31st Parliament, 2nd Session

L142 - Thu 7 Dec 1978 / Jeu 7 déc 1978

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Deans: I rise on what is either a point of privilege or perhaps a matter of urgent public importance, depending on how one looks at it.

Mr. Breithaupt: I’m glad it isn’t a question.

Mr. Deans: I think I probably would come down on the side of privilege in this instance since I think what I’m about to say refers to the privilege I and many others in this House have had in sharing some period of time with a colleague -- some of us a short time, some of us a longer time. In fact, some of us might even think it feels like a lifetime.

But I want to bring to the House’s attention a matter of some considerable importance in the life of Ontario. This matter of importance takes on some significance when viewed from my perspective, in that this colleague is an imposter to a degree. This colleague has, for as long as I have known him, claimed to be Scottish. I was looking at the Parliamentary Guide today and I noted with interest it says he was born on December 7, 1913, in Cranbrook, British Columbia.

Mr. Nixon: Is that possible -- 1913?

Mr. Deans: Added together it therefore means this colleague is 65 years of age today. I would like to ask the members of the House to join with myself and my colleagues in wishing him a very happy birthday. We hope he’ll spend many, many more of his birthdays here in the Legislature serving the people of Ontario as well as he has in the past -- my colleague, Donald MacDonald from York South.

Mr. Nixon: It’s a great pleasure to join with the honourable member and others in congratulating our colleague from York South on his birthday.

Mr. Mancini: He should retire.

Mr. Nixon: Frankly, I find it surprising that he was born in 1913. I haven’t noticed him going out and jogging with the jogging set or playing squash with the squash set, but he keeps in great shape. I’ve seen him exercising all of his muscles, including, let’s say, his grey matter, in making a good many Premiers and cabinet ministers and at least one former Leader of the Opposition I know fairly well jump around here. He’s always had a good, strong, independent position. In my early years here, to hear him going after certain members of the government opposite, now gone to their rewards in various boards and commissions, it was really something to behold.

I also have had a great admiration for his skills as a professor and as a student. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, on one occasion he was honoured by the Queen’s printer by having his MA thesis published and distributed in this House. It made very interesting reading indeed.

He has anything but slowed down. I sometimes regret that, but right now I don’t regret it. One of his most recent emanations was a page seven piece on Ontario Hydro in the Globe and Mail yesterday which I thought was just about as lucid and persuasive as anything I’ve read in a good long time.

We wish him happy birthday, Mr. Speaker, and let’s say many years of continued exercise.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, we on the government side would like to join with those who have already spoken to pay tribute to the member for York South for reaching this particular point in his life, looking so well and so young and having such a distinguished career, to which reference has already been made. We join with all members of the House in extending to the member for York South our best wishes, and no doubt he will continue to enjoy good health either in or out of the House.



Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today a set of amendments to Bill 70, An Act respecting Occupational Health and Safety of Workers.

As members will recall, Bill 70 was first introduced by my predecessor, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), on October 18, 1977. Following second reading it was referred to the standing resources development committee where a substantial number of helpful proposals and representations by groups and individuals were received.

Clause-by-clause debate in committee ensued and on February 22, 1978, the bill was reported out of the standing committee and referred to the committee of the whole, with a number of amendments recommended by the standing committee. Since then, both my predecessor and I have indicated to the House not all of the amendments recommended by the committee are acceptable to the government.

As members know, my officials and I have been conferring with interested parties over the past number of months, with the view to resolving the problems which I believe arise from some of the amendments passed in committee. As a result of these meetings and deliberations and following careful consideration, I am now in a position to table amendments to 15 sections of the bill.

Some of these are of a housekeeping nature, but the majority relate to substantive matters including coverage, health and safety committees and representatives, and the right to refuse to perform unsafe work. I shall be explaining the nature of these amendments in detail and the rationale for them when the bill is debated before the committee of the whole House next week.

To assist members as the debate proceeds, I have provided two documents to each member of the House. The first is a list of the amendments. The second is a reprinted bill, incorporating the amendments made by the standing committee with which I am in agreement, together with the additional amendments which I propose to move for the consideration of the committee of the whole.

I hope the reprinted bill will avoid confusion as we proceed through clause-by-clause discussion of the legislation. I hope that all members will join in my hope that we will be able to complete the committee stage and proceed to third reading and royal assent before the House prorogues for Christmas.


Mr. S. Smith: Oh, my goodness. This is a record, Mr. Speaker. I realize the new strategy is to have either affable people to deflect questions or no one to answer questions, but this is carrying it just a bit far.

Mr. Breithaupt: We’ve got some who are neither.

Mr. Warner: They’re all canvassing up north.


Mr. S. Smith: I’ll ask a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: You don’t have to. There is no law that says you have to.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister explain how it is that he persists in his refusal to grant the funds needed for a transit fare freeze in Metro, after he has seen that Metro has saved money on this past year’s capital budget, intends to save on the coming year’s capital budget and doesn’t need the CNE link? More importantly than any of that, will the minister explain why the province has pegged its subsidy formula to Metro at 13.75 per cent of operating costs while it gives to other large Ontario cities of over 200,000 people a 17.5 per cent operating subsidy? Why is it that Metro is being singled out in this way for this kind of treatment? What is the rationale for Metro getting 13.75 per cent whereas other large cities get 17.5 per cent? Would it not be a reasonable step towards a transit fare freeze to put Metro on the same 17.5 per cent basis as other large municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that Metro proposes to save money on its capital expenditures for next year. I have some difficulty in understanding that statement because there has been no capital allocation made to Metro for next year. How it can save from something that is not established I really don’t quite know.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a five-year capital works program and the minister knows that. He should know it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There has been no established, approved program for Metro TTC capital expenditures for the 1979-80 year as yet. There is a projection made, a multi-year plan, but that varies greatly, and until Metro council decides its priorities and comes forward with its planned capital program, we’re not able to respond to it. I don’t believe that has happened yet.

With regard to the establishment of the various rates of operating subsidy for the 60-odd municipal transit systems in the province, there are five categories of communities, starting with communities under 100,000; 100,000-150,000; 150,000-200,000; 200,000-one million and over one million. Of the communities over one million, there is only one -- Metro.

The year those target cost-revenue ratios were established we looked very carefully at the overall picture of cost-revenue ratios that had been established. I don’t have those figures here with me, but I believe the cost-revenue ratio of the TTC for the 1976 year was about 72 per cent. In other words, the revenue from fares in 1976 paid about 72 per cent of the operating costs. The 13.75 per cent subsidy established at that time for Metro was 50 per cent of that remaining balance. That is how that was established in that particular case.

The 17.5 per cent subsidy for the other four cities, Mississauga, Hamilton, Ottawa and London, was established in a somewhat similar way, taking into consideration those are not as mature systems as is Metro Toronto. They don’t have the high density of ridership. This goes on down to the different categories of communities. Metro Toronto has been used very fairly as far as operating subsidies. The fact is they have allowed their cost-revenue ratio to slip. Whether they control it or not, as I understand it, their cost-revenue ratio has slipped. Consequently, this may have happened in many of the other systems as well.

To say Metro should get the same ratio as a community like Ottawa or London or Mississauga, I don’t think is a reasonable rationale at all.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Leader of the Opposition asks his supplementary, I want to remind both the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Transportation and Communications that that very detailed question and very comprehensive reply took six and a half minutes.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, what the minister seems to be saying, Mr. Speaker, is that at the time the new system was brought in, they looked at what the deficit was and came up with a number which seemed to be half the deficit; that was 13.75 per cent.

Is the minister not aware that if some of the other municipalities over 200,000 are growing, they tend to become in many instances denser in population in terms of the centre core, whereas in the growth of Toronto it is all taking place in the suburbs? Consequently, there is much less density and it’s far more expensive to service those areas. Why not treat Toronto with the same 17.5 per cent subsidy on a basis of equity rather than on a basis of history, and then they could keep this declining ridership problem from becoming worse, or at least have a shot at it by way of a fare freeze?


Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t want to take up a lot of the time of the question period. I think I’ve tried, I am sure you will agree, very patiently every day this week and most of the days last week to explain this situation to the Leader of the Opposition.

I can’t really say any more. To say that Mississauga as a city is not expanding in one core and requiring additional and longer routes and to say it is not expanding to the outside, when there are communities developing with open space between, just shoots down totally what the honourable member is saying, because they have a special situation where they have to travel through miles of undeveloped areas. What the honourable member is saying just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Mr. S. Smith: It is growing in the centre too.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the minister not accept that fare increases in Toronto have now reached the point of diminishing returns, to the point where after this year’s increase to 55 cents, the number of riders on the TTC is actually running below both forecast and below last year? In view of that fact, will the ministry and the government not take urgent action in order to ensure the transit can continue to contribute to the rising transportation needs of this area by keeping fares at an even level?

Hon. Mr. Snow: For either of the honourable leaders across the floor to keep talking of the 55-cent fare is a misrepresentation of the facts. Members know the fare is not 55 cents; it is only 55 cents cash fare. I don’t suppose there is one person in a hundred who pays 55 cent cash fare and who doesn’t buy the tokens at seven for $3. If they figure that out, I am sure they are going to find it is something like 44 cents.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is 43 cents.

Hon. Mr. Snow: A fare of 43 or 44 cents has to be the greatest bargain in transportation in North America.

Mr. Warner: No.


Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Treasurer. Given the interest-free loan offered by the government to the Hayes-Dana Corporation to locate near Barrie and the apparent interest of other corporations, possibly from the northeastern United States, to locate in Ontario on similar understandings of incentive availabilities, is the Treasurer prepared to say what the policy of the government is in this regard? Are we now in the incentives business? Is he prepared to state the guidelines by which these incentives are to be given out? Can he explain the Hayes-Dana situation and can we basically hear from the Treasurer whether this is a new policy of the government and what the guidelines for this policy of incentives will be?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is my understanding that the loan to Hayes-Dana was given under the existing rules of the Ontario Development Corporation and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. I believe the decision was made by that ministry while Mr. Rhodes was still the minister and consummated later on. I believe it fitted in with the existing framework of rules. That answers the first part.

The second part, in terms of what incentive programs the province will have as time goes on, is one of the things we are currently developing and promise to announce as soon as possible.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: When can we expect to hear from the Treasurer what this policy will consist of? Is he not concerned that the time will shortly arrive when those companies that are already in Ontario will demand incentives to keep from leaving the province, if new competitors for those folks receive special incentives and grants in order to locate here?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), who is now here, can give the member the details on his program. We would always hope the assistance we give to anyone does not put existing Canadians out of a job or simply subsidize an industry not in need.

I have great reservations, as I am sure some members know, on a philosophical basis to any forms of assistance. The fact remains that if we are to create employment at a time when my rules aren’t being universally applied by other governments, we have to be competitive and be prepared to be flexible enough to meet market requirements.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the Treasurer states that he has great reservations about this, are we now seeing a repeat of the conflict that existed between the former Minister of Industry and Tourism and the former Treasurer, where one said incentives could come in and the other did not and the government marched off firmly in both directions at once?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, Mr. Speaker, there was no such difference between those two previous ministers.

Mr. Martel: Don’t try conning the troops.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not at all, not at all. And in fact I can assure the member that the Minister of Industry and Tourism and I speak to each other quite regularly and I can guarantee he will agree with me.

Mr. Sargent: Would the minister consider allowing industrial commissions across the province to offer fixed assessments as enticements to industrial concerns settling there?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker. What I am afraid of in a case like that is that we will get town by town competition.

Mr. S. Smith: Not province by province, I suppose?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, we are not having province by province competition. Let’s make that perfectly clear. We will fight for Canada and hope they will come to Ontario. We will not fight against another province in this country. We have already been tested on that and we have shown we will not do it.

Mr. Peterson: Given the great deal of uncertainty the Treasurer has shown, because no one really understands or knows what his policy is, because there are various different agencies operating, frequently in a competitive way, when is he going to alleviate this uncertainty and bring in some definite guidelines, some definite policies, so that any prospective industry can understand clearly who to deal with and the programs offered? Or is he going to wing it? Is he going to play it ad hoc, as he appears to have done in the last little while? The Treasurer is part of the crisis of uncertainty in this province and when is he going to clear up?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Peterson: The first part of my question is when is the Treasurer going to clear that up?

Mr. Speaker: That’s the third part.

Mr. Peterson: Would he please give us a date? Number two, is he going to have guidelines for expanding present business? Let us not leave out these present residents of Ontario who are contemplating expanding or are in a position to expand.

Hon. F. S. Miller: To answer the two questions as quickly as possible, first, we will have guidelines and, second, they should apply to the expansion of existing business obviously. Our purpose is not just to create new business but to create new employment -- and, in fact, in some cases to protect existing employment. I hope the member read and I hope he rather liked the study we put out this week on the pulp and paper industry.

Mr. Peterson: We have had more damned studies in this province than any other jurisdiction in the world. When is the government going to do something?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Just ignore the interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think that report shows pretty well what we would like to do and I hope and trust my cabinet colleagues will see that most, if not all of it, is acceptable.

Mr. Peterson: When you bring in one policy, then we will judge you. You haven’t done anything since you have been Treasurer except goofy studies.


Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Treasurer arising out of the report of the task force on the pulp and paper industry which was tabled on Tuesday of this week. In view of the very substantial incentives which are recommended by that report to be given to the pulp and paper industry, can the Treasurer undertake that if Ontario goes ahead with those incentives the government will require in return from the companies both job guarantees and an equity stake in the company which is proportionate to the public investment that taxpayers will put into those companies in tax dollars?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not necessarily.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the Treasurer has already gone to Ottawa in order to ask Ottawa to change its regulations to prevent the tax-back of the value of these incentives, and since he therefore seems to be well set on choosing these incentives as a means of stimulating the industry, can he explain why he will not seek an equity involvement for this public investment in view of the fact that the pulp and paper industry’s profits have risen by 94 per cent in the past year and that five of the large companies operating in Ontario have just reported nine-month profits of $540 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a cyclical industry and one of the member’s party’s great loves is to tax them to death the years they do well so there’s nothing left in the years they are in trouble.

Mr. Martel: That is not the question. Put the money out. You tax the public to give to your friends.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Now that’s exactly what’s happened year after year. We have to help those companies survive. If the members read that report, they will discover they were making six per cent return on investment, that’s all.

Mr. Foulds: Would the Treasurer appreciate it if the trustees handling his blind trust invested money in a company that guaranteed that they would pay no dividends, no returns and no interest on the money? If the answer is no, does he not see himself as the trustee of the taxpayer of Ontario, and does he not think that the taxpayer would expect from the Treasurer an economic return on the investment that the Treasurer makes on his behalf?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have many routes to look after the equity of Ontario. I am looking after the concern of the citizens of this province who have a right to demand a clean environment in the pulp and paper industry.

Mr. Foulds: Right on. And jobs.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member heard me answer a question yesterday from the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce, which said, “Please forgive the current stringent pulp and paper requirements, because we need jobs worse than we need a clean environment”

Mr. Martel: Who do they represent?

Mr. Foulds: That’s not what the resolution said.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They said, “Please put jobs ahead of the environment.”

Mr. Foulds: They said, “Please give jobs priority.”

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: All right. And the honourable member heard my answer, that we had to have both. We do; we have to have a clean environment, and government has imposed a set of rules on that industry which we expect them to meet. In meeting them, we recognize they are also away behind the American plants in terms of productivity.

Mr. McClellan: What has that got to do with equity? That has nothing to do with equity.

Mr. Wildman: Answer the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am answering it. The honourable member would not understand the answer if I gave it to him.

If we are going to have any jobs in northwestern Ontario in the pulp and paper industry, we have to jawbone, twist, induce and force those companies into doing it. We believe that, with their assistance, we have found a way to do it.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister think the industry is any less cyclical in the United States?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: Not according to the ministry’s figures.


Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In view of the statement by the Ministry of Housing last spring that there was enough assisted housing in Ottawa-Carleton to meet the needs of low-income households, can the minister explain why he has not yet replied to the letter from the president of the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton who informed the minister on October 2 that there are at least 1,400 households not on the Ottawa Housing Authority waiting list but which are experiencing severe problems with housing in the city of Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I trust the leader of the third party will recall that we said we were doing a review of housing requirements, not only in the city of Ottawa but indeed in most of the major municipalities of this province, as they relate to publicly assisted housing.

The fact is that I explained to this House very carefully at that time and during my estimates, as well as on several occasions since, that as we were looking at the number of units as it relates to the number of people on the waiting list who are eligible -- and I underline the word “eligible” -- for public housing in this province, we also took into account the amount of turnover we experienced in the public housing portfolio, both in families and senior citizens. That turnover has been roughly 10 per cent across this province in any public housing portfolio, whether it be the city of Ottawa, Toronto or any other community.

We said clearly in the spring of this year, based on our projections of the housing turnover and the number of units that would come on stream in the rent supplement program, in the co-ops and the nonprofit housing that was being built in Ottawa, and indeed the units that we as a government were finishing under the Assisted Rental Program, that from our point of view at that time there appeared to be, in the applications that had been made for public housing, sufficient housing stock to accommodate, on a turnover basis, those applicants who qualify for assistance.

If one wants, as the leader of the third party and some of his party members have said, to change the criteria for eligibility for public housing, obviously the demands will be considerably higher than what we believe is the eligibility rate at this very point.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the social planning council study found that half of the families with incomes of less than $10,000 a year were paying more than 50 per cent of their income in rent, and yet the point system in Ottawa Housing is such as to give almost no preference at all to people who are having to pay that level of rent, is the ministry prepared to revise the point ratings within the Ontario Housing Corporation to ensure that families who are genuinely in need of housing are not ruled out of eligibility because of antiquated or inapplicable point ratings?

Ms. Gigantes: It’s punitive.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You know, Mr. Speaker, we go through this about every two or three months, and I certainly don’t mind repeating the position we have taken and the position that I have explained to the House and to the leader of the third party. The fact is that we said we are doing the housing study; and we said that in the course of doing that study, not only for Ottawa but for other communities in this province as well, we would be doing a review of the rating program and we would be looking for some input.


But I also remind the leader of the third party that at the time we replied to the social planning council, and to some of their representation to us, we asked them to substantiate the list they had produced. We wanted them to show there was not a whip-sawing action, that the same people they were trying to tell us were eligible for housing were not on the Ottawa Housing Authority list.

We also wanted them to verify who these people happened to be. We said if they were in need as indicated then they should be referred to the Ottawa Housing Authority. That is the agency that reports and also accommodates those who are genuinely in need of assistance.

To this point I do not recall, as the Minister of Housing and also a representative of the local community in Ottawa South, having received from the social planning council of my community a list indicating those 1,400 people, and the fact that they are not on the Ottawa Housing Authority list. If they are not, why haven’t they referred them to that agency which is responsible for public housing in our part of the province?

Ms. Gigantes: Because of your rating system.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the minister not accept that when he made his statement in the spring he also said 95 per cent of the people in housing need were on the OHA list? This is despite the fact the social planning council survey indicates that only 16 per cent of people in need were on the list and that a third of them were, according to the rules of the OHA, not even eligible to go on OHC lists. Will he stop blaming people who are in need and start providing decent housing for people at an affordable cost in Ottawa and across the province?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The simplistic position of the leader of the third party is that we would solve everyone’s problem by providing more and more publicly owned housing.

Mr. Warner: You won’t provide any.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is not the case and he knows it very well.

I said in the spring of the year exactly what I have repeated here this afternoon, that if there is justification this province has never backed away from taking that responsibility and providing the number of housing unit in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is why this government, with Central Mortgage and Housing, has provided something like 93,000 units across the province.

Mr. Warner: That’s nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No other political jurisdiction can brag of that kind of support for people on low income and in need for public housing. None.

Mr. Warner: Not building any more. There are 10,000 people waiting in Metro.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I repeat once again to the leader of the third party what he --

Mr. Foulds: Your tie is running away with your tongue.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- obviously doesn’t want to accept: we are doing a review of what would be the accepted point-rating system to go into public housing -- whether it be in Ottawa, Toronto, London, Windsor or any other community in our province. The fact is I asked the social planning council through Mr. Riggs, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing, to review with him very carefully what are the things they needed. I have read their report with some interest.

The leader of the third party can always pick out a very isolated instance to make one think somebody should have housing.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s the second largest city in the province. There are 1,000 people on the list.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, very clearly this government hasn’t backed away from its responsibility in my community of Ottawa, in the community of Metropolitan Toronto, or in any other community. But we are not going to expect public expenditures in housing that will not be used. And let me remind this House --

Mr. Warner: The waiting list is 10,000 in Toronto and you know it. Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- that in some parts of this province today there are a number of public housing units that are not being used to their maximum capacity because they are three-, four- and five-bedroom units. We do not find applicants wanting that type of accommodation.

Mr. Deans: Where?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We will build to meet the need --

Mr. Warner: You are making this up.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We will not overbuild. That is the very point we are heading for at this time, and I think very properly so.


Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed with further questions it has been brought to my attention that we have under the Speaker’s gallery, the west section, a gentleman who has made a tremendous contribution, not only to the people of Canada, but to many trouble spots throughout the world. I would draw your attention to the fact that we have, as a very distinguished guest and visitor, Dr. Robert McClure.


Mr. Blundy: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister ever considered amendments to the Pension Benefits Act that would protect the pensions of employees who are the victims of a company bankruptcy or relocation out of the province? I gave as an example employees of Prestolite Limited in Point Edward, a company being closed out by its US parent, Eltra Limited.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware of that issue, but I will be pleased to review it and report to the member.

Mr. Blundy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the ministry ever made any representation to the royal commission on pensions with respect to a guarantee of some sort for all employees, both organized and unorganized? What are the minister’s views in respect to these representations?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the member I’m not aware of whether or not there have been representations made but I shall inquire and report.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister not aware that this matter was raised both by myself and the Leader of the Opposition with the former Minister of Industry and Tourism last spring?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I was not aware of that.


Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. With respect to the closed-circuit TV cameras used against the women workers at Puretex Knitting Company who have been on strike since November 13 after two years of proceedings before the Ontario Homan Rights Commission, can the minister tell this House if, since his reply of November 3 in the Legislature, he has been able to decide on a course of action to help bring about a settlement of the dispute at Puretex Knitting?

Mr. Martel: Get rid of the cameras.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this particular matter was discussed in some detail during estimates just this week, as I’m sure the member knows. He also knows I am, at present, awaiting a response from the attorney representing the employees at Puretex. I had indicated at estimates that upon receipt of that response and upon receipt of documentation I’ve requested from my staff regarding law and practice in other countries, I intended to deal with the matter.

Mr. Lupusella: A supplementary: Since the minister had already met separately with both the union and the company involved when he informed this House on November 3 that he was then trying to decide on a course of action, can the minister tell this House now whether he will give his personal support -- and I want to emphasize his personal support -- to help his mediation officers settle the strike at Puretex Knitting in relation to the main issues in dispute?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member well knows my own concerns about oppressive electronic surveillance. I needn’t elaborate on them again. I can tell him my mediators have been in contact with the parties again this week.

Mr. Havrot: Quit grandstanding. The member has been told a half a dozen times.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Although the personal concerns of the minister may not be in any question, his intention to legislate surely is. Will he come forward with a simple amendment making it illegal to have that type of surveillance or, at the very least, demanding that a permit be obtained proving that it is needed for security, safety or something of that kind and get rid of this oppressive productivity surveillance? Why doesn’t he come forward and move an amendment? He will know he has the support of both the other parties.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and I, along with other members of the other party have discussed this in great detail in estimates. He knows exactly what I have said and what I’m in the process of doing. I wish he could stand up and say it’s an easy problem. Laws regarding privacy extend way beyond electronic surveillance and it’s a broad issue to consider. One doesn’t delve into it overnight and say, “Ah ha, I’ve got the answer,” but I am looking into it.


Mr. Watson: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. For approximately two years now, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has been funding and supporting a pilot project in Chatham and four other cities, concerning the transportation of the physically disabled. It was brought to my attention that this original pilot project was to run out on December 31, 1978.

Mr. Kerrio: Statement.

Mr. Watson: Could the minister advise the House as to whether or not this worthwhile program is to be continued on an ongoing basis?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. The funding for the five pilot projects in the province was for a two-year program. It was then extended to December 31 of this year to give more time to finalize all the information we have received from the pilot projects. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, to be able to conclude this whole matter prior to December 31.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Is the minister informing the House that he is now willing to provide parallel funds for transportation for handicapped people all across the province? Is that what he is telling the House?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I don’t know how one could assume that I was telling the House anything like that. I hope some day I will be able to, but I sure wasn’t today.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate to the House just what is causing the delay, in view of the fact that other provinces such as Saskatchewan have had 50 per cent funding for the handicapped for at least five or six years? Just what is the delay? Is it merely a stall?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know what more I can tell the honourable members.

An hon. member: Tell us what you are going to do.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We announced about two and a half years ago that we were proceeding with these five pilot projects on a two-year basis. We extended those to the end of December. I have now completed my report on the matter and it is before cabinet at the present time.


Hon. Mr. Parrott: I hope I am not too long with this reply. I have tried to condense it as much as I can but it is rather a long one and I’m going to read it.

On November 21, the Leader of the Opposition asked for information concerning the importation of PCBs into Ontario. I should point out that the regulation on importation of PCBs and the manufacturing and distribution of equipment containing PCBs is solely under federal jurisdiction under the terms of Environmental Contaminants Act. I have been advised by Environment Canada that the detailed breakdown of quantities of imports of PCBs by individual users is confidential under the terms of the act. However, I have been given the following information as to the total quantities imported.

In 1978, there were no imports of PCBs in Canada at all. In 1977, the following quantities were imported into Canada. May and Baker Limited imported 78 tons of PCBs in their capacity as agent for electrical equipment manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec. During the same year, Monsanto Canada Limited imported 790 tons of PCBs to fulfill prior commitments to electrical equipment manufacturers in Canada preceding closure of its PCB manufacturing operations in the United States in October 1977. According to Environment Canada, approximately two thirds of the 790 tons came into Ontario.

I do have with me a list of the companies which use these imported PCBs and I will be pleased to send a copy of this to the Leader of the Opposition. However, as previously mentioned, I do not have information as to individual quantities used by these companies since that information is confidential under the federal act. If I might be permitted to read that, it’s rather brief, It’s on nondisclosure of certain information:

“Section 4: Any information received pursuant to subsection (1), subsection (3)(2), or paragraph 3(3)(A) that relates to a formula or a process by which anything is manufactured or processed, whether patented or not, or to other trade secrets or that is sales or production information that has been specified, in writing, as information that is given in confidence shall not be disclosed except as may be necessary for the purposes of this act.”

PCBs imported were used in the manufacture of electrical equipment under the terms of the existing Environmental Contaminants Act regulations. As of January 1, 1979, new federal regulations will prohibit the use of PCBs for either the manufactured or topping up of electrical equipment and alternative fluids will be used.

With regard to the inspection and safeguarding of electrical equipment containing PCBs, my ministry is being provided by Environment Canada with a detailed listing of all electrical equipment in Ontario containing PCBs. This listing will be used as the basis of a co-operative inspection program involving my ministry, the provincial Ministry of Labour and Environment Canada. Preliminary discussion in this regard has already taken place.


The object of these inspections will be to attach warning labels to all such units, to assess the potential of PCB loss and to initiate loss prevention and control measures.

With regard to the occupational health hazard, a bulletin has been issued by the provincial Ministry of Labour outlining the precautions that should be taken to avoid occupational exposures to PCBs in the electrical distribution and maintenance industry. The bulletin has been widely circulated through the municipal electrical utilities and Ontario Hydro. Thank you for your indulgence for that lengthy reply.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Would the ministry require the vehicle -- whether it be a railroad tank car or whether it be a truck -- used in the transportation of PCBs to be clearly identified with some type of symbol so that even a lay person could readily realize that the vehicle is carrying PCBs, and would he also require any transportation of PCBs to have alongside of it or close to it some types of chemicals that could neutralize or counteract it in case of some type of minor spill?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m prepared to do the former. The latter is a very difficult request. I don’t think one can neutralize PCBs that readily. I’m afraid I’d have to reject that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In addition to the inspection and labelling which is going on, will the minister also undertake a program to ensure the replacement of transformers and other electrical equipment containing PCBs in any case where there is any substantial danger of risk or of spillage taking place?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With the phrase that was used, “where there is any substantial danger,” then yes. I think that essentially is being done. I think we agreed in committee that when transformers, for instance, wear out they should be replaced, and they cannot be replaced with materials containing PCBs as of January, because of the response I just gave.

I think the member makes it difficult to make that determination when they’re potentially dangerous. Any PCB that’s stored is obviously potentially dangerous and it will be suitably labelled and suitably monitored. It’s very difficult to give that kind of blank cheque approval. We’re very concerned and we’re making every effort to make it as safe as humanly possible.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: How can the minister say that there have been no PCBs imported into Ontario in 1978 when we have been told by May and Baker, a company in Ontario, that it has imported 40 tons of PCBs this year? Would the minister please check into that and find out how it is that his information and ours differ on this very important matter?

Will he confirm that six out of 10 transformers inspected were, in fact, leaking? That’s something he has never bothered to confirm.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m not sure whose phone line to Ottawa is more quickly answered -- the member’s or ours. Perhaps he and I should both check. If his information from the federal minister is the same as mine, we’ll agree. If it isn’t then the member has a problem.

Mr. S. Smith: We got it from May and Baker. You are wrong.


Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, pertaining to her statement last week on the unfortunate delays in processing student loans.

Would the minister advise why it is that in certain institutions like the University of Ottawa she would encourage francophone students to apply for loans using forms that are in French and that have been worked out with the institution and her ministry, when her computer apparently cannot crank out a certificate in French and any student who dares use a form in French pretty well faces the unfortunate situation of having a four-week delay over and above what the delay is for ordinary applications?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In terms of the application of the form to the computer program, it really doesn’t matter which language it’s in because only the numbers are important as far as the computer program is concerned. I can see no reason at all why whether the form is printed in French and completed in French should have a delaying effect upon the computer processing of that specific application form.

The member is right, the computer does not print out in French. It prints out in computer language, which I understood was universal.

Mr. Roy: That’s what I thought. Could I ask a supplementary?

In view of the fact that the minister and I agree there should be no problem with the computer, whether it’s cranking them out in computer language or in French or in English, could she investigate this situation and report back to us why there is a delay, since it is a fact that when students fill out applications in French it usually takes at least four weeks longer than for those who fill out applications in English?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, Mr Speaker.


Mr. MacDonald: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue regarding a constituent of mine, 81 years of age and growing blind. When she recently purchased a cassette translation of the New Testament from the Canadian Bible Society she found she was charged sales tax. Since the cassette translation is the equivalent of the book, does the minister not think it is time to review his regulations and to exempt cassette translations of the Bible, or at least to grant the same exemptions to the Canadian Bible Society as he now grants to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a reasonable request. I’ll certainly look into it.


Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the unabated series of tragic and unnecessary violent acts in public places, including both the shooting of a public official at a council meeting in Nickel Centre and the senseless death of a Toronto lawyer in the Supreme Court building a few days ago; and in view of the ease of access to legislative assemblies which permitted an individual some years ago to enter the federal House of Commons with an explosive device which only by chance failed to precipitate a catastrophe; and in view of the almost informal state of security in this Legislature, would the minister undertake to assess immediately the merit of introducing some firm and specific measures, such as electronic screening devices, which would provide positive and convincing security to all of us here in this House?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. MacDonald: It is the Speaker’s responsibility.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think this is a matter for all members, Mr. Speaker. I think the Speaker is very concerned about these matters and with respect to the member’s question I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to suggest at this time what might be needed in so far as additional security measures in this particular Legislature are concerned.


Mr. Stong: Supplementary: Can the Solicitor General confirm the existence of a report which was ordered about a year ago and prepared by one of his officials, Mr. Pukacz, which was distributed among the ministries of Correctional Services, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, 250 pages of which are devoted to security in our courtrooms? Could the Solicitor General confirm that and indicate what actions have been taken on that report and what suggestions have been implemented?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know what this has to do with the previous question, but I’m prepared to treat it as a new question, Mr. Speaker.

The Pukacz report deals with a number of matters as follows: “conduct of prosecutions by police officers; provision of security in guarding prisoners within court buildings; transportation of prisoners and escorting of juveniles and persons under warrants of committal; assistance in the execution of committal orders and writs of execution; preparation and serving of summonses and subpoenas; preparation of court calendars; and assisting in capacity of court clerks in provincial courts; any other matters relating to the provision of court services that might be brought to the attention of the special consultant during this study.”

I mention the terms of reference only to indicate the very extensive ambit of Mr. Pukacz’s mandate. The report which I’m holding in my hand and which has three volumes of appendices is a very extensive report touching on many operations related to the administration of justice and other services. This report has been reviewed by various officials in my ministry and other ministries and we will hopefully be in a position to respond to the report in the not-too-distant future. I can’t say anything more than that at this particular time.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Am I not correct in saying that security in this Legislature -- indeed in this building -- falls under your responsibility and authority?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. McClellan: And so it should.

Mr. MacDonald: Then the whole question to the minister is out of order.

Mr. Roy: Part of the first question was dealing with courthouse security.

Mr. Speaker: There is some confusion here. The editorializing dealt with other matters. The specific question asked about security in the building. I treated the intervention by the member for York Centre as a new question.

Mr. Roy: Can I ask a supplementary? Would the minister advise the House whether an inquest is going to be held in relation to the incident this week in a courthouse in Toronto?

Second, in view of the fact that the incident would be very difficult to prevent by any form unless there was a ridiculous degree of security, would the minister not agree there is a need for some tighter security because apparently in most courthouses of the province there is very little security?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First, I would not expect that there would be an inquest, in view of the fact that criminal charges have been laid. As the member for Ottawa East knows, in this province it is not the practice to hold inquests when criminal charges have been laid.

Mr. Foulds: He might not know that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect to the second part of the question, we are reviewing the security procedures in relation to the courthouses in the province. Obviously, the needs vary from place to place and from courthouse to courthouse within the particular community. That is something that is going to be reviewed very carefully. As soon as any decisions have been made, I will be happy to share them with the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: A new question. The member for Algoma.

Mr. Riddell: On a point of order: I believe the original question came from the NDP.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York West had asked a question about security in this building. The next question came from the member for York Centre, which was a new question. The natural rotation goes to the New Democratic Party. The member for Algoma.

Mr. Martel: He was wrong again.


Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Considering the fact that the minister visited Blind River during the 1977 general election, two days prior to a voting day, and stated that MTC was ready to consider construction of Highway 555 between Blind River and Elliot Lake, that after the election neither MTC nor MNA did anything about it, and then while visiting Sault Ste. Marie three weeks ago, the minister again stated that the Granary Lake road would certainly be a candidate for the 1977 construction schedule and that he would be meeting the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) about the 1977 schedule, could the minister tell us if he recommended construction of the Granary Lake road to the Minister of Northern Affairs two weeks ago or is he going to leave it again until the next provincial election so that he can make it a hat trick?

Mr. Martel: Or until a by-election.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I had some problem trying to follow that question.

Mr. Breaugh: How many times are you going to promise the same roads?

Mr. Warner: You have a problem building the highway.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want an answer?

Mr. Warner: You won’t get one.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The honourable member referred to the 1977 program.

Mr. Breaugh: He referred to the 1977 election.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Our 1977 program has been completed.

Mr. Foulds: And the highway wasn’t.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: What I’m asking is how many times is he going to promise a road between Blind River and Elliot Lake? Is he going to continue to promise it every election?

Hon. Mr. Snow: At no time did I ever make any definite promises about that road.

Mr. Breaugh: At least not any he intended to keep.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I was in Sault Ste. Marie about two or three weeks ago --

Mr. J. Reed: What were you doing up there?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- attending the convention of the Canadian Urban Transit Association. When I left that meeting a young lady, I believe from the press, asked me several questions.

Mr. Breithaupt: Did you promise her anything?

Hon. Mr. Snow: She asked about the Granary Lake road.

Mr. Speaker: Order.


Hon. Mr. Snow: I said the Granary Lake road was certainly a candidate for construction under the Minister of Northern Affairs’ program and the decision as to when that road would be constructed and the setting of the priorities would be the responsibility of the Minister of Northern Affairs. That is exactly what I said.


Hon. Mr. Wells: The member for Ottawa East asked a question of my colleague, the Treasurer, about French-language funding in the national capital area which is handled by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. I would like to tell him that on March 30, 1976, the province entered into an agreement with the city of Ottawa to contribute 80 per cent towards the cost of providing French-language training to employees of the city.

The National Capital Commission agreed to meet half of the province’s contribution; namely, about 40 per cent. This agreement with the city of Ottawa expires on March 31, 1979.

There was a special provision in the agreement that the salary cost of replacement personnel of the Ottawa police department would be provided, up to and including June 30, 1978, at which time this special arrangement was phased out. That is last June.

The actual provincial expenditures to date under the agreement in respect of the city for French-language training are as follows: Fiscal year 1975-76, $98,353; fiscal year 1976-77, $227,000; fiscal year 1977-78, $229,220; and 1978-79 estimated expenditures for part of that period is $156,000. That makes a total of about $710,000 and about 50 per cent of these expenditures have come from the National Capital Commission.

The lesser amounts in the first and the last fiscal years I mentioned were caused because the arrangement with the police force was not in effect at those times.

Just last week we had a request from the city of Ottawa that we extend the funding arrangements for French-language training beyond March 31, 1979, which, of course, is in a few months. We are now assessing whether or not we can do that and in due course we will be communicating with the city. I think it should be understood that when we embarked on this program it was for a set period of time and it wasn’t seen as an ongoing, forever open-ended program.

Mr. Roy: Can I conclude then from the minister’s answer that the reports in the Ottawa press that a decision not to continue the program and phase it out over the next few years, has not been made? Second, because of the overwhelming success of the program and the fact we are talking about the national capital of Canada, does the minister not feel that serious consideration should be given to continuing this agreement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I haven’t made personally any decision to discontinue the program. I am waiting for the reports to come in and the official request. We will assess it then and see whether in fact it should be continued.

I draw to the member’s attention that the part about the police payment has already ended; that is where we paid cost of replacement personnel for the police force. That ended last June.


Mr. Riddell: A question to the Justice policy minister.

In the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and in the interests of justice, could the minister obtain for me an explanation of the reason the government deviated from the customary procedure used to fill the vacancy for a registrar of deeds in Huron county?

Why was the position not open to competition and a selection made on the competency and experience of applicants, rather than by an outright appointment?

An hon. member: All Conservatives were allowed to tender.

Mr. Riddell: Why were letters of recommendation for the promotion of the deputy registrar, submitted by all the lawyers in the area, by the district supervisor, and by the member of Parliament, completely ignored?

Why was it necessary for one of the ministry senior staff members to request the cooperation of the deputy registrar to assist the newly appointed registrar in land registry matters as he had had very little experience, if indeed the appointment was based on knowledge and experience?


Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the members from the Ottawa district please be quiet?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to draw to the attention of my cabinet colleagues the concerns expressed by the member in his question.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: While the minister is doing so, being that the deputy registrar has been acting as registrar for some period of time, and being that he’s responsible for training the newly appointed registrar in land registry, will he consult with the minister to ascertain whether his salary can be reinstated at the level it was at when he was acting as the registrar for the county?


Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I regret that unfortunately due to circumstances beyond my control I was late today.

I heard the last portion of the question asked by the member for Huron-Middlesex. I am prepared to take it as notice if he is to be here tomorrow. If he is not going to be here tomorrow --

Mr. Riddell: I’ll be here.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s fine. I will take it as notice and will reply to it tomorrow. My apologies for being late.


Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware how successful the pilot senior citizens’ assistance program had been in the Niagara region in helping the senior citizens stay in their own homes instead of going in to institutions and providing employment for some 26 people who were on welfare?

Does the minister know that the program is dying now that the funding has fully shifted to the region’s social services department from the Canada works grant because many charges to the senior citizens have gone up from 50 cents to $3.50 because of the limited funding available from the ministry? Will he provide some special funding over and above the home-care program to this pilot project so that it can continue?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar in detail with the specific program to which the honourable member makes reference. I will examine the situation to see whether the region has, in fact, taken advantage of the program that is already available through my ministry for that type of program and which has been implemented in many municipalities across the province. I am not aware at this point whether they have been running two parallel programs or whether they have chosen for some reason or other not to opt for the existing program within the ministry.



Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee has carefully examined the application of the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville for a private act and finds the notices, as published, sufficient.

Report adopted.


Mr. G. Taylor, on behalf of Mr. McCaffrey, from the standing general government committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979: Office of the Assembly, $17,097,000.


Mr. Havrot from the standing resources development committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979:

Ministry administration program, $7,287,000; industrial relations program, $2,394,000; women’s program, $633,000; occupational health and safety program, $18,266,000; employments standards program, $2,928,000; Ontario manpower co-ordinating committee program, $237,000; human rights commission program, $1,803,000; labour relations board program, $2,178,000.



Mr. Hodgson moved first reading of Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the Corporation of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 199, An Act to amend the County Courts Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This amendment is a small housekeeping matter that is nevertheless very important. County courts are now hearing appeals for the provincial court, family division, under the Family Law Reform Act and when the new Child Welfare Act comes into force they will be hearing appeals in child protection and adoption cases as well.

These two statutes do not specify the powers of the county court on hearing the appeal, for example, the power to substitute its own decision for that of the family court rather than ordering a new trial.

On reflection, we felt it advisable to provide expressly just what powers the court may exercise in allowing an appeal, as this will serve to avoid uncertainty. Accordingly, we have provided that county courts should have the powers of the Court of Appeal in disposing of appeals in civil matters.

The effective date of this amendment is March 31, 1978, which is the date the Family Law Reform Act came into force, for the avoidance of any doubts as to appeals which have already been heard.


Mr. Van Horne moved first reading of Bill 200, An Act to provide for the Disclosure of Information Relating to the Financial Cost and Economic Impact of Government Programs.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Very simply, this is an extension of the bill which I presented earlier and I hope in the New Year to have the opportunity to get this in front of the House.





Mr. Nixon moved resolution 3:

That this House recognizes the outstanding achievements of Dr. Robert McClure whose life of service at home, in China and elsewhere in the world exemplifies the most commendable aspects of the human spirit. And that a suitable message be inscribed and forwarded to Dr. McClure.

Mr. Nixon: I am very glad indeed, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. McClure is in the gallery today, that you were good enough to bring his presence to the attention of all members. Mrs. McClure is also with him, and although I have not had the honour of knowing them personally or well, I was able to exchange a few words with them before the session began, and certainly they are both fit and interested in our proceedings here this afternoon.

I read an interesting book a year ago about Dr. McClure. The author of that book is going to be referred to later in this debate, but it occurred to me as I finished it just following Christmas, that here is I a man who should be recognized in every way possible by the citizens of this province and, in fact, the citizens of the world. We are very short of heroes. We are short of good examples. In my view Dr. McClure’s life, his attitude to life, and his service to mankind, ranks him in the first order of both hero and good example.

I think probably he would resent even the use of those words. When we talk about a life of service there is something heavy and pedantic associated with that, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, nothing that Dr. McClure has done or said, or I suspect even thought, would come under that characteristic. His dedication, I believe, is more than that; it is to the fulfilment of his own talents which he has done in full measure and continues to do.

I want to speak briefly about his career, and it makes it much easier to follow his progress if you realize he was born in 1900. So you immediately now know how old he is and all about him in that respect.

While he was not born in China his father was a medical practitioner and a Presbyterian minister in China even before the turn of the century. Probably one of his best advantages for his further career was that he grew up in the Chinese community, learned the language and to speak it like people in the community in general.

There are a couple of references to his well-known ability in the Chinese language. I quote from the book that refers to him in some detail, and it says as follows: “He spoke Chinese in a particularly effective and practical style. He learned certain words that would penetrate the skull of a Mongolian pony and that certain words used with proper emphasis would stampede a herd of goats.” I am not sure just what that referred to, but I have the feeling that he was able to communicate as effectively with his neighbours and friends in China in those days, and perhaps still if he were there, as he can communicate with those of us who have appreciated his pithy and forthright remarks and comments in English.

I wish really that our rules permitted him, if not to join in this debate, to acknowledge it. But we have heard him -- I think everyone here would have heard him -- either in a formal expression of his views, or even in the many interviews that he had undertaken since his semi-retirement. The man I don’t believe will ever retire, and is always committed to some service for the community, or contemplating something of that nature. His mind is extremely active, and I noticed with pleasure how carefully he followed the rather mixed up proceedings we have engaged in so far in our session this afternoon.

At his family’s behest and direction he returned with his mother to Toronto, the home base, to undertake his education. He lived in 1915 on Kendall Avenue. I used to live in Toronto, taught at Humberside Collegiate and spent some years here, so I am reasonably familiar with the community.

They lived there for some years. He went to Harbord Collegiate, which has always had a reputation of being a tough school where you had to be smart to succeed. In latter days, and perhaps even then, it was a very cosmopolitan collection of immigrants and people who were extremely well motivated indeed as far as education was concerned.

I personally believe that his strongest motivation in those days was his good, strong, Presbyterian antecedents who, next to godliness, accept education as the prime prerequisite of a modern and useful life. I was fascinated to read about his early educational career both at high school and when he entered medical school at the University of Toronto at the age of 16.

Each summer as was necessary, both from the standpoint of the financing of his education and for other good reasons, he was able to find employment in the city and the surrounding area. He worked as a machine-tool labourer in war munitions work. He worked on the docks, where most of the people he worked with were ex-convicts. You understand this was in the depths of the First World War, when labour was hard to come by and everybody was taking a full part.

The part that really impressed me was that he spent a summer working on a farm which, as we all know, is the best way to form character.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Stick to politics.

Mr. Nixon: His education and his activities were very broad indeed. He was a good basketball player. He played the violin in the Med’s orchestra. He dated the ladies in the community and lived a very full and growing life as a student and as a young man.

Probably one of the greatest influences on him -- and I wish he were to tell it himself but I can understand it -- was the influence of Dr. George Pidgeon, who was the minister at Bloor Street Presbyterian Church. He was quite impressed as well by the fact that a medical mission, funded in part, if not totally, from Bloor Street church, had been active in China for many years. Unfortunately, and tragically, at that time one of the principal doctors involved was killed in an uprising in China. It may have been at that time that the thought of taking part in this work occurred to Dr. McClure, although I suspect that it had always been a part of his goal in life. So he completed his medical training and was offered the opportunity to go to China in the work that fulfilled about the first half century of his life.

He wisely decided that he required specialist training as a surgeon so that, when he arrived in China, he was not just fresh from medical school but had done the interning and the special training that made him particularly useful in the country as it was at that time with very few trained medical assistants of any kind whatsoever. Without spending too much time in detailing the location of his service, it’s sufficient to say that it was in the heart of the northern part of China. With his knowledge of the language and his confidence as a medical practitioner and surgeon, he was an extremely important addition to that community at that time.

It is difficult for me to put my following thoughts in a way that would not be misunderstood because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, Dr. McClure went on to become the moderator of the United Church of Canada. While there is no doubt that his principal motivation was as a medical missionary, it appears to me in reading about his career and his life that he left to his other and highly regarded colleagues the work of spreading the Gospel and perhaps even proselytizing in the name of Christianity. Certainly he did not seem to take what I would consider any sort of narrow denominational view in that connection.

He had his skills -- and he still has them -- and he applied them for the healing of the people in the community and for some other things as well which I found very impressive. His ability to work with his hands as a mechanic was extremely valuable, along with his medical abilities. One of the first things he did was to set up a telephone exchange so that among the villages in which he was required there was at least some improvement in communications. He was extremely interested in the application of x-radiation for diagnosis and, to some extent, treatment. Because he was, in a sense, in the boondocks of pre-World War II China, he didn’t just open up his package of Band-Aids and try to do good work in that regard. He stayed up to the mark as medical practice expanded its frontiers and he was in every sense a modern doctor as he struggled with the somewhat limited facilities at his disposal.

I was quite impressed at the very straightforward and competent procedures he used to more or less use the community for its own benefit. China in its recent administration since 1950 has taken great strides in having what I think they call barefoot doctors. These are people who are not fully qualified as medical practitioners, but who have the kind of training whereby they can go through the community, particularly the rural community, and do the basic things that are needed. In a sense, Dr. McClure initiated that concept by training those people in the community that he selected himself. He felt they had the brains and the ability to learn from him and to go out into the community and do the things that were necessary to upgrade the hygiene and the level of health at that time.

Once again, it is difficult for me to describe the following thought. There is no trace of condescension or prejudice in anything this man has done in any of his work anywhere in the world. We presume that is true of any educated man or woman and yet we know that’s not so. I fear there is more prejudice based on ignorance in the world today than there ever was. I believe that’s even true of Canada, Ontario and Toronto and perhaps it might even be true of people involved in public life. It’s a rare man who can put aside prejudice, or perhaps not be bothered by it at all. Dr. McClure, the subject of this resolution, in my considered view is such a man.

His mind was always probing. He was prepared to try experiments. He had a tremendous loyalty to his friends and neighbours whatever their nationality. One instance impressed my wife when she read this book. Another missionary and his wife, stationed some miles away, were in the process of having a family. A phone call came late in the evening that the baby was about to arrive. Dr. McClure jumped on his bicycle and rode many miles -- it seems to me I remember 40 miles -- in the dark and through the Chinese countryside, even over a railroad track, in order to be present and to assist at the delivery. He was back at his surgery in the morning, fit and ready to go on with the work that was necessary.

The other thing that concerned him really prompted me to bring forward this resolution. That has to do with a colleague of Dr. McClure’s, a well-known medical practitioner in China, Dr. Norman Bethune. We have heard a lot about Dr. Bethune. Certainly the government of China has seen fit to make him a hero, as it might properly do so. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had a program about him last year in which Dr. Bethune’s political motivation drew him to Spain during the Civil War and then to China in the service of the Communist rebels who are now the party that has the power of government in that country.

I simply say to members that Dr. McClure, the subject of this resolution, had a different motivation. It was not a political motivation. It was a broader one, in my view, than a political motivation. It was one that in a sense is an admirable one and, in my book, a more admirable one than that of Dr. Bethune. Dr. Bethune is a Chinese hero and is becoming a Canadian hero. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have in our presence this afternoon a man whose record puts him in the forefront of those of us who want to recognize a life of service and a life of altruistic concepts which I think we should all be aware of.

Just as I close my remarks, I want to bring to your attention that during the Second World War, Dr. McClure was the field director for the International Red Cross in China and took command of a pacifist, Quaker ambulance unit on the Burma Road. The word “pacifist” in this connection is perhaps misleading. When we read about that ambulance unit, they were obviously the toughest bunch of jungle roughnecks one would ever want to read about. The leadership of Dr. McClure in those incidents on the Burma Road during the Second World War is very interesting indeed.


While Dr. McClure was completely apolitical, that didn’t mean he didn’t get into trouble with politicians. While following the dictates of his conscience, the Chinese Nationalists of Chiang Kai-shek attempted to execute him, the Japanese had a price on his head, the Chinese Communists blacklisted him and Mackenzie King threatened to throw him in jail. With a list of enemies like that, it is obvious he is a man certainly worthy of our attention and support.

I should say just a word about Dr. McClure’s relationship with Mackenzie King. When Dr. McClure returned on furlough he didn’t just put his feet up. He went around the countryside raising funds to support his mission and also raising the devil with the government of Canada for permitting the export of scrap to the military government of imperialist Japan. He said as clearly as anybody could -- from the rooftops to anyone who was listening -- that the scrap was going to Japan, being turned into shells and bombs and destroying innocent people. There was nothing clearer in his message than that.

The government of the day was somewhat embarrassed by their policies, and Dr. McClure was summoned to Ottawa and instructed by the Prime Minister to mend his ways and his statements or be jailed. This was about the time Camilien Houde had been interned, and there’s no doubt the government of the day meant what they said.

Of course, I suppose the thing disappeared rather quickly after Pearl Harbour, but that’s another matter. Although he was apolitical, he knows quite a lot about politicians. His experience in this regard probably would make an extremely interesting speech.

I feel, in concluding my comments, that here is a man much more modern than any we meet in the normal pursuit of our responsibilities, a man who has great daring. It didn’t occur to him for a moment to hesitate to leave the relative security of home and hearth and go into another part of the world for the kind of life I have briefly described to you.

Spacemen can now go to the other side of the moon and look back at Earth and see a globe hanging in space. When they think of coming home they’re not thinking so much of a vine-covered cottage; when they say they’re coming home from space they don’t think perhaps of the landing in Siberia or the splashdown in the Pacific. Home to them is that globe hanging in space. There’s only so much space; Earth is very much the global village the eminent philosophers at the University of Toronto and elsewhere have described to us.

Sometimes our view is parochial, perhaps even provincial. The thing we must strive for is that feeling of citizenship in the global village that means we, as men and women if not as politicians, can make the community a better place in which to live. Dr. McClure’s wit, his motives and his energy must be examples to all of us if we are to have a better world.

Ms. Deputy Speaker: There are two minutes remaining in the honourable member’s time. Do you wish to reserve that?

Mr. Nixon: It is not necessary.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the New Democratic caucus it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to support this resolution and to salute Dr. McClure, a doctor, a churchman, and a world statesman.

I don’t want to speak in any detail on his life. That has already been done very adequately and very effectively by the member who has just spoken. But I would like to say a few words in a more general way and to bring to the attention of the House some of the things for which Dr. McClure stands.

There is an old statement about “some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” Generally, when we think of that phrase, we think of people born great as kings and the nobility, the people in succession. That kind of greatness, perhaps, is passing from the world in a way we don’t realize today as we did a century or two ago. When we think of those who achieve greatness, we think of Genghis Khan, Hitler, Mussolini and people of that ilk along with the prime ministers, the great politicians and the great leaders of the world, who hold power in that sense. There are those who have had greatness thrust upon them. I suppose, ever since Emperor Claudius was taken by the army and made emperor, we’ve had people like him who have had that kind of greatness thrust upon them, even though they may have been unwilling.

Over the history of the human race we have seen this kind of thing happen; greatness associated with wealth, with power, and with very great positions over the lives of other people.

The New Testament has another idea of greatness, and this runs like a golden thread through many other religions as well. In the New Testament we get the words, “He who would be greatest among you, let him be your servant.” Greatness here is associated with service, with the ability of a human being to negate his own feelings and his own thrust for power of another kind and to serve his fellow man because he sees a vision of what man might become individually and in society.

That kind of greatness has been muted over the years, muted as we as human beings have looked upon greatness as the power to grab resources and use those resources for our own enrichment at the expense of our fellow man; the power to destroy others; and to achieve that power and to hold it. So dictatorships are born, not only dictatorships but other kinds of people who grab for that kind of absolute, unquestioning obedience on the part of their fellows.

But there are others in this world of ours who turn their backs on that sort of a concept. They understand the New Testament idea, and so they go out to work, not only for their fellow human beings as individuals, but also to change the environment in which they find evil, distress, ill health, and suffering. They go to change, not only the environment but the institutions which create these conditions. These people want to make life better for everyone and they are willing to face the challenge of their day and generation to do it.

We have a Dr. McClure, you see, who is satisfied to go to China, to do what? He is not satisfied just to give some pills, or just to perform operations, but he sees a need for a change in the environment; for a better water supply, for cleaning up the disease-producing background, to see those wells of pure water are in place, to see that governments and village elders right to the national end of it, are badgered until they are willing to undertake the measures necessary to clean up that environment and to bring a better kind of society.

Dr. McClure and his fellows are responsible for tremendous changes particularly over the last century. When I think, for example, of what has happened in the field of disease and in cleaning it up everywhere, smallpox was rampant around the world when Dr. McClure started his work in China. Yet the hundreds and the thousands of Dr. McClures saw what was needed, not just trying to cure that almost incurable disease, but to change the conditions, to find the people who had the smallpox and cure them and stamp out that disease. As far as we know, the last case of smallpox has just been eliminated in Africa. That was the last one, as far as we know, in the world. That’s the emphasis which these men see and push.

When Dr. McClure and his fellows saw how their conquest of disease was making for a population explosion they, in the face of much criticism and deeply felt taboos, were willing to institute widespread measures of population control so that the work they were doing on one hand wasn’t destroyed completely by the fertility of the human race. What I’m trying to say is that the progress in civilization depends on the McClures of our world. We so often look at the rich and the powerful and say these are in the vanguard of civilization. They are not. All too often they are the ones who are preventing progress in our civilization.

Progress doesn’t come from those who are able to corner the sugar, the coffee, the land, the oil and, using these things, taking tribute from their fellow man and enriching themselves in money and in power, giving them the wherewithal to manipulate civilizations. No, progress depends upon the McClures, those who dedicate life and ability to save men and to change institutions so that the concept of unselfish service gradually replaces that of greed and the lust for power.

Progress comes as we learn to work together for the good of the total community, as we plan together to build the health services, the highways, the water services, the schools, all these things, and as we use the resources of all to care for the ill, the unfortunate and to build compassion right into our institutions.

There is a verse which comes to me, and I’ve forgotten who wrote it. I’m not sure anybody knows today. It’s a very simple one:

Great roads the Romans built that men might meet, and walls to keep strong men apart, secure.

The centuries have passed and in defeat the walls have fallen, but the roads endure.

That’s the place of the McClures, the road builders, not the wall builders; the ones to whom human need is more important than hoary institutions, who dare to defy deep-seated custom to bring healing and abundant life to those in need. Dr. McClure is such a man. So we support this resolution today and we salute Dr. McClure and all his fellows whose work is slowly, all too slowly, but surely and with certainty moulding a better world for this generation and for the generations yet to come.


Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am delighted and honoured to be able to speak in support of this resolution. It indicates that Dr. McClure is a man who transcends partisan politics, even though, as we have heard, he is a man who has not stepped back from tackling politicians of all parties.

I am really delighted we have taken this opportunity to enshrine in our records something of the service that Dr. McClure has performed for mankind. As someone who, like myself, worked in church world service and in the International Red Cross, I have on many occasions heard glowing tributes paid to this man, my fellow Canadian, Dr. McClure.

He is a man, I think, who has discovered the truth of Christ’s promise; that he who would find himself, must lose himself in dedication and in service to mankind.

As we have already heard, his was one of those families which went to China at the turn of the century. I think it is well that we remind ourselves from time to time, that in the midst of all the criticism we have heard, about colonial imperialism in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, much of it well deserved I suppose, there was a very, very strong element of enlightened humanitarianism and unselfish Christian service. We often forget that happened. Certainly Dr. McClure and his family are the very personification, the epitome of that kind of service.

As we have heard, he practised in China for a long time, from 1923 to 1948, when he was driven out by the Communists. I was interested to note that on his expulsion, he expressed the view, and I quote here, that “The only thing a doctor leaves behind him in this country is not grateful patients, as so many think, but a trail of men who have worked with him.” Depicting something of the turbulent, dangerous and hazardous days in which Dr. McClure lived at that time, it has been recorded that during his period of service in China, his operations for gunshot wounds alone averaged one a day, every day, for 10 years.

Dr. McClure is obviously one of those people rarely blessed with not only a great heart, but a great mind. Throughout his career, one can always see him returning to the books, to the studies, to be a disciplined student. In 1931, for instance, he was awarded the FRCS from the University of Edinburgh and later received the FICS from the same university.

He studied radiology and radium. He was the only medical missionary in all inland China who had radium for cancer treatment. I think it might be interesting to note incidentally, that the radium was donated by the late Vincent Massey.

Later in his career we see he studied again in Sweden, studied in public health and then took that training with him to do more work with the International Red Cross.

Perhaps it is reflecting the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers that, as we have already heard, in 1968 Dr. McClure was elected moderator of the United Church of Canada and the only layman thus far to hold that position. I think all of us can remember the leadership he gave that church during his office as moderator.

Then, when his term expired, he spent over two years in Malaysia doing surgery at Christ Hospital. It didn’t stop there. He went on for six months at a hospital in the Peruvian jungle and for several months at a hospital in the West Indies. In his latest overseas assignment, he worked for four months in Zaire, the former Congo. As one who has also worked there, I can appreciate Dr. McClure’s observation when he said that modern medicine has arrived in Africa, but medicine without the Christian spirit of service is useless.

So really here, in Dr. McClure, we have a man who provides assurance for any doubters that there are still dedicated and sacrificing people among us. By any measure, religious or secular, he is indeed a remarkable man. His life has been a reflection of his character which is bold, intense, and deeply committed. He’s famous for his qualities, for all of them -- for his unselfishness, for his vigour, for his compassion and as some of his closest and best friends would say, for his downright testiness at times.

We have heard too that Dr. McClure, and I must accept this as truth, having been born in 1900, if that’s correct, is now a man of 78 but he has not yet retired. He goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded at this point in time that when the ancient King Gustav of Sweden went on and on, from the 70s to the 80s to the 90s, in the book of common prayer they prayed for their king every Sunday and somewhere in the prayer it said: “And when he goes to his eternal reward, may God give him grace and peace.” The king lived on and on and on and, finally they changed the book of prayer and said: “If the king should die, may God give him peace and freedom.”

If Dr. McClure should ever cease in his work and if he should ever pass on to his eternal reward, we know one thing at least; that his work will continue beyond his days.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted this House has taken this time in this fashion to record in the public record just a few glimpses of this great Christian, this great humanitarian and this great Ontarian. Thank you.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, it is for me a genuine privilege not only to rise and speak in this debate but also to join in seconding the resolution put by my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. As someone who has now had the opportunity to have been a member here for some three and a quarter years, I must say it really is one of the truly great and elevating debates. It is a real pleasure for me to be here to listen to such colleagues of mine that I have mentioned -- the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and particularly the previous speakers from Ottawa West and Yorkview.

I had not met Dr. McClure personally until a few hours ago, when it was my pleasure to have joined him, with my colleague from Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) and my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, in a lunch that was greatly enjoyed by us all. I certainly want to say that on first personal encounter all those things that have been said about Dr. McClure are very much the truth. I found him to be a really charming, indeed sometimes testy, and an extremely informed and interesting individual.

It struck me, when I was thinking about preparing a few remarks for this speech, that for those of us of my generation I suspect Robert McClure’s name is synonymous with two things; one is China and the second is the United Church.

Particularly in thinking about the China connection, the 50 years of very direct involvement that Dr. McClure had with China, I thought in a way that it might be commented that Canada was discovered only incidentally to the great quest and search for China. I gather from reading Munroe Scott’s book about Dr. McClure, and from reading some of Dr. McClure’s speeches, which I hope to refer to somewhat later, that Dr. McClure’s appreciation and discovery of Canada was very much a part of his China experience.

Indeed, by going to China, by working very deeply and in a very involved way with the Chinese, Dr. McClure began to appreciate the nature of the Canada to which and from which he had come. I want to make one specific reference to that a little later on.

As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk pointed out, Dr. McClure has had the opportunity, particularly in these latter years, to be a public personality. He has made a number of widely reported and sometimes controversial public statements.

I want to refer to two speeches he made that go back some considerable period of time. The first of these was given in Toronto at the Canadian Club on September 7, 1938. I think it offers some advice and comments that are really interesting in retrospect and terribly instructive to my generation, a generation that was traumatized by the Vietnam war, which I think has for all time changed our views in some particular respects.

I want to quote a few sentences from what it was that Dr. McClure told his Toronto audience 40 years ago. He said: “Gentlemen, war has changed in its style. There are styles in warfare just as in ladies’ hats. I think the styles of warfare change more slowly; but, having changed, I think the change is rather more persistent. None of you need be reminded that there is no innocent class and that the day of knights in shining armour riding to rescue maidens is gone.”

A little later he went on to say: “We thought women and children were out. We thought when a man was down, wounded, he had done his bit and was no longer a legitimate target. Today, all of that has changed. It has changed in the Far East, and it has changed right here.”

He went on to discuss guerrilla warfare, which was being developed at that time and which, unfortunately, was to be given far greater emphasis, and is to this very day, I think, one of the real horrors of our civilized society. He offered a very interesting comment about the tragedy and terror of guerrilla warfare. He expressed his own theory as to why and what guerrilla warfare really was:

“My own theory is -- and I studied it as one who had a seat under the aeroplanes, not in them -- that if you bomb a man’s house and family for no obvious purpose, he does not immediately go to the person sending the bombers and sue for peace. He looks, rather, for a gun and is likely to get going towards the landing field. And I think that is the basis for guerrilla warfare. That, just as the ruthlessness of modern scientific warfare has been allowed to run riot against the civilized population, the civilized population has answered back with guerrilla warfare.”

That was a comment offered 40 years ago which, sad to say, was not heeded, particularly in the 1960s, when many of us in this part of the world failed to understand how we would be reacted to at that particular time in southeast Asia.

The next point I want to make deals with something my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentioned in his remarks. It points to one of the truly difficult and saddening experiences that someone of such commitment, of such involvement and of such dedication as Dr. McClure had and is likely to have in the future with those of us in the political process.


In his book, which if you have not read I strongly commend to you, that by Mr. Munroe Scott, who is also in the gallery this afternoon, there is a chapter which I think, if no other chapter is read, is worth reading. It is properly entitled “Oh Canada,” and it deals with Dr. McClure’s encounter with the then Prime Minister of Canada, the Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King and one of his senior officials in Department of External Affairs, the very distinguished bureaucrat, Norman Robertson.

As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk pointed out, it was not a very happy encounter because at the time Dr. McClure was home, war had broken out in the European theatre, and it was clear, very clear to those such as Dr. McClure, that trouble in the Far East was not too far away; indeed it had already arrived.

He made statements in this country, very true and supportable statements that we were exporting to Imperial Japan nickel that was being turned into armaments. The statements were challenged by the federal government and -- I noted this as I looked at the book again today -- it was 38 years ago this very day, December 7, 1940, when the Prime Minister of Canada called Dr. McClure into his office and held him to explain what he had said.

Without using up too much of my time, I just wanted to point out that in that encounter the Prime Minister of Canada did not deny the truth and the veracity of the statements Dr. McClure had made. Interestingly, the Assistant Undersecretary for External Affairs had endeavoured to deny them, but the Prime Minister of Canada did not. In fact, he suggested that things were far worse than even the public statements of Dr. McClure had led the Canadian population to believe.

Then he went on to say, and I quote the book in quoting the Prime Minister of the day: “Well then, doctor, I recommend that you cease these public statements on the transhipment of material to Japan. You have, of course a choice. I don’t want to coerce you in any way.” The choice, of course, was recantation or jail.

Those kind of choices that we in the political process, even in wartime and in times of crisis not so very long from the 1970s, put outstanding citizens like Dr. McClure into, are ones upon which I hope we all, in the light of this kind of evidence, reflect upon. That is an incident which I think is something that in a sense I as a politician am ashamed of, that someone of his dedication and his knowledge in being on the spot would be so strongly contradicted.

Mr. Speaker, I do realize you are giving me the signal. I want to end by citing from yet another speech of Dr. McClure’s, this time to the Empire Club in Toronto in March 1947, and I’ll use this as a concluding comment, because I think the words offered 30 years ago are ones which are still very valid today. I quote Dr. McClure who said, at that time:

“So to close a talk to an Empire Club, I say I am a Canadian nationalist and an imperialist. I believe that our empire has much to give the world in lessons in political government. I believe that we have an experience that is second to none. For the white members of the empire we have shown what can be done to develop nations to their full stature and then unite with them in mutual bonds across oceans. That same vision must now be applied across racial boundaries.

“As a nation, I believe in Canada’s destiny. I believe we have a job of work to do that can be done by no other nation. I believe we have a contribution that can be made by no other nation. I feel that our entire history has brought us to this place where we can make this contribution to the prosperity and unity of one world. In all sincerity I pray God will grant that we shall make it.”

Mr. Speaker, no finer words can be offered to this generation to carry the torch that Dr. McClure has so very highly held for us all to follow.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the privilege of entering into discussion of this resolution. I think it’s important to note, at least from my perspective, that this is a rare moment in our House. It is so entirely civilized the press are absent. It’s not likely the moment will be reported by the press because there is no political animosity here. There is no partisan politics in this discussion. It’s one of the rare moments when legislators have the opportunity to say publicly to a fine gentleman, to a fine speaker, to a person who has worked hard in trying to better the lot of lives in this world, thank you.

It’s an opportunity not often given to other people in our society for us to stand up publicly and say we appreciate what you have done and that we hope that your strength of spirit, the principles which you’ve held fast to over the years will be an example to others to follow. We hope it will be an example for us, as legislators, and for the generations of young people who, we hope, will be committed to the same kinds of principles you have held so dearly.

I can’t add much in terms of the history which has been so eloquently spoken to by the member for Renfrew North and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and others, but I will say I’m certainly aware of the kind of person Dr. McClure is and has been over the years.

The concept of a global village was something that, I think, was probably quite foreign to the minds of most people at the turn of the century. It was a man of great vision who could say that a golden life would be to have people living under similar and equal conditions around the world and try to do something about it. It is a very rare man indeed who can, during those times, take problems directly to the seat of power and try to do something about it. You’re to be commended for it, and commended quite highly.

As I listened to the comments of the member for Renfrew North, I could not help but think how ironic it was that when Dr. McClure had such difficulty over the issue with Prime Minister Mackenzie King it wasn’t that many years later the Japanese people in Canada were treated so shabbily. It’s a twisted irony of the times I suppose.

We need more of you. We don’t know the prospects for cloning these days, but we need more Dr. McClures and the more the better.

I have a request of the Speaker. In the resolution that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has put forward he puts at the bottom, “and that a suitable message be inscribed and forwarded to Dr. McClure.” I would request that the Speaker find a way to have a suitable tribute available in Queen’s Park so that we can show we honour Dr. McClure. Members of the assembly and visitors to Queen’s Park would then get an opportunity to know something of the history of Dr. McClure, something of his spirit and have something of his example to look towards. I hope the Speaker can undertake to do that.

In closing, I simply want to say thank you, Dr. McClure, for providing for me and for others a fine example to follow. I hope we’re worthy of it and I hope you are around here for many more years to come.

Mr. Johnson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this resolution presented by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I commend the member for bringing this resolution forth. It’s about time we started to honour our heroes, to pay tribute to our many outstanding Canadian men and women. Dr. Robert McClure is an excellent example of an outstanding Canadian. By the way, I hope the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is recognized for his achievements and appointed to the Senate before Trudeau departs.

Politics aside, and getting back to the resolution, while I do not know Dr. McClure personally, there is a family connection. My son Colin, who is an Anglican priest, is married to Ellen Smith, whose father, Reg Smith, is one of the foremost Quakers in Toronto and indeed in Canada. Reg Smith served in China during the Second World War with Dr. McClure. Also, the Reverend George Wright, a former minister of my church, Mount Forest United, served in China with them. As a member of the United Church and for these personal reasons, I prevailed in our caucus for the opportunity to speak on this resolution.

During family gatherings I have heard so much about Bob McClure that I asked Reg Smith to supply me with some background about the famous doctor during their mutual stay in China. The resolution of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk requests this House to recognize the outstanding achievements of Dr. Robert McClure at home, in China and elsewhere in the world. I would like now to give this House an insight into Bob McClure’s contribution to the people of China, indeed to humanity.

Christopher Isherwood and W. H. Auden in their book Journey to a War, writing about the Sino-Japanese war, described Bob McClure as “a stalwart, sandy, bullet-headed Canadian Scot with the energy of a whirlwind and the high spirit of a 16-year-old boy.” Whirlwind, as those who have worked with Bob McClure know, is just the right word to describe him. He is one of the most energetic men one will meet anywhere. Bob is a dynamic doer, full of ideas. He is stimulating, challenging and has a remarkable presence.

After the war in the Pacific broke out, Bob, with 20 other Canadians, joined the Friends’ ambulance unit, Quakers in China. At first he was commandant of the unit and later its medical director. His work as commandant involved him in a great deal of administration. But Bob is no desk man. He has to be active in the field, involving himself directly in responding to the needs of people. In China and in other countries in which he has worked, he has given selflessly of himself. He is, of course, a medical doctor and a surgeon, and his focus of concern has been with the medical health and surgical needs of people.

It was during the war in China, 1937 to 1945, that he, with a handful of Chinese and westerners, including the Reverend George Wright, another China missionary from Ontario and my home town of Mount Forest, established the International Relief Committee to receive the medical relief supplies that were being sent to China from Canada, Britain and the United States.

It was out of Bob’s awareness of the needs of hospitals, of the battle conditions, the homeless refugees and the victims of bombings that he left his hospital in Chengchow and devoted his time to establishing a trucking system to transport IRC relief supplies throughout what was known as free China. He set up a garage, drove a truck and became a mechanic so he could repair an engine when a truck broke down.

Dr. McClure, please forgive my pronunciation of those Chinese cities. I don’t think the other members will notice. If you don’t tell them, I’ll see that Hansard has the correct spellings.

When Indochina was captured, the supplies came in from Rangoon, up the famous Burma Road. It was tremendous foresight on the part of Bob McClure and the International Relief Committee to engage in this activity, for these supplies were delivered to hospitals which kept them functioning. Distances in China are enormous, and most of the roads compare with the cottage roads of Ontario. Hospitals as far apart as Lanchow, which borders on Russia, and Fukien, which is in the Pacific Ocean, were served. Several thousand hospital beds were served because of this effort. Later in 1944, and after the fall of Burma, at the time Wingate’s Raiders and the Americans had equipped crack Chinese regiments with military supplies to fight in the jungles of southwest China and North Burma, Bob McClure organized medical field units.


These units were composed of French ambulance unit personnel, Quakers, doctors and medical orderlies. Because it was jungle warfare, the traditional motor ambulance was of no use, so by pack mule Bob McClure took a hospital into the jungle where the wounded and the sick were to be found.

On one occasion he was parachuted to a casualty clearing station. Bob is a man of adventure. There was a time when he and a group of Quakers were trying to define the meaning of the term “adventure.” They came up with “risk with a purpose.” Bob has taken many risks in his life, but always with a purpose. Bob has spent his life helping people in those places where the need is greatest. His motivation stems from the teachings of Jesus.

When he is asked about his Christian theology, his response is, “Christianity is meant to be lived. Let your lives speak.” By his life, Bob McClure has manifested what Christianity means to him.

Though this occasion is a time to honour Bob McClure, it is appropriate to recognize his wife, Amy, too. Bob quite rightly has received much attention for his outstanding service to mankind. Without Amy though, who has understood him and his purposes; who has supported him, made him a home and give him her love, the way for Bob would have been very much harder. Indeed it has been said that Amy must be a saint, and I’m sure the good doctor would be the first to agree with this assessment.

Mr. Speaker, while it is against your House rules to introduce guests in the gallery, I would like to say that Mr. Reg Smith and his daughter Catherine are in attendance this afternoon to attest to our mutual respect for Bob McClure.

I urge all members to support this excellent resolution honouring Dr. Robert Baird McClure.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, to me it is not only a pleasure but indeed an honour to be able to speak on my colleague’s resolution. I commend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk for his introduction and presentation of this timely resolution. I am pleased to rise in support, if only briefly.

I would like to recognize in the gallery this afternoon, along with Dr. and Mrs. McClure, an outstanding Canadian writer and producer who I am proud to say is a constituent of mine. Munroe Scott, whose home is in the town of Lindsay, is the author of the book on Dr. McClure. It is appropriate that he and his wife Hilda are present here this afternoon. Mr. Scott has received international recognition for his work and is well known for writing and producing the Pearson-Diefenbaker series for television. His book, McClure, The China Years, is indeed excellent.

Dr. McClure’s concern for others has had a very wide influence on many people and in many ways. I feel it is most appropriate and deserving that we in this House have this opportunity to pay tribute to Dr. McClure and to review his years of service to mankind. We shall not soon forget his 25 years of medical service in China, following which Dr. Bob McClure returned to Canada at the end of 1948. He practised in Toronto for a year and a half and then went to the Middle East where he worked for six months in a hospital in Cairo; then went to the Gaza Strip where he worked in an English missionary hospital until March 1954.

His specialty, of course, was surgery, but he was well trained in gynaecology and other disciplines. When Dr. McClure went to Gaza the United Nations was just establishing its assistance program among the Palestinian refugees. The CMS mission hospital in Gaza, with Dr. McClure as its administrator and chief surgeon, provided the surgical arm for this onerous work.

It is accurate to say that Bob McClure introduced the modern techniques of postwar medicine in the Gaza Strip. He also began a program of training young refugees as laboratory and X-ray technicians, thereby creating for them an entirely new horizon of employment opportunities in paramedical work. Many of the men who are today leaders in the Arab world in the fields of X-ray and laboratory work are known as “McClure boys.”

From Gaza Dr. McClure went to India, in 1954, to the United Church of Canada mission hospital in Ratlam, central India. He was there as medical superintendent and administrator until the end of 1967. As usual, his daily work lay in the field of surgery, but he was untiring in his efforts to combat TB, polio and leprosy.

He again took great interest in training young men and women in paramedical work. From the beginning of his time in India, Dr. McClure was an active advocate of family planning, a field in which he pioneered in China. Through his efforts in family planning during the 1950s and 1960s he played a major catalytic role in preparing the way for India’s massive family planning program in the 1970s under the leadership of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

While in Ratlam Dr. McClure became a staunch member of the Rotary Club, and to this day in Ratlam members of that club say that Bob McClure taught them the meaning of service. I met Dr. McClure for the first time when he gave a very excellent address to the Rotary Club of Lindsay.

Upon retirement at the end of 1967, Dr. McClure returned to Canada and in August of 1968 be was elected moderator of the United Church of Canada. He is the first layman ever to hold that position -- and to date the only layman.

As moderator he enjoyed an unprecedented rapport with the press and with lay people of his own and other denominations. Drawing liberally upon his vast experience in Third World countries he attacked the Canadian medical profession, the federal government and his own church, but managed to do so constructively, with humour and optimism. Optimism has always been an overwhelming trait of Bob McClure, a trait which he himself modestly says is probably glandular in origin, but which actually springs from a deeply-rooted religious faith.

After completing his term as moderator, Dr. McClure journeyed through Asia on behalf of Oxfam, preparing a report on family planning. Some of the recommendations in that report are today shaping Oxfam policy in Third World countries.

At the age of 70, Dr. McClure went to Sarawak in Malaysia and worked for more than two years as a volunteer doing heavy surgery in an American Methodist mission hospital in the jungles of Borneo. After Sarawak he went to Peru, to a hospital on the head waters of the Amazon River; then briefly to St. Vincent in the Caribbean; to Zaire in Africa; and as recently as this past summer to a small clinic on the west coast of Canada.

Throughout this decade of the 1970s Dr. McClure has worked exclusively as a volunteer, donating his services and his skills to ease the suffering of people less fortunate than ourselves. Dr. Bob McClure has spent his life as a Christian missionary surgeon; his service has been extended unstintingly to people of all religions. His hand, his heart and his scalpel have always been ready to assist Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, animist, Protestant Jew or Catholic. Today in Toronto, if Zoroastrians want a sympathetic ear they come to Bob McClure. He has the knack of seeing the good in all persons, regardless of nationality, race or creed, while at the same time affirming, through action, his own uncompromising position as a Canadian and as a Christian.

Mr. Dukszta: I have been fascinated for some time with the western experience in China, and I join with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in his resolution. I want to salute Dr. McClure. I will take only a few minutes to allow the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) to speak too, since he wants to join in the debate.

The western experience in China is very peculiar, because it started in a rather obnoxious fashion since the westerners really went to China to rob. But there has been another element, which started with the Protestant churches -- some Catholic members too but largely Protestant -- which sent missionaries to China to give something to China which, in the dying days of the Manchus and especially during the depravity of the Kuomintang leadership and Kuomintang time in China, China lacked: that is social services, medicine and other things. What fascinates me about Dr. McClure and Dr. Endicott, Miss Strong, Dr. Home and a number of other people, is that in some indirect sense they were the precursors of the present social change in China, although they may not have fully realized nor fully accepted the degree to which they were precursors. I’m fascinated.

Mr. Morrow, without committing himself, quotes Copeland and says that the influence of the church, especially the Protestant church, in bringing about this revolution has been very great, though probably not always recognized by the present regime. Nevertheless, it is there. It is there in their actions; in what they have done in setting up the clinics, in setting up the social services and in producing a general attempt to change the social situation in China which was probably -- and one need not go into details -- prior to the 1948 revolution as deplorable as any great state has ever been; specifically, the last 25 years.

The part which fascinates me about the missionary work, is the part the great number of Canadian families play who have sent their members -- and the church especially -- to introduce and to change it. Because originally, many other people considered that missionary work may have been slightly misplaced, not displaced in terms of bringing the gospel, but misplaced in terms of attempting to change a large and an important civilization to a western point of view. But I now realize that it is not so. The present revolution also had a western origin in many senses, although it may not be as well recognized. Now, of course, it is much more naively thought of in terms of what is described as Mao Tse-tung’s thought.

Let me finish by saying that’s what I admire most of all. I pay my respects to Dr. McClure as a man who both directly and indirectly contributed to the revolution of 1948 in China and to the tremendous work that the Chinese people are doing right now in modifying, changing and building a new society.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am pleased that I have a few minutes to join in this very deserved tribute. I’m very pleased to join my friend, the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk, in his resolution and add my words to all those that have been said about this great Canadian.

I remember I was 10 years old when I first heard Bob McClure at Kew Beach United Church in Toronto. The one impression that struck me then, as a 10-year-old, was that we don’t need a PA system in the church when Bob McClure is there. Anybody who’s heard him speak knows that.

I heard him again about two years ago at the 25th anniversary of the United Church men up at Thornhill United Church. Again, I was reminded that we don’t need a PA system when Bob McClure speaks.

It’s been a very fine experience for all of us and I’m sure for Bob McClure, his wife, Amy, and Munroe Scott and his wife to be here today. But I think he probably thinks, as he hears these very well deserved tributes, that it sounds as though he’s living through his own obituary. All of us who know Bob McClure know that if there’s one thing about him, he’s very unpretentious and he also loves humour. We have made this a rather unhumourous afternoon.

I am not a humourist like Bob McClure, so I can’t contribute to that. Everybody has quoted from Munroe Scott’s book. I just want to indicate that love of humour that Bob McClure has by quoting from some of the medical notations that he used to put in the case books in China when he was working on the Burma Road, driving a truck and operating. It’s reported that he used to record a hysterectomy as a crown gear and pinion job and bowel and rectal surgery would be entered in as muffler and exhaust pipe repair.

Munroe Scott records that Bernard Llewellyn penned this little verse. He said:

I do not think that we could endure,

Another Robert B. McClure.

One is about all we can handle,

Another one would be a scandal,

For in the hospital theatres,

They take out ladies’ carburetors.


Now I think if you read through the book, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure many members will now do after this debate, they will find many more examples of Bob McClure’s humour which, of course, he learned early in life was needed to exist in those very tough conditions he found in China and all those other places he found himself, including standing in Mackenzie King’s office.

He also, I think it should be recorded, was a great admirer of Chiang Kai-shek. Notwithstanding some of the ruthlessness attributed to Chiang Kai-shek, he thought he was a man of dedication and integrity and a man who had done great things for China.

As that poem said, perhaps we couldn’t endure another Bob McClure in our hospital there, but I think this country could certainly endure many more Bob McClures. He has been a man of dedication, a man who has lived his Christianity, has shown that it is the layman, acting in the community, speaking and doing those deeds on behalf of Christ that really is Christianity at work. He has shown that is how you change lives, and that is how you change society. He has lived it, and he has done it and we could use many, many more. I am pleased to support this resolution today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes this item of business.


Mr. Gregory moved resolution 29:

That in the opinion of this House the government of Ontario should firmly oppose the building of any additional runways at Toronto International Airport and that the government of Ontario should immediately communicate to the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Transport its opposition to any such plan.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Haggerty: Will 10 members now stand?

Mr. Gregory: You are going to start already, are you? I normally get on my feet before you start.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I would like to recognize some people who, in my opinion, have contributed a great deal to Canada as well, and that is my mother and father, Thomas and Myrtle Gregory, sitting in the gallery.

Mr. Mancini: I guess we will have to be nice to you today.

Mr. Gregory: In rising to ask the support of the members of this Legislature for a resolution which asks the Ontario government to state in no uncertain terms to the Prime Minister of Canada, its opposition to the building of any additional runways at Toronto International Airport, I do so with the same sense of frustration that has plagued the people of Mississauga, Brampton and Etobicoke during the past six years.

Although the recent announcement by the federal transport minister to cancel the fourth runway study at Malton is encouraging, I would suggest this neither resolves the problem, nor does it mean an end to the issue. As the people of Mississauga and other municipalities affected by the threat of runway expansion are well aware, four successive Transport ministers have stated there would be no expansion of runway facilities at Malton and yet the issue continues to resurface. In my view, such announcements must be taken with a grain of salt.

As the honourable members are well aware, there will continue to be pressure for the building of additional airport facilities in central Ontario. There is no question that the volume of passenger and freight traffic will continue to increase over the next few decades. There is also no doubt that pressure will continue to exist to have these additional facilities located in the Toronto area.

In the face of these pressures the question of whether an additional runway should be built at the Toronto International Airport or whether a new international airport will be built, will remain with us for some time to come. Therefore, until it is resolved, the threat of additional runways being built at Malton will continue to hang over the people of Mississauga, Brampton and Etobicoke.

It is for this reason the Ontario government must clearly state to the federal government its opposition to the building of any further runways at Malton. The issue must be clearly put to rest, once and for all.

As the members of this House are well aware, the history of Malton has been both long and controversial. Most recently the debate has centred around the degree of disturbances from flight operations upon the residents living in the municipalities surrounding the international airport. Noise pollution is perhaps the paramount concern to the people of these communities and there is no doubt that the building of additional runways will increase its intensity.

There are, of course, other factors. The increased volume of traffic over the area may very well increase the threat of an accident. Given that the area is one of the most densely populated, I believe this factor should also be taken into account. I would suggest it gives additional weight for the building of a new international airport rather than the expansion of runways at Malton.

Mr. Warner: Where? Pickering?

Mr. Mancini: Where, Bud?

Mr. Gregory: If we briefly examine the history of Malton, we will better understand the circumstances that led up to the present dilemma.

Building began in 1937 and was completed by November 1938. The initial facilities consisted of three runways, arranged in triangular form to give maximum wind coverage. Each runway was 3,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. The total staff of Trans-Canada Airlines consisted of some 150 people.

During the postwar period, traffic increased substantially and large aircraft using the facilities resulted in the building of an 1,800-foot hangar to service the aircraft. In 1949, a new terminal was also opened.

By the early 1950s, more than half a million passengers a year were arriving or departing from Malton. To meet the growing need of a population that was increasingly travelling by air, additional land was purchased in 1954. Plans were also undertaken to provide runway expansion and four new terminals that would service 12.8 million passengers a year.

By 1958, the original site of 1,400 acres was increased to 3,360 acres and plans for expanding the Malton facilities were completed. It should be noted that these plans were carried out prior to the introduction of jet aircraft for passenger travel and noise was not a major problem. I might also point out that at this time Malton was located well beyond the established urban areas and the unprecedented growth of the mid-1960s had not been taken into account.

In 1962 a new runway was completed and two years later the first of four proposed circular terminals was opened. In addition, new cargo and maintenance facilities were built. The airport also increased its total acreage to the present 4,272 acres during this period.

Part of the problem we are currently facing has its roots in the studies undertaken by the federal Department of Transport which under-estimated the growth of air traffic. For instance, a 1964 study estimated that only 6.9 million people would emplane or deplane at Malton by 1980. As we are all aware, that figure was a gross under-estimation. Revised estimates then predicted that some 13 million passengers would use Malton annually by the late 1970s. Subsequently the federal Ministry of Transportation initiated a study which concluded that due to continued growth of air transportation, an additional 3,000 acres of land beyond the western limits of the airport boundary would be required for additional runways, terminals, parking aprons and ground maintenance facilities.

Two years later, in 1968, a special intergovernmental committee was established. It consisted of representatives of all three levels of government. Using the composite noise rating system, the committee concluded that some 68,000 people already living in the area around the international airport would be affected if the proposed plan was implemented.

Municipal representatives on the committee were opposed to any further expansion of the airport for several reasons. In particular, plans for land already zoned, which included single and multiple homes, hospitals and industry affecting some 190,000 people, would have been affected by the expansion of Malton. The committee, however, did recommend a limited expansion to allow the federal government time to develop a long-term solution to the problem.

In that same year, the federal government announced that Malton would not be expanded beyond its present boundaries, and that the expansion of existing facilities would be done on an interim basis until a second airport could be built. The federal government then undertook two programs to accommodate traffic until 1976. Terminal two was built and the runways were extended. Guidelines were established to discourage further development close to Malton which would be incompatible with flight operations. In other words, the federal government made a clear indication that the Malton site would not be expanded beyond the interim measures it took in that period.

For their part, the municipalities took this into account in their planning. The Mississauga official plan, for instance, has been prepared on the assumption that no further expansion would take place and that the runways would not be increased. For all intents and purposes, the course had been set. A new site for a second airport was to be found, and once it was built, traffic was to be diverted to it.

As we all know, a site near Pickering was selected. This choice was based on the fact that the Pickering site was found to be most suitable in terms of safety and technical considerations, social and environmental effects, regional planning impact, passenger convenience and costs.

In 1973, the Minister of Public Works told the House of Commons: “Fundamentally, it is a choice of either enlarging Toronto International Airport at Malton, or developing a new airport.”

Mr. Mancini: Where did you get that, Bud?

Mr. Gregory: This is a quotation. I’m quoting from a federal minister.

“Clearly, failure to meet the growing demand is not an acceptable option for the people of the region, for Ontario, and for the nation. And in the balance of the number of people disrupted, the economic and planning advantages gained and the capacity of air transportation achieved, Pickering is preferable.”

Mr. Kerrio: Somebody wouldn’t service it.

Mr. Gregory: That was a Liberal federal cabinet minister.

Mr. Mancini: Do you remember the 1975 election in Durham?

Mr. Gregory: We all know what has transpired over the past six years. While it is not my intention to reopen the debate on Pickering, it should be noted that the federal government came to the conclusion that any expansion at Malton was not a preferable choice.

Since the early 1970s we have become increasingly conscious of the environmental and ecological impact of air transportation. We all recognize that airports bring with them certain advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are predominantly of an economic nature. No one would deny that the area surrounding the international airport at Malton has benefited financially from it. No one would deny that a thriving nation needs a visible national air transportation system. What must be measured, however, is the ability of the community surrounding Malton to continue to absorb the additional environmental and ecological pressures that would follow from building additional runways.

Equally important, we must ask ourselves if it is in the long-term interest of this province or this country to limit its airport facilities; or should I say, its major airport facilities to this one site. Let’s take a look at some statistics.

Mr. Haggerty: You could move it to Merivale.

Mr. Mancini: You could move it to Cochrane.

Mr. Gregory: In 1971, the passenger traffic at Malton was about 6.7 million people annually. In 1972 it had increased 14 per cent to 7.67 million. The following year it increased another 20 per cent to 9.24 million. Last year the figure reached 12.2 million passengers. This years the figure is expected to reach nearly 13 million. By 1980, if the present trend continues, and there is no reason to believe it will not, it will probably reach 14.5 million passengers, or 1.5 million passengers above its present capacity.

This, of course, is not the total picture. Air cargo has grown from 1.3 million pounds annually in 1968 to 350 million pounds today. By 1985 recent forecasts predict it will reach 700 million pounds annually, or double its present level.

All of this indicates an even greater increase in air traffic. If the runways at Malton were expanded, would we not find ourselves in the same position a few years from now; would we then want to add a fifth runway? Let’s take a look at the number of people affected.

In 1973 it was estimated that 90,000 people were affected by noise at least loud enough to be annoying. With four runways which would be completed by 1982, some 208,000 would be affected by noise. These are the airport commission’s statistics. According to the region of Peel, the figure of those currently affected by noise is close to 200,000. With an additional runway the region estimates that another 70,000 would be affected directly, and some 30,000 to 50,000 indirectly.

By contrast, the airport inquiry commission stated that the number affected by establishing the facilities at Pickering would be substantially less, and that no one would be living within a 30 noise exposure factor. Any contour less than 30 NEF is considered to be annoying.

Last week I had the pleasure of meeting with the chairman of the tri-municipal airport committee. He is quite adamant in his opposition to a fourth runway at Malton. We discussed the fact that Ottawa’s announcement doesn’t preclude the airport from taking other steps to accommodate the growing volume of traffic. For instance, a third terminal might be built to handle increased freight. In my view there would be no objection to building a third terminal if it is deemed necessary.


The chairman also informed me that the three communities forming the tri-municipal airport committee Brampton, Mississauga and Etobicoke may want to suggest alternatives to the federal government. Three of the possibilities mentioned include the construction of another airport in the Toronto region for general aviation use, the extension of the Mount Hope airport near Hamilton, and a short take-off and landing facility at Toronto Island.

A general aviation airport would permit everything but commercial flights and would not affect the number of jobs at the international airport. Advocates of a fourth runway at Malton argue that a strict curfew at the airport would provide an answer to the noise problem. They, of course, do not argue that such a system would impose an economic penalty on those using the airport, because curfews do not provide for the maximum use of airport facilities and in turn, increase the cost to the customer. Curfews also affect the flexibility and scheduling, and limit the ability of airports to spread out their peak hours. This in turn means a higher volume of traffic in a shorter period and may increase the hazards. This, of course, is not to mention the inconvenience for the travelling public.

Another suggestion put forward by the supporters of a fourth runway is to soundproof the homes in the highly sensitive noise area. Residents who do have soundproofing, however, do not speak favourably about it. I am told, for instance, that there is a greater perception of noise once you leave your soundproofed home to go into your garden.

I might also mention that new curfews are not what is needed to resolve present noise problems; rather we need a stricter enforcement of existing curfews. Malton has also used the preferential runway system as a means of lowering noise levels. While this did reduce the levels in some areas around the airport, it also exposed areas that were not previously affected by noise.

Mr. Haggerty: Where was the municipal planning in this area?

Mr. Gregory: It should also be noted that the airport inquiry commission has concluded that modifications to jet aircraft would not appreciably reduce noise levels and that any success in this area would be offset by the increased volume of traffic.

With the construction of a fourth runway with a 4,400-foot separation from the existing north-south runway, communities bordering this area would have no special protection against the noise from arriving or departing aircraft. With no solution to the noise problem in sight, it would be irresponsible to build the fourth runway at Malton. The increased volume of air traffic would make an already bad situation worse.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there is a consensus among planners and operators that most large metropolitan centres will be serviced by two or three airports in the future. By delaying the building of a new airport facility in the Toronto area, we are delaying the inevitable. There is no doubt, as I pointed out earlier, that we are going to need a new facility to meet our long-term needs. It is a question of pay now or pay later. We can delay, but in delaying we will be causing difficulties for thousands upon thousands of residents living in the communities around Malton.

In less than 40 years our system of transportation has changed remarkably. When Malton was originally built and conceived it was a small airport in a rural area. Today it is a major airport in an urban area. It has reached its capacity.

The time has come to look elsewhere for our longer term needs, and we do not have much time. An airport can take from six to 10 years to build, from the initial planning stage to completion. Our population will continue to travel by air. Our industries will continue to ship by air. We must prepare now to meet that growing demand for service, and the answer is not a short-term solution like expanding to a fourth runway at Malton.

What this resolution is seeking to do, Mr. Speaker, is bring borne the point that the time has come for a long-term solution to this problem. Until this is done, the people in the municipalities surrounding Malton will continue to be haunted by the threat of a fourth runway. Our experience with the Toronto International Airport has taught us that the airport must be built to service a community well beyond a 40-year period.

We have an excellent opportunity to plan for the needs of the future, to ensure that our province will have the proper facilities that will enable it to grow and prosper.

The airport inquiry commission has made it quite clear that Canada has not yet achieved its full potential for air cargo movement. It also pointed out that we could be making an error in underestimating the possibilities that exist in this area. In the long term, it makes economic sense to undertake the construction of a new airport facility now. It will also mean an additional economic resource for the area in which it is established. Jobs and industry will come with the building of such a facility. All of the factors are by no means negative.

The airport manager, Mr. Dave McAree, has gone on record as stating that we do need a fourth runway -- but not at Malton, as was reported in the newspapers.

Mr. Haggerty: Mirabel will do it.

Mr. Gregory: A new site is needed that offers the potential for growth as the demand for service increases in both the passenger and cargo areas. A fourth runway at Malton does not provide the answer. A new airport facility does. For this reason, and on behalf of the people who are affected by the threat of the building of a fourth runway at Malton, I urge all members to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, if I have any time left, I would like to reserve it until the end.

Mr. Speaker: You will have one minute. The member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on ballot item 43, a resolution introduced by the member for Mississauga East which would prohibit an expansion or any additional runways at the Toronto International Airport. Basically, that is his position, and he wants his position to be supported by the government of Ontario.

I listened very closely to the member for Mississauga East. He told all the members in the House that air transportation is going to increase in the years to come. He has told us that we are going to need new, better and bigger facilities. He has hinted around the fact that possibly these facilities should be built in the Pickering area. I listened very closely; I do not think he said that as a certain fact, but be kind of skated around the issue.

I want to ask the member, where was he when his Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) refused to provide services for the Pickering airport?

Mr. Leluk: The federal government should do the same as it did with Mirabel: provide all the services.

Mr. Mancini: I think that happened right after the 1975 election, if I’m not mistaken, when the Tories lost both Durham ridings. I want to know what the members for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) and Durham West (Mr. Ashe) think of the member’s resolution. I doubt if they’re in support of it.

Mr. Gregory: Does the honourable member want to offer me some of his time to answer?

Mr. Villeneuve: What conditions did they impose on Mirabel, the white elephant?

Mr. Mancini: The Tories want to be on both sides of the issue. They want more air service but you don’t want it in a particular area. They didn’t want it in Pickering, and now they are not sure if they want it in Pickering. What kind of guarantee can they give the federal government that they will not do what they did the last time; that, as soon as everything is “go,” they will say: “Oh, no. We have an impending provincial election. There is no way we can build an airport there, because we have two seats to look after.”

Mr. Leluk: The feds can build it on their own as they did Mirabel.

Mr. Gregory: Where is the member getting these fairy tales from?

Mr. Mancini: If the honourable member wants to deny that it was his government that refused to provide the services, let him go ahead and do it.

Mr. Gregory: I don’t deny that at all.

Mr. Mancini: The member says an increase in the use of the international airport might be dangerous; it might be this or it might be that. Has the member ever been to O’Hare airport in Chicago?

Mr. Watson: It’s closed today.

Mr. Mancini: Possibly because of a snow storm. But it functions very well. People use it. It is no more dangerous than the international airport. People fly in and fly out. There does not seem to be the furore there that the member is trying to cause here.

The member has not addressed himself at all to the question, if a new airport is built in the Pickering area, or what would happen to the class one agricultural land that his government continually says it wants to protect.

Mr. Breaugh: But they never do.

Mr. Mancini: Do they want to protect the farm land or don’t they? The honourable member has not addressed himself to that problem. The only thing the member for Mississauga East has addressed himself to is that he doesn’t want an expansion at the international airport because it affects his riding. He did not say equivocally that he wanted it in Pickering, because it affects two of his colleagues. Where does he want the planes to go? How does he want the people to travel?

Mr. Gregory: How about your riding?

Mr. Mancini: We have an airport 20 minutes from my riding. I know it does not affect my riding in the way it affects his riding, but the member cannot be on both sides of the issue.

Mr. Breaugh: Sure he can.

Mr. Mancini: He cannot say we need air transportation and then not have it here. He cannot say maybe it should be in Pickering. But he doesn’t say it should be in Pickering, because he’s afraid it will affect the members for Durham. He didn’t at all relate to the fact that it was his government that refused to service Pickering. He didn’t relate to that at all. I cannot support the member’s resolution.

Mr. Gregory: I must be doing something right then.

Mr. Mancini: Possibly in the future, after we have the joint federal-provincial study, after the member is more unequivocal on where he wants air transportation to take place, I will once again consider his motion. But at this point I think it is nothing but a political move. I don’t at all feel his government is going to support him. Maybe they might support him here but they are not going to do anything outside of this Legislature. It is just not going to happen.

This will be good for the member’s constituents. He can send his 60,000 constituents a copy of his speech and they will know the member for Mississauga East is speaking on their behalf, but it certainly won’t solve the air service problem we have in the province.

Mr. Makarchuk: I am speaking on behalf of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), who would have supported the resolution. However -- this being private members’ hour -- I oppose the resolution. I disagree with my colleague from Etobicoke.

Mr. Gregory: It must be a winner, we have lost two of them already.

Mr. Leluk: Let’s put it in Brantford.

Mr. Breaugh: Let’s not be purists over there.

Mr. Haggerty: Safety, that’s right.

Mr. Watson: Don’t disagree with Ed.

Mr. Makarchuk: I think I have to point out to the member some facts of life. Airplanes are here to stay; airports in Toronto are necessary; we are going to have an increase in air traffic, not in the great amounts they have increased in the past, but there will be some increases; we are reaching the limits of growth in that area. We also have to recognize that safety is a matter of major consideration at airports. As a person who has spent a good deal of his life hanging around various airports all over the world, it is a matter that concerns me personally.

Two of the reasons for the desire to build the runway at Toronto are to increase capacity and to provide a greater degree of safety -- to separate aircraft in order to have landings and takeoffs without the danger of collision. What are the choices that are available to us then if the member for Mississauga’s resolution is carried? What are the options available to us? The other option naturally is the Pickering airport. That is what he is driving at; there is no question about it.

Mr. Haggerty: Or take the freight to Hamilton airport.

Mr. Makarchuk: Let’s look at the reality. We have created a real problem in that area. We’ve disrupted communities and families. We have created all sorts of other problems associated with that kind of a mindless decision that went into that. Is this what we have to do once again? When we build Pickering, do we have another Mirabel? Another pink elephant situation?

Mr. Kennedy: Another white elephant.

Mr. Makarchuk: Is the member not aware we are talking about restraints, that this is a matter of public spending that what he is saying is that we should pour more money into building airports at a time when we do not have the kind of money we need? If the government does have the money, there are many other more useful areas into which it could be placed.

We also have to recognize we would have two airports. In this case, as in most of them, they will not be used to capacity. So instead of one Mirabel, we are going to have three Mirabel airports in Canada. This is hardly the way to operate a country.

I would suggest we have to somehow proceed with construction of the runway at Toronto airport. At the same time we should move the STOL operation out of the Toronto airport and put it on the island. We should develop that airport and put the STOL operation there.

Mr. Haggerty: The island airport, that’s the answer.

Mr. Makarchuk: A STOL operation can be such that it will create minimal noise pollution. The island airport is suitably located to take a STOL operation and not have any kind of detrimental effect on the population, either people living on the island or people living on the mainland.


Ms. Gigantes: We need trains.

Mr. Kennedy: You’re right sometimes -- that’s one time.

Mr. Makarchuk: We also, of course, have to start planning for the future. To do that, we have to start looking at the alternative modes of transportation, particularly speedy trains. Other countries, Japan as an example, have trains that operate at 200 miles an hour. France has trains of a similar speed range. Britain has trains running in that range, or close to it.

Why do we have to have aircraft leaving Malton airport on the hour going to Ottawa, going to London, or going to Windsor? These communities can be connected with Toronto by train, which will not create the environmental and the noise hazards, and would eliminate the noise problems at the airport. Why isn’t this being done by this government and the federal government? Why isn’t there any pressure or some actually concrete action on the part of the government to move in this direction?

It’s not that the technology isn’t there. The technology is there. Other people are able to do it, but we can’t seem to do it. It seems to me we’ve been putting our apples in the wrong basket. We’re not concentrating in the areas on which we have to concentrate. We’re not doing the things we have to do.

That is the record of this whole government. Part of the problem, the member himself said, was it was a small airport in a rural area. This is how it was built. It’s not now a small airport and it’s not now a rural area.

Who was in charge of the planning during this period of time when this was developing? Which government was responsible for the zoning and the subdivision? Which Ministry of Housing had to approve all those subdivisions that went in there? It was this ministry. It was this government doing this mess-up.

There’s a general malaise in planning in this government and there is absolutely no definite hope that if they build Pickering they’re not going to do exactly the same thing all over again. That government lives by its developers, they breathe by their developers, and they exist on the backs of their developers and vice-versa.

Mr. Sargent: That’s for sure.

Mr. Makarchuk: Every time the developers come to the government the government says, “Aye, aye, ready boys.” They prostrate themselves in front of them, lick their boots --

Mr. Gregory: It doesn’t take you long to get back to your topic, does it?

Mr. Makarchuk: -- and get their little handouts. They get their little handouts of a few cents for use in the next election.

An hon. member: Five hundred dollars at every election.

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s only just a month or so ago, their own government, their own cabinet approved another subdivision in that area. They talk as though they’re concerned about the people in that area. They talk that way and yet they don’t prevent the subdivisions from going in there. The people are desperate for housing. They lower the prices and the people move in there. They discover these are the serious situations that develop. Naturally, they’ve committed themselves. They’ve got most of their assets tied up in this housing. They naturally react to the noise. The point is that they knew this is the kind of problem that could develop, has developed in the past, and will develop in the future.

What does the government do to prevent it? Absolutely nothing. Mr. Speaker, that is, shall we say, the crux of the problem, the whole mess in Ontario regarding airports, regarding runways, regarding the locations of communities and so on. It is a fact this government, the Tory government of Ontario, is so obsequious to developer pressure that it will accept anything from anybody at any time. The government has done that and now the member for Mississauga East comes here and says, “Yes, we’ve got to prevent the building of another runway.”

Does he know what that means? The building of another runway means more jobs for people who live in that area and work in that area. Not all the member’s constituents are going to say they don’t want jobs up there. In fact, quite a few of them are concerned about the closing down if that airport should ever be closed down.

Mr. Gregory: Nobody’s talking about closing down.

Mr. Makarchuk: They want to destroy jobs, that’s it.

Mr. Leluk: Look who’s talking about destroying jobs.

Mr. Makarchuk: There is technology in STOL that is unique to Canada. They want to destroy that.

Mr. Gregory: You have the knack of getting totally off the subject.

Mr. Makarchuk: There is a desire on the part of the people in Canada and of the province of Ontario to save money. We should not embark on more Mirabels. The pink elephants -- are the logo from Mirabel. What the government’s saying is they’re going to build pink elephants. They want to build them.

Mr. Gregory: Those are the left wing elephants, the NDP elephants.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s what they’re all about.

Mr. Gregory: You know I wouldn’t do anything pink.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s what they’re all about. There’s no question about it.

Mr. Hennessy: It’s better than being a donkey.

Mr. Makarchuk: As I said, the facts of life are that the airplane is here; it’s going to stay. There will be some increase in traffic. There will be some increase in both passenger and air freight traffic, but there are limits of growth as well, developing on the horizon. There is also new technology coming in, I may add, in terms of the kind of equipment that is available, the fan-jet type of engine that creates less noise. There are means to cope with this and we should be working towards that end.

We also should look at the people being hurt right now. The government should be prepared. If they wish to move out of that area, if they wish to sell their homes, then the government should be prepared to buy their homes at a fair market price so these people can move out.

Mr. Hennessy: Why don’t you get a job as Santa Claus? There is one open.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.


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

Mr. Makarchuk: Thank you. In conclusion, I have to say that there is no way this resolution could be supported.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the resolution proposed by my colleague from Mississauga East. I have always felt a deep concern for the interests and the rights of people who live within areas of aircraft flight paths at busy terminals such as Toronto International Airport. Since September 1975, when I first became the member for York West, I have repeatedly expressed to the federal government my concern and dissatisfaction with the noise pollution in the area surrounding Mississauga, Brampton and particularly Etobicoke.

Three years ago I proposed three specific recommendations to the Department of Transport relating to noise abatement, which included the early introduction by the federal ministry of aircraft noise regulations which would require the retrofitting of aircraft that are noisier than the comparatively quiet Lear and DC-10 aircraft. I also proposed that a specific indication be given by Air Canada of the dates for the retirement of its noisier aircraft, namely the DC-8 and the Boeing 707. Thirdly, I proposed the rescheduling of their take-off hours and the advancement of specifically restricted times for take-offs and landings of these noisier aircraft.

Because of increased fuel prices, airlines today are requiting a more efficient carriage of more passengers. Also, some of the noisier aircraft have been replaced since 1975. Despite these factors, however, there has still been a considerable acceleration of noise pollution at the Toronto International Airport since that time, and it is only now that the federal Department of Transport is prepared to admit finally that many of the problems, which I outlined three years ago, do in fact exist. No longer can they ignore the people who live around Malton and under the flight paths.

The federal authority is today being forced to look seriously for solutions to aircraft noise, a task it should have faced years ago. The solution to noise and congestion, both in the air and on the ground, is not the construction of a fourth runway. However, the solution might perhaps lie in the construction of a second major airport at an alternative site.

In 1975, I strongly opposed any further expansion of the airport facilities at Malton, as did my government. My reasons for opposing the second airport at Pickering at that time were several. Perhaps of most significance was that studies, undertaken at that time, demonstrated that the Toronto International Airport was operating at only 68 per cent capacity. At this time, I want to read into the record a Telex from the former Minister of Transportation and Communications, the Honourable John Rhodes, to the Honourable Jean Marchand, Minister of Transport, dated September 24, 1975. I want to do this because the member for Essex South, who is noted for his research, stated that the provincial government backed away from the Pickering airport because it didn’t want to provide the services. I want to read into the record the reasons why we didn’t go along with the airport at that time.

Mr. Rhodes stated in his Telex: “The cabinet today directed that I inform you immediately of our government’s opposition to the construction of the federal airport at Pickering. We urgently request that preparatory work at the site be stopped. This decision is based on the understanding which we had in July that no construction should proceed until full agreement had been reached between our two governments. No such agreement has taken place.

“In addition, it is our view that the decline in air passenger traffic calls into question the need for a second airport.”

Mr. Sargent: You have to admit it was your deal.

Mr. Leluk: “For the same reason, our government is opposed to any expansion of Malton airport.”

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you just say you made a mistake?

Mr. Leluk: “I request a meeting with you as soon as possible to make our views fully known to your government.”

Forecasts which suggested the rapid approach of air terminal congestion at Malton were put into question because airlines were utilizing larger aircraft and were beginning to reschedule flights in order to operate at fuller passenger capacity. There was reason to believe that more efficient airport operation would partially balance out the increasing use of Malton.

Also in 1975 Mirabel was receiving much criticism from many sources in Quebec and the federal Department of Transport. It was felt that Mirabel, an airport that would receive minimal use in terms of its capacity and one which would lose a great deal of money, was at best a long shot. Certainly, the popular feeling was that Mirabel was ahead of its time.

The feeling I shared in 1975 with many others was that a second new airport should be built to service the Metropolitan Toronto area --

Mr. Haggerty: The island airport.

Mr. Leluk: -- but only when the need for this development was firmly established. Today, I think this need is becoming more and more a reality.

In 1975 the federal Department of Transport repeatedly assured the residents in the area of Toronto International Airport, both verbally and in writing, there would be no further major expansion at this site. A fourth runway would simply not happen.

Plans for housing developments, such as the Cannard site project abutting the airport and thus close to flight paths, were partially based on such federal assurances. The Cannard development gained approval of the Ontario Municipal Board after it had reviewed the noise exposure forecast levels to which residents in the proposed site would be subjected.

The OMB’s decision was based on findings that the noise exposure forecast readings were within the discretionary acceptable levels of 30 to 35. I think it is obvious that construction of a fourth runway might well be very unfair to future as well as present residents in these areas close to these flight paths.

The NEF levels are a relative measurement of decibels; that is, comparative noise intensity and not noise frequency. Thus, while increased use of runways may not in itself push noise levels beyond the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation acceptability range, I can certainly understand the aggravation felt by residents in Etobicoke who are concerned over new housing proposals. The threat of a fourth runway is a very legitimate, well-founded anxiety, not only of theirs but of mine.

The very fact that this threat has been hanging over the heads of Malton residents for the past number of years, and the fact that no firm decisions with respect to alternatives to increasing airport growth are being made by the federal Department of Transport, brings two questions to my mind.

Firstly, why aren’t the federal authorities more definitive in their approach to providing alternatives that are acceptable to the residents of this province? Secondly, why does the province seem so often to be consulted after the various federal studies have been conducted and after the fad?

It’s time the federal government, responsible for international airports, moved to initiate high-level, open and honest discussions with this government on this very important matter that affects us both.

Mr. Sargent: Because they couldn’t get that last time, that’s why. Because they chickened out on that Pickering plan. You had your chance.

Mr. Leluk: It was the other way around.

Mr. Sargent: No, it wasn’t.

Mr. Kerrio: You had your chance. You blew it.


Mr. Leluk: I cannot accept the proposition of a fourth runway for the reasons I have already stated. I believe the contingency of expanding the Toronto International Airport will never cease to exist until the federal government decisively reopens its investigations into the present-day feasibility of constructing a new airport in another location. It is for this reason I wish to express my wholehearted support for the resolution proposed by my honourable colleague from Mississauga East.

Mr. Kerrio: I join the debate on this particular resolution. At the outset I would have to say that I am opposed to it and I can explain the reasons and I think they have validity.

I think the interest and involvement of the individual members, of course have to relate to the areas they come from. I certainly expect those members in and around the areas in question to become very much involved, in order to at least make a showing to the people they represent they are doing something in a positive way. But I would like to bring to the attention of this body today, some of the very significant facts that lead up to the problem facing us. One of them is extremely poor planning on the part of this government.

Mr. Kennedy: On the part of the federal government.

Mr. Leluk: Look at Mirabel.

Mr. Kerrio: And the government that has control of the land, not as they relate to building an international airport, but as they relate to the control of the land surrounding them.

I say with respect to the member who is moving this resolution and to those people speaking in support of the resolution that they are attempting now to undo something that might very well not have faced us today, with any kind of reasonable planning.

We haven’t even stopped building the airport today. You can go out there any day of the week, Mr. Speaker, and they are still constructing that airport; they are still pouring money into it. The fact is, we are building one of the finest airports in North America, or in the world if you will, with every kind of convenience that goes with it; the nice hotels immediately adjacent; the arteries to get there -- the roads are still under construction. Now we are going to decide, after the expenditure of such fantastic sums of money, that we are going to leave those aircraft hanging in the air and not give them another strip to land on.

Well, I just don’t understand that kind of thinking because this government was in complete charge, and up until 1975, it didn’t even have to ask permission of the people sitting on these benches. It could do whatever pleased it and what it has done is a very bad job of planning. Now it is coming back here, and I certainly feel very sorry for those people adjacent to the airport; they should not be there.


Mr. Kerrio: The government allowed that land to be subdivided. It gave the permits to build on it, and there they are -- and now here we are in this Legislature, and things have changed radically, I must say.

When we talk of fiscal responsibility, how could their government begin to consider the kind of expenditure that it would take to move this whole tremendous complex many miles down the road and build a completely new facility? I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they have already gone through that experience at Mirabel and they are facing a disaster.

Mr. Hennessy: What government? What government is that?

Mr. Kerrio: They have moved the people outside so far it is not convenient any longer. The fact of the matter is that this government is considering the very same thing here.

Now alternatively, there should be a STOL airport on the island. We should bring people in and out of this centre of Ontario in the most convenient way we can, and that would relieve some of the pressure. We should also do something in Hamilton and bring people into that area so they don’t have to come through Toronto. But it has been Tory thinking for many years that everything has to come through Toronto and that has caught this government now. Now it has been caught and now it doesn’t know how to get people to Hamilton or Niagara Falls or somewhere else without funnelling them through Toronto.

Well, the government is kind of stuck now, It even turned Pickering down when the offer was there. We didn’t do that on this side. The government did that.

And I want to tell my friends opposite that I’m not upset about it.

Mr. Hennessy: No, no, you’re not upset.

Mr. Kerrio: Every politician at one time or another does something that he has to try to squirm out of in the best possible way -- and the Tories are really squirming right now.

Mr. Hennessy: You should know.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We never squirm out.

Mr. Kerrio: If the member for Fort William suggests to me that the federal government -- he has said the federal government has made mistakes.

Mr. Hennessy: That’s your godfather.

Mr. Kerrio: God bless him, have they ever made mistakes!

Mr. Hennessy: That’s your godfather.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: But I have got to tell him, when one makes mistakes, one has to get out of it in the best way one can. The best way is not to decide, with all the worthwhile facilities in this great city that people would like to visit -- the art centres, Exhibition Park, Ontario Place --

Mr. B. Newman: And the Legislature.

Mr. Kerrio: -- and the Legislature, watch the great orators stand here before the public of Ontario and expound on all the great things that we are about.

Mr. Hennessy: I hope you are not including yourself. You’re second best.

Mr. Kerrio: If we are going to do those things, if we are going to centralize them, and then we are not going to allow the people who travel to come into a central location, as close to downtown Toronto as we can get them, we are making a very big mistake.

If the rest of us who grace these halls, acting in response to bad planning in the past and in an attempt to appease the people living in the vicinity of the airport, allow just a small number of people to take the initiative and change all the plans for all the citizens of Ontario, we are making a very grave mistake.

I suggest that it’s a fine airport, in place, with the facilities that go with it. We cannot change in the middle of the stream now. The fact is that one of the most respected people in the field of capital who sat on the government benches had to get out of this Legislature because we are not going to make the budget balance for this province -- and they are not doing any better down in Ottawa.

Mr. Hennessy: That’s right. You can say that again.

Mr. Kerrio: The people of Ontario are not going to allow us to make the kind of decision that is going to let us pick up a multi-million dollar investment and move it 30 or 40 miles down the road. We are not going to be allowed to do that any longer. We are going to have to be much more responsible.

Mr. Kennedy: Who is going to move it? Nobody said to move it.

Mr. Gregory: Who suggested that? You should get your hearing fixed.

Mr. Kerrio: In many cases we are going to have to make the best of a bad mistake. All of us are going to have to live with it, and not just those people in the immediate area.

With respect, I understand why the resolution is before us. I understand why the people who supported it had to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Vince, what airport are you talking about?

Mr. Kerrio: The minister doesn’t have to participate. If we get a STOL airport down at the waterfront, he could land his aircraft there and it would be very convenient.

If I thought there were extra money to be expended, we could build a tunnel from the foot of the main street to the island airport so we wouldn’t have to use the ferry. We would have the finest facility in North America. Planes would be able to land over the water, not disturb anyone and people could drive right up to downtown Toronto.

Mr. Hennessy: For nothing.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s the kind of planning we need -- not the kind of planning that’s reflected in this resolution.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the motivation of the member for Mississauga East in presenting this motion calling for a freeze on the building of new runways at Toronto International Airport. He is responding to the unhappiness of his constituents who, unfortunately, bought houses which are in the noise zone at Toronto International Airport. Their plight is real. They find they cannot enjoy outdoor living, especially in the summer, and the value of their houses has probably been reduced.

But in feeling compassion for these people and trying to find an answer to their problem, we should not neglect to place the blame for the situation where it belongs. We know that the governments responsible for these houses being built in this area are both the Liberal and Conservative governments in power in Ottawa during the period and the Conservative government opposite, which permitted through its planning process that these developments should proceed. These governments should all be sharing in the responsibility to assist those home owners who have been afflicted by serious noise pollution. They should be providing assistance for soundproofing and stricter control of aircraft operation and design.

The motion does not address itself to this remedial action at all. Instead, it proposes only one solution to the problem: to oppose the building of further runways. This kind of motion illustrates what I consider a weakness of many of the motions and bills which are presented in private members’ hour. They deal with only a tiny fragment of a very big problem. They deal with the problem only in the context of the needs of the members’ constituents.

The motion fails to give consideration to the transportation needs of all the residents of the province; or even to acknowledge transportation decisions should be made in the context of an overall transportation policy for the province. It is very much a piecemeal approach to a very big policy question; and that is why I must oppose it.

I also find it very difficult to understand how the member for Mississauga East can profess to be concerned about the plight of the present residents in the noise zone, when he continues to support a government which has compounded the problem. It has done so by authorizing the building of 450 more dwelling units in the airport noise zone. I am referring to the development of the Cannard Investment Company Limited which proposes to put these 450 houses within 610 metres from the centreline of the main runway at Toronto International Airport.

Despite the valiant efforts of the Centennial Community Association to draw the noise problems which they have experienced to the attention of the government, the cabinet has refused to veto the Ontario Municipal Board’s approval of this development or even to ask for a new hearing. It is true that the Etobicoke council at one stage also approved this development, but they changed their mind after they studied it more closely and asked the cabinet to veto it. The cabinet has refused to do so. We will therefore have another thousand or so people moving into the noise zone to share the unsatisfactory living conditions which this motion is attempting to alleviate.

I oppose this motion because it is no real solution to the problems of the residents; also because it has no way of stopping further housing approvals in the noise zone or reversing the one that has just been approved.

I submit the member for Mississauga East is battling a straw man when he asks for no further runways. In fact, at the present time there is no need to build a fourth runway at Toronto International Airport for at least 10 years. The Honourable Otto Lang has indicated he sees no such need at present.

The member for Mississauga East is, I think, using out-of-date projections of passenger and cargo demands. I challenge his assumption that we need either a fourth runway or a second airport in this area. He does not seem to realize, for example, that the development of larger planes and their operation at greater load capacities has enabled the same number of people to be carried with considerably fewer flights.

Secondly, he has not apparently acknowledged that fuel and other air travel costs are escalating so rapidly that the demand for air travel is declining.

Thirdly, the upgrading of the Windsor to Quebec rail service is taking some of the traffic out of the short-haul jets. Finally, transportation planners are beginning to look at more turbo-trains, light rail systems and improved bus services as a better answer for trips under 500 miles in southern Ontario. A little more action by the Ontario government to promote these trends would make the need for any further airport expansion at Malton much less likely and at a greater distance in time, if ever.


Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion for another reason. It would prevent the building of a new kind of runway at Malton which I think would be very valuable, although the member for Brantford may disagree with me. What I am referring to is a runway specially suited to STOL aircraft. Such a runway would reduce both noise and the use of the other runways, because the STOL aircraft at present being developed in this country is relatively quiet. If the STOL aircraft replaced some of the jet flights between here and Montreal and Ottawa and northern Ontario, it would reduce the use of the existing runways and reduce the noise. It seems to me that would be a much more sensible operation than stopping the building of all runways.

I think Malton is still the best location for a STOL service. All the facilities are there. One can get fast public transit to the airport and it does not affect the parks and other facilities on Toronto Island and add to the downtown congestion in Toronto.

A further freeing up of runways at Malton could result from reducing or phasing out the private aircraft operations, or perhaps concentrating more of them at the island airport where they do not create a serious problem.

Mr. Speaker, our job as transportation planners, it seems to me, is to select the best mix of transportation modes for all the residents of Ontario. We must select that mix in the light of consideration of fuel conservation, pollution, efficient movement of people and goods, and economy. To my mind, the motion does not address itself to this responsibility, and that is why I oppose it.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I rise to share in this debate. The Toronto International Airport is within the boundaries of my riding of Mississauga North, and I echo the concerns expressed by my colleague, the member for Mississauga East, and as expressed in this House on many previous occasions by the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy), and of course by the member for York West (Mr. Leluk), who entered into the debate a few moments ago.

As the last speaker, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, mentioned, it is true that the federal Transport minister, the Honourable Otto Lang recently announced that there wouldn’t be a further expansion. However, as my colleague the member for Mississauga East pointed out, the fact is these planning studies keep coming forward from our federal government. This is one of the reasons we as members for that area feel as we do -- and, indeed, I say that members from the rest of the province have to join with us in supporting this resolution if they do really have the concerns for the people in that area.

I suggest it is not overkill for us to propose this resolution today. I heard the comments of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), and later those of the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and I appreciate some of the comments they made. But I suggest with due respect, Mr. Speaker, they strayed completely off the topic.

The member for Essex South started to talk about the airport proposed in Pickering and suggested that we were proposing Pickering, and that my colleague from Mississauga East had said that. I didn’t hear him say that in his debate at all.

Mr. Makarchuk: Where do you propose it? You tell us.

Mr. Jones: If the member for Brantford would wait just a moment I’ll come to it.

Mr. Makarchuk: All right.

Mr. Jones: Now as it happens, the resolution proposes none of those things. I am sure we don’t have to read it again, it is there in front of you the members. The fact is this government felt the expenditure of $400 million at the time was not only excessive but was premature. The members heard the member for York West point out the studies of the federal government itself showed there was only 68 per cent utilization out there in Malton. Also the new wide-body airplanes were coming on line -- the L-1011s and 747s.

As the member for Mississauga East said, there has been an increase and there is a projected increase of passengers being handled through the airport. However, there is actually a reducing number of actual flights in those heavy passenger-carrying airplanes and this is brought about by the retirement of those smaller, noisier aircraft that just a few short years ago used to predominate on the scene.

I live under the noise-cone out there. As I say, I represent the area that encompasses the airport. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it’s very noticeable that the wide-bodied 747s and others are carrying those many larger numbers and they’re doing it in a much quieter way.

The member for Brantford asked some questions as to where we propose to do it. My colleagues who discussed it touched on some of those suggestions. I think the first speaker, the mover of the motion, said it very clearly. He suggested that other than the normal commercial people could be dispersed into certain other alternative airports. For example, the Brampton Flying Club have what they call line charges or anchoring charges that are higher than is the case at Malton. So there is a concentration of those many general-use smaller airplanes. Certainly, the prop-type aircraft don’t have to fly in and out of Malton. As the mover of the motion pointed out, studies clearly indicated a reduction of 30 per cent of the airtime if that traffic were dispersed to some other areas.

The member for Brantford got way off the topic. He started to accuse us of proposing to wipe out Malton airport. I don’t know where he ever got that from my colleague’s motion.

Mr. Makarchuk: Are you going to have two airports?

Mr. Jones: He indicated my colleague wants us to lift it up and take it away someplace else and take away all those jobs.

Mr. Makarchuk: Do you want two airports or one airport?

Mr. Jones: My colleague never said that and to suggest so was not at all fair, to say the very least.

Mr. Makarchuk: Oh yes, he did.

Mr. Jones: He never proposed that. He recognizes the jobs are there now and that jobs will come in the near future.

There was a suggestion by the member for Niagara Falls sitting there looking innocent that we didn’t do any planning over here in this government.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s for sure.

Mr. Jones: I want to tell the member that there sits the Minister of Transportation and Communications and the last speaker just credited him with some of the work that he has been doing on updating the Windsor-Montreal line. It should be clear to the member: he knows the commitment of dollars, and how much intercity travel presently takes place on a pretty well regular daily basis and how much that should lighten the need for increased runways at the present moment.

As a matter of fact, I flew with a colleague from each of the opposition parties yesterday who are members of the social development committee, and we checked just how long it took us to go to the airport and fly up to Ottawa. As we were checking it today, I also checked how long a STOL flight would take. They’re very quiet as you know -- the technology has been brought round full circle. I compared what it would be leaving here, rather than having to take a cab from Queen’s Park as was the case yesterday and fly to Uplands. It was something like 110 minutes and a STOL aircraft would put you there in 105 minutes with greater efficiency of travelling time for the people downtown who often utilize it, and also --

Mr. Kerrio: When we build the airplanes here, that’s the big thing.

Mr. Jones: Right, and that’s exactly what has been discussed in some of the debates, so let’s not suggest that there isn’t planning.

Mr. Kerrio: Bad planning.

Mr. Jones: One of the speakers said we had permitted 450 homes to go --

Mr. Kerrio: Diefenbaker put us out of that aircraft business and you’d put us out of the STOL business.

Mr. Jones: -- in that Dixie runway line. That was after we checked with the federal government and they assured us we were able to proceed.

Mr. Makarchuk: For once, Vince, you are right.

Mr. Jones: And that’s the municipality of Mississauga as well.

Mr. Ruston: Anywhere else but not in Mississauga.

Mr. Jones: That was the federal government, I will just remind the member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: About the same as your government.

Mr. Jones: As it happens, we have a lot of other alternatives.

Mr. Bradley: Somebody else’s riding.

Mr. Jones: As has been touched upon, we can go to STOL. We can utilize some of the other airports for the smaller, lighter aircraft.

Mr. Sargent: What are you doing about it? All you do is talk. Snow has been talking about it for years.

Mr. Jones: I just finished saying what the minister has outlined, very clearly.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you grow up, speak as it is and do something?

Mr. Jones: The member for Niagara Falls just discussed some of the plans for trains between Windsor and Montreal. The fact is though what concerns me in the comments of the last two speakers is they pretended this government doesn’t care about the people who live in and around it.

Mr. Sargent: That’s right.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right.

Mr. Jones: In fact, the member for Niagara Falls, and it is so unlike the member, said we have to consider the people of the province as a whole, and not just those people who are close to the airport.

Mr. Kerrio: Should have kept them back. Why did you let them build up there?

Mr. Jones: I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, in my riding under the flight path this government and the Minister of Education recently not only agreed to but insisted that certain insulation go into a building under the runway for primary school youngsters.

Mr. Makarchuk: Who put it there in the first place? Where were your brains in the first place, to put a school under a flight path?

Mr. Jones: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not proper, it’s not correct, that someone pretends we don’t care about those people because that’s the very reason this resolution is in the House today. I don’t know how the members can oppose it.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right. Anybody who puts a school under a flight path is a damn fool. You put a school in a flight path.

Mr. Jones: The fact is people live there and those of us who bought our homes there didn’t for a moment think those were gulls flying over our homes when we bought them. What we are saying today and are asking the members opposite to join us in saying in the endorsement of this resolution is that no, we do not want a fourth runway. Secondly, all the facts are in and we do not need a fourth runway at this time.

Mr. Ruston: Why don’t you say you don’t want anybody else in Toronto?

Mr. Sargent: That is not what the member for York West said. He said he wants another airport.

Mr. Jones: I don’t know why the members hesitate to support the resolution. It is clear. We have heard it from the municipality, we have now heard it from the federal government and we should hear it from this Legislature, from the provincial members.

Mr. Warner: Land transportation. One railway at a time.

Mr. Jones: If the members are sincere about their concern for those people in that area and have any common sense, we have all heard why we shouldn’t have a fourth runway there. We have heard the airport manager say that should not be the place to have it. The members opposite should join the member for Mississauga East and support him in his resolution rather than getting off on this balderdash about wanting to move the whole airport which is not at all the fact. It was never mentioned on this side of the House.

Mr. Warner: Want to build another one though.

Mr. Makarchuk: Oh yes, it was.

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

Mr. Jones: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and urge all to join in support of the member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Sargent: In the very short time I have, I want to say to the member for Mississauga East it’s really dinner pail polities. There is no intelligence at all in this motion whatsoever.

Mr. Hennessy: You should know.

Mr. Sargent: Your friend here, the member for York West, says he wants another airport. It is unbelievable stupidity. Such irresponsibility. It is a resolution that is going to cost us a billion dollars. They are in a mess over there now, they are flying by the seat of their pants all the time.

Mr. Leluk: Who is responsible for it?

Mr. Sargent: They talk about planning. What the hell do those guys know about planning?

Mr. Kennedy: Who got us into the mess?

Mr. Sargent: They are $14 billion in debt and they talk about planning. Now this guy, the member for Mississauga East, is no piker. He’s got a billion-dollar resolution here.

Mr. Kennedy: Saves money.

Mr. Sargent: They are compounding the mistakes they made at Pickering. They messed that up pretty badly there. Now the member for York West is talking about another new airport.

Mr. Warner: Right on. Go get them, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: Now the Minister of Transportation and Communication is a pilot. The member for Niagara Falls is a pilot. The member for Brantford is a pilot. We know the great need for STOL aircraft in this town but the Minister of Transportation and Communications has been screwing around here and talking about it for years. He does nothing about it.

Toronto is a city known across the world and we have a million-dollar facility down at the island airport. We are doing nothing about it. It is sitting there. It would be a fantastic STOL aircraft situation but here all they do is talk about it.

Mr. Turner: Your party doesn’t want it.

Mr. Pope: Your party doesn’t want us to do anything. Make up your mind.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Does Margaret support you?


Mr. Sargent: The whip brings in a motion like this and it is going to cost $2 billion and those fellows are going to support it. No wonder this province is in the hell of a mess it is now.

Mr. Kerrio: Amen.

Mr. Turner: No money.

Mr. Gregory: We thought maybe we could get a loan from you.

Mr. Sargent: You can’t be a little bit pregnant. You’re either pregnant or you’re not pregnant.

Mr. Pope: What has that got to do with runways?

Mr. Sargent: The people out there knew when they bought their houses there were aircraft above them. I suggest to the members opposite the first thing they should do is get intelligent and talk to their Minister of Transportation and Communications about a STOL aircraft setup at the island airport.

Mr. Warner: I certainly appreciate that the member who’s introduced the resolution is doing his best to try to represent his constituents who have a serious problem. What he, of course, should have told us was that a lot of those serious problems which the people in the area are now experiencing are the direct result of the poor planning of this government. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t underline that at the time he introduced his resolution. He should have said, “Members of the assembly, I am forced to introduce this resolution because my government does not know how to plan properly.” That’s what he should have said. Instead he flies the flag for the Pickering airport.

Few of us need to be reminded that Pickering airport was the subject of some discussion during the election in 1975, and that the threat of that airport was sufficient to arouse a lot of anti-government feeling.

Mr. Handleman: Where is your member now?

Mr. Warner: The member for Niagara Falls needs to be reminded that the Liberals supported the move against that airport.

Mr. Kerrio: I only got elected in ‘75.

Mr. Warner: Today it’s a little different situation. It’s nice to play both sides of the fence, of course, Vince.

Mr. Ruston: The NDP don’t want any airports?

Mr. Warner: It’s unfortunate that the member needs to resort to this kind of resolution when he knows full well that proper planning for both the development of the area and the development of the airport facilities can be facilitated by this government, working in conjunction with the federal government. Between the planning processes that need to be initiated by this government and the responsibility that lies with the federal government, the problems of handling increased air traffic along with housing development can be done and whatever additional runways need to be put in can be accommodated. That can be done without threatening the people in this metropolitan area with another airport. We don’t need another Mirabel. We just don’t need it.

If the federal government is foolish enough to throw away money on a Mirabel airport and not properly service the needs of the people in the area, that’s their problem. But don’t compound it here by trying to force an airport in Pickering. That just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Obviously members of the assembly need to defeat this resolution and in so doing, serve notice to this government that we need some proper planning, both for the housing west of Metro Toronto and for the airport facilities, so we don’t waste our time on such a needless resolution as the one before us.

Mr. Gregory: I found the different opinions very, very interesting, but I found it also quite astounding to hear some of the remarks, made by some of the people, coming from the oddest places.

Mr. Ruston: You’re pretty odd too. The odd one’s up now.

Mr. Gregory: I was particularly interested in the remarks by the member for Brantford. I guess he knew I would be.

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes.

Mr. Gregory: The member for Brantford pretends to be so interested in the ecology of the province and he continually bleeds all over the place.

Mr. Makarchuk: It cost me $17,000, what do you mean “pretends”?

Mr. Gregory: He is a bleeding heart about the birds and the bees and the trees and the streams and the flora and fauna and everything else, but he doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about people. Not a damn!

Mr. Foulds: You wouldn’t know the difference between a flora and a fauna if you saw one, let alone a people.


Mr. Gregory: He bleeds on as he did over the Elora Gorge and he talks about the money that we’re talking about spending. He took a half million dollar project and, because of his bleeding heart it now will cost $2 million. That’s what he does.

Mr. Foulds: What are you talking about?

Mr. Eaton: You fellows always want it that way.

Mr. Warner: You’ll be popular at any turkey fight.

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


Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nixon has moved resolution 3.

Resolution concurred in.


The House divided on Mr Gregory’s motion of resolution 29, which was agreed to on the following vote:


Auld, Belanger, Bounsall, Brunelle, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Foulds, Gigantes, Gregory, Grossman, Handleman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy,

Johnson, Jones, Kennedy, Kerr, Lane, Leluk, MacBeth, Maeck, McCaffrey, McCague, McMurtry, Parrott, Philip, Pope, Rollins,

Rotenberg, Rowe, Scrivener, G. E. Smith, Sterling, Timbrell, Turner, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman, Ziemba -- 44.


Baetz, Birch, Blundy, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Campbell, Conway, M. Davidson, M. N. Davison, Dukszta, Eakins,

Epp, Gaunt, Germa, Hodgson, Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Makarchuk, Mancini, McClellan, McKessock, G. I. Miller, W. Newman,

B. Newman, W. Newman, Nixon, Norton, Peterson, J. Reed, Riddell, Roy, Ruston, Sargent, Stong, Swart, Van Horn, Warner -- 39.

Ayes 44; nays 39.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Pursuant to standing order 11, I would like to take this opportunity to indicate the business for the remainder of the week and next week. We are working on certain assumptions that we hope to be able to prorogue by Friday, December 15, so there will be some uncertainty with respect to specific days on which bills will be called.

However, tonight the House will take into consideration sessional paper 245, being the report of the standing procedural affairs committee on boards, agencies and commissions.

Tomorrow morning we will do legislation and we will consider the following bills in this order: Bills 103, 186, 191, 192, 194 and 193. That is a change. That is legislation tomorrow morning rather than estimates in the House.

On Monday, December 11, we will consider supplementary estimates, which are to be tabled tomorrow, and complete the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

For the remaining part of the week, may I indicate when the House will sit and what legislation will be considered? As far as legislation is concerned, the House will sit on Tuesday afternoon and evening, Wednesday afternoon, Thursday morning and afternoon and Friday morning, if required, for legislation. The following legislation will be considered: Bills 150, 195, 29, the rent extension bill which is yet to be introduced, 199, 183 and 70.

The House will also sit on Wednesday morning in committee of supply to provide an opportunity to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The justice committee, the resources development committee and the general government committee will meet on Wednesday morning.

On Thursday evening the House will consider the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs dealing with standing orders.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps I might take this opportunity as well to table the answers to questions 155, 156 and 157.

The House recessed at 6:04 p.m.