The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

AUDIO-VISUAL EXPENDITURES

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to comment briefly on Toronto Star columnist Jonathan Manthorpe’s reference in yesterday’s edition us my ministry’s film and audio-visual operations. Mr. Manthorpe wrote that my ministry operated a film audio-visual operation with an annual value of $160 million. I would understand these figures if they were merely typographical errors -- that is, if Mr. Manthorpe was intending to say it was $16 million or even $1.6 million. But the correct figure is $182,741.41. That includes all salaries, benefits, expenses, film stock purchases, private-sector processing and sound mixing charges -- even imaginary rental fees against the space occupied by the staff, who, besides shooting film, handle still photography, research photography, slide photography, et cetera. Finally, our audio-visual people do not film major productions. Should MTC require one we would go outside to have it done as we always have.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RECRUITMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, questions were raised in the Legislature on Friday, June 1, 1979, by the leader of the third party regarding a request which Rio Algom has made to the local Canada Employment Centre in Elliot Lake to hire skilled tradesmen from outside Canada.

After thorough investigation, I find the facts regarding this overseas recruitment proposal are similar to a statement I made on April 23. 1979, in response to questions raised in the House regarding the General Motors overseas recruiting program.

On June 4, 1979, representatives of Rio Algom met with officials of my ministry to discuss skilled-labour shortages. The company’s operation in Elliot Lake consists of the mining and refining of uranium ore. Its current work force is 2,000 employees, and it expects to increase this by an additional 500 employees within the next 12 months. Furthermore, the company’s projected manpower planning estimates indicate that by 1985 the work force will be 3,500. The company’s ratio of skills is one tradesman to seven other employees.

I must bring to the attention of the leader of the third party that although the company has registered 130 skilled vacancies with the local Canada Employment Centre, it is seeking to hire only 40 of these workers from outside Canada. These overseas requests are for 10 maintenance electricians, surface and underground, 15 heavy equipment mechanics for off-road vehicles, surface and underground; and 15 industrial maintenance mechanics -- millwrights, surface and underground.

The leader of the third party said on June 1, 1979, that Rio Algom had 25 trainees. This is incorrect. The company in fact has 146 trainees. He also said that Rio Algom was going abroad to recruit five times as many tradesmen as it had trainees. This is also incorrect.

Mr. Pope: As usual.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The company in fact is seeking to hire 40 skilled tradesmen from outside Canada.

Furthermore, the leader of the third party asked why the company has made no effort to expand its training program. I must bring to his attention that Rio Algom recognized in 1975 a need to increase training in its establishment and its current total of 146 trainees constitutes a ratio of one trainee for every two tradesmen, this being one of the highest ratios in any industry in Ontario today.

Mr. Pope: How about that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For the three skilled trades which may possibly be recruited from abroad, the company is already employing 65 trainees: 19 electricians, 30 heavy equipment mechanics and 16 industrial maintenance mechanics.

My officials inform me that Rio Algom is most co-operative in providing information about its manpower planning. The company’s representatives have also discussed the possibility of overseas recruiting with union officials of Local 5417. The company’s skilled labour shortage has become more critical in the last two weeks as a result of the return of Inco workers to Sudbury with the recent settlement of the strike at that company. One hundred and twenty workers have already notified Rio Algom that they are returning to Inco. Fifty-three of those workers are highly skilled tradesmen and comprise a significant portion of the 298 skilled tradesmen employed by the company.

In view of the company’s proposed expansion plans and the serious effect that lack of skilled tradesmen may have on the current training programs, my officials are seriously considering the company’s request. However, before initiating overseas recruitment, further discussions will have to be undertaken with representatives of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission of course. We anticipate that a decision will be reached within the next two weeks.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a brief progress report today on the Ontario Youth Employment Program Now in its third year, this program has once again proved to be a most effective one for the young people of this province.

At the moment, close to 20,000 applicants have been approved under the program, representing over 50,000 jobs for young people and a provincial commitment of some $47 million. Because of the increased interest in this program this year, it already appears certain that the provincial funds requested will exceed the amount originally appropriated. None the less, in keeping with this government’s commitment to create jobs for our young people, we will honour the original July 3 deadline date for receipt of applications from interested employers.

As I said, this probably will result in overspending on our initial appropriation for the program but we feel that because of the enthusiastic response from business and the direct benefits to young people substantial numbers of job opportunities should not be lost.

By the July 3 deadline, it is estimated that commitments will be made to at least 25,000 employers, representing a potential of 65,000 jobs under the program this year. However, based on our experience over the past two years, some positions that have been approved under the program will not materialize or will not be filled. Others will be filled for a shorter period of time than was originally anticipated.

After taking these factors into consideration, we still expect that at least 45,000 jobs will be created at a total cost to the program of about $30 million. In comparison, last year about 16,500 employers created some 34,000 jobs; the total provincial expenditure was $20.3 million.

We are pleased and encouraged by the response of business people and the agricultural community to the Ontario Youth Employment Program. When this year’s final figures are added to the other summer employment programs of this government, we expect that more than 75,000 young people will directly benefit.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to give the following statement for my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) in his absence from the House; so the context will be as if I were speaking in his place.

As I have indicated before to the House, today is the date of proclamation for the pieces of legislation affecting children, to which the Legislature gave third reading last December. I want to remind members of that fact and describe, at least in a summary way, the importance which the government has placed on its extensive review of legislation protecting children.

During the period of public consultation which preceded my introduction of bills for first reading almost exactly a year ago, we referred to our legislative recommendations as short-term amendments. This reflected both the housekeeping nature of some of the amendments and the fact that in the longer term we intend to submit even more comprehensive, omnibus legislation to meet the needs of children. That work is going on now.

Despite their interim nature, however, the acts which will be proclaimed tomorrow contain important and far-reaching measures. They enable individuals and agencies to improve the quality of care which they can provide, and they enable my ministry to supervise that care more effectively. The acts establish that a child who can do so may participate in decisions which affect his or her future, whether in a treatment setting or before the courts.

Child abuse, and the whole network of issues which surround it, has quite properly captured a great deal of public attention. Specific provisions of the Child Welfare Act, including a formal child-abuse registry and compulsory reporting requirements, will help children’s aid societies, the courts and my ministry to respond more effectively when a child requires protection and to identify sooner family situations which may threaten the safety of a child.

Those children who require protection under the law will be better served by the new legislation. The courts will enjoy greater discretion to pursue the best interests of each individual child, in addition, children who need care in a residential setting apart from their own families will benefit from improved standards of residential care.

Three important changes affect the adoption of children. These changes will extend the benefits of a permanent adoptive home to handicapped children who have otherwise been difficult or impossible to place. They enable the government to control private adoptions to be sure that the best interests of the child are served in private placements. Finally, the adoption disclosure register strikes a balance between the competing interests of the right to know and the right to confidentiality. No person will be forced to surrender confidentiality but, where all parties consent, adopted children and biological parents may be brought into contact.

Amendment has been made to almost all areas of social service to children. The fundamental goal which describes them is the desire for a more effective and sensitive response to the needs of individual children requiring those services.

We believe that, wherever possible, a child should participate to the level of his or her ability in decisions which affect him or her, and the legislation reflects that conviction. Many of the children affected are ones who have suffered traumatic experience and the measures we have taken will ensure, I believe, that the helping process does not aggravate that hurt.

On behalf of the government and of staff within the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I want sincerely to thank members on all sides of the House who gave consideration to these bills and provided criticism which was positive and constructive. I believe they are excellent pieces of legislation.

SECURITIES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, over the past several months, stock bargains, expansion requirements and an improved investment climate have resulted in a flurry of takeover bids. While this buying spree has been a bonanza for many investors, it has also given rise to circumstances which were not considered when the new Securities Act was written. Therefore, I would like to clarify some important provisions contained in the Securities Amendment Act, which I will be introducing later today.

[10:15]

By insisting on time limits on takeover bids, the existing securities legislation helped to assure that the stock market would operate in an orderly manner. But when investors are hit by offers, counter offers and revised offers, as they were when the Thomson and Weston families vied for control of the Hudson’s Bay Company, they may need more time to weigh the alternatives.

To solve this problem, the amendment requires that when an offer is amended, the date the offer expires will be based on the date the amended offer is mailed to shareholders, not the date the bid is originally made. If the change involves only the amount of cash offered, a minimum of three working days after the notice has been mailed is required.

The takeover battle among the Bay, Simpsons-Sears and Sears also demonstrated that these events cannot be dealt with strictly from an Ontario point of view. Therefore, the amendments also allow joint hearings to be held with other securities commissions.

In addition, the amendments include minor housekeeping changes to some of the provisions affecting insider trading. These amendments reflect the continuing vigilance of the Ontario Securities Commission in reacting quickly to current situations.

The new Securities Act, which passed third reading last year, becomes effective this fall. The amendments are being introduced now in the hope that they will become law at that time. I ask for the support of the House in ensuring that Ontario securities legislation continues to be both effective and responsive.

TAX DISCOUNTERS

Hon. Ms. Drea: Mr. Speaker, later today I will also be introducing a form of housekeeping bill. It is An Act to repeal the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977. The reason for that is that we passed it originally in this House because the federal government dragged its feet on the mailer. Now that the federal government has passed an identical act that has precedence in all the courts, this act is entirely redundant and there is no real reason to keep it on the statute books of the province.

Ms. Peterson: What are you going to do about the American exchange?

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, David Schatzky’s best friend. Can he tell the House that he truly believes that certain parents are exposing their children to 2,4-D sprays simply as publicity measures in their continuing fights with local authorities to ban the use of these sprays in schoolyards?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that I will repeat here today exactly what I said outside of the Legislature yesterday.

Mr. Nixon: Surely not.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: I heard what the minister said outside the House; he is not going to repeat that.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am very pleased to do it, either what I said in the House or outside of the House. I think if the honourable member checks any of the electronic media, he will find exactly the same thing. At that time, I said it has been reported to me that people had presented their children for photographic purposes close to the sprayers. That is precisely what I said. At no time did I make any accusations. I am not worried about that. I am saying exactly what I said then, that it has been reported to our ministry. That is exactly the way it is.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister said yesterday that it was a matter for local autonomy, whether or not he used the precise words, and since the people who are involved in the arguments associated with the controversy feel the minister has drawn public attention to irresponsible charges that they are needlessly exposing their children simply for publicity purposes, will the minister clear up the matter for once and indicate that school boards really do not have any alternative under the minister’s guidelines except to abandon the use of 2,4-D for the spraying of school playgrounds during times when children are on the grounds or might soon be on the grounds?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That is quite a different presentation to what has ever been made here before. We are talking about spraying when children are there. Of course, that offends the guidelines. Naturally, there is no question about that. That kind of presentation has never been made in this House before. We were talking about banning the use of 2,4-D.

Mr. Swart: Did the minister never think of it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That is quite a separate thing from banning the use for improperly applied applications. Always and consistently, almost every time the question has been raised, I have said we are not going to ban 2,4-D because no other province in Canada has decided that it should and as our scientific evidence tells us we should not.

Mr. Wildman: Be a leader.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: But we have always used the precaution, “when it is properly applied.” That is true not just for personal injury but for environmental damage as well. If one causes damage to someone else because of the improper application of the chemical, one is violating the rules and should be prosecuted. That’s been the consistent position we have taken all along.

The school boards are aware of the guidelines and they are aware of the directions; if they hire a commercial applicator, they have to have a permit for applying herbicides and fungicides. All of that is known. The guidelines, as I reported in the House yesterday, are again being brought to the attention of the school hoards, this time on an individual basis, so there can be no doubt they are aware of those guidelines.

The decision should be up to the school boards. As I said yesterday in the House and repeat again this morning, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, if one is going to ban non-agricultural uses, to ban only a very tiny fraction of that. I am sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would agree that agricultural use of 2,4-D is widely accepted and very necessary.

The alternative would be to ban non-agricultural uses, and any proposals so far have been for a very tiny segment of the non-agricultural uses. That makes no sense, particularly when the local boards can make that determination for themselves if they so wish. We have a lot of faith that not only will the boards make that decision if it is their wish -- it is their right, for sure -- but we also have a lot of faith they will use their best judgement as to when and how to apply the herbicide. If not, they should be held accountable for their actions. But I have that kind of faith in the boards, and certainly as regards those with whom they would contract for spraying.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to understand the concern that exists about the use of 2,4-D in connection with schoolchildren. This week I had a call from a mother in Richmond, in the Carleton school board area, where the spraying of 2,4-D in the schoolyard was going forward without the principal and teachers being involved. This woman’s daughter went out on a nature study --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cassidy: -- the next day and was exposed to the 2,4-D and went home sick.

Will the minister not refer the scientific information which has been brought to his attention in this Legislature to an independent body, not the Pesticides Advisory Committee, since that contains mainly representatives of the ministry itself and of the industry? Will he refer the problems that are connected with the danger to children in schoolyards to an independent review? Will he stop the use of 2,4-D in schoolyards until such an independent review can come back? Will he, in other words, accept his responsibility as Minister of the Environment for protecting children from possible hazards of this herbicide?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That was a fairly long question and I would like to reply to it at some length. I think the leader of the third party originally brought the issue here concerning 20 or 30 children who were affected. Obviously, I was interested in knowing whether this was correct.

Mr. Pope: Now there’s only one.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: My friend and colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) has this report which I would like to read into the record, if I may. I think it is fairly pertinent.

“The medical officer of health for Haliburton-Kawartha-Pine Ridge health unit has attempted to locate the alleged case of 2,4-D intoxication. Telephone inquiries to the local physicians and hospitals have been negative. Further inquiries have been made and no schools have confirmed that any children have ‘been so affected.

“Dr. Mikel believes the reference to ‘spokesmen for the Ministry of Health’ was probably a mistaken reference to the health unit. To our knowledge, no Ministry of Health personnel were involved in the statement.”

What I am putting first on the record is that, given that bit of research, we have no evidence at all to substantiate the claim the member made about these ill people. I am still waiting for him to send over the names of those people who were alleged to have suffered from the application of 2,4-D. The member hasn’t yet done that. I’m waiting.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: And the doctors.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: And the doctors. But also, if I could put some visual aids here, and I think it’s important, because in the context of what the opposition is asking me to do -- to ban 2,4-D -- 1 have to reject the comment made by the member for Ottawa Centre --

Ms. Gigantes: That wasn’t what he asked you.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- that the Pesticides Advisory Committee is biased because it has some people from the industry. What he refused and didn’t put on the record was a list of the full membership of that committee. I think if he did he would find it was a very wide cross-section, predominantly people in the academic community who have no axe to grind whatsoever; none.

Mr. Wildman: Who work on research projects funded by the private sector.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It’s their reputation that’s on the line. I have a lot of confidence in that Pesticides Advisory Committee.

Let me, to put this in context, bring out my bag of goodies. Let me put on this desk four or five common household items which are used every day.

Mr. McClellan: I’d move out of the way if I were you, Tom. This minister would make a good travelling salesman.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The members opposite may laugh.

Mr. Foulds: Turn the labels towards the television cameras.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The members opposite may laugh, but I don’t find this particularly funny. If any of us are needlessly exposing our kids -- any of us, myself included -- to harmful substances, let me tell the House I’m on the side of the kids, and I’ll stand up any day and be counted to try to protect those kids. Let me put that firmly on the record.

Mr. Conway: Does that mean you support motherhood by implication?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think if any members opposite would go home this weekend and look in their kitchens and in their gardens, they will find at least three out of these five products.

Ms. Gigantes: Would you spray your kids with Javex? Shame on you.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I wish you would just for a moment give me the opportunity to make a pretty significant point, at least in my mind. Here is a commonly used bleach. Would any of you like to take even the smallest sip of it? Of course not. You know what it would do to your digestive tracts.

Mr. McClellan: Take some 2,4-D and say how safe it is, Harry.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m not going to be put off on this issue very easily.

Mr. Speaker: This is a question period. I appreciate that the minister is trying to make a point by way of answer to a series of questions, but we’ve spent 11½ minutes and we’re still on the first question. I hope the minister will get to his point very quickly.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, if they will allow me to, I’ll be more than pleased. I’ve had the horrible experience of trying to treat a child who had taken just a little out of that bottle and it’s an unbelievable experience. It’s one that you wouldn’t mess with.

Mr. McClellan: Tell us what this has to do with 2,4-D?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Here is a furniture polish. Read the instructions on it, and how dangerous that is. Yet all of us have that in our homes, all of us, and a little bit of it will be toxic, even fatal.

Here is another herbicide-fungicide that many of us are using. Here are probably the two most important ones I want to bring to your attention and one is sugar. Don’t laugh about this. If you’ll read the article in the current Atlantic magazine you will find that is a proved carcinogenic agent. It is proved -- not suspected, as the leader of the third party would say, hut a proved one. I refer you to the current issue of The Atlantic. I present the final piece --

Mr. Wildman: Do your kids smoke cigars?

Mr. Nixon: The Premier doesn’t smoke cheap cigars.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t smoke cigars at all, now.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m not worried about that.

In conclusion, so many of these people over there are worried about a suspect agent, but every one of us knows there isn’t a greater carcinogenic agent in society than the use of tobacco. I’m not being asked to ban that. I’m not being asked to ban sugar. I’m not being asked to ban those that are proved beyond doubt; I’m being asked to ban something that is suspect. I think the leader of the third party is on thin ice.

Mr. McClellan: When is the next Tupperware party?

Mr. J. Reed: A supplementary: I should like to point out to the minister, after that impressive display, that the school board naturally are looking for leadership from the government, and I don’t understand the minister’s concept or the way he interprets local autonomy in this case.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. J. Reed: The question is, why doesn’t his ministry provide leadership to the school boards so that they can be sure and be confident in what they’re doing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Some time ago a man by the name of Lincoln had a pretty famous quote. That quote was that you can’t permanently help someone to take the responsibility if, in the short-term, you make those decisions for him. He said it a little better than that. It’s a bit of a paraphrase, but let me say again to the member, the leadership that we’re taking -- and I think it is right -- we have investigated.

We have asked the best minds, not only in our own jurisdiction, but of all jurisdictions in Canada. I raised that just last week, a week ago yesterday, and have confirmation that no province feels we should ban it. None of their experts feel we should ban it. We have to reinforce the fact that everyone knows how to apply it. We have sent those instructions out to the school boards. We have had them on file and we’ve supplied thousands of copies to various people.

We’ve licensed those who apply commercially. If that isn’t showing leadership, Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid the member opposite and I have a different sense of what responsible leadership is.

Mr. Wildman: There is no question about that.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We have a responsibility to this community to be sure that the products we are issuing guidelines on are known and safe if applied properly. I think we have shown the leadership that this very important subject demands.

MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTIBILITY

Mr. Nixon: I’d like to direct a question to the Premier who might turn to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) for assistance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then ask him.

Mr. Nixon: Since the Premier had a chance to have dinner with Prime Minister Clark the evening before last, was there an opportunity between the soup and the fish to discuss the properly reiterated federal policy to make mortgage interest payments deductible, as this will have a rather dramatic impact on the income tax revenues for the province? Does the Premier recall the Treasurer had some difficulty describing to the House before the federal election what the impact would be? He indicated once that there might be $600 million involved, then $300 million involved, and the next time he couldn’t remember how much was to be involved. Has the Premier been able to convince Prime Minister Clark that if this is going to be implemented at the federal level it should be and could be done in such a way that it will not reduce provincial revenues?

Mr. Conway: Who was the fish and who was the fowl?

Mr. Makarchuk: How was the fish?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I had a very interesting discussion with the new Prime Minister of Canada. Actually, the subject that the acting Leader of the Opposition -- who really does it very well; I’ve got to tell him we miss him in that former capacity over here --

Mr. Peterson: We miss the Premier’s leadership too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why is the member here today?

Mr. Speaker: What was the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What was the question? What we had between soup and fish? Actually I raised this after dessert.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Premier can use the pool; at least Joe can’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We were working so hard I didn’t have an opportunity to use the pool, but I do want to say this, that for the first time in my memory, at least in my not too frequent visits to 24 Sussex Drive, the new Prime Minister of this country served domestically produced wine from the province of Ontario. I thought that was very good.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me the question had something to do with mortgage deductibility.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But that, Mr. Speaker, indirectly relates to provincial revenues which are somewhat dependent upon domestic wine production. That’s how I was trying to relate it.

Mr. Speaker: That’s a bit convoluted though.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see.

Mr. Foulds: Did he use Alberta oil on the salad?

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, Mr. Speaker, to answer the question quite directly, as I say, we discussed a number of matters and this question was raised, the question of the implementation of mortgage interest deductibility. I pointed out to Mr. Clark that we were obviously in support of this, as were the majority of Canadians a few weeks ago --

Mr. Nixon: I thought more people voted against it -- half a million.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, listen, a lot of them voted for it. My friend’s leader probably voted for it, from what I sense.

Mr. Nixon: He hasn’t got a mortgage.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He hasn’t got a mortgage? How fortunate.

Hon. Mr Grossman: He will have.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am frying to come to the point, and they are interrupting me.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has already put two supplementaries, and he has not got an answer to his initial question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. The reason he has not yet got an answer to his initial question is that he has interrupted me with his supplementaries.

Mr. Speaker: Quite right -- and you’re enjoying it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I am. I pointed out to Mr. Clark that it was important from our standpoint that there be no significant impact on provincial revenues when this program is introduced. My recollection is that, both during the campaign and during our discussions the other evening, ‘he was extremely sensitive to this particular problem. He showed a greater sensitivity, I must say, than was shown by the preceding government.

This was raised and discussed, and Mr. Clark is quite aware of the fact that while we support the mortgage interest deductibility program we feel it should be done in a way that would not interfere with the traditional revenues for the provinces, particularly this one.

Mr. Nixon: Since the Premier is concerned about who supports the concept -- and evidently he does -- can he assure the House that he has received a commitment from Prime Minister Clark, who has indicated his first ‘budget this fall will contain this, probably as its cornerstone, that there will be no fiscal impact in Ontario and that the Premier will have his cake and eat it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the phrase is, “will have his cake and eat it as well”, or “too.” I can assure the acting Leader of the Opposition that this point has been made with Mr. Clark, and I am really quite confident that he is aware of it, sensitive to it and quite understanding of the problems of the provinces if they were to experience any diminishing return from the traditional tax sources.

Mr. Stong: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: If this plan is implemented by the federal government, there will be a market created. What steps is this government taking to encourage municipalities to bring serviceable lots on to the market to meet the demand that will be created?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think I could report that not only are there a lot of plans close to completion in terms of registration, but at this moment there are also a lot of serviced lots on the market.

The honourable member may be lobbying indirectly for further registrations in the Markham area; I am not sure. If he has some people who cannot find registered lots there, I would invite him to send them over to the great municipality of Brampton, where we have a lot of registered lots, a lot of activity and great optimism and enthusiasm.

In other words, on a provincial basis, there are at this moment a lot of registered lots and, incidentally, a large number of unsold homes on the market.

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask another question of the Minister of the Environment respecting the matter of 2,4-D. My concern is that the minister first sought to muddy the waters of this issue by attacking the parents of children in the Northumberland school area, and now he is trying to muddy the waters by suggesting that, because other substances may be carcinogenic, he therefore has no responsibility with respect to 2,4-D.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We should have sprayed it on your front benches.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister refract his allegations about parents and kids in Northumberland or, alternatively, table reports he may have had from his officials so that the parents there can know of what it is they are accused and can reply in detail, if need be, to the allegations that have been made?

Will the minister also explain, if he thinks parents should be responsible for controlling access to toxic substances in the home, how the parents in Northumberland are to act when the law says they must send their children to school but the school board refused last night, on a tie vote, to take away the spraying from the schools, the spraying to which they are objecting?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I find it impossible to do what the leader of the third party asks me to do. He asks me to retract the charges I have made. I have not made any.

Mr. McClellan: You just made innuendoes; is that all? It was just smearing innuendo; is that all?

Mr. Pope: Where are your 20 medical reports, talking about charges?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: May I tell the honourable members that on the way in this morning, in an effort to clarify the point a bit more, one of the people in the media who was present yesterday during the whole discussion on the item said, “I didn’t hear you say that.” Fair enough. He didn’t hear me say it. I am maintaining that on no occasion did I say I accused the parents of doing this. I said it was reported to me. That is all I have ever said; so I can’t very well refract an accusation that has yet to be made.

Ms. Gigantes: Why did you raise it then?

Mr. Cassidy: Then table the reports.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will table whatever report comes in from a regional office on the circumstances of that event, which will likely deal with the reports I talked about yesterday.

The member for Ottawa Centre asked me today to do those things which he is consistently refusing to do. The reason I bring this material here is not to obscure the real issue. It is to highlight the issue. The issue is simply that there are thousands of chemicals in our society and a multitude of uses. As responsible citizens, as responsible members on boards, as responsible members of the business community or wherever, we have to make choices daily and hourly on how we use the chemicals. They must always be used wisely. I am sure members agree with me on that.

I am not trying to obscure the 2,4-D issue. That is a speck on a large spectrum. It is called the use of chemicals in our society. All of us must take the responsibility to treat them wisely and soundly. That is what the issue is and that is where it should stay.

Mr. McClellan: That’s not quite the issue.

Mr. Havrot: Stop grandstanding over there.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister answer my second question? How are parents who wish to treat this issue wisely and soundly to act if they believe from their knowledge and study of the literature and so on that 2,4-D use in schoolyards is dangerous to their children, but if they are not in sufficient numbers to have the school board of the area to which they are compelled to send their children act and refuse to use the spray in those very same schoolyards?

Are they to disobey the Education Act and pull their kids out of school or are they to abdicate their responsibilities and send their kids to school, despite the risks involved? Given that dilemma, why will the minister not refer these matters out to an independent committee and stop the use of the pesticides only in schoolyards until they can establish for sure whether or not dangers exist for children in the schoolyards from 2,4-D spraying? That’s the question.

Mr. Sterling: Let’s see your medical evidence. Be responsible for a change.

Mr. Pope: Be responsible.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Had we only referred this to the Pesticides Advisory Committee in Ontario, I think there would be some merit in the member’s suggestion. For the umpteenth time I am going to repeat that every single province has looked at 2,4-D from a scientific point of view. They have their respective committees. Environment Canada has looked at it and has said exactly as we are saying --

Ms. Gigantes: In schoolyards?

Mr. Wildman: They have a lot of serious questions about it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- that when properly applied it is a chemical which should stay on our market.

As to how local people are to deal with their local school boards, I find a variety of reactions throughout Ontario. Some are not discussing it, some have agreed to ban it and some have said they will get more evidence. That’s the way it should be. They know the situation. They control the schoolyards. It is their responsibility.

Mr. McClellan: Spray first and find out later.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not copping out on my responsibility. We looked at it very carefully. I had personally raised this issue and some months ago I had to give notice of it. As a matter of fact, the deadline for giving notice to the conference was May 1. I had that paper put on at my own personal request before May 1. Had I not done those things, I think I would have abdicated my responsibility. That was an indication of my concern. The member can check it out It is well recorded that I wanted to know the best scientific evidence in Canada and it is very clearly on the record. The answer to the member’s request is no.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: If the minister did not charge the parents with exploiting their children in this way, what was the point of repeating such a scurrilous innuendo? What was the point of even repeating that?

Mr. Havrot: This is turning into a comedy hour.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I sometimes wonder what the point is of many of the questions opposite. I’m trying this morning not to be unduly political.

[10:45]

Mr. Nixon: What did you raise that for?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think this issue is far greater.

Mr. Pope: He didn’t write the article.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: When we talked about the harm to children, would the honourable member not agree the issue was joined here by his party and by the New Democratic party well in advance of any comments by myself about people? Would he not agree with that? I think he must. I didn’t raise that issue. It wasn’t raised by me for any purpose. I am saying there were all kinds of charges about illnesses which I can’t get any information on at all, let alone substantiate. I think that is also a very significant point.

Mr. Warner: Then you shouldn’t have made the comment.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister is concerned about local autonomy as opposed to his responsibility --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you going fishing this weekend?

Mr. Wildman: Yes.

Can the minister assure me he will investigate the concerns raised by parents north of Sault Ste. Marie about the health of their children, as a result of spraying done by Great Lakes Power Company, Ontario Hydro, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications? Also, can he assure this House that spraying by MNR will not cause any undue harm to wildlife in the area?

Mr. Speaker: That’s straying quite a bit from the original question.

Ms. Gigantes: No it’s not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You would have MNR stop spraying, is that it?

An hon. member: The only wildlife is on those benches.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t really honestly think that’s a supplementary to the original question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding the closing of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital. I want to ask the minister why it was that on Tuesday of this week, when the social development committee reconvened to look at the question of Lakeshore Psychiatric and when it had been told it would have full documentation about the transition plans, it only got a three-page document from the ministry when the administration at Lakeshore had a 21-page document. This latter document fully detailed everything happening with the transition at the hospital including warnings about a concern that there would be overcrowding at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre unless there was significant control over the outpatient services. Why was this document kept away from the committee this week?

Mr. Swart: Freedom of information, eh?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all I’d have to say that from the beginning of this it was unclear exactly what the committee wanted by way of a report. That report was delivered last Friday --

Mr. Foulds: That’s the same false argument that Hydro is using to force --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That report was delivered last Friday so the critics and other representatives of the parties opposite, if they wanted additional information, could have the weekend to look at that report and then let us know on Monday morning.

I should tell the honourable member that contact was made Monday morning with the chairman of the committee to determine whether or not my presence was required. He felt no, that I shouldn’t change my plans to go to the Salvation Army Grace Hospital and then to London. My assistant deputy minister was waiting in the wings, as was the director of the psychiatric hospitals branch and other members of my staff, to answer any questions the committee had -- and they weren’t even called.

Mr. McClellan: We are coming back to it on Monday, as the minister well knows.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it not the fact that this management document which was being used to plan for the shutdown of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital indicates clearly the danger of overcrowding at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre right now as a result of the shutting of Lakeshore and therefore that mental health centre might be hard pressed to meet any expansion of service needs in the area? Isn’t it also a fact that this document, which was kept away from the committee, indicates the eight-day inpatient alcoholic treatment program at Lakeshore is going to be ended completely? That's another cutback, when the minister said there would be no cutbacks at all resulting from the shutdown of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member has very selective recall of things -- he’s shown that for many years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Selective, and blurred.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If he will recall, the last time I was at the committee and discussing outpatient programs, I acknowledged then --

Mr. McClellan: You were there only briefly

-- you had to leave, remember?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- one of the possibilities was that the alcoholic program would be changed to a four-week outpatient program from its present setup inasmuch as a very small number of the people in the alcohol program -- I can’t recall the exact number -- had come by way of the detoxification unit. I am not sure which report the member has, but I can assure him we are simply not trying to hide anything from him. The committee was very vague about what it wanted.

We gave the member the report last Friday so he would have a couple of days to consider what additional information he needed, and could let us know on Monday morning. We heard nothing from him and what is more, my staff were available to answer questions and he didn’t even see fit to call on them.

Mr. McClellan: Leaving aside the question that we are going back to it on Monday, as the minister well knows, let me ask the minister, is it not a fact he will not be able to accommodate wards A and B of chronically disturbed patients from Lakeshore unless he moves the Queen Street adolescent unit to Whitby?

Second, is it true he is planning the destruction of the alcoholic services program at Lakeshore by removing the detoxification unit? What possible justification on medical grounds is there for these kinds of destructive moves?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, let me just come back to the alcohol program. I indicated at committee there was a possibility it would change from a one-week inpatient and three-week outpatient program to a four- week outpatient program. What we are doing is pursuing with a hospital in the area the possibility of establishing a detoxification unit in that hospital and converting the alcohol program to a four-week outpatient program.

Mr. McClellan: At which hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will let the member know once the negotiations have been completed.

Mr. McClellan: You don’t know. St. Joseph’s Hospital.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry, I do know, but I think at this point we will finish the negotiations first and then I will be glad to share all the information with the member.

With regard to the question of the accommodation of wards A and B, no, it is not correct to say it would result in overcrowding. Yes, the child and adolescent unit, as we have already acknowledged repeatedly, will have to be moved in order to make optimal use of facilities, but I would point out to the member it is not going to result in a deterioration of the program for those children in any way.

CT SCANNERS

Mr. Conway: A new question to the Minister of Health: Is the Minister of Health aware that a subcommittee of the social development committee meeting in Ottawa on Wednesday of this week was told by the executive director of the Ottawa Civic Hospital that the CT scanner which the government and this minister in particular has allowed eastern Ontario, to be located at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, will be available only to the people of Ottawa-Carleton because this government’s restraint program will not allow that hospital sufficient operating funds to make it available to the people of eastern Ontario to whom it was promised and for whom it was designed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is not the sole scanner in eastern Ontario. As the member knows, there is a scanner in Kingston at Kingston General Hospital. In addition, following that meeting, we checked on this and my staff advised me we have not had a budget appeal from the Ottawa Civic Hospital in connection with that matter. Certainly, if they were to submit one, we would be pleased to give it consideration.

Mr. Conway: Will the minister report to this House at his earliest opportunity that the appeal which we were told was being made to his ministry from the Ottawa Civic Hospital will be met very positively, so the people of Lanark, Renfrew, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry will have access to that technology and so the restraint program will not have a regional discrimination in the disfavour of the people I and many other members represent in this House?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the administrator of that hospital is one of the better ones in the entire province, I am pleased to say --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and certainly, if an appeal is submitted that can document this problem, we would be pleased to give it consideration.

[Later (11:17):]

To complete the answer to the question from the member for Renfrew North with regard to CT scanners, I should have added Ottawa Civic Hospital is, under the regulations, a group M hospital and can therefore charge back to any other hospital for services provided on the CT scanner to patients from those hospitals from wherever in eastern Ontario.

[Reverting (10:55):]

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. McClellan: I want to ask the Minister of Health a question in connection with the visit of the social development committee to the four regional centres the other day. Has he had a chance to review the material presented to the committee, and have his officials brought to his attention the problems raised at each of the centres? When can we expect to have a detailed response from the minister to the very real problems identified by those committee hearings in each of the four regional centres we visited?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have had discussion with some of the staff that outlined some of the issues raised. We are in consultation, through the area teams, with most hospitals and hospital centres in the province on the specific concerns they have. I can’t say I will give it to the member in 24 hours, or that I can give him detailed answers next week. It may take longer than that to arrive at resolutions to some of the concerns raised, but every single one of them will be dealt with.

DISPOSAL OF PCBS

Ms. Bryden: I have another question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the report in today’s Globe and Mail that the ministry may not renew the licence for the PCB transfer station near Smithville, which expires June 30, can the minister tell us where used transformers containing PCB material will be stockpiled until the minister gets on with the job of finding a safe and effective way of disposing of PCB-contaminated transformers?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We could go back to the discussion in committee on liquid hazardous wastes and review very briefly the serious problems on finding sites. I think the committee members made it very clear, one by one, that they were opposed to the incineration of those substances, they were opposed to temporary storage, they were opposed to shipping of those materials, they were opposed to landfilling those materials, they were opposed to the solidification process -- I think it is easy to check the record -- in other words, they are opposed to everything.

We are going to have to make some tough decisions on this one, too. We are using Smithville for the time being on a temporary basis. Hopefully, the member would join and be part of the support mechanism for a good scientific study on the test burns of PCB material -- that might be one excellent way of getting rid of the materials -- but I notice that she is very much opposed to a test.

If she is going to prevent me and our ministry from testing any solution, 1 don’t know where they are going, and she had better be as concerned about that as I am, because with her approach there will be no place and they will stay in the local communities with the potential of harm or death to thousands of people. Is that what the member wants? She is turning off the possibility of solution at every opportunity, and then she is saying “You find one.” It is not possible.

Ms. Bryden: To set the record straight, the standing committee on liquid industrial waste did suggest that finding new technologies for disposing of PCBs should be the top priority, but so far the minister hasn’t assisted any groups who are experimenting in this.

I have a supplementary question regarding the test burns that are contemplated for the Mississauga hearings. Does the minister think that the people of Mississauga should be guinea pigs for a test burn in a highly populated area, or can he not test PCB burnings in some other place, not in a highly populated area?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: A little bit like the Minister of Health said, there is some selective memory going on here. What the member failed to put on the record this morning is that there is no guinea-pig approach to this experiment. I would be the first to stand -- maybe the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) would be ahead of me in protesting that. He has spoken to me many times about the issue.

It is a very serious issue, no question about that.

Let me refresh the member’s memory. What are we doing prior to the burn? We purchased the most sensitive machine that money can buy, the TAGA 3000. There isn’t a better machine in the world, and I don’t think she would argue that point. We are now testing in parts per trillion, and we will have, prior to any burning, not only that machine, but that machine calibrated to perfection before we will ask for the burn. Then we will take that machine and put it in the stack, right where the concentration would be highest, and if there are high concentrations, beyond any reason of doubt we will turn it off immediately.

[11:00]

But surely, with the tremendous amount of preparation for a test, and the assurance that if those PCB numbers are high enough to injure anyone’s health, it will be turned off immediately, the honourable member has a responsibility to come forward an: I say, “That is good preparation, it is a good test, I support it.”

Mr. Hall: Given that last December the minister applied 22 conditions to the previously unconditional temporary licence, and given that the operator has an opportunity to appeal and has had time since last December, could the minister tell me why the Environment Appeal Board has not addressed itself to this matter and, according to the news articles, will not be addressing itself to it until September?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I suspect the appeal board is rather busy. I know they are in the midst of a pretty complicated appeal right now. I will be glad to ask the appeal board if that date can be put forward. I cannot answer why the appeal board is not doing something, but I can get the information from the appeal board for the honourable member.

AUTOMOTIVE FUELS

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: What steps has his ministry taken to inquire into the practices of the auto manufacturers and the oil industries relating to a breach of contract concerning required fuels with a higher octane rating than had been agreed upon, with the result of higher gasoline prices added to the increased inflation cost? And what legal steps has his ministry taken, along with his federal counterparts, to correct the breach of contract and ensure that consumers will be compensated for the violation?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the history of this goes hack some time. As you know, some time ago the automobile industry, which for practical purposes exists only in the United States, at least on the developmental level --

Hon. Mr. Davis: And in Brampton.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, and in Brampton. There was a concern in the United States about emissions, particularly of lead. There were undertakings and understandings arrived at in the United States concerning the addition to automobile engines of various emission controls and so forth.

At that particular time there were understandings and arrangements between the government of the United States, certain states and the automobile industry about the type of fuel that could be used. Quite obviously, the leaded regular gas and the leaded premium gas were to be replaced on a graduated basis by unleaded regular and, at a subsequent time, unleaded premium entered into it.

It was the understanding at that time that leaded regular and leaded premium gasolines would remain on the market and that gradually they would be replaced by unleaded regular. For a number of reasons, and really, since they are in American jurisdiction -- and how they keep their understandings of their commitments for more than a day at a time I have never been able to understand -- that simply did not come about.

For some time, as a ministry, through our energy safety branch, which has some jurisdiction in this matter, we have been trying to pressure the federal government on this matter. Over the summer time we will be attempting to get the new federal government through my federal counterpart, Mr. Lawrence, much more interested than was the previous federal government.

It is not now a very easy thing to move on because, for practical purposes, the oil companies maintain that the fait accompli that is out there on the gas pumps today was caused by the automobile engine designers. In terms of whether indeed there can ever be compensation or not, I have never even thought about that.

Mr. Conway: You two guys look like you are about to amend the Human Rights Code.

Mr. McClellan: Get to the point.

Mr. Wildman: Moving right along.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if the House wants an answer to a very complicated problem which is costing the consumer of this province an awful lot of money, I would humbly suggest that certain people not interrupt.

Mr. Foulds: We shouldn’t have asked you.

Mr. McClellan: Get to the point.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In terms of compensation, as I said, I do not think anybody has any thought on that. There is a fait accompli out there at the gas pumps that is costing automobile drivers a great deal of money.

Quite frankly, as we move forward in this country in two areas of the automobile engine field, one environmental and the other energy-saving, I think we have to come to an agreement between the 10 provinces and the federal government that the automobile industry is not going to be able simply to make arrangements in the United States and to terminate them in the United States without any consultation, either before the arrangements are made or when they appear to be terminated. In short, the federal government of this country is going to have to take a position on what is going to happen to car drivers and consumers when it comes to the utilization of fuel.

Ms. Gigantes: We’re lucky to have the American protection, for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Wildman: That’s what it is to have a branch-plant economy.

MILK PRICES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my props relate to a different commodity, but I suggest they are every bit as significant --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’ll drink the milk if the member for Welland-Thorold will drink the additives.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He doesn’t have the nerve to bring --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: Obviously my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and it concerns the increase in the price of fluid milk in the conversion to metric cartons.

Is the minister aware that Borden’s in Ottawa converted its two-quart carton to a two-litre carton in January 1979 and that, although the price of the two-litre carton was four cents less, the actual unit price of the milk was increased by 10 per cent? Does he know that no increase was made in the price of milk in all their other containers, which remained in the imperial measure?

Would the minister not agree that Borden’s is using public confusion about the relationship between metric and imperial measure to price-gouge?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you what I am going to do. I do not know why the member keeps doing this: there is a limit to the ability of the head to go into a buzz-saw. I am going to send today’s Hansard to Metric Commission Canada which, as the dear member knows, has been begging for complaints and wants to do something about them. I will pay the postage.

Secondly, I would caution the member not to use phrases like price-gouging and a few others until he is absolutely sure he is correct. If he is wrong again, he is going to have to apologize.

I am delighted that the containers will come over to me. Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention the fact that the New Democratic Party, through the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), on the day of the Carnation milk debacle, said they would personally produce to me 400 individual complaints about mismanagement in conversion to metric. To my knowledge, this is the first that has come, and I will send it to the federal government.

For the information of the House, and so the consumers will know exactly what to do and not have to wait until late on Friday to get results, the federal government has a procedure where any consumer in this province, or indeed in the Dominion of Canada, who has a concern about metric measurements, either for information or complaint purposes, can immediately refer the matter and an investigation will be started. It would save an awful lot of time.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize that the packaging and the packaging size of milk falls under the Milk Act of Ontario, and that he has control over retail prices? To verify what I have said, I will send across to the minister the wholesale price list of Borden’s in Ottawa.

Will the minister also note, when he ultimately receives these containers, that there is no equivalent imperial volume listed on the top of one carton, although on Borden’s two-quart carton the metric volume of 2.27 litres is prominently displayed, which is a clear indication that Borden’s is trying to hoodwink the public? Does the minister not realize that this is a pilot project by Borden’s and, if they get away with it with the minister and with the public, they will do the same sort of thing when they convert the rest of their cartons to metric?

When the minister finds that I am right -- and he will -- will he notify Borden’s that he disapproves of this practice and that they must prominently label their litre cartons in both metric and imperial volume and that they’re not going to be permitted to use the changeover to metric to gouge the public?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will do as

I said I was going to do a few moments ago.

I would admonish the House that I’m going to really urge the federal government to look into this extremely quickly. After all, it is

Ottawa --

Mr. Bradley: Your friends.

Mr. Conway: Your kissing cousins.

Mr. Swart: It’s not all Ottawa and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What concerns me is that if the honourable member is right I will probably have cardiac arrest, and if I’m going to have it, I think I should have it before the House adjourns.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order: In the interest of accuracy may I say to the minister that during the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates I brought into those estimates two Carnation cans bought in the Thrift Store at the corner of Jane and Trethewey in the borough of York, each of which was priced at 36 cents and one of which was 10 per cent less in volume.

Mr. Swart: The minister will get them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Now or never.

Mr. Swart: You don’t dictate when you get them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Send them over.

Mr. Swart: Dictate over there, not here.

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

Mr. Stong: I have a question of the Solicitor General, if I can get his attention. Leaving aside the disturbing reports we have read in the past two years and even this month involving Metropolitan Toronto police shootings, I would like the minister to investigate and assure this House about other tactics reportedly used by Metropolitan Toronto police in the Gordon Allen case and reported more recently in this morning’s media, wherein it is alleged by a lawyer that police had laid a charge against an individual who was to give evidence against them at a hearing to which they were responsible, though subsequently those charges against that individual were dropped for lack of evidence. Would the minister assure this

House that there is no involvement or any chances of obstructing the course of justice by the Metropolitan Toronto Police, particularly in the light of these allegations and in the light of the allegations he is investigating now in the Gordon Allen trial?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m not sure I quite understand the question. Obviously, if any police officers are involved in obstructing justice in this province they will be charged. They’re not above the law in that respect.

I read the report in relation to the Henderson matter. If that lawyer chooses to make a complaint, I’ll certainly review it. But I want to make it clear that the police in this community and in any other communities know that if they are involved, as the honourable member has put it, in obstructing justice, they will be dealt with according to law. There’s no question about that.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I hope it’s appropriate to ask the minister on the basis of this question dealing with law enforcement what he meant when he was quoted in this morning’s Sun as “blaming an apathetic public for accepting the increase in violent crime and warning that the situation will get worse if attitudes don’t change.” That’s the quote. Should the public carry guns? Should we get a new Attorney General? What does he mean?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I haven’t read the Sun and I certainly did not say that. I was reflecting yesterday on the public’s apathy in relation to certain aspects of violence as entertainment, for example, and expressing my concerns in relation to that, having been questioned in that area. I was not suggesting that the public are apathetic about crime.

Mr. Conway: Once more with Juliette.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certain questions were put in respect to violence as entertainment, and I did express my concern in relation to public apathy in that area.

PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS DISPUTE

Mr. Bounsall: In the absence of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) I’m addressing the question to the Minister of Labour. With his obvious great interest and growing experience in negotiations, would he confer with the Minister of Education regarding the situation where the negotiations between our provincial school teachers and Provincial Schools Authority have now broken off and appear to have broken down completely? Will he urge the Minister of Education, with whatever advice he may give her, to involve herself directly therefore in that situation with a view to reaching a solution, particularly since the contract ran out over 10 months ago? R. E. Saunders, the commission negotiator has completely refused to negotiate over staffing and working conditions and to tolerate a salary increase as high as six per cent, a figure which has become an acceptable base figure now for --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Bounsall: -- virtually all other government employees?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be delighted to share that question with the Minister of Education and give her the benefit of whatever little experience I’ve obtained over the recent months.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been taken as notice and the member will have ample opportunity when it is referred to the appropriate minister.

X-RAY EQUIPMENT OPERATORS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, very quickly, the other day the leader of the third party raised a question about the ministry’s answer to Order Paper question 199. I regret to say there was an error there in that the communications referred to with respect to developing a program to upgrade the qualifications of some of our technicians is with the Board of Radiological Technicians and not with the society. I regret that error and I apologize to the member and to the House.

RECRUITMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) made a statement today about Rio Algom at Elliot Lake. I want to bring to the House’s attention the fact we stated Rio Algom applied for 130 tradesmen from abroad. It was subsequent, in fact, to the question being raised in the Legislature, it was decided by Canada Manpower they should be cut back to 40 who were being sought abroad.

Secondly, the minister said the company had been very co-operative in discussing this matter with the union. The union learned of the application to bring workers in from abroad only after it had been raised with the manpower centre locally. Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to establish where, nor can the union establish where, the 146 trainees referred to by the minister come from. They do not appear on the seniority list that has been made available to the union.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would like to speak to that point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It’s not a point of privilege. It probably was an effort, and probably a legitimate effort, to correct the record, but by no stretch of the imagination could be construed as a point of privilege.

MOTION

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing resources development committee be authorized to meet concurrently with the House the evening of Monday, June 18.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VILLAGE OF POINT EDWARD ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 131, An Act respecting the Village of Point Edward.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains several provisions dealing with municipal taxation on the real property of the Blue Water Bridge Authority located in the village of Point Edward in Lambton county. In 1940, legislation was enacted to make the portion of the bridge in Ontario exempt from taxation, including local improvement and school rates, except for a fixed annual payment of $5,000 to the village. The village became dissatisfied with this arrangement. Since 1970, a number of attempts have been made to increase the tax revenues realized by the village from the bridge authority. In fact, no payment was made in 1978.

This bill proposes a long-term solution to the problem, while allowing a four-year phasing-in period. Section 1 of the bill provides that the provisions of the Assessment Act will apply to the real property of the authority located in the village, except for the bridge structure. Section 2 sets out a proposed new schedule of payment to the village for the years 1978 to 1982 in lieu of municipal taxes, including school taxes on the bridge structure. This means that until the end of 1982 the authority will pay to the village the amounts set out in section 2(1), plus local improvement taxes, as well as full municipal taxes, including school taxes, on all of its real property except the bridge structure.

Section 2 also provides that starting in 1983 the authority will pay full municipal taxes, including school taxes, on the bridge structure as well.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Securities Act, 1978.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it plain in my statement that this bill was for first reading at this time so it could be reprinted in full in the weekly summary of the Ontario Securities Commission and so receive the widest possible dissemination over the summer months in the financial community. That is a commitment we have on every bill of significance to the financial community. As I said, I thought it had ‘been made plain, but since there appeared to be some confusion I chose to read that into the record at this time.

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 133, An Act to repeal the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Just to make it very plain, the purpose of this bill when enacted was to regulate this field. The federal government was dragging its feet at the time. The federal government subsequently passed an identical bill and now this bill has no standing whatsoever. Were we to charge under it, it would be ultra vires because federal legislation has precedence. We will continue to act as a referral service for the federal government, but this bill is now entirely useless and we feel it serves no purpose whatsoever in the Ontario statutes.

ALL ONTARIO PITCH-IN DAY ACT

Mr. G. I. Miller moved first reading of Bill 134, An Act to provide for an All Ontario Pitch-In Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ashe: It sounds like a very important piece of legislation. Is that a national holiday or only a provincial holiday?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to provide for an all Ontario pitch-in day. The Ontario pitch-in day would be a day during the year on which all residents of Ontario would be encouraged to undertake special efforts to keep the environment free of litter.

LITTERING

Mr. Nixon: Sir, I don’t know whether you observed, following the demonstration yesterday, that the grounds around this building were littered with signs and discarded refuse.

Does it concern you that we would have large groups here leaving all of that stuff and that nothing is being done to ask them to clean up after their own demonstrations?

Mr. Speaker: It does concern me, but it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Government Services and I am sure someone had heard your admonition and something will be done about it.

Mr. Riddell: Surely Lorne can throw his weight around there.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: I wish to table the interim answers to questions 236 and 237 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: With the permission of the House, may I take this opportunity to amend the statement given yesterday with respect to the order of business next week so that we might include Bill 96 for committee stage at the end of Tuesday afternoon of next week? We would like to put the bill introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), dealing with the village of Point Edward, on the end of the list of the legislation we hope to get to next week standing in the name of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Local Improvement Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a simple bill. There are three sections. The first section deals with the time in which a municipality can issue debentures for a local improvement. Until now the municipalities could issue these debentures only when the project was completed. We have had representation from many municipalities asking if debentures could be issued sooner so they can save interest money because debentures are cheaper on interest and interim borrowing.

We have already given this power to one municipality, the city of London, in private legislation, and what this section really says is that the municipality can issue debentures when the contract is let and approved and when work commences, so they can issue debentures when work starts, rather than when work is completed, in order to save money.

Let me skip to the third section of the bill, Mr. Speaker. When we did our metrication we omitted to convert three forms to metric and we are picking up those that were omitted. There are so many things in metrication I think we can be forgiven if we left out a couple.

The second section of the bill deals with municipalities which have approved projects expressed in units of imperial measure, rather than metric measure. As members can see, section 2 of the bill says that any project approved and started before February 1, 1979, in imperial measure will be okay, even though from then on we are supposed to use metric measurement.

Because some of the forms were not properly published and because we have had some problems with several municipalities which, in good faith, issued contracts in imperial measure after February 1, 1979, I will be introducing an amendment in committee of the whole House, changing the February 1 date to September 1, 1979, so that all municipalities will be clear. They will have the metric forms, hopefully, as soon as we pass this act. They will have a breathing space until September 1, 1979, in order to clean up any contract, so any contract which has been let or will be let before September 1 in imperial measure, will be all right. After September 1 they all must be metric.

Mr. Epp: I want to indicate from the outset we are going to support this bill. Although it is important, I am sure it will not rate as one of the landmark pieces of legislation dealt with in this Legislature in the last 110 years.

My colleague, the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman), just asked me if he digs a ditch or something, with a shovel, will he have to now dig it with a metric shovel, or can he still use the imperial kind of shovel he used before? Maybe the member for Wilson Heights can reply to that later on. I am sure it is a very pressing problem.

Mr. Rotenberg: An imperial shovel, hut just taking metric-measured pieces of dirt.

[11:30]

Mr. Epp: It doesn’t really matter? One can still get the same depth and so forth? Thank you.

Essentially the legislation recognizes a practice carried on by many municipalities for a number of years. That is, wherever municipalities existed, whereas they could carry on issuing debentures what they used to do essentially is issue these debentures prematurely. They often did not complete the projects, the sewer projects and some of the other projects, before they issued debentures. What the provincial government now is doing is it’s legalizing something that has been illegal for some months.

Essentially what the provincial government says is that it has on occasion been doing things illegally, and since the errors the municipalities have been committing have not been as important or certainly not as severe as what the provincial government has been doing on a number of occasions in violating the law, it has now brought in a piece of legislation that will permit municipalities to debenture projects prior to the completion of a particular project.

I think this is important, because as the minister’s parliamentary assistant has pointed out, this will essentially save the municipalities money because they can obtain their money at a lower interest rate when they are debenturing than they can when they are borrowing the money in order to carry on the expense of the project until it can be debentured. So we obviously endorse this piece of legislation and we think it’s a move in the right direction. We only wonder why it has taken so many years before the government has recognized the need to have this done.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have very few comments on this bill. As has already been suggested by the member for Waterloo North, it’s fairly straightforward. It’s not benchmark legislation. I do have a couple of comments on both of the parts, first of all on the metric conversion. I think this is just one more example of the muddle that metric conversion is causing for municipalities, corporations, boards, agencies and for the general public.

While I support the two sections in this act which relate to metric conversion and which remove a difficulty that municipalities have been finding themselves in because of the timing laid down in the previous bill, I do think it’s unfortunate we got into this the way we did. I hope there will not be too many more examples of where bills like this have to come forward to enable us to weasel around provisions that for one reason or another have been proven to be impractical.

With regard to the matter of debentures, I have no concern about the provisions that are contained in this bill as they relate to municipalities. As the honourable member suggested, it will regularize something that has been going on in an indirect way for some time and it will also provide money at a lower rate of interest to municipalities when they are having to pay their contractors.

I want to use this opportunity though to ask the parliamentary assistant if he would respond to a problem that may arise in this circumstance through the imposition of the local improvement charge on the home owners and property owners who are affected by the local improvements. It is my understanding, going through the act, that the change that’s before us now will also enable the municipality to start recovering the costs that are to be met by the properties on which the improvements front.

Given that there have been an apparently increasing number -- and it may not be true, but an apparently increasing number -- of projects that have run into trouble for one reason or another, and I’m thinking particularly of sanitary sewer projects, where it’s been a period of two or three years before the project has been properly completed, does this amendment mean that the property owners concerned will start paying their repayments on the sewer projects before the project is available for their use? If it does have that implication then I see that as something that’s rather unfortunate, because when a project does go bad, when municipalities are involved either in litigation with the contractor or alternatively in major fix-up projects, when a sewer project is for some reason not available for the use of the home owners, then I think it’s a little unfair to ask home owners to start paying for the sewers. It’s like having to pay for a car you haven’t yet got but for which you have placed the order.

If indeed that is the implication of this bill, I really wonder whether that provision is what we want to have happen. I would appreciate the parliamentary assistant’s response on that point on whether he sees any way around that for the municipalities or for this House to avoid complications and to avoid a lot of complaints I know we will be getting from home owners when they are asked to pay for something they haven’t yet got because the project has run into problems. I realize, Mr. Speaker, it’s not every municipal project that runs into problems. Only a very few have problems but I think that circumstance is sufficiently frequent that we should be concerned about it and I look forward to the parliamentary assistant’s response.

Those are my comments on this bill. We will support it on second reading and we have no amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member wishing to participate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the member for Wentworth, I am informed this has not changed the time or the method in which the members of the public, the home owners who are assessed, start paying back. They pay back in accordance with the bylaw as passed by the municipality which indicates when the home owners start to pay. This has no relationship to when the debentures are issued, so that part of it doesn’t change. It doesn’t change the powers of a municipality as to when they issue it.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Local Improvement Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“2. The said act is amended by adding thereto the following section: 74. Notwithstanding section 39 of the Metric Conversion Statute Law Amendment Act, 1978, where, before September 1, 1979, a municipality passes a bylaw for undertaking of work or obtains the approval of the board to an undertaking, the areas, diameters, distances and frontages, and frontage rates may for all purposes of this act be expressed in units of imperial measures and forms 1 to 4, as they existed on January 31, 1979, may continue to be used with respect to such undertakings.”

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does anybody wish to discuss this amendment?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, very briefly as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is simply to facilitate those municipalities who may have planned up until now, or be planning at the moment, projects in imperial measures until those forms mentioned in this act are converted to metric. The September 1 date seems to be a cut-off date which municipalities have accepted.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any other sections of the bill that the committee wishes to discuss?

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 46 reported.

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

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 46, An Act to amend the Local Improvement Act.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 100, An Act respecting Local Government in the District of Parry Sound.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill 100, represents a milestone in local government in the district of Parry Sound. Serious attention to local government was focused on the area in 1972 with the annexation hearing by the Ontario Municipal Board of the Parry Sound and related annexation applications.

In early 1973, the district municipal association called for a planning and local government study, which commenced later that year and concluded in the fall of 1976. After receiving many briefs, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs made a number of proposals early in 1978. This bill is the result of extensive dialogue between the ministry and the municipalities involved and the many cottage, ratepayers’ and home-owners’ groups in the area.

It was clear from the outset that the people of the district did not want any form of second-tier or regional government. The concern to strengthen local government itself was apparent, and this bill deals strictly with amalgamation, annexation and consolidation of local municipalities and currently unorganized territories.

Five municipalities are involved in this bill. First, the new municipality, Georgian Bay Archipelago: The bill incorporates the unorganized township of Cowper and major portions of the unorganized townships of Conger, Harrison and Shawanaga into the township municipality bearing the name of the township of Georgian Bay Archipelago.

The population of this municipality is approximately 7,000, including the seasonal residents. It is composed of some mainland

Motion agreed to. cottage areas, a significant group of permanent residents in the Pointe au Baril area, and the permanent and seasonal population of the many islands in front of the above- mentioned townships.

The municipality is a recreation-oriented, essentially water-based community, focusing on the islands and the shore of Georgian Bay, and will have northern and southern sections being separated by the existing Carling township. The government of Ontario has opted for a single municipality, rather than two, because of the common focus of the entire area and the desire to avoid duplication of administrative costs that would undoubtedly follow if two units were established.

The area appears to be quite large geographically; however, when one looks at the vast expanse of water and recognizes the relatively small permanent population of fewer than 500 people, then it becomes apparent it is not nearly as large as it would appear at first glance. Some might argue -- and I think some will -- that it should be set up as two separate sections, perhaps to be joined later. Knowing the difficulty of joining municipalities, we believe it would be easier to separate the two portions later if that should be warranted. To abandon the possibilities of some economies of scale and to establish duplicate administrative structures to deal with areas of great similarity does not appear to be appropriate at this time.

This new municipality will serve both seasonal and permanent residents, and give them a voice in local affairs, by providing the basic institutions of township government now enjoyed by most residents and property taxpayers in Ontario. In addition, this new municipality will begin to contribute financially to certain district-wide functions such as health, welfare and homes for the aged.

The inclusion of certain inland areas with the shoreline and island communities was based on two essential factors: (1) the preference of seasonal and permanent residents of the affected areas and (2) the feeling of the government of Ontario that certain areas not be cut off from the assessment and revenue base which exists on the islands and the Georgian Bay shore.

The legislation provides that the first head of council of the new township -- who will be a reeve -- will be selected from among the 10 members of the council who will be elected. After the first term, the legislation provides for a separately elected head of council. I would point out that the request for the first reeve to be selected from amongst council came from the various associations which will make up the new municipality.

[11:45]

Coming to Carling township: Carling township is an existing, organized municipality. In their correspondence, their resolutions and their discussions with our staff they have indicated absolutely no desire to join the new municipality. We are aware that some rate- payers in Caning, particularly seasonal residents, would like to join the proposed municipality. However, Carling township is an established municipality with a duly elected council. To this date that council, in all indications to us, clearly wishes to remain separate from the new municipality. Of course, we try at all times to go along with local autonomy and as best we can write legislation in accordance with the wishes of the local people.

The suggestion has been made by some that Carling township annex the areas to the north and leave Cowper and Conger to the south as a separate unit. This idea has no support whatsoever outside Carling in the areas affected. In fact there is strong opposition to it. The government of Ontario does not believe that the people in the unorganized territories should be denied local government institutions provided the establishment of these institutions does not adversely affect existing municipal arrangements. It is one thing not to force an existing township into new arrangements against its will, but it is quite another Ito deny organization to others in the form that they desire.

We have clearly indicated that Caning township could be part of this new municipality but we will not force them to join it. If at some future date Curling indicates a desire to join the new municipality, we of course will give it consideration.

Moving to Humphrey township, it has by resolution asked that the eastern portion of Conger adjacent to Humphrey with road access from highway 69 be annexed to Humphrey. So that this part of Conger can easily be serviced by Humphrey township, this annexation has been included in Bill 100. Humphrey township already contains a large number of cottagers and we believe that property owners, both seasonal and permanent, in eastern Conger will be well serviced by Humphrey township. In addition, this annexation brings the new Parry Sound airport into an organized municipality.

In the portion of Conger township adjacent to Foley township it has been quite a matter of controversy whether this portion should go with Georgian Bay Archipelago or with Foley. In Bill 205, the one we introduced last year, the area was included with Georgian Bay. In Bill 100 before the House today it is included with Foley township. Virtually all of the permanent residents -- about 50 permanent residents in this area representing 15 households -- wish to join Foley while the majority of the seasonal residents -- and there are about 600 seasonal residents -- want to go with Georgian Bay Archipelago.

This has been a difficult issue to deal with and we have been pulled in two directions on it. However, it is now clear that the people wishing to join Georgian Bay Archipelago feel so strongly about the issue that to include the area with Foley township would be destructive to the interests of Foley as well as to these people. We are therefore prepared to amend Bill 100, and will be introducing an amendment when we get to it, to put Crane Lake and Blackstone Lake areas back into Georgian Bay Archipelago.

Moving to the east, away from Georgian Bay, the town of Kearney under this bill is joined with the geographic townships of Proudfoot and Bethune and the portions of Butt and McCraney townships outside of Algonquin Park. They will have a new council, to be elected from three wards, providing balanced representation from the three basic component areas in the new municipality. The area is closely knit and should work well when amalgamation takes place.

The ministry has acted to deal with all the concerns and issues that have been raised in the area with respect to this amalgamation and we feel that with all the meetings and all the discussions -- discussions even taking place over the past few months -- we have satisfied, if not all the concerns, all the major concerns of the various groups in the area.

Parry Sound itself: To the town of Parry Sound will be annexed a small portion of Foley township and part of McDougall township, which will help rationalize local government servicing in that area. This essentially involves spillover development in the township just outside the town boundaries. The boundary changes which are in this bill have been agreed to by the councils of all the affected municipalities.

The startup date for all these reorganizations is January 1, 1980, to coincide with the beginning of the municipal financial year. The costs of the municipal elections in the archipelago and Kearney in the fall of 1979 will be paid by the province. This will be for a three-year term until the next regular municipal election. The costs of the school board election in those areas in the fall of 1980 where there will not be a municipal election will also be picked up by the province.

The bill will enable residents, both seasonal and permanent, to have a stronger voice in local matters affecting them and continues a significant step forward in the improvement and strengthening of local government to the district of Parry Sound. Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill to the Legislature and hope I can have the support of all members.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it’s with pleasure that I’m able to participate in the debate on Bill 100, which replaces Bill 205.

It is a very historical occasion as far as the Parry Sound district is concerned because they are coming from being basically unorganized. There are many municipalities that do have local government, but these are changing times.

As a critic for the opposition party on Intergovernmental Affairs, I sake the opportunity at this time to point out to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) that we would like to be constructive, not destructive. We have had the opportunity of being in his riding, at the request of many of the local councils.

Mr. Rotenberg: On a strictly non-political visit.

Mr. G. I. Miller: That is correct. The member for Wilson Heights made a good comment.

Mr. Riddell: They spoke very highly of Lorne Maeck.

Mr. G. I. Miller: If we are requested, 1 think it is the duty of the opposition party to accept its responsibility, and that is what we have tried to do.

I would like to point out in the very beginning we have been through the reorganizing our own area, the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. It was a very controversial issue. I would like to have some constructive input on how this new area may be reorganized to be the most efficient for that particular area.

I would like to point out also we are quite well acquainted with the district of Parry Sound. For many years we’ve gone to Burk’s Falls and done a little fishing at Pickerel Lake. We’ve been in Kearney and at resorts around Kearney. It is a beautiful area. I think it has a great future.

During our visit and our discussions with local councils, we went into Parry Sound. It does have a natural harbour, probably second to none in the north. The thousands of islands along Georgian Bay and along the lakefront are being utilized perhaps more by people from southern Ontario. It is a resort area. As ‘a matter of fact, one of my constituents from Haldimand-Norfolk has an island there. He’s had one for many years. I know it provides a lot of enjoyment.

When we take an overall look at it, and from the discussions we had, there seems to be a bit of a conflict between the local residents and the ones who are using the islands. Again, we’re talking about a bay front of approximately 50 miles, with Parry Sound in the middle.

From our observations it appeared that perhaps two municipalities would be more effective than one. Maybe it should be designed so the residents who use the islands are encouraged to work along with the permanent residents. The income of many of those folks is not comparable to that of those who are using the islands. I think they are as concerned about the environment as anyone. That is their homeland. That is where their roots have been down, and will be down for many generations to come.

As members of the opposition, we would like to be constructive. We do have some amendments we would like to put forward, but first of all, I would like to point out we did have an opportunity to visit the airport. It is a fine facility and there is room for expansion, and it gives quick access to the area. I would like to commend the government for providing that facility.

We also were able to take a look at the industrial park. I think they have 1,000 acres, with roads, a sewage system and a water system installed. They have three or four businesses established there, but I question the soundness of the background research of their financial ability. Muskoka Steel was established only one or two years ago -- the member perhaps knows much more about it than I do -- and there is a huge building now left vacant because they were not able to make a go of it; they were also manufacturing log houses, or squared timber, prefabricated houses, and that business was moving ahead quite well. There was also another building, which was in the process of being put up, but it appears to have been sitting there now without going ahead.

What I am really saying, I suppose, is that we have 1,000 acres there that has the potential, and it is perhaps the responsibility of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, in co-operation with some other ministries, to encourage the development of that particular park, because to get a return for Ontario it certainly has to be working. That is perhaps a side point and maybe should not be brought up in this debate; however, I just wanted to make that clear.

We did have the opportunity of staying in Parry Sound and, as I indicated before, there is a great future there. We do have some environmentally sensitive areas with the islands and, again, the local people are concerned that they are not going to have access to them; that maybe they are going to be eliminated. Perhaps we can pull these people together. We have had discussions with the cottage associations. I feel there may be some misunderstanding. They are both trying to achieve the same thing but are going in different directions. It is important that we have that in mind as we realign these new municipalities, because we are laying the foundation for this organized district for many generations to come. While there is a tremendous future there, and we have to listen to the local people, we cannot expect the people in Toronto, or in my riding in southern Ontario, to give total direction to what happens in that area because, while they can share and utilize our natural resources, they do belong to everyone. We have to keep that in mind.

I would like to say that the reeve of Carling township, Jack Plowman, gave us a complete tour. Mike Konoval was very helpful during the tour in trying to be fair to both sides and making us available to all political viewpoints. The reeve of Foley, Ken Hunter, gave us a tour to show us what they have and what they have accomplished over the years. I think they can both be proud of what they have done on behalf of their communities. They have good equipment and they have good facilities, including a community and parks centre. They indicated to us that they could provide snow ploughing and roadbuilding equipment for a larger area than they have at present.

It seemed to me that maybe Parry Sound, with its boundaries expanded, and communities to the north and south, would have been an ideal situation. But further research indicated that the local people perhaps did not want to go in that direction at this particular time. Given a little time, and with more trust between the ones that are concerned about the new municipality, maybe that will come about in years ahead. To get to the islands, they have to go through the municipalities we are concerned about. They have to use the road facilities and the services that are provided. Again, it would be good if that were encouraged, because that is basic to the economy of the area. I assume they would want to see the improvements made to both areas, whether they are permanent residents or islanders, or just concerned about the holidays and resort areas. It is a matter of teamwork.

[12:00]

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I think we would like to make four amendments and maybe the one that has already been indicated by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Wilson Heights, who is taking the bill through the House this morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The appropriate time for amendments is during committee of the whole House.

Mr. G. I Miller: I am not going to make the amendments, Mr. Speaker. I am just going to bring our proposals to your attention. Our critic will be moving them at a later time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the honourable member’s comments, but the proper time to bring forth amendments is in committee.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Fine, thank you. I will go on and point out that our view is we would like to have the archipelago divided into two townships, north and south. The reason for that is that back in August 1976 the final report and recommendations of the district of Parry Sound local government study, the Martin report, the red book, suggested two separate municipalities: a township to the north called Pointe au Baril and a township to the south called Sans Souci.

Another reason is that it is 50 miles from one end to the other. In order to get around there, one has to go through Parry Sound or around Parry Sound to make that connection. Secondly, the Foley area, left out in Bill 205, was included in Bill 100. I think this rightly belongs to the archipelago and should be in the new south archipelago. I think the ministry indicated that.

Another concern is the fact that in the first election the reeve is to be appointed by the elected group. We feel that the reeve should be elected in these new municipalities in the same way as in any other council in the province.

It’s important from a communications point of view that the heads of council should be located within the boundaries of the municipality because they are the focal point. Hopefully, the township ball will be located in those municipalities so the residents have quick access to it. That’s another reason for maybe not going to such huge areas, but keeping them down where the local people or even the cottage people have access to them. If the cottagers want to join in and try to he elected to council, I think that would be good. That was accomplished in Carling this past year. Mr. Bill Davis, who has the same name as the Premier, was elected. I think that is the democratic system working. Everyone can take part and it will make for good relationships in this new municipality. Local autonomy has to be considered, protected and encouraged.

With those few remarks, I would like to say it has been a pleasure to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on the bill. Perhaps we will have some further comments as the bill proceeds.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to indicate to you and the House that this party too supports the principle of this bill, although we have some concerns about some of the specifics contained in it.

The bill, to me, is a bill that should be a non-partisan bill. It deals with the establishment of good local government and good municipal government structures in a very important, a very beautiful and a very significant part of this province. As that, I think it is inappropriate that we look at it as a bill on which we divide on party lines. It is a bill that will be very important for the people of the district of Parry Sound, not just this year or not just next year, but for many years to come. It is bringing into local government structure parts of the province that previously have been unorganized.

I am concerned, however, about a few of the things that were said by the parliamentary assistant and a few of the things that relate to the way this bill has been handled. First, I am particularly concerned that it was brought to us with just days remaining in this sitting of the House so that there really wasn’t the time to look at the one very significant change that was introduced since Bill 205 was presented to this House. There really wasn’t time to wrap up the few loose ends that I believe are still remaining in regard to the issue of the structures.

Given that the bill is not that much different from Bill 205, I really have to question why the government left it to the last minute to introduce this bill and put the townships presently in existence in that area, the cottagers’ associations and other concerned residents, in a situation of hardly being aware of what was going on with regard to the introduction of this bill, because it has been very difficult in the last two weeks, since we first saw this version of this bill, to inform people and keep in touch with people the way we believe communications between this House and the residents who are affected by a bill such as this should work.

I think the timing has been a problem. I think too there have been problems with regard to consultation. It may well be that our view of consultation is a little different from the government’s view of consultation. I really have to ask who has put the main input into this bill. Who are the people who were consulted and whose voices were given the most weight? At what stage did that consultation take place?

There are people who are unhappy with the way the bill stands today and, therefore, the consultative process obviously hasn’t worked properly, because if it had worked properly we wouldn’t need these last-minute amendments with regard to the northeastern part of Conger township, and we wouldn’t need the amendments with regard to the archipelago municipality. Those things should have been ironed out before the bill came into this House.

I also want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that his comment that it was something the people of the area really wanted may not in fact be true in so far as some of the groups who live in that area are concerned.

Mr. Wildman: That’s why I asked if you agreed.

Mr. Isaacs: The information I have from consultations with groups of residents in the district is that they were coerced back in 1973 into believing that they had better go for some kind of municipal organization, because if they didn’t things were going to get worse. I hope that pressure being applied to groups of residents and those residents then submitting to that pressure isn’t interpreted by the government as a desire on the part of the residents for municipal organization.

In fact, it is my understanding that one of the reasons we want to deal with this hill fairly quickly -- I understand that and support that -- is because some of the groups are still a little unhappy with the idea of turning unorganized territory into municipally organized territory, and we should put it in place at least while they are happy, before they change their minds and start rebelling against it. That is a relatively minor consideration. I want to say to the parliamentary assistant and to the minister, who is not here, that we support bringing into organization those parts of this province where there is presently no organization and in which municipal structure would be viable. There are vast parts of the north where municipal structure would not be viable, so viability has to be a key.

It is very obvious from the reports that have been done and from the studies that have been conducted during the last five years that municipal organization of the presently unorganized territories in the district would be viable, and that the creation of a group of larger municipalities than presently exist in other parts of the district would be desirable.

I am very pleased that the government has seen fit to bring in a bill that is essentially a one-tier form of government rather than any kind of regional government, and that is as a result of the concerns and the comments received from local residents.

It is a pity that when the regional governments we now have in other parts of the province were set up this kind of consultation did not take place. They were set up whether or not the local residents wanted them, and in many of those regions the local residents very clearly expressed that they did not, but they are stuck with them now whether they like them or not.

When we look at setting up municipal organization, I think we have to ask why it is being done. As I have expressed before in this House, the structure of municipalities is there primarily to serve two purposes. One is the planning role and the second is the provision of services. I think planning in this area is very important. As the parliamentary assistant is well aware, we in this party believe in local autonomy for municipal government, subject to guidelines laid down by the government on matters that are of provincial significance.

I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant, and perhaps he will relay it to his colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), that this part of the province is of very great provincial significance. The councils we are setting up in this bill will undoubtedly see their planning function as very important -- a function they will get into right away. I hope we don’t get into a situation where councils decide to set up an official plan that deals with what they see their needs to be and then the province has to intervene at some stage and say that official plan is not what the government wants. I hone the guidelines can be put in place now before the planning process locally gets underway so those councils really can work within the framework that’s laid down and exercise the autonomy that the bill, at least in theory, gives to them.

I regard that as very important. Development is desirable in that area because of the tax base it brings in, because of the viability it gives to the communities that exist right now, and because it enables the people who live in the area to have a guaranteed source of income. But indiscriminate development -- development on much of the shoreline, development of industries that for some reason can’t locate elsewhere and see the district of Parry Sound as a place where they can get away with pollution that might not be tolerated by residents elsewhere -- those things would be very undesirable. I hope we can make sure right now that the councils know the guidelines they are operating within.

The other function I mentioned was the provision of services. Much of this area requires very little in the way of services. But there will be certain functions the local councils will be assuming from the Ministry of Natural Resources. There will be other functions which, because there is now a local government structure, those councillors and the residents who elected them will see as being desirable.

I just hope this is not a way of making the people who live in the area pay more. There’s a tendency, at least at the present time, for the government to be relying on property taxes as just another way of raising money. This money should really be raised by the provincial government through income tax and corporation tax, the fair methods of taxation.

If through the transfer of the costs from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the local residents we are really only establishing a mechanism whereby those residents can be taxed in total more than they are at the present time, then I think it’s a very backward step. I hope that’s not what’s going on with regard to this bill.

The previous minister of what was then Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs mentioned that the government would be prepared to consider startup grants and other kinds of special financial assistance to the municipalities in the district to get over the transition period and to deal with some of the special problems they will face as a result of the new structure of local government. I hope when we go into committee stage the parliamentary assistant will be able to provide for our information, and for the information of the councils in that area, details of all the special grants the government is proposing to make to those municipalities, both immediately and in the longer term. I can refer the parliamentary assistant to the commitments that have been made in the past if he’s not aware of them.

[12:15]

I’d like to comment with regard to the commonality of interest that has been suggested as the reason for combining two separated parts of the district into a single municipality. There is no doubt that there’s commonality of interest there, but there is also commonality of interest of other kinds in many other parts of the province. In trying to deal with this question, I think we have to look at what municipal government is for and how large a municipality should be in order properly to serve the people.

It concerns me that through the provision in this act for one municipality separated into two widely spaced parts, we are establishing something new in Ontario, something that might be regarded as an experiment, but perhaps is not even seen as an experiment but just as a convenient expedient. I have to say I am not sure we should be experimenting with that kind of thing in this area.

I am not convinced that it’s going to provide any significant benefits at all, either to the people of the southern portion or to the people of the northern portion. I cannot see that the municipal council is going to have any option other than to run the two separated portions. Transportation of men, material and equipment between the two portions isn’t going to make any economic sense. Therefore, the services are presumably going to have to be provided by locally contracted companies or individuals. Given that situation, given the fact that the study report recommended the two separate municipalities and indicated that they were very very viable and given that subsequent reports from the ministry have indicated the viability of the two portions, I really have to say to the parliamentary assistant that we will support the amendment introduced by my colleague for Waterloo North to separate those two portions into two independent municipalities.

I am sure that the local councils for the two separate municipalities will work together, just as the councils for the other municipalities in the district are going to work together to deal with common problems. That’s the way we should be going. Councils come together to deal with problems they can best solve as a group, rather than being forced into regional or other peculiarly structured bodies.

We feel that that’s very important and, as the parliamentary assistant is aware, we were concerned about introducing that kind of amendment in this House without proper consultation. We honestly have not had the time since this bill came before us to undertake that proper consultation. I know he will respond that we have had since last December, but I will reply that we didn’t know what changes were going to be in Bill 100. If the government knew that the changes were going to be very minor, then why wasn’t Bill 205 introduced in March or April so that we could have dealt with it in a proper way with proper public consultation, rather than trying to deal with it now?

I am also concerned about the rationale that has been used for the problem of location of the northeastern portion of Conger township, whether it should go with Foley or with the southern part of the archipelago. I understand what the parliamentary assistant is saying about the permanent residents and the concerns of the permanent residents, although I suggest to him that the numbers that we have are quite a bit different from the numbers that he has. I don’t know which set of numbers is right, though I’m inclined to believe those that were provided to us because they came from a very reliable source.

When there is a situation where there are only 15 households or 27 residents or maybe 40 residents, or whatever the small number is, in a relatively large area that has a very substantial summer population, then I really am not sure that one can take the views of the permanent residents as being of that much overriding significance. They are important and I would weigh them more heavily that I would weigh the views of the seasonal residents, but one comes to a point where weighting gets so absurd that it’s no longer the reasonable thing to do. I think this is a clear case of that situation. It’s very clear to me that it makes much more sense to keep those two lake areas, Blackstone and Crane lakes, with the archipelago rather than putting them with Foley against the will of the majority of the people who own property in that area.

Mr. Rotenberg: I indicated we are going to do that.

Mr. Isaacs: We will be supporting that amendment too. We will be raising a number of comments on particular areas of this bill during committee stage, but I want to commend the government for the approach it has taken and say that I hope that if we have more of these in the future there will be the same kind of public consultation, only more of it, and that it will be very clear as to what weight is being given to the views of which group of people.

Just one final comment: There is the suggestion that the municipality of Georgian Bay Archipelago may one day be extended all the way to Manitoulin Island. I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that if that is something the government is looking at, then I, as a private member of this Legislature, would have great problems with a municipality that big. I believe one function of municipal government is to have local politicians close to where the people live so that they can deal with day-to-day problems. I cannot see that that could happen in a municipality that stretched across hundreds of miles of shoreline. If we see municipal organization farther north, then I hope it will be on the basis of distinct and financially viable townships, stretching around the shores of Georgian Bay, rather than by annexation of property to the townships that are being established by this bill.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this particular debate because it is a situation in which I have been involved for the past six or seven years. This reorganization of local government in the district of Parry Sound goes back a long time. As the parliamentary assistant indicated when he started to speak, there were applications for annexation and amalgamation, and counter-applications, over on the west side of the Parry Sound district, back in 1971, 1972 and so on, which indicated to the government that some change was needed; that the local people themselves could see the need for change but that they could not actually agree on what that change should be. The Ontario Municipal Board, when it came down with its decision, stated simply that it felt it was not in a position to make that decision, and suggested it should be done through legislation.

In 1971, shortly after I was elected -- I am sure other rural members, particularly in northern Ontario, had the same type of problems I had; that is, having to do with planning, severances, subdivisions and other applications -- the standard response from the Ministry of Housing and, before that, the Department of Municipal Affairs, was: “Why don’t you people get an official plan and some zoning bylaws? Then we will talk to you. Until then, we really can’t look at your applications very well.”

I discussed this matter with the Treasurer, who was then the Honourable Darcy McKeough, and he made the promise that some funding would be made available to the district of Parry Sound to produce an official plan. He suggested it would have to be a year later, simply because it was not budgeted in that particular current year; and I understood that. But in the following year the suggestion was made that, before we developed an official plan for the district, perhaps we should see what the municipalities wanted to do with reference to any changes in local government. It was understood from day one that we would not be discussing regional government. I am personally not in favour of regional government in an area such as Parry Sound; the area is too large and spread out. It would be unworkable.

Mr. Nixon: So you gave the rose another name.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No. We are a long way from regional or two-tier government in this bill.

Anyway, the study was finally constituted. I must say that the cost of the study was borne completely by the province, which is rather unusual because most counties which have had a study done on local government have had to pay a percentage, and in some cases all, of the cost of the study. The province paid for it completely in the district of Parry Sound, which indicates the province was interested in trying to assist and to solve some of the problems that existed.

The Martin report, mentioned by both of the speakers, was the result of that study. The study and the report were not acceptable to the people in the district of Parry Sound. We are now using parts of it in some of the debate to say that is what the study said. But I must tell the members that study was rejected in the district of Parry Sound almost in totality. It is very convenient to use what part one might want to use to further one’s argument, but I must say in general terms the Martin report was rejected almost completely.

The situation remained where we had some municipalities that still felt some amalgamation should take place. The Kearney area is an example. Kearney, Bethune, Proudfoot, Butt and McCraney -- those portions of Butt and McCraney outside of Algonquin Park -- decided after consultation and after public meetings that they would like to amalgamate and form one municipality. There were resolutions passed by the town council of Kearney and by the local roads boards in both Bethune and Proudfoot. The other two portions that were being discussed in this bill did not have local roads boards. They had no local representatives. There are very few residents there as a matter of fact.

The elected people in those three areas unanimously decided they would like to amalgamate and they made that submission to the province. It was examined and, in that particular instance, after examination they are going to be the beneficiaries of additional grants they do not receive at this time. That is simply because in the two unorganized townships and the other two pieces of unorganized townships, as some members know, resources equalization grants and per capita grants do not go back to the taxpayer, but they will under this bill.

When it is figured out from the financial viewpoint, they will gain in assistance from the province. But it is not a matter of saying we are giving them more money than we would give some other municipality under the same circumstances. Under the grant system as it now exists, those people will gain financially. There is nothing in this bill that indicates we are going to give any seed money or anything of that nature. They are not asking for it. They feel they can handle it quite nicely.

To be very honest, in that particular proposed municipality, there have been reservations from the township of Proudfoot. I have discussed this matter with representatives from the township of Proudfoot. They have talked with representatives of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. All of the things have been explained to them. While there are still some reservations, we feel the bill should proceed as it is. That is not a part of the bill that is going to be amended, as I understand it. So it will proceed as it is.

I will deal with the other smaller amalgamation next, involving the town of Parry Sound and the township of McDougall. For the last four years at least, both municipalities have requested the province to amalgamate, to apply to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Treasurer of the day, Mr. McKeough, suggested that they should not make applications for amalgamation because of the past experience with the OMB, but they should wait and we would legislate it.

It is rather important. These people have been waiting a long time. There are matters of sewers and water services and of a shopping centre that is built outside the municipality of Parry Sound that they would like to put into the town of Parry Sound. All of these things have been agreed upon by those two municipalities, the township of McDougall and the town of Parry Sound. There is no problem there, provided of course the bill does get through this Legislature. It is rather important for those two municipalities because they have wanted a long time to get that amalgamation which is at the request of those municipalities.

The third matter, and the one that’s probably going to get most of the debate in this bill, is the archipelago. I have had some difficulties, particularly with North Conger, on this particular matter. Originally, as members know, Bill 205 had all of Conger attached to the archipelago. What happened I am not sure, but suddenly -- and not very long ago

-- there was some opposition to this particular part of the bill.

The local residents -- SI I believe, in 13 or 15 families -- suddenly decided they felt they should belong to Foley township. Foley township had originally, some time ago, suggested that they would accept North Conger. This was when submissions were made early on in the study. However, the area that Foley had suggested taking was not really a workable situation at all because it would have divided a lake -- half the lake would have been in and the other half would have been out -- but that could have been corrected.

We get to the point where letters start to circulate -- I’m talking about in very recent weeks -- both from the cottagers’ associations, the Crane Lake association and Blackstone Lake association, and the residents of Foley. In the final tally -- I don’t know how accurate these figures are -- and I stand to be corrected

-- there seemed to be roughly 200 names in favour of going with Foley and over 400 to go into the archipelago.

To correct the record, I must say that while we talk about 37 local residents there were also some cottagers -- not the biggest number of them, of course -- who obviously wanted to join with Foley.

I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the Blackstone Cottagers’ Association along with the Crane Lake association very recently and we had a very good discussion on this situation. I did go back, as I had promised, and discuss the matter further with representatives of the local people and the opposing side. While they are certainly not happy with the situation, if they had their druthers certainly they would sooner go with Foley.

I think they also understand -- and I tried to make it very plain to them -- that it is time that people who pay property taxes have something to say about how those property taxes are spent. When you have a condition where you have some 400 names wanting to go in one direction and 200 going in the other, it really is rather difficult to provide that much weight to local residents.

Speaking from a selfish point of view I suppose, I like to support my local residents where I can, but I also must be realistic. After my discussions with them I then discussed the matter further with the minister and the parliamentary assistant and it was decided that we would amend the act -- which I’m sure both of the opposition parties are in agreement with, because I had discussions with them before that. We are now to the situation where proposed amendments might come from the Liberal Party, supported by the NDP, in the matter of two municipalities and the archipelago.

I must admit to the Legislature that when these matters first came up for discussion, the Georgian Bay association, which I’m sure all members are aware spearheaded the archipelago municipality -- paid a great deal of money to do another study over and above the one that was done by the government in relation to the archipelago. So they have a financial investment in this situation as well as a genuine interest, because they are summer residents and because they feel they should really have something to say about how that area is going to operate in the future.

I must agree with that. They are taxpayers and they should have some rights. That’s one of the reasons why this bill is here today. I would caution the members that we have talked about local autonomy, local input and listening to the local people. The reason the bill is the way it is today in the Legislature

-- and I’m referring now to the archipelago in two pieces but as one municipality -- is that the majority of the taxpayers in those areas want it that way. We’ve said we want to respect the taxpayers. They’re the ones who are going to pay the shot. They’re the ones who should be able to decide what’s going to happen. They have asked for this, although, granted, people in Carling township certainly would like to see it in two pieces.

I met with the township of Carling also last Saturday and they pointed out their views, which are honest. They have their own viewpoint in these matters and I respect those viewpoints. But I must point out to the township of Carling and to the people in the Legislature that the township of Carling’s views have been respected. They have been left alone. The original proposal called for Carling township to go into the archipelago. We respected their wishes. The government has respected them and I have respected them.

The only reason that the bill is here now and that the archipelago is in two pieces is that this government respected the wishes of Carling township and left them as they were. As a result we end up with an archipelago in two pieces, rather than one which goes right down along the shoreline. The fact is that those local people and the cottagers are not asking us for two municipalities. They’re asking us for one municipality.

We have set up a ward system so that there is proper representation as between the north and the south. We’ve done everything that is possible to ensure that everybody who is involved in that new municipality will have equal tights and will have proper representation. I also have to point out again that that area of Georgian Bay is not the same as any other area in the province of Ontario. It’s composed of many islands. Many of the people of the Georgian Bay shoreline travel a much greater amount by boat than they ever do by road.

One of the concerns of the local people that the new council will be concerned about is the roads. I’ve been assured by the Georgian Bay association, by the Crane Lake association and all the other cottagers’ associations that I talked to that they’re just as concerned about the roads as the local residents are. I have conveyed that message to the local residents who have indicated their concerns.

If we amend this bill and make it into two municipalities, what we’re going to have is two municipalities, neither one of which is viable. They won’t have the assessment they need to have a viable community. They will have to set up two administrations, which is double the cost. I just implore at least one of the opposition parties to support the viewpoint of the local people and the cottagers who have indicated their views to us. They have said that they want an archipelago municipality and they want one municipality; they don’t want two. As I indicated, early in the conversations that we’ve had, they rejected that. If we’re going to preach autonomy, and going to preach that we’re listening to the local people, then let’s do it and let’s leave the bill as it is.

I have not too much more to add at this time. Certainly, from time to time, I will enter into the debate when we get into clause by clause, but I would ask the members to consider what I’ve said over the weekend. We are not going to get into clause-by-clause today. Members have some time to think about it. They have some time perhaps to phone some of their friends who have cottages up there to find out what they say about it. I think members will find that what this bill proposes, as far as the archipelago is concerned as it relates to whether it should be one or two municipalities, reflects the views of most of the people in the archipelago.

Mr. Epp; Mr. Speaker, I guess it’s been a little more than two years since I first heard about this particular kind of restructuring. I’m not sure whether it was just prior to my election or immediately afterwards when I was speaking to a resident of my constituency who told me about the study Mr. Norman Pearson had done. Subsequent to that, I understand, the Georgian Bay residents’ association spent about $50,000 to supplement what the government of Ontario was doing in studying some kind of restructuring for the Georgian Bay area, the Parry Sound district.

I think the bill we have before us is important, not as a piece of provincial legislation, but it is more localized in dealing with the Georgian Bay area. In principle, we support this. As my colleague has indicated, we will be putting forth four amendments which we hope will get the support of the House and which this party thinks will improve the bill immensely.

I also want to say my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk and I spent about three days in the area studying what we could and trying to get first-hand information. The first time was about a year ago when we went up there and met with a number of the councillors, of Carling township particularly, who were very concerned about this and who asked us to come up and get first-hand information on this and hear their points of view. We indicated we not only wanted their points of view, but we also wanted opposing points of view, and we received them at that time.

I might also say we attended a very large meeting that night when we were there, about a year ago, and there must have been about 100 or 150 people out to that meeting. They certainly extended to us every courtesy they could and gave us their views. As a result, we were waiting with somewhat bated breath to see what kind of bill the government would come out with. It came out with Bill 205 which we know has many of the ingredients of Bill 100.

I might also say we have received numerous letters, had delegations here at Queen’s Park and received a number of phone calls trying to appraise us of the views of the residents, some of whom were seasonal and some of whom were permanent.

One of the things that upset me a little during the course of the last year or two is that in going to the Parry Sound area -- and, as the Minister of Revenue and the member for that area has pointed out, it is a very nice area and we enjoyed our stay up there very much -- we heard on more than one occasion that the opposition was to blame for holding up this particular bill. I said; “You must be kidding.” They said, “Yes, the opposition is holding up the bill,” I said, “That just can’t he. We haven’t even had a bill yet and we haven’t indicated in any way whether we will or will not support it. Therefore, how can we be holding it up?” Nevertheless, these people insisted word was getting around that we were holding up legislation in one form or another that would bring some kind of greater local autonomy to the area.

Of course, that isn’t true. We never have held it up. We have encouraged the government to come in with the legislation. We only wanted an opportunity to study the legislation and have some contact with the people, after the hill had been introduced, to apprise ourselves of their views with respect to the various conditions and clauses and so forth in the bill.

Addressing my remarks to the areas of Kearney. Proudfoot and Bethune particularly, I think the people there wanted to have a meeting in recent months with respect to what was in Bill 205 and, subsequently, Bill 100. I think the government could have assented to their views and could have held another hearing. It was an easy copout to say the local councils should have the hearing.

[12:45]

I am sure that the government hasn’t, in every instance, done exactly what local councils wanted, either in this bill or in other bills. By suggesting local councils should sponsor those meetings, or agree to have them or to host them, and that the provincial government couldn’t without their assistance go ahead and have a meeting in which the local taxpayers and residents of the Bethune, Kearney and Proudfoot areas could give their views, is somewhat misleading.

The other thing I want to say is that the term “regional government” has come up today and it has come up on a number of other occasions when we have discussed restructuring of government. Even if this isn’t regional government per se, the fact that many people think it is regional government gives a good indication I suppose of the feeling people have towards regional government. Every time the provincial government proposes some kind of restructuring, as it did in Northumberland and then withdrew it, and as it has done it in a number of other areas, people immediately say, “Well, it is regional government and we don’t want it.”

This should tell the provincial government something about what the people of Ontario fear about regional government. Therefore if they try to impose some kind of regional government on any other parts of this province they know they are going to get the backlash of the residents in that and other areas of the province. As far as we are concerned, we don’t want to hear any more of it, but it also tells us what the people across the province think about it.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Tell your candidate that up there.

Mr. Epp: As my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk has indicated, we will be introducing a number of amendments. I just want to speak to a number of points I think members will find of interest. I want to address myself particularly to the archipelago. It is a large area and, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member for Wilson Heights, has pointed out, there is a population of about 7,000. There are many municipalities across this province with a population of less than 2,000 or 1,000. Granted, some of these people are seasonal residents; nevertheless they still pay their full taxation -- education taxes, property taxes and everything else which will go towards supporting an administration. I am sure the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs will work with the government up there to try to establish a viable administration to deal with the many aspects of municipal government that it obviously has to deal with.

I noted that in putting forth his argument that we shouldn’t have two municipalities in the archipelago the parliamentary assistant has indicated there would be a duplication of costs, If there is a duplication of costs in setting up two municipalities that same argument could be carried on to have one municipality right across the province, because we have 835 municipalities. I suppose with the new municipalities it will be 837. Then to suggest that in order to avoid duplication of costs we should have only one municipality, and to give that as his major argument, I don’t think holds water, particularly when speaking about the archipelago. It hiss also been noted the Martin report, part of which was rejected, indicated there should be two municipalities.

The other very important consideration this House should give is that it doesn’t make sense to have one municipality bisected in the centre by another municipality; in this case, Carling township. To have one municipality up here and another one down here and another municipality in the centre doesn’t make sense. That is another good reason why there should be two municipalities.

I want to address another point: I am very pleased the government is changing Bill 100 to correlate more closely with Bill 205 as it relates to Foley. I suppose to a degree some of the permanent residents of Foley would like to have that part of Conger which was included, as the government indicated, in Foley. I guess it was going to have about 600 or so residents. If we look at the numbers, we find out that, give or take two or three -- and I’m treating the permanent and the seasonal residents equally here -- there were about 400 cottagers who wanted to stay in the archipelago.

There were about 210 people -- I think that figure has been revised down to about 210 from 260 -- according to a petition, which I guess was conducted in about as fair a way as can be conducted, who did not want to be part of the archipelago and in turn wanted to be part of Foley.

We had about a two-to-one ratio of people who wanted to be part of the archipelago, and it is very pleasing to see that the government in this instance will be proposing an amendment which will coincide more closely with the wishes of the residents of the archipelago.

It was also pointed out by one of the councillors in Foley that if the archipelago people did not want to be part of Foley there was no reason for them to be part of it. They should choose their own destiny, and in this case I think it is overwhelmingly in favour of not going with Foley.

I might also point out that that was not in any way negative as far as Foley was concerned. Both my colleague and I visited Foley, and they have very adequate facilities there and a very good administration. Although they could have been able to deal with the annexed area, I think the government is right in not including that area in this bill.

In fact, when the parliamentary assistant was speaking to this point, he was so lucid and so articulate in his comments about why that part of Conger should not be part of Foley and should be part of the archipelago that I could not see why they ever included it with Foley in the second place, I suppose I should say, because they did not in Bill 205.

I was surprised to learn in the bill that the reeve is going to be appointed by the councillors in the first election. I thought democracy would dictate that the mayor or the reeve -- certainly the head of the municipality -- should be elected by the people.

Mr. Rotenberg: That’s what you wanted for Metro yesterday.

Mr. Epp: We are talking there about a two-tier administration, and I am sorry the parliamentary assistant cannot distinguish between the two. We are talking here about a different form of government altogether. I suppose the parliamentary assistant is already thinking in terms of regional government in that area --

Mr. Rotenberg: No way I

Mr. Epp: -- and it’s unfortunate that he is already thinking that the person should be appointed rather than elected. Anyway, be that as it may, we feel very strongly that the reeve should be elected during the first election, that the people should have a choice as to who that person is and that the first person should have an opportunity going about and meeting the residents and trying to get some support by the residents.

We also believe that the township hall should be in the municipality. There may be some argument to have that in an adjacent municipality, but certainly not any place in the Parry Sound district. The reason this was put in, as I understand it, was that there was a fear that the residents were going to have their meetings here in Toronto; I heard that on more than one occasion. So they could not have the meetings here in Toronto, the government decided to say, “Look, we’ll restrict this to the Parry Sound district,” which is a very large district. They could almost have it in Toronto but not quite. We feel they should have it in the municipality but, failing that, they should certainly have it in the adjacent municipality. I will be interested to hear some points of view expressed by the parliamentary assistant with respect to that particular matter.

In conclusion, we think the structure is a fairly good one, consequent of course on the amendments that we are going to introduce. Taking unorganized areas and making a township out of those unorganized areas is a step toward autonomy and certainly a step toward the right direction. As far as planning is concerned, many more benefits are going to accrue to the area because they are going to have more organized planning and maybe not as many severances and annexations and so forth. It will bring some order out of, I suppose, a form of chaos and bring about greater consultation with the people.

In conclusion, I support the principle of the bill and recommend it to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I had wanted to speak for five or 10 minutes on the principle of this bill but, in the interests of getting finished at one o’clock, I will confine that to about two minutes. Perhaps during some of the amendments, with the Chairman’s permission and not being out of order, I will be able to interject some of my thoughts at that time.

The member for Wentworth has pretty well outlined the position of our party in this. I recognize all the difficulties of restructuring government anywhere. I do want to commend the government for going about it in this manner, rather than in the form of annexation, which is much more costly. One also can look at the total perspective by doing it legislatively.

There are two good measures in the final bill with the amendment that is going to be introduced. One is that we are moving quite a lot of unorganized territory into organized municipalities. I am in favour of that. I think local self-rule is a good principle. Secondly, we are moving the northeast part of Conger into Georgian Bay Archipelago, which is advisable.

When the amendments come up, I am going to listen rather closely to them. We have decided some things, but I am going to listen rather closely to the amendments and make decisions based on the arguments that are put forward, with perhaps two exceptions. One is that it seems to us that there should be two municipalities there rather than the one. There is a place for two groups being formed at the same time to experiment and perhaps go in different directions. At some future date, we can determine which one should be preferable to follow if it all goes into one municipality. The second is that it leaves more options open than if we put them together at this present time. It is always easier to unite than it is to divide, once we get a structure set up and vested interest.

The second thing we have decided is that there should not be an exemption from startup grants. The member for Parry Sound must know that Mr. McKeough in his report back in the winter of 1978 made the comment that the government of Ontario is prepared to give special financial and other support to municipalities in the district of Parry Sound. He went on to say this legislation would give the Parry Sound district municipalities the provision of special financial assistance. I don’t think we should rule that out at this time. They may be going to be better off at the beginning than other areas. But this government has given startup grants to regional governments across this province and that principle should be in the bill which we finally adopt in this House.

As I say, I hope to make some more comments during the clause-by-clause discussion and I will be listening very closely when the debate takes place on that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the approval in principle of Bill 100. My family has had a very happy connection with this area and the area to the south for some 80 years. While I personally have not spent many recent summers in the area, I know how much enjoyment so many of our Ontario residents and others have gained from the cottage and summer activities which they have enjoyed in the area. I would particularly include the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his family, who also know the entire Georgian Bay area particularly well.

I was impressed with receiving copies of the brief that had gone to the ministry in March 1979. After Bill 100 had come before us, it was important to see the changes from that original Bill 205. I am pleased the ministry has accepted the recommendations which the majority of the cottagers and other residents of the area have suggested concerning the matter of annexation.

I think the member for Parry Sound and Minister of Revenue has very well stated the balancing which has had to occur. I know the large numbers of persons in the cottagers’ associations particularly will be pleased that the bill in that annexation matter has been returned to its initial state. The brief that has been submitted has been well put together, and I think thoroughly considered. so far as the development of two municipalities is concerned, I presume we will wait until the matter goes to committee to discuss that item further. However, I do hope these two areas, now that the first one has really been resolved, will be dealt with in amendments to the bill, and I commend the ministry for dealing with that first item. I hope when the time comes they will reconsider the second matter, also.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.