Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

BEEF CATTLE MARKETING ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of Bill 91, An Act to amend the Beef Cattle Marketing Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Beef cattle?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments with respect to this bill. We are going to oppose the bill. The provisions of this Act mean that the Ontario Beef Improvement Association will, over the period of perhaps several years, be accorded a 150 per cent increase in the checkoff. I realize that they cannot take in excess of 10 cents in any 12-month period. That means that it could go to 25 cents this year, 35 cents next year and 45 cents the following year, so that in three years it could be up to the maximum level.

As I understood it, last year there was $171,730 taken in by way of this particular checkoff, which was, at that point, 15 cents per head; $7,814 was refunded, so that the Beef Improvement Association had $163,916 with which to work.

I recognize, like all other organizations and all other companies and all other individuals, that inflation today is making it tougher to make the dollar stretch. At the same time, I am very concerned as to the use to which this particular money is put. In three years time, if the maximum amount of 45 cents was attained in respect of the checkoff, it would mean that the Ontario Beef Improvement Association would have at its disposal $359,525. It’s a lot of money. It’s getting close to half a million dollars.

As far as I am concerned, I am not too aware of what the Beef Improvement Association does with this money, other than having an educational programme in some of the schools. They put out some material to some of the schools. They use the money, as I understand it, for what might be termed social functions. They take bus trips to the United States, to other parts of the province or even to other parts of Canada and, as I understand it, checkoff money is used for these purposes.

In many cases I think those trips are more social than educational for many of these people. I suppose the visits which they undertake are good in themselves, but most of the people going on the trip know as much about the operation of a beef farm as anyone, anywhere. Because most of them -- and this has been an accusation that has been made a number of times on the back concessions -- a lot of the beef improvement executive people are elitist. They are the top of the heap, so to speak; they are big operators; they are well-heeled operators, in some cases; and they don’t reflect the views of the little man on the back concession.

So I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, how this money is used and for what purposes. I suppose my brief -- or, to put it in quotation marks, my “beef” -- is more with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association than it is with the Ontario Beef Improvement Association because, as I understand it, 35 to 40 per cent of the checkoff money that is taken in goes to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.

As far as I am concerned, I was very disappointed in the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association when they fought against the marketing legislation that was brought forward by Mr. Whelan a couple of years ago --

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Those are the guys who held it up.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They held it up for months.

Mr. Gaunt: They held it up for months.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Even though the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) wanted it to go through.

Mr. Gaunt: They held it up for months. They distorted the facts. They were out and about, conducting themselves in what I would term a very unreasonable and irrational fashion. They knew full well that the legislation was permissive, and yet they were saying that this was going to involve the beef producers.

I’m very well aware that beef producers are free enterprise people par excellence, and that they don’t want any part of marketing boards or what have you. That’s their decision. That’s their right. I am not complaining about that. All I am saying is, when they take that position themselves, they have no right to foist that opinion on to somebody else. And that’s exactly what they were trying to do in that instance.

As far as the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association are concerned, I consider them quite a reactionary group; and I think that particular action and that particular activity which they undertook destroyed their credibility.

I must say I am surprised that the minister, who is a strong proponent of orderly marketing, is now providing funds to a group that is a strong opponent of orderly marketing, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. Now it’s not being done in a direct way, but it’s certainly being done in an indirect fashion. Because 40 per cent of the checkoff moneys that will be provided under the terms of this bill will go to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, a group that is dominated by Alberta, in my view.

I know Ontario has its representatives on that board, but by the time Jack Horner and his lackeys get going within that organization, why, they seem to be able to overpower the Ontario people. I think it’s fair to say it is an organization dominated by Alberta, if not in terms of numbers, certainly in terms of actions and the opinions expressed and so on.

I think we must have a better indication of what the Ontario Beef Improvement Association intends to do with these moneys and how these moneys are going to be spent. I think we also have to have a better indication that this particular action is supported by the average beef farmer in the Province of Ontario. I know the minister is going to come back and say, “This action was supported by every county. It was supported at the annual meeting of the Ontario Beef Improvement Association,” which is true. I think there were a few dissenting voices, one in particular I know of, but by and large that’s true. It was supported there.

What I am really saying is I am questioning whether the executive really reflects the attitudes of the ordinary middle-sized and small beef producer in the Province of Ontario. I know there are a few people with whom I have talked in the last few days, aside from the farm union people, who oppose the principle of this bill. There are others who feel this money hasn’t been well spent in the past and, when it’s increased, won’t be well spent in the future. It won’t be spent in a way which is in keeping with the best interests of all beef producers in this province.

Perhaps the only accurate way in which to assess this is to put the matter to a plebiscite. I know the minister would resist that but perhaps that’s the only entirely accurate way to determine the feeling in the country, of all beef producers. As I say, I am sure the minister would resist that approach but I say to him, as far as we are concerned, I think it only fair that this particular bill go to the standing committee so that the farm organizations, the Ontario Beef Improvement Association, other interested parties and farmers generally can come in and express their views with respect to this particular bill and to the increase which is being sought under the terms of the bill. It seems to me that is a fair proposition. It’s one which should be supported on all sides and I feel the minister would be well advised to take that approach.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. We in the New Democratic Party are opposed. We shall vote against it and we will call a recorded vote because I think it’s time the minister and the Conservative Party, in their support of this, should stand up and be counted. Having stated my conclusion, let me go back and tell the members why I come to that conclusion.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The member needn’t say more now.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, sometimes one has a rationale to the conclusions and maybe the rationale will give the member a guide for the future on similar kinds of occasions. The second reading of a bill gives me an opportunity to discuss the principle of the bill and I want to make a comment at the outset with regard to a general principle in terms of financing what I would describe as economic organizations of the people.

We, in the New Democratic Party, feel that the economic organizations of the people, whether they be on the labour front, in the industrial world or whether they be on the farm front are entitled to economic security. The proposition that they should be hanging on the cliff, so to speak, all the time with regard to economic survival so they can’t go out to do the job in terms of representing their people seems to me to be an indefensible proposition.

It’s the kind of situation which is usually thrust upon economic organizations of the people to keep them semi-immobilized so that they can’t fulfill their role in the marketplace. As a general proposition we are not opposed to whatever is the most effective way of financing an economic organization, whether it be a marketing organization on the farm front, or a producers’ organization, or whether it be an industrial workers’ organization. The only rider I would put to that, Mr. Speaker, is that obviously the decision as to how it shall be financed should be as democratic a decision as possible.

I say as democratic as possible because every organization varies in its nature, its structure and its organization, and to get a sort of perfect democratic expression of views sometimes is difficult, indeed, sometimes is impossible. So I am not asking for perfection, but it seems to me that one should have some assurance that the decision is one which reflects accurately and with some assurance the majority of the people who are going to have to pay, to subscribe, to provide the money, for the economic sustenance of this organization.

Having stated those general principles, I come to the specific instance, and my curiosity is aroused, quite frankly, almost beyond control. I am curious as to what in heaven’s name the minister is up to. Why would the minister bring into the House today a bill which is, in effect, going to triple within a period of three years the levy which the Beef Improvement Association in the Province of Ontario can raise on every single head of beef cattle which is marketed in this province?

Mr. Haggerty: To 45 cents.

Mr. MacDonald: Why would he do it? Why 45 cents instead of 15? It can only go up 10 cents a year so it may be three years before the full 45 cents can be reached. Why does he do it? Because, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce, I know of no organization of agricultural producers in this province and in this country which has been more vigorously and more consistently opposed to orderly marketing. In fact, as has already been pointed out, the minister himself was very loud in trying to counter the objections to the legislation for the establishment of national marketing, and obviously at the federal level at least, the government at the top level, through the Minister of Agriculture, was leading the battle and leading the fight to get national marketing schemes.

Yet here is the minister coming along and suggesting that we should, in effect, triple in a three-year period the finances of an organization whose record proves that they are going to spend that money and they are going to use their membership, whether they agree or not, to frustrate the development of orderly marketing in this country. The minister is constantly prating about the need for defending marketing procedures and defending the marketing strength of producers in order to better the economic position of the farmers. Yet now he comes in and wants to provide money to support the enemies of orderly marketing. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I just don’t understand what the minister is up to.

Mr. Haggerty: He is in bed with Jack Horner.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, it may be that he is in bed with Horner; blood runs thicker than convictions when it comes to the farmers. I have found that before, sometimes, in terms of Tories. I remember one time attending a Federation of Agriculture convention in which somebody challenged the then Minister of Agriculture, who happened to be Mr. Goodfellow, with regard to whether or not he was going to stand up and back marketing legislation and support farmers when they wanted to exercise its power. And the comment he made was: “There are two kinds of farmers -- those who farm and those who farm the farmers.”

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Shame. Shame.

Mr. MacDonald: I know of no group which farms the farmers more than the Beef Improvement Association, and particularly the Cattlemen’s Association; the group at the top which is exploiting the majority of the membership for its own purpose.

However, as has been indicated already by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce, the minister’s reply is likely going to be that every county federation passed a resolution and there seems to be some consensus in the ranks of the Beef Improvement Association that they want this increase.

Well I want to remind the House, without rubbing it in too deeply -- not too much salt in the wound but just a little -- of the experience the minister has just gone through. This is digressing momentarily, Mr. Speaker, from the substance of this bill, but it is illustrative of the kind of thing the minister is now going to argue and now going to do.

A few years ago the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association passed a resolution in which they asked this government to bring in regulations -- admittedly after an adequate time spell to get rid of old containers -- that they should use only cardboard containers and they should be used only once. After two or three years of that practice some measure of objection grew up in the ranks of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how widespread it was. I do know that those who happened to represent that view tended not to get elected as delegates to their annual meeting.

I do know, for example, in Essex county, which is the riding of the hon. member for Essex South, that the joint representatives of their growers unanimously expressed opposition to this regulation -- unanimously expressed opposition to it. And yet the man who acted as their spokesman was persuaded to change his mind, so even the Essex county group went along with the proposition of maintaining the old regulation with regard to containers.

When I gave voice -- as did some of the members from the Liberal Party last year -- to this grassroots suggestion, the minister, perhaps a little ill-advisedly -- but he was being very honest -- said, and it’s on the record in Hansard, “I was never persuaded from the outset it was really necessary,” or words to that effect.

I want to say to the minister that he shouldn’t be an automatic rubber stamp, that if any farm organization passes a so-called unanimous vote wanting something to be done he still has not only the right, but the obligation, to exercise his own judgement. And just as a few years ago he took refuge in the fact that he accepted as a dictate, so to speak, the vote from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association when he didn’t agree with it himself.

Then what happened this year -- very fascinating -- after the farm and country, and after the minister, and after the executive of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, and certain of their spokesmen at the annual convention browbeat me and others who chose to give voice to that objection in the ranks of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, the minister himself joined in the cry. And the minister himself this year changed the regulations. So, today, innocently, there is brought in without very much fanfare, and with no TV coverage, the proposition that cardboard containers don’t have to be used. And they don’t have to be used only once. He brought in the general phrase that they must be wholesome, and if that is the case, then they are acceptable.

Okay, let me get back into the substance of this bill.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Does the member agree with that?

Mr. MacDonald: I agree with it, right.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Why doesn’t the member say so?

Mr. MacDonald: But why did the minister join all those who were browbeating me when I was giving voice to those objections? I don’t need to put on the record that I agreed with it. I said last year that I wasn’t persuaded it was necessary, but I get a little bit peeved at the minister who gets up and chastises all those who were giving voice to a grassroots view, which he himself agrees with, and then, a few months later, he quietly changes it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He does that when he’s not sure of himself.

Mr. MacDonald: In this instance, to be fair to the minister, he was sure of himself. He admitted it in the House as quickly as it was raised last year. Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to spend any more time on this. I am bringing this in as an illustration.

What I want to ask of the minister is this, does he really agree with the decision of the Beef Improvement Association that it’s entitled to get three times as much money as it is now getting? Does he really agree with an organization whose whole thrust from its leadership and the whole exercise of its finances has been to destroy orderly marketing, which he says is the desperate need of the farmers? Does he think he is being consistent in giving them the money to frustrate what he was seeking in terms of objectives for farm policies in the Province of Ontario?

Has he any assurance that the 35 per cent of the money he is now going to authorize isn’t going to be passed on to Jack Horner and company, who are free-enterprise madmen? They’re living in the 19th century. They and the oilmen of Calgary haven’t a clue as to what’s happening in the 20th century. They just have no concept of orderly marketing and no concept of a co-operative effort in terms of producers.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): They don’t like the Premier (Mr. Davis) either.

Mr. MacDonald: Does he want to support these people to frustrate his own policies?

Mr. Worton: They don’t even like the Premier.

Mr. MacDonald: Those are a lot of questions that the minister should answer, and don’t let the minister get up and for one split-second say, “I’m doing it because the Beef Improvement Association said that they wanted it, and their decision is, in effect, my dictate,” because that’s nonsense, and the minister’s record in the past year has proved it to be nonsense.

However, Mr. Speaker, there are a few other things that should be borne in mind. To my knowledge, there has been no plebiscite. There has been no effort to sort of canvass or survey the views of the beef people in the Province of Ontario -- other than at an annual meeting where one tends to have an elitist group which controls that organization -- to find out what they think of the original, the existing, rather narrow limits or limited checkoff authorized under the legislation.

This is where I get back to the second principle which I enunciated. I am opposed to this increase going to the Beef Improvement Association because it is not a genuine representative of primary producers in the Province of Ontario. In no sense of the word is it an economic organization of the people. The Beef Improvement Association is an elitist group. It is the few big beef producers who dominate the medium and the small beef producers and in turn dominate to the point of virtual dictation.

The 17,000, 18,000 or 19,000 dairy producers in the Province of Ontario who, on occasion, have to market beef have no chance to express their views. Don’t let the minister for one moment get up and suggest the proof of the acceptance of the original check-off is the fact as it was pointed out by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce, that only about four per cent of the money is claimed. I don’t know whether all the members of the House are aware that this checkoff is an automatic checkoff but any farmer who wants to seeks a refund can send in a letter within the prescribed time and can get the refund.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s like the NDP checkoff with the UAW.

Mr. MacDonald: My good friend walked into that trap.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not at all. It’s exactly the same.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The member for York South doesn’t get that one back.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: The member walked into that trap. What I would like to know is whose side is he on in this issue?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’m against the bill and I’m against the NDP too.

Mr. Eaton: He doesn’t get that one back, does he?

Mr. MacDonald: Okay. Let me engage in a little education.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’t give us all this high and mighty filibuster about the right to opt out.

Mr. MacDonald: Let me engage in a little education for the Leader of the Opposition and that other ignorant person over there in terms of this issue!

An hon. member: On the bill, of course.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. MacDonald: I said ignorant person in terms of this issue and on this issue he is ignorant.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for York South is like the Minister of Agriculture. He gets exercised when he is on weak ground.

Mr. MacDonald: I’m not on weak ground. I’m on very firm ground.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s one point he shouldn’t have raised.

Mr. MacDonald: Right, and I shall explain it, Mr. Speaker, since there has been such a reaction. No decision of a union to affiliate with the New Democratic Party is made without a vote in the local union.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, and it is the elite of the union which makes the decision. It is very similar. A handful of the top fellows and everybody else stays away.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am forced to say the hon. Leader of the Opposition is proving himself to be more ignorant than the hon. member for Middlesex South.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: My gosh, I must have hit a nerve.

Mr. MacDonald: I’m only going to spend about half a minute on this, Mr. Speaker, because it is off the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: No meeting is called until all of the membership are notified. All of the membership have the right to come. All of the membership have the right to vote.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are all notified and they stay away in droves.

Mr. Speaker: I know the hon. member is defending his honour --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the member think he has won that point?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I did win that point.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): One corporation gives more to the Liberals than we get from all the trade unions together.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s one point the member shouldn’t have raised.

Mr. MacDonald: Who was it who said the other day -- it was one of the construction companies -- that they gave an equal amount to both the Liberal and the Conservative parties? I would be curious to know how much, even of the directors let alone the shareholders.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did they say that?

Mr. MacDonald: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I can’t believe it.

Mr. Young: The shareholders have nothing to say about it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Now --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Back to the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Speaker, with your help in restoring order we will get back to the substance of the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: What I was saying was that only about four per cent of the people seek a refund, in part because of the inconvenience. The inconvenience is very great because a significant proportion of the cattle marketed are marketed in small amounts by the 18,000 or 20,000 dairymen in the Province of Ontario. If they happen to market four or five head at a time, what are they going to do? Are they going to reclaim 90 cents or $1 or $1.50 and send in for it? Of course, they aren’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is just like a nickel a month. It is not worth saving.

Mr. MacDonald: The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that when a certain number of people -- as reflected in a letter that the minister got from Walter Miller about a month or so ago -- sought to have the refunds made, they ran into a lot of obstacles.

It reminds me of the time that Leslie Frost, God rest his soul, explained why he wasn’t particularly friendly to insurance companies. He apparently had paid in for 40 years to an insurance company on some accident benefit programme. He had a little accident, and so he wrote in for a claim after 40 years. After he had an exchange of about five letters trying to get a little claim after 40 years of payments, he said -- well, I won’t tell you what he said privately, but I will tell you what he said publicly. He said this to the same people who came in and talked in opposition to public hospital insurance, because all the roadblocks were raised in terms of a legitimate payment in the instance of insurance and all the roadblocks are raised in terms of payment of a refund.

Now the minister knew he was on delicate ground. Therefore, when one of the members of the Liberal Party raised it, and I subsequently raised it, the minister was quite vigorous in stating that on no conditions would there be any difficulties in getting a refund. Well, there have been difficulties. And the minister has to face the fact that the great majority of the farmers in the Province of Ontario have experienced those difficulties --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: -- and therefore they make up the majority of the people who had doubts, if they were not actually opposed to the original level of a checkoff, and certainly who are opposed to the proposed tripling of the level of the checkoff.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is some obligation on the part of the minister to seek clarification as to what the producers of beef in the Province of Ontario want.

It has been suggested that there should be a plebiscite. Well, I know what is going to happen. The minister will dismiss that out of hand. That would take too long and be too costly. It would divide the province. The minister has suffered rather badly on plebiscites in recent years in the Province of Ontario.

But I want to suggest an alternative. If the minister is confident that this bill has the support of the majority of the beef producers in the Province of Ontario, I think instead of passing it here -- when most of them didn’t even know it was going to come in -- I have had literally 25 or 30 telephone calls in the last couple of days; I have a couple of telegrams on my desk here that came in today from people who are opposed, who didn’t even know it was going to come in --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: -- and that being the case, Mr. Speaker, I think there is an obligation on the part of the minister to refer this bill to a committee and to give farm organizations an opportunity to come and make representation. Not only farm organizations, but individual farmers; because particularly with regard to beef representation in their organization in the Beef Improvement Association, I don’t think that the elitest group at the top is representative of the great rank and file.

That is the reason why I came to the conclusion which I enunciated at the outset that we are opposed to this bill. And we will divide the House just to find out where some of you on that side of the House are.

In fact, I am almost tempted to say as a final word: What is the reason for the minister bringing in this bill at this point? What is the relationship between the minister and the Conservative Party and the Ontario Beef Improvement Association and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association in this country that he is taking the action to do something that I hope in his heart of hearts he is opposed to?

If the minister is in favour of orderly marketing he is not going to come in and provide legislative authority for financing people who are fighting day in and day out against orderly marketing. He just simply can’t do it and be consistent. He can’t do it without being a hypocrite.

So I ask the question: What is there in the relationship between the Conservative Party and these elitist groups at the top of the beef producers’ association that the minister should bring in a bill at this time which is going to frustrate his stated objectives that he preaches about and praises across the Province of Ontario normally? I would be curious for the minister to reply rather specifically to that, rather than vaguely.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Don’t worry. He will.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know whether I could say anything more than what has already been said about Bill 91, but I could perhaps deal a little more specifically with the income and expenditures of the Ontario Beef Improvement Association. But before so doing, I would like to say to the minister that I am sure he probably has mixed reactions to this bill, as we certainly have on this side of the House.

I might say that a lot of the opposition is coming from that segment of the farm fraternity which he wishes to ignore, but by the same token they are farmers. I still think that they have to be heard. Of course, these people are against compulsory checkoffs in the first place. Really, it is a compulsory checkoff. Granted, farmers can apply for a refund, but you know and I know that they are too busy to be making applications for a refund every time they market cattle, or even if this is a once-a-year refund.

Farmers are people who do not want to be bothered with what they might call trivialities. They have got too many other things to do, and even though four per cent of the income taken in by OBIA was refunded, I am sure a lot more money would be refunded if farmers wanted to take the time. As the member for York South said, it certainly is an inconvenience to farmers to apply for a rebate.

Now, back in 1963, when I think the OBIA was formed, at that time they received a $20,000 grant from the provincial government -- $10,000 of which was used to offset administrative costs. I believe another $10,000 was actually sent to the various county associations to do as they saw fit.

Of course, they were to spend the money in the best interests of the producer to promote the consumption of beef. I have had a bit of experience working with farmers in one position or another, and I know full well that in many cases money was used to sponsor social activities or trips to parts of Ontario or into the US to observe feedlots. And if you took a look at these farmers who were taking trips, they were successful feedlot operators in their own right. They probably could not learn too much by going down and visiting some of the feedlots in the US.

Furthermore, the feedlots visited were push-button-type operations that only the elitist group could afford. There is absolutely no sense in taking the back-concession beef producer on a trip to the US to look at a push-button operation when you know full well that the chances are remote that he is ever going to be able to afford that kind of an overhead.

So I maintain that money was not well spent. And here we are asking for more money to carry out more social activities, and I have yet to see where much of that money designated to beef promotional programmes has gone.

In 1968 the checkoff was started. At that time it was 10 cents per head, and I believe just last year it was increased to its maximum, as set out by the Act, to 15 per cents a head. Now we are asking for 45 cents a head over a period of three years, and you can be assured that the Ontario Beef Improvement Association will be asking for that 45 cents in three years. Again, I have yet to see that money being put to the best use of all beef producers in general.

In 1968-1972, the income of the Ontario Beef Improvement Association amounted to about $130,000. In 1973, it went up to about $170,000, due to the 15-cent checkoff in place of 10 cents formerly. For 1974, I understand, the projected income is in the neighbourhood of $200,000.

Now 30 to 35 per cent of that goes to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. I have a lot of things I could say about the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association because I can well remember when I was associated with the terminal market here in Toronto. The secretary-manager of that association at the time was very intent on seeing that the cattle were marketed direct to the packers on either a live-weight or preferably according to him, on a dressed-weight basis which would mean that the small community sales would cease to function and really the terminal market would have no other part to play but in the marketing of feeder cattle.

To my way of thinking he was trying to destroy competitive marketing by eliminating two very important types of markets. By golly, if our money is going to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association so they can cater to their packer friends I certainly can’t justify any income, let alone an increase, for the Ontario Beef Improvement Association if this is the way it is being spent.

If we assume that 35 per cent of this is going to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association that amounts to $70,000. I am using the projected figure of $200,000 for this year. I understand that $300,000 is sent from the OBIA to each county association. I believe there are four county associations so --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Not $300,000.

Mr. Riddell: No, $300; did I say $300,000? Pardon me -- $300 is sent to each county association. There are 40 of them so this amounts to $12,000. This leaves a disposable income, as far as the Ontario Beef Improvement Association is concerned, of $118,000. I understand that last year about $20,000 of that money was used for beef promotional programmes -- consumer education; looking into transportation of cattle from the west; and what have you. If this money was being spent for that purpose I would say all well and good but this represents 20 per cent of the disposable income of the OBIA. For the life of me, I can’t see how $98,000 is required for the administrative costs and only 20 per cent of the disposable income is used for the main purpose of this checkoff.

I have looked into this matter a little bit. I understand that some of the money has been spent on billboard type advertising and to my way of thinking this is an utter waste of money. It is an expensive way of trying to advertise a beef product. Therefore, I think this means of trying to promote beef, along with the many different social functions held and the many trips taken down into the States to some of these very expensive feedlot operations is not using the money wisely. The back concession farmer or the small beef producer is not gaining any benefit whatsoever from the programme as far as I am concerned. I have yet to be shown that the OBIA or the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association have really done a great deal to benefit the small producer in Ontario or in Canada for that matter.

I quite agree that probably one of the main emphases of the type of programme they have been carrying out is trying to improve the transportation of cattle from the west to the east. If they have made some improvements, I say it is time that such improvements were made but when one looks at the figures here and sees that only 20 per cent of the income from this checkoff is used for such purposes as improving transportation of or promoting beef, I don’t think we can really justify a compulsory type checkoff. Certainly I don’t see how we can justify an increase from 15 cents to 45 cents over a period of three years.

I, too, would like to see this sent to a committee to allow the farmer-producer organizations to come in and voice their opinions before we make any rash decisions at this time. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a few words. I don’t want to re-echo what was said by the hon. members for Huron-Bruce, Huron and York South, but I do want to say that over the last few days I was greatly surprised to receive so many telephone calls, not only from the farm union, but also from the Ontario Beef Improvement Association and the small beef producers in this province. I might say, it seems to be quite a concern to the small producers on account of the actions last spring of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and what they tried to do to prevent Hon. Eugene Whelan from doing something for the beef industry in this province.

I want to say, in view of the concern of so many small producers, it seems to me that he would be very well advised to have this bill sent to the standing committee that deals with agriculture and let those organizations appear before that committee and outline to us their views and their problems. Then I think we would be in a better position to decide what action we would take.

Our critic on agriculture said we were going to vote against the bill, but I would like to see the minister send this to the standing committee on agriculture which would give all those organizations an opportunity to appear before the committee to express their views, and maybe we would benefit greatly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, one of the things that concerns me about the legislation that was brought before us a few days ago is the lack of information that has gone out to the farmers on the concessions concerning this. It’s true Walter Miller of the farm union has contacted many of us, undoubtedly, on all sides but there have been others who have expressed their views. I’ve noticed that many of them, in so doing, said they haven’t heard about this before.

We are aware, as is the minister, from the very time when marketing boards were very much coming to the fore, and hardly a session of the Legislature went by but that we were concerned with the establishment of another marketing board or amendments to the various marketing boards, that the beef producers are very much against that type of marketing. I’ve never been able to understand why they are so strongly against it other than that they are, by nature, an independent breed of men, and we’ve got to give them a lot of credit for that. Also, they have not been subject to the vicissitudes of the market to quite the same extent as were the white bean producers, for example, or the milk producers which I was at one time. The tobacco producers and others were thankful to have legislation brought forward which would bring some order into the marketing mechanism that they had been subjected to for so many years.

I’ve had the position put to me very strongly by constituents as well as people from across the province against any strengthening of the marketing mechanism that pertains to beef. I personally often disagree with the position but this is their right to express their views to me, as I’m sure they have expressed their views to the minister -- and he himself, of course, is a beef producer -- in this regard. One of the things that has surprised me is the strength of the reaction against the proposal in this bill. I know that the minister gets a lot of advice and he forms his opinion and he has always done so independently. As the member for York South said very effectively indeed, his philosophical commitment has been toward orderly marketing. We use that phrase I suppose to mean marketing board-style marketing where the peaks and the valleys are theoretically, if not ironed out, at least moderated and the farmers in that particular aspect of the agricultural industry can make some rational commitments to their production. The strength of the organization under those circumstances is usually based on a stronger democratic base than the one upon which we are dealing here tonight.

But the minister of course is subject, just as we all are, to the views of those people who are directly concerned. I’ve seen the representatives of the Ontario Beef Improvement Association in the gallery this afternoon and they are here tonight, which is their right. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt that probably the minister had a steak with them. I don’t know whether they bought or he bought, and that doesn’t make any difference because they’re good friends of his and certainly we have had the advantage of their advice as well.

One thing that bothers me, and I might as well get this off my chest, is that the member for Middlesex South, Mr. Speaker, seems to be beating a path from the minister’s righthand ear up into the gallery to see what they think about that particular statement and that particular comment. I would be the last to say that the minister hasn’t demonstrated his independence over the years. He’s shown his ability to make right and wrong decisions. Sometimes his political temperament has led him across one boundary or another, and it may even happen again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mostly right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that his parliamentary assistant should have something better to do than simply run errands for the minister as he decides what the proper response is to the hon. member for Huron-Bruce, and the hon. member for Huron, and the hon. member for Kent, and the hon. member from the green fields of York South, who spoke very well in this regard.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): You have got to start somewhere. Many successful people started as errand boys.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): A good parliamentary assistant is on the job all the time doing things for people.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t want to raise a personal point, but I know the minister is independent. But we have had it put across before. Why is he taking this action? I say the same thing, there’s no doubt that the beef improvement people are the elite of the beef community. I know some of them. I know what fantastically efficient production they have, and the tremendous leadership that they have exerted in the development of the breed.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Trying to ride both sides of the fence?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member doesn’t like it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But you know, the people who pay the money into this are, I suppose, the Holstein breeders who maybe save some of their bulls, or breed their heifers to Angus bulls, and they find that they have this checkoff. It’s no good to them at all. Now, from their experience in milk marketing, they would be delighted to have a beef marketing board which would have a direct representation for their benefit. And I suppose I express my own prejudice in that regard. But I would just like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we wonder why the minister is taking this particular position.

Certainly, if you’re going to have a democratic, orderly marketing procedure it should be properly funded. But to bring in a bill that is going to expand their revenues under these circumstances --

Mr. Haggerty: Opposed to marketing?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- by 300 per cent, with no notice to the farmers concerned seems to fly in the face of everything the Minister of Agriculture and Food has said since I was first exposed to his philosophy, and his charm, as long ago as 1961. He may remember some of those circumstances.

So, we’re concerned with the bill. And I’m always amazed when a person in this House can make something completely black or completely white. The hon. member for York South has a great facility for this. Everything is either all bad or all good. I can see the arguments -- maybe this is a failing of mine -- on both sides of this position. I really can.

We believe that if there’s going to be a marketing mechanism, it should be adequately funded. We’re not in support of all of the aspects of this marketing system. We feel that it falls dramatically short of what could be established if the beef farmers wanted it, and if they had a good opportunity to establish it. But to bring in this legislation without consultation of any significant level at all, we find insupportable.

One of the things that could be done, as my colleagues have mentioned, is that the bill would go to a standing committee with enough time allotted so that farmers could come in and express their views. Why not? The reason why not is that we’re hoping to adjourn in a few days. The farmers are as busy as the devil, if it ever stops raining they will be even busier.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are not.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We’ll stay as long as the Leader of the Opposition wants.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We’ll be here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, and I’ll be here, too, and I can outwait the minister on anything he wants to bring forward. Maybe, we’ll deal with that later tonight, but I doubt it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’ll be here. I’m in no hurry. He’s out of his field with the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister’s got us in a mousetrap. Sure, we can suggest that it go to the standing committee, but it’s not convenient for the farmers to come in now, and he knows it. He expected this to go through without any comment at all. He would have done another favour and everything would have been fine. Well, all we can do is express our views that the bill has serious shortcomings in principle, and vote against it.

We hope the minister will send it to a standing committee. We hope the farmers will come in and express their views. But I’ve already indicated the problems they’re going to experience in that regard.

Mr. Gilbertson: Going to be too busy.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The bill should be defeated, Mr. Speaker, and I think the minister himself should have some doubts about it.

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

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to get up and defend what I think is a good piece of legislation, despite what my friends across the hall may have said. And if there’s any doubt where I stand on this bill, then let it be cleared up once and for all. I stand behind it, or I wouldn’t have brought it in.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): I don’t understand it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They all must have some reluctance. They don’t have to get so exercised otherwise.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Leader of the Opposition is so far off base he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

An hon. member: They’ll understand after the minister is through.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: To my way of thinking it is positively atrocious that people who know better should stand up in this House and say that the money collected is used for the social functions of the Ontario Beef Improvement Association. That to me is an absolute disgrace.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- to say the like of that about his fellow farmers.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: And to anyone of those fellows over there who has said that, I hope that his people back home take good note.

Mr. Haggerty: What did they spend it on?

Mr. Gaunt: Tell us what they spent it on.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I’ll tell the members what use was made of the amount of money collected in 1973. I’ll tell them about that in the fullness of time. But you see --

Mr. Haggerty: Tell us now.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- when those fellows come in here tonight and oppose a piece of legislation that does one thing only and that is increase an already existing levy that was put in here with unanimous consent of this House in 1968 and all it does is step this thing up from 15 cents by 10 cents to 25 cents and from there if it’s decided again to --

An hon. member: I don’t understand that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- go another 35 cents to 45 cents, is there anything wrong with that?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where did the minister stamp that?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Are the members opposite saying the principle is wrong? If they are, why did they vote for it when it came in in the first place?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The farmers were not properly consulted.

Mr. MacDonald: We’ve now had a chance to see the organization in operation.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Fritter away the money.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: And now my hon. friend the member for York South stands and he talks about hypocrisy. How in the world --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- well, I should say he ought to know about hypocrisy because the Leader of the Opposition really pulled the rug from under him tonight when he said: “What about NDP deductions from the labour unions?”

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is getting it without authorization -- what authorization is there for the corporate funds he got?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, sir. I’ll tell the member that. And I’ll tell him another thing and I’ve said it here in this House before, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- when this hon. member for York South, this fellow who purports to know something about agriculture --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He wouldn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and if anybody in that group knows anything about agriculture -- he may, but the rest of them don’t know anything. I’ll tell him that.

Mr. MacDonald: Like the minister and the Tory party.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I recall very well, in that historical event of 1971, walking into a place in London in the constituency of Middlesex North to knock on the door to ask for their vote. It was a corner lot and on both sides of the sidewalk, facing both streets, was an NDP sign. Well, you know, I think I had some nerve to walk in there.

I went up to the door and as my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was so kind enough to say, my charm exuded myself right there; it was fabulous. You should have seen me, really. I knocked on that door --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and I smiled to the very charming lady who came to the door and I said, “I admired the scenery as I walked in here, but I am Bill Stewart and I am the Conservative candidate and I’d like to have your vote.”

She said, “Don’t pay a bit of attention to that sign. I’m not going to vote for them. My husband was told at the union hall that he had to put those signs up on our lawn.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: She said, “We are going to vote for you.” And bless their hearts, they must have, because I got elected.

Mr. MacDonald: How does the minister know they voted for him? How does he know they voted for him?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: And you know --

Mr. Cassidy: They plastered Tory signs all around property in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- Mr. Speaker, I happened to mention, just by chance, the deduction that’s made on all union people which is contributed compulsorily to the NDP.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is not made by all union people.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, sure. The member objects to me saying compulsory. He says it’s voluntary. He knows how voluntary it is.

Mr. Renwick: He doesn’t understand -- he never will. He deliberately --

Mr. Cassidy: Have the people who get government contracts ever heard of the --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, I learned that day. And do you know, Mr. Speaker --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- they said, “We wouldn’t dare.” They said, Mr. Speaker, “We’re told that we can get that money back.”

Mr. Renwick: Where does the money come from? The member for York South struck home tonight -- where does the government’s money come from? What connection with the Tory party is in this bill? What is the connection? We know very well now, that the member for York South struck home. He may not know as much about agriculture as the minister, but he knows where the Conservatives’ money comes from.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: But, Mr. Speaker, she said to me, “We wouldn’t dare ask for that money back because at the union hall we would be cut right off.”

That’s the truth about the NDP, right there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: We can tell a payoff anywhere and we see the payoff tonight.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Order!

Mr. Eaton: Keep chirping.

Mr. Renwick: We see the payoff tonight -- the member for York South --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The minister is getting to them.

Mr. Renwick: -- really struck home tonight.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I think we have hit a very sensitive nerve among our friends in the Socialist party.

Mr. Renwick: What is the connection with the Tory party and this bill? Let’s get right down to the --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They’ll find where we stand on this bill. You bet they will, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the government’s connection with the cattlemen’s association the same as the dairymen’s association?

An hon. member: That’s the same as the NDP’s.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No indeed it is not. No indeed it is not, because I want to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South has had his opportunity to speak.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: My hon. friend, the member for York South, to my mind, Mr. Speaker, has sunk to a new low --

Mr. Eaton: It is not a new low. He has always been down there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- when he suggests the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association contributes to the Conservative Party. We are concerned, because I have a feeling that the labour unions contribute to the group that supports him. We don’t have to have that kind of support. The common sense, the good judgement and the wisdom of the people of Ontario have put us here and left his party over there, and it will be ever thus.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: My friend mentions Manitoba. I am so pleased he mentions Manitoba. Just think about what the Socialists do. He talks about hypocrites and he talks about letting the people decide. Here is what the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba does and it will be read in Hansard. My friend missed it. He should have been here to hear it. I thought I made a great speech that night, but I commend him to read it in Hansard.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister going to go over that stuff again?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I am not going to read it all. I am just going to say that out there, so much for democracy. As I said:

“At the same time, the government has been trying to transfer any effective power the Manitoba hog board may have to an interprovincial superboard which will have appointed members only from the government of Manitoba.”

Mr. Yakabuski: Oh, no. Shame!

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Don’t talk to me about giving the farmers an opportunity to say what they want to say down here in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Renwick: The minister knows the reason for that. They had to get rid of the Tory appointees to get an independent board.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is just absolute trash and nonsense and it should be taken for what it is worth, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that nobody pay the slightest bit of attention to what he has to say.

Some of our friends over there in the Liberal Party are farmers and they make statements concerning what the Ontario Beef Improvement Association does with its money. If anybody wants to know why my friend went up to the gallery, it was to get the exact figures so that I could read them into Hansard. I make no apologies for that whatsoever because, quite frankly, I was a bit surprised tonight when I saw the opposition to the bill.

Of course, I knew some people in the province were objecting to it, but I didn’t really expect that everybody over there would take the stand that they have taken against what I think is sound legislation. I have to say this, Mr. Speaker, that I was dumbfounded to sit here tonight and listen to those people in the Liberal Party suggest to us that we shouldn’t do what the farmers asked us to do by a vote of 189 to 1 at the last Beef Producers’ Association.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Why didn’t the minister change the regulations for the fruit and vegetable growers? Why did he defy the unanimous decision? Answer that question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Why did he reverse the decision? Why did he change it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I did indeed change it because they asked me to change it.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister did not. They reaffirmed their old decision in January.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: But I met with their executive after that. We will come to that when that bill comes along and we will discuss it with the member.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s interesting. Having talked to the members of the executive, they expressed their disappointment at what the minister has done.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Did they really? Well, what do they think about what we have done now?

Mr. MacDonald: We will come to that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: You bet we will, Mr. Speaker. We will be delighted to come to that, and I will wait to see what my hon. friend’s opposition is to that one.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister reversed the decision made in January because he knew it was wrong.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now for the use made by the OBIA of the levy. The general administration of 1973 required $40,000; the Breeder and Feeder publication which is put out by the Ontario Beef Improvement Association and which goes into the farm homes of the members of the association across Ontario, $20,000; consumer education, $20,000; Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, $52,000; the county associations, $13,000; research grants, $10,000; directors’ expenses, $20,000.

Mr. Renwick: That’s a real accounting. That’s most helpful. That’s informative.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The Breeder and Feeder goes to 11,000 beef producers throughout Ontario. There are no per diems paid to the directors of the association, only expenses and the president of the association attended, I believe, some 75 days’ meetings throughout Ontario and got not one penny for it, other than the out-of-pocket expenses he incurred.

Mr. Renwick: What was the total of expenses paid to the directors?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t have that. I have the directors’ expenses, $20,000. If the member had been listening instead of informing us about how enlightening it was, he would have heard that in the first place.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Is that right?

Mr. Renwick: If the minister got that statement from the gallery and he is putting it here on the record as factual, then we want an audited statement.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, the member can get an audited statement.

Mr. Renwick: What is the $40,000 general expenses? Come on.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It could be from their statement. I am simply putting this on the record and if the NDP want to vote against it, so be it. We will know where they stand in the farm communities of Ontario. We will put it right on the record and they can vote against the farmers’ wishes.

Mr. Lawlor: Off on a tangent again.

Mr. Renwick: Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, $52,000.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The farmer from Riverdale seems to know an awful lot about agriculture as we are being advised tonight. Let me say this, Mr. --

Mr. Renwick: What does the Tory party get from the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: He boo-booed on that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- when my friends refer to the fact that the Ontario Beef Improvement Association doesn’t reflect the views of ordinary cattlemen, that they really aren’t interested in their welfare, let me say that it was the Ontario Beef Improvement Association which did what it could, and it did succeed in straightening up some malpractices that went on in this province’s beef marketing this last year or so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What were they? What were they?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They straightened that out -- some of those people were from Huron county -- short weights and other things. And that fellow went to jail and we have appealed the sentence. Frankly, I didn’t think it was enough; we appealed it and the beef producers supported us in that appeal. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a completely voluntary levy.

Mr. MacDonald: It is compulsory to begin with but it is voluntary when a refund is sought.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Of course it is, but the difference between this levy and the NDP levy is that they are refundable in this case, and the NDP’s isn’t.

Mr. MacDonald: It is refundable, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Nobody can get it back.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order. Not only do you have a democratic vote as to whether or not there will be a levy, but any person can withdraw from it voluntarily.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a laugh.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister doesn’t have a democratic vote in this instance. He opposes it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I accept the hon. member’s explanation of it. It just doesn’t work that way, Mr. Speaker. It just doesn’t work that way.

Mr. MacDonald: Sure it does.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Any producer can make request for his refund and it is payable to him. There is no question about that at all.

We would be well advised, Mr. Speaker, to accept the recommendations that have been made by the Beef Producers Association. I find it interesting to think that since this organization was set up in 1968, these people have gotten along with the levy that was made available to them at that time, and here two parties of this Legislature, both in opposition to this government, are saying that these farm people, these people who support the industry in this province of ours, are themselves not entitled to add to the revenue and the income that they have for their own organization. To my mind it’s absolutely atrocious that the like of this has ever been stated in this House. The idea that these people, these farm people, are not given the right, by their own decision, to add to their income.

Our friends from the Liberal Party were talking about advertising being a waste of money. They ought to talk to their public relations men in this election campaign because, believe me, they are sure throwing it around. If you think that’s a waste of money --

Mr. Eaton: That’s wasted.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s real waste.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I was interested to hear the member for Huron say just a word of commendation. It was about the only word of commendation I heard tonight for the Ontario Beef Improvement Association until the Leader of the Opposition got up and tried to rescue his party --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Rescue nothing. You don’t need rescuing when you are right.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- from the position his party has taken tonight concerning the Ontario Beef Improvement Association’s position. In saying that the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Mr. Speaker, had made progress in improving transportation, I would suggest that perhaps this contributed more to the welfare of the livestock industry in this province than anything done by any other group in the last year and a half in trying to bring some order out of the incredible chaos that went on, and to some degree still does go on --

Mr. Haggerty: Well, put it under the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It seems to me that our friends in the opposition, who I remember very well a few years ago were most adamant and, in fact, asked me for my resignation --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We’re thinking about it again.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- because I happened to take a stand as far as the bean board was concerned. I was supposed to have gone against farmers. Here are farmers tonight asking for something, and that same party who said we did the wrong thing then are saying: “Deny these people the right to what they want.” That’s exactly what they’re saying.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a very weak point. The minister didn’t know a thing about it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: About this? Oh, indeed I did.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I simply urge the members of this House to support what I think is an excellent piece of legislation, intended to support a farm organization that is contributing mightily to the well-being of the agricultural industry in our province.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 91.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 91, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Apps Auld Beckett Belanger Bennett Bernier Brunelle Downer Drea Eaton Evans Gilbertson Handleman Havrot Hodgson (York North) Irvine Kennedy Kerr Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McIlveen McNeil McNie Miller Morningstar Morrow Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Potter Rollins Root Ayes Rowe Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Stewart Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle White Winkler Yakabuski -- 48.

Bounsall Breithaupt Burr Campbell Cassidy Deans Dukszta Ferrier Foulds Gaunt Germa Haggerty Laughren Lawlor Lewis MacDonald Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Paterson Renwick Riddell Ruston Shulman Spence Stokes Worton Young -- 27.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 48, the “nays” 27.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, on behalf of Hon. Mr. White, moves second reading of Bill 98, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief comments on this bill. This bill represents a change that had been requested, particularly with respect to the city of Waterloo, so that the senior aldermen in the city would have the opportunity of accepting positions on the regional councils, rather than having the council decide.

You should know, Mr. Speaker, that some problem had arisen concerning the choice of others than the senior aldermen at the last election to regional council. It would appear that the person who receives the greatest number of votes should have the opportunity to sit on council or not, depending upon that person’s other commitments.

As a result, I think this change will come into line with the popular will of the people who elect the aldermen, and who would hope that the two senior aldermen will choose to sit on the regional council. However, if that is not possible, the alternatives, in order of their seniority, will be able to decide whether they will be able to take on this position; as a result, the problem will resolve itself without any particular politicking which could result.

I commend the minister for bringing this in. I think it’s a good amendment. Certainly my colleague from Waterloo North and I both feel that this will be a sound addition to the regional government programme within the region of Waterloo.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter the debate? The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say very briefly that we would also support the principle of the bill and accept what it’s doing. However, I would add this word, Mr. Speaker, that one would wish that when it came time to amend the provisions relating to aldermen in the city of Waterloo, that the province had gone further and had brought in a true ward system in that particular municipality. This is a problem which we’ll be hearing about in the next bill from the hon. member for Thunder Bay, and I don’t want to steal his thunder.

The inability of the province to come to grips with the question of an adequate electoral structure that gives true local representation is a desperate failure in its programme of municipal structure and municipal government. And there are any number of examples on the order paper right now, Mr. Speaker, where the electoral boundaries being established or being amended by the province, do not work to effectively represent all of the people of the area of the municipality involved. And that is a mistake.

However, as far as it goes, this amendment is an improvement, and we accept it and will support it.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter this debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker: I have no further comments. I have to say that this is a request of the people involved at the local level, and we are trying to adhere to their wishes in regard to elections in that municipality. Therefore, we would like to proceed with third reading, if we could.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 98, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, 1972.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, on behalf of Hon. Mr. White, moves second reading of Bill 89, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say first that we realize as we get towards the end of the session, as the House leader says, we should be prepared for any of the bills; and yet he made it quite clear that we would be doing the Oxford bill. I would just say that I regret that my colleague, the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), is not in her place at the present time. She particularly wanted to speak on this bill as did my colleague, the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer). I know my colleague from St. George is attending at the committee at the present time.

Mr. McIlveen: That’s good.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Her views have been expressed very strongly on the matters pertaining to this bill before now. Certainly the matters pertaining to the specific areas for the permissive powers that are in this particular amendment have raised a considerable degree of controversy.

Only today in the Globe and Mail it was reported the council of the city of Toronto had approached the minister and asked him to stand down at least part of this amending bill, if not all of it, pending an opportunity to examine it. It’s their view that the Metropolitan Toronto chairman, a gentleman whom, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is not elected -- directly at least -- has been the agency through which the government policy has been established.

Now, whether or not this is so remains, perhaps, to be divulged tonight. I suppose the minister can say that he gets his advice from any source he chooses. And knowing this minister as I do, I understand he gets his advice only from one source, and that’s from the Treasurer (Mr. White). We may talk about this again, if not this evening then in the near future --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Tomorrow.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- because I’ve always had a feeling that he was particularly prone to the advice of his senior minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I always respect him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have much admired his ability to express a specific and personal opinion, once he got the hang of it. But somehow or other, he is always reversed by somebody senior to himself. I always feel that as a minister he should not be so quick to bow to someone he might consider his senior, because with the specific responsibility he has for municipal affairs I wish he had a bit more confidence to take a stand without having to check it out with his colleague, the Treasurer, on every occasion.

It’s true that the basic segments of the bill that concern us are permissive. The metropolitan council is given the power by this bill, if it chooses, to appoint a chief administrative officer. It’s also true that most of the other regional bills have this power incorporated in them, but in this particular case Metropolitan Toronto has not had the power, because the chairman was not directly elected. There were those who felt that an administrative officer, who, in fact, would be a Metro manager, would simply add another high official with substantial powers exercising administrative powers without being elected.

The objection expressed by Toronto, I suppose, could be construed to be somewhat parochial but they are the city centre. It seems to us that the minister should have consulted with the council rather than just the Metro chairman in deciding to go forward with the legislation. The whole aspect of the housing legislation is somewhat similar. As we follow the changes in housing policy in the Metro area we are, as say observers from outside Metro, somewhat amazed at the different attitude taken by the surrounding boroughs, compared with the city.

The city has the substantial problems of being a core part of this metropolis. Rather than having housing problems associated with rich, high-class suburban development, they have the problems of finding housing for lower income groups. I have felt they have shown a high degree of initiative in their attempts, particularly in recent months, to accomplish just that.

There have been a number of developments that have gone forward which I have found very offensive indeed. As I drive into Toronto each day -- yes, in an automobile and, yes, on the Gardiner Expressway -- I come down the loop on to York St. and I look at that great big slab of concrete of Campeau’s, whatever they call it, and I think why the devil did we ever let him build that thing right in the front of the city, right on the harbour? I don’t remember the strong objections at the time but, believe me, I resent the fact that for all time that big slab of concrete is going to block access to the harbour by the people in the city, except for those who are going to shell out the money for those elaborate suites once they become available. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Minister of Housing has one of those suites booked. I hope he hasn’t got a long-term lease.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I wish I had.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I hope he hasn’t got a long-term lease, because he may find he has a little trouble fulfilling it. The housing aspects obviously in the city of Toronto have been more progressive, from the point of view of my judgement at least, compared with the boroughs. We raised in the question period just a few weeks ago that the only serviced lots available in the metropolitan area in Etobicoke are being earmarked for houses costing $100,000 to $150,000, which is not much good to anybody in the dire need of housing that we read about and that we know about as members of this Legislature.

When we asked the Minister of Housing about it, he said he was going to take no initiative whatsoever to try to persuade Etobicoke to have a better approach in their housing policy.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I didn’t say that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, maybe he didn’t say that. Whatever he said, it really amounted to the same thing. He is a strong local autonomist when he agrees with what they are doing. Now don’t scowl at me.

An hon. member: The minister doesn’t like the member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right. The same is true to some extent in Scarborough. The feeling there -- and I have seen it expressed in statements by the mayor and various members of the corporation -- is that they have more than their share of public housing, and strong objection has been raised. I find it offensive, as does the minister, that that area is not prepared to accept a fair share of public housing. It could be that it is the policy of the distribution of these facilities that has led to the attitude that the minister has deplored in the past.

Toronto, it seems to me, has shown a more progressive attitude towards its housing responsibilities. It may be that their expressed objection to this amendment is based on their feeling that if housing policy is transferred to the metropolitan area by law, they will be melded into the attitudes expressed by the other areas to such an extent that their initiatives will be squelched. They, of course, have substantial feelings in that regard.

As I say, I am aware that these matters are permissive. As I say, Chairman Godfrey is out doing his bit for Bob Stanfield and marching in lock-step with the rest of the glassy-eyed Tories over there these days, and it may be that he has a special entrée. But there are those who say that the mayor of Toronto probably exerts the same partisan pressures, so there is a certain balance in this regard.

However, in view of the commitment that the government has made as far as its statements about local autonomy are concerned, it seems strange that there was not direct consultation with the council of the city of Toronto and with the other boroughs, for that matter, before it brought forward this legislation.

I don’t know of any law that requires the ministry to consult with anybody in these matters. But we have certainly been treated to the expression of policy by the minister and his superior on many occasions as to the necessity of consulting the municipalities concerned before an enactment is brought forward.

I have substantial regret that the ministry has proceeded in this way. They have unconscionably delayed other aspects of legislation required by Toronto -- for example, the mall -- and it seems to me that it would be quite possible for this particular bill to have been introduced into the House only after adequate consultation or, if they choose to introduce it for first reading and proceed with it in the fall if the municipalities concerned are anxious to have those powers.

I wanted to express these views. I have got some Toronto colleagues here now, and perhaps there will be more arriving -- ah, yes -- so we will have a chance to hear their views as well.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Good stalling.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not bad!

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I must say the credibility of this bill, most of which was worked out with the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, is seriously undermined by the actions that have been taken by the minister, by the Minister of Housing and by Metro Chairman Paul Godfrey in relation to the proposed powers for setting housing policy and for ramming them down the throats of the area municipalities, without any consultation beforehand.

As far as I can see, it upsets drastically both the balance of power within Metro and the kind of fragile web of confidence and co-operation on which a two-tier government that has been as successful as Metropolitan Toronto has got to depend.

I blame the Minister without Portfolio for municipal affairs, I blame the Minister of Housing and I blame Paul Godfrey for getting us to this state of affairs. I think they have acted wrongly, and I would ask them, as strongly as I can in the course of this debate --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member just doesn’t understand the bill, that’s all.

Mr. Cassidy: I certainly do understand the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Why doesn’t the member do a little research?

Mr. Cassidy: The bill gives permissive powers to Metro council to adopt a housing policy, which it can then impose on any area municipality.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There is another condition.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member hasn’t looked at the other condition.

Mr. Cassidy: It must also have the approval of the Minister of Housing. That’s correct. Okay, I do understand that part of the bill as well.

Mr. Stokes: He obviously understands it.

Mr. Cassidy: The way the Minister of Housing and the Metro chairman have already connived about this particular section gives no confidence for anybody in the future that they will wield those powers with caution, with discretion, with tact, with an aim to get co-operation or with any kind of consultation with the area municipalities. That is as simply as I can put it.

The Minister of Housing has undermined his credibility with many of the elected people within Metro Toronto, and Metro Chairman Paul Godfrey, an appointed official -- not an elected official but an appointed official -- is equally undermining his credibility. His vaunting ambition has taken him too far at this point, and I don’t think that this government or this Legislature should support his effort to get these powers in this particular way.

I don’t think this Legislature should give support to this particular power so that he can go to his Metro council and say, “Look, the Legislature said it was all right. Now let’s talk about it.” That’s like going into a negotiation with a gun in one hand. That’s the kind of situation that’s being created by the proposals. I’m very sorry that the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for municipal affairs doesn’t understand the kind of situation that exists.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I understand what the member said, but I can’t understand his thinking.

Mr. McIlveen: Neither can I.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister not agree that some advance warning would have been desirable so that various people in Metro Toronto could have expressed their opinion on this particular provision? I’m sure the minister would agree with that.

It’s rather curious, Mr. Speaker, that in the speedup we have at the end of every session, this bill was tabled last Thursday, it was made public and made available to people in Metro on Friday I believe -- possibly not until Monday -- and the deadline for submitting resolutions for Metro council’s final meeting of the spring before its summer break -- that meeting was held on Tuesday of this week -- the deadline for submitting business to that meeting was last Friday. Therefore, when Mayor Crombie and others decided that they wanted to have a debate over these proposed powers and over whether or not to ask the province to withdraw this section on housing policy from the bill, they were too late because of the timing imposed by the province. They were too late to get their motion on the order paper at Metro council.

That wasn’t their fault. The minister didn’t call them up and say, “Look, I’ve been talking with Paul Godfrey. Paul Godfrey wants me to have these things. What do you want me to do, or what do you think of it?” Poor old David Crombie; his allegiance to the Conservative Party served him ill in this particular regard because nobody called him up to say, “What do you think of this? It looks a bit funny, but Paul Godfrey wants it very badly.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps Godfrey’s allegiance is more important.

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe this government values Godfrey more than Crombie, I don’t know. But I think that’s a sorry way to treat somebody who has made no secret of his allegiance to the Conservative Party.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): And if they do, it’s a lousy mistake in judgement, let me tell them --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, yes.

Mr. Lewis: -- because Crombie will last for years after Godfrey is a pinprick on the horizon.

Mr. Cassidy: After he streaks into oblivion, that’s right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There was nothing political about it at all.

Mr. Cassidy: It certainly is political. Witness the duplicity between Godfrey and this Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker -- the duplicity between them as they try to pass responsibility and try to deny that a request had been made.

What happened on Tuesday? On Tuesday, 17 members of Metro council, Mr. Speaker, seek to open the question, and Paul Godfrey is sitting in his chair hoping against hope that the thing won’t get debated. He sits down before the meeting with the Metro solicitor and instructs him in order to ensure that the matter doesn’t come up. Now 17 votes is one short of a two-thirds vote and the matter cannot be introduced because it’s new business and had not been put on the order paper. It wasn’t put on the order paper because there was no time to get it on the order paper, because of the timing of the introduction of this bill in the Legislature and the lack of any advance notice to any of the people involved, except for Paul Godfrey and John Kruger, his sidekick.

So it doesn’t get discussed in Metro council. I go and talk to the Minister without Portfolio and I say, “Look, 17 to 10” -- and those people were serious; people like Cosgrove and Flynn and so on -- “mayors from the boroughs felt just as strongly about this as the people from the city of Toronto. They don’t want to see themselves compelled to submit to Metro housing policy without having considered the implications of this new transfer of power well in advance. They want to look at it, they want to ask about it, they probably want to leave it over the summer. At least they want to have a chance to be consulted.” But the minister says, “Well, I’ve only heard from one of these people,” and as far as he’s concerned, “Let them eat cake” is the attitude of the Minister without Portfolio for municipal affairs.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I don’t believe the hon. member is correct in what he is saying. I would ask that he speak to the bill and not to quote me when he isn’t specifically saying what I told him. And don’t do it again.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister told me that he had heard from only one or two of the people and he said -- and I’ll quote this part too: “One of them wanted to open the question on the council, but actually supported the idea of having this housing policy amendment, or thought he did.”

The fact is that he didn’t have a chance, though, to consider all of the arguments within the context of Metro council, because it was never debated there. They didn’t have the opportunity to consider it within the context of the committee of mayors which prepared this interim Metro housing policy because it wasn’t considered there. It wasn’t considered by staff people from the boroughs because it was never put before them. This is from a government which says it seeks to honour municipal autonomy. This is simply a jackboot kind of imposition which has been carried out.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is arrogant --

Mr. Cassidy: It is arrogant, as a matter of fact. And I want to read --

Mr. Lewis: Is that the fact that his policy is arrogant?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He is paranoid.

Mr. Lewis: Now, now. A man with the minister’s range of neuroses doesn’t call someone else paranoid.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, they do.

Mr. Lewis: It’s exactly what they don’t do.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it was about a month ago when Metro council produced this interim Metro housing policy which spoke specifically to the question about the way in which housing policy should be worked out between the boroughs and Metro council. I think this is an interesting document because this document was prepared by Metro staff who worked under the direction of a committee of the mayors of the Metro boroughs and that included Metro Chairman Paul Godfrey.

I have talked to some of the people who worked on this policy and they felt very heartened at the degree of co-operation which had been achieved between the boroughs of Metro Toronto on the question of housing. They felt, as staff people, that in the past there had been a tendency for boroughs in Metro to try to shove away low-income housing and simply highgrade and leave somebody else to pick up the problems of people who were poor and couldn’t afford to survive in the private enterprise housing market. They felt the nettle had been grasped to a large degree in this particular report. They felt great progress was being made.

This report, under the section of setting production targets, refers to the traditional process of Metro staff which suggested production targets and a breakdown for each municipality which were then eventually brought before the political levels. They say, “The establishment of specific targets is a fundamental requirement of both Metro and area municipal housing policies. There must be agreement on the targets by both Metro and the area municipalities.” That is where the relevant portion of this section on housing targets, which is the basis of housing policy, begins. “There must be agreement on the targets by both Metro and the area municipalities.”

When you look at the bill, Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t say that. It says that once Metro adopts a housing policy each borough is required forthwith, not even with a delay but forthwith, to bring its housing policy into conformity with the housing policy statement of Metro as approved by the minister.

It goes on to say, this report on Metro housing policy, “Our experience to date suggests that agreement can be achieved through direct and continuous consultation.” A consultation which, of course has been subverted by the procedures proposed by the Minister of Housing and the Minister without Portfolio. “We recognize, however, that the elected politician is ultimately responsible for the adoption of production targets and the distribution of housing targets by area municipality and income groups.” Having proposed an ambitious and, I think, very positive set of targets in this particular report, they say, “It is up to the individual area municipalities to review the Metro target suggested in this report and to recommend production targets for the metropolitan corporations.”

Ultimately, they say, Metro targets must be adopted by the metropolitan council. If the system of setting targets breaks down, regretfully, some level of government will have to take the responsibility for setting them. They say a bit later they make no specific recommendation on what happens in case the system of consultation breaks down.

That is for a very good reason because their hope, and they have basis for their hope, was that the system of consultation and co-operation would work. They feel, rightly I think, as a philosophy of government, that one tries to work the route of consultation and co-operation rather than the route of direction by order or fiat which is being suggested by the minister in this particular bill.

They go on to state the reasons as well: “Yet it is characteristic in the housing field that as long as zoning, subdivision control and official plans are the responsibility of an area municipality, an area municipality can frustrate any Metro target.” The Minister of Housing must surely already have had some experience with that in trying to get his housing action programme implemented and running against the kind of red tape which exists at the municipal level and which can be manipulated at the municipal level, if the municipality isn’t particularly anxious to play.

Mr. Lewis: It was a very unfair attack on Scarborough.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I didn’t attack Scarborough.

Mr. Lewis: And solely because Cosgrove is a Liberal, which is an entirely unwarranted reason.

Mr. Cassidy: The final comment I want to make, Mr. Speaker, from this particular report is this. The Metro mayors, all of them, say -- and this is one month ago -- and I quote this to the minister:

“To suggest that Metro must approve targets and if necessary force building is to suggest a direct path to the destruction of the two-tier system of metropolitan government.”

And yet, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what is proposed in this bill in the section on housing policy.

It says the Metro council and the area council “may adopt a policy statement related to housing, containing objectives, production targets and financial arrangements.” Then the section says once this statement is adopted by the Metro council and approved by the Minister of Housing, every housing policy statement adopted by the council of an area municipality “shall be amended forthwith to conform therewith,” and no housing policy thereafter can be approved from an area municipality that conflicts. Not only that, but it says that no bylaw shall be passed by the council of an area municipality that “doesn’t conform with the housing policy statement of the metropolitan council.”

What this means, according to the Metro mayors themselves, is the government is leading to the destruction of the two-tier system. If you want to put it another way, Mr. Speaker, in a very bad piece of drafting, the door has been opened to a major transfer of power, not just over housing, but over all planning and all zoning matters from the area municipality level up to the Metro council level. Let’s suppose, for example, that Toronto or East York is trying to develop medium density housing, and Metro says, “Our housing policy says we have got to build like crazy and, therefore, you put highrise on that, 25 stories or more, and that is an order,” then that kind of order is permitted under this particular bill.

Suppose Scarborough or Toronto or some other borough wanted to ensure that at least 20 per cent of every development, private, semi-private, co-op or whatever, was for socially assisted housing or low and moderate income housing of one sort or another -- at least 20 per cent of every development, including Windfields and Forest Hill and other places like that -- if Metro says no, 10 per cent is the maximum that it considers to be tolerable, then any effort to go further by an area municipality could be thwarted by the Metro council. The possibilities and the ramifications are infinite. The fact that this would go forward without the necessary kind of consultation is just plainly unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Paul Godfrey before. I don’t understand exactly what is happening in the Metro council, but I think we have a case of a municipal leader who has simply got the bit between the teeth, who is arrogating to himself powers which should not be his, and who simply lacks the maturity or lacks the intuition or the tact or the sensitivity or the political savvy maybe to understand the way in which he should provide leadership within his metropolitan municipality.

Mr. Lewis: He could conceivably lack all of those.

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe he lacks all of those things. A week after this guy takes himself a $5,000 pay increase, a week after he manipulates Metro council -- perhaps I can say it since I am moving away from the place in a week’s time -- and gives orders to the Metro solicitor to ensure that there be no further debate on non-profit, co-op housing on Toronto Island, thereby eliminating 250 housing units that ought to be directed to low- and moderate-income families, he comes along and whispers in the ears of the Minister of Housing and of this minister and tells them what he wants.

Later in the course of this session we are going to be talking about, and the minister will be assuring us about, how the wishes of the county of Oxford and the towns of Woodstock and Ingersoll have been met.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have further comments? In view of the hour, if the hon. member has further comments --

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do have further comments.

Mr. Speaker: -- perhaps he would move the adjournment of debate.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Unfortunately.

Mr. Cassidy: I would move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker; I am sure we can continue it tomorrow. I hope those Metro mayors who haven’t communicated with the minister yet will do so.

Mr. Cassidy moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, tomorrow we will proceed as I called the business for today. There will be the continuation of the current debate and items 26, 18 and 16. I suppose I can easily say, too, that should we conclude those we would proceed with anything else left on the order paper but I don’t think that is necessary to announce.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before you --

Mr. Reid: Are we sitting next week?

Mr. Lewis: All right, can the House leader take a moment to discuss this now, since it might help in terms of next week? Can he indicate to us at this stage exactly what it is he would wish completed before we adjourn for the summer, and let us have a feeling as to how long into next week we are likely to be sitting?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I assured the other parties, including the hon. member’s party, that I would give them a list tomorrow morning of what we would intend to complete.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.