Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

LINEAR INDUCTION MOTORS

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning the article which appeared in last week’s Sunday Sun regarding the development of linear induction motors being researched in Britain.

We have been watching the British work by Dr. Eric Laithwaite on his “magnetic river” concept since he announced it last August in a British electronics journal. We will continue to examine this concept and see what applications of it may be made to urban transit. To date, Dr. Laithwaite has not published technical details or the basic principles of how it will work.

The staff of the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. has been in direct contact with Dr. Laithwaite as recently as yesterday and, by his own admission, he has not studied the applicability of his concept to low-speed urban transit. He is, however, quite interested in interacting with our OTDC on ways in which his concept might be fitted into the GO-Urban technology as a future development. We are, of course, interested in encouraging such co-operation with his team and we are following it up.

We do not intend to stop any of our present work because there is no basic conflict between his work and ours at this time, but we are even more encouraged that our efforts in research and development will provide meaningful solutions in our urban mobility requirements of the future. Canada has begun a development process in transit, and far from abandoning it when other promising breakthroughs may appear, we are dedicated to continuing development.

We are quite prepared to recognize and adopt future developments from others throughout the world, but it should be recognized that Dr. Laithwaite’s concept exists only as a scale model version for exhibit purposes. On the basis of our existing knowledge of his system and the committed development for it, it is not responsible to suggest that we stop our present development programme which has progressed past the full-scale vehicle stage.

Prof. Eric Laithwaite is a distinguished and dedicated scientist and should be recognized as such. We are very interested in the British development and will keep as close to it as possible. We know that his variations on the linear induction motor have in some respects been incorporated in the low-speed intercity technology being developed in the US by Rohr Corp.

Indeed our own linear induction motor programme has been advanced by the recent federal government contribution to the SPAR Corp.’s dynamic test track. This programme includes looking into various propulsion limits including some adaptation on the motors designed for the current transit demonstration.

The Ontario government has committed itself to being in the forefront of transit technology and the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. congratulates Dr. Laithwaite on his work to date. We recognize change as a continued part of the research and development process, and if we are to stay at the front of development, we will continue our development, constantly assessing the work of others around us, and that includes discussions with Dr. Laithwaite to consider how the corporation may participate in his work as well. It is as irresponsible to suggest development work be stopped as it is to ignore the work of others in the field.

To characterize the development presently under way at the CNE and in Germany as a “$1 billion lemon”, is both unfounded and gross misrepresentation. The work to date has provided a valuable fund of development that shows substantial promise of providing efficient, attractive and environmentally sensitive transit to many urban areas, and is capable of substantial further development and innovation. To characterize the development programme to be a $1 billion programme is to misrepresent the present commitment and to confuse both the development programme and an on-going implementation programme. The $1 billion is the government’s commitment to finance innovative transit in Ontario cities in all of its forms.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Not all cities.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Anyone who suggests we should abandon our present work, and confuses a “Disneyland project” with the serious, committed research that is going on in Canada, in Germany and in the UK, is only denying the very development effort that creates technical breakthroughs and progress.

If we are serious about the mobility needs of our urban areas in the future, we will not only not discontinue our present development efforts, but we will expand them. If we have any insight and commitment to the future of Canada, its cities, our engineers and our science community, we will reject the narrow, short-sighted approach of our opposition sceptics. Investment of the kind that the UK, Germany and the Ontario government have undertaken provides a meaningful programme for continued advancement.

Mr. Laughren: The minister would have no goodies at all, would he?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: At the present time, Dr. Laithwaite is proceeding to build a demonstration model of his research work.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): We know whom the $1 billion limit is for.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We, like the rest of the world, will be anxious to review the demonstration as he attempts to make all existing forms of high speed technology obsolete. It would appear there is a substantial distance between the current state of development and an operating capability. It would also appear that Dr. Laithwaite’s research work would find its greatest application in high speed intercity services where constant acceleration and deceleration as a result of frequent station spacings, the requirement for frequent switching and a complex control system for close headway maintenance will not be as important as in low speed urban applications.

We have consistently stated that one of our principal motivations is to initiate and continue a high technology development process in Canada. This will involve a constant review of all developing technologies. It should surprise no one that there will be a constant adaptation and improvement in the technology.

Development in such an important area is a responsibility of government and not a waste of money. The Ontario government is the one agency in Canada that has led in this field with its dedication to development programmes to solve domestic problems.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Except in the north.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The minister doesn’t understand a word he is reading.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It will continue to do so by pursuing its present development programme, continuing the programme of the OTDC, co-operating with other developers and jurisdictions in solving the urban mobility problems and expanding its monetary and research commitment to this important area.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): The minister said he didn’t know anything about electromagnetics just yesterday, now he is an expert.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Great commercial.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): This will be another great one.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What jokes does the minister have for us today?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): I don’t need any jokes as long as the member is here.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He should be on stage instead of representing the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Caught the member right between the eyes, didn’t it?

HEALTH DISCIPLINES ACT

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the first six parts of the Health Disciplines Act dealing with five major health disciplines -- dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry and pharmacy. Legislation covering other health disciplines will be introduced later.

Mr. Stokes: That is in alphabetical order, isn’t it?

Mr. Roy: Is the minister going to put in a denturists’ bill?

Mr. Speaker: The question period will follow.

Hon. Mr. Miller: As the hon. members know, this bill has resulted from a number of years of intensive work by many groups and has benefited by considerable public involvement. In April, 1970, the report of the Committee on the Healing Arts was tabled in the Legislature. At the request of the Health Minister of the day, the Ontario Council of Health reviewed this report and made certain recommendations in November, 1970.

As a result of these two reports, “The Guiding Principles for the Regulation and Education of the Health Disciplines” were made public in January, 1971. Based on these guiding principles, discussions were undertaken between the Ministry of Health, health disciplines and other interested bodies, which resulted in draft legislation in June, 1972. These legislative proposals were tabled in this House as a discussion document entitled, “Legislative Proposals for a Health Disciplines Act.” Since then, many months of discussions with the health disciplines involved and other interested groups, including the public, led to the legislation being introduced today.

This Act, Mr. Speaker, ensures that the activities of health disciplines are effectively regulated and co-ordinated in the public interest. It also ensures that appropriate standards of practice are developed and maintained and that rights of individuals to services provided by health disciplines of their choice are safeguarded. The legislation now before us embodies some changes from the earlier proposals. All of these changes have resulted from information and advice gained through public discussion.

Essentially, the bill proposes that each health discipline covered by this Act will be regulated by a college. The membership of the college’s governing council will comprise both professional members of the discipline and lay representatives.

Mr. Roy: The member is learning well. He is coming along.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Depending on the numerical strength of the council of an individual college, the mandatory number of lay members has been increased and varies from a minimum of two to a maximum of eight. The legislation also provides that lay representatives will be included on the registration, complaints and discipline committees of the respective colleges.

The government believes that as much as possible, each health discipline should be responsible through its governing council for the conduct of its members and should be permitted to carry out that responsibility independent of government interference. This determination was based on the principle that the public interest is best served when the government does not interfere in the activities of well-run and responsible private institutions.

The government does have an interest, however, in seeing that a high standard is maintained by each health discipline with regard to its relationships with the public, its membership and with other health disciplines.

Based on the principle that an appeal from the rulings made by a health discipline’s governing council should be made to a separate and appropriate body, an independent health discipline board will be set up, composed entirely of representatives of the public who are not members of any of the health disciplines under this Act. This board would conduct hearings and reviews with respect to complaints, from either the public or from members of the health disciplines, which in the opinion of the complainant, have not been satisfactorily dealt with by the regulatory bodies.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister going to thank them for this advice? Is he going to thank them for telling him this over the years? Say thank you.

Hon. Mr. Miller: In addition, persons applying to the colleges for registration, who have had their applications refused by the regulatory bodies or have had limitations placed on how they may practice, may request a hearing by the health disciplines board.

Under this bill, the Minister of Health has the responsibility for overall policy development and for the co-ordination and development of health disciplines with the rest of the health care system. The legislation also provides for advisory committees to the minister for necessary and desirable involvement of various health disciplines and the public in the co-ordination and development functions.

The bill also provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations when the minister has requested a college to make, amend or revoke regulations and has not done so.

In essence, then, Mr. Speaker, this bill sets out the scope of practice for four health disciplines. It also defines “registered nurse” and “registered nursing assistant.”

It provides for self-regulation by each health discipline, subject to the views of mandatory lay representatives on their governing council and for an independent, lay health disciplines board to which appeals can be made. The Act provides for the licensing of some practitioners and the certification of others.

Licensing involves the conferring on a particular person, the exclusive provincially granted right to practise. Practice by any person to whom such a right has not been granted is prohibited and made a punishable offence.

Certification involves the provincial endorsement of competence, but not the exclusive right to practise. By applying a provincial standard, a stamp of approval is conferred on persons as competent to practise a specified occupation. Practice by an uncertified person is not prohibited and, of course, is not a punishable offence.

Mr. Roy: That should be interesting.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The parts relating to medicine and dentistry continue a broad scope of practice for these disciplines which is commensurate with their education and clinical training, and which provides for their licencing.

The part on pharmacy identifies the role and responsibilities of pharmacists, and also provides for licensing.

The part on nursing recognizes the different roles of registered nurses and registered nursing assistants in their particular fields of practice, which call for certification as contrasted to licensing.

The part on optometry recognizes that optometrists provide services that are also within the broad scope of medicine. In this bill, therefore, their scope of practice requires definition, which is included.

Mr. Bullbrook: That will take a couple of hours.

Hon. Mr. Miller: In bringing in this bill, then, Mr. Speaker, members will appreciate that a significant amount of effort has been directed over the past few years toward rationalizing the roles of various disciplines. This Act will form the basis of defining those areas in which the health disciplines will provide their services to the public.

Mr. Roy: This had better be good, or the minister is going to be on his way out. He will join the previous minister.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES ACT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Health, in relation to the statement he just made, if the bill that he introduces this afternoon will in any way change the status of the practice of the denturists -- presently illegal -- and, if not, does he contemplate additional legislation in that connection?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I’d like to ask the minister if that then is a statement that the present policy, which has prevailed since the passage of the statute and the proclamation of the present law, will remain unchanged and that is then established by his backbench colleagues?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition should jump to that conclusion. The present Act was drafted progressively over a number of months. It allows for the present status of the practice of dentistry and denture therapists. As such, it will have a section in it similar to the present Dentistry Act defining that role.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why doesn’t the minister stop playing games with the public and with these two professions and let the public know exactly where they stand in relation to the denturists and the dental situation? He’s been going around saying --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Roy: Very simply, why doesn’t the minister shape up and let us know where he’s going with that?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has not answered the question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Is the minister through with my friend from Ottawa East? I don’t think he got an answer.

Mr. Speaker: It was not a proper question. It was a statement for the most part.

Mr. Singer: The minister was up to answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: It would have been improper for him to answer it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: I yield to my friend, who wants to rephrase his improper question.

Mr. Speaker: He may ask a proper question.

Mr. Roy: Does he not feel, as Minister of Health, that it is time he let the public know exactly where the government, of which he is a member, stands on this question, and that the denturists and the dentists are entitled to know exactly where they’re going with this plan, especially in light of the statement that he has made here today?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think that is a fair question, Mr. Speaker. I fully intend, if any change is made in the present legislation, to let members know that.

Mr. Roy: The minister has been saying that for weeks.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Supplementary: I would like to ask the Minister of Health, would it not be necessary within the ambit of the health disciplines legislation to bring in the denture therapists bill again for either amendment or confirmation by the Legislature in light of the other revisions of medical career lines? Does he not think it is, therefore, somewhat provocative to bring in the dentistry legislation without at the same time saying anything about his intentions as regards denture therapists?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I gave that a great deal of thought. If, in fact, the policy was firm and formulated at this point in time, I think the member’s reaction may be perfectly right and this bill should contain those parts. The denture therapist part of the health disciplines bill will came up in due course, as will a number of other parts. When it comes up, of course, the scope of practice for that particular part of the health field will be fully defined and open to discussion. But this bill has been a long time coming. We had a lot of public discussion.

Mr. Roy: Which one?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think it is only proper that we should have it here, regardless of future changes in the roles of the health disciplines which may affect many groups, not just one.

Mr. Roy: If the minister is going to be consistent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, will the minister’s bill include this independent health disciplines board or will that be the subject of a separate bill? And if it does include it, will it extend limitation periods and will it give the board the power either to order rectification or award damages?

Hon. Mr. Miller: First of all, it will establish the board. To answer the member’s question, yes it will.

Mr. Singer: This bill will?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes. There are time limitations for actions specified in the first part of the bill, the omnibus section, for action to be taken. As to the punitive effects, I would like to check them, but I know that there are some measures in the bill for that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): In the minister’s statement he said that persons applying for registration who have had their applications refused may apply to the health disciplines board for a hearing, but he doesn’t say whether the health disciplines board has the power to overrule.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, it would.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications further to his statement.

Mr. Roy: May I first ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps one more would be reasonable.

Mr. Roy: Pursuant to the minister’s statement, what is the reason for introducing the bill, the Health Disciplines Act, with only four or five professions? In his statement, on page 4, he mentions that he wants to regulate and co-ordinate all these in the public interest. Why did he not include all the professions, physiotherapists and people like this?

Hon. Mr. Miller: We are intending to do so. It is an open-ended bill. At this point in time there is no final determination of what is not a health discipline and what is. When the members realize the amount of time it took to get these five very important health disciplines to this point, I am quite sure they would not want us to wait for the next 21 disciplines that are already known before we had any legislation affecting any part of the health field.

Mr. Shulman: When are the chiropractors coming in?

LINEAR INDUCTION MOTORS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can he assure the House, in as vehement a term as he used in his statement, that his ministry is prepared to consider technology that is already proved, like the light rail transit technology -- as an alternative to magnetic levitation?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): It’s the horse and buggy.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, the minister is back in voice again.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has he dismissed the present modes of technology?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The horse and buggy.

Mr. Lewis: Nobody will ask the Minister of Energy questions about energy, so he is hollering about transportation.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why doesn’t he levitate?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very fair to say that the government is prepared to look at all types of technology. Despite the comments that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, it has always been the intention that we would use all forms of rapid transit tied together in one of the most integrated systems m all of North America.

Mr. Singer: Oh, but it is horse and buggy, he says.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We may not go back to the horse and buggy that the member is used to, but I think we will stay with what we have.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That would be faster than the minister is prepared to travel. I have a supplementary for clarification and certainly for the edification of those people involved with the surveys that are not under the minister’s control. Can the minister assure the House that the funds that are predicted to be available for urban transportation -- $1.5 billion -- could, in fact, be spent for light rail transportation if the municipalities concerned opted for that alternative?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, as was said in the statement, the amount of money that the Leader of the Opposition has been referring to is the amount of money that we have said would be committed to developing a proper and complete urban transit system available to the municipalities of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would it be spent for light rail transportation? Did the minister answer that?

Mr. Givens: No.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have any further answer to the supplementary, I presume by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Roy: Poor show.

Mr. Speaker: If not, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister’s comments on this: What discussions have been held between the ministry and the regions of Ottawa or the new municipality in Hamilton-Wentworth about alternative kinds of rapid transit as opposed to the Krauss-Maffei system?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I really can’t answer that. Those discussions would be going on at the official level through representatives of the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. and I cannot answer as to what discussions are being held at this time.

Mr. Roy: Is he the minister or not?

MAPLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Can he justify to the House his approach to the business community of the province, on a confidential basis, for advice on the pending decision on Maple Mountain, without at least first having tabled in this House some of the feasibility studies which have now cost the taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars, so that the people concerned in the Maple Mountain area aren’t the people concerned in the province who are going to pay for this -- if in fact we go forward with it -- can have something to say about the decision?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can.

Mr. Lewis: Well do it then.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Do so.

Mr. Lewis: Well then do it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the minister and those in the government, we wanted some outside input to the situations that were being brought forward by our consultants --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s an elected transport --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is fine for them to sit on the other side and continue to yak. Let’s look at the situation very frankly and honestly --

Mr. Breithaupt: Does the minister mean they have no rights at all?

Mr. Cassidy: What about the people in the area who have a right to know?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We looked to outside organizations to give us some indication as to whether they felt there was any reason the government should continue to advance other studies on the Maple Mountain project, and if we came into this House and tabled the reports without some background, the very members who are now voicing their opinions on the direction we’ve taken would have expressed exactly the opposite point of view. I do justify on behalf of the government that we had --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, Mr. Speaker, that’s not so. That’s what we’ve asked the minister to do.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- outside opinions expressed to us, yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would not the minister agree that every member of this House has a responsibility to have an opinion on this matter? Opinions have been expressed by the member for Timiskaming urging that it be accepted and in his opinion that is fine. Why should we either damn it or support it, when there is no information available of the type that is presently in the hands of the minister, a quarter of a million dollars’ worth? That’s what we are here for, to assist in making these decisions.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I’m not asking the opposition at this point to either support or reject the plan. It is our position as government to recommend --

Mr. Roy: Try us some time.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- to this House the procedure or direction we are going to take, and if this is the way we see best to do it. Those reports, as I said to the leader of the NDP on one or two occasions, will be tabled in this House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: As a supplementary, apart from the total contempt the minister shows for the whole legislative process, for everybody in this House --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: He shows contempt for the whole process, because that’s the way he operates. But leaving that aside for a moment, how does he justify the complete repudiation of any public participation at all in the formulation of plans which are intended to affect the economic livelihood and future development of an entire region of the province, which he has presented as an accomplished fact, and instead go to his friends in the private business community? How does he justify that kind of repudiation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we value their opinion a great deal more than we do the NDP in this House, and if the leader --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister used to be the same way at city council in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s very true, Mr. Speaker, and I always had the encouragement of the member for Wellington ward, who wasn’t much better there than he is here. A great deal worse, likely.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the question of the NDP leader -- because obviously he has a short memory; he has asked: the question several times -- he has placed the position before this House that we are not going to allow for public participation.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): He got no response.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): No answer.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have said very clearly to him -- and I will repeat -- the reports we have are preliminary reports to give us some indication of whether Maple Mountain is --

Mr. Lewis: Audio-visual demonstrations to the business community.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member would sit and listen for a minute -- but he yahoos all the time. The NDP leader is not much better here than he is outside in Timmins, so he couldn’t even read the memo.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): You don’t learn anything, Stephen.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Is the minister going to let the same thing happen at Maple Mountain as happened with the Minaki problem?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wait till daddy finds out.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): He will wish Minaki was in his riding.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: So, Mr. Speaker, we have said -- and I repeat -- that it is the opinion of the government that we should proceed with the project --

Mr. Stokes: Minaki is just a white elephant and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Jasper Park all over again.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have made our position clear to the members of this House that we will have full public participation.

Mr. Lewis: After the event.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, that’s fine. You see, the leader of the NDP still misreads the memo, because this government has never said that they were advancing. They said they had preliminary reviews of the situation; but if the member wishes to --

Mr. Lewis: I heard what the minister said.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- make his own interpretation he is welcome to it.

Mr. Lewis: Well, yes I am.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s right, because this government has not made a positive position in regard to Maple Mountain as to whether it will advance or not.

Mr. Lewis: Well, that’s what we’d like to know.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s correct, and the member will know in due course -- all in the fullness of time.

Mr. Stokes: After the fact.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Has he ever seen the mountain at night?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We will then, at that point, sir, if it’s the decision the government go further, to make all of the reports --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- that we have had made available to government made available to the public, and we wall look for those organizations across this province that wish to express an opinion on a merger development.

Mr. Lewis: No, this government is too arbitrary. Much too arbitrary.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, of course, practically everything is arbitrary when it’s coming from the member’s direction --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We intend to be the government and provide leadership.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister then assure the House, which is, I suppose, inherent in what he has said, that no decision will be made until the facts are available publicly to the members of the House and otherwise; and also until public hearings have been held, so that the people directly concerned can express their views?

Mr. Lewis: He won’t give that assurance.

Mr. Roy: Yes, give us that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have said in the past, and I repeat, that the position of the government will be made very clear to this House and at that time the reports that we have will be tabled.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Well, by way of supplementary, what the minister is saying then, if I understand him, is that he may well announce a decision to go ahead -- that is one of his options -- which means game over. Then he’ll set up an apparatus for the public to talk about those things that are already accomplished. Does the minister think that’s an appropriate public route?

Mr. Havrot: What is the leader of the NDP afraid of?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s like the airport.

Mr. Roy: That’s participation, yes.

Mr. Lewis: Is that called participation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we will take the direction that we think is in the best interest of the province. I have clearly --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have clearly indicated there are three options.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP wishes to accept only one of the three options. But if he read the Globe and Mail article of this morning, he’d see there are three very clear options available to him.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: One of those likely will be decided on this week and this House will be informed of the direction we are going to take.

Mr. Stokes: Why do we have to read it in the Globe? Why doesn’t the minister tell us?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition?

The hon. member for Scarborough West, a new question?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

OIL PRICES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier aware that the total amount represented by a one-cent-per-gallon increase in Ontario for gasoline, diesel and heating fuels works out to $46.4 millions, and if the additional 2½ cents is placed by the oil companies in their price increases within the next month to six weeks, that means an additional $116 million for those companies; roughly $14.50 for every man, woman and child in the province? And how, in the light of that, does he refuse to intervene and say: “No, we will abide by the agreement -- “

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): He just is not concerned.

Mr. Lewis: “ -- that I entered into at the premiers’ conference, but we will not allow the oil companies to increase it beyond that”? Why can he not give that commitment?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we get back to the same discussion, which is not just confined to the question of gasoline price, oil price or any other price, or wage escalation. The position of the government is, I think, relatively clearly understood, and I don’t want to get into any sort of provocative statement here today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Laissez-faire.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But it’s fine for the leader of the New Democratic Party to come in here and talk about gasoline -- we are concerned about gasoline price. Whether the figures are accurate or inaccurate is not relevant.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Obviously, if the price goes up another penny per gallon, it means one cent per gallon to the consumer -- no question about that; no argument.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): At least, at least.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I said yesterday, our calculations were on the basis of the price of a crude oil increase; it would be roughly seven cents.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Whether the gas companies will impose a further price increase related to other costs time alone will tell. I say this, and I don’t want to be provocative, but while we are very interested -- far more interested than I sometimes think the opposition people are --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in curbing inflation in this province, no provincial jurisdiction can do it in isolation. If the NDP is really serious about it, why, for Heaven’s sake, doesn’t the party do something about it on a national level? Because that’s where the problem has to be solved -- has to be.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: We want the same price all across Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is quite right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: But the government doesn’t.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I am being -- some of the rump group is asking me to be non-provocative which is my nature anyway so I will put it as placidly as I can -- what is he saying as Premier of Ontario? As I hear him, he is saying that if the oil companies -- as already announced even by Donald McDonald in Ottawa -- indicate that the total increase to the consumer will be 10 cents and the amount the Premier and his Minister of Energy agreed to enter into was seven cents and, let us say, a half cent more for non-related costs, he is going to allow them that extra 2½ cents per gal, $116 million to the consumers of Ontario, without ever once intervening to protect the public interest because of this peculiar fetish he has for the free enterprise rights of big corporations.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again I will try to be very placid, as is my nature as well --

Mr. MacDonald: I wish he would be active.

Mr. Roy: Let him try for modesty for a change.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is his nature, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am very modest.

Mr. Bullbrook: He has reason to be.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I agree with the member for Sarnia. I have reason to be modest but at least I acknowledge it. If some of the members opposite would do the same thing we’d be a lot better off.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member for Sarnia is about ready to paraphrase Churchill -- I think he is the wrong one to start doing so; he doesn’t quite have the knack. However, getting back to the question.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t steal anybody’s spiel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, he doesn’t.

Mr. Bullbrook: Except the Premier’s once in a while.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, he has borrowed some of mine on occasion.

Mr. MacDonald: Don’t let him get sidetracked. That means he has no answer to this question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I don’t say we have no answer to the problem.

Mr. MacDonald: He has no action.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Except to make the general observation that when one talks about the gasoline price -- and we are as concerned as anyone about the price of gasoline -- we are also concerned about the prices of a lot of other consumer products. If we are going to get into this -- and perhaps we should in the budget debate have a discussion of --

Mr. Lewis: We should.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- what jurisdiction a province has in the area --

Mr. MacDonald: No, the Premier doesn’t need to confuse the issue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- of wage and price control. One can’t divorce the one from the other.

Interjections by Hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, one can’t.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One can’t divorce one from the other.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t muddy the waters. We are dealing with corporate profits.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, Mr. Speaker, I can be very frank. We are not prepared at this moment at the provincial level to get into a programme of general wage and price controls. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. Lewis: Right. So he welcomes the oil companies. He has --

Mr. MacDonald: This is calculated obfuscation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What has their national leader been doing for two months?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would the Premier consider adjusting the gasoline tax on a regional basis so that those people who would otherwise be hardest hit, particularly in the north and certain other areas, would not have to carry such an unfair share of the burden of these increased costs about which the Premier said he can do nothing?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: He can’t say he has no jurisdiction for that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are two issues here. One is the overall cost of gasoline, diesel or heating fuel related to whatever the wellhead prices are and whatever the cost is of refining the product. What the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is the possibility of a programme for equalization of whatever that price may be around the Province of Ontario which we have discussed here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is right. What about that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This government is not unsympathetic but one has to have a degree of equity and the problem of equalizing prices between the various regions of the province is not a simple issue to resolve.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are not opposed to the concept. We have done it in some areas.

Mr. MacDonald: But he is opposed to doing anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, one can’t artificially say the price will be less than it is now in northern Ontario without accepting the fact that people in southern Ontario in one way or another, are going to pay a portion of that equalization.

Mr. Lewis: No, the government just controls the oil companies. That’s not true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What I said is true. It’s the only way one can do it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right -- and so there is.

Mr. MacDonald: The government has done it on liquor. Eaton’s and Simpson’s do it all the time, but the government can’t.

Mr. Speaker: There have been about three or four supplementaries. I will permit one more supplementary, and I think it should be the turn of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, do I gather from the Premier’s remarks that inflation is universal, that there is nothing that can be done about it except wage and price controls and that Ontario will not enter into wage and price controls and that is the end? Is nothing going to be done by the Province of Ontario to help those people on fixed incomes or pensions, other than saying it is universal and we don’t want wage and price controls?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: There will be a tax credit in the budget.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I said that at all. In fact, if anything, I think I may have created the impression to the contrary. There are two aspects to the problem -- and I don’t want to become an economist again --

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: He never has been one!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I tried the other day. One is the question of inflation; the other is what we can do to ease the problem of inflation as it affects certain groups of people.

An hon. member: Right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to differentiate between the two.

The hon. member for Downsview asked me what we can do as a government with respect to the overall problem of inflation. I am telling him that we have been doing something, which the members opposite are not supporting --

Mr. Singer: That’s right. Throw your hands up.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will quote the hon. member for High Park: “There is no question that the level of government expenditure has an impact on inflation.” But I will say, as I said here the other day --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: And this government’s expenditures have gone up more than any other in the country.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that this government, with its programme of constraints, including ceilings on educational expenditures, has an anti-inflationary approach. If the members opposite weren’t so hypocritical, they would support it.

An hon. member: And they know it’s true!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: It’s a good thing the government members waken up between 3 and 4 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There have been a reasonable number of supplementaries.

Mr. Lewis: In the choice between protecting the oil companies and protecting the public, the government chooses the oil companies. They have made that choice.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Stephen, you know it is not true.

Mr. Lewis: I do know it is true. And don’t call me Stephen, William.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’re lucky I don’t call you something else.

Mr. Lewis: Never mind. You won’t seduce me on a first-name basis, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t you make comments on David’s bed partners when you think of those with whom you consort.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you may.

FUEL COSTS OF GREENHOUSE GROWERS

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. What is the Minister of Agriculture and Food going to do about protecting the greenhouse growers in southwestern Ontario in particular, against the increase in fuel prices that is now imminent because of the Texaco announcement that the price of fuel for the greenhouse operators would go to 26 cents per gallon, which is double what it was in 1972? Is there anything that the province can do to prevent the greenhouse growers of southwestern Ontario spending up to half their total income on fuel costs?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Well, in the first place, Mr. Speaker, the greenhouse growers of western Ontario, as I understand it, have been assured there will be no increase in those fuel prices for about a month.

Mr. Lewis: No, they haven’t been assured. They haven’t been assured!

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, we have been assured.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, a month. Excuse me.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: For a month.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Everybody is assured of that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: So that means, as I’m sure my hon. friend is well aware, that there will be very little requirement for the use of fuels for heating greenhouses after May 1.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Didn’t the member know that? Didn’t he know that?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would think he would be aware of it. Some behind him might not be aware of it, but I am sure the hon. member would be aware of it.

Mr. Lewis: I am. What about next year?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would also suggest that because of the type and variety of cucumbers that our greenhouse growers are growing -- and that is really the problem of concern at this time -- they are of such a type that they command a premium in the market today and are selling, not at what I would say are exorbitant prices at all but at prices I think reflect more accurately the cost of production and a more reasonable return than has ever been the case before.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The NDP wants to stop all that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now I don’t think that our friends would want to see them take less for their product. I believe that it is sufficiently rewarding to help offset some of the admittedly increased costs we have today.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Not if the minister lets the imports in.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Well, yes and no.

An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, I have one.

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the hon. members that I have just received an anonymous letter.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: It says: “Mr. Speaker, you have lost control.”

Mr. Roy: I didn’t send that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: If I might, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Who introduced that obscene literature into the House?

GASOLINE TRAVEL ADS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a question of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism: Some time ago the ministry had an advertisement in the US, which he had to withdraw because of bad taste since it was taking advantage of their gas shortage --

An hon. member: Question.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister advise us if he reprimanded this firm for giving the ministry bad advice -- that is the advertising firm? Secondly, seeing the ministry had no contract with them in any event, did he get rid of their services?

An hon. member: What is the minister doing about this matter?

Mr. Roy: Is the minister not going to answer that? Is he going to sit there and suck his thumb?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, if I answered by sucking my thumb, sir, the member who asked the question would be right at home because the question is just about that intelligent. His leader asked just about the same question on Friday and if the member for Ottawa East had been present he might have heard the answer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No; it was a different thing and the minister reprimanded him.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I said very clearly on Friday that on the advice of the federal government to us we withdrew the part of the ad that seemed to be offensive to them. The firm that gave us the advice, sir, was ourselves, because we believe that it was in the interest of the province to put this information before our friends coming to the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: You could give them both a pacifier, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have an advertising agency that does an excellent job for us. They gave us advice and we accepted it. We sat down and reviewed it, and we are still of the belief that it could do some good for the Province of Ontario. Now that the petroleum situation seems to have rectified itself to some degree in the United States, the ad seems to be well withdrawn.

May I also say, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the CBC and a few others objecting to the advertising, we have now secured more free publicity right across this continent as a result of the withdrawal; so the advertising message that we were paying to put forward, sir, is now being publicized as a courtesy of the shareholders of the various news medias.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can I ask just one quick supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Has the minister applauded his advertising agency?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: Could the minister advise how much money was wasted because of this mistake?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: None, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

An hon. member: No, it was a question.

Mr. Speaker: A new question should go to the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

WIND ENERGY SEMINAR

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy about the very important seminar on wind energy which is to be held next month in Quebec: Has the minister yet been able to secure permission from the Management Board to leave the province for a day, or to send some advisers or engineers to attend this convention?

Mr. Bounsall: The minister is afraid he may have too much wind.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The matter has not yet been decided.

MEETING WITH PRESS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier: Could the Premier advise us whether or not the meeting planned on April 5 next with certain selected members of the press, which will be a private meeting and which is described by one McPhee as being a frank and two-way discussion of problems concerning coverage of provincial government activities, is really another way of saying that the Premier is trying to manage the news because the papers haven’t been too kind to him and his government.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is another version of “Laugh In.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kitchener would know far more about that than I would.

Mr. Breithaupt: I watch it every day.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure he does and if he spent more time, perhaps, studying what he should be saying on the budget, he might perhaps make a better contribution there later on. It will be an interesting one for the member to tackle.

Mr. Singer: In the meantime, back to the news.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think I am the last one who can be accused of ever attempting to manage the news.

Mr. Lewis: I think that is right, if he does try he does very badly at it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t make the effort, unlike the leader of the New Democratic Party. I make no effort in that at all.

I would say that I am looking forward to discussion with the managing editors of a number of newspapers. It has been suggested by two or three of them that it would make sense, and I expect that I will learn something from that particular meeting.

Mr. MacDonald: This is an effort to repair the image of the government, and it desperately needs it.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, does the Premier not think that he should have a little chat with James McPhee and tell him that if he is giving interviews they should appear a little less damaging and not give the appearance that the government is trying to manage the news?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister Without Portfolio): The member’s question is quite irrelevant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to comment on any interviews given by Mr. McPhee. In my humble opinion he has given no interview that is at all damaging to anyone.

Mr. Singer: It is certainly damaging over there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, not at all.

Mr. Speaker: The hon member for Yorkview.

Mr. Lewis: Is he on the Premier’s personal staff?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I really don’t know what the relevance is of the question.

Mr. Singer: That’s what the Premier hired him for.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Singer: The great new wave!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What did the member’s party hire Phil Ross for?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please I

Interjections by hon. members.

OIL PRICES

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, if I could direct a question to the Minister of Energy, I’m sure he and I could discuss in a quiet, reasonable way one phase of this energy problem.

I would like to ask the minister, in view of certain rumours that oil companies have very large stocks of heating oil now in inventory which might take them through the next six months or so, is he planning to acquire from the oil companies a list of their inventories, which will be used in the Province of Ontario, so that he might think in terms of how the increasing value of those inventories might be applied to the benefit of the people rather than of the corporations?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the stocks of heating oil are high because they were not used this winter because we had such a mild winter. But I doubt very much --

Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): The sun shines on Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- if there’s anything like six months’ stock. There simply isn’t. I think that’s one of the problems with the industry and I don’t know the solution to the problem. There aren’t storage facilities. The time from wellhead to either the automobile tank or to the consumer’s heating oil tank is something in the neighbourhood of 45 to 60 days -- 45 on the average. If somebody did go out to buy heating oil today, Lord knows where they would store it, there simply isn’t that kind of storage.

Storage is very expensive, very difficult to build and is normally considered, I think, to be poor economics and counterproductive. Ideally, you get it from the wellhead through the refinery to the consumer as quickly as you can. There simply isn’t that kind of storage available. This may well manifest itself in some marginal shortages, although we’re hopeful there won’t be gasoline shortages. They will be marginal shortages, if any, and perhaps there will be none this spring, because heating oil was carried on for a longer period and is in storage and wasn’t used.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. MacDonald: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Well, if the hon. members would say supplementary so that I could hear it, then we would recognize them.

Mr. Singer: Let the member for York South speak up. He hasn’t had enough experience around here!

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister in a position to give us an independent assessment of reserves in this instance and otherwise, instead of accepting the self-serving provision of statistics which has characterized the petroleum industry down through the years?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not. I am prepared to accept -- not the self-serving interest-but the views put forward from time to time and the statistics gathered and evaluated by some 300 or 400 people at the National Energy Board who are in that business and who interpret the statistics.

Mr. MacDonald: Don’t they get them from the oil companies?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have no intention of duplicating that kind of information gathering or statistics analysis in this province or in my ministry.

Mr. Lewis: Well --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I recognize that the hon. member would like to expand the bureaucracy and have information directors everywhere.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary question: Does the Energy Board in Ottawa, whose services the minister is willing to accept, get their statistics by their own analysis and their own investigation, or do they accept those of the industry?

Mr. Laughren: Never mind the red herrings.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hon. member would employ, I suppose, the RCMP and go out and search everybody and collect statistics --

Mr. MacDonald: Answer my question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- because he doesn’t believe anything except what he wants to believe. Well, we’re not built that way over here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: He won’t answer my question because the minister knows they get them from the industry.

Mr. Lewis: Well, since the minister is the Minister of Energy and has all of these figures, how would he like to tell the House what the current inventory of home heating fuel is in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t have those figures with me, Mr. Speaker. They are available.

Mr. Lewis: Where?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They’re available from the National Energy Board and we are led to believe that the country presently is in good shape.

Mr. Lewis: This is the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps the hon. member would be perceptive enough to realize that we’ve had a mild winter.

Mr. Renwick: Let the minister get the figures.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: A final supplementary: Could I ask the minister if he will table those figures in this House within the next couple of days?

Mr. Lewis: The inventory figures.

Mr. Young: The inventory figures.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We’ll try and get them for the member, yes.

Mr. Speaker: Now, the hon, member for York Centre.

COMMUTER TICKET INTERCHANGEABILITY

Mr. Deacon: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In order to make better use of an already proven mode of public transportation by increasing its flexibility, will the minister instruct GO Transit to arrange for the interchangeability of commuter tickets on common routes with CN and CP so that commuters can either use the trains or the GO buses with their monthly commuter passes?

An hon. member: Good point.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we’ll have to look into that proposal. I’ll be glad to receive it from him.

Mr. Roy: The minister doesn’t understand the question.

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary: Will the minister arrange to confer with the chairman of the railway transport committee, who is very anxious that this type of interchangeability be brought about?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The office is always open to meet with anybody who would like to meet with us. My door is open.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

INFORMATION SERVICES FUNDING

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware that the funding for information services expired at the end of March? Notwithstanding the statement of his colleague the provincial secretary, is the minister prepared to say categorically that he will, or will not, continue to fund information services groups across the Province of Ontario? If he’s not going to, how does he propose that this very valuable service be continued in areas like Hamilton?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, we have been funding somewhere around 15 information services on an interim basis. If the hon. member will give me the names of those that he’s inquiring about we will be pleased to look into it.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister aware that the interim financing ended at the end of March? That was the day before yesterday.

Is the minister aware that in spite of the best efforts of the group involved in the Hamilton area to get information with regard to either further interim or permanent financing, they have come against a brick wall? And is the minister aware that their service will be discontinued as of the end of this month unless there is a clear indication from the government of its intention?

Lastly, is the minister aware that he has been procrastinating on financing in this field for the last three years and it’s time to make it clear where he stands with regard to information services across the province?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, our policy will be announced in due course.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Deans: -- what is the purpose of due course? How do they carry on beyond the end of April?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There are just a very few moments left. Two or three of the other members would like to get a question in. Perhaps we could restrain the supplementaries.

Mr. Deans: How does that help?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark.

Mr. Deans: The money has run out.

CROP INSURANCE

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is it true, as I have heard, that the crop insurance people are considering dropping the planting date in eastern Ontario or across the province and, if so, when will our farmers know about it and by what media?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I haven’t heard anything about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Solicitor General has the answer to a question asked previously.

ALLEGED MAFIA ACTIVITIES

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 29 last, the member for High Park asked a two-part question concerning the Ministry of the Solicitor General’s co-operation with American police authorities in the investigation of the death of one Harvey Leach in Michigan and the steps being taken concerning any problem of the washing, or laundering of criminal funds in Toronto.

The Ontario Provincial Police were asked by the Southfield, Mich., police department for assistance in investigating the death of Harvey Leach in Southfield. Investigation continues and the Ontario Provincial Police will continue to co-operate as they always do in such cases.

The washing, or laundering of funds does occur in Toronto. What this expression means, simply put, is that money is transferred from one point to another in order to hide the identity of its source. This could be from one province to another or from one country to another. It is sometimes simply from one business or account to another. The term laundering is used when the transfers are made to hide a criminal source of the funds. However, such transfers are sometimes made for the purpose of evading taxes on funds earned from quite legitimate businesses or, on occasion, such transfers are made to conceal business information for competitive reasons.

Toronto is a sophisticated financial market of international scale. For this reason it is an attractive place for persons wishing to make such financial transfers. It should be remembered that the laundering transaction itself is not illegal. Generally speaking, it is impossible to identify organized crime money which may be washed or laundered in Canada and then returned to the United States as clean money or invested in legitimate Canadian or foreign enterprises.

It should be borne in mind that cash or bank funds are, by their nature, anonymous in themselves. To trace a laundering operation we must first identify the source of the funds and then prove that this money represented the proceeds of criminal activity. We may well be suspicious of a particular financial transaction but to prove that the funds involved were the proceeds of an illegal activity is extremely difficult, indeed almost impossible.

Mr. Singer: Who wrote that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Presumably if the criminal activity which yielded the revenue were clearly identifiable the appropriate authorities in the jurisdiction involved would have ended the operation, making the subsequent laundering and financial transaction impossible.

Mr. Roy: Are they still washing by hand?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As members know the OPP and other law enforcement agencies continuously investigate suspicious activities of this kind where an illegal activity can be positively identified as such.

An hon. member: That’s the trouble.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The appropriate charges are laid and the matter is dealt with in the courts.

Mr. Shulman: One brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There are about 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. Shulman: If it is true, as the minister says, that laundering of illegal money is not illegal in this province would he consider bringing in legislation to make it illegal?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: If the hon. member would consider drafting legislation of that kind I would be happy to consider it.

Mr. Speaker: That was a short 30 seconds. I’ll permit the hon. member for Waterloo North.

HOUSING COSTS

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier. Would the Premier comment on the statement by Mr. Shabera on W5 Sunday night, who stated that if there were 10,000 serviced building lots available in Metro Toronto it would bring the price of lots down by $10,000 to $25,000? What is he going to do? In view of the fact that this opinion is held by many people across the Province of Ontario what is he going to do to provide more serviced building lots in the areas of the province where there is an emergency situation? In case I don’t get my supplementary in, Mr. Speaker, this is it: Mr. Shabera stated that friends of the government --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question.

Mr. Good: -- and supporters of the government would not allow this to happen. Does the Premier agree that friends and supporters of the government would not allow this to happen because the values of buildings would go down below the mortgages presently on them?

Mr. Speaker: This will have to be a short answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in that I didn’t have the pleasure of seeing Mr. Shabera and really am only familiar with what the hon. member has said here, I will read very carefully what he has said. I don’t want to presume to extend the question period and I or the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) perhaps will have a fairly lengthy answer for him on Thursday.

Mr. Roy: Does the government have any friends left?

Mr. Speaker: That completes the question period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will find out how many.

Mr. Roy: I look forward to that.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Morrow from the standing procedural affairs committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

“Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private Acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient.

“ -- Waterloo-Wellington Airport;

“ -- City of Chatham;

“ -- Savings and Investment Trust;

“ -- Lake of the Woods District Hospital;

“ -- Town of Oakville;

“ -- Presbyterian Church Building Corp.;

“ -- City of Windsor;

“ -- City of Toronto (No. 2);

“ -- City of London.”

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

TOWN OF STRATHROY ACT

Mr. Eaton moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Town of Strathroy.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES ACT

Hon. Mr. Miller moves first reading of bill intituled, the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

BOROUGH OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Borough of North York.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

VICTORIA HOSPITAL CORP. AND THE WAR MEMORIAL CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF WESTERN ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Walker moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act respecting Victoria Hospital Corp. and the War Memorial Children’s Hospital of Western Ontario.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

DOMINION CARTAGE LTD. AND DOWNTOWN STORAGE CO. LTD. ACT

Mr. MacBeth moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act respecting Dominion Cartage Ltd. and Downtown Storage Co. Ltd.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

In the absence of Hon. Mr. White Hon. Mr. Irvine, moves second reading of Bill 13, the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with many of the regional governments and it is legislation that should have been put into the regional government bills, which I presume was overlooked and forgotten, and consequently I will just deal with it generally, taking them all together rather than individually.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, when a municipality passes certain bylaws, approval of those bylaws is required from some external body, a minister of the Crown or a provincial ministry, the Ontario Municipal Board, or a provincial body or agency. In some instances, during the process of waiting for approval from the external body these municipalities have ceased to exist and have become part of a regional government.

I suppose, then, that when the regional government has been formed, provision to allow these procedures to continue had not been made previously and the amendments to these various regional governments will permit this to happen. So we would find that if a municipality had passed a zoning bylaw which required approval of the ministry, and during that approval stage that municipality went into a regional government and ceased to exist in its present form or continued to exist in an alternate area government form within the regional government, the bylaw would not legally apply to the new government, because it probably would have been made out in a different municipality’s name and would not become legal when it was given approval by the external body.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will allow the same bylaws that were awaiting approval by the external body to become law in the new jurisdiction in which that municipality finds itself after the coming in of regional government. There is one interesting case in existence which this legislation pertains to very vividly. If you will remember, Mr. Speaker, Metropolitan Toronto had purchased a considerable amount of land in Pickering township -- 600 acres originally, and eventually about 1,300 acres -- and had applied for zoning changes on the land and had also applied to the Ministry of the Environment for a licence to establish a landfill site in this particular area.

The OMB hearing on the zoning change started and stopped because of the fact that the OMB realized that what was their use of allowing the zone change when at that point in time there had not been an Environmental Hearing Board decision on the establishment of the landfill site; neither had there been, of course, a licence issued by the Ministry of the Environment. So the Ontario Municipal Board proceeding stopped some time last year and as yet has not been proceeded with, because of the fact that the minister’s decision for licensing that particular area has not been made.

The Environmental Hearing Board in that particular case did recommend to the minister that certain portions of the 1,300 acres, that is, the southerly portion known as the -- I am sorry, I have forgotten the name -- the southern part of the part that was asked for, has been recommended to get a licence. So in the meantime, if the minister does decide to license that area, there will still have to be the OMB hearing to decide whether the land should be rezoned for landfill sites. So I can see that this legislation is of utmost importance to the Metropolitan Toronto area in order to get their landfill sites completed.

We in this party have very definite views on this. And while we support the passage of this legislation, which wall allow these bylaws to continue through their normal process for approval by an external body, we want to go on record once again as supporting the position that only enough land should be permitted to be developed for landfill sites that will tide Metropolitan Toronto over until there is a more satisfactory solution to the subject, which of course is reclamation and recycling and the use of garbage for steam.

Mr. Speaker, we will support the amendments on that basis, hoping that the Minister of the Environment will act prudently when he is permitted by this legislation to issue a licence and that the OMB will also act prudently when they decide whether or not to allow the rezoning bylaws to proceed in Pickering township.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I just have a couple of comments about the bill, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to support the bill as well. I think that when the various regional municipalities were legislated into existence, whatever our feelings about those particular bills in general, we had always assumed that any bylaws from the preceding municipalities that were dissolved or whose boundaries were changed by legislation would automatically continue and that the same would be true for any proceedings that were currently under way before various boards, commissions, agencies or ministries of the government.

Effectively, as the member for Waterloo North has indicated, the purpose of this bill is simply to permit Pickering’s application before the OMB for the garbage site, which Metro Toronto wants to go forward, after the restructuring of Pickering in the new regional municipality of Durham. If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one or two comments about that, because while we support this and we feel that whatever the merits of Pickering township’s decision, they have made their decision, it has been approved now by the Environmental Hearing Board and should go forward.

I think that the incentives that are still available to large municipalities like Metro Toronto and, for that matter, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, to go dashing across the countryside looking for landfill sites out in the surrounding rural areas, are still tremendously high.

A few years ago it was simply a matter of going and finding a site, talking to a local reeve or two and then going ahead with the plan. More recently it has also been a matter of persuading the Environmental Hearing Board and the Ministry of the Environment that it was all right. But that is all.

For example, when the CPR went dashing around looking for another site for Metro Toronto, we saw that there was no real gain for the local township involved, apart from very small amounts of taxes and so on. In fact, therefore, the economic system is not working effectively to encourage municipalities like Toronto to do what they should, which is to process their landfill themselves, as the city of Toronto has recently proposed.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying, in other words, is that for a party and a government that believe in using the market, there may be an instance here where, they could usefully -- and with the agreement of this party -- find some application of the market system.

If Metro Toronto had to pay Pickering, in addition to the costs of the applications to the OMB and the Environmental Hearing Board -- if it had to pay Pickering not just the cost of the land plus some local taxes at a very low rate, but if there was in effect a royalty on garbage that was taken out of Metro Toronto’s boundaries, one can imagine that there would be a tremendously increased incentive to Metro Toronto to accelerate its experiments and projects in order to process and deal with and dispose of and recycle its garbage within Metro Toronto’s boundaries rather than taking it outside. There would be a greater incentive to find landfill sites which could be used within the boundaries of Metro Toronto rather than taking the garbage outside.

However, Mr. Speaker, right now there is not that incentive. Therefore, since nobody particularly wants the garbage, what happens is that these municipalities simply continue to look wherever there is the least resistance -- in a local neighbouring municipality, some township, or some sparsely populated area. I think there even was the suggestion once that the garbage be put on a train and be sent up to northern Ontario, and since northern Ontario had been getting the garbage from Toronto for many, many years why that was nothing new to them.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful if the ministry would indicate what other applications there are for this particular bill besides the application that has been mentioned already, which is these garbage applications in Pickering township. That would be useful when we get to that part of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Just one brief question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I noticed in a cursory review of the bill that the region of Niagara is not included in this bill. Could the minister give some explanation as to why that is the case?

Mr. Speaker: Any further members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inquire of the minister who is bringing the bill forward if he is able to give us some additional examples of other particular areas of legislation that are involved beyond those of the landfill sites, which I think are the most particular items that are being stressed under this legislation. I presume there were other areas -- and they could be, indeed, very broad and general -- in which certain municipalities may have had bylaws under way but which were cut off at the time of the amalgamation into regional municipalities. I realize, of course, that the landfill sites are the greatest particular area, but I am just asking the minister, really, since there is no real principle otherwise to be debated, if he can advise us of any other particular concerns that this bill is intending to remedy?

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Obviously the principle of this bill will receive support from around the Legislature. It was prompted, I think -- spawned, I think -- by the confusion in a number of regional municipalities, but particularly triggered by the landfill reference that has already been made.

What is implicit in this is the irony that the passage of this bill to give effect to the bylaws that existed prior to regional government may well result in the Ontario Municipal Board hearing the application for the Pickering site and then approving that application, since the Environmental Hearing Board has already approved it and since the Ministry of the Environment has given it its certificate of approval. So, Mr. Speaker, in coming before the Legislature this bill should have some kind of ministerial guarantee that the immediate use of the bill will not be to turn more of Pickering into a major sanitary landfill operation.

That is the paradox of this legislation. Inherently it makes sense. Paradoxically its initial use will be to take 1,300 acres of land in Pickering township and try to turn them into a sanitary landfill area.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. members know, the so-called Liverpool site has been affirmed without qualification by the Environmental Hearing Board. The Brock south and Brock north sites have been approved with certain technical qualifications, and Brock north is partly contingent on the question of the airport and the effect that birds around the Brock north site may have. But the Liverpool site itself will provide enough sanitary landfill disposal for the Metropolitan Toronto area for the next three to five years.

So it would really come back as a piece of irony were this bill to be passed in the House, given royal assent, and then rushed into use to provide OMB approval for Brock south and Brock north and do exactly what every member of the government alleges he doesn’t want to do, which is to deter the development of recycling and reclamation by encouraging sanitary landfill in Pickering township.

I say to the minister responsible -- and he will say to me it is not his authority, I suppose -- in his reply, since we talk enough about generalities in this House, he might talk about the specific reality of how this bill will be used immediately, and give some kind of understanding to the Legislature that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) or the cabinet will step in to prevent Pickering township from becoming a sophisticated garbage landfill area and to prevent it from being turned over to that kind of usage and to allow no more than the Liverpool site to be thus exploited. It is a small matter perhaps but absolutely central to the question of social priorities in Ontario about recycling, reclamation, recovery of energy-producing goods and services. I think that’s probably a legitimate fact to introduce on second reading in principle. I do so in the hope that the minister may carry it back to some of his colleagues and perhaps make comment on it himself.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further speakers to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, the intent of the bill, as was stated previously, is to proceed with any bylaws which haven’t obtained approval. We didn’t specifically leave out Niagara. We felt Niagara was covered by the Act we have now in force; we also felt that the regional bills covered the intent of this particular amendment at the present time.

However, some of the regions we have recently created have been in the process of some discussions with solicitors as to the legal intent of the regional Acts. What we are doing by way of this legislation is supplementing the regional Acts and not in any way whatsoever applying it only to the regional municipality of Durham or to Pickering township, as has been mentioned by a couple of the hon. members. This is to apply to all bylaws which had been processed up to a certain point but hadn’t received final approval, as the member for Waterloo North said. I think he has interpreted it quite correctly; we feel that the area municipalities must have this authority. We felt they did have it.

However, we are bringing this forth so as not to have the cost of having the bills debated in court. We feel it is in the best interests not only of the people in the area but also of all solicitors to make sure there isn’t any doubt as to why and how the regions may proceed with bylaws.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The second order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to be motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to thank the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Evans) for his letter, which arrived on my desk today in response to a lengthy letter I had sent to Hydro, to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), and a number of members of cabinet. As I mentioned yesterday, the members of cabinet to a man sent the letter to the member for Simcoe Centre and told him to bail them out. He has given me a letter which is helpful in a number of respects. I thank him for that.

Perhaps it is predictable that it doesn’t answer all the questions which I had raised, and I am going to take issue with two points in the letter. Before doing so, though, I want to make it clear that as far as the member’s intervention in this is concerned, I am doing this in a good spirit and not in an attempt to nit-pick, point by point.

The first major area in the letter relates to the questions of alternative means of controlling or living with erosion on the 10-mile stretch of the Madawaska River above the Arnprior dam. I had stated in my letter that, according to information I had seen from Hydro reports, there were a number of alternatives, costing between $1 million and $8 million, to buy up easements, to buy up the shoreline, to build control weirs, to build a control dam and so on. The member states he was informed that these measures had been considered by Hydro engineering and geologists during their study of means of controlling the bank erosion and stability problems, and later by the consultant, and that each was rejected as unacceptable or ineffective. He goes on to state, for example, that the acquisition of easements or buying of the river banks was difficult and was rejected on the grounds of safety and environmental consequences. I quote: “It is very difficult to predict the extent of consequences of future instabilities in steep marine clay banks which are subject to unbalanced forces, but there are hazards both locally and downstream of a landslide.” Mr. Speaker, by themselves those may be valid points, but one of the fundamental questions about this whole Arnprior dam is that, faced with a project that was on the face of it grossly uneconomic, there were never any adequate studies that I have yet seen or had drawn to my attention, to indicate that Hydro really did look into the alternatives with the kind of depth that one would wish.

These studies should have included hydrological studies; a log of the level of the river water during the various times that it was in use; a log of the rate of erosion prior to 1969; a record of the remedial measures that were experimented with by Hydro subsequent to 1969, when the river began this peaking action, in order to curb erosion; a comparison of the rate of natural erosion and any additional erosion that may have been created by the fluctuations in river levels caused by Hydro; a study of the erosion on the river that was apparently created over the previous 20 years, when the level of the river varied by two feet a day because of Hydro’s operation of the plant for 10 hours a day; and an evaluation of the public’s aesthetic response to leaving the river valley as it stood with some erosion as opposed to obliterating a very beautiful river valley and creating a flat lake surrounded by flat terrain without trees, without features and virtually unusable for cottages.

Those are all questions that, in fact, I raised at a meeting with Hydro some time ago, and I have been unable to get any answers to those questions. It appears that those kinds of studies were not made. I wanted to know and I haven’t found out whether Hydro had ever built a major dam to control erosion before; and if not then why this particular time? I wanted to know the log of the complaints, because the only record that I could find from Hydro itself indicated that only three or four complainants had contacted Hydro from the area to be flooded, from the area to be protected from erosion, and that they were cottagers who were quickly and expeditiously bought out. I wanted to see some more documentary evidence about the erosion.

This is a very curious thing. The member for Simcoe Centre quite rightly raises the point that Hydro had rejected alternatives, such as those that I’ve been discussing, as unacceptable or ineffective. But he and the Hydro people who work for the commission have not provided the kind of satisfying evidence that one would look for as a normal kind of operation in a corporation as big and presumably as competent as one expects Hydro to be.

We have a project on which the engineering fees are running anywhere between $10 million and $20 million -- I apologize that I can’t remember what the figure was, I believe it was $12 million -- and yet there’s no evidence that maybe half a million dollars, if that was what was required, was spent in order to make a detailed study of all of the alternatives. The study of alternatives that I’ve seen, Mr. Speaker, seems to indicate that it was done in-house by people down here, and that they were simply playing around with figures on the back of envelopes rather than getting up there looking at the site in detail. The on-site investigations have been admitted in a number of reports by Hydro to have been very limited and to have been mainly confined to whether the banks of the reservoir would in fact contain the water, and whether there were adequate foundations for the dam.

That’s fundamental to the whole question, because if Hydro had done an exhaustive and definitive study to show there was nothing else that could be done than build the dam, then clearly the Legislature wouldn’t be listening to me for two or three hours. Hydro would have had the evidence. They would have brought it out when the farmers started to object. They would have sat down, months if not years ago, to discuss adequate compensation with the farmers; and everybody would have quickly agreed that there was no other course than to build this wretched dam. But Hydro has yet to provide that convincing evidence and I would contend, Mr. Speaker, that’s because that convincing evidence simply isn’t there.

The second point on which I want to take issue with the people who presumably prepared this letter in conjunction with the member for Simcoe Centre, that is with Hydro direction, is on economics. In this letter of March 29, the member for Simcoe Centre states, and this is the first time that it’s stated: “Look, if we looked at fuel costs today with the rising escalation since last fall, in fact the Arnprior project considered on its own would be an economic source of peaking power; and in fact it would be about 30 per cent more economic than any alternative, which would be an addition to a large thermal or coal-fired plant.” That’s the first time that allegation has been made. It is not supported by any kind of working papers or other studies. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that here too Hydro has yet to provide any convincing evidence that the peaking power at the Arnprior plant was: (a) required; and (b) that it is really economic.

In fact taking from this particular document, I would note that, for example, the member for Simcoe Centre bases the comparison with coal-fired generation on the basis of $1 per 100,000 btu’s, which is 50 per cent higher than the price that Hydro has been using as the cost of US coal delivered into Ontario as recently as December, 1973. That is after those major escalations and at the time Hydro was committing, for 30 years the production of that new and large plant. This is Alberta coal, but obviously if American coal is available more cheaply you would compare it against that.

The questions that need to be asked as far as this is concerned, Mr. Speaker, are: First, during the decade of the 1960s Hydro had, on average, no more than about 10 per cent excess capacity and it got through that period of time quite well, except for the period of about 1966 or 1967; maybe it was 1965, at that point it was very low in excess capacity. It was down to a negative position at one point, and that may have been around the time of the great blackout which affected all of the northeastern United States as well as Ontario.

The average level of excess capacity during that period was 10 per cent. Yet during the 1970s it’s going to be between 25 and 30 per cent, which is something quite different, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, not only is the margin of spare capacity, which is now being questioned by the Ontario Energy Board, something like three times the margin of the 1960s, but during most of the year that margin of excess capacity is much higher than the 25 or 30 per cent one finds at the peak in December when demand on Ontario Hydro is the greatest. In fact it goes as high as 50 or 55 per cent margin of spare capacity in the summer months.

In other words, if peaking power was absolutely essential, from the Stewartville plant for example, but if the rush of water in the spring and the summer was causing problems, well there is a tremendous amount of excess capacity in the Hydro system that would permit the Stewartville plant to be used for peaking power at the times of year when most needed, which would be during the three or four winter months.

Moreover, if hydraulic capacity had suddenly become so attractive, why is it that there was no other new hydraulic capacity coming on stream within Hydro as far ahead as its planning extends, that is up until the early 1980s? On the other hand, if hydraulic capacity has now become so attractive, there are approximately 35 sites around Ontario of base load or of peaking hydraulic capacity.

When the Lower Notch plant was completed in 1971 Hydro said: “That’s it. That’s the last hydraulic plant we’re going to build.” And then as a sort of a stutter, as an afterthought, it was decided to commit this plant at Arnprior. Now, suddenly, Hydro was putting forward timetables in its presentation to the Ontario Energy Board that indicate that during the 1980s it may be possible, it may be desirable, to install a lot more hydraulic capacity. Given the exceptionally high costs of the peaking power coming from the Arnprior plant, and given the fact that the power from the Arnprior plant is clearly not needed when you have a 25 to 30 per cent excess of capacity, then the question has to be asked: Surely somewhere around the system, somewhere around the province, there is deliverable peak power available from hydraulic resources that are not yet developed, which can come in and be useful at far less than the price of the Arnprior power?

Among other things, there are about 500 megawatts of power which can be cranked out of the Niagara generating station for peaking purposes with the necessary investment; and when you are talking in chunks of power that great, Mr. Speaker, it would suggest to me that that is going to come in a lot cheaper than the power from Arnprior.

The next point is that to say that Arnprior power is cheaper than coal now clearly begs the question of whether it was economic initially, and I am afraid that the information that I have had from Hydro indicates that the figures have been consistently stacked in order to favour the Arnprior project. I have given information about that to Hydro and to Mr. Evans, I don’t want to read a lot of it into the record -- I have spoken a lot about this -- but the figures have been stacked and I can provide evidence to prove it. In other words, the alternatives have been downgraded in order to make Arnprior look more attractive.

In his letter -- which presumably had the approval of the engineering people at Arnprior, Mr. Evans talked about the use of Arnprior peaking power four hours a day, five days a week, that is 1,040 hours per year.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I might suggest that it is customary to refer to the hon. member by his riding rather than his name.

Mr. Cassidy: I apologize to the hon. member and to you, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Simcoe Centre, in his letter, refers to this 1,040 hours of operation for this plant, which we know is going to cost $78 million if it doesn’t go up from that.

Now the minimum cost at eight per cent interest rate of running that plant, even if you don’t pay a nickel back in capital, is about $6.3 million a year. And if you only run it for a thousand and a few hours at a capacity of 78 megawatts you get about 81 or 82 gigawatt hours -- I am learning about my technical terms -- and if you want to cost that out, Mr. Speaker, then the cost of that peaking power is 77 mills per kilowatt hour, 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour -- just about nine or 10 times the cost of Hydro’s bulk sales to industrial consumers and to the municipal utilities.

Obviously, if we are going to be putting up a project which is being justified because it is cheaper than coal, and yet is going to cost 10 times as much as the average price of power -- I admit that is the average -- and if we are going to do it on a system that basically doesn’t have the really high peaks and valleys of demand that other power systems are concerned with, then we are in a pretty desperate crisis.

It does suggest, however, that one looks at alternatives pretty closely. What the member’s letter on behalf of Hydro was saying was that coal-fired power is going to cost something over a dime per kilowatt hour, if it is 30 per cent more expensive than this particular power; and frankly that just doesn’t square with the information which has been made available by Hydro in the submissions to the Ontario Energy Board.

If you want to take one example take nuclear power, which you can generate for nine or 10 mills per kilowatt hour. Run a nuclear plant for a day and you get 240 mills per 24 kilowatt hours over the course of a day, and that means you get power all the day long for less than the cost of generating power from the Arnprior plant for only four hours. In other words, you get free power for 20 hours a day, and I am sure there is some kind of market that could be found for it.

These kinds of economics, Mr. Speaker, are not absolutely compelling. I admit that, because I am not an engineer. I am simply a layman with some knowledge of figures and some understanding of this particular question and maybe the ability to put a few probing questions. It certainly does beg the question about system alternatives, though, and as to whether they have been looked at.

Hydro has something like 5,000 megawatts of capacity of hydraulic power scattered around the province. It doesn’t take too much thinking to imagine that perhaps some of that existing hydraulic capacity could be changed to peaking capacity if there was such a desperate need. Then the base level that would be lost would be replaced by bringing in a new nuclear plant, by accelerating the nuclear programme, by accelerating the thermal programme, or perhaps by trying to find somebody to buy it from elsewhere, although I accept that’s pretty difficult.

If peaking power is going to be so expensive to Hydro, then one can also ask: What would be the cost of an advertising campaign to get people to turn off their lights between 4 and 6 o’clock in the afternoon in order to shave the peak by the extent that’s needed in order to prevent the need for the Arnprior plant and other similar plants that would be as expensive?

Or what about the possibility of finding industries that are willing to run their plants for 20 hours a day but not to run them between 9 and 11 and between 4 and 6 -- that is the four peak hours -- in order that the power diverted from industry could be turned into the general system to meet the peaks; and therefore again prevent the need for building this very expensive peaking power plant.

Or for that matter, Mr. Speaker, what about gas turbines, which run on oil -- dare I say the word? They are not a particularly attractive solution right now in view of what has been happening with oil prices, but the governments of this country, provincial and federal, have just made a decision about future oil prices that says we will have relatively moderate escalation from $6 a barrel. And Hydro itself estimates that by the time the price gets up to the equivalent of $1 per million Btu, synthetic oils can be produced to be competitive with natural oil. In other words, there is a point at which the tremendous reserves of the oil sands will become available for firing, among other things, gas turbines in this particular province.

People in the industry have announced contracts which indicate that gas turbines are available for about $100 per kilowatt-hour capacity, about one-tenth of the cost of the Arnprior plant, and that the cost of operating them at current oil prices is of the order of 25 mills per kilowatt-hour on a peaking basis. It is not very attractive, but when we are looking at power that costs three times as much, as in the Arnprior project, then it does look pretty attractive.

Less than a year ago, in April, 1973, Task Force Hydro estimated that the old-fashioned steam turbines had a marginal cost for producing electricity of four to seven mills, and that the costs of emergency supplies, such as power produced by turbines, which accounted for only one or two per cent of Hydro’s needs, were up to 30 mills. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is a long shot short of the cost of power from this Arnprior dam.

As I say, I’m not in a position to conclusively prove anything about the dam. I am in a position to raise these questions because they have not been satisfactorily answered, and the questions are sufficiently compelling that I think Hydro has a responsibility to indicate to the public, to this Legislature and to the Energy Board that the people who made its decision and the people who recommend projects to its senior management are not a bunch of nincompoops and fools, because frankly there is a grave suspicion that they’ve been acting just in that manner.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest a couple of alternatives as far as the Arnprior project is concerned. In the first place I want to point out to the House that there has not been any major investment by the provincial government in infrastructure in eastern Ontario in order to help its development during the last two or three years. The most that we’ve seen is some continued work on Highways 417 and 416 -- and that’s it; nothing else. As usual, Metro Toronto and the Toronto-centred region gets most of the government’s attention.

Now if $50 million or $60 million had been made available for the creation of industrial parks, for the improvement of rail and road transportation facilities, for investment for year-round tourism, say in Renfrew county and so on, it would have been a terrific shot in the arm to a region of the province second only to northern Ontario in its degree of underdevelopment and which, apart from the Ottawa area, is in some pretty serious economic straits from time to time. That is an alternative use of the money which, instead, is going into an Arnprior dam and will not create one single continuing job.

I am sorry the government hasn’t thought in those terms. I am sorry that when it was contemplating through Hydro the investment of such a large sum in the region, that it didn’t go to the people in the area and say: “Look, given the alternatives of this for the Madawaska River, or this for the economic development in the region, which would you prefer” -- and get some kind of indication of public feeling. Because I don’t think the public feeling, if the question had been posed that way, would have been all that positive for the Arnprior dam.

The only reason it was positive for the dam when it was first broached in the area was: First, that people were given no alternative; second, only a very limited number of people were consulted, and they were mainly people in a position to benefit directly to the temporary creation of jobs; third, there was no information made available to them about the deleterious or harmful consequences of the particular project.

I would like to suggest that in a programme of public participation, that Hydro could have been quite frank with the people of Renfrew county and the other areas affected in the lower stretch of the Madawaska River about the problems that it knew existed with erosion on that part of the Madawaska River.

Officials could have said: “Look, we think that we may have made a mistake when we built that dam at Stewartville and decided to use it for only four hours a day. We want to explore with you the means by which we can get maximum benefit out of the dam while causing the minimum disruption and damage in the area downstream. We are prepared to act as good public, corporate citizens in this area and we are prepared to try to find some satisfactory solution which will enhance the area and will compensate for any erosion damage that the Hydro dam may have been causing” -- an open and frank kind of admission that something needed to be done.

I would suggest, for example, what Hydro might well have done would have been the following:

In the first place, it made a lot of sense that it should acquire the cottages -- because obviously for cottage owners along that portion of the river it was not tenable to have water levels which might vary by as much as 4 ft or 5 ft during the course of a day or a weekend; and they were the ones who were generating the complaint.

Second, as far as the farmers in the area are concerned, they should have been offered the alternative of either selling their riverfront land to Hydro or else selling easements to Hydro. This, in effect, would allow Hydro use of the shore frontage and would also protect Hydro from claims for damages in the case of any slumping of the banks.

Third, it’s clear that the cost of a weir across the river is something less than $900,000. You may be able to build them for maybe $400,000 or $500,000; the figures from Hydro aren’t very clear. It would therefore have been possible to go forward with the proposal for a campsite near Waba Creek -- just near the site of the dam which is now being built -- for a small amount of money.

It would have been possible to put in maybe two or three weirs in order to provide a measure of control of the river, to slow down its velocity and to create better recreational facilities for boating and so on and in order to slow down the way in which any of the water was attacking the riverside. Now those weirs might have cost, say, $2 million together with the campground investment and other recreational facilities.

Again, I don’t know; I throw out the ideas. But I do know that the cost of the weirs themselves was very modest, was less than $1 million dollars for each one, because those are figures that were estimated by the Hydro people.

And thirdly, in the area below where the dam is being built, there were complaints from the town of Arnprior about its water intake on a sewer line, and from the marina operator; things like that. I suggest that Hydro could have come forward and been very generous with the town of Arnprior in offering, let’s say up to a couple of million dollars for major recreational development of the waterfront along that two-mile stretch for a transfer of the pollution control plant and the sewage plant to the other end of town, along with the related costs that would be involved in order that there could be a major river-front park that would be a tourist attraction and be of service, not just to people of the area but also to people from Ottawa-Carleton only a 40 or 50-minute drive away. Those three items, Mr. Speaker, would have cost about $6 million.

I suggest, in addition, that Hydro could have made a commitment to people in the area that it was prepared to spend on summer employees up to maybe $200,000 to $250,000 a year in order that they would develop, maintain and repair from erosion the banks of this 10-mile stretch of river. I think that the whole valley could then have been developed for recreational purposes, or what is known as linear recreation now. There is a tremendous movement concerned with trails in the province right now. Whether snowmobile trails that snake sometimes for dozens of miles between various points in the north, cross-country skiing trails or hiking trails, like the Bruce and Rideau trails; there’s a tremendous attraction in trails nowadays. This particular valley, which is particularly beautiful and very accessible to Ottawa, would have been a good place to have experimented with that.

There would still have been some erosion in the valley. The valley has been naturally subject to erosion since God created it, and if you will, Hydro might have had even an interpretative programme which would have talked among other things about the way in which erosion takes place.

In view of the fact that the peak demands for Hydro are in the wintertime, Hydro could have cut back or even shut down its generating plant at Stewartville and kept the level of the river relatively constant during the months of high recreational use without, really, any particular loss, because there are ample other economic sources of peaking power available to Hydro during the months of the spring, summer and the early fall.

In other words, for maybe $6 million or $7 million Hydro could have created a tremendously attractive recreation area. It would have involved local people in a determination of what they wanted to do with their valley. It would possibly have had their understanding and acquiescence in measures which would have mitigated the erosion, particularly when it became clear that the $78 million alternative is also an alternative to mitigate erosion and not to end it entirely. As I know the former vice-chairman is aware, Hydro has been saying again and again that this is not a final solution to erosion, but that the proposed lake behind the dam will greatly improve slope stability and greatly reduce erosion.

The measures I’m suggesting could also have greatly improved the stability and greatly reduced erosion, not perhaps to the same extent but to an extent that might have been acceptable to the people in the area, given the fact that for 20 years they’ve had the river going up and down and apparently there haven’t been any particular complaints about it. If there had been, they weren’t noted in the documents that Hydro has been preparing. It may be that people in the area would have rejected this whole idea out of hand.

It seems to me, though, that it would have been a prudent thing for Hydro to do, to have studied in detail the hydrology and the geology of the erosion and to have full details available for local people to understand and to have helped Hydro to assess the risks of any major slumping or major landfalls such as was referred to in the member for Simcoe Centre’s letter. Then it would have been prudent for them to consider an alternative that would develop a valley which, in fact, has tremendous recreational potential into a recreational resource; and which would have at the same time allowed the farmers in the area to have retained their farmland, to have retained their pasture, and their timber land, and to have kept their farms, which in some cases have been in the same families for more than a century.

If you wanted to cost that kind of programme, Mr. Speaker, very simply the cost of protecting all or part of the peaking capacity of the Stewartville plant upstream would have been minimal compared with the costs projected for this full dam now being built. Since one of the justifications or rationales for the Arnprior dam has been that it protected the Stewartville dam, it seems to me it would have been prudent that other and cheaper measures to protect the Stewartville dam might also have been explored.

Unfortunately, they were rejected out of hand by a bunch of damn builders who could see nothing else in sight but to build a big dam and who didn’t understand there were other and more sensible alternatives which ought to have been thoroughly and completely explored. They are throwing away $60 million or $70 million. If the alternative I am talking about would have been acceptable to people in the area -- I would suggest that if the people in the area were taken into Hydro’s confidence, as they haven’t been, they would have been prepared to accept a reasonable kind of alternative like that. If Hydro said to them at the outset: “We have a problem. We think we blew it but we really can’t justify spending $80 million or $90 million on only 10 miles of river,” a lot of people would say: “Okay, that is a reasonable position.”

Didn’t Hydro itself make some rather pejorative comment about the environmental ethics of the people in the area? Let us leave that by the by. There were alternatives and they have never been adequately explored.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back briefly over the main points here which would back my contention that even though $7 million or $8 million have been spent on this particular project, it is time to stop it now. It is time to stop it; to suspend the existing contract to Pitts; and to run the risk of having to pay them a million or so for cancellation because the major part of this investment, some $70 million, has yet to be spent. That $70 million is not an economic or desirable investment for the province or for Hydro by any of the evidence which we have before us.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, there have been so many unusual or irregular things about this particular project that there is a compelling case for Hydro to carry out its commitment to public participation now, and for either Hydro or the government to hold a full public inquiry at which all of the alternatives can be explored.

If we look at the record we start out with untendered contracts to Acres; an untendered contract to Pitts; the conflict of interest between the consulting firm and the contractor who has the two major contracts; the political ramifications of the timing of this particular project announced two weeks before the re-election of the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski); the loss of farmland at a time when people across the province are concerned with the loss of farmland; the cavalier attitude of this government, and of Hydro in particular, to agricultural land; the unnecessary loss of farmland in view of alternatives which have not been adequately explored; the incompetent handling of land acquisition on the part of Hydro; the compelling and overwhelming evidence of inadequate study of erosion, of the hydrology of the alternatives to the scheme; the suppression of information by the president of Hydro, by the former vice-chairman of Hydro, now by the member for Simcoe Centre, and by the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough), which has been subsequently in fact endorsed by the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself; and the fact that on the figures now available the power is going to cost something like nine to 10 times more than what power is being sold for by Hydro.

Surely, somewhere, in the people’s sensitive antenna, the alarm bells will start to ring when that kind of thing is happening, Mr. Speaker, and they will say: “We’ve got to stop.” I urge the government to stop the project, to hold an inquiry, to table all the facts, to make them available to the Legislature and to other people who have a concern with this matter and to come clean on this particular project because otherwise the charge that this is a political dam brought into being purely for the re-election of the member for Renfrew South will stand as proved throughout his political record.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): That’s a lot of nonsense. On a point of order, we listened to that nonsense all yesterday afternoon and again today; and he knows as well as I know that not one voter in Renfrew South would believe one word of it. It is absolute garbage.

Mr. Roy: That is not a point of order. Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Renfrew South will have every opportunity to speak later.

Mr. Yakabuski: It is absolute garbage. He knows that. The member either knows it or he is very far away from the pulse of the people.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Yakabuski: It’s utter garbage. That is what it is.

An hon. member: He should get his own hall.

Mr. Cassidy: I would suggest that possibly the member for Renfrew South himself might be the best person to provide the evidence which has been suppressed and denied to the House, to provide the proof that Hydro did do the studies beforehand, to get a public inquiry into this matter --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has the floor. The member for Renfrew South may reply later if he wishes, in his turn in the debate.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: I just simply suggest, Mr. Speaker, that unless there is an inquiry to get all the facts on the table, and unless all the information is tabled to prove otherwise, we can only assume that this is a political dam built for the member for Renfrew South.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the member for Scarborough Centre or the member for Prince Edward-Lennox next?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): The what? No, I was next, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It was my understanding that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox was to be allowed to continue his remarks, which were interrupted at an earlier date.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting me to continue with my remarks. I was interrupted at an earlier date, as you stated, and I was thinking for a moment that interruption might become permanent.

Mr. Roy: By whom?

Mr. Taylor: If you had sat here for the last several days, Mr. Speaker, I think you would understand the significance of my remarks.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): It embarrassed him, that’s all.

Mr. Taylor: As a matter of fact, now that the member raises this, and before I get on with some of the points I would like to make, there is an old Arab proverb and it might be worthwhile just reciting it. “He who knows and knows that he knows is wise; follow him. He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep; wake him. He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; shun him.”

Mr. Roy: That is good stuff.

Mr. Taylor: Yes. As a matter of fact there is just one little bit left that members might want to use some time, and it says: “He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a child; teach him.”

Mr. Martel: This is just like my Sunday school class.

Mr. Taylor: Is that too subtle for the member?

The Speech from the Throne stated in part that tourist operations, small businesses and service industries will benefit from improved loan programmes and financial assistance from the three provincial development corporations.

Mr. Martel: That’s been said for the last five years.

Mr. Taylor: Operators of small business establishments will receive more help and advice in solving management problems. I must say that I am sure the intent of that is to further amplify the existing government programmes, because we have had government sponsored programmes to assist the tourist industry in the past. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the maximum amount of a loan for a tourist operator was $75,000 and it is my understanding that the ceiling has been raised so that as of now loans up to half a million dollars can be made by the province --

Mr. Martel: With a million dollars in funds!

Mr. Taylor: -- at a very attractive interest rate of six per cent and repayable over a term of 15 years. I think that is certainly an incentive to the development of our tourist industry. And when I say development I am not only speaking in terms of new capital works but also the upgrading of existing establishments, such as the hotels, motels and marinas and that type of thing. I also say that this includes special attractions such as miniature golf courses, restaurants in conjunction with these tourist establishments and so forth.

Members may realize it wasn’t long ago that tourist operators had a very very difficult time in raising any conventional money at all, and if they could it was in the realm of at least 14 per cent interest per annum.

It certainly is a programme that should be accelerated, if anything, and additional assistance given to the tourist industry.

In speaking about the tourist industry, I would like to say that for some time a number of the members from the eastern parts of Ontario have been trying to get a tourist information centre established somewhere on Highway 401, east of Toronto. If such a centre were established -- and I’m talking in terms of a centre much like the centre just south of Barrie -- then that centre would provide information and a stimulus to the travelling public to further explore the various facilities and attractions that we have in eastern Ontario, and it would be a boon to at least 30 ridings.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Did the member speak to the minister about it? Did the minister travel there last summer?

Mr. Taylor: I must say, Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend from the Lakehead area, that I have spoken to the minister on a number of occasions --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Thunder Bay.

Mr. Taylor: -- as he may also have done. I have spoken to him in conjunction with a number of the members from the eastern ridings.

Mr. Stokes: I’d be happy to put in a good word for the member.

Mr. Taylor: We’ve had many good words, and we hope that the opposition will further assist --

Mr. Martel: By all means.

Mr. Taylor: -- the representations we have made in this direction, for the simple reason that it would be a great boon, as I say, to the eastern part of the province, and I think it should be carried out as soon as possible.

Mr. Martel: When does he want it?

Mr. Taylor: Well, that’s one item, Mr. Speaker, for which we have the wholehearted endorsement of the NDP. I’m sure that will --

An hon. member: Carry a lot of weight.

Mr. Martel: When does he want the funding?

Mr. Taylor: -- add some credibility to that party’s stance in my particular area.

Mr. Martel: There’ll be money next week.

Mr. Taylor: The Throne Speech also mentioned the operators of small business establishments receiving advice in solving management problems, as I said a few moments ago.

I might say that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, in conjunction with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, now has a programme which is underwriting a university advisory group to the extent of some $400,000 and utilizes the expertise and training of university students in senior years. These students -- who would be from administration, finance and similar disciplines -- could go into the countryside and assist small business operators to analyze their particular operations and to determine where changes might best be made in order to further facilitate their business operations and make it more profitable for them to carry on.

I think the programme has worked out very well, and I might say that Imperial Oil put up some $80,000 this past year to assist with that programme, and should be commended for doing this. The programme, in my view, should be further encouraged and expanded.

I might also say that the appointment of James Joyce as the first fulltime chairman of the Ontario Development Corp. is an excellent move and an excellent choice. I think he will lend a great deal of background and business experience to that particular post, and I think it will certainly assist the corporation in its objectives.

Before moving on, I would like to comment on the food establishments in the service centres on Highway 401. It is my understanding they are establishments that are rented out, or tendered out, by the province through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I think greater attention should be paid to the particular facilities that they have, and more specifically to their food operations and the service they render to the public. After all, they are really on the frontier of our tourist industry. The travelling public first comes into contact with many parts of our area through dropping in for gasoline and for a bite to eat.

In some cases, I think, these facilities could be improved a great deal. It may be that the amount being extracted in terms of payment for these facilities is too great because it is bound to be reflected, and I’m sure it is reflected, in the food and the service that one experiences at these places.

Mr. Speaker, mention was made in the Throne Speech of proposed legislation with regard to consumer product warranties and guarantees to order to provide better protection for consumers, new redress procedures and more flexible means of administration. Legislation, it was stated, will also be introduced to protect the consumer from unfair and unacceptable trade and business practices. It is my view this move is long overdue.

I think the dollar is fast losing its integrity, and I think the consumer’s purchasing power is shrinking, and it’s shrinking for a number of reasons. First of all, we have the erosion of the dollar itself through inflation. Secondly, we have the production of inferior products and the passing off of these products without a reduction in the price.

Mr. Stokes: Proctor-Silex.

Mr. Taylor: In other words, we have shoddy workmanship and we have poor materials.

If one, for example, looks at the evolution of the garbage bag in this province -- it may be a rather simple example -- but the members may recollect that the industry did quite a selling job in order to introduce plastic garbage bags in lieu of the normal garbage container or the garbage can. Most municipalities had municipal bylaws that specified the type of garbage container -- normally a metal container with a tight-fitting lid. These bylaws provided for this particular facility.

Of course, the industry had to convince the municipalities the garbage bag would be a suitable alternative, and as a matter of fact would have many advantages. It undertook a programme of distributing plastic garbage bags. As a matter of fact, they were delivered to many households free of charge in order to induce the householder to use these containers.

At that time, the thickness of the bag was such that it would actually hold what one was putting into it. If you look at the evolution of that bag, it’s like the evolution of the automobile in terms of the amount of metal that’s being put into a car these days. It’s deteriorated to such an extent that the thing is worn out before you can get it on the street.

That’s a deterioration in the dollar, really, because while the price is going up the quality is going down. That’s just one example.

You have a cutting back -- which is a third way in which we experience the dollar shrinking -- a cutting back of the contents in the package or in the container. The candy bar is an example of this.

Again, one can see what has happened to the ordinary chocolate bar. There is a big wrapper and a piece of cardboard to give it some form, and of course the contents are very small. One can maintain the quality, but at the same time, they are shipping air.

Cereal boxes are another example. They may be only two-thirds filled. Opaque containers are another example, insofar as they are used for products that people purchase; whether they be single-walled or double-walled containers.

We have seen these products advertised on television, but it applies to any type of opaque container where one really cannot see the contents. The weight may be put on as the number of fluid ounces contained, but that becomes even more complicated for the consumer with conversion to the metric system.

Instead of the public experiencing an economy with rising expectations, I think they are experiencing the biggest ripoff, since probably Gypsy Rose Lee first disrobed on a public platform.

This whole question can be extended into housing. Yesterday we discussed a private member’s bill dealing with warranties on houses; and I think there is merit in the concept. But in my estimation the problem goes deeper.

The member for York-Forest Hill (Mr. Givens) gave as an example the motor industry projecting an image of stability, with purchasers having some satisfaction in that they were dealing with a corporation that was large enough and sensitive enough of its image to produce a proper product or a product that was not shoddy.

I question whether that premise can really be accepted. I think if one looks back on the evolution of the automobile, not only in styling but contents, one can see how the material has really evolved -- the thickness of the metals; the workmanship; the way cars are put together in terms of fittings, trim and so on.

It is a very difficult area, because we are really dealing with attitudes. We are dealing with workers; we are dealing with the people who put these things together; we are dealing with some manufacturers who are not keen to produce a quality product.

The green paper on Ontario consumer product warranties says on page 26, paragraph 13, that the Consumer Protection Bureau Act should provide the establishment and execution of a programme of consumer product testing, and performance evaluation should be a function of the bureau.

I think this is really vital to any legislation that is introduced. If one is talking about consumer product warranties, it is not just a question of amending the existing Sale of Goods Act and making more conditions or warranties mandatory or part of the contract and doing away with disclaimers. I think it goes further than that.

It is really a matter of testing the products -- seeing what is made, seeing what is marketed, seeing how the products are serviced; probably going around and making independent investigations of how these products stand up and what type of product servicing is available.

We are confronted today with the idea that you don’t fix anything; you throw it out and replace it.

Mr. Martel: The member’s corporate friends are doing that.

Mr. Taylor: The planned obsolescence concept has taken over to such an extent that there is very little that is being repaired.

It’s so complicated a consumer doesn’t know. If he is going to get his automobile fixed, for example, even if he stood over the mechanic while he did it, the owner would wonder what he was doing. He’d probably see a sign before he got as far as the mechanic saying: “The public is not permitted past this particular point.” So the member of the public is discouraged from seeing what is being done on his automobile.

He is further kept in the dark as to what in fact has been done, or whether in fact it was done. The automobile owner may have a representation in some cases that certain repairs are being performed when in fact they are not being performed.

Again we have this type of activity or consumer ripoff that I think must be looked into. It must be investigated. It’s implicit in the marketing of any product that the repair service follow that particular product. I think we have to start with these bigger products.

Mr. Martel: Not too many from the cabinet listening to that.

Mr. Taylor: My friend from York-Forest Hill mentioned that the biggest purchase a person may make in his lifetime is a home. The biggest single purchase probably is a home, but when one figures the turnover of cars because, as I say, of the inferior quality of materials and workmanship that goes into those cars with their planned or built-in obsolescence, then over a lifetime I dare say a person would spend more on automobiles than he would on a home.

The same principle applies in cases such as this. I think that one has to look to the merchandiser and have someone whom one can put the finger on and say: “I bought this product from you. You have represented that it is a good product or that it will perform in this way. Now I’m holding you responsible to see that it is.”

If one has to bring in the manufacturer or we have to legislate that the manufacturer is brought in and is jointly and severally liable or primarily liable for the production of the product and the accountability to the consumer, then that legislation should be brought in so that the people are not continually harassed and frustrated in trying to get satisfaction after they first buy the particular product.

We are seeing more and more of that kind of thing, and people are more and more becoming victims of the slick ads and the fast merchandising that is taking place. As I say, we have the combination here of an attitude, along with merchandising that says: “Well, it doesn’t matter.” It is an attitude of not being too concerned with making anything that is too perfect.

Mr. Cassidy: It is the private enterprise system that does that, isn’t it?

An hon. member: What’s wrong with private enterprise?

Mr. Taylor: May I just say to my friend from Ottawa Centre, he tempts me to respond because not too many years ago I was in Russia and I’ve seen some of the workmanship that is done in that particular country, which can hardly be termed a capitalistic system or a free market system. As a matter of fact, they had just completed the new airport and some of the workmanship there I’m sure could have been done by a child of six years of age. Not that they are not capable of doing fine workmanship, but it is just incredible the type of workmanship that’s turned out.

Furthermore I was looking at some housing projects. At least in this system we can go and look at our housing projects; we can see what’s being done, we can go through an apartment building. In Moscow I was taken into an exhibit of building achievements where one could see the plaque to Comrade Somebody-or-other who had invented the waffle system for mass-producing sides of modular units.

Again, if the member went through one of those model apartment units where probably two families would be sharing, he would realize there would be a revolution if that was introduced in this country and given to our populace rent-free or at a very minimal rent.

So don’t talk to me about the free enterprise system and the capitalistic system, where the means of production are owned by the individuals and not by the state.

Mr. Martel: What individuals?

Mr. Taylor: And if he would go and see some of that type of workmanship, I think he would probably have second thoughts about making a remark such as he made before.

Mr. Cassidy: The means of production aren’t owned by the other people. They are owned by five per cent of the population --

Mr. Taylor: Oh, well, they say that figures don’t lie, but liars figure. I’m not suggesting any impropriety; I am just saying that if the hon. member looked into his facts before he spoke, I think he would become more learned and a more credible person.

Mr. Martel: All the widows and orphans own the shares. Is that what the member is saying? The widows and orphans have all the shares?

Mr. Cassidy: For purposes of necessity, Imperial Oil and --

Mr. Martel: It’s all very well for them to rip us off.

Mr. Taylor: Well it’s all very well for my friend to consume the benefits of our system and, being a fat-cat, to criticize it. But if he had to get along in some of these other systems where the state controls so much, I think he’d be very glad to come here, where he has the opportunity.

Mr. Cassidy: But the hon. member was just criticizing our system and the quality of the workmanship and saying there is a need for protection from the government in order to protect people from these marvellous free enterprisers.

Mr. Martel: The member can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Taylor: Again, I hate to credit my friend with anything, but being a master of distortion -- and I am tempted to give him that badge of questionable distinction -- but what I have been trying to point out, and what he fails to understand, is that no matter how many regulations we have, we can’t produce a quality product unless the people who are actually producing that product have the will to do so.

Mr. Martel: That’s not the workers’ fault.

Mr. Taylor: It’s the same concept as working to rule and so on. We can have all the rules we like, and think we have legislated perfection, but what we’re doing is legislating a slowdown if people follow those rules to that degree. It’s the pride of workmanship, the attitude of the worker, that matter; and I think the attitude has shifted in our particular society today to the point that there isn’t the same pride that there used to be -- and that comes from within the producer himself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the Throne Speech -- and I would like to confine my remarks to the Throne Speech, unlike those who wander so far afield --

Mr. Martel: The member is so personal.

An hon. member: He’s right on.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Carry on, Jim.

Mr. Taylor: I would comment that when we are dealing with consumer product warranties, we might consider not only the aspect of chattels, which is really the subject matter of the green paper, but also the question of housing --

Mr. Martel: Who plans built-in obsolescence, by the way?

Mr. Taylor: -- which was debated yesterday under a private bill, because it might very well be that legislation could also deal with that particular area.

What I am concerned about, of course, is that when we get into housing, as was mentioned yesterday, we have to be careful that we don’t get into a whole new bureaucratic regime where people start inspecting for the sake of inspection.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, housing has been built and is being built under the National Housing Act, where there are direct loans to the people who will be occupying their homes; in those cases there are probably a dozen inspections by government inspectors. In the bill yesterday it was suggested that there be four inspections. I don’t think a dozen inspections will ensure a fault-free home, nor do I think that four inspections will ensure that. I think we are into an area that is going to be very difficult to legislate.

When we talk of homes, Mr. Speaker, we are also talking of people moving into those homes. If we look at some of the contracts used by commercial carriers who move furniture, we see that there are disclaimers in those contracts. At one time we thought that a commercial carrier was virtually an insurer, so that if he damaged a person’s goods then he would be made responsible. But today there are many exclusions as to his responsibility, and for those items that aren’t excluded there is often a provision that compensation is confined to something like 30 cents per pound.

I think that if the vendors of furniture can move that furniture from their store or warehouse to your home, surely a person in the moving business should be able to move that furniture from one home to another without damaging it. I think it’s that area as well that may very well be investigated and included in the legislation that would be drafted to protect consumers.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne also made mention that there would be measures for the control and reduction of litter and solid waste. This is really an area of the environment and today the thrust seems to be more to matters of the environment. I think the provincial thrust has been away from the simple creation of an appropriate climate for private investment and now the philosophy seems to be of using government as a deliberate instrument of social and economic guidance.

So we are really getting into this area of ecology and environment and lifestyles, call it what you will. Our concerns are directed to traffic and transportation, water and sewer facilities, the parks systems, the problems of solid waste disposal. I think it’s time we started showing something more on the ground in terms of solid waste disposal.

I know that a tremendous advance has been made in the financing and construction of waste purification plants and sewage disposal plants, trunk sewer mains and trunk water mains and the laterals and so on. This is a big area and it’s an on-going process. It’s vital. It’s probably more essential than anything.

As I say, there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in this direction, but we haven’t really solved or hardly begun to solve the problem of garbage disposal. There have been many papers and many suggestions for creating a plant that would use modern techniques in the disposal of garbage.

We’ve heard for some years about a proposal by two professors at Queen’s University, Messrs. Brown and Clark, to construct a plant which would utilize garbage and also sewage sludge and produce certain byproducts and a compost. We haven’t seen much progress in connection with the physical establishment of that particular plant. There have been many representations, I am sure, to the Ministry of the Environment in the past in order to obtain its assistance, financial and otherwise, in the establishment of pilot plants to see just what we can do along this line.

As a matter of fact, I made representations myself on a number of occasions in connection with Prince Edward county. Here we have a geographical area which lends itself to a small plant which could be so situated that it could service the city of Belleville as well.

We have the technology, but there seems to be a philosophy that you have to make money from your byproducts. It is my view that we have to dispose of garbage and not make money from our byproducts. So let us not be too concerned right now about what we are going to do with the compost, because I can tell some people what to do with it. I know what I would do with it in Prince Edward county --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Don’t be obscene now.

Mr. Taylor: -- would be to use it on some of the shallow-soil areas. As a matter of fact, it might assist in those areas where tree plantings have taken place in an effort to stabilize some of the dunes, because as members know there has been a tree-planting programme for many years there in an effort to stabilize that particular area. I am sure we have many sites where we could utilize the compost, which is really a soil material and which would benefit the countryside.

It is not essential, Mr. Speaker, to make a profit on something like this. I think it is essential to solve our problem. That is number one.

This type of plant has been functioning quite well for years in some European countries, in Switzerland for example, and it may be that it would function equally well here and in smaller communities. We know we do have a pilot plant in the city of Toronto, which really isn’t going to contribute very much to the solution of its gigantic waste disposal problem. But if a plant such as this were put in an area where it could adequately dispose of the problem, then it would really be functioning in some worthwhile and constructive fashion.

We may have to make a few mistakes, but that is all right. We must make mistakes to learn. I think the sooner we get a series of these pilot plants under way the better. I think it is going to be essential that the government bankroll the capital construction of these plants, because that is the only way we are really going to get it off the ground.

I know the municipalities will argue that the ideas are great if they can get someone else to finance them, but they may be willing to finance a part. Then the problem comes, of course, in the on-going expense of operating these plants. Who is going to guarantee that the plant will function in perpetuity and who is going to finance the cost?

These are some of the problems that have slowed down the establishment of this type of plant. But I think we have to take some bold steps. If that means making some mistakes then we will make some mistakes, but let’s get the plants off the paper and on to the ground and see how they function. Let’s either see if they work or if they don’t work here. If they work, fine; if they don’t work, we will write it off and get on with something else. I think that it is essential that something be done in this direction.

An hon. member: Right away.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, those are some of the remarks I wanted to complete. I wish to thank you for the wise manner in which you have ensured order in the House and the very fair rules. I see that you always seem to have the facility for assisting the speakers, keeping order and ensuring that the House is very attentive, and I want to thank you in this case.

Mr. Speaker: Before the next hon. member proceeds, I might take a moment to inform the House that, in accordance with standing orders 27 and 28, I have received notice from two hon. members that they were dissatisfied with the answers given to questions during the oral question period today. In accordance with those standing orders, the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) shall have, at the adjournment of the House this evening, five minutes to present his views regarding the particular question and the minister will have five minutes to reply if he so wishes. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) shall also have the same opportunity to present his case in connection with the question he had asked.

These questions will take place at the adjournment hour and at 10:30 this evening a motion to adjourn shall be deemed to have been made.

Now, the hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): How did he manage not to get in on that debate?

Mr. Roy: I want to make the point very clear, Mr. Speaker, that you advise the people involved in Hansard and all the staff and people who are working around the House that I am not the one who is keeping them late this evening. I hope you make that very clear.

I am not going to accuse my colleagues of plagiarizing, because I think it’s a rule which is open to all members of the House. I think it quite proper, Mr. Speaker, that if ministers of the Crown see fit not to answer our questions, we use that rule with probably more regularity.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): He answered, but I was not happy.

Mr. Roy: The member wasn’t happy with his answer?

Mr. Martel: It was a non-answer.

Mr. Roy: Then he is abusing the rule, obviously.

Mr. Deans: I am not.

Mr. Roy: In any event, Mr. Speaker, may I make some comments in line with my colleague who preceded me, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox, and say how pleased we are to see you back in the chair. We were somewhat concerned for a while following the Christmas recess but we are extremely pleased to see that you are in good health, that your sense of humour and your objectivity continue to rule from the chair.

There are times I suppose, Mr. Speaker, when we feel you should possibly be a bit tougher with the government, especially the ministers, but again I know this is a difficult task which you have. We on this side feel you are exercising it with fairness and objectivity and we are extremely pleased to see that you are in good health. We sincerely hope you will continue to be with us and in that capacity for many years to come.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): The member is not expecting to take over?

Mr. Roy: Pardon me?

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, yes.

Mr. Roy: If we took over, we would have no objection to keeping the same Speaker. I think possibly this House should give consideration to having some permanency in the chair as well. I think it would be --

Mr. Young: In that case, we will agree.

Mr. Roy: Do you see that, Mr. Speaker? I have my colleagues on my left agreeing with me. Your objectivity and fairness are exuding to all sides of the House here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I might make a few comments. I will not make a few comments about the Throne Speech because I think there was so little in it I would be wasting everybody’s time even to discuss it except to point out that as a member of this House looking at the approach of the Conservative government to various problems which exist in this country, I find it indeed ironic that the national leader of the federal Conservatives should be enunciating certain policies at the federal level on which one of his colleagues in the same party, who is in a position to do something, apparently does not agree with him. One wonders what sort of unanimity or rapport exists between certain members of that party.

For instance, Mr. Stanfield has covered the length and breadth of this country talking about the question of inflation and saying it is a cancer in our society. It is something which has first priority with him and something that should be dealt with and he has suggested certain measures to take care of that problem.

It is ironic that in the Throne Speech by his colleague, the Premier of the province, very little should be mentioned about inflation at all; secondly, nothing was mentioned about what steps this province is taking first of all to curb the inflationary spiral or to curb the government’s own appetite for deficit spending; and thirdly, what helpful measures he might take to help those who are on fixed incomes and suffering so badly from the question of inflation.

The federal leader as well suggests wages and price controls and this does not seem to sit well with the Premier of this province. He has continually dodged whether he is in favour of that, in favour of the policy from his leader.

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): Put the responsibility where it belongs.

Mr. Roy: Well, is he against it or not?

Mr. G. Nixon: He is twisting words again.

Mr. Roy: The third thing which I find extremely ironic, Mr. Speaker, is that I think since 1972 the federal Conservatives have been suggesting that the federal sales tax on building materials should be removed. They have been consistent on this, in suggesting that the federal government should be removing the federal sales tax on building materials, whereas the Premier here in this province increased the sales tax on building materials by 40 per cent just last year.

That just points out the inconsistencies and, I suppose, the difficulty which the federal Conservatives have to take power. Their approaches to the problems are inconsistent within their own party.

Mr. Speaker, you may recall that last year in my reply to the Throne Speech I dealt with a problem involving the opticians in this province, the problem of the controls by one company called Imperial Optical. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that after speaking on it in the Throne Speech and after bringing in a private member’s bill, and raising it in estimates, and raising it on a number of occasions with the then Minister of Health (Mr. Potter) -- who at first kept mentioning that I was wrong, that there was no conflict of interest -- I am happy to report that continual badgering of the minister has produced some results, and as you know, the board of ophthalmic dispensers has been changed. Four of the five members from the board have been replaced, and been replaced by two lay members.

I was pleased to see as well, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) has accepted our suggestions on participation by the public in these professional boards, disciplinary committees and such, I was very pleased to see mention of this in the statement on the Health Disciplines Act, as presented by the minister here today.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the question of law reform in the courts, and the attitude taken by the government, especially in the area of administration of justice and the administration of the courts. I want to mention that as one who has participated in the administration of justice in various capacities in this province I am most disappointed by the priority that is given to administration of justice by the Premier of the province.

First of all, by the very individuals that he has involved in the administration of justice, the result has been, to say the least, chaotic and a mark of incompetence. You recall, Mr. Speaker, following the 1971 election, the former member for St. George was Provincial Secretary for Justice, Mr. A. F. Lawrence. The first thing that the Provincial Secretary for Justice did, for no apparent reason, was to decide to present a bill that would, for all intents and purposes, cut the salaries of certain levels of judges -- the Supreme Court judges and the county court judges.

He would cut, in fact, the provincial remuneration and for no apparent reason. There was no public pressure to do this. In fact, the trend had been to try to encourage competent people from the profession to accept posts to serve as judges to improve our standard of justice. And he comes along, for no reason, and antagonizes all the judges at these various levels.

He talked a bit as well about offtrack betting, and he left for greener pastures. He says, “I’ve had enough.” He left and he’s now in the federal House still making a fool of himself up there in the federal House.

Mr. G. Nixon: Get off that stuff.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, he was replaced as the Provincial Secretary for Justice by the hon. member for Halton West (Mr. Kerr). The first thing he did was bring in a bill to repeal the bill that his predecessor had brought in about judges, and he decided to compensate the judges, or at least bring them back to the previous level. Then his biggest contribution as provincial secretary was chasing across the province talking to housewives about Sunday shopping and this type of thing. For one who was involved in as important a post as Provincial Secretary for Justice, it was indeed really a worthless contribution.

His final volley was directed against the judges, especially the provincial judges, for being lazy and he succeeded in antagonizing that group of people who at that time were labouring under very difficult circumstances.

In the Justice secretariat, Mr. Speaker, we had the member for York Mills (Mr. Bales), who very early as Attorney General of the province unfortunately lost all credibility as senior law officer for the Crown when he was involved in a conflict of interest involving land. Then he showed absolute failure of sensing any pulse of what his role was as Attorney General in the Fidinam affair where evidence clearly indicated that there might have been a prima facie case. He could not understand, and he had to be pressured by the opposition members even to investigate this situation.

It was obvious, Mr. Speaker, that he had no sense of the administration of justice and that he really had no feel of what a senior law officer of the Crown should be in this province. Unfortunately, he relinquished the position as the chief law officer to his senior officials who were really making the decisions for him.

I intend to come back to this to show what happens when an Attorney General is not able to censure or is not able to control the officers that work within his department, officers who have great powers. Very few people hear about these special prosecutors that they have, but these people have all the resources of the Crown at their disposal. Their decisions are seldom challenged and there is really no one to check on them unless the Attorney General is there to keep them in line.

If I might mention the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) who was Solicitor General, he gave a pathetic performance as well. Mr. Speaker, after he was named Solicitor General, I recall a great article in one of the newspapers that said he was going to be a fantastic crime fighter. His biggest contribution was chasing after pinball machines when he should have been looking at organized crime in this province. In fact, this was a pathetic situation. He was seizing pinball machines in the riding of the Provincial Secretary for Justice who kept telling him, “Stay away from my riding and quit seizing those machines.” It was, in fact, Mr. Speaker, a ridiculous situation. It was obvious, as well, that the Ontario Provincial Police had very little confidence in him.

It’s unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that since 1971 the lack of excellence and the lack of calibre in the Justice section have really done irreparable damage to the administration of justice in this province. This excellence was established by the former Attorney General, Mr. Wishart, who had the confidence of the judges and the confidence of the law enforcement people. In fact, he must have been a genius since he was at the same time Solicitor General, Attorney General and Provincial Secretary for Justice. Things used to work pretty smoothly there. Everybody seemed to be relatively pleased at the administration of justice at the time. All of this, Mr. Speaker, has really gone down the drain. It’s very unfortunate that there has not been more talent and more capability in the Justice section.

One of the major mistakes, Mr. Speaker, made by the hon. member for York Mills as Attorney General was his lack of sensing the pulse of the importance of some of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. First of all, he sat on the report of the Law Reform Commission for something like eight to 10 months. Then finally, when he presented it, if you recall, Mr. Speaker, he made a lengthy statement. One of the things that he was very categorical about was the fact that in the administration of justice, the administration of the courts and the independence of the courts was something that should be kept under the Attorney General.

I might just read some of the things that were said at the time by the Attorney General and some of the replies made by certain groups of individuals involved in the administration of justice. I recall, Mr. Speaker, back at the opening of the Supreme Court, at the 1974 assizes, the member for York Mills was reported to have made this statement: “Attorney General Dalton Bales has told the province’s judges and lawyers that the administration of the province’s courts will continue to be under the control of his ministry. Speaking at the formal opening of the 1974 Supreme Court assizes yesterday, Mr. Bales confirmed the government’s decision that the administration of the courts should remain under government control, despite recent suggestions that a quasi-independent body be set up to assume the function.”

The reason I suggest it is especially important that the courts be absolutely independent, Mr. Speaker, has become obvious, I think, in the US. I think very few people will doubt the courage of, for instance, individuals like Judge Sirica, who was prepared to stand up to whatever pressures were exerted from above. I think the finest hour of the independence of the judiciary was pointed out in that situation, and it is extremely important here. If I might go on to read: “The treasurer of the Law Society told the assizes, however, that the structure of court administration must be viewed as long-range. Mr. Robins recalled that the Law Reform Commission recommended in its report that the court administrator should not be part of Mr. Bales’ ministry. Mr. Robins said the benchers and Law Society have expressed concern that Mr. Bales’ proposal would not adequately protect the independence of those who will be responsible for the administration of the courts.”

The Attorney General had said at the time, Mr. Speaker: “In making this decision [in other words, to keep the courts under his administration] we were mindful of the obvious need to maintain an independent judiciary, and have on several occasions stressed that it is not our intention to interfere with, or to attempt to influence in any way, adjudicative functions of a judge.”

Well, that’s a sham, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to point out how in a trial in Ottawa the Attorney General of the time, the member for York Mills, abused the great powers that are given to him under the Criminal Code, and in fact used the judge and the provincial court as a tool of the prosecution when they are supposed to be independent.

Mr. Speaker, if I might show how he abused this process, this trial involved the prosecution conducted by the special Crown. In other words, these people are working right out of the department in Toronto. The special Crown in this case was Ian Cartwright. I intend to show, Mr. Speaker, that through the administration, the whole process, and the conducting of this particular trial, the Crown was biased; that this, in fact, turned into a personal vendetta between the Crown and one of the accused in the case, and that the Attorney General was used in the case -- or I should say, misused in the case -- in the sense that, as I suggested before, the officials of his department, not knowing what was going on, used the powers that he had to try in fact to further the trial.

Mr. Speaker, the trial involved the Queen versus one Leopold Neilsen, one Jason “the Wolf” Wentzell, and one Warren Joseph Smith. This involved 37 counts of fraud against Neilsen and one count of possession of a cheque obtained by fraud; 18 counts of fraud; 18 counts of fraud against Wentzell, and 17 counts of fraud and one count of possession against Smith. This was a joint charge with Neilsen. This was all in one information.

Wentzell was well known in Ottawa. He was a lawyer, a well-known practitioner in Ottawa and he has been a former alderman in the city of Ottawa. Wentzell had acted as a lawyer for a company called All Grads Group; in fact, this company was involved in a scheme whereby it was organizing university scholarships.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to challenge in any way the fact that there might have been a prima facie case to lay this charge in the first place, and that lawyers or former aldermen or anyone else are subject to prosecution like anyone else. But in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, I intend to show how, in fact, the provincial courts were abused, the provincial judge was used by the Attorney General’s department, it turned into a personal vendetta, immunity was granted to certain individuals, which does not exist under our judicial system, and there were certain other matters. I intend to point these things out as I go on with the trial.

First of all, the accused got involved in the preliminary hearing. Two of the accused, Mr. Speaker, elected to proceed by way of judge and jury, and of course, the provincial judge at that point holds the preliminary hearing. The other accused elected to proceed by way of judge alone -- the provincial court judge. But the provincial court judge in this case had jurisdiction to send the three on to the preliminary hearing.

The preliminary hearing was held in front of one Judge Michel who is a provincial judge in North Bay I think. Judge Michel is a fellow I know personally; he is, in fact, a former member of the Crown attorney’s office.

It would appear obvious, Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this trial that Cartwright, the special Crown attorney, was out to get Wentzell. One of the ways to be sure of getting Wentzell involved or get a conviction against Wentzell was to taint Wentzell with the evidence of the other two, to try to keep the three accused together, especially one Neilsen who was obviously involved in this. Keeping Neilsen along with Wentzell would help in the prosecution because the jury would hear the evidence against Neilsen and would make some inference against Wentzell.

The preliminary hearing began, Mr. Speaker, and at the outset of the preliminary hearing, three counsel were representing these individuals. They were well-known counsel in Ottawa: Mr. Arthur Cogan representing Mr. Wentzell; Mr. Ed Houston representing Smith; and a Mr. Shore representing Neilsen.

Right from the outset of the trial it was obvious to counsel involved in this case that this was going to be a lengthy case and so they approached Cartwright and said to him: “Rather than get involved in a very lengthy preliminary hearing, why don’t you prefer an indictment? Why don’t you get the Attorney General to prefer an indictment now? We could go on to trial; we could save a lot of expense.”

Unfortunately Cartwright was having nothing of the offer made by the three defence counsel. He felt that a preliminary hearing, if not helpful to the accused, would be at least helpful to his case. He used the preliminary hearing as a form of disclosure for himself.

The preliminary hearing got going and they heard 14 days of evidence which is extremely lengthy for a preliminary hearing. What happened was that after 14 days they had an adjournment and one of the accused, Neilsen, was in custody. They forgot to bring him back every eight days for a remand and so lost jurisdiction over Neilsen. With Neilsen being charged jointly with the other two, and having lost jurisdiction over him, the Crown found itself in a real predicament. In fact, it looked as though the 14 days of evidence was going to go down the drain.

But not for Cartwright. What he decided to do at this point was to present the new information and proceed with the new information against the three. Of course, both counsel for the other two accused objected to this. They said, “We’ve already heard 14 days of evidence in relation to our clients and there is no reason why we should have to start over; because with new information, if counsel did not consent, you would have to start the proceedings all over again.

He tried to force this on and counsel brought a motion for prohibition in Supreme Court and before the motion was heard the special Crown attorney, Mr. Cartwright, withdrew the new information and decided to lay the new information against Neilsen. What he decided to do was to proceed with the other two accused, in whose case they had already had 14 days of evidence, and side by side put in Neilsen. It’s a procedure I’d never heard of but this was challenged right up to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court felt there was nothing improper about it.

In any event, they proceeded side by side on both informations. Throughout this matter, Cartwright himself suggested to defence counsel that if there were 38 counts in this case he would not be proceeding to trial with more than seven or eight counts. I have correspondence, Mr. Speaker, which I intend to enter into the record which clearly shows this. He told counsel that even after two days or eight days of preliminary hearing or 14 days of preliminary hearing.

These people kept saying to him -- first of all the counsel for Neilsen, who had been in custody for two years, said, “I’m prepared to plead guilty to these counts.” One would think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a right in this society today for the accused, if he so decides, to plead guilty; he is entitled to that. But not in this particular situation because to plead guilty he would have to get the consent of the Crown to re-elect to plead guilty before a provincial court judge.

Cartwright was not having any of this because he wanted to keep Neilsen along with the other two so he could taint them again -- keep the three together so that the evidence would be more overwhelming against the other two. He consistently refused this.

Counsel for Smith as well was prepared to enter a plea of guilty but Cartwright, as I say, was not having any of this. In fact, counsel for Smith suggested that he plead guilty to one count and make restitution for $12,000, and, in fact, this will become significant when we see the sentence that was given to Smith at the end of the trial. In any event, Mr. Speaker, what happened was the preliminary hearing continued and they had 37 days of preliminary hearing, if you can imagine the cost, the length of time involved -- 37 days of preliminary hearing.

At that point, Mr. Speaker, the provincial court judge, Michel, adjourned the matter to rule, first of all, on whether Neilsen, one of the accused, could plead guilty and secondly to rule on certain evidence and on whether the accused should be committed for their trial. He ruled that all evidence heard against Smith was actually not admissible and, in fact, only the evidence in relation to the one count -- the one count he had offered to plead guilty on -- was admissible. So he put the decision over for a few days to consider this.

At that point counsel for the defence suspected that something was up. I got a phone call from his counsel who said, “I think the Attorney General is considering preferring an indictment.”

What preferring an indictment means, Mr. Speaker, is that at that point that the Attorney General decides, and he has this power under the Code to say, “We say that these people are going on to trial. Never mind the preliminary hearing or anything else, we prefer an indictment before a grand jury.” The Attorney General has this power. Even before an election is made or anything else he can say, ‘We are preferring an indictment,” and take it up before grand jury and on to trial.

But preferring an indictment is improper when you decide to embark on a course of a preliminary hearing. Once you decide to have a preliminary hearing it is highly improper to get involved in this; because you gave it to a provincial judge, he is the one who is going to rule on the evidence. I consider it unwarranted interference in a judicial process even to consider this.

When I got word from defence counsel on this point I spoke to the member for York Mills. That was before he decided to prefer an indictment. I said to him, “I understand that this Mr. Cartwright is trying to get you to prefer an indictment.” And he said, “Yes, they are.”

I said to him at that point -- this was right in the House -- “It’s highly improper for you to get involved in preferring an indictment at a time when you have heard 37 days of evidence, and a provincial judge has put the matter over to make certain rulings on the evidence to decide whether he should commit or not.”

He said, “Yes, I consider it a highly volatile step -- a step that I will give serious consideration to.” He said, “You can rest assured that I’ll be looking at the situation very closely.”

Well, two days later he preferred the indictment. I couldn’t believe it when counsel called me back and said, “He has decided to prefer an indictment.”

Preferring an indictment, generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, happens at the outset. If the Attorney General decides at that point he is not going to have a preliminary hearing, he says, “Let’s prefer an indictment.” Or it happens sometimes, Mr. Speaker, when the magistrate discharges an accused and the Attorney General feels that he should go on to trial in any event.

But preferring an indictment is a pretty bold step in any case; it’s seldom used. But preferring an indictment in the middle of a preliminary hearing is what I consider to be an unwarranted interference in the administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker, this summer, I recall, there was a preliminary hearing in Kingston involving a murder where two accused were charged with murdering of another individual, and there was a lot of press about this situation. I recall reading the transcript of that. But what happened in that particular case, Mr. Speaker, was that the inmates who were witnesses against the accused were afraid to testify, and the Crown had not promised them either to try to hide their identity or to get them moved to other penitentiaries. And, of course, with the people refusing to testify at the preliminary hearing, the magistrate had no choice at that point to discharge both accused.

So, at that point I wrote the Attorney General and said this is a case where he should prefer an indictment, because he could grant certain security to these witnesses from the other inmates; tell them that they can be sent to another penitentiary and then they will give their evidence. In fact what happened, Mr. Speaker, was that an indictment was preferred by the Attorney General, they had the trial and the accused were convicted.

But in this particular case, it was after 37 days of preliminary hearing, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine the cost of something like this? You have three accused, you have the whole administration of justice involved -- the judge, all the officials -- and he decides at that point to prefer an indictment.

I asked the Attorney General, “Why did you do such a thing?” -- I walked right into his office and said, “I consider this highly improper. Why did you decide to prefer an indictment?”

He said, “First of all, defence counsel were stalling proceedings by motioning us to death.” He said defence counsel were bringing on too many motions. And he said, secondly, “Some of the witnesses we were concerned about were not in good health and we were afraid that these witnesses would not be around and then -- “

Mr. Gaunt: They would die.

Mr. Roy: Yes, well that was what he was afraid of -- that is what I thought. He said: “We are concerned that time is of the essence. We have to proceed on with this.”

And so, I want to deal with these two matters. There is the question of the health of the witnesses and the question of whether counsel were in fact abusing the process by bringing on these motions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I might just bring some of these matters to the attention of the members here about these questions. First of all, there is counsel wanting to plead guilty, which I consider to be extremely unfair on the part of the Crown not to allow an individual to plead guilty on certain counts. And I want to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, a letter sent by Mr. Shore, who is counsel for Neilsen. The indictment took place some time in the early part of November, 1973. This is a letter written in May, 1973, to the Ministry of the Attorney General, 18 King St. E., Toronto, Ont., attention of Mr. Ian Cartwright.

“Dear Sir:

“Re: Leopold Neilsen versus Regina.

“This will confirm our conversation outside No. 2 courtroom, 60 Waller St., Ottawa, on May 29, 1973, wherein you advised me that in the event of a formal committal, the Crown would proceed to trial on the count alleging illegal possession of a cheque [That’s one count.] obtained by fraud from William Shawley and five or six counts alleging fraud against the individual complainants.”

Now, recall this is in May and the preliminary hearings weren’t for quite some time and at that point it’s on record that Crown counsel had said he was only proceeding with seven or eight counts. To continue with the letter, he said:

“Due to Mr. Neilsen’s predicament, I advised you that I am prepared to seek instructions now with regard to a plea of guilty to these six or seven counts. You indicated that if Mr. Neilsen wishes to plead guilty, you are not prepared to withdraw any of the 37 counts which he is presently facing.”

And of course, what defence counsel wanted at that point, Mr. Speaker, is to say: “Look, he’s going to plead to seven or eight counts. You withdraw the other 30 or so counts.” But you know, plea bargaining is something that is frowned upon. But in this case it was not really plea bargaining, because Crown counsel had advised that they would not be proceeding with the 30 counts at the trial in any event. He goes on to say:

“As the trial is not likely to take place until at least the fall, some four months hence, and because Mr. Neilsen has been in custody since June 2, 1972, it is grossly unfair, in my opinion, to prosecute my client on 37 counts when he may be prepared to plead to the six or seven counts on which you will be proceeding a trial.

“In the event that Mr. Neilsen does plead guilty at a later stage, I intend to introduce into evidence this letter in mitigation of a sentence.”

Well, obviously Cartwright refused this. What happened in fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the election that he wanted to make to plead guilty, which the provincial judge was supposed to rule upon, was annulled by the preferring of the indictment by the Attorney General.

What Neilsen had done originally was that he had elected to be tried by a provincial judge.

And Mr. Shore goes on to say in the letter to myself dated March 4, 1974:

“His election was declined and he was ordered to undergo a preliminary inquiry, although he was in custody at the time and has been in custody since June 2, 1972, when he was arrested in Florida. On Oct. 25, 1973, a formal application for re-election in order to plead guilty to a draft indictment which had been prepared by the Crown ... “

In fact, the Crown had prepared the draft indictment for trial. And so, having seen the draft indictment, he said “I’ll plead guilty before the provincial judge to these counts.”

“The presiding judge adjourned the application one week for a decision when the Crown would not consent to same. The next day the Hon. Mr. Bales, then Attorney General, preferred an indictment against all three accused, thereby effectively nullifying Mr. Neilsen’s application to plead guilty before the judge who had heard over 30 days of evidence on a preliminary inquiry.”

It seemed to make sense that he would plead before the provincial court judge who had heard all the evidence.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the first things that I consider highly improper in not allowing an accused to plead guilty. I consider that highly unfair.

Now, the second point made on this is the health of the witnesses. I intend to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, certain letters written by the special prosecutor in this case to his chief witness, whose health he was concerned about. The chief witness was Robert J. Clendenin, a corporation lawyer in Monmouth, Ill., who was involved in the scheme in the United States; and, of course, he was a very valuable witness for the Crown in the prosecution.

On Sept. 6, 1973, Cartwright, counsel for the Attorney General, wrote this man a letter trying to get him to come and give evidence in Ottawa. One of the things he said to Mr. Clendenin at that time was:

“I am deeply concerned about the question of your health [I am reading from the tetrel dated Sept. 6, 1973] and I wonder if I could impose upon you to ask if you would outline to me, in a letter, your age and your current state of health and also any difficulties that you encountered when you came to Ottawa last November.

“My reason for it is that I would like to draft an affidavit and send it down to you to be sworn and returned to me so that I may put it before the court on Oct. 30 on my motion to have the trial proceed at that time. Could you please provide me with the particulars of your jurisdiction in order that I may properly draft this affidavit?

“I hope that you do not feel that this is an imposition. I am certainly very grateful for your assistance.”

He is trying to get Clendenin to say that he is not well so he can have an affidavit and thereby sort of justify to the Attorney General the preferring of the indictment and, secondly, justify to the Supreme Court judge that this trial should proceed expeditiously because he has some sick witnesses.

Mr. Clendenin replied to Mr. Cartwright on Sept. 28, 1973, in a letter from Monmouth, Ill. He stated as follows, Mr. Speaker;

“Dear Sir:

Since your letter of Sept. 6, 1973, I have not received volumes one and two of the transcript of my testimony taken in Ottawa in November, 1972. As soon as the date has been firmed for the trial involving the records of Educational Development Services Inc. [this was one of the companies involved in the scheme] and you have determined when my testimony will be taken, I would respectfully request that you send me by registered, certified mail a subpoena requesting my attendance at the hearing.”

He went on to say:

“At present my health is good for a man of 69 years of age, and I would be reluctant to sign an affidavit for the sole purpose of attempting to accelerate any trial. The only difficulties I had with the hearing last November was the necessity of standing on my feet for several days in a witness box, since my circulation is not as good as in my youth. I also managed to catch a bad cold and possibly the flu, which winds up later with some congestion in my lungs.”

Mr. Clendenin clearly stated at that point that there was nothing really wrong with his health and that he was not prepared to sign an affidavit to play into the special prosecutor’s hands. This was one of the reasons given to me by the Attorney General for preferring the indictment, the health of a witness. To my knowledge there was no other witness who was sick or had any problems in this case. He must have been referring to Mr. Clendenin, but it is obviously not the case that there is something wrong with the health of that witness.

Mr. Speaker, if I might point this out, Cartwright clearly stated in a letter of Sept. 11 that he did not intend to proceed on 38 counts but only on seven or eight counts. In his letter to Mr. Clendenin of Sept. 11, 1973, he stated:

“I have decided that for a trial only a certain number (probably about seven) of charges of fraud will be heard, and one charge of possession of a cheque fraudulently in the United States will be heard. My reasoning is that it is senseless to have a trial of some 38 counts when, if anyone is convicted, he will get the same sentence for seven charges as he would for 38. [Well, that seems to make sense.] Another effect of this would be to shorten the overall length of the trial, which should make it considerably easier for a jury to understand the evidence.”

What had they been doing, Mr. Speaker, wasting their time at the preliminary hearings? They had gone 37 days on 38 counts, and the Crown counsel himself admitted that he had no reason to go on to the trial on this many counts. He just intends to go on with seven or eight counts. He has refused to plead guilty by counsel or be prepared to plead to some of these particular offences, because it appears very clear that what he wants to do is keep these three cases together on for trial. He has successfully accomplished this by getting the Attorney General, as I said earlier, to prefer an indictment.

Just to give you some idea at the attitude of Crown and defence counsel in this particular case -- and I suppose that there was some animosity on both sides -- Cartwright on page 2 of his letter of Sept. 11 states: “I anticipate that on Tuesday, Oct. 30, counsel for all three accused will make numerous and lengthy objections as to everything under the sun, including perhaps the absence of any coat racks for them in counsels’ changing room.” So you can see there is animosity going on between Crown and defence counsel in this case.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the other reason given for the Attorney General for preferring the indictment is that he was being motioned to death by counsel. The only motions brought by counsel, Mr. Speaker, were, first of all, a motion brought by the two counsel, when Cartwright attempted to get these people on a new information, and that seemed like a valid motion because at the time they already had 14 days of preliminary hearing and why should they start all over again on a new information? In fact, that motion was granted. That was one of the motions that the member for York Mills was talking about.

The second motion was brought by counsel for Neilsen when they tried to put a new information against this man and run it jointly with the other information because you will recall that he was starting afresh after 14 days of evidence. In fact, the judge said, “We will just continue on as we have already heard 14 days of evidence,” although they had lost jurisdiction on him. They went right up to the Supreme Court of Canada on this. I have the transcript or the factum from the Supreme Court on this particular motion. In fact, three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada granted the appeal. I shouldn’t say they granted the appeal but they allowed a motion for an appeal. So if there was no merit whatsoever in the motion, why would three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada even let the full court hear this particular appeal?

The third motion, Mr. Speaker, was dismissed with reluctance. It involved another motion which was pending before the Supreme Court when the Attorney General decided to prefer his indictment. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, after all this work was done by the provincial court, after the provincial court judge was seized with this matter and the matter had been put over for adjudication, the Attorney General decided to prefer the indictment. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I consider it highly improper to have done so.

The next step then is that they go on for 30 days of trial, if you can imagine that, Mr. Speaker. They have already had 37 days of preliminary hearing in this case. They went on for another 30 days of trial. The result of the trial, I might point out at this point, was that Wentzell, the person who Cartwright was after, was acquitted. He was acquitted completely. Neilsen, who had attempted to plead guilty on seven counts, was allowed to plead guilty at that point because Cartwright could no longer deny him the right to plead guilty when he got him before the Supreme Court. He pleaded guilty to the seven counts and was sentenced, I think, to two years. Smith was found guilty on just the one count of possession, a count that he said he was prepared to plead guilty on, and was asked to make restitution for $2,000.

One asks, what was this whole procedure of 37 days of preliminary hearings and 30 days of trial all about?

It is clear that what happened in this case was a personal vendetta. It got out of hand. Crown counsel should always approach cases with respect, Mr. Speaker. He should approach cases from an objective point of view and never on a personal basis. It appeared that in this case it was a vendetta. It appeared to be an obsession on the part of special counsel to get Wentzell. Can you imagine the terrific cost of preliminary hearings of 37 days and 30 days of trial? I would think that this trial would have cost somewhere upwards of $500,000.

In this information, Mr. Speaker, from certain information that I have here apparently the Crown would only enter evidence favourable to the Crown, and that should never be done. Crown counsel’s role is to present the evidence to the judge, or to the jury, but he should never withhold evidence which might be favourable to the accused. I understand that this was done in this case.

More important, Mr. Speaker, if one was charged as a lawyer acting for the company, why was not the accountant who signed all the cheques and was very much involved with the administration of the company also charged? The accountant in this case was named Robert Murray. He was a very important witness in this case.

What happened was that he was brought in to testify, and of course he testified under the protection of the Canada Evidence Act. His counsel, at that point, said, “What about any charges that might flow against Mr. Murray?” -- because he was involved with all these people -- and Crown counsel said, “I assure you that there will be no charges laid against Mr. Murray.”

In fact, what he was doing was granting him immunity. Well, immunity is not something that is known under our system of justice, Mr. Speaker. It is done in the US -- you had a situation where you had Dean testifying before a committee -- but it’s not something that is germane to our system of justice. If a witness co-operates with the Crown, obviously this is a factor to be taken into account if he is charged, and is a factor to be taken into account on sentence only, not whether he’s going to be charged or not. Because this is a prima facie case against him. But apparently the Crown in this particular case granted him immunity and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, there is no authority for this.

The part that is frightening, Mr. Speaker, and it comes back to my original point, is that when you have a weak Attorney General who is being bossed around --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Where has the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) been.

Mr. Martel: We’ll have some order around here now.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Here’s a law and order Speaker if ever I saw one.

Mr. McIlveen: The member for Grey-Bruce will keep some order around here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want to vote now?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the end of the anatomy of this trial. The point I was trying to make was that these special Crowns working out of Toronto -- and I have great respect for many of them. Very competent individuals, Mr. Manning, Mr. Powell, all very capable individuals we’ve heard about -- have great powers and have the resources of the whole Attorney General’s department. Decisions made by them are seldom challenged because they’re always working on special prosecutions, prosecutions which are very complex. But it’s important that the Attorney General keeps an eye on these people, because nobody is really there to check on them.

The only check that there is, Mr. Speaker, is an independent court, a court that will keep them in line. And when the Attorney General participates, and when you have a situation like this, with the help of the Attorney General you really abuse a process that you embark on at a preliminary hearing. I can’t emphasize this enough, that when a judge is seized with a case and he’s going to hear it, then our courts should have the independence to hear the evidence and make a decision on it, and the Attorney General should not interfere at that point. It’s highly improper.

So I think this matter should be looked into, and, obviously, not looked into by someone in the Attorney General’s department. They shouldn’t be investigating themselves. We’ve had that happen too often. I think the matter should be looked into by either a judge of the Supreme Court or a judge of the county court, because, as I say, there is really no one to check on these individuals. First of all, very few people even know they exist or that this area exists. They have this great power and there’s no check on it unless you have a very competent and capable Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: It sure ain’t easy.

Mr. Roy: Right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And so, I think there should be a judicial inquiry into this whole case, to look at this and to bring these matters out, as to what happened in this case. And I would suggest first of all, in the investigation of this case, that they look into the attitude of the Crown. Because it’s important that the Crown keeps his objectivity throughout. The minute that the Crown loses his objectivity and it becomes a personal vendetta, there’s no room in our system of justice in Canada for this.

We’ve seen too many DAs in the US who are packing a gun and trying to look like hotshots, trying to be effective to make sure that they’re going to be re-elected the next time. Because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, these people down there are elected, whereas here in Canada these people are named and they won’t be jeopardized whether they get a conviction or whether they don’t get a conviction. And because of that system, Mr. Speaker, complete objectivity should rule on the part of the Crown.

The judicial officer or the judge looking into this should look into the question of preferring indictment. This is a fantastic power that the Attorney General has, and if it is abused -- and especially if you have a weak Attorney General and these individuals talk the Attorney General into the abusing of this -- then it hurts the administration of justice.

We should be looking at the question of granting immunity. Since when does that exist in our system of justice, granting immunity to individuals? Not in so many words; he’s not saying “You’re granted immunity,” but he’s saying, “There will be no charges laid against you.”

We should look as well at the question of offering evidence which is only favourable to the Crown. This is a very bad practice as well. The Crown counsel is an officer of the court. He should be offering evidence which is favourable not only to the Crown but to the defence. It’s to be remembered again that the Crown has all the resources of the OPP and investigators at its fingertips. Money is no question. If it uncovers evidence which might be favourable to the defence it should let the defence know about this.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, what I consider to be highly improper is the Crown refusing to allow an accused to plead guilty. In other words, refusing to let an accused plead guilty, when he is prepared to plead guilty on counts the Crown intends to prefer in any event. I consider that to be an abuse of the process, and I think this matter should be looked into fully.

I know one shouldn’t make comments about individuals who find it extremely difficult to defend themselves but, on the other hand, these practices are going on and I think it’s in the public interest, especially when taxpayers’ moneys are being used and when the administration of justice is at stake, to let the public know exactly what happens. It comes back to my point that it’s important our courts be completely independent. Members will recall some time ago we decided to split the question of police and prosecution. We put the police under the Solicitor General. This was a very positive step in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, because we were separating this function.

What does it appear like to the public when the same boss is the boss of the judges and the boss of the prosecution? I have talked to provincial court judges and they feel uncomfortable in this situation, especially with some of these special Crown attorneys who say to the judge, “I think you should convict” or “I think you should commit someone for trial.” The judge doesn’t agree and the special Crown attorney goes back and talks to his boss in Toronto or to the deputy, Mr. Callaghan, or somebody and says, “This character in Sudbury” -- or somewhere else -- “is not co-operating with us. He gives me a bad time every time I go there.”

What do members think the deputy Attorney General or the boss says when these fellows come back and ask for a pay raise or want to talk about their pension or something; or they want to talk about attending a convention somewhere? These people feel they are in a very uncomfortable situation when we don’t have the split. I think it’s important, Mr. Speaker.

I was glad to hear that the new Attorney General is giving certain consideration to having it split and to having a situation as they have in the federal courts of Canada, where the administration of the courts is something which comes under the chief judge. They keep their complete independence and we’ve seen with Watergate, how important that can be and how important it is to have a judge who could act completely independently and not submit to pressures from above.

Mr. Gaunt: Hydrogate.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention --

Mr. Gaunt: Cartwright? A good start.

Mr. Roy: Pardon me?

Mr. Gaunt: Cartwright was on this? He’s got a bad record. He handled the raspberry case and he lost that one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another reason I think it’s extremely important to have this independence aside from this trial and aside the fact that we have a situation in which provincial court and county court judges have the same boss -- at least county court judges’ salaries or their pension are not dependent on the provincial government but the provincial judges’ are -- is we have a bill which is going to come into force in this country called -- I don’t really know -- we call it the wiretapping bill. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it’s probably going to come into force around June 1 or sometime in the month of June. Great powers are given in this bill to police and to certain judges and this power must be exercised wisely.

I had occasion to attend the seminar on this bill at Osgoode Hall some two weeks ago. We had probably one of the reigning experts in the world on wiretapping, Sam Dash, who was special counsel on the Irwin committee. His views of the bill were that in this country we are embarking on a very dangerous experiment because in the US they have had such a bill since 1968 which gives less power than our wiretapping bill. After Watergate they’re having second thoughts on whether priorities should be given to privacy.

In 1968, when Nixon came in he thought that privacy was not important and that security was the important thing and they passed this particular bill. It was called a safe streets Act or bill -- something along this line. Dash says they are giving serious consideration in 1974 to doing away with this particular bill because of the powers given. One of the problems under the bill, as Mr. Dash said, was that too many powers were given. What happens after a while is that the judges who are granting the police jurisdiction to tap become a rubber stamp, and they are granting permission as a matter of course.

The reason that it can happen in this particular province, Mr. Speaker, is this. First of all, under the wiretapping bill -- and I have had the occasion to go through it in depth -- is that the people at the federal level don’t seem to have appreciated the fact that we have made a split here, that the Solicitor General is in charge of investigation here. They keep talking about the Attorney General being the one who is going to designate people to do the tapping of phones or whatever method they use. He says that it is the Attorney General, so that has not been recognized by the federal level.

The second thing about this that concerns me greatly, Mr. Speaker, is that you must remember that approval for wiretapping is just like giving a blank warrant. The basis of obtaining permission for wiretapping is the basis of getting what is called search warrants. When you get a search warrant you are looking for something specific. You go into somebody’s home on June 12 and you are looking for a gun; you are looking for something else, and that is it; that is the finish of this warrant. If you want another warrant you have to go out and get one.

Permission for wiretapping on the other hand is like a general warrant. You put the tap on and you leave it there for 30 days and you can hear conversations about all sorts of things. And if you haven’t heard something for 30 days you get an extension; you get it for another 30 days. So it is extremely dangerous to give police that kind of power.

For the police to be able to tap they are going to have to go to either a Supreme Court judge or to a county court judge. Now what happens if they go to a county court judge?

Half of the county court judges across this province are sitting on police commissions, and when the police force wants a particular warrant to go out and tap they go before the judge who sits on their commission. Now what sort of enthusiasm is the judge going to have to refuse them this particular warrant? Consider that, Mr. Speaker.

We have raised it in this House before -- and I notice the former Solicitor General, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) is here. We have raised that matter before -- the inherent conflict that exists in having county court judges, or provincial court judges for that matter, sitting on police commissions. But it is extremely important in this wiretapping bill, because if our county court judges who are going to be granting these things are sitting on police commissions, and they refuse a warrant, at the next meeting of the police commission the chief is certainly going to tell the judge about maybe having missed out on a prosecution because he didn’t allow him to tap.

So the only safeguard that the public is going to have under this particular bill, Mr. Speier, is that we have astute and independent judges, and that they look very closely at each particular application, and that these applications be detailed. Because, as I say, when you put a tap on somebody’s phone, when you decide to use that type of method of prosecution, really you have given a blank cheque to the police.

I do not say the police in this country have abused this power but, you know, it was interesting because Sam Dash gave an indication at the meeting that the police very often don’t reveal how many taps they have made. They don’t reveal that at all. He gave as an example a very professional, very competent district attorney in New York. His name escapes me for the moment, Mr. Speaker, but this man is well known right across the US, and he used to continually report that there were about 300 taps in the city of New York in any given year. As it turned out he said that what, in fact, the police were reporting were only successful taps. In other words, when a tap was not successful they would not report and in fact, there were something like 20,000 to 25,000 taps in the city of New York.

So if the police don’t decide to reveal this particular information, we are giving them a blank cheque. As I say, it is great powers that are given to them.

Sam Dash, who I was extremely impressed with -- and as I say, he was an authority on this particular subject -- was explaining that wiretapping is not something that is a recent phenomenon. He said the overhearing of conversations, or the delving into the privacy of people, started in the Bible; and, as he explained, when the first telegraph pole went up a wiretapper probably climbed it as well. So one generation has a tendency to forget the mistakes of the other. He says we are embarking on a dangerous experiment. The point has to be made, Mr. Speaker, now that we have the report on the police and the police commissions that has just come down. I would like the Solicitor General to give us an undertaking -- in fact, I think he has given such an undertaking -- that judges no longer will be sitting on police commissions, but I also think that the judges who are presently sitting on police commissions should be asked to leave.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey Bruce): Right.

Mr. Roy: They should be taken off the police commission. That is all I have to say at this time about the independence of the courts in terms of matters that are of great concern to me and that certainly should be looked into.

If I might, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly in French on a problem that is of concern to me, and one that is also of great concern to other people especially in certain areas of the north and eastern Ontario as well as Ottawa. It is the matter of the use of French in the courts.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the 1972 Throne Speech this government promised to encourage the use of French in the courts. I was extremely disappointed to read about the member for that great northern riding -- what’s the riding?

Mr. Stokes: Thunder Bay.

Mr. Roy: Thunder Bay -- when, subsequent to asking a question, he was advised that people would be charged for translation. Well, that really encourages people to communicate with their members in their own language! In fact, it is a great deterrent.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): The NDP has no bilingual secretaries?

Mr. Stokes: It shows the degree of commitment that they make.

Mr. Roy: Yes, the real degree of commitment on the part of this government. I think it is such a retrograde step that I can’t find words to condemn such a practice. What does one tell an individual who wants to communicate with his member or with the government in his own language?

Mr. Good: We’ve got lots of bilingual secretaries.

Mr. Roy: Consider what would happen if they tried to do something like that in Quebec. Imagine the hue and cry in the Province of Quebec if an English Canadian wrote to the provincial government or his member and was told that he would have to be charged for his letter to be translated into French. Can you imagine what would happen, Mr. Speaker? This government seems to be prepared to accept that approach. I can’t find words to condemn something as retrograde as this.

Mr. Laughren: Most offensive.

Mr. Roy: The other problem, of course, Mr. Speaker, is that it is especially ironic in the area of the city of Ottawa. An accused person in the city of Ottawa who is charged with an offence might be French-speaking, often the officer will be French-speaking, as will the judge and the Crown and defence counsel -- but they can’t speak a word of French in that court because the language of the courts is English only.

But should that person cross the river into Hull, in the national capital -- and we consider Ottawa-Hull as the national capital -- there he would have a choice of languages: he could have his trial in French or in English. It is a ridiculous situation.

In the riding of Prescott and Russell, where 85 per cent of the population is French-speaking and many of them have difficulty speaking English, the witnesses, the judge, the Crowns and all the court officials speak French. But because of this ruling, which I consider to be an idiotic ruling -- it’s the Judicature Act which says all proceedings shall be in English only -- these people, who can hardly speak English, are breaking their mouths trying to testify in English. And those who cannot speak English must have a translator to put it down in English for the record, although everybody understands what they are saying in the first place in French. It is an absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous situation.

I have pointed this out a number of times. In 1969, in fact, as a defence counsel I challenged this section of the Judicature Act. Unfortunately, when I got into court to challenge, the Crown withdrew the charge against my client and I had no further case. That took care of that problem.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, at the federal level, an Act called the Official Languages Act was passed; and at the time this Act was passed the provinces were told that French would be allowed in the criminal courts when the provinces were prepared to allow French in their civil courts. So this province has decided not to allow French in its civil courts, and of course we don’t have any French.

I come back to the promise made by the Premier in the Throne Speech of 1972: When is the government going to do something about this absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous situation? We have officials who are capable of doing things. What’s the purpose of appointing bilingual judges or French-speaking judges if they are never going to hear any evidence in their own language? Isn’t that a ridiculous situation?

And we continually keep doing that. We say we have problems if they should go to the court of appeal. None of these problems, Mr. Speaker, do I consider to be of sufficient importance to deny the people in that area their rights, you know. How in the hell are you going to convince the people in Quebec that advances are being made over here when they come into Ottawa? In Quebec they can have a trial in either language, but not if they come into Ottawa.

And so, Mr. Speaker, this is the reason I will be presenting this bill which is going to be an amendment to the Judicature Act to try to assist the government in keeping their word and enforcing their policy which was in the Throne Speech.

Mr. Deacon: Long overdue.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I might briefly mention some of these matters in French.

La question du français dans les Cours est une question qui me taquine depuis assez longtemps. M. l’Orateur, je trouve absolument ridicule qu’en 1974 on attend encore, nous les francophones de l’est de l’Ontario, ou du nord de l’Ontario, pour avoir le français dans les Cours quand il n’y a aucune raison justifiable pour ne pas nous permettre cela.

Si vous vous rappelez, M. l’Orateur, dans le discours du Trône de 1972, le Premier Ministre de la province avait mentionné qu’on encouragerait l’usage du français dans nos Cours de justice. Moi j’avais l’impression que ce n’était pas quelque-chose qui devait prendre trop de temps, parce que dans la région d’Ottawa, dans la région de Prescott-Russell, peut-être dans certaines régions du nord de la province, on en a des francophones.

On a des juges qui sont bilingues, on a des procureurs qui sont bilingues, on a des officiers qui sont bilingues. Et cependant tout le monde parlait en anglais dans les Cours, c’était une situation absolument stupide. Je n’ai jamais pu comprendre pourquoi on ne permettait pas l’usage du français ici.

Je voudrais dire, M. l’Orateur, que ce qu’on préconise n’est pas une question de changer la province de l’Ontario, demander qu’une personne dans la région de Durham ici en Ontario, ou au centre de Toronto ait un procès en français. Mais c’est un fait que dans certains secteurs ou on a 50, 75, 85 pour cent de francophones et qui se trouvent près des frontières de la province de Québec, on ne peut même pas avoir un procès en français. Je trouve cet état de chose, M. l’Orateur, absolument ridicule.

À ce sujet je voudrais mentionner qu’en 1969 je défendais un individu, un francophone de Vanier. Le procureur dans la cause était français; moi-même je parlais français. Le juge était bilingue, le procureur est devenu juge plus tard, c’est M. Vincent. C’était la police de Vanier ou tous les officiers parlaient français. Je me suis dit: “Je ne vois aucune loi qui m’empêcherait d’avoir un procès en français, à part la loi que j’ai déjà mentionnée, la loi sur nos statuts qu’on appelle Judicature Act.”

De toute façon, M. l’Orateur, j’ai décidé de procéder en Cour avec cette cause-là et demander au juge pour avoir un procès en français. Ce qui est arrivé c’est que, au moment où j’allais plaider ma cause en français, la couronne a retiré l’accusation centre l’accusé et comme de fait je n’avais plus de cause.

Ce qui arrive depuis ce temps-là, M. l’Orateur, c’est qu’en 1970 on a passé une loi qui s’appelle la loi sur les langues officielles. Vous savez que le Fédéral a juridiction en matière criminelle ici et permet l’usage du français dans toutes nos Cours fédérales. Ce qui arrive c’est que la Province a juridiction sur la procédure de nos Cours et le Fédéral a la juridiction sur la question des lois.

Les provinces se sont objectées, certaines provinces peut-être avec raison. En Colombie ils ont dit: “Écoutez, en Colombie britannique, ou peut-être à Terre-Neuve, on ne peut pas avoir un procès en français, on n’a pas les officiers on n’a pas le personnel qui permettrait d’avoir un procès en français.” Ce qui est arrivé, M. l’Orateur, c’est que le Fédéral a fait une concession aux provinces. Et on leur dit au Fédéral: “On ne passera pas le français dans nos Cours de justice au Criminel tant que vous ne serez pas prêts à permettre l’usage du français dans vos Cours civiles.” Malheureusement, ici en Ontario, on attend toujours qu’une décision soit prise par la province pour changer la loi que j’ai mentionnée, le fameux Judicature Act. Il n’y a aucune raison, M. l’Orateur, pour qu’on ne change pas cette loi et qu’on ne permette pas l’usage du français dans nos Cours.

Une autre chose, M. l’Orateur, qui m’a extrêmement peiné, c’est de voir un de mes collègues, en Chambre ici, le député de Thunder Bay, qui avait mentionné qu’il avait reçu une lettre d’un de ses électeurs et que pour faire traduire cette lettre ici à la Province, on le forçait à payer. Pouvez-vous imaginer une situation aussi ridicule que quelqu’un qui veut communiquer avec son gouvernement provincial, qui vent communiquer avec son député, ne peut pas le faire dans sa langue quand on dit ici dans la Province qu’on permet l’usage des deux langues en Chambre. Je trouve cette situation absolument ridicule et j’espère que le gouvernement va la clarifier pour que si un individu veut communiquer avec son gouvernement dans une langue, il ne soit pas obligé de payer pour faire traduire cette lettre.

Je peux imaginer ce qui arriverait, M. l’Orateur, si dans la province de Québec un anglophone écrivait a son gouvernement et qu’on lui répondait: “Si tu ne veux pas traduire ta lettre de l’anglais au français, on va te charger quelque chose.” C’est absolument ridicule, M. l’Orateur, et je voulais souligner cette situation et espérer que le gouvernement va changer ce fameux règlement.

J’espère qu’il va aussi accepter le dicton de mon bill pour l’usage du français dans nos Cours.

Mr. Speaker, having talked about the courts, I intend to embark briefly on the question of minority rights. There are a few I should mention. I have a number of things to say about women’s rights, for instance, and I was just wondering, it being 6 o’clock, whether I should move the adjournment of the debate and resume at 8 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member finds this a convenient place for the member to break his remarks a motion is not necessary; he can resume at 8.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.