- 
ership as  it  has  been  is  not  good  enough  for 
victory  in  1971." 

Mr.  Speaker,  just  one  more  comment  on 
the  three-ring  circus  of  socialist  politics.  The 
member  for  Riverdale  charged  in  St.  Thomas 
on  November  4  that  all  full-time  paid  repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  Steelworkers  and 
United  Packinghouse  Workers  were  told  to 
get  out  and  support  and  work  for  the  member 
for  York  South  in  his  bid  to  retain  his  group's 
leadership.  If  they  did  not,  according  to  the 
member  for  Riverdale,  they  would  lose  their 
jobs.  This  is  a  very  serious  charge.  Here,  we 
have  a  group  that  pretends  to  support  the 
working  man,  yet  through  fear  and  coercion 
their  union  representatives  are  told  to  work 
for  MacDonald  or  they  lose  their  jobs.  Says 
the  member  for  Riverdale,  and  I  am  quoting 
him  now  from  an  article- 
Mrs.  M.  Renwick  (Scarborough  Centre): 
Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order,  I  hope  all 
information  brought  to  this  assembly  will  be 
accurate  information.  The  statement  made  by 
the  member  for  Riverdale  in  St.  Thomas  was 
a  statement  carefully  prepared,  carefully 
assessed  and  accurately  stated,  not  what  the 
member  for  Fort  William  said,  "that  all  paid 
members  of  United  Packinghouse  Workers 
and  the  United  Steelworkers  of  America.  .  ." 
It  simply  stated  members  of  District  No.  6— 
not  all  members,  Mr.  Speaker—and  members 
of  the  national  office  of  United  Packinghouse 
Workers,  whose  correct  name  now  is  Cana- 
dian Food  and  Allied  Workers,  I  believe,  Mr. 
Speaker.    Thank  you 

Mr.  Jcssiman:  I  thank  the  member  for  those 
kind  words  but  I  am  sending  over,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  actual  photostatic  copy  out  of 
the  paper,  and  I  quote: 

"Any  staff  representative  of  those  two 
unions  who  supports  me  or  campaigns  for 
me  does  so  at  the  risk  of  his  job." 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


63 


We  in  this  party  have  argued  for  many  years 
that  the  membership  of  organized  labour,  the 
rank  and  file,  have  been  taken  to  the  cleaners 
by  the  NDP.  We  have  argued  that  money 
forced  out  of  the  rank  and  file  by— 

(a)  The  political  check-off  system; 

(b)  The  so-called  political  action  groups 
within  the  unions  who  use  rank  and  file  funds 
without  their  consent  to  distribute  socialist 
propaganda; 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Jessiman:   Squirm,  Donald,  squirm. 

(c)  Union  organizers  whose  pay  cheques 
are  made  up  out  of  the  rank  and  file  member- 
ship fees  are  forced  to  work  in  election  cam- 
paigns without  consent  of  the  rank  and  file- 
most  of  whom  do  not  and  will  not  support 
the  NDP— is  against  all  principles  of  common 
decency  and  the  right  of  the  union  members 
to  be  free  to  vote  and  support  political  parties 
of  their  own  choosing  without  coercion  or 
arm  twisting. 

Now  we  find  the  disease  of  political  fear 
and  coercion  being  used  by  the  leader  of  the 
NDP  and  his  friends  in  a  purely  internal 
affair  of  the  NDP  group.  In  other  words, 
here  we  have  union  dues  which  partly  go  to 
pay  the  salaries  of  union  organizers- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  understood  that  in  the 
House  on  occasions  such  as  this  there  would 
l)e  a  certain  amount  of  interference  with  the 
speaker,  but  this  is  most  unseemly  and  I 
would  ask  the  members,  particularly  on  Mr. 
Speaker's  left,  to  give  this  meml^er  the  op- 
portunity of  making  his  point.  As  we  all 
know  here,  in  due  course  every  member  will 
have  an  opportunity  to  speak  in  this  debate 
and  the  rebuttals  can  be  made. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  Let  the  record  show  that  the 
charge  being  made  that  union  representatives 
must  support  and  work  for  the  member  for 
York  South  or  lose  their  jobs  was  not  made  by 
a  Progressive  Conservative,  or  by  a  Liberal, 
but  by  the  deputy  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party,  the  member  for  Riverdale. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  turn  to  the 
subject  of  northern  Ontario.  We  have  heard 
a  great  deal  of  talk  by  the  Opposition  in  con- 
nection with  government  policies  for  this 
part  of  Ontario.  Much  of  this  talk  is  simply 
centred  around  slogans  designed  to  capture 
votes.  Most  of  the  talk  is  negative,  but  all 
of  this  talk,  all  of  this  electioneering,  is  very 
separatist  in  its  nature. 

Let  me  say  at  the  outset  that  the  people  of 


northern  Ontario  do  not  want  an  eleventh 
province.  Despite  the  Opposition  parties' 
attempt  to  fan  a  movement  in  this  direction 
so  as  to  capture  a  few  votes,  northern  On- 
tario is,  and  will  remain,  an  integral  part  of 
Ontario— economically,  culturally  and  socially. 

In  a  few  minutes,  I  am  going  to  outline 
some  of  the  areas  which  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment has  brought  forward,  imaginative  and 
constructive  proposals  for  the  development 
of  the  north  country.  But  before  I  do,  I 
want  to  read  into  the  record  that  the  federal 
L. lxr.il  member  for  Kenora-Rainy  River  on 
November  18  asked  the  Prime  Minister  of 
Canada  to  place  on  the  agenda  of  the  federal- 
provincial  conference  in  Ottawa  next  month, 
the  question  of  northern  Ontario  and  northern 
Quebec  becoming  an  eleventh  province.  Also, 
another  separatist  in  northern  Ontario— in  fact 
the  man  who  is  making  the  most  noise— is  a 
character  by  the  name  of  Donald  McKinnon. 
He  is  well  known  to  the  leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition—he was  the  provincial  Liberal  candidate 
in  1967  for  the  riding  of  Cochrane  South.  I 
might  mention  here  that  he  got  some  3,000 
votes  out  of  a  total  of  20,000  that  were  cast. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  turn  to  the 
positive  record  of  the  Ontario  government 
and  its  policies  of  the  north.  I  intend  to 
deal  at  some  length  this  afternoon  on  this 
record  and  to  say  that  we  in  this  party  have 
not  neglected  the  north  as  the  Opposition 
members  like  to  believe.  I  will  be  the  first 
to  admit  that  many  programmes  need  to  be 
expanded  and  new  programmes  will  have  to 
be  pursued  and  implemented.  But  I  also 
suggest  that  we  have  accomplished,  through 
good  government,  programmes  that  are  both 
more  realistic  and  more  extensive  than  the 
election  campaign  groaning  of  Liberals  and 
socialists.  They  offer  pessimism  when  our 
party  offers  opportunity.  They  offer  cam- 
paign oratory  and  promises;  we  offer  action 
and  progress. 

Now  to  the  defence  of  that  record. 

It  is  only  fitting  that  at  the  start  we  review 
and  examine  the  educational  opportunities 
opened  up  to  the  north  by  the  Ontario  Pro- 
gressive   Conservative    government. 

Mr.  Speaker,  50  years  ago,  northern  On- 
tario was  a  rough,  demanding  country  with 
drifts  of  snow  and  perishing  cold  in  the 
winter  and  a  summer  of  sultry  heat  and  vora- 
cious flies.  One  had  to  be  an  intrepid  hunter, 
explorer,  miner  or  adventurer  to  risk  the 
hazards  of  climate   and  terrain. 

Now  the  northland  has  a  new  image.  As 
life  in  northern  Ontario  has  progressed  be- 
yond the  elemental  struggle  for  survival,  man 


64 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


has  conquered  his  environment  and  brought 
the  riches  and  refinements  of  civilization  to 
the  new  north.  At  the  hub  of  the  learning, 
growing  process  is  education. 

Two  new  universities,  Lakehead  University 
in  Port  Arthur  and  Laurentian  University  in 
Sudbury,  have  very  special  opportunities  to 
offer  to  the  students  of  northern  Ontario. 

Lakehead  University,  for  example,  in  co- 
operation with  the  Fort  William  and  Port 
Arthur  school  boards  and  symphony  orches- 
tra, have  set  up  a  unique  programme  in 
musical  education,  under  the  direction  of 
Boris  Brott,  the  brilliant  young  Canadian 
who,  at  24,  became  assistant  conductor  of  the 
New  York  Philharmonic.  This  year,  the 
Princeton  string  quartet,  as  Lakehead's  musi- 
cians in  residence,  are  giving  a  total  of  2,400 
teaching  hours  to  the  local  elementary  schools 
and  will  play  a  total  of  240  concerts  in  north- 
ern communities  from  Kenora  to  Marathon. 
In  this  way  the  children  and  the  citizens  of 
the  northland  are  benefiting  from  the  best  in 
musical  training  and  appreciation. 

As  part  of  an  effort  to  push  the  boundaries 
of  habitable  territory  even  further  north, 
Lakehead  has  taken  over  a  Department  of 
Lands  and  Forests  outpost  100  miles  north 
of  the  Lakehead,  near  Lake  Nipigon  for 
study  of  the  boreal  forest.  At  the  Black 
Sturgeon  research  centre,  northern  Ontario 
students  will  undertake  environmental  studies 
in  forestry,  biology,  zoology  and  archaeology. 

Mr.  Speaker,  among  Lakehead  University's 
new  programmes  designed  for  the  needs  of 
the  local  community,  is  a  chemical  engineer- 
ing diploma  programme  oriented  around  and 
towards  the  nu\p  and  paper  industry.  Lake- 
head  also  offers  courses  in  mining  engineer- 
ing technology  and  a  variety  of  courses  in 
forestry.  It  has  also  recently  initiated  its  first 
master's  degree  programmes  in  four  disci- 
plines —  English,  physics,  psychology  and 
mathematics.  The  new  science  and  technol- 
ogy building  houses  an  IBM  model  40  com- 
puter which  can  be  used  by  staff  and  students. 

Symbolic  of  the  high  degree  of  imaginative 
planning  that  characterizes  the  development 
of  the  north  and  of  this  university  is  its  $24 
million  programme  of  construction  on  the 
shores  of  a  man-made  lake  that  will  provide 
skating  in  the  winter  and  swimming  in  the 
summer. 

Mr.  Speaker,  to  finance  these  projects,  the 
government  of  Ontario,  through  its  Depart- 
ment of  University  Affairs,  is  providing  dur- 
ing the  1968-1969  fiscal  year  a  total  of  more 
than  $13  million  in  capital  and  operating 
grants. 


Laurentian  University  in  Sudbury,  being 
bilingual,  expresses  in  a  different  way  the 
quality  and  needs  of  the  new  cultural  atmos- 
phere of  the  Ontario  north.  This  university 
is  now  offering  a  bilingual  degree  in  all  its 
programmes— the  first  in  North  America  to  do 
so— fulfilling  one  of  its  aims  of  encouraging 
our  dual  French-English  culture  both,  inside 
and  outside  the  classroom.  It  is  receiving 
provincial  government  support  during  1968- 
1969  of  a  total  of  more  than  $9  million."  The 
Laurentian  faculty  of  arts  and  science  now 
has  seven  colleges,  including  Algoma  in  Sault 
Ste.  Marie  and  Nipissing  in  North  Bay. 

Besides  courses  in  chemical,  civil  and 
metallurgical  engineering,  Laurentian  offers 
one  of  Ontario's  first  undergraduate  degrees 
in  social  work,  which  will  prepare  qualified 
social  workers  for  community  services,  gov- 
ernment and  industry.  In  another  co-opera- 
tive venture  with  the  Sudbury  community, 
Laurentian's  labs  are  being  used  for  cardio- 
thoracic  research. 

This  will  give  some  idea  of  the  new  climate 
and  attitude  that  prevails  in  the  north. 
Spurred  on  by  the  momentum  of  the  victory 
over  the  hostile  environment,  man  has  gone 
on  to  higher  aspirations  of  development  and 
improvement  in  his  universities  and  colleges 
and  the  total  life  of  the  community. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  result  of  this  new  sense 
of  challenge  in  the  north,  the  government  of 
Ontario,  in  co-operation  with  the  federal 
government  and  with  the  enthusiastic  support 
of  Canadian  industry  and  Ontario's  northern 
universities,  has  envisioned  a  mid-Canada 
development  corridor.  The  Lakehead  cities 
are  the  only  large  population  centres  so,  not 
unnaturally,  the  conference  next  August  on 
this  topic  will  be  held  in  Port  Arthur.  Such 
a  plan  could  realize  dreams  that  last  cen- 
tury's most  visionary  explorer  could  never 
have  foreseen:  dreams  of  a  northland  vigor- 
ous, expanding,  challenging,  to  meet  the 
needs  of  Canada's  people,  both  in  terms  of 
the  land  and  its  burgeoning  natural  resources. 

Mr.  Speaker,  The  Department  of  Educa- 
tion, in  pursuing  its  policy  of  ensuring  equal 
educational  opportunity  for  all  children 
throughout  Ontario,  has  given  special  atten- 
tion to  our  rich  and  developing  northland. 
This  is  well  exemplified  in  its  handling  of 
the  special  circumstances  of  the  north  in 
the  reorganization  of  school  jurisdictions  that 
is  now  in  progress.  Here,  the  particular  prob- 
lems arise  from  the  nature  of  the  area— a 
mix  of  highly  developed  urban  centres  with 
mining  and  other  communities  that  are  scat- 
tered and  somewhat  isolated  in  large  tracts 


NOVEMBER  21,  1968 


65 


of  territory.  For  this  reason,  as  you  know, 
guidelines  for  the  special  concerns  of  the 
north  in  this  process  of  reorganization  were 
provided  in  an  independent  document  that 
was  published   separately. 

In  the  coming  year  1969.  much  effort  will 
lie  devoted  in  the  north  to  this  reorganization 
of  boards  and  administration.  In  the  terri- 
torial districts,  new  boards  of  education  for 
the  divisions  and  new  separate  school  boards 
for  enlarged  zones  will  as  ume  operational 
control  of  the  schools  on  January  1,  1969, 
and  will  appoint  their  own  supervisory  officers. 
The  Department  of  Education  will  provide 
ail  possible  assistance  in  the  reorganization 
and  will  adjust  its  supervisory  services  for 
school  boards  in  isolated  areas  which  will 
not  be  included  in  new  divisions  or  zones. 
It  is  our  aim  that  these  changes  shall  bring 
a  new  impetus  and  vigour  to  education  in 
northern  Ontario,  just  as  in  the  south. 

I  want  to  refer  at  this  point  to  an  aspect 
of  education  in  the  north  to  which  the  gov- 
ernment attaches  great  importance— the  col- 
leges of  applied  arts  and  technology. 

Along  with  the  establishment  of  new 
colleges  in  other  parts  of  the  province,  The 
Department  of  Education  has  now  in  opeia- 
tion  campuses  of  colleges  of  applied  arts  and 
technology  at  the  Lakehead,  Kirkland  Lake, 
Hailcybury,  South  Porcupine,  Sault  Ste 
Marie,  Sudbury  and  North  Bay.  In  these  new 
colleges,  approximately  2,650  full-time  day 
students  and  2,000  part-time  and  extension 
students  are  enrolled.  And  in  addition  to 
these  I  have  just  mentioned  there  is,  in 
Kenera,  Confederation  College,  operating  a 
number  of  classes. 

Among  the  varied  courses  offered  in  these 
institutions,  there  are  programmes  in  the 
fields  of  trade,  technician  training,  technol- 
ogy, applied  arts  and  science,  and  business. 
In  most  cases  plans  are  well  developed  for 
permanent  buildings  and  on  some  campuses 
construction  is  under  way  or  has  been  com- 
pleted. 

I  should  like  next  to  draw  the  attention 
of  the  Hcu  e  to  a  number  of  educational 
developments  which  have  special  local  sig- 
nificance. One  of  the  most  important  groups 
of  citizens  in  our  society  today  is  our  Indian 
people.  We  in  the  northern  part  of  this 
great  province  harbour  the  province's  largest 
percentage  cf  these  first  citizens.  Many  people 
have  pointed  out  that  we  have  an  Indian 
problem. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  point  out  to  you 
that  this  is  not  the  case.  I  feel  that  we  have 
a  white  problem  in  that  so  many  varieties  of 


missionaries,  social  workers,  and  politicians 
with  preconceived  ideas  who  work  for  Indians, 
do  more  harm  than  good,  because  they  are 
working  for  their  own  satisfaction,  seeking 
publicity  which  is  always  available  when 
one  assists   minority  groups. 

The  government  of  this  province  has 
shown  a  tremendous  desire  and  has  made 
great  strides  in  assuring  that  the  social  bene- 
fits of  our  society  are  available  to  these 
people,  in  spite  of  the  feelings  of  the  federal 
government  and  their  complete  lack  of  co- 
operation in  this  particular  field. 

One  has  only  to  lock  at  the  recent  mem- 
bers' tour  of  northwestern  Ontario.  There 
we  saw  the  Minister  of  Social  and  Family 
Services  (Mr.  Yaremko)  break  away  from 
those  enjoying  the  beauty  and  the  interesting 
tours  to  visit  and  examine  first  hand  the 
problems  of  these  sincere  people. 

This  dedicated  Minister  cf  the  Crown 
accompanied  by  the  member  for  Kenora  (Mr. 
Bernier),  spent  every  available  moment  talk- 
ing, looking,  and  planning  ways  to  place 
these,  our  first  citizens,  on  a  level  in  our 
society  that  is  taken  by  the  rest  of  us  for 
granted. 

Steps  are  being  taken  to  provide  improved 
education  for  Indian  residents  of  Ontario. 
The  educational  centre  at  Moosonee  is  near- 
ing  completion  and  it  will  lie  officially  opened 
next  June.  This  centre  serves  the  elementary 
school  children  in  certain  subjects  outside  the 
scope  of  the  public  and  separate  schools  and 
it  offers  academic  upgrading  and  manpower 
training  to  adults.  The  director  supervises  a 
total  staff  of  23.  The  board  of  governors 
employs  people  of  Indian  descent  wherever 
possible. 

On  the  CNR  main  line  to  the  north  of 
Lake  Nipigon,  new  schools,  each  of  two 
rooms,  have  been  erected  during  the  past 
summer  at  Auden,  where  a  one-room  school 
has  been  replaced,  and  at  Fcrland,  where 
previously  no  school  existed.  In  both  these 
localities  the  federal  and  Onlario  govern- 
ments  share  the  financial  responsibility. 

It  is  gratifying  to  note,  throughout  the 
north  as  well  as  the  southern  part  of  the 
province,  that  Indian  bands  are  asking  for 
an  appointed  representative  on  school  boards 
and  these  requests  are  being  granted  and 
guaranteed  by  the  boards  which  provide  edu- 
cation for  Indian  pupils. 

In  no-theastern  Ontario  several  boards 
have  organized  French-language  schools  in 
temporary  or  leased  accommodation,  for 
French-pealing  pupils  who  formerly  at- 
tended    private,      French-language      schools. 


66 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


These  schools  will  also  augment  the  French- 
language  instruction  which  has  been  given 
for  several  years  in  such  places  as  Chelms- 
ford and  Sturgeon  Falls  where  both  English- 
speaking  and  French-speaking  pupils  have 
enjoyed  the  benefits  of  a  composite  school 
programme.  The  board's  concern  in  1969 
will  be  planning  for  permanent  accommoda- 
tion for  the  French-language  schools  and  for 
some  in  which  both  English  and  French  will 
be  used. 

Commencing  in  1969,  parents  of  elementary 
school  pupils  living  outside  the  boundaries 
of  school  sections  and  zones  where  daily  bus 
service  is  not  available,  may  apply  for  a 
travelling  or  living  allowance  to  the  school 
board  providing  the  education. 

In  isolated  communities  in  the  northern 
districts,  25  teachers  are  working  in  one-  or 
two-room  schools  under  the  northern  corps. 
The  department  subsidizes  their  travel  and 
provides  a  northern  allowance  in  addition  to 
a  salary  paid  by  the  board.  Six  schools,  each 
of  one  or  two  rooms,  have  qualified  for 
this  assistance  for  the  first  time  in  the  cur- 
rent school  year. 

May  I  turn  now  to  another  aspect  of 
education  in  the  north,  which  is  one  of  the 
special  concerns  of  the  Ontario  government 
there  as  it  is  elsewhere  in  the  province— the 
services  for  the  blind  and  deaf.  In  1963  the 
first  home-visiting  teacher  of  pre-school  deaf 
children  was  appointed.  The  initial  service 
was  so  successful  that  six  such  home-visiting 
teachers  are  now  at  work.  I  should  point 
out,  I  think,  that  the  teachers  who  have 
received  special  training  for  this  activity 
average  almost  1,000  miles  a  month  by  car 
plus  air  travel. 

Two  teachers  concentrate  their  efforts  in 
northern    Ontario.    The   programme   has   two 


purposes:  To  prepare  young  deaf  children 
for  admission  to  school,  and  to  assist  the 
parents  in  the  training  of  their  own  young 
deaf  child  at  home. 

The  Department  of  Education  intends  to 
expand  this  programme  gradually  so  that 
home  visits  may  be  more  frequent.  In  this 
way,  young  pre-school  deaf  children  in 
northern  and  rural  Ontario,  and  their  parents, 
will  benefit  from  the  assistance  of  profes- 
sionally trained  teachers  of  the  deaf  while 
remaining  together  as  a  family  in  their  own 
homes. 

The  provincial  Department  of  Education 
also  helps  maintain  schools  for  retarded  chil- 
dren in  11  northern  Ontario  districts.  Since 
April,  1966,  we  have  provided  educational 
programmes  in  special  classes  within  Ontario 
Department  of  Health  hospital  facilities,  for 
groups  of  children  who  include  the  mentally 
retarded  and  those  who  are  physically,  so- 
cially and  emotionally  disturbed.  One  of 
these  schools  is  located  in  the  Ontario  Hos- 
pital at  Port  Arthur. 

With  the  co-operation  of  The  Department 
of  Health,  occupational  therapy,  kitchen, 
library,  ceramics  and  sewing  areas  are  being 
made  available  to  the  school  for  instructional 
purposes. 

Mr.  Jessiman  moves  the  adjournment  of 
the  debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  tomorrow 
we  will  resume  this  debate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6.00  o'clock  p.m. 


No.  4 


ONTARIO 


^Legislature  of  (Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  -  DAILY  EDITION 


Second  Session  of  the  Twenty-Eighth  Legislature 


Friday,  November  22,  1968 


Speaker:  Honourable  Fred  Mcintosh  Cass,  Q.C. 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  Q.C. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 


Price  per  session,  $5.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto. 


CONTENTS 


Friday,  November  22,  1968 

Medical  practitioners  from  liability  in  respect  of  voluntary  emergency  medical  services, 

bill  to  relieve,  Mr.  Sargent,  first  reading 69 

Ethics  of  elected  representatives,  bill  respecting,  Mr.  Shulman,  first  reading  69 

Ontario  Hydro  development  at  Pickering,  question  to  Mr.  Simonett,  Mr.  Nixon  69 

Sale  of  HOME  lots  in  Hamilton,  question  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  J.  R.  Smith  70 

Closing  of  Murray  Avenue  at  QEW  in  Grimsby  area,  question  to  Mr.  Comme,  Mr.  Deans  70 

Safety  problems  re  "dune  buggies,"  questions  to  Mr.  Haskett,  Mr.  Breithaupt  71 

Universal  mine  claiming  tag,  question  to  Mr.  A.  F.  Lawrence,  Mr.  Knight 71 

Appointment  of  Crown  attorney  for  Halton  county,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart, 

Mr.  Shulman 71 

Assessment  advantages  by  municipalities  to  attract  industries,  questions  to  Mr.  McKeough, 

Mr.   Pitman    72 

Expo  '70  exhibit  in  Japan,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Sargent  76 

Increases  in  apartment  rents,  questions  to  Mr.  McKeough,  Mr.  Sargent  77 

Beaver  Valley  area,  questions  to  Mr.  McKeough,  Mr.  Sargent  77 

Construction  and  maintenance  costs  of  schools,  questions  to  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  De  Monte  79 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Jessiman  80 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Nixon,  agreed  to  90 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Rowntree,  agreed  to  90 


69 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10.30  o'clock,  a.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  are  always  pleased  to 
have  visitors  to  the  Legislature  and  today  we 
welcome  as  guests  students  from  the  follow- 
ing schools:  In  the  east  gallery,  from  St. 
Philip  Neri  separate  school,  Downsview,  and 
Winchester  Street  public  school,  Toronto; 
and  later  on  today  in  the  west  gallery,  Don 
Mills  junior  high  school,  Don  Mills. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


RELIEF  FROM  LIABILITY 
OF  MEDICAL  PRACTITIONERS 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce)  moves  first 
reading  of  bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  relieve 
medical  practitioners  from  liability  in  respect 
of  voluntary  emergency  medical  services. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

ETHICS  OF  ELECTED 
REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park)  moves  first 
reading  of  bill  intituled,  An  Act  respecting 
ethics  of  elected  representatives. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  pro- 
hibits certain  conduct  on  the  part  of  legis- 
lators, and  requires  disclosure  of  interests  and 
activities  that  cannot  reasonably  be  prohi- 
bited but  whose  nature  and  extent  should  be 
public  knowledge. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the 
hon.  Minister  of  Energy  and  Resources  Man- 
agement concerning  the  Ontario  Hydro  devel- 
opment at  Pickering.  I  wonder  if  he  can  tell 
the  House  how  far  behind  in  the  construction 
they  are  of  the  atomic  energy  site  in  Pick- 
ering? 


Friday,  November  22,  1968 

Hon.  J.  R.  Simonett  (Minister  of  Energy 
and  Resources  Management):  Mr.  Speaker, 
relative  to  the  original  in-service  date  estab- 
lished at  the  time  the  Pickering  generation 
station  was  authorized,  the  first  unit  is  ten 
months  behind,  the  second  unit  five  months 
behind,  and  the  third  and  fourth  units  are 
predicted  on  time.  The  reasons  are:  first,  late 
delivery  of  important  components;  second, 
effect  of  our  strike  last  year. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  same 
information  was  given  by  me  to  the  leader  of 
the  Opposition  in  this  House  on  May  7,  1968. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  surely  in  reply  to 
the  gratuitous  comment  in  addition  to  the 
answer  you  will  permit  me  to  say  that  much 
time  has  elapsed  since  that  particular  occa- 
sion; and  surely,  with  the  good  weather  that 
we  have  had  in  the  summer  and  fall,  we 
would  have  hoped  for  an  improvement  in  the 
situation. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  to  whom  the 
hon.  member  for  York  South  (Mr.  MacDon- 
ald)  is  directing  his  question  is  not  in,  I 
believe,  this  morning  and  will  not  be  in  until 
Monday. 

Hon.  J.  H.  White  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of  privilege.  In  the 
Metro  final  edition  of  this  morning's  Globe 
and  Mail,  on  page  one,  there  is  an  article 
headed,  "Ontario  Suggests  Federal  Budget 
May  Prevent  Succession  Duty  Cut".  This 
heading  is  completely  inaccurate.  The  lead 
reads  as  follows: 

Because  of  "the  radical  changes  brought 
about  by  the  Benson  budget"  Ontario  will 
be  forced  to  reconsider  raising  the  exemp- 
tions on  succession  duties  to  $96,000  from 
$75,000,  Provincial  Revenue  Minister  John 
White  said  last  night." 

This  lead  is  completely  misleading.  It  is  mis- 
leading because  the  word  "reconsider"  is  used 
instead  of  "review"  and  because  one  only  of 
the  56  recommendations  of  the  Smith  com- 
mittee and  select  committee  report  was 
singled  out.  The  method  I  chose  to  ensure 
that  what  I  did  sav  would  be  accurate  and 


70 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


non-controversial,  was  to  read  the  question 
of  the  leader  of  the  Opposition  and  quote 
my  reply.  And  I  would  like  that  to  be  very 
clear. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Hamil- 
ton Mountain. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Smith  (Hamilton  Mountain):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the  hon.  Min- 
ister of  Trade  and  Development. 

When  are  the  HOME  lots  going  to  be 
offered  for  sale  to  the  public  in  Hamilton? 

Hon.  S.  J.  Randall  (Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  we  always  have 
the  answers. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Has 
the  Minister  got  the  houses? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Just  listen  carefully.  Do 
not  get  confused. 

HOME  lots  in  the  Ralston  neighbourhood 
in  Hamilton  will  be  offered  within  a  week 
of  Ontario  Housing  Corporation  receiving 
Central  Mortgage  and  Housing  Corporation's 
approval  of  the  lot  values  which  have  been 
proposed  for  the  area. 

As  hon.  members  know,  the  primary  pur- 
pose of  the  HOME  plan  is  to  make  lots  avail- 
able to  potential  homeowners  on  a  leasehold 
basis.  However,  it  is  necessary  to  establish 
a  land  value  at  the  inception  because  every 
lessee  who  decides,  after  a  period  of  five 
years,  that  he  wishes  to  purchase  a  lot,  may 
do  so  at  the  original  established  value  with- 
out regard  to  any  increases  in  land  values  in 
the  area  which  may  have  taken  place  during 
the  intervening  period. 

Land  values  are  also  required  for  the  very 
small  number  of  homeowner  applicants  who 
wish  to  purchase  lots  at  the  inception  either 
on  a  cash  basis  or  over  a  period  of  up  to  35 
years. 

We  expect  to  receive  Central  Mortgage 
and  Housing  Corporation's  approval  within  a 
week,  and  as  the  Ontario  Housing  Corpora- 
tion mobile  sales  office  is  already  on  the  site, 
lots  will  be  advertised  and  offered  to  the 
public  within  a  matter  of  days  from  receiv- 
ing the  approval. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Why  does  the  Minister 
not  answer  the  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  answered  the  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.    I  have  a— 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order!  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Wentworth  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Highways.  I  hope 
that  he  can  get  to  the  point  much  more 
quickly  than  his  friend,  the  Minister  of  Trade 
and  Development. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  member  will 
place  his  question. 

Mr.  Deans:  In  the  interest  of  public  safety, 
will  the  Minister  order  the  closing  of  Murray 
Avenue  where  it  enters  the  Queen  Elizabeth 
Highway  at  Grimsby? 

Hon.  G.  E.  Gomme  (Minister  of  Highways): 
Mr.  Speaker,  before  answering  this  question 
I  want  to  tell  the  House  that  the  hon.  Pro- 
vincial Secretary  (Mr.  Welch)  has  pursued 
this  matter  with  myself  and  our  department 
on  several  occasions. 

Mr.  MacDonald:    That  is  irrelevant. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gomme:  He  just  happens  to  be 
the  member  down  there. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members^ 

Mr.  Speaker:    Order! 

Hon.  Mr.  Gomme:  The  Ontario  Municipal 
Eoard,  by  order  No.  PFM-9327/59,  approved 
the  closing  of  Murray  Avenue  and  Kerman 
Avenue  in  the  town  of  Grimsby  with  certain 
conditions  which  included  the  following: 

The  Department  of  Highways  construct 
the  following  service  roads  in  this  particular 
area:  1.  On  the  north  side  of  the  Queen 
Elizabeth  Way  between  Ofield  Road  and 
Murray  Avenue;  2.  On  the  south  side  of  the 
Queen  Elizabeth  Way  from  the  west  limit  of 
the  township  of  North  Grimsby  to  Murray 
Avenue;  3.  On  the  south  side  of  the  Queen 
Elizabeth  Way  from  Murray  Avenue  to  Pat- 
ten Street;  4.  A  connection  between  Elizabeth 
and  Ontario  Street  on  a  right-of-way  to  be 
provided  by  the  town  of  Grimsby;  5.  And 
subject  to  the  construction  by  The  Depart- 
ment of  Highways  of  a  number  of  slip-ons 
and  slip-offs,  an  interchange  to  provide  the 
necessary  movements  off  the  Queen  Elizabeth 
Way  to  the  abutting  adjacent  service  roads. 

The  department  during  the  resurfacing  of 
the  Queen  Elizabeth  Way  to  the  west  of 
Grimsby  in  1968  provided  left-turn  lanes  at 
Kerman  and  Murray  Avenues  in  the  median 
strip  in  order  to  improve  the  safety  of  the 
intersection.  Any  left  turning  vehicles  are 
then  able  to  be  cleared  of  the  through  lanes 
while  awaiting  an  opportunity  to  make  the 
left  turn. 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


71 


At  the  present  time,  the  department  is  pre- 
paring contract  drawings  for  the  construction 
of  the  necessary  service  roads,  structures  and 
interchanges  in  this  area  and  the  contracts 
will  be  called  as  soon  as  plans  have  been 
prepared  and  the  necessary  clearances  ob- 
tained. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  wonder  if  the  Minister  would 
accept  a  supplementary  question?  Does  he 
anticipate  that  this  would  be  done  prior  to 
next  summer's  heavy  traffic? 

Hon.  Mr.  Comme:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
already  explained  when  we  intend  to  do  it. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  hon.  Min- 
ister of  Transport. 

Has  the  department  studied  the  safety 
problems  of  those  rebuilt  small  cars  which 
are  now  being  popularly  used  on  sand  dunes 
and  rough  terrain  and  are  known  as  "dune 
buggies"?  Has  the  department  investigated 
the  death  of  Paul  Lightowlers  of  Ayr,  On- 
tario, who  died  on  August  19,  1968,  from 
injuries  received  in  a  crash  of  a  dune  buggy? 
Is  consideration  being  given  for  special 
licensing  and  inspection  of  these  vehicles  so 
that  the  enjoyment  by  the  owners  and  drivers 
is  balanced  by  the  public  interest  and  safety? 

Hon.  I.  Haskett  (Minister  of  Transport): 
Mr.  Speaker,  if  these  reconstructed  vehicles 
referred  to  as  "dune  buggies"  are  operated  on 
the  highways  they  must  be  registered  and 
must  comply  with  all  the  requirements  of 
The  Highway  Traffic  Act.  In  the  case  of  a 
reconstructed  vehicle,  before  it  can  be  regis- 
tered, a  certificate  of  fitness  is  required. 

I  am  sorry,  I  do  not  have  particulars  with 
respect  to  the  fatality  mentioned  by  the  hon. 
member  at  this  time.  I  will  look  it  up  and 
if  I  can  find  the  details  I  will  inform  the 
hon.  member. 

The  department  does  not  have  plans  for 
special  licensing  or  regulations  respecting 
these  vehicles  at  this  time. 

If  I  have  been  deficient  in  any  answer,  sir, 
I  would  be  happy  to  discuss  the  matter 
further  with  the  hon.  member  because  I 
would  like  to  answer  his  question  as  fully  as 
I  can. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Sandwich- 
Riverside  (Mr.  Burr)?  His  question  will  have 
to  be  deferred  until  the  Prime  Minister  (Mr. 
Robarts)  is  present. 

The  member  for  Port  Arthur. 


Mr.  R.  H.  Knight  (Port  Arthur):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the  hon.  Min- 
ister of  Mines. 

Has  a  decision  been  made  yet  on  a  uni- 
versal mining  claim  tag  for  the  province  to 
permit  prospectors  to  purchase  tags  at  their 
local  mine  recording  office  for  staking  in  any 
other  part  of  the  province,  as  we  recom- 
mended in  the  estimates  last  session  and  as 
subsequently  endorsed  by  the  Northwestern 
Ontario  Associated  Chambers  of  Commerce? 

Hon.  A.  F.  Lawrence  (Minister  of  Mines): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not  too  sure  what  the 
"royal  we"  is  to  which  the  hon.  member  is 
referring,  but  I  can  say  in  answer  to  the 
question  that  government  policy  will  be 
announced  in  this  House  in  due  course. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Attorney  General,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  five  parts. 

1.  Is  Mr.  Douglas  Latimer  to  be  appointed 
Crown  attorney  for  Halton  county? 

2.  Did  his  position  as  president  of  the 
Halton  Progressive  Conservative  Association 
have  anything  to  do  with  his  appointment? 

3.  What  is  the  salary  he  is  to  be  paid? 

4.  What  was  the  salary  that  was  offered  to 
special  Crown  prosecutor  Ronald  Thomas, 
former  acting  Crown  attorney,  to  take  the 
same  position? 

5.  Why  was  Thomas  not  offered  the  same 
salary  as  has  been  offered  to  Mr.  Latimer? 

Hon.  A.  A.  Wishart  (Attorney  General): 
Mr.  Speaker,  Mr.  Latimer  was  appointed 
on  November  21,  1968;  his  appointment  is  to 
become  effective  on  December  15,  1968. 

The  answer  to  the  second  part  of  the 
question  is  "no". 

The  starting  salary  for  Mr.  Latimer  is 
$16,775.  That  is  the  minimum  starting  salary 
for  a  Crown  attorney,  class  2,  which  has  a 
maximum  of  $20,010. 

The  salary  offered  to  Mr.  Thomas  was 
$14,349.  That  is  the  first  step  of  the  starting 
salary  in  a  Crown  attorney,  class  1,  which 
moves  to  a  maximum  of  $16,755. 

The  answer  to  the  fifth  part  of  the  ques- 
tion: Mr.  TJiomas  was  not  offered  the  same 
salary  as  Mr.  Latimer  because  Mr.  Latimer 
had  seven  years'  more  experience  at  the  Bar 
having  been  called  in  1957,  while  Mr.  Thomas 
was  called  in  1964.  The  one  man,  therefore, 
has  four  years'  experience,  the  other  man  had 
eleven  years  of  experience  at  the  Bar  and 
was  an  assistant  Crown  attorney  for  a  num- 
ber of  those  years.  In  our  view  these  are 
factors  we  have  to  take  into  account.  In  say- 
ing that  I   would  like  to  say,  Mr.   Speaker, 


72 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  this  is  no  reflection  on  our  appreciation 
of  the  abilities  of  either  man;  it  is  simply  a 
matter  of  experience. 

I  do  make  clear  the  point  that  we  were 
able  to  classify  Mr.  Latimer  as  a  Crown  attor- 
ney, class  2,  which  carries  its  salary  as  fixed, 
and  the  other  man  would  have  to  start  at 
Crown  attorney  1? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Would  the  Minister  accept 
a  supplementary  question?  Can  the  Minister 
inform  me  if  Mr.  Thomas  did  not,  in  effect, 
have  more  experience  as  a  Crown  attorney 
than  the  man  who  was  given  the  opportunity? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  No,  I  would  say,  cer- 
tainly not.  As  I  pointed  out,  the  one  man 
has  seven  years'  more  experience  than  the 
other. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  asked  if  Mr.  Thomas  did 
not  have  more  experience  as  a  Crown  attor- 
ney. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Thomas  has  served 
in  our  office,  on  our  staff  in  this  building, 
and  only  occasionally  as  Crown  attorney. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Peter- 
borough. 

Mr.  W.  G.  Pitman  (Peterborough):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  direct  a  question  to 
the  Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs. 

1.  Is  it  illegal  for  a  municipality  to  give 
assessment  advantages  or  grant  bonuses  in 
order  to  attract  industry? 

2.  If  the  town  of  Trenton  has  been  carry- 
ing on  these  activities,  as  indicated  in  the 
report  of  the  Eric  Hardy  Consulting  Com- 
pany Limited,  would  the  Minister  indicate 
what  steps  he  proposes  to  take? 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  Muni- 
cipal Affairs):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  answer  to  the 
first  part  of  the  question,  it  is,  of  course, 
illegal  for  a  municipality  to  give  assessment 
advantages  or  grant  bonuses  in  order  to 
attract  industry.  Section  248(a)  of  The  Muni- 
cipal Act  forbids  this  practice.  I  unfortunately 
do  not  have  a  copy  of  the  report  of  Eric 
Hardy  Consulting  Limited  which  you  have 
referred  to.  We  tried  to  get  in  touch  with 
Mr.  Hardy  this  morning  to  get  a  copy  of  the 
report.  He  is  out  of  town.  When  I  do  have 
a  copy  of  the  report  I  will  get  in  touch  with 
the  member. 

Mr.  Pitman:  May  I  ask  a  supplementary 
question?  Could  the  Minister  indicate  what 
steps  he  would  be  likely  to  take  if  indeed 
the  statements  included  in  this  report  are 
those  as  reported  by  the  press?    Perhaps  he 


might  also  indicate  what  steps  his  colleague, 
the  Minister  of  Trade  and  Development, 
might  take,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  this 
municipality  is  receiving  grants  under  the 
EIO  programe? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  think  the  second 
part  of  your  supplementary  question  should 
be  directed  to  the  Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development. 

As  far  as  the  first  part  of  the  question  is 
concerned,  it  is  rather  hypothetical.  When  I 
have  the  report  and  have  had  a  chance  to 
look  into  it  then  I  will  decide  what  we  will 
do  about  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  has  some  questions. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  to 
the  Minister  of  Trade  and  Development. 

I  think  that  he  either  owes  the  House  an 
apology  or— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  member 
will  place  his  question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Regarding  a  question  yester- 
day Mr.  Speaker,  on  a— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  we  are  now  in  today's 
question  period. 

Mr.  Sargent:  On  a  point  of  privilege! 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  are  in  the  question  period 
for  today.  If  the  hon.  member  wishes  to 
rise  on  a  point  of  personal  privilege  he  is 
entitled  to  do  so  but  he  is  not  entitled  to 
do  so  in  the  guise  of  asking  a  question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  will  leave  the  question  for 
a  moment  then.  On  a  point  of  privilege,  the 
situation  with  regard  to  yesterday's  question: 
The  Minister  told  the  House  a  half  truth, 
and  then  in  a  report  in  the  Globe  and  Mail 
this  morning,  he  told  the  press  that  it  is  their 
practice  to  loan  ODC  loans  to  well  estab- 
lished firms  if  they  could  prove  the  need  for 
it— and  they  are  well  established.  He  can 
mislead  the  House  but  he  should  not  mis- 
lead the  newspapers.  Mr.  Speaker,  he  did 
not  tell  the  newspapers  that  this  money  is 
not  available  to  any  firm  or  persons  who  can 
borrow  some  place  else.  This  is  a  well  estab- 
lished firm,  but  they  received  a  loan  from 
this  government,  through  ODC,  which  is 
forgiveable. 

This  is  what  he  did  not  tell  the  papers. 
I  think  he  owes  this  House  an  apology.  Why 
can  Holiday  Inn  and  Caswell  borrow  money 
from  the  government  when  they  have  other 
sources  of  money? 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


73 


An  hon.  member:  Like  cash  in  the  bank.  Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order! 


Mr.  Sargent:  Like  cash,  and  on  top  of  that, 
the  government  makes  it  forgiveable;  at  the 
end  of  the  six-year  term  they  get  their  money 
back.    It  does  not  cost  them  anything. 

Hon,  Mr.  White:  The  member  would  not 
have  a  little  vested  interest? 

Mr.  Sargent:  So  I  think  the  Minister  owes 
the  House  an  apology  or  he  should  tell  the 
press  that  he  did  not  tell  them  the  whole 
truth. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  Minister 
now  has  the  opportunity  if  he  wishes,  to 
comment  on  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  usual, 
I  think  the  hon.  member  for  Grey-Bruce  is 
thoroughly  confused.  In  the  first  place  I  did 
not  see  the  Globe  and  Mail  this  morning  and 
I  am  not  at  all  confused.  I  know  exactly 
what  I  said.  If  it  is  a  forgiveness  loan  I 
would  remind  you  that  we  have  given  for- 
giveness loans  to  companies  that  have  several 
millions  of  dollars,  perhaps  more  than  Mr. 
Caswell  will  ever  have.  If  Mr.  Caswell  has 
gone  into  a  designated  area  he  is  entided  to 
the  same  treatment  as  some  of  these  com- 
panies that  have  many  millions  of  dollars  of 
capital. 

Now,  any  man  who  has  a  balance  sheet 
can  walk  into  the  Ontario  Development  Cor- 
poration; he  can  present  it  and  we  say  to 
him,  "Have  you  tried  to  borrow  money  from 
two  other  sources?"  If  the  man  says  "Yes, 
and  I  was  turned  down",  we  ask  "Have  you 
gone  to  the  Industrial  Development  Bank?" 
If  he  says  "Yes,  and  I  was  turned  down", 
then  we  will  take  a  look  at  it  and  see  if 
there  is  some  way  we  can  lend  him  money. 
There  is  nothing  wrong  with  this. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  a  com- 
plete- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  member  will 
retain  his  seat  and  give  the  Minister  the 
opportunity  of  making  his  explanation.  The 
Minister  gave  the  member  the  opportunity 
of  making  his  point  of  privilege. 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  is  not  telling  the  truth, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Has  the  Minister  anything 
further  to  say? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  far  as 
I  am  concerned  I  explained  my  position  so 
he  can  go  ahead. 


Mr.  G.  Ben  (Humber):  Point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  resent,  as  a  member  of  this 
House,  being  insulted  by  the  hon.  Minister 
rising  here  and  giving  us  a  lot  of  balderdash 
about  borrowing  money  when  people  to 
whom  he  lent  money  were  making  profits 
that  ran  into  three  figures,  into  millions; 
that  is,  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order! 

An  hon.  member:  That  is  a  point  of  order? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order!  The  hon  mem- 
ber has  made  his  point  of  order.  He  will 
return  to  his  seat. 

Does  the  hon.  member  for  Grey-Bruce  wish 
to  proceed  with  his  questions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  rise 
on  a  point  of  order?  I  listened  to  my  hon. 
friend  in  the  back  row  there  say  that  these 
companies  make  hundreds  of  millions  of 
dollars.  May  I  remind  him  that  the  amount  of 
money  a  company  earns  has  nothing  to  do 
with  whether  they  qualify  to  go  into  a  desig- 
nated area.  The  more  money  they  have  the 
better.  We  like  to  see  them  in  a  designated 
area   because   they  have   got   staying  power. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well  why  does  not  the 
Minister  encourage  them  to  use  their  own 
money  instead  of  dipping  into  the  public 
Treasury? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Keep  your  mouth  shut 
a  minute  and  I  will  answer  you  too.  Do  not 
get  excited. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order,  is  that  parliamentary  language?  Mr. 
Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  is  on  a 
point  of  order  at  the  moment.  When  he  has 
finished  his— 

Mr.  MacDonald:  On  a  point  of  personal 
privilege,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  When  the  hon.  Minister  has 
finished  his  point  of  order,  then  the  hon. 
member   will  be   entitled  to  raise  his  point. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Forget  it! 

I  was  making  the  point,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
in  the  federal  designated-area  programme, 
many  companies  that  went  into  my  hon. 
friend's  riding  in  Grey-Bruce  were  companies 


74 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  very  substantial  means  and  they  qualified 
for  that  designated-area  programme- 
Mr.  Sargent:  We  are  not  talking  about  that. 

Hon.    Mr.    Randall:     Regardless  of    their 

wealth    they    qualify    because    they  met    the 

requirements  of  a  designated  area.  And  the 
same  applies  for  ODC. 

Mi*.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
South. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  ask  for 
your  guidance.  Is  it  parliamentary  for  one 
member  to  tell  another  member  to  shut  his 
mouth? 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  not  usually  considered  so. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Thank  you  very  much,  sir. 

An  hon.  member:  Only  when  the  govern- 
ment does  it. 

Mr.  H.  Peacock  (Windsor  West):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  point  of  order  and  it  is  a 
serious  one.  It  is  that  I  think  the  point  of 
order  relates  to  the  matter  in  which  the  ques- 
tions are  put  and  the  questions  are  answered, 
and  the  answers  of  the  Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development— two  answers,  Mr.  Speaker;  first 
the  written  prepared  answer  and,  secondly, 
the  answer  given  spontaneously  by  him— indi- 
cate to  me  that  the  procedures  and  rules  of 
the  question  period  should  be  completely  re- 
viewed and  overhauled  and  that  the  answers 
of  the  Minister  should  be  spontaneous  and 
unwritten,  and  those  will  be  the  answers 
which  appear  on  the  record  as  being  true 
answers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  May  I  say  to  the  hon.  mem- 
ber that  I  am  also  of  the  opinion  that  there 
can  be  improvements  made  in  the  question 
period.  And  I  can  assure  him  that  when  Mr. 
Speaker's  House  committee  meets,  I  hooe 
next  week,  we  will  be  glad  to  discuss  it  and 
see  if  there  are  any  changes  we  can  suggest 
to  the  House  in  that  regard. 

The  hon.  member  for  Port  Arthur— on  a 
point  of  order? 

Mr.  Knight:  On  a  point  of  privilege  and  in 
connection  with  the  subject  at  hand,  I  feel 
that  because  of  the  manner  in  which  Mr. 
Speaker's  office  rules  on  the  questions  which 
are  submitted  beforehand,  I  may  have  been 
discriminated  against  today.  I  had  a  question 
which  I  wished  to  put  to  the  House  here  per- 
taining to  the  fact  that  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne  was  not  given  in  French  as  well  as  in 
English,  and  I  was  told  that  the  question  was 
not   accepted   by   Mr.    Speaker's   office.     The 


reason  given  to  me  was  that  questions  which 
start  with  the  phrase  "in  view  of"  would  not 
be  accepted  and  also  that  the  preamble  to  my 
question  was  too  long. 

However,  I  find  if  we  check  yesterday's 
roster  of  questions  we  will  find  that  my  hon. 
colleague,  the  member  for  Downsview  (Mr. 
Singer),  in  his  second  question,  which  was 
addressed  to  the  Attorney  General,  opened 
with  the  form  "in  view  of",  and  not  only  that 
but  he  had  a  second  "in  view  of"  on  the 
second  line,  and  had  a  preamble  which  was 
considerably  longer  than  mine.  So  I  feel  that 
in  some  way  I  have  been  cut  off  from  a 
question  which  I  deem  to  be  extremely 
important. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  be  pleased  to  clarify 
the  matter  for  the  member  for  Port  Arthur. 
The  reasons  which  he  has  put  to  the  House 
and  which  perhaps  were  conveyed  to  him 
by  my  staff  were  not  the  reasons  for  the 
question  being  sent  back  for  revision.  We 
have  heard  considerable  this  morning  about 
politics  in  answers,  and  it  is  my  view,  aoting 
on  behalf  of  all  the  members  here,  so  far  as 
is  in  my  control,  originally  at  least,  that  these 
are  not  to  be  political  meetings. 

It  is  true  we  must  have  party  politics  in  it, 
but  the  reason  the  question  was  sent  back  to 
the  member  was  that  the  preamble  which  he 
had  was  obviously  an  attack  on  the  govern- 
ment by  way  of  a  question.  All  the  question 
period  is  for,  is  for  asking  the  question.  I 
requested  that  this  "in  view  of"  preamble  be 
taken  out  and  the  question  itself  be  left  there. 
That  is  the  ruling  that  was  made  by  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  think  it  is  a  fair  ruling,  and 
a  ruling  which  we  have  used  in  the  past, 
myself  and  my  predecessors  in  office.  It  is 
a  ruling  which,  unless  there  is  some  different 
direction  from  the  House,  we  will  continue 
to  enforce. 

I  also  realize  there  is  the  problem  of  the 
answers  to  these  questions,  and  as  I  said  to 
the  member  for  Windsor  West,  I  do  think 
there  is  some  need  for  a  re-examination  of 
our  procedures  and  I  am  quite  prepared  to 
initiate  that.  I  have  already  had  the  leader 
of  the  third  party,  the  member  for  York 
South,  in  touch  with  me  with  respect  to  these 
matters. 

I  would  have  been  delighted  to  have  had 
the  member's  question  this  morning  because 
it  was  a  question  submitted  both  in  English 
and  in  French  and  I  was  glad  to  see  it.  I  was 
practising  my  French  on  it.  But  I  felt  that 
it  should  have  the  preamble  which  was,  as 
I  say,  politically  aligned,  taken  out,  and  just 
the  question  left. 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


75 


Mr.   Nixon:     If   I   might  comment   on  the 
point  of  order- 
Mr.  Knight:    Mr.  Speaker,  I  thought  some 
French  should  come  into  it,  so  I  would  just 
like  to  say  merci  beaucoup,  M.  l'Orateur. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  was  never  under  the  impres- 
sion that  the  rules  governing  questions  pro- 
hibited an  attack  on  the  government.  In 
many  ways,  that  is  the  main  function  for 
Opposition,  and  while  I  am  not  familiar  with 
the  wording  that  you  disapproved,  surely  the 
fact  that  it  contained  an  attack  on  the  gov- 
ernment is  irrelevant  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  not  irrelevant  because 
the  whole  purpose  of  the  question  period,  as 
I  understand  it,  is  to  ask  questions  of  urgent 
and  public  importance.  That  was  the  ques- 
tion which  followed  the  statement,  which 
was  embodied  as  part  of  the  question.  If 
any  member  wishes  to  ask  a  question,  it  cer- 
tainly can  be  an  attack  on  the  government 
but  it  must  be  a  question  and  not  an  allega- 
tion or  a  statement  of  fact,  and  our  rules  so 
read. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Let  us  get  down  to  some 
honest  business. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Peter- 
borough has  a  point. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  am  on  my  point  with  the 
Minister;  I  was  the  motivator  of  this. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  but  these  are  all  ques- 
tions which  have  arisen  out  of  it,  so  the 
member  will  please  yield  to  the  member  for 
Peterborough,  and  we  will  come  back  to  him 
so  he  may  proceed  with  his  question. 

Mr.  Pitman:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  this  point  of 
order,  I  do  not  want  to  prolong  discussion 
on  this  matter,  but  I  think  that  one  matter 
has  been  overlooked  and  that  is  that  these 
questions  are  expected  to  be  of  urgent  public 
importance. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:   That  is  right. 

Mr.  Pitman:  They  are  expected  to  be  on 
matters  which  are  of  importance  at  the  time 
of  the  question.  I  would  disagree  with  the 
leader  of  the  Opposition  that  they  are  neces- 
sarily a  matter  of  clobbering  the  government 
for  some  of  its  misdemeanors,  although  this 
may  very  well  come  out  of  the  answer.  But 
I  think  the  main  point  is  that  it  should  be 
relating  to  events  that  are  taking  place  at 
the  time  when  the  question  is  being  asked. 


This  is  what  bothers  me  very  greatly;  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  one  way  a  member  can 
relate  his  question  to  current  events  is  by 
beginning  the  question  with  "in  view  of"— 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  no  ruling  that  you 
may  not  use  "in  view  of". 

Mr.  Pitman:  I  am  very  pleased  to  hear 
that,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  that  was  certainly 
the  impression  that  was  left  in  the  previous 
session,  that  this  was  an  inappropriate  and 
unacceptable  way- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Provided  the  preamble  has 
to  do  with  the  question,  but  if  the  preamble 
"in  view  of"  has  to  do  with  extraneous  mat- 
ters of  an  allegation  or  a  statement  of  fact, 
then  it  is  not  allowed  by  the  rules.  But  if  a 
member  must  use  "in  view  of"  as  the  basis 
for  his  question,  there  is  no  such  ruling 
against;  it,  and  I  have  allowed  "in  view  of" 
questions  just  as  I  have  allowed  "why"  ques- 
tions, which  I  think  are  quite  proper. 

The  hon.  member  for  Grey-Bruce  has  now 
returned  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  Minister 
can  get  up  and  completely  evade  the  truth 
and  mislead  the  House  and  the  press,  then  I 
should  not  be  here;  no  one  should  be  here. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  member  is 
either  on  a  point  of  order  or— 

Mr.  Sargent:  This  is  very  important.  This 
Minister  has  continually,  along  with  the  Prime 
Minister- 
Mr.  Speaker:   Order.   Is  the  hon.  member 
making  a  point  of  order?  If  so,  he  will  state  it. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  am  suggesting  this  Minister 
is  misleading  the  House  and  I  will  show  you 
why  regarding  this  loan  of  the  ODC.  Make 
no  bones  about  it  because  it  is  available 
from  the  ODC  people  who  have  no  other 
source  of  financing,  this  is  true.  On  top  of 
that,  it  is  a  forgiveness  loan;  it  is  a  gift 
to  them  from  the  government,  the  people  of 
Ontario.  Why  would  anyone  go  to  IDC  or 
to  any  other  institution  for  a  loan  if  he  can 
get  free  money  from  the  government? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  member 
started  out  with  a  point  of  order  or  privilege 
that  the  hon.  Minister  was  misleading  the 
House.  Now  he  is  making  a  speech. 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  has  misled  the  House.  He 
has  not  told  the  House  or  the  newspapers  that 
he  took  the  word  of  Caswell  or  Holiday  Inn, 
a  multi-million  dollar  chain,  Husky  Oil— 


76 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  C.  S.  MacNaughton  (Provincial  Treas- 
urer): Mr.  Speaker,  I  submit  this  is  entirely 
out  of  order.  This  is  a  debate,  it  is  not  a 
question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  Minister  would  suggest 
that? 

Hon.  Mr.  MacNaughton:  Yes,  I  would— 

Mr.  Sargent:  Because  you  boys  are  intelli- 
gent, this  guy- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order!  The  hon.  Treas- 
urer has  the  floor. 

Hon.  Mr.  MacNaughton:  I  submit  to  you, 
sir,  that  it  requires  a  ruling  from  you  because 
this  is  getting  beyond  the  bounds  of  propriety, 
common  sense  or  anything  else,  this  type  of 
harangue.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  while  I  am 
on  my  feet,  may  I  speak  about  the  privilege 
of  every  member  of  the  House  and  that  is, 
that  these  allegations  of  untruths,  part  truths, 
misleading  information,  must  be  substantiated 
in  a  better  form  than  they  are  being  sub- 
stantiated here  this  morning. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  am  trying  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  T,he  hon.  member  is  rising  on 
a  point  of  order;  the  hon.  member  is  on  his 
feet  on  a  point  of  order  and  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Grey-Bruce  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  Minister  then  can  justify 
his  position- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  will  con- 
fine himself  to  his  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Sargent:  All  right.  My  point  of  order 
is  this,  that  he  has  not  told  the  House  in 
honest  terms  why  these  loans  were  granted 
to  Holiday  Inn,  Husky  Oil,  Caswell— multi- 
million-dollar firms— when  the  terms  of  refer- 
ence of  the  ODC  are  not  to  lend  money- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  member  has 
now  made  his  point.  He  will  return  to  his 
seat.  If  the  hon.  Minister  wishes  to  reply  to 
it  he  has  the  opportunity.  If  not,  the  hon. 
member  for  Humber  has  the  floor  on  a  point 
of  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  all  I  would 
say  is  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  confusion 
in  the  mind  of  the  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce.  He  is  confusing  a  loan  in  which  the 
ODC  collects  interest  for  the  loan,  in  the 
same  way  as  a  client  would  get  a  loan  if  he 
went  to  any  other  institution.  He  is  also  con- 
fusing the  money  given  away  on  a  forgiveness 
basis  to  companies  going  into  designated 
areas. 


Mr.  Sargent:  I  am  not  talking— 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Just  wait  a  minute.  The 
value  of  the  company's  assets  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  loan  being  made,  provided  they 
go  into  an  area  where  we  want  them— into 
a  designated  area.  I  do  not  care  if  it  is  the 
Bank  of  England,  if  they  go  into  a  designated 
area,  they  can  get  a  forgiveness  loan  and 
Caswell  fell  into  that  category.  Because  the 
hon.  member  says  he  was  a  Conservative 
from  away  back  makes  absolutely  no  differ- 
ence to  us.  You  can  bring  anybody  in— I  do 
not  care— their  political  faith  makes  no 
difference  to  the  board  of  ODC  or  to  me, 
and  I  do  not  see  those  loans  until  after  they 
come  to  Cabinet  and  that  is  where  I  defend 
them,  in  Cabinet,  if  Cabinet  wants  to  turn 
them  down;  so  if  there  is  any  confusion  it 
certainly  is  not  on  this  side  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  received- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order! 
May  I  suggest  in  order  that  the  valuable 
time  of  some  100  members  of  this  House  be 
not  further  taken  up  with  this,  that  the  hon. 
Minister  arrange  an  appointment  with  the 
hon.  member  for  Grey-Bruce  and  go  over 
these  matters.  And  then,  if  they  are  not 
understood,  it  could  form  the  basis  of  a 
further  question  in  the  House. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Thanks. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Humber 
has  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Ben:  I  will  pass. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Has  the  hon.  member  for 
Grey-Bruce  a  question? 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  question  to  the  hon.  Minis- 
ter of  Trade  and  Development.  What  will  be 
the  cost  of  the  Expo  '70  exhibit  in  Japan? 
How  many  trips  are  planned  this  year  and 
who  will  be  going  on  these  junkets  from  this 
department? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  will  please 
follow  his  wording.  The  wording  is  "How 
many  trips  are  planned  this  year  and  who  will 
be  making  the  trips  from  this  department?" 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  answer 
to  the  hon.  member's  question,  the  total  cost 
of  Expo  '70  participation  in  Japan  will  be  in 
the  order  of  $2.6  million. 

Secondly,  there  will  be  two  trips  to  Japan 
this  fiscal  year,  made  by  J.  W.  Ramsay,  J.  C. 
Purvis,  and  F.  Moritsugu,  who  are  the  three 
men  responsible  for  building  and  running  the 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


77 


Ontario  pavilion  for  Expo  '70— and  as  the  hon. 
member  already  knows,  I  was  there  this  year 
to  participate  in  the  ceremony  of  digging  the 
hole  and  getting  the  building  under  construc- 
tion, so  that  we  would  finish  three  or  four 
months  ahead  of  time  and  stop  paying  double 
time  and  overtime  to  get  the  job  finished. 

Mr.  Sargent:   People  cannot  get  houses  in 
this  province  and  you  are  running  across  the 
country- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  the  hon.  member  will 
proceed  with  his  next  question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  question  for  the  Minister  of 
Municipal  Affairs.  Will  the  Minister  advise 
what  is  to  be  done  about  apartment  owners 
who  have  raised  their  rents  to  cover  the  cost 
of  the  shelter  tax  payment  to  apartment 
tenants? 

Secondly,  does  the  government  plan  an 
enquiry  and  investigation  into  this  widespread 
practice  during  the  past  few  months  in 
Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply 
to  the  first  part  of  the  question,  the  member 
is  aware,  I  am  sure,  that  there  are  no  rent 
controls  presently  in  effect  in  the  province  of 
Ontario. 

The  answer  to  the  second  part  of  the  ques- 
. .  «     »» 

tion  is    no  . 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  supplementary  to  that  ques- 
tion: Is  the  Minister  aware  that  even  before 
this  Act  was  put  into  effect  rents  were  appar- 
ently being  raised— even  before  you  made  this 
public? 

Another  question  for  the  Minister.  Will  the 
Minister  advise  when  will— 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  might  say  that  is 
one  of  the  most  helpful  statements  we  have 
had  in  a  long  time  from  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Well,  I  do  not  know.  You  see 
what  could  happen  if  the  Chair  would  let  us 
develop  these  things  but  he  has  the  old 
dagger  all  the  time  in  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  You  had  better  call 
the  Seargent-at-Arms. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  question  regarding  the 
Beaver  Valley  area:  When  will  the  plans  for 
Beaver  Valley  be  completed? 

Secondly,  how  many  such  cases  in  Ontario 
are  presently  delinquent? 

Thirdly,  when  is  the  chaos  in  your  depart- 
ment going  to  be  rectified? 


Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Minister  of  Correctional 
Services):  Is  that  in  the  question? 

Mr.  Sargent:  That  is  in  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
reply  to  the  first  part  of  the  hon.  member's 
question  is  that  much  work  has  been  done 
toward  the  completion  of  an  official  plan  for 
the  Beaver  Valley.  While  no  deadline  has 
been  set,  the  municipalities  have  been,  and 
are  being  urged  to  prepare  a  plan  to  guide 
future  development  so  that  substandard  con- 
ditions and  unduly  high  municipal  expendi- 
tures can  be  avoided. 

In  recognition  of  the  urgency  involved  the 
government  undertook  to  finance,  at  no  cost 
to  the  municipalities  involved,  a  planning 
appraisal  of  the  area.  This  appraisal  was  com- 
pleted by  a  firm  of  planning  consultants  and 
was  submitted  in  its  final  form  within  the 
past  three  weeks.  Copies  have  been  sent  to 
the  municipalities  concerned  and  a  meeting 
is  being  arranged  in  the  near  future  to  settle 
the  details  of  carrying  out  the  planning  pro- 
grammes. 

In  regard  to  the  second  part  of  the  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  say  that  a  number 
of  communities  in  Ontario  have  come  to  ap- 
preciate the  need  for  effective  planning  pro- 
grammes to  establish  the  development  policies 
they  need.  However,  I  do  not  have  informa- 
tion which  would  indicate  how  many  have 
not  yet  succeeded  in  carrying  out  such  pro- 
grammes to  completion.  I  would  say  this, 
however,  Mr.  Speaker:  Many  of  the  com- 
munities in  this  province  are  working  sin- 
cerely and  diligently  to  discharge  their 
responsibilities  in  this  regard  and  it  seems 
harsh  to  characterize  their  efforts  as  being 
delinquent. 

In  reply  to  the  third  part  of  the  question- 
when  is  the  chaos  in  this  department  going  to 
be  rectified?— I  suppose  I  could  only  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  it  ill  behooves  a  member  of 
this  House  in  my  opinion  to  characterize  the 
work  of  a  group  of  hard-working  civil  ser- 
vants in  my  department  as  chaotic.  I  resent 
that,   I  do  not  choose  to  answer. 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  does  not  choose  to  an- 
swer. Maybe  he  will  not  answer  a  supple- 
mentary question  then?  Is  the  Minister  aware 
that  the  county  council  of  Grey  county  said 
this  is  costing  them  several  hundreds  of  thou- 
sants  of  dollars  for  your  delinquency?  Is  the 
government  prepared  to  give  them  a  subsidy 
to  that  effect?  Talk  about  chaos! 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  I  might  just  say  that  I  am  aware  very 


78 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


much  of  what  is  felt  by  the  county  council. 
We  have  had  innumerable  meetings  with  offi- 
cials in  Grey.  I  may  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
I  am  very  helpfully  kept  informed  of  the 
thinking  of  the  people  of  Grey  county  coun- 
cil, of  the  members  of  the  local  municipal 
councils,  by  the  very  capable,  efficient, 
understanding  member  for  Grey  South  (Mr. 
Winkler). 

Mr.  Nixon:  Who  is  not  here  today. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Perhaps  he  is  up 
looking  after  the  people  of  Grey  South. 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  is  in  deep  trouble,  too. 

Interjections    by   hon.    members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Does  the  member 
for  Grey-Bruce  wish  to  place  any  more  ques- 
tions? The  member  for  Dovercourt  has  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Education. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a 
point  of  order,  the  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  asked  three  questions  on  Wednesday. 
He  has  now  chosen  to  put  two  of  them.  May 
I  ask  if  the  third  question  is  being  with- 
drawn or  how  long  are  we  going  to  go  on 
with  this  little  game?  Is  the  question  with- 
drawn, Mr.  Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  is  not  with- 
drawn. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  So  we  go  on  with 
this  little  farce  day  after  day- 
Mr.  Sargent:  This  man  is  being  paid  a 
handsome  salary  to  do  his  job  and  he,  along 
with  the  Attorney  General  yesterday,  was 
complaining  about  having  to  answer  ques- 
tions again.    Who  does  he  think  he  is— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order! 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise 
on  a  point  of  order.  I  think,  sir,  that  it 
would  be  very  helpful  for  the  orderly  con- 
duct of  this  House  if  you  gave  a  ruling  on 
this  matter  of  hon.  members  opposite  get- 
ting together  a  list  of  questions  so  that  the 
Ministers  have  to  get  their  staff  hurrying 
about  to  get  answers,  and  then  some  hon. 
member  deciding  to  put  those  questions  when 
he  pleases,  which  may  be  three  weeks  from 
now— three  months  from  now— or  never  at  all. 
I  think  this  is  abusing  the  whole  question 
period. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Of  course,  I  would  point  out 
to  the  hon.  Minister  and  the  members  that 
the  shoe  also  fits  another  foot  and  that  is, 
if  the  hon.  Minister  is  not  present  then  the 


hon.  member  who  is  asking  the  question  is 
not  able  to  put  it  and  sometimes,  that  goes 
on  for  a  considerable  time. 

So  at  the  present  time,  I  have  no  inten- 
tion of  changing  the  procedure  until  this 
matter  has  been  further  discussed  by  my 
committee. 

An  hon.  member:  Three  cheers  for  the 
Speaker. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  make  the  suggestion 
that  both  members  are  present,  the  mem- 
ber asking  and  the  Minister  who  has  the 
reply.  The  member  opposite  does  not  wish 
to  put  the  question.  Would  it  not  be  ap- 
propriate for  the  Minister,  before  the  orders 
of  the  day,  to  give  the  answer  in  any  event? 
The  matter  would  be  cleared  up  right  then 
and  there.  And  there  could  be  no  complaint 
because  both  people  are  here. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  that  is  an  excellent 
suggestion  and  I  will  be  glad  to  have  it  con- 
sidered when  my  committee— and  I  hope  to 
call  them  next  week— are  discussing  this. 
Then  we  will  refer  it  to  the  party  leaders 
and  we  will  hope  to  clear  up  some  of  this 
confusion. 

But  my  position,  hon.  members,  is  this: 
that  there  is  a  very  great  divergence  of 
opinion  among  the  116  other  members  of 
this  House  as  to  what  is,  first  of  all,  a  mat- 
ter of  urgent  public  importance  before  the 
orders  of  the  day;  secondly,  as  between  the 
hon.  members  and  Mr.  Speaker  as  to  how 
they  should  be  worded;  and  thirdly,  as 
between  the  hon.  members  of  the  Opposition 
and  members  of  the  Treasury  benches  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  a  question  should  be 
answered. 

These  are  matters  which  either  have  to  be 
decided  and  strict  rules  followed,  or  we  must 
carry  on  in  perhaps  not  quite  as  riotous  a 
fashion  as  we  have.  But  we  must  carry  on 
and  give  sufficient  leeway  both  to  hon.  mem- 
bers and  to  Ministers  to  make  their  points. 

As  I  have  said,  we  will  try  to  discuss  this 
next  week  with  my  committee,  if  we  can  find 
time  to  meet  and  there  are  improvements 
which  can  be  made.  There  is  no  question 
about  it. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  On  a 
point  of  order,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  bounds 
within  which  you  are  prepared  to  consider 
improvements  in  the  context  of  your  com- 
mittee excludes  the  one  area  which  members 
of  this  party  at  least  feel  very  strongly  about: 
that    is,   to    completely    chuck    the    question 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


79 


period  as  it  is  presently  constituted  by  way 
of  written  submissions  and  written  replies, 
and  substitute  for  it  the  rather  more  useful, 
adult,  and  effective,  question  period  which 
is  spontaneous  both  from  the  Opposition  and 
by  way  of  ministerial  reply.  Then,  the  ques- 
tion period  will  not  be  reduced  to  a  ludi- 
crous state  day  after  day.  We  can  have  some 
effective  exchange  of  opinion  in  the  House 
and  one  would  hope  that  that  might  be 
incorporated  in  your  terms  of  reference. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Unfortunately,  Mr.  Speaker 
and  his  committee  can  take  no  action  in  that 
regard  until  the  rules  of  the  House,  which 
now  prescribe  how  questions  are  to  be  an- 
swered, are  changed.  As  I  understand  it 
there  has  been,  over  a  long  period  of  time, 
a  great  discussion  and  enquiry  into  the  rules, 
and  as  yet  Mr.  Speaker  has  had  no  return 
from  the  various  committees  who  have  been 
dealing  with  the  matter.  But  it  is  a  point 
which  I  think  should  be  and  will  be  and  is 
being  considered  by  that  particular  body. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order.  The  hon.  member  for  Grey-Bruce 
remarked  a  moment  ago  that  the  Attorney 
General  yesterday  complained  about  answer- 
ing questions. 

Mr.  Sargent:    Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  He  seems  to  be  slightly 
confused. 

An  hon.  member:    What  else  is  new? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  The  only  thing  I  com- 
plained of  was  his  failure  to  ask  the  questions 
he  submitted  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:    Order! 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  The  situation  yester- 
day, Mr.  Speaker,  was  that  of  the  five  ques- 
tions he  submitted  he  asked  four  and  I 
simply  urged  him  to  ask  the  other  one.  I 
was  not  complaining  about  answering  it. 
I  never  have  complained.  One  of  the  ques- 
tions, I  did  point  out,  had  been  asked  twice 
before,  but  I  was  not  complaining  about 
answering.  I  was  urging  him  to  get  his 
questions  before  me  so  they  could  be  an- 
swered. 

Mr.  D.  M.  De  Monte  (Dovercourt):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the  hon.  Min- 
ister of  Education. 

What  is  the  percentage  of  the  provincial 
contribution  of  the  capital  cost  of  new  con- 
struction  of  schools,    and   what   is   the   per- 


centage of  the  provincial  contribution  of  the 
maintenance  costs  of  schools? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  answer  this,  and  also  make  one  observa- 
tion with  respect  to  the  point  made  by  the 
hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West  when 
he  suggested  the  question  period  should  con- 
sist of  questions  without  any  forethought  and 
answers  without  any  forethought.  I  always 
feel  very  strongly  that  while  Ministers  here 
are  expected  to  give  answers  off  the  cuff 
there  is  every— 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  cannot  speak  for  the  answers. 
They  may  come  without  forethought  but  the 
questions  would  be  thoughtful. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Exactly.  This  is  just  the 
point.  The  questions  would  all  be  arranged 
in  the  minds  of  the  hon.  members  opposite 
and  then  you— 

Mr.  Lewis:  And,  if  the  Minister  is  master 
of  his  department  he  could  cope  with  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:    Order,  order,  order! 

Will  the  hon.  Minister  return  to  his  seat 
when  the  Speaker  is  on  his  feet? 

Now  perhaps  the  hon.  Minister  will  confine 
himself  at  the  moment  to  answering  the  ques- 
tion which  was  put  to  him,  and  thereafter  if 
he  has  a  point  of  order  I  will  be  glad  to  give 
him  the  floor. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Quite  right,  Mr.  Speaker, 
quite  right. 

Mr.  Speaker,  with  respect  to  the  question 
asked,  I  quite  agree  with  the  speaker. 

Mr.  Sargent:    Bit  confused  there— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  just  trying  to  save  a 
longer  dissertation.  This  is  a  difficult  ques- 
tion to  answer,  I  might  point  out,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Particu- 
larly in  the  way  it  has  been  prepared. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  in  that  we  were 
somewhat  involved  in  the  preparation,  this 
would  perhaps  increase  its  complexity.  I 
quite  agree. 

But  in  the  case  of  elementary  and  sec- 
ondary non-vocational  projects— and  you  have 
to  divide  the  non-vocational  from  the  voca- 
tional—the average  provincial  contribution 
would  be  approximately  70  per  cent  of  80 
per  cent  of  the  total,  or  on  a  provincial 
average  in  the  neighbourhood  of  56  per  cent. 
The  secondary  vocational  projects  which  are 


80 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


available  up  until  March  31,  1969,  are  being 
supported  at  a  75  per  cent  rate. 

There  are  some  exceptions,  to  this,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  that  there  are  certain  vocational 
units  being  built  in  some  sections  of  the 
province— basically  in  northern  Ontario  where 
they  are  serving  neighbouring  communities 
—that  are  not  part  of  the  initial  school  dis- 
trict where  the  contribution  could  be  100 
per  cent  of  those  portions  of  the  structure; 
the  balance  would  be  at  the  75  per  cent  rate. 
So,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  difficult  to  give  a  total 
provincial  average  unless  you  would  break 
it  down  into  these  various  areas. 

Dealing  with  the  second  part  of  the  ques- 
tion, I  am  not  sure,  Mr.  Speaker,  just  what 
is  meant  by  "provincial  contribution  of  the 
maintenance  costs  of  the  schools."  If  the 
hon.  member  is  referring  to  day-to-day 
maintenance— painting  and  so  on  during  the 
summer  months  or  as  part  of  the  operation- 
then  this  is  not  calculated  in  any  provincial 
grant  as  it  relates  to  capital  purposes. 

Mr.  De  Monte:  Would  the  Minister  accept 
a  supplementary  question? 

In  connection  with  the  maintenance  costs 
of  schools,  there  are  certain  grants  given  to 
the  schools,  and  is  part  of  these  grants  spent 
on  maintenance?  By  maintenance,  I  mean 
capital  maintenance. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  we  mean 
by  maintenance  the  day-to-day  caretaking 
and  so  on  of  the  schools,  this  is  not  calcu- 
lated in  here.  We  have  special  grants  for 
renovations  of  existing  school  structures  but 
I  do  not  think  we  would  consider  this  as 
being  maintenance. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resum- 
ing the  adjourned  debate  on  the  motion  for 
an  address  in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the 
Honourable,  the  Lieutenant-Governor  at  the 
opening  of  the  session. 


SPEECH  FROM  THE  THRONE 

Mr.  J.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  Mr. 
Speaker,  before  I  go  into  my  final  40  pages 
I  would  like  to  compliment  the  member  for 
Scarborough  Centre  (Mrs.  M.  Renwick)  for 
rising  like  a  tigress  defending  her  mate  and 
questioning  the  authenticity  of  the  remarks 
that  I  made  in  regard  to  a  meeting.  I  would 
like  to  read  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  those 
present,  from  the  Globe  and  Mail  of  Novem- 
ber 5,  datelined  out  of  St.  Thomas,  and  the 


headline  is,  "Renwick  Charges  Unions  Told 
to  Help   MacDonald."  I  read: 

All  full-time  representatives  of  two  large 
Ontario  unions  had  been  warned  to  help 
Donald  MacDonald  retain  the  leadership 
of  the  Ontario  New  Democratic  Party  or 
lose  their  jobs,  his  opponent,  James  Ren- 
wick charged  here  Monday  night.  Mr. 
Renwick,  president  of  the  national  NDP 
and  deputy  leader  of  the  Ontario  party, 
told  an  Elgin  county  NDP  rally  the  orders 
were  relayed  to  district  representatives  of 
the  United  Steelworkers  by  Lynn  Williams 
and  Stu  Cook,  and  to  international  rep- 
resentatives of  the  United  Packinghouse 
Workers  by  Iona  Samis  and  Jim  Bury. 

"This  is  a  public  political  party,  not  a 
private  club  to  be  manipulated  by  power 
brokers,"  Mr.  Renwick  told  the  crowd  of 
50  as  Mr.  MacDonald  waited  his  turn  to 
speak.  The  two  men  face  a  party  conven- 
tion at  Kitchener  November  15  to  17. 
"But  any  staff  representative  of  those  two 
unions  who  supports  me  or  campaigns  for 
me  does  so  at  the  risk  of  his  job,"  charged 
Mr.  Renwick,  who  announced  his  candi- 
dacy for  the  leadership  on  October  8. 

Replied  Mr.  MacDonald,  "I'm  glad  to 
say  that's  a  charge  that  usually  comes  from 
the  other  parties,  that  the  labour  unions 
manipulate  our  party.  Mr.  Renwick  should 
know  better.  The  labour  unions  were  sup- 
posed to  be  against  him  when  he  ran  for 
national  president.  But  he  was  elected.  He 
said  the  matter  was  one  which  should  be 
discussed  in  private  by  the  party,  not 
washed  in  public  like  linen. 

"Mr.  Renwick  is  indulging  in  a  bit  of 
crying  because  he  is  not  getting  their  sup- 
port. He  is  using  a  heavy,  emotion-laden 
form  of  arm-twisting,  a  lament  for  his  own 
loss  of  support." 

"I  will  get  considerable  support  because 
of  this  arm-twisting,"  interjected  Mr.  Ren- 
wick. "Donald  has  been  on  the  phone  ever 
since  I  announced  I'd  run,  phoning  the 
caucus  members,  phoning  riding  presidents, 
seeking  personal  loyalty  rather  than  loyalty 
to  the  party." 

"I  sure  have  been  on  the  phone,"  snapped 
Mr.  MacDonald.  "What  sort  of  a  game  do 
you  think  we're  playing?  Tiddly-winks?" 

Two  questioners  from  the  floor  tried  to 
get  Mr.  Renwick  to  substantiate  this  charge. 
He  said  he  would  not  reveal  his  source, 
which  produced  a  few  groans  from  the 
audience. 

Mr.   E.  W.   Martel   (Sudbury   East):   What 
type  of  game  was  Camp  playing? 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


81 


Mr.  Jessiman:  I  read  this  into  the  records, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  will  now  proceed.  Going 
back  to  the  continuation  of  yesterday,  and 
referring  to  the  emotionally  disturbed  chil- 
dren who  are  now  housed  over  at  the  psy- 
chiatric hospital  in  Port  Arthur. 

Excursions  are  arranged  for  the  children  to 
local  stores,  industries,  the  circus,  banks,  and 
so  on.  Many  of  the  benefits  enjoyed  by  chil- 
dren in  the  regular  public  schools  are  being 
provided  for  the  children  in  the  school  pro- 
gramme at  the  Ontario  Hospital  in  Port 
Arthur. 

In  discussing  the  activities  of  The  Depart- 
ment of  Education,  I  want  to  stress  here  the 
programmes  of  the  youth  and  recreation 
branch,  which  also  plays  an  important  role  in 
programmes  for  northern  Ontario.  Working 
with  municipal  councils,  school  boards,  pri- 
vate agencies  and  single  interest  groups,  this 
branch  encourages  local  action  to  develop  a 
wide  variety  of  opportunities  for  recreation 
and  informal  education. 

We  can  single  out  five  areas  of  service 
in  which  the  northern  Ontario  youth  and 
recreation  branch  is  active:  First,  it  plans 
consultative  visits  to  communities  by  district 
representatives  and  programme  specialists; 
second,  the  branch  offers  resource  material  on 
the  organization  and  programming  of  recrea- 
tion and  adult  education  activities;  third,  it 
provides  assistance  in  designing,  organizing 
and  conducting  programmes  of  training  for 
full-time,  part-time  and  volunteer  leaders  of 
recreation  activities;  fourth,  the  branch  assists 
in  organizing  programmes  of  training  for 
executive  members  of  voluntary  organizations; 
and,  as  its  fifth  main  service,  the  youth  and 
recreation  branch  in  northern  Ontario  author- 
izes grants  to  municipal  councils  and  to  school 
boards  in  unorganized  territories  for  munici- 
pal expenditures  on  recreation.  In  the  coming 
year,  programmes  will  be  extended  to  isolated 
communities  in  northwestern  Ontario  for 
which  transportation  will  be  provided  by 
Department  of  Lands  and  Forests  aircraft. 

The  Department  of  Education  continues  to 
give  active  leadership  in  training  for  business 
and  industry  and  manpower  retraining.  More 
than  100  courses  are  provided  to  help  people 
meet  the  challenge  of  change  by  upgrading 
their  work  skills.  One  interesting  example  of 
such  opportunities  are  the  courses  that  are 
offered  on  a  number  of  Indian  reserves  by 
the  Kenora  centre. 

There  has  been  much  favourable  comment 
regarding  the  beneficial  side  effects  experi- 
enced on  the  reserves  as  a  result  of  the 
Ontario  manpower  retraining  programme. 
General  health  and  welfare  have  improved, 


and,  probably  most  important,  adults  now 
appreciate  the  value  of  the  education  acquired 
by  the  younger  generation. 

An  experimental  project  has  been  initiated 
recently  for  the  hard-core  unemployed  in 
Timmins  to  determine  the  most  effective 
methods  for  motivating  and  training  people 
with  such  a  background. 

Steps  are  now  being  taken  to  provide  addi- 
tional services  to  adults  in  the  more  remote 
areas  of  the  province.  Ontario  expects  to 
commence  full-time  courses  in  English  as  a 
second  language  at  Fort  Albany  and  Kasech- 
ewan  where  the  population  is  predominantly 
Cree.  Ontario  plans  to  offer  part-time  courses 
at  approximately  five  other  major  reserves  by- 
utilizing  the  potential  of  daytime  teachers  in 
a  night  school  programme.  These  part-time 
courses  will  be  concerned  primarily  with  Eng- 
lish as  a  second  language  and  basic  training 
for  academic  upgrading  at  the  levels  of  grades 
one  to  six.  At  Quetico  and  Elliot  Lake,  English 
as  a  second  language  is  being  offered  on  a 
total  immersion  basis.  This  approach  is  being 
used  for  a  number  of  persons  who  have 
arrived  recently  from  Czechoslovakia. 

A  course  for  operators  of  heavy  duty  equip- 
ment is  being  offered  at  the  Quetico  training 
centre.  The  graduates  of  the  course  are  find- 
ing ready  employment  in  northwestern 
Ontario. 

If  I  have  dwelt  here  on  education  in  north- 
ern Ontario,  it  is  because  it  is  an  area  of 
special  concern  to  me  and  those  I  represent; 
but  the  expansion  of  educational  effort  can 
be  seen  throughout  the  province.  It  is  in 
keeping  with  the  needs  and  aspirations  of  our 
people  and  of  Canada  as  a  whole,  the  needs 
and  aspirations  which  have  made  education, 
in  the  eyes  of  the  economic  council  of  Canada, 
for  example,  the  top  priority  of  the  nation. 

I  might  add,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  these 
accomplishments  have  been  made  by  mem- 
bers of  a  government  and  a  party  who  do  not 
think  action  can  be  initiated  by  firing  off  a 
press  release  or  making  incorrect  or  emo- 
tional statements  and  then  catch  the  next 
motor  boat  to  go  fishing. 

These,  then,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  educational 
programmes  of  substance,  pushing  back  both 
the  frontiers  of  knowledge  and  the  frontiers 
of  our  northern  environment  and  bringing  to 
the  north  country  facilities  and  learning  com- 
parable to  those  offered  anywhere  in  Canada 
or  Ontario. 

On  the  equalization  of  industrial  oppor- 
tunity—for many  years,  the  second  greatest 
challenge  facing  the  north  is  industrial  devel- 
opment.    To   expand   our  population   and   to 


82 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


interest  people  in  moving  to  the  north,  we 
must  provide  jobs.  It  is  in  this  area  that  the 
new  equalization  of  industrial  opportunity 
programme  announced  by  the  Prime  Minister 
(Mr.  Roberts),  in  September  of  1967,  and  I 
might  add,  derided  by  the  Opposition,  has 
been  welcomed  by  the  north.  As  of  Novem- 
ber 19,  this  year,  the  total  amDunt  of  loans 
authorized  under  EIO  is  $1,666,613.  This  has 
meant,  at  commencement,  almost  400  jobs, 
sir,  and  in  five  years  it  will  mean  close  to 
600  jobs.  It  has  almost  meant  an  increase 
in  plant  area  of  178,000  square  feet. 

EIO  loans  under  study  at  the  present  time 
for  the  north  amount  to  some  $2,000,290.  In 
addition  to  these,  interest-free  forgiveable 
loans,  term  loans  have  been  authorized  for  an 
amount  of  $810,000. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  How  much 
did  they  make  available  to  get  Norply  going? 

Mr.  Jessiman:  During  October  1967  and 
November  19  of  this  year,  the  Ontario  Devel- 
opment Corporation  consultants  provided  on- 
the-spot  advisory  service  to  211  companies 
and  individuals  in  the  north,  including  Norply 
of  Nipigon,  I  might  add. 

The  EIO  programme  has  reached  into 
communities  all  across  northern  Ontario- 
places  such  as  Port  Arthur,  Hearst,  Glenorchy, 
Red  Lake,  Fort  William,  Falconbridge  and 
Kenora. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  question  has  often  been 
asked:  What  has  mining  done  for  northwest- 
ern Ontario? 

First  of  all,  to  start  off  on  a  general  basis, 
the  mining  industry  now  produces  better  than 
$100  million  worth  of  mineral  annually  from 
operations  in  the  northwestern  Ontario  region 
and  the  output  has  been  growing  quite  con- 
sistently over  the  last  several  years!  From  the 
way  things  look  at  the  present  time,  I  think 
we  can  look  forward  to  greater  and  more 
spectacular  advances  in  the  years  ahead. 

With  the  short  time  allocated  to  me,  I 
would  just  like  to  list  some  of  the  highlights 
in  northwestern  Ontario  mining  in  recent 
years. 

One— the  huge  Griffith  mine  was  officially 
opened  at  Bruce  Lake  in  June  of  this  year. 

This  $62-milIion  project  is  particularly  im- 
portant to  northern  Ontario. 

Operating  365  days  a  year  on  an  around- 
the-clock  basis,  the  Griffith  mine  is  providing 
new  employment  opportunities  for  over  350 
men  and  will  have  an  annual  payroll  of  more 
than  $2  million  in  that  locality.  With  ore 
reserves  estimated  to  be  sufficient  for  30  to 


50  years  of  production,  the  property  is  also 
creating  a  continuously  increasing  need  for 
local  services,  supplies  and  facilities. 

The  official  opening  ceremony,  which  inci- 
dentally I  had  the  pleasure  of  attending  with 
the  Prime  Minister  and  the  Minister  of  Mines 
(Mr.  A.  F.  Lawrence),  also  the  member  for 
the  Kenora  area  (Mr.  Bernier)  and  other  offi- 
cials, represented  the  culmination  of  two  full 
years  of  concerted  effort  on  the  part  of  many 
companies  and  individuals.  Up  to  850  men 
were  employed  during  the  peak  of  this  pro- 
gramme including  150  Griffith  pre-production 
personnel.  The  contractor  established  a  100- 
man  engineering  force,  producing  1,400  draw- 
ings and  specifications,  and  purchased  $10 
million  worth  of  equipment  for  the  plant.  The 
project  also  involved  the  construction  by  the 
CNR  of  a  spur  line  from  Red  Lake  Junction, 
the  erection  by  the  Ontario  Hydro-Electric 
Power  Commission  of  a  new  electric  power 
generating  station  at  Ear  Falls  and  115,000- 
volt  transmission  line  to  the  property,  laying 
of  a  natural  gas  pipeline  from  Vermilion  Bay 
on  the  Trans  Canada  Highway,  building  of 
a  $5-million  ore  dock  at  Fort  William,  and 
the  provision  by  the  Ontario  Housing  Cor- 
poration of  100  housing  units  at  Ear  Falls. 

I  am  delighted  to  say  that  this  mine  means 
new  life  for  our  great  northwest  and  a  con- 
siderable boost  to  Ontario's  whole  economy. 
I  am  certain  that  our  hopes  for  a  long  and 
prosperous  life  for  this  new  mining  venture 
will  be  fulfilled. 

Incidentally,  I  was  happy  to  learn  that  right 
from  the  beginning  every  possible  step  has 
been  taken  to  see  that  our  waters  will  not  be 
polluted  by  the  operations  of  the  Griffith 
mine.  It  is  also  good  to  know  that  a  com- 
plete sewage  disposal  plant  is  being  installed 
at  Red  Lake  to  keep  this  beautiful  body  of 
water  safe  for  recreation  and  pure  for 
drinking. 

As  members  can  well  imagine,  pollution  has 
always  been  a  matter  of  major  concern  to 
the  mining  industry,  although  perhaps  the 
industry  has  not  always  been  given  credit  for 
recognizing  its  responsibility  in  this  respect. 
I  think  that  I  would  be  one  of  the  first  to 
agree  that  this  far  too  prevalent  attitude  of 
the  public  is  unfair  and  unwarranted  in  most 
cases.  I  know,  and  I  wish  that  other  members 
of  the  public-at-large  realized,  that  many  mil- 
lions of  dollars  have  been  spent  by  the  mining 
industry  in  an  effort  to  keep  air  and  water 
as  pure  as  is  possible  in  an  industrial  environ- 
ment. 

Two— Steep  Rock  iron  mines.  Although 
Steep   Rock   has   been   through   rough   times 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


83 


finding  markets  for  its  ore,  it  is  heartening 
to  note  that  the  company  is  now  operating 
on  two  long-term  contracts.  One,  with  Algoma 
Steel  for  1.1  million  tons  of  pellets  a  year  for 
22  years  and  the  other  contract  with  Detroit 
Steel  Corporation  for  250,000  tons  of  pellets 
a  year  for  ten  years. 

Three— the  Caland  Ore  Company.  This 
company  which  is  a  wholly-owned  subsidiary 
of  Inland  Steel  Company,  continues  to  mine 
and  ship  ore  from  the  open  pits.  The  com- 
pany's pelletizing  plant  produces  more  than 
3,000  tons  of  pellets  daily.  Approximately  400 
employees  are  on  the  payroll. 

Four— the  Algoma  Steel  Corporation.  It 
goes  without  saying  that  this  company  con- 
sumes vast  quantities  of  iron  ore  and  other 
raw  materials  in  its  production  of  steel.  With 
a  huge  appetite  for  more  than  three  million 
tons  of  iron  ore  annually,  new  sources  of 
supply  are  continually  being  developed. 

The  Michipicoten  iron  range  near  Wawa, 
Ontario,  has  long  been  a  major  supplier  of 
iron  ore  for  Algoma's  b'ast  furnaces  and  it  is 
here  that  the  company  recently  opened 
another  open  pit  to  mine  siderite  ore. 

T,he  Ruth  and  Lucy  mine,  with  a  pro- 
jected minimum  production  of  50,000  tons  of 
ore  per  month,  came  into  production  after 
extensive  diamond  drilling  by  the  Algoma 
ore  division's  exploration  department  during 
1967. 

Five— the  new  Fort  William  ore  dock.  This 
important  facility  was  officially  opened  in 
September  of  this  year. 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  comment  briefly 
on  the  Ontario  government's  contribution  in 
this  field.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  fact 
that  the  current  administration  has  done  a 
tremendous  amount  to  help  the  great  north- 
west move  forward. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  go  very  far  afield  to 
pick  up  evidence  of  this.  Let  us  look  at 
access  roads,  for  example.  The  road  from 
Pickle  Crow  mine  to  Lingman  Lake,  265 
miles  to  the  northwest,  was  started  as  one 
project  of  the  federal-provincial  roads  to 
resources  programme.  Since  that  agreement 
has,  unfortunately,  expired  the  work  will  be 
continued  as  part  of  Ontario's  own  northern 
resource  roads  programme  which  is  financed 
out  of  The  Department  of  Mines  budget. 
Still  closer  to  home  and  under  the  same  pro- 
gramme the  road  from  Balmertown  is  being 
driven  northward  to  connect  with  the  Pickle 
Crow  road.  When  the  job  is  completed  it  will 
be  possible  to  travel  the  circular  route  from 
Highway  17  through  Red  Lake  to  Pickle 
Crow  and  back  to  Highway  17  at  Ignace  via 


Highway  599.  I  mention  only  these  roads 
although  in  the  past  few  years  a  great  many 
others  have  been  constructed  to  open  large 
areas  in  this  part  of  the  province  for  full 
development  of  their  natural  resources.  Since 
the  inception  of  the  programme  in  1951, 
there  has  been  more  than  ample  proof  that 
the  relatively  very  modest  investment  has 
paid  off  handsomely  in  the  development  of  our 
natural  resources. 

Let  us  now  take  a  look  at  the  geological 
branch  of  The  Department  of  Mines.  This  is 
certainly  the  fastest  growing  branch  of  the 
department,  and  about  half  the  total  depart- 
mental budget  is  devoted  to  its  work.  That, 
I  think  is  exactly  as  it  should  be  because, 
without  the  information  that  our  highly  quali- 
fied geologists  present  to  the  public  in  the 
form  of  reports  and  maps,  it  is  almost  certain 
that  active  prospecting  activity  would  become 
almost  entirely  the  province  of  major  com- 
panies, which  alone  could  afford  the  necessary 
geological  reconnaissance  work  required  as  a 
preliminary  to  intensive  prospecting  activity. 

This  year  The  Ontario  Department  of  Mines 
carried  out  30  geological  projects  throughout 
Ontario  and,  of  that  number,  13  yere  in  the 
part  of  the  province  west  of  Wawa.  Field 
parties  were  at  work  in  the  Favourable  Lake 
area,  in  the  North  Shoal  Lake  area,  in  Mac- 
nicol,  Tustin,  Bridges  and  Docker  townships, 
in  the  Sturgeon  Lake  area,  the  Rainy  Lake 
area,  Finlayson  Lake  area,  Crooks  town- 
ship and  Red  Lake,  the  Beardmore  area  and 
the  Manitouwadge  area. 

Operation  Kapuskasing  was  conducted  two 
years  ago  as  a  pilot  project  in  which  the 
use  of  helicopters  made  it  possible  to  cover 
28,000  square  miles  in  a  single  season.  It 
was  such  an  unqualified  success  that  the 
same  technique  was  used  again  last  year  in 
operation  Lingman  Lake  in  the  extreme 
northwest  part  of  the  province  to  survey  an 
additional  23,000  square  miles.  This  year  a 
similar  airlift  survey  was  mounted  in  opera- 
tion Pukaskwa  at  the  eastern  end  of  Lake 
Superior. 

During  September  of  this  year,  more  than 
70  members  of  this  Legislature  were  privi- 
leged to  participate  in  a  tour  of  northwestern 
Ontario  hosted  by  The  Department  of  Lands 
and  Forests  and  its  Minister  (Mr.  Brunelle). 
The  tour  was  headed  up  by  our  Prime 
Minister. 

The  tour  provided  all  of  us  and  particularly 
the  more  recently  elected  members  of  the 
Legislature,  with  a  first-hand  opportunity  to 
observe  the  extent  of  development  in  this  part 
of  the  province   and  to  acquaint  themselves 


84 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


with  many  of  the  challenges  facing  residents 
in  the  northern  latitudes. 

During  the  tour  we  travelled  more  than 
2,000  miles  from  the  capital  of  this  province 
to  its  westernmost  edge  and  back,  visiting 
many  of  the  area's  villages,  towns  and  in- 
dustries. As  the  member  for  Fort  William,  I 
am  very  pleased  to  record  that  the  hospitality 
accorded  tour  members  was  entirely  expected 
and  traditional  to  the  area. 

I  had  a  few  words  here  to  add,  but  unfor- 
tunately the  member  who  was  present  on  the 
tour  is  not  present  in  the  House  and  I  will 
not  direct  at  him  in  his  absence  my  words 
on  his  conduct  in  Fort  William. 

I  might  mention,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  was 
also  during  this  members'  tour  that  the 
Prime  Minister  opened  the  Minaki  air  strip, 
which  is  the  first  of  the  "highways  in  the 
sky"  programme.  For  the  construction  of  the 
Minaki  airport  the  provincial  government 
contributed  $30,000.  This  new  programme  is 
intended  to  assist  in  the  construction  of  small 
airports  throughout  northern  Ontario,  and 
eventually,  the  provincial  government  hopes 
to  have  air  strips  constructed  in  the  north  to 
form  an  air  corridor  for  tourist  and  commer- 
cial aircraft.  It  is  my  understanding  that  new 
air  strips  under  the  programme  are  planned 
and  already  under  construction  at  Kirkland 
Lake,  Nestor  Falls,  Sioux  Narrows,  Bugle 
Lake,  Cochrane,  Big  Trout  Lake,  Sandy  Lake 
and  Wawa. 

Mr.  Speaker,  last  July  the  OHC  board  of 
directors  toured  to  Ear  Falls  where  100  rental 
housing  units  are  being  built  under  the  Hous- 
ing for  Industry  Programme  to  assist  in  the 
development  of  a  new  mine  in  the  Red  Lake 
area.  This  was  followed  by  a  board  of 
directors'  meeting  at  the  Lakehead— the  first 
such  meeting  to  be  held  outside  Toronto— 
and  its  purpose  was  to  acquaint  board  mem- 
bers with  the  special  programmes  of  the 
northern   communities. 

During  the  year,  two  programmes  designed 
to  acquaint  northern  residents  with  the  cor- 
poration and  to  provide  corporation  officials 
with  a  first  hand  view  of  the  needs  of  On- 
tario's northern  communities,  were  organized. 
The  first  was  a  unique  housing  workshop  on 
wheels  which  covered  1,400  miles  with  meet- 
ings in  Moosonee,  Cochrane,  Timmins  and 
Englehart,  with  a  side  trip  to  Kirkland  Lake. 
On  October  10,  the  workshop  was  held  in 
Fort  William  which  was  attended  by  mem- 
bers of  council,  planning  boards,  community 
organizations  and  municipal  officials  from 
throughout  the  northwestern  Ontario  eco- 
nomic region. 


A  programme  aimed  at  providing  more 
than  $4.6  million  worth  of  student  accom- 
modation in  post-secondary  institutions  in 
northern  Ontario  is  underway  by  OSHC.  At 
Lakehead  University  in  Port  Arthur  480 
single  student  units  are  under  construction. 
The  first  three  houses  accommodating  144 
students,  together  with  a  social  centre,  will 
be  ready  next  month,  and  another  96  will 
be  ready  early  in  the  New  Year  with  the 
whole  project  scheduled  for  occupancy  before 
next  September. 

On  August  7,  a  contract  was  awarded  for 
250  single  units  at  Laurentian  University 
which  are  scheduled  to  be  ready  in  August, 
1969. 

A  proposal  call  will  be  issued  shortly  for 
a  200-single-student  bed  project  at  the 
Northern  College  of  Applied  Arts  and  Tech- 
nology in  Kirkland  Lake.  Preliminary  dis- 
cussions have  been  held  with  Confederation 
College  of  Applied  Arts  and  Technology  in 
Fort  William  which  may  be  interested  in 
having  OSHC  build  a  150-student  bed 
project. 

During  the  past  year  OHC  has  brought  on 
to  the  market  two  offerings  of  Home  Owner- 
ship Made  Easy  lands  in  Sudbury  and  Teck 
township  and  nearly  all  of  these  have  been 
marketed.  The  corporation  has  purchased 
additional  land  in  Sudbury  which  is  now  in 
the  planning  stage. 

A  contract  has  been  signed  for  the  servic- 
ing of  94  building  lots  in  Espanola  which 
will  be  available  for  prospective  home  owners 
next  spring.  In  Longlac  a  servicing  contract 
has  been  signed  for  the  development  sites 
for  12  town  houses  for  low  income  families 
and  the  servicing  of  nine  lots  for  prospective 
home  builders.  The  corporation  holds  addi- 
tional land  in  this  municipality  which  will 
be  developed  when  approvals  are  received. 
As  well,  OHC  has  holdings  in  Timmins  and 
New  Liskeard,  and  is  assembling  land  in 
Sturgeon  Falls,  which  will  be  offered  next 
year. 

OHC's  housing  development  programme 
was  active  in  26  northern  municipalities  dur- 
ing 1968.  This  activity  resulted  in  the  com- 
pletion and  occupancy  of  176  family  units 
in  five  communities,  and  the  completion  and 
occupancy  of  100  senior  citizen  units  in  five 
communities. 

Another  72  senior  citizen  units  are  under 
construction  in  five  communities  and  197 
family  housing  units  are  under  construction 
in  six   communities. 

A  total  of  226  senior  citizen  units  in  nine 
communities  and  528  family  units  in  16  com- 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


85 


munities  are  in  various  stages  of  development 
up  to  the  contract-signing  stage. 

OHC's  northern  Ontario  rental  housing 
programme  for  families  and  senior  citizens 
as  at  October  31,  1968,  represents  a  con- 
struction  cost  of   about   $35,745   million. 

OHC's  planning  and  research  section  is 
carrying  out  surveys  in  15  northern  munici- 
palities, some  of  which  are  being  surveyed 
for  the  second  and  third  time. 

Mr.  Speaker,  when  one  speaks  about  agri- 
culture generally  most  people  in  Ontario 
would  think  that  we  confine  our  remarks  to 
areas  in  eastern  Ontario  and  southwestern 
Ontario  primarily.  However,  I  think  it 
should  lie  pointed  out  that  there  is  very  wide 
agricultural  activity  taking  place  in  northern 
Ontario. 

A  full  scale  socio-economic  survey  of 
northwestern  Ontario,  which  is  now  under 
way,  was  first  proposed  by  the  Ontario 
ARDA  directorate,  and  was  approved  by 
ARDA  with  the  two  levels  of  government 
sharing  the  cost  equally.  One  important 
aspect  of  this  is  an  extensive  multi-purpose 
study  of  the  entire  economic  base  for  north- 
western Ontario.  This  is  being  done  by  the 
rural  development  branch  of  the  Ontario 
Treasury.  A  second  study  undertaken  by 
The  Department  of  Lands  and  Forests  is 
designed  to  develop  ways  and  means  of  im- 
proving living  standards  of  Indian  people. 
We  have  great  hopes  for  this  overall  pro- 
gramme once  the  initial  surveys  have  been 
completed  and  the  northwestern  Ontario 
regional  development  council  is  provided 
with   this   information. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Ontario  Department  of 
Agriculture  and  Food  has  also  a  number  of 
assistance  programmes  for  livestock  produc- 
ers designed  to  improve  the  herds  through 
transportation  assistance,  beef,  sheep  and 
swine  sire  programme  policies,  artificial  in- 
semination, and  so  on. 

The  department  was  primarily  responsible 
for  the  organizations  of  the  five  northern 
Ontario  feeder  cattle  sales  in  Little  Current, 
Thessalon,  South  River,  New  Liskeard  and 
Rainy  River.  These  sales  handle  in  the 
neighbourhood  of   10,000   cattle  each  year. 

Thirteen  areas  in  northern  Ontario  now 
have  veterinary  service  as  a  result  of  pro- 
vincial subsidies  to  the  tune  of  $4,000  per 
year  veterinarian  plus  five  cents  per  mile. 
Veterinarian  services  labs  exist  in  Kapus- 
kasing,  Hearst  and  Cochrane. 

Northern  Ontario  milk  producers  were  the 
first  to  benefit  from  pooling  when  the   On- 


tario government  created  the  Ontario  Milk 
Marketing  Board  in  1965.  There  are  three 
such  pools  in  the  north. 

Crop  insurance  is  another  area  of  positive 
government  action  and  has  been  provided 
for  a  number  of  crops  in  northern  Ontario. 
Since  1965,  adverse  weather  assistance  has 
been  provided  to  northern  Ontario  farmers 
to  the  extent  of  more  than  $4  million. 

We  maintain  the  New  Liskeard  demon- 
stration farm  and  college  of  agricultural 
technology  to  train  young  farmers  and  to 
develop  new  varieties  and  new  techniques 
for  the  north.  The  extension  department  has 
the  highest  ratio  of  professional  staff  to  the 
number  of  commercial  farmers  in  all  of 
Ontario.  There  are  14  extension  workers  in 
the  north,  six  of  them  bilingual. 

Each  year  a  special  fund  of  $250,000  is 
designated  for  assistance  in  the  purchase  of 
such  items  as  fertilizer  equipment,  weed 
sprayers,  livestock,  and  so  on,  and  adminis- 
tered by  the  regional  agricultural  representa- 
tive upon  the  advice  of  local  farmers' 
committees. 

In  1967-1968  $135,000  worth  of  capital 
grants  were  made  to  northern  Ontario  farm- 
ers. To  date  nearly  $1.5  million  in  grants 
have  been  paid  to  northern  Ontario  com- 
munities under  The  Communities  Centres 
Act. 

More  than  200  young  farmers  have  been 
established  under  the  junior  farmer  loan  with 
loans  totalling  $2.75  million  in  northern 
Ontario. 

Community  pastures  have  been  established 
at  Thunder  Bay,  Timiskaming  and  on  Mani- 
toulin  Island. 

A  beef  ranching  programme  of  5,000  acres 
is  now  in  operation  in  the  Cochrane  area. 

More  than  $44,000  was  granted  to  the 
Thunder  Bay  co-operative  livestock  abattoir 
and  this  plant  is  now  provided  with  full-time 
meat  inspection. 

Hundreds  of  northern  Ontario  Indians  have 
been  trained  in  forestry  or  transported  to 
southern  Ontario  for  seasonal  labour  as  a 
part  of  the  farm  labour  programme  of  The 
Department  of  Agriculture  and  Food. 

These,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  again  just  part  of 
one  Ontario  government  department's  activi- 
ties in  the  north.  These  are  just  a  few  poli- 
cies I  mention  to  illustrate  this  government's 
awareness  of  a  need  to  assist  the  north. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  realize  I  have  spent 
some  time  in  outlining  Ontario  government 
programmes  for  northern  Ontario,  but  I  am 
not  nearly  finished  and  I  make  no  apology. 


86 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


If,  in  the  last  session  of  this  Legislature,  we 
were  treated  to  four  hours  and  ten  hours  of 
listening  to  the  frivolous  remarks  by  the 
member  for  High  Park  (Mr.  Shulman)  and 
the  oratory  of  the  member  for  Sudbury  (Mr. 
Sopha),  and  I  do  not  mean  to  embarrass  the 
member  for  Sudbury  by  linking  his  name 
with  the  other— heaven  forbid— I  think  the 
government  record  in  this  session  deserves  a 
good  hearing.  One  department  —  that  of 
Lands  and  Forests  —  deserves  special  men- 
tion. I  would  just  like  to  go  over  some  of 
the  highlights  of  this  department  and  its 
work  in  northern  Ontario.  I  think,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  we  should  be  proud  of  our 
provincial  parks  system  that  now  includes  96 
parks  which  have  an  area  of  more  than  eight 
million  acres.  In  1967,  I  am  told,  we  had  an 
increase  of  more  than  four  per  cent  of  park 
visitors  and  it  has  now  reached  the  all-time 
high  of  10,192,553. 

To  cope  with  this  increasing  demand  of 
recreation,  Ontario  during  the  1967-1968 
fiscal  year  has  reserved  a  further  531  acres  of 
land  and  lakes  for  future  development. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  ask  the  hon.  member 
one  question. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  Also  public  demand  for  in- 
creased recreation  areas  has  resulted  in— 

Mr.  Nixon:  Perhaps  he  did  not  hear  me, 
I  wonder  if  the  hon.  member  would  permit 
a  question? 

Mr.  Jessiman:  —of  a  master  plan  for  Algon- 
quin Park  and  I  understand  similar  master 
plans  are  being  developed  for  other  parks. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on  a  point 
of  order. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  hon.  leader  of  the 
Opposition  please  state  his  point  of  order? 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  member  just  speaking 
indicated  the  figures  for  park  attendance  end- 
ing in  the  fall  of  1968. 

Mr.  Jessiman:    1967. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Ah,  that  is  why  I  asked  him 
to  repeat  it  and  he  would  not  pay  any  atten- 
tion to  me.  I  am  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  I 
asked  the  specific  information  from  the  Min- 
ister yesterday  and  he  said  it  was  not  com- 
piled. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure  the 
leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  should  know  that 
it  could  not  possibly  be  compiled  yet. 


Also,  public  demand  for  increased  recrea- 
tional areas  has  resulted  in  the  recent  an- 
nouncement of  a  master  plan  for  Algonquin 
Park  and  I  understand  similar  master  plans 
are  being  developed  for  other  parks. 

In  the  area  of  recreational  planning,  the 
department  has  initiated  a  number  of  long- 
range  plans  and  research  plans,  and  work  in 
fact  has  been  started  on  an  outdoor  recrea- 
tional plan  for  Ontario. 

At  the  same  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  public 
pressures  for  increased  recreation  on  the 
parks  branch  is  also  evident  on  the  fish  and 
wildlife  branch  which  must  meet  public  de- 
mand for  more  hunting  and  fishing  areas. 

I  might  mention,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  possibly 
if  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  went  on  a 
complete  tour  and  possibly  did  a  gate  check 
of  each  he  might  have  the— 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  visited  ten  parks  including 
one  right  on  the  member's  back  doorstep  and 
he  had  never  visited  it. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  How  does  the  member 
know?  He  did  not  follow  me.  He  should  not 
speak  unless  he  knows. 

Mr.  G.  Ben  (Humber):  I  notice  the  mem- 
ber does  not  deny  the  statement. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  Game  management  plays  an 
important  role  in  providing  additional  and 
productive  hunting  areas  and  with  most  of 
the  land  privately  owned,  it  has  become 
necessary  to  acquire  suitable  areas  of  land 
for  this  purpose.  Another  method  adopted 
by  Ontario  is  through  a  land-owner  assistance 
programme  to  improve  relations  between 
hunters  and  land  owners  and  to  restore  hunt- 
ing on  private  lands.  The  programme  will 
be  well  underway  this  year  and  includes 
assistance  to  improve  land  for  wildlife  and 
increased  protection  by  conservation  officers 
where  land  is  open  for  hunting. 

The  government  is  also  concerned  with 
deer  range  improvement  and  studies  have 
indicated  that  deer  populations  can  be  in- 
creased where  there  is  adequate  shelter  pro- 
vided and  suitable  browse  available. 

The  ever-increasing  demand  made  by  the 
public  on  the  fisheries  resources  of  the  prov- 
ince makes  the  need  for  sound  fisheries  man- 
agement even  more  necessary.  Under  this 
programme,  Ontario's  lakes  are  being  inven- 
toried as  a  first  step.  More  than  3,000  lakes 
have  been  surveyed  to  date  with  the  pro- 
gramme providing  direction  for  an  accelerated 
programme  of  management. 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


87 


These  are  just  a  few  of  the  many  pro- 
erammes  currently  underway  within  The  De- 
partment of  Lands  and  Forests— a  department 
so  vital  to  the  development  of  northern 
Ontario.  I  could,  of  course,  go  on  and  on  and 
spell  out  in  detail  the  northern  activities  of 
the  fisheries  research  branch,  the  timber 
branch,  which  incidentally  only  last  week 
marked  the  billionth  tree  produced  by  the 
department,  and  the  forest  protection  branch 
which  performed  the  singularly  excellent  task 
of  the  successful  spraying  of  the  spruce  bud 
worm  over  some  270,000  acres  in  the  She- 
bandowan  Lake  district. 

I  might  mention  at  this  point,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  this  is  rather  an  important  part  of  the 
function  of  Lands  and  Forests.  There  was  a 
local  area  of  infestation  that,  thank  goodness, 
was  controlled,  in  the  south  and  west  of  Fort 
William.  It  was  with  special  concern  and 
delight  that  the  Prime  Minister  of  this  prov- 
ince came  to  the  Lakehead  and  flew  over  the 
area  and  we  went  out  and  examined  it  at 
ground  level.  Since  then,  I  personally  hive 
been  back  with  the  foresters. 

I  am  no  biologist  but  certainly  I  used  their 
knowledge  and  went  back  with  them  and  the 
infestation  has  been  controlled.  We  do  not 
have  to  go  back  many  years  to  where  we  had 
a  tremendous  outbreak  of  spruce  bud  worm 
on  the  northwest  shore  of  Lake  Superior  and 
there  were  millions  of  acres  of  devastation 
caused  by  the  worms.  So  this  is  of  very  spe- 
cial significance. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  1956,  the  Ontario  Progres- 
sive Conservative  government  set  up  the  On- 
tario Water  Resources  Commission.  Since  its 
inception,  this  commission  has  approved  proj- 
ects in  Ontario  totalling  $1,600  million. 
Today,  in  order  to  execute  its  responsibilities, 
the  commission  has  developed  regional  offices. 
One  has  already  opened  in  Kingston  to  serve 
eastern  Ontario.  Another  has  been  opened 
in  London  to  serve  southwestern  Ontario  and 
negotiations  now  are  currently  underway  for 
the  opening  of  a  third  regional  office  at  Fort 
William  to  serve  the  Lakehead  and  northwest- 
ern Ontario. 

In  the  last  few  years,  we  have  heard  a 
steady  scream  of  criticism  from  the  Opposi- 
tion benches  about  water  pollution,  and  in 
order  to  inform  them  as  far  as  northern 
Ontario  is  concerned,  I  really  should  put  on 
the  record  in  detail  the  activities  of  this  com- 
mission and  its  work  in  our  part  of  the  prov- 
ince. However,  while  they  deserve  to  have 
these  facts  given  to  them,  I  will  just  briefly 
list  the  areas  where  OWRC  projects  are  cur- 
rently under  development  in  northern  Ontario: 


Sioux  Lookout,  Balfour  township,  Bruce 
Mines,  Chapleau,  Beardmore,  Smooth  Rock 
Falls,  Himsworth  township,  Black  River, 
Matheson,  Hearst,  Nakina,  Rayside  township, 
Schreiber,  Blezard  township,  Latchford,  Long- 
lac,  Geraldton,  Shackleton  and  Machin,  Emo 
township,  Ignace,  Ear  Falls,  Red  Lake,  Lake 
Timiskaming. 

Also,  the  OWRC  is  currently  involved  in 
municipal  water  and  sewage  facilities  in  Port 
Arthur,  Fort  William,  Red  Lake,  Kenora,  Ear 
Falls  and  Fort  Frances,  and  negotiations  are 
underway  on  Terrace  Bay,  Marathon  and  She- 
bandowan  Lake. 

This  gives  hon.  members  some  idea  of  the 
government's  progress  in  the  field  of  sewag? 
treatment  and  waterworks  in  northern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  Progressive  Conserva- 
tive member  for  Fort  William,  when  I  speak 
of  the  great  city  of  Fort  William,  synony- 
mously I  must  include  the  beautiful  city  of 
Port  Arthur— my  apologies,  the  member  has 
vacated— and  the  immediately  adjoining  mu- 
nicipalities of  Shuniah  and  Neebing.  The 
united  Fort  William  and  her  adjoining  mu- 
nicipalities and  districts  have  a  population  of 
over  110,000  people.  The  Canadian  Lake- 
head,  as  it  is  always  referred  to,  although  not 
a  legal  designation,  has  grown  in  use  over  the 
years  as  a  description  of  these  two  historic 
ports,  situated  at  the  western  end  of  the 
greatest  inland  waterways  in  the  world— the 
Great  Lakes-St.  Lawrence  Seaway— and  are 
directly  connected  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  A 
mid-continent  seaport,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Lake- 
head  has  the  honour  of  being  the  highest 
seaport  in  the  world  at  an  elevation  of  over 
600  feet  above  sea  level. 

At  its  historic  beginning  in  1678  as  a  trans- 
shipping point,  it  was  known  as  Fort  Kamin- 
stfquiwa.  I  might  explain  it,  Mr.  Speaker, 
Kaminstiquiwa  is  an  Ojibway  word  meaning 
river  of  many  miles.  It  was  known  as  Fort 
Kaminstiquiwa  and  built  to  protect  the  trans- 
shipment eastward  of  valuable  furs  and  the 
interchange  of  goods  going  westward  out  of 
eastern  Canada.  Since  that  time  this  great 
inland  port  has  grown  to  become  the  third 
largest  seaport  in  Canada  with  annual  ship- 
ments of  almost  20  million  tons.  The  concen- 
tration of  25  grain  elevators  with  capacity  to 
store  over  110  million  bushels,  which  is  one 
sixth  of  the  total  crop  capacity  of  the  prairie 
provinces  of  Canada,  makes  the  Canadian 
Lakehead  not  only  the  third  largest  seaport 
in  Canada,  but  the  granary  of  the  world. 

Grain  is  not  the  only  commodity  creating 
this  robust  economy  in  the  Lakehead,  Mr. 
Speaker. 


88 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Nixon:  They  have  a  lot  of  trouble  keep- 
ing the  grain  moving  down  there. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  Yes,  the  federal  government 
sure  has  trouble  selling  it,  does  it  not?  We 
did  fine  when  we  were  in  there. 

It  is  the  pivot  point  and  service  centre  for 
a  vast  untapped  natural  resource  empire 
stretching  north  to  Hudson  Bay.  The  Lake- 
head  is  the  funnel,  directing  materials  to  the 
hungry  industrial  consumers  of  the  continent 
and  foreign  lands.  Fort  William,  situated 
exactly  halfway  across  the  great  domain,  is 
closer  to  Chicago  than  it  is  to  the  Queen  city 
of  Toronto,  and  the  newsprint  manufactured 
from  one  of  our  local  mills  supplies  all  the 
requirements  of  one  of  the  largest  papers  of 
Chicago. 

Mr.  Speaker,  again  referring  to  the  cities  of 
Fort  William  and  Port  Arthur  that  have 
gradually  grown  to  produce  one  solid  busi- 
ness and  social  unit,  it  is  difficult  to  speak  or 
refer  to  one  without  the  other.  Side  by  side, 
as  husband  and  wife,  these  two  great  cities 
are  almost  identical  in  population  with  close 
to  50,000  each.  When  the  recommendations 
of  the  Hardy  report  on  the  study  of  regional 
government  are  implemented,  we  soon  will  be 
united,  I  hope,  in  a  beautiful  marriage  be- 
cause of  the  great  distances  to  other  centres. 

From  the  Manitoba  border,  just  west  of 
Kenora,  to  Queen's  Park  is  a  distance  of  1,200 
miles.  Mr.  Speaker,  is  it  any  wonder  that  a 
feeling  of  loneliness  is  often  mistaken  for  a 
feeling  of  neglect?  In  distance  it  is  almost 
twice  as  far  to  travel  to  Toronto  as  it  is  to 
travel  to  Winnipeg  from  my  home  town.  At 
this  time  I  would  compliment  Air  Canada  on 
its  recent  inauguration  of  jet  service  between 
the  Queen  City  and  the  Canadian  Lakehead 
effective  November  1.  We  are  now  just  over 
one  hour  of  air  travel  from  the  Canadian 
Lakehead  to  Toronto. 

The  Lakehead  airport,  although  situated  in 
Fort  William,  services  the  whole  area  of 
Thunder  Bay  with  several  flights  daily  both 
east  and  west.  Internationally  we  are  also 
connected  by  many  airlines  to  the  United 
States,  and  like  Toronto  we  have  outgrown 
our  present  facilities  and  larger  accommoda- 
tions are  planned  in  the  not-too-distant  future 
to  service  this  great  area. 

In  sports  and  recreation,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
take  no  back  seat  to  any  part  of  the  province 
of  Ontario.  It  is  only  normal  to  associate  the 
Lakehead  with  hockey  because  of  our  long 
winter  season  and  outdoor  rinks.  We  are 
proud  of  our  record  of  achievement  in  this 
field  of  recreation.    With  the  expanded  NHL, 


widi  many  new  teams,  it  is  almost  impossible 
to  name  one  that  has  not  a  player  on  it  from 
our  Canadian  Lakehead  and  area.  In  the  past 
five  years,  our  little  league  teams  from  the 
Lakehead  have  won  three  of  five  Canadian 
championships— a  record  unsurpassed  in  this 
great  province.  In  the  field  of  sports,  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  are  located  in  the  heart  of  the 
northwestern  chain  of  mountains,  which  are 
actually  a  continuation  of  the  Laurentian 
escarpment.  Within  five  miles  of  our  cities, 
we  have  four  fine  ski  resort  areas  with  vertical 
drops  as  great  as  between  800  and  900  feet, 
comparable  with  any  skiing  facilities  in  the 
Dominion  of  Canada— certainly  the  finest  in 
the  province  of  Ontario.  The  ski  slopes  are 
serviced  with  both  T-bar  and  chair-lift  equip- 
ment, and  rapidly  the  Canadian  Lakehead  is 
becoming  the  ski  capital  of  Ontario.  We  have 
been  well  represented  on  the  Canadian  ski 
teams  that  have  participated  in  world  amateur 
skiing,  and  in  the  not-too-distant  future,  I  am 
sure,  sir,  that  we  will  be  producing  world 
champions  in  the  province  of  Ontario,  and 
particularly  at  the  Canadian  Lakehead. 

As  a  past  president  of  the  Fort  William 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  I  state  in  the  past 
Centennial  year,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  was  our 
privilege  in  Fort  William  for  our  male  choir 
to  become  not  only  the  Centennial  choir 
champions  for  the  province  of  Ontario,  but 
also  to  represent  Ontario  in  the  great  Cen- 
tennial sing  in  Nova  Scotia,  and  win  the 
Canadian  award  for  male  choirs  for  the  whole 
Dominion  of  Canada.  Our  male  choir  then, 
sir,  represented  Ontario  in  conducting  a  tour 
of  Europe,  and  the  same  choir,  Mr.  Speaker, 
attended  a  function  for  the  Premier  and  gave 
a  resounding  rendition  of  "Well,  Hello 
Johnny".  Also  during  our  Centennial  year, 
the  Fort  William  city  band  won  the  Canadian 
championship  for  its  class  of  band  for  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  and  brought  great 
acclaim  to  our  city.  Not  to  be  outdone,  the 
Fort  William  men's  pipe  band  participated  in 
the  Canadian  championships  and  represented 
our  province  in  Scotland  and  in  Europe  and 
brought  great  acclaim  by  performing  for  Her 
Majesty  the  Queen  on  this  trip. 

Mr.  Speaker,  last  July,  the  hon.  Minister 
of  Tourism  and  Information  (Mr.  Auld)  un- 
veiled in  Kenora  one  of  the  most  revealing 
and  action  resulting  tourist  information 
studies.  This  report  has  received  acclaim  from 
tourist  associations  and  the  general  public  as 
a  whole,  as  a  report  on  which  to  build  an 
industry  that  will  triple  the  revenue  in  the 
areas  examined.  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  conducting 
a  study  is  one  thing.  What  we  need  is  imme- 
diate action  to  bolster  our  tourist  business  if 


NOVEMBER  22,  1968 


89 


we  are  to  get  our  rightful  share,  and  I 
would  suggest  to  the  Ministers  of  Tourism 
and  Information,  Lands  and  Forests,  Trade 
and  Development,  that  they  combine  their 
efforts  on  behalf  of  the  whole  nordiern  part 
of  the  province  and  as  a  starter  use  one  office 
in  the  northern  states  to  invite  tourists  to 
visit  us.  This  is  a  dual  use  of  existing  offices 
in  the  United  States  at  this  present  time.  We 
should  stock  Lake  Superior  with  Cohoe 
salmon,  so  that  the  "Cohoe  fever"  would 
extend  into  Ontario  instead  of  stopping  at 
the  south  side  of  our  Great  Lakes.  I  have 
witnessed  what  has  happened  since  Wisconsin, 
Michigan,  and  Minnesota  have  combined  and 
planted  the  Cohoe.  Before  it  is  too  late,  let 
us  spend  a  million  to  make  ten  million  in 
this  area.  Let  us  recognize  that  tourism  is  our 
third  largest  industry  and  really  put  an  effort 
on;  let  us  extend  the  tourist  season  to  12 
months  instead  of  two  or  three.  If  we  are 
serious  about  giving  the  north  a  real  shot  in 
the  arm,  then  let  us  take  advantage  of  what 
we  have  most  of  in  the  north,  beautiful  wilder- 
ness, and  let  us  develop  it  to  its  fullest. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  will  not  be  long  before  we 
have  regional  government  in  the  Lakehead. 
But,  if  we  are  to  recognize  the  importance  of 
adopting  the  concept  of  regional  government 
in  the  same  way  that  we  have  received  and 
adopted  the  new  boundaries  in  education, 
then  I  would  suggest  that  we  also  recognize 
the  necessity  for  allowing  the  responsibilities 
of  area  administration  of  all  departments 
of  government  to  be  placed  in  the  area  con- 
cerned. Decisions  for  the  north  are  then 
made  in  the  north— by  true  northerners  who 
understand  the  problems  as  they  exist  in  the 
north.  What  we  need  is  a  type  of  satellite 
Queen's  Park  located  in  the  north.  Let  us 
also  consider  transferring,  if  not  all,  then  at 
least  more  of  The  Department  of  Lands  and 
Forests  to  northwestern  Ontario  in  the  area 
where  the  crop  is  grown  and  harvested.  And 
Mr.  Speaker,  let  us  also  recognize  the  nickel 
capital  of  the  world,  Sudbury,  and  make  it 
the  area  from  where  most  of  The  Depart- 
ment of  Mines  should  be  operating. 

Mr.  Speaker,  on  Tuesday  of  this  week, 
we  all  listened  with  a  great  deal  of  interest 
to  die  Lieutenant-Governor's  speech,  and 
of  particular  importance  for  those  of  us  from 
northern  Ontario  was  the  announcement  of 
a  plan  to  co-ordinate  all  northern  transporta- 
tion policies.  My  understanding  is  that  this 
new  body  will  provide  money  to  dispense 
grants  for  building  roads  and  landing  fields, 
and  will  generally  be  able  to  grant  up  to 
$15,000   a  mile   to  companies   who   want  to 


build  roads  to  such  resources   as  mines   and 
forests. 

Also,  I  noted  with  interest  the  promise  of 
a  revision  in  The  Mining  Act  to  overhaul  our 
laws  affecting  safety  requirements  in  the 
mining  industry,  and  also  a  programme  to 
provide  additional  recreation  areas  and  more 
provincial  parks,  particularly,  I  hope,  in 
northern  Ontario.  On  the  whole,  the  Throne 
Speech  was  realistic,  practicable  and  sen- 
sible. Generally,  it  has  received  applause 
throughout  Ontario.  We  realize  that  socialists 
will  be  unhappy  because  the  government  has 
decided  not  to  go  on  and  adopt  any  of  the 
NDP's  large  spending  programmes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  connection  with  the  gov- 
ernment's northern  Ontario  policies,  I  would 
just  like  to  quote  briefly  from  an  editorial 
which  appeared  recently  in  the  Dryden 
Observer. 

No  matter  where  one  lives  in  Ontario, 
the  tendency  is  to  fear  that  the  rest  of  the 
province  may  be  enjoying  benefits  out 
of  proportion  to  those  of  one's  own  area. 
There  is  little  evidence,  however,  to  sug- 
gest that  any  section  of  the  province  is 
being  too  seriously  short-changed. 

The  Robarts  government  has  shown 
itself  sensitive  to  requests  for  recognition 
of  area  problems.  Despite  what  political 
opponents  may  say,  and  it  is  their  privilege 
to  say  what  they  please,  Mr.  Robarts 
seems  determined  to  lead  Ontario  to  suc- 
cessful development  in  every  field  of  en- 
deavour. 

Election-time  criticisms  of  the  govern- 
ment's attitude  to  northern  and  northwest- 
ern Ontario  have  been  found,  with  some 
exceptions,  groundless.  On  a  per-capita 
basis  at  least,  these  parts  of  the  province 
are  getting  their  share. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  attempted  here  today 
to  place  on  the  record  just  some  of  the 
Ontario  government's  policies  that  have  been 
responsible  for  opening  up  one  of  the  last 
frontiers  in  North  America.  I  think  that  the 
people  in  northern  Ontario  should  have  a 
ready  reference  of  what  the  government  is 
doing  in  such  important  areas  as  education, 
municipal  reorganization,  agriculture,  water 
resources  and  so  on. 

There  are  those  critics,  and  we  hope  there 
always  will  be,  who  argue  that  the  govern- 
ment does  not  do  enough,  fast  enough.  I 
count  myself  among  them.  It  is  from  con- 
stant pressure,  constructive  criticism  and  the 
continuous    strivings    for    new    programmes 


90  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  we  in  northern  Ontario  can  ensure  that  Mr.  Nixon  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 

we    receive    our    fair    share    of    government  debate. 

assistance   and   spending.    But   I   would   also  Motion  agreed  to. 

say  that  there  are  different  types  or  critics— 

those  who   are  responsible  and   constructive,  Hon.  H.  L.  Rowntree  (Minister  of  Financial 

and  those  who  go  off  in  all  directions,  promis-  and    Commercial    Affairs):    Mr.    Speaker,    on 

ing  everything,  making  wild  and  unsubstan-  Monday  we  will   continue   with  the   Throne 

tiated     charges     and     whose     only     goal     is  debate. 

destruction.    They  have  promises  for  every-  Hon.    Mr.    Rowntree    moves    the    adjourn- 

thing  and  policies  for  nothing,   and  that   in  ment  of  the  House. 

my  view  is  why  they  will  continue  to  remain  v      .                 , 

on  the  Opposition  benches  in  the  Legislature  Motlon  a8reed  to. 

of  Ontario.  The  House  adjourned  at  12.35  o'clock,  p.m. 


No.  5 


ONTARIO 


legislature  of  (Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  -  DAILY  EDITION 


Second  Session  of  the  Twenty-Eighth  Legislature 


Monday,  November  25,  1968 


Speaker:  Honourable  Fred  Mcintosh  Cass,  Q.C. 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  Q.C. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 


Price  per  session,  $5.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto. 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  November  25,  1968 

Report  of  select  committee  re  standing  committees,  Mr.  Olde  93 

Expropriation  Act,  1968-1969,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Wishart,  first  reading  94 

Municipal  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Deans,  first  reading  96 

Appointment  of  a  commissioner  to  investigate  administrative  decisions  and  acts  of  offi- 
cials of  the  government  of  Ontario  and  its  agencies  and  to  define  the  commis- 
sioner's powers  and  duties,  bill  to  provide  for,  Mr.  Singer,  first  reading  96 

Medical  practitioners,  registered  nurses  and  others  from  liability  in  respect  of  voluntary 

first  aid  and  medical  services,  bill  to  relieve,  Mr.  Shulman,  first  reading  96 

Enlarged  Lakehead  municipality,  statement  by  Mr.  Robarts  96 

Qualifications  of  Mr.  Bruce  Goulet,  question  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Bullbrook  97 

Lakehead  mentally  retarded  sheltered  workshop,  question  to  Mr.  Yaremko,  Mr.  Stokes  98 

Commemoration  of  birth  of  Hon.  George  Brown,  question  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Nixon  98 

Increase  in  doctors'  fees,  questions  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  MacDonald  99 

School  bus  transportation,  questions  to  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  T.  Reid  and  Mr.  Pitman  99 

Comfort  allowances  for  disabled  persons  in  hospitals  for  chronically  ill,  Mr.  Shulman  100 

Provincial  tax  on  drugs,  question  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Burr  100 

Motor  vehicle  exhaust  pollution,  question  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  Burr  100 

Construction  and  maintenance  costs  of  hospitals,  question  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  De  Monte  101 

Closing  of  Murray  Avenue  at  QEW,  question  to  Mr.  Gomme,  Mr.  Deans  101 

Patients  at  Penetang  Ontario  Hospital,  questions  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  Shulman  102 

Mr.  William  Lumley,  question  to  Mr.  Grossman,  Mr.  Shulman  102 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Nixon  104 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Nixon,  agreed  to  119 

On  notice  of  motion  No.  15,  Mr.  Snow,  Mr.  Haggerty,  Mr.  Young  119 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Rowntree,  agreed  to 123 


93 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  today  at  2.30  o'clock,  p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  are  always  pleased  to 
have  visitors  to  the  Legislature  and  today  we 
welcome  as  guests  students  from  the  follow- 
ing schools:  In  the  east  gallery  Elia  junior 
high  school,  Downsview  and  Barton  high 
school,  Hamilton;  in  the  west  gallery  from 
R.  H.  King  collegiate  institute,  Scarborough. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Mr.  Olde  of  the  select  committee  appointed 
to  prepare  the  lists  of  members  to  compose 
the  standing  committees  of  the  House,  pre- 
sented the  committee's  report  which  was  read 
as  follows  and  adopted: 

Your  committee  recommends  that  the  lists 
of  standing  committees  ordered  by  the  House 
be  composed  of  the  following  members: 

Agriculture  and  Food:  Belanger,  Burr, 
Downer,  Edighoffer,  Evans,  Farquhar,  Gaunt, 
Gilbertson,  Gisborn,  Haggerty,  Hamilton, 
Henderson,  Hodgson  (York  North),  Innes, 
Jessiman,  Johnston  (Carleton),  Kennedy, 
MacDonald,  Makarchuk,  Morningstar,  Mc- 
Neil, Newman  (Ontario  South),  Olde,  Pater- 
son,  Mrs.  Renwick  (Scarborough  Centre), 
Root,  Rowe,  Ruston,  Smith  (Simcoe  East), 
Snow,  Spence,  Villeneuve,  Whitney  and 
Young  -  34. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  seven  members. 

Education  and  University  Affairs:  Bull- 
brook,  Johnston  (Parry  Sound),  Johnston 
(Carleton),  Kennedy,  Kerr,  Knight,  Lawlor, 
Lawrence  (Carleton  East),  Lewis,  Martel, 
Morrow,  Newman  ( Windsor  -  Walkerville ) , 
Newman  (Ontario  South),  Pitman,  Price, 
Mrs.  Pritchard,  Reid  (Rainy  River),  Reid 
(Scarborough  East),  Rollins,  Rowe,  Smith 
(Hamilton  Mountain)  —  21. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  five  members. 

Government  Commissions:  Apps,  Bernier, 
Boyer,  Bukator,  Carton,  Deans,  Demers, 
Downer,  Evans,  Ferrier,  Gaunt,  Good,  Hodg- 
son (York  North),  Jessiman,  Johnston  (Parry 


Monday,  Novemrer  25,  1968 

Sound),  Kennedy,  Lewis,  MacKenzie,  Meen, 
Morningstar,  McNeil,  Olde,  Price,  Mrs. 
Pritchard,  Renwick  (Riverdale),  Rollins, 
Sargent,  Shulman,  Smith  (Hamilton  Moun- 
tain), Smith  (Nipissing),  Snow,  Sopha,  Stokes, 
Trotter  -  34. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  seven  members. 

Health:  Apps,  Belanger,  Ben,  Brown, 
Demers,  De  Monte,  Dunlop,  Gilbertson, 
Johnston  (St.  Catharines),  Morrow,  Newman 
(Ontario  South),  Potter,  Mrs.  Pritchard,  Mrs. 
Renwick  (Scarborough  Centre),  Rowe,  Rus- 
ton, Shulman,  Smith  (Hamilton  Mountain), 
Smith  (Nipissing),  Trotter,  Winkler  —  21. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  five  members. 

Highways  and  Transport:  Belanger,  Ben, 
Bernier,  Burr,  Carton,  D.wison,  D2ans, 
Farquhar,  Gilbertson,  Hamilton,  Hodgson 
(York  North),  Innes,  Jackson,  Jessiman, 
Johnston  (Carleton),  Kerr,  Knight,  Mac- 
Kenzie, Martel,  Meen,  Morin,  Morningstar, 
McNeil,  Newman  ( Windsor  -  Walkerville ) , 
Olde,  Root,  Rowe,  Snow,  Spence,  Villeneuve, 
Whitney,  Worton,  Yakabuski,  Young  —  34. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  seven  members. 

Lahour:  Apps,  Bernier,  Boyer,  Braithwaite, 
Bullbrook,  Demers,  De  Monte,  Gisborn,  Hag- 
gerty, Jessiman,  Johnston  (St.  Catharines), 
Kerr,  Lawrence  (Carleton  East),  Makarchuk, 
Morningstar,  Newman  (Ontario  South), 
Pilkey,  Smith  (Simcoe  East),  Smith  (Hamil- 
ton Mountain),  Sopha,  Winkler  —  21. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  five  members. 

Legal  Bills  and  Municipal  Affairs: 
Boyer,  Bullbrook,  Carton,  Deacon,  Demers, 
Dunlop,  Good,  Henderson,  Johnston  (St. 
Catharines),  Kerr,  Lawlor,  Lawrence  (Carle- 
ton East),  Meen,  Morin,  Price,  Renwick 
(Riverdale),  Singer,  Sopha,  Winkler,  Yaka- 
buski, Young  —  21. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  five  members. 

Natural  Resources  and  Tourism:  Allan, 
Apps,     Bernier,     Boyer,     Davison,     Demers, 


94 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Edighoffer,  Evans,  Farquhar,  Gilbertson, 
Haggerty,  Hodgson  ( Victoria  -  Haliburton ) , 
Innes,  Jackson,  Jessiman,  Johnston  (Parry 
Sound),  Johnston  (St.  Catharines),  Knight, 
MacDonald,  Makarchuk,  Martel,  Morin,  New- 
man (Ontario  South),  Paterson,  Potter,  Reid 
(Rainy  River),  Rollins,  Root,  Smith  (Simcoe 
East),  Spence,  Stokes,  Villeneuve,  Whitney, 
Yakabuski  -  34. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  seven  members. 

Private  Bills:  Belanger,  Bernier,  Brei- 
thaupt,  Bukator,  Bullbrook,  Carton,  Deacon, 
Deans,  De  Monte,  Downer,  Edighoffer, 
Evans,  Ferrier,  Gaunt,  Gilbertson,  Hamilton, 
Henderson,  Hodgson  (York  North),  Jackson, 
Johnston  (Parry  Sound),  Johnston  (St.  Cath- 
arines), Kennedy,  Kerr,  Lawlor,  Lawrence 
(Carleton  East),  MacDonald,  Meen,  Morin, 
Morningstar,  McNeil,  Newman  (Windsor- 
Walkerville),  Olde,  Peacock,  Pilkey,  Pitman, 
Potter,  Price,  Mrs.  Pritchard,  Rollins,  Root, 
Sargent,  Singer,  Smith  (Simcoe  East),  Smith 
(Hamilton  Mountain),  Sopha,  Villeneuve, 
Whitney,  Winkler,  Worton,  Yakabuski  —  50. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  seven  members. 

Privileges  and  Elections:  Allan,  Belan- 
ger, Bernier,  Braithwaite,  Downer,  Dunlop, 
Hamilton,  Henderson,  Johnston  (Carleton), 
Lawlor,  Meen,  Newman  ( Windsor  -  Walker- 
ville),  Olde,  Potter,  Price,  Renwick  (River- 
dale),  Rollins,  Shulman,  Singer,  Smith  (Nipis- 
sing),  Worton  —  21. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  five  members. 

Public  Accounts:  Allan,  Apps,  Breithaupt, 
Deacon,  Gaunt,  Lawrence  (Carleton  East), 
Morrow,  Peacock,  Potter,  Renwick  (River- 
dale),  Smith  (Simcoe  East),  Snow  —  12. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  five  members. 

Social,  Family  and  Correctional  Serv- 
ices: Belanger,  Ben,  Braithwaite,  Breithaupt, 
Brown,  Burr,  Carruthers,  Demers,  Dunlop, 
Hodgson  ( Victoria  -  Haliburton ) ,  Jessiman, 
Kennedy,  Morningstar,  Morrow,  Mrs.  Pritch- 
ard, Mrs.  Renwick  (Scarborough  Centre), 
Rowe,  Ruston,  Smith  (Hamilton  Mountain), 
Trotter,  Villeneuve  —  21. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  seven  members. 

Standing  Orders  and  Printing:  Boyer, 
Bukator,  Carruthers,  Davison,  Downer,  Far- 
quhar, Hamilton,  Henderson,  Hodgson  (Vic- 
toria-Haliburton),  Johnston  (Parry  Sound), 
MacKenzie,  Martel,  Morin,  Morrow,  Paterson, 


Reid    (Rainy  River),   Smith    (Simcoe  East), 
Snow,  Whitney,  Yakabuski,  Young  —  21. 

The  quorum  of  the  said  committee  to  con- 
sist of  five  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


THE  EXPROPRIATION  ACT,   1968-1969 

Hon.  A.  A.  Wishart  (Attorney  General) 
moves  first  reading  of  bill  intituled,  The  Ex- 
propriation Act,   1968-1969. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bill 
which  1  have  just  had  the  privilege  of  intro- 
ducing represents  a  result  of  our  exhaustive 
review  of  the  recommendations  of  the  Hon. 
J.  C.  McRuer  in  his  report  on  civil  rights  and 
the  recommendations  in  the  report  of  the 
Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission  relative  to 
the  basis  for  compensation  on  expropriation. 

While  I  would  not  ordinarily  take  the  time 
of  this  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  go  into  detail 
on  the  first  reading  of  a  bill,  I  did  feel  that 
the  exceptional  nature,  the  fundamental 
aspects  of  this  bill,  merit  a  brief  comment 
which  may  assist  the  members  in  reviewing 
the  subject  matter  of  the  bill. 

The  various  recommendations  that  have 
been  made  have  all  been  considered  and  the 
great  majority  of  them  are  now  represented 
in  this  legislation.  They  have  been  codified 
in  some  aspects  to  meet,  in  a  practical  way, 
the  significant  problems  which  are  inherent 
in  expropriation  matters,  while  at  the  same 
time  the  fundamental  principles  inherent  in 
the  recommendations  have,  I  believe,  been 
maintained.  If  I  may,  I  will  review  some  of 
the  principal  features  which  are  dealt  with 
by  the  bill. 

Before  any  expropriation  can  take  place 
under  the  new  law,  an  interested  owner  can 
require  that  an  inquiry  be  held  in  public  as 
to  the  fairness,  soundness  and  necessity  of 
the  particular  expropriation. 

This  would  give  all  of  those  owners  inter- 
ested, and  the  expropriation  authority,  an 
opportunity  to  review  with  public  dialogue 
the  various  aspects  of  any  proposed  expropri- 
ation. 

The  enquiry  officer  would  then  make  his 
report  upon  the  proposed  expropriation  and 
this  would  be  submitted  to  an  approving 
authority  which  would  be  a  politically  re- 
sponsible group  representative  of  the  people. 
We  have  attempted  to  ensure  that  in  every 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


95 


case  of  expropriation,  the  ultimate  approval 
would  have  to  be  given  by  an  elected  indi- 
vidual or  group  of  individuals,  since  we  agree 
widi  the  proposition  that  the  talcing  of  prop- 
erty for  the  public  interest  must  by  its  nature 
be  the  decision  of  a  person  elected  by  the 
people. 

The  approving  authority  after  considering 
the  enquiry  officer's  report  would  make  its 
decision  as  to  the  expropriation.  It  will  be 
noted  that  the  expropriating  authority  is  a 
completely  different  agent  from  the  approving 
authority. 

In  short,  we  have  provided  that  there  can 
be  a  file  of  necessity,  in  every  case  where 
property  is  taken  by  way  of  expropriation, 
that  this  is  a  public  hearing,  and  that  the  final 
decision  following  a  report  by  the  enquiry 
officer  will  be  made  by  an  elected  person  or 
persons  who  are  responsible  to  the  electors. 

This  bill,  Mr.  Speaker,  will  also  introduce 
the  principle  of  equivalent  reinstatement  for 
the  owners  of  residences,  which  must  be  ex- 
propriated for  the  public  purpose.  Under  the 
bill,  the  land  compensation  tribunal  will  have 
the  authority  to  award  an  amount  of  addi- 
tional compensation,  over  and  above  market 
value,  where  the  property  taken  is  a  residence 
and  where  equivalent  accommodation  may 
not  be  provided  by  the  market  value  of 
the  expropriated  property  with  the  other 
allowances  that  are  now  going  to  be  made 
available. 

This  is  a  new  principle  which  may  cause 
some  difficulties  for  expropriating  authorities. 
But  we  feel  it  will  provide  a  new  and  wel- 
come degree  of  equity  in  dealing  with  home- 
owners. The  new  bill  codifies  the  basis  of 
compensation  for  expropriation  and  expressly 
provides  that  it  will  be  based  upon  the  market 
value  of  the  land,  damages  attributable  to 
disturbance,  damages  for  injurious  affection 
and  any  special  difficulties  in  relocation. 
Market  value  is  defined  as  the  amount  that 
would  be  obtained  by  the  willing  seller  on  a 
sale  to  a  willing  buyer  in  the  open  market. 

Other  sections  clarify  the  principles  in- 
herent in  this  new  and  broad  approach  to 
compensation. 

Hon.  members  will  be  interested  in  the 
fact  that  damages  for  disturbances  will  speci- 
fically include  moving,  legal  and  survey  cost 
on  relocation,  together  with  the  5  per  cent 
allowance  for  residence  owners  who  must  find 
new  homes.  Many  procedural  changes  have 
been  made  to  further  ensure  that  property 
owners  will  be  dealt  with  on  a  fair  and 
reasonable  basis.  Expropriating  authorities 
will  have  to  pay  to  the  owners  100  per  cent 


of  the  market  value  of  the  property  within 
three  months  of  the  expropriation  or  before 
taking  possession,  whichever  is  the  earlier.  At 
the  same  time,  the  authority  will  make  an 
offer  of  the  total  amount  it  is  willing  to  pay 
to  that  owner,  including  amounts  for  dis- 
turbance,  injurious   affection   and   relocation. 

When  making  that  offer,  the  expropriating 
authority  will  be  required  to  provide  the 
owner  with  a  copy  of  the  authority's  appraisal 
report,  upon  which  that  offer  is  based.  In 
return,  the  owner  will  not  have  to  disclose 
his  appraisal  report  unless  and  until  the  mat- 
ter goes  to  arbitration  and  at  that  point 
there  will  have  to  be  prior  disclosure. 

Provision  is  made  in  this  bill  for  payment 
to  the  owner  of  his  legal  and  appraisal  costs, 
which  are  reasonably  incurred  in  those  cases 
where  the  owner,  after  arbitration,  recovers 
more  than  was  offered  by  the  expropriating 
authority.  If  the  owner  recovers  less,  then 
the  board  will  have  a  discretion  to  award 
costs  to  either  party  on  a  less  generous  basis. 

The  bill  reflects  the  recommendation  of 
the  Hon.  J.  C.  McRuer  as  to  the  establishment 
of  a  land  compensation  tribunal  which  will 
be  a  new  board  constituted  to  deal  par- 
ticularly with  these  compensation  matters. 
The  board  of  negotiation  which  has  been  a 
most  useful  and  effective  remedy,  will  be 
retained  as  the  first  step  in  promoting  settle- 
ment in  these  compensation  disputes,  while 
there  will  be  an  ultimate  appeal  to  the  court 
of  appeal  from  decisions  of  the  land  com- 
pensation tribunal.  There  are  many  other 
features  of  this  bill,  Mr.  Speaker,  upon  which 
I  could  comment,  particularly  since  they  are 
of  such  significance  and  interest  to  the  people 
of  this  province.  However,  I  have  taken 
enough  of  the  time  of  the  hon.  members  and 
I  am  sure  that  we  will  all  be  able  to  pursue 
the  principles  and  the  details  of  this  bill 
together  in  the  near  future.  I  commend  this 
to  the  hon.  members,  for  we  feel  that  it 
represents  the  enactment  of  many  principles 
upon  which  all  members  of  this  House  are 
in  complete  agreement. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Mr.  Speaker,  if  you  will  permit  me  on  first 
reading,  a  question  to  the  Attorney  General 
on  the  statement  and  the  bill  that  is  before 
us:  It  appears  to  me  from  the  Attorney 
General's  remarks  the  bill  that  we  have  now 
read  for  the  first  time  today  embodies  many 
of  the  corrections  to  many  of  the  objections 
that  have  been  stated  from  this  side  over 
the  years.  For  this  reason,  we  welcome  it— 
we  welcome  it  enthusiastically. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  if  it  is 
roughly  parallel  to  the  federal  Expropriation 


96 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Procedures  Act,  which  is   before  Parliament 
at  the  present  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  quite 
frankly  I  do  not  know.  We  have  some  know- 
ledge of  it,  but  I  have  not  seen  the  federal 
bill  and  I  would  rather  speculate  that  we 
go   broader  and  farther. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  ACT 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth)  moves  first  read- 
ing of  bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  The 
Municipal  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  try  to  safeguard  the  interests 
of  the  tenants,  and  I  hope  it  will  receive 
the  same  kind  of  wholehearted  support  that 
the  bill  which  was  introduced  by  the  hon. 
Attorney  General  has  just  received. 

The  purpose  of  the  bill  is  the  control  of 
leases  and  rents  and  to  establish  a  rent  control 
board.  It  is  a  piece  of  permissive  legislation 
and  would  allow  municipalities  to  establish, 
where  necessary,  rental  control  boards  to 
ensure  that  the  people  of  this  province  are 
no  longer  going  to  have  inflicted  upon  them 
the  many  great  impositions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  has  stated 
the  purpose  of  his  bill  and  he  does  not  need 
to  go  into  an  explanation  of  it  at  this  stage. 
Second  reading  is  the  appropriate  place  for 
that. 

If  the  hon.  member  has  anything  further 
to  say  with  respect  to  the  bill,  which  he 
thinks  would  be  within  the  rules  and  of  im- 
portance to  the  members,  he  is  free  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes,  I  would  say  that  in  this 
bill  there  is  provision  for  a  fine  of  $2,000 
in  the  event  that  a  conviction  is  registered 
against  any  person  who  should  see  fit  to 
ignore  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  do  not  think  the  considera- 
tion of  the  bill  clause  by  clause,  or  what  is 
in  it,  is  a  proper  statement  at  this  particular 
stage  of  the  bill's  history;  we  need  merely  a 
statement  as  to  its  purpose  and  I  think  the 
hon.   member  has  given  that. 

COMMISSIONER  TO  INVESTIGATE 

ADMINISTRATIVE   DECISIONS  AND 

ACTS  OF  OFFICIALS 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  {Downsview)  moves  first 
reading  of  a  bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  provide 
for   the    appointment    of    a    commissioner   to 


investigate  administrative  decisions  and  acts 
of  officials  of  the  government  of  Ontario  and 
its  agencies  and  to  define  the  commissioner's 
powers  and  duties. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  my  fifth  effort  to  try  and  bring 
the  government  around  to  providing  an 
ombudsman  for  the  province  of  Ontario.  As 
you  know,  sir,  an  ombudsman  would  be  an 
official  who  would  be  able  to  protect  the 
citizens  of  this  province  against  arbitrary, 
unfair  and  unusual  acts  by  the  civil  service, 
and  for  which  the  citizen  now  has  no  other 
remedy. 


RELIEF  OF  MEDICAL  PRACTITIONERS, 

REGISTERED  NURSES  AND  OTHERS 

FROM  LIABILITY 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park)  moves  first 
reading  of  bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  relieve 
medical  practitioners,  registered  nurses  and 
others  from  liability  in  respect  of  voluntary 
first  aid  and  medical  services. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  is 
similar  to  one  introduced  earlier  in  this  House 
but  differs  in  that  it  protects  not  just  doctors 
but  all  good  Samaritans  from  legal  action. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Prime  Minister  has 
a  statement. 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  (Prime  Minister):  Mr. 
Speaker,  this  afternoon  the  hon.  Minister  of 
Municipal  Affairs  (Mr.  McKeough)  is  in  the 
Lakehead,  meeting  with  the  municipal  coun- 
cils of  the  cities  of  Fort  William  and  Port 
Arthur  and  the  adjoining  townships  of  Nee- 
bing  and  Shuniah.  The  purpose  of  his  visit 
it  to  announce  the  intention  of  the  govern- 
ment to  present  legislation  during  this  ses- 
sion of  the  Legislature  for  the  amalgamation 
of  the  two  cities  and  parts  of  the  townships 
of  Shuniah  and  Neebing  into  one  munici- 
pality. 

It  is  the  conclusion  of  the  government  that 
the  immediate  and,  of  perhaps  greater  im- 
portance, the  long-term  interests  of  the  Lake- 
head  community  will  be  best  served  through 
the  policies  and  administration  of  a  single 
municipal  jurisdiction. 

The  decision  in  favour  of  amalgamation  is 
the  culmination  of  a  series  of  studies  and  de- 
liberations which  followed  the  completion  of 
a  local  government  review  in  March  of  this 
year.    The  research  findings   of  the   review, 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


97 


together  with  the  briefs  submitted  by  local 
municipal  councils,  organizations  and  indi- 
viduals have  been  given  extensive  analysis 
by  the  staff  of  The  Department  of  Municipal 
Affairs  and  other  departments  and  agencies 
of  the  government  affected  by  the  recom- 
mendations. 

During  the  weeks  ahead,  further  considera- 
tion will  be  given  to  the  matter  of  precise 
boundaries,  finances,  and  the  organization 
and  structure  for  representation  and  munici- 
pal services.  In  this  connection,  the  Minister 
of  Municipal  Affairs  will  look  to  the  inter- 
municipal  committee  established  last  spring 
to  maintain  a  continuing  liaison  with  the 
Lakehead  and  district  municipalities.  The 
inter-municipal  committee  represents  the 
Lakehead  municipalities  and  the  district  of 
Thunder  Bay,  and  has  performed  a  most 
important  function  as  liaison  with  the  gov- 
ernment. I  should  like  to  express  the  appre- 
ciation of  the  government  for  the  dedication 
and  hard  work  of  the  members  of  this  com- 
mittee. Their  continued  co-operation  ensures 
that  the  more  detailed  aspects  of  the  pro- 
posal for  amalgamation  will  be  resolved  in  a 
manner  which  will  meet  the  needs  of  the 
people  of  the  Lakehead  area. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  you  are  aware,  the  local 
government  review  also  proposed  a  "district 
municipality",  which  would  be  a  regional 
government  consisting  of  the  proposed  Lake- 
head  city  and  the  district  of  Thunder  Bay. 
The  government  does  not  plan  the  immediate 
establishment  of  a  full  scale  regional  govern- 
ment for  this  district.  Rather,  any  steps  to 
implement  this  recommendation,  would  have 
implications  for  all  of  the  districts  which 
make  up  the  northern  part  of  our  province. 
Accordingly,  on  September  12,  during  the 
tour  of  northern  Ontario  by  members  of  the 
Legislature,  I  announced  the  appointment  of 
an  inter-departmental  committee  to  examine 
government  at  the  district  level  in  northern 
Ontario.  This  committee  will  report  in  mid- 
1969  on  the  application  of  the  recommenda- 
tions contained  in  the  Lakehead  local  gov- 
ernment review,  to  the  municipalities  and 
unorganized  territories  within  the  districts  of 
Ontario. 

Any  action  to  bring  about  a  regional  gov- 
ernment for  the  Thunder  Bay  district  will  be 
determined,  at  least  in  part,  by  the  findings 
of  the  inter-departmental  committee. 

I  might  add  that  this  committee  will  sched- 
ule meetings  in  several  locations  in  northern 
Ontario  so  that  the  elected  municipal  offi- 
cials in  the  districts  will  be  able  to  meet 
with  the  committee  to  discuss  the  proposed 


regional  organization  and  the  special  interests 
of  the  people  of  the  districts. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Did  the  hon.  member  have  a 
question? 

Mr.  G.  Ben  (Humber):  No,  Mr.  Speaker, 
this  is  with  reference  to  introduction  of  bills. 

I  have  a  question  of  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  just  received  from  the  Clerk  a  copy  of 
a  bill  by  the  hon.  member  for  Wentworth 
(Mr.  Deans),  and  I  have  one  in  exactly  the 
same  form,  word  for  word.  Is  there  any  pro- 
cedure whereby  I  could  dispense  with  the 
usual  notice  and  have  it  put  in  now? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Not  only  do  we  usually  need 
the  notice,  but  the  order  has  been  closed  and 
I  would  suggest  that  the  hon.  member's  pur- 
pose would  be  equally  well  served  by  intro- 
ducing it  tomorrow  and  they  will  be  printed 
for  consideration— may  I  just  check  with  the 
Clerk? 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  The  hon. 
member  is  following  more  closely,  but  he  is 
still  following. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Clerk  also  advises  me  of 
something  that  should  have  been  patent  to 
me;  that  if  it  is  word  for  word  then  it  is  out 
of  order  because  we  cannot  have  two  bills 
which  are  word  for  word. 

I  am  afraid  the  hon.  member  was  not  on 
his  feet  quickly  enough.  The  hon.  Minister 
of  Justice. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  Novem- 
ber 21,  the  hon.  member  for  Sarnia  (Mr. 
Bullbrook)  asked  a  question  in  three  parts.  I 
answered  the  first  two  and  I  promised  him  an 
answer  to  the  third  part  which  had  to  do  with 
the  qualifications  of  Mr.  Bruce  Goulet  in  con- 
nection with  his  appontment  as  a  member  of 
the  board  of  police  commissioners  for  the  city 
of  North  Bay. 

I  am  advised,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  Mr.  Goulet 
is  president  of  the  United  Nations  Associa- 
tion of  North  Bay;  is  past  president  of  the 
North  Bay  Chamber  of  Commerce;  for  many 
years  was  chairman  of  the  public  affairs  com- 
mittee of  that  chamber  and  in  this  capacity 
he  has  worked  closely  with  the  municipal 
council  and  has  been  keenly  interested  in 
provincial  and  federal  affairs.  He  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  department  of  industry  of  North 
Bay,  which  is  a  committee  of  the  council  and 
is  interested  in  the  industrial  development  of 
the  North  Bay  area. 

He  is  chairman  of  the  Dominion  Day  com- 
mittee as  well  as  chairman  of  the  Centennial 


I 


98 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


committee  for  that  city.  He  is  at  present  a 
member  of  the  Rotary  club  and  chairman  of 
the  crippled  children's  committee,  which  as 
we  all  know  is  one  of  the  main  programmes 
of  Rotary  International.  He  is  also  a  member 
of  the  Canadian  Legion. 

In  1967,  Mr.  Goulet  was  selected  "Man  of 
the  Year"  for  North  Bay.  This  is  an  honour 
which  is  not  always  conferred  annually  but 
only  when  there  is  someone  deserving  of  such 
recognition. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Sopha  (Sudbury):  How  many 
votes  did  he  lose  by  last  fall?  Was  he  beaten 
badly? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Surely  the  hon.  member 
is  not  suggesting  that  he  should  not  have 
involvement  in  public  affairs? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  hon.  Minister  of  Social  and  Family 
Services.  Is  the  Minister  investigating  the 
role  played  by  the  Metropolitan  Toronto 
Catholic  children's  aid  society  in  the  case  of 
Theresa  Macintosh,  who  died  October  10? 

Hon.  J.  Yaremko  (Minister  of  Social  and 
Family  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  natur- 
ally concerned  about  this  case.  But  it  is  still 
before  a  coroners'  jury  and,  as  you  know,  the 
inquest  will  resume  Wednesday.  It  would  be 
unfair  to  comment  in  any  way  while  the  jury 
is  discharging  its  very  serious  responsibilities. 

Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  your  indulgence  to 
have  the  other  two  questions  put  to  me  by 
hon.  members  of  the  House?  The  member 
for  Thunder  Bay? 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  the  hon.  leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition and  the  hon.  member  for  York  South 
(Mr.  MacDonald)  would  agree;  I  believe  the 
Minister  has  to  leave  to  keep  an  appointment. 
The  hon.  member  for  Thunder  Bay. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  do  have  a  question  for  the  Minister 
of  Social  and  Family  Services.  Has  the  Min- 
ister received  a  request  for  a  capital  grant 
from  the  Lakehead  Association  for  the  Men- 
tally Retarded  sheltered  workshop? 

Is  the  Minister  prepared  to  consider  their 
request? 

Hon.  Mr.  Yaremko:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  have 
such  a  request  and  it  is  presently  being  con- 
sidered. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  horn  member  for  High 
Park  (Mr.  Shulman)  is  not  in  his  seat  so  his 


question    will   not   be   answered.     The    hon. 
leader  of  the  Opposition. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Prime  Minister.  What  arrangements 
will  be  made  to  celebrate  the  150th  anni- 
versary of  the  birth  of  the  Hon.  George 
Brown,  that  great  Liberal? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  as 
the  hon.  members  are  doubtless  aware,  this 
centenary  is  on  Friday  of  this  week. 

Mr.  Nixon:  That  would  not  be  centenary. 
It  is  sesquicentennial. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  At  one  stage  of  the  game 
we  had  hoped  to  have  a  dinner,  but  through 
a  whole  series  of  circumstances  that  became 
impossible.  I  might  say  I  invited  the  Prime 
Minister  of  Canada  to  that  dinner,  but  he 
could  not  make  it.  I  thought  he  could  attend 
to  represent  the  Liberal  Party  of  Canada. 

I  will  have  a  full  rundown  on  some  cere- 
monies that  we  plan  to  conduct  here  and  out- 
side the  buildings.  If  hon.  members  will  be 
patient  I  will  announce  these  to  the  House 
after  I  have  had  an  opportunity  to  discuss 
them,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  the  leader  of  the 
Opposition  and  the  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party.  We  will  probably  be  able  to  do 
that  before  the  House  sits  tomorrow  and  then 
we  will  be  able  to  lay  the  full  programme  out 
before  the  members. 

We  intend  to  honour  the  birth  date  of  this 
great  Canadian  in  as  auspicious  a  way  as 
possible. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure  the 
Premier  would  agree  that  the  time  is  grow- 
ing quite  short  and  perhaps  we  ought  to  have 
undertaken  some  planning  at  an  earlier  date. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  We  undertook  a  lot  of 
planning  at  an  earlier  date  but  there  have 
just  been  a  whole  series  of  events  that  con- 
flict; you  know  sometimes  you  run  into  these 
situations.  However,  Friday  is  the  actual 
anniversary  day  and  I  will  tell  hon.  members 
all  about  it  when  we  get  the  final  "i's"  dotted 
and  "t's"  crossed  and  then  we  will  announce 
the  programme  in  the  House. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  was  informed  some  two  weeks 
ago,  or  thereabouts,  that  there  was  going  to 
be  such  a  celebration  on  November  29,  so  I 
do  not  feel  that  I  have  been  left  out  of  the 
picture. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Trotter  (Parkdale):  The  Prime 
Minister  does  not  seem  to  know  about  it— 
or  very  little  about  it. 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


99 


Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Maybe  the 
hon.  member  knows  more  than  he  does. 

Mr.  Mat-Donald:  Maybe  it  is  the  Secretary 
of  the  Cabinet  who  is  pursuing  the  details. 

Mr.  Trotter:  Maybe  the  civil  servants  tell 
him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rob  arts:  I  am  quite  certain  the 
leader  of  the  Opposition  has  heard  about  this 
too. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  have  two  questions,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

The  first  one  is  held  over  from  Friday— to 
the  Minister  of  Health.  Was  the  government 
informed  of  the  recent  decision  to  increase 
doctors'  fees  before  it  was  publicly  an- 
nounced? What  further  outlay  from  thr  pub- 
lic Treasury,  through  OMSIP  expenditures, 
will  result  from  this  fee  increase?  Does  the 
Minister  feel  that  such  an  increase  can  hence- 
forth be  made  unilaterally  without  consulta- 
tion or  negotiation? 

Hon.  M.  B.  Dymond  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  received  a  letter  from  the 
OMA  on  October  18  of  this  year  indicating 
that  an  increase  in  fees  of  approximately  ten 
per  cent  would  be  implemented  April,  1969. 

The  answer  to  the  second  part,  it  is  not 
possible  to  answer  this  question  until  we 
know  the  detailed  changes  which  arc  being 
proposed. 

The  third  part.  I  am  still  hopeful  that 
arrangements  can  be  made  with  the  profession 
to  agree  on  a  fee  schedule  that  machinery 
for  negotiation  can  be  established  to  our 
mutual  satisfaction. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West.  The  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr. 
Bales)  is  not  present  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  T.  Reid  (Scarborough  East):  Scar- 
lx)rough  East  or  Scarborough  West? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough East,  yes! 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Education.  What 
safety  specifications,  if  any,  for  school  buses 
does  the  Minister  of  Education  require  be- 
fore school  children  can  be  transported  in 
those  buses  to  and  from   school? 

The  second  part  of  the  question:  What 
physical  health  and  fitness  standards,  if  any, 
does  the  Minister  of  Education  set  for  bus 
drivers  who  transport  children  to  and  from 
school? 


Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon.  member  for 
Peterborough  would  place  his  question  at  the 
same  time.  They  are  not  related  but  they 
have  to  do  with  the  same  subject  matter. 

Mr.  W.  G.  Pitman  (Peterborough):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  In  view  of  the  recent 
traffic  deaths  of  two  Peterborough  students, 
would  the  Minister  consider  an  investigation 
of  school  bus  routes  in  each  school  jurisdic- 
tion to  ensure  that  these  buses  are  making 
use  of  the  safest  as  well  as  the  most  direct 
routes? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Speaker,  to  answer  that  part  for  the 
member  for  Scarborough  East  first:  The  ques- 
tion of  specifications  for  school  bus  trans- 
portation fall  within  the  jurisdiction  of  The 
Department  of  Transport.  I  regret  I  did  not 
see  this  question  until  just  a  very  few 
minutes  before  the  House  sat  so  I  was  not 
able  to  contact  the  Minister  of  Transport  (Mr. 
Haskett)  so  that  he  might  be  able  to  give 
the  hon.  members  this  material;  and  of  course 
this  applies  to  the  second  part  of  the  question 
as  well. 

With  respect  to  the  question  from  the 
member  for  Peterborough.  One  of  the  basic 
responsibilities  of  the  new  divisional  boards 
when  they  commence  their  operations  within 
a  very  few  weeks  will,  of  course,  be  to  review 
bus  routes.  The  boards  have  always  taken 
the  question  of  school  safety  and  safety  of 
the  children  with  respect  to  bus  routes,  as 
one  of  their  very  prime  considerations  and 
I  fully  expect  that  they  will  do  this  when 
the  new  divisional  boards  are  created. 

I  think  we  all  regret,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  very 
unfortunate  occurrence,  the  tragedy  of  last 
week.  I  can  only  say  that  as  far  as  the 
boards  are  concerned  generally,  we  have 
had  a  very  excellent  safety  record  in  this 
province.  I  am  very  satisfied  that  they  make 
a  very  conscious  effort  to  see  to  the  safety  of 
the  young  people.  Really  these  questions  are 
their  prime  considerations. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon.  member 
for  Scarborough  East  would  allow  me  to 
transfer  the  question  to  the  Minister  of 
Transport  so  that  it  may  be  answered. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  On  your  ruling,  sir! 

I  have  just  asked  the  Minister  of  Education 
if  he  does  not  feel  that  he  should  have 
been  making  recommendations  to  the  other 
department  of  this  government;  that  he 
should  not  have  been  sitting  on  his  seat  for 
so  long  in  this  regard;  that  he  has  a  direct 


100 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


responsibility  to  offer  some  leadership  in  this 
area. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  great 
respect  to  the  member  for  Scarborough  East 
there  are  specifications.  They  are  there  with- 
in The  Department  of  Transport  right  now 
and  if  the  hon.  member  would  perhaps  just 
have  the  patience,  and  to  a  degree  the  cour- 
tesy, to  transfer  the  question  to  the  appro- 
priate Minister,  I  am  sure  he  would  get  an 
appropriate  and  courteous  answer. 

Mr.   T.   Reid:   And  meanwhile,  two  more 

children- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 
A  supplementary  from  the  other  member 

who  placed  a  question. 

Mr.  Pitman:  A  supplementary  question.  I 
was  wondering  whether  the  Minister  might 
consider  grants  to  local  school  boards  for 
carrying  on  investigations  of  this  sort.  It 
would  appear  to  me  that  as  these  larger  juris- 
dictions are  organized,  a  great  deal  of  edu- 
cation is  going  to  be  achieved  by  bussing 
students  back  and  forth. 

I  investigated  this  particular  accident- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order:  Perhaps  the  hon. 
Minister  might  investigate  just  simply  rail- 
road crossings— could  there  be  a  special  grant 
to  investigate  railroad  crossings  as  they  affect 
school  buses  in  local  jurisdictions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
purport  to  be  knowledgeable  in  the  whole 
question  of  transportation,  but  I  would  sug- 
gest that  it  should  not,  surely,  require  a 
special  grant  to  investigate  any  hazard  or 
questionable  part  of  a  school  bus  route;  that 
the  board  must  automatically  consider  this 
and  make  every  effort  to  ensure  that  buses 
are  taking  the  safest  possible  route.  I  do  not 
see  where  any  special  grant  would  really 
reveal  anything  that  they  do  not  presently 
know. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
bury. 

Mr.  Sopha:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Provincial  Secretary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
bury has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Sopha:  Thank  you,  sir.  Would  the 
Provincial  Secretary  inform  the  House,  in  a 
general  way,  if  specific  figures  are  not  avail- 
able of  the  nature  of  the  increase  in  revenue 
over  the  same  period  last  year  to  the  liquor 
control  board  of  Ontario  during  the  Quebec 


liquor  strike?  If  possible,  could  the  House 
have  an  indication  of  the  increase  in  profits 
during  the  same  period? 

Hon.  R.  S.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  have  to  take  this  ques- 
tion as  notice. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  the  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  would  care  to  ask  the  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Social  and  Family  Services,  who 
advised  me  he  was  leaving  the  House  at 
3.05,  the  floor  is  now  his. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  will  the  Min- 
ister institute  a  comfort  allowance  for  those 
disabled  persons  with  no  income  who  are 
confined  to  Ontario's  hospitals  for  the  chron- 
ically ill? 

Hon.  Mr.  Yaremko:  Mr.  Speaker,  our  pro- 
grammes and  their  application  to  persons 
such  as  the  chronically  ill  are  always  under 
review  and  they  are  presently. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Minister  give  more 
information? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside has  two  questions  from  last 
week.    Perhaps,  he  would  place  them  now. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Prime  Minister: 
Has  the  government  given  consideration  to 
a  November  4  letter  from  Windsor  city 
council  stating  its  firm  opposition  to  a  pro- 
vincial tax  on  drugs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
quite  certain  that  letter  has  been  given  con- 
sideration. I  do  not  recall  whether  it  came 
to  my  desk  or  not,  but  certainly  we  give  full 
consideration  to  all  such  recommendations 
and  the  hon.  member  can  be  assured  that 
this  opinion  of  the  Windsor  city  council  will 
be  given  every  consideration. 

Mr.  Burr:  Thank  you,  sir.  A  question  for 
the  Minister  of  Health:  Does  the  Minister 
share  the  opinion  of  Doctor  J.  Z.  Sullivan  of 
The  Department  of  National  Health  and 
Welfare  that  motor  vehicle  exhaust  pollu- 
tion is  not  a  health  problem  in  Canada  and 
is  unlikely  ever  to  become  one? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  an- 
swer is  "no",  I  do  not  share  the  opinion 
and  as  evidence  of  that,  the  government  of 
Ontario  has  already  got  legislation  on  the 
statute  book  and  regulations  in  effect  requir- 
ing that  all  motor  vehicles  sold  in  Ontario, 
in  this  present  model  year,  must  be  equipped 
with  the  air  pollution  control  equipment  as 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


101 


recommended   and   approved   by   the   United 
States  government. 

I  would  advise  the  House  and  the  industry 
now,  through  this  means,  sir,  that  in  1970 
the  regulations  will  be  even  more  stringent. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Dover- 
court  has  a  question  from  last  week. 

Mr.  D.  M.  De  Monte  (Dovercourt):  Yes, 
Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Health. 

What  is  the  percentage  of  the  provincial 
contribution  of  the  capital  cost  of  new  con- 
struction of  hospitals?  And  a  second  question: 
what  is  the  percentage  of  the  provincial  con- 
tribution of  the  maintenance  cost  of  hospitals? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer 
to  this  question  is  much  longer  than  the 
question. 

The  province  accepts  responsibility  for 
two-thirds  of  the  approved  capital  construc- 
tion costs.  And  now,  since  the  federal  gov- 
ernment is  no  longer  paying  anything  towards 
capital  construction  of  hosiptals,  the  province 
must  find  this  entire  two-thirds. 

In  the  case  of  northern  Ontario  hospitals, 
because  of  their  location  and  their  responsi- 
bilities, an  additional  grant  was  paid  over 
and  above  the  usual  two-thirds  and  this 
grant  amounts  to  $2,000  per  active  treatment 
bed  or  bed  equivalent  and  $1,000  for  each 
chronic  or  convalescent  bed  or  bed  equivalent 
in  municipalities  of  12,000  and  under  and 
$500  and  $250  respectively  in  municipalities 
over  12,000. 

In  the  case  of  teaching  hospitals  the  total 
cost  is  provided  and,  of  course,  this  is  subject 
to  whatever  grants  we  are  able  to  squeeze 
out  of  the  federal  health  resources  fund. 

In  the  case  of  hospitals  that  serve  two 
purposes;  that  of  teaching  and  community 
service  as  well,  the  two-thirds  approved  cost 
applies  in  respect  of  the  area  dedicated  to 
community  service;  and  50  per  cent  grant  is 
applied  to  that  part  of  the  hospital  used  for 
its  teaching  function. 

The  other  50  per  cent  hopefully,  was  to 
come  from  the  federal  health  resources  fund 
but  in  light  of  the  decision  made  recently, 
which  represented  a  direct  change  in  the 
rules  made  in  1965,  we  can  hardly  tell  what 
percentage  will  come  from  the  federal  gov- 
ernment. We  are  quite  convinced  and  quite 
certain  now,  of  course,  that  it  will  be  much 
less  than  50  per  cent,  and  therefore  the  pro- 
vincial share  will  be  much  higher  than  50 
per  cent. 


In  the  case  of  regional  rehabilitation  hos- 
pitals, the  full  approved  cost  is  paid. 

In  the  case  of  ambulance  facilities— that 
is,  facilities  in  connection  with  a  hospital 
to  house  an  ambulance— the  full  approved 
cost  is  paid. 

The  province's  contribution  to  the  cost  of 
hospital  maintenance  is  32.5  per  cent  of  the 
whole. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if  I 
might  be  permitted  a  brief  comment  on  the 
remarks  of  the  hon.  member  for  Humber 
before  I  ask  my  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  TJie  hon.  member  has  the 
floor  for  the  purpose  of  asking  a  question. 
This  is  not  the  appropriate  time  to  comment 
on  speeches  or  remarks  by  other  hon.  mem- 
bers. 

Mr.  Deans:  Fine.  I  will  ask  only  the  sec- 
ond part  of  my  question  to  the  Minister  of 
Highways. 

Will  the  Minister  consider,  in  the  interest 
of  minimizing  traffic  fatalities,  re-applying  to 
the  Ontario  municipal  board  for  immediate 
emergency  permission  to  effect  the  closing 
of  Murray  Avenue  to  Queen  Elizabeth  High- 
way? 

Hon.  G.  E.  Gomme  (Minister  of  Highways): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  answered  the  hon.  member's 
question.  He  left  out  the  first  part  this  time 
and  I  can  say  again  that  we  are  proceeding 
with  all  possible  speed  on  the  engineering, 
the  plans  and  specifications  to  live  up  to 
what  the  board  has  asked  us  to  do. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may  ask  a 
supplementary  question? 

The  question  I  asked  was,  "Would  you 
reapply  to  the  board  in  order  to  hasten  the 
closing"— the  board  gave  permission  some  ten 
years  ago— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 
Mr.  Deans:  It  has  taken  that  long- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  member  has 
placed  his  supplementary  question.  Now  the 
Minister  has   the    opportunity,   if  he   wishes, 
to  answer  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gomme:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  do  not 
think  that  is  necessary  at  the  present  time 
because  we  are  proceeding  as  fast  as  possible. 


102 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  a  question  of  the  hon.  Minister  of 
Transport. 

1.  Would  the  Minister  advise  the  House 
when  the  45-mile-per-hour  "construction" 
speed  limit  will  be  removed  from  completed 
portions  of  the  Queen  Elizabeth  Way  east 
of  the  Highway  27  interchange? 

2.  Would  the  Minister  agree  that  the  main- 
tenance of  the  45-mile-per-hour  speed  limit  is 
inconsistent  with  his  statement  to  the  House 
on  April  7,  1967?   Hansard,  p.  1183. 

3.  With  respect  to  construction  speed  zones 
generally,  why  is  the  same  speed  limit  main- 
tained at  all  times,  whether  or  not  construc- 
tion is  in  progress,  instead  of  being  adjusted 
to  actual  conditions,  particularly  at  week- 
ends when  construction  work  ceases? 

Hon.  I.  Haskett  (Minister  of  Transport): 
Mr.  Speaker,  in  that  we  must  rely,  I  am 
sure  the  hon.  member  understands,  on  The 
Department  of  Highways  for  information  in 
applying  construction  zone  speed  limits.  I 
find  it  necessary  to  defer  the  answer  until 
tomorrow. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Has  the  hon.  member  a 
supplementary  question? 

Mr.  Young:  No,  I  am  sorry,  I  had  another 
question  for  the  Attorney  General,  but  I  will 
ask  that  tomorrow. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  the  Attorney  General  is 
not  here. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Health:  It  is  in  three 
parts: 

1.  Are  staff  members  at  the  Penetang  On- 
tario Hospital  allowed  to  employ  patients  as 
domestics  and  for  staff  home  labour? 

2.  What  pay  are  the  patients  given  for 
this  work? 

3.  Is  it  the  policy  of  The  Department  of 
Health  to  allow  staff  an  extra  perquisite  in 
the  form  of  cheap  labour? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
understand  what  the  hon.  member  means  by 
the  first  part  of  his  question.  If  he  wants  to 
clarify  it,  I  shall  try  to  get  the  answer. 

The  second  part:  Patients  can  be  placed 
in  homes  of  staff  as  part  of  the  industrial 
therapy  programme.  Staff  asking  use  of  such 
services  are  charged  at  a  rate  that  is  based 
on  a  comparison  for  work  the  individual  is 
able  to  do  with  the  outside  labour  market. 
This  amount  is  paid  to  the  industrial  therapy 
fund  out  of  which  all  patients   involved  in 


the  programme  receive  incentive  payments. 
The  answer  to  the  third  part  of  the  question 
is  no. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Minister  allow  a 
supplementary  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Yes. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Do  I  misunderstand  the  Min- 
ister? Is  his  answer  that  the  money  is  all 
paid  into  one  fund  and  then  is  divided 
among  all  the  patients  and  that  none  of  the 
money  goes  directly  to  the  patient  doing  the 
work? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  It  is  paid  into  the  in- 
dustrial therapy  fund,  sir,  and  divided  among 
the  patients  who  qualify  for  withdrawals 
from  this  fund. 

Mr.  Shulman:  In  the  form  of  a  second 
supplementary  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  can 
the  Minister- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  said  that 
he  would  not  accept  a  further  supplementary 
question.  The  member  might  perhaps  go 
on  to  his  other  question. 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  question  to  the  Minister 
of  Correctional  Services. 

When  is  Mr.  William  Lumley  to  be  trans- 
ferred from  Sarnia  jail  to  a  reformatory,  as 
promised  in  a  letter  from  The  Department  of 
Correctional  Services  of  October  31,   1968? 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Minister  of  Correc- 
tional Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  answer  to 
the  hon.  member's  question;  the  decision  to 
transfer  this  man  from  the  Lambton  county 
jail  to  a  reformatory,  was  made  by  the  classi- 
fication committee  on  October  31,  1968.  Ar- 
rangements were  made  for  his  transfer  to 
take  place  on  the  next  routine  trip  to  this 
area  made  by  the  departmental  bailiffs. 

For  security  reasons,  it  is  not  deemed 
advisable  to  give  publicly  the  exact  date  of 
the  transfer,  but  if  the  hon.  member  so 
wishes,  I  am  prepared  to  provide  him  with 
this  information  on  a  strictly  confidential 
basis.  In  the  interest,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
rehabilitation  of  persons  concerned,  I  would 
again  appeal  to  the  hon.  member  to  please 
continue  the  practice  followed  by  the  hon. 
members  of  this  House  during  the  last  ses- 
sion of  not  publicly  identifying  inmates  by 
narre. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Is  the  Minister  aware  of  the 
hazardous  driving  conditions  that  prevail  on 
highway  585,  which  runs  from  Nipigon  to 
Pine   Portage?   When   will    the    Minister   in- 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


103 


struct  his  department  to  start  on  a  pro- 
gramme of  reconstruction  of  highway  585 
as  promised  during  the  last  session? 

Hon.  Mr.  Comrne:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just 
received  this  question  as  I  came  into  the 
House  and  I  will  have  to  take  it  as  notice 
and  supply  the  answer. 

Mr.  N.  Whitney  (Prince  Edward-Lennox): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on  a  point  of  privilege 
relating  to  the  statements  in  the  Toronto 
Globe  and  Mail  last  Friday,  also  in  the  Belle- 
ville Intelligencer  of  the  same  day,  as  stated 
by  the  hon.  leader  of  the  NDP,  following 
their  return  from  a  visit  to  Picton.  It  is  my 
opinion  that  certain  statements  were  made 
which  were  derogatory  in  their  nature  to  cer- 
tain of  the  people  I  represent,  some  named, 
some  not  named.  I  would  like  to  quote  first 
from  the  Globe  and  Mail  statement,  and  then 
briefly  from  the   Intelligencer  statement. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  for  clarification:  When  a  statement 
of  privilege  is  made  in  the  House,  sir,  must 
it  not  relate  directly  to  the  member  as  he 
is  affected  rather  than  those  he  represents? 
Would  the  member  not  have  appropriate 
time  in  the  Throne  debate  to  raise  this  kind 
of  thing? 

Mr.  Speaker:  My  understanding  of  the 
hon.  member's  opening  preamble  with  re- 
spect to  this  point  of  privilege  was  that  it 
affected  not  only  the  people  he  represented 
but  himself  as  their  representative.  So  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  as  long  as  he  brings 
i  himself  within  my  interpretation  of  what  he 
has  said,  I  think  he  is  in  order.  But  he  is 
not  in  order  merely  to  comment  upon  news- 
Ipaper  statements  about  things  in  his  riding. 

Mr.  Whitney:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  order  to 
supply  the  background,  I  will  quote  briefly 
from  what  appeared  in  the  Globe  and  Mail: 

New  Democratic  Party  leader  Donald 
MacDonald  yesterday  described  Mayor 
Harvey  J.  McFarland  of  Picton  as  a  million- 
aire contractor  made  wealthy  from  public 
funds  and  leading  a  "Tory  -  dominated 
establishment"  against  striking  workers  at 
Proctor-Silex  Canada  Ltd. 

In  the  early  hours  of  yesterday's  session 
of  the  Legislature,  the  20  NDP  seats  were 
empty  as  Mr.  MacDonald  led  18  caucus 
members  to  the  strike  site.  In  a  press  con- 
ference after  he  returned,  he  described  the 
trip  as  an  attempt  to  dramatize  a  situation 
the  NDP  will  fight  to  the  end. 


The  MPPs  joined  picketing  at  the  plant, 
obeying  a  court  injunction  limiting  pickets 
to  six  at  a  time. 

Mr.  MacDonald  described  Mr.  McFar- 
land as  owner  of  the  company's  land  and 
building  and  said  he  collects  $58,000  a 
year  in  rent. 

"Mr.  McFarland  made  his  wealth  from 
the  public  purse,"  Mr.  MacDonald  said, 
referring  to  highways  contracts  Mr.  Mc- 
Farland has  bid  on  and  carried  out  for  the 
government.  "He  is  a  source  of  funds  for 
Tory  candidates  in  the  area.  He  is  a  well- 
known  Tory  and  a  source  of  slush  funds. 

"Both  old  parties  traditionally  produce 
highways  millionaires  when  they  are  in 
power." 

Mr.  MacDonald  said  he  did  not  talk  to— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  is  going 
far  too  long  in  his  quotation.  If  he  has  a 
point  of  privilege,  he  will  now  bring  himself 
to  it  and  cease  reading  from  a  report  which 
I  am  sure  all  members  have  read. 

Mr.  Whitney:  I  question  the  statement 
"Tory-dominated  establishment".  Constituents 
of  mine  arc  being  made  to  appear  as  a  co- 
erced people,  which  they  are  not.  In  Picton 
and  Prince  Edward  county  we  have  our 
political  organizations  and  municipal  councils 
regularly  elected,  our  sendee  clubs  and  other 
organizations  dedicated  to  public  service. 

Among  all  of  the  people  in  the  area  we 
know  of  no  group  of  any  kind  which  has 
been  organized  on  behalf  of  the  company. 
On  the  other  hand,  outside  organizers  of  the 
international  union  of  electrical  workers 
aided  and  abetted,  it  would  seem,  by  the 
NDP,  have  and  are  attempting  by  every 
means  at  their  disposal  to  organize  and  influ- 
ence public  opinion  on  behalf  of  the  union. 

In  the  absence  of  organized  opposition  of 
any  kind,  these  people  by  their  own  state- 
ments and  actions  have  been  defeating  their 
own  purposes.  The  truth  is  that  the  people 
of  Prince  Edward  have  not  and  will  not  be 
coerced  by  anyone  and  I  resent  any  implica- 
tion to  the  contrary  as  expressed  by  the  NDP 
leader. 

Secondly,  there  was  a  reference  made  to 
Dr.  Dockrill,  a  constituent  with  whom  I  may 
not  always  agree.  But  I  regret  to  hear  a 
statement  was  made  in  the  Globe  and  Mail 
that  his  bank  had  cut  off  his  credit  or  was 
threatening  to  cut  off  his  credit  because  of 
his  alleged- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  is  now 
straying  again  to  particular  cases  of  people 


104 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


in  his  riding.  If  he  can  relate  this  to  personal 
privilege  as  far  as  he  is  concerned,  as  their 
representative  there,  then  he  is  in  order. 
Otherwise,  he  is  not. 

Mr.  Whitney:  Well,  I  feel  that  it  is  in  the 
nature  of  a  personal  privilege  that  when  a 
man's  personal  financial  condition  is  told  to 
the  world,  through  a  newspaper  announce- 
ment by  someone  who  briefly  visited  there, 
and  who— the  quoted  party— denies  in  another 
place  that  he  made  exactly  that  statement. 
I  feel  it  is  a  matter  of  privilege  to  divulge 
what  he  said  following  that  statement  in  the 
press. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Now  the  hon.  member  has 
stated  his  reasons  for  rising  on  that  point  of 
privilege.  I  disagree  with  him.  It  is  not  a 
point  of  privilege  as  far  as  the  hon.  member 
is  concerned— the  matter  he  is  now  discussing. 

Mr.  Whitney:  Well,  in  conclusion,  I  would 
say  that  as  far  as  the  statements  which  were 
made  regarding  public  funds  and  so  on,  I  am 
simply  going  to  briefly  state  that  at  times  local 
Conservatives  are  annoyed  because  the  gentle- 
man in  question  contributes  to  the  Liberals. 
Sometimes  Liberals  are  annoyed  because  he 
contributes  to  the  Conservatives. 

He  does  work  for  the  federal  government. 
He  has  done  work  for  many  governments. 
He  has  done  work  practically  all  over  Can- 
ada. In  fact  I  would  ask  the  hon.  member  for 
High  Park  if  he  knows  that  sometimes  he  may 
even  have  contributed  to  the  CCF  govern- 
ment in  Saskatchewan,  under  T.  C.  Douglas, 
sometime  in  the  past. 

Consequently,  I  object  to  such  statements. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Did  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  a  point  of  order  or 
privilege? 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  sorry  to  revert  to  a  matter  of 
such  banality.  I  missed  the  Minister  of 
Health's  earlier  reply.  I  wonder  if  he  would 
indicate  to  the  House— did  he  9ay  in  his 
answer  to  the  question,  that  the  Ontario  Medi- 
cal Association  fee  schedule  was  now  a  fait 
accompli  for  April  1  1969?  The  Legislature 
could  have  no  effect  on  that  decision,  is  that 
his  answer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
answer  is  in  Hansard. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Essex- 
Kent. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  would  like  to  draw  to  the  attention  of  the 


House  the  efforts  of  a  young  man  in  my 
riding.  A  16-year-old  4-H  club  member 
scored  a  major  upset  in  the  seed  grain  show 
at  the  Royal  winter  fair  last  week  when  he 
won  the  reserve  ear  corn  championship  with 
a  sample  of  Ontario-grown  corn.  The  Royal 
winter  fair  seed  show  officials  said  that  never 
in  the  long  and  colourful  history  of  the  Royal 
has  Ontario  corn  placed  as  high  in  the  show 
against  the  powerful  high-quality  entrants 
from  the  United  States. 

This  was  a  first  championship  ever,  of  any 
sort,  for  Canadian  corn  at  the  Royal.  The 
high-placing  Ontario  corn  was  grown  and 
entered  by  Robert  Baillargeon  of  Stoney 
Point  in  the  township  of  Tilbury  North,  in 
Ontario's  southwestern  corn  belt.  The  entry 
stood  first  in  the  4-H  ear  corn  class  and  then 
went  on  to  runner-up  for  the  world  cham- 
pionship ear  corn.  This  is  the  first  time  Bob 
Baillargeon  has  exhibited  at  the  Royal.  His 
brother  Raymond,  18,  showed  at  the  Royal 
last  year,  and  this  year  took  second  to  his 
brother's  winning  entry  in  the  4-H  club. 

Both  boys  are  members  of  the  Tilbury  4-H 
corn  and  soya  bean  club.  They  are  the  sons 
of  George  and  Cecile  Baillargeon  who  own 
and  operate  a  cash  crop  farm.  The  Bail- 
largeon family  grow  corn,  wheat,  oats,  soy 
beans,  tomatoes   and   cucumbers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like  to  say  to  the  hon. 
members  and  to  the  hon.  member  who  has 
just  given  us  this  account  of  excellence  in 
young  farmers  that  I  think  the  House  is  glad 
to  hear  these  things,  but  I  think  that  they 
can  be  dealt  with  much  more  expeditiously 
than  by  reading  a  newspaper  report  on  it, 
and  I  would  ask  the  hon.  members  to  co- 
operate with  me  in  the  future.  I  will  be  glad 
to  allow  them  the  opportunity  of  making  us 
aware  of  and  praising  the  achievements  of 
their  people  but  I  would  ask  that  they  keep 
it  to  a  reasonable  statement  of  what  has  hap- 
pened without  the  family  and  other  back- 
ground, which  is  totally  unnecessary. 

Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resum- 
ing the  adjourned  debate  on  the  motion  for 
an  address  in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the  Hon- 
ourable the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  session. 


SPEECH  FROM  THE  THRONE 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  begin  by 
once  again  offering  my  compliments  to  you, 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


105 


sir,  and  to  say  that  I  am  very  glad  that  the 
leader  of  the  government  has  taken  the  deci- 
sion to  reconvene  Parliament  in  the  autumn 
of  the  year  so  that  our  business,  I  hope,  can 
be  carried  on  in  a  more  efficient  manner  and 
with  the  possibility  that  we  might  complete 
it  before  we  get  into  the  warm  months  next 
July. 

I  would  suggest  to  you,  sir,  that  if  the 
business  of  the  province  does  require  a  longer 
period  of  time  for  our  perusal  and  discussion 
—as  I  personally  believe  it  does— we  ought  to 
look  for  a  more  efficient  and  even  longer  ses- 
sion in  the  autumn  of  the  year. 

I  have  felt  for  some  time,  that  there  are 
two  things  wrong  with  the  ordering  of  our 
business;  number  one,  we  are  here  too  long, 
and  number  two,  we  are  away  from  the  Legis- 
lature too  long.  When  the  business  is  com- 
pacted into  one  session  beginning  in  Febmary 
and  extending  until  the  completion  of  the 
business,  there  is  a  tendency  for  spirits  to 
flag  and  for  our  connection  with  our  own 
areas  to  get  a  bit  than  as  we  are  away  week 
after  week  and  particularly  with  very  lengthy- 
night  sessions  as  a  part  of  our  responsibility. 

I  have  felt  myself,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  there 
is  a  lack  of  urgency  even  in  this  particular 
fall  session  and  that  we  should  be  under- 
taking a  more  careful  discussion  particularly, 
of  the  financial  affairs  of  Ontario  rather  than 
the  rather  lackadaisical  approach  that  has 
been  evident  in  the  first  few  days.  My  col- 
leagues, particularly  those  from  out  of  town, 
would  support  a  move  to  resume  night 
sessions  at  least  two  nights  a  week  very  early 
in  the  fall  session  so  that  they  might— having 
come  some  distance  to  partake  of  their  duties 
here— be  able  to  work  at  them  more  diligently 
and  more  steadily  so  that  the  business  can 
\te  accomplished  in  a  shorter  period  of  time 
and   in  a  more  orderly  way. 

I  know  that  those  members  who  come 
a  shorter  distance  from  home  would  not  sup- 
port any  particular  efforts  on  our  part  to 
have  night  sessions  resumed.  Nevertheless,  if 
we  are  going  to  carry  out  the  business  effi- 
ciently and  to  make  good  use  of  the  mem- 
bers who  have  come  long  distances  in  order 
to  represent  their  areas  I  would  suggest  that 
night  sessions  might  very  well  become  a  part 
of  our  order  in  the  near  future. 

Now,  the  speech  itself,  that  we  are  dis- 
cussing this  afternoon  and  I  expect  we  will 
be  discussing  for  some  days,  touches  all  the 
basis  of  safety  as  far  as  the  administration 
is  concerned.  But  there  is  one  area  that  I 
would  like  to  read  to  you,  sir.  It  is  found  on 
page   three   where   we   are    assured  that  the 


province  will  place  and  I  quote,  "renewed 
emphasis  on  efficiency  and  economy  in  every 
branch  and  agency  of  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment". While  this,  of  course,  is  much  to 
be  desired  I  hope  you  would  agree  with 
me,  sir,  that  it  is  something  that  we  would 
expect  on  the  day-to-day  ordering  of  pro- 
vincial business  and  not  entered  into  on  rare 
occasions  by  the  Premier  (Mr.  Robarts)  and 
his  Cabinet  in  order  to  relieve  tax  difficulties 
that  they  themselves  are  responsible  for. 

So,  if  this  is,  in  fact,  to  be  an  economy 
session,  a  tax  session,  a  budget  session,  then 
surely,  while  there  are  other  areas  of  busi- 
ness presented  to  us  in  the  House  even 
today,  we  should  be  turning  our  attention  to 
an  examination  of  the  budget  and  to  the 
spending  programmes  of  the  government. 

Before  I  get  into  that  in  too  much  detail, 
I  want  to  extend  my  congratulations  to  the 
member  for  London  South,  the  new  Minister 
of  Revenue  (Mr.  White).  Frankly,  I  was  con- 
vinced when  the  new  portfolio  was  set  up 
that  it  was  not  necessary  to  have  a  separate 
individual  exercise  the  responsibility.  The 
Treasurer  has  been  able  to  balance  both  of 
these  areas  of  responsibility  for  many  years, 
since  Confederation  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and 
it  appeared  to  me  that  the  new  member  of 
the  Cabinet  was  very  much  of  a  super- 
numerary and  his  appointment  smacked  of 
the  political  pay-off  for  the  fact  that  he  has 
been  conducting  those  Monday  night  sessions 
in  London  on  behalf  of  his  colleague  from 
London  North,  and  that  really  friendship  was 
coming  through  and  the  London  establish- 
ment needed  something  to  strengthen  it. 

I  now  feel  that  there  is  some  usefulness 
in  his  appointment,  small  though  that  may 
be:  the  example  he  is  setting  to  his  spend- 
thrift colleagues  and  confreres,  chief  among 
them  the  Prime  Minister  himself. 

I  was  really  gratified  to  read  in  the 
Globe  and  Mail  last  week  that  he  is  going 
to  travel  on  GO  transit  as  long  as  possible 
and  then  when  the  pressures  of  his  duties 
require  him  to  have  an  automobile  and  a 
driver,  it  will  be  a  stripped-down  standard 
Chev  and  that  he,  unlike  his  colleagues,  is 
going  to  second  one  of  his  clerks  from  his 
office  to  drive  him.  Surely  this  is  the  kind 
of  example  that  the  other  members  of  the 
Cabinet  would  be  glad  to  receive.  It  is  in 
these  small  areas— these  rather  picayune  ap- 
proaches to  savings— that  I  suppose  the  funds 
will  be  gathered  that  are  going  to  be  sig- 
nificant in  this,  one  of  the  tightest  financial 
situations  Ontario  has  experienced  since  Con- 
federation—probably the  worst  one.  So  if 
there  is  some  use  for  this  new  Minister,  this 


106 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


may  be  it.  But  once  this  example  has  been 
set  I  would  tell  you,  sir,  that  his  usefulness 
diminishes  once  again  to  zero,  and  we  could 
very  well,  on  the  road  to  economy,  dispense 
with  his  services  and  pick  up  a  little  bit  of 
indemnity  that  could  be  added  to  that  fund 
that  he  is  so  concerned  with. 

You  know  it  is  interesting,  in  reading  about 
the  accounts  of  the  peregrinations  of  the 
Premier  and  his  white-lipped  and  trembling 
colleague,  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  MacNaughton), 
who  is  not  with  us  today,  that  when  they  go 
to  Ottawa  to  confront  the  government  of 
Canada  with  the  tremendous  needs  for  more 
fiscal  abatement,  the  Premier  and  Treasurer 
travel  in  our  own  provincial  plane  with  an 
executive  configuration,  and  they  are  driven 
in  those  large  black  cars  with  the  flags  flying 
to  meet  the  Minister  of  Finance  and  his  col- 
leagues in  Ottawa,  who,  I  suppose,  go  by 
cab  to  the  meeting.  I  would  not  dream  for 
a  moment  of  reverting  to  that  old  argument 
that  was  so  effective  in  depression  times— 
when  my  predecessor  as  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  undertook  to  turn  back  the  gross  ex- 
penditures of  the  Conservative  administration 
that  he  had  displaced,  by  auctioning  off  the 
government  cars— because  really  I  feel  that 
the  government  members  have  to  be  moved 
about  the  province  and  I  have  no  particular 
objection  to  this.  They  are  a  rather  fearful 
lot,  though.  They  covet  the  big  black  Cadil- 
lacs with  the  snapping  flags  on  the  fenders 
but  they— 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  (Prime  Minister):  We 
do  not  buy  Cadillacs. 

Mr.  Nixon:  That  is  right,  there  are  no 
Cadillacs  and  I  think  this  is  significant.  They 
set  their  sights  down  just  a  little  bit  and  the 
Minister  of  Highways  (Mr.  Gomme)  is  able 
to  make  do  with  a  nice  black  Buick  Electra. 
Beside  the  license  plate  on  the  back  there  is 
the  coat  of  arms  of  Ontario.  It  just  makes 
your  blood  heat  up  a  bit  to  see  that  moving 
down  the  road— with  the  double  lamps  in 
the  back  so  that  he  can  read  state  papers. 

I  do  not  know  whether  he  has  followed 
the  example  of  the  Minister  of  Education 
(Mr.  Davis),  who  has  a  hot  line  in  the  back 
seat  of  the  automobile— I  do  not  know  who 
answers  him  when  he  pushes  the  button- 
but  I  think  there  are  two  phones  there.  It 
is  significant,  though,  that  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  is  setting  the  kind  of  example  that 
I  think  would  do  the  whole  administration 
good  if  they  were  to  examine  it  carefully 
and  follow  it,  if  they  could  bring  themselves 
in  all  humility  to  do  so.  This  is  something, 
of  course,  of  some  concern,  because  we  are 


looking  for  $300  million,  we  are  told  by  the 
hon.  Treasurer,  and  unless  we  make  up  this 
particular  amount,  then  we  are  facing  the 
kind  of  fiscal  nightmare  that  both  the  Treas- 
urer and  the  Premier  have  described  in  such 
a  lurid  detail  across  the  province. 

I  would  like  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
my  colleagues  along  with  you  and  the  other 
members  of  the  House,  to  cast  your  minds 
back  to  the  election  campaign  last  October 
in  which  our  friends  opposite  were  so  suc- 
cessful in  returning  to  the  seats  of  the  ad- 
ministration with  69  members.  I  can  well 
recall  the  barrage  of  propaganda  that  was 
put  before  the  people  of  the  province  during 
the  spring  and  summer  months  at  their  own 
expense,  and  for  a  few  weeks  during  the 
election  campaign  from  the  swollen  slush 
funds  of  the  Conservative  Party  itself.  We 
were  told  in  great  detail  about  the  high 
administrative  quality  of  the  Premier  and 
his  administration.  We  were  told  that  On- 
tario was  not  only  a  place  to  stand  and  a 
place  to  grow,  but  that  good  government 
deserved  our  support,  and  that  we,  in  On- 
tario, were  very  fortunate  to  have  the  serv- 
ices of  the  Premier  and  his  colleagues,  who 
were  giving  us  the  best  government  of  any- 
where in  Canada  or  in  North  America. 

It  seems  strange  to  believe  that  that  silver- 
haired  fox  who  travelled  across  the  province 
in  the  steps  of  Leslie  Frost,  who  was  re- 
assuring those  who  were  having  some  doubts 
about  the  administrative  capabilities  of  this 
administration  that  all  was  well,  when  less 
than  eleven  months  later  this  same  man  and 
his  chief  lieutenant,  the  Treasurer,  had  the 
temerity  to  state  publicly  that  we  in  Ontario 
faced  a  "fiscal  nightmare". 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Now  if  I  was  to  use  a  phrase 
like  that,  that  same  man  would  have  accused 
me  of  broadcasting  doom  and  gloom  and  you 
may  well  recall  his  urgings  to  me,  as  the 
leader  of  the  Opposition,  and  my  colleagues, 
to  give  up  the  predictions  of  difficulty  that 
we  were  making  a  year  ago  and  to  go  along 
with  the  Conservatives  to  a  greater  and  more 
prosperous  co-prosperity  sphere  or  whatever 
it  was  that  he  called  it.  Now  we  find  our- 
selves in  the  difficulties  that  the  Premier  and 
Treasurer  and  probably  the  best  fiscal  ad- 
visors in  the  civil  service  of  any  province 
in  Canada  cannot  find  means  to  solve. 

It  is  on  this  topic  that  I  would  like  to 
spend  a  few  moments  this  afternoon,  be- 
cause we  are  approaching  two  important 
conferences:  the  constitutional  conference, 
the   dates   for  which  have   been  set,   and   a 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


107 


financial  conference  immediately  after  that. 
I  think  it  is  necessary  that  we  examine  the 
difficulties  the  Premier  has  led  the  province 
into  and  that  we  look  at  some  of  the  alter- 
natives that  he  must  research  himself  if,  in 
fact,  the  government  of  Canada  is  going  to 
be  taken  at  its  word  and  that  they  are  not 
to  increase  the  abatement  beyond  the  28.3 
per  cent  which  is  now  available  to  this 
province. 

I  would  like  you  to  remember,  sir,  that 
the  policies  of  the  government  of  Canada 
have  been  unchanged  for  two  years.  I  well 
remember  the  return  of  the  Premier  from 
the  last  fiscal  conference  when  he  had  been 
told  by  the  then  Minister  of  Finance  that 
the  government  in  Ottawa  was  not  prepared 
to  recommend  further  abatement,  unless  it 
was  accompanied  by  specific  further  respon- 
sibilities. 

Whether  we  support  this  or  not— and  I 
will  get  to  that  in  a  moment— it  seems  in- 
credible that  the  Premier  would  come  back 
two  years  ago  from  a  conference  of  this 
type,  and  you  may  remember  the  anger  with 
which  he  expressed  his  understanding  of  the 
rigid  position  the  government  of  Canada 
took  then,  and  how  quickly  this  anger  was 
lost  in  the  forthcoming  election  campaign 
when  he  had  to  give  the  continuing  impres- 
sion that  all  was  well  in  Ontario. 

One  of  the  significant  political  facts  in 
this  province  is  that  for  many  years  the 
largest  single  source  of  income  has  been  the 
abatement  from  the  government  of  Canada— 
$650  million  this  year  alone.  It  accounts  for 
a  large  measure  of  the  public  services  ex- 
tended to  our  citizens  and  taxpayers  as  if 
through  the  generosity  of  this  administration 
alone.  It  is  an  old  fashioned,  but  applic- 
able rule  of  modern  democracy,  that  the 
administration  which  provides  these  services 
should  have  the  responsibility  for  taxing  for 
them  as  well.  Yet  the  Minister  of  Revenue 
who  is  sitting  back  there  in  smug  com- 
placancy,  saying  that  he  is  going  to  drive  a 
stripped-down  Chev,  gets  his  largest  cheque 
from  the  government  of  Canada— $650  mil- 
lion this  year  alone. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  know  that  within  the 
next  two  months  it  may  very  well  be  that 
the  leader  of  the  government  will  send  the 
Treasurer  and  the  new  Minister  down  to 
Ottawa  to  intercede  for  Ontario  and  on  be- 
half of  the  difficulties  that  we  are  now 
encountering  in  paying  our  bills. 

Imagine  Ontario  in  a  situation  where  we 
are  running  at  what  the  former  Treasurer 
might   have   called   a   $300   million   shortfall 


which,  in  fact,  must  be  made  up  if  we  are 
going  to  withstand  even  the  debt  limits— and 
they  are  large  debt  limits— set  by  the  Royal 
commission  on  taxation,  which  said  we  must 
not  allow  our  debts  to  go  beyond  nine  per 
cent  of  our  gross  provincial  product. 

I  have  already  suggested  that  a  part  of 
these  negotiations  should  be  based  on  a 
valiant  attempt  to  get  a  share  of  the  two 
per  cent  surtax  that  has  been  imposed  by  the 
government  of  Canada  in  such  a  way  that 
we  now  cannot  share  in  it.  My  calculations 
are  that  this,  in  fact,  would  add  $40  to  $50 
million  to  the  amount  that  is  presently  avail- 
able under  present  abatement  agreements. 

I  personally  have  some  misgivings  about 
the  need  for  the  imposition  of  the  tax  in  the 
way  that  the  Minister  of  Finance  saw  fit  to 
do  it  three  weeks  ago  in  the  budget  that  he 
brought  down.  And  I  am  not  prepared,  as 
the  people  opposite  seem  to  expect,  to  defend 
them  chapter  and  verse  in  every  one  of  these 
decisions. 

I  suppose  we  must  take  for  granted  that 
the  government  of  Canada,  faced  with  a 
$700  million  deficit,  feels  that  they  are  hard- 
pressed  to  put  their  own  house  in  order  and 
they  expect  other  governments  across  Canada 
to  accept  the  same  responsibility. 

We  have  been  treated  in  recent  months  to 
the  25th  anniversary  of  the  Conservative 
Party  in  power  in  Ontario.  We  have  been 
embarrassed  at  their  attempts  to  get  sort  of  a 
monkey  gland  transfusion  three  weeks  ago 
down  in  the  Royal  York.  With  the  help  of 
John  Bassett,  they  were  able  to  turn  out  a 
few  very  attractive  young  people  indeed,  but 
still  in  the  back  rows  there  was  Erskine 
Johnston  picking  a  fight  with  the  new  presi- 
dent and  there  was  the  rumour  that  the 
London  establishment  was  not  in  favour  of 
Mr.  Eagleson  becoming  the  president  and 
the  fact  that  the  Premier  had  supported 
Wallace  McCutcheon  for  the  leadership  last 
year. 

It  does  not  indicate  to  me  that  the  leader 
of  the  government  is  much  of  a  swinger.  I 
do  not  think  we  are  looking  for  a  swinger, 
we  are  looking  for  somebody  who  is  prepared 
to  accept  provincial  responsibilities,  prepared 
to  accept  blame  along  with  the  responsibility, 
when  it  is  his  to  accept.  I  cannot  help  but 
recall  the  campaign  a  year  ago  when  either 
the  Premier  was  ill  advised  by  those  who  must 
have  known  the  difficulties  that  were  ap- 
proaching in  the  financial  situation  in  Ontario 
or  he  was  so  innocent  that  he  felt  that  in  all 
good  time  this  would  be  worked  out.  The 
federal   policy   was   rigid  —  in   my   view   too 


108 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


rigid  —  but  still  was  expressed  two  years  ago 
and  there  is  no  indication  of  any  change  as 
far  as  I  can  see,  although  I  have  not  been 
present  at  the  negotiations  undertaken  by  the 
Treasurer  and  the  Premier  in  recent  weeks. 

I  hope  and  I  trust  that  I  will  be  able  to 
hear  some  of  these  negotiations  as  they  take 
place  in  the  next  two  months.  And  I  would 
say  to  you,  sir,  that  I  received  a  very  kind 
letter  from  the  Prime  Minister  of  Ontario 
this  morning  saying  that  he  would  do  his 
best  to  see  that  at  least  I  and  other  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Opposition  would  be  able  to 
attend  the  constitutional  conference.  But  the 
government  sitting  opposite  here  has  reduced 
itself  to  a  search  for  threats  that  can  be  used 
to  force  from  the  government  of  Canada 
further  fiscal  equivalents  without  additional 
responsibility. 

First,  there  is  the  comment  that  maybe  we 
would  tax  fuel  for  Air  Canada.  You  may 
remember  when  the  tax  was  imposed  last 
year,  we  on  this  side  felt  that  it  was  too  small 
and  it  could,  in  fact,  become  a  source  of  rev- 
enue more  than  it  had  at  that  time  been 
considered. 

The  other  threat,  the  one  that  I  felt  was 
quite  unconscionable,  was  that  the  adminis- 
tration, the  Premier  of  Ontario,  was  prepared 
to  opt  out  of  constitutional  negotiations 
unless,  in  fact,  fiscal  matters  were  settled 
more  to  his  liking.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
constitution  of  our  country  should  come  up 
for  that  sort  of  negotiation.  I  believe  that 
Ontario  has  taken  the  lead  in  years  gone  by— 
and  it  was  just  a  year  ago  now  that  the  Con- 
federation of  Tomorrow  Conference  was  being 
held— and  surely  it  is  a  very  crass  and  unac- 
ceptable approach  to  fiscal  negotiations  that 
either  the  Premier  or  his  white-lipped  and 
trembling  friend,  the  Treasurer,  who  has  just 
joined  us,  would  stoop  to  the  level  of  trying 
to  extract  from  the  government  of  Canada 
any  sort  of  an  agreement  on  that  basis.  Surely 
it  is  very  difficult  for  us  on  this  side  to  sup- 
port the  government  if  they  are  going  to  take 
that  sort  of  a  stand;  it  is  simply  intolerable, 
their  position  has  been  unnecessarily  rigid  and 
they  have  been  unable  to  accept  the  responsi- 
bility which  is  surely  theirs. 

I  do  not  want  to  take  time  on  this  occasion 
to  list  for  you,  sir,  the  areas  where  cost- 
cutting  should  really  be  a  factor.  We  believe 
that  the  Centennial  museum  is  one  of  those 
areas  which  has  grown  through  the  unneces- 
sarily enthusiastic  approach  of  the  Minister  of 
Education  and  the  Minister  of  Tourism  (Mr. 
Auld).  It  has  gestated  well  beyond  the  Cen- 
tennial year  into  1969  and  1970,  and  swelled 


well  beyond  its  original  concept  in  price  to 
something  in  excess  of  $30  million. 

In  an  effort  to  economize  last  year  the 
Treasurer  announced  with  fanfare  a  central- 
ized purchasing  agency  and  this  was  rigor- 
ously criticized  by  the  Financial  Post  a  few 
weeks  ago  in  which  they  went  so  far  as  to  say 
the  centralized  purchaser  was  nothing  but  a 
straw  man  because  he  was  not  being  sup- 
ported by  either  the  Treasurer  or  the  other 
departments  of  government.  These  are  areas 
of  concern  that  do  not  fit  in  with  the  state- 
ment made  by  the  Treasurer— at  least  we 
assume  it  was  written  by  the  Treasurer— 
when  he  promised  renewed  emphasis  on  effi- 
ciency and  economy  in  every  branch  and 
agency  of  the  Ontario  government.  After  25 
years  of  Tory  government,  we  would  expect 
that  to  be  a  part  of  his  everyday  responsibility 
and  nothing  that  he  is  going  to  take  on  just 
as  a  special  occasion. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  areas  in  which 
surely  the  government  must  take  specific 
action  and  I  would  like,  sir,  to  list  for  you 
those  areas  which  we  as  Liberals  would  sup- 
port. First,  there  must  be  a  full  external 
assessment  of  provincial  spending  programmes 
to  eliminate  waste.  Where  practical,  direct 
cost-cutting  programmes  can  be  inaugurated. 
We  will  support  them,  but  the  elimination  of 
waste  is  something  that  we  do  not  feel  this 
government  has  undertaken  in  any  practical 
and  forthright  way.  We  would  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  example  of  an  external 
examination  can  be  found  in  the  records  of 
your  own  administration. 

It  was  in  1956  that  the  former  Premier, 
Leslie  Frost,  began  to  be  fearful  of  the  direc- 
tion in  which  the  open-ended  programmes 
that  he  and  his  predecessors  had  begun  and 
which  have  been  added  to  by  the  present 
administration  were  taking  the  province  of 
Ontario.  Those  were  buoyant  times,  and  being 
the  far-sighted  gentleman  that  he  was  on 
occasion,  he  went  down  into  the  financial 
community  of  Toronto  and  there  found  a  per- 
son who  in  his  view  and  the  view  of  the 
former  Provincial  Treasurer,  the  member  for 
Haldimand-Norfolk  (Mr.  Allan),  was  best 
equipped  to  survey  objectively  the  business  of 
government  and  give  the  recommendations 
which  might  make  it  operate  more  efficiently. 
Downtown  he  found  Walter  Gordon  who  was 
then  a  non-political  activist,  who  had  the  cre- 
dentials that  would  permit  such  a  survey  and 
review. 

The  Gordon  report  still  stands  on  the  desk 
in  my  office  and  it  is  interesting  to  read 
excerpts  from  it  where  he  indicates  ways  in 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


109 


which  the  efficiency  of  government  could  be 
improved.  I  know  that  book  sat  on  die  shelves 
of  the  government  opposite  for  many  years 
without  the  implementation  of  any  significant 
part  of  these  recommendations.  But  the  time 
has  surely  come  when  a  similar  external  re- 
view is  required.  After  all,  since  1962  we 
have  had  a  Royal  commission  on  taxation, 
and  the  select  committee,  chaired  by  the  new 
Minister  of  Revenue,  which  reported  just  a 
few  weeks  ago. 

Both  of  these  had,  as  the  emphasis  to  their 
terms  of  reference,  means  of  increasing  the 
ta\  income  of  the  province.  There  was  no 
survey  of  the  programmes  or  the  efficiency  of 
government  and  we  on  this  side  are  tired  of 
hearing  the  Ministers  one  by  one  say,  "Trust 
us,  we  will  do  the  best  that  can  be  done." 

I  believe  that  the  Treasurer  should  welcome 
this  external  survey  and  assessment,  not  only 
of  our  programmes  but  of  the  business  of 
government.  I  believe  it  is  in  this  area  that 
cuts  can  be  made,  that  efficiencies  can  be 
achieved  which  the  entrenched  government 
opposite  is  unwilling  to  undertake.  After  all, 
the  programmes  that  would  have  to  be  cut 
;>re  their  own  pet  projects.  The  means  of 
d(  tog  business  are  those  which  have  evolved 
down  through  the  years  and  they  cannot  re- 
member a  time  when  they  were  done  any 
other  way.  But  after  25  years  of  Tory  patron- 
age they  are  deeply  entrenched  in  each  com- 
munity with  those  people  who  are  their 
supporters  and  who  do  not  want  any  chinge 
in  the  business  of  government.  That  is  why 
an  external  assessment  must  be  made  and  why 
the  only  real  solution  will  be  the  defeat  of 
this  government  and  its  replacement  by  a 
Liberal  one. 

Now,  if  the  first  point  is  a  full  external  as- 
sessment of  provincial  spending  programmes, 
the  second  one  must  be  a  reversal  of  the 
present  rejection  of  an  estimates  committee 
of  the  Legislature.  Such  a  committee  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  allow  the  people's 
elected  representatives  a  more  realistic  op- 
portunity to  examine  the  1969-1970  Budget. 
It  is  incredible  to  me  that  we  are  not  sup- 
ported in  this  project  by  the  other  Opposi- 
tion party.  The  leader  of  the  NDP,  seeing 
hidden  difficulties,  looks  into  the  future  and 
is  afraid  that  an  estimates  committee  might 
be  tied  into  a  package  deal  with  a  reduction 
of  the  rights  of  the  members  of  this  House. 

I  can  assure  you,  sir,  that  we  in  Opposi- 
tion will  never  countenance  a  reduction  of 
the  free  right  to  debate  these  matters  in  the 
Legislature.  We  put  forward  the  estimates 
committee    as    a    sincere    alternative,    a   pro- 


posal, which  would  give  us  an  opportunity 
to  question  those  people  who  advise  the 
Ministers  in  just  the  way  that  the  leader  of 
the  NDP  described  it  himself,  with  this  par- 
ticular amendment  to  the  committee  motion 
which  was  before  the  House  two  or  three 
days  ago.  This  is  the  sort  of  approach  that 
surely  the  Opposition  should  undertake  to- 
gether. There  is  no  room  for  a  narrow  parti- 
san approach  which  has  been  characteristic 
of  the  NDP  approach  in  these  matters  in 
the  past. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  will 
recall  that  our  amendment  last  year  under- 
took to  set  up  a  committee  to  examine  the 
rules  of  the  House,  and  the  supporters  of 
the  NDP  leader  have  been  most  vocal,  and 
very  able,  in  indicating  that  an  examination 
of  these  rules  was  necessary,  but  under  those 
circumstances  they  did  not  support  us  again. 
Believe  me,  sir,  I  do  not  associate  myself 
with  the  kind  of  confrontation  politics  that 
the  NDP  are  advocating.  Those  politics  are 
simply  grandstand  politics.  If  you  think  of 
what  they  have  done  in  the  last  few  days; 
of  the  20  seats  empty  during  the  question 
period  of  the  House  last  Thursday,  when 
they  went  down  to  walk  on  the  picket  line 
of  Proctor-Silex. 

Now  I  would  say  to  you  sir,  that  this  is 
a  matter  of  some  concern,  because  this  par- 
ticular strike  has  been  on  since  July  17.  I 
remember  it  well.  It  happened  on  my  birth- 
day. I  sat  there  reading  the  newspaper  over 
breakfast.  The  report  came  through  about 
Proctor-Silex,  and  it  was  not  until— what  date 
—November  23-24  that  the  House  was  greeted 
by  the  empty  seats  on  the  NDP  side,  now 
if  that  is  not  grandstanding,  what  is? 

A  more  responsible  approach  I  would  say 
is  the  one  that  was  taken  by  the  official 
Opposition.  We  sent  our  representatives 
down  to  a  union  meeting.  The  member  for 
Scarborough  East  (Mr.  T.  Reid)  represented 
the  Liberal  Party  at  that  meeting.  He  was 
in  contact  with  labour  leaders.  Leaders  of 
the  community.  He  came  back  with  a  report 
that  led  us  as  Liberals  to  support  the  strik- 
ers in  this  particular  negotiation.  There  is 
no  doubt,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  way  it  was 
undertaken  by  the  NDP,  is  an  indication  of 
the  scare  that  was  thrown  into  that  leader, 
by  the  threat  to  his  leadership,  by  the  hon. 
member  for  Riverdale   (Mr.  J.  Renwick). 

When  this  confrontation,  Mr.  Speaker, 
first  came  to  light  I  thought  at  once  that  it 
was  a  put-up  job.  The  NDP  was  sitting 
around  the  back  room  saying  "what  are  we 
going  to  do  to  make  our  annual  meeting  go". 


110 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


"We  are  going  to  have  it  in  a  roller  rink 
somewhere  up  in  Kitchener,  and  have  a  little 
excitement." 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Brant- 
ford  has  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  M.  Makarchuk  (Brantford):  The  leader 
of  the  Opposition  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  misleading 
the  House.  The  representative  from  the 
Liberal  Party  was  not  at  that  meeting. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Now  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
make  it  clear  that  the  representative  of  the 
Liberal  Party  went  down  to  the  strike  situa- 
tion, questioned  those  on  the  union  side  who 
had  their  information  put  before  us,  and  he 
has  reported  that  to  the  caucus.  We  have 
taken  a  stand  on  that  particular  matter,  it 
is  a  caucus  and  a  public  stand,  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  which  we  support  the  strikers  in  their 
fight  to  get  a  fair  deal  from  Proctor-Silex— 

Since  the  deputy  leader  of  the  NDP  has 
interjected,  I  would  say  that  the  interesting 
thing  is  that  I  thought  his  challenge  was  a 
put-up  job,  but  somehow  went  around  the 
bend.  He  had  delusions  of  grandeur.  He 
thought,  maybe  this  is  a  real  chance  to  take 
over  the  party,  because  really,  his  state- 
ments during  the  campaign  were  most  sur- 
prising indeed.  Some  of  them  have  been 
read  into  the  record  already.  He  accused 
that  the  big-wigs  of  organized  labour  had 
been  told  that  they  had  to  support  Donald 
otherwise  the  party  was  going  to  fall  on 
evil  days.  The  hon.  leader  of  the  NDP  re- 
plied to  this  by  saying  it  was  an  outright  lie. 
I  do  not  know  whether  he  was  responding  to 
the  member  for  Brantford  (Mr.  Makarchuk), 
or  the  member  for  Riverdale  (Mr.  J.  Ren- 
wick),  but  one  of  those,  and  then- 
Mr.  E.  W.  Sopha  (Sudbury):  And  then  he 
called  him  "Hitler".  Yes.  The  leader  called 
his  deputy  "Hider". 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  think  the  significant  state- 
ment, Mr.  Speaker,  was  that  he  called  him 
"Messiah".  I  do  not  know  which  he  intended 
to  be  worse. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the  significance  was 
up  there  in  the  intense  excitement  and 
drama  of  the  roller  rink  in  Kitchener.  The 
deputy  leader  came  to  the  microphone  and 
said  the  choice  was  with  the  delegates,  they 
would  take  one  fork  in  the  road  towards  a 
confrontation  politics  and  success  at  the  polls 
in  1971,  because  only  he  had  the  aura  of 
victory,  or  they  could  take  the  other  fork 
which  led  to  the  dissolution  of  the  party, 
and  its  foundering  on  the  rocks  of— what 
was  the  word— ordinariness  I  think— and  this 


was  the  choice  that  the  NDP  took.  They  took 
the  fork  that  went  with  Donald  MacDonald. 
The  man  who  cannot  win.  And  that  is  why 
I  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  leader  of  the 
NDP  was  frightened  out  of  his  sense  of 
responsibility.  He  is  prepared  to  leave  those 
seats  vacant,  and  I  can  say  to  you  sir,  that 
members  of  the  Liberal  Party  will  occupy 
not  only  those,  but  many  others  when  we 
form  the  government  in  1971— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Nixon:  So  to  get  back  to  point  num- 
ber two,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  incredible  that 
the  NDP  would  not  support  the  official  Oppo- 
sition in  our  proper  request,  that  we  have 
a  committee  on  estimates,  and  I  would  say 
that  the  Premier  himself  must  surely  be 
considering  this  alternative. 

Third:  There  must  be  an  assumption  of 
full  provincial  responsibility  for  the  present 
federal-provincial  programmes  of  hospitaliza- 
tion, welfare  and  health  which  would  be 
balanced  by  a  further  17  per  cent  tax  abate- 
ment from  Ottawa  together  with  safeguards 
against  increasing  costs.  The  Premier  himself 
has  said  he  wants  to  control  Ontario's  prior- 
ities, putting  these  responsibilities  within  our 
jurisdiction  would  allow  Ontario  to  control 
its  expansion  effectively  over  a  wide  spectrum 
of  programmes.  Now  this  too  is  an  offer  that 
was  made  two  years  ago,  and  if  I  read  the 
quotes  from  the  Treasurer's  speech  correctly, 
surely  we  must  be  considering  this  very  care- 
fully. 

I  feel  that  die  Minister  of  Finance  has  gone 
out  of  his  way  to  re-assure  provincial  juris- 
diction. Not  only  will  there  be  a  transference 
of  the  17  per  cent  but  there  will  be  an  ac- 
companying flexibility  in  the  grant  which 
will  see  to  it  that  the  province  cannot  be 
out  of  pocket  over  a  reasonable  period  of 
time,  probably  five  years,  in  assuming  the 
full  control  of  this  programme.  T,he  only 
thing  that  occurs  to  me  that  may  be  a  bit  of 
Yankee  trading  on  one  side  or  the  other,  is 
that  our  medical  costs  are  going  to  grow  tre- 
mendously as  we  see  fair  rates  of  pay  ex- 
tended to  those  people  working  in  the  medical 
field.  I  am  not  at  this  time  talking  particularly 
about  the  medical  doctors  who  seem  to  still 
be  able  to  unilaterally  impose  their  decisions 
on  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Dymond),  and 
this  government.  I  am  talking  about  those 
people  working  in  Ontario  Hospitals  and  hos- 
pital facilities  across  the  province,  whose 
salary  levels,  I  submit,  are  far  below  what 
they  will  have  to  be  within  three  to  five  years. 

It  is  this  area,  where  the  costs  of  this 
particular   programme    are    to    grow   tremen- 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


111 


clously  and  I  believe  they  must  grow  tre- 
mendously. We  cannot  continue  to  have 
trained  people  working  for  an  unfair  salary, 
unfair  wage  in  this  province. 

We  have  to  realize  there  is  a  further  17 
per  cent  transference  with  accompanying 
responsibilities  in  these  matters  to  the  28  per 
cent  transference  that  we  already  have.  Then 
we  will  be  approaching  one  half  of  the— that 
is,  we  will  be  approaching  50  per  cent  in  our 
share  of  the  income  tax  abatement  from  the 
federal  level. 

Fourth,  there  must  be  an  effective  workable 
centralized  purchasing  policy  for  the  entire 
Ontario  government  operation  with  forced 
co-operation  from  all  departments.  I  do  not 
want  to  say  much  more  about  that,  we  de- 
bated it  for  three  years.  All  I  can  say  is 
that  the  Treasurer's  implementation  of  this 
programme  so  far  has  been  a  sham,  that  the 
utilization  of  centralized  purchasing  has  been 
a  waste  of  his  time  in  the  way  he  has 
approached  this.  It  simply  has  to  be  imposed 
on  his  colleagues  in  the  Cabinet  so  that  they 
will  tear  apart  their  purchasing  empires  and 
we  can  accomplish  the  savings  that  have 
been  predicted  by  all  who  have  studied  the 
matter. 

Fifth:  There  must  be  negotiations  with 
Ottawa  to  improve  our  situation  particularly 
in  sharing  the  recently  announced  two  per 
cent  social  development  tax.  I  have  already 
indicated  that  my  calculation  would  indicate 
that  this  would  give  an  additional  $40  mil- 
lion. The  Treasurer  might  comment  on  that 
himself— $40  million— if  it  were  put  on  as  an 
ordinary  part  of  the  income  tax  scale  and 
abated  at  the  28  per  cent  level.  I  think  that 
the  abatement  is  a  bit  bigger  than  28  per 
cent  since  the  change  is  in  Manitoba  and 
Quebec. 

Sixth:  Ontario  should  negotiate  the  right 
to  influence  the  broadening  of  the  federal 
income  tax  base.  The  establishment  of  a  more 
progressive  system  as  outlined  in  the  Carter 
report  is  just  as  much  Ontario's  responsibility 
as  it  is  that  of  the  federal  government  and 
this  must  be  made  abundantly  clear  to 
Ottawa. 

I  want  to  say  a  word  about  that.  The 
rigidities  in  the  negotiations  exist  on  both 
sides.  The  government  of  the  province  finds 
itself  completely  hamstrung  by  the  growth  of 
its  programmes  and  the  lack  of  growth,  of 
comparable  growth,  in  our  income. 

But  the  rigidity  that  we  take  in  the  provin- 
cial government— in  saying— that  the  only  an- 
swer is  for  a  larger  abatement  is  inadmissible, 
it  is  inadmissible! 


On  the  other  hand,  the  rigidity  in  Ottawa, 
which  says  that  28  per  cent  is  the  end  of 
the  line,  and  that  the  government  in  Ottawa 
must  retain  100  per  cent  control  of  the  tax 
base,  is  equally  too  rigid. 

If  we  are  going  to  have  access  in  the  near 
future  to  at  least  50  per  cent  of  the  income 
taxes  collected  in  this  province,  then  I  believe 
this  must  carry  with  it  a  similar  responsi- 
bility, and  in  fact  a  right,  to  negotiate  what 
that  tax  base  would  be.  We  have  the  right 
now  to  impose  any  tax  base  we  choose,  but 
I  would  agree  with  those  who  say  that 
Ontario  cannot  stand  a  second  level  of  in- 
come taxation.  We  do  not  want  the  bureau- 
cracy that  this  would  entail.  We  can  work 
out,  on  a  co-operative  basis  surely,  the  sort 
of  approach  which  would  put  a  common  tax 
base  for  the  collection  of  these  income  taxes 
from  our  province  as  our  share  in  the  abate- 
ment grows  along  the  lines  that  I  have  sug- 
gested. 

Seventh:  Regardless  of  the  success  attend- 
ing the  base-sharing  dialogue,  Ontario  must 
immediately  accept  the  $160  million  federal 
rebate  available  for  Medicare. 

I  do  not  think  there  is  any  doubt  that 
those  people  who  accuse  the  Minister  of 
Finance  in  Ottawa  of  levying  a  Medicare 
premium  tax  are  very  close  to  the  truth, 
that  the  two  per  cent  surtax  is  designed  to 
cover  the  expected  federal  responsibilities  for 
the  payment  of  half  of  the  cost  of  federal 
medical  insurance. 

Now  this  money  is  being  taxed  from 
Ontario  and  we  have  heard  the  objection 
stated  by  the  government  opposite  for  many 
years.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  it  is 
the  law  of  the  land,  although  I  would  say 
that  it  should  soon  be  accepted  by  those  who 
have  the  responsibility  in  Ontario  that  in 
fact  there  will  be  no  changes  to  this,  and 
that  before  July  1  next  year,  it  is  incumbent 
on  us  to  accept  our  share  of  this  programme 
and  see  that  Medicare  becomes  a  reality  in 
the  province  of  Ontario. 

The  statement  by  the  Prime  Minister  of 
Canada  some  weeks  ago,  that  five  years  from 
now  there  would  be  a  renegotiation  of  the 
financing  of  this  plan,  deeply  shocked  and 
surprised  the  Treasurer  who  sits  opposite. 
Whether  or  not  he  is  unaware  of  the  wording 
in  the  bill  that  calls  for  a  five-year  reassess- 
ment I  do  not  know,  but  I  am  convinced,  sir, 
that  the  very  purpose  of  this  reassessment  is 
so  that  as  these  programmes,  such  as  Medi- 
care, become  an  established  and  accepted 
fact,  that  it  is  possible  for  the  government  of 
Canada,  with  the  abatement  of  the  equivalent 


112 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


points  of  the  tax  system,  to  move  out  of 
shared  responsibility  and  on  to  new  areas 
which  are  needed  for  the  unification  of 
Canada  and  the  provision  of  equality  of 
opportunity. 

Actually  what  this  will  do,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  once  again  leave  us  with  the  priorities  in 
our  own  hands  which  we  can  assess  as  we 
see  fit.  The  big  problem  is  one  that  is  ex- 
pressed so  frequently  from  the  other  side, 
and  that  is  that  federal  initiative  in  fact, 
removes  from  the  province  of  Ontario  and 
any  other  provinces  the  right  to  opt  out  of 
these  programmes.  I  would  say  we  do  not 
have  the  right  to  opt  out  of  Medicare.  We 
must  get  into  it.  The  fiscal  requirements  are 
there.  This  is  not  the  reason  I  believe  we 
should,  but  it  is  a  fact  that  faces  the  Treas- 
urer and  there  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that 
Ontario  will  be  a  part  of  federal  Medicare 
with  the  $160  million  that  this  would  entail 
this  year,  before  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year. 
I  sincerely  hope  that  this  is  a  part  of  our 
programme.  The  government,  by  continuing 
to  reject  Medicare,  is  neglecting  possible 
income  tax  sources  which  already  exist,  be- 
cause it  would  rather  forego  them,  appar- 
ently, than  appear  to  lose  face  to  the  federal 
government.  But  it  has  a  more  urgent  obli- 
gation and  that  is  to  the  people  of  our  prov- 
ince. At  the  same  time  the  government 
cannot  face  the  fact  that  the  dream  is  over, 
and  in  our  own  words  the  nightmare  has 
begun.  It  cannot  bring  itself  to  slice  into  its 
entrenched-  costs.  It  cannot  accept  the  idea 
of  a  true  day  of  fiscal  reckoning.  Now  I  think 
back  to  a  speech  made  on  the  Budget  of  1962 
by  the  former  member  for  Bruce,  Ross 
Whicher,  now  member  of  Parliament,  in 
which  he  extrapolated  the  spending  pro- 
grammes for  the  then  Treasurer,  the  member 
for  Haldimand-Norfolk.  There  were  a  lot  of 
catcalls  on  that  day  as  well,  when  it  was 
indicated  that  the  Budget  critic  for  the  official 
Opposition  had  been  exaggerating  the  posi- 
tion. And  yet,  if  you  were  to  look  up  the 
speech,  you  would  find  his  predictions  on  the 
cost  of  education,  our  highways  programmes, 
the  programmes  for  economic  development 
of  the  province,  and  some  programmes  that 
were  not  even  thought  of  at  that  time,  have 
far  exceeded  even  Mr.  Whicher's  pessimistic 
predictions.  We  find  ourselves  in  a  fiscal 
nightmare  of  the  government's  own  making. 

It  is  no  longer  acceptable  that  the  blame 
be  put  on  another  jurisdiction.  The  responsi- 
bility rests  here,  and  we  in  this  House  must 
take  the  steps  to  correct  it.  We  cannot  pos- 
sibly go  through  this  next  session  without  the 
far-reaching  changes  that  the  Treasurer  him- 


self has  said  will  be  needed  unless  some 
great  uncle  in  another  jurisdiction  is  pre- 
pared to  rebate  an  extra  $300  million.  It 
does  not  appear  that  this  money  is  going  to 
be  forthcoming.  The  responsibility  is  here. 
The  decision  is  here.  We  in  Ontario  must 
set  our  own  House  in  order. 

Mr.  Speaker,  a  few  moments  ago  we  were 
discussing  the  matter  of  the  strike  in  Picton. 
Among  the  many  reports  received  by  the 
government  and  the  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature over  the  past  few  months,  the  Rand 
report  might  have  been  the  most  valuable. 
We  believe  that  labour  legislation  in  Ontario 
has  been  inadequate  and  backward.  The 
Tilco  Plastics  strike,  which  was  the  event  that 
triggered  the  naming  of  the  Royal  commission 
and  the  retention  by  the  government  of  the 
ex-parte  injunction  in  labour  disputes,  followed 
more  recently  by  the  incredible  situation  at 
Picton  and  the  strike  at  the  Peterborough 
Examiner,  continue  to  point  up  the  inade- 
quate and  archaic  approach  that  government 
policy  has  taken  in  Ontario  for  25  years. 

Because  of  this,  we  look  forward  to  Mr. 
Rand's  report  eagerly.  No  doubt  some  of  his 
recommendations  may  find  application,  but 
the  general  and  specific  approach  of  Mr. 
Rand  is  completely  unacceptable  in  Ontario. 
This  is  an  age  of  dwindling  freedoms;  yet 
the  report  of  this  distinguished  jurist  has  a 
strange  ring  of  authoritarianism  about  it. 

What  I  want  to  do  today  is  underline  that 
Mr.  Justice  Rand's  preoccupation  with  im- 
posing settlements  upon  union  and  manage- 
ment is  as  much  at  variance  with  Liberal 
philosophy  as  it  is   in  practice,   unworkable. 

In  our  view,  settlements  cannot  be  imposed 
or  they  will  not  endure.  They  must  be  nego- 
tiated by  the  parties  concerned  with  as  little 
outside  interference  as  possible  and  then  only 
in  those  rare  conditions  of  last  resort  when 
the  total  public  interest  becomes  paramount. 

The  tribunal,  the  heart  of  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  report,  is  a  wrong  and,  I  would 
say,  illiberal  concept.  It  epitomizes  the  legal- 
istic that  it  is  possible  and  desirable  to  impose 
settlements.  To  implement  this  recommenda- 
tion would  be  an  undesirable  delegation  of 
the  powers  which  must  be  retained  by  this 
Legislature.  Furthermore,  it  would  bring  the 
law  into  widespread  disrespect. 

Our  view  is  that  Justice  Rand  has  under- 
rated the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  the 
Ontario  Labour  Relations  Board,  whose  ap- 
proach has  been  to  try  to  create  an  atmos- 
phere in  which  agreement  might  most  easily 
be  reached.  Its  tripartite  nature  makes  its 
decisions   more   palatable   and   generally   ac- 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


113 


ceptable  than  those  of  a  Rand  tribunal  could 
ever  be. 

The  Ontario  Labour  Relations  Board  should 
remain  the  main  regulating  body  in  the  labour 
field.  The  board,  however,  can  be  upgraded 
with  more  modern  procedures  and  a  new 
approach  to  expressing  the  public  interest  in 
these  matters.  There  will  always  be  emer- 
gency situations  from  time  to  time,  that  re- 
quire the  authority  of  this  Legislature  to 
settle  in  the  public  interest.  This  power  must 
be  guarded  carefully  and  used  only  as  a  last 
resort  when  the  public  welfare  obviously  must 
be  considered  ahead  of  normal  labour-man- 
agement affairs.  Strikes  are,  of  course,  seri- 
ously expensive  to  the  public  and  to  all  con- 
cerned, but  that  is  part  of  the  price  we  pay 
for  living  in  a  free  society,  and  the  alternative 
would  be  much  worse.  On  page  7  of  the  re- 
port, Mr.  Justice  Rand  ends  his  summary  by 
stating: 

That  is  the  background  against  which 
labour  relations  of  today  must  be  viewed 
and  procedures  adopted  for  their  adjust- 
ment to  societies  of  order. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  Liberals,  we  have  two  higher 
priorities  than  that  of  order.  These  are 
respectively  freedom  and  justice.  Freedom 
must  come  first  because,  without  it,  justice 
becomes  a  mockery,  and  while  order  is  a 
desirable  attribute  of  a  smoothly  functioning 
society,  it  must  always  be  subservient  to  free- 
dom and  justice  which  transcends  order  on 
the  scale  of  human  values.  We  have  all  too 
often  seen  that  one  can  have  perfect  order  in 
the  total  absence  of  humanity.  When  freedom 
exists,  however,  humanity  is  always  present, 
regardless  of  the  material  conditions. 

This,  then,  in  the  most  general  terms,  is  the 
tone  of  our  objection  to  the  Rand  report.  I 
do  not  like  to  say  that  we  opt  for  the  status 
quo  because  that  is  not  so.  We  believe  that 
the  labour  relations  board  can  be  improved 
and  there  is  never  a  session  goes  by  but  spe- 
cific recommendations,  associated  with  pro- 
cedures of  the  labour  relations  board  and  their 
improvement,  are  put  before  the  House  and 
the  Minister  of  Labour  by  our  critic  on  this 
side  and  by  those  knowledgeable  in  these 
matters.  The  people  opposite  are  always  quick 
to  say  that  I  am  an  apologist  for  the  govern- 
ment of  Canada,  and  yet  I  believe  that  the 
federal  Minister  of  Labour,  Mr.  Mackasey, 
has  been  very  useful  to  the  situation  across 
Canada  in  his  statements  when  he  says  that 
free  negotiations  between  labour  and  manage- 
ment must  continue  to  be  the  essence  of  these 
matters  as  we  approach  the  end  of  this  par- 


ticular century  with   the  changes  that  are  a 
part  of  it. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  now  to  move  to 
another  matter  of  provincial  concern  and 
bring  to  your  attention  that  a  few  days  ago 
we  had  read  by  the  Clerk  a  petition  from  the 
city  of  Ottawa  asking  for  permissive  legisla- 
tion pertaining  to  rent  control.  Even  before 
the  signing  of  the  petitions,  however,  indica- 
tions of  crisis  were  clearly  evident  to  all  who 
chose  to  see.  Rent  increases  triggered  by  the 
bumbling  way  in  which  the  basic  shelter 
exemption  was  accepted  as  an  election  gambit 
and  has  since  been  paid  out,  have  been  wide- 
spread and  unreasonable. 

They  have  exposed  avarice,  particularly  in 
Toronto,  where  very  few  of  the  40  per  cent 
of  the  residents  who  are  tenants  have  escaped 
chilling  and  inflationary  hikes  in  their  accom- 
modation costs.  Rent  increases  have  caused 
people  to  look  for  cheaper  accommodation 
rather  than  their  former  goal  of  moving  out  of 
the  high  rise  apartments  and  finding  a  home 
for  themselves  and  their  families.  The  tradi- 
tional dream  has  gone  by  the  board.  It  has 
passed  out  of  reach  of  a  majority  of  urban 
population  because  of  the  fantastic  price  in- 
creases of  lots  and  houses  alike.  With  vacancy 
rates  at  less  than  2  per  cent  for  all  types  of 
rental  accommodation  in  our  major  cities, 
there  is  no  longer  a  free  market  in  housing. 
This  is  the  extent  of  the  crisis  today. 

The  government  has  no  plans  to  solve  this 
problem,  that  are  effective.  The  Malvern  site 
has  laid  idle  for  years  and  is  now  progressing 
at  a  snail's  pace  towards  development.  I  can 
well  remember  the  first  announcement  in 
1954,  following  at  almost  indecent  intervals— 
I  believe  the  fifth  or  sixth  by  the  present  Min- 
ister who  is  responsible  for  housing.  The  de- 
cision to  assemble  land  in  the  Waterloo  area 
and  the  manner  of  its  announcement  betrayed 
a  lack  of  overall  planning  that  bodes  ill  for 
the  success  of  this  project  also. 

I  want  to  stop  at  that  point  in  my  written 
comment  and  just  say  that  it  does  seem 
strange  that  funds  which  are  in  such  short 
supply  at  the  present  time,  would  have  been 
funnelled  into  the  programme  at  Waterloo. 
It  is  strange  as  well  that  these  funds,  paid 
75  per  cent  at  the  federal  level,  have  been  put 
into  a  kind  of  land  bank,  the  future  of  which 
is  very  much  in  doubt.  The  purchase  of  the 
land  was  entered  into  without  any  reference 
to  local  planning  authorities  and  it  has  all  the 
earmarks  of  those  strange  decisions  that  are 
at  times  entered  into  by  the  government  when 
they  have  to  get  some  of  their  friends  off  the 
hook.    It  appears  to  me  that  this  large  area  of 


114 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


land  in  the  Waterloo  area  is  going  to  lie  idle 
for  many  years  until,  I  suppose,  there  is  some 
specific  need,  or  need  for  a  press  release  on 
the  part  of  the  Minister.  It  is  a  strange  mat- 
ter, indeed,  that  when  housing  and  serviced 
lots— more  public  housing  in  the  big  areas 
particularly  is  so  desperately  needed— the 
Minister  would  choose  this  as  one  of  his  top 
priorities  in  the  expenditure  of  these  public 
funds. 

The  selling  of  HOME  lots  at  a  profit  rather 
than  at  current  cost  after  servicing,  betrays  a 
real  road  block  to  this  programme  which  is 
that  the  maintenance  of  a  profitable  private 
market  in  real  estate  is  considered  more  im- 
portant than  the  ready  provision  of  homes. 
The  government  has  neglected  municipal  tax 
reform  and  it  is  this  more  than  any  other 
factor  that  has  distorted  the  orderly  develop- 
ment of  the  residential  communities  in  our 
municipalities.  The  Smith  committee  began 
its  work  in  1962,  but  it  is  now  evident  that 
1968  will  pass  before  any  action  is  taken  on 
the  report  or  the  select  committee's  work  on 
tax  reform. 

No  doubt  the  Minister  himself,  like  most 
of  us  in  the  House,  has  talked  to  those 
municipal  officials  in  urban  areas  and  in 
rural  areas  who  have  indicated  that  the  cost 
of  education  is  the  reason  that  makes  most 
of  them  cut  their  regulations  in  such  a  way 
that  the  advancement  of  urban  development 
has  been  curtailed.  It  is  this  area  of  tax 
reform  that  is  pressing  more  than  any  other. 

We  have  also  had  broad  hints  that  the 
Treasurer's  lack  of  success  in  Ottawa  will 
mean  that  he  will  not  relieve  the  munici- 
palities of  the  cost  of  education  even  to  the 
60  per  cent  level  recommended  by  Smith. 
The  uncontrolled  costs  of  education,  costs 
which  have  hitherto  been  treated  as  one  lump 
sum  instead  of  30  or  40  different  priorities, 
have  been  loaded  on  to  the  municipalities 
and  on  to  the  regressive  property  tax  struc- 
ture paralyzing  orderly  growth  and  develop- 
ment and  creating  such  ridiculous  minimum 
assessment  requirements  for  homes  as  the  $30 
thousand  minimum  now  applying  in  Scar- 
borough and  the  insistence  on  two-car  garages 
even  when  people  live  directly  on  the  GO 
line.  This  is  what  happens  when  the  wrong 
kind  of  tax  source  is  burdened  with  the 
costs  of  education. 

Finally  it  is  clear  to  all  that  the  govern- 
ment has  been  totally  remiss  in  its  encourage- 
ment of  public  housing  where  this  is  needed. 
This  inadequacy  of  housing  for  those  who 
need  it  most  reflects  once  more  the  failure 
of   this    government   to    get    its    priorities    in 


order.  Ontario  citizens  in  1968  do  not  have 
access  to  a  freely  operating  housing  market 
subject  to  the  checks  and  balances  of  supply 
and  demand.  Todaj'  Ontario  has  a  totally 
artificial  market  in  which  the  government  by 
its  negligence  and  its  irresponsibilities  in  the 
matter  of  priorities,  has  already  interfered 
ineffectually.  The  effect  of  that  existing  inter- 
ference by  the  provincial  government  has 
been  to  distort  the  market  completely.  The 
supply  of  homes  has  been  cut  off  because  it 
has  proved  uneconomic  to  build  in  a  rational 
manner. 

The  demand  has  soared,  particularly  in  cer- 
tain areas,  because  the  urban  magnet  has 
changed  the  population  distribution  and 
created  unreasonable  pressures  on  demand. 
It  is  clear  that,  while  many  rural  areas  are 
not  experiencing  a  serious  housing  problem, 
the  crisis  is  of  nightmare  proportions  in 
Toronto,  in  Ottawa  which  has  brought  for- 
ward a  petition  for  a  permissive  rent  control 
statute,  in  Hamilton  and  many  other  densely 
populated  centres  across  the  province. 

In  these  circumstances,  we  recognize  that 
emergency  action  is  now  necessary  to  meet 
the  extraordinary  situation  that  has  arisen 
through  the  negligence  of  this  government; 
through  its  not  providing  services  to  relieve 
existing  land  prices;  through  not  providing 
sufficient  commuter  rapid  transit  to  take  the 
pressure  away  from  the  urban  car;  through 
not  balancing  industrial  and  residential  assess- 
ment and  through  causing  rental  inflation 
through  the  basic  shelter  exemption  method. 

Our  answer  to  the  problem  is  to  approach 
the  immediate  crisis  on  a  localized  basis.  We 
believe  the  remedy  lies  with  the  munici- 
palities themselves  and  that  this  Legislature 
can  effect  short-term  enabling  legislation  to 
ease  the  present  problem.  We  believe  that  if 
all  the  factors  distorting  the  market  are  dealt 
with  as  they  should  be,  then  the  immediate 
urgency  may  have  diminished  within  a  three- 
year  period.  We  therefore  propose  permissive 
and  localized  rent  control  legislation  with  a 
two-year  life  span,  subject  to  renewal  only 
if  the  government  has  failed  to  come  up  with 
the  answers  that  will  restore  the  market  to  its 
former  free  state. 

In  these  circumstances,  any  move  by  this 
government  to  extend  a  life  of  such  legisla- 
tion, will  be  a  clear  admission  of  its  failure 
to  deal  with  the  situation  on  a  longer  range 
basis  in  the  interim.  As  Liberals,  we  look 
forward  to  the  day  when  the  government- 
initiated  circumstances  in  which  a  rent  control 
measure  has  become  necessary  will  be  coun- 
teracted.  We   find   this   proposal   unpalatable 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


115 


and  we  have  not  entered  into  it  lightly,  but 
only  after  the  most  careful  caucus  delibera- 
tion. We  see  it  as  a  stop-gap  measure  and 
not  as  a  Liberal  idea  but  to  many  of  us  it 
is  the  only  answer  to  the  situation  that  we 
now  find.  The  step  must  be  taken  now  be- 
cause there  is  no  alternative  after  what  the 
government  has  failed  to  do.  Our  aim,  as 
always,  is  for  a  free  market  in  shelter  and 
the  removal  of  all  the  factors  that  prevent 
such  a  market  from  operating  for  the  benefit 
of  all. 

We  therefore  propose  to  set  specifically: 
number  one,  rent  control  legislation  as  a 
stop-gap  to  meet  the  crisis  in  certain  areas. 
The  measures  must  be  permissive,  the  deci- 
sion to  seek  powers  coming  from  the  affected 
municipalities  themselves.  The  legislation  will 
feature  one-year  renewal  of  its  local  applica- 
tion and  renewal  of  the  measure  in  each 
locality  will  be  tied  to  vacancy  rate  and  rent 
index  limits. 

Second,  a  tenant's  bill  of  rights.  This 
measure  is  detailed  on  the  order  paper 
already  in  the  name  of  the  deputy  leader  of 
the  Liberal  Party,  the  hon.  member  for 
Downsview.  It  would  include  provision  for 
a  standard  form  of  lease.  It  would  limit 
advanced  rent  payments  to  two  months 
ahead.  It  would  outlaw  security  deposits 
against  damage  completely.  It  would  make 
illegal  those  clauses  in  contracts  by  which 
a  tenant  waives  any  or  all  of  his  legal  rights 
and  to  that  I  might  add,  the  right  to  a  com- 
plete contract  prior  to  signature.  Clauses 
typed  in  after  the  signing  would  be  invalid. 
It  would  enact  and  enforce  safety  regulations 
and  health  laws  to  protect  tenants.  The  day 
of  erratic  and  uninspected  elevators  and  other 
devices  being  put  into  service  would  end. 
The  day  of  choked  refuse  disposal  chutes 
polluting  the  air  with  odour  and  disease 
would  be  brought  to  a  conclusion  by  a  force- 
ful clause  in  the  new  Act. 

It  would  outlaw  exclusive  agreements  be- 
tween the  landlord  and  suppliers  of  goods 
and  services,  as  being  an  infringement  of  a 
tenant's  basic  right  to  free  access.  It  would 
forbid  a  landlord  to  levy  extra  charges  on 
tenants  unless  these  have  been  specifically 
contracted  for,  to  begin  with,  and  it  would 
establish  a  tenants'  appeal  board  to  hear  com- 
plaints against  the  injustices  that  even  then 
would  remain  in  the  unreal  and  unconscion- 
able circumstances  of  the  distorted  shelter 
market  existing  in  our  cities  today. 

Number  three,  Liberals  see  a  tenants'  bill 
of  rights  as  the  transition  from  the  immediate 
and  emergency  rent  control  phase  to  a  more 
logical    and    effective    long-term    solution    to 


the  housing  problem.  The  cornerstone  of  this 
approach  must  be  municipal  tax  reform,  as  I 
have  already  said.  We  are  still  convinced 
that  the  municipalities  must  be  relieved  of 
their  education  cost  burden  to  the  extent  of 
80  per  cent  of  the  local  level.  Only  in  this 
way  will  balance,  growth  and  development, 
and  a  proper  provision  for  needed  services, 
emerge.  Alongside  this  must  come  a  source 
of  second  mortgage  money  from  the  prov- 
ince to  supplement  NHA  first  mortgages.  Even 
at  present  high  prices,  many  people  are  ready 
to  become  home  owners  and  are  prepared 
and  able  to  carry  the  monthly  payments.  It 
is  the  initial  deposit,  enormous  because  of  the 
lack  of  an  adequate  second  mortgage,  that 
keeps  many  enterprising  and  would-be  home 
owners  out  of  the  rental  market  or,  I  should 
say,  on  the  rental  market. 

Every  tenant  who  becomes  a  home  owner 
takes  some  pressure  off  the  overheated  rental 
market  and  it  helps  bring  supply  and  demand 
into  line.  We  would  see  to  it  that  otherwise 
good  risks  were  not  prevented  from  becom- 
ing home  owners  merely  by  not  being  able 
to  accumulate  the  $4,000  or  $5,000  now 
needed  to  move  into  a  house  of  their  own. 
This  would  be  a  programme  involving  invest- 
ment in  the  people  of  our  province.  It  is  a 
programme  that  has  been  needed  for  many 
years. 

Number  five,  there  must  be  an  overall  plan 
for  the  land  use  and  economic  development 
of  Ontario.  Present  policy  loses  its  effective- 
ness when  a  tenant  is  placed  in  the  priorities 
that  such  a  plan  must  dictate  for  the  selec- 
tion of  urban  growth  points,  the  preserva- 
tion of  our  best  agricultural  resources  and 
the  expansion  of  recreation  facilities  all 
correlated  by  rapid  transit  highways  and 
services. 

And  lastly,  in  a  programme  to  meet  the 
housing  difficulties  on  a  long  range  basis,  we 
believe  that  the  Ontario  Water  Resources 
Commission  is  ready  for  far  reaching  reform. 
This  would  be  necessary  in  order  to  create 
one  of  the  effective  means  of  implementing 
the  overall  provincial  plan  that  I  have  been 
urging  on  the  administration. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  want  to  leave  the 
recommendation  for  an  overall  plan  without 
one  or  two  further  remarks.  We  have  been 
treated  by  the  Minister  of  Trade  and  Devel- 
opment for  some  years  to  the  expectation 
that  the  economic  regions  of  the  province 
would  have  such  a  detailed  plan  of  their 
own  areas:  their  prospects,  economic  and 
otherwise  available  for  a  general  provincial 
plan.     He   has   had   this   responsibility  taken 


116 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


from  him  and  it  now  resides  in  The  Depart- 
ment of  the  Treasury.  Now  we  are  still 
awaiting  at  least  some  glimmer  of  the 
regional  development  plan  that  could,  in  fact, 
be  upgraded  so  that  it  would  be  a  plan 
for  the  province. 

I  live  in  a  rural  area  of  the  province  and 
I  know  that  the  responsibilities  that  local 
governments,  reeves  and  mayors  take  upon 
themselves  in  order  to  carry  out  the  planning 
requirements  placed  on  their  shoulders  by 
The  Department  of  Municipal  Affairs  which 
are  very  heavy  and  politically  onerous.  When 
decisions  are  made  to  restrict  the  free  whole 
rights  of  any  land  owner,  that  land  owner 
turns  sometimes  rather  vehemently  on  those 
elected  officials  or  those  elected  people  who 
are  prepared  to  tamper  with  these  rights  in 
the  interest  of  the  greater  good  of  the  com- 
munity. 

This  is  what  has  been  happening  in  Ontario 
for  some  years  and  there  are  still  many 
areas  which  have  not  yet  acceded  to  the 
pressure  placed  upon  them  by  The  Depart- 
ment of  Municipal  Affairs  to  bring  about 
such  a  plan.  In  the  interim,  the  province  of 
Ontario  has  gone  scot  free  in  accepting  its 
share  of  these  tough  political  decisions. 
There  has  been  no  approach  towards  setting 
some  delineations  to  the  large  and  growing 
metropolitan  areas,  to  stop  them  staining  out 
over  the  rural  areas  of  the  province  without 
any  plan  or  modern  consideration.  A  good 
case  in  point  is  the  decision  made  by  Ontario 
Hydro  to  build  one  of  the  largest  thermal 
plants  in  the  world  on  the  shores  of  Lake 
Erie  and  right  beside  this  enormous  centre  of 
power,  the  Steel  Company  of  Canada  has 
not  optioned,  but  bought,  7,000  acres  for  a 
new  industrial  development.  The  province 
has  had  little  or  no  effect  on  the  general  plan 
of  the  greater  community  around  that  par- 
ticular centre  which  must  obviously  in  the 
next  20  years,  become  a  new  city  in  the 
province. 

The  two  counties  involved,  Haldimand  and 
Norfolk  have  embarked  on  joint  planning 
responsibilities.  But  this  is  not  enough.  There 
are  many  towns  outside  those  counties  them- 
selves which  expect  to  share  in  the  expansion. 
They  expect  to  have  new  industrial  and 
urban  subdivisions  but  there  has  been  no 
plan  by  the  economic  council  of  the  area  nor 
by  the  government  of  Ontario  to  assist  them 
in  this  matter. 

The  time  has  come  surely,  when  the  de- 
cisions must  be  made  for  the  major  growing 
areas  of  the  province,  at  least  on  the  general 
areas  for  growth  where  the  new  transit  lines 
will  be  constructed  and  just  what  the  mean- 


ing will  be  for  our  citizens  of  the  next  20 
years.  It  is  not  enough  for  any  Minister  of 
the  Crown  to  turn  to  what  has  been  done  in 
the  past.  I  think  this  last  spring  we  were 
treated  with  much  fanfare  to  the  report  of 
the  MTARTS  study  which  after  I  believe 
four  years  and  $2  million  presented  four 
alternatives  of  what  the  community  around 
Toronto  might  be  in  the  future. 

They  were  presented  to  the  municipal  offi- 
cials as  four  alternatives,  none  of  them  with  a 
price  tag,  just  the  expectation  that  any  one 
of  them  would  be  terribly  expensive.  But 
surely  these  particular  suggestions  and  alter- 
natives have  to  be  considered  by  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  before  they  are  considered 
by  any  individual  municipality  or  growing 
economic  area. 

It  is  the  decision  of  this  administration  to 
improve  the  quality  of  life— a  phrase  that  the 
Premier  uses  more  and  more  frequently— in 
the  years  that  remain  in  this  century.  It  is 
only  through  the  implementation  of  a  plan  of 
this  type  that  we  can,  in  fact,  look  for  any 
effective  means  of  improvement  of  this  qual- 
ity of  life  that  all  of  us  are  concerned  with. 

Now  I  stated  as  the  last  point  in  the  gen- 
eral development  of  solving  the  housing  diffi- 
culty, a  new  approach  to  the  responsibilities 
of  the  Ontario  Water  Resources  Commission. 
I  want  to  deal  with  that  in  some  detail. 

The  water  resources  commission  has  two 
major  functions  that  are  not  always  com- 
patible. The  first,  as  the  major  water  pollu- 
tion control  agency,  gives  it  great  and 
growing  powers  to  disallow  development  in 
communities  with  inadequate  facilities  and, 
in  fact,  to  close  industry  and  stop  develop- 
ment. 

An  example  of  this  last  is  the  closing  of  the 
Canada  Glue  plant  in  Brantford  with  the 
consequent  laying  off  of  75  men;  most  of 
them  over  the  age  of  50,  making  readjust- 
ment particularly  difficult.  Now  we  support 
antipollution  regulations  with  teeth  in  them, 
but  in  this  case  if  the  OWRC  had  had  a  sub- 
sidized loan  fund,  so  that  $250,000— that  is 
all,  $250,000-had  been  available  to  the  com- 
pany, the  necessary  antipollution  measures 
could  have  been  implemented  and  the  indus- 
try retained. 

A  word  of  further  explanation:  This  is  a 
fairly  old  company,  that  dumps  its  refuse 
into  the  Grand  River,  and  the  refuse  from 
an  operation  of  this  type  is  a  particularly 
disagreeable  source  of  pollution.  There  have 
been  many  complaints  from  the  citizens 
locally  and  the  OWRC  finally— after  several 
warnings  —  took    the    action  —  and    it    was    a 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


117 


proper  action  under  their  present  terms  of 
reference  —  to  close  down  the  plant  since  the 
pollution  was  not  abated  and  the  company 
was  not  prepared  to  undertake  this  abate- 
ment. 

I  think  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
company  had  been  bought  out— some  years 
ago— by  American  interests,  and  the  head 
office  indicated  that  they  were  quite  pre- 
pared to  do  the  manufacturing  operations  in 
other  localities  and  ship  the  finished  product 
into  Ontario.  This  of  course  brings  forward 
many  arguments  about  decisions  made  out- 
side of  our  own  boundaries  that  affect  us  so 
greatly  and  on  a  day-to-day  basis. 

But  the  difficult  part  is  this,  that  for 
$250,000,  we  are  told,  that  the  antipollution 
measures  could  have  been  effected.  Yet  the 
Ontario  Water  Resources  Commission  does 
not  have  access  to  such  a  fund  to  accomplish 
this  particular  procedure  in  such  a  way  that 
the  company  could  be  forced  to  do  that 
rather  than  close  down  under  these  circum- 
stances. 

I  believe  it  is  the  height  of  folly  to  hand 
out  grants  by  one  department  of  $500,000 
under  the  equalization  of  industrial  oppor- 
tunity programmes  to  bolster  employment 
with  one  hand,  while  a  short-sighted  ap- 
proach to  OWRC  negates  the  first  effort. 

All  of  the  people  in  any  community  bene- 
fit from  antipollution  regulations,  so  that 
justification  for  such  loans  is  apparent. 

The  second  major  responsibility  of  OWRC 
is  to  provide  the  water  and  sewage  facilities 
for  municipalities  where  the  commission  itself 
decides  they  are  needed.  A  case  in  point,  and 
I  would  like  to  dwell  on  it  for  a  moment,  is 
that  of  St.  Thomas  where  the  commission 
decided  in  1966  that  the  city  should  accept 
water  from  a  commission  pipeline  for  50 
cents  per  thousand  gallons,  even  though  St. 
Thomas  had  an  adequate  system  delivering 
water  at  10  cents  per  thousand  gallons  with 
proved  resources  to  cope  for  expansion  into 
the  foreseeable  future. 

The  OWRC  decision  was  prompted  by 
their  commitment  to  provide  pipeline  water 
to  the  new  Ford  plant  near  St.  Thomas  and 
their  effort  to  spread  the  cost  over  the  nearest 
population  centre.  Now  in  order  to  force  the 
city  to  accept  an  obviously  bad  deal  the 
water  resources  commission  stopped  approv- 
ing subdivision  plans  in  St.  Thomas  in  March 
1967.  This  freeze  on  development  was  based 
on  the  commission's  statement  that  the  city 
was  grossly  polluting  nearby  Kettle   Creek. 

St.  Thomas  has  been  negotiating  since  that 
time  with  the  commission  and  is  approaching 


a  settlement  in  which  the  freeze  on  develop- 
ment is  like  a  gun  to  its  head.  This  freeze 
was  lifted  in  October  1968— about  a  month 
ago— by  a  statement  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Wellington-Dufferin  (Mr.  Root),  the  vice- 
chairman  of  the  commission,  even  though  no 
significant  change  had  taken  place  with  the 
situation    involving   Kettle    Creek. 

This  story  has  significance  across  Ontario, 
because  sooner  or  later  all  our  municipalities 
must  come  under  the  patronizing  direction  of 
OWRC.  There  is  no  doubt  that  a  water  grid 
and  joint  sewage  facilities  for  large  areas  of 
southern  Ontario  must  be  undertaken  in  the 
next  20  years.  This  present  policy  of  sticking 
the  users  for  the  full  cost  results  in  impossible 
burdens,  and  we  must  look  for  fair  solutions. 

Surely,  it  is  grossly  unfair  for  a  govern- 
ment agency  to  turn  on  a  nearby  municipality 
which  has  properly  looked  after  its  own 
requirements  and  is  even  prepared  to  share 
those  requirements  with  a  reasonable  sur- 
rounding territory  and  population.  It  is 
unfair  that  the  commission  should  turn  on 
them  to  increase  their  water  cost  by  factors 
of  three,  sometimes  five  times,  in  order  to 
implement  the  decisions  taken  by  the  com- 
mission with  an  entirely  different  motivation. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  comparable  pipe- 
line offers  in  other  centres.  Compared  with 
St.  Thomas,  London— which  is  not  too  far 
away— has  a  pipeline,  not  from  Lake  Erie, 
but  from  Lake  Huron  with  its  terminus  at 
Arva,  near  London.  Before  the  pipeline  in- 
stallation, the  London  water  price  was  eight 
cents  per  thousand  gallons.  They  calculated 
that  if  they  were  to  build  the  pipeline  them- 
selves they  could  supply  their  own  water 
from  Lake  Huron  for  something  like  15  cents 
per  thousand,  but  were  persauded  by  the 
Ontario  government  that,  in  fact,  the  govern- 
ment should  build  the  pipeline  and  sell  them 
the  water.  So  as  a  result,  the  deal  was  that 
the  price  would  be  very  similar,  very  similar 
to  that  which  it  would  have  been  if  London 
had  provided  their  own  pipeline.  But  there 
was  a  clause,  of  course,  associated  with 
escalating  costs,  and  London  gets  its  water- 
not  for  15  cents  per  thousand  but  17.6  cents 
per  thousand,  delivered  at  Arva. 

So  I  believe  that  this  reflects  the  influence 
that  the  London  family  compact,  all  of  it, 
can   have   on   government    deals. 

I  will  be  interested,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  hear 
the  justification  of  the  Premier  or  even  the 
vice-chairman  of  the  OWRC,  who  is  not 
here  today,  in   comparing  these   deals. 

The  third  one,  and  I  want  to  bring  it  to  your 
attention,    was    discussed    in    the    Legislature 


118 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


a  few  days  ago.  It  involves  the  city  of  Sarnia, 
represented  by  my  hon.  friend  and  supporter. 
I  understand  that  the  water  system  in  Sarnia 
now  produces  high  quality  water  for  the 
citizens  of  that  city  on  a  flat  rate  of  $24  per 
year.  This  has  been  calculated,  with  all  things 
being  considered,  to  be  about  12  cents  per 
thousand  gallons— in  the  same  ambit  as  that 
which  was  provided  by  St.  Thomas  and  Lon- 
don and  other  centres  that  I  will  talk  about  in 
a  moment.  Sarnia  realized  that  they  had  to 
undertake  expansion  of  this  plant.  Having  a 
very  effective  local  administration  over  a 
number  of  years  they  were  able  to  contem- 
plate a  $4  million  expansion  without  going 
to  the  OWRC  for  any  significant  assistance 
except  perhaps  for  some  engineering  advice 
and  they  then  believed  that  they  could  pro- 
vide high  quality  water  into  the  foreseeable 
future  for  their  own  citizens  at  $48  per  year 
or  about  20  to  24  cents  per  thousand.  This 
had  an  expansion  that  was  large  enough  to 
permit  them  to  offer  treated  water  to  the 
surrounding  municipalities  within  reason.  It 
was  at  this  stage  that  the  Ontario  water 
resources  commission  intruded  and  it  is  their 
plan  to  enlarge  the  Sarnia  facilities  by  that 
same  $4  million  that  Sarnia  itself  was  pre- 
pared to  undertake  but  not  to  provide  water 
for  citizens  of  Sarnia  at  $48  a  year  but  at 
$72.96  per  year.  Now,  can  you  blame  the 
citizens  of  Sarnia  for  objecting  to  the  role 
in  which  they  are  being  placed  by  a  com- 
mission of  this  government,  a  role  which 
gives  to  them  the  responsibility  for  paying 
for  the  needed  expansion  of  these  facilities 
into  a  significant  and  large  area  of  western 
Ontario? 

I  come  now  to  the  city  of  Brantford  where 
there  has  been  as  yet  no  direct  confrontation 
with  OWRC  but  simply  the  proposition  stated 
that  Brantford  can  have  access  to  water  from 
Lake  Erie  for  25  cents  per  thousand  gallons 
even  though  they  now  distribute  water  at  a 
base  rate  of  10  cents  per  thousand,  two  and 
a  half  times  increase  in  price.  It  has  been 
proposed  by  the  water  commission  that  this 
pipeline  come  up  the  Grand  Valley  and  allow 
those  cities,  which  now  use  the  Grand  River 
as  their  primary  source  of  municipal  water 
supply,  to  cut  into  the  pipeline  and  get  the 
water  from  Lake  Erie  rather  than  directly 
from  the  river.  The  difference  in  quality  is 
not  negligible  but  I  would  say  insignificant.  In 
any  case  the  water  that  is  provided  by  Brant- 
ford and  other  municipalities  is  of  a  high 
enough  quality  and  with  the  projections  that 
they  will  continue  to  be  of  effective  quality 
and  supply. 


The  last  case  in  point  is  of  the  town  of 
Brampton,  I  believe  they  call  it  the  Peel- 
Brampton  pipeline,  which  reached  an  agree- 
ment in  March  of  1968  for  pipeline  water 
at  21.5  cents  per  thousand  gallons  after  an 
original  price  of  31  cents  per  thousand  for 
the  first  month  and  a  half's  supply  each  year. 
These  pipeline  plans  can  and  must  be  one 
of  the  most  important  arms  for  the  imple- 
mentation of  a  provincial  plan.  There  is  no 
doubt  if  the  decision  is  taken  by  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  that  certain  areas,  some  of 
them  now  towns  in  existence,  and  some  of 
them  now  just  open  country,  will  be  centres 
for  new  municipal  growth.  The  pipelines 
which  would  provide  water  to  those  centres 
would,  in  fact,  command  the  growth  at  that 
point  and  be  extremely  important  in  reduc- 
ing the  cost  of  serviced  lots  in  those  areas.  I 
believe  that  the  pipelines  cannot  be  totally 
charged  against  the  users  in  a  small  area  if 
we  are  going  to  be  fair  in  the  financing  of 
such  a  provincial  plan.  Decisions  to  provide 
water  and  sewage  facilities  will  designate 
growth  points  around  present  urban  centres 
and  reduce  cost  of  serviced  land  to  have  real 
impact  on  the  cost  and  availability  of  hous- 
ing. The  programme  must  be  financed  on  a 
broad  provincial  basis  if  it  is  going  to  work. 

With  these  things  in  mind,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  like  to  draw  to  your  attention  six 
specific  points  that  I  believe  should  form  a 
basis  for  new  terms  of  reference  for  the 
water  resources  commission: 

1.  Specific  long-range  plans  for  a  water 
pipeline  grid  over  a  large  area  of  Ontario 
must  be  drawn  up  and  made  public,  to 
accompany  a  plan  for  our  province. 

2.  This  overall  plan,  with  accompanying 
sewage  disposal  facilities,  where  applicable, 
should  have  a  tentative  time  schedule  associ- 
ated with  it. 

3.  The  programme  must  be  the  operative 
part  of  a  general  provincial  plan  so  that  the 
pipeline  and  sewage  treatment  locations  will 
be  the  deciding  factors  in  growth  points 
across  the  province  and  greatly  reduce  costs 
for  serviced  land. 

4.  The  costs  in  the  early  part  of  the  servic- 
ing programme  are  too  high  to  charge  directly 
back  to  the  relatively  small  number  of  users. 
OWRC  must  have  access  to,  and  use,  of  the 
credit  of  the  province  like  Ontario  Hydro 
does  to  plan  and  install  these  facilities  on 
their  own  debentures.  The  financing  must  be 
accepted  partially  as  a  direct  government 
charge  so  that  the  needed  facilities  can  be 
installed  in  time  to  allow  many  communities 
now  caught  between  the  Ontario  municipal 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


119 


lx>ard's  fears  for  their  solvency  and  the 
OWRC  demand  for  services  before  sub- 
division approval,  to  find  a  way  out  of  the 
bureaucratic  dilemma. 

5.  OWRC  must  be  specifically  forbidden 
to  use  ancillary  powers  such  as  holding  up 
subdivision  approvals  as  a  club  to  force 
agreement  from  municipalities  to  accede  to 
their  proposals  until  the  new  service  policy 
is  in  operation. 

6.  Subsidized  loans  to  industries  for  anti- 
pollution installations  must  be  a  part  of  a 
fair  and  effective  anti-pollution  programme. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  some  comments  to 
make  in  addition  on  two  other  areas  that 
were  mentioned  in  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne  but  since  it  is  my  understanding  that 
you  wish  now  to  proceed  to  a  discussion  of  a 
private  member's  resolution,  with  your  per- 
mission I  will  move  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Mr.  Nixon  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


NOTICE  OF  MOTION 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Notice  of  motion 
No.  15  by  Mr.  Snow. 

Resolution:  That  all  government  of  On- 
tario buildings  in  the  province  should 
be  constructed  in  accordance  with  the 
modular  co-ordinated  principle. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Snow  (Halton  East):  I  move, 
seconded  by  the  member  for  Hamilton 
Mountain  (Mr.  J.  R.  Smith),  Resolution  No. 
15,  standing  in  my  name,  which  has  just 
l>een  read. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  introducing  this  resolution 
I  am  calling  for  the  adoption  by  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario,  of  the  modular  dimensional 
system  for  the  design  and  construction  of 
luiildings  which  are  constructed  by  the  vari- 
ous departments  of  the  government  of  Ontario, 
or  are  subsidized  with  provincial  funds.  It  is 
my  desire  today,  to  bring  to  the  attention  of 
the  government,  and  of  the  hon.  members  of 
this  House,  the  efficiencies  and  cost  reducing 
benefits  which  can  be  derived  from  the  adop- 
tion of  this  system,  and  the  institution  of  the 
BEAM  programme  which  has  been  developed 
by  The  Department  of  Industry  in  Ottawa. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  adoption  of  the  modular 
co-ordinated  system  of  building,  together  with 
the  implementation  of  my  previous  resolution 
of  March  4,  earlier  this  year,  calling  for  a 


standard  building  code  within  the  province  of 
Ontario,  would  provide  an  excellent  base  for 
improvements  in  construction  efficiency,  and 
productivity,  in  the  manufacture,  design  and 
use  of  building  equipment,  accessories  and 
materials.  Moreover,  a  climate  for  the  devel- 
opment of  new  technology  in  construction 
would  be  rendered  more  favourable  as  a 
result. 

Many  of  the  hon.  members  here  today  may 
ask:  what  is  modular  co-ordination?  Modular 
dimensional  standardization  or  modular  co- 
ordination, are  synonomous  terms  given  to 
procedures  simplifying  the  manufacture  of 
building  equipment,  accessories,  materials, 
and  the  assembly  of  these  for  the  construction 
of  buildings. 

Such  standardization  and  co-ordination  are 
effective  ways  of  resolving  basic  difficulties  of 
design  and  application  caused  by  unrelated 
dimensions  of  various  building  components, 
that  we  have  today. 

The  aim  is  the  development  of  economical 
systems  of  buildings  in  which  all  materials, 
components,  products  and  equipment  fit 
rationally  and  compatibly  together  simply  and 
easily  with  a  minimum  of  alteration  work  re- 
quired on  the  job  site.  Cutting  costs  of  build- 
ing construction  is  the  target  of  this  pro- 
gramme. 

The  modular  concept  has  received  much 
study  in  many  countries  because  of  the  press- 
ing need  for  increased  productivity  and  effi- 
ciency in  building.  From  the  results  of  these 
studies,  the  dimension  of  four  inches  or  10 
centimetres  in  the  countries  using  the  metric 
system  has  emerged  as  a  most  satisfactory 
co-ordinating  unit  of  measurement.  The  name 
given  to  this  unit  is  the  standard  building 
module. 

The  main  advantages  of  module  dimen- 
sional standardization  and  co-ordination  are 
as  follows: 

1.  The  need  for  manufacturing  and  stock- 
ing components  in  more  than  one  standard 
range  of  sizes  is  eliminated,  thus  inventories 
are  reduced  and  simplified  and  inventory 
costs  are  reduced. 

2.  The  mass  production  of  building  com- 
ponents is  greatly  facilitated  resulting  in 
increased  economies  of  scale  of  manufacture. 

3.  Architectural  and  engineering  design  is 
facilitated,  mill  production  time  for  archi- 
tectural and  engineering  drawing  is  shortened 
and  they  are  more  readily  understood.  The 
costly  procedures  now  related  to  the  produc- 
tion and  function  of  shop  drawings  may  be 
eliminated.    Resulting  economies  in  time  and 


120 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cost  can  enable  the  design  profession  to  deal 
with  a  greater  volume  of  work,  thus  extending 
their  influence  further  in  the  building  industry. 

4.  Estimating  and  pricing  of  work  is  easier 
and  more  accurate. 

5.  Site  layout  would  be  simplified. 

6.  Supervision  of  construction  is  more  effi- 
cient. 

7.  Workmen  understand  their  assignments 
better  and  work  is  performed  with  greater 
ease  and  despatch. 

8.  Waste  of  materials  is  held  to  a  minimum. 

9.  Job  and  site  cutting  of  building  materials 
is  reduced  entirely  in  many  cases. 

10.  The  orderly  and  intelligent  develop- 
ment of  the  industrialization  of  the  building 
processes  would  be  facilitated.  The  standard 
building  module  of  four  inches  was  chosen  in 
Canada  because  of  its  proximity  to  that  em- 
ployed in  countries  using  the  metric  system 
of  measurement  of  10  centimetres  being  equal 
to  3.937  inches.  The  two  dimentions  are  suffi- 
ciently close  to  permit  the  use  of  working 
drawings  prepared  on  the  four-inch  module 
in  the  construction  of  buildings  in  countries 
under  the  metric  system  and  vice  versa. 

Architects  favouring  the  introduction  of  the 
modular  system  in  Canada  would  like  to  con- 
form to  the  10-centimetre  measurement  but 
felt  that  immediate  adoption  of  the  four-inch 
unit  was  preferable  to  awaiting  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  metric  system  here  and  in  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  referred  briefly  to  the 
BEAM  programme  and  I  would  like  to  ex- 
plain for  a  moment  the  background  of  this 
programme.  BEAM  is  made  up  of  the  four 
letters  B-E-A-M,  meaning  building  equipment 
accessories  and  materials.  As  industry  and 
government  today  is  more  than  ever  faced 
with  the  vital  task  of  increasing  its  produc- 
tivity and  efficiency  and  recognizing  the  vital 
need  for  increased  efficiency  in  the  industry, 
contractors,  manufacturers  and  users  of  build- 
ing equipment  accessories  and  materials  and 
The  Department  of  Industry  have  jointly 
initiated  the  BEAM  programme  to  assist  in 
achieving  this  goal.  Since  its  inauguration, 
considerable  progress  has  been  made  towards 
the  attainment  of  the  objectives  of  this  pro- 
gramme. The  BEAM  programme  in  brief  is 
as  follows:  In  1967,  with  the  help  and  co- 
operation of  the  construction  industry,  The 
Department  of  Industry  introduced  this  pro- 
gramme to  assist  in  achieving  greater  produc- 
tivity and  efficiency  in  the  manufacture  and 
use  of  equipment. 


Five  objectives  are  being  developed  to 
bring  about  sufficient  advances  within  the 
construction  industry  in  Canada.  These  are 
as  follows: 

1.  The  establishment  of  a  comprehensive 
construction  cataloguing  and  information 
system. 

2.  The  adoption  of  modular  dimensional  co- 
ordination of  building  components. 

3.  The  industrialization  of  the  building 
process. 

4.  The  adoption  of  uniform  building  regu- 
lations and  standards. 

5.  The  establishment  of  a  design  awards 
programme  to  improve  the  design  and  devel- 
opment of  construction  materials  and  pro- 
cesses. 

Three  advisory  committees  were  appointed, 
made  up  of  prominent  Canadians  representing 
the  manufacturing  and  building  industries, 
architects  and  engineers  and  the  trade  unions, 
and  have  held  meetings  on  information 
systems,  modular  co-ordination  and  industrial- 
ized building.  These  committees  met  on  a 
regular  basis  and  assisted  the  department  in 
defining  the  objectives  and  implementing  the 
programme. 

Six  conferences  were  held  during  1967,  in 
Halifax,  Montreal,  Toronto,  Winnipeg, 
Edmonton  and  Vancouver  with  the  objectives 
of  acquainting  policy  makers  within  the  indus- 
try with  the  technology  and  economic  advan- 
tages of  modular  dimensioning.  Over  1,200 
senior  executives  of  Canada's  top  manu- 
facturing, contracting,  architecture  and 
engineering  firms  were  invited  to  attend  these 
one-day  conferences. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  offer  my 
congratulations  to  The  Department  of  Indus- 
try on  the  way  that  they  have  developed 
this  programme.  The  objectives  of  the 
BEAM  programme  are  of  concern  to  all 
members  of  the  industry.  These,  and  several 
specific  projects  have  long  been  advocated 
by  the  Canadian  Construction  Association 
and  the  Canadian  Joint  Committee  on  Con- 
struction Materials.  At  no  time  in  our  history 
has  the  effort  to  increase  productivity  and 
efficiency  been  of  such  importance  as  it  is 
today.  I  sincerely  hope  that  all  concerned 
will  participate  in  this  programme  and  there- 
by ensure  its  success. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  know  that  many  of  our 
Ontario  firms  of  architects  and  engineers 
have  already  adopted  the  modular  system  of 
planning  buildings  on  their  own  initiative. 
This,  along  with  the  phasing  in  of  the 
modular  programme  by  the  federal  Depart- 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


121 


ment  of  Public  Works  has  done  a  great  deal 
to  increase  the  use  of  standard  modular 
building  products  as  of  this  date.  I  am  also 
aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  our  Ontario  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Works  has  been  investigating 
the  advantages  of  modular  construction  and 
has  buildings  under  construction  with  the 
modular  system  being  utilized  at  this  time. 
My  belief  is  that,  if  all  work  of  all  buildings 
constructed  by  the  various  departments  of 
this  government  as  well  as  all  work  and  build- 
ings subsidized  by  the  departments  were  of 
modular  design,  then  this  large  volume  of 
construction  product  added  to  that  portion 
that  is  presently  using  modular  co-ordination, 
would  be  a  sufficiently  large  percentage  of 
the  overall  construction  volume  in  Ontario 
that  all  the  remaining  construction  volume 
would  be  insufficient  to  maintain  the  unco- 
ordinated use  of  the  non-modular  com- 
ponents. In  a  very  short  time,  the  modular 
system  would  be  adopted  and  used  for  all 
construction  within  our  province  if  not  within 
Canada. 

I  urge  the  government  to  commence  the 
drafting  of  legislation  to  be  enacted  no  later 
than  1970  which  will,  without  infringing 
upon  the  rights  of  manufacturers  to  use  other 
systems  of  dimensioning  as  well,  require  all 
buildings  constructed  by  municipal  authori- 
ties and/or  authorities  with  provincial  finan- 
cial assistance  to  utilize  the  concept  of 
modular  design  and  modular  co-ordinated 
materials. 

I  feel  confident,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  our 
government  will  give  every  consideration 
to  my  suggestions  here  today.  I  was  very 
pleased  with  the  response  by  the  hon. 
Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs  (Mr.  Mc- 
Keough)  to  my  previous  resolution  regard- 
ing building  codes  and  know  that  at  this 
time  the  committees  of  knowledgeable  gentle- 
men set  up  by  him  are  making  considerable 
progress  in  further  investigating  the  advisa- 
bility of  a  standard  building  code  for  Ontario 
and  ways  and  means  in  which  this  code  may 
be  implemented  with  the  least  possible  incon- 
venience to  the  building  industry  and  to  the 
municipalities  of  Ontario. 

I  was  also  very  pleased  to  learn  that,  since 
the  presentation  of  my  building  code  resolu- 
tion in  this  House  last  March,  that  a  similar 
resolution  has  been  introduced  by  a  member 
of  the  Legislature  in  the  province  of  British 
Columbia.  Earlier  this  month,  I  had  corres- 
pondence with  an  hon.  member  of  the 
Legislative  Assembly  of  the  province  of 
Quebec,  Mr.  Art  E.  Seguin,  who  is  the  mem- 
ber for  the  riding  of  Robert  Baldwin.    Mr. 


Seguin    is    interested    in    bringing    forward 
similar  legislation  in  the  province  of  Quebec. 

This,  I  believe,  further  indicated  the 
interest  not  only  in  Ontario,  but  in  all  of 
Canada  in  updating  our  building  codes  and 
in  streamlining  and  improving  the  industry 
within  our  country,  which  is  by  far  the  largest 
employer  and  the  largest  contributor  of  our 
gross  national  product. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  has  been  my  pleasure  as 
a  member  of  this  House,  and  one  that  has 
been  proudly  connected  with  the  construc- 
tion industry  for  over  20  years,  to  bring  this 
resolution  forward  for  the  consideration  of 
our  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  to  support  the  resolution  of 
the  hon.  member  for  Halton  ( Mr.  Snow ) , 
who  sponsored  a  resolution  in  the  last  session 
that  the  government  of  Ontario  should  adopt 
a  national  building  code.  The  hon.  member 
presented  this  House  with  a  most  interesting 
debate  of  great  importance  concerning  every 
municipality,  property  owner  and  building 
contractor  in  Ontario. 

Perhaps  one  would  assume  that  Resolution 
15  is  a  follow-up  on  the  national  building 
code  in  hope  that  his  fellow  colleagues  would 
support  and  implement  a  standard  building 
code  in  this  province  of  Ontario  that  would 
apply  to  all  municipalities  and  their  needs. 
The  present  Hellyer  task  force  on  housing 
has  been  presented  with  many  briefs  and 
summations  asking  the  adoption  of  a  national 
building  code. 

The  resolution  under  discussion  this  after- 
noon deals  with  the  building  of  all  modern 
structures  of  our  day.  Modern  architecture 
often  approaches  actual  engineering  in  its 
mechanical  completeness,  in  its  designs,  the 
means  used  for  achieving  beauty,  art  dimen- 
sional forms,  the  relationship  of  spaces,  vol- 
umes, planes  and  masses. 

My  colleague,  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  (Mr.  MacKenzie),  who,  I  would  say, 
is  more  knowledgeable  in  the  design  and 
materials  required  in  the  building  trades 
than  most  members  of  this  House,  had  pre- 
sented a  lively  discussion  and  debate  on  this 
same  subject  to  The  Department  of  Public 
Works  on  the  adoption  of  modular  co  ordina- 
tion in  building  materials  for  the  government 
of  Ontario  to  endorse  the  federal  programme 
known  as  BEAM  in  the  last  session  of  Par- 
liament. 

As  members  of  the  provincial  House  we 
look  upon  this  building  as  a  masterpiece  of 


122 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


architecture  of  the  Victorian  Gothic  design— 
the  wonderful  wood  carvings  of  this  Chamber. 
But  how  many  tradesmen  are  there  in  Ontario 
that  can  be  masters  in  hand  wood-carving 
today— I  think  very  few.  Time  is  also  an 
important  factor  since  a  building  is  usually 
comprehended  in  a  succession  of  experiences. 
We  are  living  in  a  world  being  reshaped  by 
science,  industry  and  speed.  Elements  are 
employed  in  architecture,  urgent  experimen- 
tation directed  toward  answering  the  needs 
of  a  specific  way  of  life— climate,  methods  of 
labour,  available  materials  and  economy  of 
means,  each  of  the  greater  styles  of  today,  by 
discovery  of  a  new  structural  method. 

In  the  20th  century  new  forms  of  building 
have  been  devised  with  the  use  of  reinforced 
concrete,  the  development  of  light  material 
with  reinforced  structures,  plastics,  steel  and 
other  metal  alloys,  and  adhesives.  One 
should  not  forget  bricks,  and  cement  blocks 
for  the  latter  are  used  in  large  quantities  in 
construction  of  our  schools  and  homes  in 
Ontario.  Today  modern  architecture  has  pro- 
duced some  of  the  most  exciting  structures 
in  history,  and  the  search  for  adequate,  new 
structural  and  artistic  formulas.  Most  archi- 
tects prefer  a  standard  dimension  that  people 
will  recognize,  and  one  in  particular  is  the 
unit  dimension  known  as  the  four-inch  modu- 
lar. Why  the  unit  dimension  of  four?  One 
can  summarize  by  saying  it  would  take  the 
guess-work  out  of  designing  of  buildings.  It 
would  take  away  many  lost  man-hours  in 
revision  of  drawings  in  the  steps  of  fabrica- 
tion of  the  material  required. 

The  market  in  Ontario  for  building  prod- 
ucts consists  of  many  components,  all  of  vari- 
ation in  size.  One  cannot  change  the  design 
or  dimensions  of  a  building  to  suit  the  needs 
of  every  manufacturer  in  Ontario  or  Canada. 
Never  before  has  there  been  a  concerted 
effort  by  architects,  engineers  and  contractors 
to  get  manufacturers  to  supply  building 
materials  with  dimensions  of  the  same  mul- 
tiple, the  unit  four  dimension. 

What  is  needed  in  Ontario  is  the  adoption 
of  modular  co-ordination  in  building  ma- 
terials. The  government  of  Ontario  does  not 
have  a  planned  building  programme.  They 
do  not  in  fact  know  where  they  are  going. 
Tliis  government  has  not  kept  pace  with  the 
social  change,  our  technology  change  and  a 
change  to  uniformity  design  and  materials. 
Different  people  have  different  standards  for 
building  materials,  such  items  as  bricks, 
cement  blocks,  pre-cast  cement,  molded 
plastics.  This  creates  many  difficulties  in  the 
planning  and  construction  of  buildings.    One 


example  is  our  schools  that  are  being  con- 
structed today.  One  school  board  can  build 
a  10-room  school  for  approximately  40  per 
cent  less  than  the  adjoining  school  board  for 
the  same  size  school.  When  one  looks  at 
Queen's  University  and  their  latest  construc- 
tion at  Queen's,  one  can  see  where  it  blends 
in  with  the  old  construction.  Thus  I  think  we 
have  harmony,  and  in  many  cases  this  is 
lacking  in  the  present  government  buildings. 

Mr.  Speaker,  commencing  early  in  1969 
the  federal  Department  of  Public  Works  is 
going  to  accept  the  principle  that  their  build- 
ings are  fabricated  from  modular  size  com- 
ponents, and  I  hope  that  this  will  give 
enough  incentive  to  bring  order  to  the 
chaotic  conditions  existing.  Where  is  the 
leadership  in  Ontario?  Surely  this  govern- 
ment of  25  years  in  office  can  provide  direc- 
tion to  initiate  a  programme  in  Ontario  where 
it  costs  nothing,  but  will  be  in  the  long  run  a 
saving  in  dollars  for  the  new  Minister  of 
Revenue— by  the  adoption  of  this  resolution, 
"that  all  government  of  Ontario  buildings  in 
the  province  should  be  constructed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  modular  panel  principle." 

It  would  ensure  that  the  projects  are  in 
the  realm  of  reasonableness  that  would  apply 
to  hospitals,  schools,  colleges  and  universities 
by  encouraging  improvements  in  the  manu- 
facture and  assembly  of  materials.  Many  of 
the  building  projects  fall  short  of  the  desired 
qualities.  A  great  deal  of  the  manufacturing 
process  of  building  components  approaches 
the  custom  method  of  fabrication  and  pro- 
duction as  opposed  to  automatic  or  semi- 
automatic production-line  basis.  It  is  much 
easier  working  with  standardized  unit  dimen- 
sions where  all  fabrication  of  steel,  metal 
alloys,  pre-cast  cement  and  plastics  can  be 
jigged  in  assembly  lines  for  fabrication  in 
increasing  the  efficiency  of  manufacturing.  A 
far  greater  need  is  in  uniform  codes  and 
regulations  adopted  for  building,  for  safety, 
heating  and  plumbing  and  electrical  com- 
ponents. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  concur  and  endorse  the 
resolution.  It  has  merits,  but  I  go  one  step 
more,  and  adopt  the  federal  programme 
known  as  BEAM.  It  is  being  endorsed  by 
the  federal  Department  of  Public  Works. 
They  accepted  this  programme  of  necessity 
for  increased  efficiency  in  the  building  in- 
dustry, efficiency  in  more  accurate  estimates. 
We  in  Canada  are  becoming  more  mobile, 
moving  from  one  province  to  another.  Archi- 
tects, engineers  and  tradesmen  are  construct- 
ing new  buildings  everywhere  in  Canada.  It 
is  time  now  for  the  province  of  Ontario,  for 


NOVEMBER  25,  1968 


123 


this  government  to  get  on  the  BEAM  pro- 
gramme, to  come  in  loud  and  clear  and  to 
get  in  step  with  the  rest  of  Canada,  in  step 
with  our  present  and  future  needs. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  endorse  the  resolution. 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Mr.  Speaker,  it 
hardly  behooves  me  at  this  stage  to  say 
again  what  has  already  been  said  twice.  We 
are  in  favour  of  progress  in  the  building 
industry  and  so  I  do  not  expect  to  take  as 
much  time  as  the  other  speakers  have  taken. 

But  it  is  an  interesting  thing  that  when 
people  talk,  as  we  have  talked  so  much  about 
competition  in  all  fields— and  that  competition 
has  brought  a  plethora  of  standards,  sizes, 
types  of  building  materials  and  all  the  rest 
of  it— then,  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
it  is  just  too  costly  to  put  up  with  that  kind 
of  competition  in  the  whole  building  field. 
TJien  we  start  to  look  for  standards;  for  a 
way  to  cut  down  the  costs  of  this  kind  of 
duplication.  Inventory,  for  example,  is  an 
expensive  business.  We  used  to  have,  in  this 
province,  if  my  figures  are  accurate,  about 
498  different  sizes,  types,  specifications  of 
blocks,  building  blocks. 

Just  imagine  the  expense  of  maintaining 
inventory  of  this  kind.  The  expense  of  setting 
up  the  manufacturing  equipment  for  all  these 
different  kinds  of  building  blocks.  We  began 
to  get  some  sense  and  began  to  move  toward 
co-ordination,  modular  co-ordination;  the  kind 
of  co-ordination  which  makes  just  plain 
commonsense  in  the  building  industry.  So 
today,  we  have  not  498  different  specifications 
for  building  blocks,  but  12. 

This  simplifies  the  problem  in  a  dramatic 
way,  and  gives  to  us  a  new  perspective  in 
the  whole  building  field.  Here  in  the  metro- 
politan area,  the  school  board,  I  understand, 
has  undertaken  to  build  31  schools  and  an 
office  building  by  the  early  70's  under  this 
kind  of  method  where  the  specifications  are 
laid  down;  where  the  different  types  of 
materials  and  gadgets  that  fit  into  the  build- 
ing are  so  planned  that  they  fit  together  and 
they  make  one  coherent  whole.  It  limits  the 
amount  of  work  that  has  to  be  done  on  the 
building  site.  The  old  craft  method  of  putting 
together  a  home  or  a  building  there,  bringing 
in  all  the  piles  of  lumber,  the  different 
materials  that  have  to  be  assembled,  is  done 
away  with  in  large  measure.  The  inter-relat- 
ing systems  in  this  programme  which  Metro 
is  now  undertaking,  the  Metro  school  board, 
means  that  75  per  cent  of  the  total  building 
package  is  brought  in  and  assembled  in  this 


way.  The  finishing  has  to  be  done  by  the 
crafts  but  75  per  cent  of  this  can  be  done 
through   modular  co-ordination. 

I  watched  in  some  of  the  social  democratic 
countries  in  Europe  where  this  kind  of  pro- 
cess is  going  on.  Great  apartment  blocks  and 
great  office  blocks  going  up  with  the  cranes 
simply  fitting  into  place  these  articles,  these 
parts  of  a  building  built  to  this  kind  of 
specification. 

So  we  understand  and  we  support  this  kind 
of  modular  co-ordination  which  is  now  be- 
coming widespread.  But  we  think  this.  Not 
only  should  we  be  using  it  but  we  should 
have  the  kind  of  legislation  which  makes  it 
easier.  Perhaps  revising  the  national  building 
code,  as  I  suggested  last  year,  will  help  in 
this  whole  field.  Certainly,  standards  set  by 
this  government  for  its  own  building  will  be 
of  great  assistance.  As  soon  as  we  begin  to 
tie  in  the  public  building  with  the  private 
sector,  and  all  together,  start  to  move  with 
the  modular  co-ordination  plan,  then  I  am 
certain  that  the  cut  in  building  costs,  the 
cut  in  the  time  factor,  will  be  dramatic. 

I  have  the  figures  here  which  the  author- 
ities in  this  field  say  are  accurate.  This  kind 
of  construction  will  result  in  10  to  15  per 
cent  cut  in  the  cost.  It  is  much  better  quality, 
a  far,  far  speedier  construction  and  more  than 
that,  the  architects  say  that  it  lends  itself  to 
far  more  exciting  concepts  of  building. 

So,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  simply  say  today  that 
we  support  this  whole  concept.  We  support 
this  idea.  We  support  this  resolution.  It  is 
another  illustration  of  how  the  Tory  mind  is 
gradually  coining  toward  the  road  to  what 
has  been  called,  across  the  floor  of  this 
House,  socialism.  More  co-ordination,  more 
co-operation,  more  socialism  in  the  whole 
field  which  once  used  to  be  a  jungle  of 
capitalism. 

So  we  congratulate  the  member  for  mov- 
ing in  this  direction,  for  moving  closer  to  the 
ideas  which  we  have  had  for  a  long  time  and 
we  ask  this  government  to  get  with  it  and 
start  to  move  in  this  direction. 

Hon.  H.  L.  Rowntree  (Minister  of  Financial 
and  Commercial  Affairs):  Mr.  Speaker,  to- 
morrow we  will  continue  with  the  Throne 
Debate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rowntree  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  5.30  o'clock,  p.m. 


No.  6 


ONTARIO 


^legislature  of  (Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  -  DAILY  EDITION 


Second  Session  of  the  Twenty-Eighth  Legislature 


Tuesday,  November  26,  1968 


Speaker:  Honourable  Fred  Mcintosh  Cass,  Q.C. 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  Q.C 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 


Price  per  session,  $5.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto. 


- 

CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  November  26,  1968 

rates  Bannon  and  Gardhouse,  Mr.  Wishart  127 

Motion  to  appoint  Mr.   Reuter   as   chairman  of  the   committee  of  the  whole   House, 

Mr.  Robarts,  agreed  to 127 

Public  Utilities  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Deans,  first  reading  128 

Coroners  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Shulman,  first  reading  128 

Provincial  Courts  Act,  statement  by  Mr.  Wishart  128 

Safety  regulations  for  tunnel   workers,   questions   to   Mr.   Bales,   Mr.   MacDonald   and 

Mr.   De  Monte 129 

Adverse  weather  loan,  questions  to  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr.  Spence  130 

Safety  regulations  for  school  buses,  questions  to  Mr.  Haskett,  Mr.  T.  Reid  130 

Throne  Speech  translation  into  French,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Knight  131 

Bellwood  Orchard  property  in  Hamilton,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Deans  131 

Home  purchase  plans  OHC  tenants,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Deans  132 

ODC  loans  to  firms  in  designated  areas,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Ben  132 

Thistletown  OHC  complex,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Ben  132 

Uniform  building  code,  questions  to  Mr.  McKeough,  Mr.  Ben  and  Mr.  Sargent  133 

Rapid  transit  systems,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Sargent  135 

Headlight  failures  in  motor  vehicles,  questions  to  Mr.  Haskett,  Mr.  Sargent  135 

Mafia  factions  in  eastern  Canada,  question  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Young  135 

Home  purchase  plans  for  OHC  tenants,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Braithwaite  136 

Proctor-Silex  dispute,  question  to  Mr.  Bales,  Mr.  Pilkey  136 

Assessment  advantages  to  attact  industries,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Pitman  137 

Staff  conditions  at  Millbrook  reformatory,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Grossman  and 

Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Pitman  137 

Confederation  of  Tomorrow  booklet,  questions  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Burr  138 

Home  purchase  plans  for  OHC  tenants,  question  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Burr  138 

Gasoline  tax  refund,  question  to  Mr.  MacNaughton,  Mr.  Ruston  139 

Home  purchase  plans  for  OHC  tenants,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  B.  Newman  139 

Sale  of  health  insurance,  questions  to  Mr.  Rowntree,  Mr.  Shulman  140 

Civil  service  association,  question  to  Mr.  MacNaughton,  Mr.  Gisborn  141 

Land  acquisition  for  provincial  park,  questions  to  Mr.  Brunelle,  Mr.  Gisborn  141 

Adverse  weather  insurance,  questions  to  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  142 

Algonquin  Park,  questions  to  Mr.  Brunelle,  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  142 

Licence  suspension  by  magistrates,  questions  to  Mr.  Haskett,  Mr.  Bullbrook  143 

Provincial  judges,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Singer  143 

Construction  zone  speed  limits,  questions  to  Mr.  Haskett,  Mr.  Young  145 

Reconstruction  of  highway,  question  to  Mr.  Gomme,  Mr.  Stokes  145 

Commemoration  of  birth  of  Hon.  George  Brown,  statement  by  Mr.  Robarts  145 

Municipal  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  McKeough,  second  reading  146 

Municipal  Act,  bill  to  amend,  reported  147 

Third  reading   147 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Nixon,  Mr.  MacDonald  147 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  MacDonald,  agreed  to 165 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Robarts,  agreed  to  165 


127 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2.30  o'clock,  p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Today,  in  our  galleries  we 
have  visitors  from  several  schools.  In  the  east 
gallery  from  Orchard  Park  High  School  in 
Hamilton;  Tabor  Park  Vocational  School  in 
Scarborough;  and  Sunningdale  Public  School, 
Oakville;  and  in  the  west  gallery,  Glenview 
Senior  Public  School,  Toronto,  and  from 
Upper  Canada  College  in  Toronto. 

Later  this  afternoon,  we  will  be  joined  by 
students  from  Port  Perry  High  School  in  Port 
Perry  and  from  Ryerson  Polytechnic  School 
in  Toronto. 

We  welcome  these  young  people  here. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  A.  A.  Wishart  (Attorney  General): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  beg  leave  to  table  the  report 
of  the  inquiry  re  Magistrate  Frederick  J. 
Bannon  and  Magistrate  George  W.  Gard- 
house. 

This  is  pursuant  to  the  requirement  of 
section  3,  subsection  4,  of  The  Magistrates 
Act  which  requires  the  report  to  be  tabled 
within  15  days  of  the  opening  of  the  Legis- 
lature. 

With  the  report,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  table  the 
six  volumes  which  comprise  a  transcript  of 
evidence  and  correspondence  relating  to  the 
resignation  and  dismissal  of  Magistrate  Ban- 
non and  the  Orders-in-Council  having  to  do 
with  that  same  matter. 

Mr.  Speaker:   Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts  moves,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Nixon,  that  Mr.  A.  E.  Reuter,  member  for  the 
electoral  district  of  Waterloo  South,  be  ap- 
pointed chairman  of  the  committee  of  the 
whole  House  for  the  present  session. 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  ( Prime  Minister ) : 
Before  you  put  the  motion,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  just  like  to  take  this  occasion  to  express 
the  thanks  and  appreciation  of  this  side  of 
the  House  for  the  way  in  which  the  hon. 
member  discharged  his  duties  last  year. 

We  do  not  always  agree  with  his  ruling, 
sir,    any   more    than   we    always    agree   with 


Tuesday,  November  26,  1968 

yours,  but  we  always  find  him  to  be  so  emi- 
nently fair  that  we  accept  them,  even  if  we 
do  not  agree  with  them. 

I  felt  that,  last  year,  these  duties  were  dis- 
charged well  and  efficiently,  and  I  look  for- 
ward to  the  same  performance,  if  I  may  put 
it  that  way,  and  the  same  high  standard  of 
excellence  in  the  months  that  lie  ahead. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very  glad  to  be 
asked  to  second  the  motion  which  has  been 
put  and  to  say  that  we,  too,  have  confidence 
in  the  fair  judgment  of  the  hon.  member  in 
carrying  out  his  duties  for  another  year. 

Sometimes  I  feel  he  is  the  hardest  work- 
ing person,  not  only  in  government  or  in 
Opposition,  but  in  the  whole  of  the  Legis- 
lature since  he  has  to  spend  so  many  hours 
directing  our  deliberations  on  the  estimates. 
It  is  not  possible  for  him  to  let  his  attention 
wander  on  brief  occasions,  as  it  is  possible, 
perhaps,  on  both  sides  of  the  House,  because 
he  never  knows  when  precisely  he  is  going 
to  be  called  upon  to  settle  some  small  flare- 
up. 

He  does  work  extremely  hard  in  this  par- 
ticular job  and  I  can  say  from  this  side  that 
we  appreciate  it  very  greatly.  And  I  hope 
that  he  can  give  me  the  assurances  that  he 
will  not  use  the  gratitude  and  compliments 
that  have  been  expressed  on  this  side  of  the 
House  so  frequently  in  his  election  pamphlets 
next  time. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  can  only  echo  the  comments  of 
both  the  Prime  Minister  and  the  leader  of  the 
Opposition.  Indeed,  I  want  to  congratulate 
the  Prime  Minister  because  I  think  this  is, 
in  my  experience,  an  unprecedented  event. 
We  have  had  traditions  in  the  past  that,  no 
matter  how  good  or— dare  I  add— how  bad 
persons  have  been  in  this  position,  they  have 
had  one  term  of  office  only  and  there  was  no 
opportunity  to  carry  on  good  work. 

In  this  instance,  I  think  it  is  highly  com- 
mendable that  the  government  is  giving  the 
hon.  member  for  Waterloo  South  an  oppor- 
tunity to  carry  on  in  this  capacity.  I  was 
confident,  when  he  was  appointed  last  year, 
that  he  would  be  about  as  fair  a  person  as 


128 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ever  sat  in  that  chair— and  events  prove  that 
to  be  the  case.  As  with  the  Prime  Minister, 
I  will  say  that  on  occasion  I  did  not  agree 
with  his  ruling  but,  again,  with  the  Prime 
Minister,  I  always  thought  that  he  was  mak- 
ing them  honestly  and  they  were  eminently 
fair.  Perhaps,  in  retrospect,  I  was  even  per- 
suaded he  was  right. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  I  may,  I  will  join  the 
leaders  of  the  parties  and  say  that  I,  too,  am 
exceedingly  pleased  at  this  motion  of  the 
House  and  I  know  it  will  add  to  the  efficiency 
and  good  work  of  the  members. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Introduction  of  bills. 

THE  PUBLIC  UTILITIES  ACT 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth)  moves  first  read- 
ing of  bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  The 
Public  Utilities  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  prohibit  the  collection  of  secur- 
ity deposits  for  the  supplying  of  public 
utilities. 

THE  CORONERS  ACT 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park)  moves  first 
reading  of  bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  amend 
The  Coroners  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  em- 
bodies the  recommendation  made  by  Chief 
Justice  McRuer  that  affected  persons  be 
allowed  to  examine  witnesses  at  an  inquest 
either  in  person  or  through  counsel. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Attorney  General. 

Hon.  A.  A.  Wishart  (Attorney  General):  Mr. 
Speaker,  before  the  orders  of  the  day,  I 
should  like  to  make  a  brief  statement  with 
respect  to  The  Provincial  Courts  Act  and  the 
proclamation  thereof. 

I  wish  to  advise  the  hon.  members  that  the 
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council  has,  by  bis 
proclamation,  named  Monday,  December  2, 
1968,  as  the  day  upon  which  The  Provincial 
Courts  Act,  1968,  shall  come  into  force  in 
our  province.  The  existing  members  of  the 
magisterial  and  juvenile  and  family  court 
benches  have  now  been  appointed  as  judges 
of  the  provincial  court,  providing  a  full  time 
complement  of  130  judges. 


I  should  also  mention,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
12  men  have  been  appointed  as  part  time 
judges  with  appointments  expiring  on  April 
30,  1969,  in  order  that  we  may  have  an 
orderly  transition  to  a  complete  and  full  time 
bench  over  a  period  of  time.  The  county 
court  judges  who  have  provided  valuable 
service  in  the  juvenile  and  family  courts  have 
now  retired. 

As  hon.  members  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
Act  provides  for  a  provincial  court  made  up 
of  a  criminal  division  and  a  family  division, 
with  courts  of  record  sitting  for  each  division 
in  every  county  and  district.  The  provincial 
court  of  the  county  or  district  will  sit  in  such 
parts  of  the  area  as  may  be  necessary  to 
meet  the  needs  of  the  people,  and  initially 
in  the  same  location  as  previously  served  by 
the  courts  now  replaced. 

All  of  the  steps  have  been  taken  for  the 
orderly  establishment  of  the  new  court,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  we  look  forward  to  the  improve- 
ments and  developments  that  we  are  sure 
will  be  realized  under  the  new  system.  The 
Judicial  Council  with  the  new  procedural  pro- 
vision in  the  court,  will,  I  am  sure,  enable 
us  to  deal  more  effectively  with  the  responsi- 
bility that  is  placed  upon  ourselves  and  the 
judges  of  the  provincial  courts. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Has  the  hon.  member  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister?  The  hon.  leader  of  the 
Opposition  always  has  the  first  question. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
directed  to  the  Minister  of  Health,  who  is  not 
in  his  seat  today,  so  I  will  forego  that 
privilege. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
South. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  have  a  number  of  ques- 
tions; the  first  one  is  a  carryover  from  yester- 
day to  the  Minister  of  Labour. 

In  view  of  the  lack  of  enforcement  of 
safety  regulations  for  tunnel  workers,  as 
acknowledged  by  the  Deputy  Minister  of 
Labour  and  the  chief  officer  of  the  construc- 
tion safety  branch  on  last  Sunday  night's 
"W-5"  programme  on  the  CTV  network,  what 
steps  has  the  Minister  taken  to  assure  that 
henceforth  regulations  will  be  enforced? 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downs  view):  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  member  for  Dovercourt  (Mr. 
De  Monte)  had  a  question  somewhat  similar 
in  context.  He  is  not  able  to  be  here  today 
and  he  asked  me  if  I  would  pose  the  question 
for  him.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  Minister 
of  Labour  wants  to  answer  them  both  at 
once  or— 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


129 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  it  might  be  well  if 
the  hon.  member  would  place  the  question  of 
the  member  for  Dovercourt  now. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  question  is  this,  Mr. 
Speaker: 

(1)  Has  the  Minister  looked  into  the  new 
system  of  medical  examinations  now  required 
by  the  State  of  California  for  men  working 
under  pressure  in  tunnels? 

(2)  What  medical  requirements  are  now 
sot  down  by  his  department  for  men  working 
under  pressure? 

(3)  In  view  of  the  fact  that  most  or  part 
of  the  Yonge  Street  subway  extension  will  be 
constructed  by  the  tunnel  method  under  pres- 
sure, is  the  Minister  considering  a  review  of 
the  medical  requirements  for  men  working 
under  pressure? 

(4)  Does  his  department  inspect  the  proj- 
ects where  men  are  working  under  pressure? 

(5)  Is  there  a  medical  inspector  w1k>  does 
a  medical  inspection  on  the  job  site? 

(6)  How  many  inspectors  are  there? 

Hon.  D.  A.  Bales  (Minister  of  Labour):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  will  deal  with  the  questions  separ- 
ately, if  I  may. 

In  reply  to  the  question  from  the  hon. 
member  for  York  South,  I  hue  been  assured 
by  my  officials  that  no  such  acknowledgment 
was  made  and  it  is  not  correct  to  say  that 
there  is  a  lack  of  enforcement  of  safety  regu- 
lations for  tunnel  workers.  Certain  claims 
were  made  on  the  programme  by  members  of 
Local  183  of  the  Labourers'  Union  and  these 
are  now  being  vigorously  investigated. 

With  reference  to  the  question  placed  by 
the  hon.  member  for  Downsview  as  initially 
submitted  by  the  hon.  member  for  Dover- 
court,  I  will  deal  with  the  answers  to  the 
questions  as  raised: 

In  answer  to  the  first  part:  I  am  aware  of 
the  California  system  and  the  officials  of  my 
department,  together  with  our  medical  con- 
sultants, are  looking  into  it. 

The  second  part:  I  would  refer  the  mem- 
ber to  the  sections  106  to  114  inclusive  of 
regulations  100/63  made  under  The  Depart- 
ment of  Labour  Act.  In  addition,  supple- 
mentary information  and  advice  are  supplied 
by  medical  consultants  in  the  health  depart- 
ment to  project  physicians. 

The  third  part  is  that  a  review  is  cur- 
rently under  way  in  reference  to  this  matter. 

The  fourth  part,  the  answer  is  yes. 

The  fifth:  The  regulations  require  a  phy- 
sician to  be  appointed  to  carry  out  all  neces- 


sary medical  functions  on  every  compressed 
air  project.  The  project  physicians  are  re- 
sponsible for  all  the  medical  aspects  of  each 
project  and  under,  in  effect,  medical  inspec- 
tors. 

The  last  part:  The  number  of  compressed 
air  projects  have  averaged  about  nine  in  a 
year  and  there  are  four  inspectors  of  caissons 
who  regularly  inspect  them. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if 
I  might  ask  the  Minister  a  supplementary 
question?  Without  getting  into  an  argument 
with  him  as  to  whether  or  not  there  were 
violations  admitted  on  Sunday  night,  it  was 
conceded  that  there  was  not  an  extensive 
health  examination  at  the  beginning.  There 
was  never  any  examination  midway  through 
the  day's  work.  There  was  never  a  full  ex- 
amination at  the  end. 

Is  it  the  obligation  of  the  union  to  bring 
to  the  attention  of  the  government  such 
failure  to  live  up  to  the  regulations,  or  does 
the  department  assume  responsibility  for  en- 
forcing its  own  regulations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bales:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
seen  the  transcript  from  that  programme  nor 
did  I  see  the  programme  itself,  but  I  have 
ordered  a  transcript.  The  department  takes 
an  active  part  in  this  and  there  are  certain 
matters  that  have  come  to  light  since  yester- 
day in  reference  to  claims  that  were  made 
and  I  would  prefer  to  wait  until  I  have  had 
a  full   investigation  made. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  My  question,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  to  the  Minister  of  Trade  and  Develop- 
ment in  four  parts: 

1.  When  was  a  forgiveness  loan  extended 
to  Matthews  Conveyer  Company  in  Port 
Hope? 

2.  For  what  amount  was  the  loan? 

3.  Is  the  Minister  aware  that  since  receiv- 
ing the  loan  the  company  has  laid  off  50 
workers  and  further  lay-offs  are  currently 
under  way? 

4.  Do  the  conditions  of  the  forgiveness 
loan  permit  cut  backs  in  the  work  force? 

Hon.  S.  J.  Randall  (Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  received  that 
question  a  few  minutes  ago.  I  am  getting 
information  and  I  will  pass  it  on  to  the  hon. 
member   tomorrow  perhaps. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  from  last  week 
two  questions  of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food,  one  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Huron-Bruce.  Does  he  wish  to  place  that 
question? 


130 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  had  the  information  given  to  me 
privately.    I  will  withdraw  the  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kent. 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
question  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food: 

Is  the  Minister  prepared  to  extend  the 
adverse  weather  loan  one  more  year  to  those 
farmers  who  are  finding  it  impossible  to 
meet  the  loan  payments  because  of  low  agri- 
culture prices  and  adverse  weather  conditions? 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  find  some 
difficulty  in  accepting  this  request.  The  ad- 
verse weather  loan  was  provided,  as  you  will 
recall,  two  years  ago  and  again  last  year. 
The  government  of  Ontario  provided  the 
interest  payment  in  its  entirety  for  the  first 
year^  and  50  per  cent  of  the  interest  payment 
for  the  second  year.  The  farmers  were 
required  on  the  second  year  to  make  a  per- 
centage payment— I  believe  it  was  ten  per 
cent  of  their  obligation,  if  my  memory  serves 
me  correctly— and  50  per  cent  of  the  total 
interest  on  the  loan  for  that  year. 

I  sympathize  with  farmers  who  have  had 
crop  losses  this  year,  but  I  frankly  do  not 
believe  they  were  very  extensive.  There  were 
individual  cases  but  it  certainly  was  not  on 
the  widespread  basis  that  had  pertained  in 
other  years.  We  have  taken  the  position  that 
the  loans  are  guaranteed  by  the  government 
to  the  banks.  We  expect  the  banks  to  use 
all  normal  means  of  collection  that  they 
usually  pursue  in  such  matters.  I  would  feel 
that  we  had  better  let  things  stand  as  they 
are,  because  crop  insurance  is  being  provided 
and  I  have  grave  doubts  about  extending 
adverse  weather  loans  assistance  when  crop 
insurance  is  available  on  most  crops  now. 

Mr.  Spence:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if  the 
Minister  would  permit  a  supplementary  ques- 
tion? 

Is  the  Minister  aware  that  some  farmers 
have  approached  the  banks  for  an  extension 
of  this  money  and  that  they  refuse  to  do 
anything  for  them,  or  refuse  to  write  to  you, 
Mr.  Minister,  for  an  extension  to  carry  them 
over  till  next  year? 


Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  No,  I  was  not  aware  of 


it. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Yesterday  there  was  a  ques- 
tion by  the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough 
East  (Mr.  T.  Reid)  of  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation. It  was  transferred  to  the  Minister  of 


Transport.  The  member  for  Scarborough 
East,  being  absent  today,  has  requested  that 
the  answer  be  given  so  that  it  may  be  on 
record  and  available  to  the  public.  I  wonder 
if  the  Minister  of  Transport  has  that;  it  is 
question  No.  92  with  respect  to  school  buses? 

Hon.  I.  Haskett  (Minister  of  Transport): 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  question  asked  by  the  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  East  yesterday  of 
the  Minister  of  Education  and  referred  now 
to  me  comes  in  two  parts  dealing  respectively 
with  the  vehicle  and  the  driver. 

First  as  to  the  equipment  required  on 
school  buses.  The  Highway  Traffic  Act  re- 
quires departmental  approval  for  all  safety 
glass,  head  lamps  and  reflectors  used  on  all 
motor  vehicles.  In  addition,  on  school  buses, 
the  special  signalling  lamps  that  are  required 
for  stopping  when  picking  up  or  discharging 
pupils  must  be  approved. 

There  are  other  requirements  for  school 
buses  in  particular.  These  vehicles  must  be 
equipped  with  such  items  as  rear  emergency 
door;  push-out  windows;  tire  chains  or  snow 
tires  on  each  driving  wheel  that  is  not  of  a 
dual  type,  whenever  highway  conditions  re- 
quire their  use;  interior  view  mirrors  and 
exterior  rear  view  mirrors;  insulated  floors; 
windshield  wipers  and  defrosters;  interior 
lighting;  fire  extinguishers  and  emergency 
tools. 

I  will  now  deal  with  how  these  require- 
ments are  enforced.  Regulations  made  under 
The  Highway  Traffic  Act  require  that  school 
buses  having  a  seating  capacity  of  ten  or 
more,  and  may  not  be  operated  unless  a 
certificate  of  mechanical  fitness  is  filed  with 
the  department,  on  or  before  August  31  and 
December  31  of  each  year.  Certificates 
required  under  this  regulation  are  thus  re- 
quired immediately  prior  to  the  beginning  of 
the  school  year,  and  again  at  a  point  in  the 
year  when  the  vehicles  will  be  subject  to  the 
most  severe  winter  driving  conditions.  The 
inspection  must  be  carried  out  by  a  certified 
class  A  motor  mechanic. 

Our  control  file  of  these  certificates  is  so 
devised  that  the  department  is  aware  imme- 
diately of  any  dereliction  on  the  part  of  the 
operator.  An  inspector  then  investigates  to 
determine  why  a  certificate  has  not  been 
filed,  and  in  the  course  of  the  investigation, 
he  inspects  the  vehicle,  orders  an  in-depth 
inspection  by  a  mechanic,  and  recommends 
the  laying  of  charges  if  the  circumstances 
warrant  it.  In  addition  to  the  inspection  I 
have  mentioned,  every  school  bus  is  seen  by 
our  inspectors  at  least  twice  annually— once 
normally   during  September  or  October  and 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


131 


again  in  February  or  March.  The  second  part 
of  the  question  relates  to  the  school  bus 
driver.  An  application  to  pass  a  driver's 
licence  requires  the  applicant  to  file  at  the 
time  of  his  first  application,  a  satisfactory 
medical  certificate,  and  to  pass  comprehen- 
sive tests  of  vision,  sign  recognition,  knowl- 
edge of  the  rules  of  the  road,  bus  equipment, 
safety  and  passenger  control  as  well  as  driv- 
ing ability.  The  road  test  must  be  taken  in 
a  school  bus.  The  vision  standards  for  school 
bus  drivers  are  more  vigorous  than  those  for 
other  drivers  and  are  uniform  across  Canada. 
They  now  require  a  rating  of  20-30—90  per 
cent— in  the  better  eye,  and  20-50—76  per 
cent— in  the  weaker  eye.  Field  vision  must 
be  120  degrees  in  each  eye,  and  colour  recog- 
nition is  tested  to  ensure  the  ability  to  dis- 
tinguish between  red  and  green. 

School  bus  drivers,  65  years  of  age  and 
over,  are  required  to  pass  a  certificate  of 
physical  fitness,  signed  by  a  medical  prac- 
titioner, and  to  pass  the  complete  test  I  have 
mentioned  each  year.  Those  under  65  years 
of  age  are  required  to  file  a  certificate  of 
physical  fitness,  and  to  pass  tests  of  vision 
and  knowledge  of  the  rules  of  the  road  every 
three  years.  If  the  medical  certificate  indi- 
cates any  chronic  ailment  in  the  given  list, 
the  opinion  of  my  medical  advisers  is  ob- 
tained as  to  the  competence  of  the  person 
to  operate  a  school  bus. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre  was  on  his  feet  a  moment  ago  to 
ask  a  question  on  behalf  of  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Port  Arthur  (Mr.  Knight). 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  I  have 
a  question  for  the  Prime  Minister  from  the 
hon.  member  for  Port  Arthur. 

Pourquoi  l'adresse  au  commencement  de  la 
deuxieme  session,  mardi,  n'a  pas  ete  en 
francais  aussi  bien  que  en  anglais.  Et  pour- 
quoi, la  traduction  ne  tient  pas  sur  nos 
bureaux  ici  aujourd'hui? 

Why  was  the  Throne  Speech  opening 
the  second  session  on  Tuesday  not  read 
in  the  French  language,  and  why  is  a  copy  of 
the  French  translation  not  on  the  desks  of  the 
members  in  this  House  today? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  I 
should  say  that  the  speech  was  not  com- 
pleted in  time  to  have  it  translated  quite  as 
rapidly  as  we  would  have  liked.  In  any  event, 
the  translation  was  completed  on  Wednesday, 
and  the  French  copies  were  distributed  to 
some  members  of  this  assembly— I  do  not 
know  whether  they  were  distributed  to  all 
members.  They  were  distributed  to  all  French 


newspapers  and  periodicals  on  our  complete 
French  mailing  list.  There  are  copies  avail- 
able for  any  of  the  members  who  would  like 
to  have  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth. 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  two 
questions  for  the  hon.  Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development. 

Would  the  Minister  inform  the  House  of 
the  year  that  the  Bellwood  Orchard  property 
was  purchased  by  the  Ontario  Housing  Cor- 
poration, and  how  much  money  has  been 
expended  by  the  government  in  purchase  and 
development  of  this  land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  answer 
to  the  hon.  member,  the  Bellwood  Orchard 
property  in  Hamilton  was  acquired  under 
the  provision  of  the  land  acquisition  holding 
agreement  dated  February  1,  1954,  between 
the  federal  and  provincial  governments. 

Secondly,  the  Ontario  Housing  Corpora- 
tion is  continually  in  the  market  for  land, 
and  uses  its  best  endeavours  to  obtain  the 
most  favourable  prices.  At  the  moment,  we 
have  options  on  land  in  many  areas  of  the 
province  and  we  do  not  believe,  as  I  have 
stated  previously,  that  it  would  be  in  the 
public  interest  to  disclose  prices  at  which 
this  land  had  been  purchased. 

Thirdly,  the  development  cost  to  date  of 
the  Bellwood  Orchard  property  amounts  to 
$1,043,481.  This  is  being  developed  in  phases 
of:  the  first  97.5  acres  in  two  plans  of  sub- 
division; another  241.5  acres  now  under 
planned  development,  and  the  remaining  504 
acres  to  be  developed  as  quickly  as  services 
can  be  provided. 

In  this  regard,  the  Ontario  Housing  Cor- 
poration has  already  indicated  its  willingness 
to  advance  funds  required  towards  service 
costs  if  they  are  needed. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
clarification,  does  that  figure  include  the  pur- 
chase price? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  No,  that  is  just  serv- 
ices; the  member  asked  for  development 
costs. 

Mr.  Deans:  Well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  We  are  not  disclosing 
the  purchase  prices. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  not  intend 
that  they  be  separated.  I  was  quite  happy 
to  get  them  both  lumped  together. 

A  second  question  for  the— 


132 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  MacDonald:  Secret  conduct  of  public 
business! 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  What  does  the  member 
want  us  to  do;  go  out  and  advertise  that  the 
government  is  coming  into  buy  land,  hit  them 
with  the  brass  band? 

Mr.   Speaker:   Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Would  everybody  raise- 
Mr.    Speaker:    Order!    The    hon.    member 
will  place  his  second  question. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  second  ques- 
tion. Will  the  Minister  explain  the  sale  price 
of  $16,000  per  unit  for  the  homes  which  are 
being  offered  for  sale  in  the  Guelph  Green 
Meadows  subdivision? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  homes 
in  the  Guelph  Green  Meadows  subdivision 
were  appraised  by  OHC  in  relation  to  the 
current  prices  being  paid  for  comparable 
houses  in  the  same  general  area.  However, 
as  the  hon.  member  well  knows,  the  market 
price  for  a  house  is  determined,  among  other 
tilings,  by  the  financing  arrangements  which 
are   available. 

For  example,  a  small  down  payment  with 
favourable  interest  rates  of  a  long  term  mort- 
gage on  the  balance  commands  a  higher 
price  than  all  cash. 

The  actual  cost  to  the  tenants  in  Guelph 
is  $14,000  as  this  is  the  figure  on  which  prin- 
cipal and  interest  payments  are  calculated. 
The  additional  $2,000  or  a  portion  of  it 
will  not  become  payable  unless  the  tenant 
or  purchaser  subsequently  disposes  of  the 
property  within  a  five-year  period  from  the 
date  of  purchase.  At  the  end  of  five  years, 
the  additional  $2,000  is  forgiven. 

This  is  a  built  in  discipline  which  is  felt 
to  be  preferable  to  a  "buy  back"  provision 
to  eliminate  speculation  which,  after  all,  is 
not  the  purpose  of  the  tenant  purchase  plan. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  would  the  Min- 
ister accept  a  supplementary  question?  Is  it 
the  intent  of  the  Ontario  Housing  Corpora- 
tion to  follow  this  practice  into  other  com- 
munities and,  in  particular,  into  Hamilton? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are 
other  questions  here.  Perhaps,  when  I  get 
through,  I  will  have  the  answer  for  you.  The 
answer  is  that  we  are  going  to  look  at  every 
project  in  all  communities  and  see  how  best 
we  can  work  out  an  arrangement. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Tyhe  hon.  member  for  Hum- 
ber. 


Mr.  G.  Ben  (Humber):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
a  question  also  of  the  hon.  Minister  of 
Trade  and  Development.  What  are  the  names 
of  the  two  lending  institutions  which  refused 
to  grant  loans  to  each  of  the  following  com- 
panies, in  order  that  they  might  qualify  for 
a  loan  when  locating  in  areas  of  the  prov- 
ince designated  as  slow  growth  areas  by  the 
Ontario  Development  Corporation?  The  com- 
panies are:  Union  Carbide,  Kraft  Foods, 
Allied  Chemical,  Campbell  Soups  and  Moore 
Corporation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a 
good  question.  I  am  glad  I  have  got  the 
answers.  The  companies  mentioned  did  not 
apply  for  a  conventional  loan.  The  com- 
panies mentioned  got  a  forgiveness  loan 
which,  if  they  stay  in  the  area  for  six  years, 
will  be  written  off  completely. 

Mr.  Ben:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  a  sup- 
plementary question— and  that  is  do  any  of 
these  companies  that  I  named  go  into  a 
new  area  to  erect  a  plant,  as  distinguished 
from  either  extending  an  existing  plant  or 
buying  new  equipment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  The  answer  is  "yes". 
Some  went  in  to  build  a  new  plant  in  a  new 
area. 

You  asked  me  initially:  Did  these  com- 
panies go  to  other  financial  institutions  and 
were  turned  down?  The  answer  is  "no";  they 
did  not  have  to  go  to  other  financial  institu- 
tions. They  got  a  forgiveness  loan. 

Mr.  Ben:  My  supplementary  question  was 
this:  Which  of  these  companies  actually  con- 
structed a  new  building  in  a  new  location, 
as  distinguished  from  merely  putting  on  an 
addition  to  an  existing  plant  or  just  bringing 
in  new  equipment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
say— Union  Carbide,  Kraft  Foods,  Allied 
Chemical,  Moore  Corporation  and  Campbell 
Soups. 

Mr.  Ben:  I  cannot  answer  the  Minister 
but  I  have  another  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  T^he  hon.  member  is  on  his 
feet  at  this  moment  to  ask  questions,  not  to 
answer  them. 

Mr.  Ben:  That  is  right.  I  still  have  a— 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  If  the  hon.  member  is 
going  to  answer  them,  I  will  sit  down. 

Mr.  Ben:  I  have  another  question  of  the 
same  Minister.  How  many  evictions  have 
there  been  from  the  Ontario  Housing  com- 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


133 


plex    at    Thistletown    during    the    past    two 
years? 

I  have  another  question.  Do  you  want  me 
to  read  it  now? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  I  think  the  hon.  mem- 
ber should  place  his  question. 

Mr.  Ben:  What  was  the  cost  of  mainten- 
ance at  Thistletown  during  1967? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
Thistletown  complex  was  built  in  two  sep- 
arate stages.  The  first,  comprising  309  units, 
was  taken  over  progressively  from  September 
30,  1966  to  August  3,  1967.  The  second 
phase  of  245  units  was  taken  under  manage- 
ment again  progressively,  between  November 
13,  1967  and  March  21,  1968,  and  during  the 
past  two  years  the  leases  of  29  tenants  have 
been  terminated  by  OHC  for  cause.  Of  these, 
28  families  located  voluntarily  and  in  only 
one  case  was  it  necessary  for  the  corporation 
to  obtain  vacant  possession  through  the 
courts. 

The  answer  to  the  second  question  is  that 
the  maintenance  cost  at  Thistletown  during 
1967  amounted  to  $34,962  inclusive  of  labour 
and  material,  broken  down  as  follows: 

Building  exteriors  $23,156,  building  in- 
teriors $772,  internal  painting  $8,090,  me- 
chanical and  electrical  systems  $1,882, 
appliances  $248,  grounds  $249,  fire  and  wind 
damage  $825,  sundry  $254;  for  a  total  of 
$35,476  less  recoveries  from  tenants  $514  to 
a  net  of  $34,962. 

Mr.  Ben:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  believe  the  other  Ministers 
are  all  absent  if  the  hon.  member  has  a— Oh, 
the  Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs  lias  returned. 

Mr.  Ben:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  to  the 
Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs,  notice  of  which 
has  been  given,  is: 

When  will  the  province— and  here  Mr. 
Speaker  we  should  have  added,  other  than  in 
due  course  or  in  the  fullness  of  time  or  even- 
tually—when will  the  province  compel  all 
municipalities  to  adopt  a  national  building 
code? 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  Munic- 
ipal Affairs):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to  the  hon. 
member's  question,  I  would  first  like  to  refer 
to  a  survey  carried  out  by  the  associate  com- 
mittee on  the  national  building  code.  It  was 
made  in  the  year  1966  and  pertains  to  the 
use  of  the  national  building  code  by  munici- 
palities in  Canada. 


In  this  province,  it  is  reported  that  87.5 
per  cent  of  the  population  live  in  municipali- 
ties that  have  adopted  the  national  building 
code,  or  have  used  it  as  a  base  for  building 
by-laws.  As  I  have  done  on  two  previous 
occasions  in  this  House,  I  again  state  my 
support  for  the  principle  of  uniform  building 
standards  throughout  the  province  of  Ontario. 

Much  correspondence  has  been  addressed 
to  me  on  this  subject  and  I  have  spoken  with 
people  representing  the  various  interests  of 
the  professions— the  building  construction  in- 
dustry, local  municipalities  and  building 
material  manufacturers. 

There  are  many  different  points  of  view 
among  supporters  of  uniform  building  stand- 
ards about  how,  by  whom  and  to  what  extent 
uniformity  can  be  realized.  It  was  because  of 
their  fundamental  differences  that  it  was  de- 
cided to  appoint  a  committee,  as  I  reported 
to  this  House  at  the  last  session.  On  Sep- 
teml>er  12,  the  appointment  of  committee 
members  was  announced,  chaired  by  Mr. 
Carnithers,  the  brother  of  the  hon.  member 
for  Durham. 

Meetings  are  underway  currently  and  the 
committee  will  shortly  be  inviting  written 
submissions  so  that  it  may  determine  possible 
courses  of  action  and  the  means  whereby  they 
may  be  carried  out. 

It  is  obvious,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  manda- 
tory adoption  of  uniform  building  standards 
cannot  be  considered  before  the  committee 
report  is  received,  and  they  hope  to  report 
to  me  by  July  1,  next. 

Mr.  Ben:  Will  the  hon.  Minister  entertain  a 
supplementary  question? 

May  I  ask  the  hon.  Minister,  what  per- 
centage of  the  population  of  this  province  is 
encompassed  by  the  87  per  cent  of  munici- 
palities mentioned  by  the  hon.  Minister? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  No,  it  is  87.5  per 
cent  of  the  population. 

Mr.  Ben.  Another  supplementary  question. 
Is  the  Minister  aware  that  one-third  of  the 
population  of  this  province,  roughly  one-third, 
is  in  the  municipality  of  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto and  it  has  not  adopted  the  national 
building  code? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  do  not  like  to  dis- 
agree with  the  hon.  member  but  I  think  he 
will  find  that  four  of  the  boroughs  have 
adopted  a  common  code;  the  city  of  Toronto 
is  about  to  adopt  that  same  code  and  the 
remaining  borough,  which  I  think  is  York,  is 
also.    The  six  municipalities  in  Metropolitan 


134 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Toronto  either  have  or  will,  within  the  next 
few  weeks,  have  one  code,  as  you  have  cor- 
rectly pointed  out,  covering  roughly  one-third 
of  the  population  of  the  province. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Would 
the  Minister  answer  a  supplementary  ques- 
tion? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Only  from  the  member  who 
asked  the  question. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Hum- 
ber  has  finished  his  question;  if  the  hon. 
member  wishes  now  to  ask  his  questions,  he 
may  start  off  with  that  one. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  was  wondering  if  he  could 
answer,  it  is  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
but- 

Mr.  Speaker:  Start  off  by  asking  the  hon. 
Minister  the  question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Will  the  Minister  advise 
what  steps  have  been  taken  to  bring  about 
the  modernization  of  construction  regulations 
under  a  new  building  code  to  save  millions 
of  dollars  in  construction  costs?  Will  he  ad- 
vise if  a  new  code,  being  introduced  in  New 
York  and  which  will  cut  building  costs  by 
10  per  cent,  would  have  the  same  effect  here? 
When  was  the  present  code— we  do  now  have 
one,  I  find— dated?  If  a  new  code  is  under 
way  who  is  drafting  it,  how  much  will  the 
draft  cost?  Will  the  techniques  be  designed 
to  bring  construction  savings,  including 
stronger  suspension  structures,  reduced  fire- 
resistant  ratings,  reduced  elevator  equipment 
requirements;  and  more  realistically  will  they 
include  safety  provisions  for  structural  ma- 
terials? And,  finally,  will  there  be  revisions 
of  the  administrative  procedures  for  the  ex- 
pediting of  issuance  of  building  permits, 
speedy  inspection  and  faster  approval  of  new 
materials? 

My  supplementary  question— do  I  take  it, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  this  new  committee, 
through  their  report,  will  give  the  Minister 
a  provincial  building  code? 

Hon.   Mr.   McKeough:    Does   the   member 
want  me   to   answer  the   question  which  he 
asked  six  days  ago  or  are  we  after- 
Mr.  Sargent:   This  is  the  first  time  I  have 
asked  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  This  question,  of 
course,  Mr.  Speaker,  which  I  drew  to  your 
attention  on  Friday,  was  placed  before  me  on 
Wednesday  last  and  I  have  been  carrying  it 


back  and  forth  since.    I  am  glad  it  has  been 
finally  asked,  and  I  thank  the  hon.  member 
for  being- 
Mr.    Sargent:     Well,    the   Minister   should 
have  the  answer  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  In  answering  the 
questions : 

1.  To  my  knowledge  there  has  not  been  an 
estimate  prepared  anywhere  about  the  effect 
of  uniform  building  standards  on  building 
costs.  The  only  saving  we  have  heard  about 
related  to  houses  and  the  amount  estimated 
for  houses  is  $500.  The  full  benefit  for  all 
types  of  buildings  cannot  be  measured  at  this 
time.  The  potential  for  new  building  tech- 
niques, new  building  materials,  increased 
productivity  and  reduced  inventories,  is  in- 
herent in  any  system  of  uniform  standards. 
All  of  these  have  an  effect  on  building  costs. 

Presumably,  as  to  the  second  part  of  the 
question  the  member  is  referring  to  the 
national  building  code  of  Canada.  If  he  is 
not,  then  I  cannot  answer  the  question  with- 
out clarification.  The  national  building  code 
of  Canada  is  under  constant  examination. 
Amendments  are  endorsed  by  the  associate 
committee  on  the  code.  Amending  revision 
slips  are  forwarded  to  all  those  with  a  copy 
of  the  code  and  every  five  years  there  is  a 
revision  made  of  the  code.  The  1970  con- 
solidation is  in  preparation  now. 

The  third  part  of  the  question:  If  this 
question  refers  to  the  national  building  code, 
the  answer  to  question  2  applies.  As  to  cost, 
copies  of  the  code  are  available  at  a  nominal 
cost  of  $5.  The  short  form  is  free,  except  in 
bulk,  when  a  nominal  charge  is  made. 

If  the  question  does  not  refer  to  the  na- 
tional building  code  then  I  would  need  some 
further  clarification. 

The  fourth  part:  A  very  desirable  feature 
of  the  national  building  code  is  that  it  is  a 
performance  type  code,  that  is  to  say,  instead 
of  specifying  exactly  how  buildings  are  to 
be  constructed,  minimum  standards  of  struc- 
tural and  fire  safety  performances  are  set 
down.  Any  material,  combination  of  ma- 
terials, building  techniques,  and  so  on,  capa- 
ble of  meeting  required  performance  ratings 
is  permissible. 

Finally,  to  all  three  parts  of  the  fifth  ques- 
tion, the  answer  is  that  these  are  desirable 
goals  and  we  are  exerting  much  effort  to 
achieve  them.  These  efforts  were  so  well 
enunciated,  I  would  remind  members  of  the 
House,  as  well  as  the  goals  were  so  well 
enunciated  by  the  member  for  Halton  East  in 
this  House. 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


135 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  has,  with  Mr.  Speaker,  three  questions 
which  are  unasked  and  almost  a  week  old. 
I  ask  that  he  either  ask  them  today  or  with- 
draw them. 

Mr.  Sargent:  You  will  be  happy  to  hear, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  have  my  questions 
with  me.  I  do  not  think  I  should  have  to 
withdraw  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  be  delighted  to 
hand  the  questions  to  the  hon.  member 
and   he   may  then  ask  them. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Will  the  Prime  Minister  ad- 
vise why  all  rapid  transit  systems  installed  in 
all  areas  of  America  were  voted  upon  by 
the  people  who  provide  the  tax  money,  and, 
where  has  he  the  authority  to  spend  millions 
of  dollars  from  the  Ontario  Treasury  to 
service  one  area  of  the  people  without  the 
vote  of  the  people?  Now  there  is  a  good  one 
for  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
idea  whether  what  the  hon.  member  says  is 
factually  correct  or  not,  therefore  I  cannot 
express  an  opinion  on  it.  I  would  point  out 
to  him  that  this  government  spends  many, 
many  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  in  this 
province,  in  providing  all  forms  of  trans- 
portation for  people  in  various  ports  of  the 
province. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Prime  Minister  has 
stated  he  will  not  accept  a  supplementary 
question,  so  the  hon.  member  will  please 
proceed  to  his  next  question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Another  question  to  the  Prime 
Minister:  Will  the  government  agree  to  an 
immediate  audit,  outside  audit,  to  determine 
the  exact  financial  position  of  the  financial 
affairs  of  the  Ontario  government  because 
of  the  financial  nightmare  facing  the  prov- 
ince? He  said  "no"  before. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Why  ask  me  again? 

Mr.  Sargent:   By  the  Speaker's  order. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  had  an 
alternative,  he  could  have  withdrawn  the 
question. 

Mr.  Sargent:  We  take  all  the  advantage 
we  can  get  here. 

I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
port: What  steps  have  been  taken  to  require 
passenger  cars  and  multi-purpose  passenger 
vehicles  to  be  equipped  to  combat  the 
hazard  of  the  one-eyed  vehicle? 


Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the 
equipment  portion,  that  would  be  part  5  of 
The  Highway  Traffic  Act,  section  33  spells 
out  the  offence  of  operating  a  motor  vehicle 
without  two  headlights  showing  white  light 
to  the  front  at  any  time  when  lights  are 
required.  There  are  two  approaches  being 
developed  to  take  care  of  this  headlamp 
failure  problem.  One  approach  is  by  way  of 
wiring  in  the  parking  light  system  with  the 
headlight  system  so  that  in  the  event  of  one 
of  the  headlights  burning  out,  the  parking 
lights  will  indicate  the  width  and  location  of 
the  vehicle. 

Another  approach  is  being  taken  by  the 
manufacturers  of  headlamps  in  providing  a 
secondary  filament  with  a  low  light  output 
so  that  when  the  regular  primary  high  or  low 
beam  filament  burns  out,  the  headlamp  will 
continue  to  glow  and  in  that  way  identify  to 
an  oncoming  vehicle  the  width  and  the  loca- 
tion of  the  vehicle. 

Mr.  Speaker:  the  hon.  member  for  York- 
view  has  a  question  of  the  Attorney  General 
of  yesterday's  date,  which  he  may  wish  to 
place  today. 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
question  to  the  Attorney  General  is  this: 
According  to  a  story  in  yesterday's  Globe 
and  Mail,  a  peace  treaty  has  been  arranged 
between  two  Mafia  factions  whereby  what 
are  called  "lucrative  interests  in  Eastern 
Canada"  were  transferred  from  the  Bonnano 
faction  to  that  of  another  leader. 

Is  the  Minister  satisfied  that  the  term 
"Eastern  Canada"  used  here  does  not  include 
the  province  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  article 
to  which  the  hon.  member  refers  is  a  purely 
speculative  article  with  the  headline  "New 
York".  There  is  nothing  I  have  in  the  way 
of  information  to  indicate  that  there  is  any 
reference  to  Ontario.  The  information  which 
the  police  commission  have,  through  their 
intelligence,  leads  them  to  believe  that  the 
reference  is  to  the  Montreal  area,  but  I 
would  point  out  again  that  the  only  reference 
in  what  I  think  is  a  very  speculative  article 
says:  "according  to  one  federal  official"— 
and  that  "federal"  refers  to  a  federal  official 
in  the  United  States— "the  Bonanno  faction 
will  lose  lucrative  interests  in  Eastern  Canada 
under  the  peace  treaty". 

We  have  no  reason  to  believe  it  refers  to 
Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Etobi- 
coke. 


138 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  L.  A.  Braithwaite  (Etobicoke):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Trade  and  Development  which  is  quite 
similar  to  the  question  put  earlier  by  the 
member  for  Wentworth. 

What  plans  does  the  Minister  have  to  ex- 
tend, to  Metro  Toronto  residents  in  Ontario 
housing,  the  same  home  ownership  oppor- 
tunities that  have  been  given  to  residents  of 
Guelph? 

The  second  part  of  the  question,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  the  interests  of  fairness  to  On- 
tario Housing  Corporation  apartment  dwell- 
ers, is  the  Minister  considering  a  similar  plan 
whereby  they  might  eventually  achieve  home 
ownership  for  themselves? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  tenant 
purchase  plan  which  has  just  been  introduced 
in  Guelph  as  a  pilot  project  applies  only  in 
the  Green  Meadows  subdivision  of  that  city. 
This  subdivision  was  developed  under  the 
old  federal-provincial  partnership  arrange- 
ment whereby  the  federal  government  holds 
title  to  the  property  and  has  a  direct  75  per 
cent  financial  interest. 

In  accordance  with  existing  legislation  at 
present  the  tenant  purchase  plan  can  only  be 
introduced  in  developments  financed  under 
that  arrangement.  To  extend  its  provisions 
to  housing  developed  directly  by  OHC, 
wherein  90  per  cent  of  the  capital  costs  are 
loaned  by  the  federal  government,  will  re- 
quire an  amendment  of  The  National  Housing 
Act. 

I  have  had  discussions  on  this  point  with 
the  federal  Minister  responsible  for  housing 
and  his  predecessors,  and  I  have  been  given 
to  understand  that  the  federal  government 
does  intend  to  introduce  the  necessary 
amendment.  Until  such  time  as  the  federal 
legislation  is  changed,  however,  the  hon. 
member  will  understand  that  the  tenant- 
purchase  aspect  of  the  HOME  programme 
can  only  be  applied  to  federal-provincial 
projects. 

In  Metropolitan  Toronto,  to  which  the  hon. 
member's  question  is  specifically  addressed, 
there  are  only  five  such  developments.  It  is 
our  intention  to  analyze  very  carefully  the 
Guelph  pilot  project  and  this  analysis  will 
assist  in  determining  the  other  areas  where 
this  scheme  can  be  introduced  in  consulta- 
tion with  Central  Mortgage  and  Housing 
Corporation.  CMHA  approval  is  necessarily 
required  because  of  their  75  per  cent  finan- 
cial involvement. 

Where  apartment  units  are  concerned— 
which,  of  course,  involves  the  use  by  tenants 
of     certain     common     facilities— this     would 


necessitate  a  condominium  arrangement, 
rather  than  the  techniques  which  have  been 
applied  to  the  single  detached  homes  in 
Guelph,  and  this  government  has  already 
indicated  that  it  will  be  actively  pursuing 
the   condominium   concept. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Would  the  Minister  per- 
mit a  supplementary  question?  Under  the 
existing  situation  does  the  Minister  see  any 
obstacles  to  the  residents  in  the  Thistletown 
project  being  able  to  purchase  their  own 
homes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Not  particularly,  as 
soon  as  the  amendment  to  The  National 
Housing  Act  goes  through.  I  think  then  we 
can  enter  into  negotiations. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kitch- 
ener. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the  Minister 
of  Energy  and  Resources  Management,  no- 
tice of  which  has  been  given.  Can  the  Min- 
ister advise  the  House  as  to  the  cost  to  the 
government  of  Ontario  through  the  Ontario 
Water  Resources  Commission,  of  the  mailing 
on  August  22,  1968,  of  a  news  release  regard- 
ing the  Root  family  reunion,  the  covering 
letter  for  which  was  on  the  letterhead  of  the 
commission  over  the  signature  of  the  vice- 
chairman  of  the  commission? 

Secondly,  can  the  Minister  advise  further 
how  this  release  has  advanced  the  work  of 
the  commission? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Simonett  (Minister  of  Energy 
and  Resources  Management):  Mr.  Speaker, 
as  the  member  for  Wellington-DufFerin  (Mr. 
Root)  is  out  of  the  city  today  I  am  sorry  that 
I  am  unable  to  answer  the  questions.  How- 
ever, I  will  see  that  he  gets  a  copy  of  the 
questions.  I  am  sure  he  would  like  to 
answer  them  himself   in  this   House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Oshawa. 

Mr.  C.  G.  Pilkey  (Oshawa):  Mr.  Speaker, 
a  question  for  the  hon.  Minister  of  Labour. 
Is  The  Department  of  Labour  involved  in 
any  manner  in  an  attempt  to  resolve  the 
Proctor-Silex  dispute  in  Picton? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bales:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  always 
welcome  questions  from  the  hon.  members 
and  as  the  hon.  member  has  been  in  touch 
with  my  officials  on  a  number  of  occasions 
in  reference  to  this  matter,  I  am  sure  he  is 
aware  that  we  have  been  involved  in  this 
dispute  for  some  time. 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


137 


For  example,  yesterday  my  chief  concilia- 
tion officer  was  in  touch  with  the  union 
leadership  and  today  he  expects  to  be  talk- 
ing to  the  company  representatives  so  that 
we  can  assess  again  how  we  may  best  help 
the  parties  to  resolve  this  matter. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Peter- 
borough. 

Mr.  W.  G.  Pitman  (Peterborough):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  address  a  question 
to  the  Minister  of  Trade  and  Development. 
In  view  of  the  statements  of  Eric  Hardy  Con- 
sulting Limited  that  the  town  of  Trenton  has 
teen  giving  assessment  advantages  or  grant- 
ing bonuses  in  order  to  attract  industries,  has 
the  Minister  reviewed  this  municipality's 
designation  under  the  Equalization  of  Indus- 
trial Opportunity  programme? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Hardy 
report  has  not  been  available  to  either  my 
department  or  that  of  the  Minister  of  Munici- 
pal Affairs.  I  think  this  was  brought  up  one 
day  last  work.  Mr.  Hardy  was  commissioned 
by  the  town  of  Trenton  to  complete  this  re- 
port Cor  them  but  to  date  has  not  seen  fit  tj 
make  a  copy  available  so  that  the  grants  to 
which  he  refers  to  attract  industries  can  be 
reviewed. 

I  might  mention  that  irrespective  of  the 
Hardy  report,  the  directors  of  Ontario  Devel- 
opment Corporation  are  reviewing  the  desig- 
nation of  Trenton  under  the  Equalization  of 
Industrial  Opportunity  programme,  and  as  in 
the  case  of  other  towns  or  other  cities  that 
we  believe  may  have  secured  sufficient  indus- 
try to  solve  their  needs  for  the  present,  the 
Ontario  Development  Corporation  will  be 
making  recommendations  accordingly. 

Mr.  Pitman:  Might  I  ask  a  supplementary 
question?  In  view  of  the  Minister's  recent 
trip  to  Trenton  and  his  announcement  that 
$1.5  million  of  public  money  is  being  placed 
in  this  municipality,  if  this  has  been  done  as 
a  result  of  illegal  practices  on  the  part  of  the 
municipality  rather  than  because  of  the 
Equalization  of  Industrial  Opportunity  pro- 
gramme, would  the  Minister  not  regard  it  as 
incumbent  to  immediately  remove  the  desig- 
nation until  this  thing  has  been  resolved? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  would  have  to  look  at 
the  Hardy  report  before  I  answer  the  ques- 
tions. 

Mr.  Pitman:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  address  a 
question  to  the  Prime  Minister?  Has  the  gov- 
ernment of  Ontario  received  a  request  from 
the    civil     service     association    based    on    a 


resolution  passed  unanimously  at  a  recent 
convention  that  a  commission  made  up  of 
representatives  of  the  civil  service  association 
and  the  government,  exclusive  of  any  repre- 
sentative of  The  Department  of  Correctional 
Services,  investigate  staff  conditions  at  Mill- 
brook  Reformatory? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  The  answer  is  "no",  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Pitman:  Would  the  Prime  Minister 
accept  a  supplementary  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  I  do  not  know  what 
supplementary  you  could  ask  to  an  answer 
like  that. 

Mr.  Pitman:  Perhaps,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  might 
try.  If  such  a  request  was  forwarded  to  the 
Prime  Minister  would  he  be  sympathetic  to 
such  a  request? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  surely 
hypothetical.  I  would  have  to  see  what  the 
request  is  and  see  what,  in  fact,  they  were 
asking  before  I  could  say  whether  I  would  be 
sympathetic  or  unsympathetic.  I  mean  I  am 
dealing  in  something  of  which  I  have  no 
knowledge  and  which  has  not  even  been 
formulated  in  the  minds  of  the  asker,  so  how 
could  I  say  how  I  would  feel  about  it? 

Mr.  Pitman:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order,  it  could  not  have  been  more  clearly  in 
the  mind  of  the  asker.  Apparently  it  is  the 
government  which  is  having  difficulty  in  this 
matter. 

I  would  ask  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Correctional  Services. 

1.  Did  a  serious  attack  take  place  on  a 
guard,  a  Mr.  Carmen  Bell,  at  Millbrook  Re- 
formatory on  the  evening  of  November  18? 

2.  Was  there  any  provocation  for  the 
attack? 

3.  By  whom  was  a  charge  of  assault  laid 
and  why  were  those  most  concerned  with  the 
attack  not  informed  of  the  case  before  the 
courts  were— I  think  that  was  in  Cobourg  on 
November  20? 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Minister  of  Correctional 
Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  answer  to  the  hon. 
member's  question,  first  of  all  I  would  like  to 
say  I  welcome  very  much  the  interest  of  the 
members  opposite  in  the  problems  which  a 
correctional  officer- 
Some  hon.  members:  Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon.  member,  without  being 
given  permission  by  you— 


138 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An  hon.  member:  Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —without  being  given 
permission  by  you,  made  some  comment  in 
answer  to  the  Prime  Minister's  answer  to  his 
question— 

An  hon.  member:  Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —about  the  situation 
at  Millbrook.    I  will  answer- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  Minister  is 
using  that  leeway  which  the  Chair  has  always 
given  to  members  and  which  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Peterborough  certainly  used. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  have  been  trying, 
sir,  tor  five  years  to  recruit  their  concern  for 
the  correctional  officers,  and  for  five  years  I 
have  been  attempting  to  defend  the  correc- 
tional officers  against  the  charges  of  brutality 
against  inmates.  I  am  very  pleased  the  hon. 
member  has  asked  this  question  and  all  I  can 
tell  him  is  that  as  soon  as  the  superintendent 
learned  of  the  sentence  of  30  days— I  think  it 
was,  and  I  am  speaking  from  memory— lie 
took  it  up  with  our  head  office,  asking  that 
an  appeal  be  instituted  against  this  short 
sentence.  Our  head  office  has  taken  it  up 
with  The  Attorney  General's  Department,  and 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  an  appeal  is  now 
being  considered  I  can  hardly  make  any 
further  comment  on  it,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Pitman:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  part  of  the 
answer  of  the  Minister  of  Correctional  Serv- 
ices will,  I  think,  perhaps  answer  my  question 
to  the  Attorney  General  which  was: 

1.  Did  an  inmate  of  Millbrook  Reformatory 
appear  before  Magistrate  Baxter  in  Cobourg 
on  November  20? 

2.  On  what  charge  was  the  prisoner  brought 
before  the  courts? 

3.  Why  were  prosecution  witnesses  not 
called  and  what  was  the  sentence  given  to 
that  individual? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  we  have  been  requested  by 
The  Department  of  Correctional  Services  to 
appeal  the  sentence  imposed  on  this  convic- 
tion, I  am  precluded  to  some  extent  from 
answering.  But  I  am  not  going  to  curtail  my 
answer  insofar  as  it  is  possible  to  answer  the 
question. 

The  prisoner  was  brought  before  the  magis- 
trate. The  charge  was  assaulting  a  police 
officer.  No  witnesses  were  called.  He  pleaded 
guilty.  The  sentence  was  30  days  consecutive 
to  the  sentence  he  was  already  serving. 


I  am  proceeding  to  review  the  matter.  In 
any  event  we  are  proceeding  to  consider  the 
question  as  to  appeal.  Also,  I  may  say  that 
I  am  not  satisfied  with  the  way  it  was  dis- 
posed of.  I  understand  that  an  assistant 
Crown  attorney  was  in  charge  of  the  case 
and  was  not  aware  and  was  not  informed 
of  the  facts  when  the  plea  of  guilty  was 
entered  and  the  case  was  proceeded  with. 

So  I  would  simply  answer  the  hon.  mem- 
ber: I  am  reviewing  it.  We  are  considering 
the  matter  of  appeal. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  ( Sandwich-Riverside ) :  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  for  the  Prime  Minister. 

What  was  the  cost  of  producing  and  print- 
ing the  "Confederation  of  Tomorrow"  book- 
let? How  many  copies  were  published  in 
English?  How  many  many  copies  were  pub- 
lished in  French? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  $70,574.99; 
50,000  English  copies  and  27,000  French 
copies. 

Mr.  Burr:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary 
question.  Is  the  Prime  Minister  aware  that 
about  70,000  copies  are  sitting  in  the  hall  on 
the  fourth  floor? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  aware  of  that  and  I  very  much  doubt 
that  it  is  so. 

Mr.  Burr:  Would  the  Prime  Minister  check 
on  it  please? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Indeed,  I  will. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  has  a  fur- 
ther question  of  the  Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development  which  he  would  place  please. 

Mr.  Burr:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Trade  and  Development.  Can  the 
Minister  advise  the  House  when  homes  in 
the  Fontainebleu  housing  development  in 
Windsor  will  be  offered  for  sale  to  the  pres- 
ent tenants? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  ques- 
tion concerning  the  Fontainebleu  develop- 
ment in  Windsor  is  on  a  similar  subject  to 
that  raised  by  the  hon.  member  for  Etobicoke. 

These  particular  homes  were  developed 
directly  by  OHC  and,  therefore,  as  I  have 
already  indicated,  the  tenant  purchase  plan 
cannot  apply  until  the  federal  legislation  is 
changed. 

These  particular  families  are  aware  of  this 
fact  as  I  had  the  pleasure  of  meeting  with  a 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


139 


delegation  from  Fontainebleu  some  time  ago 
and  this  was  followed  up  by  the  general 
meeting  in  Windsor  between  the  tenants  and 
senior  officials  of  OHC. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Essex- 
Kent. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  ( Essex  -  Kent ) :  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the  hon.  Pro- 
vincial Treasurer.  Will  the  Minister  consider 
a  revision  of  the  gas  tax  refund  regulation  to 
allow  farmers  doing  custom  work  for  their 
neighbours  the  same  rebate  as  if  it  were  done 
on  their  own  farm? 

Hon.  C.  S.  MacNaughton  ( Provinical  Treas- 
urer): Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer  is  that 
without  commitment  the  matter  will  be  con- 
sidered. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  hon.  Minister  of  Correctional 
Services.  Is  it  the  policy  of  the  department  to 
provide  compensation  for  property  damage 
caused  by  individuals  who  are  wards  of  the 
province  in  training  schools? 

Will  there  be  compensation  for  tractor 
damage,  the  destroying  of  antiques  and  other 
valuables  at  the  Harper  residence  north  of 
Cobourg  as  a  result  of  the  escape  of  nine 
residents  of  Brookside  School  on  August  28? 

Has  any  disciplinary  action  been  taken 
with  regard  to  the  conduct  of  the  Brookside 
supervisor  who  said  to  one  of  the  nine  Brook- 
side boys  who  was  apprehended  with  a 
bleeding  hand,  "Let  the  little  bugger  bleed 
to  death",  as  reported  in  the  Cobourg  Sen- 
tincl-Star  of  September  4? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  could  answer  a  portion  of  this  from  memory 
but  I  would  rather  not  trust  my  memory  on 
some  of  the  details.  Of  course,  I  cannot 
answer  a  portion  of  it  because  it  refers  to  a 
news  report  which  I  have  not  seen. 

I  am  sure  too,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  on  think- 
ing it  over  the  hon.  member  would  feel  that 
the  third  part  of  his  question,  which  reads: 
"Has  any  disciplinary  action  been  taken  with 
respect  to  the  conduct  of  the  Brookside  super- 
visor who  said  to  one  of  the  nine  boys"— 
that  in  all  fairness  it  should  read,  "who,  it  is 
'alleged',  said  to  one  of  the  boys",  because 
the  hon.  member  is  referring  to  a  press  report 
and  this  has  not  been  established  as  a  fact 
yet. 

I  will  take  the  question  as  notice  and  get 
as  much  information  as  I  can  for  the  hon. 
member. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor-Walkerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  hon. 
Minister  of  Trade  and  Development.  Have 
any  formal  proposals  been  submitted  by  OHC 
to  CMHC  for  the  sale  of  the  homes  in  the 
Bridgeview  subdivision  in  Windsor?  If  not, 
when  will  these  formal  proposals  be  sub- 
mitted? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  no  fonnal 
proposals  have  been  submitted  by  the  Ontario 
Housing  Corporation  to  Central  Mortgage 
and  Housing  Corporation,  regarding  the  pur- 
chase by  tenants  of  homes  in  the  Bridge- 
view  subdivision  in  Windsor,  but  officials  of 
the  corporations  have  had  a  number  of  dis- 
cussions concerning  this  particular  develop- 
ment. 

As  the  hon.  member  knows,  this  develop- 
ment is  on  a  fixed  rental  rather  than  a  rent- 
to-income  basis  and,  as  such,  is  different 
to  the  Guelph  Green  Meadows  subdivision. 

I  have  already  indicated  that  the  Guelph 
project  will  be  studied  very  carefully  and 
the  results  of  this  study  will,  undoubtedly, 
influence  further  extension  of  the  tenant  pur- 
chase plan  into  other  municipalities  in 
Ontario. 

The  hon.  member  can  be  assured  that,  in 
consultation  with  Central  Mortgage  and 
Housing  Corporation,  the  tenant  purchase 
plan  will  be  implemented  wherever  it  is  con- 
sidered to  be  practical  in  relation  to  the  cir- 
cumstances which  apply  to  any  given 
municipality. 

Perhaps  I  can  enlarge  on  that  and  say 
that,  as  you  recognize,  there  are  different  cir- 
cumstances in  all  municipalities,  the  reference 
of  shortage  of  public  housing,  so  forth  and 
so  on.  We  want  to  make  sure  when  we  make 
a  deal  that  we  make  it  in  the  interest  of  the 
tenants  and  the  municipality. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
supplementary  question  of  the  Minister.  Does 
this  Bridgeview  project  qualify  under  the 
tenant  purchase  plan,  as  is  without  any 
amendments  to  the  federal  Act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Yes,  in  a  way  it  would. 
The  only  thing  is,  as  I  said,  that  they  are 
on  a  fixed  rental.  A  number  of  those  people 
have  been  living  there  at  a  very  low  rent 
for  many  years  and  their  income  has  gone  up 
—but  they  have  not  been  put  on  a  rent-to- 
geared-income  basis.  This  brings  in  some 
complications   because   they   should   be   able 


140 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


to  now  go  out  and  buy  in  another  develop- 
ment, such  as  in  the  HOME  programme. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may, 
for  a  point  of  clarification.  It  then  qualifies 
under  the  tenant  purchase  plan  without  any 
amendments  to  the  federal  Act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  would  say  so  at  the 
moment.  Yes. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask 
of  the  Minister  a  second  supplementary  and 
that  is,  is  the  Minister  aware  of  the  neces- 
sity for  major  repairs  in  some  of  these  homes 
as  a  result  of  the  indecision  on  the  sale  of 
the  homes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Yes,  I  am  aware  of  that 
but  I  think  you  are  also  aware  that  some  of 
those  people  living  there  are  earning  $8,000, 
$10,000,  $12,000,  $13,000  a  year.  If  they 
have  let  the  places  run  down  while  they 
have  a  subsidized  rent,  I  think  also  they  have 
a  responsibility  to  fix  the  places  up. 

However,  I  might  say  that  under  the 
agreement  we  have  in  Green  Meadows,  we 
state  that  we  will  go  in  and  make  an  estimate 
of  what  repairs  are  required  to  put  the 
houses  in  good  order  without  having  to  re- 
build them,  and  I  think  we  would  do  the 
same  thing  in  Windsor  if  we  sold  the  prop- 
erty. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Financial  and  Com- 
mercial Affairs.  Does  the  Minister  intend  to 
order  that  a  hearing  be  held  to  determine  if 
the  Allstate  Company  should  be  allowed  to 
continue  to  sell  health  insurance  in  this  prov- 
ince, as  requested  by  me  during  the  Minister's 
estimates? 

Hon.  H.  L.  Rowntree  (Minister  of  Finan- 
cial and  Commercial  Affairs):  Mr.  Speaker, 
my  intention,  as  is  now  the  case,  is  to  have 
the  superintendent  of  insurance  continue  his 
surveillance   of  this   entire   area. 

As  I  have  already  informed  the  hon.  mem- 
ber in  the  past,  the  superintendent  of  in- 
surance has  been  directed  to  review  in  detail 
this  type  of  policy,  and  to  establish  whether 
such  policies  are  in  fact  in  the  public  interest. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Would  the  Minister  accept 
a  supplementary  question?  Inasmuch  as  it 
was  some  months  ago  that  the  Minister  gave 
such  instructions  to  the  superintendent  of 
insurance,  has  the  superintendent  of  insurance 
as  yet  found  the  time  to  make  this  review, 
and  if  so,  what  has  he  decided? 


Hon.  Mr.  Rowntree:  The  superintendent 
has  not  been  idle  since  the  House  adjourned 
towards  the  end  of  July.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
early  in  September,  this  matter  was  raised 
and  discussed  with  the  superintendents  of 
insurance  at  their  annual  meeting  here  in 
Toronto,  and  has  been  the  subject  of  investi- 
gations and  study  by  the  superintendent,  not 
only  in  this  jurisdiction  but  in  other  jurisdic- 
tions in  Canada  as  well. 

Mr.   Shulman:   Well  what  is  the  decision? 

Hon.  Mr.  MacNaughton:  I  wonder,  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  I  may  raise  a  point  of  order  to 
obtain  some  information  from  you.  Is  it  fair 
to  ask  you,  sir,  as  to  whether  these  questions 
are  asked  in  numerical  order? 

The  reason  I  say  that  is  because  I  have 
two  questions  before  me,  the  first  which  has 
been  answered,  numbered  101,  and  the  sec- 
ond numbered  116.  Does  that  simply  mean 
that  as  far  as  this  Minister  is  concerned,  or 
any  other  Minister  that  may  similarly  be 
involved,  there  is  a  waiting  period  of  15 
questions  between  the  first  question  he  is 
asked  to  reply  to  and  the  second  question? 
I  say  there  are  certain  normal  comforts  in- 
volved in  situations  of  this  kind  that  confront 
all  of  us  from  time  to  time;  it  is  just  a 
matter  of  knowing  where  we  stand,  sir,  if  I 
may. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  be  delighted  to 
answer  that.  The  hon.  Minister,  of  course, 
and  all  members  of  the  Treasury  bench,  are 
expected  to  be  in  their  places  in  this  House 
when  the  House  is  sitting.  The  number  on 
the  question  shows  the  order  in  which  the 
question  was  received  in  the  Speaker's  office 
and  entered.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
order  in  which  they  were  called  here. 

I  would  find  it  very  difficult  indeed  to 
arrange  to  have  the  questions  of  any  Minis- 
ter asked  by  all  the  members  at  the  same 
time.  It  would  be  bedlam. 

At  the  moment,  we  have  proceeded  fairly 
reasonably  by  confining  it  to  all  questions 
by  one  member  at  the  same  time.  In  fact,  it 
has  greatly  improved  on  the  original  set  up 
earlier  in  the  last  session  when  we  did  not 
do  that. 

I  have  no  objection  whatsoever,  and  the 
hon.  Minister  of  Social  and  Family  Services 
arranged  it  as  such  yesterday;  if  I  know 
that  a  Minister  has  to  leave  or  a  member  has 
to  leave,  and  would  be  most  pleased  to 
juggle  the  questions  in  my  hands  and  the 
order  of  the  members  who  pop  up,  to  give 
precedence— 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


141 


Mr.  Nixon:  Or  he  can  always  raise  his 
hand. 

Mr.  Speaker:  —so  far  as  I  am  concerned— 
within  reason.  First  of  all  the  leader  of  the 
Opposition  places  all  his  questions  first  and 
then  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party,  and  if  there  are  questions  left  from 
another  day,  they  are  asked. 

Then,  within  reason,  and  particularly  when 
the  beginning  of  the  Throne  Debate  is  not 
on  and  the  Prime  Minister  is  usually  here,  I 
endeavour  to  have  the  Prime  Minister's  ques- 
tions asked.  After  that,  it  is  as  the  members 
catch  the  Speaker's  eye,  whose  gaze  wanders 
almost  automatically  from  one  of  the  Opposi- 
tion parties  to  the  other  so  that  they  may 
have  a  fair  split  of  the  time  for  questions. 

I  trust  that  answers  the  hon.  Treasurer's 
inquiry  and  the  next  member  to  have  the 
floor  of  the  House— 

Hon.  Mr.  MacNaughton:  Mr.  Speaker,  if 
1  may,  just  pursue  it  again:  Say  that  I  am 
quite  confident  that  most  Ministers  want  to 
be  in  their  seats  to  pursue  the  questions  and 
the  question  period.  I  do  suggest,  though— 

Mr.  Sargent:  He  is  out  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Hon.    Mr.    MacNaughton:    No,    I    do    not 

think   I   am  out  of  order  in  addressing  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.   Speaker:   The  hon.   Minister  is  speak- 
ing on  a  point  of  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  MacNaughton:  I  just  simply  want 
to  suggest  to  you,  sir,  and  to  the  members 
of  the  House,  that  there  are  certain  Ministers 
involved  in  other  work  on  behalf  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  people  of  the  province.  I 
have  reference  to  Treasury  board,  which  re- 
quires a  small  quorum  before  the  work  of 
Treasury  board  could  be  proceeded  with.  I 
just  simply  want,  if  I  may,  sir,  in  pursuance 
of  this  matter  to  suggest  to  you  that  I  am 
delighted  to  hear  you  say  that  there  may  be 
certain  priority  given  to  the  answers  to  ques- 
tions. I  will  be  pleased  to  take  this  up  with 
your  honour  personally,  if  I  may. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like  to  point  out  to 
the  hon.  Minister  that  the  most  important 
part  of  the  legislative  assembly  of  Ontario 
is  this  House  sitting  here  and  not  the  Treasury 
board.  I,  however,  do  realize  that  the  hon. 
Minister  has  a  good  point,  because  we  all 
realize  that  these  other  matters  have  to  be 
dealt  with.  I  will  do  my  best,  Mr.  Treasurer, 
to  endeavour  to  arrange  for  those  Ministers 
who  must  be  elsewhere,  and  those  members 


who  must  be  elsewhere,  to  have  their  ques- 
tions asked,  but  you  will  understand  with 
some  38  questions  today  and  some  ten  left 
from  yesterday,  the  question  period  must  be 
long  and  there  either  must  be  a  limit  on  the 
number  of  questions,  a  limit  on  the  time,  or 
else  we  have  to  accept  the  problems  which 
we  have  here. 

Has  the  hon.  member  for  High  Park  com- 
pleted his  supplementary  questions? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon.  Treas- 
urer rose  on  a  point  of  order  as  I  was  putting 
my  supplementary  question  and  the  Minister 
did  not  have  an  opportunity  to  reply.  The 
question  was:  What  was  the  decision,  Mr. 
Minister? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rowntrce:  A  decision  has  not 
l>een  made.  The  point  I  am  advancing  to  the 
hon.  member  for  High  Park  is  that  on  an 
examination  of  this  question  of  health  in- 
surance I  think  that  the  question  involved 
in  this  specific  matter  really  involves  a  con- 
sideration of  the  large  variety  of  so-called 
health  insurance  policies  and  whether  or 
not  they  indeed  are  in  the  public  interest. 

Mr.  Shulman:  When  can  we  expect  a  deci- 
sion, Mr.  Minister? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rowntrec:  At  the  earliest  possible 
time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon.  member  for 
Hamilton  East  would  now  place  Ins  question? 
Perhaps  the  first  one  might  be  to  the  Treas- 
urer. 

Mr.  R.  Cisborn  (Hamilton  East):  Yes,  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Treasurer.  How 
many  Ontario  government  employees  are  con- 
sidered eligible  to  be  members  of  the  Civil 
Service  Association  of  Ontario,  and  how  many 
are  at  present  paying  dues  to  the  CSAO? 

Hon.  Mr.  MacNaughton:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
answer  to  part  one  of  the  hon.  member's 
question  is  47,168;  and  to  part  two,  slightly 
in  excess  of  36,000. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  has  a  fur- 
ther question  of  the  Minister  of  Lands  and 
Forests? 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Might 
we  suspend  proceedings  while  the  Treasurer 
leaves? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Hamil- 
ton East  has  another  question? 

Mr.  Gisborn:  For  the  Minister  of  Lands 
and  Forests: 


142 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


What  progress  is  being  made  to  acquire 
lands  to  establish  the  Fifty  Point  Park  in 
Saltfleet  township? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Lands  and 
Forests):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to  the  member 
for  Hamilton  East,  negotiations  are  still  pro- 
ceeding with  reference  to  this  property. 

Mr.  Gisborn:  May  I  ask  a  supplementary 
question,  Mr.  Speaker? 

Has  it  been  six  or  seven  years  since  the 
government  first  promised  action  on  this  park, 
and  is  it  correct  that  the  price  per  acre  has 
risen  from  $1,500  to  $7,000  at  the  present 
time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  As  I  mentioned,  Mr. 
Speaker,  this  matter  is  still  active.  We  are 
still  proceeding  with  negotiations  and  the 
matter  is  coming  up  at  the  next  meeting  of 
the  Parks  Integration  Board.  It  is  quite  true 
that  the  price  has  risen  considerably  from  the 
original  price. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Rainy 
River. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture and  Food. 

Will  the  Minister  provide  any  assistance, 
perhaps  in  the  form  of  an  extension  of  the 
adverse  weather  assistance  programme,  to  the 
farmers  of  the  Rainy  River  district  due  to  the 
extraordinarily  heavy  rainfall  in  that  area 
this  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
every  sympathy  for  the  farmers  of  the  Rainy 
River  district.  During  the  second  week  of 
September,  on  the  members'  tour  of  northern 
Ontario,  I  availed  myself  of  the  opportunity 
to  visit  many  of  the  farmers  in  that  area  and 
I  found  that  most  of  their  crops  were  still  in 
the  field.  As  a  matter  of  fact  those  few  good 
days  that  pertained  during  our  visit  to  north- 
ern Ontario  allowed  them  to  get  some  of  the 
crops  harvested. 

There  has  been  considerable  loss  in  some 
areas,  particularly  in  the  flat  or  low  lying 
areas  or  the  undrained  areas.  Others  have 
been  fairly  well  harvested.  We  have  been  in 
constant  touch  with  our  agricultural  repre- 
sentative in  that  area  since  that  time  and  he 
tells  me  that  about  50  per  cent  of  the  crop 
seems  to  have  been  harvested  in  those  poorer 
areas  and  most  of  the  crop  harvested  in  the 
well-drained  areas. 

Because  crop  insurance  was  available  last 
year   up   there    and   some    farmers    did   take 


crop  insurance,  I  find  it  very  difficult  to  justify 
making  assistance  available,  or  recommending 
to  the  government  that  adverse  weather  assist- 
ance be  made  available,  to  the  farmers  who 
did  not  buy  crop  insurance  when  it  was  avail- 
able to  them. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  May  I  ask  the  Minister  a 
supplementary  question? 

Is  the  Minister  aware  that  this  has  been  an 
extraordinarily  heavy  rainfall  this  year  and 
even  those  areas  that  are  usually  well  drained 
have  not  been  cleared  of  the  water?  Is  the 
Minister  aware  that  the  crop  insurance  plan, 
being  a  new  concept  to  the  Rainy  River  dis- 
trict farmers,  was  not  well  publicized  and 
well  understood  and  therefore  most  of  the 
farmers  did  not  take  advantage  of  the  crop 
insurance  this  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot 
answer  as  to  whether  or  not  the  crop  insur- 
ance programme  was  understood,  but  it  was 
well  advertised.  It  was  advertised  in  all  of 
the  local  papers;  it  was  advertised  on  radio; 
ever>'  promotional  aspect  that  could  be  enter- 
tained was  entertained  in  promoting  crop 
insurance  in  that  area.  If  farmers  decide  in 
their  own  best  interests  not  to  buy  crop  in- 
surance, it  is  not  the  government's  prerogative 
to  force  it  on  them,  and  I  feel  that  under  the 
circumstances  it  is  difficult  to  expand  and 
provide  a  crop  insurance  programme  for 
farmers  if  they  do  not  buy  it  themselves. 

Mr.  Nixon:  It  sounds  as  if  that  insurance 
programme  is  more  use  to  the  government 
than  it  is  to  the  farmers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  It  is  not  more  use  to  me 
and  I  take  exception  to  that  because  there 
are  farmers- 
Mr.   Nixon:   That  is  the   second  time  you 
have  leaned  on  that  weak  reed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  In  one  part  of  that  area 
up  there  there  was  one  farmer  who  was  get- 
ting $1,000  in  payment.  Do  you  say  that  we 
should  go  out  and  pay  the  other  farmers- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  Minister  will 
take  his  seat.  The  hon.  member  for  Rainy 
River  has  a  further  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Lands  and  Forests. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  I  must  say  I  disagree  with 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  on  that  last  state- 
ment. 

I  have  a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Lands 
and  Forests.  Will  the  Minister  extend  the 
dates  for  hearings  on  the  future  of  Algonquin 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


143 


Park  due  to  the  delay  in  sending  reports  of 
the  multi-purpose  study  of  the  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply 
to  the  hon.  member  for  Rainy  River,  in  view 
of  the  importance  of  Algonquin  Park  and  the 
interest  of  the  public  in  it,  we  want  to  allow 
the  fullest  possible  time,  and  we  will  receive 
submissions  up  until  the  end  of  this  year, 
December  31. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Would  the  Minister  accept 
a  supplementary  question?  People  have  writ- 
ten to  the  department  asking  for  this  multi- 
purpose study  and  have  not  yet  received  it. 
Is  the  Minister  aware  of  this  going  on  in 
his  office,  that  these  people  have  not  been 
able  to  receive  their  copies  of  this  study? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the 
member  referring  to  this  probational  master 
plan? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  We  have  copies  avail- 
able and  if  people  will  write  to  us  and  en- 
close $1  we  will  be  pleased  to  submit  one. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sarnia. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Sarnia):  Thank  you, 
sir.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the 
Minister  of  Transport. 

Would  the  Minister  advise  whether,  in 
reply  to  the  question  of  the  member  for 
Windsor-Walkerville  (Mr.  B.  Newman)  on 
Thursday,  November  21,  relative  to  amend- 
ment of  The  Highway  Traffic  Act  to  permit 
discretionary  powers  in  magistrates  to  grant 
intermittent  licence  suspension,  the  Minister 
was  advising  this  House  that  he  had  no  legal 
power  to  propose  such  legislation  relative  to 
charges  instituted  pursuant  to  The  Criminal 
Code  of  Canada? 

Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer 
is  "no,"  and  I  did  not  so  state.  I  intimated 
to  the  hon.  member  at  that  time  that  I  under- 
stood the  conviction  was  under  the  Criminal 
Code  and  that  the  action  taken  by  the  magis- 
trate was  under  appeal.  For  my  part,  I  pre- 
fer to  await  the  outcome  of  that  appeal 
before  contemplating  any  action. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Would  the  Minister  enter- 
tain a  supplementary  question? 

Do  I  correctly  assume  then,  notwith- 
standing the  words  that  the  Minister  gave 
the  other  day  and  the  obvious  inference  from 
those  words,  that  he  is  now  waiting  an 
appeal?  Has  the  appeal  been  instituted? 


Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  inti- 
mated I  understood  it  had  been  taken. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Can  the  Minister  assure  us 
it  has  been  instituted?  His  answer  is  that  he 
is  waiting  for  an  appeal  that  has  not  yet  been 
instituted. 

Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  I  stand  corrected  if  I 
said  it  has  been  taken;  I  said  I  understood 
it  had  been,  and  I  think  if  it  has  not  been, 
it  will  be. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  Minister  can  now 
assure  that  it  is  going  to  be  appealed? 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Attorney  General,  which  perhaps 
has  been  partly  answered  by  his  announce- 
ment at  the  commencement  of  this  period. 

"When  The  Provincial  Judges  Act  is  pro- 
claimed on  December  8,"  my  question  said, 
but  it  appears  it  is  going  to  be  proclaimed 
on  December  2: 

(a)  How  many  magistrates,  deputy  magis- 
trates and  juvenile  court  judges  will  become 
provincial  judges? 

(b)  How  many  will  not  become  provincial 
judges? 

(c)  What  are  the  names  of  those  who  will 
not  be  appointed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  a 
good  many  of  these  items  were  answered  in 
the  statement.  The  Act  is  The  Provincial 
Courts  Act,  if  I  may  draw  attention  to  the 
title,  and  has  been  proclaimed  as  of  Decem- 
ber 2;  this  was  done  some  days  ago.  The 
statement  I  made  today  was  just  to  draw 
attention  of  the  public,  and  members  of  the 
House  too,  to  the  proclamation  of  the  Act 
and  some  of  the  consequences  of  its  being 
brought  into  effect. 

To  answer  specifically,  The  Provincial 
Courts  Act,  1968,  as  I  have  said,  comes  into 
effect  on  December  2.  One  hundred  and 
thirty  of  the  present  bench  will  become  full- 
time  members  of  the  court,  and  12  present 
part-time  magistrates  and  juvenile  and  family 
court  judges  will  become  part-time  judges  of 
the  provincial  court  for  a  period  which  will 
end  on  April  30  of  next  year. 

I  would  like  to  expand  a  little  bit  on  that. 
We  are  doing  this  arrangement  with  the  part- 
time  judges  simply  as  a  transitional  device  to 
get  over  the  period  until  we  can  get  fully 
equipped  with  judges  who  will  serve  full- 
time  both  on  the  criminal  side  and  the  family 
side  of  the  court.  We  have  a  number  of  excel- 
lent magistrates— not  too  many— who  have 
served  on  a  part-time  basis  over  a  period  of 


144 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


years,  and  I  have  been  doing  my  best  to 
persuade  those  who  are  left  to  go  full-time, 
or  go  back  full-time  to  law  practice.  Rut  after 
this  transitional  period,  I  think  we  can  work 
it  out  by  April  30  next  year,  we  hope  we  will 
have  full-time  judges  completely. 

Questions  (b)  and  (c):  Eight  county  court 
judges,  who  have  been  judges  in  the  juvenile 
and  family  courts,  will  not  be  appointed  to 
the  provincial  court.  They  are  judges  now, 
of  course.  These  judges  are  Judges  Fuller, 
Anderson,  Leach,  Cavers,  Smith,  Richardson, 
Darby  and  Rrickenden. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  a  supplementary,  do 
I  understand  from  the  Minister's  answer  that 
all  of  the  present  magistrates,  deputy  magis- 
trates and  juvenile  court  judges  except  the 
ones  he  has  named  are  being  reappointed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Yes,  the  part-time  ones 
only  on  that  basis  up  to  April  30,  when  we 
will  either  ask  them  in  that  period  to  leave 
the  bench,'  if  they  and  we  do  not  agree,  or 
where  we  can  work  it  out  we  will  keep  them 
full-time.  This  is  a  transitional  feature. 

Mr.  Singer:  Does  this  apply,  again  by  way 
of  a  supplementary,  to  those  deputy  magis- 
trates who  are  serving  in  the  county  of  York 
and  perhaps  in  other  places  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Yes,  I  think  that  is 
correct. 

Mr.  Singer:  They  are  now  going  to  be 
provincial  judges? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Yes. 

Mr.  Singer:  Again  by  way  of  supplement- 
ary, have  these  appointments  been  referred 
to  the  Judicial  Council?  Have  they  been  con- 
sulted in  the  making  of  these  appointments? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  No,  we  have  not;  it 
was  not  our  intention  that  they  should  be. 
We  have  refrained  so  far  as  possible  from 
making  any  recent  appointments  consistent 
with  keeping  the  administration  of  justice 
up  to  the  mark.  But  any  appointments  from 
December  2  on  will  be  referred  to  the 
Judicial  Council. 

Surely  the  hon.  member  is  not  suggesting 
that  the  magistrates  who  have  served  on  the 
bench— I  think  we  discussed  this  in  our 
debate  on  the  Act— .should  now  be  relieved 
of  the  magistrate's  positon  by  reference  to 
the  Judicial  Council. 

Mr.  Singer:  No,  I  was  not  suggesting  that, 
but  I  was  suggesting  that  the  Minister  had 
an  ideal  opportunity  to  do  some  house- 
cleaning  which  apparently  he  has  missed. 


Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  That  is  just  what  the 
member  is  suggesting  then,  that  magistrates 
who  have  served  on  the  bench  for  some 
time,  by  reference  to  the  Judicial  Council, 
could  be  dispensed  with.  I  thought  we  de- 
bated this.  In  any  event,  if  we  were  to 
debate  it  now,  I  would  not  accept  it. 

Mr.  Singer:  This  is  probably  not  the  right 
time  for  debate,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  would  like 
to  pursue  it,  and  I  will,  at  a  later  time. 

I  have  a  second  question:  I  have  some  diffi- 
culty with  this  one,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  you 
edited  it  and  you  took  out  part  1,  and  with- 
out part  1,  part  2  by  itself  does  not  make 
too  much  sense. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  think  that  it  makes 
sense.  Part  1  was  quite  improper  in  my  view. 

Mr.  Singer:  We  will  try  it  in  any  event, 
as  the  member  for  Riverdale  (Mr.  J.  Renwick) 
suggests. 

Does  the  Attorney  General  approve  of  the 
procedure  in  the  case  against  Garry  H.  Perly, 
now  being  heard  by  Magistrate  Tupper  S. 
Bigelow,  which  in  accordance  with  the  magis- 
trate's order  is  being  conducted  in  this 
manner?  And  the  manner  was  referred  to  in 
part  1  which  has  been  deleted,  but  hopefully 
the  Attorney  General  knows  the  manner  that 
I  was  referring  to. 

Part  2:  Does  the  Attorney  General  intend 
to  take  any  action  to  prevent  such  occur- 
rences in  the  future?  If  so,  what  action  will 
be  taken? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  answer  it  this  way:  I  would  prefer 
not  to  discuss  very  fully  at  this  moment  a 
case  which  is  still  before  the  court.  Of  course, 
I  am  fully  aware  of  what  is  going  on.  The 
magistrate  has  found  in  this  particular  case— 
which  apparently  is  going  to  take  a  very 
long  time  with  a  very  difficult  person  before 
him— that  to  hear  it,  to  devote  all  the  energies 
of  the  court  and  time  of  the  court  to  it, 
would  delay  a  great  many  very  important 
cases  which  are  before  him.  He  has  taken 
the  procedure  of  hearing  it- 
Mr.  Singer:  Half  an  hour  a  week. 
Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  —in  portions. 

Mr.  Ben:  How  about  the  45  to  50  days 
that  the  Smith  Brothers  took? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Just  a  moment.  The 
member  will  have  my  full  answer  in  a 
moment. 

As  I  say,  I  would  rather  not  go  into  de- 
tail in  discussing  the  case  now.  I  think  when 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


145 


that  case  is  concluded,  if  it  goes  very  long 
before  it  is  concluded,  it  will  be  reviewed 
by  the  chief  magistrate  there,  and  if  neces- 
sary by  my  office.  The  magistrate,  in  the 
conduct  of  his  court,  has  a  certain  discretion 
with  which  I  do  not  lightly  interfere. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  a  supplementary, 
while  I  can  appreciate  that,  surely  the  Attor- 
ney General  will  agree  that  this  kind  of  pro- 
cedure is  punishing  an  accused  in  advance. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Without  getting  into  an 
argument,  I  am  not  sure  that  the  punishment 
is  perhaps  all  being  imposed  on  one  side  of 
this  case. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  member  for 
Nipissing,  who  has  been  very  patient. 

Mr.  R.  S.  Smith  (Nipissing):  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Highways: 

1.  What  progress  has  been  made  on  the 
4.2-mile  Gravenhurst  bypass  project  under 
project  numbers  245-60-2;  246-60-1  and  2; 
and  247-60-1  and  2? 

2.  What  contracts  have  been  made  under 
this  project? 

3.  Will  this  construction  be  completed 
during  this  fiscal  year  as  announced  last 
spring? 

Hon.  G.  E.  Gomme  (Minister  of  Highways): 
Mr.  Speaker,  had  I  known  it  would  be  4 
o'clock  when  I  got  up  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion I  could  have  had  the  answer,  but  I  will 
have  to  take  it  as  notice  now. 

Mr.  Young:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a  ques- 
tion of  the  hon.  Minister  of  Transport  if  he 
has  an  answer  for  me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  Mr.  Speaker,  construc- 
tion zone  speed  limits  are  applied  to  meet 
the  needs  of  The  Department  of  Highways, 
and  the  signing  approved  by  order  in  coun- 
cil in  each  case  is  done  by  The  Department 
of  Highways  in  accordance  with  The  High- 
way Traffic  Act,  section  59,  subsection  11  (a) 
and  11  (b). 

With  respect  to  the  second  part  of  the 
member's   question,   the   answer  is   "no." 

Part  3:  The  specific  construction  zone 
speed  limits  and  the  duration  of  enforce- 
ment in  each  case  is  likewise  the  responsi- 
bility of  The  Department  of  Highways,  and 
I  understand  that  my  colleague  the  Minister 
of  Highways  is  prepared  to  provide  the 
further    specific    information    requested. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gomme:  Mr.  Speaker,  construc- 
tion work  on  the  Queen  Elizabeth  Way  in 


the  vicinity  of  the  new  interchanges  at  Kip- 
ling Avenue  and  Islington  Avenue  will  be 
completed  in  approximately  one  month's 
time,  and  the  45-mile-per-hour  speed  limit 
signs  will  be  removed  on  this  section.  How- 
ever, in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  QEW- 
Highway  27  interchange,  where  work  is  still 
in  progress,  the  construction  speed  limit 
signs  will  remain  in  force.  Our  practice  is 
not  inconsistent  with  the  statement  made  by 
my  colleague  to  the  House  on  April  7.  The 
hon.  member  asks: 

Why  is  the  same  speed  limit  maintained 
at  all  times  whether  or  not  construction  is 
in  progress  instead  of  being  adjusted  to 
actual  conditions,  particularly  at  weekends 
when  construction  work  ceases? 

Because  of  the  ever-changing  location  of  the 
construction  areas,  it  is  most  difficult  to  main- 
tain at  all  times  construction  speed  zone  signs 
consistent  with  road  conditions  on  all  con- 
struction contracts.  A  concerted  effort  is 
being  made  to  ensure  that  construction  speed 
zoning  is  realistic,  and  when  conditions  war- 
rant, to  have  the  speed  zone  signs  removed 
at  nights  and  on  weekends. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  the  answer  to  ques- 
tion 89  asked  by  the  member  for  Thunder 
Bay  yesterday.    It  is: 

In  my  letter  of  July  17,  1968,  I  informed 
the  hon.  member  that  we  would  go  ahead 
with  the  pre-engineering  for  the  prospective 
reconstruction  of  the  road,  which  had  been 
programmed.  I  explained  that  I  was  unable 
to  be  specific,  but  that  we  would  arrange 
schedules  of  construction  consistent  with 
comparative  priorities  and  available  funds. 
During  1964  to  1967  inclusive,  16  accidents 
occurred  on  the  road,  giving  an  accident 
rate  of  1.0  per  million  vehicle  miles  of  travel 
over  that  period.  This  corresponds  with  an 
average  of  2.6  for  all  King's  Highways  in 
the  province;  3.6  for  all  secondary  highways, 
and  5.8  for  all  of  Ontario's  roads  and  streets. 
Evidently  Highway  585  was  just  about  as 
safe  a  road  as  could  be  driven  on  during 
1964  to  1967. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  before 
the  orders  of  the  day  yesterday  we  were  dis- 
cussing the  celebration  of  the  150th  anni- 
versary of  the  birth  of  George  Brown,  which 
will  be  on  Friday  next.  In  the  intervening 
hours  I  have  had  an  opportunity  to  meet 
with  the  leader  of  the  Opposition  and  the 
leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party,  and  we 
have  come  to  an  agreement,  and  perhaps  I 
can  tell  the  House  how  we  would  like  to 
observe   this,   the    150th    anniversary   of   the 


146 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


birth  of  this  very  famous  Canadian  Parlia- 
mentarian. 

In  the  Toronto  Necropolis  and  Cemetery  at 
200  Winchester  Street,  Toronto,  where  George 
Brown  is  buried,  there  will  be  a  short 
memorial  service  and  wreath  laying  ceremony 
at  9  o'clock  on  Friday,  November  29.  In 
attendance  there  will  be  myself,  the  leader 
of  the  Opposition  and  the  leader  of  the  New 
Democratic  Party,  some  officials  and  students 
from  the  George  Brown  College  of  Applied 
Arts  and  Technology.  Any  members  of  this 
House  and  the  public  who  would  like  to  join 
us  will  be  very  welcome  on  that  occasion. 

At  10  o'clock  this  House  will  meet  and 
there  will  be  addresses  in  recognition  of  Mr. 
Brown  by  myself,  by  the  leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition, by  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party,  and  by  any  other  members  of  the 
House  who  would  like  to  observe  this  occa- 
sion. 

Following  that,  and  with  the  approval  of 
the  House,  it  is  planned  that  we  will  then 
adjourn  and  go  to  the  platform  erected  at  the 
front  steps  of  the  building  and  close  by  there 
is  a  statue  of  George  Brown.  We  would  hope 
to  be  out  there  by  11  o'clock  on  Friday  morn- 
ing. There  will  be  the  regimental  bands  of 
the  Lome  Scots,  a  good  Scottish  regiment; 
a  guard  of  honour  to  be  inspected  will  be 
commanded  by  Captain  I.  Kirkwood;  the 
regimental  band  will  be  conducted  by  Cap- 
tain E.  Corlett.  The  pipes  and  drums  will 
also  be  in  attendance.  The  civil  service  choir 
will  lead  the  singing  and  perform  numbers. 
The  Ontario  Provincial  Police  will  provide  a 
detail  under  the  command  of  Inspector  Don- 
ald Atam.  They  will  escort  a  group  from  the 
platform  to  the  monument  of  George  Brown 
where  a  wreath  will  be  placed  on  behalf  of 
the  legislative  assembly.  Representatives  of 
the  student  body  of  George  Brown  College  of 
Applied  Arts  and  Technology  will  deposit  a 
wreath.  Rev.  Dr.  Ross  K.  Cameron,  a  former 
moderator  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
Canada  will  be  the  officiating  clergyman. 
There  will  be  some  1,500  to  2,500  students 
from  the  George  Brown  College  and  pupils 
from  schools  in  the  immediate  vicinity,  and 
such  other  members  of  the  public  who  may 
wish  to  come.  We  hope  that  the  people  will 
attend  this  ceremony.  Certainly  they  are  all 
more  than  welcome  as  we  will  gather  to  do 
honour  to  a  very  famous  Canadian  statesman. 

Mr.  W.  M.  Mclntyre,  Secretary  of  the 
Cabinet,  has  been  co-ordinating  this  entire 
programme,  assisted  by  various  persons  work- 
ing under  his  direction,  including  Mr.  John 
Cozens,  the  leader  of  the  civil  service  choir. 


Mr.  Speaker:    Orders  of  the  day. 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  (Prime  Minister):  Sir, 
may  I  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  House.  I 
would  like  to  call  the  third  order,  which  is 
second  reading  of  Bill  2,  an  Act  to  amend 
The  Municipal  Act.  This  bill  is  a  technical 
one  involving  the  municipal  elections  which 
will  be  held  early  next  month.  If  it  can  be 
given  second  reading  this  afternoon  in  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  and  third  reading,  then 
I  would  hope  that  it  will  receive  Royal  Assent 
this  week  in  order  that  we  may  make  the 
necessary  arrangements  with  the  municipali- 
ties. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  ACT 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  Mu- 
nicipal Affairs)  moves  second  reading  of 
Bill  2,  An  Act  to  amend  The  Municipal  Act. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion ) :  With  the  assurance  of  the  Premier  of 
the  rather  specific  requirements  of  this  par- 
ticular statute,  I  feel  that  any  comments  that 
we  might  want  to  make  on  changes  in  the 
election  procedures  at  the  municipal  level 
might  be  made  on  another  occasion,  and  we 
have  no  objection  to  it  being  put  without 
notice. 

Motion  agreed  to;  second  reading  of  the 
bill. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  third  order; 
House  in  committee  of  the  whole,  Mr.  A.  E. 
Reuter  in  the  chair. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Hon.  members,  before  I 
assume  the  chair,  may  I  just  take  a  few 
moments  to  express  my  thanks  to  all  hon. 
members  for  their  support  in  returning  me 
to  this  position.  I  want  to  say  a  special  word 
of  thanks  to  the  hon.  Prime  Minister,  to  the 
hon.  leader  of  the  Opposition  and  to  the  hon. 
member  for  York  South,  leader  of  the  New 
Democratic  Party,  for  their  very  kind  words. 

During  those  words,  I  thought  of  some  of 
the  occasions  during  the  first  session  on  which 
I  was  called  upon  to  make  some  rulings.  I 
must  say  that  on  those  occasions,  after  num- 
erous of  them,  I  am  very,  very  surprised  to 
find  myself  in  this  position  again  because  I 
do  realize  full  well  that  there  was  some  dis- 
satisfaction on  both  sides  of  the  House  with 
some  of  those  rulings. 

However,  it  seems  to  me  that  Parliament, 
being  as  old  as  it  is,  going  back  to  the  year 
1295,  that  a  great  deal  has  evolved  over 
those  years.    It  seems  to  me  that  the  purpose 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


X47 


of  Parliament  is  for  reasonable  people,  men 
and  women,  to  gather  together  to  resolve 
their  problems  in  a  responsible  and  dignified 
manner. 

The  committee  of  the  whole  House  was 
founded,  I  think,  approximately  in  the  year 
1607,  and  I  found  it  very  interesting  to  note 
the  reason  why  the  committee  of  the  whole 
House  procedure  was  adopted. 

It  seems  that  in  the  early  days  of  Parlia- 
ment, Mr.  Speaker  was  regarded  as  a  direct 
representative  of  the  monarchy  and  to  some 
extent,  this  restrained  the  members  of  the 
Commons  from  free  discussion.  Therefore, 
the  committee  of  the  whole  was  developed  in 
order  that  there  could  be  a  member  of  the 
Commons  appointed  to  chair  the  committee. 

Now,  with  that  thought  in  mind,  it  lias 
always  been  my  belief  that  there  should  be 
freer  discussion  in  committee  and  that  while 
we  do  have  rules  that  have  been  built  up  and 
taken  from  Westminster,  it  seems  to  me  that 
particularly  in  Ontario,  those  rides  have  not 
been  revised  for  a  long  while  but  it  seems,  in 
committee,  that  we  can  afford  to  judge  the 
circumstances  as  they  arise. 

If  it  is  necessary  to  bend  those  rules  just  a 
little  to  suit  those  circumstances  I  think  this 
would  tend  to  a  much  more  dignified  and 
orderly  procedure  while  we  are  in  committee. 

In  any  event,  I  am  very  grateful  to  be  here 
again,  to  work  with  my  good  friends,  Mr. 
Lewis,  Mr.  Common  and  Mr.  Young  and  I 
am  sure  I  will  find  it  pleasurable  again  to 
work  with  Mr.  Speaker,  as  his  deputy. 

Again,  I  want  to  express  my  sincere  grati- 
tude for  your  support  in  returning  me  to  this 
chair. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  ACT 

House  in  committee  on  Bill  2,  An  Act  to 
amend  The  Municipal  Act. 

Section  1  to  4,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 

Preamble  agreed  to. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  Munic- 
ipal Affairs):  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  wanted  to 
say  that  section  1  of  the  bill  really  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  section  2. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Sarnia):  We  have  car- 
ried it. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  You  have  carried  it. 
You  should  understand  what  you  are  doing. 
I  am  not  sure  that  I  do.  I  think  you  have  to 
have- 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): That  is  not  our  problem. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  It  is  not  your  prob- 
lem; you  are  not  interested,  I  will  not  tell 
you.  It  is  just  technical. 

Bill  2  reported. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts  moves  that  the  committee 
of  the  whole  House  rise  and  report  one  bill 
without  amendment. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  resumed;  Mr.  Speaker  in  the 
chair. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  committee 
of  the  whole  House  begs  to  report  one  bill 
without  amendment  and  asks  for  leave  to  sit 
again. 

Report  agreed  to. 


THIRD  READING 

The  following  bill  was  given  third  reading 
upon  motion: 

Bill  2,  An  Act  to  amend  The  Municipal  Act. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resum- 
ing the  adjourned  debate  on  the  motion  for 
an  address  in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the  hon. 
the  Lieutenant-Governor  at  the  opening  of 
the  session. 


SPEECH  FROM  THE  THRONE 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  surprised  at  the 
energetic  objection  taken  by  the  Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  Food  (Mr.  Stewart)  a  few 
moments  ago  during  the  question  period 
when  I  interjected  a  comment  in  his  answer. 
He  was  being  questioned  about  the  possibility 
of  government  assistance  to  those  farmers  in 
two  areas  of  the  province  that  have  suffered 
unnatural  weather  hindrance  and  damage 
during  the  recent  crop  season. 

His  reason  for  not  going  ahead  with  the 
recommendation  to  the  Cabinet  for  such 
assistance  in  both  cases  was  that  die  farmers 
had  crop  insurance  available,  and,  therefore, 
he  did  not  see  fit  to  recommend  the  assistance 
that  had  been  forthcoming  in  years  gone  by 
under  these  similar  circumstances. 

I  interjected  that  I  felt  the  crop  insurance 
programme  was,  therefore,  more  useful  to  the 
government    than    to    the    farmers    because 


148 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


surely  the  Minister  himself  knows  that  in 
most  areas  of  the  province  less  than  5  per 
cent  of  the  farmers  concerned  have,  for 
reasons  that  surely  they  find  good  and  suffi- 
cient, availed  themselves  of  the  coverage 
that  is  available  under  the  provincial-federal 
joint  crop  insurance  programme. 

It  could  be  that  it  is  too  expensive;  that  it 
lias  not  been  properly  put  for  their  considera- 
tion and,  in  fact,  that  they  are  prepared  to 
take  the  risks  as  long  as  they  feel  that  the 
representatives  of  the  Legislature,  in  matters 
and  circumstances  of  great  catastrophe,  are 
prepared  to  take  the  steps  that  have  been 
taken  in  years  gone  by,  to  provide  the  reason- 
able assistance  that  has  been  forthcoming. 

I  remember  very  well,  when  the  bill  that 
implemented  crop  insurance  was  discussed, 
saying  that  I  expected  the  Minister  would  use 
this  as  a  crutch  for  getting  out  of  the 
responsibilities  that  had  been  governmental 
for  so  many  years.  We  now  find  that  this  is 
precisely  the  purpose  of  The  Crop  Insurance 
Act  as  it  is  administered  in  the  province  of 
Ontario. 

It  appears  to  be  one  the  serious  short- 
comings in  the  attitude  taken  by  the  Minis- 
ter and  his  chief,  the  Premier,  who  is  good 
enough  to  indicate  his  views  on  the  whole 
matter— that  he  feels  the  farmers  are  properly 
served. 

Now  surely  it  is  most  worthy  when  we 
see  that  this  crop  insurance  programme  is 
quite  heavily  subsidized  at  the  federal  level; 
that  the  government  of  Ontario  has  not  seen 
fit  to  match  that  subsidy;  that  it  still  is  an 
expensive  proposition  for  the  farmers;  and 
that  they  have  not  seen  fit  to  avail  themselves 
of  the  limited  protection  that  is  forthcoming. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  an  opportunity  last 
night  to  be  present  at  the  opening  of  a  new 
school  in  a  town  in  my  constituency.  It  was 
a  very  uplifting  experience  with  a  good 
number  of  young  people  taking  part. 

I  had  an  opportunity  to  talk  to  those 
present,  not  only  the  young  people  but  some 
others,  and  to  be  much  impressed  with  a 
broader,  let  us  say  reaction,  to  provincial, 
national  and  world  affairs  than  perhaps  I 
have  been  subjected  to  in  former  circum- 
stances. 

I  cannot  help  but  think  that  it  has  been  the 
coverage  of  the  news  media  on  certain  events 
in  recent  months  that  has  brought  forward 
this  sort  of  reaction,  particularly  from  young 
people. 

You  may  recall,  sir,  a  news  clip  that  was 
carried  on  almost  every  television  station 
that  is  available  to  us  in  this  part  of  Ontario, 


showing  the  summary  execution  of  a  North 
Vietnamese  soldier— a  young  man  who  was 
simply  put  to  death  by  his  captor  pointing 
a  pistol  at  the  top  of  his  head  and  blowing 
it  off.  This  was  earned  on  news  programmes 
repeatedly  and  had  a  tremendous  impact,  I 
think,  on  public  opinion  as  to  the  events  that 
had  been  taking  place  there— perhaps  with- 
out the  same  involvement  of  public  conscience 
up  until  that  time. 

I  do  not  want  to  spend  time  on  that  other 
than  as  an  example  of  one  of  these  conscience 
stirring  events  which  got  to  the  masses,  as 
citizens  of  Ontario,  in  this  way. 

Probably  the  second  event  that  had  as  big 
or  even  bigger  impact  was  the  pictures  car- 
ried of  the  starving  children  in  Biafra,  which 
do  not  have  to  be  described,  I  am  sure,  for 
every  member  to  conjure  up  the  image  in  his 
own  mind. 

Once  again,  the  conscience  of  us  all,  as 
citizens  of  the  province,  was  deeply  stirred 
and  there  was  a  very  personal  feeling  that,  as 
individuals,  something  had  to  be  done  to 
counteract  this  terrible  and  inhumane  situa- 
tion. In  my  view,  not  enough  has  been  done, 
but  we,  in  the  province  of  Ontario,  through 
the  government,  are  contributing,  I  under- 
stand, $70,000  towards  the  relief  of  the 
situation,  and  citizens  have  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  take  part  themselves. 

This  should  be  dealt  with  at  greater  length, 
there  is  no  doubt  about  it.  It  appears  that 
part  of  the  stirring  of  the  conscience  of  the 
individuals  is  followed  by  the  settling  out 
of  the  conscience  in  rather  short  order  when 
what  may  have  been  a  very  immediate  con- 
cern to  the  individual  is  replaced  by  some- 
thing else  a  few  days  later— and  the  heat  is 
off  those  with  responsibility  to  take  action. 

I  think  this  is  something  we  must  be  aware 
of,  and  we  must  see  that  our  reactions  are 
humane  and  based  on  our  conscience,  but 
are  responsible  and  continuing,  so  that  we 
simply  have  a  greater  part  to  play  in  the 
affairs  as  they  come  in.  The  last  item  of 
this  nature,  one  that  was  brought  to  me 
as  the  local  representative  last  night  by  two 
or  three  young  people,  were  pictures  carried 
in  the  press  and  on  television  of  the  unfor- 
tunate little  girl  who  died  on  October  10, 
allegedly  as  a  result  of  a  fall,  but  which  is 
suspected  as  being  the  result  of  perhaps  some 
other  circumstances. 

I  am  sure  you  can  all  recall  the  picture 
of  the  smiling  young  face  with  the  bruise. 
Once  again,  our  conscience  was  stirred;  it 
was  difficult  to  know  what  should  be  done, 
but  the  fact  remains.  These  things  and  the 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


149 


background  associated  with  them,  are  a  part 
of  life,  not  in  the  world  at  large  as  a  global 
village,  as  Marshall  McLuhan  described  it, 
but  in  our  own  backyard,  and  the  realization 
that  inhumanity  among  our  own  neighbours, 
among  ourselves,  is  a  real  part  of  even  the 
enlightened  modern  life. 

The  last  thing  I  want  is  to  attribute  respon- 
sibility for  any  of  these  cases  to  individuals 
here,  but  really  in  following  up  and  examin- 
ing the  events  of  last  week  and  the  role  of 
The  Department  of  Social  and  Family  Serv- 
ices, in  the  care  of  young  children,  I  had 
reached  some  conclusions  that  I  now  wish  to 
place  before  you. 

I  want  to  speak  briefly  about  The  Depart- 
ment of  Social  and  Family  Services  in  con- 
nection with  child  welfare,  and  stress  the 
need  to  improve  the  services  in  this  area.  We 
have  seen  how,  in  the  last  year,  the  depart- 
ment refused  for  most  of  the  year  to  agree 
to  the  budget  of  the  children's  aid  societies 
and  how  by  its  action  forced  these  societies 
into  a  desperate  position.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  I  believe  two  of  the  province's 
societies,  the  province  and  the  children's  aid 
societies  disagreed  on  the  operating  budget 
and  in  these  cases,  the  societies  had  to  cut 
down  on  what  they  needed. 

Let  us  see  what  these  cuts  mean  to  On- 
tario's children.  First,  let  me  say  that  the 
research  on  this  subject  was  done  with  great 
hardship,  because  the  Minister's  office  or  the 
people  under  his  direction,  have  warned 
societies  that  they  are  not  to  discuss  pro- 
grammes financed  by  the  government  with- 
out clearing  such  discussions  with  the 
department.  This  is  an  unheard  of  abuse  by 
the  department  and  it  is  sheer  hyprocrisy 
for  the  members  opposite,  to  deliberately 
spike  any  investigation  of  the  use  of  gov- 
ernment money. 

My  hon.  friends  across  the  aisle  may  not 
believe  it,  but  they  do  not  own  this  province, 
and  the  money  they  spend  is  given  them  in 
trust  for  the  people  of  this  province.  There- 
fore, I  submit  they  have  an  obligation  to 
ensure  that  programmes  under  their  care  are 
closely  scrutinized,  in  fact,  they  should  wel- 
come such  scrutiny.  I  warn  them  that  they 
are  playing  a  serious  game. 

The  taxpayers  of  Ontario  will  not  allow 
nervous  Ministers  to  use  the  Legislature  in 
this  manner  and  we  will  not  tolerate  such 
high-handedness.  Furthermore,  they  will  have 
to  face  up  to  the  fact  that  this  is  not  a 
police  state.  There  are  in  Ontario  men  and 
women  who   will   speak   when   and   as   they 


see  fit,  in  the  public  interest,  no  matter  what 
threats  are  made  by  the  department. 

The  children's  aid  societies,  in  the  past 
three  years,  have  come  to  a  new  understand- 
ing of  the  nature  of  the  children  in  their 
care.  They  realize  that  these  are  not  children 
who  have  lost  their  home  and  parents  and 
come  out  magically  unscathed.  They  are 
children  who  have  suffered,  sometimes  over 
long  periods  of  time,  from  inadequate  physi- 
cal and  emotional  nourishment.  When  many 
of  them  come  to  the  attention  of  the  chil- 
dren's aid  societies  they  are  badly  damaged, 
frequently  emotionally  disturbed.  Therefore, 
the  old  concept  that  a  run-of-the-mill  foster 
home  would  give  them  what  they  need  is 
becoming  out  of  date. 

It  is  now  understood  that  foster  homes 
must  be  picked  with  more  care  than  was 
formerly  the  case  and  that  most  of  all,  they 
must  be  supported,  not  with  more  money  to 
the  parents  necessarily,  but  with  more  and 
better  services  that  cost  real  money. 

Good  foster  parents  are  not  content  with 
having  an  unskilled  aid  drop  in  on  them  once 
every  three  months,  to  find  out  how  things 
are.  They  expect  that  they  will  be  treated 
as  part  of  the  treatment  team,  that  there 
will  be  a  treatment  team  to  give  the  child 
all  kinds  of  care  from  straightening  teeth  to 
psychotherapy.  In  addition  to  the  children 
who  can  use  carefully  chosen  and  supervised 
foster  care,  there  are  other  arrangements 
being  made,  various  types  of  group  homes 
for  example. 

Finally,  there  are  children  who  need  insti- 
tutional care,  and  in  this  regard  it  is  inter- 
esting to  note  that  the  Health  Minister's 
grandiose  plan,  presented  here  nearly  two 
years  ago  with  such  flourish,  is  probably 
most  noted  for  its  silent  demise.  The  socie- 
ties can  term  only  Brown  Camps  for  the 
facilities,  on  a  private  basis,  that  must  be 
part  of  provincial  services. 

Another  responsibility  which  the  province 
give  the  children's  aid  societies,  is  for  the 
care  of  unwed  mothers  and  their  children. 
The  province  handsomely  pays  the  cost  of 
the  care  of  the  child,  but  makes  almost  no 
provision  for  the  emotional  care  of  the 
mother,  and  this  at  a  time  when  the  ili- 
gitimacy  rates,  particularly  among  young 
mothers,  are  on  the  increase,  nor  does  it 
make  provision  for  her  after-care  whether  or 
not  she  keeps  the  child.  The  department 
sloughs  off  its  responsibility  to  the  mother 
to  a  network  of  church  homes,  and  in  every 
important  respect,  leaves  the  young  mother, 


150 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


often    a    needy,    sometimes    disturbed,    child 
herself,  to  a  catch  as  catch  can  system. 

Thirdly,  children's  aid  societies  are  respon- 
sible for  protection  of  children  who  are  being 
malnourished  either  physically  or  mentally  by 
their  parents.  Every  person  sitting  here  to- 
day has  read  with  agony,  the  experience  of 
battered  children,  yet  much  of  this  suffering 
can  be  alleviated  by  societies  with  adequate 
staff  and  facilities  to  offer  families  who,  for 
whatever  reason,  do  not  properly  care  for 
their  children. 

As  the  session  progresses,  I  can  assure  the 
Minister,  that  we  here  will  be  expanding  on 
what  I  have  said.  In  spite  of  whatever  at- 
tempts he  may  make  to  stifle  investigations 
on  the  department  in  its  working,  we  will  be 
watching  both  closely.  Let  me  just  say  this 
for  now,  the  province  is  starving  societies 
who  are  trying  to  do  a  good  job.  There  is  no 
agency  in  this  province  that  is  getting  from 
the  provincial  government,  the  money  it 
needs  to  do  the  job  it  should  be  doing. 

Furthermore,  it  is  under  constant  harass- 
ment by  the  Minister  and  his  department, 
first,  with  the  threat  of  further  cuts  in  money, 
and  secondly  with  the  threat  of  a  provincial 
take-over,  the  possibility  which  can  only  lead 
to  worse  service  if  one  is  to  judge  by  the 
department  records  to  date. 

The  Minister  is  not  present,  but  I  would 
like  to  put  a  few  questions  on  the  record  for 
his  perusal.  First,  are  the  budgets  of  chil- 
dren's aid  societies  to  be  cut  in  the  coming 
year,  so  that  the  department  can  pass  on  the 
fiscal  nightmare  and  make  it  the  nightmare 
of  others?  Secondly,  what  does  the  Minister 
plan  to  do  so  that  agencies  will  learn  at  the 
beginning  of  the  year  and  not  near  the  end, 
exactly  what  money  will  be  available? 
Thirdly,  particularly  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
eight  people  have  left  the  child  welfare 
branch  in  the  last  year,  is  the  Minister  con- 
sidering taking  over  voluntary  children's  aid 
societies? 

John  Doe,  a  great  educator,  once  said  that 
what  the  best  and  wisest  parents  want  for 
their  own  child,  the  community  must  want 
for  all  its  children.  If  the  treatment  of  chil- 
dren's aid  societies  by  the  present  government 
were  to  be  taken  as  a  guide,  we  would  have 
to  conclude  that  we  do  not  want  much  for 
our  youngsters. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  conclude  my 
remarks  by  making  some  comments  on  the 
upcoming  constitutional  conference.  I  re- 
ferred to  it  earlier  in  my  remarks  by  chastis- 
ing the  Premier  and  his  advisers  for  appearing 
to  threaten  the   government  of  Canada  with 


opting  out  of  these  discussions— it  is  a  fact- 
opting  out  of  these  discussions,  unless  there 
were  some  more  reasonable  accommodation 
to  the  government's  other  requirements.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  this  is  the  attitude  taken  by 
the  government,  at  least  interpreted  in  news 
reports  that  were  available  to  me  and  to  the 
citizens  of  this  province. 

I  would  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  this  matter 
is  far  too  important  to  be  treated  as  an  ancil- 
lary project  in  our  effort  to  gain  a  larger 
share  of  federal  abatement.  There  are  some 
matters  of  great  concern  that  will  be,  I  am 
sure,  discussed  in  a  responsible  way  at  the 
conference  that  is  to  be  held  in  the  middle  of 
December. 

At  the  top  of  the  agenda,  must  surely  be 
the  proposal  to  entrench  a  bill  of  rights  in  the 
constitution  of  our  nation,  and  pass  ancillary 
companion  legislation  in  the  provincial  Legis- 
lature. This  is  something  that  I  felt  was  not 
treated  seriously  by  the  Ontario  administra- 
tion when  it  was  proposed  by  the  then  Min- 
ister of  Justice.  I  hope  that  we  will  take 
another  look  at  the  situation,  and  be  prepared 
to  support  the  proposals  from  whatever 
source  they  may  come. 

I  personally  believe  that  we  must  take  very 
definite  steps  to  at  least  set  in  motion,  pro- 
cedures which  will  eventually  repatriate  the 
constitution  of  our  nation.  There  are  those 
who  are  quick  to  say,  that  The  British  North 
America  Act  is  in  fact  not  a  constitution.  It 
makes  an  interesting  argument.  We  must 
accept  the  fact,  that  legislation  from  West- 
minster is  what  actually  assigns  the  responsi- 
bilities to  us  as  members  of  this  House,  and 
those  people  who  are  elected  to  the 
Parliament  of  Canada,  and  the  Legislatures 
of  the  other  provinces. 

It  seems  incomprehensible  that  we  are  pre- 
pared to  permit  this  state  of  affairs  to  go  on 
without  at  least  attempting  to  bring  about  a 
change.  I  well  remember  the  debate  and  dis- 
cussion in  this  House  on  -the  Fulton-Favreau 
formula  for  the  amendment  of  the  constitu- 
tion whether  or  not  it  was  kept  in  its  position 
as  a  statute  of  the  government  of  the  United 
Kingdom. 

There  is  an  interesting  sidelight  to  the  book 
that  was  published  recently  by  Peter  New- 
man, "The  Distemper  of  Our  Times,"  in 
which  he  indicated  that  even  as  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  was  leading  the  discussion 
which  was  supported  eventually  in  a  vote 
from  all  sides  of  the  House,  to  approve  the 
Fulton-Favreau  formula  as  it  might  apply  to 
Ontario,  there  was  an  emissary  from  the 
leader  of  the  Conservative  Party  in  Canada, 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


151 


Mr.  Diefenbaker— I  stand  corrected  on  that 
matter,  it  was,  let  us  say,  supported  by  a 
majority  of  the  members  of  the  House  and 
there  was  an  emissary  coming  from  the  leader 
of  the  Conservative  Party  in  Canada,  attempt- 
ing to  stop  the  government  of  Ontario  from 
proceeding  in  this  way. 

A  minute  had  been  provided  Mr.  Diefen- 
b.iker  indicating  that,  in  fact,  there  was  little 
difFerence  in  the  position  taken  by  Mr.  Fav- 
reau  and  Mr.  Fulton  and  that  lie  would  be 
quite  in  order  in  supporting  the  approach  at 
a  federal  level.  But  we  must  assume  that  for 
political  purposes  he  saw  reason  to  differ 
with  the  formula,  as,  I  suppose,  there  were 
other  reasons  for  others  in  the  Legislature 
here  for  differing  from  the  formula  at  that 
time. 

Whatever  were  the  results,  what  had  been 
the  results  of  some  careful  research  and  were 
put  before  the  Legislatures  of  a  number  of 
provinces  bore  no  fruit,  and  we  are  no  nearer 
now  to  the  solution  of  this  knotty  problem 
than  we  were  in  1963  and  1964. 

Now  I  would  say  that  this  is  something 
that  we  must  come  to  grips  with.  There  tends 
to  be  a  reduction  in  pressure  for  the  amend- 
ment of  our  constitution,  perhaps  as  a  result 
of  the  Centennial  fading  into  history,  but  I 
think  that  Ontario  should  take  the  lead  in 
providing  the  alternative  that  should  be  con- 
sidered by  the  other  provinces  in  repatriating 
our  constitution  and  providing  for  a  reason- 
able and  fair  means  of  amending  it. 

I  think  when  you  look  back  at  fairly  recent 
history,  the  former  Prime  Minister  Louis  St. 
Laurent  took  a  very  practical  approach  to 
dividing  the  sections  of  The  British  North 
America  Act  into  groups  which  would  have 
different  means  of  being  amended.  There 
were  those  which  had  only  direct  and  super- 
ficial application  that  would  be  amended  by 
simple  majority  motion  of  the  Parliament  of 
Canada,  and  there  were  odier,  more  deeply 
entrenched  in  the  right  of  all  our  people  and 
the  provinces  themselves,  which  could  only 
be  amended  by  complete  agreement  among 
all  the  provinces. 

I  feel  that  some  sort  of  workmanlike  ap- 
proach of  this  type  would  be  the  answer  if, 
in  fact,  we  are  going  to  maintain  our  support 
for  The  British  North  America  Act  as  our 
constitution.  There  are  alternatives,  of 
course.  I,  for  one,  believe  that  we  should 
attempt  to  have  an  amendment  to  the  Act 
passed  which  would  remove  it  from  its  pres- 
ent lodging  in  the  Parliament  at  Westminster 
and  bring  it  back  to  Canada  but  this  has 
proved  to  be  an  insurmountable  difficulty. 


The  British  North  America  Act,  as  our  con- 
stitution, should  be  abandoned  where  it  now 
lies,  and  be  replaced  by  something  that  is 
more  in  keeping  with  our  national  aspirations 
and  needs.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution  should  be  accompan- 
ied by  a  fairer  distribution  of  revenues  and 
that  it  should  contain,  as  well,  clear  distribu- 
tion of  responsibilities.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  continuing  expansion  of  the  shared  cost 
programme  is  going  to  lead  us  into  greater 
difficulties  as  far  as  federal  and  provincial 
budgeting  is  concerned,  because  we  know 
that  the  Treasurer  is  presently  sitting  over  in 
the  Frost  Building  chairing  a  meeting  of  the 
Treasury  Board. 

Let  us  presume  that  someone  from  the  Min- 
istry of  Social  and  Family  Services  is  before 
the  Treasury  Board  and  he  could  very  readily 
say  that  those  men  might  approve  the  ex- 
penditures he  is  putting  forward  since  80 
per  cent  of  the  cost  is  being  met  from  another 
jurisdiction.  At  the  same  time,  I  suppose  the 
Treasury  Board  in  Ottawa  has  the  argument 
put  to  them,  when  certain  projects  are  forth- 
coming, that  a  large  part  of  the  cost  is  met 
by  another  jurisdiction  and  in  fact  they  can 
proceed  with  their  approval  without  having 
to  bear  the  cost  at  100  cents  in  a  dollar. 

The  Premier  is  frequently  heard  to  say 
that  there  is  only  one  taxpayer,  and  he  is  the 
person  whose  welfare  really  does  concern  us 
all,  and  I  believe  that  the  restriction  in  the 
shared  cost  programme  is  going  to  be  in  the 
best  interests  of  the  taxpayers  concerned,  as 
well  as  setting  out  clearly  the  lines  of  re- 
sponsibility which  must  accompany  modern 
programmes  if  they  are  carefully  budgeted. 

The  last  point  that  I  would  like  to  raise  in 
this  matter  is  that  as  a  member  of  this  House 
interested  in  these  particular  matters,  I  am 
getting  increasingly  resentful  that  the  ad- 
visory committee  on  constitutional  matters 
restricts  its  advice  to  the  Ministry  alone.  I 
think  that  the  example  set  by  the  Legislature 
in  Quebec  should  be  followed  here,  and  that 
we,  in  this  House,  should  constitute  a  stand- 
ing committee  on  constitutional  affairs  and 
call  before  it  those  people— and  very  able 
people  they  are  indeed— who  presently  restrict 
their  advice  to  the  members  of  the  adminis- 
tration, or  the  Premier  and  those  who  accom- 
pany him  as  our  provincial  delegation  to 
constitutional  conferences. 

I  think  that  the  more  widespread  involve- 
ment we  have  in  this  matter,  the  better,  and 
that  a  standing  committee  of  the  Legislature 
would  be  an  ideal  vehicle  to  interest  the  citi- 
zens of  our  province,  as  well  as  the  members 


152 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


of  this  House  in  what  has  got  to  be  a  matter 
of  great  concern  and  high  priority  to  all  of 
us  as  members. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  had  an  opportunity 
during  my  reply  to  the  motion,  quite  a  few 
days  ago,  for  an  address  to  the  hon.  the 
Lieutenant  Governor,  to  cover  some  matters 
of  great  concern  in  this  province.  I  have  felt 
that  the  primary  importance  is  our  need  to 
come  to  grip  with  budgetary  difficulties  that 
we  are  experiencing  in  great  measure  in  this 
province. 

I  have  mentioned  some  other  matters  as 
well,  and  all  of  these  have  brought  me  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  administration  which  is 
presently  conducting  our  affairs  does  not,  in 
fact,  command  the  confidence  either  of  this 
House  or  of  the  people  of  the  province. 

A  great  deal  has  happened  in  the  12 
months  since  the  election  in  October  1967, 
and  we  have  revealed  the  unfortunate  state  of 
affairs  that  has  been  put  before  you  in  the 
last  few  days.  And  with  this  in  mind,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  move,  seconded  by  Mr.  Singer, 
the  following  amendment  to  the  reply  to  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne: 

That  this  House  regrets  that  the  govern- 
ment 

1.  Has  failed  to  conduct  the  province's 
financial  affairs  responsibly  and  neglected 
to  cause  an  independent  and  all-embracing 
study  of  its  programmes  and  administrative 
procedures  to  be  made. 

2.  Has  failed  to  protect  tenants'  rights 
and  to  insure  adequate  housing  for  the 
people  of  Ontario  at  a  fair  price,  including 
a  system  of  permissive  rent  control. 

3.  Has  neglected  the  proper  develop- 
ment of  the  northern  part  of  the  province 
of  Ontario,  and  by  the  lack  of  a  sound 
policy  toward  the  north  and  its  natural 
resources,  the  government  has  thereby 
failed  to  promote  the  economic  well-being 
and  prosperity  of  all  the  people  of  Ontario. 

4.  Has  failed  to  provide  educational  op- 
portunity, facilities,  and  financing  to  insure 
that  all  Ontario  students  have  an  equal 
access  to  our  educational  institutions,  and 
has  failed  to  develop  an  effective  policy  to 
meet  the  unrest  on  our  university  campuses. 

5.  Has  failed  to  provide  suitable  pro- 
grammes which  would  allow  our  agricul- 
tural community  to  realize  their  fair  share 
of  the  benefits  available  to  other  segments 
of  our  economy. 

6.  Has,  by  its  inaction,  allowed  the  pol- 
lution of  air,  water,  and  land  to  worsen. 


7.  Has  failed  to  insure  equal  access  to 
proper  medical  care  for  all  our  people. 

8.  Has  failed  to  plan  for  the  proper  eco- 
nomic development  of  our  province. 

9.  Has  failed  to  bring  about  meaningful 
reform  to  our  ancient  and  inefficient  system 
of  municipal  government  and,  therefore, 
diat  your  government  does  not  enjoy  the 
confidence  of  this  House. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  on  first  hearing  of  that  rather  com- 
prehensive amendment,  I  am  sure  that  there 
are  some  things  that  have  been  missed  and 
after  a  night's  contemplation,  I  am  sure  1 
will  discover  them.  It  is  in  the  category  of 
what  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  the  "kitchen 
sink"  amendment— everything  is  in  it. 

Now,  in  beginning  a  Tjhrone  Speech,  Mr. 
Speaker,  it  is  traditional  to  pay  tribute  to 
you  and  to  express  appreciation  for  your  con- 
tribution to  the  business  of  this  Legislature. 
I  do  so  with  a  particular  feeling  of  sympathy 
for  you  this  year. 

I  think  we  have  reached  a  crossroads  in 
the  history  of  this  Legislature  in  terms  of 
the  evolution  and  clarification  of  the  rules 
of  the  House.  It  has  become  very  obvious  in 
recent  days,  and  perhaps  never  more  obvious 
than  today,  that,  as  we  seek  to  restrict  and 
impose  balanced  rules  on  the  government  side 
of  the  House— rules  which  I  have  suggested 
to  you  privately  and  publicly  and,  therefore, 
I  am  not  saying  anything  new,  have  already 
been  imposed  to  a  considerable  degree  on 
the  Opposition— that  you  are  going  to  face 
some  considerable  objections  from  a  govern- 
ment which  has  traditionally,  from  my  early 
days  in  the  House,  regarded  the  Speaker  as 
a  puppet  of  their  side  of  the  House. 

Indeed,  I  recall  very  distinctly  an  occasion 
when  something  little  short  of  shock  appeared 
on  the  face  of  the  then  Prime  Minister  when 
the  Speaker  suggested  that  he  was  breaching 
the  rules  of  the  House— he  did  not  have  the 
floor  and  he  should  sit  down.  He  was  literally 
shocked.  No  Speaker  had  ever  told  him  that 
he  should  have  to  live  up  to  the  rules  of  the 
House. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Who  was  that? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Oh,  I  will  leave  you  to 
guess.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  had  something 
approaching  the  same  kind  of  reaction  today 
from  the  Provincial  Treasurer.  He  is  reaching 
boiling  point  in  terms  of  having  to  live  up 
to  the  rules  of  this  House,  so  I  repeat,  Mr. 
Speaker— 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


153 


Hon.  J.  P.  llobarts  (Prime  Minister):  He 
was  teasing  you  and  you  did  not  realize  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  If  the  Prime  Minister 
thinks  that  he  was  teasing  us,  the  Prime  Min- 
ister has  more  trouble  on  his  hands  than  he 
realizes,  because  the  hon.  gentleman  was  not 
teasing  anybody;  he  was  about  ready  to  take 
on  anybody,  including  the  Speaker.  It  started 
last  Thursday  or  Friday  when  he  was  indig- 
nant at  the  thought  that  some  restriction 
should  be  imposed  on  the  abuse  by  the 
Treasury  benches  in  reply  to  questions. 

I  do  not  want  to  pursue  this  any  more, 
Mr.  Speaker.  You  have  indicated  that  you 
are  going  to  set  up  a  committee  to  examine 
the  rules.  I  think— and  this  is  where  my 
expression  of  sympathy  comes— you  have  on 
this  side  of  the  House  a  feeling  that  the 
situation  is  nearly  intolerable;  you  have  on 
the  other  side  of  the  House  considerable  feel- 
ing that  if  there  is  any  change  for  an  equal 
application  of  the  rules  of  the  House,  it  be- 
comes intolerable  for  them.  So  all  I  can  say 
is  that  your  role  will  have  to  be  something 
of  a  Solomon  and  I  wish  you  well. 

Unfortunately,  our  newest  Cabinet  Minis- 
ter is  not  with  us  this  afternoon  and  this  is 
really  going  to  take  a  little  of  the  fun  out 
of  the  game.  Between  each  session  there  is 
the  usual  game  of  musical  chairs  and  the 
Prime  Minister  has  not  failed  us  again  this 
time— he  has  brought  a  new  man  into  the 
Cabinet.  He  is  a  man  who  brings  to  his  new 
responsibilities  undoubted  abilities,  plus  ex- 
perience as  chairman  of  the  taxation  commit- 
tee, which  is  going  to  stand  not  only  him  but 
this  Legislature  in  good  stead. 

But  Mr.  Speaker,  from  experience  on  this 
side  of  the  House,  we  have  learned  that  the 
hon.  Minister  vacillates  unpredictably  from 
being  a  serious  public  servant,  dealing  objec- 
tively and  rationally  with  public  issues,  to  a 
self-appointed  hatchet  man  for  the  Tory 
party,  resorting  to  barracking  tactics  that 
would  make  the  members  of  the  Chicago 
gang  to  his  right  look  like  a  group  of  pikers. 

In  short,  the  new  Minister  is  a  veritable 
Dr.  Jeckyll  and  Mr.  Hyde.  For  his  own 
sake— and  he  will  read  this  even  if  he  does 
not  hear  it— I  hope  that  he  will  forsake  this 
hatchet  role,  for  too  often  his  tactics  in  that 
capacity  have  been  unworthy  of  the  talent 
of  the  man. 

However,  before  I  leave  this  I  want  to 
recall  one  incident  of  recent  vintage  that  I 
think  is  rather  pertinent  in  light  of  his  new 
responsibilities.  In  unveiling  the  report  of 
the  select  committee  on  taxation,  he  was 
detailing  with  great  enthusiasm  the  proposal 


of  the  extension  of  the  sales  tax  to  include 
food  and  then  compensation,  a  very  elaborate 
compensation,  by  way  of  a  tax  rebate— which 
he  argued  was  going  to  be  in  the  form  of  a 
negative  income  tax  that  would  open  the 
door  to  a  guaranteed  annual  income.  It  was 
all  very  fanciful,  but  it  had  magnificent 
propaganda  overtones  and  the  hon.  gentle- 
man declared  triumphantly:  "If  I  were  a 
member  of  the  Opposition,  I  would  be  scared 
to  death/' 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  just  like  to  report  to 
him  that  there  was  nobody  on  our  side  of  the 
House,  at  least  in  this  group,  who  was 
scared  to  death,  but  what  is  even  more  inter- 
esting is  that  subsequent  events  have  revealed 
just  who  was  scared  to  death.  I  will  tell  you 
who  it  was— the  members  of  the  Tory  party. 

The  prospect  of  having  to  defend  the 
extension  of  the  sales  tax  to  food,  along  with 
this  very  elaborate,  and  likely  unworkable 
under  this  government,  rebate  system,  was 
such  that  it  produced  little  short  of  political 
panic  among  the  Tory  back  benchers.  So 
much  so  that  the  Prime  Minister  on  the  eve 
of  this  session  rescued  all  his— 

Hon.  S.  J.  Randall  (Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development):  He  did  not  want  to  ruin  all 
your  speeches  for  some  weeks. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  That  is  an  interesting 
interjection— "he  did  not  want  to  ruin  all  our 
speeches".  I  do  not  know  what  his  objection 
was  in  taking  this  issue  out  of  debate  because 
he  certainly  got  all  the  Tories  off  the  hook 
and  they  came  in  here  with  a  degree  of 
relaxation,  with  the  exception,  of  cour.se,  of 
the  Provincial  Treasurer,  who  was  "white- 
lipped  and  quivering". 

My  final  word  to  the  absent  Minister  is 
diat  I  hope  that  his  partisan  enthusiasms  are 
not  going  to  carry  him  away  in  the  fashion 
that  they  sometimes  do.  I  hope  that  in  his 
new  position  he  can  exercise  some  of  that 
discipline  of  which  I  know  he  is  capable. 
Has  the  Prime  Minister  got  something  to 
add? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
want  to  interrupt.  It  is  just  that  it  appears 
to  me  he  has  reached  you  in  the  last  couple 
of  years. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Oh,  he  has  reached  a  lot 
of  people.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  his  career  is 
rather  an  interesting  one.  I  can  remember 
the  time  when  he  thought  he  was  going  to 
exercise  the  role  of  self  appointed  hatchet 
man  by  tackling  the  former  leader  of  the 
Opposition    following    a    famous    speech    on 


154 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


crime.  Having  tackled  him,  he  then  pro- 
voked the  spectacle  of  the  leader  going  out 
and  reading  the  whole  speech  in  the  hall  so 
that  all  the  Tory  back  benchers  were  embar- 
rassed by  the  spectacle  of  what  had  been 
produced. 

Mr.  Nixon:  There  has  not  been  a  fall 
session  since. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  We  are  still  here, 
where  is  the  leader? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Fine.  Now  let  me  pro- 
ceed to  the  seconder  of  the  motion,  who  again 
is  not  here.  This  element  of  truancy  in  the 
House  which  has  become  the  preoccupation 
of  the  government  side  when  some  people 
from  the  New  Democratic  Party  are  not 
here,  is  rather  interesting— but  the  absence 
of  government  members  of  the  House  is 
something  that,  presumably,  can  be  over- 
looked. 

The  hon.  member  for  Fort  William  (Mr. 
Jessiman)  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  trying 
to  make  political  hay  out  of  the  recent  New 
Democratic  Party  leadership  convention  and, 
indeed,  the  leader  of  the  Opposition  appar- 
ently, at  some  stages  in  his  speech,  had  so 
little  else  to  offer  that  he  too,  got  in  on  the 
game. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Irresistible. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  obviously  was  irresist- 
ible. The  vacuum  had  to  be  filled  with  some- 
thing. Both  of  these  gentlemen,  Mr.  Speaker, 
are  obviously  exasperated,  even  infuriated,  by 
the  indisputable  fact  that  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  is  united  and  stronger  than  it 
ever  was  before. 

Mr.  Nixon:  That  is  for  local  consumption. 

Mr.  R.  M.  Johnston  (St.  Catharines):  Just 
a  dreamer. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  All  this  huffing  and  puff- 
ing is  not  going  to  alter  that  fact.    What  we 
had,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.   R.   F.   Ruston   (Essex-Kent):    You   are 
getting  to  him. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  we  had,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  quote  the  Prime  Minister— at  this 
point  obviously  I  am  getting  to  them— what 
we  had,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  last  session  of 
the  Legislature,  was  a  New  Democratic 
Party  that  was  strong  enough  in  the  1967 
election  to  win  290,000  more  votes.  While 
the  Tory  party  was  going  down  30,000  and 
dropping  seven  per  cent  of  the  total.  While 
the  Liberal  Party  was  staying  the  same,  but 


dropping  four  per  cent  of  the  total,  we  were 
picking  up  that  10  or  11  per  cent  increase. 
That  was  the  New  Democratic  Party,  Mr. 
Speaker,  of  the  last  session.  I  know,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  people  on  that  side  of  the 
House- 
Mr.  Nixon:  What  did  you  say  about  filling 
a  vacuum? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  will  tell  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  as  well  as  the  hon.  member  for 
Oxford.  I  told  it  to  a  whole  convention  in- 
cluding the  hon.  member  for  Riverdale  and 
we  saw  the  result— they  believed  it.  So  just 
listen  because  you  should  believe  it  too,  if 
you  want  to  live  with  the  facts. 

You  see,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon.  gentlemen 
on  the  other  side  of  the  House  would  like  to 
argue  that  what  happened  with  the  New 
Democratic  Party  in  the  last  election  was 
not  much  of  an  achievement;  that  indeed,  it 
was  something  of  a  failure.  Well,  Mr. 
Speaker,  just  let  me  say  to  anybody  who 
wants  advanced  that  argument- 
Mr.  Nixon:  And  who  will  listen. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  —that  a  projection  of 
what  happened  in  the  last  election,  the  gains 
and  the  losses,  no  more  and  no  less,  shows 
that  in  the  next  election  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  will  emerge  as  the  largest  single 
party  in  the  province- 
Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  Tories  dropped  in 
popular  vote  from  49  per  cent  to  42  per 
cent;  a  similar  drop  once  again  will  bring 
them  down  to  35  per  cent.  This  is  an  inter- 
esting little  numbers  game  and  rather  a 
significant  one.  The  Liberals  came  down 
from  35  to  31;  a  similar  drop  will  bring 
them  down  to  27  per  cent.  The  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  came  up  from  16  to  27  and  will 
do  it  again,  to  put  it  at  38  per  cent— the 
largest  single  party  in  terms  of  popular  vote. 
At  that  level  the  seats  will  fall. 

However,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  I  have  been 
talking  about  is  the  New  Democratic  Party 
you  saw  in  the  last  session.  What  you  are 
going  to  see,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  this  session,  in 
case  it  has  missed  your  attention,  is  a  New 
Democratic  Party  which  has  certainly  ex- 
amined its  weaknesses  and  strengths. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Oh,  I  know  that  the 
Tories  do  not  think  that  they  have  any  weak- 
nesses. 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


155 


Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  The  hon.  member  is 
right. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Everybody  knows  the 
Liberals  have  weaknesses,  but  you  do  not 
think  you  have.  We  have  examined  our 
weaknesses  and  our  strengths  and  our  mem- 
bers know  exactly  what  must  be  done  to  win 
the  next  election.  What  is  more  important  is 
that  they  have  gone  home  to  start  doing  the 
job  right  now.  This  party,  Mr.  Speaker,  has 
a  basic  strength  and  unity  such  that  it  can 
cope  with  the  tensions  of  a  leadership  cam- 
paign. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Who  wrote  that, 
Donald? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  always  write  my  own 
speeches.  I  wish  I  could  say  the  same  for 
you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  will  get  you  to  write 
mine  the  next  time. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Right.  We  will  certainly 
improve  it. 

Our  differences  were  one  of  emphasis.  They 
have  been  reviewed  by  our  authoritative 
body,  namely  the  convention.  We  have  now 
returned  to  that  great  area  that  we  hold  in 
common.  The  leader  is  back,  Mr.  Speaker, 
with  a  strong  renewal  of  mandate;  the  deputy 
leader  is  back  with  the  unanimous  support  of 
the  caucus,  and  I  give  you  fair  warning  that 
this  government's  trusteeship  is  going  to  be 
subjected  to  the  most  detailed  and  revealing 
analysis  that  has  ever  taken  place  in  this 
Legislature. 

An  hon.  member:  Old  home  week. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well,  welcome  back.  The 
bridge  game  is  over,  is  it? 

Mr.  R.  M.  Johnston:    Carry  on— 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  would  just  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  through  you  to  the  hon.  members 
on  the  other  side,  that  if  this  inflicts  upon 
them  too  much  pain  and  suffering,  they  have 
my  permission  to  leave. 

An  hon.  member:  Quit  the  foolishness, 
carry  on. 

Another  hon.  member:  That  is  the  truth. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
suggest  seriously  to  the  other  side  of  the 
House  that  perhaps  it  is  time  they  began  to 
look  at  their  own  problems  and  not  dwell  on 
the  problems  that  they  think  exist  with  the 
New  Democratic  Party,  because  this  govern- 


ment is  crumbling  of  its  own  dead  weight 
and  old  age.  Every  year  it  gets  more  and 
more  out  of  touch  with  the  people  and  more 
insensitive  to  their  needs. 

Do  not  accept  my  word  for  it,  because  I 
know  you  will  consider  my  words  to  be 
tinged  with  partisanship,  but  I  have  been 
interested,  in  the  last  two  or  three  months,  in 
reading  the  papers  to  hear  of  leading  people 
in  the  Conservative  Party  publicly  moaning 
and  groaning  about  the  plight  of  the  party 
and  what  they  have  got  to  do  if  they  are 
going  to  avoid  catastrophe  in  the  next 
election. 

I  remember  picking  up  the  Globe  and  Mail 
over  my  cup  of  coffee  one  morning  and  read- 
ing some  unnamed  top  official  of  the  party— 
and  I  can  quite  understand  why  he  should 
be  unnamed  when  he  made  this  sort  of  a 
comment— saying  that  in  the  next  election, 
with  John  Robarts  as  leader  of  the  party,  the 
best  they  could  expect  was  to  come  back  with 
a  minority  government.  I  reflected  on  that, 
and  my  only  reaction  was,  it  was  a  little 
optimistic. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  MacDonald:    Can  I  do  better? 

Mr.  J.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  Sure  he 
can. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  will  turn  to  an  ack- 
nowledged voice  of  Toryism.  The  Hamilton 
Spectator,  which  has  been  a  regular  and 
faithful  exponent  of  Toryism  and  supporter 
of  this  party  down  through  the  years.  A  few 
weeks  ago— as  a  matter  of  fact,  on  October 
18— W.  F.  Gold,  an  editorial  writer  for  that 
paper,  had  an  article  under  his  byline.  He 
came  out  and  identified  his  authorship  with 
his  byline. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Is  the  member  sure  he 
is  not  NDP? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  have  often  been  im- 
pressed with  his  intelligence,  and  was  more 
impressed  when  I  read  this.  Therefore,  what 
you  say,  I  think,  is  not  an  impossibility. 
However,  that  is  a  decision  he  will  have  to 
make.    However,  let  me  quote  Mr.  Gold: 

Ontario's  powerful  Conservative  machine 
is  showing  signs  of  running  down.  If  the 
decline  is  not  halted  in  the  next  18  months 
it  could  reach  fatal  proportions  by  election 
time  1971. 

People  have  been  making  such  dire  pre- 
dictions, of  course,  ever  since  a  rambunc- 
tious Col.  George  Drew  re-established  Tory 


156 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


rule  at  Queen's  Park  by  a  whisker  in  1943. 
But  the  government  is  getting  older  now 
and  more  vulnerable. 

Ironically,  as  is  the  case  with  most  aging 
administrations,  die  fault  lies  not  so  much 
in  its  conduct  of  the  art  of  government  as 
such,  but  in  the  gradually  hardening  atti- 
tudes, its  general  frame  of  mind,  and  its 
slowing,  calcifying  responses  to  the  people. 

These  latter  characteristics  were  amply 
and  repellingly  demonstrated  in  this  region 
just  a  few  months  ago  as  the  government 
employed  every  political  tactic  in  the  book 
—short  of  telling  the  truth  and  really  com- 
ing to  grips  with  the  issue— to  circumvent, 
squash,  mislead  and  generally  head  off  an 
aroused  public  opinion  over  the  question  of 
the  route  of  the  Dundas  bypass  highway 
through  the  beautiful  valley  wilderness. 

This  is  the  calcified  approach  that  manifested 

itself  once  again,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Voters  from  other  areas  all  over  the 
province  have  similar  stories  to  tell.  They 
have  run  into  arrogance  and  rigidity 
whether  the  point  at  issue  was  roads,  grants 
or  whatever. 

A  feeling  of  general  uneasiness  is  creep- 
ing into  the  party  structure  as  well.  Re- 
peated rumours  are  going  the  rounds  that 
John  Robarts  plans  to  step  down  within  a 
year.  Certainly  any  man  deserves  to,  after 
seven  years  in  so  rough  a  job.  Yet  from 
the  pragmatic  political  standpoint,  his  de- 
parture may  be  necessary. 

Ontarians  may  have  applauded  his  states- 
manship which  led  to  the  Confederation  for 
Tomorrow  conference  but  they  are  getting 
a  little  weary  of  lectures  on  public  finance 
which  he  has  begun  to  deliver  in  recent 
months.  These  speeches  have  in  effect 
scolded  the  public  for  profligacy  in  its  de- 
mands, thus  missing  the  point  that  it  was 
the  Conservative  government  of  the  day 
which  implemented  these  spending  plans, 
often  without  any  demand  at  all.  Witness 
the  homeowners'  tax  exemption  which  is 
costing  $150  million  this  year.  .  .  . 

And  finally,  25  years  is  a  long  time. 
Normal  political  prudence  would  have  dic- 
tated a  very  modest  and  almost  silent  cele- 
bration of  that  anniversary  a  few  months 
ago.  Instead,  the  assembled  faithful  pulled 
out  the  stops  and  made  an  enormous 
amount  of  noise,  thus  succeeding  in  re- 
minding everyone  just  exactly  how  old  this 
somewhat  tired  government  actually  is. 

Its  handling  of  patronage  is  becoming 
steadily  more  clumsy  and   capricious,   and 


anachronisms  like  the  dictatorial  powers  of 
the  liquor  board  producing  increasing  re- 
sentment, and  the  signs  of  a  change  are  too 
little,  too  late. 

More  important  is  the  lack  of  a  coherent 
policy  towards  the  large  cities.  Here  the 
problem  is  basic  comprehension,  plain  and 
simple. 

And  if  I   may   interject,   it   simply   does   not 

exist  in  the  government  ranks. 

The  men  in  the  power  structure  simply 
do  not  understand  the  functioning  and 
problems  of  urban  areas  and  this  will  cost 
them  dearly. 

I  put  it  on  the  record,  Mr.  Speaker;  not  my 

views    of   a   paper   which   normally    is    quite 

friendly  to  this  government. 

However,  just  one  more  bit  so  that  the 
record  will  be  complete.  If  I  may  go  back 
to  that  Tory  pocket  borough  of  yesteryear, 
namely  Victoria-Haliburton,  I  was  most  inter- 
ested to  read  a  clipping  that  came  over  my 
desk  from  Lindsay.  It  is  dated  October  31, 
not  very  long  ago,  and  says: 

Disenchantment  with  the  Tory  party  in 
Ontario  was  clearly  evident  in  remarks 
made  by  several  speakers  at  the  annual 
meeting  Wednesday  of  the  Victoria-Hali- 
burton riding  P.C.  Association. 

Ironically,  most  of  the  condemnation  was 
voiced  by  three  ex-wardens  of  Victoria 
county.  These  long-time  staunch  Tories 
took  the  government  to  task  for  dictatorial 
policies  as  well  as  high  education  and  wel- 
fare costs. 

"In  the  past  we  had  government  serving 
the  people,  now  governments  have  us  serv- 
ing them,"  declared  John  Alton  of  Lorne- 
ville.  "Men  of  the  stature  of  John  Diefen- 
baker  and  Leslie  Frost  made  one  feel  proud 
to  be  a  Tory.  It  was  during  their  time  as 
leaders  that  this  country  enjoyed  its  great- 
est progress,"  he  maintained.  Issuing  a 
warning  that  "the  people  are  ready  for 
revolt"— 

Imagine!    Victoria-Haliburton  and  the  people 

are  ready  for  revolt! 

—Reeve  Wilbert  Worsley  of  Fenelon  town- 
ship declared,  "The  government  is  getting 
away  from  the  people." 

And  just  to  prove  the  point  and  cap  the 
whole  thing,  the  sitting  member  from  the 
area  is  quoted  thus: 

The  long  and  arduous  sessions  of  the 
Ontario  Legislature  were  cited  in  a  speech 
here  Wednesday  as  one  of  the  reasons  why 
government    is     getting    away    from    the 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


157 


people.  "We  ju9t  don't  have  time  to  get 
together  with  the  people  any  more,"  de- 
clared MPP  Glen  Hodgson,  when  address- 
ing the  annual  meeting  of  the  Victoria- 
Haliburton  riding  P.C.  Association.  "Gov- 
ernment is  getting  to  be  business  rather 
than  serving  die  people." 

We  are  here  for  five  months  of  the  year,  only 
five  months  of  the  year,  and  I  tell  this  gov- 
ernment wc  will  be  here  longer  before  we 
are  here  shorter,  make  no  mistake  about  it. 
Yet  it  is  impossible  for  the  Tories  to  have 
contact  with  the  people.  Let  me  tell  you— 
we  have  no  trouble  in  getting  contact  with 
the  people,  whether  it  is  in  Picton  or  you 
name  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  The  hon. 
member  can  look  inscrutable  but  he  is  not 
fooling  us. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  Cab- 
inet members  have  all  had  their  opportunity 
to  have  their  say  perhaps  I  can  get  back 
into  the  picture  here. 

I  would  like  to  take  briefly  some  examples, 
by  way  of  documentation,  of  the  insensitivity 
of  this  government,  its  failure  to  meet  the 
needs  of  the  people.  I  am  not  going  to  go 
into  detail  on  them;  my  colleagues  will  have 
opportunity  later  in  the  Throne  Debate  and 
in  the  estimates  to  get  into  the  detail.  But 
let  me  start  with  that  area  with  which  this 
government  is  so  preoccupied  because  it  has 
traditionally  been  its  area  of  strength— rural 
Ontario,  the  farmers.  I  was  very  interested 
that  after  the  most  careful  examination  of 
the  new  expropriation  bill,  which  has  just 
been  brought  before  us,  I  found  nothing  in 
the  expropriation  bill  to  deal  with  the  par- 
ticular problems  that  have  been  faced  by 
agriculture  in  expropriation. 

Farmers  are  not  just  homeowners,  and 
farmers  are  not  just  business  men.  And  I 
suggest  if  you  go  back  and  look  at  the  kind 
of  thing  that  farmers  have  faced  in  terms  of 
expropriation  from  The  Department  of  High- 
ways, particularly  in  such  events,  for  example, 
as  the  Pittock  dam  in  the  Woodstock  area, 
there  are  peculiar  problems  with  regard  to 
expropriation.  After  such  careful  examina- 
tion of  this  issue,  the  government  brings  in 
a  bill  which  reflects  nothing  of  these  par- 
ticular problems  at  all.  We  will  have  an 
opportunity  a  little  later,  Mr.  Speaker,  to 
look  into  this. 


If  I  may  move  on  to  a  second  point— this 
fall  we  have  witnessed  the  spectacle  of  the 
United  States  authorities  challenging  exorbi- 
tant price  increases  in  automobiles,  and  as  a 
result  of  the  pressure,  we  finally  have  a 
rollback  in  car  prices.  We  in  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  have  been  trying  to  get  the 
government  in  Ottawa  to  stop  the  kind  of 
huffing  and  puffing  that  Mr.  Sharp  was  en- 
gaged in  for  a  time,  but  he  would  not  follow 
through  with  any  action;  or  to  get  this  gov- 
ernment, through  a  prices  review  board,  to 
look  into  the  exorbitant  price  increases  in 
the  automobile  industry,  because  most  of  it 
is  right  in  this  province. 

During  the  course  of  the  past  few  months 
there  has  come  out  of  Washington  some  fas- 
cinating evidence.  For  years  nobody  has  ever 
been  able  to  get  from  the  automobile  indus- 
try the  cost  of  making  cars,  but  that  incor- 
rigible digger,  Ralph  Nader,  has  gotten  the 
information  and  it  is  being  submitted  to  a 
congressional  committee  under  Senator  Gay- 
lord  Nelson's  chairmanship  in  Washington, 
and  now  they  are  examining  it.  They  have 
discovered  that  while  the  price  increases  are 
relatively  acceptable  as  between  the  manu- 
facturer and  his  sales  to  the  dealer,  what 
happens  on  parts  and  other  things  is  really 
scandalous. 

A  four-door  Galaxie  500,  for  example,  costs 
the  dealer  16.8  per  cent  more  than  it  costs 
the  builder  to  make,  but  optional  equipment, 
usually  amounting  to  a  third  of  the  selling 
price,  was  marked  up  anywhere  between 
57.8  per  cent  and  293  per  cent  over  cost, 
according  to  Nelson's  figures. 

Hon.  A.  F.  Lawrence  (Minister  of  Mines): 
To  the  dealer?  The  markup  is  to  the  dealer? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  dealer,  who  is  the 
retailer.  The  markup  to  the  dealer,  right.  I 
am  sorry,  I  missed  the  significance  of  the 
Minister's  interjection.  The  markup  to  the 
dealer  for  the  car  is  16  per  cent,  but  on 
these  parts,  it  is  up  to  as  high  as  293  per 
cent,  and  this,  of  course,  is  where  the  great 
profits  are  made. 

What  is  this  government  going  to  do? 
What  is  the  federal  government  going  to  do 
about  this  kind  of  a  situation  in  Canada?  Do 
we  have  to  count  on  a  certain  situation  in 
Washington  being  such  as  to  force  the  presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  to  move,  so  that 
we  in  Canada  can  get  relief  from  this  ex- 
orbitant gouging  of  the  consumers?  If  the 
government  at  Ottawa  signed  a  Canada-U.S. 
auto  pact  and  is  not  willing  to  make  certain 


158 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


that  the  consumers  benefit  as  they  are  en- 
titled to  benefit  under  that  pact— after  the 
management  has  benefitted  from  a  $50  mil- 
lion handout,  in  effect,  out  of  the  public 
treasury— is  this  government  willing  to  move 
in  this  kind  of  proposition? 

Mr.  O.  F.  Villeneuve  (Glengarry):  It  is  the 
federal  government. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  is  not  just  the  federal 
government.  The  federal  government  has 
some  responsibility  but  this  government  can 
establish  a  prices  review  board  and  get  at 
the  facts  and  provide  the  facts  to  the  public. 
This  is  what  this  government  is  unwilling  to 
do. 

Let  me  read  one  other  comment  here  in 
this  news  story. 

Despite  requests  by  the  Justice  Depart- 
ment, the  federal  safety  officials,  the  Auto- 
mobile Union  and  other  organizations, 
General  Motors,  Ford  and  Chrysler  have 
refused  to  voluntarily  reveal  the  cost  of 
building  an  auto. 

In  other  words  we  have  to  operate  in  the 
dark.  We  can  do  as  we  please  with  the 
inevitable,  irresistible,  increase  each  year  in 
Canada,  unjustified  under  the  Canada-U.S. 
Auto  Pact.  I  take  the  word  of  a  former  pro- 
vincial Finance  Minister  of  this  country,  Mr. 
Sharp,  when  he  was  in  that  position.  Here 
is  one  area  where  the  government  has  simply 
walked   away   from   its   responsibilities. 

I  move  on  to  another  area.  All  throughout 
the  fall  this  government  has  sought  to  per- 
suade the  federal  government  to  go  back 
on  its  Medicare  commitment— even  though  it 
has  taken  us  50  years  to  get  the  Liberals  to 
accept  the  Medicare  commitment  in  this 
country.  Always  we  are  told  it  is  going  to 
cost  too  much.  When  is  this  government 
going  to  face  the  facts?  The  fact  that  this 
government  is  now  subsidizing  all  of  the  high 
risks  in  the  province  of  Ontario.  Figures  that 
became  available  from  a  survey  last  spring 
indicate  that  the  total  Ontario  cost  for  Medi- 
care today,  what  is  being  paid  by  the  gov- 
ernment and  what  is  being  paid  by  individuals, 
is  $465  million.  The  total  cost  if  we  went 
into  the  federal  Medicare  Plan  would  be  $450 
million.  In  other  words,  it  would  be  less. 

I  was  interested  just  two  or  three  weeks 
ago— October  23  to  be  exact^to  find  that 
somebody  asked  a  question  in  the  federal 
House  with  regard  to  the  average  per  capita 
cost  of  physicians'  services  in  this  country. 
We  have  listened  for  the  last  two  or  three 
years     to     spokesmen     of     this     government, 


saying  that  the  total  cost,  most  of  which  is 
made  up  in  physicians'  services,  is  in  the 
range,  in  the  province  of  Ontario,  of  some 
$48.  We  get  into  constant  wrangling  as  to 
what  are  the  accurate  figures. 

Well,  here  is  the  latest  little  figure  for  you 
to  take  a  look  at.  The  average  per  capita 
cost  of  physicians'  services  in  Canada  in  1966, 
the  latest  year  for  which  data  was  available, 
was  $33.45,  or  $2.99  a  month.  On  the  basis 
of  preliminary  observations,  it  is  estimated 
that  the  corresponding  figure  for  January, 
1968,  was  $3.26  per  month,  or  $39.12  for 
the  year. 

Now,  if  you  examine  the  breakdown  for 
the  provinces,  for  Ontario  it  is  $35.55.  If 
you  project  an  increase  to  the  beginning  of 
1968,  it  will  take  you  into  the  range  of  $40 
to  $42.  How  does  one  square  this  with  the 
$48  or  the  $50  figures  which  are  going  up 
each  time  this  government  uses  them?  I  have 
given  the  most  recent  official  figures. 

I  suggest  that  this  government  is  indulging 
in  high  figures  for  the  purpose  of  scaring  the 
public  out  of  Medicare.  It  is  an  utterly  shame- 
ful proposition  that  a  Tory  government  should 
pretend  to  be  in  favour  of  Medicare  and 
should  be  assisting  the  Liberals  to  get  out  of 
a  commitment  that  it  took  them  50  years  to 
have  the  guts  to  implement  in  statutes.  And 
then  to  cap  the  climax,  a  week  or  so  ago, 
we  have  still  another  increase  in  Medicare 
costs  in  the  province  of  Ontario,  with  a  uni- 
lateral, unnegotiated,  increase  in  doctors' 
fees.  I  asked  the  Minister  of  Health  yesterday 
whether  he  knew  about  it.  He  replied  that  he 
got  a  letter  saying  that  it  was  going  to  be 
done.  We  have  listened  in  this  country  to 
the  federal  and  the  provincial  governments 
moan  and  groan  about  exorbitant  increases 
that  are  inflationary  and  are  wrecking  our 
whole  economy.  There  are  great  lectures 
delivered  to  the  workers  and  to  others,  but 
the  doctors  do  as  they  please  and  the  Min- 
ister gets  a  letter  telling  him  that  it  is  done 
and  nothing  more  happens.  When  I  asked 
the  Minister  whether  he  feels  it  is  a  tolerable 
proposition  to  have  to  be  handed  unilaterally 
announced  increases  in  fees  from  the  profes- 
sion which  is  the  highest  paid  profession  in 
the  province  of  Ontario,  he  says  "we  hope  to 
work  out  some  sort  of  an  agreement  with 
them".  It  is  about  time  that  this  government 
had  the  courage  to  act  on  behalf  of  the 
people  of  the  province  of  Ontario.  It  is 
simply  because  they  have  not  got  the  cour- 
age to  act  on  behalf  of  the  people  of  the 
province  of  Ontario,  and  bow  and  scrape  in 
front   of   every  vested   interest  who   dictates 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


159 


from  behind  the  scenes,  that  you  are  crumb- 
ling in  the  eyes  of  the  people  of  this  province. 

Mrs.  M.  Renwick  (Scarborough  Centre): 
Where  is  the  Health  Minister? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Where  is  the  Health  Min- 
ister?—that  is  another  good  point.  Let  us 
take  a  look  at  the  housing  Minister  because 
if  there  is  any  Minister  who  is  bringing  ques- 
tions and  disrepute  upon  this  government 
more  than  the  hon.  Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development,  I  cannot  figure  whom  it  might 
be.  The  Minister  is  barnstorming,  not  only 
across  the  whole  of  the  province  of  Ontario, 
but  across  the  world.  He  is  in  Tokyo  today, 
he  is  in  Bonn  tomorrow;  when  it  is  the  job 
of  somebody— and  if  not  this  Minister  then 
let  him  get  out  of  it  and  get  somebody  else 
to  do  it— to  tackle  the  housing  problem  in 
the  province. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Is  there  anyone  who  has 
any  doubt  that  this  is  to  him? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  will  tell  you— in  the 
last  election  we  got  within  800  votes  in  Dan 
Mills,  so  just  go  home  and  tend  to  your 
knitting  because  it  cannot  be  attended  to 
in  Bonn  or  Tokyo.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
interested  in  the  Minister's  production  of 
figures  which  are  usually  on  the  basis  of  a 
project  in  which  has  has  given  us  two  or 
three  earlier  sets  of  figures.  The  earlier  sets 
of  figures  meant  nothing  and  it  is  likely  that 
the  latest  one  will  not  mean  anything.  We 
have  simply  got  to  build  houses  in  greater 
numbers  in  this  province  of  Ontario.  Until 
we  do  something  about  a  vacancy  rate,  which 
in  the  metropolitan  areas  is  cne,  or  less  than 
one  per  cent,  and  until  you  have  got  over 
that  problem,  there  is  no  point  in  this 
Minisur,  who  can  sell  refrigerators  to 
Eskimos,  or  any  other  preposterous  proposi- 
tion cf  that  nature,  trying  to  kid  the  public 
that  the  housing  situation  has  been  solved— 
it  has  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  How  many  were  built  in 
Saskatchewan  in  21  years? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  am  not  interested  in  how 
many  were  built  in  Saskatchewan.  I  am  inter- 
ested in  how  many  you  have  not  built  in  the 
province  of  Ontario,  that  is  the  important 
tiling. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 


Mr.  MacDonald:  Does  the  Minister  want 
the  floor  for  a  moment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  No,  go  ahead. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Let  us  take  a  look  at 
another  point  in  this  Minister's  department. 
We  have  only  got  to  examine  with  great  care 
the  kind  of  abuse  of  the  public  treasury 
which  this  Minister  is  engaging  in,  in  his 
so-called  "forgiveness  grants"— "forgiveness 
loans"— We  desperately  need  a  balance  in 
economic  development  in  the  province  of  On- 
tario. There  was  a  day  when  this  government 
operated  on  the  proposition  that  if  some  com- 
pany that  happens  to  be  a  marginal  company, 
but  in  the  assessment  of  the  appropriate  offi- 
cers of  this  government,  may  well  have  had  a 
contribution  to  make— if  they  cannot  get  their 
money  from  the  traditional  sources  for  capital, 
then  let  them  come  to  the  government  and 
the  government  will  assist  them. 

That  was  a  questionable  proposition,  be- 
cause it  meant  that  the  government  under- 
wrote the  worst  risks,  but  at  least  the 
gjvernment  was  trying  to  build  in  those  areas 
where  we  do  not  have  economic  development. 

Today  we  have  a  fatuous  proposition.  The 
richer  the  company  is  and  the  more  resources 
it  has,  the  more  certain,  this  Minister  told  us 
just  two  days  ago,  it  is  that  they  can  get  a 
loan,  a  "forgiveness  loan." 

Let  us  face  a  fundamental  fact  here,  Mr. 
Speaker.  If  a  company  is  going  to  build  in 
any  area  it  is  going  to  build  because  there  is 
a  prospect  for  long-term  profits.  Otherwise, 
it  is  not  going  to  go  into  it.  And  therefore, 
what  it  amounts  to,  in  the  instance  of  some 
of  these  well-established  companies  that  have 
large  reserves,  is  a  straight  hand-out  of  the 
public  treasury  that  is  not  needed  at  all.  If 
a  company  has  got  reserves  of  tens,  or  hund- 
reds of  millions  of  dollars,  this  Minister  is 
just  handing  out  up  to  $500,000  which  goes 
into  private  pockets;  they  do  not  need  it  any 
more  than  E.  P.  Taylor  needs  the  $20,000  a 
year  to  train  his  horses. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well  they  have  got  most 
of  the  new  factories. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Talk  to  the  Crane  em- 
ployees in  Port  Hope,  or  talk  to  the  company 
whose  position  I  drew  to  the  Minister's  atten- 
tion earlier  today  where  they  got,  I  think,  a 
grant  in  July  for  something  over  $200,000— 
I  seek  confirmation  of  the  exact  amount.  They 


160 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


have  laid  off  60  people  since  they  got  the 
grant;  they  are  in  the  process  of  further  out- 
lays. What  kind  of  a  proposition  is  this?  This 
is  abuse  of  the  public  Treasury. 

This  government  is  so  penny  pinching,  it  is 
examining  with  the  greatest  of  care,  grants  to 
students.  It  examines  with  the  greatest  of 
care  the  overpayment  of  $75  or  so  in  a  wel- 
fare cheque,  and  it  hounds  that  little  man 
until  he  has  paid  it  back.  It  has  examined 
savings  so  carefully  that  out  in  the  Whitby 
hospital,  patients  who  are  working  in  the  hos- 
pital and  were  paid  five  to  ten  cents  an  hour, 
have  now  had  their  pay  reduced  to  two  cents 
an  hour.  It  examines  all  these  things  so  care- 
fully. Yet  with  reckless  abandon  it  will  hand 
$500,000  to  a  company  to  establish  in  some 
part  of  the  province,  when  that  company  has 
reserves  th^t  are  such  that  they  have  no  need 
of  the  $500,000  at  all. 

In  short,  Mr.  Speaker,  here  is  not  only  an 
indication  of  where  the  government  is  not 
fulfilling  the  objectives  of  a  programme,  it  is 
abusing  the  public  Treasury  for  its  friends 
in  the  business  world— American  friends  at 
that. 

Well  we  will  take  a  further  look  at  that  at 
some  later  time. 

Interjections  by  lion,  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  will  proceed  to  another 
point  Mr.  Speaker.  For  years,  this  govern- 
ment has  refused  to  deal  with  sources  of  fric- 
tion in  labour-management  relations.  Ten 
years  ago,  I  happened  to  be  a  member  of  a 
select  committee  of  this  Legislature  which 
made  reports  with  regard  to  the  streamlining 
and  modernizing  of  The  Labour  Relations 
Act.  I  have  said  it  many  times  before,  but 
apparently  it  has  to  be  said  again— one  of  the 
unanimous  recommendations  was,  for  example, 
the  getting  rid  of  ex  parte  injunctions  —  a 
unanimity  that  was  shared  by  eight  Tory 
members,  six  of  whom  were  in  the  Cabinet 
then,  have  been  since,  or  are  in  the  Cabinet 
now. 

What  have  they  done  about  it?  Nothing. 
Because  people  behind  the  scenes  in  the 
business  and  management  world  wanted  to 
keep  ex  parte  injunctions.  A  gross  violation 
of  British  justice,  and  this  government  was 
willing  to  do  it.  Then  last  year,  or  two  years 
ago  when  we  had  the  Oshawa  and  the  Tilco 
situation,  and  the  injunction  issue  flared  up 
and  caused  a  great  public  furor,  what  did 
this  government  do?  Did  it  dust  off  that 
ten -year- old  unanimous  recommendation 
about  ex  parte  injunctions?    No. 


It  set  up  another  Royal  commission,  and 
now  we  have  backed  into  a  set  of  proposals 
from  an  old  gentleman  whose  mind  is  a  legal 
mind,  and  who  has  produced  a  legal  strait- 
jacket  which  is  going  to  compound  our  diffi- 
culties and  produce  industrial  strife  instead 
of  industrial  peace  in  the  province  of  Ontario 
if  this  government  ever  proceeds  to  imple- 
menting it. 

Twenty-five  years  ago,  even  the  Tories 
recognized  that  labour-management  relation- 
ships were  basically  a  problem  of  human 
relationships— not  legal  questions.  Therefore, 
they  took  the  whole  question  of  labour- 
management  relationships  out  of  the  regular 
courts  and  put  them  in  a  special  court  widi 
labour  and  management  and  impartial  chair- 
men sitting  on  that  court. 

Now  we  will  have  a  proposal  which  is  the 
result  of  this  government  refusing  to  deal 
with  the  issue  in  light  of  recommendations 
from  ten  years  ago.  We  now  have  a  proposal 
from  Mr.  Justice  Rand  for  a  legal  strait- 
jacket,  which  is  going  to  get  us  into  incom- 
parable difficulties. 

We  saw  some  of  these  difficulties  when 
we  went  down  to  Picton  the  other  day.  There 
we  have  a  case  of  a  management  refusing  to 
bargain  in  good  faith  throughout  a  whole 
year.  This  union  was  certified  December  27 
last  year.  They  even  refused  to  grant  the 
minimum  wages  which  this  government  has 
finally  implemented  at  disgracefully  low 
levels.  Even  those  low  levels  this  company 
refuses  to  implement  in  a  contract. 

Once  again,  because  of  the  laws  of  this 
province,  they  have  been  able  to  invoke  the 
whole  weight  of  the  court  on  their  side 
through  an  injunction,  and  they  are  now  in 
the  process  of  breaking  the  union  through  the 
gradual  replacement  of  its  working  force,  and 
this  government  sits  on  the  sidelines  and  does 
nothing  about  it. 

The  government  prattles  about  the  impor- 
tance of  unions  while  perpetuating  laws 
which  make  it  possible  for  recalcitrant  man- 
agement to  break  legitimate  collective  bar- 
gaining units  in  areas  where  they  are 
imposing   sub-marginal  wages. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  the  kind  of  thing  that 
the  people  in  this  province  are  not  going  to 
tolerate  any  longer.  They  are  going  to  fight 
on  the  issue,  and  quite  frankly  when  they 
fight,  we  in  the  New  Democratic  Party  are 
going  to  be  with  them. 

I  could  go  into  the  farm,  into  the  welfare 
field,  into  the  health  field,  into  any  field  at 
all,  and  find  the  same  kind  of  growing  in- 
sensitivity  to  the  needs  of  the  people  on  the 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


161 


part  of  a  government  which  is  frustrated 
because  of  its  commitments  to  vested  interests, 
and  cannot  move  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
people. 

That  is  the  reason  why  the  image  of  this 
government  has  deteriorated  more  and  more 
in  the  last  two  or  three  months,  and  their 
friends  are  pointing  it  out  clearly.  We  do 
not  have  to  point  it  out. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  you  wanted  any  further 
proof  of  the  bankruptcy  of  this  government, 
you  have  it  in  the  Throne  Speech— of  all  the 
vacuous  documents!  The  Prime  Minister  said 
that  they  finalized  the  writing  of  the  Throne 
Speech  so  late  they  did  not  have  the  time 
to  get  it  translated  into  French  in  time  for 
the  opening  day.  For  the  life  of  me,  I  cannot 
figure  out  what  this  government  was  doing 
that  they  had  to  delay.  Because  there  was 
nothing  in  the  speech. 

It  was  contemptuously  empty  of  sub- 
stance. So  the  result  is  that  we  in  this  Legis- 
lature, for  the  next  two  or  three  weeks  have 
got  to  operate  within  a  vacuum  in  a  Throne 
Debate,  guessing  at  what  this  government  is 
going  to  do. 

I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  pass 
this  on  to  the  government  rather  seriously 
since  it  presumes  it  is  the  body  most  intent 
in  protecting  some  of  our  old  and  historically 
honoured  procedures,  that  a  few  more  vacu- 
ous speeches  like  that,  and  a  lot  more  people 
are  going  to  be  persuaded  that  it  is  time  we 
got  rid  of  some  of  the  meaningless  folderol 
of  the  opening  day  of  the  Legislature. 

It  has  been  put  on  the  record  in  this  House, 
what  people  like  Bill  Rathbun— he  has  now 
been  taken  to  the  bosom  of  the  government, 
so  they  must  think  he  is  a  pretty  good  fellow 
—had  to  say  about  the  empty  procedures  of 
this  Legislature  on  its  opening  day,  and  to 
cap  the  climax,  we  have  this  kind  of  a 
Throne  Speech. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  ( Huron-Bruce ) :  No  wild 
river  this  year. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  No,  not  even  the  relief 
of  wild  rivers.  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
few  tilings  that  I  want  to  say  that  might  have 
been  dealt  with  in  the  Throne  Speech  and  I 
can  assure  you,  whether  they  are  in  the 
Throne  Speech  or  not,  they  are  going  to  be 
dealt  with  in  the  course  of  this  session.  So 
I  will  proceed  to  them.  We  just  hope  that, 
with  the  expropriation  bill,  and  some  other 
things  that  are  perhaps  going  to  meet  the 
needs  of  the  people,  the  government  will 
inject  some  substance  into  their  vacuous  pro- 
gramme so   that  we  can   spend   our  time   a 


little    bit    more    usefully    between    now    and 
Christmas. 

The  first  topic  that  I  want  to  touch  upon, 
Mr.  Speaker,  has  to  do  with  the  Indian  situ- 
ation or  the  problems  with  relation  to 
Indians  in  the  province  of  Ontario. 

During  the  Throne  Debate  a  year  ago,  I 
detailed  at  some  length,  the  shameful  con- 
ditions under  which  Canada's  Indian  popula- 
tion live  and  work.  I  placed  on  record 
proposals  for  a  fundamentally  new  approach 
to  Indian  affairs  which  had  just  been  ad- 
vanced by  the  Indian-Eskimo  association 
with  the  apparent  support  and  approval  of 
the  Ontario  Union  of  Indians. 

These  proposals  involved  an  almost  com- 
plete decentralization  of  the  present  responsi- 
bilities of  the  Indian  Affairs  branch  in  Ottawa 
to  the  provinces— indeed,  all  of  the  responsi- 
bilities, except  those  pertaining  to  treaties 
and  lands. 

It  was  argued  that  if  the  social  and  eco- 
nomic welfare  of  our  Indian  population  were 
to  be  more  fully  met,  it  could  be  done  if 
programmes  were  worked  out  by  the  pro- 
vincial government,  particularly  since  most 
of  the  resources— land,  timber  minerals,  game, 
water,  fish  and  hydro  power— the  keys  to  the 
welfare  of  Indians,  lie  within  provincial 
jurisdiction. 

Unfortunately,  during  the  past  year,  tra- 
gically little  has  been  done  to  achieve  this 
objective.  At  the  moment,  I  do  not  want  to 
go  into  the  details  of  the  programme.  There 
will  be  other  opportunities  during  this  ses- 
sion and  many  of  my  colleagues  will  use 
them. 

My  interest,  at  this  time,  is  to  consider  the 
broad  outlines  of  overall  policy  and  the  diffi- 
culties which  lie  in  the  way  of  achieving  those 
changes  concerning  which  there  is  a  grow- 
ing consensus  of  support. 

Let  me  make  this  point  first.  Canada's 
treatment  of  its  native  Indian  population  has 
been  such  a  shameful  record  that  we  have 
escaped  the  consequences  of  our  action  for 
longer  than  we  deserve.  The  Indians  have 
had  the  patience  of  the  gods  in  face  of  grave 
injustices.  As  a  people,  they  have  been 
docile.  But  all  that  is  rapidly  coming  to  an 
end.  Observers  cannot  have  missed  some 
rather  significant  changes  in  recent  months. 

The  normal  orderly  pattern  of  meetings 
has  been  disrupted  by  a  vigorous  protest  of 
Indian  leaders.  They  have  demanded,  and 
sometimes  with  too  little  grace,  have  been 
accorded  a  place  on  agendas  designed  to 
consider  their  plight. 


162 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Cabinet  Ministers,  both  federal  and  pro- 
vincial, have  been  sharply  confronted  both  in 
meetings  and  hotel  lobbies.  At  long  last, 
Indian  leaders  are  no  longer  docile.  There 
is  a  ferment  and  unrest  which  carries  the 
clear  warning  that  either  governments  grapple 
more  effectively  with  Indian  problems,  par- 
ticularly by  granting  Indians  greater  oppor- 
tunities to  shape  their  own  destiny,  or  Can- 
ada is  going  to  experience  the  same  kind  of 
violent  protest  which  has  emerged  in  many 
other  countries  with  minority  groups. 

Speaking  in  Burlington  early  in  October, 
Omer  Peters,  who  is  both  president  of  the 
Ontario  Union  of  Indians  and  president  of 
the  Indian-Eskimo  Association  of  Canada 
bluntly  warned  that  organized  militant  Can- 
adian Indians  are  teaching  riot  instigation 
techniques  all  across  the  country.  Red  power 
groups  are  emerging.  There  is  grave  danger 
that  solutions  will  soon  be  made  all  the  more 
difficult  because  of  their  activity.  Time  is 
running  out.  Already  we  face  the  prospect  of 
having  to  pay  a  heavy  price  for  years,  dec- 
ades, even  centuries  of  neglect  and  procras- 
tination, and  at  our  peril  can  we  delay  any 
longer? 

As  one  news  report  put  it:  "Get  off  my 
back,  white  man,"  was  the  message  coming 
through  the  politics  and  intrigue  of  the  con- 
ference of  the  Indian-Eskimo  Association  held 
in  Toronto  here  this  fall. 

At  the  federal  level,  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
has  been  an  unprecedented  re-examination  of 
government  policy.  Chretien,  Andras  and 
Co.  have  conducted  seminars  with  native 
people  all  across  the  country.  This  whole 
process  has  been  shadowed  by  a  growing 
feeling  among  Indians  and  Eskimos  that  once 
again  Ottawa  is  going  paternalistically  to 
decide  what  should  be  done  with  our  native 
peoples,  committing  once  again  the  fatal 
error.  Whatever  is  done  must  be  done  for 
the  most  part,  by  decision  of  the  Indians 
themselves. 

But  it  is  too  early  to  prejudge  what  will 
come  of  this  fundamental  review.  Native 
peoples  are  hopeful  and  their  hopes  still  out- 
weigh their  apprehensions.  Their  mood  is 
perhaps  summed  up  in  the  comment  of  one 
Indian  leader,  "If  this  is  another  snow  job, 
it  will  be  the  last  one." 

Let  me,  however,  turn  to  the  Ontario  gov- 
ernment situation  because  it  is  our  immediate 
concern.  Here  the  apprehensions  are  not 
relieved  by  any  significant  measure  of  hope. 

Perhaps  I  can  best  set  the  context  of  my 
criticisms  of  this  government's  failure  and 
intolerable    procrastination    by    quoting    for 


hon.  members,  the  remarks  of  the  president 
of  the  Ontario  Indian-Eskimo  Association  at 
its  recent  annual  meeting.  The  gentleman  in 
question  is  the  Reverend  John  A.  MacKenzie, 
an  active  Progressive  Conservative,  who  un- 
successfully sought  the  federal  nomination  of 
his  party  in  a  central  Toronto  riding  last 
spring. 

This  is  what  Mr.  MacKenzie  had  to  say: 

While  there  are  signs  that  the  federal 
government  is  beginning  to  re-evaluate  its 
policies  with  the  involvement  of  Indians 
and  recognize  that  policies  must  be  imple- 
mented on  the  terms  of  the  Indians  and 
not  the  white  man,  we  are  increasingly  dis- 
turbed by  the  failure  of  the  government  of 
Ontario  to  fulfill  its  role. 

The  Indian  Development  Branch  of  The 
Department  of  Social  and  Family  Services 
has  been  in  operation  for  over  two  years. 
The  stated  position  of  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment is  to  recognize  Indians  as  one  of 
many  ethnic  groups,  but  to  treat  them 
the  same  as  all  other  groups.  Furthermore, 
Prime  Minister  Robarts  recently  stated  that 
his  government  intends  to  integrate  Indians 
into  Ontario  society. 

The  position  of  Ontario  fails  to  recog- 
nize that  almost  all  other  ethnic  groups  in 
Canada  come  from  a  western  culture  while 
Indians  have  a  qualitatively  different,  and 
perhaps  unique,  cultural  heritage.  The 
first  step  for  progress  in  Ontario  is  the 
unequivocal  recognition  of  these  differ- 
ences which  include  the  recognition  of  a 
special  status  for  Indians  because  of  their 
treaty  rights. 

The  Indian-Eskimo  Association  has  re- 
peatedly made  known  to  the  government 
our  position  (and  that  of  the  Union  of  On- 
tario Indians)  that  community  development 
should  be  removed  from  direct  government 
control,  and  that  a  Crown  corporation  be 
set  up  which  would  be  administered  in 
ways  which  are  consistent  with  the  value 
systems  of  Indians  in  Ontario. 

The  government  has  informed  us  that 
they  were  listening  but  that  they  want  to 
implement  and  test  the  programme  which 
they  have  had  under  way  for  two  years. 
We  feel  that  we  must  now  raise  some 
questions  about  the  existing  programmes  in 
Ontario. 

Despite  repeated  criticisms  by  Indian 
people,  some  community  development  offi- 
cers continue  to  operate  out  of  the  offices 
which  administer  welfare  programmes. 
This  means  that  the  local  community  de- 
velopment officer  is  identified  in  the  minds 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


163 


of  the  people  as  having  a  particular  task 
which  is  related  to  welfare.  This  places 
him  in  a  position  whereby  he  cannot  relate 
freely  to  all  aspects  of  community  life. 

An  Indian  advisory  board  has  been 
established  by  the  Ontario  Department  of 
Social  and  Family  Services.  The  terms  of 
reference  of  the  board  are  somewhat  con- 
fusing to  many  Indian  people  in  that  the 
distinction  between  an  advisory  board  and 
a  decision  making  body  has  not  been 
clearly  interpreted  to   the  native   peoples. 

There  has  been  concern  expressed  that 
recommendations  of  the  advisory  board 
have  not  been  adequately  acted  upon  by 
the  department.  There  is  further  con- 
fusion on  the  use  of  the  advisory  boards. 
Policies  affecting  them  should  be  discov- 
ered and  developed  in  ways  which  include 
the  community  in  the  decision-making. 
The  government  of  Ontario  has  made  it 
clear  to  the  people  in  the  Kensington  area 
in  downtown  Toronto  that  no  urban  re- 
newal would  take  place  without  their 
direct  participation  in  the  decision-making 
process.  This  same  principle  must  be  rec- 
ognized in  working  with  Indian  communi- 
ties in  Ontario.  The  people  who  live  in 
the  community  must  play  the  dominant 
role  in  making  the  decisions  which  affect 
their  lives. 

That  is  the  end  of  my  quote  from  Mr.  Mac- 
Kenzie  for  the  moment,  Mr.  Speaker.  But 
from  these  criticisms  of  general  attitudes  of 
the  government,  Mr.  MacKenzie  then  pro- 
ceeded to  specifics.  He  pointed  out  that  the 
establishment  of  the  Indian  Development 
Branch  and  the  subsequent  appointment  of 
community  development  officers  has  provided 
the  Indians  with  new  means  of  expressing 
their  needs  and  developing  initiatives  to 
meet  them.  But  consistently  the  government 
has  said  "NO",  with  a  capital  N-O  to  re- 
quests for  financial  assistance  to  fulfill  the 
initiatives  once  the  Indians  have  taken  them. 

Consider  the  record.  The  Indians  sought 
grants  to  support  folk-school  projects  which 
are  obviously  vitally  important  in  their  effort 
to  strengthen  their  cultural  heritage  and 
thereby  rebuild  their  self-esteem  as  a  people. 
The  government  refused. 

The  Indian  Hall  of  Fame  at  the  CNE  is 
an  obvious  symbol  of  our  desire  to  restore 
the  Indian  to  his  rightful  place  in  our  his- 
tory. Grants  were  sought  for  this  purpose. 
The   government  refused. 

A  grant  was  sought  for  the  Canadian  Indian 
Workshop  at  Waterloo.  The  government 
refused. 


If  the  current  review  of  The  Indian  Act  by 
the  federal  government  is  to  reflect  the  views 
of  the  Indians  themselves,  as  it  must,  it  was 
important  that  representations  by  Ontario 
Indians  be  made  as  effective  as  possible.  The 
Union  of  Ontario  Indians  sought  a  one-time 
grant  for  a  field  work  project  to  assist  in  this 
critically  important  endeavour.  The  govern- 
ment refused. 

There  is  a  growing  concern  about  the  plight 
of  these  Indians  who  have  left  the  reserves 
and  flocked  to  the  cities.  An  action  research 
project  designed  to  assist  migrant  Indian 
people  receiving  the  joint  support  of  the 
Metropolitan  Toronto  Social  Planning  Coun- 
cil, the  Indian  Affairs  Branch,  the  Toronto 
Indian  Centre  and  the  Ontario  Division  of 
the  Indian-Eskimo  Association.  In  spite  of 
this  collective  effort  by,  and  on  behalf  of  the 
Indians,  the  government  refused  financial 
assistance. 

Having  encouraged  Indian  initiative,  Mr. 
Speaker,  this  government  consistently  frus- 
trates its  fulfillment.  The  resulting  situation, 
I  suggest  to  you,  is  almost  more  dangerous 
than  if  the  government  had  done  nothing  to 
begin  with.  Mr.  MacKenzie  concluded  in  his 
annual  report  to  the  Ontario  IEA: 

The  time  has  come  for  the  Ontario  gov- 
ernment to  reconsider  its  policies  with  re- 
gard to  the  Indians  before  it  is  too  late. 
The  first  step,  by  necessity,  must  be  open- 
ing up  channels  of  communication  be- 
tween Indian  communities  and  government 
branches  and  departments.  It  must  be 
recognized  that  the  Indians  are  adamant 
about  their  involvement  in  the  decision- 
making process. 

That  is  the  end  of  Mr.  Mackenzie's  comment. 

Mr.  Speaker,  that  critique  by  an  organiza- 
tion which  works  closely  with  Indians,  is 
both  fundamental  and  far-reaching.  I  can 
do  no  better  than  present  the  representations 
of  the  Indian-Eskimo  Association  at  the 
length  to  which  I  have  done,  because  they 
are  authoritative.  And  without  hesitation,  I 
say  that  they  have  the  solid  backing  of  the 
Ontario  New  Democratic  Party. 

Before  the  government  sloughs  all  this  off 
with  that  unctuous  bravado  for  which  the 
chairman  of  the  Cabinet  committee  on  Indian 
affairs— the  hon.  Minister  of  Social  and  Family 
Affairs  (Mr.  Yaremko)— is  so  renowned,  let  me 
remind  you  that  essentially  the  same  criticisms 
have  been  expressed  in  this  Legislature  by 
government  members. 


164 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


For  example,  speaking  in  the  Throne 
Debate  last  session,  the  hon.  member  for 
Kenora  stated: 

The  consensus  in  northwestern  Ontario 
is  that  too  often  policies  and  programmes 
are  based  on  ideas  originating  in  the  ad- 
ministrative centres  of  Ottawa  and  Toronto, 
and  lack  the  residents'  insight  into  the 
problem.  The  difficulties  encountered  and 
the  failure  rate  of  such  policies  and  pro- 
grammes attest  to  the  validity  of  these 
views. 

Later,  the  hon.  member  for  Kenora  referred 
to  the  agreements  by  which  the  responsi- 
bilities for  Indian  affairs  now  resting  with 
the  federal  government  might  be  transferred 
to  the  provincial  government.  And  he  pointed 
out,  and   I  quote: 

Under  the  existing  agreement,  very  little 
authority  has  been  transferred  from  the 
federal  to  the  provincial  government.  The 
transition  is  difficult,  but  one  may  question 
whether  there  is  enough  effort  being  made 
at  the  provincial  level  to  speed  up  the 
process. 

In  seconding  the  motion  in  reply  to  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne  last  week,  the  hon. 
member  for  Fort  William  declared  that  there 
are  too  many  organizations  and  individuals 
with  "do-gooding"  inclinations  getting  in- 
volved in  Indian  problems,  and  then  he 
gratuitously  insulted  them  all  by  asserting 
that  they  were  simply  seeking  publicity  for 
themselves. 

Let  me  assert,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  prize 
"do-gooder"  in  the  picture  at  the  moment  is 
the  Minister  of  Social  and  Family  Services 
who  chairs  the  ineffectual  Cabinet  committee 
on  these  matters.  In  fact,  I  know  of  no  more 
professional  "do-gooder"  than  he.  He  posi- 
tively drips  it. 

However,  the  Minister's  actions  merely 
symbolize  a  government  policy  which  is 
basically  misconceived,  so  let  us  take  a  look 
at  the  government's  policy  itself.  Tjie  Prime 
Minister  tends  to  blunt  criticism  of  the  prov- 
ince's inaction  by  the  facile  assertion  that 
Ontario  is  willing  to  assume  responsibility 
for  meeting  the  Indian  needs,  that  the  road- 
block to  progress  is  in  Ottawa,  that  we  cannot 
get  agreements  with  them. 

In  the  Throne  Speech  last  year,  the  Prime 
Minister  stated  that  perhaps  it  would  be 
necessary  to  point  out  where  the  difficulties 
have  arisen,  why  we  have  been  blocked  in 
doing  what  we  set  out  to  do  and  what  we 
want  to  do.  May  I  say  to  the  Prime  Minister 
that  there  is  nothing  blocking  this  govern- 
ment  except   its   well-developed   capacity   to 


dream  up  excuses  why  it  cannot  and  should 
not  act. 

There  is  a  mythology  regarding  Indian 
affairs  which  must  be  destroyed.  It  has  been 
widely  believed,  precisely  because  govern- 
mental authorities  have  propagated  the  belief, 
that  Indian  affairs  are  primarily  a  federal 
matter.  Constitutional  and  legal  experts  have 
dismissed  this  contention  as  a  mis-reading  of 
the  BNA  Act.  The  BNA  Act  states  that  the 
federal  government  shall  be  responsible  for 
Indian  lands  and  treaties;  it  says  nothing 
about  services  to  the  Indians,  whether  they 
be  education,  welfare  or  economic  develop- 
ment. Under  the  constitution,  Ontario  has 
concurrent  responsibilities  and,  indeed,  it  has 
an  obligation  to  serve  Indian  peoples  as 
citizens  of  this  province  as  much  as  anybody 
else.  There  are  no  road  blocks,  other  than 
the  government's  lack  of  will  to  get  on  with 
the  job. 

Of  course,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  the  ever- 
present  problem  of  money.  The  Ontario 
government  argues  that  it  will  assume  these 
responsibilities  if  Ottawa  will  provide  the 
equivalent  revenues  to  do  the  job.  Here, 
once  again,  we  have  a  desperately  urgent 
problem  which  is  the  victim  of  constitutional 
wrangling  over  the  responsibility  for  action. 

Again  I  assert  to  the  government:  You 
have  concurrent  responsibility,  so  get  moving! 
After  all  that  this  country  has  done  to  the 
Indians,  there  is  nothing  more  demeaning 
and  dangerous  than  further  delay  because  of 
the  cost  involved. 

With  regard  to  the  expenditures,  may  I 
remind  the  hon.  members  that  the  Haw- 
thome-Tremblay  study  on  Indian  affairs 
points  out,  and  it  is  to  be  found  on  page 
164,  that  the  per  capita  expenditure  on 
Canadians  in  general  by  government  is  $740. 
The  per  capita  expenditure  on  Indians  is  less 
than  half  the  national  average.    It  is  $300. 

So  let  us  not  talk  as  though  spending  more 
money  on  Indians  is  going  to  put  them  into 
a  favoured  class.  They  are  the  recipients  of 
less  than  half  of  the  expenditure  of  govern- 
ment compared  with  the  national  average. 
Let  us  cut  out  this  shameful  procrastination. 

Furthermore,  let  us  face  a  basic  fact  with 
regard  to  the  so-called  Cabinet  committee  on 
Indian  affairs.  It  is  not  a  Cabinet  committee. 
It  is  a  committee  on  which  a  half  dozen 
Cabinet  Ministers  sit,  which  has  become  an 
integral  part  of  The  Department  of  Social 
and  Family  Services,  with  its  responsible 
officers  answerable  to  the  Minister  and  dep- 
uty of  that  department.  It  has  been  locked 
into  that  department  so  that  it  cannot  fulfill 


NOVEMBER  26,  1968 


165 


the  co-ordinating  role  which  is  its  purpose. 
The  very  fact,  so  vigorously  deplored  by  the 
Indian-Eskimo  Association,  that  community 
development  officers  have  to  work  out  of 
the  welfare  offices  across  the  province,  is  but 
one  of  the  unfortunate  results  that  flow  from 
this. 

This  government  steadfastly  refuses  to 
acknowledge  the  basic  necessities  in  structur- 
ing a  Cabinet  committee  if  it  is  to  be  effec- 
tive. Professor  Krueger  pointed  them  out  some 
years  ago  in  his  study  of  chaotic  situations 
with  regard  to  regional  development  in  this 
province. 

To  be  effective,  he  pointed  out,  a  Cabinet 
committee  must  be  under  the  direction  of  a 
full-time  person  who  has  deputy  Minister 
status  and  who  is  answerable  directly  to  the 
Prime  Minister.  Otherwise,  its  work  staggers 
along  under  the  direction  of  a  Minister  who 
is  already  overloaded  with  his  departmental 
work,  and  who  has  not  the  power  to  effect 
co-ordination,  day  in  and  day  out,  of  the 
responsibilities  which  fall  under  a  number  of 
other  Ministers. 

The  only  man  who  can  achieve  that  kind 
of  effective  co-ordination  is  a  full-time  per- 
son acting  in  the  name  and  with  the  power 
of  the  Prime  Minister  of  the  province.  I  say 
this  with  regard  to  the  Cabinet  committee  or 
any  other  committee  that  this  government 
establishes.  You  simply  cannot  have  effective 
Cabinet  committees  on  the  basis  that  the 
government  has  been  operating  them  in  the 
past. 

To  sum  up,  therefore,  there  are  a  number 
of  guidelines  to  policy  and  action  in  coping 
with  Indian  affairs. 

F;irst,  set  up  an  effective  Cabinet  commit- 
tee, under  the  direction  of  a  competent  per- 
son with  deputy  Minister  status  answerable 
directly  to  the  Prime  Minister. 

Second,  treat  the  Indians  as  citizens  of  this 
province,  and  not  as  wards  of  the  paternal- 
istic Great  White  Father  in  Ottawa.  Let  the 
province  exercise  the  responsibilities  which 
it  has  to  serve  Indians  as  well  as  all  other 
citizens,  and  let  there  be  no  further  delays 
while  the  endless  negotiations  with  Ottawa 
drag  on. 

Finally,  and  most  important  of  all,  let  us 
proceed  to  the  setting  up  of  regional  Crown 
corporations,  with  full  Indian  involvement 
in  their  direction,  to  work  out  and  implement 
programmes  of  all  kinds— educational,  retrain- 
ing, welfare,  economic,  development.    In  my 


view,  northwestern  Ontario  is  ready  for  the 
establishment  of  such  a  regional  development 
council  right  now.  Indeed  there  are  units 
in  operation  within  that  part  of  the  province 
which  the  hon.  member  for  Kenora  put  on 
the  record  last  year,  and  which  logically  fit 
into  the  direction  of  an  overall  regional  de- 
velopment council.  The  piecemeal  expendi- 
tures of  all  departments  should  be  pooled 
through  this  one  body,  which  will  operate  in 
the  name  of  the  whole  government,  with  the 
Indians  directly  involved  at  the  regional  and 
local  level  in  the  decision-making  process  for 
programmes  which  are  designed  to  help  them. 

I  conclude,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  a  repetition 
of  my  first  remarks.  Time  is  running  out. 
Either  we  act  quickly  to  remove  the  national 
shame  which  has  characterized  our  treatment 
of  the  Indians  in  the  past,  or  the  difficulties 
in  solving  Indian  problems  will  become  be- 
devilled by  red  power,  with  all  its  irration- 
ality and  violence,  born  of  years  of  frustra- 
tion and  neglect.  So  the  challenge  to  this 
government  is  to  move  now  and  not  wait  for 
two  more  years  to  find  out  how  their  present 
programmes  are  going  to  work  out,  when  the 
judgment  of  many  people  who  are  authori- 
tative in  the  field  is  that  they  simply  are  not 
working  out. 

Perhaps  you  will  permit  me,  Mr.  Speaker, 
to  move  the  adjournment  of  the  House.  I  was 
about  to  move  into  another  section— 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  On  the  debate? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Of  the  debate,  rather.  My 
apologies. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  hon.  member  is  three  years 
ahead. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  is  the  will  to  win.  I 
cannot  contain  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald  moves  the  adjournment  of 
the  debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  (Prime  Minister):  Mr. 
Speaker,  tomorrow  we  will  resume  this 
debate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6.00  o'clock  p.m. 


No.  7 


ONTARIO 


^Legislature  of  Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  -  DAILY  EDITION 


Second  Session  of  the  Twenty-Eighth  Legislature 


Wednesday,  November  27,  1968 


Speaker:  Honourable  Fred  Mcintosh  Cass,  Q.C. 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  Q.C. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 


|£iigpMB  5 


Price  per  session,  $5.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto. 


CONTENTS 


Wednesday,  November  27,  1968 

Universities  commission,  bill  to  establish,  Mr.  T.  Reid,  first  reading  169 

Highway  Traffic  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Ben,  first  reading  169 

Ontario  human  rights  code,  1961-1962,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Ben,  first  reading  169 

Election  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Young,  first  reading  170 

Ontario  Water  Resources  Commission  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Shulman,  first  reading  ....  170 

Introducing  Mr.  Paul  Burgi,  MP,  of  the  federal  Parliament  of  Switzerland,  Mr.  Speaker  170 

Organized  crime  in  Ontario,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Nixon  and  Mr.  Young  171 

OMSIP  for  Indians  in  Ontario,  questions  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  Nixon  172 

EIO  loan  to  Matthews  Conveyor  Co.  in  Port  Hope,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall, 

Mr.    MacDonald    173 

Air  pollution  at  Canada  Electric  Castings  Ltd.,  questions  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  MacDonald  173 

Capital  gains  tax  for  land  speculation,  question  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Deans  174 

Sunnybrook  Hospital,  question  to  Mr.  Robarts,  Mr.  Shulman  174 

Laboratory  examination  of  diabetics'  blood,  questions  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  Shulman  ...  174 

Thistletown  OHC  complex,  questions  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  Ben  174 

OMA  fee  schedule,  question  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  Lewis  175 

State  of  children's  teeth  in  Nipigon,  questions  to  Mr.  Dymond,  Mr.  Stokes  175 

Junior  farmer  loans,  questions  to  Mr.   Stewart,  Mr.  Gaunt   176 

Meat  inspection  in  northern  Ontario,  questions  to  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr.  Shulman  176 

Crop  insurance  in  Rainy  River  district,  questions  to  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  176 

Truck  traffic  behaviour  on  QEW,  questions  to  Mr.  Haskett,  Mr.  Deans  178 

Motor  vehicle  racing  on  highways,  question  to  Mr.  Haskett,  Mr.  Shulman  178 

Tourist  reception  centre  in  Windsor,  questions  to  Mr.  Auld,  Mr.  B.  Newman  178 

Maximum  rentals  for  OHC  housing  projects,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  B.  Newman  179 
Government  policy  re  regional  government  and  urban  development,  questions  to 

Mr.   Randall,   Mr.   Pitman   179 

Rents  geared  to  income,  questions  to  Mr.  Randall,  Mr.  Ben 180 

Taxi  licences  in  Metro,  question  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Sargent  181 

Wire  tapping  devices,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Sargent  181 

Mrs.  Dorothy  Gertrude  Davis,  questions  to  Mr.  Wishart,  Mr.  Shulman  182 

Intermittent  closing  of  Lake  Shore  Road,  questions  to  Mr.  Gomme,  Mr.  Shulman  182 

Transportation  facilities  in  Metro,  questions  to  Mr.  Gomme,  Mr.  T.  Reid  183 

Highway  construction,  questions  to  Mr.  Gomme,  Mr.  R.  S.  Smith  . ..:.... 183 

Fallow  deer  on  Peche  Island,  question  to  Mr.  Brunelle,  Mr.  Burr  184 

Workmen's  compensation  coverage  for  MPPs,  questions  to  Mr.  Bales,  Mr.  Martel  184 

Cost  of  publicizing  the  tax  rebate  programme,  questions  to  Mr.  McKeough,  Mr.  Innes  184 

CNE-Lakeshore  auto  race  track,  questions  to  Mr.  McKeough,  Mr.  Shulman  184 

Fecunis  Mines,  question  to  Mr.  A.  F.  Lawrence,  Mr.  Martel  185 

News  release  of  family  reunion,  questions  to  Mr.  Root,  Mr.  Breithaupt  186 

Liquor  control  board,  question  to  Mr.  Welch,  Mr.  Sopha  186 

Gifts  to  Nigeria-Biafra,  statement  by  Mr.  Robarts  186 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  MacDonald  187 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Robarts,  agreed  to  203 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Robarts,  agreed  to 203 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


169 


Wednesday,  November  27,  1968 


The  House  met  at  2.30  o'clock  p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  are  always  pleased  to 
have  visitors  to  the  Legislature  and  today  we 
welcome  as  guests  students  from  the  follow- 
ing schools:  in  the  east  gallery,  from  East- 
dale  Vocational  School,  Toronto,  and  Emery 
Junior  High  School,  Weston:  and  in  the  west 
gallery,  from  Highland  Heights  Public  School, 
Agincourt,  and  St.  Gregory's  Separate  School, 
Islington.  Later  this  afternoon  there  will  l>e 
students  from  St.  Michael's  Separate  School, 
Dunnville,  in  the  west  gallery. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Motions. 

Hon.  J.  P.  Robarts  (Prime  Minister)  moves 
that  on  Friday,  November  29  only  the  House 
will  meet  at  10  a.m. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  In  explanation  of  the 
motion,  this  is  in  connection  with  the  honour- 
ing of  the  150th  anniversary  of  the  birth  of 
George  Brown.  I  might  say  also  that  the 
usual  business  of  the  House  will  be  sus- 
pended—that includes  questions,  motions,  in- 
troduction of  bills,  and  so  on.  As  I  explained 
yesterday,  we  will  deal  only  with  this  par- 
ticular function,  and  then  move  outside  to 
proceed  with  the  programme;  but  the  normal 
business  of  the  House  will  be  suspended  on 
Friday. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introduction  of  bills. 


UNIVERSITIES  COMMISSION 

Mr.  T.  Reid  (Scarborough  East)  moves  first 
reading  of  bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  establish 
the   universities   commission. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
the  bill  is  to  establish  an  independent  uni- 
versities commission  containing  representation 
from  the  government,  universities,  and  the 
community,  to  allocate  the   grants  of  public 


money  and  to  act  in  an   inter-university  ad- 
visor}' capacity. 

The  basic  purpose,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  to 
assure  the  citizens  and  the  taxpayers  in  this 
province  that  the  large  amount  of  money 
now  being  spent  in  our  universities  is  being 
wisely  and  efficiently  spent.  The  purpose 
of  this  particular  bill,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  to  fix 
the  responsibility  for  the  allocation  of  these 
funds  in  an  independent  commission,  that  is 
to  say,  a  commission  that  is  not  a  government 
department.  I  believe  that  this  would  be  an 
efficient  way  of  allocating  the  funds  and  of 
securing  greater  university  co-operation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Hum- 
be  r  has  the  floor. 

THE    HIGHWAY    TRAFFIC    ACT 

Mr.  G.  Ben  (Humber)  moves  first  reading 
of  bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  The  High- 
way Traffic  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Ben:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  requires 
that  all  new  automobiles  have  a  log  book  in 
which  are  recorded  all  the  repairs  to  the 
car  and  after  each  repair  a  certificate  that 
the  motor  vehicle  is  roadworthy.  It  will  also 
record  the  mileages  at  which  repairs  are  made 
and  automobiles  are  sold. 

THE   ONTARIO  HUMAN   RIGHTS 
CODE,   1961-1962 

Mr.  Ben  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  to  amend  The  Ontario  Human 
Rights  Code,  1961-1962. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Ben:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  this 
bill  is  to  amend  the  provision,  or  wipe  out 
the  provision,  which  enables  educational  in- 
stitutions and  other  institutions  receiving 
government  funds  to  practice  discrimination 
in  their  hiring,  such  as  for  instance,  the 
University  of  Toronto. 

Mr.  F.  Young  (Yorkview):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
had  thought  that  I  had  caught  your  eye  and 
that  that  white  glove  was  pointing  right  in 
mv  direction. 


170 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Hum- 
tar  had  been  on  his  feet  at  the  same  time  as 
the  previous  member  of  the  Opposition. 


THE  ELECTION  ACT 

Mr.  Young  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  to  amend  The  Election  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Young:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  reduce  the  age  of  persons  who 
may  vote  at  provincial  elections,  from  21 
years  to  18  years. 


THE   ONTARIO  WATER  RESOURCES 
COMMISSION  ACT 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park)  moves  first 
reading  of  bill  intituled,  An  Act  to  amend 
The  Ontario  Water  Resources  Commission 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose 
of  this  bill  is  to  prevent  eutrophication  of 
water  courses. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Before  the  orders  of  the  day, 
I  would  like  to  acknowledge  and  bring  to 
the  attention  of  the  members  present,  the 
presence  here  of  a  member  of  the  federal 
Parliament  of  Switzerland,  Mr.  Paul  Burgi, 
MP,  who  is  in  the  Speaker's  gallery.  He  is 
accompanied  by  Consul  General  for  Switzer- 
land in  Toronto,  Mr.  George  Falquier,  by 
Dr.  Peter  Welti  of  the  General  Auditing  Co. 
in  Switzerland,  and  Mr.  Paul  Stutz,  also  of 
Zurich,  Switzerland. 

I  am  sure  that  your  recognition  of  this 
visiting  parliamentarian  will  be  appreciated 
by  him.  I  hope  that  he  will  not  only  be 
interested  but  learn  something  from  the  pro- 
ceedings of  this  House  of  Parliament. 

Before  we  proceed  to  the  questions  which 
normally  come  at  this  time  of  the  day,  I 
would  like  to  advise  the  members  that  to- 
day, we  will  try  a  new  system  of  questions. 
The  hon.  leader  of  the  Opposition  (Mr. 
Nixon)  will,  as  usual,  ask  his  questions  first 
—such  questions  that  he  has;  followed  by 
the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party,  the 
hon.  member  for  York  South  (Mr.  Mac- 
Donald).  Then  we  will  have  questions  from 
the  members  directed  to  Ministers  and  de- 
livered to  the  Ministers  in  the  order  in  which 
they  stand  on  the  table  of  precedence  in  the 
Executive  Council.    We  will  see  whether  this 


works  any  better  toward  allowing  the  Min- 
isters to  get  off  to  work.  We  will  see  how 
it  works  and  if  it  does  not  work  as  well  as 
the  other,  we  will  go  back. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  Order! 

May  I  say  that  this  is  a  decision  taken 
only  by  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have  not  consulted 
the  leaders  of  any  of  the  parties  and  I  do 
not  intend  to.  If  it  works  well  and  it  should, 
that  is  fine.  It  will  only  work  well  if.  the 
hon.  members  will  give  it  a  fair  trial. 

Hon.  J.  Yaremko  (Minister  of  Social  and 
Family  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege.  Yesterday  I  was  absent  from  the 
House,  in  my  office,  and  was  unable  to  be 
present  during  the  course  of  the  remarks  of 
the  leader  of  the  Opposition,  which  I  have 
since  read  as  set  out  in  the  speech  he  has 
given  out  and  as  reported  in  the  press. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  leader  of  the  Opposition 
distributed  his  speech,  which  I  assume  he 
read  in  this  House,  and  I  shall  only  refer  to 
one  portion  thereof.  In  reference  to  the  work 
of  the  children's  aid  societies,  he  said  the 
following: 

First  let  me  say  that  the  research  on 
this  subject  was  done  with  great  hardship 
because  the  Minister's  office  or  people 
under  his  direction  have  warned  societies 
that  they  are  not  to  discuss  programmes 
financed  by  the  government  without  clear- 
ing such  discussions  with  the  department. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  On  a 
point  of  order,  might  the  Minister  indicate 
whether  this  is  a  point  of  order  or  a  point 
of  privilege  that  he  is  rising  on? 

Mr.   Speaker:   The  hon  Minister- 
Interjections   by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  Minister  is 
quite  within  his  rights  if  he  proposes  to  in- 
dicate that  the  excerpt  which  he  is  now  read- 
ing from,  I  presume,  Hansard,  or  the  speech, 
is  not  a  correct  statement  so  far  as  he  is 
concerned. 

Hon.  Mr.  Yaremko:  The  leader  of  the  Op- 
position proceeded  to  state,  as  a  statement  of 
fact,  "This  is  an  unheard  of  abuse  by  the 
department"  and  so  on  in  very  colourful, 
uncomplimentary  language. 

That  speech  was  reported.    I  am  glad  to 
see  that  some  of  the  hon.  members- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order!   The  hon.  Minister  will 
proceed  with  his  point  of  order. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


171 


Hon.  Mr.  Yaremko:  This  matter  was  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Toronto  Telegram  of  today, 
as  follows: 

Mr.  Nixon  said  research  has  been  diffi- 
cult because  the  Minister  (John  Yaremko) 
or  people  under  him  had  given  orders  to 
the  societies  not  to  talk. 

Mr.  Speaker,  my  point  of  order  is  that  the 
leader  of  the  Opposition  is  completely— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Yaremko:  I  deny  it  categorically. 
The  leader  of  the  Opposition  is  off  base  com- 
pletely. I  was  surprised  to  see  that  a  man- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  If  the  hon.  Minister 
wishes  to  point  out  that  in  his  opinion,  and 
from  the  facts  available  to  him,  the  hon. 
leader  of  the  Opposition  was  in  error  in  his 
statements  he  is  entitled  to  do  so,  but  he  is 
not  entitled  to  attack  the  hon.  leader  of  the 
Opposition  at  this  point. 

Hon.  Mr.  Yaremko:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rest  my 
case:  I  categorically  deny— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  point  of  order,  or 
point  of  privilege  as  it  has  been  stated,  may  I 
suggest  to  the  Minister  that  he  undertake 
some  inquiry  as  to  why  the  officials  of  various 
children's  aid  societies  and  other  branches 
that  come  under  his  jurisdiction  have  indi- 
cated to  me  and  to  my  researchers  that  they 
must  clear  any  conversations  with  the  Oppo- 
sition with  the  Minister's  office. 

Hon.  Mr.  Yaremko:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  point 
out  to  you— 

Mr.  H.  Peacock  (Windsor  West):  Mr. 
Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order,  may  I  represent 
to  you  that  you  are  permitting  a  debate  to 
commence  in  this  House  which  is  out  of 
order? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  agree  with  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Windsor  West.  He  is  quite  correct  in 
what  he  has  stated,  and  I  would  ask  the  hon. 
leader  of  the  Opposition  now  to  place  his 
question. 

An  hon.  member:  The  last  word  may  be 
out  of  order,  but  get  the  last  word. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downs view):  There  is 
no  reason  why  we  cannot  learn  a  few  things 
from  hon.  members  opposite. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Attorney  General,  if  we  can  get 
through  the  interruptions  from  the  other  side: 


What  steps  will  be  taken  to  investigate  the 
statement  made  by  the  United  States  Federal 
Bureau  of  Investigation  that  Stefano  Magad- 
dino  of  Niagara  Falls,  New  York,  is  "an  over- 
lord of  crime"  in  southern  Ontario? 

Does  the  Attorney  General  intend  to  send 
a  representative  to  the  United  States  to  con- 
sult with  the  FBI  so  that  all  facts  are  avail- 
able to  officials  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  A.  A.  Wishart  (Attorney  General):  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  have  a  continuous  exchange  of 
information  with  the  FBI  and  many  other 
police  agencies,  we— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York- 
view  has  a  similar  question  or  questions. 
Would  the  hon.  Attorney  General  allow  the 
other  question  to  be  placed?  Perhaps  he  can 
deal  with  the  whole  matter  at  once. 

Mr.  Young:  My  question  is  whether  in  view 
of  the  comments  of  officials  of  the  FBI  as  re- 
ported in  today's  Toronto  Star  that  Mafia 
activities  are  expanding  into  Ontario,  does  the 
Attorney  General  wish  to  revise  his  comments 
given  in  reply  to  my  question  yesterday? 

In  the  light  of  the  FBI  statements,  what 
actions  does  the  Minister  contemplate? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  police 
commission,  through  the  Ontario  Provincial 
Police  and  police  agencies  generally  in  On- 
tario have  complete  exchange  of  information 
with  the  FBI  and  many  other  police  agencies. 
They  are  aware  and  have  been  aware  of  the 
activities  of  the  Magaddino  people  in  Ontario. 
There  have  been  convictions  and  prosecutions 
of  these  people,  and  we  are  kept  fully  aware. 
The  FBI  knows  and  our  people  know  of  the 
efforts  of  the  criminal  elements  in  the  United 
States  to  come  into  southern  Ontario  and 
other  parts  of  Ontario.  This  is  why  this  in- 
formation flows  freely  between  the  police 
forces. 

There  is  no  answer  to  the  second  part  of 
the  question,  and  I  am  not  taking  any 
further  steps  to  investigate,  because  we  have 
a  very  capable  and  very  efficient  intelligence 
agency,  and  there  is  a  complete  exchange  of 
information.  I  will  not  say  that  we  know 
everything  that  criminals  do  at  the  moment 
they  do  it,  but  there  is  the  most  complete 
exchange  of  information. 

As  to  the  question  from  the  hon.  member 
for  Yorkview,  I  have  no  reason  to  change  the 
nature  of  the  content  of  the  answer  I  gave 
yesterday,  in  answer  to  this  question.  This 
was  a  question  as  to  whether  the  reference 
in  some  speculative  article— in  the  New  York 


172 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Times  apparently— that  there  have  been  ex- 
changes between  criminal  elements  in  the 
United  States  which,  apparently,  in  the  view 
of  someone  in  the  federal  government  of  the 
United  States,  related  to  the  eastern  part  of 
Canada. 

I  said  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that 
has  reference  to  Ontario.  We  still  have  rea- 
son to  think  that  that  was  a  reference  to 
Montreal,  and  it  was  not  related  to  the 
Magaddinos.  It  was  the  Bonanos  up  there. 
My  answer  stands  exactly  as  I  gave  it  yester- 
day. 

Mr.  Nixon:  If  the  Attorney  General  will 
permit  me  a  couple  of  questions. 

He  is  aware  that  at  noon  today  the  police 
chief  of  Toronto,  Mr.  Mackey,  was  reported 
as  having  said  that  one  of  the  principal  links 
between  the  betting  community  in  Toronto 
and  the  Mafia  was  through  the  organization 
that  was  discussed  in  my  question— that  was 
controlled,  apparently  by  Mr.  Magaddino. 
What  of  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Yes,  I  am  aware,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  they  are  involved  to  a  certain 
degree,  in  certain  areas  of  gaming.  But  they 
are  not  overlords  of  crime  in  this  province. 

Those  activities  of  which  we  are  aware, 
where  they  give  grounds  for  prosecution— 
these  things  are  followed  up. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Well,  I  might  just- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  If  the  hon.  member 
wishes  to  place  a  question,  or  a  supple- 
mentary question,  he  is  entitled  to,  but  he 
is  not  entitled  to  get  up  and  make  a  speech. 
It  is  right  that  the  rules  should  be  observed 
on  both  sides  of  this  House.  The  hon.  leader 
of  the  Opposition  has  a  further  question  from 
yesterday  of  the  Minister  of  Health. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Nixon:  He  is  trying  to  get  into  your 
good  graces. 

Mr.  Speaker,  of  the  Minister  of  Health  I 
would  like  to— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  Speaker  is  quite 
aware  of  the  feelings  on  both  sides  of  the 
House  but  he  does  certainly  take  objection  to 
observations  such  as  the  hon.  leader  has 
made.  I  would  hope  that  there  would  not 
be  any  repetition  of  it. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  apologize  for  that,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the 
Minister  of  Health.   Will  the  Minister  explain 


the  position  of  the  government  in  providing 
subsidized  OMSIP  for  Indians  on  and  off 
reservations  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  M.  B.  Dymond  ( Minister  of  Health ) : 
Mr.  Speaker,  OMSIP  is  available  to  all  resi- 
dents of  Ontario.  It  is  available  to  people 
of  Indian  extraction  or  Indian  blood  living 
off  the  reservations  exactly  the  same  as  to 
any  resident. 

For  Indians  on  the  reservation  the  federal 
government  has  traditionally  claimed  this  as 
their  responsibility  and  we  look  to  the  federal 
government  to  provide  the  financing,  so  that 
Indians  living  on  reservations  can  have  the 
same  privilege  in  this  respect  as  any  citizen 
of  Ontario. 

Because  of  the  present  dialogue  between 
the  two  levels  of  government  we,  in  Ontario, 
have  made  it  clear  to  all  Indians  that  OMSIP 
is  readily  available  to  them.  We  have  served 
notice  on  the  federal  government  that  they 
will  be  held  responsible  for  the  financing  of 
this. 

To  that  end  the  Minister  of  National 
Health  and  Welfare,  I  understand  —  and  I 
emphasize  this  "I  understand"  —  was  to  set 
up  a  task  force  to  look  into  this  entire  matter 
and  find  a  resolution  of  the  problem  for  all 
time. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Might  I  ask  a  supplementary 
question,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  the  Minister's 
permission? 

It  is  true,  then,  to  say  that  no  Indians  on 
reserve  at  the  present  time  are  covered  with 
the  OMSIP  programme? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  No,  I  do  not  believe  it 
would  be  true  to  say  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  be- 
cause I  believe  some  Indians  have  applied 
for  OMSIP  on  their  own,  as  they  have  been 
applying  for  other  medical  services  insurance. 
I  do  not  think  it  is  widely  spread,  but  on 
certain  reservations  the   Indians  do  have   it. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  November 
25  in  this  House,  as  recorded  in  Hansard, 
pages  109  and  110;  with  regard  to  the  Proctor- 
Silex  strike  in  Picton,  I  would  like  to  point 
out  the  following  matter  of  personal  privilege. 

My  leader  stated  as  follows, 

We  sent  our  representatives  to  a  union  meeting 
[at  Proctor-Silex  in  Picton].  The  member  for  Scar- 
borough East  represented  the  Liberal  Party  at  that 
meeting.  He  was  in  contact  with  labour  leaders, 
leaders  in  the  community.  He  came  back  with  a  re- 
port that  led  us,  as  Liberals,  to  support  the  strikers 
in  this  particular  negotiation. 

On  a  point  of  personal  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker,  on  page  110  the  member  for  Brant- 
for  (Mr.  Makarchuk)  stated, 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


173 


The  leader  of  the  Opposition  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  mis- 
leading the  House.  The  representative  from  the  Lib- 
eral Party  was  not  at  that  meeting. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  quote  directly 
from  the  Belleville  Intelligencer  of  October  3, 
1968,  to  show  that  I  certainly  was  there. 

The    Liberal    critic    for    economics    and 

development  visited  Picton  yesterday— 

That  was  October  2.  I  would  like  to  point 
out  that  the  NDP  did  not  get  there  until 
November  23. 

—at  the  request  of  Robert  Nixon,  leader 
of  the  Opposition.  He  was  accompanied 
by  Nixon's  executive  assistant,  John  Morrit, 
and  after  the  meeting  with  union  officials 
and  discussing  the  current  situation,  the 
Liberal  visitors  were  extremely  critical  of 
the  company's  stand. 

They  discussed  the  situation  with  George 
Hutchens,  Canadian  IUE  president,  Jim 
Donofrio,  union  representative.  Dm  Neil- 
son,  president  of  the  local  United  Fanners' 
Union,  and  Dr.  Lionel  Dockrill,  Picton 
town  councillor. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  there  and  I  was  there  a 
good  six  weeks  before  the  NDP  got  there. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order! 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  will  not  enter  the  debate,  but  we 
were  there  many,  many  times  in  advance  of— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  member  is 
on  his  feet  to  ask  a  question. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  have  three  questions, 
Mr.  Speaker,  from  yesterday.  T,he  Ministers 
are  present,  two  of  them  I  can  ask;  the  third 
I  shall  retain,  Mr.  Speaker. 

The  first  one  is  to  the  Minister  of  Trade 
and  Development.  When  was  a  "forgiveness 
loan"  extended  to  Matthews  Conveyor  Co. 
in  Port  Hope?  For  what  amount  was  the 
loan?  Is  the  Minister  aware  that  since  receiv- 
ing the  loan  the  company  has  laid  off  50 
workers  and  further  layoffs  are  currently 
under  way?  Do  the  conditions  of  the  "for- 
giveness loan"  permit  cutbacks  in  the  work 
force? 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  Muni- 
cipal Affairs):  The  hon.  member  asked  it 
yesterday. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Yes,  but  I  did  not  get  an 

answer. 

Hon.  S.  J.  Randall  (Minister  of  Trade  and 
Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  equalization 


of  industrial  opportunity  loan  extended  to 
Matthews  Conveyor  Co.  in  Port  Hope  was 
approved  by  Order-in-Council  on  March  7, 
1968,  and  the  amount  of  the  loan  is  $193,033. 

The  company  informs  ODC  that  the  cur- 
rent layoffs  at  the  plant  are  of  a  temporary 
nature.  It  is  confidently  expected  that  over  the 
term  of  the  EIO  loans,  substantial  increases 
in  employment  will  occur.  If  it  became 
evident  over  a  period  of  time  that  the  com- 
pany in  receipt  of  a  forgiveable  loan  is  not 
achieving  the  purposes  for  which  the  loan 
was  given,  then  the  ODC  has  the  right  to 
require  the  payment  of  any  portion  of  the 
loan  which  has  not  been  forgiven. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supple- 
mentary question.  Do  the  conditions  normally 
implicit  in  such  a  loan  involve  no  lay-offs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  No,  I  do  not  know  how 
it  can.  How  can  any  manufacturer  say  that 
five  years  from  now  he  will  not  have  a  turn- 
down of  business  and  have  to  lay  people  off? 

I  do  not  have  a  crystal  ball.  I  do  not  think 
even  you  could  do  that. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  will  be  interesting  to 
review  the  implementation  of  this  in  the 
future. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  Order!  The  hon.  mem- 
ber will  proceed  with  his  questions. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Health. 

Has  the  Minister  received  a  report  from 
Doctor  B.  T.  Hale,  MOH  for  the  Gueiph- 
Wellington-Dufferin  health  unit,  regarding 
the  extreme  pollution  caused  by  the  Canada 
Electric  Castings  Ltd.,  a  subsidiary  of  Dayton 
Steel?  What  action  does  the  company  intend 
to  take  for  the  elimination  of  this  pollution? 
What  time  limits  have  been  granted  the  com- 
pany for  this  remedial  action? 

In  the  event  of  this,  or  any  other  plant 
being  closed  down  because  of  intolerable 
pollution,  is  the  government  developing  any 
plan  for  short  term  assistance  while  alterna- 
tive job  opportunities  are  secured? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
answer  to  the  first  part  of  the  question  is 
no.  Doctor  Hale  did,  I  believe,  call  my  office 
a  few  days  ago,  advising  us  of  a  rather  tragic 
accident  that  took  place  in  the  plant  and 
which  was  said  to  be  related  in  some  way  to 
air  pollution. 

However,  we  were  in  the  process  then  of 
surveying  this  plant  because  of  concern  over 


174 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


its  condition.  On  November  1,  the  company 
was  surveyed,  the  report  was  provided  setting 
out  the  air  pollution  control  required.  On 
November  22  of  this  year,  the  company  was 
served  with  a  ministerial  order  requiring 
compliance. 

The  requirements  are  in  two  parts.  The 
long-term  programme  gives  the  company 
eight  months  to  complete  all  work,  to  bring 
the  effluence  from  their  operations  under 
satisfactory  control.  The  short-term  work  to 
be  done  during  the  eight-month  period  re- 
quires that  within  three  weeks— that  is  three 
weeks  from  November  22  of  this  year— all 
accumulated  soot  around  the  plant  be  re- 
moved, and  within  seven  weeks  they  must 
have  repaired  and  have  operating  properly 
existing  pollution  control  equipment. 

The  answer  to  the  fourth  part  of  the  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Speaker,  is  I  know  of  no  policy  at 
the  present  time  under  The  Air  Pollution 
Control  Act.  I  have  no  such  authority.  This 
is  a  matter  that  will  be  submitted  to  govern- 
ment for  consideration. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth  has  a  question  of  the  Prime  Minister. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Will  the  government  undertake 
to  establish  a  fair  capital  gains  tax  for  land 
speculation,  and  implement  this  without 
delay? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Treas- 
urer (Mr.  MacNaughton)  is  presently  examin- 
ing very  closely  all  areas  of  taxation.  This 
is  one  of  them,  and  when  these  examinations 
are  complete  the  government  will  make  its 
decisions  as  to  what  it  is  going  to  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  has  a  question  of  the  Prime  Minister. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  light  of  the 
reports  in  Saturday's  Toronto  Star  that  the 
$100  million  improvement  of  Sunny  brook 
Hospital  into  a  teaching  hospital  is  a  waste 
of  money,  does  the  Prime  Minister  intend  to 
intervene  to  stop  this  project? 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  report 
was,  at  best,  a  statement  of  opinion  by  whom- 
ever wrote  it,  and  I  am  informed  that  really 
it  is  a  kind  of  planner's  forward  programme 
covering  a  period  of  a  great  many  years. 
It  has  not  been  approved  by  the  Ontario 
Hospital  Services  Commission  which  has  the 
power  and  must,  of  course,  approve  every 
expenditure  made  by  any  hospital  and  will 
only  do  so  after  the  closest  examination.  I 
do  not  think  therefore,  hon.  members  need  be 
unduly  worried  by  the  import  of  that  report. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  has  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Health. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  Minister 
aware  that  The  Department  of  Health's  new 
policy  of  charging  for  laboratory  examina- 
tions of  diabetics'  blood  is  causing  financial 
hardship  to  many  elderly  pensioners? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  aware  of  that  and  if  it  does  exist,  it 
should  not  exist.  OMSIP,  as  I  have  just  said 
within  the  past  few  minutes,  is  readily  avail- 
able to  every  resident  of  the  province  of 
Ontario  regardless  of  age,  state  of  health  or 
financial  status.  If  those  who  are  in  need 
cannot  afford  to  pay  for  it,  all  they  have  to 
do  is  apply  and  provision  has  been  made  by 
this  government  to  see  to  it  that  they  are  not 
denied  medical  services  because  of  their  in- 
ability to  pay  for  it. 

I  might  add  that  lab  services  are  a  benefit 
provided  under  OMSIP  and  are,  therefore, 
quite  within  the  reach  of  any  resident  of  the 
province  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Minister  accept  a 
supplementary  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Yes. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Is  the  Minister  aware  that 
many  such  pensioners  are  covered  by  PSI, 
and  PSI  has  decided  that  they  will  not  pay 
for  this  charge? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  I  would  still  repeat, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  OMSIP  is  readily  available 
to  those  people. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Hum- 
ber  has  a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Health. 

Mr.  Ben:  Yes,  I  have  a  number  of  ques- 
tions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Just  the  two  for  the  Minister 
of  Health,  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  Ben:  How  many  cases  of  hepatitis 
were  reported  at  the  Ontario  housing  com- 
plex at  Thistletown  between  November,  1967, 
and  February,   1968? 

What  steps  has  the  department  taken  to 
prevent  the  children  at  that  development 
from  playing  in  the  garbage  and  sewers? 

When  was  the  area  last  inspected  by  offi- 
cials of  the  Minister's  department? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  our  pro- 
vincial communicable  disease  statistics  are 
maintained  on  a  municipal  level  only.  On 
this  basis,  from  November  1,  1967  to  Febru- 
ary   29,    1968,    79    cases    of    hepatitis    were 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


175 


reported  from  the  borough  of  Etobicoke.  The 
office  of  the  medical  officer  of  health  of 
Etobicoke  has  advised  that  the  Ontario  hous- 
ing complex  area  in  general,  was  the  local 
address  of  approximately  53  reported  cases 
of  hepatitis  from  November  1,  1967,  to  Feb- 
ruary 29,  1968. 

Reference  to  the  second  part  of  the  ques- 
tion: I  would  point  out  that  the  enforcement 
of  The  Public  Health  Act  is  the  responsibility 
of  the  local  authority.  We  act  in  a  consulta- 
tive capacity  when  requested  to  do  so  and 
if  we  have  cause  to  believe  that  the  local 
authority  is  not  doing  its  job. 

In  this  case  we  do  not  believe  the  latter 
to  be  true  and  we  have  not  been  invited  in 
a  consultative  capacity. 

Mr.  Ben:  Mr.  Speaker,  will  the  Minister 
accept  a  supplementary  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Yes. 

Mr.  Ben:  Is  not  the  fact  that  53  out  of 
79  cases  of  hepatitis  originate  from  one  area 
in  a  municipality  sufficient  to  cause  the  Min- 
ister's department  to  wonder  what  action,  if 
any,  the  municipality  is  taking  to  prevent 
these  epidemics? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
content  that  the  local  department  of  health 
took  the  necessary  steps  to  control  this  out- 
break.   It  was  not  an  epidemic. 

Mr.  Ben:  I  will  withdraw  the  word  epi- 
demic.   I  will  use  the  word  outbreak. 

The  next  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  won- 
dered if  perhaps  it  should  be  addressed  to 
the  Minister  of  Social  and  Family  Services 
(Mr.  Yaremko),  but  I  will  put  it  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Health. 

What  is  the  cost  per  annum  of  maintaining 
a  child  under  the  children's  aid  society? 

How  many  children  from  the  Ontario  hous- 
ing complex  at  Thistletown  have  become 
wards  of  the  children's  aid  society  during  the 
past  two  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member's  premise  was  correct,  this  should 
have  been  directed  to  the  hon.  Minister  of 
Social  and  Family  Services. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Speaker's  office  will  re- 
direct this  and  have  it  answered,  if  possible, 
tomorrow. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West 
has  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Health. 

Mr.  Lewis:  To  the  Minister,  through  you 
Mr.  Speaker,  will  the  announced  10  per  cent 


increase  in  the  Ontario  Medical  Association 
fee  schedule  set  for  April  1,  1969,  be  subject 
to  approval  or  negotiation  by  the  Minister  of 
Health  or  this  Legislature? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  keeping 
with  all  government  business,  it  will  be  sub- 
ject to  negotiation  by  the  Minister  of  Health 
and  the  results  of  the  negotiations  will  be 
referred  to  the  government  for  decision. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Thunder 
Bay. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Health. 
Is  the  Minister  aware  of  the  statement  made 
by  Doctor  C.  E.  Toll,  Department  of  Health 
dentist,  as  reported  in  the  Port  Arthur  News- 
Chronicle  of  November  22,  1968,  that  the 
state  of  children's  teeth  in  Nipigon  is  deplor- 
able? 

If  so,  what  steps  will  the  Minister  take  to 
ensure  proper  dental  care  for  the  children  in 
those  communities? 

Hon.  Mr.  Dymond:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe 
that  the  dentist  referred  to  did  state  that  the 
teeth  of  the  Nipigon  children  were  severely 
neglected.  He  denies  using  some  extravagant 
language  as  apparently  appeared  in  the  press. 

However,  the  railway  dental  car  was  in 
Nipigon  from  August  7  to  November  18  of 
this  year.  During  that  time,  1,030  dental 
appointments  were  provided  and  all  of  the 
children  reporting  received  the  dental  care 
that  was  necessary. 

I  would  suggest  that  the  state  of  the  kids' 
teeth  now  is  pretty  good. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 
view  has  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Social 
and  Family  Services. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  this.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  evidence  at 
the  coroner's  inquest  into  the  death  of  three- 
year-old  Theresa  Mcintosh  disclosed  that  this 
child  was  probably  mistreated  before  her 
death,  and  that  none  of  this  information  was 
conveyed  either  to  the  children's  aid  society, 
the  police  nor  his  department,  what  action 
does  the  Minister  intend  to  take  in  view  of 
the  provisions  of  section  41  of  The  Child 
Welfare  Act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Yaremko:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  indi- 
cated on  Monday,  we  are  naturally  concerned 
about  this  case.  But  as  I  said  then,  it  is  still 
before  a  coroner's  jury  and,  as  you  know,  the 
inquest  resumed  today.    I  believe  it  would  be 


178 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


unfair  of  me  to  comment  in  any  way  while 
the  jury  is  discharging  its  very  serious  respon- 
sibilities. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Huron- 
Bruce  has  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture and  Food. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Will  the  Minister  assure  the 
House  that  the  interest  rate  on  junior  farmer 
loans  will  remain  at  5  per  cent? 

How  many  junior  farmer  loans  are  presently 
in  arrears? 

Has  there  been  any  noticeable  difference  in 
the  number  of  applications  coming  before  the 
board  since  the  federal  government  an- 
nounced the  new  interest  rate  for  farm  credit 
loans? 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply,  the 
answer  to  the  first  question  is  that  this  is  a 
policy  decision  of  the  government  and  I  am 
in  no  position  to  say  yes  or  no.  It  is  a  sta- 
tutory matter  at  the  moment. 

As  to  the  number  of  junior  farmer  loans 
presently  in  arrears,  there  are  131  junior 
farmer  loans  in  arrears,  in  a  total  amount  of 
$125,000.  I  think  this  is  a  remarkably  fine 
record  for  the  junior  fanners  of  Ontario, 
when  one  considers  that  there  are  5,375  loans 
out  with  a  total  value  of  $89,742  million.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  loans  in  arrears  represent 
2.4  per  cent  of  all  mortgages  and  .07  per 
cent  of  all  principal,  so  arrears  are  practically 
negligible. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  May  I  ask  the  Minister  a  sup- 
plementary question? 

Is  the  Minister  planning  to  consider  the 
present  interest  rate  with  the  idea  of  having 
it  remain  the  same?  Has  the  Minister  given 
the  matter  any  thought? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Well,  of  course,  with 
the  announcement  that  the  federal  govern- 
ment has  raised  their  interest  rate  to  7% 
per  cent  on  farm  credit  corporation  loans, 
this  is  a  matter  of  concern  to  all  govern- 
ments with  the  high  cost  of  money  today. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Another  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Agriculture  and  Food,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Is  the  November,  1968  issue  of  Canadian 
Consumer,  page  106,  correct  in  its  statement 
that  provincial  meat  inspection  by  The  De- 
partment of  Agriculture  and  Food  does  not 
take  place  in  northern  Ontario  and  portions 
of  eastern  Ontario?  And  if  the  answer  is 
"yes",  why  not? 


Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
seen  the  quotation  to  which  the  hon.  mem- 
ber refers,  but  I  assume  he  is  quite  correct 
in  what  he  has  said  in  his  question. 

Now,  there  are  four  counties  of  eastern 
Ontario  in  which  there  is  not  complete  meat 
inspection.  There  are  eight  red-meat  plants 
left  to  cover  in  eastern  Ontario,  and  these 
will  be  done— if  they  are  not  done  now,  they 
will  be  done  in  the  next  few  days  or  weeks, 
because  the  inspectors  have  been  trained  or 
are  in  the  process  of  being  trained,  the  plants 
have  been  brought  up  to  standard,  inspection 
will  be  introduced  right  away. 

In  northern  Ontario  there  are  15  red-meat 
plants,  13  of  which  are  not  under  inspection 
as  yet.  Now,  it  is  our  plan  that  as  soon  as 
inspectors  can  be  obtained  and  trained,  then 
they  will  be  covered  with  inspection.  How- 
ever, the  plants  themselves  come  under  The 
Department  of  Health  supervision  and  as  far 
as  the  plant  standards  are  concerned,  they  do 
meet  those  qualifications. 

Since  April  1,  1965,  we  have  covered  the 
province  of  Ontario,  at  least  the  38  counties 
of  Ontario,  with  meat  inspection.  We  have 
employed  and  trained  over  200  meat  inspec- 
tors. When  we  introduced  the  meat  inspec- 
tion programme,  there  were  no  inspectors, 
you  just  could  not  go  out  and  hire  them,  we 
had  to  engage  them  and  train  them.  It  takes 
at  least  six  months  to  train  inspectors  and 
you  can  only  take  so  many  at  a  time,  be- 
cause the  academic  training  is  only  part  of  it. 
They  have  to  go  out  to  the  various  federally- 
inspected  plants  and  receive  practical  train- 
ing under  the  supervision  of  qualified  federal 
inspectors.  Meat  inspection  has  come  about 
in  Ontario  in  a  very  orderly  way  and  I  think 
in  a  way  that  has  not  disrupted  the  meat 
processing  facilities  or  slaughtering  facilities 
in  the  province  and  yet  has  provided  and 
assured  the  people  of  Ontario  a  wholesome 
quality  product. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Would  the  Minister  permit 
a  supplementary  question?  Does  he  have  a 
target  date  for  completing  the  balance  of 
the  areas  that  have  not  been  covered? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  We  have,  we  hope  that 
we  will  be  able  to  accomplish  this  within  the 
next  few  mondis. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Rainy 
River. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture and  Food. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


177 


1.  How  many  crop  insurance  salesmen  are 
there  in  Rainy  River  district? 

2.  Who  are  they? 

3.  Do  they  have  occupations  other  than 
that  of  crop  insurance  salesmen? 

4.  How  long  have  they  been  selling  crop 
insurance? 

5.  When  did  the  advertising  begin?  When 
did  it  end?  How  many  items  of  advertising 
were  there? 

6.  What  was  the  cut-off  date  for  purchas- 
ing crop  insurance  in  Rainy  River  district? 

7.  How  many  farmers  in  Rainy  River  dis- 
trict took  advantage  of  crop  insurance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is 
one  crop  insurance  agent  in  the  Rainy  River 
district.  It  is  Mr.  M.  G.  McComb  insurance 
agency,  located  in  Emo.  He  does  have  other 
occupations,  he  is  a  general  insurance  agent. 
He  has  been  selling  crop  insurance  or  offer- 
ing it  for  sale  since  May  18  of  1967,  and  I 
understand  he  has  been  a  general  insurance 
agent  for  many  years. 

With  regard  to  advertising,  the  crop  in- 
surance commission  places  advertisements 
seasonally  in  the  various  papers  and  publi- 
cations throughout  the  province.  I  cannot 
give  the  hon.  member  the  exact  number  of 
times  where  it  has  been  advertised  in  his 
area.  If  he  took  from  what  I  said  yesterday 
that  it  has  been,  I  am  not  sure,  whether  it 
was  in  that  paper  or  what  date,  I  do  not 
know.  But,  I  do  know  that  it  has  been 
widely  advertised,  we  have  placed  advertis- 
ing in  the  paper  Farm  and  Country  which 
I  understand,  goes  into  every  farm  home  in 
Ontario,  that  is,  advertising  on  an  annual 
basis,  and  this  is  a  monthly  publication.  The 
commission  has  prepared  a  pamphlet  setting 
forth  the  information  and  I  have  a  copy  of 
that  pamphlet  here.  We  have  circulated  this 
quite  widely  through  the  bankers'  association. 
We  have  sent  it  out  to  the  local  banks,  to 
our  agricultural  representatives  and  to  any- 
one who  wishes  to  use  this,  including  private 
members  who  may  be  interested  in  their  con- 
stituents obtaining  crop  insurance. 

The  commission  also  has  an  agreement 
with  all  local  agents  to  pay  50  per  cent  of 
the  cost  of  advertising  on  a  local  basis  for 
crop  insurance  programmes.  The  information 
branch  of  the  Ontario  Department  of  Agri- 
culture and  Food  has  circulated  press  releases 
in  1967  and  again  in  1968,  having  to  do 
with  the  crop  insurance  programme.  These 
are  provided  to  all  weekly  newspapers  in 
Ontario,  to  all  daily  newspapers,  to  all  farm 
journals,    and    to    all    radio    and    television 


stations.  With  the  expansion  of  the  pro- 
gramme, with  every  expansion  of  the  pro- 
gramme, even  from  its  inception,  I  have 
made  those  announcements  in  the  House  and 
they  have  been  covered  by  our  own  press 
gallery,  certainly  Hansard  and  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House. 

The  cut-off  date  for  purchasing  crop  in- 
surance in  the  Rainy  River  district  was— 
there  are  two  dates  given— the  deadline  for 
application  was  May  15,  1968,  and  the 
deadline  for  seeding  of  the  crop  was  June  15, 
1968.  There  were  four  contracts  written  in 
1968,  in  two  of  these  cases  the  farmers  did 
not  seed  their  acreage  on  which  they  had 
proposed  to  plant  crops.  In  the  remaining 
two,  both  of  them  filed  claims.  One  of  them 
was  successful  in  getting  his  crop  off  and 
so  he  cancelled  his  claim,  while  the  other 
man  lost  his  crop  and  it  is  expected  that 
he  will  obtain  about  $1,000  in  insurance 
payments. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:   Will  the  Minister  accept 

a    supplementary? 

In  view  of  the   fact  that  there  was   only 

one  insurance  salesman  who   I   am  sure  the 

Minister  is   aware   of   is   also   the   municipal 

clerk   of   Emo   municipality- 
Mr.    Speaker:    Perhaps    the    hon.    member 

would  just  ask  a  supplementary  question. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Does  he  not  feel  that  this 
programme  was  not  sufficiently  advertised 
and  energetically  promoted  in  the  area  and 
that  the  farmers  of  the  Rainy  River  district 
will  therefore  suffer?  Does  he  not  feel  that 
some  assistance  should  be  provided  for  them 
this  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  always 
very  difficult  to  determine  just  how  much 
advertising  is  enough. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Is  one  salesman  enough? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  It  may  well  be  the  case. 
I  would  suggest,  though,  that  with  the  inter- 
est that  has  been  taken  or  evinced  in  crop 
insurance  in  many  areas  throughout  the 
province  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  to 
get  anybody  to  accept  it  on  a  full-time  basis. 
Now,  I  am  quite  sure  that  the  man— and  I 
do  not  know  him  at  all,  I  did  not  know  he 
was  the  municipal  clerk— but,  I  am  sure  that 
if  he  is  the  municipal  clerk  he  is  well  known 
to  the  farming  community  of  the  area  and, 
as  such,  that  he  would  be  well  known,  he 
being  a  general  insurance  agent,  and  the 
amount  of  crop  insurance  advertising  and  the 


178 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


publicity  it  was  given,  that  he  would  be  the 
logical  source. 

Now,  our  local  agricultural  representative 
has  promoted  the  programmes  throughout 
the  area.  I  know  this  to  be  a  fact  and  I 
would  like  to  suggest  that  if  my  hon.  friend 
had  displayed  as  much  interest  in  promoting 
the  crop  insurance  programme  in  his  own 
local  area  as  he  has  in  asking  these  questions, 
it  would  likely  be  much  more  effective  and 
widespread  in  its  acceptance  by  local  farmers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 

The  hon.  member  for  Wentworth  has  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Transport. 

Mr.  Deans:  Yes,  a  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Transport.  Will  the  Minister  under- 
take an  immediate  investigation  of  the  beha- 
viour of  truck  traffic  on  the  Queen  Elizabeth 
Highway  between  Hamilton  and  Toronto? 

Hon.  I.  Haskett  (Minister  of  Transport): 
Mr.  Speaker,  while  I  am  not  sure  that  I 
understand  just  what  the  hon.  member  means 
by  "truck  traffic  behaviour"— 

Mr.  Deans:  I  am  asking  if  you  will  investi- 
gate whether  or  not  the  truck  traffic  on  the 
Queen  Elizabeth  Highway  is  behaving  in  a 
manner  suited  for  that  kind  of  highway  and 
whether  it  should  not  be  investigated  and 
whether  action  should  be  taken  against  them, 
to  make  them  behave  in  the  proper  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  not 
quite  sure  what  the  hon.  member  meant  by 
truck  traffic  behaviour  in  this  case  but  it 
appeared  to  me  likely,  and  I  think  from  his 
amplification  of  the  statement  that  I  am  right 
in  my  assumption,  that  what  he  refers  to  is  a 
matter  of  enforcement  and  would,  for  that 
reason,  be  a  matter  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  police.  I  think  if  he  will  pinpoint  the 
problem  and  direct  his  question  to  the  Attor- 
ney  General  it  might  be   more   appropriate. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Transport.  Do  munici- 
palities require  the  permission  of  the  Minister 
and /or  the  Legislature  to  temporarily  change 
the  speed  limit  on  public  roads  for  the  pur- 
pose of  car  racing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  Mr.  Speaker,  racing  on 
the  highways  is  prohibited.  Section  91  of  The 
Highway  Traffic  Act  sets  out  that  "no  person 
shall  drive  a  motor  vehicle  on  a  highway  in 
a  race". 


Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Minister  accept  a 
supplementary  question?  Does  that  interpre- 
tation of  the  law  mean  that  the  city  of  To- 
ronto will  not  be  able  to  have  car  racing  on 
Lakeshore  Boulevard? 

Hon.  Mr.  Haskett:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a 
good  supplementary  question  but  I  am  not 
prepared  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  the 
Minister  would  give  it  his  consideration. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor-Walkerville  has  a  question  of  the  Minis- 
ter of  Tourism  and  Information. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor-Walkerville ) : 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question  for  the  Min- 
ister of  Trade  and  Development.  Can  the 
Minister  inform  the  House  if  his  department 
has  arrived  at  a  decision  in  regard  to  maxi- 
mum rentals  for  Ontario  Housing  Corpora- 
tion public  housing  projects? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  was  not 
paying  attention.  He  has  a  question  of  the 
hon.  Minister  of  Tourism  and  Information. 
The  hon.  Minister  of  Trade  and  Develop- 
ment comes  later.  This  is  a  question  from 
the  other  day. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Yes,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Tourism  and  Information. 
When  will  the  new  Ontario  government  tour- 
ist reception  centre  on  Huron  Line  in  Wind- 
sor be  open  on  a  year-round  basis,  instead  of 
the  present  part-time  basis,  because  of  the 
increased  year-round  traffic  from  the  United 
States  into  Ontario  over  the  Ambassador 
Bridge? 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  (Minister  of  Tourism 
and  Information):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot 
give  the  hon.  member  a  definitive  answer  at 
the  moment.  We  are  studying  the  changing 
traffic  pattern  between  the  tunnel  and  the 
bridge,  both  the  daily  traffic  and  the  more- 
than-24-hour,  or  the  tourist  traffic.  When  we 
have  completed  that,  we  are  going  to  con- 
sider our  situation  at  Windsor. 

I  remind  the  hon.  member  that  because  of 
budget  considerations  it  may  be  we  will  find 
that  we  should  have  our  operation  at  the 
bridge  rather  than  at  the  tunnel.  It  might 
be  that  we  could  keep  both  operations  open 
the  year  round;  it  might  be  that  we  would 
simply  change  the  year-round  operation  from 
the  tunnel  to  the  bridge. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  May  I  ask  of  the  Minister 
a   supplementary   question?    Would  he   con- 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


179 


sider  the  rental  of  the  premises  either  at  the 
tunnel  or  the  bridge  for  a  community  centre 
to  the  city,  if  it  is  not  going  to  be  used  by 
the  department? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  I  am  afraid  the  hon. 
member  will  have  to  ask  the  hon.  Minister 
of  Public  Works  (Mr.  Connell). 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  have  now  reached  the 
hon.  Minister  of  Trade  and  Development,  if 
the  hon.  member  would  now  place  his  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Can  the  Minister  inform 
the  House  if  his  department  has  arrived  at  a 
decision  in  regard  to  maximum  rentals  for 
Ontario  Housing  Corporation  public  housing 
projects? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  g*ad 
to  see  they  save  the  good  things  for  the  last. 

The  hon.  member  is  aware  that  as  of 
May  1  of  this  year,  rental  rates  in  geared-to- 
income  developments  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  Ontario  Housing  Corporation  were  pegged 
in  accordance  with  the  income  of  the  tenant 
at  that  date. 

Discussions  are  being  held  on  a  continuing 
basis  with  senior  officials  of  Central  Mortgage 
and  Housing  Corporation  with  a  view  to 
establishing  a  new  rent  scale  formula  which 
will  recognize,  among  other  things,  current 
economic  conditions.  In  view  of  the  com- 
plexities involved,  no  final  decision  has  yet 
been  reached.  The  rent  freeze  was  intro- 
duced to  ensure  that  no  undue  hardship 
would  be  incurred  by  any  tenant  while  this 
study  is  proceeding. 

Studies  of  market  rentals  for  various  types 
and  sizes  of  accommodation  in  12  selected 
Ontario  municipalities  have  already  been 
completed  as  part  of  this  ongoing  analysis. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  May  I  ask  the  Minister  a 
supplementary  question?  When  can  we  ex- 
pect a  decision,  Mr.  Minister? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  cannot  tell  the  hon. 
member  that.  When  the  surveys  are  com- 
pleted and  we  finish  our  discussions  with 
Central  Mortgage  and  Housing. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  If  I  may  ask  another  sup- 
plementary question,  Mr.  Speaker.  Is  it  not 
true,  then,  that  the  problem  has  been  up  for 
discussion  for  well  over  two  years  now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  No.  The  hon.  member 
will  recall  we  made  a  change  of  rent  scale  in 
May,  1967.  As  far  back  as  last  May  we  froze 
all  rents  at  that  time  so  there  would  not  be 
any  change  or  any  hardship. 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Peter- 
borough. 

Mr.  W.  G.  Pitman  (Peterborough):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  address  my  question 
to  the  Minister  of  Trade  and  Development. 

In  his  speech  on  November  20  in  Trenton, 
the  Minister  stated  that  the  Ontario  Develop- 
ment Corporation  hopes  to  extend  the  "golden 
horseshoe"  eastward  making  it  a  "golden  cor- 
ridor." Was  the  Minister  announcing  govern- 
ment policy  in  the  fields  of  regional  govern- 
ment and  urban  development? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  glad 
to  see  the  hon.  member  for  Peterborough  is 
reading  my  speeches. 

Mr.  Pitman:  All  of  them;  I  always  read 
them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Being  a  practical  opti- 
mist, I  want  to  assure  him  that  as  we  look 
at  the  "golden  horseshoe"  and  see  the  fac- 
tories we  have  in  there  (and  we  know  that  we 
have  wall-to-wall  factories  between  here  and 
Windsor),  I  have  always  told  my  associates 
and  friends  that  I  see  no  reason— with  two 
railroads,  the  St.  Lawrence  Seaway,  the  Mac- 
donald-Cartier  Freeway— why  we  could  not 
have  wall-to-wall  factories  between  here  and 
Cornwall.  While  it  may  not  be  government 
policy,  I  think  the  fact  that  my  colleagues 
and  the  Prime  Minister  okayed  the  EIO  pro- 
gramme, which  is  now  making  itself  felt  in 
eastern  Ontario,  we  can  well  call  it,  without 
government  policy,  the  "golden  corridor." 

Mr.  Pitman:  Mr.  Speaker,  might  I  ask  a 
supplementary  question?  That  was  not  a 
facetious  question,  I  can  assure  you.  What  I 
would  like  to  know  is  whether  the  loans  to  be 
given  under  the  EIO  programme  are- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order! 

The  hon.  member's  question  about  loans  is 
not  supplementary  to  his  original  question.  If 
he  wishes  to  ask  a  supplementary  on  his  orig- 
inal question,  he  is  entitled  to. 

Mr.  Pitman:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  your  indul- 
gence, I  do  suggest  that  the  EIO  programme, 
as  it  is  related  to  the  creation  of  the  "golden 
corridor"  is  relevant— what  I  am  trying  to 
establish,  with  your  permission,  is  whether  the 
loans  that  are  given  are  actually  approved  by 
The  Department  of  Trade  and  Development. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  but  the  hon.  member  did 
not  try  to  establish  anything  about  loans  in 


180 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


his  original  question  and  therefore  he  cannot 
do  it  now  by  way  of  supplementary. 

Mr.  Pitman:  The  Minister  in  his  answer 
suggested  that  these  loans  were  paving  the 
way  to  the  "golden  corridor." 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  quite  proper  and  if 
the  hon.  member  wishes  to  question  him 
about  that  on  another  occasion  it  is  perfectly 
in  order. 

Mr.  Pitman:  I  might  just  simply  ask  the 
Minister  whether  the  creation  of  the  "golden 
corridor"  by  the  ODC  is  an  integral  part  of 
the  policy  as  established  by  the  Cabinet  com- 
mittee on  regional  development? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
that  the  EIO  is  the  only  programme  estab- 
lishing what  we  hope  to  call  the  "golden  cor- 
ridor." I  think  all  departments  of  the 
government  are  making  a  contribution  to 
making  it  possible  to  have  wall-to-wall  fac- 
tories between  here  and  Cornwall. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  for  the 
Minister  of  Trade  and  Development.  I  no- 
ticed, as  I  read  it,  that  one  part  was  left  off. 
I  hope  he  will  not  mind  me  adding  it. 

How  much  land  is  presently  owned  by  or 
under  the  control  of  the  Ontario  Housing 
Corporation?  How  much  of  this  is  unserviced 
land?  Where  is  the  land  located— that  is  the 
part  that  was  obviously  missed  out— and  how 
much  has  been  spent  by  this  government  on 
the  acquisition  of  this  land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  take 
the  questions  as  notice  and  get  the  informa- 
tion for  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Humber. 

Mr.  Ben:  I  have  a  question  for  the  Minister 
of  Trade  and  Development,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Is  it  true  that  rents  are  pegged  to  income 
for  every  Ontario  Housing  Corporation  tenant, 
and  that  the  number  of  children  per  house- 
hold is  irrelevant  in  the  calculation  of  On- 
tario Housing  Corporation  rents? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Mr.  Speaker,  rental  rates 
for  all  units  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Ontario 
Housing  Corporation  which  are  leased  on  a 
geared-to-income  basis  are  related  to  a  slid- 
ing scale  which  was  approved  jointly  by  both 
the  federal  and  provincial  governments  and 
has  national   application. 


The  factor  which  determines  the  applicable 
rental  rate  is  the  gross  family  income  less 
certain  exemptions.  These  exemptions  include 
family  allowance  payments,  the  earnings  of 
children  who  are  in  regular  attendance  at 
recognized  educational  institutions,  the  wife's 
earnings  up  to  $250  a  year  and  the  monthly 
earnings  of  working  children  in  excess  of  $75 
a  month. 

The  hon.  member  will  thus  appreciate  that, 
unlike  the  private  rental  sector,  it  is  not  the 
size  of  the  accommodation  that  dictates  the 
rental  rate.  It  is  also  important  to  recognize 
that  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  Ontario 
Housing  Corporation  rental  rate  includes  the 
provision  of  heat,  hot  water,  water,  appliances 
and  very  often  hydro. 

Families  with  large  numbers  of  children 
are  naturally  allocated  more  spacious  prem- 
ises and,  because  of  the  size  of  the  family, 
use  more  services  for  which  no  additional 
charges  are  made.  In  these  respects,  coupled 
with  the  income  exemptions,  certainly  recog- 
nition is  afforded  the  number  of  children  in 
the  household. 

As  I  have  already  indicated  previously,  the 
rent  scale  is  being  reviewed,  as  it  has  been 
in  the  past,  on  a  continuing  basis.  In  fact,  a 
new  scale  was  introduced  in  1962  and  was 
subsequently  revised  as  recently  as  May, 
1967.  Concurrently  with  the  present  review, 
rents  were  pegged  in  relation  to  the  tenants' 
incomes  at  May  1  of  this  year;  therefore  since 
that  date  any  increase  in  family  income  has 
not  affected  the  tenant's  rental  rate. 

Mr.  Ben:  Mr.  Speaker,  will  the  Minister 
accept   a   supplementary  question? 

Do  I  take  it  from  his  answer  that  a  family 
with  seven  children,  none  of  them  earning 
an  income,  as  indicated  by  you  would  be 
paying  exactly  the  same  rental  on  an  income 
of,  let  us  say  for  sake  of  argument,  $5,000,  as 
a  family  with  two  children? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  do  not  think  I  quite 
understand  the  question.  What  we— 

Mr.  Ben:  I  believe  the  Minister  indicated 
the  certain  variables  on  employment,  how 
many  children  are  working,  the  income  of 
the   children,   and  so  on. 

Let  us  take  the  situation  of  a  family  with 
an  income  of  $5,000  with  seven  children  not 
working,  earning  no  income.  They  would  be 
paying  exactly  the  same  rent  on  an  income 
of  $5,000  as  a  family  with  only  two  children 
not  working.   Is  that  not  so? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  There  would  be  differ- 
ent  accommodations.   In   most   cases  we   try 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


181 


to  accommodate  the  families  and  I  would 
think  that  in  any  case  where  there  are 
different  size  accommodations,  different  in- 
comes, the  rental  scale  would  be  adjusted 
accordingly. 

Mr.  Ben:  But  if  they  were  the  same  accom- 
modation, which  is  quite  feasible,  they  would 
be  paying  the  same  rent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  I  would  doubt  that  they 
would   have   the   same   accommodation   with 
seven- 
Mr.  Ben:  But  if  they  were— 
Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Perhaps  so. 

Mr.  Ben:  If  they  did  have  the  same  accom- 
modation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Randall:  Perhaps  so. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  has  questions  of  the  Attorney-General. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

To  the  hon.  the  Attorney  General:  On 
page  1114  of  the  report  on  civil  rights,  Jus- 
tice McRucr  reveals  that  the  city  of  Toronto 
is  in  direct  contravention  of  its  general  licens- 
ing bylaw  in  allowing  a  cab  license  worth 
$300  to  be  sold  for  $14,500.  He  states  that 
the  public  is  paying  through  the  nose  for 
this  being  allowed  to  continue. 

What  steps  is  the  Attorney  General  going 
to  take  in  this  regard? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  a 
very  free  translation  of  what  the  Hon.  Mr. 
McRuer  said.  I  could  not  find  that  expression 
in  his  remarks.  But,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Sargent:  Is  that  not  right?  I  am  sorry. 
Look,  that  is  right— 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  "Paying  through  the 
nose?" 

Mr.  Sargent:  That  is  what  he  said. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  could  not  find  that. 

An  hon.  member:  The  Minister  is  in  the 
wrong  volume. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  guess  so. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  reviewing  all  the 
recommendations  of  Mr.  McRuer,  including 
this  one  I  may  say.  We  have  looked  at  it. 
However,  I  do  not  contemplate  immediate 
action,  because  the  matter  is  presently  under 
our  present  law— within  the  jurisdiction  and 
control     under     the     Metropolitan     Toronto 


licensing  commission.  At  the  moment  that 
is  where  it  is  and  we  are  reviewing  the 
recommendation  to  see  what  action,  if  any, 
might  be  taken. 

That  is  all  the  answer  I  can  give. 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  question  to  the  Minister  of 
Financial  and  Commercial  Affairs  (Mr.  Rown- 
tree). 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  member  is 
now  directing  questions  to  the  Attorney 
General. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Yes,  but  if  he  is  not  here 
we  will  hold  this. 

Mr.  Speaker:   Yes,  that  will  be  done. 

Mr.  Sargent:  A  question  to  the  Attorney 
General. 

On  November  15,  Chief  Mackey  was 
quoted  in  the  Toronto  Daily  Star  as  admit- 
ting that  his  police  had  seized  five  wire 
tapping  bugs.  When  questioned  on  what 
authority  he  had  to  make  these  seizures,  he 
said  he  had  no  authority. 

Will  the   Attorney   General  advise: 

1.  Why  police  are  allowed  to  have  these 
special  powers? 

2.  What  is  the  Attorney  General  going  to 
do  about  it? 

3.  Will  Chief  Mackey  be  called  upon  by 
the  Attorney  General  for  a  full  explanation 
of  how  he  can  make  seizures  illegally? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  refer  the  hon.  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  to  the  question  and  the  answer  to  the 
question  asked  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Downsview  on  November  20  respecting  the 
very  same  subject  and  in  very  similar  terms. 
My  answer  at  that  time  is  in  Hansard  of 
November  20. 

An  hon.  member:  They  do  not  talk  to  one 
another. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  hon.  members  talk  to 
themselves  all  the  time. 

An  hon.  member:  Could  not  talk  to  a  bet- 
ter fellow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the 
event  that  the  hon.  member  for  Grey-Bruce 
has  not  read  Hansard  I  will  repeat  what  I 
said  then. 

I  am  advised  that  these  devices  were  given 
to  police  by  employees  of  the  Bell  Telephone 
Company  of  Canada,  who  removed  them 
from  their  lines  since  they  contravened— the 


182 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


attachment    of    them    contravened— the    pro- 
visions of  The  Bell  Telephone  Act  of  Canada. 

The  three  following  questions  are  really 
not  relevant. 

The  police  did  not  seize  them  in  the  sense 
of  seizure.  The  Bell  Telephone  Act  of  Can- 
ada makes  it  wrongful— an  offence— to  inter- 
cept a  message.  Telephone  employees  found 
these  devices  attached  to  their  lines,  they 
took  them  off— which  quite  rightly  they 
should  do— and  they  turned  them  over  to 
the  police. 

As  I  pointed  out  to  the  hon.  member  for 
Downsview  who  questioned  me  on  November 
20,  nobody  has  come  forward  to  say  "these 
are  our  devices."  I  do  not  think  they  are 
likely  to  come  forward,  because  they  are 
illegal  under  The  Bell  Telephone  Act.  The 
police  have  the  devices  in  their  possession 
and  there  is  nothing  much  more  we  can  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Attorney  General. 

1.  Why  was  the  death  of  Kenneth  Hames 
on  October  29  in  the  Scarborough  General 
Hospital  not  reported  until  five  days  after- 
ward? 

2.  Is  it  true  that  Mr.  Haines  was  refused 
admission  to  another  hospital  shortly  before 
his  death? 

3.  Why  is  the  coroner's  office  not  holding 
an  inquest  into  this  unusual  death? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  shall 
have  to  take  this  question  as  notice  but  I 
can  promise  an  answer,  I  am  sure,  tomorrow. 
The  question  was  only  received  in  my  office 
about  the  one  o'clock  hour  and  it  required 
some  inquiry  to  get  the  proper  answers. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  another  question  of 
the  Attorney  General,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Is  an  inquest  to  be  held  into  the  death  of 
Mrs.  Dorothy  Gertrude  Davis,  age  31,  of 
Oshawa,  who  disappeared  July  20,  1968,  and 
whose  body  was  recovered  near  Bradford  on 
August  19,  1968? 

Question  two.  If  so,  what  date  has  been 
set? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  mat- 
ter is  under  investigation  by  the  criminal 
investigation  branch  of  the  Ontario  Provincial 
Police.  Just  as  soon  as  that  investigation  is 
completed  it  will  be  reported  to  the  coroner, 
who  will  decide  then  as  to  the  need  for  an 
inquest. 


Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Minister  accept  a 
supplementary  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  Yes. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Has  not  this  investigation 
been  going  on  for  a  very  long  time  and,  if 
you  agree,  when  do  you  expect  the  results 
of  the  investigation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  am  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  cannot  be  too  specific  in  replying.  All  I 
can  say  is  that  the  investigation  is  being 
carried  on  by  the  CIB  of  the  Ontario  Pro- 
vincial Police.  I  would  expect  it  will  be 
concluded  shortly,  but  I  am  not  as  informed 
of  the  details  of  these  things  as  the  hon. 
member  seems  to  expect  that  I  might  be. 

I  cannot,  I  think,  in  a  specific  case,  be 
informed  of  all  details.  I  can  only  answer 
as  I  did. 

Investigation  of  this  is  carried  on  by  the 
criminal  investigation  branch.  Just  as  soon 
as  that  is  over,  the  ordinary  routine  will  be 
followed  of  reporting  the  whole  matter  to 
the  coroner,  who  will  make  the  decision  as 
to  the  necessity  of  an  inquest. 

Mr.  Shulman:  In  the  form  of  a  second 
supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker.  Does  the  delay 
in  the  investigation  have  anything  to  do  with 
the  body  being  found  on  the  property  of 
Mrs.  Viola  MacMillan? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wishart:  I  should  not  think  so, 
Mr.  Speaker,  but,  again,  this  will  come  out, 
I  presume,  in  the  report  of  the  criminal 
investigation   branch. 

Mr.  Shulman:   Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  may  place  his  question  to  the  Minister 
of  Highways,  who  is  next  on  the  list. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  can  the  city 
of  Toronto  close  the  Lake  Shore  Road  to 
normal  vehicular  traffic  for  brief  periods  on 
a  regular  basis  without  the  permission  of  the 
Minister? 

Hon.  G.  E.  Gomme  (Minister  of  Highways): 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  Lake  Shore  Road  is  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  municipality  of  Metro 
Toronto  and  therefore,  the  city  of  Toronto 
does  not  have  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Minister  accept  a 
supplementary  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Gomme:    Yes. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Can  Metro  close  this  road 
without  the  Minister's  permission? 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


183 


Hon.  Mr.  Gomme:  Mr.  Speaker,  Metro 
Toronto  can  close  the  Lake  Shore  Boulevard, 
under  conditions  referred  to  in  the  question, 
without  the  approval  of  the  Minister. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Trotter  (Parkdale):  Why  did 
not  the  Minister  say  that  long  ago? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough East. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  three 
questions  of  the  Minister  of  Education  (Mr. 
Davis),  one  of  which  is  fairly  urgent. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  is  now 
asking  his  question  of  the  Minister  of  High- 
ways. The  Minister  of  Education  is  not  in 
his  seat  and  the  questions  will  have  to  be 
held  over. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  A  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Highways. 

When,  if  at  all,  did  the  Minister  reply  to 
the  request  of  the  Metropolitan  Toronto 
transportation  commission  to  meet  with  the 
commission,  or  its  chairman,  to  discuss  an 
immediate  and  a  long-run  strategy  of  plan- 
ning of  Metro  and  provincial  transportation 
facilities,  especially  in  the  Metropolitan 
region? 

When,  if  at  all,  is  the  Minister  meeting 
with  the  commission  or  its  chairman  to  dis- 
cuss these  problems  and  to  insure  that  tax- 
payers' dollars  are  not  being  wasted  by  use- 
less duplication? 

Hon.  Mr.  Gomme:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
not  exactly  as  I  have  the  question. 

I  cannot  give  the  date  of  the  reply  but  I 
can  tell  you  that  I  met  with  the  chairman 
and  the  commission  on  April  30,  not  on  this 
specific  problem  which  the  member  discussed 
here. 

To  the  second  part,  what  I  have  is,  "When 
is  the  Minister  meeting  with  the  commission 
or  its  chairman  to  discuss  these  problems?" 
I  have  had  no  request  that  I  know  of  for  a 
further  meeting. 

Mr.  T.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  could  ask 
the  Minister  a  supplementary  question:  In 
the  report  in  the  Globe  and  Mail  of  Novem- 
ber 26,  1968,  there  is  an  article  entitled 
"Lack  of  data  from  province  angers  Metro". 
I  was  wondering  if  the  Minister  had  seen  this 
article  upon  which  my  questions  were  based? 

Hon.  Mr.  Gomme:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  not  seen  that. 


I  have  the  reply,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  a  ques- 
tion asked  by  the  member  for  Nipissing  (Mr. 
R.  S.  Smith)  yesterday,  which  I  would  like 
to  answer.  The  work  project  numbers  quoted 
in  the  question  under  item  1  was  advertised 
today,  November  27,  and  tenders  will  be 
opened  on  January  8,  1969. 

Mr.  Ben:  On  a  point  of  order.  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  think  you  made  a  point  not  too 
long  ago  that  the  government  should  not  be 
incensed  if  the  members  put  questions  to 
them,  but  do  not  ask  them  all  at  once.  Now, 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  members  who  ask  questions 
have  to  abide  by  the  exigencies,  and  if  the 
Minister  is  not  in  his  chair  the  question  is 
not  asked. 

Under  the  same  reasoning,  should  not  the 
Minister  wait  to  answer  a  question  until  the 
member  who  asked  it  or  who  submitted  it 
is  in  his  seat  to  ask  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  Speaker:  This  question  has  arisen 
earlier  in  the  first  session  of  this  House,  and 
at  that  time  it  was  my  opinion  that  the  mem- 
bers felt  that  the  questions  which  they  asked 
were  of  such  urgent  public  importance  that 
the  answer  should  be  made  available  at  the 
earliest  possible  moment. 

Indeed,  only  yesterday  the  hon.  member 
for  Scarborough  East  (Mr.  T.  Reid),  who 
was  going  to  be  absent,  to  make  sure  of  the 
point  dropped  me  a  note  and  asked  me  if 
I  would  have  the  answer  made  public  by 
the   Minister  in  his  absence. 

Therefore,  as  far  as  I  was  concerned,  I 
felt  that  that  might  well  be  the  situation  in 
this  case.  But  I  have  no  objection  as  far  as 
the  Chair  is  concerned  to  the  questions  being 
withheld  until  the  member  is  present  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  questions  to  be  asked 
of  a  Minister  are  held  until  he  is  present. 
So  if  it  is  the  wish  of  the  official  Opposition 
that  this  answer  be  retained  until  the  hon. 
member  for  Nipissing  is  here,  then  certainly 
I  am  sure  the  Minister  will  do  so  and  I  will 
so  rule. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  we  might 
have  the  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gomme:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

The  work  project  numbers  quoted  in  the 
question  under  item  1  was  advertised  today, 
November  27,  and  tenders  will  be  opened  on 
January  8,  1969.  This  contract  will  include 
the  4.2  miles  covered  by  the  work  project 
numbers. 

And  to  the  second  part:  It  is  covered  in  the 
first  answer. 


i 


184 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


And  to  the  third  part:  The  highway  con- 
struction programme  for  the  year  1968-69 
listed  this  work  as  being  placed  under  con- 
tract in  this  fiscal  year  and  no  reference  was 
made  in  the  programme  book  which  stated 
that  this  large  contract  would  be  completed 
in  the  fiscal  year. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside has  a  question  of  the  hon. 
Minister  of  Lands  and  Forests. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):  A 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Lands  and  Forests: 
What  action  is  the  lands  and  forests  district 
office  in  Aylmer  taking  to  ensure  that  the 
fallow  deer  on  Peche  Island  in  the  Detroit 
River  at  Windsor  are  neither  abandoned  nor 
allowed  to  escape  into  a  hostile  environment? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Lands  and 
Forests):  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Sandwich-Riverside,  fallow  deer 
are  not  native  to  Ontario  nor  do  they  survive 
in  a  wild  state. 

Just  to  make  sure  that  we  all  understand, 
fallow  deer  are  native  to  the  Mediterranean 
area,  they  are  quite  small  animals,  are  pri- 
vate property  and  are  excluded  from  the 
provisions  of  The  Game  and  Fish  Act  by- 
section  2(a)  and  a  definition  in  section  15  of 
the  Act.  The  abandonment  or  ill  treatment 
of  such  animals  would  be  an  offence  under 
Xhe  Criminal  Code.  We  have  no  knowledge 
of  their  presence  on  Peche  Island  and  the 
owners  were  under  no  obligation  to  report 
them  to  us. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
bury East  has  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Is  there 
any  reason  why  members  of  the  Legislature 
cannot  be  covered  by  workmen's  compensa- 
tion during  the  performance  of  their  duties 
as  MPPs  so  that  their  families  will  be  in 
receipt  of  survivor  benefits  in  case  of  per- 
manent disablement  or  fatal  accident? 

Hon.  D.  A.  Bales  (Minister  of  Labour):  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  answer  to  that  is  yes.  To  provide 
this  coverage  would  require  changes  in  the 
legislation. 

Mr.  Martel:  A  supplementary  question.  If 
that  is  all  that  is  necessaiy,  would  the  Min- 
ister be  so  kind  as  to  introduce  this  legis- 
lation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bales:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  while 
members  work  hard  no  doubt,  nevertheless 
I  do  not  think  we  fall  within  the   group  of 


workmen  that  the  Legislature  meant  to  assist 
by  this  Act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Oxford 
has  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Municipal 
Affairs. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Innes  (Oxford):  Mr.  Speaker, 
to  the  Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs:  Can  the 
Minister  give  an  indication  to  the  House  of 
the  approximate  cost  of  publicizing  the  tax 
rebate  programme  to  the  province  in  terms 
of  dollars  and  cents? 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  Muni- 
cipal Affairs):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  member  will 
appreciate  the  expenditures  are  by  no  means 
complete.  The  total  expenditures  for  admini- 
stration, information  and  publicity,  advertis- 
ing, to  October  31,  1968,  amounted  to 
$208,700.  Perhaps  if  I  gave  the  latest  esti- 
mated figures  to  the  end  of  March,  the  end 
of  the  fiscal  year,  it  might  be  helpful  to  the 
members.  Administration,  about  $172,000; 
advertising,  $123,000;  distribution  of  the  leaf- 
lets and  so  on,  about  another  $150,000;  for 
a  total  of  $450,000,  which  is  less  than  half 
of  what  we  originally  estimated. 

Mr.  Innes:  Would  the  Minister  accept  a 
supplementary  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Yes. 

Mr.  Innes:  Could  the  Minister  give  any 
indication  of  the  costs  of  administrating  the 
tax  rebate  in  each  municipality?  The  ad- 
ministration  costs? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Municipal  Affairs:  Does  the  city 
of  Toronto  require  the  permission  of  the 
Minister  and/or  the  Legislature  to  go  ahead 
with  the  proposed  CNE-Lakeshore  auto  race 
track? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  say  to  the  member  that— he  is  asking 
questions  in  various  parts  of  the  House  about 
this— perhaps  it  would  be  best  to  give  a 
little  bit  of  a  summary  of  what  has  gone  on. 
There  are  three  Acts  involved  administered 
by  three  different  departments,  The  Munici- 
pal Act,  The  Highway  Improvement  Act, 
and  The  Highway  Act  itself,  administered  by 
three  different  departments,  all  of  whom 
have  solicitors  of  their  own- 
Mr.  R.  Gisborn  (Hamilton  East):  I  know 
it  is  insignificant,  but  it  is  Transport. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


185 


Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  All  right.  These 
Acts  all  bear  one  way  or  another,  or  do  not 
bear  one  way  or  another.  There  have  been 
a  number  of  opinions  collected  from  depart- 
mental people,  and  within  the  last  few  days 
they  have  all  been  dumped  into  the  hands  of 
the  Attorney  General.  The  Attorney  General, 
in  due  course  I  am  sure,  will  advise  the 
various  departments  so  that  we  will  be  in  a 
position  to  answer  adequately  the  member's 
question. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Will  the  Minister  answer 
my  question  when  he  hears  from  the  Attorney 
General? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  will  be  delighted. 
There  are  other  people  asking,  too,  and  I 
will  be  delighted  to  answer  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
bury East  has  a  question  for  the  Minister  of 
Mines. 

Mr.  Martel:  Will  the  Minister  of  Mines 
instruct  the  Fecunis  Mines  immediately  to 
have  soundproof  curtains  installed  in  their 
machine  shop  to  enable  men  to  work  there 
without  having  to  seek  medical  attention 
before  they  all  succumb  to  industrial  deaf- 
ness? 

Hon.  A.  F.  Lawrence  (Minister  of  Mines): 
Mr.  Speaker,  this  matter  was  first  brought 
to  my  attention,  I  think,  last  Thursday  by 
the  hon.  member  for  Nickel  Belt  and  he 
turned  over  some  communications  and  some 
material  to  me.  We  have  transmitted  this 
to  our  field  staff  in  Sudbury— our  safety 
engineer,  our  mining  engineer— and  they  are 
investigating  the  alleged  occurrences  now.  I 
point  out  to  the  hon.  member  that  Fecunis 
Mines,  of  course,  is  geographically  located 
within  the  riding  of  Nickel  Belt.  If  the  hon. 
member  wishes  I  can  communicate  with— 

Mr.  Martel:  On  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  The  hon.  member  has 
a  point  of  order. 

Mr.   Martel:   Mr.    Speaker,   I   have   in   my 
hand  a  letter  from  the  union  in  question- 
Air.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  will  state 
his  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  coming  to  my  point  of 
order.    The— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  will  state 
his  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Minister  of  Mines  was 
making  reference  to  the  fact  that  this  ques- 
tion   which    I    raised    comes    from    a    riding 


other  than  my  own.  The  point  I  am  making 
is  that  the  headquarters  of  this  company  is 
in  my  riding  and  the  union  in  question  wrote 
me.  If  the  Speaker  would  let  me,  I  would 
quote  the  letter  in  which  they  asked  me  to 
raise  this  matter. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order!  There  is  no  question 
in  Mr.  Speaker's  mind  that  any  member  is 
entitled  to  raise  any  question  with  respect 
not  only  to  the  people  in  his  own  area  that 
he  represents,  but  any  other  area  of  public 
interest  in  Ontario. 

The  hon.  Minister  is  likewise  within  his 
rights,  as  far  as  the  chair  is  concerned,  to 
refer  to  those  others  who  had  raised  the 
same  points  with  him  when  answering  the 
question,  and  that  is  what  he  has  done.  The 
hon.   Minister  will  complete  his   statement. 

Hon.  A.  F.  Lawrence:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  debating  that  point,  nor  arguing  that 
point;  I  agree  with  the  hon.  member.  If  he 
had  not  been  quite  so  rude  he  would  have 
heard  me  say  that  because  it  is  in  the  hon. 
member's  riding  I  intend  transmitting  the 
results  of  this  report  to  him.  At  the  same 
time,  I  would  be  very  glad  to  transmit  the 
result  of  this  report  to  him,  if  he  wants  it 
that  way,  but  if  he  is  going  to  play  it  in  some 
other  way,  then  perhaps  I  had  better  ask 
the  hon.  member  for  Nickel  Belt  (Mr. 
Demers)  first  because  he  asked  me  the  ques- 
tion first. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  leaders  of  the 
government  and  official  Opposition  and  the 
third  party  might  sometime  before  noon,  if 
possible,  tomorrow,  advise  me  whether  deal- 
ing with  the  questions  in  the  manner  we 
have  done  today  or  in  the  manner  we  have 
previously  done  by  members,  is  more  satis- 
factory to  them  because  I  wish  to  proceed 
in  the  manner  which  is  best  for  the  House 
and  for  each  member  of  the  House  on  both 
sides. 

Hon.  A.  F.  Lawrence:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a 
point  of  order  I  think  it  is,  while  I  am  in 
an  argumentative  mood,  may  I  add  my 
vigorous  objection,  being  one  of  the  lowest 
men  on  the  totem  pole  on  this  side,  to  that 
procedure. 

I  am  being  very  serious,  sir,  when  I  think 
the  rights  of  the  private  members  are  being 
transgressed  by  your  ruling.  I  think  it  is  up 
to  the  private  members  of  this  House  to  ask 
what  they  want,  of  whom  they  want,  when 
they  want,  sir. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  of  procedure 
here  is  one  which  originally  caused  a  great 


186 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


deal  of  difficulty  and  a  great  deal  of  unneces- 
sary noise  and  improper  debate.  It  has  been 
running  very  well  today  and  it  also  went 
well  yesterday.  The  chair  has  made  no  ruling; 
the  chair  is  merely  requesting  to  know  which 
way  is  preferable  so  far  as  the  House  is 
concerned. 

The  hon.  member  for  Wellington-Dufferin 
has  a  point  of  order  or  a  point  of  personal 
privilege  or  an  answer  to  a  question,  I  am 
not  sure  which. 

Mr.  J.  Root  (Wellington-Dufferin):  Mr. 
Speaker,  yesterday  when  I  was  out  of  the 
House  on  water  resources  business,  a  ques- 
tion was  directed  to  the  Minister  of  Energy 
and  Resources  Management  (Mr.  Simonett) 
regarding  a  letter  that  I  signed.  He  said  that 
he  would  ask  me  to  reply  to  the  question. 
The  question  asked  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener  (Mr.  Breithaupt)  was: 

Can  the  Minister  advise  the  House  as  to 
the  cost  to  the  government  of  Ontario, 
through  the  Ontario  Water  Resources  Com- 
mission, of  the  mailing  on  August  22nd,  1968, 
of  a  news  release  regarding  the  Root  family 
reunion,  the  covering  letter  for  which  was  on 
the  letterhead  of  the  commission  over  the 
signature  of  the  vice-chairman  of  the  com- 
mission? 

The  question  is  in  two  parts.  The  second 
part  is— can  the  Minister  advise  further  how 
this  release  has  advanced  the  work  of  the 
commission? 

The  answer  to  the  first  part.  The  cost  of 
mailing  the  release— stamps,  letterheads  and 
envelopes— was  $1.30. 

The  answer  to  the  second  part  is,  I  think 
everyone  interested  in  the  work  of  the  water 
resources  commission  would  like  to  know 
something  of  the  background  of  the  people 
who  serve  the  commission.  Every  member 
of  the  Legislature  and  every  arm  of  govern- 
ment is  interested  in  public  relations.  It 
would  be  very  difficult  to  estimate  in  dollars 
and  cents  the  public  relations  impact  of  the 
news  release  that  referred  to  seven  genera- 
tions of  a  family  that  has  pioneered  in  many 
areas  of  development  in  Ontario. 

I  might  add  that  the  news  item  was  car- 
ried in  its  entirety  in  about  ten  papers  and 
many  thousands  of  people  had  the  benefit  of 
the  news  item.  What  the  benefit  to  the  water 
resources  commission  would  be,  I  am  not 
prepared  to  say. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  supplementary  question 
which  I  might  put  with  respect  to  the  infor- 


mation given  as  to  cost.  I  am  wondering 
how  many  of  these  releases  were  sent  out  to 
the  media. 

Mr.  Root:  These  released  went  to  approxi- 
mately 20  news  outlets.  I  have  20  news  out- 
lets that  I  release  news  to  and  I  am  not  sure 
even  whether  the  whole  20  were  covered. 
I  am  not  sure  whether  the  radio  and  tele- 
vision stations  were  covered— it  would  prob- 
ably be  15,  maybe  20. 

Hon.  R.  S.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary): 
Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  say  that  one  of  the 
papers  to  which  the  hon.  member  for  Well- 
ington-Dufferin has  referred  was  the  Beams- 
ville  Express  in  the  riding  of  Lincoln  because 
that  is  where  the  Root  family  started,  in  the 
county  of  Lincoln,  and  we  are  very,  very 
proud  of  this  fact. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  an  answer  for  the  hon. 
member  for  Sudbury  with  respect  to  the 
revenues  of  the  liquor  control  board  for  a 
certain  period  of  this  year. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  we  might  ascertain 
if  that  question  should  be  answered  in  the 
absence  of  the  member. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  think  we  would  be  glad  if 
he  did  so. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  will  then 
give  the  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  During  the  period  June 
26,  1968,  to  October  31,  1968,  the  total  rev- 
enue of  the  Liquor  Control  Board  of  Ontario 
amounted  to  approximately  $152,665,003.  The 
total  revenue  for  the  same  period  in  1967 
amounted  to  approximately  $110,685,000. 
These  figures,  with  respect  to  the  1968 
period,  of  course,  reflect  the  price  change  of 
January,  1968,  together  with  the  normal  in- 
crease of  sales  of  about  5  per  cent,  together 
with  other  events  referred  to  by  the  hon. 
member  in  his  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Robarts:  Before  the  orders  of 
the  day  may  I  make  one  very  brief  comment 
in  regard  to  questions.  I  think  it  used  to  be 
the  custom  here  to  ask  the  question  whether 
or  not  the  Minister  was  in  his  seat;  then  he 
answered  it  as  soon  as  he  got  into  his  seat, 
whether  the  man  who  asked  the  question  was 
in  his  seat  or  not. 

I  always  thought  that  was  a  fairly  reason- 
able sort  of  a  way  of  getting  questions  dealt 
with  expeditiously  because  then  they  were 
not  held  in  abeyance  until  it  was  possible  to 
match  a  private  member  and  a  Minister.  We 
might   think   of  reverting   to   that   particular 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


187 


routine.  Personally  I  find  the  question  period 
very  stimulating  and  very  interesting,  and 
sometimes  very  entertaining,  so  I  would  do 
nothing  to  limit  it  in  any  way. 

I  would  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to 
bring  the  hon.  members  up  to  date  on  the 
gift  Ontario  has  made  to  help  alleviate  the 
suffering  resulting  from  the  war  between  the 
Nigerians  and  Biafrans.  As  I  announced  on 
October  4,  the  government,  and  I  think  all 
members  of  this  Legislature,  are  deeply  moved 
by  the  privations  and  misery  created  by  this 
conflict.  This  was  referred  to  by  the  leader 
of  the  Opposition  yesterday  in  his  remarks. 

Accordingly,  as  a  government,  we  arranged 
to  send  a  gift  of  food  and  hospital  supplies  to 
Nigeria  as  a  humanitarian  gesture  in  the  name 
of  the  people  of  Ontario.  These  foodstuffs, 
which  will  be  distributed  by  the  Red  Cross, 
consisted  of  50,000  pounds  of  powdered  skim 
milk;  10,000  pounds  of  honey;  10,000  pounds 
of  tinned  cheese,  and  2,000  bushels  of  dried 
corn.  All  these  goods  were  drawn  from 
stocks  available  here  in  the  province. 

The  entire  gift  and  its  shipment  to  Nigeria 
was  arranged  in  close  consultation  with  Cana- 
dian Red  Cross  Society  and  with  the  federal 
government.  I  would  like  to  say  a  word  of 
thank  you  on  behalf  of  Ontario  both  to  the 
federal  government  and  to  the  Canadian  Red 
Cross  for  the  co-operation  we  received  in 
making  sure  that  our  gift  became  operative, 
so  to  speak. 

You  might  be  interested  to  know  that  Air 
Transport  Command  provided  a  plane  which 
flow  the  hospital  supplies  to  Halifax,  in  order 
that  they  could  be  put  aboard  a  ship  there. 
The  total  direct  cost  to  the  government,  for 
the  goods  and  their  shinment,  will  be  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  $20,000;  the  actual  value 
of  the  goods,  of  course,  is  considerably  higher 
than  that.  I  am  informed  that  all  these  sup- 
plies have  arrived  in  Lagos,  and  Fernando  Po. 

I  wo-uM  like  to  read  a  telegram  that  has 
been  received  from  the  Canadian  High  Com- 
missioner in  Lagos,  dated  November  14. 

Emergency  relief  supplies  Silver  Crest 
cargo.  Cargo  for  Lagos  was  transferred  offi- 
cially today  to  representatives  of  the  Inter- 
national Committee  of  the  Red  Cross,  and 
the  federal  Ministry  of  Health.  Please  ad- 
vise the  Government  of  Ontario  both  repre- 
sentatives expressed  warm  appreciation  for 
contributions  from  Ontario,  and  from  the 
Government  of  Canada. 

Small  though  this  effort  might  be  in  the  total 
sum  of  misery  caused  by  this  war,  I  thought 


you  might  be  interested  to  know  that  it  is  on 
the  spot  and  doing  what  good  it  can. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resum- 
ing the  adjourned  debate  on  the  amendment 
to  the  motion  for  an  address  and  reply  to  the 
speech  of  the  hon.  Lieutenant-Governor  at 
the  opening  of  the  session. 


SPEECH  FROM  THE  THRONE 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  economic  development  is  a  matter  of 
vital  concern  in  the  province  of  Ontario  today. 
Only  with  adequate  economic  development 
are  we  going  to  have  job  opportunities  to 
meet  our  growing  population;  are  we  going 
to  have  adequate  wealth  to  be  able  to  meet 
the  growing  services  which  our  people  are 
requesting. 

I  do  not  propose  at  the  moment  to  deal 
with  the  broader  issues  of  economic  develop- 
ment, but  rather  to  focus  on  what  I  would 
describe  as  a  rather  fundamental  aspect, 
namely  research  and  development. 

Two-thirds  of  the  scientific  knowledge  in 
the  world  today  has  been  discovered  within 
the  past  20  years.  Fully  90  per  cent  of  the 
research  scientists  since  the  beginning  of  time 
are  living  today.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  these 
two  dramatic  facts  serve  to  underline  that  for 
the  first  time  in  history,  humanity  has  entered 
an  era  of  permanent  scientific  and  industrial 
revolutions. 

Increasingly,  therefore,  research  and  devel- 
opment are  the  key  to  economic  development. 
But  Canada  lags  far  behind  other  industrial 
nations.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the  federal  indus- 
try minister  stated  a  year  or  so  ago, 

Canadian  manufacturing  industry  in  1963 
displayed  a  research  intensity  of  approxi- 
mately 1  per  cent,  which  was  equivalent  to 
research  and  development  expenditures  of 
about  one-half  cent  per  dollar  of  sales. 

By  comparison,  British  industry  spends 
three  times,  Sweden  four  times  and  the 
United  States  over  six  times  relative  to  in- 
dustrial output. 

It  would  appear  that  a  research  intensity 
for  manufacturing  industry  of  3  per  cent— 
that  is  almost  three  times  the  current  figure 
—is  required  to  bring  Canada  more  equally 
in  line  with  comparable  industrialized 
countries. 

Now  that  was  the  view  of  Mr.   Drury  who 
was  at  that  time  the  Minister  of  Industry. 


188 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Ten  years  ago,  Mr.  Speaker,  one  single  act 
of  the  federal  government,  cancellation  of  the 
Arrow  project,  cut  research  and  development 
expenditures  by  industry  by  more  than  one 
half;  from  1959  to  1960,  the  year  in  which 
that  action  was  taken,  industry's  share  of  our 
national  R  and  D  expenditure  dropped  from 
29  per  cent  to  13  per  cent. 

Despite  much  more  generous  tax  exemp- 
tions and  grants  through  the  Industrial  Re- 
search and  Development  Incentives  Act— 
(IRDIA)— industry's  share  of  R  and  D  ex- 
penditures has  never  recovered  from  that 
single  blow;  the  latest  figures  indicate  it 
amounts  to  some  24  per  cent  national  expen- 
ditures. 

I  recall  the  disastrous  consequences  of  that 
black  Friday  when  the  Arrow  project  was 
cancelled,  not  only  because  the  impact  was 
greatest  in  Ontario  (where  the  majority  of  the 
300  companies  in  the  industrial  complex 
which  sustained  it  were  situated)  but  because 
the  disaster  has  been  repeated  ten  years  later. 
One  after  another,  imaginative  scientific  proj- 
ects have  been  discarded. 

In  1966,  McGill's  high  altitude  research 
programme,  familiarly  known  as  HARP,  was 
lost  when  American  funds  were  cut  off.  A 
few  months  ago  the  federal  government 
scrapped  the  $22  million  Queen  Elizabeth 
Observatory,  out  in  British  Columbia.  A  few 
weeks  ago,  the  $155  million  intense  neutron 
generator— or  ING  as  the  project  is  popularly 
known— fell  victim  to  Ottawa's  austerity  pro- 
gramme. As  a  result,  Canada's  scientific  com- 
munity looks  to  the  future  with  a  mixture  of 
disillusionment  and  foreboding. 

There  may  be  sound  reasons,  Mr.  Speaker, 
for  the  cancellation  of  a  programme  such  as 
ING,  but  as  Dr.  W.  G.  Schneider,  president 
of  the  National  Research  Council,  has  said: 
"If  so,  the  public  has  a  right  to  know.  I 
feel,"  said  Dr.  Schneider,  "that  when  deci- 
sions of  this  kind  are  made  a  rationale  should 
be  given.  If  they  are  handled  in  this  way  it 
tends  to  destroy  morale.  Everyone  will  al- 
ways wonder  what's  going  to— whose  is  going 
to  get  the  chop  next." 

In  fact,  Canada  has  no  overall  scientific 
policy.  We  are  staggering  around  in  the  dark 
in  this  issue.  Although  the  science  council 
was  set  up  two  years  ago,  the  hon.  C.  M. 
Drury  who  is  not  only  president  of  the 
Treasury  Board,  but  chairman  of  the  Privy 
Council  committee  on  Scientific  and  Indus- 
trial Research,  stated  recently  that  the  gov- 
ernment has  not  yet  received  the  science 
council's  recommendations  for  priorities. 


There  is  an  increasingly  urgent  need  for 
the  formulation  of  a  scientific  policy  for 
Canada.  Until  the  federal  government  ends 
the  confusion  and  uncertainty,  it  is  admit- 
tedly difficult  for  Ontario  or  any  other 
province  to  decide  intelligently  what  its  sup- 
plementary programme  should  be. 

However,  the  Ontario  government  cannot 
afford  to  delay  in  clarifying  the  guidelines  of 
its  own  R  and  D  programme  simply  because 
the  federal  government  has  failed  dismally  to 
provide  a  national  context.  What  is  more,  the 
Ontario  government  need  not  delay  because 
there  is  a  growing  consensus,  first,  as  to  the 
basic  misdirection  of  past  scientific  policy, 
and  second,  where  the  future  emphasis  should 
be. 

Let  me  examine  briefly  each  of  these  in 
turn,  because  out  of  such  an  analysis  emerges 
the  guidelines  for  a  more  effective  R  and  D 
programme,  both  federal  and  provincial. 

Canada  spends  proportionately  more  on 
basic  and  applied  research,  much  less  on 
development.  The  following  comparative 
figures  reveal  the  dramatic  imbalance  in  our 
programme:  18  per  cent  of  our  research  and 
development  funds  went  to  basic  research;  42 
per  cent  went  to  applied  research;  and  only 
40  per  cent  to  development. 

By  comparison,  the  United  States  spent 
only  10  per  cent  on  basic  research;  22  per 
cent  on  applied  research  and  the  lion's  share 
of  68  per  cent  on  development.  Britain's 
figures  were  nearly  identical:  10  per  cent  on 
basic  research;  24  per  cent  on  applied  re- 
search, and  62  per  cent  on  development.  In 
short,  Canada  is  spending  more  money  to 
generate  new  technology  than  to  employ  it. 
There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  as  a 
relatively  small  country,  we  cannot  afford 
that  kind  of  a  programme.  It  is  misconceived 
in  terms  of  meeting  the  urgent  needs  of 
our  economic  development. 

Admittedly,  Mr.  Speaker,  Canada  has  an 
obligation  to  add  to  the  world's  store  of 
knowledge  and  new  technology,  but  within 
the  limitations  of  our  expenditures,  we  have 
more  than  met  our  obligations  in  this  connec- 
tion. The  need  is  for  more  applied  research, 
even  more  for  development  which  provides 
economic  developments. 

Viewed  in  this  context,  the  proposed  expen- 
diture of  some  $155  million  in  the  ING  pro- 
gramme may  well  have  been  misconceived 
from  the  very  outset.  Certainly  there  was 
sharp  controversy  in  the  scientific  world,  with 
many  people  arguing  that  this  was  too  great 
an  investment  in  a  project  that,  at  best, 
would  have  had  long  term  economic  benefits. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


189 


For  example,  writing  in  the  October  issue 
of  The  Science  Forum,  Dr.  R.  F.  Howlett, 
who  was  until  last  August  head  of  the  Na- 
tional Research  Council's  division  of  applied 
physics,  puts  the  case  this  way: 

Too  often  the  argument  in  favour  of 
a  costly  project  with  heavy  continuing  com- 
mitments is  good  science  and  excites  the 
imagination.  Too  rarely  is  there  a  case 
to  support  its  direct  relevance  to  Canada's 
future  needs,  and  a  realistic  appraisal  of 
the  probable  value  to  the  country  as  com- 
pared with  the  same  money  spent  on  some 
other  projects. 

In  short,  Mr.  Speaker,  Canada's  research  pro- 
gramme should  be  less  of  a  hobby  of  the 
scientist,  and  more  of  the  hand-maiden  of 
economic  developments. 

Dr.  Howlett  suggests  that  the  broad  lines 
of  scientific  policy  should  be  worked  out  in 
collaboration  with  Economic  Council  of  Can- 
ada. Now  this  persuasive  line  of  argument, 
bolstered  by  the  statistics  indicating  the 
severe  imbalance  in  our  research  and  devel- 
opment expenditures,  points  clearly  to  the 
need  for  a  much  heavier  emphasis  on  devel- 
opment. This  is  not  a  plea  for  forsaking  pure 
research,  but  for  a  more  judicious  choice  of 
projects,  from  which  the  spin-off  to  the 
economy  would  be  greater  and  more  im- 
mediate. 

Dr.  O.  M.  Solandt,  chairman  of  the  Science 
Council  of  Canada,  has  suggested  pro- 
grammes to  be  undertaken  in  the  fields  of 
space  research,  transportation,  water  re- 
sources, computer  application  and  technology 
and  northern  resources,  and  one  which  I 
must  confess,  captures  my  imagination, 
namely  human  ecology,  especially  as  it  refers 
to   life   in  urban  environment. 

These  are  the  general  lines  along  which  a 
national  scientific  policy  should  be  formu- 
lated. In  my  view,  the  Ontario  government 
should  exert  every  conceivable  pressure  for 
such  a  formulation   and   clear  statement. 

Meanwhile,  to  the  considerable  extent  that 
we  are  free  to  shape  our  own  research  and 
the  development  programme,  we  should  seek 
to  achieve,  not  only  its  expansion  through 
private  as  well  as  public  funds  but  with  that 
balance  of  expenditure,  which  will  do  more 
than  any  other  single  thing  to  assure  the 
necessary  economic  development,  to  provide 
new  jobs  and  let  those  below  the  poverty  line 
share  in  our  rising  standards  of  living. 

Lest  anyone  think  that  I  exaggerate  the 
importance  of  a  research  and  development 
programme,  let  me  remind  the  hon.  mem- 
bers that  leading  economists  have  shown  that 


technological  change  has  been  a  major  factor 
in  the  great  increase  in  output  per  unit  of 
labour  and  capital  that  has  taken  place  in 
most  industrialized  countries  in  this  century. 
It  is  now  convincingly  documented  that  only 
about  20  per  cent  of  the  gain  in  labour  pro- 
ductivity has  come  from  the  more  intensive 
use  of  capital.  About  80  per  cent  has  come 
from  the  use  of  new  technologies  and  the 
greater  competence  of  workers  and  managers. 

In  a  growing  proportion  of  our  industry 
today,  survival  in  the  rat  race  of  the  modern 
markets  stems  directly  from  the  innovation 
which  research  and  development  programmes 
assure.  Not  only  do  such  programmes  speed 
up  the  pace  of  scientific  discovery,  but  they 
shorten  the  gap  between  the  laboratory  and 
the  production  line.  This  is  the  fundamental 
mark  of  a  modern  economy.  The  U.S.  chemi- 
cal industry,  for  example,  now  considers  it 
normal  that  half  its  business  is  based  on 
products  that  did  not  exist  only  ten  years 
ago. 

Now  let  me  narrow  the  focus  of  my  con- 
siderations more  strictly,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the 
province  of  Ontario.  From  the  point  of  view 
of  economic  development,  the  important 
thing  is  not  only  that  the  total  amount  of 
research  and  development  be  adequate,  but 
also  that  it  be  spent  for  the  right  purposes. 

Professor  P.  M.  S.  Blackett,  president  of 
the  Royal  Society  of  Great  Britain,  argued 
two  years  ago  that  only  the  U.S.A.  can  re- 
main nearly  self-sufficient  in  technology— 
that  certainly  Britain  cannot.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  for  countries  like  Britain  to 
achieve  rapid  economic  growth,  it  is  impor- 
tant to  use  qualified  scientists  and  engineers 
to  apply  existing  scientific  and  technical 
knowledge  and  know-how  to  produce  more 
competitive  products,  rather  than  to  create 
new  knowledge. 

If  that  be  true  of  Britain,  it  is  certainly  true 
of  the  province  of  Ontario.  In  fact,  a  recent 
report  of  the  Science  Council  of  Canada  em- 
phasized this  very  point.  A  major  failing  of 
Canadian  science  in  the  past,  it  stated,  has 
been  that  it  performed  too  much  basic  re- 
search remote  from  the  training  of  new 
scientists  and  too  much  applied  research  far 
from  the  point  of  innovation.  The  report 
added  that  there  has  been  a  tendency  to  fail 
to  carry  through  work  from  research  and 
development  to  production  and  use. 

With  this  emphasis  in  mind,  there  are 
three  aspects  of  our  R  and  D  programme  on 
which  I  would  like  to  comment  briefly.  They 
are  key  to  the  formulation  of  guidelines  for 
expanding     Ontario's    programme— something 


190 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


to    which   I   intend   to    return    later   in    this 
session. 

The  first  is  a  new  development— the  estab- 
lishment of  industrial  research  institutes  in 
three  of  Ontario's  universities— Waterloo, 
Windsor  and  McMaster— through  grants  by 
the  federal  Department  of  Industry.  These 
research  institutes  are  designed  to  use  the 
best  local  resources  of  a  given  area  and  bring 
to  them  the  scientific  backing  which  is  most 
likely  to  contribute  to  its  economy.  Such  a 
close  relationship  of  the  university  with 
industry  will  inevitably  result  in  the  desired 
emphasis  on  applied  research  and  develop- 
ment. 

There  are  dangers,  Mr.  Speaker,  involved 
in  such  research  institutes,  either  through 
injury  to  the  basic  work  of  the  university  or 
through  an  unfair  competition  with  the  On- 
tario Research  Foundation  for  the  limited 
R  and  D  dollars.  These  dangers,  once  again, 
I  would  like  to  explore  during  consideration 
of  the  estimates  later  this  year.  But,  on 
balance,  it  is  my  view  that  these  research 
institutes  are  new  and  important  develop- 
ments—so much  so  that  if  they  prove  suc- 
cessful, there  is  a  regional  need,  an  urgent 
regional  need,  for  their  extension  to  the 
Lakehead,  to  the  Laurentian  University  area 
in  the  Sudbury  basin  and  to  some  centre  in 
eastern  Ontario.  Either  through  extending 
the  federal  programme  or,  if  the  federal 
government  will  not— through  supplementing 
it  by  a  provincial  programme. 

Secondly,  so  important  is  the  basic  role 
of  research  and  development,  and  so  hesi- 
tant has  the  Canadian  industry  been  in 
initiating  its  own  research,  that  there  is  a 
legitimate  role  for  the  expansion  of  govern- 
ment programmes.  The  tendency  in  Canada 
has  been  to  concentrate  an  undue  amount  of 
research  in  government  laboratories,  thereby 
discouraging  industry  from  starting  or  ex- 
panding its  own  research  facilities.  For 
example,  in  the  United  States,  government 
laboratories  use  only  15  per  cent  of  their 
national  research  and  development  funds; 
in  the  United  Kingdom  26  per  cent;  in 
Canada  the  figure  is  36  per  cent.  This  tends 
to  reduce  the  likelihood  of  economic  returns, 
because  the  research  is  not  closely  enough 
related  to  possible  economic  production  and 
returns. 

How  can  the  provincial  government  play 
a  role  in  shifting  the  emphasis  to  applied 
research  and  development?  There  may  be 
many  answers  and  many  views  on  this,  but 
my  own  impression  is  that  this  might  best 
be  achieved  through  an  expansion  of  the  work 


of  the  Ontario  Research  Foundation.  It  is  a 
highly  respected  organization,  in  close  touch 
with  industry.  At  the  moment  the  province 
matches,  dollar  for  dollar,  the  revenue  which 
ORF  receives  from  the  industry  through  its 
contract  research.  It  would  seem  to  me 
advisable  to  expand  any  R  and  D  programme 
through  the  established  machinery  of  the 
ORF,  with  an  even  greater  emphasis  on  en- 
couraging the  development  of  private  indus- 
trial research  facilities  within  the  industry. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  find  it  exciting  to 
contemplate  the  possibilities  of  developing  in 
Ontario  the  kind  of  close  working  relation- 
ship between  universities  and  industry  which 
has  resulted  in  such  a  phenomenal  economic 
growth  in  New  England,  or  in  Texas,  or  in 
California.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  have  all 
the  ingredients  for  this  kind  of  development 
here  in  the  province  of  Ontario— in  the  Sheri- 
dan Park  complex  with  the  Ontario  Research 
Foundation  intimately  tied  in  with  it;  in  the 
close  relationship  which  such  research  facili- 
ties should  be  able  to  establish  with  so  many 
of  our  established  universities  which  are 
geographically  near  at  hand;  and  on  the 
research  institutes,  which  have  now  been 
established   in  three   Ontario  universities. 

The  very  fact  that  these  facilities  are  not 
all  concentrated  in  one  place  could  result  in 
a  desirable  decentralization  of  industrial 
development,  thereby  assisting  in  a  more 
effective  regional  development,  an  objective 
that  we  all  pay  lip  service  to,  but  which  gets 
fulfilled  only  to  a  painfully  small  degree. 
Certainly  this  combination  of  management 
know-how,  university  brains,  and  research 
finance  by  private  and  public  funds,  is  the 
key  to  dynamic,  economic  development,  so 
much  so,  that  Jean-Jacques  Servan-Schreiber, 
in  his  recent  book,  the  "American  Challenge", 
warns  that  it  is  resulting  in  a  virtual  take- 
over of  the  European  Common  Market  by 
U.S.A.  interests. 

It  surely  represents  the  key  to  the  kind  of 
economic  development  which  Ontario  must 
have  to  provide  the  job  opportunities  for  its 
growing  population  and  the  expanded  wealth 
to  meet  our  growing  needs  in  this  province. 

Maintenant,  M.  l'Orateur,  pendant  le  mois 
d'octobre,  j'ai  passe  deux  semaines  a  suivre 
un  cours  d'immersion  totale  dans  le  frangais. 
Je  veux  faire  rapport  a  l'Assemblee  que 
c'etait  une  experience  des  plus  satisfaisantes. 
Je  suis  convaincu  que  pour  celui  qui  est 
interese,  et  qui  a  quelques  facilites  pour 
les  langues,  le  bilinguisme  est  un  but  now 
seulement  realisable  mais  franchement  exci- 
tant. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


191 


An  cas  ou  il  y  en  aura  ceux  qui  pensent 
que  le  cours  n'est  qu'une  rigolade,  permettez- 
moi  de  vous  desabuser.  Nous  etions  debout 
avant  sept  heures  chaque  matin  pour  dejeuner 
a  sept  heures  quinze.  Les  cours  debutaient 
a  huit  heures  et  continuaient  jusqu'a  onze 
heures  trente.  Les  cours  reprenaient  a  deux 
heures  et  se  poursuivaient  jusqu'a  cinq 
heures.  Le  soir,  encore  trois  heures  de  cours 
— de  sept  heures  trente  jusqu'a  dix  heures 
trente. 

Pendant  les  repas  et  les  periodes  de  recre- 
ation, nous  causions  en  francais.  Enfin,  dans 
les  quelques  instants  qui  nous  restaient  avant 
le  coucher  on  nous  obligeait  de  lire  quelques 
chapitres  du  "Compte  de  Monte  Cristo",  et 
d'en  faire  un  r6sume  ccrit  en  frangais. 

En  somme,  M.  l'Orateur,  c'etait  une  baig- 
nade  sans  merci  dans  le  francais.  Comme 
disait  un  de  nos  instituteurs  avec  beaucoup 
d'a  propos,  c'etait  un  lavage  de  cerveau  en 
regie. 

Toutefois,  gardons-nous  d'exagerer:  pen- 
dant les  classes  ici  a  Queen's  Park,  nous  avons 
complete  huit  a  dix  lecons.  A  la  fin  de  la 
baignade  nous  en  avions  complete   quinze. 

Le  cours  complet  comprend  trente-deux 
lecons.  Done  pour  ceux  d'entre  nous  qui  ont 
pratique  l'immersion  totale,  nous  sommes  tout 
juste  qu'a  mi-chemin.  Ne  demandez  pas  de 
nous  d'etre  parfaits  bilingues— pas  si  tot! 

Mon  experience  personnelle  mise  a  part, 
je  suis  devenu  encore  plus  interesse  dans  tout 
le  probleme  de  l'enseignement  des  langues. 
Aujourd'hui,  en  Ontario,  il  y  a  des  milliers 
de  nouveaux  Canadiens  qui  prennent  des 
cours  d'anglais  pour  maitriser  la  langue  du 
monde  du  travail.  Je  me  suis  demande 
jusqu'a  quel  point  nous  nous  servons  de  ces 
nouvelles  methodes,  et  si  l'approche  generale 
etait  toujours  l'etude  plutot  morne  et  vieux 
jeu  de  la  grammaire— la  methode  qui  s'est 
montree  si  peu  efficace  pour  developper  la 
maitrise  d'une  langue. 

Apres  enquete,  je  me  rends  compte  que 
l'Ontario,  fort  heureusement,  s'est  acquis  en 
1963  un  comite  des  langues  modernes  qui 
est  a  la  fois  actif  et  clairvoyant.  Ce  comite 
opere  sous  les  auspices  de  l'lnstitut  Ontarien 
des  Programmes  d'etudes. 

Depuis  1966,  ce  travail  est  continue  par 
l'entremise  du  centre  des  langues  modernes 
qui  fait  parti  de  l'linstitut  Ontarien  pour  les 
Etudes  en  Education.  Celui-ci  est  le  seul 
institut  au  Canada  anglais  qui  a  comme  tache 
l'etude  des  langues.  II  est  a  esperer  qu'a  par- 
tir  de  ses  efforts,  le  Canada  pourra  realiser 
da  vantage  son  heritage  linquistique. 

De  plus,  on  m'informe  que  les  cours  d'an- 


glais offerts  par  la  section  de  la  citoyennete 
aux  nouveaux  Canadiens  se  servent  de  ces 
nouvelles  methodes.  Done,  nous  pouvons 
esperer  que  les  methodes  actuelles  auront 
comme  resultat  un  bilinguisme  plus  pousse 
que  fut  le  cas  pendant  l'epoque  du  "high 
school  French"  auquel  la  plupart  d'entre  nous 
fut  expose. 

Ceci  m'amene  directement  au  sujet  de 
prime  importance:  celui  des  efforts  de  l'On- 
tario a  devenir  une  province  bilingue  et  ainsi 
soulager  les  tensions  qui  menacent  de  faire 
sauter  la  Confederation. 

Ce  gouvernement  a  fait  sien  le  but  trace 
dans  le  rapport  de  la  Commission  Royale  sur 
le  Bilinguisme  et  le  Biculturalisme.  II  y  a 
bientot  un  an,  le  premier  ministre  annoncait 
la  creation  de  quatre  groupes  de  travail:  un 
pour  faire  enquete  sur  l'a  propos  de  mettre 
en  vigueur  les  recommandations  concernant 
l'administration  de  la  justice;  un  deuxieme  sur 
l'Assemblee  et  les  statuts  provinciaux;  un  troi- 
sieme  sur  l'administration  municipale;  et  un 
quatrieme  sur  la  fonction  publique  provin- 
cial. 

On  m'informe  que  ces  groupes  de  travail 
ont  tous  acheve  leurs  taches  et  que  leurs  rap- 
ports se  trouvent  maintenant  aux  mains  du 
gouvernement.  Je  demande  au  premier  mi- 
nistre quand  il  a  l'intention  de  remettre  ces 
rapports  a  cette  Chambre,  et  ce  que  le  gou- 
vernement envisage  a  faire  a  la  lumiere  de 
leurs  recommandations. 

Evidemment,  ces  etudes  sont  d'une  impor- 
tance fondamentale  quant  a  toute  action  a 
entreprendre  en  vue  de  la  formation  de  dis- 
tricts bilingues  tels  qu'envisages  par  le  rap- 
port Laurendeau-Dunton  pour  toute  region 
ou  la  population  d'expression  francaise  com- 
porte  10  pour  cent  ou  davantage  du  total. 
Deja,  le  gouvernement  federal  a  presente  son 
projet  de  Loi  concernant  le  Statut  des  Lan- 
gues OfBcielles  du  Canada.  Cette  loi  forme  le 
cadre  dans  lequel  pourrons  agir  les  provinces. 

Je  formule  l'espoir  que  le  gouvernement 
procedera  pendant  cette  session  a  la  realisa- 
tion de  cette  recommandation  —  clef  de  la 
commission  Laurendeau-Dunton.  Pour  que  le 
Canada  devienne  pays  bilingue,  l'Ontario  doit 
prendre  la  tete. 

Je  ne  peux  faire  mieux  que  de  citer  brieve- 
ment  Monsieur  Vincent  Prince  du  Devoir. 
Voici  l'extrait  d'un  editorial  du  8  decembre, 
1967  intitule  "Les  districts  bilingues,  pierre 
angulaire  et  pierre  de  touche  du  rapport 
Laurendeau".   Je  cite: 

Nous  croyons  que  les   commissaires   ont 
raison  de  parler  de  "pierre  angulaire".    Ce 


192 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


sont  des  districts,  en  effet,  qui  viendront 
donner  un  sens  pratique  et  concret  a  toutes 
les  autres  recommandations.  C'est  par  eux 
que,  territorialement,  les  deux  groupes  lin- 
guistiques  atteindront  vraiment  a  un  cer- 
tain statut  d'egalite  meme  en  dehors  du 
Quebec. 

Les  francophones  qui  vivront  dans  ces 
districts  officiellement  consideres  comme 
bilingues  continueront,  certes,  a  subir  une 
grande  partie  des  inconvenients  inherents  a 
leur  etat  de  minoritaires,  mais,  au  plan  de 
leurs  relations  avec  l'autorite  telle  qu'elle 
s'incarne  dans  leur  petit  coin  de  la  patrie, 
ils  n'auraient  plus  cette  penible  impression 
de  se  trouver  completement  en  pays  etran- 
ger. 

II  y  aura  desormais,  en  d'autres  termes, 
d'importants  ilots  a  travers  le  pays  ou  le 
caractere  bilingue  du  Canada  pourra  se  re- 
fleter.  II  sera  possible  de  sortir  du  "ghetto" 
quebecois  sans  tomber  necessairement  en 
territoire  unilingue  anglais. 

Mais  nous  dirions  que  la  creation  de  ces 
districts  ne  sera  pas  que  la  pierre  angulaire 
de  la  reforme  d'ensemble  suggeree  par  la 
commission  royale  d'enquete.  II  en  sera 
aussi  la  pierre  de  touche.  Le  refus  ou 
l'acceptation  d'un  semblable  projet  par  les 
autorites  federates  ou  provinciales  permet- 
tra,  en  effet,  de  nous  fixer  une  fois  pour 
toutes  sur  la  bonne  ou  la  mauvaise  volonte 
du  Canada  anglais,  s'il  y  a  de  la  bonne  vo- 
lonte, bien  des  espoirs  restent  permis;  par 
contre,  si  la  mauvaise  volonte  devient  mani- 
festo, il  y  aurait  plus  lieu  de  trop  miser  sur 
l'avenir  de  la  confederation. 

Le  peuple  ontarien  est  en  tres  grande  majo- 
rity engage  a  outrance  a  la  preservation  et  a 
la  consolidation  de  la  confederation. 

Je  suis  d'avis  que  Monsieur  Vincent  Prince 
n'exagere  point  l'importance  des  districts  bi- 
lingues pour  atteindre  ce  but. 

Pour  cette  raison  je  presse  le  gouvernement 
a  proceder  a  leur  realisation  avec  toute  hate 
possible.  Le  gouvernement  est  assure  d'a- 
vance  de  l'appui  non  equivoque  du  Nouveau 
Parti  Democratique. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  returning  to  the  lan- 
guage in  which  we  will  be  more  efficient, 
may  I  say  that  I  want  now  to  turn  to  what  is 
undoubtedly  the  major  question  before  this 
session  of  the  Legislature— that  of  taxes,  tax 
reforms,  and  the  related  question  of  new 
fiscal  agreements  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment for  sharing  of  the  tax  dollar. 

Before  I  begin,  may  I  say  that  I  was  most 
interested  in  the  comments  by  the  leader  of 


the  Opposition  in  this  connection.  In  the  first 
of  his  comments,  for  what  appears  to  me  to 
be  the  first  time  there  was  a  frank  assertion 
that  there  was  need  for  some  renegotiation  of 
the  tax  base  with  the  federal  government,  as 
well  as  some  protests  with  regard  to  the  fed- 
eral government's  unilateral  decision  not  to 
share  die  new  social  development  tax. 

In  essence,  the  Liberal  Party's  position  is 
that  Ottawa  is  too  rigid!  But  there  is  no  in- 
dication really  as  to  how  Ottawa's  rigidity 
should  be  eased,  that  basic  rigidity  that  has 
been  going  on  for  two  years. 

The  interjection  of  the  leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition indicates  that  he  is  only  referring  to 
what  happened  in  the  last  month  or  two,  in- 
stead of  the  two  years  of  adamant  stand  with 
regard  to  the  federal  government. 

But  he  has  also  said,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
Ontario  is  too  rigid,  that  we  might  as  well 
accept  from  Ottawa  what  Ottawa  is  offering. 
After  all,  they  made  this  assertion  two  years 
ago  and  they  have  not  changed,  so,  in  effect, 
why  continue  to  argue  with  Ottawa. 

Now,  that  is  all  very  fine,  but  then  he 
comes  back  and  says,  without  any  specific 
delineation  of  the  programme,  that  this  gov- 
ernment obviously  has  to  cut  back  in  many 
ways.  That  is  the  main  preoccupation  of  the 
Liberal  government,  a  preoccupation  that 
should  not  be  ignored.  But  I  suggest  it  is  not 
the  whole  issue.  If  there  is  going  to  be  a  cut- 
back, we  must  know  where  the  cutback  is 
going  to  be  in  terms  of  services.  I  venture  a 
prediction— and  perhaps  this  is  where  a  poli- 
tician should  not  stick  his  neck  out— but  after 
listening  to  this  government  last  year  talk 
about  all  the  savings  that  must  be  made  in 
cutting  to  the  bone,  we  finally  got  a  budget 
in  this  province  which  was  for  $486  million 
larger— the  largest  single  increase  of  any  year 
in  Ontario's  history. 

I  venture  the  prediction  that  in  spite  of  all 
the  gloom  and  doom,  in  spite  of  all  the  talk, 
that  we  are  going  to  cut  back,  that  we  are 
cutting  to  the  bone,  when  the  budget  comes 
clown,  it  is  going  to  be  significantly  larger 
than  it  was  last  year. 

But  the  most  important  thing  is  that  there 
is  no  suggestion— certainly  no  suggestion, 
other  than  by  implication— no  suggestion  in 
detail  from  the  Liberal  party  as  to  the  basic 
need  that  has  got  to  be  tackled,  namely,  the 
reform  of  our  tax  structure. 

What  the  Liberal  Party  is  asking  this  gov- 
ernment to  do  is  to  seek  some  alteration  in 
the  division  in  the  present  inequitable  tax 
structure— the  present  inequitable  tax   dollar. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


193 


No  real  consideration  of  tackling  the  Carter 
commission  in  its  recommendations— no  real 
consideration  back  in  the  province  of  Ontario 
of  tax  reform. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  my  view  that  makes  a 
mockery  of  the  kind  of  society  we  are 
attempting  to  build  in  this  nation,  either  at 
the  national  or  provincial  level— what  is  re- 
ferred to  as  a  just  society. 

Taxes  are  certainly  the  most  topical  issue 
today.  Little  wonder  when  you  look  at  recent 
developments.  Rising  property  taxes  have  hit 
almost  everyone.  Earlier  this  year  we  all  felt 
the  provincial  hikes  in  the  gasoline  and  the 
tobacco  taxes,  motor  vehicle  licenses,  hospital 
md  medicare  premiums,  and  fishing  and  hunt- 
ing licenses.  Ottawa's  new  social  development 
tax  has  now  been  added  to  the  personal  in- 
come surcharge  which  went  into  effect  last 
January  1,  and  to  the  federal  liquor,  beer  and 
tobacco  taxes  brought  in  a  month  earlier. 

Never  in  our  history  has  there  been  such  a 
rapid-fire  attack  on  our  personal  pockets. 
Naturally,  it  has  aroused  deep  concern,  par- 
ticularly when  it  is  coincident  with  a  rise  in 
living  costs  at  double  the  rate  of  the  previous 
decade.  Loud  noises  from  government  spokes- 
men at  both  Queen's  Park  and  Ottawa  warn 
us  that  we  have  not  seen  anything  yet,  so  the 
issue  becomes  of  even  greater  importance 
than  the  current  scene  seems  to  suggest. 

A  situation  such  as  this  prompts  one  to  ask 
whether  the  Liberals  in  Ottawa,  or  the  Con- 
servatives here  at  Queen's  Park,  know  what 
they  are  doing  in  the  tax  field.  Have  they  a 
tax  philosophy?  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  once 
said:  "With  taxes  I  buy  civilization."  We  all 
know  that  nothing  in  this  world  is  free,  and 
the  public  programmes  must  be  paid  for 
through  taxes. 

We  also  recognize  that  an  increasing  num- 
ber of  our  wants  can  bs  met  only  through 
community  action.  You  cannot  buy  a  yard  of 
clean  air  at  the  department  store,  or  a  mile 
of  super  highway  as  an  extra  with  your  car. 
But  if  we  are  going  to  finance  more  things 
collectively  through  taxes,  we  must  be  abso- 
lutely sure  that  they  are  imposed  in  the  fair- 
est possible  way. 

Several  years  ago,  John  Kenneth  Galbraith 
warned  us  that  we  face  a  superabundance  of 
private  goods,  but  a  famine  in  public  goods. 
The  truth  of  his  statement  is  self-evident 
today.  Our  stores  are  jammed  with  every 
kind  of  electrical  gadgets  and  toys  for  Christ- 
mas shoppers,  but  we  have  not  enough  serv- 
iced land  to  keep  the  price  of  lots  at  reason- 
able levels  for  prospective  home  owners. 


We  have  not  sufficient  space  in  our  com- 
munity colleges  for  the  2,300  applicants  who 
were  turned  away  this  year.  We  have  not 
enough  government  funds,  through  rehabili- 
tation and  counselling,  which  might  end  the 
poverty  syndrome,  that  condemns  generation 
;ifter  generation  to  a  life  of  welfare  and 
deprivation. 

Galbraith  pointed  out  that  with  this  kind 
of  distortion,  in  our  allocating  our  resources, 
none  of  us  enjoys  the  good  life  to  the  full. 

The  enjoyment  of  having  a  car  is  seriously 
reduced  on  highways  that  are  congested  and 
dangerous.  The  satisfaction  of  owning  a  sum- 
mer cottage  is  a  much  less  if  there  is  no 
unpolluted  lake  to  swim  in.  But  this  brings 
us  face  to  face,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  the 
dilemma  of  our  day. 

When  you  offer  people  a  choice  between 
doing  without  public  goods— which  are  essen- 
tial to  their  well-being— or  an  increasing  tax 
to  finance  them,  many  prefer  to  do  without 
the  public  goods  because  they  simply  cannot 
afford  them.  And  they  are  dead  right  in  that 
conclusion! 

The  couple  between  66  and  70  years  of 
age,  for  example,  living  on  an  old  age  pen- 
sion, even  with  a  supplement,  have  only 
$2,570  income.  They  just  cannot  afford  $47.40 
that  they  now  must  pay  in  income  tax,  nor 
can  they  afford  the  5  per  cent  provincial  sales 
tax  and  the  hidden  federal  sales  tax,  which 
they  pay  on  almost  all  of  the  goods  they 
purchase,  except  food. 

The  person  on  fixed  income  cannot  absorb 
the  increase  in  his  property  taxes  every  year. 
Nor  can  the  190,000  workers  on  minimum 
wages  afford  any  more  taxes,  because  even 
the  new  minimum  wage  income  levels  rep- 
resent only  $2,704  a  year,  if  they  are  lucky 
enough  to  work  40  hours  a  week.  Such 
minimum  wage  levels  simply  establish  and 
condone  a  pocket  of  poverty  which  stretches 
all  across  the  province  of  Ontario. 

Even  less  can  these  groups,  and  many 
others,  afford  an  increase  in  the  sales  tax, 
or  an  extension  of  the  sales  tax  to  food,  car 
repairs  or  hair  cuts.  A  tax  system  which 
imposes  heavier  burdens  on  people  such  as 
these  is  grossly  inequitable.  They  are  carry- 
ing more  than  their  fair  share  of  the  burden 
right  now.  But  there  are  groups  which  can 
afford  to  pay  more  to  ensure  that  they  them- 
selves, or  society  as  a  whole,  are  not  starved 
of  public  goods. 

The  person  who  makes  a  capital  gain  on 
the  stock  market  has  more  money  in  his 
pocket  than  his  neighbour.  The  land  specu- 
lator  who    reaps    a    windfall    gain    from   the 


194 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


growth  of  a  community  has  an  unearned 
profit  financed  out  of  the  taxes  paid  by 
everybody.  The  person,  or  company,  able  to 
take  advantage  of  the  present  income  tax 
loopholes  is  holding  privileged  dollars  which 
are  taxed  more  lightly  than  those  in  the 
pockets  of  the  ordinary  wage  earners. 

We  must,  and  we  can,  afford  more  public 
goods  if  we  are  going  to  meet  the  problems 
of  urbanization  and  break  the  stalemate 
which  is  leading  to  the  civil  unrest  every- 
where. But  we  can  afford  them  only  if  we 
finance  them  by  fair  share  taxes  based  on 
the  ability  to  pay.  This  will  require  a  re- 
structuring of  our  entire  tax  system  at  all 
three  levels  of  government,  but  the  present 
shrill  dialogue  between  the  Tories  here  and 
the  Liberals  in  Ottawa  and  our  municipal 
representatives  has  degenerated  into  an  aim- 
less squabbling  which  offers  no  hope  of  satis- 
fying the  needs  of  the  people  they  claim  to 
represent. 

In  short,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  what  we 
have  got  to  do  first  is  take  a  look  at  what 
are  the  features  of  an  equitable  tax  struc- 
ture. I  want  to  deal  with  that  now  in  terms 
of  the  distinctive  features  of  a  New  Demo- 
cratic tax  system. 

1.  The  first  principle  would  be  basic 
equity,  with  every  citizen  being  called  upon 
to  assume  his  fair  share— no  more,  no  less— 
of  the  total  burden.  People  in  like  circum- 
stances would  be  treated  equally. 

2.  No  type  of  income  should  go  untaxed. 

3.  It  should  effect  a  significant  redistribu- 
tion of  income  and  wealth  with  our  objec- 
tive being  equality  of  condition  rather  than 
merely  of  opportunity. 

4.  It  should,  of  course,  be  based  on  ability 
to  pay,  with  rate  schedules  even  more  pro- 
gressive. 

5.  The  tax  system  should  be  regarded  as 
a  major  instrument  in  planning  economic 
growth  and   assuring  full  employment. 

6.  It  must  reflect  increasing  emphasis  on 
channelling  corporate  surpluses,  which  are 
the  major  pool  of  investment  capital,  in 
greater  measure  toward  major  public  projects. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  to  this  House 
that  you  can  get  a  picture  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic tax  system  if  you  study  the  20  dissents 
that  were  made  by  the  New  Democratic 
members  who  sat  on  the  select  committee 
which  studied  the  Smith  committee  recom- 
mendations. 

In  essence  they  demanded  "a  reshaping  of 
the  Ontario  tax  structure  to  make  it  a  truly 
dynamic  and  progressive  tax  system". 


Such  a  tax  system  will  rely  primarily  on 
those  sources  which  are  most  equitable  and 
whose  yield  is  most  elastic— sources  like  the 
income  tax  and  transfers  of  wealth  between 
generations,  all  of  which  produce  increases 
in  revenue  at  a  faster  rate  than  the  provin- 
cial products  grow.  This  occurs  because  such 
taxes  are  generally  levied  with  progressive 
rate  schedules. 

But  even  these  taxes  will  be  equitable, 
and  will  yield  their  true  potential,  only  if 
all  income  and  wealth  is  included  in  the  tax 
base.  As  the  Carter  commission  pointed  out, 
our  present  taxes  in  these  fields  are  like  a 
sieve  through  which  many  dollars  escape,  or 
are  taxed  too  lightly.  Such  things  as  capital 
gains,  stock  options,  resources  industry  profits 
and  insurance  investment  income  make  up 
the  $5  billion  which  is  not  carrying  its  proper 
share  of  the  collective  costs  of  our  society. 

Broadening  the  tax  base  and  closing  these 
loopholes  to  catch  exempt  income  dollars 
will  produce  a  substantial  increase  in  revenue 
for  both  the  federal  and  provincial  govern- 
ments, without  any  increase  in  the  present 
tax  rates,  or  any  additional  burden  on  the 
ordinary  wage  earner  or  pensioner. 

I  ask  this  question:  have  we  ever  heard 
the  Prime  Minister  (Mr.  Robarts)  of  this 
province,  or  the  Provincial  Treasurer  (Mr. 
MacNaughton),  advocating  such  a  reform? 
Have  the  Liberals  mentioned  this  source  of 
revenue?  Their  joint  silence  on  this  topic  is 
deafening.  Ottawa's  virtual  rejection  of  the 
Carter  report,  and  Mr.  Trudeau's  spurning 
of  a  capital  gains  tax  during  the  election 
campaign,  indicates  little  prospect  for  a 
broadened  tax  base.  Instead,  the  federal 
Liberals  put  their  new  taxes  on  these  least 
able  to  pay. 

Most  economists  reject  complete  reliance 
on  income  tax  alone  for  all  revenue  needs 
and  they  recommend  instead  a  carefully 
balanced  mix  of  taxes  on  income,  wealth  and 
consumption.  This  ensures  that  no  form  of 
activity  escapes  tax;  that  visitors  and  non- 
resident companies  pay  a  share,  and  that 
rates  do  not  get  out  of  line  with  those  in 
neighbouring  jurisdictions  or  cause  psycho- 
logical blocks  to  certain  kinds  of  economic 
activity. 

In  our  opinion,  the  ideal  tax  is  one  which 
places  most  stress  on  reformed  and  broadened 
income  and  wealth  taxes,  and  de-emphasizes 
property  taxes,  sales  taxes,  flat  rate  premiums 
and  other  regressive  forms  of  taxation. 

Furthermore,  in  all  its  levies  the  ideal  tax 
mix  includes  relieving  clauses  which  lift  the 
burden    of    taxation    from    the    low    income 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


195 


groups,  who  really  have  no  surplus  after  they 
have  provided  for  their  food,  clothing  and 
shelter  needs.  These  groups  may  even  be 
entitled  to  a  negative  tax  which  would  return 
to  them  some  of  the  collective  contributions 
from  other  groups  which  are  fortunate 
enough  to  have  more  bargaining  power  in 
the  market  place. 

You  can  call  this  principle  a  negative  in- 
come tax,  or  a  guaranteed  annual  income,  or 
whatever  term  you  wish.  If  it  is  m~re  than 
a  refund  of  over-taxation  it  recognizes  our 
fiscal  system  must  include  redistribution  as 
one  of  its  elements,  to  compensate  for  the 
imperfections  of  the  market  system. 

The  New  Democratic  Party  tax  mix  will 
not,  I  assure  you,  follow  the  present  Tory 
trend  of  reducing  the  proportion  of  revenue 
derived  from  corporate  income— something 
which  has  been  going  on  for  the  past  ten 
years  or  so— while  increasing  the  proportion 
from  personal  income.  Even  if  we  concede 
that  some  of  the  corporate  taxes  is  passed  on 
to  consumers  and  becomes,  in  effect,  a  sales 
tax,  the  exact  amount  varies  from  industry 
to  industry  and  depends  on  the  competitive 
conditions  of  the  moment. 

There  are  strong  arguments  for  continuing 
to  collect  a  fair  share  from  corporate  sur- 
pluses, particularly  when  a  large  proportion 
of  them  go  across  the  border,  and  if  untaxed, 
simply  benefit  either  foreign  shareholders  or 
foreign  governments  at  the  expense  of  the 
Canadian  taxpayer. 

Transfer  of  wealth  between  generations  is 
another  revenue  source  which  must  be  in- 
cluded in  the  tax  mix.  This  source  has  been 
neglected  by  the  present  government.  In  a 
paper  delivered  to  the  Canadian  Tax  Foun- 
dation conference  on  the  Smith  report  last 
January,  Professor  Claude  Forget,  of  the 
University  of  Montreal,  said: 

"Wealth  taxation  could  make  a  decidedly 
greater  contribution  to  public  finances. 
Moreover,  from  an  economic  viewpoint, 
given  the  reason  for  people  saving,  estate 
and  gift  taxes  are  most  unlikely  to  reduce 
the  amount  of  savings.  If  anything,  those 
taxes  may  very  well  stimulate  savings. 

A  rather  sharply  contradictory  view  to  that 
which  is  normally  propagated,  I  suggest  to 
you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

The  new  federal  rules  under  which  trans- 
fers between  spouses  are  exempt,  and  heavier 
taxes  are  placed  on  other  transfers,  will  make 
it  necessary  for  Ontario  to  re-examine  our 
succession  duties.  If  we  do  not  act  promptly, 
the  lack  of  harmonization  between  the  two 
statutes    will    cause    great    inconvenience    to 


taxpayers  and  our  failure  to  impose  a  gift 
tax  will  permit  the  revenue  to  be  seriously 
eroded.  The  Smith  committee  recommended 
a  provincial  gift  tax,  but  the  select  commit- 
tee's conservative  majority— and  I  think  that 
could  be  a  small  "c"  there— backed  away 
from  it.  The  New  Democratic  members  dis- 
sented  from   the   committee's   timidity. 

I  note  that  the  Ontario  Economic  Council 
does  not  appear  to  share  the  select  commit- 
tee's feeling  that  transfers  between  genera- 
tions are  a  suitable  tax  source.  On  page  11 
of  its  report,  the  select  committee  says: 

Your  committee,  moreover,  thinks  that 
the  area  of  wealth  taxes  has  been  inade- 
quately explored,  and  that  it  offers  both 
qualitative  and  quantitative  advantages  as 
a  potential  source  of  revenue. 

The  economic  council's  conclusions  are  in 
striking  contrast  to  that.  It  claims  that  the 
present  wealth  taxes  in  Canada  represent  "an 
economically  regressive  taxation  policy".  Its 
study  of  succession  duties  is  a  lop-sided 
analysis  of  their  effect  only  on  closely-held 
private  corporations.  In  order  to  permit  the 
small  segment  of  the  population  engaged  in 
this  type  of  business  activity  to  establish 
small  dynasties,  the  council  is  prepared  to 
completely  free  from  taxes  the  shares  of 
such  companies.  Its  tender  solicitude  for  this 
class  of  succession  duty  taxpayers  is  based 
on  a  premise  which  both  Carter  and  the 
Smith  commission  found  false  after  consider- 
able research,  namely,  that  estate  taxes  and 
succession  duties  are  the  cause  of  the  break- 
up of  family  businesses  or  their  take-over  by 
foreign  owners. 

One  wonders  then  if  the  government  will 
respond  to  the  economic  council's  neanderthal 
advice  to  discriminate  in  favour  of  one  form 
of  business  activity,  and  to  question  the 
whole  function  of  inheritance  taxes,  when 
the  select  committee  urged  greater  reliance 
on  them. 

One  also  wonders  about  the  merits  of 
retaining  a  body  such  as  the  economic  coun- 
cil which  appears  to  have  become  so  pre- 
occupied with  the  building  up  of  special 
privilege  and  inequality  of  economic  oppor- 
tunity in  this  province. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  return  to  the  general 
picture.  The  New  Democratic  Party  also 
believes  that  a  proper  tax  mix  must  include  a 
fair  return  to  the  people  of  the  province  for 
the  use  of  their  resources.  The  present  rev- 
enue amounts  to  less  than  two  per  cent  of 
the  $2  billion  produced  by  our  mining  and 
forest  industries.  It  does  not  even  cover  the 


196 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cost  of  the  services  provided  to  those  in- 
dustries by  the  provincial  and  local  govern- 
ments. 

Furthermore,  in  our  tax  mix,  the  heavy 
burden  of  the  regressive  property  tax  will 
be  lightened  by  the  provincial  government's 
gradual  assumption  of  education,  health  and 
welfare  costs,  and  by  promoting  efficiency 
through  regional  government. 

In  addition,  burdens  and  costs  will  be 
equalized  through  the  adoption  of  the  muni- 
cipal foundation  programme  for  general  serv- 
ices, similar  to  the  educational  foundation 
programme  now  in  effect.  I  dealt  with  this 
proposal  at  length  in  the  Throne  speech  last 
February  and  I  note  that  the  select  commit- 
tee on  the  Smith  report  moved  toward 
acceptance  of  the  principle  in  its  recom- 
mendations for  mining  municipalities.  Unfor- 
tunately, its  formula  does  not  go  far  enough 
and  equalizes  mainly  the  revenue  side  of 
the  equation,  without  giving  sufficient  weight 
to  differences  in  costs  of  providing  services 
among  these  municipalities.  Also,  it  only 
brings  municipalities  up  to  the  provincial 
average,  which  may  not  be  adequate  to 
assure  a  proper  standard  of  services  to  all 
residents  of  the  province. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  New  Democratic  Party 
would  also  lighten  the  sales  tax,  either  by 
exempting  additional  necessities  of  life,  or 
by  providing  tax  credits  and  rebates  for 
those  which  are  difficult  to  administer.  The 
credit  approach  is  a  familiar  device  for  off- 
setting tax  on  items  where  an  exemption  is 
cumbersome,  but  it  is  completely  unsuitable 
as  a  substitute  for  a  food  exemption  since 
food  constitutes  such  a  large  proportion  of 
the  spending  of  low  income  families,  and 
they  simply  cannot  afford  to  wait  for  a 
refund  of  excess  tax  six  months  or  a  year 
later. 

Under  our  tax  mix,  we  would  depart  from 
the  highly  regressive  method  of  financing 
hospital  and  medical  care  largely  through 
flat  rate  premiums.  Instead,  we  propose 
nominal  premiums  for  most  families  and  in- 
dividuals, with  complete  exemption  for  wel- 
fare recipients  and  low  income  groups.  The 
balance  of  the  cost  would  be  financed  from 
the  progressive  tax  system  which  a  New 
Democratic  government  will  substitute  for 
our  present  lopsided  system  after  the  1971 
election. 

We  believe  that  gasoline  and  motor  ve- 
hicle taxes  should  be  kept  to  a  level  sufficient 
to  negotiate  the  motorists'  fair  share  of  the 
cost  of  providing  road  systems.  Current  eco- 
nomic  thinking   in    the    Smith    report   places 


this   at   somewhere   between   two-thirds   and 
three-quarters  of  the  expenditures. 

Incidentally,  our  present  highway  taxes 
are  something  over  100  per  cent,  and  yester- 
day, by  a  decision  that  has  not  yet  come 
before  this  House,  we  had  an  increase  further 
in  car  licenses.   ^ 

However,  Mr.  Speaker,  having  dealt  in 
many  details  in  this  broad  tax  picture  with 
the  tax  mix  that  we  would  advocate  let  me 
then  summarize  the  approaches  which  a 
New  Democratic  government  would  follow 
in  reforming  the  tax  system  of  the  province 
of  Ontario. 

First,  the  tax  mix  would  be  altered  to 
emphasize  those  taxes  which  are  most  pro- 
gressive, growth-producing  and  offer  the 
most  potential  for  revenue. 

Second,  we  would  reform  the  personal 
and  corporate  income  taxes  so  as  to  broaden 
the  overall  tax  base,  close  the  present  tax 
loopholes,  and  afford  a  greater  measure  of 
relief  to  low  income  earners. 

Third,  we  would  institute  a  tax  on  capital 
gains   and   on   speculative   land  transactions. 

Fourth,  relief  of  the  property  tax  would 
flow  from  the  province  assuming  a  larger 
proportion  of  current  municipal  costs,  and 
through  a  foundation  plan  for  municipal 
finance. 

Fifth,  we  would  decrease  reliance  on  the 
sales  tax,  and  exempt  additional  necessities. 

Sixth,  we  would  move  away  from  regres- 
sive, flat  rate  premiums  as  the  principal 
means  of  paying  for  health  and  hospital 
services. 

Seventh,  taxes  on  motor  vehicles  and  gaso- 
line would  be  kept  to  a  level  representing 
their  fair  share  of  road  costs. 

This  then  is  our  concept  of  an  ideal  tax 
system.  It  is  the  only  one  which  will  en- 
sure that  our  collective  needs  are  paid  for 
in  accordance  with  ability  to  pay,  and  that 
they  are  not  denied  because  the  burden  of 
taxes  is  too  heavy  on  some  segments  of  the 
population. 

While  the  Smith  committee  and  the  select 
committee  on  taxation  fell  short  of  this  ideal 
system,  it  did  provide  us  with  a  wealth  of 
material  and  proposals  which  must  now  be 
sifted  through  and  the  progressive  proposals 
implemented.  What  we  need,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  the  machinery  for  establishing  a  continu- 
ing working  relationship  between  the  pro- 
vincial government  and  the  municipalities  to 
achieve  this  objective. 

My  proposal  would  be  that  there  should 
be  set  up  a  provincial  tax  structure  commit- 


NOVEMBER  27,  1968 


197 


tee  for  working  out  collective  decisions  and 
producing  an  integrated  taxation  policy  at 
the  provincial  level. 

If  there  is  a  need— and  Ontario  has  been 
arguing  it  vigorously  for  years— for  the  fed- 
eral government  to  sit  down  with  the  prov- 
inces and  work  out  systematically  a  more 
accurate  equation  of  responsibilities  and 
revenues  to  meet  them,  then  there  is  an 
equally  pressing  need  for  the  province  to 
sit  down  with  the  municipalities.  Together 
they  must  work  out  an  integrated  tax  policy, 
providing  the  municipalities  with  the  neces- 
sary revenues  to  meet  whatever  responsibili- 
ties are  going  to  be  left  with  them,  and  that 
is  our  decision  as  to  what  shall  be  left  with 
them. 

An  integrated  tax  policy  at  the  provincial- 
municipal  level  becomes  even  more  important 
as  we  move  to  the  establishment  of  regional 
government.  Larger  and  more  efficient  units 
of  local  government  will  make  it  possible  for 
their  province  to  restore  local  autonomy  and 
make  certain  that  each  region  can  raise 
more  of  its  revenue  needs.  We  can  then 
get  away  from  the  present  extensive  reliance 
on  provincial  grants. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  how  does  this  restruc- 
tured tax  system  worked  out  through  the 
more  democratic  machinery  of  a  provincial 
tax  structure  committee  contrast  with  what 
the  Tories  have  built  up  over  the  last  25 
\cars?    Let  us  take  a  look  at  it. 

In  the  first  place,  this  government  has  left 
an  excessive  load  on  the  homeowner  by  fail- 
ing to  lighten  the  property  tax  burden  through 
a  substantial  shift  in  the  responsibilities  to  the 
province.  The  $150  million  basic  shelter 
grants  were  only  a  token  handout  which  offset 
1968  tax  increases,  but  will  not  stop  the 
steady  rise  in  urban  costs  next  year  or  the 
year  after.  It  is  doubtful  if  t