Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BEVERAGE CONTAINER TAX

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to inform the House of the status of legislation with respect to the taxing of pop cans in Ontario.

More than two years ago my predecessor, the Hon. William Newman, told representatives of the soft-drink industry that this government’s policy was to effect a substantial increase in the use of refillable containers for their product. I would stress to hon. members that this policy has not changed.

The investigations and studies that led to the development of this policy have been exhaustive. They began with the Littering Control Council of Ontario in 1970, followed by a solid-waste task force three years later.

This task force received more than 70 written submissions from 11 sectors of the industry, consumers’ associations, conservationists, environmental groups and many municipalities. It held public hearings and finally produced a report with recommendations based on more research and input and discussions with the industry concerned than in any other state or provincial jurisdiction.

The government outlined to the industry in 1975 the steps it felt must be taken by industry to achieve our objective of making more refillable bottles available. The newly-formed Waste Management Advisory Board monitored this program of voluntary action and reported in early 1976 that it had not succeeded. The board then suggested a number of alternatives to the government, including a phased-in ban on all throw-away carbonated soft-drink containers, including cans.

Our policy was announced in regulation 687/76, which was filed in August 1976. Its principal component was mandatory availability of refillable bottles by brand, flavour and size. In other words, if a retailer sold soft drinks in throw-away containers, he must also carry refillable containers in matching sizes, flavours and brands. We also reduced to three the number of sizes of containers to be handled by retailers.

This brought a fresh wave of industry response and I asked the board to conduct additional hearings and meetings with the industry. These culminated in a three-hour meeting with cabinet in February of this year when the government acknowledged the hardship that the brand availability requirement could have on certain bottlers who handle soft drinks in refillable bottles only. Our regulation was substantially amended to require mandatory availability by flavour and size only.

The government’s intentions were made very clear at the time -- that these regulations in conjunction with further action to be taken were to form a complete package. It is vital to appreciate that each element of the package plays an important part in its overall effectiveness.

Let me remind the hon. members what the elements of this package are: 1. the mandatory availability by flavour and size of refillables whenever non-refillables are displayed for sale; 2. the display of full price information to the consumer, such that the amount of the deposit is shown separately from the selling price of the product; 3. the ban on non-refillable bottles effective April 1, 1978; 4. the ban on the detachable flip- top can, which was effective last July 1; 5. the tax on the can, which is the subject of the bill now before the House.

The elements of this package have been painstakingly developed to satisfy two fundamental objectives of the policy -- one environmental, the other economic. The environmental goal is to reduce solid waste litter and to save energy and non-renewable resources associated with throw-away carbonated soft-drink packaging. The economic goal is to ensure that the pace of adjustment, the rate of change -- particularly the unemployment and investment dislocations in the industries -- can be assimilated over a reasonable time frame.

I asked the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) to introduce a tax on the can as the means of completing the package, rather than proposing a deposit system or a complete ban. From the environmental aspect, a ban would be completely effective, but has several overriding disadvantages of which the main one is its immediate dramatic and undesirable effect on employment in the metal container and supporting industries, coupled with the associated loss of investment.

This would be the most extreme form of government intervention and it is therefore surprising that the New Democratic Party is opposed to a tax, the purpose of which is to phase down the use of the can, when its official party policy has been to ban the can by 1981.

Mr. Lewis: Because we are opposed to extreme forms of government intervention.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The second alternative of a deposit-refund system justifies more consideration, and it must be clearly understood that there are two distinct and clearly separate forms this system can take.

First, there is the form used in Oregon and other states in the United States which requires retailers to receive non-refillables back for refund, with all the disruption that this involves in a retail store not geared to receiving them. The result in Oregon was strenuous objection to the handling of empty cans by the retailers and the almost immediate delisting of cans by the retailers. In the first year, can sales in the state dropped by 90 per cent.

If adopted in Ontario, this plan could create a severe and sudden impact on employment in the metal container industry over which the government would have no control. By this system, there is really no consumer marketplace solution, since the retailers control the delisting and there is no revenue generated for the government for environmental programs. Energy benefits are, however, achieved.

The other form of the deposit-refund system is the one that involves the establishment of depots for the specific purpose of receiving back the empty beverage containers. From experience in other jurisdictions it would cost roughly $25 million to set up such a depot system in Ontario and this cost would ultimately be passed on to consumers in the price of their soft drinks.

Under this system, the retailers’ problems are eliminated, can sales are not significantly affected and there is little, if any, increase in the use of single-drink-size returnable bottles. Litter is reduced, but experience to date shows little saving in solid-waste volumes or energy consumption.

By imposing a tax rather than an outright ban or deposit system, consumer choice is retained and the impact on employment is less severe and less dramatic. When the employment effects for the total policy package are reviewed, there should be an increase in the total number of jobs in the industry despite the loss of some skilled production positions. The gains will occur in the distribution system to handle the flow of returnable bottles. There would also be a significant number of jobs created by the expenditure of can tax revenue for recycling depots and reclamation plants.

It has been pointed out recently by the Ontario Soft Drink Association that the regulations already passed, which ban the non-refillable bottles and impose flavour and size availability requirements, have caused a swing to refillable containers during the last few months.

On this basis, the association claims no further action is required, since the government’s objectives are already being achieved. Such a claim ignores completely the integrated effect of the policy package that I described earlier; it ignores the purpose of introducing mandatory flavour and size availability requirements, and it ignores the inequity and loss of effectiveness if unilateral action is taken against throw-away bottles.

If no policy action is taken now against the can, it would be hard indeed to resist the pressures that would arise to have the ban on the non-refillable bottles lifted. The policy has already produced results, as acknowledged by the association; however, the momentum that has been initiated must be maintained by completing the policy package, of which the tax is an essential feature.

Hon. members know that a number of the larger municipalities in this province have sought through private members’ bills, municipal bylaws or council resolutions to ban throw-aways within their jurisdiction. I think it is important that we deal with this problem on a province-wide basis rather than by such a piecemeal approach.

Assuming a shift of 25 per cent in the sale of cans to refillables in the first year, the environmental benefits from our integrated soft-drink container package are: 340 million fewer soft-drink containers become solid waste; a 40 per cent reduction in solid waste resulting from soft-drink packaging; and an energy saving of approximately 23 per cent of the total container energy required by soft-drink packaging in Ontario, which energy saving could heat approximately 8,000 homes, representing a community of about 25,000 people.

It is, however, clear that the opposition will not allow the government to proceed with the bill as it is now presented. Nevertheless, the bill does represent government policy and will remain on the order paper for discussion again in the fall. In the meantime, I will be seeking consultation with the opposition House leaders and appropriate critics as well as spokesmen for the soft-drink and packaging industries in an effort to seek some consensus.

Mr. Lewis: Minority government; it’s wonderful. Imagine, consultation written into a ministerial statement.

HARTT INQUIRY

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would like to announce, Mr. Speaker, that the government has decided the inquiry respecting development in northern Ontario, which was originally intended to proceed under a proposed amendment to The Environmental Assessment Act, will now proceed as a royal commission under The Public Inquiries Act.

Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt will be the commissioner and his terms of reference will be consistent with those tabled with the amendment to The Environmental Assessment Act that was presented to the House.

It is with regret that the government takes this course of action. In our opinion it would have been preferable to proceed by the amendment --

Mr. Reid: True democracy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- this would have added considerable strength to The Environmental Assessment Act, which is already one of the finest pieces of environmental legislation of its kind on the continent.

An hon. member: It kills people.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But the government has been given little choice in the matter because of the announced intention of the Leader of the Opposition to introduce an amendment linking the closing of the English-Wabigoon river system --

Mr. Nixon: Which you favoured.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- to the passage of this very important legislation --

Mr. Breithaupt: You were in favour of that, weren’t you?

Mr. S. Smith: The minister was in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- an amendment which the NDP has publicly stated it would support.

Those hon. members familiar with parliamentary procedures will be aware of the American tradition of preconditioned precedent.

Mr. Nixon: You were in favour of it until somebody wrote it down for you.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: This refers to the tendency to burden important bills with so many dysfunctional amendments that the main purpose of the bill is grossly distorted or the bill is never passed into law.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is a tradition alien to the British parliamentary system, a system that has served this country and this province so effectively.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s just not tried -- just untried.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: You don’t want to test it before the House, though.

Mr. Conway: Since when did the Premier care about the British parliamentary system?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Both the need for a public inquiry into the development of the north and the problems associated with the English-Wabigoon river are of great concern to this government, but one should not be tied to the other.

Mr. Nixon: With all the criticism, you are afraid to test it before this House.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The government has made it quite clear that we intend to work with the Indians towards the development of long-range programs that will provide employment and enhance the dignity of the Indian people. We would hope to discuss some of these approaches with the Indians during the summer.

Mr. McClellan: Development of long-range problems.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Meanwhile the government does not feel that it can allow any further delay in the Hartt inquiry. Therefore, we have decided to exercise the government’s option in this matter by way of order in council to ensure that Mr. Justice Hartt may proceed with the hearings as quickly as possible. That order in council will be presented to cabinet tomorrow, once Mr. Justice Hartt has had an opportunity to ensure that the proposed terms of reference are satisfactory to him.

Speaking for the government, I would like to express my regret to Mr. Justice Hartt for the delays. At the same time, I trust I can assure him he will receive the utmost co-operation needed to conduct a full and fair inquiry from all sides of the House.

Mr. S. Smith: Democracy wins again.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PARKWAY BELT

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Premier in the absence of the Treasurer. With respect to the report of the hearing officers on the parkway belt west, can the Premier explain what the Treasurer meant when he said in a press release that he leaned “towards accepting the hearing officer’s recommendations, unless contrary evidence was introduced in the course of his review”, and when he said in a letter to the city of Oakville: “I hope that we can have your brief available to me no later than May 15, 1977”? How does that correspond with the Treasurer’s refusal now to consider the comprehensive brief which Oakville prepared at considerable cost, a refusal which is set out in his letter of June 24 to the clerk of Oakville?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll try to take them in chronological order. I think when the report was presented, the Treasurer made it quite clear he would be reluctant to recommend to his cabinet colleagues any significant changes in the recommendations made by the hearing officers. I’m sure all members would agree with that in principle.

I think he also made it clear that if there were representations to be made by any municipality or individuals who did not agree with the hearing officer’s recommendations, and where they thought there were some very valid circumstances that should be brought to the attention of the Treasurer and his officials, these would be considered in their final recommendation to cabinet; he offered that availability to them.

Because there is great concern and desire on the part not only of the municipalities but of the individuals and organizations affected by the parkway belt west which would like to see some finality, I think the Treasurer made it quite clear he would like to have the submissions or representations by whatever date the Leader of the Opposition refers to, which I don’t think was unreasonable. I haven’t seen anything from the town of Oakville -- I believe it is still a town, not yet a city -- although the town of Oakville may now have submitted a brief some several weeks after the date scheduled.

I guess the problem is that the Treasurer wants to bring finality to this and it is possible the town of Oakville was somewhat late in its submission. I can’t help the Leader of the Opposition any more than that. I can only say to him that we are most anxious to give finality to the parkway belt west. A number of decisions are pending, and I think it’s important for all concerned that the final decision be rendered as soon as possible. I think that is the sole intent of what the Treasurer has said.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: I believe the Premier is well-meaning but mistaken in this regard. I would like to quote and then ask a question. I quote from a letter by the Treasurer on June 24 to Oakville where he said: “When I received Oakville’s submission” -- which by the way was put in on time -- “I sought the advice of law officers of the Ministry of the Attorney General and I have now been advised by them that under statutes in law” -- and so on and so forth -- “it’s not appropriate for me to consider submissions in the preparation of my recommendation to cabinet.” It turns out that he considers he’s prevented from receiving these.

I would ask the Premier, especially since many of the lands that were struck out from the parkway belt were done so at the instigation of no one other than the hearing officers themselves in many instances, whether the Premier feels it is fair and reasonable for the Treasurer now to reject this report, which he himself requested, and for him not to read it at all before giving his decision to cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it’s a question of just what is fair. If the Treasurer has been advised that under the legislation he is not legally permitted to have formal submissions or to have them form the base for any final submission to cabinet, then of course he has to be bound by the legislation.

I think it is also fair to state, in my limited knowledge of it, that most of the alterations made by the hearing officers, and I think I’m right in this, came about at the request of some of the people who were affected in the parkway belt. Some of the changes did not, but I think a number did; that’s my best recollection. I’m only familiar with that part that is now in my own riding, which wasn’t materially altered in terms of the decision of the hearing officers; I can’t speak with the same knowledge of those areas in Mississauga and in Halton.

If the Treasurer has said to Oakville that he is precluded by statute from treating their submission in a formal sense, then I think the Leader of the Opposition would want the Treasurer of this province to observe the statutes that we all passed here in this House. He is subject to those and I’m sure will discharge his responsibilities related to the statutory authority that has been given to him, because the Leader of the Opposition is always looking for statutory authority.

Mr. S. Smith: Another supplementary, if I might, on this topic, Mr. Speaker: In the border land between Oakville and Mississauga, all of the cross-hatched lands indicated on this map were excluded at the instigation of the hearing officers and no one else. Hence, no one has had a chance for any input on those lands. In view of this and the fact that the statutes can be amended in this House, would the Premier and the Treasurer consider amending the statutes to permit Oakville’s brief to be considered before a decision is brought down with regard to the parkway belt west?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there’s a fairly basic concern -- I’m just speaking now in response to a question without careful reflection, but in that some questions are asked without careful reflection, I guess I can give an answer without careful reflection.

Mr. Reid: You usually do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t say this particular question.

Mr. Macdonald: Then why the comment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition that we could amend the legislation, obviously. It could be amended sometime in mid-fall. If by amending the legislation we then started the debate on the parkway belt west all over again, we are then talking about a confirmation that probably wouldn’t take place until 1978. And I say with respect to the Leader of the Opposition that for those who are affected by it, as members in this House and. those who have been contacted over the years about the length of time it has taken the government to deal with it, I think most of them would share my point of view that it is in everybody’s interest to have finality to this as soon as possible. I see a fairly lengthy time problem.

I would also say to the Leader of the Opposition that in his consultation, the Treasurer has available to him those people who were by and large responsible for the initial plan that was laid before the municipalities and the public. I’m sure the Treasurer will have an opportunity to discuss with them the rationale as to why that particular cross-hatched area was in and why the hearing officers suggested it be out. Thus, I think Oakville’s concerns to a certain extent will be accommodated as far as consideration is concerned, by those people who initially suggested it be in, if the member can follow the logic of that argument.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition with a new question.

Mr. S. Smith: Would it be unreasonable to ask for one more supplementary on this?

Mr. Speaker: I thought you said that was your final supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: I thought it was, but --

Mr. Speaker: It’s your time.

Mr. S. Smith: Basically what I want to know is, does the Premier agree then that the Treasurer was in error in inviting this response in the first place? Is he suggesting that Oakville might approach some of the officers of the ministry rather than the Treasurer himself and get the information across that way?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the first part of the question.

Mr. S. Smith: I was asking if the Premier would agree that the Treasurer was in error in inviting this response in the first place? Secondly, would he suggest that Oakville perhaps approach people within the ministry so that its view can be relayed in that manner to the Treasurer before his decision is made?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Their local member will look after it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: The Minister of Transportation and Communications hasn’t done much.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Premier has the floor.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk points out so properly on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, the local member has been looking after his constituents so well for so many years that in this particular situation I’m sure that interest will be continued.

I can’t say whether the Treasurer was in error. I haven’t discussed it with the Treasurer. We have always attempted, in matters of this kind, to give as much opportunity as is reasonable for people or municipalities to make their points of view known.

Mr. Sargent: Where’s he hiding today?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. “distinguished” member -- in quotes I say that -- for Grey-Bruce wants to ask me, as one of his important questions today, where the Treasurer is at precisely this moment I will be delighted to answer that if he gets up and asks me the question.

Mr. Sargent: He’s hiding behind the curtains again.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker. Was it an interjection?

Mr. S. Smith: Should they talk to the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wouldn’t advise that. I will discuss it with the Treasurer.

QUEBEC LANGUAGE LEGISLATION

Mr. S. Smith: I have a separate question for the Premier. I recall the fanfare with which it was announced that legal advice would be sought on the constitutionality of the proposed French-language changes in Quebec -- the so-called Bill 1, which is now being retitled Bill 101. Can the Premier tell us whether he has, as yet, received a report from his legal advisers regarding the constitutionality of Quebec legislation in this regard, and if he has received a report will he be tabling it in the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge I have not received a report at this moment. I would think any report should reflect the possible changes in the legislation which, I understand, is being introduced this afternoon in Quebec City.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that when we have a chance to look at Bill 101, which I’m told it will be titled, when we assess that, which we may, I would be quite prepared at the appropriate time, if we have some legal opinions, to share them with members of the House. But with all the discussion that has gone on over the proposed alterations, I think any assessment of it probably should relate to the revised bill that is being introduced, I understand, this afternoon.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a brief supplementary: In view of the importance of any advice received and action taken on this and other related matters, is the Premier prepared to accept my suggestion that the three leaders act in unison and form a leaders’ council on matters of national unity so that, at least in that regard, Ontario is always perceived as speaking with one voice?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I always feel on issues of any kind that the government, and on occasion the Premier, is speaking for the people of this province, not just related to this very important issue of national unity but on those other controversial issues that we get before us in this House from time to time. Really, it would be an abdication of the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to become part of an enclosed council where he would then not be in a position to effectively discharge his role as he should as the leader of Her Majesty’s official opposition. I would hope that view is shared by the leader of the New Democratic Party, because that is how the system works in this province.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, oh, my caucus has prohibited me from joining such a council -- a cautious motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted, Mr. Speaker, as this discussion across Canada continues over the weeks and months and, who knows, the years that lie ahead, that we have an opportunity to discuss those matters in this House. I’m always appreciative of any public support I receive from any members opposite on any issue --

Mr. Warner: Tell him you will resign then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and if the Leader of the Opposition feels so inclined from time to time to support the position taken by this government I certainly would not reject that. But I think the concept of a leaders’ council really is contrary to the principles of this Legislature. I think it would put the Leader of the Opposition in a very questionable position of conflict, and I say that in the nice sense of the word --

Mr. Lewis: But in excellent company, if in conflict.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wouldn’t quarrel for a moment as to the excellence of the company. I really think if he would assess what I’m saying on careful reflection, he would see that probably he can more effectively discharge his responsibilities in the traditional role of the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could take half an hour on that.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary because we’ve spent 13 minutes on this.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: In view of the fact that since the Premier asked for that legal opinion about Bill 1, the bill has been debated intensively all across Quebec, it has been debated in the press right across the country and has now got to the point where a redraft of the bill is being presented, was the original request for that legal opinion with regard to the government a genuine request for information, or was it in fact political grandstanding prior to the Ontario election?

[2:30]

An hon. member: You should know lots about that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Ottawa Centre, I am very naive in these matters and I don’t know what political grandstanding is.

Mr. MacDonald: Of course you do. You are doing it now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He demonstrates it very effectively in this House and it is one of his attributes I don’t intend to follow. And his leader knows that’s true.

An hon. member: He’s grandstanding for the leadership.

An hon. member: Elie, your stock is going way down.

HARTT INQUIRY

Mr. Lewis: Relax, all you people; let the lame duck have his chance.

May I ask a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Would he comment on the explicit reference on page two of the Minister of the Environment’s statement about the intention of the government to deal in more specific areas over the summer with matters arising from the problems of the English-Wabigoon? Can he be any more explicit about the government’s intentions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I look at the second paragraph on page two, it makes it quite clear and I think I can say to the hon. members that the minister really was pretty non-provocative in his statements. I think the minister could have assessed part of the difficulties we are in and laid a good part of the responsibility on the members opposite, and I say that in a very constructive sense --

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question.

Mr. Riddell: The Premier is never provocative.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am never provocative.

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. Premier please continue the answer and ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for York South is feeling sensitive.

Mr. MacDonald: No, I am not feeling sensitive.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, you are.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You used to be one of the great environmentalists.

Mr. MacDonald: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. MacDonald: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that if a member of the opposition wanders from his question unduly, you bring him to order; if the Premier wanders, he wanders at will, and that’s what I was trying to check.

Mr. Breithaupt: We can never tell with the Premier, though.

Mr. Conway: How can you tell when he is not wandering?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have suggested that we ignore the interjections but there should be no interjections in the first place. Will the hon. Premier continue with the answer to the original question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order I would only say to the member for York South: At least when I wander, I wander at will; it is not by misadventure, like some of his colleagues.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s a matter of judgement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I mean I like to think I know where I am wandering.

Mr. Speaker: Now, the answer. Order, please.

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question.

Mr. Eaton: The Premier is getting to you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that as I read the minister’s statement, he made it very clear that certainly this government -- as he has expressed and I and others have expressed on a number of occasions -- is very concerned with respect to the situation on the English-Wabigoon, and that we do not relate and did not relate and will not relate the passage of what I think was good legislation to that particular problem, and that is why we are going the route of the public inquiry.

In the third paragraph on page two the minister stated, and I think properly so, that we intend to work with the Indians towards the development of long-range programs. This is not confined and does not relate exclusively to the English-Wabigoon. It relates to the intent of this government to work with the native people throughout the province of Ontario -- not just in the northwest or the northeast, because we also want to work with the native people in southern Ontario in terms of development of longer-term economic policies. Obviously this has more application in some communities than in others.

I would point out to the leader of the New Democratic Party that a week ago tomorrow we received what I think are some very constructive presentations from the native people of this province. We are assessing all of them very carefully and hope to be in a position over the summer months to respond in a positive way to some of those presentations made to us.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: With the information he has at hand after all this time, can the Premier tell us whether in fact there is a danger to health from eating the fish on the English-Wabigoon system, and if so, why he does not close down the system?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Is the hon. member in favour of that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the question obviously is, to a certain extent, an oversimplification. The concern of the government -- and I guess we could discuss this at great length -- has been obviously with respect to the health of the native people. We have also said -- and I think the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) phrased this quite well -- that we do not regard the simple act of closing, which the hon. member himself knows better than anyone else is almost totally unenforceable --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He knows that; let him admit it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We could, I guess, pass a regulation saying we will close 200 miles of a river system. Our concern is that we are looking for more practical, long-term solutions --

Mr. Cassidy: You have been saying that for eight years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- than just a simplistic closing which in itself could not solve the problem, which probably is unenforceable and which we do not think at this moment is a practical solution.

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister of the Environment thinks it is enforceable.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are as anxious as anyone in this Legislature to find a viable, practical solution to the problem faced by the native people in those two reserves, and we are working conscientiously to see whether something can be found. I just say to the hon. member, who is relatively familiar with that area, that we sincerely believe a simplistic closing is not in itself the solution to the problem and that’s why we have not opted for it.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry I didn’t recognize the hon. member before. He may ask a supplementary now.

Mr. Lewis: Leaving aside the matter of the closing -- we understand the government’s position; it has been debated before and will be debated again -- is it possible to work into the consultative process, which the Premier has in mind in the immediate future, members of the Legislature from other than the government party, since clearly this is something which involves the Legislature as a whole and since clearly there has been great difficulty in achieving the constructive solutions which the Premier himself and the Minister of Natural Resources said were unattainable during the course of the campaign. Can we try another approach at this point in time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite sincerely, Mr. Speaker, I assess -- we are facetious about it here on occasion and joke about it a bit -- I quite objectively assess constructive proposals that are made by members opposite. I have done that since having some responsibility here in 1962, and a few members who have been here during that length of time realize -- I am sorry to wander a little bit, Mr. Speaker, but even in the old days in Education --

Mr. Reid: Trying to blame the school system on us?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we found ways of developing constructive suggestions from across the House -- and there were some, including some from the member for York South -- and they ultimately became government policy.

I have looked at the suggestion from the leader of the New Democratic Party, and I have assessed it very carefully. It wasn’t just a question of a political rejection out of hand. The issue is too serious for that; it is of too great concern to me personally, and I am sure to all of us. While considering it, Mr. Speaker, the reason that I have questioned its practicality at this moment is that I really doubt that an all-party committee of this House could bring the measure of objectivity and perhaps to a certain extent the expertise -- although we all have feelings and views about it -- that some sort of structure, if it could be developed, might entail.

I am not rejecting at all the genuine interest of the leader of the New Democratic Party, or his knowledge or that of his colleagues. But I am concerned on an issue of this sensitivity whether an all-party committee, as he suggested, would in fact come up with a solution that would be totally objective, in that we are all human and we all have our biases and points of view before even sitting on a committee of that nature.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s better to have the biases of the Minister of Northern Affairs, is that right?

Mr. Stokes: What are you going to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Very simply, that’s why I have been hesitant and reluctant to accept what I have always treated as being a constructive suggestion. I don’t belittle it in any way, shape or form.

Mr. Lewis: I am not sure that I meant anything quite so formal as that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce with a final supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: I would like to ask the Premier whether he has any concern in regard to the time factors involved here. Is it going to take five years? Is he going to set limitations on this inquiry as to whether it should be 18 months, two years or five years? Isn’t that important to him?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the member for Grey-Bruce -- and I assume he is referring to the inquiry that will be conducted by Mr. Justice Hartt under the order in council we will be passing tomorrow morning or sometime around noon -- that we are anxious to have this move ahead. It must be very evident to him, if not to his colleagues -- and I assume it is -- that our urgency is demonstrated very clearly by the fact we are going to pass that order in council, instead of having what I think would have been a better approach, that is the unanimous approval of this House to the amendments to the bill that would have put this inquiry in place. It became impossible for us to do that and we’re demonstrating our sense of urgency and our concern by using the vehicle of the order in council.

Mr. Sargent: Don’t give us doubletalk. Is the government going to set time limits on it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just wish this urgency were shared by some of the members opposite.

Mr. Sargent: This is doubletalk.

Mr. Kerrio: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That was the final supplementary.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Minister of Health: Can he explain to the Legislature what prompted officials in his ministry -- I think it was Mr. Chatfield, in fact, to name him precisely -- or what possessed them to issue this clarification to psychiatric hospitals and institutions dealing with the treatment of children, to say that charges could be laid, I guess in various circumstances, against children in their care? I don’t understand what prompted all that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let’s first of all clarify that this went to the administrators of all psychiatric hospitals affecting the care of all patients. It wasn’t aimed at any particular client group or age group or whatever.

The reasons for it arise out of concerns expressed, as I understand it, by some administrators as to the rights of the individual before the law and the concerns expressed by some of the legal counsel in the Ministry of Health that there had to be a clarification, that we had no right -- this Legislature has no right -- to take away the right of an individual to seek redress before the courts.

In clarifying this I also want to make it clear that we are not in any way encouraging any more use of this recourse by anyone, either in an official capacity or in a personal capacity. The important thing to remember, and my predecessor stressed this, is to ensure that the minister’s office knows of any potential action. Even when people take action in a personal way we must still be advised so that we can be sure everything is quite correct as to the mode and type of care being given to that particular patient, be he a child or an adult.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: It is quite clear then that this clarification doesn’t alter the decision arising, I guess it was from the Norma Dean case and other matters, around the thoughtless and at times unjustifiable abuse of the procedure in certain of the government treatment centres? The ministry is not shifting ground now on this basis?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me, if I may, read to the member the last paragraph of the memorandum which may, or should, allay his concerns: “I would, however, request that administrators inform the ministry whenever a criminal charge is laid by an employee against an adolescent patient.” This is getting at the member’s specific concern. “Although as indicated above the employee is perfectly free to lay such a charge, the minister should be aware of all such charges as they arise.”

This gets to the point that while the individual, as we’re advised by our legal counsel, has certain rights before the law to lay certain charges, we want to be sure we are in a position, if we want, to have the opportunity to offer additional representation in a court of law as to where the adolescent should eventually be placed and under what terms and what kind of program.

So in short, we’re not shifting ground.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Given that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) has expressed unequivocal disapproval at the practice of charging adolescents by so-called therapeutic staff and has expressed dismay at instances brought to her attention, may I ask the minister if he has discussed this policy change with the provincial secretary; and if not would he go back and review this policy with her?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking me to repeal the common law.

Mr. Lewis: By way of one last supplementary: Could the minister table all this for us? Could he table the memorandum and let us see what is going out to the staff?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the House adjourns today, I will send it to the hon. member. One way or the other I will get it to him.

HOSPITAL SERVICE IN OWEN SOUND

Mr. Sargent: A question of the Minister of Health: In view of the fact that I would like to ask a question about hospital closings generally, I know, Mr. Speaker, you will want to welcome the mayor of the city of Owen Sound, Bob Rutherford, Alderman Bob Gallen, Alderman Ovid Jackson and the city clerk, Al Hancock. They are down here in support, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eaton: I thought we were not supposed to do this any more.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you. The mayor is a good Tory; there’s a good Tory.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly want to welcome the mayor of Owen Sound, no question about that.

Mr. Speaker: Now after the transgression, will the hon. member ask a question?

Mr. Sargent: Since the minister can’t get his act together on a new hospital for Owen Sound, and has now come up with a merger -- with deadlines set by June 1, 1977, before the election -- will he advise the House when he will decide on this merger, and will all the commitments regarding pensions and job protection be honoured?

In other words, where do we stand?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, discussions are continuing between the administration and board of the Owen Sound General and Marine Hospital with our people in the Ministry of Health who are responsible for the operation of the Dr. Mackinnon Phillips Hospital. There are certain aspects as regards benefits about which we in the Ministry of Health have put forward proposals to Management Board and cabinet. Once we have completed that process, I can tell you exactly where we are.

I am pleased that the discussions are carrying on because I think there is a tremendous potential here, not only to meet the needs of the people of Owen Sound and area but also to save considerable amounts of money.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The former minister (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Premier have guaranteed a new $50-million hospital for Owen Sound by 1980. Will that still be on the boards if the present minister is still around? What is going to happen here?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t believe any such guarantee was given. I don’t recall any such guarantee being given.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister ask his predecessor?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will later.

BEVERAGE CONTAINER TAX

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statement by the Minister of the Environment that he intends to leave the can tax bill on the order paper for discussion in the fall, will the minister also undertake to bring in this fall a program for providing alternative employment and income protection for can and bottle workers who may be displaced by any measures which reduce the use of throw-aways?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes. That will be the type of thing that I will be talking to you about, Marion.

Mr. Speaker: Such familiarity.

ENTERO-VIOFORM PRESCRIPTION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the member for Port Arthur concerning the drug product Entero-Vioform, I would like to provide the following answer:

This drug had been routinely used for the treatment of “traveller’s diarrhea” for many years -- I don’t know whether that includes fellow-travellers or not. At that time it was thought the compound had a low order of toxicity; it has now been shown that such use is associated with significant risk. The most important toxic reaction is myelo-optic neuropathy, a syndrome characterized by abdominal symptoms, peripheral neuropathy and muscle weakness occasionally progressing to paraplegia.

Early in 1976, this drug was made a prescription item in Canada, available only with the advice of and on prescription from a physician. However, it should be noted that this drug is still widely available to tourists travelling in many countries, especially the Asiatic countries, where it is sold for either summer, traveller’s or unspecified diarrhea; gastroenteritis; colitis, or digestive disorders associated with diarrhea. In some countries, products are sold without any indication that the drug is part of the formulation.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary to the minister’s answer, Mr. Speaker: Could he tell us what steps he can take, or have the federal authorities take, to ensure it is not sold off the shelf? I have been able to purchase it off the shelf as recently as two months ago.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would very much appreciate having the name of the pharmacy or other retail operation where the member purchased it. In May 1976 the College of Pharmacists, in their newsletter, informed the pharmacists around the province that this particular drug at that point required prescription, and that they were therefore to take it off the shelf. The college, through its inspectors, is responsible for following up or these orders and where necessary taking disciplinary action. If the member would provide me with the name of the pharmacy I will be glad to see that it is passed on to the College of Pharmacists and that appropriate action is taken.

WHEELCHAIR RAMP

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Acting Minister of Government Services in relation to the gold-plated wheelchair ramp between the north wing and the main building.

How can the minister justify spending $212,000 of the taxpayers’ money to put in a simple wheelchair ramp between the main building and the north wing -- $212,000 and seven months to build.

Mr. S. Smith: A whole hotel has gone up in that time.

Mr. Eakins: We thought it was a make-work project.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I can get the details of the tender, but it is more than a wheelchair ramp. There is also a wheelchair elevator, I can tell him that. Also, it now looks as though it will be finished between August 21 and the end of August.

Mr. Nixon: It’s to accommodate those carts the bartenders run back and forth.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: How does the minister justify that amount of money and that kind of time when we can build a whole new hotel or a new parliament building in seven months?

Mr. Eakins: It’s a make-work project.

Mr. McEwen: What’s a million?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I can’t tell him the details until I have them in front of me, but I can tell him, from previous experience as minister of public works some years ago --

Mr. Eakins: The minister for the Christmas party.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- that this is probably the most expensive building in town to do anything to. Every time we have made alterations it has been extremely costly because it’s a very old building.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the minister could tell us whether that is the exact amount; is it on a contract basis or is it on a cost-plus basis?

Hon. Mr. Auld: My recollection is that it is on a contract basis, but I’ll be delighted to get the material and pass it along.

CONSERVATION OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS

Mr. Bounsall: I have a new question of the Acting Minister of Government Services. Fully understanding that the designation, by local conservation advisory committees and local councils, of buildings as architecturally and historically important is not binding on buildings owned by the government, would the minister, however, clearly instruct everyone in his ministry to co-operate fully with the Ontario Heritage Foundation and those local architectural conservation committees regarding any government ministry’s plans to renovate or in any way alter government buildings so designated in order that the distinctive architectural features are not destroyed by those alterations; particularly inasmuch as so many of the historically important buildings across Ontario are now owned by the government?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, since it was my bill that set up the program I am of course very interested in doing that; and it has been done in fact. However, I should remind the hon. member that the legislation does not require an owner to renovate if he or she chooses not to; what it does do is give the municipality the opportunity, within a specified time, to acquire the building and then carry out the renovations itself.

I think the time period is six months during which an owner cannot tear it down or make major alterations, but there is no binding requirement on an owner to do this without compensation.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: In this regard was the minister specifically assured that the substantial renovations to be made to the old Essex county courthouse and the registry office, both duly designated by the Windsor city council and the Windsor Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee -- renovations for the purpose of expansion of the Windsor jail facilities -- be thoroughly discussed with that local advisory committee, particularly in as much as they are concerned that some of the historical and architectural features will disappear and in as much as the courthouse apparently is unique architecturally within Ontario and was built by a company operated by a former Prime Minister of Canada, one Alexander Mackenzie?

Mr. Conway: Good Liberal.

Mr. Warner: There’s no such thing.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’d remind the hon. member that the ministry had some discussion and was unable to satisfy the Toronto Historical Society about renovations about 999 Queen Street for the reason that it was impossible to restore the building to its original condition and carry out the kind of programs that are now required in a psychiatric hospital. I’m not making any invidious comparisons between psychiatric hospitals and courthouses, but I would say that it may well be that there are certain renovations that have to be carried out which may interfere with the original architecture, but without which the court can’t function properly.

BELLEVUE NURSING HOME

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question raised by the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) regarding Bellevue Residence.

Bellevue Residence is located at Orleans, Ontario, and is operated as a boarding home. When the member raised this question I directed one of our staff from the inspection branch to visit the facility.

Residents are referred for admission primarily from the Ottawa-Carleton regional welfare department. The Prescott welfare department also admits residents to the Bellevue facility. In addition to the foregoing, admissions are also made through the patient placement co-ordination services of Brockville Psychiatric Hospital and the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

Approximately 30 per cent of the residents are being rehabilitated for alcohol addiction. Health and social needs of the foregoing residents are met through placement follow-up by social workers from the welfare departments and institutions involved. In addition, two physicians call on a regular basis to monitor the health needs of the persons residing in this facility.

Standards for this facility are set by the federal Department of Health and Welfare and an environmental health inspector visits the facility every two months to ensure that environmental standards and proper food standards are maintained. Although there are no specific provincial standards that this facility must meet regarding general care, if a medical problem does occur, the medical officer of health, under The Public Health Act, does have the authority to investigate and take corrective action.

In addition, social workers monitor the placements to ensure satisfactory care and that there is adequate financial arrangements for the individuals on welfare.

The menu in use at present was reviewed by our inspectors and appeared to be adequate. According to the administrator -- and this relates to a specific concern of the hon. member -- blood pudding was served once. Upon direction from the administrator, it was removed from the menu. The menu offers a variety of food; sausage, blood pudding and macaroni are not a constant diet. A new menu to be introduced was reviewed. Macaroni is served on one day as macaroni and cheese, and on Sunday, as part of the cold plate, as macaroni salad.

The food storage was reviewed. There appeared to be ample food properly stored and, where appropriate, under refrigeration.

Mr. Cunningham: Gong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The kitchen was clean.

Mr. Speaker, in her question, the member for Carleton East asked about a broken septic tank and I had my staff look into this matter. Although there were some problems experienced some time ago with the septic tank system --

Mr. Sargent: Write her a letter.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This is a very serious matter raised by one of our fellow members and I hope the member pays attention.

Although there were some problems experienced some time ago with the septic tank system there is not now a problem. However, the National Capital Commission has now agreed to help Mr. Bordo install a sewer system that will connect with the Orleans system this fall. In the interim, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the NCC has agreed to put an additional two foot layer of sand over the existing septic tank by the end of this week.

Mr. Warner: I don’t believe this nonsense.

MACLAREN HOUSE NURSING HOME

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the issue of transfer of residents to MacLaren House Nursing Home has also been investigated. It has been identified that residents whose health status changes have such changes monitored by the physicians who attend the facility.

Mr. Cunningham: Take him out to lunch.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Since May 5, it has been identified that five residents have been evaluated and application has been made for extended health care benefits.

Mr. Sargent: You are not even a good reader!

An hon. member: A slow reader.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, I’m a very slow reader; sorry, Eddie.

These applications were approved and the residents in question have been transferred to MacLaren House Nursing Home. This arrangement is not unusual and is appropriate for the handling of persons whose health status changes and for whom nursing home care is required.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: We’ll allow one supplementary on this.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, I would like to express my incredulity and to ask, can the minister actually be proud of a report like that?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question of information?

Ms. Gigantes: He’s admitted every complaint. Can he be proud of that?

An hon. member: Question, question.

Mr. Lewis: That is a question.

Mr. Warner: A complete whitewash.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Ask a question. You’ve got to have a question; you’ve been around long enough.

Ms. Gigantes: That was a question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You’re not a beginner any more.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll go to the next question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question? Or is the member to get away with that kind of nonsense? Absolutely hopeless.

Mr. Lewis: There was a clear interrogative tone in the voice.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You don’t know how to do anything but play games, do you?

Ms. Gigantes: Shame.

Mr. Warner: Absolute whitewash.

Mr. Lewis: There is something wrong with your regional services branch.

EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE CLOSURES

Mr. Sweeney: A question of the Minister of Education: Can the minister confirm that the regional offices of his ministry in Waterloo, Kingston and St. Catharines have been ordered closed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a part of our ongoing reorganizations in the ministry, we are phasing out the regional operations in Kitchener-Waterloo, Kingston and St. Catharines, yes.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain how it is possible than an official of his ministry visited each of those offices between two and three months ago and clearly told the staff they were not going to be closed? Is there some change of policy of such significance that could take place in only two or three months?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think, Mr. Speaker, if my friend checked what was transmitted to those offices at that time, he probably would find the message was that nothing had been decided at that time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It has now been decided that the actual offices will be phased out in those three locations. We intend to keep the other regional offices open. Indeed, some of the professional staff in St. Catharines, Kitchener-Waterloo and Kingston will probably remain living in those particular communities and servicing the school districts they service from their home in those areas; that is still being worked out.

We intend that regional offices remain in operation. Those that do will be strengthened and the operation will be available to all the county school boards in the province from our regional offices, in the north and southern Ontario.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Is it a very short one?

Mr. Sweeney: Is there any significance to the fact that the announcement was made the day after the minister’s estimates were completed in this House?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, there’s no significance whatsoever.

PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Given the chaotic traffic conditions that exist in many residential streets south of Eglinton, with the result that many taxpayers are petitioning the York Borough council to change two-way streets to one-way streets to alleviate the traffic conditions; and given the fact that the Spadina subway is to open by September or October of this year; and also the commitment that this government has made to building park-and-ride facilities in the Davis Ditch; could the minister bring this House up to date as to the status of the park-and-ride facility or facilities at Lawrence, or south of Lawrence Avenue?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall any discussions about building a parking garage in that particular location. But as the hon. member knows --

Mr. Cassidy: Another election promise down the drain.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- following a meeting between the borough mayors and city mayor, and the Metro chairman and the Premier (Mr. Davis) and myself, last December I guess it was, the Premier asked me and my ministry to do a study on park-and-ride facilities in the Spadina arterial road corridor south of Lawrence Avenue -- or actually in the corridor, period. This study was completed. The recommendation of the study group was that a park-and-ride facility be constructed at the Glencairn Spadina subway station. That decision, and copies of the report, were transmitted to the Metropolitan Toronto chairman, the mayor of Toronto, the mayor of York and the mayor of North York, I believe it was, along with a commitment, a letter from myself to the Metro chairman, that this was our recommendation and that we were prepared to supply the 75 per cent funding for the construction of such facility. To date we have had no reply to that letter, I believe.

Mr. Grande: Supplementary: Since the problem appears to be at the Metro level in that they have not decided where to build the facility, is the minister prepared to give Metro a deadline as to when this body should come to him with a recommendation, keeping in mind, as I said before, the subway becomes operative in October, 1977? If Metro does not come through with the decision, is the government prepared to build a park-and-ride facility on its own?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, there have been some requests from the Metropolitan Toronto chairman for some discussions at the staff level with regard to the park-and-ride facility. I also anticipate having a meeting with him personally in the near future to discuss the matter.

With regard to the balance of the question: No, I don’t believe I am prepared to put a deadline on when Metro should build the facility. I think that’s their decision.

Secondly, no, I’m not prepared to build one provincially, because it should be a Metro facility if it is to be there, and I recommend that it should be built.

TRAIN SERVICE

Mr. G. E. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that the Northlander, the newest train that is operated by the Ontario Northland Railway, which travels daily to and from North Bay to Toronto and return, no longer uses the Bala grid and goes down through Beaverton via the east side of Lake Simcoe, but travels the west side through Orillia and Barrie? Is he aware that the train does not stop at Orillia? I would like to know why one of the larger cities between Toronto and North Bay is deprived of this service?

Mr. Sargent: It doesn’t stop at Owen Sound either.

Hon. Mr. Snow: When the initial plans were made for the implementation of the Northlander service, the intention was that the CNR line on the east side of Lake Simcoe would continue to be used, as that line had always been used for the passenger service into northeastern Ontario. When Ontario Northland got down to refining the schedules and the operations with officials of the CNR, it was decided that the train would run on both sides of Lake Simcoe.

There are really two trips a day, one travelling to the east of Lake Simcoe and one to the west. The train does stop at Barrie. It does not stop at Orillia at this time because it stops at Washago. I realize that Washago is a very small community compared to Orillia, but there’s an operational requirement that it must stop at Washago for the change of crews.

Mr. Reid: It should at least slow down a little.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The full Northlander service will not be implemented until this fall when the other two trains arrive. Also, there will be some consideration given to speeding up the schedule because the train is capable of travelling at a higher rate of speed, in the opinion of the officials of Ontario Northland. So it may be, come fall, when the schedules are adjusted and when the other two trains go into service, that Orillia can be added as a stop. We’ll consider that.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Supplementary: Is the minister aware -- and I’m sure he is -- that the city of Barrie benefits from GO Transit and due to its geographic location is receiving a greater bus service than the city of Orillia? Will he take these facts into consideration when the schedule is reassessed during the fall months?

Mr. Breaugh: Just say “yes.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I am aware that a limited number of GO Transit buses travel as far as the city of Barrie. I am also aware that the city of Orillia as well as Barrie has other very excellent bus services; we will consider all that when we are looking at it this fall.

STAFF MOVE COST

Mr. Cunningham: I too have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Would the minister please explain why it appears that the moving of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation staff, and contractors’ staff, to Kingston will cost somewhere in the area of $1.8 million, when the entire cost of the project is expected to cost $14 million? Will the minister further itemize these costs for us?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I realize that question is derived from the answer to the question on the order paper and that the hon. member needs an additional breakdown on that. I am sure the hon. member realizes that the overall intermediate capacity transit system research project is to cost considerably more money than what he has just suggested, but I will get that additional information.

Mr. Cunningham: By way of one brief supplementary, is the minister sending it by Brinks?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that’s supplementary.

Mr. Cunningham: Is he sending it by Brinks or taxicab?

TRUCK LICENSING

Mr. Philip: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications arising from the report of the select committee on highway transportation of goods, and of concern to the trucking industry as it involves their loss of revenue: Can the minister tell the House when he plans to implement the recommendation of the committee that there be a moratorium on class R licences? And would the minister care to inform us as to the state of reciprocity agreements between Ontario and Georgia?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see I am not being neglected for questions on my birthday.

[Applause]

Mr. MacDonald: That’s one way to get applause.

Mr. Cassidy: You are just looking for sympathy.

An hon. member: At last, 39.

Mr. Havrot: You should live so long.

Hon. Mr. Snow: And I didn’t bring my white horse today either.

On behalf of King Billy, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. Member: He is sitting right there.

Mr. Breithaupt: He will answer on his own.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Now what was the question?

Mr. Speaker, we are working within the ministry on the many recommendations of the select committee on highways transportation of goods. I realize one of the recommendations was that there be a moratorium on the issuance of class R licences for dump trucks.

I have discussed this matter with the chairman of the Highway Transport Board and I have come to the conclusion that until we consider the recommendations totally it would not be reasonable to initiate a total moratorium on licences because, based on need in certain particular areas of the province, it will be necessary from time to time to grant class R licences, in some cases on a temporary basis for a particular construction job. So I don’t feel that a moratorium would really be workable across the province.

The chairman of the Highway Transport Board is well aware of the recommendation and is not handing out class R licences on a wholesale basis but monitoring the situation very carefully and only granting licences where there is a need proven.

The second part of the question related to reciprocity between Ontario and Georgia. I am not at this moment in detailed negotiations with the state of Georgia, although we did receive a letter from their transportation commissioner or some official within the last few days.

My officials have been meeting with the state of Louisiana and have come up with some type of draft agreement for the implementation of reciprocity with that state. That agreement is before different ministries of the government other than my own which are involved at this time and is under consideration by the government.

I feel if we can come up with an appropriate agreement for Louisiana or any state, and get the policy established as to what type of reciprocity agreements we are going to enter into, then entering into agreements with other states will be much easier.

[3:15]

HOME SUPPORT PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I have to respond to this question in the absence of the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). Not for the reason you might think, but because it was she who, as I recall, asked the question. However, I also know that she cares very much that I respond --

Mr. Speaker: You might put it on the record, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- before the House rises, and this may be the last question period for a while.

It related, Mr. Speaker, to the question of the home support service program and certain figures that had been passed to her by our ministry. I think in order to understand the use of the words “committed jobs” that she was questioning, it is necessary to understand that the initial feedback from the municipalities and the Indian bands resulted, in most cases, in communication from the social services administrator of the municipality expressing the intent to participate, subject to the municipal council getting final approval by way of resolution.

I would like to point out that in the initial response, which was over a period of six to eight weeks following the announcement, we had -- as of the time of the question, which was approximately a week ago -- a total of 403 committed jobs. In some of those situations we are still awaiting the receipt of the resolution of the municipal council. There are 12 municipalities in the province that have not yet responded, and there are some 17 which have indicated they do not have any desire to participate. Of those 403 jobs, 126 of them have been implemented, as I understand it.

Mr. S. Smith: Only 126 jobs?

Mr. Lewis: It hardly corresponds to the budget promises.

Hon. Mr. Norton: There are 277 jobs in the second category where we are simply awaiting receipt of the resolution of the council, but the intention has been expressed to proceed.

More specifically, with respect to the question concerning Metro council, which the hon. member raised, I have had communication with Chairman Godfrey of Metro council, and have written to him on two occasions. Unfortunately, his first communication to me was during the election campaign and there was some delay in my response to that letter. But I have, as recently as this week, responded to him for the second time, and I am now awaiting the decision of the Metropolitan council as to whether or not they wish to participate.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

REPORTS

CLARKE INSTITUTE

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Ontario Mental Health Foundation Act requires that the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry make a report to the Minister of Health, as to the foundation and its affairs during the preceding year. I am tabling in the House today the Annual Report of the Clarke Institute for the year ended December 31, 1976, which was submitted to me on June 30, and subsequently to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF ENERGY

Mr. Johnson from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Ministry administration program ......... $ 598,000

Energy policy program ....................... 2,276,000

Regulatory affairs program ................... 636,000

Energy supply program ...................... 5,365,000

Energy conservation program ............. 5,745,000

MOTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMPANY LAW

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that a select committee of the Legislature be appointed to continue the inquiry and review of the law affecting the corporations in this province as reported on by the select committee of this House, appointed on June 22, 1965, and reappointed on July 8, 1966, July 23, 1968, December 17, 1971, and May 25, 1976, and in particular to inquire into and review the law relating to the business of insurance companies in the province including, but not restricted to:

(a) The incorporation, licensing, regulation and supervision of insurers as joint stock companies, mutual corporations, fraternal societies, mutual benefit societies, exchanges, syndicates of underwriters and rating bureaux carrying on all classes of insurance business in this province; mergers, amalgamations and reinsurance of liabilities, reporting to shareholders, policyholders and members, their solvency, liquidity and financial requirements, the purposes, scope and functions of their returns, reports, statistical gathering and the basis for their rates and premiums;

(b) Automobile insurance contracts and, in particular, the provision of accident benefits, fire insurance, life insurance, accident and sickness and marine insurance contracts and generally insurance contracts in this province;

(c) The licensing, regulation and supervision of insurance agents, brokers and adjusters; and

(d) The marketing of insurance in this province;

And that the select committee have authority to sit during recesses and the interval between sessions and have full power and authority to employ counsel and such other personnel as may be deemed advisable and to hold meetings and hearings in such places as the committee may deem advisable and to call for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath; and the assembly doth command and compel attendance before the said select committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the hon. the Speaker may issue his warrant or warrants.

And that the said committee be composed of 14 members as follows: Messrs. Breithaupt (chairman), Cunningham, Cureatz, Germa, Gregory, Grossman, Laughren, McCaffrey, Reid, Renwick, Rotenberg, Stong, Van Horne and Yakabuski.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that a select committee of this House be appointed to continue to review from time to time the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available and as the committee deems necessary, pursuant to section 16(1) of The Ombudsman Act, 1975, to formulate from time to time general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his functions under The Ombudsman Act, to report thereon to the Legislature and to make such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate;

And that the select committee have authority to sit during recesses and the interval between sessions and have power to employ such staff as it deems necessary and to call for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath; and the assembly doth command and compel the attendance before the said select committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations for which the hon. the Speaker may issue his warrant or warrants;

And that the said committee consist of 10 members as follows: Messrs. Davison (chairman), Villeneuve, Turner, G. Taylor, Elgie, Campbell, Eakins, G. I. Miller, Renwick and McClellan.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing resources development committee be authorized to sit during the summer recess of the House for the purposes of considering Bill 22, An Act to amend The Labour Relations Act; and that the said committee be authorized to hold hearings in such locations of Ontario as the committee deems appropriate.

Motion agreed to.

RESOURCES COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Mancini be substituted for Mr. Riddell; Mr. Hennessy be substituted for Mr. Yakabuski, and Messrs. Mackenzie and Bounsall be substituted for Messrs. Laughren and Martel on the standing resources development committee.

Motion agreed to.

SUMMER ADJOURNMENT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that when the House adjourns today it stands adjourned until a date to be named by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor by her proclamation.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 2 and 3 standing on the notice paper, and in addition, question 13 standing on the notice paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS ACT

House in committee on Bill 21, An Act to establish the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section in Bill 21?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I gave a copy of the amendments we proposed to move to the Chairman last week and a copy to the Liberal caucus. Has the minister received his copy now?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I have.

Mr. Martel: I would like to move a preamble to the bill, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the minister will accept it.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Martel moves that:

“Whereas the government of the province of Ontario desires to encourage the present and future economic and social development of northern Ontario and its closer ties with the more developed areas of the province;

“And whereas it is deemed expedient to provide for the creation of a Ministry of Northern Affairs, the minister of which is to co-ordinate the activities of all ministries of the province of Ontario and any agency of the Crown and to engage in direct activities where appropriate to further the economic and social development of northern Ontario;

“And whereas it is deemed desirable to assist local communities in northern Ontario in their effort in planning, organizing, developing, carrying out, administering and financing programs to provide local services for the amenity of the inhabitants thereof;

“Therefore Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, enacts as follows:”

Mr. Martel: If I just might indicate why we have moved a preamble, Mr. Chairman, I think it is our effort to expand the purpose of the bill. In everything I said during the second reading debate I indicated that I didn’t think a co-ordinating role was sufficient for the province to meet the needs of northern Ontario; that, in fact, it had to cover two areas, the economic area as well as the amenities of life which the unorganized townships don’t enjoy.

It is my hope that the minister will accept this preamble because it then takes the ministry beyond simply being a co-ordinating ministry. In fact, it then sets the stage for the ministry, if he accepts other amendments which we will move, to play a very important role in the economic development of the north and provides an avenue whereby the unorganized townships, if he again accepts later amendments, would have a body through which funding could be provided direct. I know the minister says this would be done if there was an entity there. We hope to provide that entity in later amendments so that he doesn’t have to go looking for it or to appoint committees. In fact, he would have a local authority that would be responsible for the funds which the minister would have at his disposal to provide those services in the north.

[3:30]

What I am trying to do by the preamble is set the stage to expand beyond simply a co-ordinating role. I think the minister would agree, and certainly he has indicated that he thinks his role is more than co-ordinating. We are simply trying to build into the bill, by the preamble, that it is more than a co-ordinating role, and that it has two other major functions. One is economic and the other to resolve the problems of the unorganized communities. These latter were supposed to be resolved in Bill 102 but the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs couldn’t come to grips with them because of the difficulty in insisting that all municipalities which were unorganized would have to come under that bill; this provides an avenue.

All I’m trying to do in the beginning is set the stage. If the minister, hopefully, will accept this one, we’ve set the stage for providing the other amendments which will make a ministry that can deal with the problems of northern Ontario. Failure to do that, I suspect, will not give the minister the power he’s looking for.

I’m not sure what his cabinet colleagues have said, but I hope this minister is the voice of northern Ontario, as he’s gone across northern Ontario saying in the last number of months. I hope he would accept this so that he is in a position and has enshrined in legislation the things that he intends to do. As the bill stands, certainly the things he talked about I can’t find in the bill. I really can’t, and I have read it over many, many times.

I’m hoping he will accept this preamble, which provides him with the tools to do the job which he has said, repeatedly in northern Ontario, that he wants to do.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to recognize the fact that the hon. member did provide me with a copy of his amendments last week. I think he sent a copy to my critic in the Liberal Party as well. I certainly want to recognize the time and effort be put into these amendments and certainly his contribution during the second reading.

I think he listed many of the underlying issues which must be dealt with in the north; there’s just no question about it. I think I have to agree with him on many points; there’s no argument about that.

He mentioned the provision of services to unorganized communities. He mentioned we couldn’t come to grips with this situation in Bill 102. I would have to remind the hon. member that in that particular case, as it related to that particular bill, we did conduct many public meetings, across northern Ontario with the unorganized communities. In fact, one person -- I believe Dick Illingworth -- was a co-ordinator for that particular exercise across northern Ontario.

From those meetings came the UCANO group, the Unorganized Communities Association of Northern Ontario -- groups in northern Ontario known as UCANO East and UCANO West. It was obvious in those public meetings we had in northern Ontario that that inflexibility that was incorporated in Bill 102 was not acceptable, just totally not acceptable.

I live in an unorganized community, Mr. Chairman, the unorganized community of Hudson, and I know well of what I speak. Many people live in that particular community because the cost of living is not as high as in the organized areas. They don’t have the high taxation rate; they don’t really want the expensive services that organized communities have. Quite frankly, they don’t like to be dictated to as to the structure of the municipal organization they will have.

The unorganized communities can, by a nucleus of the taxpayers, get together and establish a local roads board or be incorporated under the statute labour board. They may go a step further and become an improvement district, and from that would flow elected representatives. So the structure is there for that type of thing.

The member also touched on methods of funding these particular services, improved health care, assistance and incentives for the development of job-creating enterprises and in general improving the economic climate for investment and job-creation in the north. Certainly these are issues I believe all members who spoke during the second reading of this bill share equally as being ones which merit our full attention and energy in the months and years ahead.

I would say to the hon. member that as we move ahead in the months and years ahead I will be calling on both sides of the House for their suggestions and their ideas as to how we can achieve these goals that we all want to obtain. I say that with a great deal of sincerity because, as I said during the debate on second reading, northern sincerity came through loud and clear, and the suggestions on many occasions were excellent ones that we’re going to carefully assess.

So, while I support my friend the member for Sudbury East and understand the underlying objectives which are implied in his particular motion, I find I really can’t accept the amendment which he’s brought forward which deals with the method of implementing these objectives. I’ll deal with each one individually if you like -- there were something like nine or 10 specific amendments -- but I just find that I have no alternative than to find unacceptable the substance of his motion, as it relates to the bill itself.

I think if he goes over the bill very carefully he will see that in section 8 we deal with the co-ordinating aspects of the bill. Also section 10, subsections 1 and 2, certainly makes available -- I’ll put it on the record: “Upon the recommendation of the minister the Lieutenant Governor in Council may establish programs for the benefit of the residents of northern Ontario.” That’s broad and encompassing; it takes in the general thrust of the member’s amendments.

And subsection 2 says: “A program may determine conditions for grants and assistance and conditions under which these services are provided by the ministry and expenses allowed.” Now already we have used that section of the bill, as an example in the Cobalt situation where we moved in very quickly. This will strengthen our hand of course, if the hon. members approve it, to move very quickly and to respond to the very specific, and as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) said the unique, requirements of northern Ontario.

But if the hon. member wishes to go through each amendment individually I’ll be glad to have him do that.

Mr. Martel: I just might conclude -- just on the preamble. One thing bothers me.

I think what we’re trying to do is avoid inflexibility. That’s why we haven’t suggested that there had to be a community council, or we will not in our amendments later on, in these areas. In fact that would allow the various unorganized townships to make that determination by holding such an election, that they wouldn’t have to do that, as was set out under Bill 102. We’re leaving it open so they have the option.

I realize many people move to unorganized townships because of the fact the tax bill is somewhat less. Therefore we haven’t insisted that it be mandatory in our definitions. We’re saying that ultimately what we want to say is that the option is there; should they choose to have an elected group, then that’s in fact the group that the minister relates with for that particular area.

As it is now he doesn’t have anyone, really. He might have a local roads board, but they can only get tax dollars for road purposes. For recreational purposes it’s extremely difficult to find anyone who is responsible, in an elected sense as the local roads boards are, to receive the funds.

An hon. member: The board of education.

Mr. Martel: My colleague says “the board of education,” but many of the unorganized townships are not covered by a board of education.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Oh, yes. You take the entire railroad line beyond Capreol north -- Gogama, Foleyet: They don’t come under district school boards. Most of it comes directly under the regional office in the city of Sudbury.

Unless you can get some sort of an agreement whereby a school board is willing to put in a tennis court, which isn’t very expensive, or a rink, then there’s no way for any group in that municipality receiving the funding.

What I’m simply trying to provide is a vehicle which, if possible, in every unorganized township by an election similar to that for a local roads board could be the body which could receive funding, whether it be for a street light, whether it be for recreational purposes or whether it be for any of the services which we presently don’t have. It would save the ministry from having to identify a group. He said the other night, I believe, he’d have to identify a group in a certain community which would be responsible. I’m saying this would be the responsible group, providing it wanted to accept that.

It would make it very easy then for the minister to know who he is dealing with constantly, and that group would become responsible for funding in a variety of fields, from the various ministries, such as Culture and Recreation. It would all come through the minister and he’d be dealing directly with them.

As it is now, he doesn’t know who he’s dealing with. These municipalities will come to the minister; they’ll go to the Minister of Culture and Recreation and they’ll go to the Solicitor General for funding maybe for something else. I’m saying what we need is this very loose arrangement, but in fact it would be the same group which would coordinate any development that would go on in the unorganized townships.

What I’m afraid will happen is you’re going to have a variety of groups in the same community established for different reasons. You would be better off going this route, because you would have the one group which would then be responsible for what it is that goes on in any particular community. Otherwise, it would be so flexible that I think that you’ll not see the type of co-ordination that’s necessary for them to provide recreational facilities or street lights or whatever it might be.

All we’re trying is to set the stage for this permanently, and hopefully the ministry then would act as a clearing house for funding for the unorganized townships. The minister would know and would come to know the groups he’s dealing with. He would almost be a duplicate of TEIGA, but for unorganized townships whereas TEIGA or the Ministry of Housing is responsible for the organized townships.

I would urge the minister to do that, even if he wants to move it himself. I’m willing to sit down and let him move it himself should he choose to do so. But I just think it’s so imperative that we have a duly constituted body of some sort in the unorganized townships which has flexibility as to whether it wants to proceed in that fashion or not, but just to have some body that can deal with the minister and with which the minister can deal directly.

Mr. Reid: We in the Liberal Party have looked closely at the bill with a view to perhaps amending it as well. We came to the conclusion this bill is a bill only to create the ministry, to set up the administrative functions and to explain within a very broad framework what the functions of the ministry are to be.

I sympathize and I agree with my colleague the member for Sudbury East. As a matter of fact, he will recall I spoke exactly on this matter of unorganized territories and their problems in having a responsible body within those areas to deal with government and to receive grants and subsidies. We certainly have no problem accepting the preamble to the bill. I would say, however, that I’m not sure that we can. While we agree with the spirit of the amendments, I believe, quite frankly, they’re out of order in most cases.

I’m disappointed, in fact, that the minister didn’t give us a more comprehensive view or list of exactly what he believes the functions of his ministry are. He said in reply to our speeches on second reading that these things would be moving ahead. I hope that when we come back in the fall, the minister will have a detailed list of the programs and functions he’s going to have under his ministry. Particularly, I would say to him, one of the most urgent matters is that of dealing with unorganized communities. We have no problem with the preamble to the bill. I think it would be desirable to have that in the bill. As I say, although we agree with the spirit of the amendments, I don’t believe they’re in order and we should not restrict the bill going forward at this time, because all it is a bill to create the ministry and provide the broad outlines of its function.

[3:45]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I could respond briefly to those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to go back a few days in my own experience in my old home town of Hudson.

The hon. member spoke about a structure for an unorganized community, and I would like to observe that I led a group in my home town of Hudson, which is unorganized, to become organized. In fact, I instituted a number of public meetings with the then Department of Municipal Affairs, which gave us a tremendous amount of assistance with regard to moving into an improvement district. It wasn’t very difficult but, I have to tell you, as we rolled out all the responsibilities that would be thrust on that small municipality, which had no really strong economic tax base -- no economic base at all; no industrial tax base -- the local people thought they could see their taxes going up and it wasn’t very long before they put thumbs down on that particular idea.

I think we tried on two or three different occasions and we were turned down because it was felt, as the hon. member said, that we should have some nucleus, some body to deal with, or some head of the community that government could deal with. But the local population, the taxpayers, just said: “No way. We will continue.” Consequently, what we’re seeing there now is the Chamber of Commerce acting in the capacity of a municipal organization, believe it or not, with the president of the Chamber of Commerce being, in essence, the mayor; he makes all the contacts.

It has worked out very well. The Ministry of Natural Resources looks after the local garbage dump. They have established an excellent rapport with Ontario Hydro, whereby a small charge is levied on all the Hydro users; I think it’s 50 cents or $1 a month, which goes right on their bill and provides for all the street lights in the town. The local roads board is very active and they have a good assessment in the community. Consequently, all the streets in the town of Hudson are surfaced through the efforts of that particular board. Granted, we don’t have sidewalks and other things of that nature, but we have an excellent school related to the district school board in Dryden. Basically, the municipal structure is there, but not in a formal, structured way.

Just to refer to the hon. member’s desire to have some form of a structure in an unorganized area for a greater taxation power -- I think that’s what he was looking for -- I would point out that the statute labour boards are in practically every unorganized community. I don’t know whether the hon. member recalls, but the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has indicated that that bill would be brought before the House and there would be some changes made to the local roads boards to broaden those taxation powers; it wouldn’t be related specifically to roads and road maintenance, because that’s what the local roads boards are responsible for now. In other words, if a group wanted to establish and to raise funds for, say, garbage collection, to look after the local garbage dump, to put in their share of fire protection, or even to put up street lights, they could do it under The Statute Labour Act changes which we are contemplating now. This is something we are reviewing very carefully and it would do the things that the hon. member is referring to.

Recreational grants, of course, are available through the local school boards. Wintario grants are available to these small communities, and of course the isolated communities assistance fund is something that we’re all going to have to watch very carefully and all contribute to so as to broaden the way we can get direct funds to the unorganized areas.

Mr. Martel: That is why you need someone to deal with it. That is why we’re giving you the power.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We will have somebody. We’re doing it now with fire protection.

Mr. Martel: Ad hoc.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is ad hoc, but that’s the way the unorganized areas are run at the present time. I think we’re feeling our way. We’re moving ahead very effectively and I think the fire protection efforts we’ve undertaken to date under ICAF, with the help of UCANO, have been very productive.

I would say to the hon. member for Rainy River that, with respect to the specific programs on which he was questioning me, during the course of the examination of my ministry’s estimates would be the ideal time to go over the various types of expenditure programs. Certainly, I would encourage his contribution at that particular time but, as he correctly points out, this particular bill deals with the overall framework and structure of establishing a Ministry of Northern Affairs that will bring about the co-ordination of certain efforts in northern Ontario and also, of course, establishing programs for which we will be given the responsibility.

So, in reviewing the hon. member’s amendments, I would say that while I do appreciate his excellent contribution and the time end effort he gave to it, I think our goals will be achieved. He may be going in a different direction, but if he will approve this bill today we will attain those goals under this particular bill. It may not be quite the structured and formal arrangement he would like to see enshrined on a piece of legislation, but I think it’s fair to say that we are committed to the social needs, the transportation problems and job creation in northern Ontario. There is no getting away from it; this government is committed to that; we will do that, and certainly this ministry will move in that direction; this bill will give us the strength to go there.

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if we could stick with the amendments as they come up. At the present time we are simply dealing with preamble, as I understand it.

I think the minister is under some misapprehension or misconception. The desire to set up democratically-elected community councils on our part is to provide those unorganized communities with that option to elect that community council, and while the minister can point with some considerable pride to what has happened in Hudson, for example, it is our very strong feeling that the minister should be dealing with a committee that is democratically-elected, say at a town hall meeting and representative of the whole community. Now I am sure the Chamber of Commerce does represent the whole community in Hudson. In many cases in northern areas the Chamber of Commerce has a broader range of make-up than it does in the more formal structures.

We are not attempting to force through the amendments. If you read them carefully there is no way in which the amendments force upon any unorganized community the necessity for devising the structure. I think it would simply make easier the job of coordination and the job of dispersement of help, whether that help be financial or otherwise, because you don’t have two or three different boards to deal with and you will be covered in each case.

There are communities where there is no effective school board. There are communities where the roads board, let’s face it, is semi-dormant in some cases. I know of cases in which people in unorganized communities feel they don’t have a direct input; say where the board of education exists, because they have one trustee who covers the whole area and a trustee on a major board may not come from their particular part of the rural community. That happens in the territory surrounding Thunder Bay, for example. So I think that this is an attempt, in fact, to simplify the procedure, even though in terms the structure of the bill it probably makes it a little more formal.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment a little on the statements made by the minister. First, I am a little concerned that he seems to be indicating through his comments on his experience in his home town of Hudson that he feels it is going to be very difficult to get any kind of even less-than-formal structure in an unorganized community. I’d like to point out that not all people who live in an unorganized community are completely opposed to any kind of formal structure. As a matter of fact, the unorganized community of Dubreuilville, with which the minister is familiar, is organizing itself at this particular time and will become an improvement district as of October 1.

I will agree that in general most residents of unorganized communities are not in favour of a formal, municipal structure. In some cases, there is a situation where you have a myriad of boards dealing with particular, small, confined functions, but you don’t have any overall group, like the Chamber of Commerce in the town of Hudson, that can speak for the community.

One of the major problems in the area north of Sault Ste. Marie, an area that is loosely called Sault North, is that it is one of the largest -- as far as population goes -- unorganized areas in the province, stretching about 50 miles north of Sault Ste. Marie from the city limits, with a number of communities in it. There you have the situation where you have a large number of different roads boards. Some of them are statute labour boards, some of them are local roads boards. Then they have a number of different fire committees, some of which have gotten assistance under the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund, which others have been refused.

You have a number of recreation committees that work for their own particular little area and have no relationship to what is happening in the rest of the area; and you have the Board of Education of Sault Ste. Marie, upon which these people are represented, as my colleague from Port Arthur said, by one trustee who happens to be from Batchawana and does a good job. But Batchawana is 40 miles north of Sault Ste. Marie and has very different interests and problems compared to, say, the community of Heyden, which is adjacent to the city.

It is very difficult for those people to deal with government in any co-ordinated fashion, because you have so many different views and they aren’t represented in any overall body. I think it is very important for us, as is suggested in our amendments and in the preamble, to give people the option to organize a community council that would have representation from all of these different areas in a place like Sault North and could then speak for the overall development of that area.

If the residents choose not to take that route, that is their option, but all we are trying to do is give them that opportunity. I would hope the minister would see the value in that and accept the spirit, if not the exact wording, of the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can agree with the hon. members’ desire to go in this direction, but I have to point out that if those communities wanted to become organized -- and of course the improvement district is the lowest form of municipal structure that we have in the province of Ontario today -- and if a group within a community wanted to go that particular route, then it is free to do so and they can. They could then take that step, after they had some experience. That’s the whole idea behind an improvement district, to give the communities some experience in running a municipality.

I have a situation in my own area -- Ear Falls is a typical example. As that community grew, their first step was to become an improvement district. Granted, their first group, a five-member group, was appointed. The way we handled it up there was to call a public meeting and the town made the recommendations as to who should be on that particular board. The Treasurer of the day, who was responsible, accepted those people.

They stayed as an improvement district for three years. They got a tremendous amount of help from the Department of Municipal Affairs as to how to approach government and how to set up their municipality in a very formal way. Then they took that next step and now they are a township, the township of Ear Falls, which has duly elected representatives and a reeve.

So the steps are in place; they are available today. I think to have that in here would be a duplication, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martel: We are obviously not getting through to the minister. We are not suggesting for a moment that it become structured at all, Mr. Minister. We are not suggesting for a moment that, down the road somewhere, it becomes an improvement district or any type of municipal structure whatsoever.

[4:00]

If you were to look at the amendment -- after the preamble -- on community councils, we are saying, “community council means a democratically-elected council of residents in any community in unorganized territory in northern Ontario.” It is merely a body which would act on behalf of the unorganized township and deal directly with the Minister of Northern Affairs in order that on the grants that are available from government you’d have an avenue to funnel those grants through.

We’re not suggesting for a moment they are looking down the road to becoming an organized township or municipality. Many of them are too small, as the minister and I both know. Some of these unorganized townships in fact only have 50 people and they couldn’t support any type of local council. They couldn’t support even the secretary for a municipal council.

What we’re saying is that it merely is a board, elected in a town hall meeting, that would become known as a community council, so that that community has a voice to deal with the minister and the minister has an avenue whereby he provides the grants back to the municipality. It could include the local roads board or members of the local roads board. It could be a group looking for funding for recreation purposes, as we’ve said already, or a street light. We’re just saying that it’s a group of people elected in an unorganized township, which will remain unorganized, but who will be the vehicle with which the minister deals in those unorganized townships.

We’re not suggesting any more formal structure than that. We just want them to get themselves organized into a group who are then responsible for bringing funds in for a variety of purposes. It might be a road, it might be street lighting, it might be recreation; it might be a number of things, Mr. Minister. All we’re trying to do is provide you with someone whom you have a rapport with and who would represent the community to some extent; elected, but not moving to formal structure at all; that’s why we’ve left it optional.

In another amendment we say the minister shall set up the mechanism whereby that can be done; but we’re not suggesting it has to be done; we want that flexibility there, as the minister himself has said. We just want a permanent group which can do some of the co-ordinating to provide some of the things that are most necessary to some of those small communities, and for which we have difficulty getting money to them now.

I’d like to get that message across to the minister. We’re not talking about taking it to community structure as we understand it in the traditional sense. We’ll leave it unorganized. It is just a vehicle with whom the minister can deal on a regular basis, that’s all we’re asking for.

Mr. Wildman: An intermediate step.

Mr. Chairman: It has been moved by Mr. Martel that the preamble be included in Bill 21.

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Shall this be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments or amendments to any other section?

Mr. Martel: I would ask the Chair’s indulgence here. I am not sure what you want to do. I’d like to move a series of definitions, and I’d prefer not to deal with them one at a time, if the Chairman approves. I’d like to move them all and then maybe just touch on them briefly, so that we don’t spend a great deal of time as we would if we went through them one by one. I’d ask the Chairman’s indulgence to accept all the definitions and then be allowed to discuss them briefly.

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate that you gave notice to the Chair; it certainly would be in order for you to move it combined and discuss it, yes.

Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to establish the following definitions:

“In this Act, (a) ‘Community council’ means a democratically-elected council of residents in any community and unorganized territory in northern Ontario; (b)” -- and I put the ‘b’ part in, the municipal council, to distinguish between the two -- “‘municipal council’ means a municipal council as defined in The Municipal Act” -- to give the difference in what we are attempting to do -- “(c) ‘Fund’ means the Northern Ontario Tomorrow Fund established by this Act.”

I have enlarged on this, I must admit. When I first made these amendments, Parry Sound was still split in half and so I had to make a revision in the definitions. “(d) ‘Northern Ontario’ means that territory in the province of Ontario lying north of the boundary between Muskoka and Parry Sound districts, and including the west and northern boundaries of Algonquin Park.” I believe that is the new definition. “(e) ‘Southern Ontario’ means that territory in the province of Ontario lying south of the boundary between Muskoka and Parry Sound districts and including the west and north boundaries of Algonquin Park.”

Then I would like to define local services. “(e) ‘Local services’ means services of a type that may be provided in a municipality at the expense, either wholly or partly, of a municipality and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes water supply and water distribution systems, sewage systems and sewage disposal plants, garbage and waste disposal facilities, local roads and sidewalks, local drains and drainage systems, fire and police protection, street lighting, planning, recreational facilities including parks, transportation facilities including ferries, wharfs, docks and facilities for landing of aircraft, libraries and weed control.”

The last definition is “(f) ‘Non-renewable resources’ means those resources whose extraction or harvesting reduces the absolute supply of those resources, either because of their inherent nature or because measures to ensure renewability of the resources have been inadequate.”

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I may comment, and I may be repetitious, but our feeling toward the preamble would certainly be reiterated here. It doesn’t form part of the Act and it is not acceptable as part of the bill that I have before the committee. I pointed out to the hon. member that while I might agree with his thrust, I don’t think this is the place that this type of definition or amendment should be incorporated.

I would like to point out to him that in the local services to unorganized communities, water supply and water distribution systems now can be assisted through the ICAF fund; sewage systems and sewage disposal plants can be assisted through the ICAF fund; that is our long-term goal. For garbage and waste disposal facilities, again if there is a nucleus of people within that community they can apply for funds under that particular fund.

As for local roads, the statute labour board and the local roads boards can look after that. As for local drains and drainage systems, again ICAF hopefully will come in there. It will also assist with the fire protection; and police protection is now provided provincially by the Ontario Provincial Police.

With regard to street lighting, if there is a community interest and desire, then ICAF will be glad to entertain an application for that particular type of service for those unorganized areas. Planning is something that the TEIGA people would be directly involved in.

Recreational facilities, including parks, are with the school board. I am informed that all our areas in northern Ontario that have a school have to have some form of a school district, so they are in place already.

Transportation facilities, including ferries, wharfs and docks, are a federal responsibility. The responsibility for the development of airstrips in Northern Ontario is something that we will have within this ministry. That particular program will be moved from T and C over to our area of responsibility. Already we have embarked on some very ambitious programs for this fiscal year for the development of new airstrips in remote areas of northern Ontario.

I am not just certain where libraries and weed control would fall, but as I point out, those services the hon. member mentions are not only being looked after but can be covered. It may well be the hon. member’s comments could be reviewed in the course of another bill. I think it’s worthy of consideration. It may well be that we bring back Bill 102 in a new form and certainly we will review his comments very carefully. It may be well worth considering.

Mr. Martel: Might I just point out to the minister, if one looks at the variety of services that are there, I think the minister can understand my concern. As it is you’ve got no one who speaks for the municipality. You might get an ad hoc group who will look for a few recreational facilities; you then get an ad hoc group who might look to fire protection; you get another ad hoc group in the same community who deal with local roads boards; you get another group concerned with garbage disposal. In fact, what you have developing is a proliferation of groups in the same unorganized community.

What we are simply trying to establish is one group which makes the ministry’s job, we think, a whole lot easier. The minister then knows who represents the unorganized community. It gives the residents an opportunity to discuss it with them, maybe at a meeting. Local roads boards call a meeting three or four times a year for example to strike a budget and so on and get it approved.

We are trying to provide you with one tool in every unorganized territory that you can deal with, rather than your ministry dealing, maybe from the township of Awrey, with five different groups from the same unorganized community. We are simply trying to provide a simple mechanism so you can deal with them, on an ongoing basis, to provide the variety of services that are necessary.

You and I both know that it is going to happen. You are just becoming intransigent, I am sorry to say, but you and I both know that there is going to be such a proliferation of groups that it is going to be difficult for your ministry, with 120 staff, to deal with five or six groups from each community.

What we are saying is surely it makes a lot more sense to have a very flexible structure available to unorganized communities which will allow the people in your ministry to have an ongoing dialogue with a group familiar with what has gone on before.

Can you imagine what can happen if you had five different groups from the same township dealing partially with similar problems? As my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) says, if you are spread out, for example in Awrey township where in that one township in my riding there are five local roads boards, all of whose interests are different, it makes it difficult. We’ve been working on it, I think for seven years now. I think we’ve finally got them convinced they need one local roads board because each has a different priority. Surely this is the mechanism, whereby we have the ongoing group representing a community, that you need.

For the life of me I can’t understand why we are going a different route which is going to create such a wide range of differences. Surely we should be trying to coordinate it to simplify the ministry job.

What we need for the unorganized is one thing -- that the people can receive the money; that’s really all that is lacking -- to receive the grants that are available. Nothing else is lacking. There is ability in those unorganized townships; it’s just that we don’t know who to give the money to.

We have no statutory rights, I guess, to give people who are not elected money; and that is simply what we are trying to provide, a mechanism whereby the government can get money into unorganized townships. Surely that is what we are trying to establish here this afternoon, nothing else.

My colleagues from the north across the way understand that. I am sure the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) has been confronted with that problem, as I have time after time, where they say there is nobody who has the responsibility or who can accept the money on behalf of an unorganized township. He’s heard it dozens of times, as I have. What we are trying to do is provide that avenue.

I don’t care if I move it, but surely the ministry then has an obligation to simplify the procedure whereby funds which are in this ministry get back to the unorganized townships.

[4:15]

He might say, “Well, you can get fire protection if you talk to so and so”, but it becomes very difficult. Surely it’s better, Mr. Minister, if you deal with one group for each township -- surely it makes sense -- rather than 10 different groups or five or three even. That’s all we’re trying to provide for the minister in this bill. When he looks at all the services that are available, he knows and I know that group are going to centre in on each of those and you are going to eventually have representation from northern Ontario for each one of those services.

Mr. Chairman: If I might make a suggestion, since the member for Sudbury East has kindly given us notice of the amendments and because the definitions are contingent upon the other amendments, I wonder if it would be in agreement with the other members of the committee if the member for Sudbury East were to put all the amendments at one time and probably consider those in one package? Would that be agreeable to the members of the committee?

Mr. Reid: That would be agreeable, Mr. Chairman, except for one matter. That is, it seems to me that some of the amendments are out of order. Since you’ve had a chance to look at them I wonder if you are prepared to make a ruling on which are in order and which aren’t, or if they are all in order?

Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member for Rainy River that I have seen the amendments, but they haven’t been placed before the committee.

Mr. Reid: Okay, go ahead. Put them.

Mr. Chairman: If it is agreeable to the committee would the member for Sudbury East like to go ahead and place the other amendment?

Mr. Martel: Okay. I’ll try and put the numbers where I’d like to see them moved into the bill and them you can rule them out of order if you so insist -- and my friend from Rainy River so insists. I’m glad he’s such a help to the government.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Don’t worry about it. I will be objective about it.

Mr. Martel: Will you object to it? Somebody will have to tell you they are out of order though.

I’d like to introduce a new section 3 -- and that would be those amendments that appear on the third page.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Martel moves:

“3. The minister shall,

“(1) provide for the establishment of democratically-elected community councils to plan and administer the provision of local services in unorganized communities;

“(2) in conjunction with community councils provide local services at a cost to residents of unorganized communities in northern Ontario comparable to the cost to residents of southern Ontario;

“(3) at the request of municipal council provide the additional funds necessary to ensure the provision of local services to residents of municipalities in northern Ontario at a cost comparable to residents in municipalities in southern Ontario;

“(4) ensure the provision of extended health care in northern Ontario, comparable to that available in southern Ontario; and

“(5) extend communication services including radio and television to all areas of northern Ontario.”

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence I’ll move the other three and then we can debate the acceptability of them or not.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Martel further moves that section 10 be amended by adding the following subsections:

“(3) The Treasurer may, upon requisition of the minister, advance out of the consolidated fund such sums of money as are required to lend money to any agency of the Crown, co-operative association, or other body of a co-operative nature, person, firm, corporation or local community authority carrying on or proposing to carry on a manufacturing, processing, industrial, financial or commercial business, or undertaking of any nature, or a business or undertaking connected with or incidental to, a manufacturing, processing, industrial, financial or commercial business or undertaking in northern Ontario. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing the minister shall give priority to those undertakings which build on the natural resource base of northern Ontario.

“(4) The minister shall establish a Crown corporation to undertake mineral exploration activities in northern Ontario.

“(5) The ministry shall establish a fund, the Northern Ontario Tomorrow Fund, to consist of moneys derived from natural resources taxation or an assessment on the value of all non-renewable resources extracted in northern Ontario which will be used to guarantee future economic activities.”

Mr. Martel: I’d like to make a few comments on these various amendments, give the reasons we moved them, and then you might want to rule.

Section 3 we’ve moved very deliberately, Mr. Chairman. It coincides with the definition of providing a community council for the unorganized townships. Subsection 1 doesn’t, again, make the minister move to provide them but sets in place the mechanism whereby it could be done. It doesn’t make it mandatory that you have one in an unorganized township. All it does is make it mandatory that the ministry itself has in place the mechanism whereby this could be done in an unorganized township. So that’s very straightforward.

The next subsections, 2 and 3, deal with funding. The minister and I are both aware that some of the problems confronting northern Ontario -- the geography of the area, the distance from markets and so on -- drive the costs much higher to residents in northern Ontario for the construction, let’s say of a home or a sewage plant or a garbage disposal -- anything. It’s more costly in the north.

All we’re trying to say is that surely the ministry, in its wisdom and its efforts, has to get the type of grants which would make it that the residents in those communities would in fact be paying no more for the services they are getting in the north than people in southern Ontario would pay. We’re saying there should be a type of grant structure which, in fact, would make up the difference; that we shouldn’t have preferred status but nevertheless we shouldn’t be discriminated against, because those resources that come out of the north make southern Ontario viable. In order to have southern Ontario viable it’s necessary in these communities that we have some method whereby we get the funding back so that in the unorganized townships the provision of services are no greater to the local residents than they would be if you were making those services available in southern Ontario.

Concerning subsections 4 and 5, we simply believe that the delivery of health care -- and I realize this might seem to be a curve thrown in there, but those of us from the north are aware that it takes a lot longer to get these types of services. Frequently they’re not available in the north.

Mr. Reid: They come down here.

Mr. Mattel: Yes, they come to Toronto. What we’re saying there is that surely its provision is incumbent on the ministry. It might be a community clinic that’s necessary to guarantee delivery of service.

Finally, the communications network: I heard the minister respond how they got some in a community he was in during the election. That’s all well and good, but there are still many communities where these types of communication services aren’t as readily available as they are here in southern Ontario. We’re saying that should be a responsibility of this ministry to squeeze out of the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) the money for ETV if need be. It might not just be television, but it might be radio in some communities, it might be telephone, it might be a variety of things. We’re simply putting those in to guarantee them.

With respect to the other three amendments we have moved, Mr. Chairman, what we’re attempting to do in section 10(3) -- and I’ll just repeat it: “Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the ministry shall give priority to those undertakings which build on the natural resource base of northern Ontario.” Those are grants to businessmen or funding to the community, a co-op -- anything. But we’re ensuring that priority be given to developing industries based on the natural resources.

NODC doesn’t do that. It says it does, but I want to tell you that most people I’ve talked to, businessmen I’ve spoken to with respect to NODC just pull their hair out. Besides tourism, in the field of manufacturing related to the natural resources, it just doesn’t happen or it’s very limited. I’m saying we should be encouraging that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: For primary industry, there is no program.

Mr. Martel: That’s right. I think we should open it up much more. We should get at it much sooner. That’s why I specifically moved that to make it so, that more people might be interested. That’s why we threw in co-ops, giving priority if it deals with manufacturing in the natural resource field because that’s what we’re interested in. We’re interested in creating new wealth.

I’ve never been very enthusiastic in the north when people talk to me about Sudbury becoming a distribution point for goods to Timmins; for example. That’s not creating new wealth, it really isn’t. I’m more concerned with new wealth because that’s what is going to provide the jobs for young people and for women. It’s got to be in that field. We simply don’t have a mechanism that I know of in Ontario yet that deals at that level.

It just isn’t available; and NODC doesn’t do it. It might have been designed to do it, but it hasn’t. I think we have to move in where we give priority to the things dealing with natural resources.

Number five or 10(4) is “an undertaking for mineral exploration.” John White moved that a couple of years ago in his budget. It isn’t that radical. Nobody is doing sufficient exploration in northern Ontario. We simply can’t keep young people in the north if we’re not going to open up new mines through exploration.

Going back to the preceding motion that I moved, which is to give more assistance to those people who want to deal in the natural resource field, that’s got to be the salvation for northern Ontario.

It isn’t more commercial establishments in the traditional sense, but it’s the discovery of new mineral wealth and the exploration, the processing and manufacturing near the source.

I don’t know where we have that yet in any bill. I realize you’ve got incentives for exploration, but they aren’t doing all that much. You’ve got incentives, I believe, in The Mining Act, which allow for certain writeoffs if they process in the north, but they’re not doing a lot of that despite that. The Falconbridge example is one, but what about Falconbridge moving off to Norway to expand its plant in Norway? That seems to me what they’ve said to us.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They spent $60 million in Sudbury for that attempt.

Mr. Martel: Oh sure, but they’ve also expanded a plant in Norway for which we’ve given tax concessions in Canada. That certainly isn’t to the benefit of the north.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Texasgulf.

Mr. Martel: Texasgulf is partly a Crown corporation today.

Mr. Wildman: And yet it still got involved in a campaign for free enterprise.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Texasgulf expansion in Timmins would have never moved ahead had not we brought in the processing allowance and changes under The Mining Tax Act. I want to make that clear, because the then member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) was very adamant that these processing announcements be brought in to make sure of job opportunities. A massive amount of money, about $400 million, is being expended now in the Timmins area because of that.

Mr. Martel: I don’t want the minister to run a red herring into it. What I said was that despite what’s in The Mining Act we’re still allowing, if I recall correctly, 38 operations to continue processing abroad.

I don’t want the minister to bring in a red herring. I want to say that despite what you’ve given it hasn’t really led to much manufacturing of natural resources in the north. It hasn’t led to that much processing. I’m not disputing it hasn’t done a bit. But tell me why northern Ontario has a mass exodus of young people going south -- and we know it -- and why there are no jobs for women, if the program has been so successful.

[4:30]

I am just trying to provide a vehicle where we have other things at our disposal: (a) to do exploration; and (b) to encourage manufacturing and processing in the north. This would provide jobs for young people and jobs for women; for both of whom presently, unless you are a professional or a secretary, there is very little work.

You know and I know, Mr. Minister, that literally hundreds of young people, after the northerners have paid the cost to educate them, virtually migrate south to find work. One only has to look around or look at the census to realize that the populations in northeastern Ontario are not getting greater. In fact, conversely, they are getting smaller. Therefore the program the minister cites might have provided some incentive, but it hasn’t gone nearly far enough if we are going to do the type of job we want in creating work for women and for young people whom we pay tremendous costs to educate. Surely you, as a northerner, are aware that young people don’t want to come south if they could find meaningful work in the north. But there is virtually nothing.

Mr. Williams: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Point of order.

Mr. Williams: As I understood, it was your intention to rule whether or not the amendments were in order --

Mr. Wildman: How about ruling if he is in order.

Mr. Williams: -- and that the member who introduced them was being given the opportunity to explain the reasons for the amendments. But I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that he is expanding considerably beyond the explanatory comments on his amendments and is debating the merits of those amendments at this time. I suggest he should restrict himself to explaining the reasons for the amendments if you are yet to rule on whether or not they are in order. I would suggest that you take that under advisement and advise whether he is now debating the merits of the amendments or simply restricting himself to explanatory comment, which is what you had directed.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I might say that we could address our remarks to the matter of the order of the amendments.

Mr. Martel: They are in order.

Mr. Foulds: Nobody is challenging --

Mr. Martel: You see, Mr. Chairman, that’s right. Let me just go on with the last one, Mr. Chairman. I will save you any agony of getting into a haggle on procedure, okay? I just want to deal with the last point, section 10(5), the establishment of a fund, which is the third point. What we tried to provide was an economic package which would help northern Ontario.

It would be, in our opinion, an effort to provide an ongoing fund using the tax base the government now has, through Crown timber or through smelting and mining and so on, using just a portion of those moneys which we would set aside. It is in fact what the Conservative government in Alberta has done, although we would want it public, but the Heritage Fund in Alberta has been established for down the road when there is a rainy day.

All I am saying is I would hope that this minister would establish such a fund so that when Blind River gets in trouble, we might be able to provide some assistance; or it might be another municipality where the natural resource which makes that community viable starts to deplete. We might be in a position to draw on a fund which has been built up over a number of years to create a new industry related to a natural resource. It goes back to my earlier points and the reason I keep going back is that all of these rely on one another. It relies on knowing where the ore bodies are, Mr. Chairman, and that’s why we moved the one on exploration. If you know where the ore bodies are, then you can use the proposed Tomorrow Fund to go out and tap --

Mr. Reid: Yesterday.

Mr. Mattel: My friend might think it’s funny, but I think it makes abundant sense that you know where the --

Mr. Reid: it is an idea I came up with eight years ago.

Mr. Martel: Oh well good for you, then you should support it today. I am glad you are not going to vote against it. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, without the --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: -- nonsense from the member for Rainy River, is that that fund should be used and the reason we need exploration is to locate the resources which are available and then to draw on a fund which is there. Not some imaginary fund or only if the government has the money available, but a fund which has been established, based on the taxation base which is there, so that we can establish a new and viable industry maybe 30 miles or 50 miles down the road without changing the community centres.

That’s why we want the Tomorrow Fund. That’s why we need the Crown corporation to locate the natural resources because obviously the mining industry isn’t doing it. That’s why we need the Treasurer to be able to make loans available so that funds for those natural resources which are being exploited could be made available to someone who is interested in manufacturing close to those natural resources.

That’s why we brought all three of them together. They weren’t in isolation one from the other. One was based on the other, so that for the first time in northern Ontario we would know there was a mechanism in place whereby the government had at its disposal the knowledge and the funds to help in the proper development of northern Ontario if your friends in the free enterprise system don’t want to do it. If they are not going to do it -- and that’s why John White obviously moved the motion in his budget a number of years ago for a Crown corporation for exploration -- we simply can’t wait for them to throttle us. We’ve got to do something ourselves to provide jobs for our young people.

I don’t see any of this as being very radical. I think it makes abundant good sense that we move in those three directions if we want to have the proper development of northern Ontario. With anything less than that, then the ministry just becomes window-dressing, as many northern Ontario citizens have felt. If the ministry is going to have some teeth -- and we’re trying to provide that today while you people are objecting to having the teeth to do the job -- we want those teeth in the bill so that we set up a ministry which can do the things all of us in northern Ontario want done.

Mr. Chairman: It has been suggested by a member of the committee that the Chair consider ruling on these amendments. I looked over the amendments very carefully because I have had time, due to ample notice. The amendment to section 1 is contingent upon the amendments to sections 3 and 10. Looking over the amendments to sections 3 and 10 very carefully, in my view, section 3(1) is irrelevant to the bill and the other sections have to do with financial matters or the spending of moneys from the public purse.

I’d like to refer the committee to standing order No. 86 which reads as follows: “Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocations of public funds may not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and may only be proposed by a minister of the Crown.”

In my view, the amendments put forward by the member for Sudbury East would direct the expenditure of public revenues by requiring the minister to make payments to various boards and commissions and other bodies and set up a fund constituting moneys derived from what is essentially a tax. It is my view that the member’s three amendments are clearly outside the initiative given to any member or private member of this House. I therefore must rule the amendments out of order.

Mr. Martel: Could I just say one thing, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence. I am not so hidebound that I have to move these. I certainly would allow the minister to take them as his own amendments. He could move them into this bill and we would accept them on this side of the House.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I do not believe the Chairman’s ruling is debatable.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Are you challenging the ruling?

Mr. Foulds: No, I am not. I would like to ask you to state more clearly your reasons for ruling section 3(1) out of order. It is my understanding --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I consider this an appeal to my ruling. Do I understand that’s what it is?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Reid: It’s irrelevant to the bill.

Mr. Foulds: You gave no reason, as I recall it, Mr. Chairman, for indicating that section 3 (1) was out of order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It’s irrelevant.

Mr. Foulds: It is my understanding, if I may, that section 3 deals with the minister’s duties. Section 3(1) outlines one of the duties we feel it should be the responsibility of the minister to undertake, and I do not see how that could be considered out of order.

Mr. Chairman: In my opinion, in checking over the amendment to section 3, I consider my ruling, as being irrelevant to the section.

Mr. Foulds: I agree that your rulings are irrelevant. What I would like to --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I will consider this a challenge to my ruling. If there --

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. B. Newman: Are you challenging him?

Mr. Cassidy: Obviously the member for Port Arthur is trying to find a constructive way of ensuring that parts of the amendment put forward by the member for Sudbury East can be considered. I wish that you would consider them in that light rather than automatically assuming that your ruling is being appealed.

It’s my understanding that it is the right of any member of the Legislature to ask for a question to be divided and for the various parts of that question to be considered separately. That being the case, perhaps the member for Port Arthur or myself can ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether you would consider dividing that amendment and then considering the matters involved in it separately and ruling as to whether each of those subsections is admissible. Obviously the point you’ve raised --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: If I could conclude --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would say to the members of the committee, I ruled that this was irrelevant to the bill because this is an amendment to section 3, and section 3 reads: “The minister shall preside over and have charge of the ministry.”

By agreement of the whole committee, we did agree to take all amendments and consider them at one point. However, I still feel that section 3(1) is not relevant to the section 3 which it amends.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect, surely sections 3 and 4 of the bill as it is printed deal with the duties of the minister. Surely the amendments that we have proposed under the subsections listed in section 3 have to do with the duties of the minister.

Mr. Rotenberg: Either challenge the ruling or accept it.

Mr. Reid: It doesn’t at all.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Are there any other discussions on any sections of this bill?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect, I do not wish to be put in the position of having to challenge the Chair.

An hon. member: You are doing it.

Mr. Foulds: But I do wish that the Chair could explain the decision in clearer terms. The Chair has merely said that section 3(1) is irrelevant to the bill. The Chair has not explained why and has not given any justification for that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Isn’t that enough?

[4:45]

Mr. Foulds: And if I may say so, with great respect, the following subsections don’t entirely deal with money matters. Some of them direct initiatives on the part of the minister that have nothing to do with money matters. I think they should be taken, if I may say so, section by section, and that you give reasons for ruling they are out of order.

Mr. Chairman: First of all, I should say to the member for Port Arthur that I explained it clearly enough. If he wishes to challenge my ruling he may do so.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, it has always been appropriate for a member to bring a point of order. Agreed? I believe that is the case.

Mr. Chairman: There is nothing out of order. We have only discussed the Chairman’s ruling and what I considered an appeal.

Mr. Martel: Could I ask the Chairman a question then? Would section 3 be in order, Mr. Chairman, as an amendment to section 8 then -- the functions of the ministry? I would ask the Chairman if it would be appropriate to move my section 3 in its entirety under the functions of the ministry.

Mr. Chairman: I would say it may be in order if it did not have anything to do with the expenditure of funds, which again is questionable.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I am again asking for your clarification because I am not sure which of those you feel is directing the expenditure of any specific funds. We are talking about services, and we are just saying that the minister has to be responsible for guaranteeing that those services are made available in those communities.

Mr. Chairman: Looking at that amendment carefully it would be my opinion that the provision of local services would certainly have to do with funding and therefore it would be out of order.

Mr. Martel: It doesn’t direct the funding.

Mr. Reid: Can we get a commitment from the minister that when we come back in the fall he will have these matters in hand, that he will have some kind of a bill set up to deal with the unorganized communities, and that the matters raised, with which we agree, will be dealt with as soon as we come back in the fall?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to that request. As I indicated to the hon. members of the committee, we were looking and we are looking at provisions in The Statute Labour Act and The Local Roads Boards Act to broaden the taxation base of that particular body, to expand beyond the collecting of assessment solely for the purpose of roads and road maintenance, which would allow that group to add $2 or $3 per home.

Mr. Reid: Yes, but are we going to get that in the fall?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. Well, I don’t know whether we can get it in the fall but I can and I will make a commitment to the committee that we are working on it, we are pushing it ahead as fast as we can.

I have to say that we would want some consultation with the people in unorganized areas. I think the thrust we are adopting now, with all due respect, is without consultation with those people in the unorganized areas. When we dealt with Bill 102 we went back after we introduced the bill and asked for their input. And you know the reaction we got. So I think the same thing would apply.

I have already tossed out a suggestion on the thrust that we are taking to many of the unorganized groups. They have come back with a very positive response, as has UCANO, saying this is the route to go. And if you will bear with us I can assure you that our thrust will be in that direction.

Mr. Martel: Could I say something to the minister then? It was my intention, Mr. Minister, as we got to the end of the bill, to suggest rather than try and take this to a committee, that you might, as minister responsible, form a subcommittee of the resources committee. They could go with you and, for the first time, visit the municipalities in northern Ontario; use a group of the legislators to get input --

Mr. Reid: From northern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: -- from northern Ontario, to get input both from the unorganized townships and the organized communities as to what they see should be the function of the ministry. In fact I indicated to your deputy minister the other night and to the House leader for your party that it would be my hope when we got to the committee stage -- and I don’t want to delay passage of the bill -- an ad hoc committee of the resources development committee might travel with the minister to allow these people in their communities to tell us what it is they aspire to.

The last time we sent primarily civil servants. I’m not belittling the civil service in any way, shape or form, but maybe it’s time we sent a delegation of northern members to get input from both the unorganized and the organized communities in northern Ontario as to what their aspirations are and what they see are the solutions to the problems confronting northern Ontario. Instead of asking them to come to Queen’s Park, a small committee should travel across northern Ontario to have input from them, giving them an opportunity to prepare their briefs. Maybe that’s a way around it. The bill proceeds, but it just seems to me we should get some input from them for a change.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I appreciate the hon. member’s response to my suggestion that we do get the input, and certainly I am prepared to give a lot of thought to his suggestion really. The thrust of this particular bill was to get input, because if this ministry is to be the ministry we want it to be for northern Ontario, then it has to come with a lot of input from people like yourself on both sides of the House and from the people out in the unorganized areas and all parts of northern Ontario. I would be prepared to give that some consideration.

Mr. Chairman: Because of my ruling on sections 3 and 10 of the bill, automatically the amendment to section 1 would also be out of order. Are there any other comments, questions or amendments?

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Your point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: I believe the House leader will agree that it’s in the spirit of the new rules of the House that an amendment which can’t be put because of a ruling like the ruling you’ve made can be attempted in another form without the notice that would otherwise have been given. It seems to me on looking at this that there are certain aspects of the amendment put forward by the member for Sudbury East which could quite fruitfully be added to section 8 of the bill, specifically those amendments that do not involve -- and I quote from rule 86 -- a tax or the specific direction of public funds.

Perhaps the Chairman would like to comment on that right now, because I believe that subsections 1, 4 and 5 of the proposed amendment to section 3 could very easily be adapted to be added to the functions of the ministry, according to section 8; and the requirement of giving priority to undertakings which build on the natural resource base of northern Ontario can also be reworded with the same intention and be added into section 8. Would the chairman like to comment on that?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I’d be very glad to make a comment on that to the member for Ottawa Centre. That question was previously asked and I have previously ruled that it would be out of order because it would have to do with the spending of public funds.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, okay.

Mr. Cunningham: Okay what? Sit down.

Mr. Chairman: That’s my ruling.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, may I just speak to the ruling then?

Mr. Chairman: You are challenging my ruling?

Mr. Cassidy: No, I would like to speak to it. Is that not permissible?

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Is it not permissible that a member can bring a point of order in this Legislature?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think the member for Ottawa Centre should start to push the patience of the House. I think we have allowed the member for Sudbury East a tremendous amount of time to get everything on the record that he wanted to get on the record with respect to the ruling of the Chair. In the spirit of co-operation, which I hope is dominating this House between now and 6 o’clock, we now have a ruling of the Chairman which is not a debatable matter. The member has the option now to challenge the Chairman’s ruling. We are going to divide soon anyway on a number of matters and we can include that in the division.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of co-operation I won’t press this matter further. I am distressed, though, at the idea that because of a desire to complete by 6 o’clock --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. O’Neil: Let’s carry on.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments to any section of Bill 21?

Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Stokes: I think Mr. Chairman, that in the light of your rulings -- which have gone unchallenged, although after considerable verbiage -- we do have a responsibility as members of this Legislature, and certainly as members representing northern ridings, to be able to take back something to all of the people in northern Ontario. I think we need a much more complete explanation of the mandate that we’re giving to this minister under section 8, which defines the function of the minister and the ministry.

These very vague suggestions like “preparing and recommending government plans, policies and priorities for northern Ontario.” I don’t know how often in this House we have, as northern members, called attention to the studies on top of the studies, and the reviews of the studies, that we in northern Ontario have been subjected to over the years. Now unless the minister is prepared to come forward with something much more concrete than is contained in this bill, we’re going to have to go back to our respective constituents saying we passed a very vague kind of statute that we don’t know the meaning of. After four months of having the ministry set up -- and let’s face it, the ministry has been in operation for some four months now -- I think we’re entitled to a much more complete explanation of what the functions of the ministry are to be.

When I hear “preparing and recommending government plans, policies and priorities for northern Ontario; establishing and administering ministry programs and co-ordinating government programs and services relating to northern Ontario,” I wonder just what all of this means. I don’t want to delay the passage of this bill, but I think the minister should have been prepared to answer our questions in quite some detail. The most important section of the entire bill deals with the function of the ministry. I won’t delay this debate any further as long as the minister can get up and be more specific as to the kinds of things that he’s going to get into.

If he had suggested that he’s going to deal with the needs and the aspirations of people in unorganized communities; if he said what he was prepared to do, in both an operating capacity and in a co-ordinating capacity with regard to the regional priorities budget; if he had got up and said what he was going to do with regard to the upgrading of the Design for Development for both northwestern and northeastern Ontario -- most certainly the one for northwestern Ontario, which has been accepted as government policy now for about four to five years -- I just think we as northern members, and I’m sure everybody as northerners, are entitled to a much more complete explanation of what you hope to do.

I’m not here to cross all of the t’s and to dot all of the i’s, but I think we’re entitled to much more complete detail, a much more specific explanation as to what you see as your role as the minister and the role of this new Ministry of Northern Affairs. I’d like the minister, in as brief a way as possible, to be much more specific as to how he sees the function of his ministry.

Mr. Reid: Right, I will go for that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Lake Nipigon had been here during the early part of the debate --

Mr. Stokes: I was listening on my squawk box downstairs, so I don’t think I --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: How do you have a squawk box?

Mr. Deans: It is an appropriate name when you are speaking.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Okay, but I don’t have one.

Mr. Reid: That’s all he’s got left.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Seriously, Mr. Chairman, I did point out to the hon. members at that time that section 8 deals with the co-ordinating activities of my ministry. It spells it out very clearly -- the policies and the priorities of northern Ontario, and the plans --

Mr. Reid: And establishes them?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The establishment of those policies, right -- in a number of different ways, in about six different subsections to section 8. It clearly outlines where our responsibilities will be with regard to --

Mr. Stokes: No, it doesn’t.

[5:00]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, it does -- with regard to co-ordinating. I think what the hon. member is driving at --

Mr. Stokes: Forgive me, but it doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know what the hon. member is driving at are the budgetary expenditures or the administration we will be doing. I think that’s the point he’s driving at, and of course that will come up in the examination of the estimates later this fall.

The member hit on some very sensitive areas: The setting of priorities with regard to airstrips will be coming under our ministry. Priorities for new road locations will be coming under our ministry, as will the regional priority budget, which we’re now moving into. There’s also our thrust with ICAF for fire protection and the MAC committee, with whom we’re meeting in Atikokan in late September to deal with the northwestern Ontario regional development strategy.

All those things will be fully debatable and they’ll be outlined in great detail during the course of my estimates, but this particular bill is to establish the ministry, to give us the functioning power and the broad mandate to deal with all those areas. This is not the place at this point in time, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, to go into those specifics.

I’m sure the member has read a number of the speeches I have been giving across northern Ontario where I outlined in great detail what our responsibilities will be as I see them. I’d be glad to send him copies of those remarks which go into the specifics he has questioned me on, but they’re there, they’re public and, quite frankly, I say with all sincerity that I hope to expand upon those that have already been announced. I think the member for Rainy River hit on a very good one with regard to NODC, as an example.

I have to say to you, sir, that we’re not stopping with the program that I’ve already announced. We have a mandate and we’re looking at all provincial departments to see what programs they have which are designed solely for north of Parry Sound; and if it’s in the best interests of northern Ontario, we’ll bring them over to Northern Affairs and administer them from our point of view and with the type of input that we want from northern Ontario. We’re not fixed and boxed into the programs I’ve spoken about to date.

Mr. Stokes: Just to pursue this a step further, it says in section 8(a): “preparing and recommending government plans, policies and priorities for northern Ontario.”

I don’t like to be uncharitable with the minister -- we’ve got along very well in the past -- but he talked about airstrips. It was my understanding that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications was going to build an airstrip at Wunnummin Lake and an airstrip at Kingfisher Lake. I asked the Ministry of Transportation and Communications through the office of Russ Killaire what the time-frame was. They told me that it has been pushed back one year because the Minister of Northern Affairs has just taken over responsibility for this and his priority is to establish airstrips at Muskrat Dam Lake and Bearskin Lake.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s not true.

Mr. Stokes: You just got it through.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No.

Mr. Stokes: On what criteria did the minister make that decision to build those two in the riding of Kenora rather than in the riding of Lake Nipigon?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s totally incorrect, Mr. Chairman. The airstrips at Kingfisher and Wunnummin are going ahead.

Mr. Stokes: In 1979.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In 1978.

Mr. Stokes: In 1979!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In 1978.

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute. If I have to believe one of you --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’re looking at another one at Bearskin and at Deer Lake and, because of the poor location at Deer Lake, it will be 1979 or 1980 before we go there. But the ones that were planned, the policies that were established at MTC, are still in place. We’re not changing them. I don’t know where Mr. Killaire got that indication from. Not from me, that’s for sure.

Mr. Stokes: I can send the minister a copy of his letter --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I wish you would.

Mr. Stokes: -- but, as I say, that was probably a cheap shot; however, I used it to highlight the kinds of things that the minister is going to have to do and the approach he’s going to have to take to problems if he’s going to be believable. In other words, a lot of people have said that, with the establishment of this ministry, the Minister of Northern Affairs was going to be the highest paid organizer in all of the province of Ontario. I don’t associate myself with those comments --

Mr. Reid: But he mentioned them just in case.

Mr. Stokes: -- but I want to be assured, and I want to be able to assure everybody in northern Ontario wherever they live, that this minister is going to be sincere and generous and that he is going to be genuine in his affirmation that he is going to look after all of the needs of all of the people in northern Ontario wherever they are, whether in the city of Thunder Bay, whether in small organized communities, or whether in unorganized communities. I’d just like some kind of assurance from the minister, here and now, that these are the kinds of problems that he personally is going to address himself to and pay attention to.

I know that my colleague tried to spell it out in more specific terms in the legislation and it’s been ruled out of order, but I think that we should have at least that kind of assurance from the minister that that’s the way he’s going to approach his new task.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That goes without saying. I think if the hon. member would read some of my speeches, and I --

Mr. Cassidy: What an experience that would be.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- hope he would, the speeches that I made across northern Ontario, that very thrust to which he directed himself was explicit in those speeches -- to look after the needs of all parts of northern Ontario. In fact the bill --

Mr. Stokes: Just to be specific, how sincere and how genuine were you when you announced the construction of a new generating station on the north shore of Georgian Bay, when you know full well that nobody in this government, including the Premier, can make that commitment until the Porter commission brings in its report?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I never announced anything for the north shore. I never did.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Come on, the election is over.

Mr. Stokes: When was the commitment made?

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: On a point of order?

Mr. Wildman: The minister has just said that he never announced anything regarding a generating plant on the north shore. I can give him the exact quote from the June 8 edition of the Sault Ste. Marie Star in which he stated that he would be pushing for the generating plant and he expected it to be located at Dean Lake.

An hon. Member: That wasn’t an announcement.

Mr. Reid: That’s hardly an announcement.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to speak on section 8.

I think that it is unfortunate, and I can’t express the regret that I have that the government and the Liberal Party do not seem intent on creating a really strong Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Reid: Don’t give us that.

Mr. Foulds: That’s true.

Mr. Reid: That’s garbage. You don’t pay any attention to the rules except when they suit you.

Mr. Foulds: Section 8, in my view --

Mr. Reid: Read subsection (b).

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Foulds: Section 8 indicates that the main function of the ministry will be a co-ordinating function. “It is the function of the ministry to coordinate...” That indicates to me that all the ministry will do under the legislation as it is presently outlined is form another level of bureaucracy through which northerners will have to go and that we can do without.

It is a shame that the constructive and positive amendments by my colleague from Sudbury East were not allowed and have not been supported by the other two parties in this House, because that would have given us a real Ministry of Northern Affairs.

An hon. Member: They were out of order.

Mr. Foulds: I suggest to you that I would like the minister to answer this question. How, in this bill, does he have the authority to take the initiatives that he has already taken, for example, in the Cobalt situation, where he directly --

Mr. Reid: Section 8 covers everything.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Of course it does.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: If I understand those two interjections correctly, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask the minister and the member for Rainy River to indicate how co-ordination is another word that stands for the expenditure of funds. If that is so, then we’ll move our amendments under this section and they’ll be in order.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know why they’re carrying on in this manner.

Mr. Foulds: Because we want a real ministry.

Mr. Reid: Their individual insanity has turned into collective insanity.

Hon. Mr. Welch: They are trying to get even. It’s human nature.

Mr. Reid: If the hon. member would read section 8(b): “establishing and administering ministry programs and co-ordinating government programs and services relating to northern Ontario.” I read “establishing and administering ministry programs” to mean, in language that we usually understand, at least in northern Ontario, that you can create a program and you can apply it.

Mr. Foulds: It’s too bad you haven’t got the principle of the bill before you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s in section 10, too, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reid: I don’t understand it. Most members on that side have been here in the House long enough and have been through other bills setting up a ministry where the bill has been set up in very general terms to provide for the outline and the functions of the ministry, and then other bills have come in to support the original bill. Regulations have been passed under the authority of those Acts. But never in any of the bills establishing a ministry have the functions been set out with all the i’s dotted, or all the t’s crossed and so on. This is hardly a new exercise.

I said I am in sympathy with the amendments put by my hon. friend, but I don’t think according to the rules of the Legislature that they were in order in this particular bill. I think we have a commitment from the minister that we are going to have something in support of those programs and policies and priorities that we discussed during second reading --

Mr. Foulds: Have you read the first principal clause? Do you know what --

Mr. Reid: But the authority is there under section 8 to do exactly what we are all talking about.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order. The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly on this section, section 8, we have heard from the member for Rainy River that this section covers everything and that this ministry will have the power to co-ordinate and administer programs in northern Ontario.

Mr. Reid: And establish them.

Mr. Wildman: But I agree with my friend from Lake Nipigon when he says that we need some kind of specific commitment. The minister’s speeches across northern Ontario are not a specific commitment to anything, if the statement made on June 8 to the Sault Star by the minister is an indication of how specific recommendations are going to be made by this ministry. I was told by the Minister of Energy in the estimates last week that that statement cannot be taken as it was taken by everybody who read it. He said that we don’t know what’s going to happen on the north shore or won’t know until the royal commission makes its report -- in 1978 now, rather than late 1977. For the minister to claim he was misquoted -- perhaps he was.

However I run into the same problem as the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) when it comes to airstrips. When the government announces that an airstrip is to be begun in Hornepayne, during the election they even have a sod turning ceremony. Then when I contact MTC I am told that they are not sure when it may go through. They say they are intending for it to go through, but they are not sure if it will go ahead at this time, or at what date it might go ahead.

So I just wonder what kind of co-ordination the minister is exercising and has exercised, and what relationship he has with other government programs and the other ministries in northern Ontario. We need something more concrete than what we have here, because the record so far isn’t too encouraging.

Mr. Lane: Didn’t even want a ministry to start with.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What the hon. members refer to has all been stated. I have stated our position very, very clearly and strongly and I think to go ahead now would just be a repetition. If you just read Hansard it’s there, as clearly as I can put it. If we just get on with the job of giving us the authority of establishing this ministry, then our goals and our objectives will be achieved. There is no question about that.

Mr. Hennessy: Being a resident of northern Ontario -- and I have been there quite a few years -- I can see the concern of the members from northern Ontario. But it seems that the opposition want to kill the program before it even gets off the ground. They are bringing in different resolutions, and different recommendations. They are all motherhood ones. They sound very good.

Mr. Chairman: I would remind the member that we are not on the amendments. We are now on section 8.

Mr. Hennessy: I think it’s a good program. I support it 100 per cent and I think if you give it a chance to get off the ground, I am sure the minister will look into this and to the problems that are expressed here today.

Mr. Renwick: That’s a really significant contribution.

Mr. Foulds: I’d like to make a small amendment, with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, to section 8. I move to insert the words “and initiate policies and programs for” after the words “activities of” in the second line of section 8 and before the words “the government in.” It would then read: “It is the function of the ministry to co-ordinate the activities of and initiate policies and programs for the government in northern Ontario.”

[5:15]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is in section 8 already, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deans: If what the minister interjects were to be considered to be true, then of course the entire sentence stating it is the function of the ministry to co-ordinate the activities is redundant in itself, since the other matters spell specifically what the ministry is intended to do. What we are trying to do is make it clear that the ministry has not only a co-ordinating function, but in addition to that it has the responsibility for the initiation of the policies and programs. Otherwise, it says that the ministry simply co-ordinates.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I will place the motion.

Mr. Foulds moves to insert the words “and initiate policies and programs for” after the words “activities of’ and before the words “the government in” in line 2 of section 8.

Mr. Foulds: If I might speak to the motion, Mr. Chairman. As the objection I expressed previously that the principal clause in section 8 states only “to co-ordinate,” I just simply want to strengthen that initial clause so that the subsequent parts of the bill will have the effect that the minister indicates he wants them to have.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would just briefly say that if that is the interest of the minister to have that initiating ability with respect to this bill, then the amendment would seem most reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I may just comment, section 10 reads: “Upon the recommendation of the minister,” which is, of course initiation, “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may establish programs that benefit the residents of northern Ontario.” So the ministry has the capacity; it’s already there. It is not necessary in section 8.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments regarding the amendment?

All those in favour of Mr. Foulds’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

This motion will also be stacked.

Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Martel: I have just a comment on section 11. It really bothers me. I considered trying to delete that. One of the reasons why I moved the community council was that it would have allowed us to delete that section. I don’t want to be unkind really in this last day for the House leader, but I can see that being abused. Knowing the minister’s track record, that causes me some fear about the types of appointments he would make. He might take his friends fishing into an area that is not allowed, and that sort of thing for which this minister is noted.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Please don’t be political. That is your fear.

Mr. Renwick: It is very real too and he knows it. That’s why he is smiling.

Mr. Martel: That is really carte blanche to appoint every Tory hack from here to Hoboken and back to some study.

Mr. Cunningham: At least you’d know where they are.

Mr. Martel: You’ve got them all in northern Ontario, the mayors who all got defeated last time. I won’t name them as the minister knows. It really worries me how that can be abused. I am tempted to move that we delete it.

Mr. Cunningham: It is safer than probation.

Mr. Martel: As I say, the minister’s track record is different from what that says. You know, “subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council” -- which is the cabinet -- “the minister may establish advisory committees to the minister and subcommittees thereto, appoint chairmen and members of such committees and subcommittees, fix the terms of reference of such committees and subcommittees, and fix the remuneration and expenses of the chairmen and members of such committees and subcommittees.”

I want to tell you that I would trust a town hall meeting to elect people to do the studies a heck of a lot more than I do this minister. I’m sorry to be so blunt. I’d take my chances with the local people back home coming up with a group rather than what that’s going to open the door to. That’s the floodgate.

It really bothers me and I want to put that on the record because I think the minister himself should eliminate that section. He might move to delete it because it just, unfortunately, is that grab-bag which allows all of the defeated friends and the friends of the defeated friends and the friends of the friends --

Mr. Renwick: Why don’t you, in an act of good faith, grant the omission of that clause? Just as an act of good faith?

Mr. Martel: Yes. It really bothers me.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: I didn’t want to give him that power to appoint a bunch of people. I wanted to leave it to the local people and I wanted to leave it to the civil servants.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: I didn’t want it to come under this minister. Because I’ve been around too long.

[Applause].

Mr. Kennedy: That’s accurate.

Mr. Lane: Careful or we are going to run you.

Mr. Martel: Well, I’ll tell you. You people won’t defeat me, never. You know, you’re still 9,100 behind --

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member have anything further on section 11?

Mr. Martel: -- and that’s a long way back.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Does the hon. member have anything further on section 11?

Mr. Martel: Well, I won’t, Mr. Chairman. I think I should remove it, but in the spirit of esprit de corps, I’ll leave it.

Mr. Renwick: Surely the minister will move the deletion.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can’t let the hon. member’s comment go unchallenged, because during the course of the debate on second reading of this bill and certainly during the course of my comments this afternoon, I hope my thrust has been input. If there ever was a ministry that is going to rely on input, it’s going to be this ministry, I can tell you that right now.

Mr. Renwick: You are magnificent, you really are. Your input. Input -- and you select the people who are going to give the input.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And that will allow the type of northern input that you --

Mr. Renwick: You are going to select them all. You are going to select them and pay them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- that you want, really. If you want that involvement, if you want that advice, certainly it’s got to come from those people out there and those advisory boards and from people who want to contribute. I think this is a very valuable section that will allow the ministry to go and get the advice from those experts who live in northern Ontario, really.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right, they will all be miniature Leos -- small lions.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And I’m surprised, I’m really surprised that the member would stand in his place and ask that this be deleted. Really. Because I do believe he believes in input. I know he does. And I think he just misconstrued it for political reasons only. He has that fear --

Mr. Martel: It is all politically motivated.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, he knows that. He can’t help but laugh about it. He knows what it is.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can’t accept it and I just want to say that we will use this to get the input of northerners to make sure that we as legislators do what northerners really want us to do.

Mr. Martel: A horrible section.

Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on any section of the bill? If not, we have two votes which have been stacked. I now call in the members. I would remind the members this is a 10-minute bell.

The committee divided on Mr. Martel’s motion to insert a preamble in the bill, which was negated on the following vote:

Ayes 28; nays 68.

The committee divided on Mr. Foulds’s amendment to section 8, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes 96; nays 0.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Bill 21, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendment and asked for leave to sit again.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 21, An Act to establish The Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before calling the next order I wonder if the House would agree to revert to motions, because I want to make a change in the resources development committee.

Agreed to.

MOTION

RESOURCES COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Messrs. Ashe and Belanger replace Messrs. Rollins and McNeil on the resources development standing committee.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PEEL MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. J. A. Taylor moved second reading of Bill 56, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in The Regional Municipality of Peel.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Mr. Conway: He is glad to have visitors.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: This bill establishes new municipal hydro-electric commissions for each area municipality -- Brampton, Mississauga and Caledon. As the principles established by this legislation could set the pattern for other municipal utilities, it has been extensively reviewed by the provincial steering committee, Ontario Hydro, TEIGA and the Ministry of Energy, in consultation with the local study team, the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee.

The provisions of this bill have been, in general, agreed upon by these groups.

All customers within Brampton and Mississauga will be supplied with power by their new commissions. Customers within Caledon presently served by Ontario Hydro will continue to be served by Ontario Hydro until the Caledon council directs the Caledon Hydro-Electric Commission to expand its service area from the former town of Bolton to the Caledon municipal boundaries. This will become mandatory when a Caledon-wide municipal utility becomes financially viable according to prescribed criteria.

May I again say that I wish to commend the local study team, the restructuring steering committee, their staff and Ontario Hydro for their endeavours in this regard.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thought that both these bills, the one for Waterloo and the one for Peel, would come in together. The one for Waterloo, I understand, will follow immediately upon this and so the notes that I have made with regard to these bills refer to both the bills.

I certainly deem it a privilege to be able to speak to this bill and the one following, because I had the privilege of being a member of the study team in the regional municipality of Waterloo. We worked for two years on trying to bring in a report and now it looks like that work will come to fruition.

I am particularly pleased too that the bill for the regional municipality of Waterloo will be introduced today because, as all of the members know, there is a historical highlight that is associated with this in that in the city of Kitchener in 1910 the lights were first turned on by using the hydro power from Niagara.

Mr. Nixon: Adam Beck did it.

Mr. Conway: Is that when the lights were turned out on the Tories permanently?

Mr. Epp: Both of these bills were based on the Hogg report, otherwise known as the Restructuring of Public Utilities Report, of February 8, 1974. The committee brought that report in after being appointed on August 13, 1973. They proposed ways to integrate different utilities in municipalities. There is a considerable need for this restructuring because of the urban growth in the various municipalities. This is true in Peel as well as in Waterloo.

I know that in my own municipality of the city of Waterloo the population doubled about every 12 years, which is fairly significant, being one of the fastest growing areas in Canada. The restructuring also followed the regional government in various areas, including Peel and Waterloo.

It’s particularly encouraging that the government has learned from regional restructuring because of the way that they went about and appointed the local committees. I think, to be sure, they appointed some local people on the restructuring committee and this is a significant improvement over the commissioners who were appointed for regional government. The people who were appointed were local politicians from the regional council, some were local people on the hydro commissions, and thirdly, they were people from the labour union movement.

[5:45]

The difference too here is that once the restructuring occurs these people will be living in the community and will know what kind of positive aspects take place. That’s different from the regional restructuring where once the commissioner gave his report he left town.

I’m prepared and my party’s prepared to support both of these bills. I’m happy to say there was a considerable amount of public input into the various reports that went to the provincial steering committee, to the Hydro board and to the government of the day. The committee felt there was a considerable amount of urgency in the restructuring. First of all, there were 13 utilities in the regional municipality of Waterloo, including one for each of the various municipalities, plus Ontario Hydro. What they essentially did is reduce these to three utility commissions. The largest utility in the region of Waterloo will be servicing about 45,000 homes and that’s a far cry from what currently is occurring where a utility might only serve a few hundred homes.

An important aspect here too is that the rates will be more equitably distributed in the region. At the moment, the rural areas that have been annexed to the urban areas are particularly upset with the high rates they’re paying and they see no logical reason why these rates should be significantly higher than the urban areas. With the restructuring, there will be a redistribution of the rate structure and, I think, a more equitable distribution.

In both Peel and Waterloo, according to the Hogg report, we had two choices, both a lower tier and an upper tier. We had the opportunity of expanding on this. What happened in the regional municipality of Waterloo was that we actually selected a third alternative which meant, rather than have seven for the seven municipalities, we are going to end up with three of them. I might also say that of the various groups that submitted briefs 22 chose the third alternative, eight chose the lower-tier alternative, two of which as their second choice had the third alternative or the three utilities, and no one chose the upper tier or the one that corresponds with the regional boundaries.

One of the three utilities then will be Waterloo, Wellesley and Woolwich. Kitchener and Wilmot will be another. And this is important because of the fact that maybe for once the city of Kitchener is going to return something to Wilmot in the form of power and so forth as opposed to always taking -- and the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) knows this -- water away from Wilmot as it has been doing for years.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just be careful what you say.

Mr. Epp: I think the people of Wilmot will feel somewhat repaid by this. Then there’s the third utility -- and they don’t necessarily go in this order. There’s the one in Cambridge, which brings into play Preston, Galt, Hespeler and North Dumfries. This is particularly important because of the fact that in Cambridge, in one municipality of about 75,000 people, they’ve had three local utilities servicing the city, plus Ontario Hydro.

I’m particularly disappointed that in Peel this report has seen fit in one way to violate the Hogg guidelines. However, my party is prepared to support this bill as it is now proposed, irrespective of this. I know that in the municipality of Waterloo our bill might have been slightly different had we known about this earlier. However, we’ll leave it the way it is. I venture to guess too that had we had this data and had a local study team help restructure the region four or five years ago, we would not have the two-tier structure in the municipality as we now do but rather we would have larger municipalities, maybe four or five of them, which would serve the area rather than have the duplication which is now evident with regional government.

I would also have liked to have seen the minister recommended the appointment of all members of the new utilities by the councils rather than have the option of the councils appointing people to these utilities or having them elected. Had they all been appointed by the municipalities, this would have been in sympathy with local accountability, a principle that many people in this House have supported, where the council is responsible and where the public has a clear perception of who is responsible for the various services. It would also have been in sympathy with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s position on this matter.

Thirdly, I might note that in the Robarts report, which came out about a week or so ago, on page 106, Hon. Mr. Robarts recommended in point 6.4 that “local governmental functions be the responsibilities of municipal councils. The statutory provisions for all special-purpose bodies now operating within Metropolitan Toronto and its constituent municipalities, with the exception of boards of education, be removed and the authority of these bodies assigned to their respective councils.”

If these members were appointed by the councils -- the councils have that opportunity, and I hope they exercise it -- then they wouldn’t have local elections and that probably would mean more accountability and save the people some tax money.

I am also happy to note that this bill corrects an oversight that was evident in the restructured bill, 167, dealing with the regional municipality of Waterloo, and in a number of other regional bills. In that bill one of the sections says that the mayors can stay on the local utilities commission even after they are removed from office in one way or another -- if they resign or lose their positions through election. This is particularly important because I know that in our own case, in the regional municipality of Waterloo, there were a number of people who lost in the election of 1974 and then stayed on the hydro commission.

I have a note here with respect to mayors on PUCs, and I have been informed that as a result of the redrawn boundaries of Milton in the region of Halton, the current mayor of Milton now sits on and is remunerated for three PUCs -- Burlington, Oakville and Milton. The amount of remuneration may not be that great but a duplication of services certainly is evident, and I think this bill will correct that and some of the mayors who have been sitting on PUC or hydro bodies for the last number of years will, as a result of this, not be able to remain on those bodies.

I would like to see the minister bring in legislation or take action to see that the other mayors in other regions are removed from the hydro utilities, because they are really there by default and they know they shouldn’t be there; in fact, they are on the utilities by a fluke in the legislation and, as a result, the people in the various regions have to pay extra money for extra people on these commissions when they weren’t intended to be on.

The various regions are happy for the special startup grants that the government has promised them. I know in the region of Waterloo it is going to total about $219,000, and this will help tide them over during the transition period which will mean additional costs. The line of credit established by the Ontario Hydro equal to the maximum of one month’s working funds of the new utility at Ontario Hydro’s current borrowing rate will also come to fruition, I understand, and that will help during the transition period.

I am very pleased to have had the opportunity of speaking on this bill, to see it going through today, because it means that on January 1, 1978, the two municipalities will then have restructured utilities. Various people have waited with -- well, to over-dramatize it, I would have to say with bated breath. It hasn’t been quite that, but I know the various politicians and the people in the utilities have been anxious to have these bills pass in this House, and this party would be pleased to support it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Conway: Mel, some of us want to eat.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of the time and the desire of this House to prorogue, but I must say to you and to the House that I and my party are a little annoyed at the proceedings to deal with the Peel bill at this time. I suggest it is an unusual proceeding when it amounts to a rather substantial change of policy on the part of the government. Therefore I intend to speak to this bill for at least a short period of time, even though we may support it in the end.

Let me say at the outset that we are in support of the Waterloo restructuring bill and we are spending very little time on that. But the circumstances surrounding the Peel bill are substantially different, and I want to deal with those principles. I want to deal with the sequence leading to this bill that is before us here today -- in fact leading to both bills that are here before us, but more particularly the one on Peel.

The restructuring of the hydro commissions, I guess, was initiated first by the Smith commission in its recommendations about 10 years ago and as a result of that when new regional governments were formed, including the Niagara regional government, they froze the hydro commissions at that time, back in 1969.

Subsequent to that there was Task Force Hydro, which was established by the government and first reported August 15, 1972. It proposed a dramatic reduction in the number of hydro commissions in this province.

Following that the Hogg committee was appointed; it reported in 1974 with recommendations as to the procedures and the policies to follow in the restructuring of the hydro commissions. The Minister of Energy at that time did a study of that and made recommendations which were to be the procedures and the policies for the restructuring of Hydro in Ontario. He made that report in 1975.

The minister has already mentioned this in a somewhat different context but it is significant that his ministry and that committee consulted -- and I am reading here -- with the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, the Association of Municipal Electric Utilities, the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee, the Canadian Union of Public Employees 1000, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The minister brought forth a large number of recommendations of which the first was, Mr. Speaker, and I read as follows: “Recommendation No. 1: Where the local authorities desire to restructure the electric distribution system serving areas or regions covered by regional government, such restructuring will be conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Hogg committee report as amended by the Ministry of Energy.”

One of the fundamental recommendations of that report was as follows: “That the responsibility for the retailing of electricity should continue and expand at the municipal level and” -- this is a significant sentence -- “further, throughout any area defined by municipal boundaries there should be one retail authority.” That was the policy of the Hogg committee which was adopted by the Minister of Energy at that time. Following that, there was a steering committee appointed by the government which was to deal with the local study committees and make recommendations to the government and those concerned. Then local study teams were appointed in a number of areas, including Waterloo and Niagara and, subsequently, Peel.

Then last April there was a bill tabled to reorganize Waterloo in conformity with the Hogg report and government policy. The election intervened and that bill was not dealt with. Then that bill, along with the bill for restructuring of the hydro commissions in Peel and a policy statement by the minister to change -- a significant thing -- the guidelines, were all tabled in this House last Friday. The significant change was that prior to that time the policy had been that any commission must conform to municipal boundaries. There would not be more than one hydro distribution authority in a municipality.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: I presume you’d like me to move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: No, not necessarily. This may be a convenient place for the hon. member to break his remarks, though. I presume we’ll rise to recognize the clock.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.