The House resumed at 8 p.m.

PEEL MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner break I had briefly traced the hydro-electric commission restructuring program up to the introduction of the two bills, the Waterloo bill and the Peel bill which were tabled Friday last, and the place of the steering committee in the overall restructuring. Of those two bills the Waterloo bill, of course, conformed to the guidelines and generally to the views of the steering committee. But the Peel bill we are considering now did not.

There was one fundamental revision in that bill -- one fundamental difference to the Waterloo bill and to the guidelines and to the policy of the steering committee and the Hogg report. That was that it would permit more than one hydro-electric distribution system within the boundaries of a municipality. So the minister, to overcome that, tabled new guidelines. Perhaps I can quote briefly from them where he stated that:

“Where it is decided locally as part of a regional overview that a municipality cannot yet support a viable utility to serve all of its residents, then Ontario Hydro’s rural system may continue to serve those parts of that municipality which it now serves, the municipal council being given the responsibility to decide when the municipal hydro-electric utility should extend its service area. In the interim the council would review electrical supply at least every three years and a unified municipal utility would operate any pre-existing municipal electric systems.”

As I say, that was rather a wide departure from the previous policies and the policies of the government bodies. I would point out that a rather dramatic change was made without prior consultation with all of the other organizations as had been the case when they had set up the previous guidelines. I would also point out that the background of those changes is one of real controversy in the bodies associated with the government, particularly the steering committee.

Let me read, Mr. Speaker, the letter from the chairman of the steering committee to the board of directors of Ontario Hydro, dated May 18, 1977. I won’t read the whole letter, but I want to read pertinent parts of it. He states:

“An advance copy of the local study team recommendations” -- he is referring here to Peel, of course -- “had been provided on April 7, 1977, to the steering committee for its prior examination so that the process necessary for approval might be expedited. Based on these reports the steering committee prepared a commentary, and following established procedure submitted this to the local study team on April 25, 1977.

“In so doing, the steering committee afforded the local study team the opportunity of discussing the commentary prior to formal submission to the board of Ontario Hydro. In fact, the steering committee offered to meet with the local study team if so desired. However, it is also stated that as no such request had been received by May 9, both the commentary and the Peel region reports will be forwarded in their entirety to the board of Ontario Hydro.

“A meeting was initially requested by the chairman of the local study team for May 2 to indicate that its objective was to seek a compromise which would be acceptable to all parties. This meeting was subsequently cancelled by the vice-chairman of the local study team who indicated there was no further need for such a meeting. On May 4, 1977, the Hon. James Taylor, Minister of Energy, announced that he concurred with the recommendations of the local study team and indicated that appropriate legislation would be introduced early in the next session of the Legislature. It is significant that the Minister of Energy adopted in its entirety the Peel local study team recommendations without the benefit of the report flowing through the approved channels. A copy of this announcement is included with this submission.

“Notwithstanding this announcement, which embodies a concept that is in conflict with provincial guidelines, the steering committee in accordance with its terms of reference as approved by the board of Ontario Hydro submits herewith its commentary and the local study team recommendations for electrical utility restructuring in Peel region. With the exception of recommendations 2 and 3, the Peel local study team report appears to be a copy of the Waterloo local study team report. The essence of recommendations 2 and 3 calls for the creation of two new utilities, one to serve the city of Mississauga and the other the city of Brampton. The town of Caledon would retain the status quo, continuing to be served by Ontario Hydro and the Bolton Hydro.

“The steering committee takes no exception to the formation of new utilities in Brampton and Mississauga. But to allow the town of Caledon to remain as it is has very substantial implications locally and in other areas under study. The Peel report ignores the advantages to the Caledon customers of an upper-tier utility structure. Further, it denies the over 6,000 customers outside the Old Bolton boundaries of the initial advantages of a lower-tier utility. It also denies the long-term advantages which would ensue through the provision of a lower-tier organization to all customers in the town. It does nothing to resolve or lessen the existing disparity of rates and service conditions.

“It must, therefore, be assumed that pressure will continue to be applied from the rural customers located on the periphery of Old Bolton seeking a more favourable municipal rate. Therefore, the Peel local study team report fails insofar as Caledon is concerned in meeting either the principles or the guidelines of restructuring. Although the resource group report indicates that there would be advantages if a lower-tier utility was formed in the town of Caledon, the Peel local study fails to recognize this alternative.

“The steering committee can only conclude, without evidence to the contrary, that the Peel local study team rejected all other alternative solutions before selecting the retention of the status quo in Caledon, an alternative which is contrary to government policy as spelled out in the approved guidelines. The local study team’s minutes and the resource group report document that upper-tier and lower-tier utility structures were studied and found to be viable. The steering committee, therefore, cannot accept the findings of the Peel report as submitted as it contains elements contrary to the steering committee’s terms of reference and the approved guidelines.”

That’s the end of that letter, Mr. Speaker.

So there was real conflict there. The steering committee submitted its 20-page commentary almost totally critical of the study team recommendations in Peel. The commentary is also included here. Everyone will be glad to hear that I am not going to quote the whole thing, by any means, but I think it is important to put some of it into the record.

They say, for instance, that “historically the development of municipal utilities was encouraged to the extent that legislation, section 68 of The Power Corporation Act, permitted the establishment of utilities in high density segments of townships which financially could not afford an electrical utility for the total municipality. In respect to the Peel proposal on the retention of the Bolton service area within the town of Caledon, it should be noted that the aforementioned legislation was amended in 1951 to no longer permit the establishment of an isolated area within a municipality nor the expansion of such an area.”

Further, this report states: “In addition to the traditionally higher rates charged to customers in the rural system there are other differences between rural and municipal customers which should be noted and considered, particularly in areas such as Caledon, which seem willing to accept two authorities supplying retail service within the one municipality.”

It goes on to talk about the study and says this: “It is unfortunate that the Peel restructuring study did not include early contact with the special public and community groups. Had there been a buildup of information during the 16 months the study was under way, there would likely have been more interest shown in the public participation process. The communications process employed in Peel is deemed as inadequate to ensure satisfactory publicity and a reasonable response from the public. It appears to have been a question of too little, too late with insufficient time for proper planning and arrangements.”

Finally, the report of the steering committee deals with the implications of the Peel recommendations and says this: “Acceptance by Ontario Hydro and the provincial government of the Peel recommendations, particularly those relating to retention of the status quo in Caledon, will have far-reaching effects both locally and provincially.”

The Peel report ignores the advantages to the Caledon customers of an upper-tier utility structure. Further, it denies the over 6,000 customers outside the Old Bolton boundaries the initial advantages of a lower-tier utility. It also denies the long-term advantages which would ensue through the provision of a lower-tier organization to all customers in the town.

“It does nothing to resolve or lessen the existing disparity of rates and service conditions. It must therefore be assumed that pressure will continue to be applied from the rural customers, located on the periphery of the Old Bolton seeking a more favourable municipal rate.

Therefore, the Peel local study team report failed insofar as Caledon is concerned in meeting either the principles or the guidelines of restructuring. Although the resource group report indicates that there would be advantages if a lower-tier utility was formed in the town of Caledon, the Peel local study fails to recognize this alternative and insofar as Caledon fails to meet either the principles or the intent of restructuring.

“Lacking a rational or supportive data on the recommendation for Caledon, the steering committee is of the opinion that to accept this recommendation requires that one of the basic ground rules for restructuring be abandoned. The Peel report suggests the high-density core areas of the region, because of antipathy towards upper-tier services, are prepared to deny the more sparsely populated sectors the advantages of an upper-tier structure.”

In summary, it says: “The steering committee can only conclude, without evidence to the contrary, that the Peel local study team rejected all other alternative solutions before selecting the retention of the status quo in Caledon, an alternative which is contrary to both the intent and letter of government policy as spelled out in the approved guidelines. The local study team’s minutes and the resource group report document that upper-tier and lower-tier utility structures were studied and found to be viable. The steering committee cannot accept the findings of the Peel report as submitted, as it contains elements contrary to the committee’s terms of reference and the approved guidelines.”

That is a pretty clear indication of the steering committee’s views of the local study team’s proposals for the restructuring in Peel.

A reply was sent on June 30 by Ontario Hydro, signed by the chairman, Mr. R. B. Taylor, to the Hon. James Taylor. It said, in part -- and I’m only going to quote part of it: “At its meeting of June 13, 1977, the Hydro board considered the attached report and recommendations for restructuring electrical distribution utilities in the regional municipality of Peel. You will note from the covering letter that the steering committee found itself unable to endorse the findings of the Peel report, as it contains elements contrary to the committee’s terms of reference in the implementation of the guidelines for the restructuring of municipal utilities, dated February 11, 1975.

[8:15]

“The board agreed with the steering committee’s position. Nevertheless, it directed that in accordance with your announcement of May 4, 1977, I forward the report to you. As you know, this unusual situation raises questions as to the manner in which restructuring is to be carried forward elsewhere and as to the role of the steering committee and the Hydro secretariat devoted to this work. In this connection, I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Baldwin’s letter of June 9, 1977, indicating the committee’s position.”

The letter goes on to say: “In our view, the original objectives, improved cost effectiveness and fairness in the distribution of electricity across the province, continue to be most important. Unless we can continue to work within a common set of guidelines and procedures, effective progress is unlikely and continuation of substantial expenditures on this function will not be warranted in excess of $1 million per year.” Then they go on further to make three recommendations, the last of which says: “Subsequent restructuring includes the entire area within established municipal boundaries as a general policy from there on in.”

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, we have to make a decision on Peel three days after guidelines have been tabled, when there’s been no consultation with regard to this major change in guidelines and where there has been strong objections from the minister’s own steering committee and from Ontario Hydro. Granted that it may be said this bill incorporates the local wishes -- and I don’t deny that, these are the local wishes perhaps of the majority of people -- and granted that it can be said there’s need to deal with it now so that it can be implemented at the first of next year, however, I question that if it was so important then it should have been dealt with and tabled last spring.

It may even be said that this policy is a good one. I’m not sure at this time whether the change is good or bad.

Mr. Grossman: More or less.

Mr. Kennedy: Ask the minister.

Mr. Mackenzie: Are you going to trust him?

Mr. Grossman: Read the debate.

Mr. Swart: It can be reviewed every three years, and that’s one of the problems. The bill says a municipality shall review it every three years. I suggest that doesn’t mean very much. One might even say now that the steering committee and Ontario Hydro perhaps have moderated their objection but if it is moderated, it’s only moderated to a minimum degree. I can say with absolute assurance that what we have here is a fundamental change in principle that ought to have adequate debate and ought to have adequate consultation before we are dealing with it here.

The precedent, effectively adopting the new guidelines, can really put all of the restructuring back to square one because if we permit one, two or more distribution services within the municipality, then the government could lift the freeze on Niagara, as an example, and everything would be exactly the way it was eight years ago before it put the freeze on. What I’m saying is that surely we in this opposition should have the right, even if the minister didn’t want it, of time to consult, to examine thoroughly and to present the views and to hear and present the views of the steering committee and the Ontario Hydro to our caucuses. I just say that I think this is a deplorable way of conducting the public business.

Mr. Kennedy: I would like to speak briefly to this. The existing legislation provides that any change in the utilities’ structure would be made -- the terminology is “at the pleasure of the minister.” This means it can go on and on and on with great difficulty, not knowing when and if changes will be made and, if they are, whether they would encompass the whole area or one section of the Peel region.

As a former commissioner of our local utilities commission, I have some knowledge and understanding of this and of the numerous meetings that have taken place over many years in preparation for the stage that we find ourselves at now.

I would agree with the hon. member, because it’s a fact, there has been some variation from the steering committee report. I don’t think in the overall that this is a major thing to get ourselves all exercised about. There has been no imposition of legislation to restructure Peel -- there wasn’t when regional government was established, despite what we might hear from others.

Mr. Mackenzie: Was it in Hamilton-Wentworth?

Mr. Kennedy: I wasn’t talking Hamilton-Wentworth; that is apart from the principle of the bill.

This restructuring was worked out by mutual agreement through a lot of hard work by interested individuals. The bill provides for sound administration of hydro affairs. I think this is the overriding theme. The principle is here for a commission to be renewed periodically and through democratic fashion, either through election or by the people of the various municipalities. This is much better than it is now. Again, I say, this is overriding.

There can be changes to this legislation as time goes on, as the areas mature, as the transitional period takes place and, over a few years, periodically, as is necessary, these changes can be made.

I’m particularly pleased that there has been provided in the legislation a transitional period. I’m pleased also with the makeup of the commissions, with the provision for replacement in democratic fashion, as I say, either through election or appointment in the years ahead.

In our own area in Mississauga, I’m particularly pleased they took into account the existing three utilities -- Mississauga, the former Toronto Township, Port Credit and Streetsville. I think it’s been very thoughtfully done when there’s provision made for a commissioner to come from Port Credit and from Streetsville; the others can be from Mississauga or over the whole area. I think it’s been very well put together. It will make for equity - across the area, across the Peel region over the years ahead.

It’s high time this was introduced. I commend the minister for bringing it forward. I’m glad we had the extra day or two in the House here which gave us the opportunity to bring this bill forward. I’m glad it’s in place; we’ll have time now for the commissions to go to work and be prepared when it comes into effect. I commend the minister and the commissions for bringing it forward.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: May I, first of all, thank the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) for his very constructive overview, the perspective he has put on on this bill --

Mr. Sweeney: We have the best ones over here.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- and bringing to this House his own personal experience and expertise in regard to this whole matter of restructuring a public utilities commission. I know that he has personally served on a local restructuring committee. I think the remarks and the overview that he has afforded the House have been very helpful indeed.

There was some concern expressed by the member for Waterloo North, which was magnified somewhat by the member for Welland-Thorold, and that was in connection with the flexibility exercise in regard to the principles as enunciated by Hogg.

Another matter of concern was whether the commissioners should be appointed or whether they should be elected by the people at large. That has been a continuing problem. The relationship, as indicated in the reference to the Robarts report and in that respect again the consideration of special- purpose bodies, as well as the ultimate responsibility of the local municipal council in regard to those bodies, is certainly something that has been debated for a number of decades. It is an area that we considered carefully and left to the local council to determine whether that would be by appointment or by election at the local level. I think that’s a fair resolution of that problem.

I would say to my friend from Welland-Thorold that the material he read in his submission is not quite current, in that we did indeed meet with the chairman of the steering committee on June 30, which was subsequent to the correspondence that was read. We discussed these issues and, after describing what the problems were and the need for some potential for flexibility, the chairman concurred and endorsed that deviation or flexibility as manifested in a statement that I made in the House on July 8.

Mr. Swart: It is not all happiness there.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Surely, if the hon. member. really has a commitment to individual problems in his own community, he will appreciate that there’s a need for consideration of those anomalies as they occur throughout the province; he will concur that there should not be a rigidity that frustrates the implementation of an overall plan to restructure utilities commissions to make them more equitable in terms of delivering electrical power to the consumers in the communities.

My friend from Welland-Thorold may well think, whether one is dealing with regional government or utilities commissions, that these things should be imposed from above. I disagree with that. I think it’s essential that you communicate with the people who are going to be affected. If there is some variation, if there is some minor deviation or flexibility, then all right, so be it; let’s accommodate the wishes of the local people. I don’t apologize for that.

Mr. Warner: The local people want you to resign.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s got to be the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere again. It’s the only word he knows. He’s got a limited vocabulary.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It was for that reason that I suggested this flexibility. The member is right; it will apply to others. As a matter of fact, I met with the delegation from the Waterloo area to explain to them that we were introducing this flexibility or openness to give them a chance to review and reconsider the position they had taken, as manifested in the earlier bill that was introduced in this House. We gave them the opportunity to consider that maybe the rules have changed a little bit and asked: “Now do you want to proceed with this bill or do you not want to proceed with this bill?” And they were unanimously in favour of proceeding with the bill.

[8:30]

I think that’s a principle we will have to apply right across this province, if we are going to accomplish the restructuring that is necessary. This has been going on for at least two years, and the members will notice these are the first two bills to come out of that. I think that establishes something -- that it is necessary to be responsive to the local wishes. It was for that reason --

Mr. McClellan: Stop while you are ahead.

Mr. Kerrio: Jim, we are going to pass it.

Mr. Warner: Is this better than being useful?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- that I introduced those changes and I certainly don’t apologize for that. That is a principle that I think we are going to have to deal with. As a matter of fact, it is a principle that the member for Welland-Thorold himself wishes in terms of a delegation that met with him in regard to the need for some fresh approach or flexibility in his own area.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

WATERLOO ELECTRICAL SERVICE AREAS ACT

Hon. J. A. Taylor moved second reading of Bill 55, An Act to establish Electrical Service Areas in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment very briefly. My remarks that I made earlier with respect to the Peel bill also apply to this bill. I was pleased to be able to work on the restructuring committee, and my party supports the bill.

Mr. Swart: Very briefly.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s a switch, that’s a switch.

Mr. Renwick: Will the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick get into his own seat before he comments in this House?

Mr. Swart: As I have already stated, Mr. Speaker, we very much support this bill in principle.

There are two or three comments that I want to make on the bill. I have a little concern about the implementation of section 2(9) whereby the majority of the members of any commission may not be members of council. My concern is that the council that beats the other council to the gun may be able to appoint another member of council, and then the other councils in that commission will not, because that will make a majority of members of council. I would think that some thought should be given to working that out so that a problem doesn’t evolve in that regard.

Recognizing what the Minister of Energy said, I note that section 2(13) states the remuneration of the commissioners shall be subject to the approval of Ontario Hydro. When this is the first restructuring bill -- or perhaps the second if you count Peel -- it would seem to me that that authority should have been left with the local municipalities to let them determine, in the interests of local autonomy, what the members of that commission should receive.

Mr. Gregory: You have never been in Peel

-- you would never know.

Mr. Davidson: The minister finished saying the same thing.

Mr. Warner: Apologize for waking him up.

Mr. Swart: I think, Mr. Speaker, there may be some difficulty in section 6(2) with regard to the appointment of the auditors, where there has to be unanimity. I think it might have arrived at some procedure that would have made it easier to appoint the auditors.

Finally, on both this bill and the previous bill, I wonder why all full-time employees at the time of the passing of the bill are not taken care of, rather than just from January 1 of this year when they are assured of positions and to be considered in the new restructured utility.

Mr. Sweeney: Just once again like everyone else I will speak very briefly. This bill concerns my riding. I have three areas of the riding that have been annexed to the city of Kitchener since 1972-73 and have been paying a different hydro rate from the rest of the city. The constituents in that area have made it very clear to me they feel this is unfair. This bill will resolve that particular injustice, and I am quite happy to support it.

I am also reasonably sure that my constituents in Wilmot township will be equally happy to see that the good citizens of Kitchener will help them pay their hydro bills and consequently, I’m happy to support that.

Mr. Speaker: Any other comments on this bill? The hon. minister then.

An hon. member: Why don’t you just repeat the first speech?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The bill reflects the will of the local people. I think generally everyone is in support of the bill. The area municipalities do indeed fix the compensation in terms of payment of salaries to the commissioners. The effective date is January 1, and all of the rights of the employees are protected in the bill in terms of sick leave, retirement benefits and so on.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 55, An Act to establish Electrical Service Areas in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to be quite brief in commenting on this bill but I wanted to say a couple of words on it. As the select committee on the Legislature and on the reports of the fourth and fifth reports of the Camp commission stated, the members are always in an invidious position when it comes to initiating increases in their own salary. There has certainly been an enormous concern about the salary position that members have suffered. Obviously we welcome this bill, even though we deplore the time that it took, the four years that it took before this bill was brought before the House.

I don’t want to say it at length, but I think that as far as members on this side of the House are concerned we feel unhappy and somewhat bitter about the attitude taken by the Premier (Mr. Davis) in relation to the members of the Legislature. During the 1975 election campaign, the Premier made a pledge about members’ salaries. It was not -- the Globe to the contrary notwithstanding -- a pledge which was shared by the leaders of the other two parties or by the other parties. Despite the very difficult economic situation in which members were put and despite the very severe inflation which was just hitting members very hard at that particular time, the Premier chose to stick to his pledge to the bitter end. I have to express for the record regrets about that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It was to his credit.

Mr. Cassidy: I think it was wrong to put members under that kind of economic pressure. There was a time when the Premier as a member of the Legislature should have acknowledged his responsibility and duty to his fellow members of the Legislature, regardless of party, and should have been prepared to admit that he made a mistake in taking that particular pledge.

Mr. Gregory: He didn’t make a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gregory: You made the mistake.

Mr. Cassidy: I think it was wrong, for the Premier --

Mr. Swart: It was all election promises.

Mr. Cassidy: -- to take political shots at members of the Legislature, and particularly the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and myself, when we quite legitimately and as members of a select committee that was charged to look at the matter suggested in December 1975 that interim adjustments should be made, precisely so that members would not be in the kind of situation that we are in right now and so that we would not come under the rather crushing impositions of the Anti-Inflation Board as we are right now.

I have to say that it is easier for people in the cabinet or for people of private means to have made the kind of judgement that the Premier made. You have to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that at least 56 of the 125 members of the House do not have the benefits of cabinet office or cabinet salaries, or other perquisites and emoluments of this particular place.

As the Hickling-Johnston consultants who reported to our committee established, this is a tough, difficult job, not the kind of job which you grow rich in. It is a job with incredibly long hours. It is a job which involves undue and prolonged separation from family and children, a lot of pressure and risks, great effects on people’s careers because of the interruption of careers from being in this particular place, to the point where I think it is fair to say that very few people enter politics for rational reasons and certainly not for the reasons of getting rich.

Mr. Kerrio: Speak for yourself.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: The problem we now have, and the need for a very substantial pay adjustment now and in October, was originally created I am afraid by the Camp commission because it failed to come to grips with the problem of annual adjustments of members’ salaries. That is why, as we commented, we are put into an invidious position.

Mr. Gregory: You have asked for it for two years, now you are apologizing.

Mr. Cassidy: It was particularly invidious because the freeze on senior government officials’ salaries lasted for only one year. The drop in cabinet ministers’ salaries lasted for only one year. The base of category one on the senior lists of executive salaries rose by $6,000 between 1973 and 1976 while the members’ were frozen. The very senior level of deputy ministers’ rose also by $6,000 between 1973 and 1976, and if you want me to read a couple of figures into the record to show just where we stand right now, Mr. Speaker, the average family income in the province, after this pay increase and the one seen for October, will still be higher than what members are receiving.

As of April of this year for every male employee of the Ontario government between the ages of 35 and 55 -- and there are about 20,000 of them -- if you took their average salary from the cleaners and the mechanics and the carpenters right up to the deputy ministers, their average pay was about $18,000, which is just a shade below what members will be receiving if both of these increases go through, and does not take into account the overtime.

People who are in managerial, technical, professional and confidential categories of the Ontario government; that is people who were in the classes excluded from the bargaining groups and who do jobs that are more directly comparable with those of members, if they are male average $22,000, and if they are female average $18,000. There are about 13,900 of them overall, and they average $21,500, or in other words, the Ontario government pays to its civil servants in the senior and much-less-than-senior positions, which are deemed to be outside of the bargaining groups, a salary very substantially in excess of that which the members will get after this particular pay increase.

The final point I would just put in about that before moving on is that between 1969 and the present, members are moving from a basic salary of $12,000 to one of $19,400, for an increase of 60 per cent over a period of eight years or thereabouts, assuming an increase goes through in the fall. Over that period of time the consumer price index has increased by 71 per cent. The average wage in Ontario has increased by 102 per cent. The average emolument for people in the House of Commons has increased by 114 per cent, and the average of members of the Quebec National Assembly by 118 per cent.

If anybody feels that members are ripping off the public I think they should look at those particular facts -- perhaps, in fact, talk to some of the members who have had heavy economic difficulties and gone into debt and so on because of the situation into which they have been put.

When the House leader introduced this legislation a week ago he said there would be a further adjustment in accordance with the AIB rules in October. Obviously we welcome that. I was dismayed to hear that there was a possibility of some pressure on the government side for an increase for cabinet ministers, which would be of a greater amount than that for the private members. As far as my party is concerned, we feel any increase in October or November should be exactly the same amount for every member of the Legislature and there should be no discrimination between private members and cabinet ministers. That would be bitterly opposed.

[8:45]

Although the House Leader was not explicit, we understand what his statement means is that the government has accepted the spirit and the principles of the select committee’s report and, therefore, the maximum amount available under the AIB rules will be given to the members as of the bill coming forward in October or thereabouts.

I want to say as well that the problem of a mechanism for regular review, it seems to me, has to be taken further than simply making provision for a detailed and independent review about adjustments as was outlined in the House leader’s statement. When our committee looked at this matter we regretted the failure of the Camp Commission to come to grips with the problem. The Hickling-Johnston committee made a very conservative recommendation that the taxable portion of members’ salaries should be adjusted every year by an amount equal to the lesser of the percentage increase in the consumer price index or in the industrial composite of the wage index for the province of Ontario.

It is our feeling, effective October 1978, which is the first anniversary from October of this year, that automatic adjustment should be built in, whether or not the government intends also to have an independent review mechanism to see whether a better review formula can be found.

We believe we should never again be put into the invidious position of having to come publicly before politicians who may make political capital of a difficult situation. We believe, like the federal Parliament, the Quebec Parliament and a number of municipal councils across the province, a mechanism should be in place for regular annual adjustment of MPPs’ salaries so that even if they have to be changed from time to time and reviewed from time to time they never again get miles and miles behind an appropriate salary level as had happened over the last few years.

I want to close by recalling that our committee was disappointed in the recommendations of the Hickling-Johnston report. I hope the House leader recognizes that and I hope members of the Legislature are aware of that as well. Hickling-Johnston recommended a salary level rather higher than what the members will ‘be getting based on what people could be expected to be earning in the trades or professions at about the age of 30. However, as the committee pointed out, the average age of the members is 48. On average, they’ve had about eight years of legislative service and they have had many years of related experience before they entered politics. It does not seem appropriate to relate their pay only to what is earned by someone in the trades or professions at the age of about 30.

As a committee, we could not agree with the Hickling-Johnston consultants’ report that extra duties that were given to MPPs should be rewarded by extra amounts, because we found it very difficult to separate the basic duties of an MPP from what Hickling-Johnston considered were extra duties. The select committee, on which all members of all parties were represented unanimously recommended that the basic indemnity of Ontario members should be comparable to that which was given to members of the House of Commons and the Quebec National Assembly. This is not a matter before us at this time.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Was it unanimous?

Mr. Eaton: That wasn’t in the report.

Mr. Cassidy: That is in the report, yes. The member for Middlesex was one of the members who signed that particular report.

An hon. member: We didn’t agree to that report.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre only.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can read the report signed by the member for Middlesex: “To take another standard of comparison, the committee believes that the basic indemnity of Ontario members should be comparable to that given members of the House of Commons and the Quebec National Assembly since the responsibilities and duties of elected members in the three Houses are comparable.”

That was signed by the then member for Ottawa West (Mr. Morrow), the member for Middlesex, the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck), the member for Sudbury East and myself, as well as the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) and the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt). That is a matter which will have to come before this House at a later date. It is worth noting, however, Mr. Speaker, if you look at what Ontario is prepared to pay to its own civil servants -- and I’ll just read one specific job application that’s available in Topical right now -- it does give one pause to think when you think of the responsibilities borne by members of this House.

This is an advertisement for an executive director, services division, in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications who is required to provide executive direction to four branch directors on the overall development of the operating objectives and a long-term policy for the division. He’s to initiate, review and approve the planning, organization and procedural activities of the division, and must have diversified experience in the Ontario public service in progressively responsible, managerial positions. I don’t even know what the salary for that particular job is. However, they’re asking for people to apply who are currently earning in excess of $35,000.

I don’t even want to advocate whatever we should do in the long run. We agree with the bill right now and we deplore the time it has taken. We hope an automatic adjustment feature will be added to it in the fall and we trust the government will adhere to its commitment to follow the recommendations and the principles of the select committee report and the Hickling-Johnston report when the second half of this legislative package is advanced in the fall.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I know how inhibited any elected member is when speaking to his own wage adjustment. I have had to face this predicament at three levels of government -- at the municipal level, at the federal level and now at the provincial level. I know there is a great inhibition among elected people to adjust their own wages, and this particular adjustment is doubly complicated by the inhibitions of the Anti-Inflation Board which are presently in effect in Canada. Consequently, we are plagued with not only the decisions we have to make for ourselves but also having to make decisions that are acceptable to the Anti-Inflation Board.

I understand the present wage adjustment of some $2,200 in direct payout and $200 in fringe benefits is within the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board and nothing I say should be misconstrued to mean that I do not accept the inhibitions as dictated by the Anti-Inflation Board. I accept totally that we have a responsibility in Canada to control the inflationary trend, and I’m willing to do my part.

What I am concerned about is that there are people in other sectors of society who are not doing their part. I think it would be good for the members and for this House generally and maybe the people of Ontario if they were to understand what is going on in the executive branch of the industrial sector and just to compare what we are doing here tonight with what has happened in the industrial sector.

I happen to have before me certain wage increases which were granted, presumably with permission of the Anti-Inflation Board, to various executive officers in large corporations in Canada in the year 1976. I would like to put them on the record so that each and every member can compare what he is doing here tonight and what has been happening in industry.

The figures I have are from company reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington DC. These figures are not published publicly in Canada. That’s another strange thing about Canada -- that the executives do not have to publish their incomes. But because these are subsidiary companies to American parent corporations they have to file in Washington, DC, and consequently the figures are public in the United States but they are not in Canada.

The first one I would like to mention, one of the great inflation fighters in Canada, is from McIntyre Mines Limited, Toronto -- P. A. Cain, the vice-president of operations. His salary in 1975 was $49,720; in 1976 his salary was $75,208, for an increase of $25,488 or 51.3 per cent.

Mr. Kerrio: That just proves you should go to work for McIntyre.

Mr. Grossman: That was a bad year.

Mr. Germa: I would ask, how does a wage increase like that in Canada conform to the $2,400 maximum guidelines, as enunciated by the Anti-Inflation Board? How did that conform with the 10 per cent figure that was in effect as of 1976?

Rio Algom Limited, Toronto; George R. Albino, president: in 1975 he was earning $152,533; in 1976 he earned $180,000 for an increase of $27,468 or 18 per cent.

I would ask the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough), as a person signatory to the Anti-Inflation Board agreement, if he could possibly get the rationale for these increases. How does it happen when we know that the maximum allowable is $2,400, last year it was a 10 per cent increase, that we see people walking away with a $27,000 increase?

Pacific Petroleums Limited, Calgary; A. M. McIntosh, executive vice-president: 1975 salary, $71,030; 1976 salary, $101,402; an increase of $30,372 or 42.8 per cent.

Mr. Grossman: That was a bad year.

Mr. Wildman: His productivity went up a lot.

Mr. Germa: I can understand why I’m disillusioned with the Anti-Inflation Board, but I don’t think anyone here should feel inhibited about voting for the bill tonight.

Mr. Grossman: When your productivity goes up, you get a raise too.

Mr. Germa: The government has willingly complied with the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines. I understand this bill is going to receive unanimous consent. All of us here are inflation fighters compared to this gang in the industrial sector. But have they any concern for Canada’s financial circumstances?

Mr. Cassidy: None.

Mr. Germa: It appears not.

Mr. Warner: Corporate welfare bums.

Mr. Germa: Here’s one we all know. Imperial Oil Limited, Toronto; John Armstrong, president and chairman: 1975 salary, $234,333; 1976 salary, $251,600; an increase of $17,267.

Mr. Grossman: That is not even 10 per cent.

Interjections.

Mr. Germa: Let me give just a few more, Mr. Speaker. I hope you’ll have patience with me, but I think it’s wise to compare and understand what is going on in Canada on this night in 1977. This is the only way we can decide. We have to compare our income, what we are taking out of society, with what other people are taking from society.

Mr. Ashe: Four dollars an hour.

Mr. Germa: Kaiser Resources Limited; Edgar Kaiser Jr., president: 1975 salary, $206,637; 1976 salary, $267,000; an increase of $60,360 or 29.2 per cent. How does that happen?

Mr. Ruston: What about Claire Hoy’s salary?

Mr. Kerrio: What about Claire J. Hoy?

Mr. Germa: Massey-Ferguson Limited -- we all know that outfit -- Albert Thornborough, president: 1975 salary, $353,833; 1976 salary, $373,833; an increase of $20,000.

The best one I’ve saved for the last -- the greatest inflation fighter in Canada. Wait until you hear this one. Genstar Limited, Montreal; Ross Turner, president and chief executive officer: 1975 salary, $101,767; 1976 salary, $124,700; an increase of $23,993 or 23.8 per cent.

But that is not all that Mr. Turner received in 1976. Mr. Turner received an incentive. His incentive in 1975 was $59,590; his 1976 incentive was $100,184, for an increase of $40,594 or 68.1 per cent. The total increase in wages for Mr. Turner between 1975 and 1976 was 91.9 per cent. Is it any wonder that I’m disillusioned with the Anti-Inflation Board?

I think no one here tonight should feel inhibited --

An hon. member: We’re not.

Mr. Germa: -- by accepting the $2,400 which is coming to us.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 47, An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act.

[9:00]

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 48, An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1973.

Mr. Breithaupt: With respect to the changes to The Legislative Assembly Retirement Act, there were several which had been suggested some months ago, so that survivor benefits particularly --

Mr. Reid: None of them ever got in the bill.

Mr. Eaton: Not much benefit to you anyway, Pat. You would have to get married.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- would be reviewed, with the hopes that there could be some benefits for members in the House. As well, certain changes with respect to other pension and survivors’ benefits appear in the Act. There is one item which I would refer to the government House leader with respect to the formula for the calculation of the allowance.

It was my understanding that it was the intention that members who had not run again in the last election campaign and who, as a result, were not able to benefit from the proposed salary increases that are now some four years in coming before us, would have the understanding that they would at least benefit from the increased percentage base in the calculations for their own particular pensions.

I understand from the government House leader that he has received comments from the legislative counsel with respect to the third section of this bill, which is the matter of the bill coming into force on the day in which it receives royal assent. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that we are agreed that these changes in the percentage for the base upon which the average pension is payable are meant to be in effect as of this fiscal year, commencing April 1, 1977. That change, in my view, would ensure that this increasing percentage for the second 10 years of service would be available to those members to whom it could apply who did not seek re-election or who were defeated in the campaign. I believe there are some 12 members involved.

I would like the acknowledgement by the government House leader that that is certainly the intention of the bill, so that if any difficulty should arise because of the passage of the bill in its present form we could then attend to whatever change might be necessary in order to accommodate the understanding that we all have on this matter.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t pretend for a moment to have any mathematical ability to deal with the retirement provisions for the members, but the point which has been raised by the House leader for the Liberal Party certainly strikes a responsive chord in myself and, I’m sure, in other members of the caucus.

I’m not certain about the interpretation and I don’t believe this is the particular point in time when we should be too concerned about the interpretation if it is understood that the reference to “former members” as it is set out in the bill refers to all former members of the Legislative Assembly and, in fact, covers those members who, for one reason or another, are not members of the assembly during the 31st Parliament.

I want to make a further point in connection with it. I find it a little bit difficult, I guess, to discern what are matters agreed among the House leaders and what are matters agreed within the assembly. But I think it’s extremely important that the committee which I believe is to be appointed, representative of the three parties objectively and in a non-partisan way -- because I can’t concede that it could be other than that -- which will deal with these matters should not only deal with those former members of the assembly who, for one reason or another, were members of the 30th Parliament but are not members of the 31st Parliament. It should look also into the question of the pension allowances which are available to those former members of the assembly who were members of previous Parliaments. In some way or another, I think we have to come to grips with upgrading generally the pensions of former members of the assembly who were here at times when both the remuneration and the pension arrangements were less than satisfactory. I believe that would meet with agreement among all members of all of the parties. I would certainly commend that to the committee which I believe is going to study these matters with a view to making a more formal presentation with respect to retirement allowances.

Mr. Grossman: My father will be happy to hear that.

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, won’t he, eh?

Mr. Renwick: I wasn’t thinking specifically of the predecessor of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I think he will be able to get along quite well. As a matter of fact, he is feeling quite well and we can always make an exception by way of exclusion of him from any general amendment which we may pass in the assembly.

Mr. Grossman: You wouldn’t do that.

Mr. Conway: The family compact runs very deep.

Mr. Renwick: I am speaking of some former members who did not happen to be members of the governing party in the province --

Mr. Grossman: Vern Singer.

Mr. Renwick: -- and some members of the governing party who didn’t happen to be in favour with the ruling elite in the governing party at the time and, therefore, had to subsist simply upon the retirement arrangements which were made for what we call the ordinary members of the assembly, using the phrase in very much the same way in the Anglican church as we use the phrase, “The Book of Common Prayer.” That is, the common members of the assembly, those who subsist upon the basic emoluments set out in The Legislative Assembly Act and not upon any other of the emoluments that accrue to those who belong to the family compact that have ruled the province for so long in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Renwick: But I want to say that we do agree with the thrust of the comments made by the House leader for the official opposition. I hope someone in the government benches will be able to confirm that the members of the 30th Parliament who are not members of the 31st Parliament will have the benefit of these amendments. I would hope that the members of the committee which is ultimately charged with responsibility of making recommendations to the Chairman of Management Board for presentation to cabinet for approval, because they will have had the benefit of the agreement of all members of all three parties, will take into account the needs of the former common members of the Legislative Assembly, regardless of when they sat in this particular House.

Mr. Nixon: I hope the good Lord and the people of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk are going to co-operate so that I will not have an immediate and personal interest in the provisions of this amendment for some time. But I do want to say that section 3, which was referred to by my colleague from Kitchener, which says the Act shall come into force the day it receives royal assent, does concern me. The House leader for the government party is now resuming his seat and it may be that he will be able to reassure us that the provisions of this amendment will apply to the members of the previous Legislature as they do to this.

Frankly, I am very much concerned that such an assurance might only be effective as it pertains to section 2, that is, for survivor rights and not to the basis of the calculation of the pension. When we think that our colleagues from the previous Legislature who are no longer with us have served almost exactly as we have served, minus about 11 days of work, or whatever it is we do here in this Legislature, it would seem eminently sensible for this bill to go to committee and for section 3 to be amended, as I believe would be reasonable, indicating that the Act comes into force not on the day that it receives royal assent but at the beginning of this fiscal year, April 1, 1977. I would hope that the House leader will take steps to see that that amendment is brought forward.

Mr. Cassidy: I subscribe to the remarks made by the two preceding speakers. I just wanted to put into the record the comments of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Camp commission as they related to the matter of pensions.

Pensions were not strictly speaking within our terms of reference but we still managed to squeeze in a reference or so to them. We believe that both the pension plan and severance benefits should be reviewed. We argued that the pension should be adjusted to meet current needs and should be based solely on the basic indemnity.

One of the major feelings that the committee had, one of the major conclusions which members of all parties on the committee came to, was that we will not get an adequate pension arrangement for the common members of the Legislature, as the member for Riverdale puts it, until every person in this House is put on the same basis. However, so long as the pension is basically determined by members of the cabinet who are working from an average annual income base roughly double that of the ordinary members of the Legislature, the backbenchers, it does not seem possible or likely that anything adequate will be done in order to look after members, particularly when one bears in mind the rather wearing nature of the job and the loss in career prospects for people who leave this place in their forties or early fifties and can no longer resume the kind of careers they could have had if they bad remained in private life and out of public service.

We also suggested that the government of Ontario make the necessary request to the federal authorities to have the exclusion of members from the Canada Pension Plan ended. I commend that to the House leader. That’s something that the government, by agreement with the other House leaders, could do over the course of the summer. The exclusion of Ontario MPPs from the Canada Pension Plan -- and we are one of the very few groups of employees in the entire country which are thus excluded -- was a quixotic feature of that federal legislation when it was put in, at the behest, I believe, of Leslie Frost or else John Robarts many years ago. It is quite unsuited, it seems to me, to the current nature of the work and the way in which one trusts that the members of the Legislature will come into this place and then go back to private life from time to time. It is wrong that those CPP benefits should not be accruing during the time we are working here. It is wrong particularly for people who may find severe losses, not because of the pension plan here, but because of what they lose on the CPP.

Finally, although this is slightly out of order, the committee concluded that severance benefits should apply equally to members who do not seek re-election as well as to those who are defeated. All of those matters I believe should come before the tri-party committee. I would hope on behalf of the NDP in this Legislature that these matters are not allowed to die, but that the question of this bill, The Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, is reopened once again for adequate treatment for the members when we resume in the fall.

Mr. Reid: I don’t rise to speak on the sections dealing with spouse or survivor benefits. I can assure you that there is no conflict of interest in my particular instance, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There’s no grey hair.

Mr. Reid: They will have to offer quite a bit before it becomes an incentive, I’ll tell you.

I would like to bring two matters to the attention of the government in regard to pensions. I would be willing to put amendments tonight, if the House leader would accept them. I am sure he would with the grace and charm that he usually accepts these matters. One is that I think in the review that takes place the formula for receiving one’s pension should be looked at. If I recall correctly, the present formula is that age plus years of experience must equal 60.

Mr. Deans: Years of service. Experience doesn’t enter into it.

Mr. Reid: Pardon me, years of service plus age must equal 60. I say with some large amount of self-interest, I suppose, that it puts some of us at a very strong disadvantage, particularly those of us who entered the House at a relatively early age and who may leave the House at a relatively early age. Age only chronologically, not otherwise, I would say. We all draw upon our own experience.

An hon. member: You are still young.

Mr. Stokes: You are complaining of immaturity, is that it?

Mr. Reid: I was involved in a business in my riding which I had to give up because of my involvement here. My riding being 1,200 miles away, I wasn’t able to continue my involvement in that business, to some financial detriment. And I think that’s one of the --

Interjections.

[9:15]

Mr. Reid: I’m getting a lot of help here.

Mr. Breithaupt: Then what did the sheriff say?

Mr. Nixon: It’s monkey business.

Mr. Reid: In any case, it is a little difficult for most members to continue in another career or business and be present here.

Mr. Breithaupt: Did your business drop off? Is that what you’re trying to tell us?

Mr. Reid: I hope that one didn’t get into Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Explain yourself, Pat. Explain yourself.

Mr. Reid: The other thing I’d like to bring to the government House leader’s attention is the fact that there should be written into the formula for --

Mr. Breithaupt: Northerners.

Mr. Reid: -- for the number of elections that a person goes through, And I say this on behalf of the members who were first elected in 1975 --

Mr. Renwick: You are talking nonsense.

Mr. Reid: Well, I’ve been listening to the hon. member; I’m afraid he finally got through to me and my brain has become warped like his, so I probably am talking nonsense. If the hon. member had been in the House and listened to his two colleagues this afternoon, he would be talking nonsense as well.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member please continue his remarks?

Mr. Renwick: You mean how fortunate we are to have you here?

Mr. Reid: Yes, you are. I didn’t think you appreciated it

I say this, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members who were first elected in 1975, then have had to go through another election in 1977, who may very well have to go through another election within one year or possibly two or three years. In fact, it’s a mathematical possibility they may have gone through three elections and still not have reached that figure of five years, I believe, before they are able to collect something on their pension. I think that is a consideration that also should be taken into account.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I appreciate having the benefit of the advice shared by the other members, Mr. Speaker. I think the principal concern is with respect to the effective date of this legislation. I can only share with members of the House a memorandum which I have received from the legislative counsel; we had consulted with him earlier today on this particular point because we were anxious to give effect to the concerns which have already been expressed.

The change in formula, I am advised, comes into effect on royal assent. It will then affect all who come under part II of the Act to which this is an amendment; that is, those who are referred to in section 15 of the Act. If I could then make reference to section 15 of the Act, it says that this part applies to a member who becomes a member after the date this Act comes into force, which is October 1, 1973, and to any member who was a member on that day and elects to contribute under this part.

If that opinion is to be properly translated, it would appear that it goes back far beyond April 1, the beginning of this fiscal year, and really applies to all who have become members of the plan under their election as of October 1, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 48, An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

PEEL MUNICIPALITY HYDROELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

House in committee of the whole on Bill 56, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Peel.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It has been pointed out to me, Mr. Chairman, that in subsection 5 of section 2 there is a typographical error. The reference is to the Brampton Public Utility Commission; it should be the Brampton Hydro-Electric Commission.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Taylor moves that section 2(5) of the bill be amended by striking out “Public Utility” in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof “Hydro-Electric.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked the bill be put into committee is that I was unable to follow through the sequence of sections dealing with the town of Caledon, insofar as they affect the employees of Ontario Hydro who are members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The provisions to which I refer are section 2(4), section 3(3), subsections 10, 11 and 12 of section 3; and finally section 6(3).

In the course of the provisions made for the transition, if the town of Caledon decides on the utility system set out under this restructuring bill, there appears to be some difficulty in determining whether or not the presently employed Ontario Hydro employees are covered through those transitional provisions.

I did have an opportunity of speaking with the minister’s advisers about this. I am assured, and I would like to have the minister’s assurance, that section 3(10) of the bill protects these employees. The subsection states that “The council of the town of Caledon may by bylaw direct the Caledon Hydro-Electric Commission to commence the distribution and supply of power, on a day specified by the council, in all areas of Caledon supplied with power by Ontario Hydro pursuant to subsection 3, and on the day specified, subsections 8 and 9” -- and I emphasize “and section 6 apply with necessary modifications.”

Would this mean that the employees of Ontario Hydro at that time would be protected by the various transfer provisions in section 6 of the bill?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The reference in section 3(10) makes section 6, which deals with the transfer of employees, apply with the necessary modifications at the time of transfer. I think the concern is that there is a provision in the bill providing for a subsequent review within three years of the balance of the town of Caledon, and at that time a determination may be made to transfer into the utilities commission those employees who in the meantime have been employees of the Ontario Hydro. The intention is to give them the same benefits as employees who are transferred initially into what is known as the Bolton PUC.

I can assure my friend from Riverdale that he is correct in the interpretation that has been given to him by my legal counsel, and I would like to reaffirm that for the record.

Mr. Renwick: I take it then, Mr. Chairman, what the minister is saying is that the employees in the Ontario Hydro system within the area to be served by the town of Caledon will have the same protection as the Hydro employees who become employees of the commission established by the bill for the city of Brampton and for the City of Mississauga, despite the difference in time at which that event may occur?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Precisely. The only difference is the time in which that transfer takes place.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to pursue reading the issue further that I raised with the minister on second reading. It involves the designation date for the employees to whom they must offer employment, which is January 1, 1977. I’m talking about section 6(2).

It’s my understanding that the present commissions have been reluctant to hire additional employees. I understand there have been a few employees taken on since January 1, 1977. I’m just wondering why the date of January 1 was arbitrarily picked. I realize we have to pick some arbitrary date but why wouldn’t it be at the date of the passing of the bill that all full-time employees would have protection, rather than just those who had been hired previous to January 1, 1977?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The first of the year has been picked as the date for the vesting and the transfer of the assets and it is the cutoff date that has been chosen.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There seems to be some unnecessary noise in the chamber, probably from some necessary conversations. I wonder if the other members could keep their conversations to a minimum.

Mr. Swart: I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that December 31, 1977, or January 1, 1978, is the day of the vesting and the day that the change officially is made. But I am referring to January 1 of this year, the date established when employees must have been hired prior to that time before they have any guarantee that they will be taken into the new system. I would just like to know why that date was picked?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I could get that information. But what it basically provides is that they have to have been employees for a year prior to the transfer. I think that’s the point that you are making there.

Mr. Swart: Why not make it the date of the passing of the bill -- full-time employees at that time?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I think that’s the recommendation that is carried through from the Hogg report. May I read recommendation 8.3: “If the new electively chosen commission shall offer employment to any person formerly employed by a municipal corporation, commission or Ontario Hydro and who is and designated by that previous employer as having been continuously employed in the distribution and supply of power within the designated area for at least one year immediately prior to the date the utility was established.” So I guess the requirements for some connection or association for a period of a year flows from that report.

Mr. Bounsall: On section 6(4), with the effective date of transfer being January 1, I would like to ask the minister why it is that the salary commencing on that transfer date is a wage or salary not less than he was making nine months before that transfer date. Why is it nine months? All the other benefits outlined in that section 6 refer to the day before -- the group life insurance, the sick leave and so on -- yet when it comes to salaries it’s nine months before.

Does the minister know that there are to be no salary increases at all between April 1 of this year and the end of the year for any and all of those employees affected in the city of Brampton, the city of Mississauga and the town of Caledon? If that is the case, if there are no cost of living adjustments to come in or there are no salary increases between April 1 and December 31 of this year, then I can understand why, with the 31st being the last day referred to before the transfer takes place, we can backdate it nine months. But I can’t understand why that is to be no less than what it was nine months previously if there is any possibility of salary increases pertaining, because it would allow the restructured municipal hydro-electric services, however they are called, to pay the salaries as of April 1, rather than the increases which have pertained in the interim.

[9:30]

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Again, some criteria have to be provided. The hon. member mentioned nine months, and I suppose that’s the normal gestation period, but again I would refer him to the Hogg report in recommendation 8.4, which I will quote:

“Any person who accepts employment with a new utility shall be entitled for a period of one year from the date the new supply authority was established to receive a wage or salary of not less than that to which he was entitled in the ninth month prior to the termination of his employment with his previous employer.”

May I say that all of these matters have been reviewed very thoroughly with the bargaining agent. It’s not something that is being imposed on the employees unilaterally; it’s something that’s been arrived at, and I think that all the parties involved are happy with this.

Mr. Bounsall: I take it then that the minister is assuring the House that that date of April 1, as the Act reads, is a date agreeable to all the bargaining agents concerned and all the employees in those three municipalities. They are happy to accept that that’s the way it works out -- salaries or wages for their employees as of April 1 of this year. Is that what the minister is assuring us?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That is my understanding of it, yes.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 56, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 56, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Peel.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Provincial Secretary for Social Development;

Ministry of Housing;

Ministry of Education; and

Ministry of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That brings us to a very happy point in the proceedings, Mr. Speaker. Only one thing remains to stand in the way of our summer recess and that is, I would now go to get His Honour the Administrator and bring him in for royal assent. I would hope that most members would feel compelled to stay until such time as His Honour the Administrator has come and left the chamber.

The Administrator of the Province of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. W. Z. Estey (Administrator of the Province of Ontario): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sitting thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

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

Bill 47, An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act.

Bill 48, An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1973.

Bill 55, An Act to establish Electrical Service Areas in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

Bill 56, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Peel.

Bill 3, An Act to require the Essex County Board of Education to provide a French-language Secondary School.

Bill 5, An Act to amend The Income Tax Act.

Bill 6, An Act to amend The Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

Bill 7, An Act to amend The Succession Duty Act.

Bill 8, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Bill 9, An Act respecting the Registration of Venture Investment corporations.

Bill 10, An Act to amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

Bill 11, An Act to provide Employment Opportunities for Youth in Ontario.

Bill 12, An Act to amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.

Bill 13, An Act to amend The Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

Bill 14, An Act to amend The Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Bill 15, An Act to amend The Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 16, An Act to amend The Gift Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 17, An Act to amend The Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act.

Bill 19, An Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 20, An Act to amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Bill 23, An Act to provide for the Transfer of Services relating to Children.

Bill 24, An Act to amend The Personal Property Security Act.

Bill 26, An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act.

Bill 45, An Act to amend The Farm Products Payments Act.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Administrator was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It has been a very brief but very productive session, Mr. Speaker, I wish all members a very pleasant summer break.

Mr. Conway: Are you going to simmer camp, Bob?

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch the House adjourned at 9:45 p.m.