The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before you move to the orders of the day, I wonder if you, as the guardian of the rights of the members and visitors to the House, might be able to make a statement to the House with regard to yesterday’s action by certain people outside the House, both with regard to those who were hurt in a scuffle that ensued on the steps of the Legislature --

Mr. Sargent: Can’t hear him back here.

Mr. Deans: That’s one of the hazards of being so far away isn’t it -- with regard to the actions of the group outside and with regard to the actions of the various police forces who were involved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker on a point of privilege, I wonder if I might refer to that particular matter and communicate to the members of the House, without passing any judgement on what happened yesterday because I’m not familiar with the facts, that I have, Mr. Speaker, written to you to formally request, and I will read the letter: that the Office of the Speaker undertake a full investigation of the difficulties which arose outside the Legislature yesterday involving Metro Toronto Police officers, protective staff of the Legislature and a group of demonstrators. Specifically, I would ask that your office consider whether excessive force may have been used, inadvertently or otherwise, by any police officers or members of the protective staff. I would appreciate receiving a report from you at your earliest convenience.

Mr. Speaker: I might say that this investigation is under way at the present time.

Mr. Deans: Would you permit me, on the point of privilege, to ask whether the report which is being asked for by the Premier would be made to the Legislature or in answer to the letter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection at all, on whatever report is made as to where it goes, as long as we all know what’s in it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the hon. members, students from two schools in our great town of Oakville. In the west gallery, a group of students from St. Mildred’s Lightbourne School and a group of students from the Oakwood Public School.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peterborough.

Mrs. Sandeman: On a matter of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was very grateful to you for the splendid floor plan of the House but I wonder if I could ask why it is necessary to identify the female members of the House by their marital status. This distinction is not conferred upon the male members.

Mr. Speaker: To answer the point of privilege very briefly, it has always been customary to do it that way. We will review the situation though.

Mr. Lewis: It’s time to change customs.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) isn’t so designated.

Mr. Nixon: We know her status.

RENT REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on my plans for the introduction of rent review legislation.

Mr. Lewis: Which version?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As the members will recall, I indicated this legislation would be introduced as soon as possible. One very important influence on this legislation is the federal programme on wage and price controls and the federal plans and funding in respect of housing.

We recognize the need to ensure that any rent review programme will be established having careful regard for the supply problem that may be created. The Hon. Barney Danson, Minister of State for Urban Affairs, has, following my earlier request, called a meeting of provincial ministers for Monday, Nov. 3, to discuss rent control, the federal housing package and the proposed CMHC budget for 1976.

Because of the importance of these discussions, I believe it advisable to withhold our legislation until I have the benefit of the federal position.

Mr. Singer: These terrible people.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: However, it is my intention that the rent review legislation will, in any event, be introduced next week. Although the discussion of next Monday is important to the final form of the bill, I wish to state today that it will not change the basic principles of our proposed legislation. That is to say, our bill will provide for a rent review board empowered to review rent increases within limits determined under the Act. In appropriate cases the board will be able to allow increases or roll back rents.

For the benefit of tenants who are being asked to or have signed leases on or after July 30, 1975, rent increases in excess of those permitted under our bill will be rolled back to the date of the new lease and landlords will be required to refund those amounts. The right to these refunds will not be affected by the fact the tenant has signed a lease on or after July 30, 1975.

Mr. Lewis: In bits and pieces it lurches out.

DUMP TRUCKS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on June 25 last my predecessor, the former Minister of Transportation and Communications, tabled the dump truck inquiry report.

The major recommendations of that ministerial inquiry dealt with control of entry, inspection of dump trucks and trucking rates.

Mr. Martel: They dumped a few Tories out.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As a consequence, today I am introducing amendments to the Highway Traffic Act under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act in response to those major recommendations.

The bill to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act reinstates control of entry into the industry by way of application to the Ontario Highway Transport Board and the licensing of dump trucks under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act to operate within regions which will be prescribed by regulation.

Licences granted to dump truckers under the Act will be restricted with respect to the number of vehicles that can be operated under the licence.

The region or regions authorized and the number of vehicles to be operated will be determined by the Ontario Highway Transport Board.

The amendment also includes grandfather provisions for those persons now holding licences to haul the materials specified in the bill.

Under the terms of the amendment a new Licence will be granted, restricting the holder’s operations to a region of the trucker’s choice and to the number of vehicles which he has operated under his previous licence in 1975. Any person holding this authority, but whose vehicles are not exclusively licensed for the transportation of such materials, will be able to apply to the transport board for grandfather privileges.

It is my intention to provide the necessary statutory authority toward implementing a mandatory inspection programme for dump trucks -- a programme to be prescribed in the regulations under the Highway Traffic Act. The programme under consideration will require a mandatory inspection twice a year according to prescribed standards, and all vehicles having passed that inspection will be required to display a sticker indicating compliance. The absence of such a sticker on a loaded dump truck will constitute an offence and enforcement agencies would have the power to remove the vehicle from the road.

Another recommendation deals with the covering of loads on dump trucks and here I would like to advise the House that my ministry is drafting regulations for the mandatory covering of vehicles carrying specific commodities when travelling on hard-surfaced roads. There is, in this bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act, an amendment to give authority for the regulations to apply only to these hard-surfaced highways.

The effective date of these regulations has not been determined as yet, since the ministry is in communication with the industry in order to determine the earliest feasible date. The matter of rates is very complex, thus it will require much in-depth study by government. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this study is in progress at the present time.

There are also a number of additional recommendations in the inquiry report which are under active consideration by my ministry, and I will be advising the House on the action that will be taken by the government as the decisions are reached.

HOLIDAY CLOSINGS FOR RETAIL BUSINESSES

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing for first reading a bill entitled, An Act to Regulate Holiday Closings for Retail Businesses.

The proposed legislation is a response to the growing public concern regarding retailing on a seven-day-a-week basis. The bill is secular in nature, and it proposes to regulate retail closings on certain holidays, including Sunday.

The proposed legislation attempts to reflect the wishes of the public as assessed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Provincial Secretary for Justice following public hearings and the receipt of numerous representations.

Mr. Sargent: The minister is five years late.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It is hoped that the establishment of certain “pause days” will slow the growing commercialism and materialism about us and result in an improvement in our quality of life and permit the encouragement of recreation and leisure on these common days of rest.

I will welcome the comments and suggestions of the members as the bill proceeds through the House.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity, certainly on our side, and I am sure on all sides of the House, to welcome today our friends and your friend, Bill Stewart, who is with us in the gallery today.

Mr. Nixon: Back working for a living.

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call the question period, I think I should make a few comments concerning that particular order of business. I know that those members who were in the last Legislature will agree with me that the question period was getting out of hand. I hope that the House will agree --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: To a point, that is.

Mr. Roy: We couldn’t get any answers.

Mr. Speaker: Stricter compliance with the standing orders is desirable. Firstly, I point out that by standing order 27(d), oral questions must be confined to matters of urgency and of public importance. I suggest that the majority of the questions asked of recent years have not been urgent and in many cases cannot be considered of public importance.

An hon. member: Not all of them.

Mr. Speaker: Not all of them, I point out. Clause (h) of the same standing order provides that no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any fact stated except so far as may be necessary to explain the question.

Mr. Martel: From both sides of the House.

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker: It has become the practice to preface these oral questions with long preambles preceded by the words: “In view of the fact that.” In most cases, the alleged facts were not facts at all but expressions of opinion. In either case, they were out of order. A question should be a simple interrogative starting with an interrogative word such as “why”, “how”, “where” etc.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s just in case you didn’t get your three Rs.

An hon. member: What about inflection?

Mr. Speaker: That too. I must again remind the members that a question is to obtain information, not to give it.

Mr. Roy: I can’t wait for your comments on the answer.

Mr. Speaker: I also direct the attention of the House to clause (f) which provides for supplementary questions arising out of the minister’s reply. Many questions, of course, have been asked which, although perhaps related to the same subject matter, have not arisen out of the minister’s reply. Such questions, I suggest, should be asked as original questions when the member gets the floor. I would also point out that ministers’ answers have in many cases been much too long, even when given immediately.

Mr. Lewis: Vengeance is sweet.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I ask the ministers, therefore, to keep their answers as brief as possible and I direct their attention to the final phrases of clause (d) of standing order 27. I suggest that even if a minister is able to reply immediately, if he feels that the question requires a very lengthy answer he should take it as notice and deliver his answer on a subsequent day as a statement under statements by the ministry.

Ms. Bullbrook: Did the Premier hear that? Is he listening?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Carefully.

Mr. Speaker: So we look forward to a very interesting and worthwhile question period.

Mr. Bullbrook: We will never hear from the Premier with rules like that.

Mr. Speaker: We will now call the question period. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In his role as mascot for the oil companies --

Mr. Bullbrook: Why, where, when or how did that come about?

Mr. Speaker: I heard that as somewhat editorial.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is neither argumentative nor an opinion, it is simply a description. Can he indicate to the Legislature what action he intends to take to prevent the price increase in gasoline at the pump, or a gallon of home fuel oil, to exceed the 5.4 cents a gallon which he indicated he would permit?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if I may perhaps answer the first part of that question, which I noticed was placed in an interrogative tone, the hon. member wasn’t too sure, I find it rather interesting, particularly after a recent address which I had intended to deliver in Calgary but which was delivered for me, that I hear from the NDP that I am the mascot of the oil companies and then I hear from the oil companies that I’m taking cheap shots. If the NDP and the oil companies are both against me then I must be right.

Mr. Singer: That answer is certainly within the rules.

Mr. Roy: The minister has never been right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared: First of all, the government will monitor any complaints that may arise from the question of pricing after Nov. 15. If we find that there is a widespread lack of adherence to the government’s wishes then we are prepared to come back with a piece of legislation which would extend the freeze at the higher level of 5.4 cents on gasoline and 4.8 cents on home heating oil.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may: How does he intend to monitor, prosecute or prevent an increase in excess of the 5.4 cents, which would violate his prescription, knowing that the increase of even 0.6 -- six-tenths of one per cent -- will cost the consumers of Ontario $25 million more than he originally undertook?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures with me, but I have the suspicion of recent days that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is reading some of my old speeches and those of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) at the first ministers’ conference. Those are exactly the arguments we put forward at the first ministers’ conference in April and since, trying to stop the increases. The point is that the federal government, under the authority of the Petroleum Administration Act, did impose those increases. The point is that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been, during the life of this freeze, carrying out the monitoring role. We will continue to monitor prices and, as I said before, we can very quickly come to this House if necessary with further legislation.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the government has undertaken to empower the Energy Board, not just to monitor but in fact to regulate the prices of other types of energy, then why are the ministry and this minister so unwilling to give similar powers to the Ontario Energy Board to accept applications and either reject or accept them in whole or in part, for increases at the commercial level for petroleum products sold in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, I want to make it abundantly clear that I’m not rejecting that. We have a royal commission still working. The commissioner will announce in a few days the series of meetings that he will be holding around this province to discuss petroleum prices and petroleum pricing. One of his terms of reference is to advise the government how best to deal with this situation in the future. As we know, it is the stated policy of the government of Canada that the prices will continue to go up towards -- I believe “towards” is the word they used -- world prices.

I’m not rejecting that possibility; this government does not reject the possibility. I think we should let the commissioner finish his work. We have told him we want his final report no later than the end of February.

Mr. Nixon: In the meantime the minister should maintain regulation.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: When and if the government should move on a regulatory or statutory ceiling of 5.4 cents because it has been exceeded, will the government at that point, two months, five months, six months from now, obligate them to rebate any overcharges they have made in the interval?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That question is based on the premise that there are going to be infractions.

Mr. MacDonald: Right.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: The minister said there will be.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Given the co-operation of the companies and the retailers during the life of this freeze since July, and the very small number of complaints received, we do not anticipate great problems. I’m not thinking in terms of two months, five months or six months, I’m talking about the initial few weeks after Nov. 15 to make a decision; then we will come back if necessary with legislation.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since it is the government’s wish, according to the minister, that no increases beyond 5.4 cents be permitted, then why doesn’t he ask the House to support that, not just as the wish of the government but as an enactment of this Legislature as was done in the imposition of the original freeze, until such time as Mr. Isbister finishes his examination.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Because, I suppose -- and it is part of my Conservative philosophy -- I don’t believe in any more laws than are necessary.

Mr. Nixon: It was okay then but it isn’t okay now. It was okay before the election but not after.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am confident that we will have co-operation; if we find that in any widespread way we are not, then we will come back.

Mr. Speaker: We are straying away from the sort of request which I made at the beginning. The hon. member for Sudbury East; this will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Martel: In view of the fact that northern Ontario was already paying eight or nine cents a gallon more or even higher, and in view of the fact that the second report will indicate --

Mr. Speaker: I really think that’s getting a little far away from the original question. That will be a good new question for the hon. member; well get around to it.

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE SETTLEMENTS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier: Does the Premier intend to pass an Act of this Legislature giving to the federal anti-inflation tribunal the authority to adjudicate wage settlements in the public sector in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Treasurer will be making a fairly comprehensive statement as to our understanding of the federal anti-inflation policy, the legislation and our reaction to it. To try to answer that particular question as specifically as I can, our advice is that no Act is necessary.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since negotiations in the public sector -- for example, the teachers -- are covered by collective bargaining legislation approved in this Legislature and paramount in Ontario, how will those groups get there, legally or constitutionally otherwise, unless there is an Act of Ontario’s Parliament designating that be done?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t give any legal opinion, but I assume that a lot of collective agreements in this province have been signed, negotiated and signed, pursuant to the Labour Relations Act of the Province of Ontario. The UAW, to use one union as an example, is totally under the federal legislation; there is no option as far as they are concerned.

Mr. Lewis: But we have an option.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no option as far as we understand the law; they would have to go to the federal board. I don’t think there is any contradiction or any conflict -- I really can’t understand the question.

Mr. Lewis: But this is the public sector.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I hope this will be seen to be flowing from the Premier’s comment, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) is reported to have said there may be an 18-month delay in getting a decision out of the control emanation in Ottawa, is it possible that the position expressed by Her Honour in the Speech from the Throne yesterday, indicating that the government intends to put full responsibility for all of these matters in the federal ambit, is it possible that as this House progresses and the matters are debated here, that the government might change to some degree its commitment to such a position, which in the view of many reasonable people -- the Liberal Party is included in this area -- is an abject loss or a rejection of the responsibilities which must lie in this House and surely with this government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be provocative or controversial --

Mr. Singer: What a change.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Treasurer will have some observations to make. I would just make one preliminary observation that this government is anxious to co-operate and see the federal legislation and policy work.

Mr. Good: This government doesn’t want to take any responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is important for the benefit of this country that we do. I think it is also important, and I could go on at great length, for the people of all classes or groups in this province to feel that they are being treated by the same board in an equitable fashion. I think it is also relevant that the people within one province feel that they are being treated in the same fashion as people in another province. I think there is some merit, if there is some substance to that argument, and I genuinely believe there is, to have these adjudications made by a national body that is dealing with all provinces.

I am quite prepared that this House discuss this on an ongoing basis. I just suggest to the members of the House that we perhaps should all have a greater understanding of the legislation, what we are attempting to accomplish on a national basis, and not to make too many hasty prejudgments. I have already discussed it on a very informal basis in my own area with some people who are very involved in the union movement. They say to me: “We have to go to the federal board. We are citizens of this province. Why should there be exceptions made?”

I guess the feeling by certain members of the House -- at least by the Liberal Party of this province -- is that perhaps some greater pressure or some greater consideration or some degree of exception could be exerted by a provincial board in competition with or in opposition to or contrary to the federal policy.

Mr. Reid: That isn’t so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that we all have to consider this very carefully. There is very excellent rationale for this being handled on a national basis, if at all possible.

Mr. Nixon: It lets the Premier off the political hook.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, that is not the question. I know the hon. member likes to say it lets us off the hook -- fine.

Mr. Nixon: It does.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect -- with the most respect that I can conjure up at this moment for his observations --

Mr. R. S. Smith: The Premier doesn’t conjure up very much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- when it comes to the substance of it, then it really is limited.

If the hon. members opposite are really concerned about this issue, if they really think the federal government at last is providing some leadership in terms of inflation, in terms of some control of this economy, then for heaven’s sakes let’s see if we can’t make it work. I think there is great merit in seeing if it can be done on a national basis.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I do believe that question did stray from my original request to --

Mr. Nixon: How about the answer?

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, you are going to --

Mrs. Campbell: How about the answer?

Mr. Speaker: Is this a true supplementary?

Mr. Bullbrook: I trust you will permit a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Recognizing my long-standing inability to understand the Premier’s responses to a positive question, I would like him to clarify for me a seeming inconsistency in his approach. If these matters -- being so national in scope, so consequential in moment -- should be referred to a national tribunal, why didn’t the Premier do the same thing in connection with Hydro rates?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Sarnia -- and I do understand his question; I regret that he doesn’t always understand the answers -- would just read the federal guidelines and the federal legislation, and I would recommend that he do both, the answer is right within the material from the federal government.

Mr. Bullbrook: I have read it.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Bullbrook: Perhaps the Premier might, by way of the final supplementary, please edify me in the rationalization of his inconsistency.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I recommend to the hon. member for Sarnia, because I sense he cannot have read those documents or he wouldn’t be asking the questions --

Mr. Bullbrook: I have read them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then I suggest he reread them, and I would answer that question tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The answer is self-evident.

Mrs. Campbell: The Premier hasn’t read them.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier hasn’t got an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I hope all of us can urge an extension of the question period. Until that happens, no further questions.

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Nixon: Brant-Oxford-Norfolk it is.

I would like to put a question to the Minister of Education. What specific action is he taking in his office as Minister of Education to bring together the two sides in the teacher-board dispute at the secondary level in Metropolitan Toronto? What action is he taking to bring them together to avert a strike that appears to be more and more likely as we see the deadline approaching at the end of this month?

Mr. Samis: Sending them to Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The hon. member knows the steps that have been taken to avert a conflict in Metropolitan Toronto. As a matter of fact, I appointed a mediator in that particular dispute on June 1.

Mr. Nixon: We have been paying him $50 a day ever since.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That mediator has been very conscientiously working along with the two parties -- the board and their teachers -- each of whom tells me privately that the last thing in the world they want is a strike; and yet we seem to be marching down the road to a strike given all the new economic circumstances that now present themselves.

I said yesterday and I say again today, there doesn’t have to be a strike in Metropolitan Toronto. All they have to do is sit down together some time today or tomorrow and sign some kind of an agreement.

We recognize that agreement is going to have to go up to the anti-inflation board because they have waited past that date of Oct. 13; that’s not our fault and that’s not their fault. It is perhaps no one’s fault, but it is a fact they haven’t got a contract signed before Oct. 13, so someone is going to have to decide what rules are going to apply in so far as the federal programme is concerned.

That has been told to them and I think they can’t avoid that responsibility. Anyone in this province who hasn’t signed a contract before Oct. 13 is going to have to live with the statement that was made on that date.

Apart from that I have urged the two parties to get together; I don’t think there has to be a strike. They have had the help of one of the best mediators in Canada, who has worked here, as I say, since last June. If the member can tell me what more we can do, I would be happy to hear from him.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary in response directly to what the minister has said: Would he consider asking the Premier to meet with him, preferably in the Premier’s office, together with the leading negotiators from the board and from the OSSTF in an 11th-hour, last-ditch attempt to require both sides to see reason? Because if there is a strike, I would predict that we would be in this House a month from now debating legislation to put teachers back in the classroom. Surely this is the time to avoid that, not a month from now; after all the acrimony that has gathered in this community.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would say to my friend that I would be happy to meet with both sides at any time. I have met with the leaders of both sides numerous times since June 1.

Mr. Nixon: This is the time, now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have talked to some of them today, as a matter of fact. The thing I hope he understands is that we cannot have a meeting where we can agree with them that we are all going to conspire together to forget about those anti-inflation guidelines that were announced on Oct. 13.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not the issue, and the minister knows it; that’s not the issue.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well it is the issue.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: With great respect to my friend, it is the issue. Because it’s being suggested that if someone would make a statement an agreement could be reached, and that agreement will be absolutely binding notwithstanding what was said on Oct. 13.

Mr. Lewis: No, not at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well let the member tell me then.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Lewis: I will put it in the form of a question --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question.

Mr. Lewis: How does the minister expect to reach an agreement when the mediator -- of whom he has spoken so highly -- has offered recommendations which are totally unacceptable to the board? How else will he have a settlement, given the vote this Friday and the strike vote Monday, unless he personally intervenes? Where is it going to come from?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know what my friend feels I can do in intervening.

Mr. Lewis: You are the Minister of Education, my friend.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Does he suggest that I urge that the board accept the fact-finder’s report?

Mr. Lewis: Sit down and work it through with them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am asking him: Is he suggesting that I suggest that the board accept the fact-finder’s report?

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister like his mediator’s report?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t think I have to say whether I like that report or not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Clearly he doesn’t want to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The fact-finder has brought in a report which goes well beyond what the board has offered; it goes well beyond the guidelines announced on Oct. 13.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I recognize it is a very difficult position.

Mr. Lewis: So the minister in fact --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I certainly had hoped, and I think my friend would have hoped, that an agreement would have been reached during the summer and we wouldn’t be in this position.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Nixon: A further supplementary, with your permission: We all hope this, and we are all elected here in the legislature to do what we can to avert it. Would the minister not agree that he and the Premier have the main responsibility in this regard and would he undertake to meet with those leaders or ask somebody from Ottawa -- Pepin or somebody -- to come down and sit in?

Why not? This is going to be the first and most important test of the wage and price control procedures and the Minister of Education has the responsibility on his shoulders to see that we don’t have a strike. Wouldn’t he agree?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will assure the House that I stand ready and will be in communication with both sides. If I can be of assistance to them, I certainly will be of assistance to them.

Mr. Lewis: The strike is inevitable on that basis.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it is not inevitable.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation --

Mr. Nixon: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t completed my questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I thought the hon. member said it was his last question.

Mr. Nixon: I am sorry. I misunderstood. I thought there was a supplementary coming from the hon. gentleman.

GUN CONTROL

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he would undertake to give some further consideration to introducing a gun law, either amendments or new legislation, to the House in the immediate future. Would he not hark back to his statement made in Windsor, I believe during the early part of August, in which it was indicated that the government had this legislation ready to introduce and that if it was put before this Legislature it could be made into law without any delay or without waiting for the federal action? It surely would be supported on all sides of this House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the latter view of the leader of the Liberal Party of this province. My speech to the police chiefs in Windsor, as I recall it, stated my own personal concern on a number of these issues.

I stated to the Police Association that the justice policy field had recommended these certain changes to the government and in terms of policy they had been accepted. I also made the point, I believe, in that speech, and I still believe it to be true that there is very great merit in having this done by way of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. If we are going to have permanent solutions to the extent these things can be permanent, it would be far better it be done through the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General of this province (Mr. McMurtry) met with Mr. Allmand last Thursday or Friday I believe -- I can’t give the hon. member the exact date -- at which time he received assurances that the federal government was now prepared to act and act really very shortly, we understand, in the same general direction as the suggestions we had made with respect to what I think is a very important issue.

It was stated in the Throne speech that we were prepared and are. I would like to have some indication -- and I think we can get this -- as to exactly what direction these amendments are going to take and some definite timetable from the federal government. If we feel they will not meet our purposes here in this province, I can only answer very simply, because I happen to feel very strongly on this issue, that certainly we are prepared to introduce the legislation ourselves.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, coming from what the Premier has said about the timetable. Has he read reports from Ottawa which indicate the officials there would expect the legislation to be dealt with in 1976 -- presumably early in 1976 -- and would he not agree that we could deal with this immediately in this House and at least give that sort of leadership to a situation which is becoming increasingly important?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would think, and I would guess these things take on greater urgencies with the closer proximity of some of these situations to people who have responsibility, that there is every likelihood the federal government will move more rapidly. The Attorney General tells me that he has been in conversation with Mr. Basford and they are now prepared to introduce these amendments next month.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the tragic shootings in Ottawa this week, would the Premier be willing to issue guidelines to dealers in guns, effective immediately, asking them not to allow the sale of lethal weapons over the counter, as is still taking place in Ottawa after the shootings this week?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be properly directed to the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) or the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: There will be opportunity for that later if so desired. The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, following your guidelines, I will not ask that supplementary. I will ask a new question of the Solicitor General, with your permission.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Shore: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London North, I believe.

Mr. Good: Does that riding sound familiar?

Mr. Shore: If the Premier places such a great importance on this issue and feels that it’s a jurisdiction relating to the federal body, surely he must feel that the provincial body is also important dealing with provincial matters on the anti-inflationary matter; and I don’t see how they contradict on these issues.

Mr. Speaker: And your question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member for London North perhaps couldn’t follow all of your observations when you made your brief statement before the question period. I really -- and it may be that I couldn’t hear it -- just don’t quite understand the question.

Mr. Roy: No. I don’t think you heard the Speaker; your answers weren’t obvious either.

DUMP TRUCKS

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, following up his statement regarding the implementation of that Rapoport report. I would like to question him in respect to certain aspects of that report, which is of very great concern to the dump truck industry today. What action is he considering regarding the prompt and fair payment of accounts; the joint responsibility for overloading; regulation and bonding of brokers; and the Quebec-Ontario co-operation in respect to the whole industry and the problems thereto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my statement earlier this afternoon, I feel we have dealt with the most important and necessary recommendations of Mr. Rapoport’s report. Other matters are under consideration, including the ones the hon. member mentions, and further action will be taken on some of them in due course.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Could the minister give us any time factor in respect to the due course, what it means? During this session? Before Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I can’t give the commitment that those matters can be dealt with before Christmas.

PROVINCIAL JUDGES

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General tell us what plans he has to alleviate the difficult conditions under which provincial judges are working, as set out by the Provincial Judges Association and as set out by the Deputy Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is a matter that has been brought to my attention during my relatively short term in this position. I do recognize that it is a problem, and I intend to meet with the chief judge of the provincial court within the next few days to discuss how we might approach this matter to resolve some of the problems.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary; has the Attorney General spoken to his deputy, who made some well-publicized remarks about it? Perhaps the deputy has some suggestions.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I speak to him on a relatively frequent basis.

Mr. Singer: Good, talk to him again.

Mr. Bullbrook: How’s that for direction?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Martel: The new member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Lewis: What a pleasure this is!

Interjections.

KIRKLAND AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL

Mr. Bain: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Considering that almost a year ago the provincial government was petitioned by the community leaders to use the old Kirkland and District Hospital as a chronic and extended care hospital when the new hospital was opened, when can the people of Kirkland Lake expect the minister’s decision on the utilization of the old hospital as a chronic and extended care hospital?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on that at this time. Chronic hospitals remain a priority, but I think one must realize that when one petitions for a new hospital in the community, one cannot always be sure that the old facility will carry on in use. Usually the arguments that precede something like that -- and I believe they applied in Kirkland Lake -- are that the present plant is worn out.

I think if one looks into the problems you’ll see that there are many of those physical plant problems inherent there. A building that looks good often costs more to convert to the standards we require than it does to build totally new facilities. Having gone through that place -- I believe that he’d find this was true in that case.

Mr. Bain: A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary here.

[2:45]

Mr. Bain: In straight terms then, the minister is telling the people of Kirkland Lake that the old hospital will not be used as a chronic and extended care hospital? Is this correct?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not necessarily.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what he is saying.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Grey with a new question.

GREY COUNTY TEACHERS’ SETTLEMENT

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Education.

I hope you will excuse me for asking a question early. I did intend to sit back and watch for a while being a newcomer, but the people --

Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to have questions from all members.

Mr. McKessock: The people in the riding of Grey lost no time in letting me know they wanted me to act for them from day one.

Mr. Nixon: The member has done several favours for the Tories already.

Mr. McKessock: Over the weekend we have been talking about wage settlements for elementary schools. I have received 40 --

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member please ask the question?

Mr. McKessock: I have received contact from over 40 teachers over the weekend and they are concerned that in Grey county they have not received their wage settlements although counties to the south and east of them -- Bruce and Simcoe -- have. I want to ask the Minister of Education what he is going to do to let these teachers in Grey county bring their wages up to the standards of the neighbouring counties. If this is not allowed to happen there will be disparity between these two counties which will --

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member has asked the question. He must not debate the matter.

Mr. McKessock: I would like to ask him if he shares my views; and if so, what he intends to do about seeing that they receive parity at this time.

Mr. Nixon: What about parity in Grey and Bruce?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Snow: A typical Liberal question.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I thank my friend for his question and, of course, his concern about the people of Grey county. I think we are all concerned about those people. They were represented here in a very excellent way for a good number of years.

Interjections.

Mr. Singer: They didn’t seem to think so on Sept. 18.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I find a little difficulty in knowing exactly what my friend would like me to comment upon because I think that the elementary and secondary teachers of Grey county, unlike Metropolitan Toronto and several other areas, do have a settlement. As far as I know they had that settlement before Oct. 13 and presumably that settlement is in effect until either the end of this year or next Aug. 31. That settlement must have been negotiated between those teachers and their board and it must have been agreed to and signed and ratified by their group, so I don’t know exactly what he or his teacher friends are complaining about.

Mr. McKessock: A supplementary to the question: Grey county did not sign until after Oct. 14, although Bruce had, so this leaves them in a 25 per cent less --

Mr. Speaker: The question is what? Would the member ask the question please?

Mr. McKessock: What is the minister going to do about it to see they get this 25 per cent raise which Bruce county has achieved?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If Grey county did not sign the agreement or officially sign it until after Oct. 13, I guess they will have to talk to the anti-inflation board in Ottawa about that particular problem. I will be glad to look into it and verify it. I don’t have the dates of when the settlements were made. My information is that there were settlements in those particular areas.

HAMILTON SELECTIVE SERVICES

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Does the minister recall receiving a letter from me, dated Oct. 20, in which I took exception to the business operation known as Selective Services, in Hamilton, which was encouraging recipients of mothers’ allowance, welfare, pensions and other government cheques, through a series of newspaper ads, to cash the cheques for a fee of 10 per cent of the value of the cheque? What action is the minister taking to stop this kind of bloodsucking and profiteering at the expense of those who need the full amount of those cheques?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall receiving the letter, probably because of an interruption of a certain service, but I can say we have taken action. The service has stopped. Banks are now cashing those without charge, and therefore there is no longer any incentive for anybody to try to do it the way the hon. member has described.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the statements reported in today’s press, made by himself and his colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), about the closure of hospitals across this province, can he advise the House if he has made a list of the hospitals he is going to close and in what areas? Second, does he have a plan of what to do with the hospitals which are going to be closed or is he going to do something like we have on Yonge St. where a hospital has been closed and empty for two years?

Mrs. Campbell: It’s on University Ave.

Mr. Roy: On University Ave. Third, can he assure the people in the Ottawa area that the situation at the Ottawa General and their new hospital will not be delayed because of his new policy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the policy is not new. In fact, the hon. member’s party went to great pains to say how much could be saved in that area during the election period, if I recall.

Mr. Roy: Yes, we said it. The minister didn’t say it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What about the Liberal Party’s dental plan? Tell us about the dental plan again.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yet watch the opposition every time I try to close one. What happened when I tried to close one in Windsor? Who spoke up against it? You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Nixon: What about Durham? Who spoke up about that?

Mr. Reid: And the one in Burlington.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer to the member’s specific question as to whether I have a list is “no,” but I have a pretty good idea.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the minister has a pretty good idea, can he tell us something of his idea? Secondly, what is the alternative plan he has in mind on what to do with the closed hospitals?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there isn’t always an alternative and that is one of the things we have to realize. I think the illustration the member used of the old Mount Sinai Hospital on University Ave. --

Mr. Roy: If the minister had any policy he would.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- is a perfect example of what appears to be an almost new building costing literally millions of dollars to convert it to another use. I believe the current cost of the conversion is in excess of $4 million. That is an awful lot of money for a building that looks good.

Mr. Reid: Hydro could have been put in there.

Mr. Roy: That is what we call a lack of policy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s not a lack of policy.

CHILD WELFARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. As the result of a commitment by his predecessor in June to consider the establishment of an advisory committee to study strategies and programmes for implementing the provisions of the Child’ Welfare Act, has a final decision been made to establish that committee? If so, does he intend to meet with the group who were at that meeting when that commitment was made by his predecessor?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The answer is no.

Mr. Riddell: Not another one of those kind, surely.

Mr. Martel: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate some time-tabling as to when he intends to respond to this? We were supposed to have a reply in early September.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I will review that and get back to the member.

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those “in view of the fact” questions.

Mr. Speaker: As long as there are facts, it’s okay.

Mr. Singer: Now what are you going to do?

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: It is a question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member means despite the fact.

Mr. Sargent: One year ago today, on Oct. 29, 1974, on page 4519 of Hansard, the Treasurer, Mr. White, in answer to my question: “Would he project a $2 million deficit?”; replied: “I predict a $336 million surplus.” In view of this fact: Today 12 months later, the deficit is $1.9 billion.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is the basis of the member’s question. Would he ask the question, please?

Mr. Sargent: Since he has taken over -- this is in view of the fact -- he was 1000 per cent wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That comment is out of order. Does the member have a question?

Mrs. Campbell: He is asking it.

Mr. Sargent: I ask the Treasurer to inform the House why in the Throne Speech yesterday, paragraph two of the second page, it says: “The Ontario government has led the way during the past year in restraining its own expenditures.” In a speech last night the Treasurer said --

An hon. member: Question?

Mr. Sargent: I’m closing, fellows. To reduce the spending --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member is conducting a debate. I think he placed a basis for a question, which is in order.

Mr. Sargent: Sit down, here is the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, we must have the question or we will go to someone else.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: If you have a question, proceed please.

Mr. Sargent: All right, I will ask the Treasurer what is his projection of the deficit in this coming budget? Don’t give me one of those answers where the minister doesn’t answer. I want an answer.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) suggests that I should take that question as notice and I think perhaps I will.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: That is an improvement; I was expecting “in the fullness of time.”

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour, and it pertains to the continuing labour dispute between the Canadian Paperworkers’ Union and the papermills in this province; and particularly to the request of the committee of mayors and MPPs relative to the minister’s intervention in this dispute to bring them back to the bargaining table.

I understand that Abitibi and the CPU are to meet next Tuesday. Can the minister indicate to the House whether the parties, particularly the company, which to this date has refused to have meaningful negotiations, are prepared to take part in serious negotiations? Second, is the minister taking steps to get the other paper companies back to the bargaining table with CPU and the other unions; or is she prepared to let Abitibi set the pattern?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the hon. member across the way announce the success that we’ve had in our minor efforts to get these two disputing factions back together. The answers to his first two questions are “yes” and to the third one “maybe.”

HIGHWAY PAVING CONTRACTS

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications when he intends to let tenders for the paving of the Spadina arterial road from Lawrence to Eglinton --

Mr. Cassidy: The member never stops.

Mr. Givens: -- and the extension of Highway 400 from Highway 401 southerly?

An hon. member: What else is new?

Mr. Singer: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe it will be the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto that will be letting the tenders for both those projects. As far as I’m concerned, the sooner the better.

Mr. Roy: You are not going to abide by that, eh?

Mr. Givens: Supplementary: Has the minister dealt with the application of the metropolitan corporation to provide the 75 per cent subsidy of the Province of Ontario toward the paving of the Spadina arterial road and the extension of Highway 400 southerly? Has the minister dealt with that yet?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, those matters are in progress and as soon as --

Mr. Riddell: He didn’t deal with them though.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto arrives back in this country I have a meeting arranged with him to finalize that.

VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General, a two-part question re violence in hockey. Does the minister always commit the crime of splitting his infinitives?

Mr. Lewis: That does as much violence to the English language as sticks to cranium.

Mr. Lawlor: The second part of the question is, does the minister wholly disagree with his predecessor in office, a most honourable man indeed, with respect to this question, as the minister seems to run completely adverse to him?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The answer, Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question would be “not always,” and with respect to the position taken by my predecessor, I know of no difference of opinion. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity of spending a few minutes with my predecessor a couple of hours ago and I was indicating my concern about the fact that charges should be laid when there is a clear breach of the Criminal Code. He certainly did not indicate to me that he disagreed in any way with the stand I am now adopting.

Mr. Good: John is on the payroll already.

Mr. Lawlor: A supplementary question, if I may: Is it the Attorney General’s intention then to apply a similar ruling to all sports, on the gridiron, in the ring and in other areas of that sort of activity?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As far as I am concerned, any time there is a clear breach of the Criminal Code, the criminal law of this country, and this breach is brought to my attention, I will recommend that charges be laid.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Our time is just about out. If we could get to one new question, we would finalize the question period. So it’s between the two of you.

Mr. Nixon: Can I just ask the minister if he is giving special instructions to the police forces to attend these hockey games with the indication that they will have a special responsibility to prefer charges?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If they do, they get Bullbrook.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps it might be made clear whether the minister is not answering or does he have no answer in that regard?

Mr. Speaker: He didn’t have an answer.

MINERAL RIGHTS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Has the minister made a decision with respect to the matter of taxation on mineral rights as it applies to agricultural land?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This was a recommendation of an inter-ministerial committee headed by the former parliamentary assistant.

Mrs. Campbell: You have got to blame it on somebody.

Mr. Roy: Does that exist?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s a matter that we have not come to grips with. I think I indicated publicly during a certain campaign that it’s not likely we would move in this direction at this particular time.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s good. When will a final announcement be made in that respect?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is a committee established to review both sections of the Mining Act and certainly this will be one area that they will look at. I expect within the next six months or a year we will have something definite and more positive to say.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

I want to ask the indulgence of the members for my slowness with the names of the ridings. It’s rather difficult to put together the new faces and the new ridings, as you can understand. So a little patience on all sides, I think, would be appreciated.

Mr. Roy: As long as you remember my name.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before you go forward. I believe you handled the question period rather well, sir, but for clarification I would like to bring your attention to the question addressed to the Attorney General, having to do with the role of the police in hockey violence. The question was asked by an hon. gentleman to my right and there was a supplementary from the same person. It is a matter of some concern, and I think you would find it reported in the front pages of all the dailies and at the top of the news items everywhere. If I might suggest, sir, it might have been possible to have another additional question from another party, perhaps a third party.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not sure of the member’s point. It was my impression that the hon. minister did not have an answer to your supplementary at the time, so I called the next and final question.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t think that is so.

Mr. Speaker: I may have misjudged. My right eye fails me sometimes.

Mr. Nixon: I think he felt he was responding to your direction.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. J. R. Smith presented the report of the Ministry of Correctional Services for the fiscal year 1974-1975.

Mr. Roy: I thought that was a petition from your riding.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, pursuant to the provisions of section 16 of the Ombudsman Act, 1975, that a select committee be appointed to consider and set out general rules and guidelines for the guidance of the Ombudsman and to provide formal recommendations to the Legislature thereon on or before Dec. 1, 1975, the said committee to consist of seven members as follows: Mr. Singer, chairman, Messrs. Grossman, Hodgson, Lawlor, Norton, Reid and Renwick.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

PUBLIC COMMERICAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On Sept. 4, 1974, the government announced the Ontario Energy Board should be authorized to supervise the orderly allocation of available supplies of natural gas among end users in the event of supply difficulties. This decision was based on our perception that available supplies from existing areas of production would fall below our requirements before a supplemental supply source, such as the frontier areas or coal gasification, was available.

Several events since the announcement in 1974 have confirmed the need for these powers. First, the National Energy Board has held hearings and issued a report on natural gas supply and requirements which indicates that available supplies from existing areas of production will not meet the needs of users east of Alberta as early as 1977. As I stated in London, Ont., on Oct. 2 our professional adviser’s view, which was presented to the National Energy Board in the public hearings, which led to the report referred to, is less optimistic than that of the NEB.

Secondly, the federal government has announced its intent to curtail exports of natural gas from Canada in order to meet approved Canadian requirements. This winter all predictions indicate that the natural gas shortage in the United States will deeply increase in its severity and its attendant hardship. Curtailment of exports by Canada must be accompanied by a commitment to the wise use of this important fuel and feedstock by Canadians.

Canadians in general and residents in Ontario can avoid any shortfalls in natural gas by some modest curtailment of exports; the commitment to energy conservation; goodwill and a determination to resolve differences between producing and consuming provinces in a manner that maximizes current supply opportunities; and by the early reality of one of the available supplemental sources of natural gas.

Before I briefly summarize the contents of the bill introduced today, let me make one point very clear: There is no natural gas shortage in Ontario at this time. This legislation is no more the sign of an emergency than the purchase of a firetruck by a municipality indicates that the town is burning down. It is a precautionary measure.

Mr. Roy: Did you think that one up yourself?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Furthermore, we expect all natural gas customers to receive fully their needed supplies this winter and are confident that all needs can be met next winter.

Mr. Roy: He is coming along.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I also would add that all existing residential users will be given the highest priority of use. We do not envisage in the foreseeable future that there will be any mandatory curtailment of natural gas to residents in Ontario who are using natural gas to heat their homes. This does not say we are letting up in any way in our advocacy of the wise use of all our energy forms by our citizens on a voluntary basis.

The legislation is to provide for the orderly allocation of natural gas among users. The natural gas utility companies that have long-term contracts for the supply of natural gas -- with TransCanada PipeLines and other wholesale suppliers of natural gas -- will be required to file allocation plans with the Ontario Energy Board annually on a date to be stated in regulations. The contents of such allocation plans and the criteria to be followed in their preparation will be set out in the regulations.

After the allocation plan has been filed with the Ontario Energy Board and notice of it given to users of natural gas who may be affected by the proposed allocation plan, any affected person may, within a date also to be specified in the regulations, file an objection or comment on the proposed allocation plan. The natural gas utility may then on a similar basis file its reply to any objections or comments.

The Ontario Energy Board, after consideration of the proposed allocation plan, the objections, comments and replies, may by order approve the proposed allocation plan or amend the proposed allocation plan and approve it as amended. The allocation plan will then come into force on a date some time after the plan is approved and will continue in force for a 12-month period. The process will be repeated in order to have allocation plans prepared for subsequent 12-month periods. In my statement, in the committee stage of consideration of this bill, Mr. Speaker, it is my intent to discuss further the details of the government’s plans in relation to natural gas allocation.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved first reading of bill intituled An Act to regulate Holiday Closings for Retail Businesses.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to establish certain holidays on which retail business establishments shall be closed. The exceptions include small grocery stores, milk stores, news and tobacco stands, drug stores, antique shops, flower shops, etc. Also excepted are those things permitted by the Lord’s Day Act, Canada, and the Lord’s Day (Ontario) laws.

Mr. Deans: What does “etc.” mean?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Municipalities may by law make exceptions where necessary to the tourist industry.

Mr. Deans: You mean all those and all the others too?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There are a few others. You will see them when you see the bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Development Corporations Act 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides the Ontario development corporations with the necessary authority to implement the Municipal Industrial Parks Programme referred to in both the 1975 budget and supplementary Acts and statements by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough).

[3:15]

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: All this legislation is usually during the last week.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The bill empowers a municipality that is acquiring or developing land for industrial purposes, with the aid of a loan from one of the development corporations under the Development Corporations Act, 1973, to give security to the loan by way of a mortgage or otherwise.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Assessment Act to provide that condominiums and co-operative housing will be assessed on the same basis as owner-occupied, single-family, residential dwellings. It also contains a number of other technical and rather housekeeping matters in the bill.

Mr. Roy: It’s going to take more than that to get that --

BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MORTGAGES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: This is really first rate. It is a pleasure.

Mr. Cassidy: Who gave them pep pills?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I told you.

Mr. Martel: Why didn’t you do that four years ago?

ASSIGNMENT OF BOOK DEBTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Assignment of Book Debts Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Deans: Quite a switch; all the back benchers are making cabinet statements.

An hon. member: Actually, the cabinet is about all that’s left.

Mr. Nixon: We’re going to miss him as Housing Minister. It’s not going to be any fun at all.

CONDITIONAL SALES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Conditional Sales Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the three Acts that I have introduced today provide for the extension of time for registration of certain legal instruments in the case of an interruption of postal service.

LABOUR OMBUDSMAN ACT, 1975

Mr. Reid moved first reading of bill intituled, the Labour Ombudsman Act, 1975.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing this bill which I introduced last session. The former Minister of Labour indicated his department was giving serious consideration to introducing legislation or setting something up within the Labour department which would protect the individual worker both from the companies and, particularly, illegal practices by the union.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Reid moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this Act provides that information in consumer reporting firms not be allowed to leave the Province of Ontario. It is particularly aimed at this information and the privacy of individuals being protected, particularly in view of the fact that much of this information seems to find its way outside not only Ontario but also Canada.

It also provides that companies holding this information must register with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Affairs the regulations and the way in which they are protecting the privacy of the information under their control.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to relieve Persons from Liability in respect of voluntary Emergency Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency first aid assistance or medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident or other sudden emergency.

SAFETY COMMITTEES ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the Establishment of Safety Committees.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: The purpose of the bill is to provide the employees in Ontario with a voice in safety matters. I am confident the bill will reduce the number of personal injuries in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day, as hon. members know, tomorrow at 11 o’clock I will, in the presence of the Lieutenant Governor, administer the oath of office to the Ombudsman designate, Mr. Arthur Maloney. All members are invited, as you know because you received the invitation on your desks or in the mail. Those wishing to attend will sit in their places as usual. I know that all hon. members will wish to join in the inauguration of this most important parliamentary office.

Orders of the day.

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

Mr. Chairman: Before we get to committee of supply, I would like to take this opportunity to thank members from all sides of the House for according me the honour and privilege to serve you in the committee of the whole. I realize it is not going to be an easy task and I want to call upon members from all sides of the House to act in a reasonable and responsible manner in our deliberations.

I intend to be fair and impartial but I intend to be firm in enforcing the rules of the House. I think all members of the House should keep in mind that all of their remarks in the committee should be relevant. They should he courteous and they should conduct themselves in a civil manner at all times.

Mr. Good: No repetition.

Mr. Chairman: I am sure the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith), who will be joining me in these responsibilities, will assist members in every way possible and both he and I ask for your assistance and your co-operation at all times. If that is done I am sure we will look forward to some very useful and very productive sessions of this committee of the House. I want to thank you for according me this opportunity to be of service to you.

Mr. Gaunt: He deserves a raise in pay.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, it was planned to consider the remaining votes, that is 1006, 1007, 1008, and 1009 of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

On vote 1006:

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, just to say that we will abide by all your declarations, Mr. Chairman. As the first estimates under your benign gaze and firm hand, on behalf of all of us here I certainly welcome you to the chair.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order please. In view of the fact that basically, this is a new Legislature with many new MPPs -- both opposition critics particularly are new in this whole area -- as the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) stated yesterday there is some question of whether we can pick up the areas which were left off. Perhaps out of respect and reason and maybe education we could have permission to broaden the scope with which we are dealing with the general areas. Perhaps an opportunity could be given to having an opening statement in relation to the broader aspects of this vote.

Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member for London North will refer to page G100, vote 1006, there are six items in that vote. There is a programme description at the bottom and if there is anything of a specific nature which you want to ask the minister, I am sure he would be happy to provide you with that. I would only caution you to confine your remarks to 1006, item 1, programme administration.

Mr. Shore: Then we can’t discuss anything broader than the area of 1006, is that the ruling?

Mr. Chairman: That’s true.

[3:30]

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to congratulate you personally on your elevation to this position. There are a few other points I would like to mention. It’s nice to be back here and notice some of the changes around the place. I remember one of the remarks made by the Treasurer when I was rudely interrupted four years ago: “What is Makarchuk doing now?” I would like to inform him that Makarchuk was making sure that the Tories ran third in Brantford in the future. That’s vindication of what I was doing. Now I’m going to try to find out what the minister was doing.

As I said earlier, before I was rudely interrupted four years ago, we were interested in a land-use plan for the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: What is this, a maiden speech?

Mr. Makarchuk: At that time various ministers were giving indications that this plan was in the process of development. I would like to point out that that was five years ago, and in five years many people are capable of doing a lot of great things. Perhaps the minister at this time will give some indication as to the status of the plan? When is it going to be ready if it’s going to be ready? Where is it? If he is having any disagreements in the various ministries, which ministries have not given approval to the plan? Can he give some indication of the general content of the whole thing?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, there are no disagreements as yet. I suspect there may well be but there are not any as yet. Had we not been interrupted by the election, I think by now it probably would have gone through the various cabinet committees and our internal process to cabinet and might well have been ready for introduction about this time. We’ve lost two or three months in terms of the election and we’re just getting back to it now.

As for timing, I doubt very much if it will be before the first of next year; I doubt it will be before the end of this year.

Mr. Makarchuk: Could the minister give me some idea of the details of the plan? Will the plan be able to provide communities some direction in terms of growth or land use? Will there be some indication as to what land is going to be preserved for agricultural use, for housing, for industrial growth and so forth? Have the various economic and environmental factors been taken into account? Are these going to be considered or included in the development of the plan?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I think the member is getting much too finite. We would say most of the things that the member has just raised would be in local, regional, county or municipal official plans and not in a provincial statement of objectives. Not much of what he has asked me for will be in the provincial statement.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments on item 1 of vote 1006, programme administration? Carried.

Item 2, urban and regional planning. Are there any comments?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I have a number of comments that I want to make on this item. In the total budget of TEIGA I suppose it’s a very small item but I suggest it has implications far in excess of the funds involved. It relates particularly to the issue that was raised by the member for Brantford. I want to discuss that in some greater detail.

I understand from the minister that the proposed master plan, if that is what he is referring to, isn’t proposed to go into any great detail in terms of planning the province either for land use or for development. If that is the case, I suggest it’s a very real mistake because if we leave the situation as it has been for either regions or local municipalities to do the planning for the province on a broad scale it just won’t be done.

There are three things that are needed in this province, I suggest, with regard to development and land-use planning. First, of course, is decentralization of growth, second is the preservation of the good agricultural land and, third, is the efficient provision of services. I suggest that we have had, certainly in the field of land use, a complete failure in this regard.

Last evening I took the time to use the maps provided by the federal government with regard to the soil capability for agriculture of the Canada land inventory. I also got the population of the municipalities throughout this province. We find that of the growth in this province -- and I think these figures can be backed up and I can go into more detail on them -- during the last 15 years, something like 82 per cent of it has been on the class 1 and class 2 agricultural land.

Even worse than that, most of that growth, about 70 per cent of it, has been in the golden horseshoe area, if we can include Kitchener-Waterloo, Oshawa and Peterborough and down through Brantford and the Niagara Peninsula. About 70 per cent of it is not only on class 1 and class 2 land, but on good agricultural land from a climatic point of view that can produce crops that can’t be produced on other class 1 and class 2 agricultural lands in the province.

I would point out that if you took the city of Ottawa out of that growth -- and with deference to the members from Ottawa, there is not a great amount of prime agricultural land in there -- we would find that the situation is much worse because Ottawa is a municipality, on the poorer agricultural land generally, which has had a very rapid growth for obvious reasons. So the situation is that prime agricultural lands in this province, far from being preserved, are more and more becoming the lands upon which urban development is taking place.

Let me just give you some statistics from my own area, as an example. In the Niagara Peninsula, in the years 1946 to 1951, 43 per cent of the development there was on the best agricultural lands, the one quarter or the one fifth in the north part, which includes of course the fruit lands. From 1951 to 1961 that percentage went up to 46 per cent. From 1961 to 1971, it went up to 58 per cent and from 1971 to 1975, 75 per cent of all the growth in the Niagara Peninsula went on the very best lands in one quarter to one fifth of the area of the Niagara Peninsula. I suggest that drastic action is needed to change that.

The needs I suggest are becoming greater -- the needs to take action, to have a master land-use plan in this province. The needs are becoming greater as time goes on because our society is changing. I was pleased to see in the speech to the Sierra Club by the minister of TEIGA that he stated he recognizes that we are in a period of transition, but I was rather sorry to see that he didn’t seem to offer any solutions to the problem nor, I suggest, even properly assess those changes.

The need for this master land-use plan is becoming greater, first of all because we have a slower rate of growth generally and population growth in this province. Statistics show that in Canada as a whole our population growth is about 1.2 per cent compared to three per cent 20 years ago. It shows that in Ontario it is down to two per cent -- and those are the latest figures; if we had them for 1975, it would probably be less than that

-- compared to 3.5 per cent 20 years ago. I am the first one to recognize that this doesn’t relate directly to family formation, that we are still requiring the houses to put people in, because family formation of course is based on the birthrate some 20 years ago, but nevertheless it is a trend which will show up in the near future.

The second reason that we need to have a master land-use plan -- because of changing conditions -- relates to the higher density development that is taking place. Again, if I can refer to Niagara, I would point out that from 1973 to 1975 the statistics show that the density increase was between 40 per cent and 50 per cent in the three major cities in the Niagara Peninsula.

This has a relationship to the urban boundaries, because not so much land is needed as was formerly and not so much is going to be needed for urban development. If plans are approved allowing 2,000 or 3,000 acres of good land to be used, rather than 2,000 or 3,000 acres of the poorer land, it will mean inevitably, as it will in the Niagara Peninsula, that the growth goes down into the good land rather than in the other area and gives further need for the boundaries to be pulled in much further in the good agricultural area.

The next item I want to mention as a changing need is the coming world food shortage. Perhaps this doesn’t need to be stressed, but I think we all here probably know that by the year 2000 there is going to be at least 6½ billion people in this world

-- up from the present 3¾ billion. I have heard people argue that birth control measures will prevent that population increase. However, all of the best assessments show that those measures will not have that effect. The very technology that produces birth control methods and provides the education for people to use them, means that people are also going to live longer. There is going to be 6½ billion people and we are just not going to have enough land on which to feed them.

Mr. Nixon: What are you going to do about that, Mr. Treasurer?

Mr. Swart: We can do something about it, of course, in this province. The Canadian Press reported on Dec. 19, 1974, that an explosive global catastrophe was in the making. This was the conclusion from a June, 1974, conference of economists and agricultural specialists dealing with relief efforts in the poor regions of the world. Their report said it will come as early as 1975 or as late as 1988. Conditions are accumulating towards an imminent tragedy of world-wide magnitude.

If we think that is an overstatement, then I will just point out that in the Oct. 15 issue of the Toronto Star there was a report from Chicago which said:

“The hand on the granary door will soon be the one to rule the world unless food production continues to stay ahead of global population. The key issue is that world food supply and population growth are headed along a collision course.”

That was a statement by Robert Long, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, whom one can hardly accuse of being a radical.

So, I suggest that these three changes in the world and in our society are reasons why we have to demand that there be a master land-use plan within this province.

Of course, one other item that pertains to this whole changing situation is the near monopoly control and ownership of developable land. It’s no longer the friendly neighbourhood real estate man who is doing the developing; it is monopoly corporations.

The need is there, and I also suggest that the farmers are for this, too. It is not good enough to say that they are opposed to it, as the minister implied in his speech at the Sierra Club about the opposition to it.

Again, I have a press clipping stating that Peter Hannam of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, says we need to take a firm stand on use of agricultural land. He said that unless a definite land-use plan is instituted, most agricultural land will disappear within 25 to 30 years.

We know, of course, that Gordon Hill, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, has been taking a strong stand on that. The farmers are willing to see this policy which will preserve our good agricultural land. All they ask is that it be an applicable operation for them. I certainly think it was a serious omission from the Throne Speech that there was nothing about land use and, what’s more, nothing about farm income maintenance. It says to you also that the public of this province is in favour of a master land-use plan which would reserve the good agricultural land and give some direction to development.

[3:45]

I have here with me a planning report from the Niagara region, public meetings were held there, very extensively relative to the regional plan, which incidentally came out to do nothing for the preservation of agricultural land. The report from our planners on the various meetings, relative to the preservation of prime agricultural lands, says this was one of the topics of greatest concern. There was virtually unanimous support for a policy of preserving fruit lands and other prime agricultural areas. Many of the briefs also attached conditions to the support of this policy and these were almost invariably that there should be a viable agricultural industry.

I would suggest, too, that in the recent election, if you can draw one interpretation from it perhaps more than any other, it is that the public is concerned about the preservation of good agricultural land.

In my riding -- I think it is perhaps not out of place here to mention it -- in my own area in particular, the Conservative opponent made the issue -- and the only issue -- Swart. Swart was against development in that area and good assessment on the best agricultural land in the city of Thorold. Let me tell you that in Thorold, at least, I got more votes than the other two candidates combined and the Conservative was third.

Again I suggest that it is good economics. As well as the people wanting it, as well as the farmers wanting it, it is good economics for us to have our development take place on other than the good agricultural land. The Federation of Agriculture in the Niagara region reports that in the last year they produced about $60 million in farm products on the Niagara Peninsula and that is perhaps an annual average which is increasing because of the increase in prices. More than half of this is produced in one-fifth of the Peninsula -- the north half of the Peninsula.

In that same speech to the Sierra Club I see the minister said that it is going to cost money if we are going to shift our growth to the poor agricultural lands. I just say two things. First, that it is costing money if we don’t. Does it make any sense to destroy this type of productive land and let the poorer land remain there and many times not to be cropped?

The second thing I say to the minister: Show me proof where it is going to cost more if we develop on the non-productive land. Show me proof where it is going to cost more if we develop in Cornwall, or Barrie, or if we develop in Fort Erie, or Port Colborne in the Niagara Peninsula instead of below the Escarpment. I suggest, if he has any documents to this effect, that the House would be only too glad to see them.

So I say let’s get on with the job of this master land-use plan. Let’s make sure that it sets the structure for the future development of this province to incorporate the principles which I have mentioned, and to which I suppose everybody pays lip service. Let me say in no uncertain terms that it is the province that has the responsibility to do that, not the local municipalities. You know individual municipalities and regions just aren’t going to, and surely Niagara is an example of this. Not one single solitary change has been made by having a regional plan there, by having the regional council, and I was working on that council for five years.

The outcome of that regional plan was the compilation of every single official plan in the region, not one solitary single change was made in the plan that was adopted by that region. I suggest too, that this has to be tied to industrial manpower policy. It can’t just be land use; it has to be applied to industrial manpower policy.

I think this can be done. There are people who will say people won’t go up north or won’t go elsewhere. I suggest Ottawa is proof that if you have the jobs there, if those jobs are diversified and not just all in basic industry, and if there are jobs for the wives and for the women, people will move into the cooler areas of the province and into areas which some of us who live in the south may not think will be as desirable.

So I make three proposals. The first is that this province brings forth a master land-use and development plan which sets the framework -- not just guidelines -- in which the municipalities must work. I suggest the municipalities want it. In a report which was adopted almost unanimously at a convention 10 years ago the mayors and reeves of this province asked for this, What they asked for was a framework in which they should work and that there be a provincial land-use and development plan.

Secondly, as a temporary measure I suggest that we should establish a set of binding principles with regard to good agricultural land that must be followed and official plans amended accordingly. It must contain a whole new category of agricultural land, not just rural land which is left as a residue for development at some future date.

Finally, if this policy is going to be effective, then it must be followed by all of the ministries and the various departmental operations and it must be co-ordinated.

Let me tell you again about the Niagara Peninsula, about the little village of Virgil, centred in the most productive land perhaps in North America, a village of about 300 homes, which the Ministry of the Environment was pushing for the installation of a sewer system which cost $2.25 million -- at least that’s the estimate; it will probably cost a lot more than that by the time it is finished -- and which would serve a population of 15,000 people. Some of us fought that. We fought against the large urban area which the regional plan proposed for the town which would have accommodated initially something like 7,000 residents in that area in the very best prime agricultural land.

There was an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Some of us opposed it and went before that hearing which lasted three days. The Ministry of the Environment was there to promote that development in that area. The municipality was there to promote the development in the area. When we tried to put forward our arguments to the Ontario Municipal Board against the proposal because of the destruction -- some now and more in the future -- of valuable agricultural land, we were ruled out of order because it was not pertinent to the issue.

I suggest the province has to take leadership in this and that local and regional plans will not work and cannot work until this provincial government has established the framework for development which will meet those three criteria which I talked about earlier. One is a decentralization of growth, the second is a preservation of good agricultural land and the third is a provision of services at a reasonable cost.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I should relate my comments to things that haven’t been covered by the previous speaker. I understand we do have an agreement to finish these four votes by suppertime this evening? Or is there no such agreement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There may well be. Nobody has told me.

Mr. Good: Regarding the bill that was before the House in the last session with respect to northern communities -- if my memory is correct I believe we had first reading of that and then it was left on the order paper. There was at the time a considerable objection to the terms of reference in the Act and I understand it was not acceptable to those people in the unorganized areas and the improvement districts of northern Ontario. Could the minister bring us up to date as to whether there is a new proposal now being considered by the ministry to bring the unorganized areas in northern Ontario under some form of municipal structure?

Mr. Haggerty: It was in the Throne Speech in 1974, or 1973.

Mr. Chairman: Would the minister care to reply?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think there will necessarily be a new proposal. We are still sorting our way through the previous proposal.

I would have to say that from my observation -- and I haven’t been as closely involved with this as perhaps I would like to have been or should have been -- there are a great number of difficulties thrown up and which present themselves. It may be -- and I certainly haven’t firmed up any opinion on this -- that what we are attempting is something which is too structured, and if we are going to go that far then we should go to either an improvement district or an organized municipality and be prepared to have more provincial involvement with some sort of local advisory advice.

That’s a little bit off the top of my head, but that’s some of the direction that I see our thinking going in. We will not have anything further this fall, I think that’s fair to say. There were a number of meetings this summer in the north with various community groups, unfortunately without political involvement on my part or on the part of Mr. Beckett, for obvious reasons. So it’s not something that we will be moving on very quickly.

Mr. Good: Under the same vote, item 2, regarding the proposed guidelines and legislation as it relates to mobile homes, that is something which has been discussed here for a great many years in the Legislature, something which a year or two ago we thought action was going to take place on and as yet nothing has happened at the provincial level.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s in the Ministry of Housing.

Mr. Good: The information fact sheet given to us when we were --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m sorry, that’s something -- the local planning policy -- that is an area which has been moved, effective Oct. 1, into the Ministry of Housing, and that’s where it is now. In any case, the chairman of the task force I think was, is and has always been from the Ministry of Housing. You’ll recall the previous Minister of Housing gave a report in the House on the subject of mobile homes in May or June, was it? I’ve just forgotten when. He may have something, I don’t.

Mr. Good: All right, thank you. On the matter of the joint provincial-municipal projects dealing with the Simcoe-Georgian Bay area, I would like to ask if the minister has seen the report done by Dr. Pearson on the Georgian Bay archipelago and what his comments are on it? I understand it was commissioned by the recreational property owners in the Georgian Bay-Parry Sound area, and in it I think there was stressed the logical and natural difference that exists between the owners of recreational property and the natives living in the area.

I think both sides agree there must be something done to make it more compatible for the two to live whose objects are perhaps at variance; the local people wanting a certain type of development and recreational people wanting to retain the status quo and be more interested in the environmental aspects. Has the minister seen the report? Has the ministry studied it? What are the minister’s reaction to it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I’ve seen it. I think it was three, four or five months ago and we’ve had quite a bit of correspondence on it in the last little while. It flares up and dies down. To my knowledge, I don’t think there’s particularly a variance among those people, because they are nearly all recreational people in that particular -- well, perhaps, proposed incorporation would be the way of putting it. I went through the report and we are answering the letters. Our view would be, of course, that Parry Sound is under examination by a task force who hope, I think, to report -- if I am not mistaken -- probably in the spring of 1976. That report by the consultant is an input into the work of the task force. I wouldn’t express a view on it at this moment, myself.

[4:00]

Mr. Nixon: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that task force the one the former member for Brantford was chairing? He is associated with some investigation like that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I think the member referred to the Simcoe-Georgian Bay task force. What we are talking about is the Parry Sound task force, which is separate from Simcoe-Georgian Bay.

The former member for Brantford was chairman of two task forces, the Simcoe-Georgian Bay task force and the Northumberland task force, in his capacity as parliamentary assistant and then as Minister without Portfolio. Both of those political reports -- as opposed to the technical reports -- were just about completed, perhaps a month or two months away from winding them up. In fact, one of them had actually run out of money, I think, so that’s always an inducement to wind them up rather quickly, although I think they got something more from my colleague in Management Board. I have just forgotten.

At any rate, two weeks ago I asked Mr. Beckett if he would wind up the work of these two committees. He agreed to and I would expect that we would have the final report of the political committee -- well, I am guessing -- in the next two or three months. In the one case, perhaps a little longer than the other.

Mr. Good: One final item, under item 2, dealing with the local government organization. The county restructuring programmes are still, I presume, going on. What about regional government reviews? Do you have any in the process at the present time, or contemplated?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are, I think, 12 county restructuring studies.

Mr. Good: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Twelve -- off the top of my head. None of them have reported yet. It seems to me that the earliest one is about next March or April. There are three reviews under way: The Robarts review of Metropolitan Toronto; the review being done by Dr. Mayo in Ottawa-Carleton; and the one which is really just getting under way by a former alderman and controller in Metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Archer of Niagara. No others are contemplated.

Mr. Good: No others are contemplated. In that regard, I understand the minister at one time -- a year or two ago -- said that he thought regional governments would take 10 years before they should be reviewed, before things settled down into a proper place. In our own regional government of Waterloo, things are very dicey, to say it mildly, at the present time.

Some of the rural townships have had their tax bills go up 58 per cent in the last two years. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the rural people because of their increase in taxation as the transitional adjustments are taking place; and three of the five adjustments have already taken place. They find that they know now that at the end of five years things are going to be back into what they consider a disproportionate level of taxation, thrust upon them by the regional governments.

Two of the rural area governments, Mr. Chairman, have decided on their own that they want a study of some sort to see why their tax bills are going up. The regional chairman said, “We are not to blame. Don’t blame us. We are only taking the same percentage of our levy from the area governments according to the formula under Bill 167. So don’t blame us.”

We are right back at the situation in Waterloo now where they were in Niagara before the 1971 election when St. Catharines wanted to secede from the region. The province went down very handily before the election and dumped $1 million in their laps and things simmered down and you got Bob Johnston re-elected again in 1971. Well, you didn’t come with any money in Waterloo region and you didn’t win any seats in Waterloo region --

Mr. Haggerty: You lost Niagara.

Mr. Good: -- and you wouldn’t have, anyway, as far as that goes.

The whole point is simply this. The rural people in Waterloo region are very upset. The regional chairman says there is no way the region will undertake a study on its own -- with or without provincial funding -- until after the five-year period, when transitional grants have all been levelled out and the adjustments have been made and they know where they are at. That isn’t satisfactory to many of the people in the rural areas, because they have felt that their taxes have been going up. No one knows, but maybe the straight inflationary input would have caused the necessary rise in taxation in the rural areas. Maybe the merging of the municipalities with their different assessment structures is the thing. Maybe it’s a combination of many of these things.

Maybe it’s just the great, grandiose method with which regional governments were instituted by this government in past years that is causing the problem. But somewhere, somebody has got to get down to business to do the financial investigation and to do the study that was never done, and should have been done, before the implementation of the regional governments, it was always passed off and said, “Oh no, we’ll let the good people in the area look after the finances.” In other words, “We’ll put it there and you people can worry about the financial implications.”

Would the minister not agree that there must be some kind of study or some kind of review of the whole area of regional governments where there is dissatisfaction to a large degree? One theory is that the dissatisfaction will eventually drive the region into a one-tier system. Perhaps some of the larger communities want that, but certainly the small communities don’t want a one-tier system. Maybe the division of powers between the upper and lower levels is causing some of the problems. I think these things should be looked at; I don’t think we can wait 10 years to look at them, and I don’t think we should be waiting for five years to look at them.

I wonder if the minister would re-evaluate the situation and come forth with a programme that would affirm that where there is an indication and a desire for a study, the ministry would provide funds for a study at a regional level. I don’t think the area government municipalities can get to the bottom of their problems on their own. Could I have a response from the minister, please?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Subject to the mail problem these days, I don’t believe I’ve had a request from either of the municipalities which the member mentioned.

Mr. Good: No, because an area government can’t deal with the government. They’ve got to go through the region. The government set it up that way.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, they don’t object to dealing directly. The former mayor of Cambridge particularly was never loath to come forward without going through the region, I recall rather vividly.

Mr. Good: Yes, but she got cut down by doing it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: At any rate, if such a request came to me I would be glad to take a look at it.

Mr. Good: All right, you’ll have one tomorrow.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer in regard to the answer he gave to the previous speaker regarding the organization of unorganized territories in the north. Specifically, is there an ongoing study by the ministry of the options open to the unorganized townships of Sault North? If so, what provision is being made for local input into that study? Also, is one of the options under study incorporation into the city of Sault Ste. Marie of the townships of Sault North?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I frankly don’t know whether Sault North was one of the communities that were visited. We visited something like 25 communities, I believe, and had discussions with them. Whether that was one of them or not I simply don’t know. I’ll find that out for the member. But I have indicated to him that essentially it is a planning problem or a lack of planning problem, and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) is taking that under his wing.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, could I perhaps direct a question to you and have the hon. minister reply, since it’s more for information? Not to minimize the importance of the discussion, I’m just wondering if there is an opportunity to change these estimates or can we conclude basically that this is a question period?

What I’d really like to know substantially is this: There are a lot of very important items here dealing with and involved with the Province of Ontario financially; if, for example, we suggest that there should be changes in any of these areas, is the money spent or do we have the control to do any changing within these confines? Could I get an answer for my information?

Mr. Chairman: You don’t have the right as an individual member to change the purpose for which this money is being voted. You don’t have the right to increase it. You have the right to comment on it, to elicit information from the minister and perhaps to make some suggestions as to what he might do as an alternative. But I would like to remind members of the committee that we did spend some considerable time in the last session, and formed an all-party agreement that there would be 33½ hours in committee of supply to deal with the remaining estimates that are to be dealt with in this committee. This includes four votes in Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs; Education; Health; Social Development Secretariat; Natural Resources; Resources Development; the Premier’s Office; the Cabinet Office and the Lieutenant Governor. So you can readily understand that we don’t have all that much time. The time is down now, according to our monitor, to 32 hours and 46 minutes.

Mr. Nixon: How time flies.

Mr. Chairman: You are going to have to restrain yourself, limiting the scope you engage in in the remaining time.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: You’re in trouble, Marvin.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, I have no trouble restraining myself. I just want to clearly understand the purpose and the accomplishment that will develop out of spending the 33 hours. That is what I’m trying to find out.

Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that you will try to elicit from the minister the purpose for which this money is being voted?

Mr. Good: Has been voted.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Has been voted?

Mr. Singer: Has been voted.

Mr. Nixon: You read a blanket resolution last spring.

Mr. Good: This has nothing to do with this session.

Mr. Chairman: I have on my list the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine and then Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham).

Mrs. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, speaking as a new member for the first time in this House, I would first like to congratulate the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) on his elevation to the high post of Deputy Speaker and chairman of committee of the whole. I watched him over the years in my other capacities in this legislative complex, and I think he will fill the position very ably.

I would like to say that it’s a new experience to be able to put my ideas forth from the front bench instead of from the back rooms or through notes to members, as I did when I was research director. It’s also a pleasure to face the provincial Treasurer across the House; I consider him a worthy opponent --

Mr. Lewis: Well --

Mrs. Bryden: -- I hope that we will be able to engage in some really serious discussion of urban and regional planning in this debate.

I must say I’m nonplussed as to what our philosophy of planning is. We’ve had 10 economic regions, and then we had five economic regions, and we had regional advisory councils, and now we have this policy planning committee that is supposed to be bringing in growth centres. But in all of it, we never seem to come up with a philosophy of planning, or with any definite idea of where we were going, and that seems to be characteristic of this government. So that in the debate we feel that we’re punching at empty paper bags.

During the election, I found that there was a great deal of discussion of decentralization and its merits -- because the pressures have been growing during all these years of lack of direction of policy -- the pressures on our housing starts, the way housing prices have been going up; the pressures on our transportation services; the pressures on our recreation services; the pressures on our ecology. Without some sense of overall provincial planning in these fields we are not going to be able to meet those pressures, and it’s going to mean a serious reduction in the quality of life for a great many people in this province.

We’ve also at last, become aware of a serious threat to our agricultural land -- the 26 acres an hour that are going out of production; the number of farmers who are dropping out of farming.

Mr. Nixon: Can we have an argument about that figure for a while?

Mr. Lewis: We’re concerned about that. We will pursue that, I promise you.

Mrs. Bryden: That I found even on the streets, the sidewalks, the asphalt of Beaches-Woodbine, the loss of our agricultural land was one of the most serious concerns of urban people, because they realize that --

Mr. Ruston: Give the farmers enough and they will produce.

[4:15]

Mrs. Bryden: -- if we don’t have agricultural land, we don’t have feed production and we don’t have recreational land and we don’t have green belts.

I think there are several reasons why it is very urgent that this decentralization policy that is being studied come forth with some definite direction. I sometimes wonder whether it was delayed during the election campaign because the government didn’t have the courage to say, “These centres will be growth centres and the rest will not be growth centres.”

I am not sure whether it is desirable to be a growth centre or whether people would rather it be a centre that is reserved for maintenance and preservation of its present size, but obviously we have to have some sort of planning and some sort of concentration in certain areas if we are going to deal with our population growth and with preservation of our agricultural land.

There are, I think, several new elements that make it more urgent to bring forth this plan. One is the Pickering Airport decision. I hope the minister is going to reassure us that regardless of what the federal government does on this matter -- it seems to be waffling back and forth as to whether it is going to proceed or not going to proceed with the Pickering Airport -- he is firm in his decision not to provide any further services for the Pickering Airport.

It took the government more than two years to finally recognize that the Pickering Airport decision was a mistake and that the evidence that we needed a second airport in that area was by no means conclusive. In fact, the evidence seems to be more and more that we do not need such an airport.

During the campaign the government didn’t go quite as far as to admit that it was a mistake. It tried to get the best of both worlds by suggesting it would stop services for the time being, hoping to get the votes of the people who were against and the people who were for, but suggesting that perhaps the services might go on after the election. Finally, a week after the election, the government apparently saw the light and decided that there was no case for the Pickering Airport and that the only way to stop it was to stop the services. So I hope the Treasurer will give us a pledge that that is a firm decision.

The second important element that has come up that I think requires reaction from the government is the COLUC report, the Central Ontario Lakeshore Urban Complex study of the planning for this central area. The COLUC report adopted the population targets, the growth targets of the Toronto-centred region plan and yet it says that you cannot sustain a population of six to eight million people and a viable agriculture at the same time in this area.

I would like to know, in the light of that conclusion, is the government prepared to modify that population target of six to eight million for this central Ontario lakeshore area? It seems to me that we are going to lose too much valuable class 1 and class 2 agricultural land if we go ahead with that kind of a target. We are also going to lose a whole lot of other things in the way of recreation land and we are going to need much greater transportation and hydro corridors.

The third element which requires further consideration of a definite plan is the whole energy situation. With the price of energy going up -- and I hope we are going to be able to stop some of the increases but it has already gone up to a considerable extent -- energy now becomes a crucial determinant in planning -- not only the price but where the delivery systems are going to be located and where the production facilities are going to be located.

I don’t think the ministry has been taking energy into its plans to a sufficient degree. It is a new element which has suddenly become much more important.

Finally, there are what you might call the new regional government techniques. Originally they were very much from the top down; we now have what is known as county restructuring which looks like it is from the bottom up. Is there sufficient flexibility for counties to develop their own style of regional government in this country restructuring? It seems to me they are pretty well required to accept the provincial pattern of urban and rural combination units which may not be best in all cases. Perhaps in some cases you should split off the urban areas.

They also seem to be pretty well locked into two-tier systems. I think there should be more flexibility for county restructuring but again we haven’t had very much reaction from the ministry on what our newest plan of regionalizing is.

I think we are in a policy planning vacuum. I think it is time we had a clear direction of policy, a clear statement from the government on what it thinks about the COLUC report, the targets therein and how we can save our agricultural land. That is the most crucial area.

I think also we need from the ministry a statement of how people are going to be involved in some of this planning. The people have to have something to look at in the way of a plan before they can discuss it and this is what we have been lacking. It means that the various ministries which are planning transportation and recreation and energy delivery have nothing to go by. I think that was what COLUC was set up for -- for this particular area not for the whole province -- to give those ministries some guidelines. But since it came out there has been no reaction from the government so we don’t really know what guidelines those ministries are following and what they are following for the rest of the province either.

In effect we have an abdication of policy and I think we have to change that if we are going to preserve our agricultural land and have a proper land-use policy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just two or three comments. I suppose the first one I would like to make is that much as I regret the departure of the former member for Beaches-Woodbine, I would have to say that both my staff and I feel much happier now we can see the enemy rather than have her lurking in the back of Stephen’s offices. She is here in front of us and we will conquer her in due course. We are glad to have you here because you have been a worthy opponent for a long time -- I will put it that way -- and it is good to be able to see you in front and centre.

Mr. Lewis: I understand.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, but the quality of your speeches is going to suffer --

Mr. Lewis: Of course it is.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- without that kind of research. We are all dreading horribly the errors you are going to fall into because she won’t be checking over your thoughts.

Mr. Lewis: No, she is vetting everything I say.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s good. Two or three responses to my friend, not necessarily in the order raised.

I think your point about energy costs -- transportation costs really -- is well taken. In terms of our thinking, and I don’t say this is necessarily true of the people who do the actual planning studies or planning work, I think over the years we have all been lulled into the belief that transportation is a relatively cheap commodity. Undoubtedly it is not going to be as cheap and it is not as cheap. We are going to have to take the problems of transportation and distance much more into account than perhaps we have in the past. That isn’t going to make life any simpler certainly. It means that if it is difficult now to encourage the location of an industry outside the golden horseshoe it is just going to be that much more difficult to locate that industry outside the golden horseshoe, let alone in northern Ontario, because if transportation costs were a problem before, relatively speaking, they are probably going to be an even greater problem and difficulty in the future. But the point is well taken. It must become a greater part of our thinking than perhaps it has been in the past.

As for Pickering airport, I think the member has the assurance of the government that we aren’t about to change our mind in any way and service that site. The COLUC report, as you will recall, suggested certain kinds of growth and which levels were most appropriate. We haven’t taken a position nor will we take a position until we have the views of the affected municipalities, both regional and local, and for that matter people as well.

Those responses are coming into the advisory committee on urban and regional development which is a group of deputy ministers. In due course they will have the benefit of the advice which they receive from the local municipalities and the regional municipalities and people. Then we will be formulating recommendations to the government and the government then will make up its mind at that point in time, but I think not before and until we have had the maximum public input and municipal input.

How are people involved in provincial planning? One of the dangers, of course, is that if provincial planning becomes too finite or too detailed then it is going to be more and more difficult to have people involved. Theoretically, I think the province in terms of its planning should be dealing with local government; local government in turn should be dealing with its own people in terms of the specifics of the plan.

Now life isn’t that simple, obviously. If somebody wants to talk about development in North Pickering -- that is not a very good example -- if somebody wants to talk about development within Markham to the Minister of Housing or to the Minister of the Environment, we don’t say he can only talk to the Markham council, who can only talk to York region, and only York region can talk to us.

I think if the system really is going to work that the people participation should be coming through local and regional government Sometimes that is difficult and sometimes our perceptions of what the local people want -- and my friend from Welland perhaps hit on this -- are not necessarily the perceptions held by their local governments. Presumably both of us can’t be right, but the perceptions aren’t always the same locally as they are from the provincial level. One argues about things like assessment. That is perhaps much more important to the local politician, and properly so, than it is to us at the provincial level.

I am very loath in any way to bypass that sort of system. I would not as easily as my friend from Welland dismiss -- perhaps that is too strong a word -- the input of the region into a regional plan or the decision-making power of the region re a regional plan. I don’t think we have had enough experience yet to make that determination. Niagara or Ottawa-Carleton are the first regional plans to come in to us. They come in now to the Minister of Housing and not to me. I really shouldn’t comment on whether they are good plans or so-so plans or overly parochial plans.

[4:30]

I think we are going to have to let the system as it is constituted work a little bit longer before we make the decision that the province has to weigh in with a much heavier hand than it has in the past. I would be the first to say and admit that we will have to develop -- and that is the purpose of the provincial planning concept -- perhaps stronger guidelines and stronger planning principles for the province than we perhaps have in the past. We should lay those out so that regional, and to some extent local, planning takes place within those guidelines. But we are going to have to be very careful that we don’t become too detailed in our thinking.

Just because somebody in this Legislature thinks -- I don’t say this critically -- that Wallaceburg in my riding should grow and Chatham shouldn’t, or Blenheim shouldn’t or something, it’s not nearly as important as what the Kent county council feels, provided that the guidelines are the same, or that the broad principles that are being followed or perhaps laid down by the province are the same. So let’s not get too detailed in our thinking or our planning.

Finally, on techniques regarding restructured governments, the member said there seems to be some propensity towards two tiers. There really isn’t. I’m not a professional, but at the professional level, at the staff level, we would be delighted to see some one-tier governments come forward. They haven’t yet.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are two, Thunder Bay and Timmins, and my observation would be that they are both working very well. I would be delighted to see more, but we will have to see what percolates up through the restructuring studies. We certainly have no aversion to them.

Mr. Cunningham: As the new member for Wentworth North I am privileged to add my congratulations on your election. I should maybe at this time offer my congratulations to the minister from Chatham-Kent on his re-election. I would be inclined to say that had he the misfortune of running in my particular area, I would not have the privilege of offering my congratulations to him. As the anther of regional government, I think it is an appropriate time --

Interjections.

Mr. Cunningham: I think it is a highly appropriate time at this time to bring to mind --

Interjections.

Mr. Cunningham: -- to the hon. minister what in my opinion, and in the opinions of my constituents, is a long overdue re-examination of regional government as it affects my constituents.

Perhaps if there is one thing of which the ministry and the government could not be accused it is of too detailed thinking, especially as it would relate to regional government in my area. It is my understanding that there is going to be a re-examination in three particular areas. It would be my hope, as the member for my particular area, that in the light of the extreme duplication of services in my area, the tremendous increase in cost as related to that duplication, the severe disaffection as it would relate to the individuals of that area, and of course a letter from the city of Hamilton to the government that I am sure they got before the postal strike, that such a re-examination would he appropriate in my area at this time. I would like to go on the record as saying that I am not in favour of a one-tier system as it would apply to my area and neither are the people of my area.

Interjections.

Mr. Cunningham: And I would think that had the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen), who was charged prior to being Minister of Revenue with the onerous, and I say onerous, task of presenting this rather ill-conceived form of government to my area, had this individual been inclined to report in great detail the feelings of my community, we should not have seen regional government as it exists today.

The point I would like to make before I conclude is that certainly inflation is with us here in Ontario. The one thing I would hate to see continue to be perpetrated on the people of my area is the excess cost of municipal government. As the province reduces its impost on a 20 per cent per year basis to this area, this hardship is going to be felt in even more detail than they feel it now. I would urge the minister to certainly add my area to one of those many areas fed up with regional government; one which would like to see a complete re-evaluation of it as it exists today. Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I met with the Hamilton-Wentworth council. I also met with the Waterloo regional council. The Waterloo regional council, to my recollection, didn’t ask for a review. The city of Hamilton has asked for a review since the day before the bill came into being. We are not contemplating a review in Hamilton-Wentworth which I guess has had two full years and a bit under its belt.

The member talks about the problems of duplication. I would be glad to hear his suggestions as to how you could eliminate the duplication. I am sure the regional council would as well. The one obvious way to eliminate duplication, of course, is a one-tier government. It’s very obvious. That’s what the city of Hamilton wants. That’s what I think Kitchener, for example, would like to see. But with the greatest respect, from what I know of your area, I don’t think that that’s a very viable alternative at this moment in time. If he really wants to get rid of duplication, that’s the way to do it.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary to that, if I may, I would say at this time that the minister and the government seem to be harbouring the illusion that this particular area is solely the city of Hamilton. There are a number of areas -- and I am sure the House leader of the New Democratic Party would care to state this too -- there are a number of areas that are very severely disaffected that fall outside the area of Hamilton. Specifically in my area there are Dundas, Ancaster, Strabane, Westover, Carluke, Lynden -- places that I am sure many of these people have never been to.

I don’t have all the answers. In fact, I have very few answers as they relate to this very ill-conceived structure of local government. I think the time has come, it is long overdue, for re-evaluation to determine now how it’s going to work; and if it’s not going to work, that it be scrapped.

Mr. Makarchuk: I think one of the reasons the minister has so many problems is that there are people who actually are in favour of one-tier government. I can assure him that the council of Brantford is actually in favour and would like to see a one-tier government imposed in that area.

Mr. Nixon: Cities always favour it. They want to take it over. The Treasurer favours it because it would be easier to run from Queen’s Park.

Mr. Makarchuk: Naturally there are other people in the county who are objecting to the idea of one-tier government. I agree with the minister’s statements that if he interposed --

Mr. Nixon: Darn right.

Mr. Makarchuk: It is difficult enough now at the municipal council level for John Q. Citizen to try to get his problem resolved. He has to go to council and then the council will have to go to the provincial government. If another tier is stuck in there, all that happens is the individual gets himself bounced back and forth. The first tier says: “It’s not our problem, it’s the second tier’s problem.” The second tier says: “It is not ours. We have got to check with the first tier.” Then, of course, he comes back rather confused and certainly annoyed.

I think one of the problems, particularly in Brant -- and the realization that has to filter down to some people in Ontario -- is the fact that more and more people are living in urban areas and they are paying the taxes. The population is there and in a democratic sense it would be their proper right to have the chance to call the shots or to have some say in the functioning of the government.

The urban-rural split is developing. I think it’s prevalent in numerous areas of Ontario; it is certainly prevalent in our area. I am bringing to the minister’s attention the fact -- and I think he is aware of it -- that there is work going on at the local level to try to come up with some kind of a compromise, some type of restructuring that would perhaps provide solutions to some of the problems that are faced by the city of Brantford. But I would like to caution the minister at this time about the problem that may develop. I am not too sure that we are going to reach that compromise.

I think the problem in Brantford right now, of course, is that the city is surrounded on all sides by a township. It needs land to grow; it needs land to plan, to develop and so on. However, there is no way they can do it; they do not own and possess the land. There are certainly areas of the township that could be incorporated in some type of restructuring. However, if they are not incorporated in the restructuring, if there is no can be developed between the officials, I think the minister should realize that the city of Brantford cannot afford to wait until somebody, somewhere at some time eventually agrees to agree with everybody else. I don’t think that will happen.

The minister also should be prepared to allow the city of Brantford to annex areas of the township in order to provide that kind of community growth that the city requires. I would like at this time to hear what the minister’s views are on that particular matter. I should point out to him that Brantford city council at one time received verbal assurance that they would be permitted to annex portions of the townships. As a result of those assurances, council went ahead and started building a sewer to service a major area of 1,000 acres. I’m sure you know the 1,000 acres I’m talking about -- 800 is owned by the Ontario Housing Corp. and 200 is owned by the city. It’s not even grade one or two agricultural land. It’s ideal land for development for housing, industrial use and so on -- and it sits there stuck in a jurisdictional dispute.

We have part of the sewer in the ground and it just lies there and doesn’t collect any revenue because we were told later on: “We are not going to permit any annexation in your area.” And the reason for that is because of the influence of some of the Tory reeves in the area who kept running down here all the time. I have a feeling that the minister agreed to everything that one reeve wanted just to get him out of his office. I would like some of the minister’s views on the prospects of the city of Brantford having to go into annexation in terms of trying to resolve its own problems.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment on that before the minister replies, since he doesn’t know quite what to say. It was interesting when the former Minister of Housing -- I don’t know what he is now, but the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Irvine) is the one to whom I am referring.

Mr. Roy: Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. Nixon: Ah yes, Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. He was in Brantford and Brant county talking about the possibilities of a restructuring there when we were talking about the very matter of the utilization of that 1,000 acres owned by Ontario Housing. He said: “Well, of course, if you go restructured government, if no compromise for regional government we would have a ready answer.”

I suppose there is a legitimate aspect to that response, and yet in my opinion it almost falls into the category of blackmail -- certainly it puts unsupportable pressures on local councils and developers and people who are looking for housing as well as the farmers.

The minister, the Treasurer and others, have always said the restructuring of counties is going to come at the behest of those people at the local level. And yet there are always those feelings that if you go for some sort of regionalization or restructuring -- to use the words that the minister likes to use -- that you will get more grants, that you will readily get approvals for the developments that you are seeking; rather than any attempt to make the system, as it is presently constituted, function with any effectiveness.

After all, it is now almost eight years since the government of Ontario went into the area and purchased 1,000 acres needed for housing development in the area. I don’t see why they couldn’t be developed as a part of Brantford township. The sewer development is right there. Why couldn’t the development go on into the township and a suitable agreement be worked out so that those houses could be built in that area without an unnecessary and an unnatural pressure to go to restructuring or annexation?

I’m concerned about this and I would like to know the minister’s views. So that I won’t get up too often, I would like to put another question, which has already been referred to by the member for Brantford. It has to do with the general provincial land use plan, and the member for Welland referred to it as well.

It was just a year ago now that the Treasurer’s predecessor, Mr. White, announced there would be a land use plan for the whole of the province made public before the end of that year, 1974. It was postponed and carried over into 1975, and now I sense we are even further from it than we were then.

The idea that Mr. White put forward was that, unfortunately, the plan would not be complete in every detail -- and no plan ever is nor ever will be -- but that he believed enough in the concept to put together the ideas that were presently in the collective planning brain of the government and others participating. He was going to put it before the Legislature at least for debate and as being acceptable as a basis of government policy.

I have the feeling that the present Treasurer, having gone through the Design for Development phases in his earlier career with John Robarts, and having gone through those 10 regional development councils referred to by the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mrs. Bryden) and having gone through the Toronto-centred region plan, and having had his own probably idealistic concepts of planning dashed somewhat when he found that they were not workable, or as effectively workable as he had hoped, that he is sort of jaded in his job as chief planner for the province; that he doesn’t believe that any of these things can work anymore. He is very hesitant to bring forward something that might be called a land use plan, even in general terms, for the whole of the Province of Ontario; or at least for the southern peninsula while we are waiting for some further initiatives in the north.

[4:45]

If in fact he doesn’t believe in it perhaps he should tell us this so that our argument will take a different basis, because he knows, on the basis of statements I made by his predecessors, which have to be accepted in this House, that we have a plan that is in formulation. It was promised to us a year ago now and as a matter of fact before that. I don’t believe we are going to get it as long as Darcy McKeough is Treasurer. I don’t believe we are going to get it as long as we have a Conservative government.

Mr. Makarchuk: Before the minister replies, on the same point, I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- and I am not sure of the sequence.

Mr. Nixon: All of Brant except Brantford.

Mr. Makarchuk: All of Brant except Brantford and areas adjacent thereto. Anyway, it seems to me that part of the problem with the member for those areas when he is advocating that Brantford township should develop 1,000 acres is that he has been away for too long from the area.

One of the concerns the city of Brantford has about Brantford township developing the area is the fact that the city of Brantford has to provide services. They provide the sewage, they provide the hospitals, they provide the libraries, the recreational facilities, the transportation facilities; and the people of Brantford pay for those services.

Mr. Nixon: That is wrong. Who paid for your centennial arena? The people of Brantford only? What are you talking about? Who paid for the sewage disposal? Only the people of Brantford? That is wrong.

Mr. Makarchuk: As a matter of fact, I would suggest that the member --

Mr. Nixon: Most of the money came from the provincial level.

Mr. Makarchuk: I suggest the member read the Brantford urban growth study, it is available and it gives a breakdown in detail the per capita amount of money that the people in Brantford contribute to the various services in relation to the per capita amount that is contributed from Brantford township.

Mr. Ruston: Put a wall around that.

Mr. Makarchuk: What he is advocating, it appears, is a form of what one would call municipal welfare-bumism. This is what it really is, where you have one municipality sitting on the fringes of another municipality, enjoying the services provided by the municipality in the core and at the same time not carrying its share of the load, and I think this is a matter that has to be considered.

Mr. Lewis: Finally we are getting a balance here --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Perhaps the minister might be given the opportunity to answer the question first of all.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to get involved in this very interesting discussion between the urbanite and the farmer, having some sympathy for both points of view, and frankly not being as familiar with the 1,000 acres which the two members seem to be familiar with; it is not something that I am involved in.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t consider that an insult; maybe he does.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would wonder why Brant and Brantford township couldn’t get together and agree on something. Obviously they can’t; obviously that’s what leads into restructuring, obviously; or the alternative, into annexation.

We are not happy with lengthy, nasty, bitter, expensive annexation disputes. However, I suppose that if --

Mr. Nixon: How about those nice easy area regionalizations? Do you like those?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- after eight years agreement isn’t reached, then perhaps we do have to think about allowing annexations to proceed. I simply don’t know. I don’t really think I am jaded.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you go for a plan then?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I add that to the member for BON. Is that right, BON? Is that where you are a member?

Mr. Nixon: I like that. That is good. Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I really don’t feel I’m jaded. Gun shy perhaps, but not jaded.

Mr. Roy: You are too modest.

Mr. Nixon: Too nice a guy.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you for recognizing me at this time. I wanted to enter this discussion on regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth because I was very disappointed in the answer the hon. minister gave to this committee. It seems only symptomatic of his general attitude toward regional government that somehow it is something which is imposed when needed. It is one tier or two tier; either way somebody is going to complain; so what the heck, we might as well put it in.

The fact that the city of Hamilton objected to it very early on is viewed almost with glee by the minister. As he said: “Well, they opposed it from before day one. What do you expect from them; it is only Hamilton, after all.” This, I propose to show, is only symptomatic of the way Hamilton has been treated by a succession of Tory governments. Hamilton had some good reasons for opposing regional government when it was imposed upon them because of the way it was imposed upon them. The minister is very well aware of the integration, in terms of working, between the residents of Burlington and the citizens of Hamilton; he is well aware that there was deep feeling expressed by a colleague in his cabinet at the time that regional government was introduced. A more prudent person, a more prudent government, might have imposed instead the suggestion for regional planning rather than the necessity for a whole structure of government. Now he sits back and he says: “Well, you know, those guys were opposed to it right from the beginning.”

Let me tell you what has happened in the area of Hamilton-Wentworth. We now have, with the taxpayers money, two departments of planning, two legal departments, two departments of personnel. We have two departments of accounting. We have people coming for jobs who work in the city or in the region who have to apply in both places.

We have the spectacle of a sidewalk falling into a street in the middle of Hamilton and nothing being done about it because the sidewalk had been declared municipal and the street had been declared regional. We have lawyers who find it necessary to enter two actions on behalf of any client who happens to trip in the city of Hamilton because there is the possibility that it may be the region which is responsible as opposed to the municipality.

The fact is it is not simply a matter of the hon. Treasurer sitting there with a grin on his face and saying: “Well, it has to be one-tier or two-tier, and you know if you guys like one tier, the guys outside are going to want two-tier.” That kind of simplistic thinking should have gone out of this government long ago and it should have been beaten out of this government by the last election results.

I actually thank the out-going cabinet of the previous government for having assured my election and it is very kind of them. That was a big issue in Hamilton West and I appreciate it very much. But right now, the time has come to deal with this intelligently. We must deal with this as follows and I have made this proposal and I make this proposal again to the hon. minister, and I hope he sees fit to accept it.

Knowing that hardened positions have been taken by the government of the city of Hamilton and by the government of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, the sensible thing to do at this time is to appoint an arbitrator, an intelligent arbitrator, to sit down with a few representatives of the city government and the regional government to eliminate all forms of duplication. This can be done; various forms of duplication can be looked at each in its own right. These duplications can be eliminated, possibly continuing a two-tier structure of some kind as long as there is recognition given to the individual identities of the surrounding municipalities. With an arbitrator and a time limit this could be done. I propose to the Treasurer that rather than sit back and simply say: “We have no plans for re-examining Hamilton-Wentworth at this time, let them eat cake.” Rather than saying that, I propose that the Treasurer appoint an arbitrator to sit down with the representatives of both sides, who have taken admittedly hardened positions and perhaps immature positions, to eliminate all forms of duplication within one year. Failing that, the entire matter should be put to a plebiscite.

That is a sensible suggestion; it was accepted by the residents of Hamilton West, and I hope that the Treasurer will see fit to consider that suggestion and not dismiss it out of hand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nixon: There is some common sense. Let’s see you accept it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I really don’t think that we are going to solve problems between parts of a region or between a municipality or between two municipalities by appointing an arbitrator. I think the hon. member should really think that one through.

Mr. Breaugh: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to discuss in the course of these estimates some things that have already happened and perhaps take a slightly different tack than some of the other members have taken.

As one who has just come from eight years of work in regional government and having been faced with some of the myriad of planning devices that go on in the Province of Ontario, I would like to put some questions to the minister in terms of this amount of money being spent and propose that while it’s generally conceded there isn’t any overall land-use planning that anybody will acknowledge in the Province of Ontario, there is a considerable amount of land-use planning. In fact, there is a considerable amount of planning going on in the Province of Ontario that is being accepted by the government on a certain level, not necessarily publicly, but if you take a look at the money that is being spent here, there is certainly a lot of planning going on or something going on.

If you are out working in a regional government trying to make the thing work, you will certainly find some experiences there that say there is all kinds of planning going on. The problem is to identify who is doing it and what status does it have. Whatever did happen to the Toronto-centered region plan in all its phases? Whatever did happen to the COLUC report, where did it come from; who did it and what’s the government’s position and where is it now?

It has been my experience, and I think that of a great many municipal people who work in the planning area, that what you have is a provincial government that likes to kite things. It likes to spend $1 million. It likes to do a lot of planning. It likes to put out great volumes at $4 or $5 a whack, and that’s at the selling end -- sailing end is probably the best team -- because then no one can accuse the government of not doing good things, of not doing the planning. Certainly they are. You can find volumes all over the Province of Ontario of plans that have been done on transportation, on land use, on facilities. They are all over the place. No one wants to acknowledge them.

Perhaps the Treasurer might remember in February this year that when the Premier brought the cabinet to the Oshawa area be met a few delegations that day, not the least of which was one from the municipalities. One of the things that we presented to the ministers on that given day was that we had identified at that particular time some 28 planning projects that were going on in that area. We asked them to respond, to identify which ones actually were happening and what was going on with them. We really did not get very much.

The one thing that was assured is that of those 28 projects, and there are more now, the bulk of them were being financed by this government. Very often they were in conflict and very often they put us in a position where we had to spend even more public funds to try to counteract them. It seems to me to be a ridiculous situation.

Let me quote you one classic. In the years prior to 1971, there was an Oshawa area planning and development study done in that region. The cost of that was roughly $1 million. It recommended a specific area for regional government, a study area. It is true that at the end of that there was considerable disagreement. What there wasn’t was any arbitrator in sight and nobody to touch it. In fact, the recommendations of that particular study and the consensus that was there was nowhere near anything that looked at all like the region of Durham. Where that monstrosity came from, no one knows. At no time could we ever identify any planning staff from any department which recommended anything in that shape or size.

That happened because of an uproar in Cobourg and supposedly because it was not politically acceptable. We don’t know whether it was politically acceptable or not to the people of that area because they never got a chance to say that. There was a bit of sham, a little bit of a parade of Mr. Irvine at that time going around to those municipalities, but certainly that’s not consultation; certainly that’s not involving those municipalities; certainly that’s not involving the people of those areas. In fact, some of those sessions were held in private with the public excluded.

What it boils down to is essentially some very basic questions. Who is doing the planning in this province? In a public sense, in what the government is prepared to admit, nobody. There aren’t any. In a private sense and on a ministerial basis, there is all kinds of planning going on. Ontario Hydro has now got a rather classic programme to warm up Lake Ontario so that you can swim in there. That’s a form of planning. On top of that, having said they are going to do that, they are now prepared to offer the town and the townships in that area some money to pay for the cost of planning that thing that they are already going to do.

The North Pickering project is there in the region of Durham. What’s its status? Where is it going? Is it gone because the airport has gone? Are you going to listen to representatives of those municipalities who say that it ought to go? Where is that consultation going to come in?

[5:00]

Could we get the government at some point in time to admit to what plans it is using? Could we get the government at some time to take some of the conflict out from one ministry to another?

In the city of Oshawa we are looking at seven different versions of where a parkway belt ought to be somewhere through the city -- from seven different ministers. Could we get somebody to admit publicly to one of them as being not a bad idea? Could we find out in a public way from those ministers involved exactly what those plans are, instead of having to scout around and try to find some wayward planner and pin him down?

Could we get some admissions about what is actually going on: Could we, in effect, take some of the confrontation out of the planning process? Could we get the government to show that initiative, to admit what it is doing, to stop financing each separate ministry to fight one another and, in total, to fight the municipalities? Could we cease that kind of warfare you have going on between urban and rural areas, between local municipalities and regions, and between all of those people and the Province of Ontario? Could we, for example, decide that somebody is going to plan -- pick anybody for that matter -- let them do the plan and let them take some initiative?

Let me put to you what may happen in my area. I think you are going to be faced in short order with an official plan put together by the region of Durham. It is going to have some very interesting things because one of the options you are going to be faced with is no North Pickering project. It would be my guess that that is going to be the consensus from the municipalities. It certainly is the consensus of the people in that area. When you see that one what is going to happen to that particular project?

After all that money being spent; after all those little study teams out in North Pickering after all the little delegations to the region of Durham and everybody else in that area for that matter, what is going to happen to it? Having spent a couple of million dollars in planning are you going to blow it out the window? There is that interesting proposition, because you may recall -- some of you were there when members of that regional council came down to meet with the Premier -- we got a slight concession out of him, a back-room concession I admit, when he said that particular project, as an example, will go, as any other form of development will go, through a development corporation; and he put that nice tag on the end “as long as you do the right thing.”

Now we are having the public hearings. Now that part of a planning process is recurring. It is obviously in conflict with a great many things you have here in these estimates. Those people are going to take that initiative: they are going to present to you a plan for that area because, frankly, you have abdicated your responsibility, if you like, in this one subtle way: You are not prepared to say publicly what you are prepared to do in a million and one other ways.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of this government when that plan rolls in. After that public hearing process, after that consultation with their own local municipalities, it will be interesting to see whether they are prepared to accept that. If that is the case, let’s make that the rule for the game.

Let’s say that all these planning estimates get taken out of the provincial estimates. Let’s give the money to those areas. Let’s say to those people: “All right, you plan the province,” because it seems eminently clear to all of us that somebody has to and it isn’t happening, at least not in a way that anybody on the government side is prepared to admit.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the debate all afternoon I have come to the conclusion that the most harmonious living available to the people of Ontario is in southwestern Ontario where we don’t have regional government and where the people have same say about the imposition of regional government through the political arena.

Mr. Lewis: Too many Liberals, though.

Mr. Nixon: That’s why we haven’t got regional government.

Mr. Bullbrook: What do you want us to do; hold hands?

Mr. Riddell: I would like to indicate that Huron county, on its own, underwent a restructuring study and at the end of that study it voted against a restructured system. Unfortunately the hands of the area municipalities and county councils are being forced because of the particular grant structure of this government.

Let me give you one example. Because the health unit of Huron county did not amalgamate with another area, they receive a 50 per cent grant, compared to other areas where the health units did amalgamate and in turn received a 75 per cent grant.

Mr. Nixon: That’s regional government planning for you.

Mr. Riddell: If this isn’t forcing the hands of the municipalities in an underhanded way, I would like to know what it is. I think this has to stop and I intend to pursue this matter of the particular grant structure to those areas which feel they have got a good system working now and do not want to become involved in regional government or even a restructured system.

Another point I would like to bring up is preservation of agricultural land, which does not seem to be a priority item of this government, and never has been. I suppose the reason is that most of the members on the government side are urban-oriented and there are not too many of them who have made their livelihoods at farming or really know why we should endeavour to preserve agricultural land.

There is rumour again in the county of Huron that Ontario Hydro is going to establish a generating station somewhere in the Bayfield-Goderich area. I think we all know that Ontario Hydro is probably one of the biggest culprits in the wasteful use of prime agricultural land and in the disruption of agricultural production. They establish their power corridors wherever they feel it is going to cost the least amount of money and be the easiest method of establishing their towers and the easiest access for the power corridor.

I would like the minister to indicate whether this government is going to permit Ontario Hydro to continue to surge ahead with its plans for a grid system, or whether this government is going to direct the efforts of Ontario Hydro to establish future generating plants in northern Ontario, where we should be encouraging industry and where there isn’t the prime agricultural land available that we do have, particularly in Huron and Middlesex counties which I represent and which could be considered the richest agricultural area in Ontario. Could he look into whether Ontario Hydro is still considering establishing a generating plant in Huron county, which, as I indicate, would spell doom to the white bean crop and other agricultural crops in the area and which invites other industry to come in? It is not so much the pollution on the part of the generating plant itself but the very fact that other industries come in, and people come in, and the first thing you know we have lost our good agricultural land and our good agricultural production.

I would just like assurance from this minister that he is going to be keeping a watchful eye over the Minister of Energy and Ontario Hydro to see that no further development takes place on Hydro’s part either by generating plants or power corridors on prime agricultural land, and in areas where other industries are going to have an effect on the production of agricultural products.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think this is something which you might want to discuss during the estimates of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) or perhaps of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Irvine), the matter of whether there will be a Hydro plant at Bayfield or wherever. As far as I know I think that is still one of some 20 proposed sites, including one or two in my own county, all of which are being put forth to the Porter royal commission. The Porter royal commission began yesterday or today with preliminary public hearings. I think those hearings will go on for a year or two years. There will be an exhaustive study of the power needs of the province and locations. Until such time as those hearings are completed, I don’t think anyone can say in any certainty that there shall or shall not be a power plant in one location or another. That is what the Porter royal commission is all about. But I think that’s something that you might well want to explore with the provincial secretary who is still carrying that responsibility.

Mr. Deans: My day wouldn’t be complete unless I raised the matter of regional government with you. I listened to my friend from Hamilton West. I am not at all sure that an arbitrator is the answer. In fact I suspect it probably is not the answer.

It would be better if we could find some common ground between the city of Hamilton and the surrounding municipalities, without imposing upon them anything more than has already been imposed by the government. I think it would make more sense, rather than to appoint someone to go in and to tell them what ought to go where, if we were to try to encourage them to find the way to resolve the petty differences that appear to exist between them.

But far greater than that is the problem that the people of the surrounding area -- and I think it’s fair to say the people of the city themselves -- feel about the mounting costs of regionalization. I think that a great number of people in the total area are frightened half to death about the prospects of the increasing cost on residential taxes.

I don’t think there are many people, including many of the regional councillors, who fully understand what the total cost of regionalization is now and what the total cost of regionalization is going to be at the end of the transitional grant period. It worries me when I look at people whose taxes continue to rise and who get no more, and in many instances less, in the way of services than they were getting prior to the implementation of regional government.

I can remember telling this Treasurer, I think -- certainly his predecessor -- that I was worried that we were going to see a transferral of cost to people who not in their lifetime were ever going to derive one single bit of benefit; and I think that is happening. I think when you take a look around the far reaches of the region you can see, as I can see -- even a blind man could see -- that the majority of the people who live in those areas pay more and get less. That is just not an acceptable way to govern. That is not an acceptable way to establish any form of government -- provincial, federal or municipal.

The people of the area of Glanbrook, whom I represent, they don’t think very much of regional government. They think a lot about it and not much of it, because since the implementation they have had nothing in the way of service, but by God they certainly have looming over them the prospect of a major garbage dump stuck in the far corner of their municipality to service the needs of the region. If that’s the kind of planning that is going to be done by regional government in the Hamilton area then no; thank you very much, we don’t need it.

Or I see the people in that same municipality who are faced with the very grave prospect of a greatly enlarged airport facility being developed in their municipality. They say to me: “Would you tell the government we don’t really want that. That is not what we had hoped to see accomplished with the implementation of regional government.”

So I’m telling you that it doesn’t make sense. You can’t take everything that is undesirable to the large municipality of the city of Hamilton, and simply by regionalizing move all of those things out into the county. You can’t do that. I am frankly worried that is what is going to happen. I am frankly worried about that.

[5:15 p.m.]

Now I think there is a responsibility on the provincial government, and the Treasury and Economics ministry in particular, to sit down and to level with the citizens of the Hamilton-Wentworth region. I think you have to begin by explaining very carefully through the members here perhaps or through some form of campaign, exactly what it is going to cost them to have what they are currently getting by way of services, if and when the grants that are available through the provincial government are no longer available.

Beyond that I think you are going to have to take a look at what appears to be a fact -- I can’t really claim it is a fact because I can’t get at the actual statistics that the same level or a lower level of service for the majority of the people outside of the municipality is costing them more money. If this continues, as sure as I stand here there will be people who won’t be able to afford to continue to own the houses they currently live in, because a great many people who live outside of the municipality are not young in new accommodations but are rather older and have been there for many years and find the tax burden extremely high.

I wrote to the Treasurer and I have written to other people and I raised it in the last Legislature. I frankly think that some form of cost benefit study is required. It is not a political study, and it is not for the purposes of deciding whether it should be one-tier or two-tier, but rather for the purposes of deciding what it is actually costing and what, if any, the benefits are that are being derived by the citizens.

I would like to ask also, from the political point of view, that the minister not turn his back on the city of Hamilton’s request for a review, but rather encourage them to involve the other municipalities in any review that is undertaken so that we can begin a long tough road of bringing about some reconciliation.

It may be impossible. It may be that the mayor of the city of Hamilton is so dogmatic that it would be virtually impossible to bring about this reconciliation, it may be that the mayors of other municipalities may feel like wise; but I do think there are a sufficient number of interested and concerned people in those municipalities, including Hamilton, who would be prepared to take part in such a study, were the Ministry prepared to initiate it, or at least prepared to nod in assent that it makes some sense.

You don’t have to do it out of Queen’s Park. If you don’t want to get involved in a study there for reasons that I don’t understand, then that is your prerogative. But for heaven’s sake, at least recognize the concerns being expressed by the citizens. If you don’t believe the politicians, listen to the people on the streets. At least believe that the citizens of the area are expressing concerns that are real to them. If the premises upon which their concerns are based are wrong, then it makes some sense for you to tell them where they are wrong and not leave it up to the local municipal councils, which frankly are neither sufficiently well versed nor have enough knowledge of the way in which the region is developing at this point in time.

We can’t afford to experiment with the money of the local taxpayer. The local tax base is sufficiently strained as it is. We can’t afford to have the municipalities experimenting now in new and different forms of regionalism. Surely to heaven we can understand that we can’t ask the municipal taxpayer to continue to carry burdens which he may not necessarily have to carry.

I am asking you to go to the city of Hamilton -- not physically but by telephone, if you will, since you don’t have any mail service -- and suggest to them that you do understand that their concerns may well be legitimate. If you are going to have a study, then include the others in it too. Let’s make it a study that will bring about a result that may bring about a better municipal government for the area. Don’t shun them; don’t laugh at them; don’t pass them off on the way by.

I think if you did that, you would find there are areas where there is duplication, and there are areas where the costs are extremely high and the benefits minimal. Maybe you could make recommendations to them for their consideration on how these things could be changed, given they should have the ultimate choice of what form of government they have in their own local area. I think you can do that and I think you can do it without destroying whatever is good about it, while at the same time shoring up the things that may benefit them over the years.

I want to say something else about it briefly -- I have to go to a meeting. I don’t think anyone denies there’s a need for overall planning. I don’t think anyone denies that as it’s established, give or take a mile or two at one of the corners, it would make sense to plan for that region as it would make sense to plan for any other regional municipality in terms of growth and development patterns. I think we all appreciate that.

I think some of us have looked at some of the small municipalities and the people who live in them, frankly, are expressing concerns that they’re not getting anything out of it. They’re not likely to get anything out of it and they doubt very much if their children or, for that matter, their children’s children will get anything out of it but they’re going to have to pay substantially just to maintain it. I think it’s a criticism that may well be valid and it deserves a look at by this government to determine its validity and to make some recommendations on how it might change.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order so that you can help me? I appreciate the opportunity of listening to the hon. members and their contribution under urban and regional affairs programmes.

I want to ask you this. I think one of the most important statements made in the province in probably a decade was made by the Treasurer of Ontario on Oct. 22 when he said, “The province is prepared to opt into the total federal programme [that is, the federal attack on inflation] for a period of two years after which time we shall reassume responsibility for those sectors which come under provincial jurisdiction.”

Yesterday we exercised our right to govern ourselves and became involved in a legislative set of gymnastics which in effect said the 30th Parliament couldn’t start anew. I would like to know through you, perhaps with the help of the Treasurer, is there anywhere under these estimates where we can debate the position of the provincial Treasury and the provincial government in connection with the inflationary attack the federal government is attempting to undertake? Or have we passed it by in the first five votes and now don’t have an opportunity of dealing with something of significance and moment which happened between the two Parliaments?

Mr. Chairman: In this particular vote, 1006, there isn’t; perhaps the provincial Treasurer might like to comment on that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I really think it would be in one of the earlier votes, Mr. Chairman, but I have no doubt opportunities will present themselves to the Legislature to discuss these matters. I am thinking particularly of the Throne Speech debate for example.

Mr. Bullbrook: I guess I would like to record it for myself. It seemed rather facetious for the member for Wilson Heights to get involved in this yesterday. I must say, frankly, I wondered whether it was the appropriate time but I’d like my colleagues to recognize what the intention of those comments was now when you see the response from the Treasurer. Nowhere in his estimates now can we deal with probably the single most important thing that the government of Ontario is doing today. That is opting out of the federal programme for its own benefit. I appreciate your giving me this time but that’s what I was waiting for, to find out whether we could discuss this matter.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair has noted your point of order.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to follow on the same train of thought the previous member spoke on and that is the matter of dealing with the costs involved in vote 1006. I noticed the government has stated it’s going to have a programme of restraint. I notice in the estimates it goes from $30 million to $77 million, well over a 100 per cent increase.

I could perhaps deal with some of the matters concerning acquisition and construction of physical assets. May I have a breakdown of that $13 million and some costs involved in this? What does it involve? What are the acquisitions? What are you buying? What is the construction? What are you building? What are you going to accumulate in physical assets?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Have you got another question while we look this up? Those would be DREE grants. That’s the DREE programme, I think, isn’t it?

Mr. Haggerty: May I have a breakdown please?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Have you got another question while we look this up, please?

Mr. Haggerty: I suppose I can continue on the theme of regional government. I’m delighted to see the change in the NDP on its philosophy of regional government.

Mr. Martel: Not for real.

Mr. Riddell: The party of change

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in the comments about conserving farmland -- the 26 acres an hour that are going out -- and the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) who rose in the House this afternoon and suggested that the city of Brantford go out and add some 1,000 acres of township land which, I presume, would be farmland. It’s rather confusing to see what type of a programme they do have. One says we want to preserve it --

Mr. Martel: Are you that far away that you can’t hear right?

Mr. Haggerty: In my county council days, back in 1964 in Welland county, we had a similar problem of annexation throughout the county. It involved almost every municipality that wanted to go out and annex certain parts of rural lands. It came about through regional government. We incorporated larger municipalities. We made cities out of townships and I believe out of 13 municipalities that are there now, there are two townships.

Mr. Swart: I believe 12.

Mr. Haggerty: Is it 12? Thanks for the correction. But two townships now exist in the regional government.

The minute you get into removing the rural atmosphere -- and this is what has happened in the Niagara region -- the towns and cities now take the view and say: “There is no need for rural land in the area.”

We talk about official plans. I can think of the one in the Niagara region where I questioned some of their philosophy in planning. I can think of one municipality right now where they have gone out and taken over the rural municipality, the former township of Humberstone. They automatically came in with their official plan and said: “You can no longer keep animals in the rural area of the township.” They’re even restricting animals on farmlands. When you look back and think about the newspaper articles where you read of the land division committees in the regional municipality of Niagara, I would have to question the appointment of such officials. I think they should be elected and be responsible to the people in the region.

It was brought to my attention where they have allowed severances in perhaps 136 acres of farmland. They have allowed two and three severances. If you’re going to conserve farmland, you don’t allow severances of 100 acres of farmland. I don’t think that should be permitted. When it comes to 10 acres or 20 acres of farmland, that may be a different story.

I understand that the ministry has already made an announcement that there are further considerations of allowing the development of a 10-acre site in a municipality. I hope this comes about, because the delay in planning which happened in the Niagara region has held up home construction in certain municipalities. It put a squeeze on land and it adds further to the cost of land purchased for the home buyer today.

The minister asked me if I had another question. I do have another question and that deals with the select committee report dealing with the Ontario Municipal Board, of which I was a member. I believe we brought the report back in 1972 or 1973. I know it was brought in within about a three- or four-month period. To this day I can’t recall if the minister, through his ministry, has accepted any of the recommendations of that report. There were some good suggestions there, particularly as it relates to planning. One of the suggestions of that report was that there was a need for a new planning study in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would just interrupt and point out that the Ontario Municipal Board -- and, therefore, that report -- the Ministry of the Attorney General. The planning sections of that report, which I think you are going to refer to, are really the purview of the Ministry of Housing rather than myself.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier).

[5:30]

Mr. Haggerty: I have some questions I would like the minister to answer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Do you want me to go back to the DREE?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is DREE. I haven’t got a precise breakdown of how the $13 million would be made up. If you recall the supplementary budget, I think we reduced this total of $56 million by about $11 million and the $13 million, I think, fell to about $10 million.

It would be made up of highway and resource road construction; purchase of the sites in Cobalt; construction of buildings to house detachments as part of the programme to improve police services in remote communities. They would be construction items as opposed to transfer payments, which would cover Cornwall and the sewers in Thunder Bay and Dryden, where the municipality itself is doing the work. I would suspect the difference between the two items is that the first one, for the most part, is in unorganized territory -- or where there isn’t a county at any rate -- and the province is doing it directly with the federal government under DREE. The transfer payments would be organized, in municipalities like Cornwall and Thunder Bay -- that is the big chunk.

Mr. Haggerty: I presume there couldn’t be much money available for the unorganized municipalities in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The unorganized areas?

Mr. Haggerty: That’s right -- for water services and sewage.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, there couldn’t.

Mr. Haggerty: There couldn’t be.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There would be a highway going through or something. I think there is an airport in Geraldton.

Mr. Ferrier: I am glad that the minister did bring up the item of DREE grants in the speech he has just given.

We are concerned in northeastern Ontario, and particularly in the Timmins area, as to where we stand as far as the DREE and TEIGA grants are concerned. Andy Morpurgo came up, to the Northern Ontario Municipal Association I believe it was, and announced there were going to be millions of dollars available to us in the not too distant future to provide services for the expansion and development of Timmins.

Timmins, as the minister well knows, is experiencing a good deal of growth now. In the next two or three years, as Texasgulf goes ahead with their expansion, the demand for homes will be greatly accelerating. To be able to accommodate all these homes and to provide the services and the necessary infrastructure, we are going to have to get a considerable amount of money from DREE.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) was up there prior to the election campaign and during the election campaign and more or less stated that the money was just about to come, but we have not got anything further than that. The municipal council is very concerned that a commitment be made and that the kind of money be spent in the Timmins area to help the council provide the services for the expanded home growth that is so greatly needed.

Another thing that is of concern that goes along with it is the stage of your development plan for northeastern Ontario. About five years ago you announced the Design for Development programme for the northeast -- and there were announcements in Sudbury and in Timmins at the same time. The people were invited to send back their ideas and we were promised there would be the second Design for Development report submitted to the region and the municipalities in the not too distant future.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) in the last House raised the question as to what had happened to Design for Development for the northeast. The minister replied rather facetiously that the plan had reached a certain stage when he was minister, but that after he had taken a little time off and then was reappointed as Treasurer, that nothing seemed to have happened in the interval.

Mr. Martel: The world stopped while he was gone.

Mr. Ferrier: A number of us asked John White what was going on and he would respond by letter saying they were working on it and things were developing and that kind of thing. I think he was giving us a snow job.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In Timmins?

Mr. Ferrier: All through the northeast.

You can’t fault this minister for lack of action. He is prepared to get things done. That is why I am surprised that he has not reported his second Design for Development and has not got a plan of development for the northeast ready to go. I think that’s holding up some of the DREE money for the northeast. I don’t know whether you’ve got any that you are spending in the northeast.

We are glad you are doing something for Cornwall; certainly they need it. We are glad you are doing something for the northwest; they’ve got their Design for Development: Phase 3, I think, already accepted and you are mentioning the number of jobs you are going to create in the next 20-year period and how they are falling into place. That’s very good but what about the northeast?

We need this plan to be implemented, to know where we are to go in the next few years and the development that is to take place. We need to be assured there will be federal money there. I don’t know whether the federal government is reneging or whether it is you but I would like to have some assurance that the DREE money we are looking for is actually going to come. Could you tell us approximately when it will come?

The second thing is on the Design for Development, the whole regional plan for the northeast, when are you going to be able to come back to us with Phase 2 so we can have accepted the plans for development for our region of the province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Answering the questions in reverse order, the northeastern plan, as I think I said earlier, is really wrapped up in planning strategy for the province and the two things will probably come simultaneously. I would expect it sometime after the first of the year; that’s just a guess at this moment, though. I couldn’t be more precise.

On the Timmins DREE agreement I had a report yesterday which I’m sorry I didn’t bring with me. We are negotiating feverishly with DREE. We are getting closer and I would hope that before too long we would have an agreement with them on infrastructure. That’s going to be very much subject to the availability of funds at this end.

Mr. Ferrier: To pursue it a little bit, what would you do if you are not going to make enough funds available?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Join the queue.

Mr. Ferrier: Join the queue? You are taking a lot of money out of us with Texasgulf there now -- not as much as you might but you are taking a lot out. That development is going to mean a stable economic situation, I would suspect, for the whole region -- not just my area but that of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle); Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane and Iroquois Falls -- the whole area is going to benefit significantly. I don’t think, with the kind of demand there is going to be for homes and services throughout the whole region that you can say we are going to have to sit back and wait.

There is a crisis situation there now. When the construction workers come in and there are 1,500 to 2,000 more workers in that area there will be chaos if there is not the money for the servicing and the infrastructure to provide homes for those workers. We are going to be in a terrible state if you can’t get us that money.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about regional government for a few moments and the Sudbury situation. It was about nine months ago when my colleagues and I approached the minister to investigate what was going on in the Sudbury region. I’m not sure the minister believed my colleagues and me that there was a crisis developing there. Ultimately, I met three times with his then parliamentary assistant, the former member for Brantford, to see if we could get something moving in the Sudbury area, some type of quiet investigation to head off the impending disaster. To my knowledge nothing, but nothing, occurred. Ultimately, one day after the last general election -- the very next day to be precise -- the chairman of the regional municipality of Sudbury resigned and we are now confronted with the prospect of a chairman who ran third in Sudbury. That doesn’t augur well with the people of the Sudbury area since in the riding of Sudbury East the Conservatives got 12 per cent of the vote, in the riding of Nickel Belt they got about 21 per cent of the vote, and in the Sudbury riding they got about 30 per cent of the vote. Nov we are going to have foisted on us as regional chairman one of those candidates who ran third. We will be in great shape.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe one of the ones who ran second is available.

Mr. Martel: No, he has got his reward. The intriguing thing about the last election is that they get their rewards very quickly. He is now a commentator for one of the local television or radio stations.

Mr. Nixon: He would he good too -- Elmer.

Mr. Singer: Everybody listens to him up there; they don’t vote for him.

Mr. Martel: I find it distasteful, needless to say, and so do many of the people in the Sudbury region, from a second point of view too. We are the only area, I believe, who have two government appointees. We have the chief executive officer and the chief administrative officer who are appointed by the province.

If that isn’t enough, there is tremendous resentment with respect to regional government. As one of those who supported regional government in the Sudbury area, I well recall in 1971 that the government’s own sitting member wouldn’t support that concept, but we encouraged it to be moved ahead because of the promise of the government or the carrot which the Treasurer held out -- he was Treasurer then too, I guess; he was Minister of Municipal Affairs for a while. The carrot that was held out, of course, was a fair assessment of the mining corporations in the Sudbury area.

Last week I went over to the assessment office and did a little digging to see why it is that we in Sudbury see our taxes going up by 12 to 15 per cent each year. Their assessment of the total holdings of the International Nickel Company is -- can you guess? -- $95 million. That’s for the whole of the area -- not just Copper Cliff. Nickel Centre has a total assessed value of $635,000; Onaping Falls, $2,043,000; Valley East, $294,000; the city of Sudbury, which includes the former town of Copper Cliff, $75 million; and Waldon, $16,969,000; for a total assessed value for realty assessment and business assessment of $95 million. It is crazy; it is mad.

A fellow built a new motel there called the New Trade Winds Motel. He pays more taxes than does the International Nickel Co. for its new iron ore recovery plant. It is mad because that new plant is worth over $100 million. All we assess, I guess, is the foundation and the walls. We don’t assess anything else; we don’t assess anything underground -- and there are virtually cities underground. Yet we see the taxes going up at a rate of 10, 12 or 14 per cent. In fact, I am told that these figures were ordered by order in council, that they were much less than those produced by Pat Gillis, I believe it was, who did the original assessment of the two companies.

If you think Inco is bad, Falconbridge isn’t any better. The assessed value of little old Falconbridge is $21 million. In Nickel Centre it is $4,127,000; Valley East, $30,000; the town of Waldon, $172,000; Onaping Falls, $17 million. It is mad.

I am saying to the councillors when I meet them now, “For God’s sake, whatever you do don’t raise the tax to the local residents one more cent. Let your town go into receivership first. Make this government do what it promised to do in the Sudbury area when they held the carrot out for regional government, and that is to give us a fair assessment base to work from.” That is what had to be done; that is what hasn’t been done. What in God’s name is going to happen when the startup grants are completed -- next year, I guess it is? We are in trouble, Mr. Treasurer, if you don’t do something soon.

[5:45]

You can do several things. I understand there are committees across Canada now considering the assessment of the equipment. You could look at the machinery. You could look at the underground operations. Surely they shouldn’t be exempt. You just can’t allow this. I live in a small municipality of 4,500 where taxes are $800, $900 and $1,000 and they continue to rise. You look in Valley East, where taxes -- without sewer and water, which the province is going to own -- have now reached $500, $600 and $700 for little homes, before the extra $240 that is going to be charged for the sewer and water facilities which are just being completed in that municipality. If you can imagine though in 1975, in the richest area in Canada and in Ontario, we are starting to install sewer and water facilities. You wonder why you lose in the Sudbury basin? It’s pretty obvious. We get the odd Tory safari in there around election time. We’ve had more politicians in the Sudbury basin in the last seven months. We won’t see them again for the next three years, providing there is no election before then.

An hon. member: Oh yes you will.

Mr. Martel: It’s crazy, Mr. Minister, and you are responsible. There is money there and you can’t tell me that $21 million is the market value of Falconbridge. Surely you can’t attempt to tell me that? You were in Sudbury this summer and you gave them a song and dance again. They put the same proposition to you: “You got us into regional government by saying we would be able to tax fairly.” A lot of the municipalities didn’t want to go with it, a lot of the politicians didn’t, but they could see it as the salvation of that area. As I say, I supported it when your own colleague wouldn’t. You remember the former member for Nickel Belt? He opposed it. Yet you leave us there in limbo and the resentment continues to escalate. The taxes continue to escalate. The problems are ever greater. We get platitudes. I would like the minister to tell me categorically if the type of assessment that we have was done by order in council. Were Gillis’s figures in fact used?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am afraid you are going to have to ask the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen).

Mr. Martel: It is too easy to pass off. You are the boy with the bucks. You are the man who dispenses the money. You are the man who comes to Sudbury and tells the people --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: With the greatest respect, the assessment programme, as the member knows, is with the Minister of Revenue, not me.

Mr. Martel: I am aware that he collects them for you, yes.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Right, and he assesses them for you, but you set the policies.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He does not assess them for me. He assesses them for the local municipality.

Mr. Martel: Right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Martel: I am sure the minister pays the bills. When the money returns from the consolidated revenue fund and it’s filtered back to Sudbury, where does it come from? Any money?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No money comes from the assessment --

Mr. Martel: No, no.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- by the province of Falconbridge or Inco or anybody else. That’s how the municipal taxes are collected.

Mr. Martel: I am well aware that the municipal taxes are collected locally. I am well aware of that. I’m saying that the policies which were held out to create that regional municipality, the thing that did it was a fair assessment of Inco. That was the prime factor behind it. That led to the creation of that regional municipality.

There is insufficient money. Despite the tremendous wealth in that area, the richest in the province, it’s going down the pike. Municipalities are being forced to increase their taxes ever so much per year more and this government sits in a state of inertia. You can pretend that it belongs to your friend across the way, but you were in Sudbury this summer. You came into Sudbury from Timmins, in fact, and spent a day with council I believe -- part of the clambake, of course -- to assure us that it was going to work.

I say to you you have to do something, as a government, to salvage something from what is going to happen in that area. For you simply stand on your feet, because you do pay the bills, and give us that type of response -- I would like to know again, because you were in cabinet, was it by order in council that the figures Gillis prepared were rejected? I am told they were much higher but it’s like trying to get papers out of the Kremlin, trying to get information with respect to what’s transpired in the Sudbury area.

Surely, you have to be in a position to tell us because you are responsible, if it goes down the drain, for picking up the tab. As I say, I have suggested to the people that they simply don’t increase taxes any longer, that they simply let it got to pot. If you have to take over, that’s fine, but they should not increase taxes to the local residents; we should be getting more for the whole area from the wealth that’s there. Surely the Treasurer understands that?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martel: He doesn’t understand it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, if there is something wrong with the assessment of the mine properties in Sudbury, presumably that would come up in the Legislature in the estimates of the Minister of Revenue and not in these estimates.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, if I am in order -- I don’t know if you are taking the whole vote -- can I speak on the Niagara escarpment?

Mr. Chairman: No, we are dealing with item 2 of vote 1006, urban and regional planning.

Mr. Sargent: This is planning we are talking about, I guess. I am talking about --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You can talk about it under the fifth item.

Mr. Chairman: That would come under the fifth item, Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Mr. Sargent: I am talking about regional planning. Okay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you planning to be away?

Mr. Sargent: You will recall, Mr. Premier, some time ago your cohort on your left and Mr. MacNaughton came up to our area and tried to tell us we were going to have regional government. There were about 300 people there and they put on a big show which they were going to do all over Ontario. They were going to regionalize our area. I told them to stay the hell out of our area and they did. Grey and Bruce counties are free people up there. We are not paying double for government; we are running our own show in that area in contrast to the centralized control you have down here. I want you to know you are going to stay out of there.

I want to say this while I am speaking, with regard to the Niagara Escarpment, Mr. Minister. When the vote comes up I want you to know you are going to have to disband that area because you are going to be in deep trouble if you don’t. That’s all I can say right now but I am waiting for a chance to get a shot at you on the Niagara Escarpment.

Mr. Reid: Since you are tied up in your new duties, Mr. Chairman, I thought I would make the northern speech for you, as far as regional planning goes. I want to make two remarks to the Treasurer if I may. They are simply, in regard to these regional planning programmes and the money that goes with them from DREE, it has been my experience in the last few years that the people who are making these decisions on behalf of the people in the region are the civil servants. The municipal councils and the elected representatives are not asked about it at all.

I draw your attention particularly -- we heard Mr. Morpurgo’s name being used earlier but I would like to know what the process is for these federal-provincial agreements and how the programme is arrived at. We are trying to get the road between Atikokan and Ignace, which may sound familiar to some of us, and we are trying to get it under the DREE plan. But apparently if Mr. Morpurgo or some other manifestation of the government in some office somewhere doesn’t feel this is important to our region, we don’t get it. The local elected council seems to have no input into this kind of decision.

The current Treasurer has to take the responsibility for having done away with the Northern Ontario Development Corp. He promised us at that time that we would still have input made into these decisions, and yet this is not so at all. I don’t want to go on at great length, but I wonder if the minister can indicate what input the local officials, and even the MPPs and the federal members, have in the decisions that are made in regard to these federal-provincial agreements?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Since I have been the minister, there just hasn’t been that much new in northwestern Ontario. I think it’s fair to say that the decisions have been taken. The great chunks of money are being used up in one place, for the most part, which is Thunder Bay. I am told, and certainly I have had -- not in your part of Ontario as much, but northeastern -- representations made to me. I think it is a little unrealistic to suggest that you are going to get Kenora and Rainy River to sit down in a room and decide how they are going to split the pie, or which comes first. Ultimately, somebody has to make a decision; that’s my responsibility.

Mr. Sargent: That’s not helping them any.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not Morpurgo’s; it is my ultimate responsibility so far as the province is concerned. Of course, part of the decision-making is 50-50; it is federal decision-making as well. Certainly Mr. Morpurgo’s advice is important, but it is not the ultimate determination. The ultimate determination is political at our end; I can’t speak for Ottawa.

Mr. Reid: If I may ask one brief question. How do the local municipalities that are in dire needs of funds -- such as Ignace, a growing community -- get to the minister?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They write letters, and they send applications in the same way that they do for a whole host of other things.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Martel: Do they get a reply?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When the mails work.

Mr. Conway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for the minister that relates in part to my predecessor’s comment. It is one of urgent and public concern for those of us in Renfrew county. It is the question of the general development agreement for that county.

We have had, over the past number of months a number of assurances from the Ontario government that the final commitment from the Ontario government with respect to that particular general development agreement would be forthcoming. It has been 13 months since the federal government and the various municipalities in that county have made their submissions and have firmed up their commitments. It is a matter, as I said earlier, of urgent and public concern to those of us whose responsibility it is to ensure the economic growth and development of that part of eastern Ontario -- a part, I might add, that I think has been historically and tragically ignored by 32 years of a certain party’s government.

So I ask the minister, to take it into immediate consideration, and to supply me and my county with an answer at our earliest and certainly at his earliest convenience. What, if anything, is this government prepared to do about the general development agreement for Renfrew county? Thank you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is being pursued, and we just particularly -- the other day if I recall, several weeks ago -- appointed consultants and asked for tenders. We appointed consultants on the Timbertown proposal; that was just a few days ago.

Mr. Conway: But as the hon. minister realizes, the general development agreement has about it certain general directions. It concerns me, for example, that three or four days before a certain event on Sept. 18 certain representatives of the ministry opposite appeared in the city of Pembroke to tell us, for whatever political reason, that tenders will be let on the Timbertown study. In the Speech from the Throne yesterday I read on page three how there is a commitment to furthering industrial parkland, particularly in eastern Ontario. These developments are part of that general development agreement as we understand it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not necessarily, I wish they were.

[6:00]

Mr. Conway: Now I want to see, I would like to see and I know the people in my riding involved would like to see, some commitment on the general planning level first. This is what concerns us.

Are we going to get it piecemeal? We’ll take it piecemeal; we’ll take anything we can get. We were told earlier that the carrot has been held before certain areas of Ontario. In Renfrew county, as far as I can see, we haven’t even got a carrot.

I want some assurance from you, before the federal designation runs out at the end of this year, that this ministry is serious in its commitment. Can you tell me now, or at the very earliest convenience, what your plans are for that general development agreement? What are you going to do about industrial parkland in the city of Pembroke? What are you going to do about Timbertown?

We’ve been told about studies before. A few years ago we were presented with two very extensive and expensive studies with respect to Mount Madawaska, which is something in the line of Timbertown for the other part of the county. Those studies have been classically ignored. Unfortunately, today in that particular development we have very serious financial difficulties. I don’t want that to happen with Timbertown. I think that project, like Mount Madawaska in my county -- and pardon me for being somewhat parochial -- deserve better fates.

Mr. Chairman: I might remind the hon. member that it is 6 o’clock, the time we usually rise. Is there going to be any further discussion on item 2, vote 1006?

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, we might remind ourselves that tomorrow morning at 11 o’clock in this chamber we have the special ceremonies involving the Ombudsman. Tomorrow afternoon we will have the mover to the address in reply to the Lieutenant Governor, following which we will go into the committee of supply and carry on with these estimates.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6:05 p.m.