Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8:00 o’clock, p.m.

HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

Mr. Walker, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 145,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure to join in the debate on this bill this evening. Now that it has not only been introduced in accordance with the rules of the House but also has been printed and appears properly in the order paper, we’re able to go ahead.

There are few comments that I would like to make with respect to this bill. There are several things which are somewhat general to the bill that I think are worthy of comment and I would appreciate hearing the parliamentary assistant’s (Mr. Walker) comment after debate has been completed by those of us who wish to join in on second reading.

It is interesting to note in the first section that they are now amending some of the duties with respect to the general manager to allow that general manager to either accept or refuse payment of certain amounts claimed. Further than that, Mr. Speaker, we are also setting forward some provisions of appeal from that decision so that the decision made by the general manager could possibly be appealed and reviewed by a further authority pursuant to this Act.

It is interesting to note that the general manager’s decisions, of course, are basically based on the matters put forward by the medical review committee or, indeed, under this practitioner review committee that is referred to in this Act. If the general manager, however, decides that certain payments are not acceptable, presumably the next stage then comes into force, which is a decision made by the appeal board or eventually through the usual appeal procedures to the courts of the province. It’s rather interesting to us to note that this kind of procedure has apparently not been available to the general manager in the years in which the Health Insurance Act has been in force in the province.

I would appreciate hearing from the parliamentary assistant as to why he presumes it is necessary at this point to bring in this kind of an approach, when one might have thought that the ordinary decision-making and administrative powers of the general manager would have included this kind of ability to sit, at least to some degree, in judgement on the value and, indeed, on the propriety of the kinds of claims that were submitted to him for approval.

We are pleased to see that the matters that might be dealt with by the appeal board are of course, subject to the eventual approval of the court, if that is required. Surely in this kind of a thing, where public moneys are being dealt with, the individual practitioner, as is the case here should have the opportunity to make his points clearly and perhaps have them dealt with by some appeal tribunal within the ministry. To have, however, the additional ultimate benefit or requirement to go forward into the judicial procedure is, I think, a reasonable safeguard once the matter has been hopefully resolved, as it will be in most cases, at the appeal board level.

I would as I have said, appreciate hearing from the parliamentary assistant as to why the manager has not had these powers in the past, as one might have thought they would have existed, through his normal administrative duties as he was carrying out the responsibilities which he had.

Under section 4, Mr. Speaker, we note that the making of regulations once again rears its head so that the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- in effect, the members of the cabinet -- can make certain decisions and make certain regulations which will allow for matters, particularly in this case, allowing the prescribing of amounts payable by the plan for various insured services.

As members will recall, we have made comments on certain occasions which have suggested that any of the changes based upon the matters under control of the Health Insurance Plan and any of the changes dealing with increase or even possibly decrease of rates of payment should, of course, be justified before the House. It is our view that this kind of justification might best be dealt with through the use of one of the standing committees of the Legislature. If that were the case, then many of these changes, and the justification for these changes, would receive the kind of publicity that we think is worthwhile, and that should be available to the public when we are discussing these lands of situations.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, the government has decided that these kinds of changes should receive the benefit of the review by Her Honour in Council, and while we think that that is not a sufficient or, indeed, an all-inclusive and well-publicized role, we accept the point that at least that kind of a review is anticipated by the ministry.

These appear to be the only two items that are of importance within the matters brought forward by Bill 145. We think the function of the appeal, the appeal board and the eventual removal to the courts, if necessary, is worthwhile. We would have some reservations with respect to the matter of regulation by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, because our view is that it should be dealt with in a somewhat different fashion.

However, receiving these comments, I hope that the parliamentary assistant will respond to them as we complete the second reading of this bill, and I hope that we will be able to hear from him as to the points which I have raised and why these matters perhaps have not been attended to earlier in the development of the Health Insurance Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, I was going to make the same point as the member for Kitchener made, so I won’t repeat it. The only thing I would like to add is that though I like the idea of a practitioner of a discipline having some input into it, I would much prefer and I would suggest that most stringent power should be granted to the general manager. On the other hand, the fact that the people can appeal is according to the McRuer rules, and I think that’s all for the better. So we shall support the bill. I have nothing more to say.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant.

An hon. member: Is the NDP supporting a Tory bill?

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, the member for Kitchener has raised some points relating to section one of the Act, which makes amendments to section 22. The problem there is rather specialized. It’s a rather peculiar problem that will involve a rather complicated explanation, if the members will just bear with me on it.

By section 22 of the Act, the general manager is, of course, obliged to carry out the decision of the medical review committee. The operative words are “shall accept the recommendation of the medical review committee and act upon it.”

A problem has arisen in that when an appeal is taken, the common law indicates that all proceeding action must be stayed. This therefore meant that the previous action was to be stayed, because under the legislation relating to health insurance, the physician is entitled to receive his appropriate billable amount. Therefore, it has been construed legally that the general manager would have to stay the action under an appeal situation and, therefore, pay the full amount owing. During the appeal process, that money would then be in the hands of the physician or whoever was receiving the benefits, if it were a chiropractor or otherwise. And as long as the appeal was in process, that person would have the money. Once the appeal was decided, if it were decided in favour of, let us say, the recommendations of the medical review committee, then we would be obliged to attempt to recover the money from the individual.

In the past that has worked. However, there have been two real problems there. There is one chap aged in excess of 80 years whose assessment is well over $100,000, and that person has phased out of practice. Now. we have to recover $100,000 from him. I am not really sure; we may be recovering it from his estate.

Mr. Breithaupt: He probably has a very substantial one.

Mr. Walker: At that point in time, yes.

Second, there is the whole question of interest. There is one party with whom $100,000 is in contest. The medical review committee have determined a certain fixed amount; that particular award amount was 50 per cent. There is $100,000 that is owing to him. If that person were to receive the $100,000 then the case would continue on and on and on, perhaps for two years; and we would lose about $1,000 a month interest. We might just as well pay it at that point; when we start to lose some money.

In effect, this brings back into the power of the general manager the responsibility of following the medical review committee’s recommendation. The medical review committee is a committee, of course, of the peers of that individual. The medical review committee is made up of six physicians and two lay people. Those people sit in judgement on the amount and say, “You should pay [let us say in this case] 62 per cent.” The general manager would then pay the 62 per cent. It would be the balance, 38 per cent, which would be in question and which would not be paid.

So this brings into check the responsibility of the general manager, which in the past has been somewhat questionable as to whether or not he should follow the recommendation of the medical review committee. This removes the common-law right of an individual to have the action stayed and restores the balance of power, if I can call it that. A good many appeals are occurring.

With respect to section 4, this amendment is strictly a housekeeping matter and really a reference question. It was the wording that was requested by the legislative counsel in an attempt to tidy up the Act and to give the proper authority -- and that is the referral authority -- legislation by regulation through referral and nothing more than that.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 145, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, there are just a couple of comments that I have to make with respect to these amendments to the Public Health Act.

As in the previous bill, there are certain housekeeping amendments which are of course necessary as the years go on. I think that it is worthwhile to make some comments with respect to section 1, because it gives to the average public health inspector or other persons under this Act certain rather strange and involved powers. In this case, the order of a provincial judge can be made to allow such an inspector or one of the other persons with these responsibilities to enter into a premises presumably where there is reasonable ground for believing that it is certainly necessary for the administration of this Act to allow this person to carry on the responsibilities of his or her office.

I think it’s important, when we look at this kind of an involvement, to realize that later in the section it also gives the responsibility for the availability basically to have the provincial judge make an order which would also involve a police officer or officers in order to assist that person to carry out the responsibilities of his or her office. Surely we have the background within our law which would require reasonable and probable grounds to exist for the attempt to obtain this order and for the exercising of it.

I would appreciate hearing from the parliamentary assistant as to the background and reasons why this kind of procedure is thought to be necessary. It is clear to all of us, I think, that there are occasions upon which this kind of an entry and this kind of an involvement are going to be in the best interests of all concerned. But I do feel that if the administration of the Act is such that we require the order of a provincial judge, and the assistance of the police authorities, the rules for this kind of situation should be spelled out very clearly.

Presumably, under the Public Health Act, there are certain requirements relating to the average health inspector or, as he or she is defined in this Act: “An inspector, a public health inspector, medical officer of health, acting medical officer of health or associate medical officer of health.” All have these particular abilities, and the authority of this section is available to them.

It is, of course, important to us all that they should be able to carry out the responsibilities of their position. It is also important to us all that they should be able to call upon the assistance of police authorities, if such should be the case, and the responsibility available to them from a provincial judge to allow them to carry on the duties which they have. If the grounds are reasonable and probable, then I think all is well.

Surely it is going to be a matter of discretion to the provincial judge for that person to decide whether this kind of order should be given from time to time in order to make sure that certain of these duties are carried out. I would appreciate, though, hearing from the parliamentary secretary as to the background and reasons that have led to this section in the law.

If we look to the details of subsection 2 as it is set out here, we see that this kind of forced entry or this approved entry by the courts is going to allow the persons having this responsibility to: “Enter therein and thereon and make or require to be made such examinations, investigations and inquiries as may be necessary.” And the Act goes on further to say: “To make, take and remove, or require to be made, taken or removed, such samples, copies or extracts as may be related to” -- a great variety of things.

Surely we are giving a large and important responsibility, and one that may be entirely justified, to medical officers of health or their assistants or associates. We are, indeed, giving further responsibility to the courts to rule upon these matters and to require and encourage the assistance of a police authority if such things are necessary.

If they are necessary, then I believe we have a responsibility to support them. I would, though, like to find out the details as to why this kind of an approach is now thought to be necessary in dealing with the ordinary responsibilities of medical officers of health, their staff, assistants and associates.

When we look to section 3 we see it deals with the service of notices and section 4 deals with matters of hearings. The hearings at this point are within 15 days, and that surely seems to be a reasonable time in which the various sides of the situation can be pre- pared.

The examination of lodging houses, tenements and laundries by medical officers of health or other worthies under that kind of a responsibility, it would appear, are set out in section 6, which amends section 101. I think it is worthwhile that this kind of an amendment with respect to the time of entry, be made in the kind of society in which we now live. The section had earlier read that this kind of an involvement could take place at any time. It is surely an improvement upon the law that this kind of entry take place at a reasonable time. Surely to walk in either at, shall we say 8 o’clock in the evening or 4 o’clock in the morning, is not the kind of reasonable time that we can expect things to be in order, records to be available or the kind of procedures which may be taking place in these operations to be in their normal course of events.

I think it is worthwhile to make this change to a matter of reasonable time. It seems intelligent and I am pleased that the ministry has gone that far.

In section 8 we look to the inspection of various facilities, particularly those dealing with the development and operation of various sources of human food. This kind of operation and inspection, I think, should be readily available to medical officers of health and the other persons who assist and aid them in carrying out their responsibilities.

The service of notice with respect to any orders that are made and the particulars of appeal are again spelled out, and on this side of the House we think those kinds of terms appear to be reasonable to ensure that anyone involved with a complaint or an order made against an operation has an effectively acceptable period of time in which to respond.

The use of force, of course, is something which only comes before us in sections 9 and 10.

It’s rather interesting to see that we should be in a position where we might require the use of force to obtain the kind of information, samples or general knowledge which members of the medical health authorities should require. We can only hope that kind of involvement would be used sparingly and that this kind of a situation which would require additional police assistance from the police authorities, and indeed an order of the court in the first place, would become the exception rather than the rule.

We think that these amendments are, Mr. Speaker, rather in the nature of housekeeping amendments. We are prepared to support them, based upon the comments that the parliamentary assistant may make as to their necessity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, like anyone else, that neither the police nor inspectors should have extra rights in entering into any person’s home or premises and so forth, but in certain cases we probably have gone too far in protecting the rights of the owners of certain premises, such as laundries and tenement houses. I approve of the decision here that inspectors should have a right to come in -- if I understood correctly what you are trying to say in this Act -- if necessary by force, and if necessary accompanied by a policeman to check premises which are inhabited by people and which are unfit in one way or another, or any type of a building in which there are people.

I hope the minister can reassure me under section 8, by provision of an appeal procedure to the health facilities appeal board, and then finally if necessary, to the Supreme Court, that in removing this power from the minister the government again acted in terms of providing some checks on what could become an arbitrary power of the inspector.

In that sense I have little to say about that. We shall support it, once the minister has answered this particular question, if he follows what I have been saying.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only want to make a few comments concerning one section of the bill, and that is the principle involved in section 10. That is the service of orders and notices under this Act.

The minister, according to the legislation, does have an awful lot of confidence in the ability of the post office to deliver registered mail within five days. I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, that the five-day period is sufficient, even though the Act may attempt to overcome the problem by including the words: “The service shall be deemed to have been made on the fifth day after the day of mailing unless the person to whom the order or notice is given establishes that he did not, acting in good faith, through absence, accident, illness or other cause beyond his control, receive the order or notice until a later date.”

To resolve the problem and to make sure that it would be received, I would suggest to the hon. minister that he change the “five” to “10,” and then we’d know that the registered mail would be received. Our own experiences, Mr. Speaker, are such that registered mail does not, at times, get to us as quickly as we would like to receive it. I think by a slight change in there, Mr. Speaker, this could be resolved.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): It’s those federal Liberals.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I confess that I just glanced at the Act as we got going on the bill, and it is indeed far-reaching and onerous. All I wish to know from the parliamentary assistant in this regard is how closely the minister sought to bring the wording in section 1 into congruity with McRuer. The present section 87(a), even as amended, is, I will agree, even more far-reaching, devastating and penetrating on civil liberties than this particular section. But surely two things should be embodied in that subsection 2. The first has to do with the fact that, when samples, copies or extracts are taken, a provision should be made for the photostatting thereof or for the duplicating and the delivery of the original back to the true owners within a reasonable time.

The second thing has to do with the business of utilization of police in this particular regard, in other words along the lines spelled out by the House leader for the Liberal Party; namely, some criteria are necessary to be written into this legislation as to reasonable grounds. Isn’t the minister going to give any indication of that within the legislation itself? How is a provincial court judge to be able to determine this thing?

By the way, I don’t think it should be a provincial court judge. He should either be a county or Supreme Court judge in matters so far-reaching with respect to entrance upon even private residences, as this particular bill sets forth.

Leaving that aside, the business of entry on and the grounds and criteria for doing so are not spelled out. To that extent I suspect that there are some deficiencies in this legislation which run in the teeth of the monumental tome and the bible for some of us with respect to these matters.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the member for Lakeshore most recently, and the member for Kitchener, have raised questions relating to section 1 of the bill, which makes some amendments to section 2b(2) of the Act.

I should say that the Public Health Act, Mr. Speaker, is a bit of a patch job anyway, because it has been around since 1890 and it has been amended basically decade after decade. The ultimate result is some patching in an attempt to make most of the sections reconcile with others.

I think it is fair to say that at some point in time we would like to bring in a new Act that would take into account all the anomalies that appear within it. Most of the amendments that we have placed before you this evening are corrections of anomalies or attempts to bring the Act into line with the McRuer recommendations.

As for the particular questions relating to subsection 2b(2) and the powers of a provincial court judge to allow the authority of the police, this merely is picking up on section 117 of the existing Act, which is repealed by section 9 of this particular bill. Section 117 is really out of whack when it’s considered with McRuer’s proposals, in that it allows the use of force without any reference to any judicial authority. McRuer’s recommendation suggests that the use of force should be accompanied by judicial authority. This particular amendment in the first section of the bill does not significantly change the original section 2b(2) of the Act as it now stands. In fact all it really does is insert two lines into the centre of the existing section. Those two lines are about halfway through, where it says: “Together with such police officer or officers as he calls upon to assist him and if necessary by force.”

Those are the only new words introduced into the existing section. The whole section is being replaced, but the wording is the same with the exception of those words I’ve just mentioned. It is then a reworking of section 117, which is repealed, as section 117 is considered to be improper in light of McRuer. The insistence that the police officer have some provincial judge’s authority before he knocks down the door on the advice of some public health inspector is what is deemed appropriate in this particular circumstance.

The member for Parkdale raised questions concerning section 8 and the health facilities appeal board and the appeal provisions there. Section 8 basically removes the appeal to the minister that was previously there, and inserts in its place an appeal to the health facilities appeal body, which is deemed more appropriate; and from there, of course, one may go on to the courts. I think it introduces a new element and eliminates a discretion that presently exists with the minister and would certainly be in line with McRuer provisions.

On the question of the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the matter relating to a certain number of days deemed to be appropriate for service; of course at one point in time we could say one or two days. In fact I think in some of the Supreme Court rules of practice it indicates that two, three, four days after mailing registered mail is deemed to be appropriate service.

Mr. B. Newman: That was in the days of Wells Fargo.

Mr. Walker: That’s right. Now since Wells Fargo has been replaced by the federal post office, we have had to insert an increased number of days to accommodate the occasional tardiness in service, even if it is by registered mail; it takes care of holidays and all kinds of other things.

The fifth day after the mailing or post-marking of the documents is considered to be reasonably appropriate in view of the fact that the type of notice served on a person would say that in so many days you will be required to do such and such; like, say. 10 or 15 days and so on.

So in effect there is more time beyond the time of receipt. It is not as if on the day he receives it he must go out and do something at that particular point in time. He is probably being required to attend on a -- what is called a discovery, or something of that sort -- to attend on a matter with the health facilities appeal board or whatever. So there is time at the other end of the five days.

The escape clause is invariably the one at the end, where if he can prove that he was away on holidays or sick or whatever; for some legitimate reason -- and perhaps even the post office -- he didn’t receive it within the five-day period, then it is very easy for this matter to be appropriately waived and an extension of time given.

Mr. Givens: Make it seven days. Five days isn’t enough, make it seven days.

Mr. Walker: Well, I must say I wouldn’t be too upset by seven days.

Mr. Givens: Would the minister make it seven days?

Mr. Breithaupt: We will accept the amendment.

Mr. Walker: Yes, I will accept the amendment; seven days.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand there is supposed to be an amendment which means we will have to go to committee of the whole House. Am I right? Is that the understanding?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): He hasn’t got the last instructions so don’t embarrass him.

Mr. B. Newman: The minister will introduce an amendment then, will he?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it can’t be done on second reading. It will have to --

Mr. Walker: Or can I introduce it, Mr. Speaker, without going into committee?

Mr. Speaker: No, it has to go into committee for that.

Mr. Breithaupt: No, I think not, Mr. Speaker. If we could have the cabinet minister present move that we move to committee, the matter I think would be dealt with immediately.

Clerk of the House: The third order, House in committee of the whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

House in committee on Bill 146, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 146, An Act to amend the Public Health Act. Are sections 1 to 9 carried?

Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Section 10, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 10, the hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to encourage the parliamentary assistant to make that amendment that he finds acceptable in the seventh line, that the fifth day be changed to the seventh day.

Mr. Walker moves that the word “seventh” be inserted in place of the word “fifth” in the seventh line of section 10.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I must protest. I don’t want to protest too much, I just want to protest properly, in the right measure. In other words, it’s a very quiet protest.

If you start changing these mailing clauses in piece of legislation after piece of legislation -- and they are all five days -- you’re going to set up that business of the hodge podge where every time you’ve mailed you’re not sure of your running time. I think it’s a bad move. In that kind of thing, there ought to be universality in your legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment? Is the motion to amend section 10 agreed to?

Motion agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

Bill 146, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mrs. Birch moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 146, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Clerk of the House: The 2nd order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: Just before the hon. member speaks, it is my understanding that the member for Kent (Mr. Spence) was partly through his presentation when he adjourned the debate. He is unable to be present here tonight because of health reasons. Do we have permission of the House to allow him to complete his remarks at a later date?

That is agreeable!

The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth occasion on which I have risen to give one speech in the series, you might say, on the subject of organized crime; and I presume this will be the last in my series. I don’t suppose I can have too many more opportunities to give budget speeches. I would like to break with tradition in the House and just for a moment, since this is a budget speech, say a word about the budget. I know this is unusual and has never been done before, but perhaps this will be tolerated just briefly.

Mr. Speaker: On the Ontario budget?

Mr. Shulman: Not just the Ontario budget, but also the federal budget.

I find it a great pity that the cabinet could not be here tonight. For my last budget speech, I had every cabinet minister sitting waiting anxiously for me. Perhaps I should have advised them I was going to do something similar. Perhaps I can bring them in. Tonight I am going to talk about the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch) and his relationship to organized crime. Maybe that will get them to come rushing in --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): They are on their way to Kirkland Lake.

Mr. Shulman: In any case, I think the record should carry someone’s comment on the budget here in Ontario and the budget which was brought down last night in Ottawa, both of which are rushing us helter-skelter towards financial ruin, towards an inflation rate next year of some 20 per cent and towards an ultimate economic collapse in this province and in this country.

Both the provincial Tories and the federal Liberals have decided they are going to go with expansion policies. They have been frightened by the possibility of a recession and the possibility of unemployment. As a result, they have both decided to pump more money into the economy. The result I have been able to see in the last few days -- it hasn’t been in the papers yet, but I would guess it is going to be in the papers one day next week -- is that there is now occurring, and it began approximately a week ago, a tremendous outflow of money from Canada and the United States.

An hon. member: Where is it going?

Mr. Shulman: It’s going to Switzerland. It’s going to Europe. It hasn’t made the front pages of our papers yet; in fact I don’t think it’s even made the financial pages of the papers yet.

What one may have noticed in the Globe and Mail is a little blurb headed, “American Dollar Weak in Europe.” Then today there was a bit stating that the US Treasury had to step in and buy some millions of dollars, and sell many more millions of deutsche marks and Swiss francs in an effort to keep the fall of the American and Canadian dollar from speeding up.

The incredible thing is that for the last 10 days there has not been a day go by when the American and Canadian dollars have not fallen on European money markets and in New York money markets by the maximum allowed. This is rather incredible, because what has not been realized is that in the last two weeks we and the United States have devalued our dollars by 10 per cent; they have gone down that much in two weeks. The American dollar and the Canadian dollar have gone down in buying power by 10 per cent.

That may not mean very much to the guy in the street, but it’s going to mean an awful lot in a very few months because as we start to import -- and we import many many things from the rest of the world; things ranging all the way from sugar to bicycles, wine, cars and many raw materials -- all of those things are going to have to be paid for at a price 10 per cent higher in terms of dollars. And that means that the inflation rate, whatever it now is in Canada, is going to speed up by an additional 10 per cent in relation to everything that we bring from outside the country.

Mr. Turner ignored that yesterday. He said: “It doesn’t matter. We’ve got to have expansion. We’ve got to put more money into the hands of the people. We have to do the right thing.”

And I sit appalled, as I realize what is going to happen to prices and wages. There’s no way wages can keep up; this 61 per cent our civil servants are asking for isn’t enough. If they get 61 per cent over two years, they are going to be behind in terms of real buying power when that two years is up, because half of that goes in income tax and they end up with 30 per cent. If they get 30 per cent net after income tax over two years, they end up with a net 15 per cent per year, and the dollar is going to lose more than that in buying power in the next 90 days.

We have a tremendous financial disaster rushing at us, and nobody seems to want to do anything about it -- nobody here and nobody down in Ottawa. Instead, they say: “Print more money. Give more money to the poor. Lower the income taxes.” Nowhere has the thought come to these economists, our Treasurer (Mr. White) and the Finance Minister in Ottawa, that if they don’t balance the budget, somewhere along the line we are going to have disaster -- and that “somewhere” is coming very close.

I will wager that within a week, perhaps tomorrow, there will be a headline in the Globe and Mail when they suddenly wake up and realize that over the last two weeks our dollar has been effectively devalued and no one has told them why or how. The why is very simple, because we are insisting on printing more money, and more important, forcing down interest rates.

I know it’s very popular for people from all political parties to get up and say we must have lower interest rates. I believe some politician said if he was elected in the federal election he was going to have six per cent mortgages. All very well, provided that at the same time you cut the amount of money supply, if you balance the budget.

But if you attempt to force down interest rates, which is what we are doing in this country and in the United States, while at the same time you increase your money supply -- increase the amount of money going out -- what happens is you have a tremendous flow of real money from the country. That is exactly what is happening in Canada today; that’s exactly what is happening in the United States today. This lowering of the interest rates by about half of one per cent over the weekend, and another half of one per cent to come this week, is the most disastrous financial move that anyone can make.

All right, I have played Cassandra enough tonight. I know no one is listening, and I know perhaps no one can do anything about it anyway. One of the two men who could do something about it is the Treasurer. He is over being entertained in Arabia. I presume he’ll bring lots of money home which he’ll throw into our economy here in Ontario and make the inflation that much worse again. The other is John Turner, and he doesn’t care.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): He’s right here.

Mr. Shulman: Is the Treasurer back?

Mr. Turner: No, me.

Mr. Shulman: The wrong John Turner. I wish the member could do something about it; perhaps he would pay attention.

In any case, a year from now -- I presume by that time I will be in some happier place; or I’ll have gone to my just reward, having finished my political career -- I am going to mail this speech down to you, Mr. Speaker, and you’re going to look back and say: “Gee, I wish I had listened to him”; because by that time you had better raise your salary again because it is not going to be enough.

Mr. Speaker: I might remind the member for High Park that a lot of us might be in the happy hunting ground by that time.

Mr. Shulman: Let’s hope not too many.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): And the present Speaker can’t read.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: I want to turn to something about which we can do something here in this House -- however we don’t -- and that is the problem of organized crime. I have given a number of speeches on this subject here and I want to go to a different branch of it, specifically organized crime on the waterfront.

Mr. Stokes: Isn’t there a word you are not supposed to mention when you are talking about that?

Mr. Shulman: There is a five-letter word we are not supposed to mention. That five-letter word, incidentally, is Mafia. I am deliberately not mentioning that because the Mafia isn’t involved in this branch of organized crime. There is a great misunderstanding about organized crime. There used to be a feeling there was a man sitting somewhere, in Miami or Hamilton --

Mr. Stokes: Or in the gallery.

Mr. Shulman: -- or in the gallery, who was organizing everything, and all over North America he would say: “Do this, do that.” And of course that is nonsense. Organized crime does have groups which control different aspects of it.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Godfathers.

Mr. Shulman: Godfathers? We can call them that. They are not exclusively Italian, let me say that. They come from every nationality, they come from every group; they go to different areas where a human need is illegal or is not being satisfied through legal means. Perhaps I shouldn’t say human need; rather human want.

Whether it is a need or a want to bet, it’s illegal to bet at the corner drugstore; so they supply bookies who will take your bet. It’s illegal to pay a woman for sex, but there are men who can’t get sex any other way and they supply the woman who will give you sex. It’s illegal to borrow money at excessive rates of interest, and they will supply that money at those excessive rates of interest.

You will always find people who are prepared to satisfy those human wants or those human needs, and no society is ever going to get rid of them. The problem is, our society isn’t making attempts to keep them under control; and unless we make those attempts, organized crime is going to grow here just as it grew in the United States where it is so out of control in so many areas.

I want just briefly to speak of history in this province, because the problems all go back to our various Attorneys General. We have had five Attorneys General in this House in recent years. The first one, Kelso Roberts, denied that organized crime existed, so if it didn’t exist there was no need to do anything about it.

The second man, poor Fred Cass, recognized the problem. He recognized it all too well, and in his efforts to control that problem he brought in that famed Bill 99 which was his downfall. It was a pity, really, because in the excitement and the fervour of getting rid of Fred Cass and the anguish about civil rights, all of the good things of that bill were washed right down the drain. The reason that bill was brought in was because at that stage organized crime had developed a very large foothold in this province. He recognized that and wanted to move against it.

Well that government facing me was so frightened by Cass’ fate that they haven’t done a thing since then. The men who followed -- Wishart, Lawrence, Welch -- were lovely, well-spoken, soft-spoken men who flatly, on every possible occasion this came up, refused to take action.

The most flagrant example, of course, was crime in the construction industry. Some three years ago I arose in this House to talk about the bombings and the machine gunnings and the Attorney General of the day, the member for York Mills (Mr. Bales), arose in injured innocence and refused to do anything. I had made a gruesome, horrendous error in the course of that speech and he dwelled on that at some length, but the rest of it was all lost. The Prime Minister (Mr. Davis) did step in and ordered a royal commission to be held on that very limited basis, on that very limited matter, but it has touched only that and any suggestions of extending it to the other areas of organized crime have been flatly refused.

I want to go back just three years, so that perhaps you can understand the tremendous extent of the organization of crime in this country. If crime is to be organized nationally or internationally -- and organized crime is an international operation -- the people involved in it must meet and this is one of their major problems.

There was a tremendously important meeting -- the so-called Appalachian meeting -- some 17 years ago which accidentally came to the attention of the police. The police raided that meeting in Appalachia. The men who were involved had their names in the paper and had numerous charges laid against them, for one reason or another. This was a tremendous fright to the criminals involved and they determined never to have such a meeting in the United States again.

Instead they have their meetings outside of the country. Now a very popular place is Ontario. Ontario is popular because it is close, because they found they are not harassed and because the police have not been, at least until recently, troublesome to them.

The other place is Acapulco, Mexico, which has a great advantage in the winter months. Its weather is delightful, the police are expecting many foreigners to come in and are delighted to have them come in and spend money. As a result there have been regular meetings take place in Acapulco where organized criminals from the United States and Canada can meet. By chance, the details of one such meeting have come into my hands and I would like to relate it tonight because it will give an indication of just how widespread this type of crime is in this country.

This particular meeting took place on Feb. 24, 1970, and the RCMP learned about it by accident. There is a man in Montreal named Paul Violi; the police had his phone tapped from 1966 up until our most recent and horrible development, the wiretap legislation -- I want to talk about that because that has been the most horrible setback to control of organized crime.

In any case, one day back in December, 1969, Violi received a phone call, from one of my patients actually, a man by the name of Fred Gabourie. He is a fine gentleman but he does have strange friends; although he has a good doctor.

In any case, as a result of the wiretap on Violi’s phone they learned there was to be a high-level meeting on Feb. 24, 1970, in Acapulco, of the organized criminals from Canada with Meyer Lansky from Florida and certain individuals from France and others from the United States to discuss the legislation of casinos for gambling in the Province of Quebec.

The meeting was organized by the Cotroni family of Montreal and it had been discussed with the Magaddinos in Buffalo. The meeting was set up and organized by a man from Montreal by the name of Benjamin Kaufman.

Now Benjamin Kaufman of Montreal is a very interesting man. He is a very close friend of the Cotronis and he is very well connected down there, or was. The other man who was involved in the meeting was a man named Leo Bercovitch. Leo Bercovitch also lived in Montreal and he has a very interesting job also, or had. He was the man who laundered all of Meyer Lansky’s money up here; and by chance, from the internal revenue service in Brooklyn, New York, of all places, has come to hand the details of one transaction in which Mr. Bercovitch was involved. I will just read it because it is quite fascinating.

In 1965 Meyer Lansky purchased mineral rights located in West Virginia, of all places, from a man by the name of Garfield for $22,894. He never got around to paying that $22,894 for some reason; he gave him a note. But in 1969 he resold these mineral rights, although no work had been done on them whatsoever in that time, to a company called Rodosa Investments Ltd., owned by Leo Bercovitch of Montreal. He resold them at a very nice profit -- $127,105.96 is what he received for them -- and Lansky then declared the capital gain of $64,552.98 on his income tax, which he happened to file in Brooklyn. He declared this as a capital gain and paid the 25 per cent tax on it.

This is how money is laundered through Canada. This is one of a number of transactions. This is how criminals send money up here, have it go through this type of spurious transaction, and have it go back down there into legal enterprises. This is money that has been the product of illegal activity -- bookmaking, prostitution, loan-sharking, heroin traffic, immigrant smuggling. It’s cash. They can’t buy enterprises with it down in the United States without first putting it through a sham transaction. That is what Bercovitch did in Montreal, and that is how Lansky had to handle this kind of transaction.

Leo Bercovitch purchased a beautiful hacienda in Acapulco and at this hacienda the majority of the meetings took place at which was discussed who had to be bribed in this country, and how, in order to get gambling casinos legalized. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker -- it is quite interesting -- there were more cops at that meeting than there were criminals. There were some 60 criminals from this country involved -- I have their names here -- but because the police were aware this meeting was to take place, the RCMP notified the FBI, the FBI in turn I am sure notified the Mexican federal police. The police bugged everything in sight and they came back with a tremendous amount of information.

To me the interesting thing was that it looked like every criminal in this country was at this meeting. The group from Montreal included Frank Cotroni, Joseph Todaro, Claude Faber, and M. Cianciullo and Paul Violi, and of course Benjamin Kaufman, whom I mentioned before, and Bercovitch.

From Hamilton there was a very large contingent: Salvatore Alfano, Richard Perrin, Dominic Ciarillo, Jack Donnelly, Jack Pettigrew, Red LaBarre, and Dominic Pugliesi from Guelph.

Now here are some from Fort Erie. We have Frank Garbarino, Vincent Cossini, Armand Cossini, Frank Pasquale, Anthony Papalia and Albert Moretti.

An hon. member: Oh, not Tony Papalia.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, Tony. Not Johnny.

Of perhaps some greater interest, there was one justice of the peace from Ontario, a justice of the peace from Grimsby. A rather important lawyer went down, a man by the name of Raymond Daoust. He was the key political man, the man who was to make the connection with the Quebec government.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): He wasn’t the godfather was he?

Mr. Shulman: No, he was the consigliore, I think they call him.

Daoust is a Montreal lawyer; he is the brother-in-law of George Lemay; he’s a lawyer for the Cotronis, and he is reputed to be very well connected. These men met with Meyer Lansky. They met with other important American criminals. They met with a key heroine smuggler from Marseilles. The whole thing was recorded. Part of the meeting took place at the Acapulco Hilton; part of the meeting took place at Bercovitch’s villa. In total there were some 60 people from Ontario and Quebec who attended this meeting.

That’s history now. Unfortunately they ran into a little bad luck with the FLQ a few months later; one of their key contacts came to a bad end and the plans which had been worked out didn’t eventuate.

The reason I’m relating that story is to indicate that if organized crime is that well organized that they can have international meetings at which such important things as subverting a whole government can be discussed, it is absolutely essential that our intelligence department have all the help it can get, and we aren’t giving it that help.

The first thing is, the federal government with its new wiretapping law, with all the best will in the world -- and I understand the feelings it has behind it -- has crippled any attempt to control organized crime. You can’t bribe these people to talk; you can’t brow-beat them into talking; you aren’t going to get informers because those informers will be killed. The only way you can get information is through electronic eavesdropping.

I suggest to the members that at some point in this country’s history we’re going to have to make the decision: “What is more important -- the ultimate in civil liberties which we all pay lip service to, or controlling organized crime?” Somewhere we have to decide that we are prepared to give up some amount of our privacy in order that organized crime may be controlled.

I’ve come to this conclusion very reluctantly; this is not the conclusion I came into this Legislature with seven years ago. But as I realize the extent and the power of these men and the amount of money involved -- it’s in the billions of dollars -- I recognize that unless we are prepared to give up something we’re not going to control it.

We must give the police, not the right to unrestricted wiretapping -- no one suggests that -- but the right to wiretap on the order of a judge hearing the case ex parte in camera, and we must have enough faith in the police and the judges of our Supreme Court together to believe that that will not be abused. I do believe that type of privilege will not be abused.

This business of giving notice to someone 90 days after you begin a wiretap is ludicrous because this means that, in effect, you’re not to complete any major investigation. The great raid last year where the RCMP caught all those heroin smugglers who brought the stuff in from Italy never would have been concluded if wiretapping could not have been carried out.

Let me say a word about wiretapping. These criminals know their phones are tapped. There’s no doubt in their minds, the way they talk. I’ve had the opportunity of reading some of these recorded conversations. They’re very aware. But the intriguing thing is that every now and again, even though they are aware and they jokingly say “Hello, RCMP, are you listening?”, somewhere along the way they drop a word which can be used for something to follow up a connection -- “We’ll meet at such and such a place”; “We’ll meet at the usual place”; “Johnny phoned.” One thing leads to another. Or else: “Don’t call me at this number, call me at another number,” and they give the number. They are not infallible.

They’re used to getting away with murder. One reason they get away with murder in this province is that for many, many years the OPP didn’t have a chance. They didn’t have the personnel; they didn’t have the equipment. I’ve had the opportunity this past year to meet some of the men in the OPP and I’m impressed. Let the record say that. They still don’t have the equipment they need, and this is partially a hangover from what went before.

When I was down in Detroit last year seeing the equipment that the police forces in the US have with which they fight organized crime, it just is mind-boggling to see how far ahead of us they are and the things that we could do at this early stage before organized crime gains the tremendous stranglehold it has down there if the equipment were available.

Well, a breath of fresh air has come along, and I give credit to him; he is the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr). He has the will to do the right thing, but I’m not sure he has the muscle to do it. Because there is another man in this House, the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler), who says, “We are not going to waste money on those things.” There is a little problem getting it past the Management Board.

So I’m directing this to the Conservative back benches. When this comes up, and it will come up, for goodness’ sake make sure the OPP intelligence get the money and the manpower they need; because if they don’t we are going to pay for it 100 times over. Support the Solicitor General when he goes to the Chairman of the Management Board and has that battle.

I’ve been one of the persons saying, “Cut down on expenditures.” But one place where we really have to put some money is in the OPP -- and not in the traffic division or catching people with radar from airplanes, but in the intelligence and security ends.

Okay, if we can get the federal government to amend its wiretap bill -- and I hope something will be done in that field -- we can get some progress. If we can get the federal government to move on legislation to make laundering of money a crime, that would be tremendous progress. We know of cases where it occurred; it’s no crime in this country or in this province to launder money. I did bring a bill in here and the Solicitor General has sent it on to the Hon. Mr. Lang, so far with no effect. Perhaps someone might give Mr. Lang a little bump.

If we do those things at the federal level, and if we give support to our police at this level, organized crime can be prevented from developing into the horrible colossus that it has become in the United States.

I now want to turn to another aspect of organized crime -- and I don’t want to suggest that this is tied in with the Acapulco meeting or the other forms of organized crimes, because it isn’t. This is an entirely different animal. This is organized crime in the form that affects labour unions. Let me say right away that most labour unions are clean. Certainly the large unions, such as the Steelworkers and the Auto Workers, have never had any problems of this nature whatsoever.

It’s the craft unions that seem to run into trouble constantly. The reason they run into trouble is those damned hiring halls; this is where the whole problem lies. The worst of the bunch is the SIU.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): What is it?

Mr. Shulman: SIU, the Seafarers’ International Union. For the last six months I’ve been looking into the affairs of the SIU, and I have never seen a worse mess in my life. I lay the blame exactly where it should be, at the feet of the federal government in Ottawa. It is their baby, they produced it; and there are people in Ottawa who don’t want to see it touched to this day. It all goes back to the old horrible days of Hal Banks, and nothing has changed since he was there.

The Liberals brought in Hal Banks to break the Canadian Seamen’s Union which, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, was a Communist-run union that had signed up all the people on the lakes in Canada. The government was determined to break it. The government brought in Hal Banks and it supported him; he broke the union and he produced a worse situation than any Communist group ever could have.

Mr. Gisborn: The Communist union was clean.

Mr. Shulman: The Communist union, the CSU, was clean, as my colleague says. But this union has never been clean since then. They use violence. They use bribery, which they aim at the politicians. They use crooked elections. They use roving squads of thugs. They use people who go from hiring hall to hiring hall and vote constantly in every election, because they don’t have the vote simultaneously; they have it in one place and then another and they bring them by cars or by trucks to vote in place after place.

Mr. Gisborn: Supported by the federal Liberals.

Mr. Shulman: Oh, there is no question -- well, I’m not sure who supports who. They support the federal Liberals; they boast of the donations they give to them. And the federal Liberals sure as heck aren’t very anxious to do anything about them.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Terrible.

Mr. Shulman: But I haven’t seen any action from over there either. Anyway, we finally got rid of Hal Banks, and I suspect that that was perhaps more the result of the Toronto Star than any governmental actions. But we got rid of Hal Banks, and nothing has changed.

I have affidavits going back to 1970, and this most recent batch of troubles dates back to 1970 because a few of the men in that union got the bright idea that they should be allowed to vote democratically for who should represent them. They got a man named Glasgow to run, and there is no question he won the election -- at least, I shouldn’t say he won the election. He lost the election; he had more votes cast for him than his opponents, but the way votes are counted in the SIU this amounted to nothing.

The course of that election campaign was marked with violence, with fraud, every type of illegal activity you can imagine, Mr. Speaker. I have a whole raft of affidavits here in front of me which date back to 1972; I don’t want to dwell on them because I want to come up to what is happening today. So let me just read one as an example:

“Affidavit:

“I the undersigned, Eric Newhoek, seaman, residing and domiciled at 105 Bleury St., having been duly sworn to depose and say I am a member of the Seafarers’ International Union of Canada.

“On March 13, 1972, at approximately 12:30 p.m. I was in the headquarters of the Seafarers’ International Union on the first floor looking for employment. When I was there I was physically attacked by an individual which I cannot identify for the time being for the reason that he was wearing a mask. I was hit in the face several times and also kicked while I was lying down, and as a result I lost consciousness. While I was being beaten another man which I cannot identify for the time being was standing guard at the door.

“I am under the impression that these two individuals were working on instructions coming from people occupying official capacities within the union, which is the Seafarers’ International Union.

“This physical attack on my person was made in the presence of David Sutton, Leonard Windsor and Donald MacFarlane. During the said attack, there were also present 25 Seafarers’ International Union of Canada members and an individual named Kenneth McGuire, employed by the Seafarers’ International Union of Canada, and acting in an official capacity as such. The said Kenneth McGuire did nothing to stop the said physical attack on my person, and to the best of my knowledge no attempt was made to call the police nor to stop the situation.

“This statement is made by me without any threat or advantage or promise to me, and I have signed.

“Eric Newhoek.

“Sworn before me, at Montreal, the 15th day of March, 1972 [a commissioner].”

Mr. Gisborn: Who signed it “commissioner”?

Mr. Shulman: I can’t make out the commissioner’s name, but it looks like Brailla.

Mr. Gisborn: It isn’t.

Mr. Shulman: Well, I have a bunch of others, if it matters. The commissioner was just a commissioner. Here is another one by Walter Eland, another commissioner. And I have got a bunch more here. But that’s history. That was 1972.

Well, Glasgow won the election properly, but they never let him take office. They tied it up in the courts, and they have kept it tied up in the courts with one legal strategy after another, so now we are coming up to another election and that election still hasn’t been settled.

I am only telling you this, because it gives the backgrounds to what is happening today, Mr. Speaker.

The unions have a very interesting relationship with the employers, with the shipping companies. You might call it a sweetheart relationship; that’s an interesting name. I first learned about this mess on July 7, 1974 -- just last July -- when I received a letter. I don’t want to read the name of the man who signed it because he will run into more trouble -- more beating -- but I want to read the letter, because it sums up the feelings of so many men.

“Dear sir:

“I am writing to you to see if you might be able to help me. You are well known for exposing the wrong and getting things cleaned up.

“I am a seaman. I am with the Seamen’s International Union, SIU, 272 King St., Toronto.

“We had a strike and when that strike was over, myself and 16 other men were blacklisted. I went down two weeks ago to pay my union dues and was badly beaten and kicked by Mr. Roy Willis. Ed Harnon threatened me with a baseball bat and also threatened to load up Roy Willis’s shotgun.

“They had me fired from my job. I am not allowed to ship out and I can’t get nowhere near the hall. They have two heavies hanging around there at all times. Men have been threatened with a shotgun. Some of them have been pushed around by heavies.

“I have lost my livelihood. I am out of work, can’t get assistance unless the welfare comes through. At present, my hands are tied, I can’t fight this alone, I will lose everything I have as I cannot make my payments.

“Thank you very kindly,

“I remain” --

and it’s signed by a man who lives here in Toronto.

I found this hard to believe. If it had come from one man I wouldn’t have believed it, but at the bottom of the letter here are the names of other members of the SIU you can call who will back up my story, Mr. Speaker, and there are a list of names here. I am not going to mention the names of any of the men because quite frankly I fear for their lives.

Since that time I have interviewed some 15 members of the SIU, each of whom were either beaten, or saw someone being beaten. The reason they were beaten is very simple -- because they voted the wrong way when an agreement was brought to them by the heads of the union last April.

Let me read to the House a sworn statement which I took from another man. I took this statement on July 11, 1974, from Mr. F. He lives in Scarborough.

“In April, 1974, the lake boats were coming up for a new contract. I didn’t like it, so I beefed about it at the union meeting. In my opinion, it was a poor contract and because of my beefing and getting others to go along with me, I lost the right to return to my job on the dredge ‘Canadian,’ belonging to McNamara Marine. I was also warned that if I was to continue beefing about the contract, I would be in serious trouble.

“I laid up the dredge ‘Canadian’ on Dec. 23, 1973, and received a notice of intent that I would be recalled to my job when it came out in the spring. When the dredge came out, I wasn’t recalled to my job. So I went down to see Mr. William Oxby, a superintendent at McNamara Marine.

“I asked him why I wasn’t recalled to the job, and he told me in front of a union member named Williams that my job was filled by someone else and if I wanted my job back I was to get in touch with Roy Willis, the local head of the union, or straighten it out with the union, because as far as he was concerned, my job was available to me as a person.

“I worked on that job for 5½ months. In 5½ months, I lost only three days’ work through sickness and we were working seven days a week. There never was a beef about my capability of doing my job, but because of my complaining of the contract and the lake boat, that job was no longer available to me.

“I went into union hall on a Saturday morning. I was told politely that if I didn’t keep my mouth shut, this was my second warning, that things would get a lot rougher. About a week later, I called Gralewicz, the president, and asked him why I never got my job back on the ‘Canadian’ after receiving the notice of intent. I told him that William Oxby had told me that Roy Willis had phoned him and told him not to recall me to the job.

“For the next 2½ months I got an average of seven phone calls a day. There was no voice, no sound; just as soon as I would answer the phone, they would hang up on the other end.

“I was registered as deckhand on Jan. 3, 1974, with a shipping card [I’ll leave the number out]. In April, a duplicate of this card was taken down from the board and not replaced. Shortly after, I had several phone calls from a member of union hall telling me it wouldn’t be advisable for me to go around to the hall as I was also being looked for.

“I asked President Gralewicz about my ship, and he said he would look into it with Roy Willis and he would let me know within a few days. I have never heard anything since that date.” I took statement after statement like this. There’s no point in reading them all; they all read the same way, except for a few. A few vary as to whether they were beaten or whether they were just refused work.

The background is that last April in Montreal, union leaders sat down with owners -- a Great Lakes shipping organization -- and they “hammered out,” those are their words, an agreement which union leaders felt was quite magnificent; but with which the owners were not happy. They claimed they weren’t happy; but I suspect they weren’t too unhappy. When the men heard this agreement -- I have the figures here; I’ll give you the figures, because it is just overwhelming --

An hon. member: Whose jurisdiction is that?

Mr. Shulman: It is a federal jurisdiction.

In Toronto, there were 169 present for the meeting; 166 voted against the agreement. Three didn’t vote. In Thorold, 250 were present at the meeting and it was voted against unanimously; not one vote in favour. And yet, somehow, when the votes were all counted across the country, the men had accepted the agreement. Very strange.

How did they accept the agreement when it seemed that everyone was voting against it? Well, I spoke to one man -- and I can’t give his name for obvious reasons -- but he told me an interesting story. The day after the meeting in Toronto, a second meeting was called at the union hall and a second vote was taken. However, they didn’t bother to notify the members about it. They did bring people in to vote -- heavies, they call them. There were only 30 people at that meeting and they, of course, voted for the agreement. They had a second meeting in Thorold. The same people were voting again.

Using this form of democracy -- and the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) should hear this; he’s someone who should be doing something about this -- using this form of sheer phoniness, sheer fraud, they announced that the agreement had been accepted and it went into effect. Some of the men complained, and this is where the trouble began. It’s one thing to vote against an agreement -- that they’ll tolerate -- but what they won’t tolerate is your objecting to it.

At the next meeting of the union some 17 men got up and objected and those men were immediately put on a black list and told they could not work again. A few of them made the mistake of coming down to the union hall and complaining and they were beaten in the union hall. One man was taken into the washroom of that union hall and beaten with a baseball bat, while an officer of the union stood by with a shotgun. Quite interesting! I went down to that union hall. It’s on King St. It looked like a fort. I was scared going down there. I don’t mind telling you, Mr. Speaker. I went down accompanied by a couple of friends.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Did the member have a baseball bat?

Mr. Shulman: No, but I was carrying a gun, I’ll tell him -- I was peeing a little green that day -- but we went down to see what it was all about. We knocked on the front door.

There was a little hole in the door and someone’s face finally appeared at the door and said, “Go around the side. You can’t get in that door. It’s barricaded.” There’s a little narrow door one can get through at the side. One person at a time can get through that door. It’s quite an experience.

The hall is a quarter of the size of this room. There’s a little area barricaded across at the end with a counter on it. There’s a board along the side where people who are eligible for work have their names go up. There are perhaps 30 or 40 men sitting playing cards, drinking, sitting down at the end, presumably waiting for work.

When I was down there Roy Willis, the boss, wasn’t there that day. His deputy, a Mr. Harnon, flatly denied that they had a shotgun in the place or ever had had a shotgun in the place. He did admit tapping one of the men with a baseball bat to restore order, as he put it. Quite interesting!

I went back a second time to see Willis. This time Willis obviously hadn’t been properly briefed by Harnon. He said, “Of course, I’ve got a shotgun. I have to keep it to keep order here, to keep these guys in control, but I never load it.” They work by fear, and I can understand that because I had nothing to fear from them and I was afraid. Someone going to that union hall to complain is in deadly danger of his life.

One of the men was beaten in the union hall in July, three days before he contacted me, in front of 25 other men, while he was held down and while a man worked him over with a baseball bat. Others were beaten on the street. One man was pulled out of a drinking parlour and attacked. One man was attacked in his home by three men who were brought down from Montreal for the job. What was their crime? Their crime was that they were objecting to this union contract.

What else happened to them? They couldn’t get work. Suddenly men who had been working steadily couldn’t get work at all. I found this strange and I asked Willis and I asked Harnon, “Why can’t these men get work? They had no trouble getting work last year.” I was told there was no problem at all. If they wanted work, all they had to do was come down and put their name on the board and pay their union dues. Except when the men try to come down, their union dues aren’t accepted.

I said to Willis, “Did you ever call McNamara Marine or any other company and tell them not to hire these men this year?” “Never,” he said. I thought we should find out about this. So I called this man Oxby, the superintendent, at McNamara Marine, and he said, “Yes.”

I asked him if one specific man, who had worked there the year before, had given his letter of intent. A letter of intent is something that is given out by union contract to any man who is working on a ship at freeze-up time and this entitles him to get his job back when the spring break-up comes.

Two of these men had letters of intent. They worked for McNamara Marine right here in Toronto in the fall, laid the ship up, came back in the spring to go to work, and were told there was no work for them. The name of the man who told them was Oxby. They said “why not?”

“The union had instructed us that you not be taken back.”

“What about this letter of intent?”

“Sorry, there is nothing we can do about it. The union says if we take you back we won’t get any more men.”

This is what they said Oxby said. So I phoned Oxby and, I said, “Is it true?” He said, “Well, I couldn’t tell you that. No one from the union ever told me that. I got my instructions from Mr. White.” I said, “Who is Mr. White?” He said, “Mr. White was my boss at McNamara Marine. He has left the province now. He’s gone to Newfoundland. He works for McNamara Industries in Newfoundland now.” I said “Thanks very much.” He said, “All I do is pass on instructions that he’s given me.”

I got in touch with White down in Newfoundland quickly, before anyone had a chance to get to him. I said, “What happened? Why were these men not taken back on? Why did you give Oxby those instructions that they weren’t to be rehired?” He said, “I was phoned by Frank Willis at the union hall and told they had voted the wrong way and they weren’t to be rehired.” That happened here in Toronto this April.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Real democracy.

Mr. Shulman: Real democracy. So here they are in control. They are not afraid, those people in control. They had a “do-not-ship” list. When I was at the union hall I said, “What is this do-not-ship list?” Willis said to me. “We don’t make that up. That’s made up by the companies. You can’t blame them. If there is some man who has done a bad job there, you can’t force them to take him back. They occasionally send us a list of people we are not to send them, but we don’t make up the list.”

I went down to Montreal and I met with the Great Lakes Association, all those rich men sitting in their lovely houses in Westmount, and they said, “We do not make up the do-not-ship list. The union makes up the do-not-ship list.” So nobody makes up the do- not-ship list, but somehow it’s there, and once you are on that list you never work again.

Not only that, when you don’t work you don’t draw unemployment insurance. These men went down to try to get on the unemployment insurance and the unemployment insurance people said, “Oh no, you can’t have unemployment insurance because your union says there is work available and you should go and get it.” But if they try and go and get it, they get their heads beaten in, or maybe worse.

A man drowned this summer in the Welland Canal. The man, who had been in the Seafarers’ International Union, had run into trouble with them and was trying to get back in. He was found in the canal with his hands handcuffed behind his back. The verdict was suicide. Maybe it was suicide, I don’t know. I accept it, but that isn’t what the seamen believe, and that is not the story that is being spread by the union leaders, because they want it believed that if you fight against them something very bad may happen to you.

So whether or not this man drowned as a result of being thrown in or whether it was a suicide is irrelevant. The men are terrorized and terrified. They are aware that if they do anything wrong or speak out publicly, at the best they will be beaten up, at the best they won’t be able to work, but at the worst what may happen to their families -- there have been threats made -- or what may happen to themselves?

Well, isn’t it all one man’s word against another’s? Fortunately, no, we have some other evidence. One of the men -- and I can use his name, because the union is aware of his activities -- his name is Jack Raffick, he is brave and he is smart, and he put a tape recorder on his phone, and he tape-recorded conversations with the union leaders where he was told he would not be allowed to work again; he tape-recorded a conversation with the owner of McNamara Marine, where he was told that Willis had given instructions he wasn’t to be hired again, and that tape-recording I gave to the police and it was passed on to the Attorney General’s department.

What do the unions say? I have a statement here from the president of the union to all the members, and I think perhaps he should have his say. I am going to read it in full. It’s just two weeks old. It’s called “Message from the President” and it says:

“Nobody likes to strike. The hardship it inflicts on all concerned is painful. Unfortunately it seems that it’s the only way the working man can make management take notice of his plight. In the maritime industry it’s sad to see that the only time we have been able to get the recognition for our services that we deserve from shipowners was to man the barricades and picket lines. This spring after a three-week strike we were able to come up with the best Great Lakes contract ever negotiated. More recently our shipmates, the engineers of the BCMOU and the mates union, decided to adopt the same strike tactic and after a long, hard battle settled for a much improved agreement. The settlements with the shipowners were as a result of mutual support on behalf of the three unions concerned. Solidarity is what it’s all about. With all three unions working together the results were inevitable.

“Just in case you are curious about the sudden interest in our union by outside parties in the way of attacks in the press and so on, just remember one thing, certain wealthy and powerful individuals are unhappy with the vigour and aggressiveness of the new leadership of the SIU of Canada and its members. It is no secret that certain outside interests [that’s me, I guess] financed by certain shipowners are doing everything to discredit and blacken the name of our organization. These attempted smears are a proof that someone feels the SIU of Canada has become something to reckon with. We won’t take a back seat to anyone, and that’s what is upsetting them. Long ago in this very newspaper I pledged to improve the wages and working conditions of Canadian sailors and to see to it that legislation is passed to ensure job security in the shipping industry. Judging by the attacks recently against this union, we must assume that we are stepping on someone’s toes and they don’t like it. Tough! We will stick together and continue working for bigger and better things for all of our members.

“Roman Gralewicz.”

Well, I guess I am the -- what is the word he used? -- wealthy and powerful individual who is being financed by certain shipowners to discredit them, as I am going to do all I can to discredit them. Unfortunately the shipowners aren’t helping.

We now have a union here in the city under federal jurisdiction, unfortunately, which is terrorized. It is run for the pleasure and profit of the people in charge. The men have no say in whether or not agreements with the shipowners are accepted. They have no say in who is elected. They have no say in where they ship; they can’t go down to a ship and say, “Take me on,” even if they have been on that ship for years.

Another man, who worked for Canada Steamship Lines on a ship for years, had an accident last June. Something fell on his toe and he had to leave the ship for a few days to receive treatment for that injury. When he returned to the ship, the captain said: “I am sorry, you can’t come back on.” He said: “Why not?” “We have received instructions from your union you are not to work again. You voted the wrong way on the union contract.”

I got in touch with the chairman of Canada Steamship Lines. I went to Montreal and asked him flatly if this was true. He called his captain. It was true.

Canada Steamship Lines don’t run their boats. McNamara Marine don’t run their boats. Those boats are run by the union, by the SIU, and they are run for the pleasure of the leaders of that union.

What have the police been doing about all this? They have been working hard. The complaints of recent beatings first came to the Metro police. From there it went to the OPP and they have done everything the police can do, but what can they do? Can they persuade these men to come and lay charges? What charges? Charges of assault?

If they bring Roy Willis into court on a charge of assault, what if he is convicted? The charge of assault means nothing to him. He will pay a $50 fine. What if he goes to jail for 10 days? So what? And what’s going to happen to that man afterwards? Suppose Willis phones the next day and says: “Oh, it’s okay. You can ship out tomorrow.” What’s going to happen to him when the ship is going through the Welland Canal or it is out at sea somewhere, some dark night when he is on watch? No one is going to be foolish enough to go into court, not if he ever intends to go on a boat again. So it’s ludicrous to suggest that these men lay charges, because their lives are at stake.

I took all this to our energetic Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker, and I said: “Solicitor General, you have to do something. You have to hold a royal commission because you don’t have evidence to lay criminal charges that are going to stick. The only way you are going to get these men is the way we got all the other criminals in this field and that’s through a royal commission.”

The Solicitor General said: “Let me look into it.” He called me back a couple of days later and he said: “Gee, it’s a bad mess. I don’t have the authority to call a royal commission -- you had better speak to the Attorney General, Bob Welch.” So I made an appointment to see the Attorney General and I went down to see him and he said: “Gee, that’s a bad business. I will certainly look into it.”

That was back in August. In September he looked into it and he said: “Well, we certainly have to do something about it, either in the form of a royal commission or getting charges laid.” He called down to the Solicitor General and said: “Get some charges laid.” But there were no charges laid that meant anything that would stick, so this ball bounced back and forth.

Finally I said: “For God’s sake, hold a royal commission because that’s the only way you are going to expose this mess. It’s the only way you are going to fight these people. It’s the only way you are going to get some results.” When he came back he finally said: “No, we won’t hold a royal commission. It is a federally chartered union. It comes under the federal government. They are the ones that should take the action.” Well, they are not going to take the action.

Do the members know why they are not going to take the action? Because someone in Ottawa has been paid off. I don’t know who, but they boast about this at union headquarters. They don’t have to worry about the federal government. They made massive contributions in the last campaign to certain key Liberals. I don’t know who they are, but I know that contributions were made.

This is one reason we should have a royal commission here. Let’s get a look at their books and see who got the money. I am personally satisfied that no provincial politician received any money from them. There is no reason why we can’t move. But if we wait for Ottawa to move we are going to wait forever, because there are too many people who might get hurt down there, too many important people who might be affected, and the Ottawa government is not going to take any action against the SIU now or ever.

I don’t have the Attorney General or the Solicitor General here, but I do have the Conservative back-benchers and perhaps one cabinet minister. So I say, for goodness’ sake, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by moving against the SIU. The Conservatives are not going to lose any votes; that’s for sure. They don’t care very much if the Liberals get embarrassed down in Ottawa anyway; I don’t think anybody cares in this House, on my right or my left.

This is the worst mess I have ever seen in the field of crime since I have been involved in this particular endeavour, and I have seen a lot of messes. This makes the business in the construction industry look penny ante. The people who were throwing the bombs at Acme Lathing never stooped to the type of activities that the SIU stoop to.

If anyone is to move against them, it has to be here. It can’t be anywhere else, because no one else is able to move.

Well, all right, the Minister of Labour is here. There is one thing he can do something about. Why doesn’t he do something about the hiring halls? If there weren’t hiring halls they couldn’t handle it. If we are going to have hiring halls -- and hiring halls can work -- he must have them supervised outside, by government, so people aren’t afraid to walk in there.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): This is a federal jurisdiction, you know.

Mr. Shulman: Well, the province can take jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not so sure about that.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for High Park has the floor.

Mr. Shulman: All right, the minister says it is a federal jurisdiction. But he has the right to set labour standards in this province, and he can do that in a way to protect these men. The minister has the right to order a royal commission in this province to look into the violence that is taking place in this province. That comes under our Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch), and I hope the Minister of Labour has his ear occasionally.

I tell the minister that if he doesn’t do it, this scandal is going to continue, and sooner or later it is going to erupt. They are not going to be satisfied with just bribing Liberal politicians. They are going to try to get to the people in this government too; and with the kind of money that is available, they will, sooner or later.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): They have done it in housing.

Mr. Shulman: Well, that is the sum and substance of it. I throw this ball to the Minister of Labour and to the Provincial Secretary for Justice, because this is something for which they have a responsibility. I have done all I can. I have exposed it. I think the police have done all they can. I think the press have done all they can. Now it is time for government to move; and when there is corruption at Ottawa we have to move here.

This is the final speech, the end of the five-part series of speeches I was giving on organized crime. I hope it has been a --

Mr. Gaunt: Maybe the member will be around next year.

Mr. Shulman: I don’t think so.

I hope it has been of some value. I hope some good will come out of it. A great deal of work has been put into this by a lot of people who unfortunately I can’t name. They have done it, for reasons of patriotism and feeling for this country and this province. They gave me the material. There was never any money changed hands at any time. They gave selflessly. I wish I could name them, but I thank them. I want to get it on the record that they have done this -- many of them are police officers -- and I hope that some good will come out of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, if that was an intimation of a swan song from the member for High Park I would like to say, as a citizen of Ontario, that I hope his efforts on behalf of the people of this province will continue and I hope he will reconsider his decision to leave public life. I admire the man and his guts; he is a credit to politics, and I hope that he stays in the business.

But now is the time to unquo the status, as it were. In the past year we have had a great education -- in America with Watergate and here with Hydrogate.

I really feel the people have an intuitive feeling that government needs looking into progressively, I feel that the more we have an informed public then the better chance we have for a good government.

I don’t want to suggest that this is going to be a very profitable evening for any members listening to me. I look back to 12 or 13 years ago -- a lot of us have white hair now -- when the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Apps) over there, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) and a few of us first came into the House. When anyone had a message or a chance to speak to the House, those benches were full over there. I think today is indicative of why this government will be replaced and why the polls last Saturday showed that the Tories had lost two-thirds of their support from the public. They are now down to 14 per cent of the public who want the Tories, while 44 per cent would like to see the Liberals, the official opposition, in power.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): They’re not listening.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): There is no one there to listen.

Mr. Sargent: I think that is the reason, Mr. Speaker; we are speaking to ourselves and the opposition, as it were.

They have a bit of the rump down there. They’re pretty faithful in attending, but I think it’s disgraceful that there are only two cabinet ministers in the House tonight. There is no one in the front row. This is the reason I believe the Tories will get their come-uppance, as it were, come the next election.

Whether they hold it on Jan. 2, 1975, or in 1977, it doesn’t matter a damn. They’re going to get it. The scuttlebutt is out that the government is going to use the civil service strike as the election springboard; it’s going to play the civil service against the people of Ontario; that’s going to be its issue for the next election.

Mr. Haggerty: They tried it with the teachers.

Mr. Sargent: They tried it with the teachers but it boomeranged. Regardless, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, it’s a shame that for those of us who have a message in the opposition, after a lifetime of service in politics --

An hon. member: People die in here.

Mr. Sargent: -- the government, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the cabinet give us the back of their hand, as it were, and to hell with the democratic process. That’s what it has come down to now.

I say this may not be a very profitable evening for any members listening to what I have to say, but they can do as the farmer did who paid $3 for a pig. He spent more on food until it became a hog and he sold it for $8. He didn’t make any money but he had the company of the pig all summer. We have a bit of a mutual admiration society in the opposition that we can take a few whacks at the government here.

Talking about livestock, I want to say for the record that a lot of farmers out my way are going to lose between $30,000 and $50,000 this year on their beef, and that’s pretty expensive company. At the feeder sales this fall beef brought about 28 cents. In the USA they’re slaughtering cattle, and in Quebec too.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) is blaming the price of feed. He’s probably right. The thing to do now is not to assess the blame but to provide interest-free loans similar to Saskatchewan and Alberta. If the farmers in Ontario decide to follow the Quebec producers, where some 2,000 of them have threatened to boycott, then we are in trouble.

The minister has gone as far as saying he will set up a loan fund, but he’s charging the farmers of Ontario interest on it.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Plus one per cent over the bank rate.

Mr. Sargent: Plus one per cent over the bank rate, my colleague from Rainy River says. But in this free enterprise system we have today profit is the name of the game. In Canada the meat packers’ year book just came out and it is quite a fairy story. This is the real profit in the food business. They had $2.5 billion in sales and the processing of 3.25 billion lb of meat and they are experiencing the biggest profit in history. They say in small print that their profit is 1.25 per cent per sales dollar; I say that’s a lot of baloney.

It reminds me of the school reunion where the Rolls-Royce drives up and the tycoon gets out. He’s made a lot of money in gaskets and someone says to him: “How did you put together this million-dollar operation?” “It wasn’t difficult,” he says. “I sold them for five cents each and I found a contractor to make them for one cent -- you can’t beat that four per cent profit.” That is the way Canada Packers set up their fairy story to the public of Canada.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): If the member takes on the capitalist system I will back him up.

Mr. Sargent: I am more convinced than ever, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer is the biggest gambler in the world. Anybody in the business world today knows the selling price before they start the operation. But in the agricultural industry there is no way. Many of our beef cattle people are driving their cattle to the market and taking what they can get for them because they can’t afford to take them home to feed them. That is a fact. I’m further convinced that the farmer is the only man in our economy who pays retail price for everything that he buys, sells everything at wholesale and pays the freight both ways.

I’d like to suggest to you that the farmers deserve every penny they make. A man does not get up at 5 a.m., Mr. Speaker, just because he wants to socialize with his Holsteins. Do you realize that the farmer works a 12- to 16-hour day, 365 days a year, with no sick leave?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may interrupt my friend --

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Deans: I would like to ask on whose authority it is that the doors of the building are locked.

Mr. Speaker: The doors to this building?

Mr. Deans: The doors to this building are locked. I want to know who gave authority for the doors to be locked, why the public are excluded from the building and what it is that is happening around here that results in this having occurred. I apologize to my colleague for interrupting him, but I find this most offensive.

Mr. Speaker: You have brought this to our attention. I’m sure your remarks will be listened to.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): By whom?

Mr. Deans: On the same point, I don’t know who will listen to them because there is nobody allowed in the building to hear them.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): When was it locked?

Mr. Deans: I would ask that you dispatch someone now to find out on whose authority it is that the doors of this building are locked. There is no justification for it. It is a rule of the House that the public be admitted to the building during the time that the House is in session. If there is some reason to believe we are in peril then I think we should be informed of it. If that isn’t the case then I want the doors opened immediately.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll ask the Clerk to make inquiries.

The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): It was the member for Grey-Bruce’s speech, I bet.

Mr. Sargent: I didn’t know I was that good.

Mr. Shulman: It is to keep out the SIU.

Mr. Sargent: We got the front row full over there now.

Mr. Stokes: That is why there are not many Tories over there -- they can’t get in.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t be surprised.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: I just want to get across the point that the consumer is a big focal point now -- they were concerned about what the poor consumer has to pay for his food. It’s about time the people in this country got down on their knees and gave thanks for the bountiful supply of food available to them in this country.

A farmer, as I said before, works a 12- to 16-hour day, 365 days a year, with no sick leave and no holidays; he does not even get Christmas Day off. In this industry, we are at the mercy of marketing boards, the auction block and the stock market. The wives and the children of farmers work their knuckles to the bone; they carry 50-lb bales of hay, lift 100-lb sacks of grain, clean up the manure, fight with the cows and calves and drive tractors. All this labour is done without any pay to the farmer or his family for their time and effort. They face plague, disease, drought, floods, frost, parasites --

Mr. Haggerty: Hydro increases.

Mr. Sargent: -- and devastation of animals or crops at any given time.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): It’s a good job they have got hydro.

Mr. Sargent: Almost everything they need to run their business they buy at ripoff prices. And Hydro could do a hell of a lot better job than they are doing for the farmers too. I have trouble getting lines to farmers in the Bruce Peninsula, because it isn’t economically profitable to Hydro. We’ll talk about that some time.

Credit is extended to the fullest extent, and debt has become a way of life. Mortgage and bank loans weigh heavily on the shoulders of the farmer. Many farmers have to seek other part-time work to keep the operations viable.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s where he puts in the other eight hours.

Mr. Sargent: The mood is one of discouragement and depression, now turning to anger and indignation. If equal rights and equal opportunity are not extended to the farmer, these revolutionary sparks will kindle and soon erupt into a roaring inferno. Mr. Speaker. I will develop this point later about the need for credit to the agri-industry.

I would like to say a few words about the farmers’ land. At the outset, I firmly believe that Murray Gaunt is one of the best authorities in this regard, and I find that the federations across the province respect his opinion on land policy.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The next Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Sargent: That’s for sure. Underline that one.

An hon. member: The next Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I don’t think I could ever get used to being driven around.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member would not name members by name.

Mr. Sargent: If Murray wants to heckle me, it is all right.

Mr. Speaker: Right. The hon. member has the floor.

Mr. Sargent: I believe that a farmer should own his own development rights, Mr. Speaker. He should not be denied the opportunity to split farms for development. Now, that is a basic tenet. More and more, across this province the farms are at the mercy of the land division committees. They are carrying out policies developed by eggheads who live in highrises in Toronto and Queen’s Park. The executives who make these decisions have more power than all the Ehrlichmans and Haldemans in the White House.

In this field everything is in a state of chaos. I suggest at the outset that centralization of power is the death-blow of public freedom, and we have centralization of power now in the bureaucracy here. Through regional government, Mr. Speaker, the land can be frozen and land severances can be stopped - - and the pattern of land severances across the province is a crazy one. For instance, some of the farmers in Peel are allowed four severances for 100 acres, some are allowed one for 100 acres, and most are allowed none at all.

To summarize this controversy, to give fair treatment to every farmer who wants to sell his land, I suggest that as a powerful motive to halt the steady erosion of food production in favour of housing pressure, the government should buy the agricultural land, if they deem it that valuable, then lease it to another farmer wishing to work the land.

Certainly, it is almost impossible now, Mr. Speaker, for anyone to buy a farm for farming. And this could well be the answer. Have the government buy up the land available and lease it. But in essence, every farmer should own his own development rights and not politicians nor commissions. In other words, a farmer’s land should still be his pension.

As I said before, I agree with Balzac that bureaucracy is a great mechanism operated by pygmies. We’re seeing it in full flight here today.

The great problem we find in our area today is to keep the young people interested in farming. Although the first thing, of course, in farming is to have a reasonably stable future and profitable prices, the important thing is the need for the greater sources of financing for relatively long term.

What I’m trying to say is this, that farming is a capital intensive industry with a low return on its capital. At present, long-term financing can be obtained from the Farm Credit Corp. but this usually only covers the cost of real estate. The farmer then must turn to the chartered banks to finance implements and livestock. As you all know, most of the bank loans have a maximum term of five years at relatively high rates of interest.

We are the best beef area, Grey and Bruce, in all of Canada, and there is never any cash in the farm bank account. All farms are required to meet the short-term loan payments. Young people today are not willing to wait to retirement to do some of the things that their friends in the cities do. They don’t want to be tied down seven days a week, 52 weeks a year on an indefinite basis. So, there is a great need to find some course of long-term credit for the present short-term loans.

That is a must today in this great industry. Because when the farmer is healthy, the economy is healthy.

I will talk a little about food. If you want to know how important this subject is, note that the portfolio is now called Food and Agriculture. All of us here think that basically we are solid, successful citizens -- civilized people. Yet just 12 meals stand between you and savagery, Mr. Speaker. One day without food, and you would lie. Two days without food and you would steal. Three days without food and you would riot. Four days without food and you would kill. This is how important the weapon that the farmer has in his hands today.

We saw the power of the Federation of Agriculture when it brought the government to its knees on the 25 per cent educational tax; the government knuckled in and gave in to the federation. So the farmer has the greatest weapon in the world in his hands. If the farmer goes on strike, all hell is going to break loose.

Now, regarding the packing houses and how they control the market price. I recall a while back when I first came into the Legislature with plans to change the whole world. We were so decisive on how we were going to do things for our people. I used to study reports on how the packing houses could juggle prices in the different divisions across Canada. They had the whole economy like a yo-yo. They would hold off buying here and buying there and control the prices across Canada to the packing houses. Canada Packers is the biggest offender. I would suggest that Canada Packers has this government in its pocket because it gives so much to the government’s election funds. I’ll develop that later.

Regardless of this, they do control the market prices. There’s an old saying: “If you can’t beat them, join them.” There’s no way that the farmers of Ontario or Canada are going to join the packing houses, but the farmers can buy them out and take over. By having the farmers take over the packing houses the government could control food production in the interest of the consumers and the producers. The mechanics of such a takeover are not insurmountable.

When one thinks about it, the combined credit of all the farmers of Ontario, of their plant, their land, their equipment, is hundreds of billions of dollars. The wealthiest corporation in America today is not General Motors or anyone else; the wealthiest corporation is the co-operative farm corporation which has combined the assets of all the farmers of America and is making loans to farmers down there. That is the answer, I suggest, that the combined credit of the farmers of Ontario could take over the packing houses and then control the market place.

To me, this seems to be an out for my people in this field. They clearly have ample money to do the job which has to be done, and once and for all decide that D-Day -- decision day -- is here; not around the corner but here today.

I’d like to digress for a few moments and talk about the fiasco insofar as health care for my people in Owen Sound is concerned, Mr. Speaker. You recall that we have “no vacancy” signs in the hospital, and if the Premier of the province were to be in my area tonight and had a heart attack there would be no place for him in a hospital ward or room. He would have to take a bed in the hall. They built a new $4 million hospital down in Hanover. They call it the Hanover Hilton. The carpets are so thick you go up to your ankles in carpets there and the place is only half full. But that’s understandable, because the House leader has the access to the moneybag there.

Mr. Speaker, my House leader advises me that the time is now to call for a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: Madam Clerk, would you take the count, please?

Clerk of the House: There are 19 members present.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a quorum.

Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Clerk again make a count to determine if there is a quorum present?

Clerk of the House: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there’s a quorum present.

An hon. member: There is a Tory quorum present.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I had in the mail an invitation to go to the dinner-dance Friday, Nov. 15 at the Century Gardens in Brampton where the guests of honour were to be Bill and Kathy Davis.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): That’s over.

Mr. Sargent: It was $7.50 a person. This was sent out by the Peel North Provincial Progressive Conservative Association -- not to me -- on the franking privilege of the House.

Mr. Turner: Did they miss the member?

An hon. member: By whom?

Mr. Turner: He’d better clarify that.

Mr. Sargent: It was sent out by the Peel North Provincial Progressive Conservative Association. There’s a picture of “Smiling Bill” here. It seems to me that anyone of us in this House must know that he can’t do his constituency business, his party business, on the franking privilege of the House.

This man writes to me and says: “Dear Eddie, I thought you might be interested in this apparent improper use of the taxpayers’ money.”

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Get on with the speech.

Mr. Sargent: We know that the Premier runs a bigger office than Pierre Trudeau, with 100 people in tow.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: The member woke them up.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: They weren’t all asleep then. They are awake, are they?

Mr. Turner: The member is doing his best to put them to sleep.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t know how far they can go when they milk the public, when they have 100 people working for the Premier and they are using the mail for this. The association must be broke when they have to have the taxpayers pay for their mail.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Speaker will look into it. He is very objective.

Mr. Sargent: Yes, that is right. Forgetting about the charade and about this whole operation here, I just want to underline the fact that in Owen Sound we are now arranging to put portable buildings on the lawn of the hospital for facilities. We are told that in five or 10 years we will get a new hospital in Owen Sound, but the thing is I would --

Mr. Bullbrook: It will be quicker than that.

Mr. Sargent: I think it will be quicker than that, but it just goes to show you the way that, geographically, the scales are tipped against non-government members.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: We have 300 to 400 patients now on the waiting list for elective surgery and over 150 waiting for urgent surgery in our hospital, and I would like to suggest that the Premier of this province should write a letter to these people and say that they live in a riding with a Liberal member and they are second-class citizens; because they do not get the same medical treatment that people do in Toronto or in Conservative ridings.

An hon. member: No wonder they are sick.

An hon. member: You’ve said it.

Mr. Sargent: If anyone in this House would have the stupidity to agree with this kind of treatment, I don’t think he really realizes what he is doing.

The other night in this House, in talking to a former top employee of the Ontario Housing Corp. who was its chief land buyer, he told me that on Nov. 7, 1967, the motion in the meeting was to acquire 1,500 acres of land at $4,000 an acre, or $6 million, which was double the appraisal value of the appraisal people and the man in charge of the department. The $6 million figure went through and there was a $3 million overpayment. The member for Wentworth knows this story, because it’s in the Saltfleet development. We have the copy of the purchase order in our file. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine), Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Bullbrook: The real cancer of government, OHC, really.

Mr. Sargent: The minister in the debate last week said he would produce the files to prove that I was wrong. I was away on business last week when this came up for questioning in the estimates again; but my figure was right, because he says on page 5193 of Hansard: “Mr. Chairman, the appraisal report from Stewart, Young and Mason indicated: ‘In my opinion, as of Sept. 30, 1967, the market value of the property is $3,350,000, or $2,135 per acre’.” That is the report of the appraisal people, and at this point the minister owes me and the House an explanation of why $3 million more was paid.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right, right.

Mr. Sargent: Today I asked the minister by a note if he would furnish me with the file. He said: “No, the files are not available.”

Mr. Bullbrook: OHC will bring the government down. It will bring them down.

Mr. Sargent: But this is only the start of what’s going to happen in this cancerous department.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member be able to sort of wind down his remarks at this time?

Mr. Sargent: I have much more to go, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Will you adjourn the debate then please?

Mr. Sargent moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to inform the members that on Thursday we will deal with items 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 on today’s order paper; not necessarily in that order.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion to adjourn the House, I asked the Speaker in the chair about 20 minutes ago who gave authority to the Ontario Provincial Police to lock the building and to bar all persons from entry. Are you able to tell me that now, since you are the Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, I don’t know anything about the building being locked. I am not aware that it is locked. I was consulted and I said that any demonstration must take place outside, that is all I know about it.

Mr. Deans: Might I bring, then, to your attention that all of the doors to the building are locked -- the east and west doors, the front door and the back door. This requires that someone with a key open the door in order to allow members to come in and out. It also requires that the public be not admitted to the building. I want an investigation of this matter, so that there be an answer --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I want to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, if I may, that it is a very serious matter when the public is barred entry to the Parliament Buildings, and it is not some frivolous thing. The whole purpose of this exercise is to allow the public to look in on the debate of the Legislature, and any person who is banned from entry to the Legislature must surely have committed some crime in order for that to be undertaken.

I object to the barracking from the back benches of the Tory Party.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I just repeat what I said before. I was consulted and I said any demonstration must be outside. I think that has been past practice. There has been one exception to that, that I know of, but this is the general practice and this was my instruction. I know nothing about locking the doors but I will check and let you know.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to that point of order. I really do agree that the essential part of our democratic system is that people have access --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deacon: When people are not allowed to come in here and they have not committed any crime, we should not be sitting when the doors of this building are closed.

Mr. Turner: Don’t distort the facts.

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): The member is out of order.

Mr. Deacon: I am not out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Are you finished? Thank you. That’s the position as I see it right at the moment. I shall report back.

Mr. Deans: I would just like to rise on another point of order, if I may, related but not the same point.

This afternoon, sir, you ejected a member of this Legislature for barracking and interjecting. I suggest to you, you should have listened to what was going on during the time that I was speaking and during the time the member for York Centre was speaking.

Mr. Speaker: I am going to do that right away.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order. I want to ask you something, if I may, sir. I want to know, as a matter of essential ingredient, if we may, sir: Is the public allowed in at any time? Do we evaluate whether the public will disturb the essential progress of the legislative process by knowing what it does outside? I think it is time we came to grips with this situation and I think the hon. member for Wentworth is very much concerned about this.

What I am concerned about more than anything else is that when we see Metropolitan Toronto police in the foyer downstairs -- and I, for one, recognize the need to protect the persons and property of this assembly -- I wonder whether some predisposition against a certain segment of society hasn’t prevailed. I think this is what the member for Wentworth is concerned about, and my deputy leader is concerned about.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Oh, come on.

Mr. Bullbrook: I say this to you: How can we lock the doors ahead of time? Surely to goodness this is anathema to the very process that we are involved with, and I think the Sneaker cannot slough us off, most respectfully, by saying he will look into it. The time has come that we must recognize that the public has the right, the inherent right, to come in and look at us.

Mr. Deans: One at a time or altogether.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I say this most respectfully? They must come in.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Let them come down to the member’s office in the morning.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: If they conduct themselves untoward when they come in, then they must be disposed of with dispatch. But it bothers me, because a certain segment of society congregates outside, Mr. Speaker, and we begin with a predisposition and this is what we do.

Mr. G. Nixon: Sit down.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There’s no quarrel with the member’s remarks, as far as I’m concerned. I will check into it. I wasn’t aware that the doors were locked.

Mr. Morrow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Just one moment, please. As far as I’m concerned, the doors are to let the public in as they always have been. An organized demonstration, I think, should be outside. As I said before, I will check into this as to why the doors are locked, because it wasn’t my understanding until someone just mentioned it a moment ago. The public has had free access to this building, and some people think too free, but that’s not for me to judge at the present time.

Mr. Sargent: It’s their property.

Mr. Speaker: This is one of the matters, I might say, that is up for very serious discussion in line with what I understand is in the recent Camp report or the next Camp report, whichever it is. It was suggested that more serious consideration should be given to the security of this building and the people in it. There is not much we can do tonight in that regard and I won’t repeat myself.

An hon. member: We don’t agree with you.

Mr. Morrow: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to the point of order. I wanted to say that I’ve been around this House for a good many years.

Mr. Bullbrook: A new point of order?

Mr. Morrow: I’m speaking to the point of order that was raised.

Mr. Bullbrook: He has ruled on the point of order.

Mr. Morrow: The member was on the point of order and I’m speaking to it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Morrow: I’m speaking to the point of order that the member for Sarnia was speaking to.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Except he didn’t have one.

Mr. Morrow: Mr. Speaker, I’m speaking to the point of order that the hon. member raised. He raised a point of order.

An hon. member: Yes, but he didn’t have one.

An hon. member: He didn’t need one.

Mr. Speaker: I think we would appreciate the hon. member’s comments, but that will be it.

Mr. Morrow: I only want to say this, that in the number of years that I’ve been here, as to the jurisdiction of this House as far as people coming in, they normally can come into this building when the House is sitting, which means the day and the evening. The House is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Government Services and the ministry has always been able to close the doors to any demonstration at any time of the day in which it wishes. The Speaker doesn’t have any jurisdiction whatsoever over the House, whether the doors stay open or they’re closed. It’s strictly in the hands of Government Services. They have the authority to close them if they think that a demonstration is not right to be inside.

Mr. Bullbrook: Then may I say this before we rise? With respect, I very much appreciate the comments of the hon. member because of his experience. May I say I am diametrically opposed to a minister of the government unilaterally having the power to decide who comes into this chamber and who doesn’t.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: I say this to the members, that the Speaker of the House must have that responsibility and I hope we change those circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member’s words might have some bearing.

Hon. Mrs. Birch moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:40 o’clock, p.m.