The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. N. Allan (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I would like the members to welcome a group of students in the west gallery from the Port Dover High School, 90 of them, with their teacher Brian Black.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to welcome to the chamber this afternoon a group of students from Chapleau High School, accompanied by three adults and under the supervision of the teacher, Mrs. Ora Way-White. I hope you and the other members will join me in welcoming them here this afternoon.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would be delighted to join with me in welcoming two students from Emery Collegiate in Yorkview, Lydia Peruzzi and Yola Iozzo who are here this week on a work session, looking at a couple of the departments.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, last June the government introduced Bill 117 to encourage public discussion on the basic issues of family law. Broad participation has taken place. This afternoon, I will introduce a revised Family Law Reform Act which takes into account the changes suggested to us during the past 10 months.

Mr. Speaker, the family is vital to individual and social development but much of the existing family law is based upon a social and economic environment which no longer exists. It is patronizing toward women and it contradicts the fact that wives are individuals first, not satellites of their husbands. While the courts in Ontario have gone a considerable distance toward attaining equitable results in specific cases, the legislation which forms the basis for much of our family law must itself be revised in order to reflect our present social and economic environment.

The new legislation has, as its main objective, the preservation of individual legal rights within a marriage. It is designed to create a co-equal legal status for married men and women. Both women and children will have important new rights under the Act.

The Act establishes the separate legal personalities of each spouse as recommended by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, and grants full legal capacity to married persons. For example, both spouses will have the right to legal recourse against the other as if they were not married. At present, a husband may not sue his wife in tort. A married woman may sue her husband in tort for the protection of her property but not for personal injuries.

Married women will also have the general right to act as guardian for an infant in a lawsuit. At the moment, this applies only in several specific areas such as adoption and affiliation proceedings.

An important clarification will be made regarding the contribution of work, money or money’s worth which one spouse makes to the property or business owned by the other. In the absence of any agreement between them, the contribution will be treated as if made by one individual to another outside marriage. The fact that the couple is married will not be permitted to affect the claim of the contributor to part of the property.

This clause confers no new right to share in property owned by a spouse. It prevents married status from interfering with a claim. In a case such as Murdoch vs Murdoch, the court would then treat a spouse in the same way as a third party who had made a contribution to a property or business.

The question of conferring positive rights to share in family property is being considered at present as a further stage in our continuing reform of family law.

Mr. Speaker, the new Act creates a presumption of trust where property belonging to one spouse is received by the other. Unless there is proof to the contrary, the property is deemed to be held in trust for the other. Title taken in joint tenancy, and bank accounts or common funds in the names of both husband and wife are excepted. In these cases the law will presume that the property is held in joint tenancy, whatever the contributions.

Liability for married women will also be changed. Under the present law, a married woman is not personally liable for damages arising out of a breach of contract. Her liability is limited to the value of her “separate property.” A married man’s capacity to incur contractual liability is, however, unlimited, as will be a married woman’s under the new Act. A wife will retain the right to pledge her husband’s credit for necessaries, however.

The Act also clarifies the law in favour of recovery for pre-natal injuries.

Insurers will be no longer exempt from liability to the insured person’s spouse or children. Since the new Act allows for suits between spouses and between parents and children, the insurer will now be liable for bodily injury or death of family members of the policy holder. The superintendent of insurance has been consulted and has assured us that this change will not result in higher insurance premiums.

Mr. Speaker, this new Act is only the first step in a comprehensive reform of family law. It will help to prepare the way for more change. We are deeply involved in the examination and review of family property law, including the law relating to the matrimonial home and to support obligations. I expect to bring forward in the near future some proposals for legislative change in those areas.

We acknowledge the need for reform, Mr. Speaker, and this Act is tangible evidence of our commitment. We believe that it should proceed as soon as possible. Thank you.

MINAKI LODGE

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Before we move into oral questions, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct an answer I gave in the House on Friday. I wouldn’t want to mislead the House. I did make an error in part of my answer, in that the former owner of Minaki Lodge, a Mr. Rod Carey, is still in the employ of the lodge or on contract in order to maintain and preserve certain aspects of the lodge that we are restoring.

At the present time I might also say that work is being carried on within the lodge to guarantee its physical stability, as I said, and to retain the historic aspects of the structure. The nature of the work at present and the requirements for it necessitate closing the lodge during the redevelopment period, which I think has been said, although the ski hill and the golf course will remain operational. To date, all contracts, including the one mentioned on Friday to Clara Painting Ltd., have been tendered in accordance with government procedures.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may, does the Attorney General have copies of his statement available?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I’ll have them circulated.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

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

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Chairman of the Management Board, further to his statement a moment ago, can he clarify to the House if the government -- particularly himself in his own capacity as Chairman of the Management Board -- is prepared to continue to recommend that Mr. Carey be kept on in this $15,000-a-year position, particularly since it was Mr. Carey’s administration that put Minaki Lodge in a situation that required the government to buy it out to protect its own investment of $500,000? The government has since spent $3.3 million on it; it is still losing money and is, in fact, closed. When is the government going to cut its losses and get rid of Mr. Carey? It seems his advice is not productive.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The entire matter, Mr. Speaker, is under constant review. We have a manager on the site and I will take that matter under consideration when I have the opportunity.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the minister give us any further information as to whether Minaki will be opening for this summer season and, as Chairman of the Management Board, what are the predictions as to the continued responsibility on the taxpayers of this province to meet the bills for keeping it going even as a closed-down operation?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It is, as I indicated, closed down. The main lodge, as a part of the facility, is closed down for the summer months because of the redevelopment. We have a study going on at the present time in regard to marketability and viability of the facility itself. This is not yet concluded and the future decisions will be made after we have that information. We are doing it in conjunction with the federal government at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Can the minister advise whether or not any ministry of his government has approached the federal government for assistance, either through DREE or some other federal agency, to bail it out of this misadventure?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No. Mr. Speaker, not to bail us out, because we are convinced this facility in northwestern Ontario is desirable as far as the tourist industry is concerned, and for the propagation of that industry -- and everybody in the area thinks so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s a white elephant.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): It’s an albatross around their necks.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I, for one from southern Ontario, am prepared to do something for the tourist industry in northwestern Ontario, if they indeed are not.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): What’s a closed-down resort doing for them?

Mr. Martel: That’s one way to waste money -- buy an albatross.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’ll allow this supplementary: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Is the minister aware that the people, the tourist operators in the area, consider this to be a white elephant and would like to see the money the government is throwing away on Minaki Lodge spent on other programmes which will affect the whole tourist industry in the whole area?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don’t believe that to be a fact, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: The minister will find out soon enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if we could get the permission of the House to revert to statements, for the hon. Minister of Natural Resources who was delayed in arriving. We’ll keep track of the time. Do we have that permission?

TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring the members of the Legislature up to date on the progress which we in the Ontario government have been making with respect to our programme with Bell Canada to provide telecommunications to the remote communities of northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: What about Shining Tree?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The most important point I should make at this time, I think, is to assure members that the project is proceeding very well and is on schedule to the end of 1977. The preliminary work on the Red Lake to Sandy Lake route is well along and some of Bell Canada’s engineers have been travelling in the area in preparation for the first stages of actual construction. We will see action and results on that route over the next few months.

As members are well aware, the provision of electrical power is a fundamental requirement of a programme such as ours. This being the case, the Ontario government has attempted to co-ordinate the telecommunications project with the community electrification schedule of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in all those communities slated to receive telecommunications. Reliable communications service demands a reliable source of electrical power. Diesel-electric units must be installed in duplicate for reliability and can be made available for communications purposes only. The cost of diesel-electric installations approximates one-third of that estimated to electrify the average northern community, yet such installations provide no other benefit whatsoever to the residents of the community.

The government of Ontario was convinced this was not the way to proceed. We felt it would be completely unacceptable to the residents of the communities slated for telecommunications to place additional generators in their communities and yet deny them access to power for other purposes. We felt the integration of community electrification and communications projects could produce substantial social and, hopefully, economic benefit to the people of remote northwestern Ontario and that, in addition, there would be a commonsense economic saving by bringing the provision of electrification and communications together into a single co-ordinated programme.

It was on this basis that we approached the federal government with, as we saw it, the logical suggestion that they accelerate their community electrification programme, scheduled at present to be completed by 1983, to coincide with our telecommunications programme.

I regret to have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our understanding of the federal government’s position as contained in a letter from the hon. Judd Buchanan, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is that it is not prepared to co-operate with us in achieving such a co-ordinated approach. This means that while community electrification will be extended to eight communities -- and these are, for the benefit of those who are knowledgeable of the north, Big Trout Lake, Fort Hope, Pikangikum, Round Lake, Sandy Lake, Lansdowne House, Webique and Bearskin Lake, which will go ahead before 1977, that is, in time to co-ordinate with the telecommunications project -- the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has refused to accelerate electrification in the remaining communities slated for telecommunications.

This, in turn, means the Ontario government now sees no alternative but to provide generating capacity dedicated solely to the telecommunications project in those communities which do not fit into the current DIAND electrification schedule. As reasonable people, we cannot countenance the unnecessarily expensive duplication of facilities which would result from proceeding in any other way.

When the DIAND programme reaches these communities, the dedicated generators will be removed and Bell Canada will purchase power from the community system.

However, while this describes the situation as it is at present, we are continuing to hope the federal government will see fit to reassess its position and will, in fact, decide to accelerate its own programme. The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) has written to Mr. Buchanan along these lines, urging him to reconsider.

Mr. Stokes: Is the minister going to subsidize the cost of power? It’s 26 cents a kilowatt.

Mr. Martel: I didn’t think he was going to give us a statement.

Mr. Speaker: We will extend the question period by 4½ minutes. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, if I may.

What response does the minister make to the statements that have appeared in print over the last few days coming from registrars and associated registrars of provincially-assisted universities of the type from the associate registrar of Trent University? He indicated, “The pressure for economic survival for post-secondary institutions has become such an obsession, we don’t know where we are going. We are so transfixed by economic survival that we don’t see beyond Dec. 1.”

A further statement of the same type by the director of admissions of the University of Toronto said, “The standards of the high-school systems are so variable that students actually change schools in order to get higher marks to assist them in gaining admission to professional courses.”

Is the minister concerned about this decrease in the quality of education and its ramifications in a post-secondary system, which is at a point, we are told, that the post-secondary system will not even reveal its failure rate?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, first of all there is quite a variety of opinion, both on the university side and on the high-school side, as to the so-called quality of secondary education and, I guess, primary education. What we have done, in conjunction with the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the Council on University Affairs, is to launch a survey into this whole situation. This started several weeks ago.

I have said on a number of occasions that the present formula is one which could lead to encouraging students who might not be qualified to be enrolled. I have asked the Council on University Affairs, in conjunction with the universities themselves, to take a look at an alteration of this formula that will avoid that kind of incentive.

On the other point, which has been raised by a number of people in the education field, that with a higher percentage of secondary students going on to post-secondary education, chances are there will be some who are not as brilliant academically as others -- a larger number, because a larger percentage of the total classes is going -- that’s about all I can say at this point in time. I expect, though, that we will have something a little firmer when our current co-operative survey is finished. But there is quite a variety of opinion, pro and con, on all sides of the spectrum, I would say.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since the policy is evidently leading the universities to look at the students as simply warm bodies or, as they say, BIUs, is there going to be some change in policy before the next academic year begins so that we can begin moving back toward the establishment of some standards at school-leaving, following grade 13, for admission and continuing success at the university level?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would be very surprised if we were able to make any change before the 1975-1976 academic term which starts this fall. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition may recall that when I asked the Committee on University Affairs to meet with universities last fall prior to Christmas, I suggested a change in the formula. The reaction from the university community was that this might have some merit but it was too short notice for them. With slip-year financing, they really had to know last November or last December so they could do their planning for next fall. As a matter of fact, one of the complaints the university community has is on the question of long-term planning and knowing what its financial resources may be some distance ahead.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West with a supplementary.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A supplementary: When does the minister expect to have some resolution of this problem so that universities and colleges will be funded on something other than the straight BIU formula which is based on their economic need to survive? Unless they have another formula they will go to the warm body, BIU-type of approach.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m afraid I can’t answer that question in terms of time at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Is the minister going to deal with the problem in which students from one high school and students from another who have identical marks can be completely different in the standards they attain? Is the minister going to implement some sort of change or work with the Minister of Education on a change so there is a standard which can be counted on by the universities, a standard of measurement as to what degree of qualification the students have reached? There isn’t a standard now.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): There are standards now.

Mr. Deacon: It’s different from one high school to another.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are just calling them warm bodies; any body that stays alive.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister with his answer.

Mr. Lewis: What is this warm body BIU anyway?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): That is the way the member treats the schools, eh?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is this fighting Bill? Is fighting Bill back again?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We’ve only just begun the fight.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Colleges and Universities has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would remind the member that the province, through the then Ministry of University Affairs and the Ministry of Education, in 1968, I believe, invested some $2 million in the universities.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The government had a lot of money then. It threw it all away.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can remember the acronym, the SACU tests which were the standardized tests for the universities to administer to prospective applicants. The universities were asked to take this over which they did. Gradually they dropped these tests for their own obviously good reasons --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They didn’t want to keep anybody out because they couldn’t afford to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- to the point where I think now none of the universities is using any of them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Would the minister, rather than using academic standards as a smokescreen for restricting enrolment, consider providing special funding to the smaller universities, in particular the two bilingual universities in the province, for next year?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we are doing that now with a special provincial bilingual grant.

Mr. Speaker: Has the Leader of the Opposition further questions?

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask a question of the Premier. Since the Speech from the Throne contained only one specific indication of legislation, when are we going to get that bill on the ombudsman?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, there are at least two New Democratics very anxious about that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And at least one Liberal.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I won’t permit him to take the appointment. When are we going to get a legislative programme, or are we going to continue fiddling around here while the Premier decides whether or not to have a spring election?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may be, in his customary form, continuing to fiddle; that’s his judgement and I don’t quarrel with it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He doesn’t know; the Premier is not here very often.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is very consistent. He is really one of the best fiddlers I know, without any question.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Also a fuddler.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are ready to do some work.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only assure the Leader of the Opposition that --

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is getting very personal; very personal -- direct.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I really didn’t mean it that way. I mean, I’m the last one to become personal.

Mr. Martel: Is he waiting for the polls?

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He might be the last one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t said an unkind thing about the member for St. George since she has been here. I could be provoked but I shan’t.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The Premier may be the end of the dynasty.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, getting back to what I think was the question -- when is the bill coming forward with respect to the ombudsman, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I won’t even say “in the fullness of time,” but it will be coming.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question: Since ostensibly we are here to do the business of the province and we have been here eight weeks, isn’t it about time we had a body of legislation which can occupy a reasonable series of debates and the proper work of the province instead of what we have had, which has been just touches of material? It looks as if the whole thing is on ice until the Premier makes up his mind. Why doesn’t he tell us that we are going to have a body of legislation to deal with, and that we are either going to have an election or we are going to work hard and come back in the fall for something else?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t speak for the Leader of the Opposition; I think I have been working rather hard, along with my colleagues, all along.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: Yes, the Premier has been planting trees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly, I planted a tree. I planted a tree the other day in that former municipality of Cooksville for the Boy Scouts of Canada. I thought it was a very important occasion. If the member for Sudbury East is opposed to trees and the Boy Scouts --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We give up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact, I am going to write all of the Boy Scouts in Nickel Belt and say the member doesn’t like them any more. He doesn’t like the Boy Scouts. I have to tell the member something -- he should be in support of the Boy Scouts, they are a great organization. Don’t go on the record -- I appeal to the member’s leader --

Interjection by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: The Premier and Joe Fabbro.

Mr. Speaker: Now, could we go back to the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- don’t go on the record as being against the Boy Scouts, that would be a fatal error to make.

Mr. Lewis: Did the Premier notice how silly he looked in the Globe and Mail this morning in saying he is opposed to family unity?

Hon. Mr. Davis: When I was which?

Mr. Lewis: Where he was opposed to family unity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh. I am not opposed to family unity; I am all in favour of family unity.

Mr. Speaker: Order please; that is not a supplementary question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, of course it is not. You are quite right, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation will be coming in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Ruston: We were to get it last week, as usual.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will be revealed to the members opposite as the bills are introduced. I know the Leader of the Opposition is anxious to see a great deal of controversial legislative programming.

Mr. Lewis: It is not the bills we are worried about, it is the appointment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Lewis: Would the Premier let me know in advance when he’s tackling the problem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member may have a riding or two he has to look at.

Mr. Lewis: It is not so much the riding, it’s the internal problems.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Which is the second one?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is the leader.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): They’re drawing straws.

Mr. Lewis: One of them is an elected incumbent and one of them is non-elected. The minister can think of them both? Good.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Attorney General, apart from reforming or removing some of the anomalies in the legislation, how is it that after 10 months he can bring back a bill on family law which fails to deal with the two fundamental requirements: No. 1, the question of the economic aspects of the marriage partnership; and No. 2, the question of the matrimonial home? How is it possible that he has failed to deal with those two matters when everyone from the Ontario Council on the Status of Women to God knows how many other groups have implored him to deal with those above all else?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, when introduced last June by my predecessor, the bill was introduced with the avowed intention of eliciting comment, criticism and observation. I must say the public and various associations within that sector were, in fact, very generous with their views and we have perused them, examined them very carefully --

Mr. Bounsall: And have responded to none of them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and it would appear that one of the most important segments of the whole concept, not of only the matrimonial home but of the family itself, is the supportive role of the parent. That study -- the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission -- will be tendered by me as soon as it is received from the printers. I was advised it would be in the hands of the Ontario Law Reform Commission near the end of April. I have since been advised by the chairman that the anticipated date is May 12.

You cannot take these individual assets and deal with them specifically on that basis. You must take the family home, which is probably the largest asset any family acquires, and look at that particular type of asset, along with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on the supportive role of the parent.

Mr. Lewis: This is a stall, a deliberate stall.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is not a stall. I tell the hon. member -- and he can check it with his colleagues -- you cannot simply take one asset like the matrimonial home and say, “Here’s how we do it: We split it right down the centre” and that’s it.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Why not? I don’t agree with that.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, in the process, does the minister not reject the major recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission already made, both on the matrimonial home and on the economic aspects of the marriage relationship? How is it that in the eliciting of opinions from all of these groups, pursuant to Bill 117, there was never any suggestion from government that the minister would fail to deal with these two aspects until he had received the next report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission? That was never suggested until this moment in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It may not have been suggested, Mr. Speaker, but it is very obvious that it is required. You cannot take one single asset and deal with it in isolation --

Mr. Lawlor: Well, they were able to do so up to now.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and then, when your recommendations come in on the supportive role of the parent, find that you have to vary that legislation.

Mr. Lewis: That’s ridiculous.

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary: Isn’t the minister aware that the Law Reform Commission report of a year ago February said that all assets acquired since marriage, including the matrimonial home, should be divided equally between both spouses upon a divorce?

Mr. Lawlor: And according to a formula that was all set out.

Mr. Bounsall: Why hasn’t the minister implemented that? Why isn’t that set out in this bill?

Mr. Lewis: What’s wrong with the minister? Why is he stalling?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not stalling at all.

Mr. Lewis: He certainly is.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to my friends across the House that one receives and reads the recommendation of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. They are not engraved in stone; they are merely observations --

Mr. Lewis: In addition to the Law Reform Commission, Laura Sabia --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Community of property is not the answer, my friend, to a very involved situation.

Mr. Lawlor: We have had it for six or seven years now.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Community of property works so poorly in other jurisdictions that most people opt out of it by pre-marriage contracts. That is how successful it is.

Mr. Lewis: Come on. The minister is avoiding the issue.

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

RACISM

Mr. Lewis: I have another question, if I may, of the Attorney General.

In view of the very serious charges that were made by the Jamaican High Commissioner over the weekend about the behaviour of some members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police -- he said, and I quote: “There are elements in the police which are extremely racist, uncultured and inhuman,” referring to their relationships with the black community -- and in terms of the obvious tensions that are growing in the city of Toronto and other urban centres, has the Attorney General yet sat down with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission to take a look at the relationships, as they view them, to ask them to detail with them the behaviour -- pro or con, I know not which -- of the police to ask them to study, to investigate or to deal with the obviously deeply felt complaints that are coming increasingly from the black community?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the Jamaican Canadian Association on a variety of subjects, this being one of them. As a result of that meeting, at which certain senior law officers in my ministry were in attendance, I have had certain allegations investigated to see in fact if the allegations were correct as put forward. I have not yet received a report on those. I expect to have it very shortly. There were three major allegations made by the gentlemen I met with some two or three or four weeks ago.

I have met with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission. I met with them, I believe, prior to this particular meeting with the Jamaican Canadian Association. I have not discussed this at any length, other than having met one or two of them socially since then, but I have said I would be meeting with them on it because I agree there are some very serious allegations. I hope they are not correct, but I must look into them to see if in fact the allegations are true.

Mr. Lewis: On the assumption that he will pursue it with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, can I also ask the Attorney General, since the newly appointed head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Mr. Symons, has just issued a statement condemning the proliferation of publications demeaning Ontario’s visible minorities, has Ontario undertaken any prosecutions under the hate literature amendments to the Criminal Code of 1970, I believe? Does he not think it is perhaps time for the government of Ontario to intervene, when the chief civil servant in this area has already expressed his concern, when the racist slogans continue to appear, chalked and painted on walls of churches and elsewhere throughout the city, when Bell Canada continues to have its communication used for the recitation of foul and obscene racist messages? Does he not think it’s time for the government to begin to move in, publicly, either to prosecute or to make some statements about what’s happening in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, there are actually two problems described by the leader of the New Democratic Party. One is where hoardings and this sort of thing are painted with hate types of slogans by persons unknown. Of course, if the police were aware of who put those slogans up there -- usually with an aerosol paint can -- then the people would be apprehended and charged, at least with wilful damage, if not under the other sections of the Code which might apply.

The second part of the question really deals with these messages in the form of telephone messages and/or printed documents, types of newspapers or brochures that would appear to be very much racist in their views, directed toward one or more races. I can assure the hon. member there are none of these which have been printed and have come to our attention which we haven’t looked at. We look at them all to see if, in fact, a prosecution should be laid. I can tell the leader of the New Democratic Party that in many instances, regretful though it might seem to all of us in this room, it is the opinion of my law officers that a prosecution would not succeed because of the exceptions set forth in the Code itself dealing with comment on social issues and so on. I don’t have it before me so I can’t quote it.

I’m very concerned about it, and I know that I speak for everyone around this House. It indicates a certain singularity of aim on the part of the writer that does not seem to be consistent with the best interests of the people of this province. We look at them all, but I’m sorry to say is the opinion we have had so far. I believe there has been one prosecution, which resulted in acquittal. I stand to be corrected on that, but it seems to me, in discussing this, that it was reported there was one prosecution a year or two ago.

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question then of the Premier, and I wish I could be more positive myself about it. In light of what is being written, in light of what is being said, in light of the Jamaican High Commissioner’s concern and the obvious anxiety of the black community and the extremism of some tiny segments of the white community, is there any initiative, legal or otherwise, that the government might take to begin to show the world that we are not prepared to sit back while all of this occurs -- perhaps by way of an Ontario government response to the green paper on immigration, which this government referred to in its Throne Speech, which has obviously triggered a great deal of the racial or incipient racist sympathy -- and speak for the government and for the people of the province in that process, making our views clear? I, like everybody else, search for an avenue and feel it getting out of control.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us share this very genuine concern. I think, in terms of legislation, there probably isn’t any solution there. I think the Human Rights Commission, and not just its powers but the route that it can go, is one avenue open to us obviously; the existing provisions of the Code. I think really we’re looking at what is an attitude, hopefully, on the part of very few people in this province. I doubt that it’s one that political people or people in the public area can comment on and make speeches about, which has been done recently.

In terms of a specific initiative, as I say, as it relates to legislation, we haven’t really determined that there is anything that can be done. I would just further state, Mr. Speaker, I read the observations over the weekend. They gave me great concern. The Attorney General has already initiated certain discussions and investigations and, hopefully -- and I’m sure we all share this -- those allegations will turn out to be unfounded.

While in today’s society it is very difficult to determine exactly what people think or feel, I have always felt here in this province that people of every race, colour and creed were welcome as contributing members of our society. I would like to feel that is the view held by the vast majority of Ontario citizens. I honestly believe it is.

However, Mr. Speaker, we are very much involved with it, and if we have any further statements or thoughts to present to the House, either the Attorney General or myself will be doing so.

LEAD POLLUTION

Mr. Lewis: I have one very short question of the Minister of the Environment. What has he done about Toronto Refiners and Smelters? Has he proceeded with his ministerial order? Has he given them a further extension of time?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we did have a meeting with them and we are going over the control order that we sent out. We really haven’t yet finalized the final control order.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary: How is it that, since he gave them an extension until April 29 to finalize the control order, it is now well into the month of May and it is still not finalized? Why is he so generous to the lead emissions of Toronto Refiners and Smelters? When is he going to pull himself together to deal with them as they should be dealt with?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we’re giving no concessions to them at all. We met with them to discuss the control order, the costs of the control order, and how effective the controls would be. After meeting with them again we will draft a final control order.

Mr. Lewis: It goes on forever, doesn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Newman: No, it doesn’t. The orders are already out.

Mr. Lewis: Forever and forever.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Why is the minister afraid of Outerbridge?

Hon. W. Newman: Look at the ones that are already out.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is always backing away from the lead problem in Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Renfrew South.

CLOSING OF RCA PLANTS

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier which, perhaps, might better be put to the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. McKeough). However, since he is busy at a meeting, I will put it to the Premier.

In view of the fact that RCA has announced it will either be selling or closing its Renfrew and Owen Sound plants, would he assure my constituents and this House that negotiations among the government of Canada in Ottawa, the county of Renfrew, the government of Ontario and the city of Pembroke with regard to a designation, or a development agreement, will be proceeded with with all possible speed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the hon. member for Renfrew South that this will be done. I had the pleasure yesterday of spending some time in that great riding in the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Martel: The member for Renfrew South asks the question today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and two or three concerns were registered. I can assure the hon. member that the government will pursue this very aggressively.

I would like to point out to the members of the House that while in the hon. member’s riding at a school opening, which I used to do rather regularly, one of the encouraging parts of the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, was when the Bishop of Pembroke referred to the very positive concept of Family Unity month, with no prompting whatsoever from the Premier of this province.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Supplementary: Could I ask the Premier if he would give the same assurance to the employees of the Sylvania plant in Cornwall, which is about to be closed this summer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the member for Renfrew South was asking for an assurance as far as it related to the employees. Obviously that is his prime concern, and I’m sure it’s a concern that we all share. As I understood his question, he was referring to the possibility of having that area designated for particular assistance. This, of course, we have already done with the city of Cornwall, which has evolved a very significant commitment from this government and from the government of Canada, and which has done a great deal to assist the economic life of that particular part of the province already.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

HYDRO BLOCK

Mrs. Campbell: I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. In the continuing absence of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine), could we hear what, if any, breakdown in land costs has been approved by Management Board for the Hydro block, so that this government may keep its commitment of 1971 to the people of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the matter is not before me and my board, but I will refer it to the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

OPP COMPLEMENT IN PICKLE LAKE AREA

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. Is he aware that the Ontario Provincial Police are five short of a complement in the Pickle Lake, Central Patricia area, and does he understand that the reason for the shortage of complement is the inability of his ministry to provide adequate housing? Is the minister pursuing this, and what time frame has he for providing those necessary houses for the OPP?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of a programme that we have this year for the supply of certain houses for the Ministry of the Solicitor General for the OPP in certain remote areas. I do not recall off-hand any houses, beyond that list, for the Pickle Lake area. I will certainly look into it and get the hon. member the answer. My estimates were here on Friday and will probably be back later this week. Maybe we could discuss it then, if I don’t get the answer beforehand.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

DOW CHEMICAL ARSENIC REPORT

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Does he recall a question I asked of him a few weeks ago regarding arsenic that was emitted from the Canada Metal Co. plant? In the same vein, is he aware of a recent report by the Dow Chemical Co., of Midland, Mich., indicating a significant increase in respiratory cancer was found among employees exposed to arsenic? Further, the report predicts that respiratory malignancy deaths for exposed workers will exceed more than six times the rate for unexposed persons? Is the minister aware of that report?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure I’m aware of that specific report, but I’m aware of many reports on it. I certainly will be glad to look into this. Maybe the member would like to send his copy over.

Mr. Riddell: I will do that.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of a second report by Allied Chemical that indicates the precautions that have been taken in American plants to protect workers, including abandoning the production of solid arsenic pesticides and herbicides, the decontamination of idle equipment, special precautions upon delivery of arsenicals, aggressive air sampling programmes and a lifetime monitoring programme for exposed employees and retirees?

Will the minister report to this House on the progress or lack of progress which his ministry is achieving to get the same kind of protection for Canadian workers?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if the member is talking about emissions from the plants, as he knows, we’ve put certain equipment in many of the gold mines, which are more polluting with arsenic. We are working with all the companies as far as abatement equipment is concerned, and as far as arsenic emissions are concerned. We are very much concerned and always have been very concerned about it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware, despite the assurances he gave a month and a half ago, that 70 teaching jobs are threatened by the current budget of Algonquin College, which is to be considered by the board this week? Is the government prepared to make any financial arrangement at all to accommodate the extraordinary additional costs of Algonquin services which are causing these problems right now?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that there will be some announcement perhaps today or in the next two or three days about the plans for Algonquin in the fall. The situation they have come across is virtually what was suggested in the first place, that they are not in any particular crisis and that any adjustments will be quite minor. If the hon. member will wait for a few days, I think he will find out that that is the case.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain how the quality of teaching at Algonquin can be maintained, given the fact they have had to use up all of their reserves this past year in order to meet last year’s deficits and are now preparing to cut back 10 per cent of the teaching force?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I understand the report which was commissioned by ourselves with Algonquin is being acted upon. They have found they are able to make some adjustments and that their situation is comparable to that of the other colleges, perhaps in some cases better.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a great government they are running here.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services has the answer to a previous question.

OTTAWA CENTRE FOR THE RETARDED

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) asked me a question about the continuation of funding for the resource centre at Ottawa for the mentally retarded.

The Ottawa resource centre which provides services to the mentally retarded has been given temporary funding and its future role is presently being assessed by the community group through the working group -- that is, specifically, the Ottawa Association for the Mentally Retarded. There are some ongoing discussions about its future role but temporary assistance had been given in the meantime.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that the working group in Ottawa has rejected any further funding by a vote of three to one in which three persons abstained, two had left and four other members were absent on the day? Will he instruct the Ottawa working group to give this serious consideration rather than the back-of-the-hand treatment it has had until now?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware they had rejected it. My understanding is that they had been given temporary funding for the next two months while they were assessing the future role. I’d be glad to look further into it.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that funding runs out at the end of May and that Toronto and all other parts of the province have assessment services for adult retarded which are now to be taken away from the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I’d be pleased to give further consideration to this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

REFORESTATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources on forest regeneration, ironic perhaps in view of the fact that the Premier was out planting one tree on the weekend.

Is it not a fact the 10-year regeneration programme is behind by close to 200,000 acres in regeneration? Will the minister table in the Legislature the document from his forest regeneration staff to the government indicating it has to increase the forest regeneration programme or we will run out of the timber we need within a 25- or 40-year span?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is aware of a new thrust we have taken in the regeneration programme which we started some three years ago. I would like to clarify to him that that particular plan, of course, is to have regenerated at the end of the 10 years all of the cut that requires treatment each year. Granted, we are not going quite as fast as we would like; I think there is a slight deficit -- I don’t think it is as high as the member relates. Nevertheless we are moving ahead and our plans for 1975-1976 will be released during the course of my estimates when I will bring all the members up to date as I have done in the past.

As to the policy option which I think the member was referring to --

Mr. Reid: Policy papers.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Policy papers? I’ll give this some consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: One supplementary if I may, Mr. Speaker: Is it not a fact that the minister is spending only one-tenth of the revenues he raised by way of Crown dues on reforestation? Will the minister table in the Legislature his 10-year programme with the figures of the amount of acreage to be regenerated and the amount of acres which have been regenerated by his department up to the present time?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware we doubled the dues for Crown timber last year and this should bring in revenue well in excess of $26 million or $27 million in this particular year. Certainly I would be glad to review those figures which the member has requested.

Mr. Reid: The minister is not putting it back into the forest, though.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay with a supplementary.

Mr. Stokes: Since the survival rate of the planting stock has been so miserable -- down by as much as 30 per cent -- will the minister prevail upon many of the prime users of the timber in the province to embark upon strip cutting rather than the clear-cutting method for natural regeneration?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have already made this step and in consultation with many of the large licensees we are moving in this direction. In specific areas where the ground and the soil conditions are correct, we do go into natural regeneration which is strip cutting, to which the member refers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

FOG IN SUDBURY AREA

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of the Environment: When is he going to table the report on the fog conditions at Inco? Is he aware that L. W. Fitz of his staff has stated that implementating the rectification of that problem will not be completed by fall, as the minister advised the House several weeks ago would occur?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I think at that time in the House I indicated I felt Inco was partly responsible for the situation. We have now substantiated the fact that it is. We are working with Inco on a new scrubber in that area. We are hoping it will be in place this fall as I was anticipating when I first gave the information, on the data I have. Certainly we are moving with all expediency to get this equipment installed. I would be very hopeful that we get it installed as quickly as possible -- maybe not quite as early as I originally anticipated.

Mr. Martel: Can the minister give me the date when he will present the report to the House?

Hon. W. Newman: Pardon me?

Mr. Martel: What date does he intend to release the report?

Hon. W. Newman: It’s just an internal report in our ministry. The member is welcome to see it. There is nothing to hide in the report at all.

Mr. Lewis: This ministry has been backing the Inco relationship for 10 years. It is time we saw the report.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: No, no. It’s there, it’s public information. We don’t hide items like that. Sure, if the member wants to have a look at it, he’s welcome to see it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

PART-TIME STUDENT DIPLOMAS

Mr. Deacon: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Why is the cost of earning a two-year diploma for a part-time student $1,200, while a full-time student has to pay only $500 for a diploma? Why does the ministry allow this tremendous discrepancy against the part-time student, when we’re supposed to be encouraging them to return and improve their ability by being able to get easily into the educational system? But it’s $1,200 for the part-time student for a diploma and $500 for a full-time -- why the discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would give me the details, I would be glad to look into it. Is he talking about fees?

Mr. Deacon: The minister just has to look up what the colleges require.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Could he give me the instance?

Mr. Deacon: Yes, it’s the standard fee in all colleges.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’ll get the details for him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HAMILTON DUMP SITE

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister give public assurance to the people in the Hamilton-Wentworth region, who are concerned about the location of a garbage dump, that the Environmental Hearing Board be ordered to hear all aspects of the effect on the environment, and that there is no way he would proceed by order in council or by any other method to circumvent that section of the Act?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, every application that is made for a sanitary landfill site by any organization, municipality or an individual is subject to an environmental hearing.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: The minister is aware, of course, that the minister does have powers under certain emergency situations not to hold such a hearing. I really want on the record some guarantee that that power will not be exercised in order to circumvent the holding of a hearing into this particular application.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I’m well aware that I have that power, but I don’t think I’ve used it since I’ve been the minister. I think we have had a hearing on every application, and I would anticipate a hearing on this one.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

LIQUOR LICENCES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Since his government is now on an advertising campaign to try to talk the people out of drinking so much, why does he not carry it out himself with the Liquor Licence Board? On May 3, according to its weekly report, it approved 56 licences for new outlets. How is the government going to stop people from drinking when it approves 56 new outlets in one week?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstands the reason for the Minister of Health’s (Mr. Miller) education programme. He isn’t trying to stop people from drinking, he’s trying to encourage moderation in drinking.

Mr. Reid: Re-election is the reason.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

CANADIAN FILMS

Mr. Samis: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Could he tell me what stand his ministry is taking with regard to federal inquiries --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; we cannot hear the question.

Mr. Samis: -- about imposing provincial quotas on theatres regarding the showing of Canadian films? Has he replied affirmatively? Is the minister taking a stand on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I saw that news report and I don’t know where they got the opinion of the Province of Ontario. It certainly didn’t come from my ministry, because we haven’t been asked.

Mr. Samis: Could I ask if the ministry is taking a stand on that suggestion?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we haven’t been asked to take a stand on it, and therefore I can’t even answer the question.

Mr. Samis: Does he have a stand?

Mr. Martel: He was on that select committee. Don’t come around with that nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister against Canadian content?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, and I’m against violence.

Mr. Martel: Wasn’t he on the committee?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to reform certain Laws Founded upon Marital or Family Relationships.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: This is an awful bill to bring in. It is a travesty, this bill. This bill should not be introduced. It is a betrayal of the Ontario Council on the Status of Women. The minister is afraid of the male backlash, that is what he is afraid of. He calls it the male backlash when he talks privately to these people.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: It is a Bob Welch bill.

Mr. Lewis: It is a Bob Welch bill is right; strictly a Bob Welch creation.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is very aggravating, and if you weren’t a male you’d understand that.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 13th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York South.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Chairman, when the debate on this estimate adjourned last Tuesday evening, I was cut off in mid-flight, so to speak. I was about half way through a five-minute recap on the farm income protection proposals, and I was a little puzzled, because for some reason or other I had aroused the minister so much that it was difficult to persuade him not to reply to my incomplete remarks.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I wonder if the hon. member would allow the Chair to interrupt in order that we could have a little more order and less noise, so that we could continue in an orderly fashion. Will the hon. member continue please?

Mr. MacDonald: At the risk of at the most some five minutes’ repetition, because I think I had covered only five minutes of the recap, I want to go back and review it, because quite frankly this is the most important aspect of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food this year. What I wanted to do was briefly review the detail of the BC plan, which has become the model for most of the discussion in Ontario on a comparable kind of thing for this province, but I want to do it with a focus on the cost, because that, it seems to me, is the nub of the matter.

In British Columbia they are spending this year, according to current calculations, some $26 million or $27 million to cover a number of plans which include dairy products, fruit, field tomatoes, pigs, broiler hatching egg producers, greenhouse tomatoes and cucumbers, cattle -- a proposal which the minister indicated had some flexibility or variation in it, but I think it is still going to be covered -- and commercial eggs. Under very active consideration at the moment are turkeys, broilers and the raspberry products.

Indeed, in talking with Jack Hill of the OFA, for example, who was out visiting BC in March, his report is that the Minister of Agriculture in BC says that by the end of the year it is the intention of the government to have no fewer than 20 plans on the books, so to speak, ready for the farmers of the Province of British Columbia to avail themselves of their benefits, if and when they see fit to do so. It looks as though within a matter of three years or a little more you are going to have almost 90 per cent of the farmers of the Province of British Columbia voluntarily moving into this kind of a plan.

May I just go back briefly to a comment of the minister when he -- and perhaps it was unwitting or it wasn’t his intention -- I think misrepresented rather seriously the whole approach of the Province of British Columbia when he said that at a meeting of the agricultural ministers some months ago in Ottawa the BC Minister of Agriculture was pleading to be bailed out of this because they were in beyond their depth. Mr. Chairman, that simply is not the case.

I reiterate: By the end of the year they expect to have 20 plans available for the farmers to accept voluntarily, if they so desire, rather than the eight or nine or 10, if you take those that are in various stages of development or acceptance at the present time. So let’s not draw any red herrings across the trail that British Columbia is desperately seeking to be bailed out. British Columbia is going to go this alone.

From my own personal discussions and our research people’s discussions with Dave Stupich in the last couple of weeks, he is convinced the federal proposal is really so difficult to understand and so little different from the old Act, to which the current bill is really just a series of amendments, that as far as he is concerned they are just going to proceed on their way in British Columbia and provide the farmers with what they need.

The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is this: That is costing British Columbia about $27 million at the present time. The minister himself, in speaking to the Ontario Association of Agricultural Societies on Thursday, Feb. 20, made a calculation that if the same kind of a programme as they then had in British Columbia were applied in the Province of Ontario, it would cost us $140 million.

I want to just pause and consider that, Mr. Chairman, because I want to suggest to the minister, to this House and to the people of the Province of Ontario, particularly the farmers of the Province of Ontario, that we in the New Democratic Party believe not only that the government should move on its own and not use the procrastination and the uncertainty in Ottawa as an excuse for not moving, but that it should not be held up because of an expenditure of $140 million.

We have already discussed at considerable length the plight of the agricultural industry, the crisis in the agricultural industry. We have pointed out that, relatively speaking, agriculture in the Province of Ontario is becoming a smaller and smaller component of agriculture in the whole country. I don’t think that is necessary. We have had it pointed out that if Ontario continues to import an increasing proportion of its foodstuffs from now until the end of the century at the same rate as it has for the last decade, for example, by the end of the century Ontario will be importing 60 per cent of its foodstuffs. Surely that is, if not ludicrous, perhaps a scandalous kind of situation.

There is plenty other evidence, Mr. Chairman. Last year, for example, I put on the record the fact that in the previous three years -- namely 1971, 1972 and 1973 -- the average net farm income in the Province of Ontario had been $3,600 in 1971. Let me repeat that, it may seem incredible; the average net farm income in the Province of Ontario was $3,600.

An hon. member: Shame.

Mr. MacDonald: Little wonder that a growing proportion of the farmers in the Province of Ontario are only part-time farmers. They can’t survive on an income from the farm alone.

But let’s see what has happened in the intervening years. In 1972 the average net farm income rose in round figures to $5,200, a relatively significant increase. In 1973 the average net farm income in the Province of Ontario rose to $7,900, again a very significant relative increase. Indeed, in the two-year period it represented an increase in net farm income of 120 per cent.

However, it is interesting to get this into perspective. The average net farm income of 1973, when it stood at $7,900, was then about $800 less than the average industrial income in the Province of Ontario. In short, for a farmer who had to have an investment of conceivably $100,000 -- in some instances $150,000 or $200,000 -- the average net farm income was $800 less than the average industrial worker who conceivably at the most was bringing to his job, other than his skills, a set of tools. Obviously, average net farm income, while up 120 per cent in two years, was scandalously low.

However, Mr. Chairman, the point I want to get to is this. In the year 1974, the average net farm income in the Province of Ontario dropped back from $7,900 to approximately $6,200.

Now we are all rather painfully aware of the reason for that. Prices tended to drop off in some instances -- they were level -- and in other instances they rose. But what was most important, of course, is that the cost of production just took off for the heavens; and the result is that net farming incomes dropped some $1,700 -- I haven’t calculated the percentage -- from $7,900 back to $6,200.

I use that, and I could bring in any amount of evidence of varying kinds, just to underline that the plight of agriculture is not something that the minister can get up and make rather euphoric speeches about. The plight of agriculture in the Province of Ontario is a very serious one. The minister might have been forgiven for some fleeting euphoria a year ago when finally farmers were beginning to get prices that brought their average net income up in one year from $5,200 to $7,900 but we are back to the old cost-price squeeze and they are slipping back again.

In short, we have renewed evidence that if you want to keep people on the farm, if you want to undercut this tendency for people to be leaving the land and selling out to developers and everything else, we have got to build that cornerstone into a long-term agricultural policy and that cornerstone -- the major cornerstone beyond any shadow of doubt -- is the farm income protection proposal such as that now being presented to the government.

I reiterate to the minister: Don’t use Ottawa and its procrastination as an excuse for not moving in the Province of Ontario.

I want to suggest that Dave Stupich in BC is correct when he states that until you have the participation of British Columbia and Quebec -- which is moving very quickly in this direction -- and the Province of Ontario, you are not going to be able to get Ottawa to come up with a meaningful stabilization programme. If the minister wants the kind of programme he was talking about -- one which would underwrite income, preferably over three years rather than a five-year assessment of costs, at a 90 per cent level, and for the add-on try to share three ways -- the federal government, the provincial government, and the farmers -- to meet investment and labour and other increasing costs of production, then the quickest way to get Ottawa to respond to a meaningful kind of programme is to do what is being done in British Columbia: Do it yourself and invite them to come in and share it. That is what Quebec is going to do.

In the Province of Ontario the farmers, I think it is fair to say, were giving very little thought to this matter no more than a year ago. There certainly was no mass feeling among farmers in the Province of Ontario. But in a fashion that is almost unique, the one speech on what could be done by a province at the OF of A annual meeting last year has created a tidal wave of interest -- and, from what I can judge, support -- across the Province of Ontario that is manifested at the present time in the meetings.

I know there are people who are opposed, for various reasons, and some of those reasons we are going to have to come to grips with when we get an actual bill before the House; but the time has come for Ontario to move. I want to suggest to the minister that the proposition of $140 million, a small fraction of a $10 billion budget, is not too much of a bill to underwrite the economic security of a basic industry like agriculture so that it can be rescued from the boom and bust approach which has characterized its history.

Let me just deal with one further point that has developed in the course of this; it’s related and yet it moves out into another field. The minister explained what was happening in this proposal from the various churches of dollar for dollar matching in terms of the government matching the voluntarily-raised funds. If the $9 million the churches were proposing to raise was matched by the provincial government, it would become $18 million; and in turn, if it were matched by the federal government, would become $36 million, which begins to look like a fairly sizeable sort of figure.

I want to suggest that we should move on this, and we should move with vigour, for two or three reasons.

One, to the extent that $36 million will be available to cope with the bogey of all kinds of secure farm income -- namely the prospect of surpluses -- to the extent that $36 million can be used to dispose of these surpluses on a short-term, emergency basis and get skim milk powder and wheat, or whatever it is that we have in surplus, transported to the hungry of the world, let us do it; though I would agree with the minister wholeheartedly that what the third world needs even more than emergency food assistance to meet the starvation and malnutrition in its midst at the present time is an infusion of technology, an infusion of breeding stocks and everything else that is necessary to lay the basis for a modern agricultural economy.

That $36 million, with which we would be sort of pump-priming and pyramiding in all-out, enthusiastic support of these programmes, bringing in the federal government as well as the provincial government, means that the $36 million for the most part isn’t going to go out of the country; for the most part it is going to be spent on either food surpluses or food technology, which we in turn can make available to the third world for immediate, emergent needs or for their long-term building of an agricultural economy.

In short, it too is related, because it may help to solve the problem of the surpluses that some people are fearful is going to emerge from an income protection programme. I insist that our problem in this world is really not that we’ve got surpluses; our problem is a problem of distribution and the finances involved in making that distribution effective. And here is one little mechanism for making it possible to get rid of those surpluses.

I would appreciate very much the minister’s reaction to the proposition that if Ottawa is going to drag its feet and if Quebec is going to move along with BC, why can’t Ontario move with its own income protection programme, built along essentially the same lines as the other two, so that we can have a united front in trying to get federal involvement?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Chairman, may I say this, my friend makes reference to the BC plan and says the BC government expects to have 20 plans in operation whether the federal programme goes along or not. We find it difficult to understand why there is such enthusiasm at the government level in British Columbia to proceed with a number of plans until they know something more about the federal proposal.

You mention the fact that I made a statement saying that if the plan were included in Ontario on a basis similar to what’s in BC there would be a $140 million cost to the treasury of Ontario. That, of course, would be over and above the $100-and-some million we have in the estimates; $60 million of which last year were paid out in direct grants to farmers; not on commodity subsidization as this proposal is based, but on direct aid programmes to farmers. That, of course, makes it an entirely different situation.

The hon. member for York South, Mr. Chairman, says go ahead and do it yourselves and invite the feds to come in and join the programme. I just point out that there are some problems in this regard. The point of debate and concern today between the various provinces and the government of Canada is on this agricultural stabilization Act. I don’t see how you can have a group of ministers from across Canada bringing in a plan in the fall of 1973 which requested the federal government to amend the stabilization Act to provide 90 per cent of the three-year average, plus an add-in cost feature that would reflect inflation, and then turn around and say: “Well, you’ve done this in a form, but we’re now going to top-load those programmes ourselves.” Surely my hon. friend from York South is not so naive to believe we can protect and conserve Confederation of this country with the kind of programme which he’s advocating, which means over and above top-loading the federal programme?

We simply say this and we have taken this position all through the debate. I have quoted in Hansard from a letter addressed to the federal minister on Dec. 17, 1973. I’m not going to burden the House with that letter again, but I have it with me. It’s clearly enunciated there. We believe there should be a basic stabilization programme on all commodities named right across Canada; and that price should reflect inflationary tendencies which have characterized farm cost inputs, to which my friend referred with validity, over the last year or two.

We are opposed, vigorously, to provinces adding on above that programme, Mr. Chairman, because all we will do is find competition between provinces. There is no doubt of it whatever. That’s what’s going on in British Columbia today. While my friend says there are some price controls out there, I believe it’s a sort of a marketing quota and after they produce 10 per cent more than their normal production for that year, they apply some sort of a price mechanism to cut back on the subsidy to the individual producer.

Mr. MacDonald: They eliminated the subsidy.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That may be, but that cuts back on the subsidy; and that is, in effect, a marketing quota. Now that can be applied in a province as small as the Province of British Columbia perhaps with some degree of equality and some ease of introduction and administration. But just think of the relatively small area they’re talking about.

They haven’t applied that to beef; and, frankly, they don’t know how to apply it to beef. They frankly don’t know how they’re going to do it. As a matter of fact their conversations with us indicate it’s impossible to apply it to beef in British Columbia because of the enormous area beef production covers in British Columbia.

I ask my friend to think of the position this puts Ontario in to administer a programme which is six times as great -- or almost six times as great -- as the Province of British Columbia’s in total agricultural output.

Think of the problems we’ve had with management of the supply of eggs. The one national plan we set up on a producer-controlled basis has just incredible difficulties with production control and supply management, because once you get that price up to where it’s reasonably remunerative for the producer, it simply means everybody wants to get into the act and produce and produce because the price is great. There is no alternative but supply management. There is no other way it can be done, I say to my friend.

This is readily admitted by Gordon Hill, although he didn’t say it in the brief he presented to the cabinet. I don’t believe he is saying it publicly unless he’s asked and I don’t blame him for that; if I were in his position I wouldn’t either. He doesn’t talk about supply management, but when I asked him what was the only alternative to that kind of control of production, he said supply management. There is no question of it whatever. He readily admitted it. It has to be implemented in every commodity which would be named. There is no other way to do it.

Just think of what we’re asking. This is what my friend has not emphasized, in my opinion, in what appears on the surface, and I’m sure will appear in Hansard, to be a very logical position which he has adopted on behalf of his party, the NDP. There is no talk about supply management, but there has to be supply management.

Look at what happened in potatoes. We’ve had two years of good potato prices in this country and think of what happened. There was a 20 per cent increase in potato acreage in the Maritimes; couple that with a wonderful crop right across Canada and the fact that the United States had increased acreage in potatoes because of the favourable price conditions of the last two years and we’ve got over-production all over the United States and Canada.

The result is the bottom fell right out of the potato market. They can’t sell the blessed things. There’s no way to do anything with them; but the federal government introduced a programme across Canada to help them move -- or I should say in eastern Canada, from Ontario east. That’s going to cost somebody some money but I think it’s going to ensure that potatoes are going to be planted again this year.

There’s the problem. How do you control it? You take into consideration the target of what we normally consume.

As another illustration, Mr. Chairman, potato consumption doesn’t vary much in Canada, it varies very little. You can almost figure, year by year, what it will be. The cheap potatoes didn’t mean more potatoes were being eaten. It didn’t really mean a thing this year. It goes along on an even keel.

We can set a target for that kind of production. If we get into that kind of a programme, we have to set a target, right across Canada, as to what every producer is going to be entitled to produce. But what if the weather is as favourable as it was last year and we get a 150 per cent crop? Just think of the surplus we’ve got on our hands.

What do we do with it? We’ve tried our best to set it right within lines. You do the same thing if you get a bad crop. You can set a target and get a 50 per cent crop, for a variety of reasons. Just think of what that can do to prices as well.

I tell you that it’s not as easy to apply supply management in a good many commodities as one might think. I simply state the concern we have.

I make no apologies for saying this, Mr. Chairman, I agree completely with my friends on all sides of the House. Believe me, the men behind us in our party caucus are as interested in getting a stabilization programme as are my friends in the opposition. They make that abundantly clear to me. My concern is that I want a programme that is going to have equal application across Canada.

I say, as I said the other night -- and it has been recorded in Hansard -- that we believe there should be a 90 per cent programme across Canada. We think it should be based on the three-year average. The feds have decided it should be on a five-year average; so be it. If it’s a five-year average, that’s it. We think it should be three. I come back to that and I emphasize that. I think it’s more meaningful.

But supposing it’s on a five-year average, I think that is understandable. One can take the average prices right across Canada on any commodity, given a basic number of markets. That could be compiled, as it’s there statistically to determine. Then we say there should be a cost of production figure added in over and above that cost, which will reflect actual costs of production, the inputs on the farm. Then take into consideration investment income -- the interest on the investment of the farm -- and the farm labour. There were three points, and the third one is management ability.

Take those three things -- I call them “intangibles”, which maybe is not a very good word but it seems to me to sum them up -- and how do you determine what they are? I think you have to make an estimate as to what it should be. We suggest that a percentage of that estimate should be applied against the various commodities on a joint-purpose farm.

Take that, add it into the cost input and arrive at a figure. Say it’s a figure per bushel of corn or per hundredweight of hogs. Those two commodities have no price mechanism whatever. Many of the other commodities have. There aren’t that many when you stop and think about it in Ontario today that are not covered by some type of a marketing plan where there is a negotiated or a fixed price, but we think that can be done.

I don’t say this disparagingly of my other colleagues in the other provinces at all, but I’m concerned because I believe that the new Act the federal government has introduced and which is now before the standing committee on agriculture of the House of Commons, provides for an agreement to be made by the federal government with other provinces or with provinces and producers within provinces. I simply say, what does that mean? I’ve got no answer for it. There it is, and there is no answer for it.

Does that mean that we will find ourselves in this province setting a price structure based on the interpretation I have just enunciated, added to the 90 per cent the federal government had? Or will it be added to the 90 per cent of the five-year average, plus that incentive, or I should say the inflationary factor, that the federal government says it will put in its programme?

What does it mean? We don’t know; we have no answers for that. Does that mean the Province of Quebec, the Province of New Brunswick and the Province of Saskatchewan will have to try to come up to Ontario’s price? Does it mean competing with the Province of Alberta with its oil revenues?

The member for York South was right the other night. I apologize, as I said British Columbia and I meant Alberta. My friends reminded me of that afterwards and the member was right.

Does that mean, however, that all the provinces of Canada will have to compete with the oil rich province of Alberta in selling prices, if they see fit to do so? I have no indication they are going to do it; they have never said they would, but it’s possible. If they were to set a price for hogs at, say, $60 or $65 a hundred, does that mean that the rest of us have to come up to that level? Where do we get the money to do it? What would be the incredible difficulties in supply management, controlled production, that would have to take place at that level?

I tell you, it is a frightening possibility. We think there just have to be some answers found to that. We have no answers for it yet; I hope we will have.

But that is the basis of it. We agree a programme should be brought in; we are going to see that some type of programme is brought in, and we hope it will be satisfactory. But I believe my friend, the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), in a speech he made that I read -- and I read some of his speeches -- indicated he was concerned about the very same point. I think it is with good reason. I am not trying to put words in his mouth, but I believe it’s something we should be very much concerned about.

My friend made reference, Mr. Chairman, to the $36 million with the churches and suggested that could relieve the over-production that might flow from a very beneficent income stabilization programme. I just have to say to him that that $36 million wouldn’t touch the fringes of what could happen across Canada if we got a stabilization programme that was an incentive programme.

All we have to do is think back to the mid fifties when we saw the millions of pounds of butter piled up in this country that we couldn’t sell. Nobody wanted it. We had to melt it down and sell it as butter oil. We saw the cheese pile up that we couldn’t move. We saw the powdered skim milk build up in such quantities that we didn’t have storage, even, for the blessed stuff; simply because we set target prices and all we had to do was try to reach those target prices, that escalated.

I tell you there just simply has to be some order brought into it. I give credit to the Canadian Dairy Commission for the stability they put back into the dairy industry. They established confidence in it in a way we have never seen before; and which we just don’t want to do anything to jeopardize, quite frankly.

I am sympathetic to the churches’ position. Our Premier (Mr. Davis) is too. The members of the cabinet met with the churches’ group and are quite sympathetic to it, as I mentioned the other night. Mr. Hilliard has been appointed to work with them to evolve some type of a programme that might he meaningful and useful and would indicate how best to use that money. We may find there are ways, other than just purchasing food and shipping it hither and yon, that could be of greater benefit in total. We are looking forward to that report, which I understand is now under consideration.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to make just a brief, and I hope unprovocative, comment, so that we won’t extend this debate beyond a useful stage.

I agree with the minister; obviously if you finally put a sound economic base under agriculture, because of its traditional approach the danger is it is going to overproduce. We may therefore have to get into supply management. But you know, this problem is like marriage; if you were to stop at the beginning of marriage and contemplate all the problems you might face down through the years you’d never get married; or would you?

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): They are not doing it now.

Mr. MacDonald: The voice of experience behind me says they are not doing it that way now.

All I’m saying is, it seems to me that we recognize there are going to be problems, we recognize this is going to be a major problem; and here is the main point that provoked my rising again: Instead of just making noble professions about doing something to feed the hungry of the world in terms of supplying immediate emergent needs from our surpluses and an agricultural technology to lay the basis of an industry for food production for each of these countries across the world, let us do something.

I know this province can’t do it alone; no one province can do it alone. But it seems to me that for a generation, since the end of the war, we have been really indulging in a great pile of hypocrisy on this issue. We talk about being our brother’s keeper, we go to churches on the weekend and we listen to sermons on this score, and we have never really put our hearts and minds to the proposition of solving the problem and doing something about it.

I’d be the last person in the world to deny that those problems aren’t complex and bedevilled by power politics and everything else, as we saw at Rome. But at least we saw at Rome a conviction on the part of the nations that you should make available the surpluses in the world for immediate needs; but more important, you should provide the technology to build so that those nations can feed themselves. We should move on that. We should have programmes.

If $36 million is only peanuts in terms of dealing with the periphery of the problem of surpluses we might get from economically-sound agriculture, let’s not be frightened by the prospect of having too much when most of the world is hungry. Let’s provide the mechanisms for the distribution.

I don’t want to go off now into how that can be done, but the NDP has been arguing for years that if we were to take one-third of our national defence budget in Canada, with which we are buying military hardware that is obsolete within five years and then is handed over to Holland, or some Third World country, just because it has to go into war surplus and there is nobody you can sell it to; if instead we were to spend half a billion dollars on this kind of a programme of getting food then we could say to our farmers: “Go out and use your God-given capacity to produce. Produce!”

This surely is worthy of consideration, rather than being petrified that we are going to be producing too much. There is something so nonsensical in that.

The minister shakes his head. I know that he, as a minister, has to cope with surpluses; anybody interested in agriculture can’t dismiss it. But there is just something fundamentally nonsensical in saying to people who can produce food that the human race desperately needs: “Don’t produce it because you are going to get a surplus and bedevil our whole marketing plan.”

Surely there is another mechanism, with the federal government cutting out some of its high professions of noble objectives and things of that nature and moving in a way that could involve the provinces. We in the New Democratic Party feel this is important enough that the provinces should be involved too to work out a fulfilment of what began to emerge as a possibility in the Rome food conference. Then, it seems to me, if you have those mechanisms worked out and are willing to lay emphasis on them, you don’t need to stand so petrified by the bogey of overproducing and therefore have to be so obsessed with the need for supply management.

Having said that, though, I come back to my main point: In the short run, and I suppose to some extent even in the long run, we can’t ignore supply management, because we have got to look after the interests of our farmers who can very readily become the victims of our marketplace here. However, we are not going to advance the cause by brow-beating the issue unduly, so I will leave it rest there.

On vote 1701:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I have a number of issues that really aren’t related but I think I would like to raise them under this particular vote.

When we recessed on these estimates last week, I believe the member for Peel South (Mr. Kennedy) was one of those who was talking in regard to the need for the preservation of agricultural land. At the time he was talking about it, he made some reference to establishing a land inventory programme.

In that connection, I was wondering what really has happened to the farm classification report. I noticed that one of the recommendations in that farm classification report was the establishment of land inventories. They had, I think, five different classifications under which rural land could be classified.

I know at the time the minister said that in general terms he accepted all 12 recommendations, I believe it was, with the exception of one where the minister would have the veto power over all land-use planning in the province. The minister indicated at that time he didn’t accept that proposition because it was just too all-embracing and would rest too much power in one ministry in regard to land-use planning and how it should be done. The minister indicated he had some sympathy for the other 11 recommendations, yet we have not seen what has happened in that connection.

First of all, my query really is, has anything been done with respect to land classification and the other recommendations contained in that report?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, I can tell my friend -- and I am sure he won’t be satisfied -- that this matter is still under very active consideration. The report is still being reviewed.

We have accepted some of the principles of that report in the application of other statutes administered by other ministries of the government concerning producers of plants and animals useful to man -- which is a nice phrase that’s in that report; I think it is meaningful and we understand it; that, I think, has been accepted.

The matter of farm classification I think has some difficulties for me. I have some reservations about classifying a person because of who the person is, not because of the land on which he farms or which he may own. I don’t think you can say to the person: “Well because you are a part-time farmer or whoever you may be, there are certain programmes that don’t apply to you.” It may be a nice theory, but in actual practice, particularly when governments are paying as much money out as they are today for programmes of one kind or another to which all taxpayers contribute, I think it is extremely difficult to say we are going to discriminate between one person and another. They may be farming as well as they know how under the circumstances and doing as good a job as they possibly can.

I don’t think there is much more I can say on that, other than that I am hopeful we are going to be able to resolve the issue and bring something out that will be of use in so far as the application of assessment and all the rest of it is concerned.

One step forward was the resolution that was made by my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), in the providing of tax rebates to tree farmers. That, to me, was a step forward; and really, it can be taken from the farm classification report. It was just one of the classes of people referred to there which has been taken care of and which were virtually eliminated from our previous farm tax rebate programme. That, to me, is one way we will resolve them, but they are not easy to resolve.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Can I follow up on this?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member --

Mr. Gaunt: I was just going to ask the minister, what sort of time-frame are we talking? It was, I believe, 1973 when this report was tabled -- the first part of 1974, I’m not exactly sure -- but it has been some months now and I am just wondering what sort of time-frame the minister has in mind.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I can’t really give the hon. member a date as to when we are going to implement it, because frankly I think the great problems have been taken care of.

The concern that I had when that committee was set up was to deal with the uniform application of the statutes of Ontario, whether they be administered by the Ministry of Revenue, the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, or the Ministry of Labour -- whatever ministry. I was concerned that the application of the statutes be uniform across the province -- to use a glaring illustration, that they wouldn’t say to a greenhouse operator that one end of his greenhouse was for producing tomatoes and the other end of the greenhouse was for producing flowers, and maybe next week he would have the whole thing in tomatoes. How in the world do you apply the statutes differently in that kind of an operation? To me it was incongruous; it didn’t make sense.

That was, I think, where the Kowal committee report went far beyond the terms of reference to which we really referred, and made suggestions concerning classification based more on who owned the farm than on what was being produced. I tell you, that may be a theory that one can wax eloquently about from the public platform someplace or other, but when it comes right down to basics I don’t see much difference between the member for Huron-Bruce operating a farm in Bruce county or wherever, and operating it well, and saying to him: “But you are a different class of person to somebody who is doing the same thing, but doing it 24 hours a day” or whatever it may be. I don’t think that we can discriminate among people like that.

That’s the basic problem I see in the Kowal committee report. I think it hit on owners, rather than on the job that was being done -- food production for the Province of Ontario -- and therein lies the difficulty I personally have in accepting that report just as it was laid down. Another thing I share with you, Mr. Chairman, is the concern about asking farmers, under the farm classification report, to fill out another form every year so they may remain classified in whatever category they may fall. If there is one thing farmers hate, it’s anything to do with forms which they have to fill out in detail. There’s something abhorrent about it. I guess it’s because we work long hours and are not as up on those kinds of things as perhaps we should be.

Interjection by an hon. member,

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We just don’t do it. I think that is going a bit far. I hope there will be a more simple solution to the whole problem. Frankly, I think we have achieved the objectives I started out for in the first place.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, under this vote I would like to ask the minister -- I wasn’t in all the time when he was giving his opening remarks -- in regard to the $20 million announced in the budget to take care of the increased costs of farm operations in the province, did the minister announce how that was going to be distributed or will that be left until C-50, the federal bill, is passed; or what plans has he?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, as to the $20 million figure, as far as I am concerned, we should never have put a figure in at all. Maybe we should have left it completely open.

We put a figure in there simply to indicate we were serious about it and we intended to do it. Actually, I could not have taken the position I have taken since 1973 -- nay, going back to the mid-1960s because that’s what the tractor parades were all about, as my friend will remember. It was because the Province of Quebec had an add-on programme.

We said if there is to be an add-on programme, if there is to be a price stabilization programme -- and we were all in favour of it -- let it be at the national level, not with provinces competing with each other to see who could pay the most. That was what generated those tractor parades. Finally, the CDC was formed and the industrial milk stabilization programme was put in place.

I have never deviated from that position, and as late as 1973 I put it down in black and white in a five-page letter, a copy of which I have with me, to the federal minister suggesting that there be one programme.

I can’t very well say we are going to initiate an add-on programme in the Province of Ontario, over and above the federal one, until I know what the implications are as far as the federal bill is concerned and what implications it has for other provinces. I have discussed it with all my colleagues. They know exactly where I stand and I feel it is only fair that they should know.

For me to stand here and say that $20 million is enough or too much, I can’t answer that. Frankly, I think it will require more than that to cover the commodities not now covered by a negotiated marketing plan which takes into consideration costs which we already know. We think the programme introduced by Ottawa has to be clarified -- and frankly, I don’t see so much wrong with the bill; I think it’s a good bill.

That is our purpose; to wait until we know what that means, until we get it spelled out. We must have assurance from the federal government in legislation -- not just a minister’s word because you and I know that ministers are here today and gone tomorrow -- spelled out in legislation which says there cannot be top-loading and if there is top-loading the federal government will simply cut off the share of any provinces bold enough to venture on that to bring it back to a national plan average. Otherwise, we’ll have Balkanization like you couldn’t believe in this country.

I don’t think you and I or anyone else want that to happen. I think we want a stable, solid base for agriculture. On that basis that is the programme we have in mind. Now whether or not $20 million is enough I don’t know, I frankly don’t know. My guess is it won’t be nearly enough.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I heard the minister talking about land in his response to the member for Huron-Bruce. I recall, Mr. Chairman, that the first speech I made in this Legislature on my arrival here in early 1968 was with regard to an overall land-use plan for the Province of Ontario. We’ve had considerable dialogue in the intervening years about a land-use plan, and I’m sure many of the members of this House are well aware of the kind of planning that we have been doing for a number of years in northern Ontario, particularly with the strategic land-use plan dealing primarily with any activities under the aegis of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

In our search for the kind of land use to which most of the terrain in the north is best suited, we’ve got involved in a very sophisticated process of land classification. A lot of it was done, I think with your ministry acting as the liaison, through ARDA, and it was called the ARDA land-use study for all of the Province of Ontario. But in the far north, the Ministry of Natural Resources has gone much farther than that, in doing detailed surveys of all types of land, wherever it is situated, to find out the best use to which it is suited and trying to come up with a zoning process of open, closed and restricted zones, so that we won’t be making the same mistakes in the north that are so prevalent and have become so costly in southern Ontario, where it’s costing us literally tens of millions of dollars to repatriate land, good recreational land that has got into private hands, much of it into the hands of non-residents.

So I would like at this time to commend the Ministry of Natural Resources for having embarked on that plan. The only anxiety I have is, we could have the best plan in the world in northern Ontario in, first of all, doing an inventory and then doing a very sophisticated survey to establish the best use to which that land can be put, but if we plan in isolation or if we plan in the absence of an overall land-use plan for the Province of Ontario, all of our efforts in the far north could go for nought.

I want to tell you that a good many of the social and the economic problems that are facing people in northern Ontario at the present time are a result of the lack of an overall industrial strategy to begin with and then an overall land-use plan for the Province of Ontario. If we’re suggesting the kinds of uses to which land can best be put in northern Ontario, where we could have a good deal of industrial development, some commercial development, and when we see the pre-empting of good farmland in North Pickering and in Nanticoke, all of the planning in the world that we may undertake at considerable expenditure of time, money and energies to come up with a good land-use plan, if the government down here isn’t dedicated to coming up with an overall land-use plan all of the planning that we do in the north is of relatively no significance.

I know my colleague from York South in his leadoff made mention of the fact that, I think it was so many acres an hour, 26 acres an hour were going out of agricultural use here in the south. This has been a concern of most people who are concerned about the wise use of land in the Province of Ontario, particularly those who are interested -- and we should all be interested -- in the tender fruit industry and this narrow strip of good, prime, No. 1 agricultural land in the south part of the province. I don’t pretend for one moment to be an expert in agriculture -- I certainly am not and I don’t want to create that impression -- but I am concerned about the wise use of land. I’ve asked questions of this minister, on two or three occasions, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, as to whether or not there has been any coordination between his ministry and other ministries of government, particularly in the resources development policy field, in conjunction with the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs; because when we asked the former Treasurer, the member for London South (Mr. White), two years ago when they were going to come up with an overall land-use plan, I heard through the grapevine that he went back to his senior officials and he said: “Get me a land-use plan. We need one in the Province of Ontario.”

As I say, I’m told through the grapevine that he gave them about a four- or five-month deadline to come up with an overall land-use plan. Well, anybody who knows anything about land-use planning knows that it is completely unrealistic to come up with an overall plan for the Province of Ontario in a matter of months.

We’ve been engaged in it very seriously in northern Ontario for a number of years -- ever since I came into this House -- and we’re just starting to come to grips with and to have a sense of direction with regard to the wise use of land in northern Ontario. If we’re trying to do it in isolation or in the absence of an overall land-use plan in the province, I think we’re just baying at the moon.

I’m wondering to what extent has your ministry asked to become involved in an overall land-use plan for the Province of Ontario so that we in the north who are taking this thing seriously may co-ordinate our efforts into an overall provincial plan so that when we get five or 10 years down the road we’ll have some sense of having accomplished something and have some sense of direction. Otherwise if we plan in the north in isolation, I think it’s all going for nought.

I can’t think of any ministry of government that should be more concerned about the wise use of land than the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. So I ask, are you involved? If you aren’t, when are you going to get involved? And how serious are you going to be about what I consider to be one of the most serious problems facing the people in the Province of Ontario at the present time, wise land-use planning?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to get into this again. The other evening we talked about this matter of 26 acres of land supposedly disappearing every hour. I appreciate the comments made by my hon. friend from Thunder Bay. I say this: Our ministry now has a food lands development branch, which has the capability to make input into decisions made by other ministries of government and government agencies insofar as the use of land by the province or its agencies is concerned.

This is a new departure, a new venture. I think it was brought about largely because of the concern expressed in mid-1973 and thereafter concerning the fact that perhaps we were more short of food lands than we might otherwise have thought because of the high cost of food in 1973. It really had no bearing as far as the Province of Ontario was concerned. All of that problem was generated outside of the North American continent. My guess is that when normal weather returns we’ll be right back to a situation of oversupply again. It has already taken place in certain commodities, of which we’re all too painfully aware.

When one talks about the loss of agricultural land, I have to put it on the record again, because you raised it just now. The way it was obtained was simply to take the 1965 census --

Mr. Stokes: You don’t have to go over that. I was here when you made your remarks. I’m not playing the numbers game. I think we should be part of a wise land-use programme and dedicated to those ends.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We are. We are embarked on a much wiser use of land than has ever been the case in the past. But I don’t think the figure that was quoted -- the 26 acres an hour that’s talked about -- is something that anyone should be allowed to get away with. I’m not suggesting my friend was trying to put something on the record to embarrass anybody. I am simply saying there are those people who are making those statements on the public platform without any justification whatever. They don’t know where the land went. They don’t know what use has been made of it. And today much of that land is back in production.

In my own area of western Ontario -- and I think this would be substantiated by the members sitting in the House today who come from the parts of the province where cash crop production is quite prevalent -- you virtually can’t find a grass farm that hasn’t been ploughed up and put back into crop production, including much of the land that was bought by urbanites who came out to live in the country in the late 1960s when no one would really rent the land from them. Heavens above, it was renting in some cases for $5 an acre which wouldn’t even pay the taxes, because there was no money in growing crops. We were paying people not to grow crops in those days in western Canada. There was little enthusiasm for cropping down here either. Now, much of that land has gone back into crop production.

My friend mentioned the Pickering site. Just to use that as an illustration, the land acquired by the Province of Ontario for the new Pickering site has been classified almost -- I was going to say on an acre-by-acre basis, and virtually it has been. But the part of that land that was acquired that doesn’t lend itself as much to good agricultural production will be used for the development of a modest type city. The remainder of that area will be kept in agriculture for as far as we can see in the future -- 15 to 20 years anyway -- and who knows what will happen after that.

In this very year, right now, there is 1,160 acres more land going into crop production this spring than there was before we acquired that land. Now you see that’s what really can happen. And that takes into consideration what we have set aside for city development, for urban development that is now taking place. Much of this land that we refer to here is already back in crop production.

We are, through the food lands development branch, through the extension branch, through other groups within the ministry, encouraging people to rent that land, to lease it, to make it available to those who want to use it, because land is renting at a much better figure today for the owner. You know, $40 to $60 an acre is not uncommon at all for land rental today. That’s more in keeping with what perhaps would interest a person who may own the land to get it back in crop production.

Frankly, we are having an input and the food lands development branch will be working with all of the other ministries. Along with that, there is an advisory committee on urban and regional planning. This is made up of the deputy ministers of the Resources Development policy field ministries; and they meet every two weeks. There is co-ordination in that regard. There is co-ordination in the resource policy field.

While I suppose there can be illustrations of things getting away on us that we don’t know about until it is too late, generally speaking there is much greater co-ordination today than there has ever been in so far as using agricultural lands for other than food production is concerned.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t want to prolong it, because I know this is the time during our deliberations when those who are much more knowledgeable about agriculture like to hold forth; but I just want to highlight the problem that you can run into.

Recently we had an unveiling in the north central region of northern Ontario -- there are the northwestern, the north central and the northeastern regions. In the north central region we had public meetings where we had groups of resource people going around with all the major communities asking for in-put from the public as to the kind of activity they would like to see on Crown land -- whether it’s reserved for public recreation, whether it’s for commercial recreation, whether it should be used for resource production, or whether it should be a combination of both. Every aspect of land use was mentioned.

As a result of these deliberations and the give and take in committee and in written and oral submissions, they were able to compile what they thought was a fair cross-section of the wishes and the thoughts of the people with regard to land-use planning. But I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture and Food that when the results of this came back in, and they were sent back out to those who had participated, the people who objected most strenuously to the findings were people in the agricultural community surrounding the city of Thunder Bay -- you know, in the Slate River area.

I don’t know whether the minister has seen their critique of our collective efforts but I can tell you it wasn’t too complimentary. The findings of the group which studied land use said a very small percentage of the land in that region -- it was something like one per cent -- was ideally suited for agricultural use. The agricultural spokesman took very strenuous exception to the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources tended to downplay, to the extent that they did, the potential for agricultural production in the area. And also the way that we, as non-farmers, thought of the agricultural business as a viable entity. They took strong exception to this.

This is why, as I say, I think possibly people in your ministry at the regional level would tend to agree there is a fairly good potential for things that are fast growing, that aren’t susceptible to early or late frost.

I am wondering to what extent your people at the regional level and your resource people here, to what extent do they stand behind people in the agricultural industry and say: “Come on now, Ministry of Natural Resources, we don’t think you are operating on sound ground. We think you haven’t got your facts straight. We think there is a potential for an increase in agricultural production.” Do you get behind the farmers and bolster what they seem to think are valid assumptions with regard to the future potential of agriculture? It all emanated from a land-use plan.

If there is the kind of co-ordination you say there is, and your deputy ministers meet every two weeks, I hope they would be made aware of these things, the kind of dialogue and the kind of things we are trying to do in the north. For heaven’s sake, don’t let us do it in isolation so that when we come to you people and say: “Here is our plan; how does it dovetail with your plan?;” we find you don’t even have one down here in the south, other than an ongoing dialogue, with nothing firm like a five- or 10-year plan to say this is where you are going.

I appreciate what you have said about North Pickering, and in the interim I suppose things are going to be all right. But this isn’t to say that in 15 or 20 years from now it is still going to be in agricultural production. I think you are deluding yourself if you think it is going to be. Sure, in the interim, fine; but I think that in 20 or 30 years from now people are going to look back and reflect upon what we are saying and what we are attempting to do to protect agriculture and good class 1 and 2 land here in the south. I think unless we change our position we are going to be found wanting.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In connection with land-use planning and the preservation of land for agricultural purposes, I am sure the minister received a letter of recent date from a farmer in the Grand Bend area -- I believe he is also connected with the Huron Federation of Agriculture. He wrote to the minister regarding 100 acres of land which the township wants to use for a lagoon. The farmers are very much against a lagoon on what might be considered some of the best land in the area. They have approached the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) about it but it would appear the township is going to go ahead and take this land for a lagoon, although it can be proved that a sewage treatment plant would be the answer.

I wonder if these farmers can appeal to the Resources Development policy field ministers should it appear that the town is simply going to go out and get this land for lagoon purposes? The farmers want to know what type of an appeal they have. They have written to you about it. I am wondering if they can meet with these ministers of the Resources Development policy field to get this thing ironed out?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I know the letter my friend refers to. We are taking it up with the Ministry of the Environment right now to see what can be done to straighten it out. I haven’t got anything more to add to it than that right now. I hope it can be resolved without going so far as my friend suggests.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth North.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): I would like to draw to the attention of the member for Thunder Bay, through the Chairman, that when I was on the drainage committee up in the north, I was amazed at the wonderful farms they had up there and the work the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was doing with our young people. The big concern we ran across up there at that time was about farms where the people had reached old age and were getting on in years too much to carry on the hard work they have to do. Most of their young children have gone into the mines or come down south to the factories. This is one of the big complaints.

I saw a beautiful farm where the people had spent a good number of years clearing the bush and now, because they can’t get anybody to work it, they are putting it back into bush again, into timber. I saw more than one of these. It was disheartening when you are asking for farmland and working it.

I think the big problem is trying to find people to work the darn things. There is great land up there. It seems to be, as we experienced it as a committee, that they are gradually dying off because our young people are not there to take over from their parents.

I saw this in Manitoulin Island, too. There are some beautiful farms there but they couldn’t get help to work them.

Mr. Stokes: I was just quoting what the farmers said in their brief.

Mr. Ewen: I was surprised. This hit home pretty forcibly.

Mr. Chairman: Can vote 1701 carry? The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other points I wanted to raise on this particular vote.

One was with respect to hydro and the fact that rural residential rates are lower than farm rates. I think this becomes particularly important in view of the proposed 33 per cent increase that Ontario Hydro is going to seek in the very near future. I see my friend who used to be the vice-chairman of Ontario Hydro, the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Evans), is in the House and perhaps he would have some views on this as well. It seems to me that this differential is particularly important to farm people, and I think it is vital that this discrepancy be rectified. I am wondering if the minister has taken it up with the Ministry of Energy or with any of his other cabinet colleagues to see if this particular point can’t be corrected?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, we are looking into that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gaunt: The other thing that I wanted to mention was in relation to some problems that farmers in western Ontario are now having. They didn’t use to have them -- it wasn’t a problem back a number of years ago -- but it certainly is now. That’s the problem of wolf damage, and the fact that we have seen a great increase in the number of wolves in our part of western Ontario.

I was doing some reading about this matter not too long ago and I came across a story that was of great interest to me. I put it on the record because I do think that it has some validity, particularly in terms of the farm people. I would hope that some of the bleeding hearts in the urban areas would take a look at it too, because I think that this can be a problem. There are some people who would rather hear the cry of a wolf in the wilderness, than have some good turkey or beef on their platter at noon hour. That seems to me to be a rather distorted priority.

In 1958 there were 43,500 deer in Algonquin Park --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: How many?

Mr. Gaunt: Forty-three thousand, five hundred. As of Feb. 8 this year there are only 1,000, and that may be exaggerated.

The reason for that, according to this particular writer, was the fact that the wolf population has greatly increased in Algonquin Park and the wolves are killing off all the deer. The wolf population has increased to such an extent that it is flowing over into the neighbouring municipalities. The flow has just kept coming down, moving westward, and is now into our part of the country. The obvious reason for that is they will go where there is food, and wolves prey on the large animals -- the deer, the moose. If the population of those animals is somewhat depleted they move into the farm areas and go after the sheep and the cattle and so on.

I raise this point at this juncture knowing full well that the Ministry of Natural Resources is deeply involved in this matter. But, I think it is important that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food concerns itself with this problem too, because it is affecting farmers -- it is affecting livestock on the farms.

I say to the minister that the 17 years of trial by the Ministry of Natural Resources in regard to the experiment in wolf control is simply a dismal failure, because the programme -- whatever it may be -- isn’t working. I’m not coming down firmly on what type of predator control we should employ -- there are a number of types. All I’m saying is, perhaps we should use a number of them in conjunction, to alleviate the problem to a certain extent.

It seems to me that predator control, particularly of the wolves in this province, is vital, in view of the fact that there are very valuable species of wildlife other than wolves that cannot prosper in the presence of large numbers of predators, particularly wolves.

Another thing that bears on this is that predator control is absolutely necessary for the prevention of destruction of livestock and poultry on farms.

Another thing that certainly has to be borne in mind is the fact that many of these species, particularly the canine species of predators, act as carriers of transmittable diseases that can cause illness not only in humans but also in domestic animals.

It seems to me things have become a little out of balance here. It is going to require some effort and some deliberations by thoughtful people in places of power and authority to get this corrected. The whole thing has got a little out of whack because of a few vocal people who have persuaded some people in natural resources to abandon some of their traditional programmes in favour of allowing the wolves to breed unabated. This is what has happened.

So I put this proposition to the minister, recognizing it is a shade sensitive in many areas, in the hope that he recognizes its importance. I just want to underline it so that in any discussions he might have with his cabinet colleagues, he is at least assured there is some support for any position that he might be putting in regard to instituting some better form of predator control than we have at the moment. I would like to get the minister’s views on this, because it is getting to be a real problem.

I was up to a meeting in eastern Ontario not too long ago, and I’ll tell you, if we think it is a problem in western Ontario, it’s more of a problem in eastern Ontario. I think we just have to come to grips with it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I agree completely with what my hon. friend has said. I have no argument with his whatever. I would just like to get the source of the figures he quoted on deer population in Algonquin Park.

Mr. Gaunt: Those come from the author of the book “Time to Cry Wolf.” I can get the --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Farley Mowat? No, not Farley Mowat. Farley Mowat’s book is “Never Cry Wolf.” Do you know who the author of the book was?

Mr. Gaunt: I can get that, it is in my office.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Would you do that? I would like to see it very much. You can rest assured I will --

Mr. Stokes: I think it was written by Norris Whitney.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It could well be, but it could be written by a good many others who feel similar.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I don’t want to talk about wolves. I want to talk about something I have spoken about with the minister a number of times.

I think I have expressed concern every year for seven years about the diminishing land available for fruit farming in the Niagara Peninsula. I have heard all the arguments put forward with regard to the capacity of the land now in production to produce more and more. I have heard arguments put forward that it is entirely possible to produce the same kind of fruit or similar fruit in other parts of the province. I have heard it said that it is virtually impossible on this given day for a policy to be brought forward by any government that would preserve fruitlands. I am not at all sure that any of the things that have been said in answer to my continual plea for action are wrong, but neither am I convinced that we can afford to accept them as being a reason for not trying.

I have thought for a long time that the Peninsula was worth preserving in its reasonably natural state. I understand the pressures of urbanization. I can appreciate that it is extremely difficult for a farmer to maintain an agricultural undertaking within the pressures of urban sprawl or on the edges of urban sprawl. I want to read to the minister something which I am sure he has read himself. I want to read it for the purpose of putting it on the record, because it bears out to some extent what I have been trying to say. Perhaps then I want to talk some more about it. I am reading from The Ontario Grape Grower issue of April, 1975, from Ron Moyer. It’s called The Chairman’s Corner of The Ontario Grape Grower. It’s under Ron Moyer’s signature. It says:

“Almost 10 years of study, partly by the Ontario government and partly by the regional municipality of Niagara, have to date only resulted in copious studies, talks of preserving fruitland, a draft official land-use plan but not concrete decisions to keep the Niagara Peninsula even as it exists in 1975.

“The population growth rate in Niagara is one of the lowest in all Ontario and yet municipalities are each striving for room to expand laterally into prime land without restriction. The draft official plan for boundaries was passed by the council of regional Niagara on Sept. 19, 1974, after last-minute boundary exchanges by municipalities to allow adequate room in the foreseeable future. At the time of writing, the Ontario government has not officially rendered a decision to accept or reject the limits of growth approved by the regional council.

“The proposed development boundaries now contain the following acreage of prime agricultural land: In Grimsby, 100 acres; in Lincoln, 930 acres; in St. Catharines, 3,250 acres; Niagara-on-the-Lake, 370 acres; Pelham, 400 acres; and Niagara Falls, 200 acres. The total above is 5,250 acres out of a total 14,780 acres of undeveloped land included in these urban areas.

“The regional draft plan incorporates the basic land-use plans of each municipality in effect prior to regional government, many of which were adopted just prior to the jurisdiction of regional government. Sewage systems and water systems are being planned for several areas in the region in the recently acquired areas, and development only awaits the passage of time. So the question must be asked, what has regional government in Niagara accomplished in an overall way to restrict development and stop permanently the loss of land for food production? The answer is not hard to determine.

“When regional government was first proposed, many farmers were fearful that their rights to develop their land would be taken away and land values would fall. The echo was heard from developers and many regional councillors that the farmers do not wish to lose their rights. As a result, proper land zoning did not take place either to maintain the present agricultural industry -- and it is an industry, not just a way of life -- or to protect the farmers from the vicissitudes of encroaching urbanization.”

I stop at that point. Vicissitudes is a very interesting word. To continue:

“In order to farm properly, spraying of weeds and trees, vines and ground crops must take place. Animal manure is needed for proper soil tilth and nutrition. Brush from orchards and vineyards pruning must be burned and many other operations carried out which may be objectionable to householders in the farming district. Without proper zoning to protect agriculture from this and other forms of harassment, it is, and will be, increasingly more difficult to farm in such an urbanized atmosphere.

“Farmers now realize this is an important issue they must face, not their loss of development rights. However, the most important question still to be answered is will any plan be put into effect, either by the Ontario government or by the Niagara Escarpment Commission or the regional municipality of Niagara to indefinitely reserve good land for agriculture? It is already 10 years overdue and some positive steps must be taken immediately.”

It’s an interesting comment, I think. It has been expressed by a lot of other people; it is not only being expressed by Mr. Moyer. I think that all of the things that are implicit in that are the fears that at some point we may not have the opportunity to preserve that which a lot of people -- and I think probably including the minister -- believe should be preserved if it is at all possible.

Mr. Ewen: Like Gordon Dean?

Mr. Deans: Want to get that on the record? I don’t want to say it.

I have made a number of statements along the same line; some of them have been pooh-poohed by the minister. At other times he has indicated that he too has had the same fears. They have received varying degrees of acceptance or nonacceptance by farmers and farm community spokesmen.

I don’t pretend for a moment that I have any particular knowledge of how it could be done in the overall, but I think on balance that the majority of thinking people agree that it makes sense to do everything in our power to try to preserve the Peninsula lands that are good grade, in a good environment, for the purposes of growing produce. I think that the majority of people think that if it’s practical in any way to do it, that it should be done.

I think we realize -- I realize and other people realize -- that the urban encroachment, the urban growth, has caused pressures on farmers that they never dreamt would be caused and the cost of doing business on the farm and within that urban community is considerably higher than the cost of doing business elsewhere, and that’s one of the very vexing areas that we have to address ourselves to if we are going to be successful.

I had thought at one time that the government did make a statement that they on balance believed that it would be desirable to maintain as much of the Peninsula in growing form as they could. I thought at one time that the establishment of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, given that the boundaries they were to work within included a great portion of the existing growing land, would work actively to preserve much of the fruit belt.

I don’t deny that as a result of technology we have been able to produce more per acre now, and over a number of years, than we were able to produce 15 or 20 years ago. I don’t deny either that that will go on for some period of time to come. I do think, though, that even technology, given all of the potential that it has, isn’t going to be able to continue to produce a sufficient amount of produce of varying kinds on an ever-diminishing area of available land. I believe that at some point we will have reached a stage in the use of technology where we won’t be able to produce that which we need, because you would still need a sizable amount of land to do it on.

It may not be acceptable to a number of people, but I think on balance -- given that one of our responsibilities is to protect future generations and not only this generation -- that it would make sense if, when land was available for sale in the Peninsula area, that the government would exercise an option and purchase it -- I understand that that’s a fairly expensive proposition, but it would occur over a long period of time -- rather than allow it to fall into the hands of developers, go out of production and ultimately be turned into parking lots or subdivisions or whatever. There is a need for housing and there is no question about it, but there is land in the immediate vicinity that is not of the quality and not of the character for farming that would be more acceptable for development purposes.

If the government had a policy; if it had, for example, taken the position that it had first refusal on farms in the Peninsula made available for sale, and that it would have to be informed of any impending sale in order that it could exercise its option if that land was land that it deemed to be necessary for future production of foodstuffs, if the government had that kind of policy in existence we probably could save a fair portion of it.

You might come back and tell me that there aren’t people to farm it. I want to say to you that that argument may well be true from time to time, but you can’t only concern yourself with one particular period in the history of mankind. You’ve got to concern yourself with a much wider scope of one or two generations. While at this point in time there may not be a sufficient number of people who are vitally concerned about the production of food, in a short period of time I suspect there will be a great number of people who will be vitally concerned about the production of food and who will have a desire to produce food as a way of life for a living, and that we have to have available to them as this occurs the kind of top-grade soil and top-grade conditions that we have in the Peninsula.

I made the point to the minister on a number of occasions. I don’t believe that any other jurisdiction in the world would have allowed the erosion of the Niagara Escarpment, the Niagara fruitbelt area as we have, all of us as a community, right across the Province of Ontario. I don’t think any other jurisdiction would have allowed such a valuable resource to have been taken out of production, and I don’t think we can afford to rely forever on a capacity to produce more and more on less and less land. I think you have to come up with a policy that says we will keep the land in production; we will keep it, if not in production, available for production, and in the end, over a long period of time, there will at least be the opportunity for that land to be maintained.

I’m always intrigued when I read “the Grower” and a number of the other newspapers, or whatever you call them -- publications that come out from a variety of different sources in the agricultural community. They seem to take diametrically opposed views from time to time. I suppose that’s only fair. They’re people and they have different views of life and different views of emergency conditions that exist. I’m not suggesting right now that the whole place is doomed to failure. I’m suggesting, though, that as the urban growth continues to take place it will become so costly to farm it will be impossible. It isn’t quite at that point yet. It could be at that point, though, in 10 years. It could be at that point in five years.

When the farmer chooses no longer to farm -- I think I’ve made the point a number of times in the past -- when a farmer in Ontario finds it uneconomical for him to farm in Ontario, the produce is still required for day-to-day living and we find ourselves importing it from other parts of the world, normally from the US, and when that happens we pay their price. We pay their price because we don’t have anything to use as a lever against their price. We can’t refuse to buy it, because we need it. And since we need it and don’t produce it, we find ourselves in a position where they are able to exact from us whatever the price is that they would want to have. I worry about that happening in the future.

The only reason I read the article was because it sort of bears out what I’ve been trying to say and, I think, probably what you’ve been saying, at least to some extent. I think we have to be firm about it. I realize this causes people’s backs to get up. It causes anxiety in certain communities and, my God, the anxiety it causes in the community now is tiny, minuscule, compared to the anxiety that will be caused some years hence if we don’t take the kind of steps to keep the land available for production, let alone in production. I’m really eager that the government should exercise those kinds of options and that it should do it fairly quickly. If they don’t do it quickly, we won’t be able to afford to do it at all.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 1701 carry?

Mr. Gaunt: No, Mr. Chairman. I just want to raise one other matter in this particular vote, and it has to do with the Ontario Farm Machinery Board. One hasn’t heard too much about the Ontario Farm Machinery Board this last year or so. I believe the chairman of that particular body has resigned or gone on to something else. I’m not sure.

In any case, what has the board been doing over the past number of months? I’m not exactly clear on its terms of reference and its function in this particular area. I wish the minister could enlighten me somewhat.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the secretary-manager, Hal Wright, has resigned because of health reasons. I regret exceedingly that this happened. I think he was one of the very best types of people one could find for that kind of job.

He did an outstanding job, as far as I’m concerned, in resolving problems between the farmer, the ultimate purchaser and user of the equipment, and the distributor and the manufacturer. In 1974 he resolved 120 different complaints from farmers, both by phone and by visits to the farmers, and to the dealers and in some cases to the distributors and companies involved. I think that’s a very good achievement. There are some problems he wasn’t able to resolve, but they weren’t all one-sided either.

The Ontario Farm Machinery Board remains intact with representatives pretty well distributed throughout Ontario on a geographical basis. A number of meetings have been held in the six areas in conjunction with farmers’ days and with various farm shows that are held in connection with the agricultural community.

I feel they have done an outstanding job. Perhaps they’ve achieved as much as if there was much more vigorous legislation or regulations in effect in Ontario. We see that they have performed quite a few useful public relations efforts in radio tape distribution on some 20 farm-oriented radio stations across Ontario on a monthly basis.

We are presently interviewing job applicants for the replacement of Hal Wright, but I don’t think any decision has been reached as yet. We hope that one will be made shortly.

Mr. Gaunt: May I ask my friend if this is an open competition or is it an internal competition within the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It was advertised publicly.

Mr. Gaunt: Sometimes that doesn’t really mean that much, because it is still an internal competition. It is advertised but the applicants judged for the competition come from within the ministry. Not only in the case of this ministry but in other ministries, I’ve noted that. That’s why I asked whether it was an open competition or whether in actual fact it was going to be filled by someone within the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, that’s not the case, Mr. Chairman. It is a wide-open competition. We’d hope there are potential applicants my hon. friend knows who would be knowledgeable in this work. It is now closed, but it was advertised quite effectively and quite broadly. I’m hopeful we will get some good applicants, as we badly need somebody in that job. We want the right man there.

Mr. Gaunt: The reason I asked about that was I had inquired about the position and I was told it was going to be filled internally.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): By yourself.

Mr. Gaunt: That is why I asked.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t know any reason why that would be told to you. It was filled on an interim basis until we got out the ads. I think Hal Wright’s secretary carried on taking the phone calls and letters. She farmed them out to the members of the committee in the various geographical regions and they carried on the work -- obviously not as well as Hal could have because they weren’t as close to the subject as he had been. It has not been filled internally that I know of. I have no idea who the applicants are and I don’t even know who the committee is that is setting it up or will be interviewing. I imagine it will be done through the personnel section of our office.

Mr. Gaunt: While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention where I got the figures with respect to the wolves.

The 43,558 was contained in a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources and was the ministry’s own figure in 1958, I understand. The 1,000 is also the figure from the ministry.

I notice some interesting statistics on the deer population in more current years. In 1969, in the Pembroke district there were 14,225 deer; in 1972 there were only 6,695. So there has been a very dramatic decline in the deer population. I can send this information to the minister if he wishes.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister about the information services figure of $1,523,000. I forget what that is made up of. I had a letter some time ago referring to the Department of Agriculture -- I wondered if it was the Ontario government giving a long weather forecast over certain stations across the Province of Ontario. Did that come out from your ministry, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: What was it my hon. friend wanted to know about -- the market information service?

Mr. Spence: Information services is $1,523,000. What is that made up of? What information do you send out and do you sponsor a long weather forecast for agriculture in the summer months?

I had a letter some time ago which brought to my attention that you give a long weather forecast over the London station. The writer would like to have it over Windsor too, because he says, so often the weather is different in Windsor, Essex or southern Kent from what it is in London. If you do it in the London area it should be done over the Windsor station as well.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There were 3,743 phone-in calls for the fiscal year 1974 on farm weather. On the radio stations there were 236 phone-in calls for published information, and that’s just on weather.

Mr. Spence: Was that on the London station, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: What station?

Mr. Spence: London.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I haven’t got the stations here. There are 20 different radio stations that use it.

Mr. Spence: The letter I got seemed to think that weather conditions were different near Windsor than at London on many occasions. They asked me to bring this to your attention.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The farm weather forecasts have been regionalized to provide a more meaningful report for eastern Ontario producers. They now include a special commentary which will be carried through the winter months, so all a radio station has to do is phone in and get the information.

If my hon. friend would direct his constituent to write to his local radio station and ask it to obtain the information -- it’s free; it’s on a Zenith line so it doesn’t cost the radio station anything to get the information -- they could then publish it on a regular basis. That’s what the service is for. I recall my friend the member for Essex South asking for this kind of service to be provided many years ago. It’s now provided and I think it’s doing a pretty good job across the province, generally speaking.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): I would like to ask the minister when the broadcasts on market information are going to commence this year. The middle of next month?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s on fruit and vegetables?

Mr. Paterson: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Whenever the crop is ready. I guess you’re so far ahead of the rest of us with potatoes down there in that area, it will be --

Mr. Paterson: Asparagus?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Apparently asparagus crops will be on very shortly and they will be broadcasting that. I guess that is the first crop to be harvested. They will be on right away.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1701 carry?

Vote 1701 agreed to.

On vote 1702:

Mr. Gaunt: On 1702, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question on this particular vote for clarification purposes. As I understand it, the Ontario Plowmen’s Association used to have a secretary -- I think they still do have a secretary -- but in years past, that secretary actually handled the money for the Ontario Plowmen’s Association. I believe the representative from the government on that board now has the function of handling that money, and I’m just wondering if that was at the request of the Ontario Plowmen’s Association or if there were other circumstances involved in that transfer of responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We’ll get the information, Mr. Chairman, I haven’t got that at my fingertips. Am I assured now that we’re on vote 1702?

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1702. Perhaps the committee might like to advise the Chair whether you wish to take it item by item or whether we take the vote collectively. Shall we take it item by item for a little more orderly arrangement?

Mr. Gaunt: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: We’re just discussing about taking the votes item by item rather than collectively.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That would help immensely.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any comment on item 1, administration?

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister something. I believe on June 18, 1974, the chairman of the select committee on drainage gave their report to this House after many long days and hours of work over two years. I wonder if the minister is going to give consideration to bringing in a bill in regard to drainage in this province. I know every member worked so hard they would be greatly disappointed, Mr. Minister, if you didn’t have a bill to bring in some of these suggestions or recommendations that would improve drainage tremendously across the province and increase production. I think the committee did an excellent job and I hope you think so too.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will answer the question, Mr. Chairman, but I agree with you that it would be nice if we could follow it right down -- administration; advisory service; crop insurance; if there are any questions on that, it would help immensely. When we come to item 4, assistance to primary food production, that’s where the grants to drainage are located.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. minister could answer the question at that time.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Do you want me to answer it now, Mr. Chairman, or wait?

Mr. Chairman: I think we’ll wait and take the answer on item 4.

Mr. Spence: Any time.

Mr. Chairman: Item 2, advisory services.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s where my question came in, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, the answer is that when Clark Young retired as treasurer of the Ontario Plowmen’s Association, the treasury was turned over to Mr. Ed Starr who is the secretary-manager of the Ontario Plowmen’s Association.

Mr. Gaunt: That was at the request of the Ontario Plowmen’s Association?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, at the request of the OPA. The audit firm is Murphy and Murphy of Toronto; they are the outside auditors of the Ontario Plowmen’s Association.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other discussion under item 2? Any comments on item 3? Or item 4?

Perhaps the hon. minister -- I’m sorry.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Item 4, the drainage report: Yes, the legislation is in the state of final preparation, and I would expect probably will be ready for consideration in the House within the next few weeks. It’s a major piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Huron-Bruce have a comment on item 4?

Mr. Gaunt: I’m having a little difficulty following what’s going on here. I know, Mr. Chairman, you’re moving down on page R14, items 1, 2 and 3. I’m following down on the other page, R15. That is causing me some difficulty, because when you come to item 4, primary food production, that’s right at the tail end, actually on page R19, and we still haven’t dealt with agricultural manpower, extension, food and development, home economics, livestock, soils and crops, veterinary. I’m wondering if we wouldn’t be better to go down the page on the right hand side, R15. It would be easier to follow.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Good luck.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s all right with me. To follow from R15 would be fine with me.

Mr. Chairman: I gather, then, we have dealt with item 2, advisory services. Are there any further comments there? We’ll move over to R15 and deal with agricultural manpower. Any comments on agricultural manpower?

Mr. Gaunt: I wanted to ask a question. How successful has the ministry’s placement programme been over the past number of years. I’m particularly interested in last year, 1974, because I know you did meet with some success early on, in terms of bringing people over from overseas and placing them on farms in the province. What has been the record this past year?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: A total of 327 placements were made, as compared with 216 the previous year. Dairy farm employees were the largest number placed. A total of 179 were drawn from Ontario sources. Two recruiting missions were conducted in the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands, with 272 applicants interviewed. To date 92 have arrived to accept employment on farms, and a number of others are coming later. We have, as well, a number of students or trainees from foreign countries accepting employment for a period of up to one year as part of the training programme they have in agriculture over there.

Mr. Gaunt: Did we have any people coming in from Japan or the Orient?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There were six. I thought it was up to 15. We’ve only dealt with six.

I believe there are a few others. Yes, the breed associations brought in a few. Somebody told me there were about 15 in total, but that may be high. There were six brought in under our ministry’s auspices through federal government immigration services.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I’ve had some complaints in regard to bringing in Mexican workers. It appears the complaint is that they must be 18 years of age before they come in. I had a telephone call the other day about these farmers who rely on offshore labour. They have been getting these Mexicans year after year, as I was informed, and now they say that any children must be 18 years of age or they can’t come. And of course if a family has other children younger than that, they have to leave them behind and so they don’t come. This was of concern to a number of farmers in the western part of the province. They use a lot of them for picking cucumbers and tomatoes and one thing and another and they were quite upset, so I said I would bring it to the attention of the minister. I know the federal government is certainly involved in this through the immigration ministry. I would just like to bring to your attention that many farmers were greatly disappointed in regard to the Mexican farm labour.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I share the concern expressed by my friend from Kent, but I think he should be taking that up with some of his friends at Ottawa. It is a ruling of federal Manpower and Immigration that will not allow these people in here under 18 years of age.

I am not sure just what the relationship is. I worked in the fields long before I was 18 years of age and I am sure my hon. friend did too, as did most of the farm people who sit in this House. I don’t think it hurt any of us, but there seems to be a feeling that no one can be employed in agriculture under 18 years of age. I think it’s going to work to the detriment of the harvesting of many fruit and vegetable crops where young people served a very useful purpose and obtained a livelihood by so doing that perhaps they couldn’t earn someplace else. We object very vigorously to what has happened, but nevertheless there isn’t very much we can do about it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the agricultural manpower section carry? Agreed. Under extension, any comments or observations? The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: The ministry has a programme related to young people who are interested in pursuing an agricultural career, and this has to do with young people coming out of school, I believe. I have had some inquiries about that particular programme and I wasn’t able to really enlighten the person very fully on the matter. What kind of programme are you undertaking in this area?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Are you talking about the junior agricultural programme, the urbanite going out to the country?

Mr. Gaunt: Right.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, well we tried it out on an experimental basis the year before last with 20, and 17 completed the summer’s work. Last year there was a target of 200 and 177 completed the nine-week period. This year we are aiming for another 200 on the same basis, although we stepped it up just a bit as far as the amount of money that they can earn is concerned.

These are urban young people from towns or cities of Ontario. We would prefer that they hadn’t had previous agricultural experience. It is a new learning experience for them and an opportunity to get a feel of the country and living in the country.

I think it has worked out very well. Interestingly enough, 13 of those 17 of the previous year’s programme went back to the farm and worked this summer on their own, and I thought that spoke well of the project. That wasn’t with us pushing them along. They went back on their own and got their own jobs and worked all summer. I think that proves the value of this programme.

I am not sure how many of the 200 we will have out this summer will go back. We are attempting to place them wherever there are requests for help, but more important than just being of help on the farm, or equally important, is the feel the urban youngster gets for the country, the better understanding it can generate and that spreads in the school. That youngster will go back to the school and with whomever he may associate I think you will find there will be better understanding generated.

Mr. Gaunt: Is the programme over-subscribed? Are there more applicants than there are places? In other words, have you got more than 200 applications?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes; the programme, I am told, is over-subscribed now. I think last year we had about 600 applicants for the 200 openings we had. They screen them out and there are some who, when they find out more about it, are not quite as enchanted with it as when they first read about it. But we have been told we need more farmers who are willing to participate in the programme. It takes a special type of farmer, too, to take an urban youngster on the farm and help him and show him -- teach him, really, what happens on the farm. There aren’t as many of those as there are applicants wanting to go to the farm.

Mr. Gaunt: In view of the interest, has the minister given any thought to expanding the programme beyond the 200?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I think not; because it will be controlled by the number of farmers we can get to take them. That’s about the limit we can find.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the discussion on the extension section of advisory services carry? Carried.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report a certain resolution and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR:

PUBLIC SERVANTS POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Cassidy moves second reading of Bill 71. An Act to provide Political Rights for Public Servants.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, what have Brian Charlton, Orel Gervais and Norm Collins got in common? Well, two or three things.

Mr. Charlton is an assessor; Mr. Gervais is an OHIP branch manager, and I believe Mr. Collins is a draftsman. Other things: They are all interested in politics. Mr. Charlton is a New Democrat, Mr. Gervais is a Conservative and Mr. Collins is a Liberal. What else have they got in common? All three are active on the executive of the riding association of their party in the riding in which they happen to live.

As members of the House will know, one of these three gentlemen -- Mr. Charlton -- is currently under threat of dismissal. A case has gone to the courts and by agreement between the parties we are not going to comment any further on that particular case. However, for some time, Mr. Speaker, coming from a riding which has a great number of public servants, I have been concerned about the question of political rights for public servants.

It has long been a matter of the policy of the New Democratic Party that public servants -- civil servants, government employees -- should have the same political rights as all other citizens in this society. That is the reason we are putting forward Bill 71 today and why we hope the bill will commend itself to the government and that it will promise to adopt it.

The fact is that for every civil servant whose name is mentioned in this House as being politically active and is therefore being in contravention or possible contravention of the Public Service Act, Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of others who covertly are engaged in political activity and thousands of others who would engage in political activity. That is their desire and their right, but they are intimidated from so doing because of the legislation that is on the books in the province right now.

We believe that legislation is antiquated -- that it dates back to a patronage era, possibly, and that it doesn’t have any place today -- and that it fails to recognize the fact that most civil servants perform jobs that are very similar to those that are in the private sector. If they are cooks or secretaries or jail guards, if they are fixing the roads, pushing the snowploughs or running the trains in the Ontario Northland -- doing jobs like that or teaching at community colleges -- we believe the jobs they are doing are so similar to the private sector that they should have the same rights.

The only exclusions made in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are for deputy ministers and other senior policy-making senior servants who might number 1,000 or 2,000 out of the 60,000 employed by the province.

The current bill, Mr. Speaker, if I can quote from a summary of it which has been put forward and published by the Civil Service Association of Ontario, is ridiculous. It says if you’re a Crown employee you cannot raise money for a candidate or political party and you cannot get leave of absence to be a candidate until an election is actually called.

At this point in time, with an election around the corner at any minute, it is not possible for anybody working for the government to actively seek a nomination until the writs are actually issued, despite the fact that most nominations are settled before the writs are issued. A potential candidate who happens to be a civil servant is thereby deprived of rights.

A person who is a civil servant, a slightly narrow definition, cannot canvass on behalf of a candidate during an election. If he’s in a confidential, or a restrictive capacity, he cannot canvass for a party or candidate at any time or in any way. He cannot speak, or write, publicly at any time, on any subject that may be in the platform of a political party, federal or provincial. That disregards the fact that the Ontario Legislature probably lacks the power to restrict people exercising the federal political rights. They cannot write a letter to the newspaper about any matter that happens to be in any particular platform.

We happen to have a lengthy platform in the New Democratic Party. In 1971 the Liberal Party had a lengthy platform as well. It makes it impossible for most civil servants to write to newspapers, or speak to hotline shows, or get up in a meeting to talk to a local community association they know, on almost any subject imaginable. They can’t put up a sign supporting a particular party. They can’t work actively for a political party. They cannot start campaigning for a nomination until the election is called.

A union, like the Civil Service Association of Ontario, cannot receive voluntary contributions from its membership for a political party. It can’t handle, or pay money, to a party. It can’t support any political party nor urge its members to support any party. If a civil servant violates the rules, he is liable to dismissal. If a union violates the rules, it’s liable to lose bargaining rights. If a group of public servants wishes to change its union, and wishes to look and find another association or trade union that might represent it, it cannot look at any trade union which currently supports a political party or pays money to a political party. That includes most unions that are members of the Trade Union Congress. There is tremendous inhibition on normal political rights, Mr. Speaker.

What happens then is, when civil servants, or public servants, want to get involved, they’re forced to adopt a low profile and, indulge in all sorts of stratagems to have the maximum impact permissible without actually breaking the law. They can join a political party, but it’s not clear whether, or not, they can hold office in it. They can become active in a constituency association so long as it isn’t noticed. On the other hand, if their names happen to be printed in a newspaper, then, possibly, that’s too high a profile. If they are in a confidential capacity, or on the restrictive list -- and that list is quite broad-ranging, Mr. Speaker -- they cannot even work actively. It’s not clear whether to join, or whether to contribute funds, is actively working or not, because there has never been any test or definition of the law.

It’s possible for them to encourage other people to join the party but, once again, that’s very ambiguous as well. This is very difficult for a civil servant, who simply wants to do a few simple things in the political sphere, to understand just when he is violating the law and when he is observing it. As CSAO members, they can make coffees in the committee rooms, or prepare campaign kits, or address and stuff envelopes, or maybe make or help to put up election signs. But, if you’re putting up election signs make sure you do it in the dark so that you’re not noticed. Don’t go canvassing yourself because the government says that is illegal.

If you happen to see a friend in a pub, and tell him who you’re going to vote for, is that canvassing? Nobody knows. Can you distribute leaflets door to door if you don’t talk to the people at the door? Nobody knows whether that’s legal or not, because there’s no definition of canvassing. It’s a very difficult position.

It’s possible to drive voters to a poll on election day because the campaign is ended on that day, or to act as scrutineer for a candidate. Then, you say: “Oh, use your imagination. There are many other things you can do behind the scenes to help elect candidates committed to first class citizenship for crown employees.”

Mr. Speaker, the ambiguities in the present Act are tremendous and, apart from anything else, it seems to me, they cry out for improvement. I hope the government members speak to that particular point. It’s bad law, whether or not the government agrees with the points we are putting in the New Democratic Party with this private member’s bill.

If the government believes civil servants should have no political rights whatsoever, then it should change the law. It should say they don’t have the right to join, that they don’t have the right to work between elections, that they can’t contribute and that they can do nothing; they have become political eunuchs. But in effect, that is what the law’s impact is even though the law doesn’t say it.

To give you an example of how ridiculous the situation is, Mr. Speaker, section 14 of the Public Service Act says:

“Except when somebody is a candidate, a civil servant shall not at any time speak in public, or express views in writing for distribution to the public, on any matter that forms part of the platform of a provincial or federal political party.”

I want to tell this House, Mr. Speaker, and the representatives of the government party, the matter of political rights for public servants, as embodied in Bill 71, is part of the platform of the New Democratic Party in the forthcoming election. It has the endorsement of the NDP caucus, of the leader of the NDP and, I think, the endorsement of our provincial council. I am not sure when we last passed it but we certainly have passed it.

What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that from this moment on, it is illegal for any public servant in Ontario to sign a brief, to pick up the phone, to write a letter to the newspaper, to distribute a circular or anything else, advocating there should be full political rights for public servants. They are liable to dismissal for doing that.

Now, clearly, the law applied to that extreme is an ass. I would say, in addition, that is a violation of basic rights of free speech, and it would not stand up to a judicial test. The fact the government could even presume to deny to civil servants the right to talk about whether they should have some political rights or not, is an indication of how backward, and antiquated, the present legislation is, and how much it cries out for redress.

I point out as well, Mr. Speaker, in the regulations there is a designated category of employees who have further restrictions placed upon them. All civil servants are prohibited from canvassing during the course of an election but some, those of a designated category, “shall not at any time canvass on behalf of, or otherwise actively work in support of, a provincial or federal political party or candidate.”

That group, as I understand it from an internal memo which has been passed around to the government, includes policy-making employees -- deputy ministers and senior policy advisers. Those are the same group of exclusions we would put in as well, and we agree. I think all parties agree on that in principle, even though we don’t quite know the details of how to work that out.

The memo from the government says that, in addition, people in the designated categories are people in positions that are deemed to be politically sensitive. They are excluded from having even the limited political rights given to most civil servants in the province. That is playing politics, Mr. Speaker. That is saying certain people can’t even have minimal political rights because the government feels they might be embarrassed. It is a very partisan kind of political designation which has been put in for its own purposes by the government in interpreting the present Act.

I beg to say, Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s present legislation is probably the most depressive in Canada. In words, it is a bit less difficult than the federal Public Service Employment Act, which says:

“No deputy head and no employee shall engage in work for, or on behalf, or against, a candidate for the House of Commons or provincial Legislature, or engage in work for, or against, a political party.”

That is the federal Act. It is slightly tougher than the provincial Act which says you can canvass and work for a political party, or candidate, outside of an election period if you’re not in a designated category. However, Ontario, as is clear right now, has on occasion refused to renew contracts or fired employees for political activity, or sought to take such action.

In the eight years since the Public Service Employment Act was passed at the federal level, there has never been a case brought under that Act. No public servant has ever been fired or had disciplinary action taken as a result of the Act. The reason is because of a curious Catch 22 which says the only people who can lay complaints under the federal Act are people who have themselves been candidates. Since the Tories don’t want to get at a Liberal civil servant working for the Liberal party in case the Liberals get after the Tories, and the same kind of thing with the New Democrats, there is a kind of self-defeating quality to the federal Act which ensures it is never applied.

Ontario’s Act, however, has and is being applied.

I know what the government position is going to be, Mr. Speaker. A couple of worthy and hon. members will get up on the government side to defend the fact that they don’t believe public servants should have political rights; just as they don’t believe public servants should have free collective bargaining rights; just as they believe in depriving teachers of free collective bargaining rights. This government believes in taking away political rights from public servants.

They’ve played the game, Mr. Speaker. Back in the days when the road contracts were on patronage, they didn’t bother about that. It didn’t bother them then that public servants were working on behalf of the government. But now I suspect one reason the government will resist is a fear that public servants are going to work to put the government out of office. That may be one of the reasons they are acting. If it is just philosophical, then I ask you, how can you take a carpenter who is working for the government and not give him the rights of the guy who is working outside, or a secretary and the gal who is working outside, or a hospital worker working for the government and a hospital worker working outside? It just doesn’t wash, Mr. Speaker.

I want to cover the bill very briefly in the few minutes left to me. The bill is intended to cover all public servants. It is intended to include the Crown corporations -- Hydro, norOntair, Ontario Northland Transportation, the community colleges, and so on. It is the broadest definition possible. It excludes one or two per cent of the public servants who are deputy ministers, the heads of Crown agencies, or in senior management or policy-making positions.

Rather than being prohibitive, which is the pattern of the current Public Service Act, this Act is permissive. It lays out the fact that public servants will be entitled to the right to vote, the right to actively support a political party or a candidate, the right to contribute to a party during or between elections, the right to solicit funds for a candidate or for a party, the right to be a member of a party, to hold office in a party, and to express views on political topics. In other words, it is an attempt to codify in the broadest possible sense all the political rights that everybody else in society normally enjoys.

The conditions are much the same kind of conditions that would govern somebody who works for the CPR or Lever Brothers or the Toronto Board of Education: that is, that you don’t conduct political activity during your working hours; you don’t associate your job with your political activity, apart from a short tag, if you are a candidate, to say that so and so works for the government as a probation officer, or whatever it is he does; and you don’t speak on matters in your political activity that are directly relevant to the job that you do for the government. If you feel incensed about the way the government is handling the area in which you are working, then it is clear, it seems to me, that a public servant resigns before speaking out publicly on those matters.

The bill should have said that obviously a Crown employee who wants to speak to a convention of agricultural protection officers on agricultural protection, because that is what he works on, should be authorized to do it with the consent of the employer, and also, obviously, that a person engaging in political activity doesn’t reveal secrets -- doesn’t violate his oath of office. But that’s covered under the Public Service Act and the oath of office for secrecy.

To ensure that nobody is forced to engage in political activity, Mr. Speaker, the bill in fact puts a clause in that no public servant shall be required to do anything political. That includes going to swell the ranks at a rally for a candidate, for a Premier or for somebody else. One can quite justifiably refuse to do that, in the same way the government should not be allowed to prevent a public servant from getting engaged in political activity.

The sections relating to candidacy are basically drawn from the current Act, except for two features. First, up to five years break in service to be an MPP or an MP will be creditable service for pension privileges and other privileges within the government. Secondly, the right to leave of absence without pay is granted unconditionally. The right to leave of absence with pay for the period from the official nomination day, three weeks before the election date, until the election date itself, is put in because it is our belief that people who engage in public service by presenting themselves as candidates should not be forced to suffer financially through so doing. Therefore, a modest amount of paid leave for candidates is provided for in the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: My colleague from Windsor West (Mr. Bounsall) will comment on the other features of the bill. It is a good bill. It is in tune with the times. It respects the rights of public servants. And I hope that the government will accept it in that spirit.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): I think he means to pass it over.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, he is on my list here. The member for Peel South.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I want first to commend the member for Ottawa Centre for bringing this forward. This subject is something that has been of interest to me because I was involved in the civil service field of activity before I got involved in partisan politics. So I have some awareness of this problem, and I think it is good that this --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The hon. member has even got pension benefits from it too.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, sure, that is part of the provisions for that service. I would hope I did. After giving all those dedicated years of love and devotion to the cause -- on a nonpartisan basis too.

Mr. Stokes: That was federal, too, wasn’t it?

Mr. Kennedy: On a non-partisan basis.

One thing I wholeheartedly agree with in this bill, and that might surprise the member, is section 2(a) -- the right to vote. He states here that everybody should have the right to vote, and really it is just redundant. I would have hated to see any bill that came forward and said a civil servant should not have the right to vote.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay.

Mr. Kennedy: So the member is right on target on a matter of principle.

Mr. Cassidy: The member is doing fine so far. Keep it up.

Mr. Kennedy: I couldn’t agree more on that one with the hon. member. There are a few things that I think should be brought out, though. It is obviously a bill to broaden the rights of civil servants to actively participate in politics. This is laudatory, but immediately you come to the feature -- I think the hon. member mentioned it -- how do you serve two masters? This is one of the basic principles.

I suppose when there was a handful of civil servants years ago -- and I don’t really believe the current Act goes back all that far; at least it was modified with respect to candidates participating, or being able to run -- but I point out these two differences, and they were touched on. I think the Minister of Revenue touched on it at one point.

A federal servant has to ask his superior -- and I suppose it goes on up the channel somewhere -- if he can be a candidate. Depending on his circumstances he is either given leave or he isn’t. I suppose it depends on whether they like him or not, it depends on his area of activity and this type of thing. I don’t know the reason. But the point is, it is at the government’s option as to whether he can be the candidate. He can always quit and run.

Mr. Stokes: But if you are Ron Collister it is all right.

Mr. Kennedy: I guess it is all right, yes. I have known some who were the other way.

With the province, the option is the civil servant’s. He can say to his people -- perhaps he doesn’t even need to say it, though I notice the member’s bill says he can make an application -- but the application will be granted, so I don’t see why the member needs that section at all. Just say if he wants to run, just tell them or not tell them. He just runs without going through this process of an application. The member did recognize there is a cloudy area there. He has a doubtful point that certain designated categories still wouldn’t be able to get involved in partisan politics. He agrees that is --

Mr. Cassidy: Nobody disagrees.

Mr. Kennedy: -- a kind of a grey area, where one would cut that off.

Mr. Cassidy: It is very small.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, it looks very clear to me but the member said it wasn’t all that clear. Why do this? If it applies to one, why not to all? I bring that point out, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: If the member wants me to take that out of the bill and apply it to all civil servants, I will.

Mr. Kennedy: It should; I’m not quite finished yet. It does exclude a certain type of job. The right to vote, membership in a party, financial contributions aren’t bad, but high profile activities. When one is going out trying to sell a candidate and trying to sell against the government -- and I’m not speaking in partisan fashion here -- how a person can do that and still be loyal to his job and his superior is beyond me. I think the old saying -- it’s in scriptures -- about serving two masters --

Mr. Cassidy: I thought they worked for the Crown and not for the Conservatives.

Mr. Kennedy: Pardon? This is one of the points that bothers me. I think it makes it tough, too, on the employee, on the people he is trying to serve. Basically he is trying to serve the public and how can he do that if the government of the day has programmes and he’s opposed to them? Really, if it’s a tough enough situation, he shouldn’t be working for the civil service.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): The member is saying that all civil servants have to be Tories.

Mr. Kennedy: No, they don’t.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections use up valuable time.

Mr. Kennedy: They shouldn’t be knocking the hand that feeds them. It comes back to that same feature -- how do we serve two masters? We can’t.

Mr. Young: It isn’t the Conservative Party that’s feeding them.

Mr. Kennedy: Nevertheless --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): You want to make them political eunuchs.

Mr. Kennedy: In a way, to a degree, this is true. The basic thing is the number of people employed by government --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Kennedy: -- brings about a situation that is in place now but wasn’t when the civil service was relatively small, and a minor force. Now it’s a big one and I agree there should be a review of the categories which are now designated. I think there could be a great deal of good work done in that.

The bill really provides for unlimited political activity and I think going that broad that fast would create problems, Mr. Speaker, which would create more difficulty than the bill would cure. On the other hand, we have just a handful who really get involved in the political process. It seems to me if those categories and designated areas were examined and if an employee who is a good dedicated person wants to become involved, maybe he can get into a non-sensitive area and carry on in this respect. To say holus-bolus “Everybody go your own separate ways -- ”

Mr. Cassidy: So the member agrees with the bill?

Mr. Kennedy: I agree we should have a review of these designated and sensitive categories and this could apply right on up. In the feds, they can’t do it and certainly deputy ministers --

Mr. Cassidy: Does the member agree the rights should be broadened?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Kennedy: I agree we should have a look at these categories and see where we stand. I believe there are inequities and they should be straightened out.

With those few comments, I speak to the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate and express my personal opinions on this important subject. Certainly, private members’ hour has on occasion dealt with items of particularly local consequence but this situation deals with a large number of people within the province and within the civil service. I regret no members of the cabinet are able to be with us this afternoon to at least be present for the debate. I trust they will at least take the comments we are going to make and study them for the value we see in them.

The subject of political rights for public servants has been discussed for many years. I’m pleased to see this bill introduced by the member for Ottawa Centre. I suppose if we were only dealing with a few persons we wouldn’t be as concerned about rights for a small group. But when we look back at the size of the civil service we find that in 1950 there were some 13,685 persons in the employ of the province. By 1960 this had grown to 32,302 and by 1970 to 62,280. By 1975 we are close to the 70,000 mark, so we are not dealing with just a few people. We are dealing with a substantial number of persons whose rights are being very carefully circumscribed, and indeed, basically denied.

Some years ago in Ontario we have seen -- and, I suppose, regularly each two years within the cities and states in the United States we continue to see -- the result of government changing from one political party to another, with the consequent wholesale personnel changes in many civil and public service areas. The example of the recent election in the city of Chicago and the use of hundreds, indeed thousands of civil servants as political ward heelers dependent upon the continuation of the Daley regime is of great interest to all of us.

Obviously the right to enter political life must be carefully guarded from becoming the requirement to participate in favour of the candidate for the government of the day. This bill clearly attempts to resolve that concern by the terms of section 3. I suggest overt or covert pressure upon civil servants, who have tenure of jobs which their American cousins do not have, would be met by informed members of the public service dealing with that kind of pressure with the scorn and avoidance it would deserve. So there is that safeguard from requiring someone to become involved just because that person has the right to become involved.

Public servants have been forced to be neutral because of the system which has grown up in Ontario, which gives job protection based on the clear understanding that the civil servant is to be impartial and work well and diligently for whomever the public elects to be the government of this province.

As, of course, we are approaching a provincial election the thought strikes the minds of us in the opposition that we might be called upon to have that responsibility. Therefore the civil servants would have to deal impartially with those who might replace their present masters. We certainly do not fear giving back to the public service the political rights which have been denied them over the years.

I commend the member for Ottawa Centre, and those who have been involved in the very careful drafting of this bill. The detailed covering of the various particular areas and the thought which has been given to safeguarding the civil servant from possible pressures of involvement which I’ve referred to, make the bill a model proposal, in my view.

It is understandable, of course, that some persons are going to remain political eunuchs in the society of Ontario. I suggest the class of deputy ministers and their equivalent opposite numbers on boards and commissions are certainly one group which should not actively campaign for a political party.

The second group referred to in the definition is described as “senior employees of the Crown or an agency with management or policy responsibilities.” This, I suggest, may give some difficulty in careful definition. I would suggest it might be worthwhile to look at the federal Public Service Act which defines the matter somewhat more broadly in section 32. I will not go into the section in detail but it is there for those who wish to look at this matter in somewhat greater depth.

This could be a flaw, I suppose. But careful definition would resolve the problem, and as the principle of the bill deals with the granting and maintenance of these rights to the large majority of civil servants, surely this minor point can be dealt with eventually.

As the bill deals with the problems of re-election, and has that five-year term which would allow a civil servant to return to his or her position if the electors decided to replace that person in a general election, then the whole problem of the loss of continuity rights which involvement in active public life would ordinarily call for, can be dealt with easily. Once there is a re-election, of course, the person has really made a decision to be involved in active public life. As a result, it is reasonable the civil service position would not be held open indefinitely. I think that problem has been attended to.

In addition, the situation of pension rights is also well covered. Certainly, it’s important the ability be there for a civil servant to pay up the pension rights of the one term that he or she has been in the Legislature so that, as the legislative pension payments are returned, the individual is no worse, or better off, than that person would have been by the serving of the one term, or by continuing in full time involvement in the civil service.

Mr. Speaker, as I have suggested, there is a problem in definition which I think can be overcome. Basically, we support the principle of the bill. We are quite prepared to abide by the publicity effect which would occur if some civil servant became required to involve himself, or herself, in politics rather than just having the right to do so, if that right was otherwise dealt with openly, and honestly, in accordance with the various parts of section 2.

The Civil Service Association, in its brief to the government on this subject, dealt with many of the concerns that now appear before us in the form of this bill. The various items that have been referred to by the member for Ottawa Centre are, I think, worthy of support. I personally feel the introduction of this bill and the bringing forward of this subject in debate are most worthwhile, as we look to the future encouragement of the involvement of all persons within our society in the various activities that a general election provides.

The member for Ottawa Centre has suggested there have been recent examples, indeed in all political parties, of persons whose rights are otherwise circumscribed by the present legislation. A bad law makes, of course, for a very difficult enforcement. Where the law has continued as it now does, surely the right of individuals to deal with areas not particularly sensitive to their own responsibility, but just as ordinary citizens, is the sort of thing which should be changed.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is a most worthwhile one. It brings forward a balanced view, and the matter of definition to which I referred, can be refined, but does not really affect the principle of the bill. I suggest this would be a good start for the operation of bringing civil servants openly, and with a proper balance, into the political life of the province. I certainly would encourage the House to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker: I note we have 21 minutes left for the three indicated speakers. Can they keep that in mind? Otherwise, we’ll carry on. The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise with enthusiasm to support this Act to provide political rights for public servants. It seems an anachronism that, in this day and age, we should have to have a bill before us providing political rights for public servants. That this right had not been extended long ago, is a matter of some concern to us all, and should be.

The position of the individual public servant has been ably, and comprehensively, placed by my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre. The other purposes and principles of the bill were to deal with the section which prohibits their bargaining agents from taking some political action, receiving money from public employees they represent, in order that they may take a stand on a particular issue or a particular piece of government policy or a particular stand which they would take. I would spend my time speaking on this issue.

However, before I do, there are a couple of remarks I would like to make on the remarks already made by those who have previously spoken, particularly the member for Peel South. He repeated, and therefore found very important, the phrase that public servants cannot serve two masters. Mr. Speaker, I find that very revealing. To me, what he is saying is if you are a public servant or a Crown employee, you are not serving the government of Ontario -- whichever political party is in office and directing government -- but are supporting the political party that at the time governs.

Mr. Kennedy: That is not what I mean.

Mr. Cassidy: Very clear.

Mr. Bounsall: That is what the member must mean by “how can he serve two masters.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bounsall: Then the member’s thinking is muddy on this, if that is not what he meant by serving two masters. You are not serving two masters by being a loyal servant of the government of Ontario -- whichever political party is turning the wheels of that government -- and at the same time by having your political rights to support a candidate of your choice. That is not serving two masters. That is doing your ordinary job for the government of Ontario, whoever runs it.

Mr. Kennedy: The government of the day.

Mr. Bounsall: Whoever runs it of the day, right? Whichever party runs it.

Mr. Cassidy: There you are again.

Mr. Bounsall: You are not an employee or a worker of that political party. You are a person who works for the government.

The government workers do not work in this instance for the Conservative Party. A worker who works for the government and then goes out and campaigns for either the Conservatives, the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Social Credit, the League for Socialist Action or the Communist Party, is not serving another master. They are making a political choice and they are going out and working for the candidate or the party of their choice. It has nothing to do with the fact that they work for the government.

Government employees are in fact in non-political jobs. This is what this bill makes very clear. They are not serving two masters if they are allowed to go out and campaign for a political party. For the individual this bill deletes all those objectionable sections from the Public Service Act which would make it illegal for him or her to canvass on behalf of a candidate or to solicit funds for a party.

It is doubtful, I suppose, whether they have the right to donate moneys themselves under their own name. But it certainly deletes that tremendously objectionable section that makes it illegal to speak or to write a letter to an editor on any matter that forms part of the platform of a provincial or federal political party. I can’t imagine how that was ever written into the Act in the first place -- even if there was some reluctance by the government of the time to have them campaigning for a political candidate.

I would like to point out the contrast at this point with what happens here and what happens in some other jurisdictions. I haven’t had the time, Mr. Speaker, to make a complete study of other jurisdictions but a press release came into my hands today concerning Premier Allan Blakeney in October, 1972, and his comments with respect to provincial civil servants participating in federal election campaigns. Premier Blakeney said he had received reports from several areas of the province that provincial government employees were uncertain about their right to take political sides by canvassing on behalf of a candidate of their choice or putting up window or lawn signs. Premier Blakeney said, and I quote:

“This government firmly believes that public employees should be first-class citizens. I wish to make it perfectly clear that this means freedom to take an active part in politics. This policy extends to employees of all Crown corporations, boards and commissions as well as to members of the public service.”

He prescribed only two conditions, Mr. Speaker: that the political activity be restricted to their non-working hours, which is quite reasonable -- this is contained in this bill -- and that the political activity not interfere with their ability to perform the job. These two conditions were hardly worth mentioning except to make his position very clear. Most government employees do not take time from their normal working hours to do campaigning. He simply said to do your government job in the daytime, or whenever that time period occurs, and you are completely free to go out and take any other political activity you wish beyond those hours.

The present Act, of course, does not allow Ontario civil servants to take part in federal elections. They should also have the right to take part in provincial elections with no restrictions placed upon them. With respect to the point that the bargaining agent for the civil servants would be severely restricted, this Act would remove that restriction and is eminently reasonable. It puts bargaining agents in a position where their membership could come to them and say, “We find that in the case of this particular piece of social legislation in our province, which is not at all associated with our job, we would like you on our behalf to take a stand on it.”

Every other bargaining agent that I know of in the Province of Ontario takes a stand at one time or another on the various social conditions of the day and the various social issues of the day. They feel not at all hesitant to do so. The membership feels not at all hesitant in asking them so to do on their behalf. Yet our civil servants, many of whom are in positions where they can see the results of a particular policy in a way that no other person can because they have to administer it, are denied the right to take a stand or to ask the body that represents them collectively to take a stand on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, this is the way I submit that it should be done and can best be done. But the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act forbids that.

When we were in the committee last February looking at the changes to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act with respect to bargaining, this topic came up. It came up on several occasions. At that time in the committee and since, the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler) indicated that political rights for the bargaining agent were actively under consideration with a view to changing the situation. I can’t quite recall his words, but I’m pretty sure his attitude was that the government was inclined to give employees some individual rights but was not sure that the bargaining agent should have that right.

Here in the House he has since said that it’s under consideration. A provincial election is imminent. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time is well in hand for these changes to be made for both civil servants and their bargaining agents to be able to take stands on issues. For example, I suspect from the conversations that took place in committee that in a community college its individual faculty association group on the community college campus, from the way the Act reads, can take collective action on behalf of its members in a political way when asked to do. Yet, the Crown employees’ province-wide agency is not allowed to.

It’s still not clear that a separate small unit, like a community college faculty, can collectively take political action. That is still not clear. This bill would spell that out. It appeared that this might be the case. We had this anomaly of one small faculty group being able to take a stand, but the larger bargaining agent not being able to take a stand. We have hedged that bargaining agent’s stands rather carefully in this bill. It says no employee organization or their bargaining agent “can require as a condition of membership, payment by any of its members who are public servants of any money for activities carried on by, or on behalf of, a political party or candidate.”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Bounsall: I’ll just finish up briefly, Mr. Speaker. We have carefully restricted the areas in which their bargaining agents can speak on their behalf, but the bill leaves them complete freedom to speak on issues when the membership requests them so to do. Surely we would like that right given. It’s only reasonable for that right to be given to the bargaining agent representing all these employees in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to make some comments in regard to Bill 71. I always look at it when a member introduces a private bill and think that it takes initiative to do this and his ideas are no doubt constructive. But I would just like to make some comments.

As my colleague has indicated, the existing provisions in the Public Service Act serve to protect the individual employee as much as they protect the basic integrity of the public service in Ontario. Let us, for a moment, suggest that the provisions of Bill 71 were in full force throughout Ontario’s public service with the exception noted in the hon. member’s bill. What could be their practical effects in the day-to-day administration of provincial affairs? Assume that in the Correctional Services Ministry we have a nursing adviser in the health service division whose politics are totally and diametrically opposed --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Doesn’t the member think he should write his own speeches?

Mr. Gilbertson: -- to the politics of an assistant executive director. Let us assume that both employees are ardent supporters of these parties. The nursing adviser belongs to party C, where the assistant executive director belongs to party B. Party B happens to be in power and the nursing adviser is planning to become a candidate of Party C in the next election.

The questions are: What kind of work environment exists when the political preferences amongst employees is well known to all employees of a ministry’s division? Do employee relations remain unaffected? Can party politics leave staff morale untouched? Are the decisions regarding job promotions still made on an as objective and scientific basis as possible?

Mr. Cassidy: Do the Tories want to take political rights away from all employees of the province? That’s what the member is saying.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gilbertson: There are many questions to be asked and answers sought --

Mr. Cassidy: They would take the initiative from the private sector as well.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- when the doors of the public service are opened carte blanche.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Carried.

Mr. Gilbertson: I sincerely believe that no real leadership can result in such a climate of divided loyalties and emotional and psychological conflicts. I realize that this bill prohibits employees from engaging in political activities during working hours --

Mr. Stokes: Really!

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Algoma is a doughty foot soldier.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- but who is going to monitor that prohibition? What most concerns me about the wide-open possibilities of party politics penetrating the public service are the -- I’m going to need help with the next word --

Mr. Cassidy: Deleterious. He can’t say it properly.

Mr. Gilbertson: Thank you -- the deleterious effects which party politics would have on job performance. Public servants like to socialize as much as anyone, and it is only natural to expect that people will discuss every subject under the sun. So why not party politics?

What emerges is a work environment in which normal social relations can lead to a highly unattractive work place. It is a well-known fact of public administration that good social and human relations help in the attainment of the organization’s stated goals. Think how these official goals suffer in a work environment beset with the strife of party politics.

What we need to realize is that the introduction of party politics into the public service means we create the potential for political interference with the implementation of public policy, not just the formulation of public policy.

Extending political rights to every public servant below senior policy-making levels leads to the appearance of partnership in the eye of the public, the real employers of public servants. What is important to remember in this case is that execution of public policy must not only be done but appear to be done. In that respect, public policy operates in the same realm of standards.

Above all, the matter of confidentiality in government communications become of overwhelming significance --

Mr. Cassidy: That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. That is covered by the oath of office and it is in the bill as well.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- and a civil servant who is actively assisting in the election of a member may very frequently have access to information that may be particularly useful, whether it be damaging to the opponent or beneficial to the candidate he supports.

Mr. Cassidy: The member hasn’t read the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gilbertson: Employees who have access --

Mr. Cassidy: He didn’t read his speech either.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- to sensitive and confidential data could potentially use this information --

Mr. Stokes: That’s questionable. I know he never read it.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- in a partisan, political way to embarrass a political opponent or the government. Should political activity by civil servants become an acceptable practice, political influence on behalf of such civil servants could become a common practice.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s also a slur on civil servants -- suggesting they would break their oath of office.

Mr. Gilbertson: To my way of thinking the existing provisions of the Public Service Act protect the individual employee, the employee-supervisor relations and the overall integrity of Ontario’s public service. To open the civil service to these political rights would, in effect, serve no good purpose. The merit principle upon which our fine public service is built would suffer unnecessarily. This relationship would be adverse to the public institution of government. It would make for bad law and countless conflicts of interest of every variety.

Mr. Stokes: Is he for or against?

Mr. Speaker: We do have one more speaker.

Mr. Gilbertson: There are a lot of good points in the bill, I must say.

Mr. Cassidy: His reading was a tour de force.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to support this bill. I think it is an excellent bill and it is bringing matters into the latter part of the 20th century in a way that I think it should be done.

I was disappointed to have the member for Peel South and the member for Algoma go into the position that they are taking, because it is just not reality today. I think we have a little more honesty, a little more recognition that partisanship is healthy and does not interfere with good relationships, whether it is in business or in government.

My experience with ministers has been that very seldom have I encountered partisanship in dealing honestly with a question of the day, and I don’t think we will find it in civil servants either. They are just as able to do the same thing. My experience in business is that I find some of the healthiest companies are companies where we have people with very different political positions and activities. They take very strong opposite points of view and it is healthy.

The main thing is that this bill brings it out in the open. It makes it honest and sets out the guidelines for it, where it will not really conflict with good and practical common sense. I think, as was mentioned by my colleague, a clear definition of just who may participate and who may not should be set out in any bill when it is ultimately brought in, but the main points are there. My own experience in my political activities has been that some of the best people I have had in my organization have been people who ultimately have been unable to participate actively and openly because of promotion in government, but who, I know, could make a contribution, not only as civil servants in their ordinary working day but also in the evening, through helping to improve and direct realistically policies that opposing parties may make.

I think this is a very healthy thing and I would urge that the government recognizes the reality of the situation. Let’s get away from the sneaky back room and make activities of civil servants open and honest and above board, where they can contribute in their special knowledgeable way toward better government of this province.

An hon. member: That was inspiring.

Mr. Cassidy: Let’s have a vote on it, Mr. Speaker.

Clerk of the House: The 13th order, House in committee of supply.

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